The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutJune 06, 2024 PlanningLP Shakopee Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2024 7:00 PM City Hall, 485 Gorman St. 1. Roll Call 2. Approval of Agenda 3. Call for Notarized Affidavits, Proof of Neighborhood Meeting and Sign in Sheet for appropriate Public Hearing 4. Recognition by Planning Commission of Interested Citizens 5. Consent Business - (All items listed in this section are anticipated to be routine. After a discussion by the Chair there will be an opportunity for members of the Commission to remove any items from the consent agenda for individual discussion. Those items removed will be considered following the Public hearing portion of the agenda. Items remaining on the Consent Agenda will not be discussed and will be approved in one motion.) 5.A. Meeting Minutes of May 9, 2024 5.B. Vacation of a Segment of Fourth Avenue West Public Right -of -Way 6. General Business 6.A. Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment EAW 6.B. PUBLIC HEARING - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to the Valley Crest PUD 6.C. PUBLIC HEARING - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to the Canterbury Southwest PUD 7. Other Business 8. Adjourn to Thursday, July 11, 2024 at 7:00 p.m. If a commissioner has any comments, concerns or questions, he or she should contract the staff project manager prior to the scheduled meeting date. Also, if a commissioner is unable to attend the meeting for any reason, please call the Department of Planning and Development at 952-233-9300 as soon as possible. Thank you! Page 1 of 198 5.A. Shakopee Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2024 FROM: Lori J. Hensen, City Clerk TO: President and Commission Members Subject: Planning meeting minutes of May 9, 2024. Policy/Action Requested: Approve the meeting minutes of May 9, 2024. Recommendation: Approve the meeting minutes of May 9, 2024. Discussion: ATTACHMENTS: a May 9, 2024 Page 2 of 198 Shakopee Planning Commission May 9, 2024 7:00 PM City Hall, 485 Gorman St. 1. Roll Call: Present Commissioners: Forsythe, Weiler, Reding, Sandhu, Sepulveda (Chair) Schleck, Staff Kerski 2. Approval agenda: Sepulveda motion, Weiler seconded. Unanimous. 3. Call — good 4. Interested citizens — None 5. Consent business — Meeting Minutes of April 4 2024 and Vacation of Easement at 1465 Maras Street. Motion by Sepulveda to approve, Sandhu Seconded, Approved unanimously. 6. General Business 6.A. PUBLIC HEARING Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Preliminary and Final Plat of CDA Shakopee and Planned Unit Development (PUD) District Scott County CDA Office and Senior Office. Motion by Reding Seconded by Schleck unanimously approved. Staff presented plans. CDA provided a presentation outlining the 60 units of Senior Housing and the adjoining CDA office space. They are providing green space and underground parking for the residents. Staff parking will be in the rear lot for the CDA offices, and they are proposing on street parking for visitors for both uses. Traffic was the only issue that came up at the neighborhood meeting. The adjacent CDA development, the Henderson, has not had any significant traffic impact. Jody Brennan, neighbor, spoke in favor and suggested that a traffic study be completed once the development is operational. Much of the traffic control in the area was set up when there was a school on the site. Motion by Sepulveda to close the hearing, seconded by Schleck. Motion by Sepulvado to make a positive recommendation to the city council on each of the proposed items, seconded by Sandhu, passed unanimously. 6B. PUBLIC HEARING Preliminary and Final Plat of Maras Street First Addition. Motion to open hearing by Sepulvado and seconded by Schleck. Passed unanimously. Staff presented the plans. No public comment. Motion by Sepulveda to close and seconded by Sandhu. Passed unanimously. Motion to recommend approval to City Council by Schleck, seconded by Sepulvado/ Passed unanimously. Page 3 of 198 7. Other Business - Bus tour this summer 8. Adjourn to June 6, 2024 at 7PM made by Reding, seconded by Sepulveda, passed unanimously. Meeting ended at 8:27 PM. Page 4 of 198 5.B. Shakopee Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2024 FROM: Mark Noble, Senior Planner TO: Planning Commission Subject: Vacation of a Segment of Fourth Avenue West Public Right -of -Way Policy/Action Requested: Recommend adoption of Resolution R2024-088, a resolution approving the vacation of a segment of Fourth Avenue West Public Right -of -Way located east of Adams Street. Recommendation: Approve the action requested. Discussion: Levi Schneider, applicant and representative of Bridgeton Ventures, LLP (property owner of adjacent parcels), has requested vacation of a segment of Fourth Avenue West Public Right - of -Way located east of Adams Street. The balance of that right of way (the south half and a portion of the north half) has previously been vacated, so there is no intent of the city to construct a road in this location. Should this vacation be approved, Danny's Construction (business adjacent to this right-of-way), has no immediate plans to utilize this area. The city has no issue with this vacation, conditioned that the applicant shall dedicate easements to ensure protection of utilities located within this right-of-way and allow for construction of a trail in the future. A public hearing is set for the Tuesday, June 18, 2024 City Council meeting. Support by the Planning Commission of this request is recommended by City staff, with that recommendation forwarded to the City Council for inclusion in their June 18th action. Engineering has provided a memo with conditions of approval, should the Commission and City Council support the request. SPU commented that prior to recording of the right-of-way vacation, the applicant shall grant SPU a drainage and utility easement over the portion of 4th Street that is intersected by Webster Street (shown circled in blue on the attached certificate of survey) for a future watermain extension. Page 5 of 198 ATTACHMENTS: • Resolution R2024-088 • Legal Description/Certificate of Survey • Site Aerial • Applicant Narrative • Engineering Memo • Eng & SPU Mark Up Conditions Page 6 of 198 RESOLUTION R2024-088 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VACATION OF A SEGMENT OF FOURTH AVENUE WEST PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY LOCATED EAST OF ADAMS STREET WHEREAS, Bridgeton Ventures, LLP has made an application proposing the vacation of a segment of Fourth Avenue West public right-of-way located east of Adams Street; and WHEREAS, it has been presented to the Shakopee City Council that a segment of Fourth Avenue West public right-of-way located east of Adams Street is no longer of public use or interest; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee Planning Commission considered the request at its meeting of June 6, 2024, and unanimously recommended approval to the City Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing to consider the action to vacate the requested public right-of-way was held in the Council Chambers of the City Hall in the City of Shakopee at 7:00 P.M. on the 18th day of June, 2024; and WHEREAS the proposed vacation is described as: see attached certificate of survey; and WHEREAS, ten days published notice was provided by publication of the notice on the City of Shakopee website and notice was provided by posting such notice on the bulletin board in the Shakopee City Hall. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, that it finds and determines that the vacation of public right-of-way as identified above is in the public interest, provided the following conditions are met: 1. A title search shall be conducted to confirm other interest from utility holders in any existing/underlying easements on the property. 2. The applicant shall dedicate new trail and sidewalk, and drainage and utility easements over all the proposed vacation areas as required by City Engineering, and recorded with Scott County. 3. The applicant shall grant SPU a drainage and utility easement over the portion of 4th Street that is intersected by Webster Street for a future watermain extension. After the adoption of the Resolution, the City Clerk shall file certified copies hereof with the County Auditor and County Recorder of Scott County. Page 7 of 198 Adopted in Regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota, held the 18th day of June, 2024. Mayor of the City of Shakopee ATTEST: Lori Hensen, City Clerk Page 8 of 198 © 2024 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. I I _-80- I W O I LINE OF 3RD AVE. n 510006.09"E 299.77 (300.00) T A�SADAMSMS OU H — 40 O WO O M 0 O Co z U I AREAS TO BE VACATED FENCE LINE DMO1 ns-A-zoaLS00\s I'o ��III"IIIIIIII,llllllf II ii lllllllliiii"I'll'I!II" iyllmr''I;tlpN^ II „u° 'YIV�I� Ill'illli ml0000IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 11111 111 1 u� 111114 IIII III III unoluounVIIIIIII 111 1'II,I, IIII,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II', II 'IIIIIIIIII j II III IIlil'' WI 0 li �l�ilIIIY "VIII 'l�1°1111^ NMIII Gish"' 114JJ111111�;I �I(iiillf(i%°Ill. a" �I� IdI I I'''II' �, lllllurlVld'lI IV 1J IIII'II, I ��oI'11' +� , ��1��1�7lllijjllllll��llllll ,�BI olill ' 4f�lllrrre 1 Iluum h' �r�(ull(lllljjiiulu�ulu!I��V %uI,Ilql , I, uiiiiiiinoI'hmMlMlll iMMpllllllll T9 �i7limhiiYIIIIIIiY I ii6��"" II IIlllllllolilllllliilllllllllllll11l111lll "11111111111 I, '""' 7ui1,61116 "Illddi� llh � i� RlVllllllfllllludlllllllllllp"' " ryl� ,IllIiipquijliii liiilJJ ��' �utlmiliiuiiiillllllVliVIIIII�I��'';�I' �m IIII�Hq%iiiijdll( Illlr p ',I� "IMIjII�II�,m,r d91111111111iiiil�ll YII r ��IIIVuplul�llluligr V m ih+IIIiVlill t p mlyi II Old0N��I^Il��a�� '�I+i6�Ilil�I411�I1i��II�I1�lyY IiIIM��IP i'IIIIIIIIIIIIuti�I�I�I�'I,pl 14N IM1Ni w "iil,'i „' rll lliiw ui VIII II'I' ib4Nll „ !I I I� a ' dlll�llllllll� Iu;ill ' �rl lY �Nur �I�III'Ilw,l 11 I' �Y raw 6 " ��ullg'IIIIIIIIIIilllllll6, Illil�jj IIIIIIIIIII °'" il��il1�111I�I III VIIIIIUVuupuuoull�Il!I;VIIU!; °'��°�� Iml°�V1�'rIs 1I10uul 11i ll 9YNiiVII 1I61110111tIlH1 IIIY I I I1111111111111111111111111111111 �� lUl'°PI ' 1111'„illll "°ilul�hl' I�'yl IIIIIIIIIIImIIIIIIIIIIIII�I�I I' ��,otlIIIIIIIIiIIi11'I muuuuuuuuouuui"II' My name is Levi Schneider One of the owners of Danny's construction and part Owner of the group who owns the land our building sits on name Bridgeton Ventures LLP. Writing to ask to vacation the 4th street right of way as shown in the pdf files I have attached. Page 11 of 198 City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Mark Noble, Senior Planner FROM: Darin Manning, Project Engineer SUBJECT: Vacation of Right -of -Way PROJECT NO.: VACA-000195-2024 DATE: May 28, 2024 The application indicates a request to review an application to vacate right-of-way along the north half of 4th Avenue between Adams Street and Webster Street. The Engineering Department has completed its review of the vacation request and offers the following comments at this time for the applicant and for the planning department: 1. Conduct a title search to confirm other interest from utility holders in any existing/underlying easements on the property. 2. Vacation of easements shall be contingent on new trail and sidewalk, and drainage and utility easements being dedicated over all the proposed vacation areas and recorded with the County. Recommendation Should the City recommend approval of this request, the Engineering Department suggests the items listed above be attached as conditions of the approval. C:\Program Files (x86)\neevia.com\docConverterPro\temp\NVDC\19A994EA-2668-4F12-8EDF-F995F4C79C3A\Shakopee.16449.1.Engineering Memo -vacation.docx Page 12 of 198 © 2024 Westwood Professional Services, Inc. I I _- 80 I O I LINE OF 3RD AVE. n I510006.09"E 29937 (300.00) I \ L- �TREET A�SMS OU H — 40 N• LLI O � wOi O QC m p Li- u O U I X CO moo} oc c i coQ C C E 0 CD L.° (B c o > AREAS TO BE VACATED FENCE LINE Grant Drainaww and DM01 ns-A-zoaLS00\s 6.A. Shakopee Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2024 FROM: Amanda Schwabe, Planner TO: Planning Commission Subject: Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) Policy/Action Requested: Recommend to the City Council a finding of no adverse impact. Recommendation: Recommend to the City Council a finding of no adverse impact. Discussion: Rachel Development is proposing a residential and mixed -use development on approximately 146 acres (site of a sand and gravel pit) southwest of the intersection of Mystic Lake Dr. (County Highway 83) and 17th Ave E (County Highway 16). The proposed development concept includes 223 single family homes, 98 attached townhomes, up to 534 apartment units, and 174,300 square feet of mixed commercial use space including grocery, offices, medical, and retail, and approximately 24 acres of public open space. Construction may also include a water treatment plant owned by Shakopee Public Utilities (SPU), internal roads, stormwater BMP's, and utilities. The city received seven responses during the EAW comment period which ended May 23, 2024. The comments received were related to: • Dust control, managing stormwater during active construction, post reclamation, and project phasing. • Concerns about possible negative health impacts related to having the possible Water Treatment Plant adjacent to the existing residences to the south; and • Maintaining an emergency overflow area and tree preservation on the west side of the subject property for residents along Wyndam Drive. The stormwater management plan for the project will include a centrally located, clay -lined detention basin designed to handle a 100 -year storm event as well as smaller infiltration and Page 14 of 198 filtration basins to contain stormwater effectively and preventing additional flooding. The reclamation plan for the project will address project conditions and vegetation management. The grading plan for the project will address how the the proposed new development will tie into the existing grades on adjacent properties as well as tree protection initiatives. Shakopee Public Utilities will address any concerns during the design of its project should it move forward. ATTACHMENTS: o EAW o Findings of Fact and Conclusions and Record of Decision Page 15 of 198 APRIL 16, 2024 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET (EAW) SHAKOPEE RAVEL ,".EDEVELOPMENT FOR: CITY OF SHAKOPEE A A Page 16 of 198 Table of Contents: 1. Project title• 3 2. Proposer/RGU: 3 3. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one) 3 4. Project Location: 3 5. Project Description• 4 6. Climate Adaptation and Resilience: 10 7. Cover types: 14 8. Permits and approvals required• 16 9. Land use: 19 10. Geology, soils and topography/land forms: 25 11. Water resources• 29 12. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes: 41 13. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features): 44 14. Historic properties: 46 15. Visual: 47 16. Air: 47 17. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions/Carbon Footprint 48 18. Noise 50 19. Transportation 50 20. Cumulative potential effects• 53 21. Other potential environmental effects: 54 RGU CERTIFICATION 55 Page 17 of 198 1 Figures: Figure 1 Project Location 5 Figure 2 USGS Topography 6 Figure 3 Project Aerial 7 Figure 4 Project Plans 8 Figure 5 Cover Types Existing/Before 15 Figure 6 Parks, Trails, and Tribal Lands 19 Figure 7 Future Land Use 21 Figure 8 Shakopee Zoning Map 23 Figure 9 Web Soil Survey 27 Figure 10 Surface Waters 29 Figure 11 Wellhead Protection Area and Wells 31 Figure 12 Stormwater Overview 35 Figure 13 What's In My Neighborhood (WIMN) Map 41 Tables: Table 1 Project Magnitude 9 Table 2 Estimated Future Precipitation and Temperature Changes 10 Table 3 Climate Considerations 13 Table 4 Cover Types 14 Table 5 Green Infrastructure 16 Table 6 Trees 16 Table 7 Permits and Approvals 17 Table 8 Soils in Project Area 27 Table 9 Wells within project area and within 700 feet of the project area 31 Table 10 Projected Wastewater Flow 33 Table 11 Projected Water Demand 40 Table 12 Project Emissions 48 Table 13 Typical Roadway Construction Equipment Noise Levels at 50 feet 50 Page 18 of 198 2 December 2022 version Environmental Assessment Worksheet This most recent Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) form and guidance documents are available at the Environmental Quality Board's website at: https://www.eqb.state.mn.us/ The EAW form provides information about a project that may have the potential for significant environmental effects. Guidance documents provide additional detail and links to resources for completing the EAW form. Cumulative potential effects can either be addressed under each applicable EAW Item or can be addressed collectively under EAW Item 21. Note to reviewers: Comments must be submitted to the RGU during the 30 -day comment period following notice of the EAW in the EQB Monitor. Comments should address the accuracy and completeness of information, potential impacts that warrant further investigation and the need for an EIS. 1. Project title: Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment 2. Proposer: Rachel Development Contact person: David Stradtman Title: Vice President of Development Address: 4180 Napier Court NE City, State, ZIP: St. Michael, MN 55376 Phone: 763.424.1500 Email: dstradtman@racheldevelopment.com 3. Reason for EAW Preparation: (check one) Required: E EIS Scoping X Mandatory EAW RGU: City of Shakopee Contact person: Michael Kerski Title: Director of Planning and Development Address: 485 Gorman Street City, State, ZIP: Shakopee, MN 55379 Phone: 952.233.9346 Email: mkerski@shakopeemn.gov Discretionary: 1 Citizen petition RGU discretion 1 Proposer initiated If EAW or EIS is mandatory give EQB rule category subpart number(s) and name(s): Subpart 19D: Residential Development 4. Project Location: • County: Scott • City/Township: Shakopee • PLS Location (X, 1/4, Section, Township, Range): SE 1/4 NE X S 17 T 115 R 022 • Watershed (81 major watershed scale): Lower Minnesota River Basin • GPS Coordinates: 44.462 N, -93.282 W • Tax Parcel Number(s): 279170020, 279160102, 279160110 Page 19 of 198 3 5. Project Description: a. Provide the brief project summary to be published in the EQB Monitor, (approximately 50 words). A residential and mixed -use development is proposed on approximately 146 acres southwest of the intersection of Mystic Lake Dr. (County Highway 83) and 17th Ave E (County Highway 16), in Shakopee, Minnesota. This proposed development is located at the site of a sand and gravel pit and includes 223 single family homes, 98 attached townhomes, up to 534 apartment units, 174,300 square feet of mixed commercial uses, and approximately 24 acres of open space. Construction will also include a water treatment plant owned and operated by the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission, stormwater infrastructure, internal roads, and utilities. b. Give a complete description of the proposed project and related new construction, including infrastructure needs. If the project is an expansion include a description of the existing facility. Emphasize: 1) construction, operation methods and features that will cause physical manipulation of the environment or will produce wastes, 2) modifications to existing equipment or industrial processes, 3) significant demolition, removal or remodeling of existing structures, and 4) timing and duration of construction activities Rachel Development is proposing a residential and mixed -use development in Shakopee. The project is located southwest of Mystic Lake Dr. and 17th Ave E, at the site of a sand and gravel pit and encompasses approximately 146 acres (Figure 1, Figure 2, Figure 3). The project concept includes 223 single family homes, 98 attached townhomes, up to 534 apartment units, and 174,300 square feet of mixed commercial use space including grocery, offices, medical, and retail, and approximately 24 acres of public open space (Figure 4). Construction will also include a water treatment plant owned by Shakopee Public Utilities Commission (SPUC), internal roads, stormwater BMPs, and utilities. Page 20 of 198 4 Figure 1: Project Location Project Location City Boundary Si 1AJKOi tun WA OP IV 0000000 vivil oar!, Project Location Map Shakopee Gravel EAW Shakopee, MN ra 01, N 0 Miles 1 inch 1 amtes ',.m110 Page 21 of 198 5 Figure 2: USGS Topography 000M0,0 0,0000 uv tm li�opvni v � �Np„% 00, $l tflfJiAff A011WVJIJ!Qm r .. .1 . 1 E 0 OA a USGS Topography Shakopee Gravel EAW Shakopee, MN � d onw:�au,ami�"wdems�m.. �~� Ibl 9A w+" AYf Project Location 0 600 Feet 1 inch 00 (300 bred ANA „i v sb 1 Page 22 of 198 6 Figure 3: Project Aerial Si 1A.IKOF E dim PIT otiti 7 .if 4, mi��iii�i�iiiiiiiii�i�i�iiiiiiiii�i un mi uuuuuumnppIIIIIuuuuuuuuu iimuulmIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�II 111111 �IIIIIIIIIIIII 11 relllllllllllllluulllllllllllllll�l�7TH '111µ1u AV E tl� Project Aerial Map Shakopee Gravel EAW Shakopee, MN pi 04414 1044044004 Project LocaUion nmomnoi� Page 23 of 198 7 Figure 4: Proposed Project Concept Si 1AIKOi �..`.� opir Now IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIo 111111111111111111111111111111111 Project Concept Shakopee Gravel EAW Shakopee, MN 1911111410,,,,PMFAMA,PV AWRY odp ifififfre cm Project Location nmomnoi� Page 24 of 198 8 Construction on the site will utilize equipment typical of residential and commercial developments. Building demolition will be necessary to remove the building located on the future SPUC property. The initial site reclamation is expected to occur in 2024 — 2025 and will involve excavation of existing fill material and backfill with engineered soils. Periods of time will then be allowed for settlement of the fill material. Construction of the first phase is expected to start in late 2025. Construction of the commercial and attached residential will be constructed in earlier phases, over 1— 3 years, whereas the single family residential areas are expected to be phased over 4 — 6 years. Full buildout within the project area is expected to be accomplished by 2030. Existing site conditions include developed land primarily consisting of a sand and gravel mine, stormwater ponds, and some herbaceous upland, shrublands, and wooded areas that have revegetated following their use as a gravel mine (Figure 5). c. Project magnitude: Description Number Total Project Acreage 146 acres Linear project length n/a Number and type of residential units Single Family Homes 223 units Attached Townhomes 98 units Apartments 422-534 units Residential building area (in square feet) 2,994,750 sf Commercial building area (in square feet) 174,300 sf Industrial building area (in square feet) Water Treatment Plant 97,140 sf Institutional building area (in square feet) n/a Other uses —specify (in square feet) n/a Structure height(s) Table I Project Magnitude d. Explain the project purpose; if the project will be carried out by a governmental unit, explain the need for the project and identify its beneficiaries. The purpose of this project is to provide places for people to live, work, and recreate in Shakopee. A portion of the project is dedicated to the building of a new water treatment plant that will be owned and operated by the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission. This will benefit the residents and visitors of Shakopee to ensure access to clean water. e. Are future stages of this development including development on any other property planned or likely to happen? I Yes 8 No If yes, briefly describe future stages, relationship to present project, timeline and plans for environmental review. Not Applicable. f. Is this project a subsequent stage of an earlier project? ❑ Yes E No If yes, briefly describe the past development, timeline and any past environmental review. Page 25 of 198 9 6. 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. According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR) across the state, "Minnesota's climate already is changing rapidly and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Temperatures are increasing -- especially in winter -- and larger, more frequent extreme precipitation events are occurring. Substantial warming during winter and at night, increased precipitation, and heavier downpours already have affected our natural resources, and how we interact with and use them. The decades ahead will bring even warmer winters and nights, and even larger rainfalls, along with the likelihood of increased summer heat and the potential for longer dry spells."1 Climate change projected impacts to this specific site have been analyzed below, utilizing resources from the guidance document supplied by the EQB. The life of the improvement is expected to be 20 years for the life of the roadway and for the life of the building and site is expected to be 50 years. Variables included in this analysis include precipitation and temperature, storm intensity, floods and droughts, and extreme heat. Precipitation and Temperature According to NOAA's Climate at a Glance County Time Series mapping tool2 for Scott County, utilizing the mean model, Table 2 demonstrates the changes expected on precipitation and temperature in the County. Recent and Projected Future for Scott County: January- December, Mean Model Precipitation: Mean (in) Average temperature: Mean CF) Maximum Temperature: Mean ("F) Minimum Temperature: Mean (CF) 1980-1999 Modeled Present 31.72 44.81 54.34 35.29 2040-2059 Mid- Century (RCP 4.5) 32.12 48.87 55.82 42.14 2080-2099 Late- Century (RCP 4.5) 32.94 51.27 57.92 44.94 2080-2099 Late- Century (RCP 8.5) 35.7 55.03 61.46 49.13 Table 2 Estimated Future Precipitation and Temperature Changes These models generally predict that the project area will see more precipitation and warmer average, maximum and minimum temperatures. The mid-century (2040-2059) calculation is 1 https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/climate_change_info/climate-trends.html 2 https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/access/monitoring/climate-at-a-glance/county/time-series Page 26 of 198 10 more relevant to the roadway portions of the project, given the 20 -year life of improvement. The late -century (2080-2099) calculation is more relevant to the life of the structures for the project, given the 50 -year expected life of the project. Storm Intensity In the Shakopee area, according to the EPA's CREATE: Storms map3, the scenarios demonstrate that by 2035, there will likely be an increase in 100 -year storm intensity. With the 'not as stormy' scenario, by 2035, there may be a 2.9% increase and by 2060, there will be a 5.6% increase in 100 -year storm intensity. In the 'stormy' scenario, by 2035, there may be a 13.7% increase and by 2060, a 26.6% increase in 100 -year storm intensity. Generally, there is an expected increase in 100 -year storm intensity, per the modelling. Floods Risk Factor: Flood Factor Tool According to the Risk Factor: Flood Factor tool from the nonprofit First Street Foundation®, the City of Shakopee has a Moderate Flood Factor risk overall. "There are 928 properties in Shakopee that have greater than a 26% chance of being severely affected by flooding over the next 30 years. This represents 13% of all properties in Shakopee."4 Within the categories, residential, roads, commercial and social facilities have moderate risk, and critical infrastructure has minimal risk. Metropolitan Council Localized Flood Mapping Per the tool, "the interactive Localized Flood Map Screening Tool is intended for community use. The data is part of the regional Climate Vulnerability Assessment project for the Twin Cities metro area. Communities may use this tool to screen for potential surface or localized flooding locations. The Localized Flood Map Screening Tool was created using the State of Minnesota's LiDAR elevation data from 2011." The site has multiple locations of identified primary, secondary, and tertiary flooding, however, much of this area will be graded as development begins. On the southwestern edge of the site, there are currently areas that have primary flood hazard identified which are currently planned for residential units, but these areas will be raised during site reclamation and are not anticipated to be a flood hazard.' Extreme Heat EPA CREAT Map In the Shakopee area, the EPA's CREATE: Extreme Heat map6 shows that the number of days over 100°F historically mapped. Where the project area is located, there has been one day in the project area historically over 100°F. By 2035, projections show the project area with three scenarios as follows: • in the Hot/Dry scenario, four days will be over 100°F; • in the central scenario, three days will be over 100°F; • in the warm/wet scenario, three days will be over 100°F By 2060, the modeling of the scenarios show the following: • in the Hot/Dry scenario, ten days will be over 100°F; 3 https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=3805293158d54846a29f750d63c6890e 4 https://riskfactor.com/city/garrison-mn/2723192 fsid/flood#flood risk overview https://metrocouncil.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=100fa3012dcc4e288a74cbf4d95027bf https://epa.maps.arcgis.com/apps/MapSeries/index.html?appid=3805293158d54846a29f750d63c6890e Page 27 of 198 11 • in the central scenario, six days will be over 100°F; • in the warm/wet scenario, six days will be over 100°F. This indicates that the project area may see more extreme heat days in the future. University of Minnesota Heat Exposure Tool Heat Exposure mapping tools from the University of Minnesota show high composite sensitivity and moderate exposure scores for Scott County. These composite scores help to "visualize datasets that contribute to a community's vulnerability, including sensitivity (i.e., demographic, socio-economic, health, and environmental variables) and exposure (i.e., temperature -related variables). Variables can be mapped individually or layered to develop a composite score."' High scores indicate high community vulnerability to extreme heat overall. The project area scores indicate community vulnerability to extreme heat. b. For each Resource Category in the table below: Describe how the project's proposed activities and how the project's design will interact with those climate trends Table 3. Describe proposed adaptations to address the project effects identified. Resource Category Climate Considerations Project Information Climate Change Risks and Vulnerabilities Adaptations Project Design Aspects of the building architecture/materials choices and site design that may negatively affect urban heat island conditions in the area considering changing climate zones, temperature trends, and potential for extended heat waves This site is in an area with risk of the urban heat island effect, increasing temperatures and precipitation, and increase storm intensity. The site is planned to have a buildings and paved parking surfaces • The project proposes underground stormwater storage. The project may consider green infrastructure solutions, such as rain gardens, green roofs, vegetation and vegetative buffer strips, tree trenches, cisterns, and other solutions. • The project will follow all applicable federal, state, and local standards and regulations, as listed throughout this report. Land Use Any 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) proposed in floodplain areas and other areas identified as at risk for localized flooding; describe the risk potential • Potential risk of future flooding in the project area due to increasing storm intensity. • The proposed land use is very different to the existing use (gravel pit) and is proposed to be commercial and residential. • The new land use will include residential and commercial structures that will use energy • The project proposes underground stormwater storage. The project may consider green infrastructure solutions, such as rain gardens, green roofs, vegetation and vegetative buffer strips, tree trenches, cisterns, and other solutions. • As practicable, the project will evaluate additional strategies beyond the BMPs described above to improve climate resiliency. • The project will follow all applicable federal, state, and local standards https://maps.umn.edu/climatehealthtool/heat app/ Page 28 of 198 12 considering changing precipitation and event intensity and create transportation needs. and regulations, as listed throughout this report. • This mixed -use project will utilize energy efficient appliances and fixtures, lighting, and efficient building practices and will pursue other sustainability efforts such as LEED certification. The apartment buildings will also consider provision of solar power on rooftops and electric vehicle charging stations. In addition, approximately 16% of the project area will be converted into public open space including connection trails, etc., for non - vehicle trips. Water Resources Addressed in item 12 Addressed in item 12 Addressed in item 12 Water will be captured and directed to a central pond within the development, with any overflow channeled into an infiltration chamber. Contamination/ Hazardous Materials/Waste Addressed in item 13 Addressed in item 13 Addressed in item 13 Fish, wildlife, plant communities, andsensitive ecological resources (rare features) Addressed in item 14 Addressed in item 14 Addressed in item 14 Table 3 Climate Considerations Page 29 of 198 13 7. Cover types: Estimate the acreage of the site with each of the following cover types before and after development Table 4, Figure 5: Cover Types Existing/Before (acres) After (acres) Wetlands and shallow lakes (<2 meters deep) 0 0 Deep lakes (>2 meters deep) 0 0 Wooded/forest 0 0 Rivers/streams 0 0 Brush/Grassland 73.5 0 Cropland 0 0 Livestock rangeland/pastureland 0 0 Lawn/landscaping 0 65 Green infrastructure TOTAL (from table below*) 0 2 Impervious surface 1 72 Stormwater Pond (wet sedimentation basin) 1 9 Other (gravel mine) 70.5 0 TOTAL 146 146 Table 4 Cover Types Page 30 of 198 14 Figure 5: Cover Types — Existing/Before = Project Locatuon tw1AVE 'NIlwl!w wM 11111"I NI � + � NI�I"u9iiiMEM IliiNi�� A iflimiiiiirroorrorrorrorrifiiiiifff„„ �0000000 00000 MME V�M1 IIIIIIIII III IIIIIIIIIII I I I dJVQII mwy IIYfIIIYIq!IdVI11000000 Ilulliiiiiiiiluuuuiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiumuuum �I �I I "^ ryyy Im y I V�Nxnwuww4d IIMIII x ,w Nlylllre, � , to )rl,rbr' � � 'i'I uy��IY. AVE �lilol„ �in�'I�siuo�µPlp„VI � Iuu�„, �dl.l,O�M'w^dlll Illp�.��,JI�YrIIV'��o��dVll �Nlu"IlYlld�„p�„ ��II��I�I II"i�li Riipmllliill'll", n' ^HrpI��I�UI' ,I�ql �p I, „d; I�uu,� Y9liI1I "'��4 ��i��l^ IIII uI I� luuulllmmlpl III'ill ll�I �Nuldf �Illll�llu�h np Ylji��pp�� fgl'l''j�lull "� ��Y�i�YN°I° u� IY ��V ! "'IIIN��IuulVuuVirr'dIIIIVV'i 111 uuuif l W I1000ll ',r114111�� ' III' IIIIII��IIIIINIII,,IIuma�YYII��IIIV VIIVP��, "��III„I�I I wII��I,I�N,IdIII�Il01VIVNNIVIu�I�I�� a IYI1IIIi�Yu�lllu ul uillu III"'IP,�III6op,oj IIYIIIi III �161�'ll 'I'„�I�p'y °'IV I "''xiiilllll� a IMI � IIpIIa'" ° I ' �I�Ill�u� IIIIIIIII IiiIi�IIIaI�I "IiI,IiIIIIIIIIIIN��I"°�V„�u iii IIIIIIII�II QI^��Ilill lII II�IIIIIII�IIIIIIII"!M��IUWu �;�liI�IIIiMIMIIY� 11111 h PIII" Ill pil'i!"I"I;'IV'lil i^"PP'lllllll�III'lllii nn II�I�IIVrd;" iillliliglllld'IPiIp'ii��lljl I�IVIIII Illryryir'p 'II�I;lill!iiIIIjYIiIN'!I! 1111111 m III 'IPfppiulr,l,,.l"lu'llp'W fir RW �Qp .�IIIIII AII....a uYl,Vs' R0j, II!9.111. lool 1111111111 it Ir IC aIrav'ett Mine wl�l 'I'o ��II'll'll�lllilll II h� IIlllllllllll11lllllllulu00010lllllllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Illlllll111l l l llllllllllllllllllllllll l 0111010110 illi irr iilji liiil Iliiil IIII �� III.,IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII mIIIuu iII IhVrBOWTHRUSHIST Mro IIII " Mmlllll�,I� '��a uulY'VI� II�II��" a� u1N'iN4� 4RR141 DR ! 'II Cover Types - Existing Shakopee Grav& EA'W Shakopee, MN Wet Sedimentation t3a sin W�I� �ill�l m uuuuuummoulllll iiiiillllllllllllllli IIII II jllll 'IN uuum .... uuuuul l III „ Grave( Mine IIlIpuoapp llmw�lk';Ip'�'�u�ll"��,� Ill�lllil m1IIGIIII°uii 00i^ 11111 Illrlllllllll I II 1111111111111111111111111111111111 Page 31 of 198 15 Green Infrastructure* Before (acreage) After (acreage) Constructed infiltration systems (infiltration basins/infiltration trenches/ rainwater gardens/bioretention areas without underdrains/swales with impermeable check dams) 0 2 Constructed tree trenches and tree boxes 0 0 Constructed wetlands 0 0 Constructed green roofs 0 0 Constructed permeable pavements 0 0 Other (describe) 0 0 TOTAL* 0 2 Table 5 Green Infrastructure Trees Percent Number Percent tree canopy removed or number of mature trees removed during development 100% -- Number of new trees planted* TBD TBD Table 6 Trees *The development will be consistent with the city's tree preservation ordinance. 8. Permits and approvals required: List all known local, state and federal permits, approvals, certifications and financial assistance for the project Table 7. Include modifications of any existing permits, governmental review of plans and all direct and indirect forms of public financial assistance including bond guarantees, Tax Increment Financing and infrastructure. All of these final decisions are prohibiteduntil all appropriate environmental review has been completed. See Minnesota Rules, Chapter 4410.3100. Unit of Government Type of Application Status Federal US Environmental Protection Agency Sole Source Aquifer Project Review Only applicable if project has federal financial assistance State Pollution Control Agency NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater Permit To be obtained Intent to Perform Demolition Notification To be obtained Section 401 Certification To be obtained Sanitary Sewer Extension To be obtained Page 32 of 198 16 Department of Health Watermain Extension Plan Review To be obtained Well and Boring Sealing Record To be submitted Department of Natural Resources Water Appropriation (Construction Dewatering) Permit To be obtained, if needed Local City of Shakopee Zoning Amendment To be obtained Commercial & Industrial Building PermitTo be obtained Residential Building Permit To be obtained Sewer and Water Permit To be obtained Grading Permit To be obtained Preliminary Plat To be obtained Final Plat To be obtained Minor Subdivision To be obtained Planned Unit Development To be obtained Sign Permit To be obtained Right of Way Permit To be obtained Scott County Right of Way Permit To be obtained Access Permit To be obtained Table 7 Permits and Approvals Page 33 of 198 17 Cumulative potential effects may be considered and addressed in response to individual EAW Item Nos. 10-20, or the RGU can address all cumulative potential effects in response to EAW Item No.22. If addressing cumulative effect under individual items, make sure to include information requested in EAW Item No. 21. Page 34 of 198 18 9. Land use: a. Describe: i. Existing land use of the site as well as areas adjacent to and near the site, including parks and open space, cemeteries, trails, prime or unique farmlands. The existing site is shown in Figure 5 and includes primarily a sand and gravel mine, stormwater ponding, and some areas of herbaceous upland, shrublands, wooded areas within areas that have revegetated after their use as a gravel pit and along the berms of the gravel pit. The project area has been utilized as a sand and gravel mine since the 1990s; prior to that it was undeveloped or agricultural land. Current planned land uses include single and medium family residential within the project area, rural residential and planned residential to the east, single family residential to the south, single family residential and medium density residential to the west, and single family residential (some currently under development) and commercial to the north. Nearby parks include Green Meadows Park, Greenfield East Park, Killarney Hills Park, Greenfield West Park, and 17th Avenue Sports Complex. Green Meadows Park and the Sports Complex provides the area with several outdoor sporting fields. Multi- use trails and sidewalks are adjacent to the site and connect to neighboring residential areas and parks. The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC) also owns land in Trust to the east of the site, which is currently restored prairie area Figure 6. Page 35 of 198 19 Figure 6: Parks, Trails and Tribal Lands ON wee, of oonnonnoodillhiooll Illurioto ll'pl mpmuv., Al WC Page 36 of 198 20 ii. Plans. Describe planned land use as identified in comprehensive plan (if available) and any other applicable plan for land use, water, or resources management by a local, regional, state, or federal agency. The city's future land use plan indicates the project area is planned to be a combination of mixed use center and suburban residential Figure 7. Adjacent future land uses include mixed residential and suburban residential to the east and south, suburban residential and mixed residential to the west, and mixed residential and mixed use center to the north. Page 37 of 198 21 Figure 7: Future Land Use 011111;011111,9myWlglWd7.±%;w'au,1y11641AVM11dG i 1,11,11,11,111110000 IIIIIIIIIIIIIII,11111111111111 111111 11111111111111111111 91111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Y1 111111111111111111111111 LIlona m1'1��:688V�IIIVInRRlli@uuiiilioiiiiiiih ACIER d IIIIiIIIpII,Ip1ih4'V'"^ '',''Illlllllllllllll mutlluuuu', � �� I pntl,1111puIIIVI III IIIV "4..1,q' IIII a^d' �',� ;,. ��dlm kp^u�q�I�uuuuuumVVVe Iwl um muu 2000 ilmoolooloi 9 "'IIS NI I VII W'„ �I . � IIII IIIIIIIIIIIII �'Ivu IWMMIIN ��Ih IIII II , II� 11161 �glllhi INII 1, I aii' � IIIIIIIIIIIu�NElh I I 1 1. uluuum uuumluluIIuIImIlVIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIII '� uuuIN �Iuly�l'lillllliiiiiiii'IVu' �� I"° ^^^^^^^^^^ I� IIIII�I� 11111111, ��6q',I„ �r�"fl � Wk W��,uuuum uuuuun I� III � I�lOlllllul I um �� II pIlllllllliiiiillllll�luiiiilu ,V,V,V,W x IIIIIIII I'11;11 pp Muum llll�uuumuuu �Illlll'uu°'Wm ....., II uuuuuuuu 1 llll�lllllll V III II�11111111111111111 w...................................IIIWI�II'I idol 1 oolooloolooloolooloolloomooloolooloolooloolooloolooloolooloolooloolooloolooloolooloolooloolooll IIIIIII IIIIII •lllllllllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 'iiiillllllllllllllliilllllllll llllllllllllluuuuuuuuu uuuuuuumll�lllll^�I�I�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII uuuuuuuu III i il'� tll „.� I�uuduul�uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuPPPPPP�' �mI III,�I uuu IMN000IN00M00WI0I0IW000000000000000000000WNNI00WINN00000000000000000000000000000000IN" „III111 H'n rrIIu r�v� IdNWWW WHM'llll','y'I II AGLE �cttEEKrsu.va �� w;I,IIIN" I��Illlillllllllilllll""ififill II 111111111 ��'iI " III ImA'IVII III dP°"lilll''oil I illoolool000lllloolooI II II III l�,l„ lllm .a. 'I IIIIif dill I 1 61 � VIII no))))), Future Land Use Map Shakopee Gravel EAW Shakopee, MN jjjj' 1000 I 0000001I0000 11111 pi1111111111111 VVIII�� 0010010000111111111111111100 mlrwk IIuWI nwI�Illl�lllu�l Fio ""I k°101 11000000II0 WIh'YumiiiiiiN VuuVium 11111111111111 © Project Location Future Land Use I000000000000000000I Institution I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Mixed Residential 1 111;,sf1" Wed Use Center I Open Space qp pppp� II Park Rights -of -Way SMSC Property in Fee or Trust Suburban ReslldenIViall 0 600 Feet 1 nrclu = (ioo 6i. ral 6111 VWIII@II IIANIN MR 'A Page 38 of 198 22 The 2040 Comprehensive Plan for the City of Shakopee outlines plans specific to the site as it is considered a greenfield area. The Shakopee Gravel Quarry greenfield area has a suburban residential planned land use with up to 370 housing units expected by the year 2040. The planning document allows for zoning amendments as long as the overall plan matches the general goals and vision outlined in the plan. iii. Zoning, including special districts or overlays such as shoreland, floodplain, wild and scenic rivers, critical area, agricultural preserves, etc. The project site is zoned Agricultural Preservation Figure 8. The site is not located in any special district or overlay. Page 39 of 198 23 Figure 8: Shakopee Zoning Map m' ° III„ul, r Ile tlll ,Jlllull!i11(Oalllllli(dIIIINPallllili!' h, yy�� 1. 9mam,� V /' IL;j tltl Ulii,11 I ( m, ullllllllllll ,, l�� il) p 4`JJrIR NI 9111 „"„ pp I i w N(!mIWlm �ytyg(p di u� 1°IdE�1N' Y�'i' � luau, uuu Pu I( G� I IIIII�I Pi�lI ?,),),6,,, t ➢V �vnil�witl , II emtluJ 1� iil�° � tl jj l!��++ WI"�li IIIIIIIIIIIIII' •G u i) ill ill `� 1�Y111hiil muum Illl'VV l Ili'«�,I' up uu@i Jn NI � I(((llll(IIIIIII lit h 4 m uuuuw n milIIIIII II� IIIIIIIIIIII ulJuuuuu'11""' //llluu IIII( uuu,lmu I II VIII I„ u,lll ' im� (//,, Oll�liiNN "fl INIlluulllllP@uumff lllllCiiupll kkt��tePll° �tii�t»ud��uiglYwu „(�;li+iiVllll II pl��,�9 ,,,��,I��f ��, tI�IU �),III��\ l,tilllllill111I� ,°mi,�ii lli��l llli,ol°Y(ulll�f41ll mow iiV tl '�NI;HII1(1 Ili°lulfllUll11111U0111111lllljd''ilk ^ ^I 'Iv' ' 6 d � ' �IIu.W� � � °J➢ �Il� INVGiVd�VYlluv�pjp(pe"�'.,,un9N�l��ll�l°!�Il,�m J VV ni, k i; 1 '11 ll hi �"''uuullllllllllllJf Illlllllll,p. I wumtuu,l OIIIIIIIPm"' �'iil � °IlUlti4°d4lh� \fjjf11 ,h�hnuurrr' o,IQ,� �I N u I��IIryplflllllllh uuu'm�y,r "j�unl� fl Vll��mif I � I�II,Ju'ti`IY�VW L N, um f"HR USHNI d i ,ruuuomea , Project Location Zoning Classification AG -Agriculture Preservation Zoning Map Shakopee Gravel EAW Shakopee, MN 1111111 P'I"MEAN L^'1p °DullI t A CAE i< V�uunu'mum n op a ro wum � tv u B1- Highway Business PRD- Planned (Residential District RIB Urban Residential R2- Medium Residential RR- Rural' Residential' 0 600 Feet 1 inch socv 6ecirl wwsb Page 40 of 198 24 iv. If any 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 in floodplain areas and other areas identified as at risk for localized flooding, describe the risk potential considering changing precipitation and event intensity. Not applicable. Area is not within a floodplain. b. Discuss the project's compatibility with nearby land uses, zoning, and plans listed in Item 9a above, concentrating on implications for environmental effects. The proposed use at the site is for single family residential, medium to high density residential and mixed commercial. While the proposed land use conforms with the general goals and vision outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan, a greater density is proposed and it also includes areas of mixed use/commercial development. The proposed project is also not compatible with the future land use plan or current zoning for the area. c. Identify measures incorporated into the proposed project to mitigate any potential incompatibility as discussed in Item 10b above and any risk potential. Project development will require rezoning of the project area and approval of a Planned Unit Development. 10. Geology, soils and topography/land forms: 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. According to the Minnesota Geological Survey for Scott County Plate 3, The bedrock at the project area consists of the Lower Ordovician, Prairie du Chien Group described as sandy dolomite. As documented in nearby test hole drilling logs, the bedrock is underlain by over 50 feet of sand, sandy gravel, and sandy clay. The site is currently utilized as a sand and gravel mine. Typically, gravel pits are backfilled with fill from unknown sources that does not meet construction compaction requirements. Soil borings have been conducted onsite and confirmed that the backfill used to create the berms surrounding the site, as well as areas that were backfilled when mining in certain areas ceased was intermixed with organics and debris. This fill is not suitable for the proposed uses. The existing fill material within the area will need to be removed and replaced with an engineered fill suitable for construction of the proposed land uses. In addition, construction delays are recommended between completion of the backfilling and the beginning of construction to allow for settlement of the fill material. Depending on the depth of fill, the time allowed for settlement could range from 3 to 18 months. According to the Minnesota Karst Land Map, the project area is not located in a region prone to surface karst features. Based upon the geological findings, the current and historical gravel pit activities at the project area have been identified as a potential geological risk for future construction. Page 41 of 198 25 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 soils limitations, such as steep slopes, 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 12.b.ii. Redevelopment activities will involve earthwork across the project area, which will be a combination of excavation, backfill, and grading. As noted previously, much of the existing fill materials will need to be removed and replaced with engineered backfill. The existing mine pits will also need to be backfilled with engineered soils. There will be approximately 4 million cubic yards of excavation required on site. To accomplish this, the existing backfill from the site will be excavated, organics removed, and then the soils will be conditioned and recompacted onsite to make them suitable to support construction. There will be some import of fill materials to achieve the current concept grading plan elevations, but not the entirety of the sites. The proposed grading will require a NPDES stormwater permit from the MN Pollution Control Agency. The existing topography at the project area is generally undulating with areas of excavated soil, fills, and piles of sand and gravel throughout. The data provided by the NRCS Web Soil Survey for the project area are provided in Table 8 and shown on Figure 9, however given that the gravel pit has been in operation since the 1990s very few native soils remain and these data likely do not apply. Historically, the site was utilized as agricultural land. The gravel mine began operation in 1989 and expanded across the study area over the following decades, encompassing nearly the entire study area by the mid -2000s. Mining extended down to approximately 780 feet mean sea level (MSL) in the northern portion of the project area to 792 feet MSL in the southern portion of the site. 1990 Aerial 404 r000illoolor 2007 Aerial !p!u�� iu� aitiy „r,�humiuiuimuilY�nnuuunu a �Vnr'ru4�VNXgi � iii Page 42 of 198 26 Map Unit Symbol Soil Name Percent Slope Farmland Classification Ksat Value]. Hydrologic Group2 DaA Dakota Loam 0 to 2 Prime Farmland 0.57 to 1.98 in/hr. B DbA Dickman Sandy Loam 0 to 2 Of Statewide Importance 2.00 to 6.00 in/hr. A DbB Dickman Sandy Loam 2 to 6 Of Statewide Importance 2.00 to 6.00 in/hr. A EaA Estherville Loam and Sandy Loam 0 to 2 Of Statewide Importance 1.98 to 5.95 in/hr. A EaB Estherville Sandy Loam 2 to 6 Of Statewide Importance 0.60 to 6.00 in/hr. A HdB2 Sparta Fine Sand 2 to 6 Not Prime Farmland 5.95 to 19.98 in/hr. A HeA Sparta Loamy Fine Sand 0 to 2 Not Prime Farmland 1.98 to 5.95 in/hr. A HeB Sparta Loamy Fine Sand 2 to 6 Not Prime Farmland 1.98 to 5.95 in/hr. A HeB2 Sparta Loamy Find Sand 2 to 6 Not Prime Farmland 1.98 to 5.95 in/hr. A HeC2 Sparta Loamy Fine Sand 6 to 12 Not Prime Farmland 1.98 to 5.95 in/hr. A PbA Houghton Muck 0 to 1 Of Statewide Importance 0.20 to 6.00 in/hr. A/D TcB Terril Loam 2 to 6 Prime Farmland 0.20 to 2.00 in/hr. B 1 Ksat value the higher the 2 A = high infiltration infiltration rate; natural condition hydrologic group undrained areas. indicates the susceptibility of a soil to erosion by water. Other factors being equal, value, the more susceptibility the soil is to erosion. rate, low runoff potential; B = moderate infiltration rate; C = slow and D = very slow infiltration rate, high runoff potential. Only the soils in their are in group D and are assigned to dual classes. If a soil is assigned to a dual (A/D, B/D, or C/D), the first letter is for drained areas and the second is for Table 8 Soils in Project Area Page 43 of 198 27 Figure 9: Web Soil Survey Si AJK yPE rupow,„ u vrh4��v lIIUr Web Soil Survey Map Shakopee Gravel EAW Shakopee, MN „Ii1111111111111111111111111111,1;11111111111111 0 cm Project Location Songs Boundary N 600 Feet 1 mulo (300 aJal Page 44 of 198 28 • NOTE: For silica sand projects, the EAW must include a hydrogeologic investigation assessing the potential groundwater and surface water effects and geologic conditions that could create an increased risk of potentially significant effects on groundwater and surface water. Descriptions of water resources and potential effects from the project in EAW Item 12 must be consistent with the geology, soils and topography/land forms and potential effects described in EAW Item 11. 11. Water resources: a. Describe surface water and groundwater features on or near the site in a.i. and a.ii. below. i. Surface water - lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, and county/judicial ditches. Include any special designations such as public waters, shoreland classification and floodway/floodplain, trout stream/lake, wildlife lakes, migratory waterfowl feeding/resting lake, and outstanding resource value water. Include the presence of aquatic invasive species and the water quality impairments or special designations listed on the current MPCA 303d Impaired Waters List that are within 1 mile of the project. Include DNR Public Waters Inventory number(s), if any. There are no MPCA 303d listed impaired waters within 1 mile of the project area. There are no natural lakes, streams, wetlands, intermittent channels, or county/judicial ditches within the project area Figure 10. There are currently stormwater BMPs within the project area, which have been constructed to manage water from within the gravel pit. Page 45 of 198 29 Figure 10: Surface Waters ABA Si HAJKOPEEi goillgrOr �Illliill MITI ��Illk''. Surface Water Map Shakopee Gravel EAW Shakopee, MN cm Project Location DNR Public Waters 7 National Wetland Inventory KYZI Impaired Lakes Impaired Streams DNJR Public Watercourse FEMA Floodplain 100 Year (Zone A) 100 Year (Zone AE) 500 Year v m!!!!rcrfl vvVuu. Wm0uw!ww N 0 3,000 Feet 1 nulo 3 000 fast V Page 46 of 198 30 ii. Groundwater —aquifers, springs, seeps. Include: 1) depth to groundwater; 2) if project is within a MDH wellhead protection area; 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. The project area is within the Shakopee Wellhead Protection area (Figure 11). The depth to groundwater on and near the site is expected to be 75-100 feet below land surface. There are six (6) wells on site. Three were drilled as test wells (80 Feet) while the other three are listed for Domestic or Other uses and range between 100-300 feet deep Table 9. Well logs are available in Appendix A. These wills will need to be sealed by a contractor licensed in Scott County and a Well and Boring Sealing Record filed with the Department of Health. Well ID # I Use Status Static Water Depth (ft) Within Project Area 510437 Other Active 300 250093 Domestic Active 112 572689 Domestic Active 280 228357 Test Well Sealed 80 228356 Test Well Sealed 80 228358 Test Well Sealed 80 Table 9 Wells within project area and within 700 feet of the project area Page 47 of 198 31 Figure 11: Wellhead Protection Area and Wells AWpyJ iIiIIIIIII�t I N� III,;NI Milli dlllllllllllllum loil,,;Iit6uulllliiiii St iA OPE Wellhead Protection Area and Wells in Area Shakopee Gravel EAW Shakopee, MN 6illl�lmuuluuullll � unn'll i u miumpq cm Project Location WeVllhead Protection Areas °M County Well 'Index ,li "ui ml, Mu YII III�II fdtMANd MMIMA'V"! JI N 0 3,000 INIMINIE= Feet 1 woo L- 3 1)00 fast wq"IU M II Page 48 of 198 32 b. Describe effects from project activities on water resources and measures to minimize or mitigate the effects in Item b.i. through Item b.iv. below. i. Wastewater - For each of the following, describe the sources, quantities and composition of all sanitary, municipal/domestic and industrial wastewater produced or treated at the site. 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. Wastewater from the site will discharge to the City of Shakopee sanitary sewer system and be conveyed to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) regional collection and treatment system. Wastewater will be treated at the Blue Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) which has a capacity of 42 million gallons per day (MGD) and receives 24.5 MGD as of May 2023. The projected wastewater flow for the site is detailed in Table 10. Land Use Area (acres) Units Unit Flow (gpd/unit) Average Flow (gpd) Peak Factor Peak Hourly Flow (gpd) Single Family 43.98 223 240 53,520 Townhome 10.31 98 180 17,640 Apartment 14.46 534 150 80,100 Retail/Mixed Use 23.33 - 800 18,664 Open Space 23.79 - 0 0 Right of Way 22.34 - 0 0 SPU WTP* 7.53 - 600 4,518 ** Total 145.74 174,442 3.9 680,324 Table 10 Projected Wastewater Flow *Shakopee Public Utilities Water Treatment Plant **The SPU WTP will generate an additional 400 gallons per minute (gpm) when the backwash tank sludge waste pumps are running, which must occur outside of peak wastewater generation hours (morning and evening). Based on the Shakopee Sanitary Sewer Master Plan, the majority of the site is in the South Shakopee sanitary sewer district which will have a trunk sewer in Mystic Lake Dr (CR83) along the east boundary of the site. Small portions of the west and south of the site may connect to the Central Shakopee sanitary sewer district. Based on a capacity analysis of the downstream sanitary sewers between the site and the MCES Interceptor prepared by the City's sanitary sewer consultant in January 2024 and the projected wastewater flows above, the existing 24 -inch diameter sewers in Mystic Lake Dr and 18 -inch diameter sewers crossing Hwy 169 can accommodate the proposed development and the SPU WTP with a backwash tank and still have at least fifty percent (50%) capacity remaining. However, the projected flows will consume ninety percent (90%) of a 10 -diameter sewer at minimum slope of 0.28%, and the city should consider upsizing such sewers or installing a new larger or steeper crossing south of 17th Avenue to provide additional residual capacity. If the SPU WTP did not have a backwash tank and the full filter backwash flow rate of Page 49 of 198 33 8,640 gpm were directed the sanitary sewers, many segments of downstream trunk sewers would need to be upsized. The city would not support plans for this facility that did not provide a backwash tank. The latest plans for the SPU WTP do include a backwash tank. Sewers in the vicinity of the SPU WTP will need to follow the minimum separation distances from buried water storage tanks required by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH). Aside from the SPU WTP, wastewater from the site is anticipated to have typical residential and commercial strength and character, and pretreatment is not expected. The SPU WTP residuals may require special permitting with MCES and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA). 2) If the wastewater discharge is to a subsurface sewage treatment systems (SSTS), describe the system used, the design flow, and suitability of site conditions for such a system. If septic systems are part of the project, describe the availability of septage disposal options within the region to handle the ongoing amounts generated as a result of the project. Consider the effects of current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated changes in rainfall frequency, intensity and amount with this discussion. Not applicable. 3) If the wastewater discharge is to surface water, identify the wastewater treatment methods and identify discharge points and proposed effluent limitations to mitigate impacts. Discuss any effects to surface or groundwater from wastewater discharges, taking into consideration how current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the effects. Not applicable. 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. Existing conditions Existing land use of the project area is primarily a gravel pit with areas of herbaceous Page 50 of 198 34 vegetation, shrubs and trees in areas that have revegetated since their use as a gravel mine and on berms Figure 5. Most parcels in the area belong to Shakopee Gravel Inc., including the portion of the site containing the privately owned stormwater detention pond. The parcel that is proposed for SPUC is privately owned, not by Shakopee Gravel, Inc. The future land use plans for the project area envision a blend of mixed -use center and suburban residential developments. Surrounding areas are designated for mixed residential and suburban residential to the east and south, suburban residential and mixed residential to the west, and mixed residential and mixed -use center to the north. Planned land uses include single and medium family residential within the project area, with rural residential and planned residential to the east, single-family residential to the south, single-family residential and medium -density residential to the west, and single-family residential (some currently under development) and commercial to the north. Nearby parks are present, and multi -use trails and sidewalks border the site, connecting it to neighboring residential areas and parks. Under existing conditions, water is collected via catch basins integrated into the existing storm drain system. These catch basins, positioned to the south, west, and north of the site, intercept water flow and channel it downstream through a network of pipes, ditches, and small creeks, ultimately directing it to the Minnesota River for discharge. Runoff from existing impervious surfaces is not pre-treated prior to discharge to the creek. As noted previously, the prevailing topography of the project area exhibits undulating terrain, characterized by areas of excavated soil, fills, and deposits of sand and gravel. According to findings from the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the soils predominant in the project vicinity are primarily classified as sandy loam Figure 9. The Web Soil Survey indicates that the soils within the project area are prime farmland. Proposed conditions For the developable portion of the project area, the developer is proposing mixed -use residential with townhomes, apartments, wide lots, retail space, and open space with stormwater management features. The project is anticipated to disturb approximately 146 acres throughout all phases of development. Based on the concept plan the project will increase impervious surface by 72 acres. As part of the development plan, the developer intends to construct a detention basin centrally located within the site to effectively manage stormwater runoff Figure 12. This basin will be designed with a minimum 120 -inch layer of geosynthetic clay liner beneath it to prevent infiltration into the surrounding soil. During intense rainfall events, such as the 100 - year event, the basin will have provisions for overflow. Overflow water will be directed to an infiltration chamber designed to cleanse and treat the first inch of rain water before it is released into the existing storm drain system. Based on the current development plan, the project will need to provide 262,558 cubic feet of treatment. Ultimately, the treated water will discharge into the Minnesota River, ensuring compliance with regulatory standards and minimizing environmental impact. Page 51 of 198 35 Figure 12: Stormwater Overview IlOhA w pl "� "x'G N,f alovm b I'li'I'I, t18THPAVEIIIFI u " lh m r}}} ld'uV I i "dill wllluumlw'' rlhl I' bI l w�'Y ,IN '' eV''�Iw��uuuglluRmIIIIIVI hNI'llililtl'ry �VI �j�' " V-0pi '",m kul' °�Ill�p'u oIY�C�y� �IVI V V INI�'MmM�riw�1190'nIV°IN^IiIYI Iul� dY l41°mMl �"l�l� IIII IIIY I m,l �IIV'4tlil� � II�ti��^ YW II 'lllll�l.�ll 49444iYivai 4M "' IhM U4'044 M"wpmMum Tliifi ru l04'44014l4I 'vullm NININxdN,i 444,044404 Y IN,44,4 '11,"""44440"44444,4,444,44444"4,,,,,,, �vmmu'� w°I�i° Nd ", � � 9 '' I��q�mli u .. nVWuu� W .,✓, r 1, � � � �� VIII VIII I'^I V it n�� II Total Impervious Pre -construction = 0,0 ac Post -construction = 114.4 ac Basin Volume = 62,3 ac -ft Total BMIP Area = 9.1 ac Si $AKOPE i.<< I '44441,44''''," ^��u�uvuuuwly II p�IH iIiiIIIl0000l VIII r "�IIIII' um uun�uo ....i Stormwater Overview Shakopee Gravel EAW Shakopee, MN tie I,. IIII�uIIIIaU�iNNII^il",„ """"'VIIIwLw�w pry N uuuuu �illlil�a��; ° �''+m�lii�iuiiillllllll�� IIN Hy, 1 or; l^,nl & WPI ,« lllllllllllll l C Manhole A FES Catchbasin Storm Sewer Proposed Sediment Basin Project Location Proposed Filltration Chamber eA Stormwater Detention Pond N 600 Feet 1 inch 0O01 brrol Page 52 of 198 36 To determine the proposed conditions for the Peak Runoff Rates, the development design will need to provide a high-level proposed condition HydroCAD model to show the 2 -year (cfs), 10 -year (cfs), 100 -year (cfs) rates and the ten (10) day snow melt event for each discharge point. The analysis will assume an aggregate discharge rate. Minnesota's current climate trends include rising temperatures, extreme storms and higher dew points. These trends are creating more intense and extreme weather events at a frequency much higher than previous decades. With these changes, it is anticipated that the changes in rainfall will produce at least three inches or more of precipitation in a single day which is double what has been seen over the past 50 years. The development will use best management practices (BMPs) that are designed to manage these extreme storm events. Relevant Regulations and Considerations The City of Shakopee regulates the stormwater requirements for the proposed development. City regulations are noted in the City's ordinances and the City's design criteria. The City regulates stormwater and requires all subdivisions to demonstrate how they will adequately manage surface or subsurface runoff of storm water and snow melt directed to natural drainageways. The design criteria, policies, and objectives shall be those described in the City's "Local Surface Water Management Plan". No existing ditch, stream, wetland, pond, drain or drainage canal shall be deepened, widened, filled, re-routed or filled without approval from the City Council. The City's ordinance requires that: • Runoff analysis shall be based upon proposed land use and shall take into consideration all contributing runoff from areas outside of the study area. • The analysis of storm runoff from existing developed areas lying outside of the study area shall be based upon present land use and topographic features. • All undeveloped land lying outside of the study area shall be considered as fully developed based upon the most probable anticipated future land use. Provided, however, that whenever the future land use of a specific undeveloped area cannot be accurately predicted, the average runoff coefficient to be used in said area shall not be less than 0.60 for the Rational Method runoff coefficient or an approved equivalent value for any other method. • The probable future flow pattern in undeveloped areas shall be based on existing natural topographic features (existing slopes, drainage ways, etc.) and shall conform to the Local Surface Water Management Plan. • Average land slopes in both developed and undeveloped area may be used in computing runoff. However, for areas in which drainage patterns and slopes are established, these shall be utilized. • Flows and velocities which may occur at a design point when the upstream area is fully developed shall be considered. Drainage facilities shall be so designed such that increased flows and velocities will not cause erosion damage. • The use of on -site detention and natural drainage ways is recommended and encouraged whenever possible. The changing of natural drainage way locations will not be approved unless such change is shown to be without unreasonable hazard and liability, substantiated by thorough analysis and investigation. • The planning and design of drainage systems shall be such that problems are not Page 53 of 198 37 transferred from one location to another. Outfall points shall be designed in such a manner that will not create flooding hazards downstream. • The rainfall intensities to be used in the computation of runoff shall be obtained from the Intensity - Duration - Frequency Curves for the Shakopee area in City of Shakopee Design Criteria Page 16 accordance with Atlas 14 data and shall be based upon a two (2) year, ten (10) year and one -hundred (100) year return frequency. • The event depth to be used for the one -hundred (100) year, ten (10) day snowmelt event is 7.4 inches. Storm water management requirements for permanent facilities. Proposed Stormwater Management Plans shall incorporate volume control, water quality control, and rate control as the basis for stormwater management in the proposed development plan on sites without restrictions. All proposed projects shall be in conformance with the City of Shakopee's Local Surface Water Management Plan, Design Criteria, and the most current requirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit, as applicable, meeting the more restrictive criteria. a. Volume Control. Volume reduction practices (e.g., infiltration or other) to retain the volume control criteria on -site must be considered first when designing the permanent stormwater treatment system. Ponds and filtration systems are not considered to be volume reduction practices. i. Construction activity (excluding linear projects) where the sum of the new impervious surface and the fully reconstructed impervious surface equals one or more acres. 1. Stormwater runoff volumes will be controlled and the post - construction runoff volumes shall be retained on site for 1.0 inches of runoff from the new impervious surface and fully reconstructed impervious surface. Pond design standards. Stormwater detention facilities constructed in the city shall be designed according to standards established by the Engineering Division, and identified as follows: • A permanent pool (dead storage) volume below the principal spillway (normal outlet) which shall be greater than or equal to the runoff from a 2- 1/2 inch rainfall over the entire contributing drainage area assuming full development; • A permanent pool average depth (basin volume/basin area) of 4 to 10 feet; • An emergency overflow (emergency outlet) adequate to control the 1% frequency/critical duration rainfall event; • Basin side slopes between the 100 -year high water level and the NWL should be no steeper than 4:1, and preferable flatter. A basin shelf with a minimum width of 10 feet and 1 foot deep below the normal water level is recommended to enhance wildlife habitat, reduce potential safety hazards, • To prevent short-circuiting, the distance between major inlets and the normal outlet shall be maximized; • A flood pool (live storage) volume above the principal spillway shall be adequate so that the peak discharge rates meet the requirements of the city's Local Surface Water Management Plan; Page 54 of 198 38 • Pond outlets may not be smaller than the minimum size indicated in the city's Local Surface Water Management Plan; • Consideration for aesthetics and wildlife habitat should be included in the design of the pond; • A skimming device must be provided to deter floatable pollutants from discharging out of pond; • Design of stormwater facilities shall accommodate the 100 -year critical event (100 - year, 24 -hour storm event or 10 -day snowmelt event). This includes lakes, ponds, and their outlets; and • Pond normal water level elevations shall be established above the ordinary high water level of adjacent public waters, except where topography of the site, floodplain mitigation activities, or other design considerations are determined to be unfavorable for these conditions to occur. This determination shall be performed by the applicant's engineer and approved by the City Engineer. Water Quality Control. The water quality control standard shall be considered satisfied if the volume control standard has been satisfied. In the event that it is infeasible to meet the volume control standard due to contaminated soils, site constraints, etc., the proposed plan will need to demonstrate the TSS and TP loading from proposed conditions is equal to or less than existing conditions. 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. Water for the site will be supplied by the Shakopee Public Utilities (SPU) water system which draws water from eighteen (18) groundwater wells in the Prairie du Chien -Jordan, Tunnel City- Wonewoc, and Mt. Simon -Hinckley aquifers. The projected water demands for the site are detailed in Table 11. Land Use Area (acres) Units Unit Demand (gpd/unit) Average Day Demand (gpd) Peak Factor Max Day Demand (gpd) Single Family 43.98 223 300 66,900 Townhome 10.31 98 225 22,050 Apartment 14.46 534 180 96,120 Retail/Mixed Use 23.33 1,000 23,330 Page 55 of 198 39 Open Space 23.79 0 0 Right of Way 22.34 0 0 SPU WTP 7.53 750 5,648 Total 145.74 214,048 2.77* 592,912 Table 11 Projected Water Demand *The peak factor is from the SPU Comprehensive Water System Plan and was the highest historical peak factor observed from 2007 to 2016. The SPU water system has a firm capacity (largest two wells out of service) of 20.3 MGD, which is sufficient for the highest maximum day demand observed over the last fifteen years (16.3 MGD in 2012) plus the additional max day demand for this site. The system's total usable storage volume is 10.25 MGD, which is sufficient for the average day demand (4.7 MGD from 2007 to 2016) plus the additional average day demand for this site. The southeast corner of the site is reserved for a new SPU Water Treatment Plant (WTP) to treat several of SPU's wells. Based on the SPU Comprehensive Water System Plan, the majority if not all of the site will be in the Main Pressure Zone. A new 16 -inch diameter trunk watermain is planned along the north boundary of the site, and new 12 -inch diameter trunk watermain and booster pumps are planned at the south boundary at the interface with the First High Pressure Zone. The trunk and distribution watermains through the site will need to be coordinated with the WTP and pumping facility locations. iv. Surface Waters a) 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 project area contains stormwater BMPs that were excavated within upland to manage the stormwater within the gravel mine site. No natural wetlands exist within the project. Nearby surface waters Figure 10 include primarily stormwater management basins with some interspersed seasonally flooded basins in the nearby agricultural areas. No direct impacts to wetlands are anticipated. Stormwater from the site will be treated prior to discharge from the site, so indirect impacts to wetlands are also not expected. b) 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 Page 56 of 198 40 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. There are three stormwater BMPs within the project area that will be impacted by the project. These were created within upland areas and therefore not regulated waters. The stormwater treatment function they provide will be replaced with new stormwater BMPs at different locations within the project area. The nearest DNR public water to the site is Deans Lake (DNR ID No. 70007401), located approximately 0.6 miles to the east. No impacts to this lake are expected and the project will not change watercraft usage. Erosion control BMPs, including silt fence and erosion control blanket, will be implemented throughout construction to minimize the potential for runoff from the site that could impact surrounding surface waters. 12. 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 ground water 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. The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) and Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) What's in My Neighborhood (WIMN) online databases were reviewed on February 26, 2024 to identify sites with documented or potential contamination within 500 feet of the project area Figure 13. Based on this review, the following pertinent MPCA/MDA WIMN database listings were identified: Site 1— Shakopee Gravel, 1650 County Road 83, Shakopee, MN 55379 This site is associated with the existing gravel mine operation. The site is included on the Aboveground Storage Tanks (ASTs) database ID TS0122702. Three ASTs including two 960 - gallon diesel fuel and one 265 -gallon used oil tank are reported for the site. The tanks are listed as active and no leak or spills were reported. A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was also completed for the site and released no recognized environmental conditions or controlled recognized environmental conditions within the project area. It is not anticipated that any existing contaminated or hazardous materials will be encountered during construction. Page 57 of 198 41 Figure 13: What's In My Neighborhood (WIMN) Map Si 1A.IKOl i..`.� alit „de 111,441v,r �I�V111TtH AVE Ila 14Arodfflo WIMN Map Shakopee Gravel EAW Shakopee, MN N�L2.4,'Il(ft,R4P41f r kidki is ^� rmf' �liImii Atm O LL DR "f* Project Location MPCA Sites Multiple Programs Hazardous Waste r Stormwater m�io�ummmow Page 58 of 198 42 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. During construction, solid waste and construction debris typical of a construction site may be produced. All waste and unused material will be properly disposed of off -site and not allowed to be carried by runoff to a receiving channel or storm sewer system. Following construction, solid waste disposal would be contracted through existing local, licensed companies, who offer both residential and commercial disposal. A trailer/office and scales currently exist at the project area and will be removed with the initial grading. The structures will be inspected prior to demolition and any regulated materials will be disposed of properly. A notification of Intent to Perform Demolition form will be provided to the MPCA at least 10 days prior to demolition. If asbestos is discovered at the structures, it will be abated and disposed of per MPCA/MDA regulations. In addition, historic structures have occupied the project area that have since been demolished. It is unknown if the demolition debris associated with the structures was buried on the project area or hauled away for disposal. Based on this information, there is a potential that buried materials are present at the project area that may require management as solid or hazardous waste if encountered during future earthwork or redevelopment activities. If fill soils, which could include demolition debris and other wastes, are encountered, then additional assessment may be required to evaluate or confirm appropriate management and/or disposal requirements. 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 new above or below ground tanks to store petroleum or other materials. Indicate the number, location, size and age of existing tanks on the property that the project will use. Discuss potential environmental effects from accidental spill or release 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. During construction, hazardous waste typical of construction sites (e.g., fuel oil) will be present. Minimal amounts of gasoline may be stored on the project area, in approved containers with secondary leak protection. The potential for contamination is low and no toxic or hazardous materials will be present after construction. Fuel trucks and any other hazardous materials will be locked when not in use to avoid vandalism. Degreasing and washing of construction equipment onsite are prohibited by the city's standard construction specifications. 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 waste including source reduction and recycling. Construction of the project will not involve the generation of a significant amount of Page 59 of 198 43 hazardous waste. Upon completion, the project use and storage of typical household hazardous materials is expected. Household hazardous wastes are expected to be disposed of at licensed facilities. Small quantities of fertilizers and pesticides typical for lawn care use may be stored at the project area. If stored on site, the chemical would be stored in spill -proof containment. Quantities stored would not require permitting by MN Department of Agriculture. 13. Fish, wildlife, plant communities, and sensitive ecological resources (rare features): a. Describe fish and wildlife resources as well as habitats and vegetation on or in near the site. Nearly the entire project area has been disturbed at some point within the last 20 years, with some re -vegetation occurring as gravel mining activities ceased in certain areas. These areas have re - vegetated with herbaceous upland species, shrubs, and deciduous trees. The stormwater BMPs located within the site may also provide habitat. Wildlife species that may use the deciduous woodlands and shrublands year-round include the gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), northern white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), black -capped chickadee (Poecile atricapillus), white -breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinesnsis), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), wild turkey (Meleagris gallopavo), and gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor). Wildlife species that may use the deciduous woodlands seasonally include the common garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), American toad (Anaxyrus americanus), American robin (Turd us migratorius), eastern red bat (Lasiurus borealis), silver -haired bat (Lasionycteris noctivagans), and other migratory bird and bat species. Man-made wetlands within the project area are not likely to support fish species. Wildlife species that may use the man-made wetlands include the mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), Canada goose (Branta canadensis), painted turtle (Chrysemys picta), common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), and northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens). Wildlife species that may use the herbaceous upland areas include the white-tailed deer, northern leopard frog, wild turkey, and meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus). b. Describe rare features such as state -listed (endangered, threatened or special concern) species, native plant communities, Minnesota Biological Survey Sites of Biodiversity Significance, andother sensitive ecological resources on or within close proximity to the site. Provide the license agreement number (LA- ) and/or correspondence number (MCE 2024-00221) from which the data were obtained and attach the Natural Heritage Review letter from the DNR. Indicate if any additional habitat or species survey work has been conducted within the site and describe the results. Information from the MNDNR (MCE #2024-00221) Natural Heritage Inventory (NHI) is included in Appendix B. The MNDNR (MCE #2024-00221) indicated that no records of state -listed endangered or threatened species or species of special concern were identified within the project area. The MNDNR also indicated there are records of calcareous fens (a rare and hydrologically sensitive type of wetland) within the project vicinity. The nearest known calcareous fen records are more than four miles from the project area. No Minnesota Biological Survey (MBS) sites of biodiversity significance, DNR Native Plant communities (NPC), or MBS railroad rights -of -way prairies were identified within the project area. A MBS site of high biodiversity significance and a MNDNR NPC Page 60 of 198 44 are mapped approximately 0.6 miles northeast of the project area, near Deans Lake. The MNDNR NPC is a northern bulrush-spikerush marsh that is associated with the MBS site of high biodiversity significance. Based on the USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC), two federally endangered species, a candidate species for listing, a proposed endangered species, and a non -essential experimental population may occur within the Project area or surrounding region. The five species include federally endangered northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis) and rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis), proposed endangered tricolored bat (Perimyotis subflavus), non- essential experimental population of whooping crane (Grus americana), and candidate for listing monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus). There are no known northern long-eared bat hibernacula within Scott County. There is a known northern long-eared bat maternity roost tree in Scott County located more than 1.8 miles from the project area. The entire project area and surrounding area within one mile of the project area is within the USFWS Rusty Patched Bumble Bee High Potential Zone. The federally listed northern long-eared bat, and proposed endangered tricolored bat are also state special concern species, but have not been identified within or near the project area. c. Discuss how the identified fish, wildlife, plant communities, rare features and ecosystems may be affected by the project including how current Minnesota climate trends and anticipated climate change in the general location of the project may influence the effects. 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. The MBS site of biodiversity significance and the MNDNR NPC do not occur within the project area or adjacent to the project area. As such, no direct or indirect impacts to the MBS site of biodiversity significance or the MNDNR NPC are expected from project construction or operation. Calcareous fens do not occur within the project area, and the nearest known records are more than four miles from the project area. As such, direct or indirect impacts to calcareous fens is not expected. Climate change impacts, whether positive or negative, on ecological and biological resources will likely vary among populations, species, and ecological communities. Some species may be able to adapt to climate change (e.g., ubiquitous species, habitat generalists, etc.). However, many species will likely struggle to adapt to the change in climate (e.g., habitat specialists, endemic species, etc.). The protection of movement corridors and population refugia (i.e., important focal habitats), and efforts to increase landscapes that allow for wildlife movements, are likely to be of key importance in a changing climate. Maintaining and enhancing ecological connectivity reduces barrier effects development has on individual animals, populations, and ecological communities, improving the resiliency of natural resources. The project -related tree removal will impact migratory bird and bat species, northern long-eared bats, or tricolored bats if they occur in the project area. The entire project area is within rusty patched bumble bee high potential zone. As such, the species will be impacted, if they occur within the project area. Tree removal will also impact other wildlife species that use the wooded portion of the project area. The project related grassland/shrubland conversion will impact any migratory bird species or rusty patched bumble bee that use the project area. The loss of grassland/shrubland areas will also impact other wildlife species that use these portions of the project area. Page 61 of 198 45 There does not appear to be suitable habitat for the whooping crane within the project area. As such, no impacts to the species are expected. Overall, given the disturbed nature of the existing project site, significant, permanent negative impacts to wildlife are not expected. Some temporary impacts to wildlife may occur during construction because of habitat removal. The project proposer will implement measures to avoid or minimize the introduction or spread of invasive plant species from project construction and operation. The project proposer will control the spread or introduction of invasive plant species in accordance with local and state invasive and noxious weed regulations, as appropriate. Any invasive plants that are established within the project area prior to the proposed action may be excluded from the invasive species control plan. d. Identify measures that will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects to fish, wildlife, plant communities, ecosystems, and sensitive ecological resources. • The removal of trees or shrubs will occur outside of the peak nesting season for birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (May 1 to August 31), or nest surveys should be performed if removal is within that timeframe. • If grading of non -manicured herbaceous areas occurs during the peak nesting season for birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (May 1 to August 31), nest surveys should be performed before construction activity. • Incorporate pollinator species into landscaped planting areas. • Plant native, weed -free plants in re -vegetated areas. • A rusty patched bumble bee habitat assessment will be completed to determine if suitable summer or winter habitat is available within the project area. The results of the rusty patched bumble bee habitat assessment will dictate if a presence/probable absence survey and further coordination with the USFWS are warranted. • Follow current USFWS guidelines for tree removal to avoid or minimize impacts to northern long-eared bats and tricolored bats. • Use wildlife -friendly erosion control blankets to avoid entanglement with wildlife. • Invasive plant species will be controlled during site construction by inspecting and decontaminating equipment. 14. 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 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. The project area has been disturbed by the current use as a gravel mine. Therefore, no cultural resources are expected to occur within the project area. Correspondence from SHPO indicates there are no known historic or cultural resources on the site (Appendix B). Page 62 of 198 46 15. 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. There are no scenic views or vistas within or near the project area. The project area is primarily a gravel mine with some vegetated areas where prior mining has ceased. The current stormwater ponds will be drained and filled. A new stormwater pond will be constructed and is anticipated to be an amenity to the project area. The development will result in increased lighting and noise associated with a typical mixed -use development. Lighting will be used in parking areas that aim to reduce glare and light pollution. Lighting plans will be reviewed by the city during the development plan reviews and will conform to city ordinance. 16. 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. Discuss effects to air quality including any sensitive receptors, human health or applicable regulatory criteria. Include a discussion of any methods used 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. The proposed project will not have stationary source emissions. 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. EPA rule requires controls that will dramatically decrease Mobile Source Air Toxin (MSAT) emissions through cleaner fuels and cleaner engines by 72 percent from 1999 to 2050. In the short term is expected there will be slightly higher MSAT emissions in the project area with the project relative to the no build condition due to increased average daily traffic (ADT). However, the EPA's vehicle and fuel regulations will bring about lower MSAT levels in the future when compared to today. 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 17a). 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. During construction, particulate emissions will temporarily increase due to generation of fugitive dust. The nearest and most sensitive receptors to the construction activity are the residential properties that immediately surround the property. Construction dust control is required to be in conformance with City ordinances and the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit. The construction and operation of the proposed site development is not anticipated to involve processes that would generate odors. Page 63 of 198 47 17. 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. Per Table 12 below, the project's predicted GHG emissions are estimated at 16,862 CO2e (metric tons per year). Specific, detailed calculations and references to the methods used to quantify emissions are included within the calculation tables in Appendix C. Data Site Energy Use Emission',hi V • I III N I ''i•THI 171 011 Emission Source Scope Source Amount Units Index (k8tu/sq. Factors i Illti • 11'1 �I�� Notes* ft.) " 0 I I �III m m IIIIII�I illII I IIII II�IIIII it Uses and project average daily vehicle miles traveled (ADVMT): Operational emissions, mobile equipment, after project is operational Combustion, stationary equipment, natural gas (therms/sq. ft./yr.): Commercial 3 1,674,011 sq. ft. Single Family Residential 4 747,150 sq. ft. Apartrnents/Townhornes (576 units) 3 091,000 sq. ft. Subtotal 3,112,161sq. ft. Combustion area (diesel, back-up generators, GHG kg/gal.) 1 1 & 2 182 gallons Off -site electricity, %cel 2021 (GHG kg/sq. ft.) 2 kWh Commercial 3 1.6ti74,011sq. ft. Single Family Residential 4 747,150 sq. ft. Apartments/Tow-homes (573 units) 3 391,000 sq, ft. Subtotal 3,112,161 Off -site waste management 3 2 2,613 tons of waste 2 23,156 ADVMT therms e: 0.44 3,734 1.20 22% 33.4 0.36 3,227 1.93 43.2 0.43 1,710 2.29 505 050 1,850 2.68 6,787 7..18 40%. 10.74 2 19.2 22.8 25,7 5.64 2,704 6.69 1,433 7.83 1,550 5,686 1.62 1.92 2.24 1.83 0.21 21112II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1II1III0llfl i INA Mil For an explanation of Emissions scopes, please reference the following; ;cope 1: "Scope 1 emissions are direct greenhouse (GHG) emissions that occur from sources that are controlled or owned by an organization (e.g., e boilers, furnaces, vehicles)," (EPA, http://www.epa.goviclimateMadershipiscopel-and,scopm2-inventory,,guidance) *Scope 2: "Scope 2 emissions are indirect OHIO emissions associated with the purchase of electricity, steam, heat, or cooling." (EPA, http://www.epa.gov/clirnat,eleadersh'iip/scope-1-and-scope-2.. inventory -guidance) *Scope 3, "Scope 3 emissions are the result of activities from assets not owned or controlled by the reporting organization, but that the organization indirectly impacts in its value chain. Scope 3 emissions include all sources not within an organization's scope 1 arrd 2 boundary. The scope 3 emissions for one orgarrixation are the scope 1 and 2 emissions of another organization. Scope 3 atrnissioris. also referred to, as value chain emissions, often represent the majority of an organization's total GHG emissions," (EPA: httpsr„f/www.ep,t.gov/clitnateleaadership/scope-3-inventory_ guidance) Data Source Notes: 1 EPA. Simplified GHG Emissions Calculator ("the Calculator"), https://www.epa.gov/energy/greenhaus.e-gas-equivalencies-calculator 2 Refer to the sheet "Mobile Equipment." ADVMT Average Daily Vehicle Mlles Travelled. S3 55379): / e g Energy et_ hrepv://wurce �ww erergyst rg v/huiildings/resources�,auldlencet env mr duct providers/commercial ,nehw_construction/target_elnder 0.0% 34% Table 12 Project Emissions b. GHG Assessment i. Describe any mitigation considered to reduce the project's GHG emissions. d with fuel combustion in During this phase in site planning, plans are concept -level; exploration and development of potential mitigation practices is dependent on further development planning and design. The proposed scenario includes varied housing types and nearby access to grocery, retail, and office space. Pedestrian and trail connections are proposed within the project, which may encourage non -vehicle travel within the development. The following are potential design strategies and sustainability measures that could be considered for the proposed development to further reduce emissions. Page 64 of 198 48 4% • Use energy efficient appliances, equipment, and lighting • Energy efficient building shells • Implement waste best management practices; recycle and compost appropriate material when applicable • On -site native landscaping to reduce potable water and pesticide use, along with the inclusion of trees and tree trenches to improve local air quality, absorb greenhouse gas emissions, and reduce local urban heat island effect • Provide on -site electric vehicle charging infrastructure • On -site solar PV installations • Purchase of off -site carbon sequestration credits • Grid -based wind and solar power purchases • Other Implementation of the above strategies will be evaluated on a case -by -case basis based on feasibility, schedule, code requirements, and tenant considerations. The project will follow all applicable federal, state, and local standards and regulations as required, as listed throughout this report. ii. Describe and quantify reductions from selected mitigation, if proposed to reduce the project's GHG emissions. Explain why the selected mitigation was preferred. This information is not known at this phase in the project development, due to the preliminary designs and uncertainty of any specific sustainability practices of the future development. Exploration of the aforementioned potential mitigation practices is dependent on further development planning and design. The project will follow all applicable federal, state, and local standards and regulations as required, through which further mitigation strategies may be required. iii. Quantify the proposed projects predicted net lifetime GHG emissions (total tons/#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. Methods for modeling air emissions were completed in accordance with EAW (Environmental Assessment Worksheet) standards. The expected lifespan of the project is 50 years. Per the tables presented in Appendix C the project's predicted net GHG emissions over the project's lifespan are estimated at 16,862 CO2e metric tons per year. This estimate does not account for future integration of the goals for the Built, Natural, and Community Environments that are referenced in the city's 2040 comprehensive plan. Minnesota's Next Generation Energy Act requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the state by 80% between 2005 and 2050, while supporting clean energy, energy efficiency, and supplementing other renewable energy standards in Minnesota. Within the city's comprehensive plan, it is identified that the city aims to: • Develop and encourage public and private renewable energy production systems, • Promote and integrate resource -efficient systems into public and private facilities, • Integrate sustainable design and management practices into public spaces, and • Balance the needs of all transportation users, among others. Page 65 of 198 49 These items, as implemented, will support the Minnesota Next Generation Energy Act goals. Developments within the project could also implement any applicable state or local GHG goals as determined by the city or project proposers. The proposer may explore additional sustainability measures such as the examples listed above to reduce operational emissions to the extent practicable. The proposed project will be built in compliance with state regulations and city building codes. 18. 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. Existing sources of noise include surrounding roadways. Highway 169 is just north of the project area and is a source of existing noise in the area. Traffic volumes on city streets through surrounding neighborhoods have traffic volumes low enough that noise impacts are not significant. Nearby sensitive receptors include existing adjacent housing to the east, south, and west of the project area. During construction, noise levels will temporarily increase and vary in intensity based on the types of construction equipment being used Table 13. To minimize the effects of this noise, construction will be limited to daytime hours consistent with the City's construction and noise ordinances. In addition, construction equipment will be fitted with mufflers that would be maintained throughout the construction process. Equipment Type Manufacturers Sampled Total Number of Models in Sample Peak Noise Level Range Average Backhoe 5 6 74-92 83 Front Loader 5 30 75-96 85 Dozer 8 41 65-95 85 Grader 3 15 72-92 84 Scraper 2 27 76-98 87 Pile Driver N/A N/A 95-105 101 Table 13 Typical Roadway Construction Equipment Noise Levels at 50 feet Source: United States Environmental Protection Agency and Federal Highway Administration Following construction, noise in the area will be typical of a suburban housing development and mixed -use commercial development. Additional traffic added to surrounding roadways is not expected to generate noise to a degree which would exceed noise standards or diminish quality of life for people living or working nearby. 19. 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) indicate source of trip generation rates used in the estimates, and 5) availability of transit and/or other alternative transportation modes. Page 66 of 198 50 A Traffic Impact Study was completed for the proposed project and is included in Appendix D. The study evaluated the existing conditions and the traffic generation anticipated from the proposed project. Potential impacts and associated mitigation measures were identified. The evaluation of existing conditions included collecting traffic volumes, observing roadway characteristics, analyzing intersection capacity at 11 intersections, and reviewing crash history. The intersections evaluated in the Study included: • Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) and Eagle Creek Boulevard/Dean Lakes Boulevard • Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) and 17th Avenue/ Eagle Creek Boulevard (CR 16) • Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) and Thrush Street* • Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) and Valley View Road** • 17th Avenue (CR 16) and Independence Drive • 17th Avenue (CR 16) and Philipp Drive* • 17th Avenue (CR 16) and Emblem Way* • Eagle Creek Boulevard (CR 16) and Dean Lake Trail / Kinlock Way • Thrush Street and Independence Drive • Thrush Street and Hackberry Lane • Thrush Street and Archer Street / Dahlia Drive * Indicates 13 hours of data (6 a.m. to 7 p.m.) ** Data was provided from the County Traffic forecasts for the proposed development were developed for year 2030 conditions, which is the year that full build out is anticipated. The forecasts include information regarding area infrastructure changes, assumed adjacent developments, general background growth, and trip generation from the proposed development. Forecasts were developed for both build and no build conditions, with the build condition representing the proposed development. Trip generation was developed using the ITE Trip Generation Manual 11th Edition, and includes trips for typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, as well as daily. Several assumptions were used, which are described in the Study. Based on the trip generation estimate, the proposed development will generate approximately 709 a.m. peak hour (351 in/ 358 out), 1,120 p.m. peak hour (546 in / 574 out) and 11,578 daily (5,789 in / 5,789 out) site trips. When accounting for trips already traveling along adjacent roadways that will use the proposed development (i.e., pass-by/diverted-link trips), the net new system trips from the proposed development is approximately 617 a.m. peak hour (305 in / 312 out), 880 p.m. peak hour (426 in / 454 out), and 9,098 daily (4,549 in / 4,549 out) trips. Trips generated by the proposed development were distributed throughout the study area based and are shown on Figure 5 of the Traffic Study, which was developed based on existing travel patterns, previous area studies, the proposed site layout, and engineering judgement. The City of Shakopee offers a variety of transit opportunities including Minnesota Valley Transit Authority (MVTA), SmartLink Transit, and Park and Ride lots. Nearest to the project area, MVTA operates Route 495 out of the Marschall Road Transit Station. A variety of routes are available out of that Transit Station, serving areas within the city as well as to Burnsville, Bloomington (Mall of America), and MSP Airport. SmartLink Transit offers dial -a -ride and share -ride options and is available by reservation. There are also two Park and Ride options, Marschall Road Transit Station and Eagle Creek Park & Ride, within approximately 2 miles of the project area. The proposed project will connect to existing trails and sidewalks along 17th Avenue/Eagle Creek Blvd, Mystic Lake Drive, Thrush Street which serve the larger trail network within the city Page 67 of 198 51 and provide non -motorized transportation throughout the community. 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 EA W. 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, An intersection capacity analysis was completed for the intersections adjacent to the proposed development. This analysis indicated that the study intersections can support the assumed adjacent and proposed developments under both year 2030 build and no build conditions, except at the 17th Avenue and Emblem Way/north site driveway intersection under 2030 build conditions. c. Identify measures that will be taken to minimize or mitigate project related transportation effects. Mitigation measures recommended to improve operations in or near the project area includes: • A traffic signal at the 17th Avenue and Emblem Way/ north site driveway intersection. • Provide a minimum of 2 -lanes (i.e., a left- and a shared thru/right-turn lane) on both the north and south approaches of the 17th Avenue (CR 16) and Emblem Way / North Site Driveway intersection; providing dedicated left-, thru, and right -turn lanes on the north and south approaches would have additional benefits. • Realign Emblem Way or the proposed development driveway to ensure north -south lane continuity. • Locate internal roadways and driveways a minimum of 330 feet apart, including Philipp Avenue from 17th Avenue (CR 16); review internal intersections and provide appropriate internal traffic controls (i.e., stop signs) in collaboration with the City Engineer. • Review truck maneuverability and loading / wayfinding procedures to limit potential internal circulation conflicts and locate signage / landscaping to avoid creating any sight distance issues. • Provide multimodal facilities (i.e., sidewalk and / or trail) throughout the site with connectivity to existing adjacent facilities. Page 68 of 198 52 20. Cumulative potential effects: (Preparers can leave this item blank if cumulative potential effects are addressed under the applicable EAW Items) 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. The proposed project will impact resources within the project area and directly adjacent to the project area, such as neighboring roadways and utilities. Phasing of the project may occur over the next approximately 6 years, and improvements to infrastructure will be phased as necessary with construction. As development proceeds, appropriate agency coordination will occur and permits will be obtained. Review and approval of development activities through the necessary regulatory programs and implementation of mitigation measures will ensure that impacts are managed appropriately and do not combine to result in cumulative potential effects. 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. Recent and reasonably foreseeable future projects within the vicinity of the Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment project includes the following: • Quarterra, a multifamily development located immediately north of the project area. This project is currently under construction with an anticipated completion date of Summer 2024. • Summerland Place, a residential development located immediately north of the proposed project, began in 2020 and is nearing completion. An EAW was completed for that project and the identified mitigation measures incorporated into the project as development proceeded. • Valley Crest, a residential development located immediately south of the proposed project. The project is in the final phase of development and includes approximately 175 lots. • Arbor Bluff, a residential development that is currently proposed and anticipates a total of 196 single family lots on approximately 80 acres. This development is located approximately 0.6 miles southwest of the proposed Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment project. It is separated from the proposed project by existing residential areas. Some impacted resources from these projects, such as stormwater, water, sanitary, and traffic could combine with the proposed Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment project. However, the evaluation of resources and potential impacts have been evaluated and mitigation has been proposed with these other developments in mind. A variety of projects are also continually reviewed near the Canterbury Park area, but not in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development. Page 69 of 198 53 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. The project will not cause any known or reasonably expected cumulative potential effects. 21. Other potential environmental effects: If the project may cause any additional environmental effects not addressed by items 1 to 19, describe the effects here, discuss the how the environmentwill be affected, and identify measures that will be taken to minimize and mitigate these effects. No other environmental effects are anticipated. Page 70 of 198 54 RGU CERTIFICATION. (The Environmental Quality Board will only accept SIGNED EnvironmentalAssessment Worksheets for public notice in the EQB Monitor.) I hereby certify that: • The information contained in this document is accurate and complete to the best of my knowledge. • The EAW describes the complete project; there are no other projects, stages or components other than those described in this document, which are related to the project as connected actions or phased actions, as defined at Minnesota Rules, parts 4410.0200, subparts 9c and 60, respectively. • Copies of this EAW are being sent to the entire EQB distribution list. Signature Title DV Date 1 (, aoZ Page 71 of 198 55 APPENDIX A Well Logs Page 72 of 198 Minnesota Unique Well Number 228356 County Scott Quad Eden Quad ID 104C MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031 Entry Date 03/18/1994 Update Date 03/10/2014 Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection TEST HOLE 1 115 22 W 16 BBABAD Elevation 817 ft. Elev. Method 7.5 minute topographic map (+/- 5 feet) Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed 80 ft. 80 ft. 05/19/1981 Drill Method Drill Fluid Use test well Status Sealed Address C/W SHAKOPEE MN Well Hydrofractured? Yes ❑ No ❑ From To Casing Type Joint Drive Shoe? Yes ❑ No ❑ Above/Below Stratigraphy Information Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness SAND, CLAY, LOAM, 0 5 MEDIUM SAND & 5 20 COARSE SAND & 20 25 MEDIUM SAND & 25 30 MEDIUM SAND & 30 45 MEDIUM SAND & 45 60 COARSE SAND & 60 65 CLAY, GRAVEL & 65 67 LIMESTONE 67 80 Open Hole From ft. To ft. Screen? ❑ Type Make Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Wellhead Completion Pitless adapter manufacturer Model ❑ Casing Protection ❑ 12 in. above grade ❑ At -grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Grouting Information Well Grouted? ❑ Yes ❑ No a Not Specified Nearest Known Source of Contamination feet Direction Type Well disinfected upon completion? ❑ Yes ❑ No Pump ❑ Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe ft Capacity g.p. Typ Abandoned Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? ❑ Yes ❑ No Variance Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well? ❑ Yes ❑ No Miscellaneous First Bedrock Prairie Du Chien Group Aquifer Last Strat Prairie Du Chien Group Depth to Bedrock 67 ft Located by Minnesota Geological Survey Locate Method Digitized - scale 1:24,000 or larger (Digitizing Table) System UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters X 462320 Y 4958088 Unique Number Verification Information from Input Date 01/01/1990 Remarks MG.S. NO. 1749. Angled Drill Hole Well Contractor Associated Well Co. 27259 Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Minnesota Well Index Report 228356 Pape 73 of 198 Printed 01103/04/2024 xE-01205-15 Minnesota Unique Well Number 228357 County Scott Quad Eden Quad ID 104C MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031 Entry Date 03/18/1994 Update Date 03/10/2014 Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection TEST HOLE 2 115 22 W 16 BADBBB Elevation 825 ft. Elev. Method 7.5 minute topographic map (+/- 5 feet) Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed 80 ft. 80 ft. 05/19/1981 Drill Method Drill Fluid Use test well Status Sealed Address C/W SHAKOPEE MN Well Hydrofractured? Yes ❑ No ❑ From To Casing Type Joint Drive Shoe? Yes ❑ No ❑ Above/Below Stratigraphy Information Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness TOPSOIL 0 5 FINE SAND & GRAVEL 5 10 MEDIUM SAND & 10 50 COARSE SAND & 50 55 MEDIUM SAND & 55 60 FINE SAND & GRAVEL 60 70 COARSE SAND & 70 75 COARSE SAND & 75 78 LIMESTONE 78 80 Open Hole From ft. To ft. Screen? ❑ Type Make Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Wellhead Completion Pitless adapter manufacturer Model ❑ Casing Protection ❑ 12 in. above grade ❑ At -grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Grouting Information Well Grouted? ❑ Yes ❑ No a Not Specified Nearest Known Source of Contamination feet Direction Type Well disinfected upon completion? ❑ Yes ❑ No Pump ❑ Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe ft Capacity g.p. Typ Abandoned Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? ❑ Yes ❑ No Variance Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well? ❑ Yes ❑ No Miscellaneous First Bedrock Prairie Du Chien Group Aquifer Last Strat Prairie Du Chien Group Depth to Bedrock 78 ft Located by Minnesota Geological Survey Locate Method Digitized - scale 1:24,000 or larger (Digitizing Table) System UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters X 462661 Y 4957914 Unique Number Verification Information from Input Date 01/01/1990 Remarks M.G.S. NO. 1750. Angled Drill Hole Well Contractor Associated Well Co. 27259 Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Minnesota Well Index Report 228357 Pape 74 of 198 Printed 01103/04/2024 xE-01205-15 Minnesota Unique Well Number 228358 County Scott Quad Eden Quad ID 104C MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031 Entry Date 03/18/1994 Update Date 03/10/2014 Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection TEST HOLE 3 115 22 W 16 BCACDD Elevation 832 ft. Elev. Method 7.5 minute topographic map (+/- 5 feet) Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed 80 ft. 80 ft. 05/19/1981 Drill Method Drill Fluid Use test well Status Sealed Address C/W SHAKOPEE MN Well Hydrofractured? Yes ❑ No ❑ From To Casing Type Joint Drive Shoe? Yes ❑ No ❑ Above/Below Stratigraphy Information Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness SOIL 0 2 CLAY 2 10 MEDIUM SAND & 10 25 FINE SAND & GRAVEL 25 35 COARSE SAND & 35 40 FINE SAND & GRAVEL 40 47 FINE SAND & CLAY 47 50 CLAY & FINE SAND 50 55 CLAY 55 62 FINE SAND 62 72 GRAVEL & CLAY 72 75 LIMESTONE 75 80 V.HARD Open Hole From ft. To ft. Screen? ❑ Type Make Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Wellhead Completion Pitless adapter manufacturer Model ❑ Casing Protection ❑ 12 in. above grade ❑ At -grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Grouting Information Well Grouted? ❑ Yes ❑ No a Not Specified Nearest Known Source of Contamination feet Direction Type Well disinfected upon completion? ❑ Yes ❑ No Pump ❑ Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP Volt Length of drop pipe ft Capacity g.p. Typ Abandoned Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? ❑ Yes ❑ No Variance Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well? ❑ Yes ❑ No Miscellaneous First Bedrock Prairie Du Chien Group Aquifer Last Strat Prairie Du Chien Group Depth to Bedrock 75 ft Located by Minnesota Geological Survey Locate Method Digitized - scale 1:24,000 or larger (Digitizing Table) System UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters X 462317 Y 4957531 Unique Number Verification Information from Input Date 01/01/1990 Remarks M.G.S. NO. 1751. Angled Drill Hole Well Contractor Associated Well Co. 27259 Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Minnesota Well Index Report 228358 Pape 75 of 198 Printed 01103/04/2024 xE-01205-15 Minnesota Unique Well Number 250093 County Scott Quad Eden Quad ID 104C MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031 Entry Date 02/15/1996 Update Date 05/30/1996 Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection 115 22 W 16 BDABAD Elevation 833 ft. Elev. Method 7.5 minute topographic map (+/- 5 feet) Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed 112 ft. 112 ft. Drill Method Drill Fluid Use domestic Status Active Address C/W 1776 CANTERBURY DR SHAKOPEE MN Well Hydrofractured? Yes ❑ No ❑ From To Casing Type Single casing Joint Drive Shoe? Yes ❑ No ❑ Above/Below 0 ft. Stratigraphy Information Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness GLACIAL DRIFT 0 81 PRAIRIE DU CHIEN 81 112 Casing Diameter Weight 4 in. To 91 ft. lbs./ft. Open Hole From 91 ft. To 112 ft. Screen? ❑ Type Make Static Water Level Pumping Level (below land surface) Wellhead Completion Piticss adapter manufacturer Model ❑ Casing Protection ❑ 12 in. above grade ❑ At -grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Grouting Information Well Grouted? ❑ Yes ❑ No a Not Specified Nearest Known Source of Contamination feet Direction Type Well disinfected upon completion? ❑ Yes ❑ No Pump ❑ Not Installed Date Installed Manufacturer's name Model Number HP 0 Volt Length of drop pipe ft Capacity g.p. Typ Abandoned Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? ❑ Yes ❑ No Variance Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well? ❑ Yes ❑ No Miscellaneous First Bedrock Prairie Du Chien Group Aquifer Prairie Du Chien Last Strat Prairie Du Chien Group Depth to Bedrock 81 ft Located by Minnesota Geological Survey Locate Method Digitized - scale 1:24,000 or larger (Digitizing Table) System UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters X 462737 Y 4957718 Unique Number Verification Information from Input Date 03/25/1996 Remarks GAMMA LOGGED 10-12-1995. Angled Drill Hole Well Contractor Minnesota Geological Survey MGS Licensee Business Lie. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Minnesota Well Index Report 250093 Pape 76 of 198 Printed on 03/04/2024 HE -01205-15 Minnesota Unique Well Number 510437 County Scott Quad Eden Quad ID 104C MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031 Entry Date 06/29/1992 Update Date 03/10/2014 Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection SHAKOPEE 115 22 W 16 BADBAB Elevation 816 ft. Elev. Method CALC FROM 2 -FOOT COUNTY DEM Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed 300 ft. 300 ft. 08/03/1990 Drill Method Non -specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Use industrial Status Active Address Well 1650 83 CR SHAKOPEE MN 55379 Well Hydrofractured? Yes ❑ No ❑ From To Casing Type Step down Joint Welded Stratigraphy Information Drive Shoe? Yes a No ❑ Above/Below 1 ft. Geological Material From To (ft.) Color Hardness Casing Diameter Weight Hole Diameter GRAVEL 0 42 24 in. To 25 ft. 94.6 lbs./ft. 24 in. To 25 ft. SAND 42 58 12 in. To 200 ft. 49.5 lbs./ft. 22 in. To 68 ft. SAND, GRAVEL 58 62 18 in. To 68 ft. 70.5 lbs./ft. 17 in. To 200 ft. LIMESTONE 62 200 JORDAN, BEDROCK 200 300 WHITE MEDIUM Open Hole From 200 ft. To 300 ft. Screen? ❑ Type Make Static Water Level 75 ft. land surface Measure 08/03/1990 Pumping Level (below land surface) 130 ft. 32 hrs. Pumping at 1000 g.p.m. Wellhead Completion Pitless adapter manufacturer Model ❑ Casing Protection ❑ 12 in. above grade ❑ At -grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Grouting Information Well Grouted? X Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Specified Material Amount From To neat cement 8 Cubic yards 0 ft. 200 ft. neat cement 3 Cubic yards 0 ft. 68 ft. Nearest Known Source of Contamination feet Direction Type Well disinfected upon completion? ❑ Yes ❑ No Pump ❑ Not Installed Date Installed 08/16/1990 Manufacturer's name GRUNDFOS Model Number 600 S 400-3 HP 40 Volt 460 Length of drop pipe 189 ft Capacity 725 g.p. Typ Submersible Abandoned Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? ❑ Yes X No Variance Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well? ❑ Yes ❑ No Miscellaneous First Bedrock Prairie Du Chien Group Aquifer Jordan Last Strat Jordan Sandstone Depth to Bedrock 62 ft Located by Minnesota Geological Survey Remarks Locate Method Digitization (Screen) - Map (1:24,000) (15 meters or CANTERBURY PIT CO RDS 83 & 16 System UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters X 462716 Y 4957915 SUB -CONTRACTED DRILLING TO BERGERSON-CASWELL. Unique Number Verification Information from Input Date 08/11/2004 Angled Drill Hole Well Contractor Bohn Well Co. 70350 LEZER, J. Licensee Business Lic. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Minnesota Well Index Report 510437 Printed on 03/04/2024 Page 77 of 198 HE -01205-15 Minnesota Unique Well Number 572689 County Scott Quad Eden Quad ID 104C MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH WELL AND BORING REPORT Minnesota Statutes Chapter 1031 Entry Date 06/12/1996 Update Date 02/14/2014 Received Date Well Name Township Range Dir Section Subsection FITCH, ANNE 115 22 W 16 BDAABD Elevation 831 ft. Elev. Method CALC FROM 2 -FOOT COUNTY DEM Well Depth Depth Completed Date Well Completed 280 ft. 280 ft. 11/13/1995 Drill Method Non -specified Rotary Drill Fluid Bentonite Use domestic Status Active Address C/W 1776 CANTERBURY RD S MN Well Hydrofractured? Yes ❑ No ❑ From To Casing Type Drive Shoe? Step down Joint Stratigraphy Information Geological Material TOPSOIL GRAVEL & SAND MEDIUM SAND CLAY SAND & GRAVEL LIMESTONE SANDSTONE From 0 4 55 70 82 86 209 To (ft.) 4 55 70 82 86 209 280 Color BLACK VARIED VARIED BROWN VARIED TAN WHITE Hardness MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM MEDIUM HARD MEDIUM Yes a No ❑ Above/Below Casing Diameter Weight Hole Diameter 8 in. To 87 ft. lbs./ft. 12 in. To 87 ft. 4 in. To 220 ft. lbs./ft. 8 in. To 220 ft. Open Hole From 220 ft. To 280 ft. Screen? ❑ Type Make Static Water Level 97 ft. land surface Measure 11/13/1995 Pumping Level (below land surface) 97 ft. 3 hrs. Pumping at 30 g.p.m. Wellhead Completion Pitless adapter manufacturer WHITEWATER Model S-5-4 ❑ Casing Protection ❑ 12 in. above grade ❑ At -grade (Environmental Wells and Borings ONLY) Grouting Information Material neat cement Well Grouted? X Yes ❑ No ❑ Not Specified Amount From To 13 Cubic yards ft. 212 ft. Nearest Known 51 feet Well disinfected Source of Contamination South Direction Septic tank/drain field Type upon completion? X Yes ❑ No Pump Manufacturer's Model Number Length of drop ❑ Not Installed Date Installed 11/16/1995 name AERMOTOR S100M HP 1 Volt 230 pipe 120 ft Capacity 0 g.p. Typ Submersible Abandoned Does property have any not in use and not sealed well(s)? ❑ Yes X No Variance Was a variance granted from the MDH for this well? ❑ Yes X No Miscellaneous First Bedrock Prairie Du Chien Group Aquifer Jordan Last Strat Jordan Sandstone Depth to Bedrock 86 ft Located by Minnesota Geological Survey Locate Method Digitization (Screen) - Map (1:24,000) (15 meters or System UTM - NAD83, Zone 15, Meters X 462792 Y 4957698 Unique Number Verification Information from Input Date 08/11/2004 Remarks Angled Drill Hole Well Contractor R.E.S. Well Co. 27276 SCHULTZ, C Licensee Business Lie. or Reg. No. Name of Driller Minnesota Well Index Report 572689 Page 78 of 198 Printed on 03/04/2024 HE -01205-15 APPENDIX B Agency Correspondence Page 79 of 198 Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment MCE #: 2024-00221 Page 1 of 6 DEPARTMENT NATURAL C S Formal Natural Heritage Review - Cover Page See r f iirr� �rx � ��c tor ores ts of iirervliiew , A d ir�af..t water rirlaiir k iirnea irm s �m )ave Iinot: beeIIri tona liized and t: le IIresuu Is are nor oFhciiia )iir°ojeCt detaiii Project Name: Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment Project Proposer: Rachel Development Project Type: Development, Mixed Use Project Type Activities: Tree Removal TRS: T115 R22 S16, T115 R22 S17 County(s): Scott DNR Admin Region(s): Central Reason Requested: State EAW Project Description: The proposed project will involve the construction of a water treatment plant, commercial use, multi- and single-family residences, open area, and a man-made ... Existing Land Uses: Most of the project area is developed (gravel mine), interspersed with man-made pond, and grassland, shrubland, and wooded areas. Landcover / Habitat Impacted: Much of the project area is disturbed from gravel mining, interspersed with man-made ponds, and grassland, shrubland, and wooded areas. All areas are proposed to be impacted. Waterbodies Affected: There are some man-made ponded areas that will be filled, and a new man-made pond will be constructed. Groundwater Resources Affected: Unknown Previous Natural Heritage Review: No Previous Habitat Assessments / Surveys: No S OVA.RY OF AU'TOMA'TED RESULTS Category Results Response By Category Project Details Comments Tree Removal - Recommendations Ecologically Significant Area Comments Protected Wetlands: Calcareous Fens State -Listed Endangered or Threatened Species No Comments No Further Review Required State -Listed Species of Special Concern No Comments No Further Review Required Federally Listed Species Comments RPBB High Potential Zone Page 80 of 198 2/27/2024 10:17 AM Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment MCE #: 2024-00221 Page 2 of 6 DEPARTM.ENT NATURAL C S Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Division of Ecological & Water Resources 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 St. Paul, MN 55155-4025 February 27, 2024 Project ID: MCE #2024-00221 Lucas Wandrie WSB & Associates, Inc. 701 Xenia Avenue South, Suite 300 Minneapolis, MN 55416 RE: Automated Natural Heritage Review of the proposed Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment See Cover Page for location and project details. Dear Lucas Wandrie, As requested, the above project has been reviewed for potential effects to rare features. Based on this review, the following rare features may be adversely affected by the proposed project: Project Type and/or Project Type Activity Comments • The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS) tracks bat roost trees and hibernacula plus some acoustic data, but this information is not exhaustive. Even if there are no bat records listed below, all seven of Minnesota's bats, including the federally endangered northern long-eared bat (Myotis septentrionalis), can be found throughout Minnesota. During the active season (approximately April - November) bats roost underneath bark, in cavities, or in crevices of both live and dead trees. Tree removal can negatively impact bats by destroying roosting habitat, especially during the pup rearing season when females are forming maternity roosting colonies and the pups cannot yet fly. To minimize these impacts, the DNR recommends that tree removal be avoided from June 1 through August 15. Ecologically Significant Area • One or more calcareous fens have been documented in the vicinity of the proposed project. A calcareous fen is a rare and distinctive peat -accumulating wetland that is legally protected in Minnesota. Many of the unique characteristics of calcareous fens result from the upwelling of groundwater through calcareous substrates. Because of this dependence on groundwater hydrology, calcareous fens can be affected by nearby activities or even those several miles away. Calcareous fens are fragile and may be impacted by activities within the fen, activities that affect surface water flows (e.g., stormwater flow/runoff, erosion), or activities that affect groundwater hydrology (e.g., groundwater pumping, contamination, or discharge). For more information regarding calcareous fens, please see the Calcareous Fen Fact Sheet. To minimize stormwater impacts, please refer to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency's General Principles for Erosion Prevention and Sediment Control in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual. Please note that calcareous fens are "Special Waters" Page 81 of 198 2/27/2024 10:17 AM Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment MCE #: 2024-00221 Page 3 of 6 and a buffer zone may be required. Depending on the distance to the calcareous fen(s), additional guidance may be provided below if you indicated that potential project activities include wetland impacts or groundwater impacts. If you did not correctly identify wetland or groundwater impacts as part of your project, this impact analysis may be incorrect. State -Listed Endangered or Threatened Species No state -listed endangered or threatened species have been documented in the vicinity of the project. State -Listed Species of Special Concern No state -listed species of special concern have been documented in the vicinity of the project. Federally Listed Species • The area of interest overlaps with a U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Rusty Patched Bumble Bee High Potential Zone. The rusty patched bumble bee (Bombus affinis) is federally listed as endangered and is likely to be present in suitable habitat within High Potential Zones. 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 rusty patched bumble bee may be impacted by a variety of land management activities including, but not limited to, prescribed fire, tree - removal, haying, grazing, herbicide use, pesticide use, land -clearing, soil disturbance or compaction, or use of non-native bees. If applicable, the DNR recommends reseeding disturbed soils with native species of grasses and forbs using BWSR Seed Mixes or MnDOT Seed Mixes. To ensure compliance with federal law, please conduct a federal regulatory review using the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's online Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool. Please note that all projects, regardless of whether there is a federal nexus, are subject to federal take prohibitions. The IPaC review will determine if prohibited take is likely to occur and, if not, will generate an automated letter. The USFWS RPBB guidance provides guidance on avoiding impacts to rusty patched bumble bee and a key for determining if actions are likely to affect the species; the determination key can be found in the appendix. The Natural Heritage Information System (NHIS), a collection of databases that contains information about Minnesota's rare natural features, is maintained by the Division of Ecological and Water Resources, Department of Natural Resources. The NHIS is continually updated as new information becomes available, and is the most complete source of data on Minnesota's rare or otherwise significant species, native plant communities, and other natural features. However, the NHIS is not an exhaustive inventory and thus does not represent all of the occurrences of rare features within the state. Therefore, ecologically significant features for which we have no records may exist within the project area. If additional information becomes available regarding rare features in the vicinity of the project, further review may be necessary. Page 82 of 198 2/27/2024 10:17 AM Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment MCE #: 2024-00221 Page 4 of 6 For environmental review purposes, the results of this Natural Heritage Review are valid for one year; the results are only valid for the project location and the project description provided on the cover page. If project details change or construction has not occurred within one year, please resubmit the project for review. The Natural Heritage Review does not constitute project approval by the Department of Natural Resources. Instead, it identifies issues regarding known occurrences of rare features and potential effects to these rare features. For information on the environmental review process or other natural resource concerns, you may contact your DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist. Thank you for consulting us on this matter, and for your interest in preserving Minnesota's rare natural resources. Sincerely,] Jim Drake Jim Drake Natural Heritage Review Specialist James.F.Drake@state.mn.us Links: USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool DNR Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist Contact Info https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/eco/ereview/erp_regioncontacts.html Page 83 of 198 2/27/2024 10:17 AM Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment MCE #: 2024-00221 Page 5 of 6 Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment Aerial Imagery With Locator Map C) 4':).15 0.3 �,,.^..^..^..^..^.J Proj'ect bourad4-zn Project Type: Development, Mixed Use Project Size (act es)' 1X31.00 inty( s ): Scott "lRt3: T11to R22 515 T 15 522 517 1 2 6 hnr,oNry!P^e«';iv p.tlnhtlivdnc. E°:,n "Ferri lore rtin:u4'x.rFh,:ali";:«n �.,; i.Ynr.,i1. v1rrario I,�,, Q or F-J.Ate,5JJ.Jeh,, cjie,,TH,..44Vu,il'00,,,t,ki4A444, Ilil„ 141r -,Ti I1 V!"'«,`""A, 4„4444',4:44.444i,EPA I lF"w, 4k:J Minneapolis 0 Page 84 of 198 2/27/2024 10:17 AM Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment MCE #: 2024-00221 Page 6 of 6 Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment USA Topo Basemap With Locator Map Canterbury Preattlettba Suka YHV Ae, iiia rA`,t t rpaee East Pam "s"¢:hoo9 YrE rtE A✓a aUk lath Avenue ,1,1 b a't as Hate, ,trek,, 0 0.15 0.3 0.6 Project Type: Development, Mixed Use Project Size ( c,rev); 't 31,00 Counnty(s): Scott "[PS: 'T115 R22 S16, 'T115 P22 S17 0.9 1.2 Mlles [tin, it) tJatiraC asrao-irrl O IIC)AA k! G^i,11IPE PPPit&VVS tvletrepoir awt COIJritad @1 1rruHsl*'i. TiThree P,Iveaes Park %.rp:rhture.t Esr, "rorraorn, t:aarrnru ;atake+%',rawht r,F raT reRoarea0sa,@o >, inc, Mh=TItB➢ASA 0r,>GS, EPA, I IPS, L.,LS Page 85 of 198 2/27/2024 10:17 AM Original message From: MN_MNIT_Data Request SHPO <DataRequestSHPO@state.mn.us> Date: 3/29/24 7:05 PM (GMT -06:00) To: Mary Newman <mnewman@wsbeng.com> Cc: Hayden Garza <HGarza@wsbeng.com> Subject: RE: Data Request: Site in Scott County for EAW document EXTERNAL EMAIL There are no previously documented aboveground historic properties or archaeological sites in the location you requested. We recommend that you also check MnSHIP and the OSA Portal, links below. Please note that this email does not constitute consultation with SHPO under state or federal law. For more information about submitting a ro ect to SHPO for review, visit our website. ht r r a ��n iir h .to/environmental-review/ P 1 I: , w n ��n m � Visit the MSI..IVP application to research aboveground historic properties. The OSA .urtal is a web viewer for archaeological site information. Please note that information on whether a site is listed in the National Register of Historic Places, Determined Eligible for Listing, or SHPO has concurred a site is eligible must be obtained from SHPO and is not currently available via the OSA Portal. Visit the Research .._a.._Sa..I_ DO._webpage for general information or the Survey and Vnventory webpap.,g for links to information about each application. Lucy Harrington Environmental Review Archaeologist I (651) 201-3283 1111 DEPARTMENT OF IADMINISTRATION SHPO Data Requests 1 Page 86 of 198 Minnesota State Historic Preservation Office 50 Sherburne Avenue, Suite 203 Saint Paul, MN 55155 datarggpestshpo@state.mn.us. Notice: This email message simply reports the results of the cultural resources database search you requested. The database search is only for previously known archaeological sites and historic properties. IN NO CASE DOES THIS DATABASE SEARCH OR EMAIL MESSAGE CONSTITUTE A PROJECT REVIEW UNDER STATE OR FEDERAL PRESERVATION LAWS — please see our Env.iiironmen all RevProgram Website for further information regarding our Environmental Review Process. Because the majority of archaeological sites in the state and many historic/architectural properties have not been recorded, important sites or properties may exist within the search area and may be affected by development projects within that area. Additional research, including field surveys, may be necessary to adequately assess the area's potential to contain historic properties or archaeological sites. Properties that are listed in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or have been determined eligible for listing in the NRHP are indicated on the reports you have received, if any. The following codes may be on those reports: NR — National Register listed. The properties may be individually listed or may be within the boundaries of a National Register District. CEF — Considered Eligible Findings are made when a federal agency has recommended that a property is eligible for listing in the National Register and MN SHPO has accepted the recommendation for the purposes of the Environmental Review Process. These properties need to be further assessed before they are officially listed in the National Register. SEF - Staff eligible Findings are those properties the MN SHPO staff considers eligible for listing in the National Register, in circumstances other than the Environmental Review Process. DOE — Determination of Eligibility is made by the National Park Service and are those properties that are eligible for listing in the National Register, but have not been officially listed. CNEF — Considered Not Eligible Findings are made during the course of the Environmental Review Process. For the purposes of the review a property is considered not eligible for listing in the National Register. These properties may need to be reassessed for eligibility under additional or alternate contexts. Properties without NR, CEF, SEF, DOE, or CNEF designations in the reports may not have been evaluated and therefore no assumption to their eligibility can be made. Integrity and contexts change over time, therefore any eligibility determination made ten (10) or more years from the date of the current survey are considered out of date and the property will need to be reassessed. If you require a comprehensive assessment of a project's potential to impact archaeological sites or historic/architectural properties, you may need to hire a qualified archaeologist and/or historian. If you need assistance with a project review, please contact Kelly Gragg-Johnson, Environmental Review Specialist @ 651-201-3285 or by email at j e ny.gragguohnsonC state.mn.u.u.s. The Minnesota SHPO Archaeology and Historic/Architectural Survey Manuals can be found at IhtIt.ps://mn.gp.v./adn..oLs r.po/udentufucatuon..evalu.uatoon/. Please subscribe to receive SHPO notices for the most current updates regarding office hours, accessing research files, or changes in submitting materials to the SHPO. To access historic resource information please visit our webpage on Using SHPO's Files. From: Mary Newman <mnewman@wsbeng.com> Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2024 10:03 AM To: MN_MNIT_Data Request SHPO <DataRequestSHPO@state.mn.us> Cc: Hayden Garza <HGarza@wsbeng.com> Subject: Data Request: Site in Scott County for EAW document You don't often get email from mfin,,mwgni wiin,; wm>,I awwlrfl ,wa sllwm, 1LgµwPwawrn._w...Y.:u:lhilLi: lim.Q≤.zwct ..o! 2 Page 87 of 198 APPENDIX C GHG Emissions Page 88 of 198 Scenario 1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Shakopee Gravel Pit EAW Backup Generator Fuel Consumption Diesel Generator Building Size Size (kW) Consumption 2 (gal.) GHG (kg) Non-Residental Land Uses (sq.ft.) Total Notes: 1 2 1,674,011 8,420 182 182 1,953 1,953 Backup generator: Assume 50 kW + 5 W per sq. ft. (source: https://woodstockpower.com/blog/how-to-size-a-generator-for-commercial-building/). Diesel consumption per hour from chart below. Monthly testing for 30 minutes (source: https://www.health.state.mn.us/facilities/regulation/engineering/docs/Iscgensets.pdf) Page 89 of 198 Scenario 1 Scenario 1 Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Shakopee Gravel Pit EAW Average daily vehicle miles traveled (ADVMT) in the vicinity of the site Category ADVMT GHG (kg) ADVMT (Average Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled) Notes: Average Daily Trips multiplied by Centerline Miles (2.0 mi) 23,156 3,733,580 Page 90 of 198 Scenario 1 ra L aJ CU Q 0 CO t Vl 0 N co w V cu O ' i C aJ aJ O i . O .c _O fa cu CD O v L cn a Cr a) 17) N a) N In a) In Commercial/Business N 0 0 0 o o O O (N r -I I� Ql lD lD N c -I Commercial C a) In a) co .C a) U, a) T C co a) tTuo C in Page 91 of 198 0 co C a, u cn O a) (f0 V a) a) Q. 0 fa N Y 0 W fG a) 0 t C a o G1 fa W CU r -I � O (7 ra-. C of v fa N U, C O E aJ R Emission Factor C 4O GJ C C 0 C C O E a Data Source Solid Waste Generation rn LO. CO O O O O O L00 N M -I IMen f) L L00 11 I� O N 1.0 t0 ' t0 .--i to N O d OO N Lf) M M rl N 4j t C I 6 C C C N O O hou D ,--I N l^t0 O O N L) rI N ' N N .i lD r -I lD t0 N m m L 0 L > o C ro L C 0 >' O VI C O Y E 7, >. C .7j- O - to E 42, = LC) C CI) of O @ Co "6 t).01:10 tri C ^ N Y O of N O of C C N a, o\o 0 C O co;csi O O m C v o C h bA a 3 a, >` 0 0 U, > oa —. Co a) •E as. P V C 3 C CL) y ea aJ CU LL r0 a, 4—, ns E cu O a) a; O E ro-0 l v 4-, O in Q of _ vii Z tD O O N 0 0 C7 0 C a) y a, U) 0 C Zs C LL C 0 a) > O C r6 rts O C a) (U V) C O (6 N a) 4-' ro r0 t U a, a, a) +, (13 V) a, N El) ro I- a --I N a, r6 H N U O N co co c -I Co a) O C 0 Co a > 0 bA co a� U a, ro N O. t O 4 0 J > +' O U U a) 0 Co 3 a' co O v C r6 O Co O Co i - i O �' a, u v O c ro v0 0 U • L) E D u -0 a) L O O O O �� u N O O N ns i -6 L _ LL 4- C O -O >, 0 113 _ M1• O 4— i Co i LLJ '} a, C Q O O U 2 to C CC by 0 I_ rn 0 .7) < - N N o E 0 r,„ro N E O 4, NLi) 'u cn ro O -0 Q N 0 a, c_.) +� C7 O a, � d L in O 2 0 a, O m t 0_ N — 0 a) co C O C E o w a) a) 0 0 aO, E v v U v g tiA U, C V) �) OL i m a, N N i N N n3 O O O w Q N a -, N r6 %—iof \C • ro ro N O r!) U aJ a1 \ ro C E v a) v c o •0 tCCO i� rL�U U. a) ate+ N Q O a, E r' O o > a) O +, a, ro ln uo la E N N Clp t c Co • _ ro = X U +� O -O w O U > ni N = -0a, 1 �' Q ro L E ce_c O E 3 ., 0 C a) U a)v rro .41 o ro 4-E5., O U, 3 _ 40 0 L a) rn 0.. C as rci O > _ ft o_ a, 0 0. a) ` a, c� no s Co O ra 3 0. O E ,- 2 3 U N w O ,O u•_ O U K V U C\ To a1 cc N C aD Q ri C ro O O O t U U N N 3 NN •E a, Q N 3 a O 1 a)__- 41 \ a, .....- ro u ZA u w u a, O 7 0_ 7 O- 7 p0 _O L/1O N t v)) c U a, U 0 V) r6 Co C O N E a, .(U U ro a, C o_ .(U 4-, (13 4-, C E a, U Q 3 U, t a, C a, U a) 0 U a, cc CO LU a, C Q a, C C a) a, E O U, C 0 E a, O a, U O N E Co CO O 0_ a, O U, Ol r -I O N O Q ea a, ea C E a, Co m Co Q Q U cc W 2 a) s T a, N U' a, U 0 O_ C 0 0 4- N M tD Page 92 of 198 APPENDIX D Traffic Study Page 93 of 198 REPORT To: Michael Kerski, Director of Planning and Development City of Shakopee From: Matt Pacyna, PE, Principal Transportation Collaborative & Consultants, LLC Date: April 12, 2024 Subject: Shakopee Gravel Development Traffic Study INTRODUCTION TC2 has completed a traffic study for the proposed Gravel Development in the City of Shakopee. The subject site, shown in Figure 1, is in the southwest quadrant of the Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) and 17th Avenue / Eagle Creek Boulevard (CR 16) intersection. The main objectives of the study are to quantify current area operations, identify transportation impacts associated with proposed development, and recommend improvements, if necessary, to ensure safe and efficient operations for all users. This study supports the transportation section of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) being completed for the development. The following study assumptions, methodology, and findings are offered for consideration. ,,,niqup;alwr� d�� Figure 1 Project Location um III!"II'II�Nti4,iS�lill www.transportationcollaborative.com Page 94 of 198 Shakopee Gravel Development Traffic Study EXISTING CO DITIO S April 12, 2024 Page 2 Existing conditions were reviewed within the study area to establish current operations and help determine impacts associated with the proposed development. The evaluation of existing conditions included collecting traffic volumes, observing roadway characteristics, analyzing intersection capacity, and reviewing crash history, which are described in the following sections. Traffic Volumes The following intersections were included as part of the study process. • Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) and Eagle Creek Boulevard/Dean Lakes Boulevard • Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) and 17th Avenue/ Eagle Creek Boulevard (CR 16) • Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) and Thrush Street* • Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) and Valley View Road** • 17th Avenue (CR 16) and Independence Drive • 17th Avenue (CR 16) and Philipp Drive* • 17th Avenue (CR 16) and Emblem Way* • Eagle Creek Boulevard (CR 16) and Dean Lake Trail / Kinlock Way • Thrush Street and Independence Drive • Thrush Street and Hackberry Lane • Thrush Street and Archer Street / Dahlia Drive * Indicates 13 hours of data (6 a.m. to 7 p.m.) ** Data was provided from the County Intersection turning movement and pedestrian/bicyclist counts were collected on Wednesday, January 24, 2024, at most of the study intersections. The counts were collected from 7 to 9 a.m. and 4 to 6 p.m., which coincides with the peak activity of the adjacent roadways. Note that 13 -hour counts (i.e., 6 a.m. to 7 p.m.) were collected at several intersections to help identify the potential future need for a traffic control change (i.e., a signal warrant). Existing count data at the Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) and Valley View Road intersection was obtained from the Intersection Analysis Memorandum, dated May 22, 2023. Note that the collected peak hour traffic volumes are approximately 10 to 15 percent lower than historical area counts, which is primarily related to post-covid travel behavior changes. Roadway Characteristics Observations were conducted within the study area to identify various roadway characteristics such as roadway geometry, functional classification, multimodal facilities, speed limits, and traffic controls. The following information provides a general overview of key roadways within the study area. • Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) - a four -lane divided Minor Arterial roadway with left- and right -turn lanes at key intersections; multi -use trails are present on both sides of the roadway except the west side between 17th Avenue and Hwy 169; the posted speed limit is 45- and 55 -mph to the north and south of 17th Avenue / Eagle Creek Boulevard (CR 16), respectively. • 17th Avenue / Eagle Creek Boulevard (CR 16) - a four -lane divided Minor Arterial roadway with left- and right -turn lanes at key intersections; multi -modal facilities (i.e., trail or sidewalk) are present on both sides of the roadway except the north side between Philipp Way and Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83); the posted speed limit varies from 40 -mph west of Independence Drive to 45 -mph between Independence Drive and Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) to 55 -mph east of Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83). Page 95 of 198 Shakopee Gravel Development Traffic Study April 12, 2024 Page 3 • Eagle Creek Boulevard (west of Mystic Lake Drive / CR 83) - a four -lane undivided Collector roadway that widens near Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) to accommodate turn lanes; a multi -use trail is along the north side of the roadway; the posted speed limit is generally 50 -mph, but transitions to 35 -mph near Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83). • Dean Lakes Boulevard - a four -lane divided Collector roadway with left- and right -turn lanes that transitions to a three -lane local roadway east of Dean Lakes Trail; multi -modal facilities (i.e., trail or sidewalk) are along both sides of the roadway; the posted speed limit is 35 -mph. • Dean Lakes Trail - a three -lane undivided Collector roadway with select turn lanes; a multi -use trail is along the east side of the roadway; the posted speed limit is 35 -mph. • Independence Drive - a two-lane undivided Collector roadway; multi -modal facilities (i.e., trail or sidewalk) are along both sides of the roadway; the posted speed limit is 35 -mph. • Valley View Road - a two-lane undivided Collector roadway; multi -modal facilities (i.e., trail or sidewalk) are along both sides of the roadway, except the south side from approximately 1/4 -mile east of Independence Drive to Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83); the posted speed limit is 35 -mph. • Thrush Street - a two-lane undivided local roadway; sidewalk is along both sides of the roadway, except the north side between Independence Drive and 250' west of Archer Street; the posted speed limit is 30 -mph. All other study area roadways are two-lane local facilities with sidewalk along at least one side of the roadway. The intersections along Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) at Eagle Creek Boulevard / Dean Lakes Boulevard and 171" Avenue / Eagle Creek Boulevard (CR 16) are signalized; all other study intersections are unsignalized with side -street stop control. Existing geometrics, traffic controls, and traffic volumes in the study area are shown in Figure 2. Intersection Capacity Intersection capacity was evaluated using Synchro/SimTraffic Software (version 11), which incorporates methods outlined in the Highway Capacity Manual, 6th Edition. The software is used to develop calibrated models that simulate observed traffic operations and identify key metrics such as intersection Level of Service (LOS) and queues. These models incorporate collected traffic, pedestrian, and bicyclist volumes, traffic controls, and driver behavior factors. Existing signal timing obtained from MnDOT was incorporated into the analysis. Level of Service (LOS) quantifies how an intersection is operating. Intersections are graded from LOS A through LOS F, which corresponds to the average delay per vehicle values shown. An overall intersection LOS A though LOS D is generally considered acceptable in the Twin Cities. LOS A indicates the best traffic operation, while LOS F indicates an intersection where demand exceeds capacity. Level of Service Average Delay / Vehicles Stop, Yield, and Roundabout Intersections Signalized Intersections C 15 to 25 seconds 20 to 35 seconds 5 secdn Iro ulmi imiuiim Ilol Hol Hor to sewn N�illvui �iiL II b ,1 Page 96 of 198 Legend AM Peak Hour Volume PM Peak Hour Volume Estimated ADT Volume Traffic Signal Stop Sign II „ d' iI I�VVhI'vr lilrll I. 10,200 ,III I��I'� II YIYI iiiiiiiiiiiiml III' iiiu�� uul �� , II (IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII 11111111 "' IVIVIVIiIYI ufl i� II"'"Y I^^ 1u IIIP a'llil„qp,,,,,,W„Vl IIIIbIIIIIhiVUNI IIIIIIII ^II � II 11IIIp,,,,„III, ,,,, „IIi�NI l .....VIII •,,IN,I� I � IIIIIIII i 290 (316) 64 (107) 00 r; O, LOCO 89 (40) 6 (2) 3) „ ��rvmmn�iYIW�N'M'N�WIII�i' �IiINVlluu" 70 (35) 4- 8 (8) 2 (2) ilir IIIIIIIIIIIII hIuI��IIII�II11111°IN�IIY11IIwffiillrVI iliilliVllVl I 911111111111iiiiiiliiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiillllll��lll,III l�llllllllluuu uuuuuuuuuum' uuullllllllll, llll,lu dll w9W!!!!II!IIWIIOVI>~1`i11111111IIIII!II 000 —00 0 (0) - 419 (381) 3 (0) i 11°'°'w"4NII91191191191ler r11rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr,"(CI "'+' rlfr (iin rr s///rm ,uu r�r 2 2) 357 (538) 0 (0) „gal t_ 101 (155) +-21 (19) <iiTTr CO CV 0 0 CO CONS r mr, I�(6i'iil, Il l l gtttt!!!!!!i!I��II 'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!14v W f"' n�I N,1 rI IYI II! '' �\� I�IWIIIIIII I%II SWIM a,w��dVulpmfllllwNlN��" "'IIIIIIIIII PI1111�(IIIIII !'%� I 'iV III Ih IIPh, II'VVWI 1111111111111 L,. riiu�r 1 111111, I �I�IIIIIjllll9' r�llllll""'" 11111i/0/,,r„1GllllllG/iiiii(iiiiiii/////G/ri(e/0r0, 10,300 oYr i9�kY� III'I''' J�Ilfu� IIIII!,"„„„„„„„„„„„"'„,"" ��„'��„u'''� ,,,ullllrrrrrrrrrrrrrn Illlllll,uiiiliiiiil� IIIIIIIIII"""' rli °'I�)A�dT15�I�Wi�llll�� ll„ 4n „mI/////11JJJJJJJJJf JJllrr//r' " liiiiiirrriinm run riimllll//lI„rmiiin ,,,, rraarm° rrrrlluatatattr , r a r e l' !Illlllllllll r,r ,wn6�iiIYYIVIViulululYlVIwIIXI Ylilli°mi, "1i� VIMIIIIuIVuplw iuVVuulVm 0@II'Y1 illiltVIVIVIVI,edl' 1,300 'II ilr �'ulli'ill�'IIII��IY I�IIPillliiilllllll °�^I( lil wmWWu�Wim'W ml �o!!}wro.mwumlum "' III IOi 36 (29) 12) z� Illlllllllllllllllllllluo 16 (36) 233 7 (1) 50 (33)1 (3) + �ODC5) 50 (43) - 233 (398) 10 (19) 10,500 11, olio III VI •1 ')nn 2 2) 15 (57) 2 (2) Valley View Rd I�IM��IVh�R�� XIItlINuuuuuuuuum "'lllllllllllllllllllll � om,wu ICIVII'''��V�IIIIIYIjj Ii lOlUn iii00111111111001111I �,plp,'," loiull IiII,IV,, „ „ IIIIIIIIIIII p u Iququll,^ puuu auwu wl IIII 0 II II' uuuuuuuuwuuuuw ,,,,,,,000000000„)))))))))))))1 llai'''YIIYI uuu" IIII IIIOIIIIIIIIIIuw' eii' O II�III Y'I'llll'f IIIIIII,II, L(III''illl'li„ q' hI IVIVr 'n VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I �lol" � IIIuIIIIIIIIIii,�Pl �tim��99��p��IYIIYIV� L. Illlllllllillll�lliiil � �IIIVIIIIII 111111I1iu IiP„�' Xd�q��u'X, u IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII19111IIIIIIIIIIIIII uulliiilullfl��'�''" 'I' ('I'I'I' ��II ° '" 'r��''r��IIIIYIIwullmu°°` err II Illlllilllllll� Y umll,l'l I"pll'ii V,° ,.I" mIIINIiiliilil�lliIYOiIIIIIIIII�IIh�,,,,,,, 'Il+" II Ruu c� co I I;, „i ruI IV i'all�ll �II NuuuuglYl'"' Ilollw �,� 4111111111111111111111uIV,ull dpllllll �I WpulYpllpy uiiiiiil" uullll�� lh VVIVI NIIW III'dldl rr',III �'Idmll tlpVVll,,;,,IIIIIIVI�IIIIIIVuIIIIIYUVIYIIIIIIId ^ II uuuuuuuuulllld,, (IIII, o' VIII .,I MII^I^^IIII ,� o I""' llllllllllll IIV II � VV tl�V191 IIII I IIIIV�I "V �pIIIIIIV VIV III 111111 "III .��, IIIIIIII IIWVII 'i IIi�„�.��I�� ,,, I'."; III1116��dtl IIIIIIII IIII IIII I CD O) LL') CO O N CO N CO CO N 6) 4.1,1 226 (140) 160 (208) 35 (33) - 61 (32) 1 7 (0) 9) 0, ICY) LO LO CO LO N CO 80 (41) 8 18) z> 56 (72) 73 (67) 458 (400) 4-2 (14) IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII� tononnonmulg ononn000nom pluuuuuuum m Y, iiTTr N— CO 71- CO 001111111111111111111111 HU 2 (7) 4- 0 ) 6 (2) 0 aiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVlp4� i III P. iTTr CO 0 CO CO OC0 Y�'IV'�V "'-'d�N'll� ��i61YIliIIiIVIVIYId A2 Existing Conditions TCShakopee Gravel DewJlopmentTraffic Study h6il!!!!!!!!!IIII,ijidiiVIVVIII I.I I I�:q'�IliVlil� 'I!!!U„ IIIIIIIIIIII Illlllliliilllplll°""^'(r:.u2f 18 6Nl Figure 2 Shakopee Gravel Development Traffic Study April 12, 2024 Page 5 For side -street stop -controlled (SSS) intersections, special emphasis is given to providing an estimate for the level of service of the side -street approach. Traffic operations at an unsignalized intersection with side -street stop control can be described in two ways. First, consideration is given to the overall intersection level of service, which takes into account the total number of vehicles entering the intersection and the capability of the intersection to support the volumes. Second, it is important to consider the delay on the minor approach. Since the mainline does not have to stop, most delay is attributed to the side -street approaches. It is typical of intersections with higher mainline traffic volumes to experience high -levels of delay (i.e., poor levels of service) on the side -street approaches, but an acceptable overall intersection level of service during peak hour conditions. Results of the existing intersection capacity analysis, shown in Table 1, indicates that all study intersections currently operate at an overall LOS C or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. In addition, all side -street approaches and/or driveways operate at LOS D or better during the peak hours. All queues stay within the existing turn lanes provided, while 95th percentile queues at most side -street approaches range from 50 to 100 feet (i.e., two to four vehicles) during the peak periods. Thus, no significant intersection capacity issues are present within the study area. Analysis results showing the average delays and queue lengths are available upon request. Table 1 Existing Intersection Capacity Intersection Traffic Control Level of Service (Delay) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Mystic Lake Dr (CR 83) / Eagle Creek Blvd / Dean Lakes Blvd SIGNAL C (28 sec) C (27 sec) Mystic Lake Dr (CR 83) / 17th Ave / Eagle Creek Blvd (CR 16) SIGNAL C (27 sec) C (25 sec) Mystic Lake Dr (CR 83) / E. Gravel Drwy SSS A / B (10 sec) A / B (12 sec) Mystic Lake Dr (CR 83) / Thrush St SSS A / B (10 sec) A / B (12 sec) Mystic Lake Dr (CR 83) / Valley View Rd SSS A / B (11 sec) A / B (14 sec) 17th Ave (CR 16) / Independence Drive SSS A / A (8 sec) A / B (13 sec) 17th Ave (CR 16) / Philipp Drive SSS A / A (6 sec) A / B (10 sec) 17th Ave (CR 16) / Emblem Way / N. Gravel Drwy SSS A / A (4 sec) A / A (3 sec) Eagle Creek Blvd (CR 16) / Dean Lake Trl / Kinlock Way SSS A / A (7 sec) A / B (12 sec) Thrush St / Independence Dr SSS A / A (6 sec) A / A (8 sec) Thrush St / Hackberry Ln SSS A / A (4 sec) A / A (7 sec) Thrush St / Archer St / Dahlia Dr SSS A / A (5 sec) A / A (8 sec) Thrush St / Ivy St / Dahlia Dr SSS A / A (6 sec) A / A (4 sec) SSS - Side -Street -Stop Page 98 of 198 Shakopee Gravel Development Traffic Study April 12, 2024 Page 6 Crash History A review of historical crash data was completed at the study intersections to identify any trends or hotspots. Five (5) years of crash history was reviewed within the study area, which included data from January 2019 through December 2023. The crash data was obtained using MnDOT's MnCMAT2 crash mapping tool. Intersection crash data is summarized in Table 2. Table 2 Crash Rate Summary Study Intersection Total Crashes Crash Rates Severity Rates Actual Ave. Critical Actual Ave. Critical CR 83 / Eagle Creek Blvdo> 53 1.040 0.608 0.900 0.000 0.963 3.710 CR 83 / CR 16 / 17th Avec') 48 1.009 0.548 0.830 0.000 1.024 3.960 CR 83 / Thrush St(2) 0 0.000 0.138 0.360 0.000 0.350 4.230 CR 83 / Valley View Rd(2) 15 0.631 0.138 0.360 8.409 0.350 4.010 CR 16 / 17th Ave / Independence Dr(2) 4 0.178 0.138 0.360 0.000 0.350 4.180 CR 16 / 17th Ave / Philipp Dr(2) 1 0.051 0.138 0.380 0.000 0.350 4.590 CR 16 / 17th Ave / Emblem Way(2) 0 0.000 0.138 0.390 0.000 0.350 4.750 CR 16 / Dean Lakes / Kinlock Way(2) 12 0.524 0.138 0.360 0.000 0.350 4.120 Thrush St / Independence Dr(2) 2 0.252 0.138 0.540 0.000 0.350 9.340 Thrush St / Hackberry Ln(2) 0 0.000 0.138 0.940 0.000 0.350 25.050 Thrush St / Archer St / Dahlia Drm 0 0.000 0.138 1.010 0.000 0.350 28.290 (1) Signal (2) Side -Street Stop During the analysis period, there were a total of 135 reported crashes at the study intersections. Most occurred along Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) at Eagle Creek Boulevard / Dean Lakes Boulevard, 17th Avenue / Eagle Creek Boulevard (CR 16), or Valley View Road, as well as the Eagle Creek Boulevard (CR 16) and Dean Lakes Trail / Kinlock Way intersection. Of these crashes, the predominant crash types were rear -end or angle / left -turn (i.e., 75% to 90%). At these crash frequency levels, the number of crashes that have occurred at these locations are significantly higher than intersections with similar characteristics. In addition, the Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) and Valley View Road intersection has a severity rate higher than intersections with similar characteristics. These signalized locations are candidates for potential safety mitigation, including larger signal heads and/or signal/retroreflective backplates. In the case of the Valley View Road intersection, a traffic signal is planned to be installed in the summer of 2024, which should mitigate the current crash trend. At the Eagle Creek Boulevard (CR 16) and Dean Lakes Trail / Kinlock Way intersection, a potential access modification or traffic control change could be considered. Further discussion with County/City staff should occur to determine if/when any of these mitigation strategies should be implemented to address the crash issues identified. No other study intersections have any existing crash issues from a frequency or severity perspective. Page 99 of 198 Shakopee Gravel Development Traffic Study PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT April 12, 2024 Page 7 The proposed development, shown in Figure 3, encompasses the existing Shakopee Gravel Pit area generally in the southwest quadrant of the Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) and 17th Avenue / Eagle Creek Boulevard (CR 16) intersection. The overall site is approximately 145 acres and is planned to include a range of uses, including residential, commercial retail, office, and public open space. A new water treatment plant (SPUC) is also planned for the southeast portion of the overall development, but has limited to no impact on traffic activity associated with it. For purposes of this study, the following land uses were assumed to be included as part of the proposed development. • 225 Single -Family Residential Units • 100 Townhome Residential Units • 540 Apartment Residential Units • 75,000 SF of Commercial Retail (including a 44,000 SF Grocery Store) • 100,000 SF of Commercial Office/Medical Office Access to the site is planned to be provided via five locations. Primary access will be via 17th Avenue (CR 16) across from Emblem Way and along Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) at the existing Gravel Pit access. Secondary access will be provided to 17th Avenue (CR 16) via Philipp Avenue and Thrush Street via Hackberry Lane or Archer Street. For purposes of this study, all roadways were assumed to be full - access, allowing all movements. Additional discussion on site access is provided later in this report. Figure 3 Proposed Site Plan i I IIIIII�II IIII pp �� mm000li IMOODI 11111 AO' "Or. 61:fl:: rh�tz iA�„T5y TAR, SA v^e��c„�rmPesrr�.mu. 141.1 /WS wTRI, OWN, PLAN, Page 100 of 198 Shakopee Gravel Development Traffic Study T -.FFIC FORECASTS April 12, 2024 Page 8 Traffic forecasts were developed for year 2030 conditions, which represents the expected full -build out of the proposed development. The forecasts include information regarding area infrastructure changes, assumed adjacent developments, general background growth, and trip generation from the proposed development. Forecasts were developed for both year 2030 no build and build conditions, with the build condition including the proposed development. Infrastructure Changes As noted earlier, the Mystic Lake Boulevard (CR 83) and Valley View Road intersection is planned to be signalized in the summer of 2024. Therefore, this traffic control change was assumed to be in place as part of the year 2030 condition. In addition, all signal timing was assumed to be optimized under future conditions, given signal timing is typically updated every three (3) to five (5) years. Note that the planned roadways/connections within the proposed development are expected to have minimal impact on existing area travel patterns and the new roadways will primarily serve the proposed development. Adjacent Developments Based on discussions with project staff, several adjacent developments were identified that have been approved or are expected to be partially constructed and/or completed by the year 2030. The purpose of incorporating adjacent development is to best represent future conditions, understand future infrastructure needs/timing, and help agencies plan for and implement appropriate improvements to support the area as it develops over time. A summary of the assumed adjacent developments are illustrated in Figure 4. Using these assumptions and past traffic study information, the trip generation estimates shown in Table 3 were developed for the adjacent developments using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition. These trips were routed to the adjacent roadway network based on their respective traffic studies or existing area travel patterns and are included as part of the year 2030 no build traffic forecasts. Table 3 Adjacent Development Trip Generation Summary Adjacent Development (ITE Code) Size AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out In Out A— Summerland Place (210) 175 units 31 91 104 61 1,650 A— Summerland Place (220) 300 units 29 91 96 57 2,022 B — Shakopee Master Plan (220)* 200 units 15 49 51 30 1,078 B — Shakopee Master Plan (822)* 25,000 SF 28 19 66 66 1,090 C - Valley Crest (210) 100 units 18 52 59 35 944 D - Arbor Bluff (210)** 400 units 70 210 237 139 3,772 Total 2030 Adjacent Development Trips 191 512 613 388 10,556 * Includes a 20% multi -use reduction to account for internal capture within the Master Plan Area ** Assumes 50% of the overall 800 -units will be built by year 2030. Page 101 of 198 TC Legend A Summerland Place B Shakopee Master Plan C Valley Crest D Arbor Bluff IIII,'; IIIII�I�1u ru IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I;I'I� IIII Ili'I�!;� I I II IP'III' kIIIIII VIIIIN lmili" "'lulu Ilno, III' o' °'"'Iulull"IIIIIm lu IIW7YNN"fJ ;prsp4�- W � y. )H )) 4. @VIII!Iv6NllllIIIIIIIIIIIIJVVWWVI IIIIIII,IIIII I',WIII' Iti l�'Put 911�II 'II'IIII�(�I wlwlm�m,Im mN ll'Iilill m111111 NN�I'III IIIII 'mp^I' Il�ilplll'IVIup81u' I!P II iiil�liiWWWM 11 I�IIINu 'VIIII' IIIIIIpIIII � � INNIIIIIIII lil"Iil' III uuI'Iiiilll' ,,,,IIIII � IuiIYItlIIIII'III;I,,,,,"umul uuuu 1 III I, Iu oll III �I IIII I I I I IIII IIII I I I".....'I......' ,,,,,, uumulll l III IIIIIIII�NIIIIVIuliul+'°"""""" YI I III IIIIIIIIII I VI uullllln IIII u�Nl IIIIIII �tlmll I I IIIIIIII IIIIIIIII IIIIIII uullllll�nh�lll�� NwI ulu � Idld IIIIIII I'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII � �,„II' III Illulluuuu 'IIu' � IIIIIIII IIIIIIII' u yy Illuu I Y "IIIIIIIIIII 1� �uIIIIWII�I A u IIII I III '1141111„ VIII III Iliiumuu, JI I II' 'II lI,IIIII IflN�RIWI Id 1 IW IIII^ I� lifiiiiiii' IIVII VIII I IIII IIIp�II IIII,, I" II 119 IIII IIIIIIIIIII , IIII�0611'r-°�I1611h1'IVViijl"'III'N�ifllllilllilllllllll'I "'111 NNIIIIIIIViuI �Ifdllu"" """""" VII�VIII pp �� ,,,1/ll��rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr �� II�IIIIIIIIiI11111�!luuu',uliiillll I II IIII l y 0) ////, IIIIIrrr,,,,,,,,, J,r-,,, rr i;,, ylliipwll!!!IIIIWIIOV11Y11Yllllllllllllllll ^^4"11411141llY11" ��y� IVI�16NNNI ,,1111„!lrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrlrrr' ,,r ,,, ;;;;;rrrrr- r0q;J9lllllllmil0/ 1/ mmo/qi ,,ir ,I�^^IVII IIVti'IIYIVIV'.... !"II^^16161IIIIIIIIIW '6V flea 11111111 II h��ll iiiiVYiirliiliilllP9fiIlls IIIIIii ,III"' " I � rlj IIIIllfll�fV1 j)`Igti�uli��fi��011wlrllllliiiiillll; I � ' ,II, iir�iiil„, ,i„nl ; ,,,;rr,,,,,J or, b,,,,,,uu,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Ilia,,,,,;,,;,„0/VIII / w,' w„ r ,+,,,1,'111 V " I "N",m B IIIIIII /%';;;;;;,t6h(IINVNIIViliiliii ; ,,,r19111wN1141141Iluloiiiul ^i'11111111VHIIIIIIIIIII IIII II 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111110 IVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII^I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII iimfl liiiill110iiiiii iiiiiiiiiilii0000lu VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII "wl"W N' W WWWllllllllllllllllll IIVII VVI 11 v011111111111111111111111ryII 111111llm Illlumuu I'I" ll�iil, 00 IV IV IiIIIII0 I I , „//,',0,,rv,,,ruamrrrA R!!!u m III Q rrrrr�;,,, �VI,,,r ,,/,"";,"., „, „,,,1001 rI „ ul ,,, Ilt((((IIIIII III, -' ' III I I14fC�NItl�99�11 llllIIII1 llll6 II "' r 1161VII�IIE��V�I� 10 I �, �IIIIIII�111'IIIVYII VIIII p.1..1 Ilulul rill III II IIPIPIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIwII IIIIIII 1161 I III III III III ,IIIII„ 111111 I �II III n hlllll IIII IIII �h IIWIVIVII �Illli IWVII III''illlllll0141"'uVVIVIVI'u�'mliV� � RI161III"i��"""1 III111 'IIIIINI�IVu' III",uVl ulu umu'III1111111 0 0 uIIV11Im ^ IIIV�IIIp^^'1II1111111 III IIIIIII iiiiiii ^ ^^IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIII IIpIiu VIII 'IIIIII" ullllllll dlullll Nlu mllllllllllllllllllll "�� oII II Yuul 'r II IW,II II I6u'Iulldlllll'j III III III IIIIIIIII III uI111Iu1 oJI11Vd plq',I,,,'IIJII IIUI11.u'Iiiiil1111111111161��. ulll'"'' I IIIIIIIIII' Idlluluulllllllllllllllllllli Illuuuulll�ll;;;l1' uuul IIIi111 pIIIhIullulll 1 Ili IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIInI IIIIII I rruiaJJJJJJJJIIIIIIUI �raa� //// //r, IIII„„„„IIII „,,,rrrrr' 6fi1))(IIIIIIIIIIII�I lllllllllllll��JJ/,r"" %//iq ll/ii%l��lllJ,I ,��uu�r err VIIII„I IIIuu IIII�'u� ,N ,I" IIIIVi 111l Illwul ,II",gVuuuuuVVuuIVuIVIV IIw Ii;I,11 III ��w I�N�IIIIIJII' 9luI iYIIJIIIVIIIIII;uiV kIIkI'^ Illli "il„„ III m4WVv II II�'ll6p u11 IP'IIIIIIIiuI ' „yPpl;; IuuIIIIu1lINll�°�IpIII'„V IIuiI rvrruuuuuuuuuWff I III^IIIIIIIIIII�1�6 IIIIVIIVI9VIVIVIVP°I""" 14�WIuluquwulu','Rill'llll d,I;,INI^ ,III1Y4VII;II III III ullllllllll IIIIIIIII ,,;;,,1111,,,1 111111 III �INIMfl�Ii�� IwIIIIII0IIIIII�'I,'I,�cli ;IIII I V°OIVIVIV91VI9!II'II"IIIIuIVIVI Ijll� II 6dliiVl� jIIIIII IN I 1111111 "' I A@IA III IpIIli1mIII IIIV VNNNI"ul 'IIII ��II�� I"IIIII uuu�lumdl "IIIIIWluoul(I INJI I'IINI"I'��'; ". 'tNl IIiIIN »�„IIIIIIIIII. �IBd� � I III "IIIIIIIIII V I�II�IIIIIIIIIIlI1"Ii1p„IIo�111' IIIIIIII,'„IY'; p°u �Illliiiii19Nd,, II I I I' 6��1 lu,. wuIIIII�ILpi II.. "IIII�II�IIIIIIIIIVI, Wilii il�lii , 1, „,//dl/J/ �1V!IIIIII III"" I IIII'�N��IIII'IWIIM�,Y �� 11'1 11�Illp; IIIIIGVii 11111111 11» !u ��1111"II I luilllllilll'I?III'iill 1111111111111111111111111 IIII uuuu I 11" ,INIIII, II dulll II IIII II IIIIIIIII IIII uuullllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I III I II IIIIIIIIIII I II III u I IIIII!1 III i III Vuu uuuuVl u 1 Iuu1111 IIu uluuu III VIII IIII,;�IIII Iw11 u1pul II"' III u II IIJJd III 'l" V' 616111 ' IVVI V 'II II I' u I PI p�pI�I 6 ' I IIu VIA I I II IINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIp 91111III'w1111,1u'II'Ir1IlIIIVIVr!IYIVIVIWuollllgl m11111111 II IIIVVIII�uIIl1IlIIIIIIIIIIIIVIVmiI 1p,1111'I�oIVI I HO I" puaINNNNNI II I I I IV PI Vh41 II II IIII VII jylylVIVIIIVVNVWNNNVW° ll' I II u I dd'I IIII' ' IIVIVII�II�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIII NIIIIIIVuuuYVWIIIII";I,,,u1111, 1i IIIII I N IIVVVIW� WI RI IloIollullolr"IIIIIII VI IIII VI,1 II IIWI lu mI I;,unuu duulllllllllll uu N 111111 V V VW; gw'w'II^ IIIIIVIIM jpd'I"° YIIIIIIIiPIIIuIIlIuV111161611VIVIIII I II'' W I' IIIIIIIIIII „'II I p I Illhlll I I VIYIYIVI I Im"I IIIII IIY" I 111919 I' k NwI" YV JII611ul11 "'1111 dII11IIIII INWNNIIIIIIId I pIIpIIpIV �uIIuIIIIYI "IINIIiluum81111 IIIIIIIIIII �luutl'lio luoloudlVllll'lull �IIIYYIYIIIIu uh o��N��IIN�INNN lull I I dul 1 1 1 1 1 1 �IIIVIVIV� IIIIIIIIIIiiIpIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIVV,11) IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II 'I�'II IIIII I IIII III ""VGW II " I I I I I IIIIIIIIIIrII 1 1 IIIII Iuum 11 11111IiIIIVuVUVVVVuVV'uVVI'ulli uu11 uuu u' ^II, I I IIII I r I Iuuuuuumulllll"r"' „IIIII Vu »uuuu I� IIIliliuuuuuuVlilVd�IdiViiIP� u III�^I� IVduu' ql VIA I IIIII' u161uuuuuuuuuuuuuul'IIIdI I6'II um6lrllll I 'III VI �^I III IIIIIIII I'vvVVU�IIM III IIdIIVIIVIIVduuuum II^161�IVIVIVIVI161161161161161IVIIVIVIVk"81I61INII^IO 1161 III IV d 1 "II III HMO, �"IIIII IIIIL yIII III III IINIIIIN IIIIIIIIIIII11111111 1111111111 NNIY �NdIIIIIIIIIII �1 mI' IIVIIh'iII IIIIIIIW�NIIIIIIIII IuoullluVVuIVIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVuuIIIIIIIIIIII II IIVIIi V I IIu1 I " IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII �� llm ull.Iluuuuuluuuuuluuullumlrl,l,l,l,l,d!L Ir1., .__ 1�1�I�I�Id�u I YI IIIIIIIIIIIIuYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYIYI 'IIIIVIVIII�II,I 16 IIIIIII 6111111 Iluil, II III IIIIIIIII IIIIYII,111 II'Yd ulll a^1u6��1i�'CIII II"IIo a 'III III IIIII 1� ""IVI'IiIIIIjIViiilllllllllll III ' 9 III I' I ' IIII n ' III IIII 'uu II 111Wuy iV� uppui11911I1111111 VPWIVIIV I II llim m IVIVI tl41I IIIIIVIvi IIII II IIIIIIIIY' INIIII uWIW IuuuuuuuuuV�� W IVI I I IIIV IIIII, Yn' IIII �� IVI' ul ^^II^^II^^II^^ IYII'VPII�I'"Y'%'i'rllnudlliiiuull Iq I olllll IIIIIIII II I illllu III IIII IIIVIWIIjWiiill'ill';'UIiiIIV1VIIIIV � lllllIlI IuII ul°IIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlIIiiIIu 111111111111 111111 II�"Ilaulul ml� VII,IIIIIgllll II II;III,�I"'' IIIII»I I'lll'IIVuII�II II A IIR�III�fff(il'V itimmt Iu a 11iI IP ii41t 1I II111I111111N1I , mull ,, lieftmillp InM6IljtellinsiI 'III eltioralakro " w'� "" a l IIIIIIII IIIIIII, Iry V V uiiiiw00 ImIY"""1VI*'wu,.. rl✓� dI Im I "IIII J 4 II.WONIIIIIIyfI l6uuull40,0 ,'"""�''IVJI,dI Valle View Rd '141111' V II 1'1111110 1111111 I p I;pI�II aw��iNNI�N��II' IIIU1h1riVII' ,„ "IIII "Ig1111�IIIIIIIIIIIIII Vi I�uiiuuuuuulllNlVl6l IIIIIIII lUI IIIiIm 1 ,," »111 IIIIuu»» 'oulll 111.. "» �nmllvu' Imi,tagillillllllllllll////1 m��I,llI1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 , uuuuttl1111l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I »uuuu li li uuuuuuuu°°I°°°°°uuuugglllllJlllll9�� IuNIIdI call"I,, lll r rllile IIII ICII NuII IUllll of iII II IIIIIIuVlllll IIIII 'I,p�llllllNH��liuhiilll11° IIVII��NIIIluliii�l!i,llII VIIIIIII IIIIIII 'IIIII AI IIII uuuul@uVulluull »»IIIII'1111'Iiiiuuulllllllllull""'Id4lillllllll"' ullpii'u;1VUVIVIIIIiI' II lY1 "IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII W '19PIII I�II'II uu11 didIIVIIIIIIII°11111 Vl'�IINw"II'IVIYIIVfIp1pIVIVIVIU„' ulluuulillllllUlllll IuVIINN„�IN�I!Illlllllllllllllv�llll II'�idiulilullull� dlplu6u�muuuuuuugpll Ill lu IIII,IIIY'IIII',''p°j;iiVuuuuuluu"igll'Iyjli�'�'I�Pliull911 dWr!111I IdIm1111pI "IIIII„ IIIliililliuml IIIII IINIIIIIIIIIWIIIII ^INIM'I�1�''I�I II I I I I I I I I I I Y'IIulVuuupuu�IIIIIIIlY11111 l IId�Iilillilld 'I'I'IIIP�llllldl' k;l'II,,I,IIIn'ti;f Y'Ii11 VIVIiIIV!IIV'IIII"";dllI' I IIm6fiM1ollrl7iuumill VUp,uu A 2 Year 2030 Adjacent Developments Shakopee Gravel DewJlomentTraffic Study Figure 4 Shakopee Gravel Development Traffic Study Background Growth April 12, 2024 Page 10 To account for general background growth in the study area, an annual growth rate of 1.5 percent was applied to the existing traffic volumes to develop year 2030 background traffic forecasts. This growth rate is based on a combination of historical ADT volumes published by MnDOT and traffic forecasts identified within various studies and the Scott County Transportation Plan. This growth rate is in addition to the adjacent developments and accounts for area growth outside of the immediate study area. Trip Generation The proposed development trip generation estimate, shown in Table 4, was developed using the ITE Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition and includes trips for typical weekday a.m. and p.m. peak hours, as well as daily. For purposes of this study, the following assumptions were leveraged: • The high -end of potential residential units was used to provide a conservative estimate. • The 100,000 SF of office space was assumed to be 60% general office / 40% medical office, which is consistent with other clinical / medical office spaces in the region. • Per ITE Code 821, "a supermarket is often the major tenant of a general retail / shopping plaza, which also typically contains retail merchandising, offices, movie theaters, restaurants, banks, health clubs, and/or recreational facilities"; note that the shopping plaza trip generation rate is consistent with estimates using individual retail uses (i.e., restaurant, grocery, strip retail) and was therefore used to simplify the overall trip generation estimate. • A 20% multi -use / modal reduction was applied to account for interactions between the residential and commercial uses (15%), as well as trips by alternatives modes (i.e.,5% for walk, bike, or transit). • A 35% pass -by / diverted -link reduction was applied to the retail land use to account for trips already traveling along 17th Avenue (CR 16) or Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83). Table 4 Proposed Development Trip Generation Summary Land Use (ITE Code) Size AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Daily In Out In Out Residential - Single -Family (210) 225 units 39 119 133 79 2,122 Residential - Townhomes (215) 100 units 12 36 34 23 720 Residential - Apartments (221) 540 units 46 154 128 83 2,452 Commercial - General Office (710) 60,000 SF 80 11 15 71 650 Commercial - Medical Office (720) 40,000 SF 98 26 47 110 1,440 Commercial - Retail / Shopping Plaza (821) 75,000 SF 164 101 325 352 7,088 Subtotal 439 447 682 718 14,472 Multi -use / Modal Reduction (20%) (-88) (-89) (-136) (-144) (-2,894) Total Proposed Development Site Trips 351 358 546 574 11,578 Pass -by / Diverted -Link Reduction (35%) (-46) (-46) (-120) (-120) (-2,480) Net New System Proposed Development Trips 305 312 426 454 9,098 Page 103 of 198 Shakopee Gravel Development Traffic Study April 12, 2024 Page 11 Based on the trip generation estimate, the proposed development will generate approximately 709 a.m. peak hour (351 in / 358 out), 1,120 p.m. peak hour (546 in / 574 out), and 11,578 daily (5,789 in / 5,789 out) site trips. When accounting for trips already traveling along adjacent roadways that will use the proposed development (i.e., pass-by/diverted-link trips), the net new system trips from the proposed development is approximately 617 a.m. peak hour (305 in / 312 out), 880 p.m. peak hour (426 in / 454 out), and 9,098 daily (4,549 in / 4,549 out) trips. Trip Distribution Trips generated by the proposed development were distributed throughout the study area based on the directional distribution shown in Figure 5, which was developed based on existing travel patterns, previous area studies, the proposed site layout, and engineering judgement. The overall site generated trips, not including the pass -by reductions, are also shown in Figure 5. Note that the planned roadways/ connections within the proposed development are expected to have minimal impact on existing area travel patterns and the new roadways will primarily serve the proposed development. The resultant year 2030 no build and year 2030 build condition traffic forecasts are shown in Figure 6 and Figure 7, respectively. Note that the no build condition includes trips generated from the assumed adjacent developments, as well as the background growth rate applied to the existing traffic volumes. The build condition represents the no build condition, with the proposed development traffic added. Note that the pass-by/diverted-link trips were applied assuming two-thirds (2/3) were via Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) and one-third (1/3) were via 17th Avenue / Eagle Creek Boulevard (CR 16) and evenly distributed in both directions. YEAR 2030 I TERSECTIO CAPACI A ALYSIS To understand how intersection capacity is expected to change as the area develops, including the proposed development, a detailed intersection capacity analysis was conducted for year 2030 no build and build conditions. This analysis again leveraged Synchro/SimTraffic Software (version 11). Results of the future intersection capacity analysis are summarized in Table 5 by time and condition. Detailed information showing the average delays and queue lengths is available upon request. The capacity analysis indicates that the study intersections can support the assumed adjacent and proposed developments under both year 2030 no build and build conditions, except at the 17th Avenue (CR 16) and Emblem Way / North Site Driveway under year 2030 build conditions. With the addition of the proposed development, motorists on the side -street approaches at this intersection are expected to experience significant delays and queues attempting to cross or turn left onto 171" Avenue (CR 16). Thus, an iterative process was conducted that identified a traffic signal would significantly improve operations at the 17th Avenue (CR 16) and Emblem Way / North Site Driveway intersection, which the operations are illustrated in Table 5. With the traffic control change, the overall intersection and approaches are expected to operate at LOS C or better under year 2030 build conditions. The addition of the traffic signal does not impact adjacent intersections and all queues remain within the existing turn lanes provided. Page 104 of 198 dllwq!!!!!!!IIWIE11YIIIIIIIIIIIII"' iwrn�'Y.', � rrrrrrrrr """' ""I'''';;;';;;'';:;;;;';';';';;;;/1)/'///7///////11;///: i,iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiil�Ulllll rug, iii / /"„ ////O ,,,,raa//// rr /ii�IIJJJJJJIIIJJII�/lli�""" /Imiiu"" uuuuuullffffiuuui/////// , ,,,,, 110��;;M�pNNp11111 1111 ' Illli�h'�uNe�ld�lllu Ady, r }(1111/% llll(lile, ' 1 uuum 11 �I'IiIIliVB'i PIIJIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII V�I�IIIIIIIIIIIIII �� !!!!! IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 01JIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII uuuillllllllllllllllllllllllllllll!!! igl!!4111111Jplll,!UII'; A2 Directional Distribution and Site Trips Shakopee Gravel DewJlomentTraffic Study Figure 5 �V!!W!!!!!!!IIWIIOVI>~1Y11Ylllll 11111!!1"' illl,g I'I�I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII VII IIIIIIIIIIIIII A2 Year 2030 No Build Conditions TC Shakopee Gravel Dew lcpmentTraffic Study Figure 6 �Y!!W!!!!!!!IIWIIOV�>~1Y11Ylllll IIIII!!i"' A2 Year 2030 Build Conditions TCShakopee Gravel DewJlopmentTraffic Study Figure 7 Shakopee Gravel Development Traffic Study Table 5 Year 2030 Intersection Capacity Summary Intersection Level of Service (Delay) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour No Build Build No Build Build Mystic Lake Dr (CR 83) / Eagle Creek / Dean Lakes C (29) C (33) C (33) D (41) Mystic Lake Dr (CR 83) / 17th Ave / Eagle Creek (CR 16) C (31) C (34) C (32) D (39) Mystic Lake Dr (CR 83) / E. Site Drwy A / B (14) A/C(15) A/C(18) A/C(24) Mystic Lake Dr (CR 83) / Thrush St A! B (14) A/C(15) A/C(18) A/C(20) Mystic Lake Dr (CR 83) / Valley View Rd (Signal) C (21) C (21) C (22) C (24) 17th Ave (CR 16) / Independence Drive A/B(10) B (10) A/B(11) B (11) A/C(19) A/C(22) 17th Ave (CR 16) / Philipp Drive A/B(13) B (13) A/C(15) A/C(16) A/C(21) 17th Ave (CR 16) / Emblem Way / N. Site Drwy A / C (16) B / F (60) A / C (22) E / F (60+) Eagle Creek Blvd (CR 16) / Dean Lake Trl / Kinlock Way A / A (9) A / B (12) A / C (15) A / C (16) Thrush St / Independence Dr A/A(7) A/A(7) A / A (8) A / A (8) Thrush St / Hackberry Ln A/A(4) A/A(4) A/A(7) A/A(7) Thrush St / Archer St / Dahlia Dr A/A(5) A/A(5) A/A(6) A (6) A/A(7) Thrush St / Ivy St / Dahlia Dr A/A(7) A/A(7) A/A(4) A/A(5) Mitigation (Traffic Signal) 17th Ave (CR 16) / Emblem Way / N. Site Drwy (Signal) -- B (15) -- B (19) Mitigation (Traffic Signal + Access Modification at E. Site Drwy) 17th Ave (CR 16) / Emblem Way / N. Site Drwy (Signal) -- B (16) -- C (20) April 12, 2024 Page 15 Note that a sensitivity test was conducted to determine if additional mitigation would be needed if the eastbound left -turn movement from the East Site Driveway to Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) was restricted. Based on this test, which is illustrated in Table 5, maintaining full access at the East Site Driveway is not critical to overall intersection operations within the area and that no significant change in overall operations to the 17th Avenue (CR 16) and Emblem Way / North Site Driveway intersection or any adjacent intersections were noted. Therefore, if operational and / or safety issues were to develop along Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) at the East Site Driveway, an access modification would not result in the need for additional infrastructure or impacts at adjacent intersections. Finally, no significant queuing issues were identified under year 2030 no build or build conditions. There are minor queueing issues that are expected, primarily where queues in the through lane along Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) will occasionally (i.e., 5 to 10% of a peak hour) extend beyond an adjacent turn lane. However, these queues do not significantly impact overall operations or necessitate extending any turn lanes in the area. Most 95th percentile queues within the proposed development and the approaches at adjacent side -street stop -controlled intersections are expected to extend approximately 100 feet or less. Therefore, no additional mitigation is needed to accommodate any queuing. Page 108 of 198 Shakopee Gravel Development Traffic Study SITE PLA "EVIE / OTHER C SIDE i- TIO S April 12, 2024 Page 16 Based on a review of the proposed site plan, the overall capacity analysis, and transportation planning best practices, the following potential considerations were identified. These items are not needed from a capacity perspective, but could help improve safety, reduce conflicts / queues, and / or overall site efficiency and are offered for further discussion with the project team. 1) A minimum of 2 -lanes (i.e., a left- and a shared thru/right-turn lane) should be provided on both the north and south approaches of the 17th Avenue (CR 16) and Emblem Way / North Site Driveway intersection. However, dedicated left-, thru, and right -turn lanes on the north and south approaches would help minimize any operational / queuing issues, accommodate additional potential development within the area, and provide future signal timing / phasing flexibility; realignment of Emblem Way or shifting the proposed development driveway to ensure north -south lane continuity at this intersection should also be considered. 2) The 3 -lane internal roadway is expected to provide sufficient long-term reserve capacity, as well as reduce potential conflicts with left -turning vehicles; the addition of right -turn lanes within the development does not appear necessary. 3) Locate internal roadways and driveways a minimum of 330 feet apart, including Philipp Avenue from 17th Avenue (CR 16); review internal intersections and provide appropriate internal traffic controls (i.e., stop signs) in collaboration with the City Engineer. 4) Review truck maneuverability and loading / wayfinding procedures to limit potential internal circulation conflicts. 5) Locate signage and landscaping to avoid creating any sight distance issues. 6) Provide multimodal facilities (i.e., sidewalk and / or trail) throughout the site with connectivity to existing adjacent facilities; direct connections to trails / sidewalks along Mystic Lake Road (CR 83) and 17th Avenue (CR 16) would be beneficial. SU ARY The following study conclusions and recommendations are offered for consideration. 1) All study intersections currently operate at an overall LOS C or better and all side -street approaches and / or driveways operate at LOS D or better during the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. 2) There were a total of 135 reported crashes at the study intersections during the last 5 -years, with significant crash frequency and/or severity issues relative to locations with similar characteristics at: a. Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) at Eagle Creek Boulevard / Dean Lakes Boulevard b. Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) at 17th Avenue / Eagle Creek Boulevard (CR 16) c. Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) at Valley View Road d. Eagle Creek Boulevard (CR 16) at Dean Lakes Trail / Kinlock Way The signalized locations are candidates for potential safety mitigation such as larger signal heads and / or signal / retroreflective backplates; at Valley View Road, a traffic signal is planned to be installed in the summer of 2024, which should mitigate the current crash trend; at Dean Lakes Trail/ Kinlock Way, a potential access modification or traffic control change could be considered. Page 109 of 198 Shakopee Gravel Development Traffic Study April 12, 2024 Page 17 3) Traffic forecasts were developed for year 2030 conditions, which represents the expected full -build out of the proposed development. Forecasts were developed for both year 2030 no build and build conditions, with the build condition including the proposed development. Details include: a. Adjacent developments were identified that have been approved or are expected to be partially constructed and/or completed by the year 2030 (i.e., Summerland Place, Shakopee Master Plan, Valley Crest, and Arbor Bluff). b. An annual growth rate of 1.5 percent was applied to the existing traffic volumes to develop year 2030 background traffic forecasts. c. The proposed development will generate approximately 709 a.m. peak hour (351 in / 358 out), 1,120 p.m. peak hour (546 in / 574 out), and 11,578 daily (5,789 in / 5,789 out) site trips. d. When accounting for trips already traveling along adjacent roadways that will use the proposed development (i.e., pass-by/diverted-link trips), the net new system trips from the proposed development is approximately 617 a.m. peak hour (305 in / 312 out), 880 p.m. peak hour (426 in / 454 out), and 9,098 daily (4,549 in / 4,549 out) trips. 4) The capacity analysis indicates that the study intersections can support the assumed adjacent and proposed developments under both year 2030 no build and build conditions, except at the 17th Avenue (CR 16) and Emblem Way / North Site Driveway under year 2030 build conditions. a. A traffic signal is recommended to improve operations at the 17th Avenue (CR 16) and Emblem Way / North Site Driveway intersection and is not expected to impact overall operations or progression at adjacent intersections; the specific implementation timeframe should be coordinated with County staff. b. If operational and / or safety issues were to develop along Mystic Lake Drive (CR 83) at the East Site Driveway, an access modification would not result in the need for additional infrastructure at adjacent intersections. 5) Other site plan considerations, include: a. Provide a minimum of 2 -lanes (i.e., a left- and a shared thru/right-turn lane) on both the north and south approaches of the 17th Avenue (CR 16) and Emblem Way / North Site Driveway intersection; providing dedicated left-, thru, and right -turn lanes on the north and south approaches would have additional benefits. b. Realign Emblem Way or the proposed development driveway to ensure north -south lane continuity. c. Locate internal roadways and driveways a minimum of 330 feet apart, including Philipp Avenue from 17th Avenue (CR 16); review internal intersections and provide appropriate internal traffic controls (i.e., stop signs) in collaboration with the City Engineer. d. Review truck maneuverability and loading / wayfinding procedures to limit potential internal circulation conflicts and locate signage /landscaping to avoid creating any sight distance issues. e. Provide multimodal facilities (i.e., sidewalk and / or trail) throughout the site with connectivity to existing adjacent facilities. Page 110 of 198 2 0;24 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS AND RECORD OF DECISION SHAKOPEE GRAVEL REDEVELOPMENT FOR: CITY OF SHAKOPEE A A Page 111 of 198 TABLE OF CONTENTS ADMINISTRATIVE BACKGROUND 1 FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 PROJECT HISTORY 1 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS2 CONCLUSIONS 9 AGENCY COMMENTS AND CITY OF SHAKOPEE RESPONSES 9 APPENDIX A — APPENDIX B — APPENDIX C — APPENDIX D — Comments and Responses Updated Figure 12 USFWS IPaC report Resolution No. R2024-092 SHAKOPEE GRAVEL REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MN WSB PROJECT NO. R-24495-000 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECORD OF DECISION Page 112 of 198 ADMINISTRATIVE BACKGROUND Pursuant to Minnesota Rule 4410.4300, the City of Shakopee prepared an Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the proposed redevelopment of the Shakopee Gravel site (Project). This Record of Decision addresses the State of Minnesota environmental review requirements as established in Minnesota Rule 4410.1700. Rachel Development is the project proposer and City of Shakopee is the Responsible Governmental Unit (RGU). The EAW was filed with the Minnesota Environmental Quality Board (EQB) and circulated for review and comments to the required EAW distribution list. A Notice of Availability for the initial EAW was published in the EQB Monitor on April 23, 2024. Notice of Availability was also published in the Shakopee Valley News on April 27, 2024. No public hearing was held. The public comment period ended May 23, 2024. Comments were received from the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (DNR), Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), Scott County Transportation Services Division, Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SMSC), and three Shakopee residents. All comments were considered in determining the potential for significant environmental impacts. Comments received and the City of Shakopee's responses to those comments are provided in Appendix A. Where applicable, updates to the EAW are provided in this document. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS As to the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) on this project and based on the record in this matter, including the EAW and comments received, the City of Shakopee makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions: PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project includes a residential and mixed -use development on approximately 146 acres southwest of the intersection of Mystic Lake Dr. (County Highway 83) and 17th Ave E (County Highway 16), in Shakopee, Minnesota. This proposed development is located at the site of a sand and gravel pit and includes 223 single family homes, 98 attached townhomes, up to 534 apartment units, 174,300 square feet of mixed commercial uses, and approximately 24 acres of open space. Construction will also include a water treatment plant owned and operated by the Shakopee Public Utilities (SPU) Commission, stormwater infrastructure, internal roads, and utilities. PROJECT HISTORY • The project was subject to a mandatory EAW per Minnesota Rule 4410.4300 Subpart 19D, Residential development. • The EAW was distributed to the EQB and to the EQB mailing list on April 23, 2024. • Public notices containing information about the availability of the EAW for public review were published in the Shakopee Valley News on April 27, 2024. • Hard copies of the EAW were provided for public review at Shakopee City Hall. • A notice was published for the EAW in the April 23, 2024 EQB Monitor. The public comment period ended May 23, 2024. Comments were received from the DNR, MPCA, Scott County Transportation Services Division, SMSC, and three Shakopee residents. Copies of these comment letters are hereby incorporated for reference and included in Appendix A. SHAKOPEE GRAVEL REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MN WSB PROJECT NO. R-24495-000 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 1 Page 113 of 198 CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS. Minnesota Rule 4410.1700, subp. 1, states "An EIS [Environmental Impact Statement] shall be ordered for projects that have the potential for significant environmental effects." In deciding whether a project has the potential for significant environmental effects, the City of Shakopee must consider the four factors set out in Minnesota Rule 4410.1700, subp. 7. With respect to each of these factors, the City of Shakopee finds the following: 1. MINNESOTA RULE 4410.1700, SUBP. 7.A- TYPE, EXTENT, AND REVERSIBILITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS a. The type of environmental impacts and mitigation efforts anticipated as part of this project include: Cover Types: Cover Types Existing/Before (acres) After (acres) Wetlands and shallow lakes (<2 meters deep) 0 0 Deep lakes (>2 meters deep) 0 0 Wooded/forest 0 0 Rivers/streams 0 0 Brush/Grassland 73.5 0 Cropland 0 0 Livestock rangeland/pastureland 0 0 Lawn/landscaping 0 65 Green infrastructure TOTAL (from table below*) 0 2 Impervious surface 1 72 Stormwater Pond (wet sedimentation basin) 1 9 Other (describe) 70.5 0 TOTAL 146 146 Zoning and Special Districts: The City of Shakopee zones the project area as Agricultural Preservation (AG). The proposed use at the site is for single family residential, medium to high density residential and mixed commercial. While the proposed land use conforms with the general goals and vision outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan, a greater density is proposed, and it also includes areas of mixed use/commercial development. Project development will require rezoning of the project area and approval of a Planned Unit Development. SHAKOPEE GRAVEL REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MN WSB PROJECT NO. R-24495-000 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 2 Page 114 of 198 Geology: The site is currently utilized as a sand and gravel mine. Soil borings have been conducted onsite and confirmed that the backfill used to create the berms surrounding the site, as well as areas that were backfilled when mining in certain areas ceased was intermixed with organics and debris. This fill is not suitable for the proposed uses. The existing fill material within the area will need to be removed and replaced with an engineered fill suitable for construction of the proposed land uses. Soil Disturbance: There will be approximately 4 million cubic yards of excavation required on site. To accomplish this, the existing backfill from the site will be excavated, organics removed, and then the soils will be conditioned and recompacted onsite to make them suitable to support construction. Organic material that is not suitable for buildable areas is expected to remain onsite and used in non -buildable areas such green spaces or stormwater management areas. The only material that may be removed from the site would be contaminated soils, which are not expected. If found, those would be disposed of at facility licensed to receive contaminated materials. During construction activities, a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) will be implemented as part of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit requirements and will outline site -specific erosion control best management practices (BMPs). Water Resources: The project area contains stormwater BMPs that were excavated within upland to manage the stormwater within the gravel mine site. No natural wetlands exist within the project area; therefore, no direct impacts to wetlands are anticipated. Stormwater from the site will be treated prior to discharge from the site, so indirect impacts to wetlands are also not expected. Two calcareous fens are located within 5 miles of the project location. If water appropriation is proposed, the potential for impact to the fens will be completed during permit application review with the DNR. Wastewater/Water Supply: The project area is within the Shakopee Wellhead Protection area. The depth to groundwater on and near the site is expected to be 75-100 feet below land surface. There are six (6) wells located on the site. These wells will need to be sealed by a contractor licensed in Scott County and a Well and Boring Sealing Record filed with the Department of Health. Wastewater from the site will discharge to the City of Shakopee sanitary sewer system and be conveyed to the Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) regional collection and treatment system. Wastewater will be treated at the Blue Lake Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). Projected wastewater from the site is approximately 174,442 gpd (average flow) to 680,000 gpd (peak hourly flow). The Blue Lake WWTP has capacity to receive wastewater from the project. Shakopee Public Utilities is proposing a water treatment plant (WTP) within the study area. Based on a capacity analysis of the downstream sanitary sewers between the site and the MCES Interceptor, and the projected wastewater flows above, the existing sewers in Mystic Lake Dr and crossing Hwy 169 can accommodate the proposed development and the SPU WTP with a backwash tank; however, the city should consider upsizing those sewers or SHAKOPEE GRAVEL REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MN WSB PROJECT NO. R-24495-000 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 3 Page 115 of 198 installing a new larger or steeper crossing south of 17th Avenue to provide additional residual capacity. Aside from the SPU WTP, wastewater from the site is anticipated to have typical residential and commercial strength and character, and pretreatment is not expected. Water for the site will be supplied by the SPU water system which draws water from eighteen (18) groundwater wells in the Prairie du Chien -Jordan, Tunnel City-Wonewoc, and Mt. Simon -Hinckley aquifers. The projected water demand for the project is estimated at 214,000 gpd (average day demand) and 593,000 gpd (max day demand). The SPU water system has sufficient capacity to serve this project. Stormwater/Water Quality: The City of Shakopee regulates the stormwater requirements for the proposed development. City regulations are noted in the City's ordinances and the City's design criteria. The City regulates stormwater and requires all subdivisions to demonstrate how they will adequately manage surface or subsurface runoff of storm water and snow melt directed to natural drainageways. The design criteria, policies, and objectives shall be those described in the City's "Local Surface Water Management Plan". No existing ditch, stream, wetland, pond, drain or drainage canal shall be deepened, widened, filled, re- routed or filled without approval from the City Council. The proposed project's stormwater plan shall incorporate volume control, water quality control, and rate control as the basis for stormwater management and shall be in conformance with the City of Shakopee's Local Surface Water Management Plan, Design Criteria, and the most current requirements of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4) Permit, as applicable, meeting the more restrictive criteria. The proposed project will result in approximately 72 acres of new impervious (see updated Figure 12, Appendix B). Storm sewers will collect and convey runoff to the central stormwater basin proposed for the project. Pre-treatment of residential runoff will be accomplished with sump manholes prior to discharge into the basins, and by the NURP cells within the basin. Pre-treatment of runoff from commercial and mixed -use areas will be accomplished with a constructed pre-treatment practice prior to connection to the public storm system and by the NURP cells. As the privately -owned lots within the mixed -use area are developed, each connection to the public storm system will need to include an additional pre-treatment step. This step must be sized according to Sizing Hydrodynamic Separators and Manholes (SHSAM) guidelines to remove at least 80% of total suspended solids. The project's stormwater management design will be coordinated with the City of Shakopee to ensure it meets standards for volume control, rate control, and water quality. A SWPPP will be developed to ensure that erosion control measures will be provided as needed to prevent and/or contain erosion. Prior to any site disturbance, temporary sediment control practices will be installed on all down gradient perimeters. Contamination/Hazardous Materials/Wastes: A Phase I Environmental Site Assessment was completed for the site and found no recognized environmental conditions or controlled recognized environmental conditions within the project area. It is not anticipated that any existing contaminated or hazardous materials will be encountered during construction. There are existing structures on the property that will be removed during the initial phase of development. These structures will be inspected prior to demolition and any regulated materials will be disposed of properly. A SHAKOPEE GRAVEL REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MN WSB PROJECT NO. R-24495-000 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 4 Page 116 of 198 Notification of Intent to Perform Demolition form will be provided to the MPCA if asbestos is discovered, and it will be abated and disposed of per MPCA regulations. During construction, solid waste and construction debris typical of a construction site may be produced. All waste and unused material will be the responsibility of the contractor and will be properly disposed of off -site and not allowed to be carried by runoff to a receiving channel or storm sewer system. Site perimeter controls will be in place to minimize the movement of construction debris off the site. Fuel trucks and any other hazardous materials will be locked when not in use to avoid vandalism. Degreasing and washing of construction equipment onsite are prohibited by the city's standard construction specifications. The potential for contamination is low and no toxic or hazardous materials will be present after construction. Upon completion of construction, solid waste disposal will be contracted through existing local, licensed companies, who offer both residential and commercial disposal. During operation, pesticides and herbicides typically used for lawn care may be used. Application of these chemicals would be per industry requirements; therefore, it is not expected that they would impact ground or surface waters. Fish and Wildlife: Given the disturbed nature of the existing project site, significant, permanent negative impacts to wildlife are not expected. Some temporary impacts to wildlife may occur during construction because of habitat removal. The project proposer will implement measures to avoid or minimize the introduction or spread of invasive plant species from project construction and operation. The project proposer will control the spread or introduction of invasive plant species in accordance with local and state invasive and noxious weed regulations, as appropriate. The developer will be required to follow the city's tree preservation regulations, as applicable to each type of development. The DNR reviewed and provided comments on the project (MCE #2024-00221), including the recommendation of several measures to avoid or minimize impacts to species. The US Fish and Wildlife Service's Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool was also reviewed (Appendix C). The following measures will be taken to avoid, minimize, or mitigate potential adverse impacts to fish, wildlife, plant communities, ecosystems, and sensitive ecological resources: Avoid removal of trees and shrubs from May 1 —August 31, which encompasses both the northern long-eared bat roosting and pup rearing season (June 1 — August 15) and peak nesting season for birds protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (May 1 to August 31). Perform surveys for northern long-eared bat and/or migratory bird nests if tree removal is necessary between May 1 — August 31. Incorporate pollinator species into landscaped planting areas (for permanent vegetation establishment). Plant native, weed -free plants in re -vegetated areas (for permanent vegetation establishment). Incorporate a rusty patched bumble bee habitat assessment into reclamation plans that determines if suitable summer or winter habitat is available within the project area and how potential for habitat will be addressed during the various phases of reclamation and redevelopment. Additional coordination with USFWS may be required depending upon the results of the assessment. Use wildlife -friendly erosion control blankets to avoid entanglement with SHAKOPEE GRAVEL REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MN WSB PROJECT NO. R-24495-000 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 5 Page 117 of 198 wildlife. Invasive plant species will be controlled during site reclamation construction by inspecting and decontaminating equipment. Historic Properties: The project area has been disturbed by the current use as a gravel mine. Therefore, no cultural resources are expected to occur within the project area. Correspondence from the State Historic Preservation Office and SMSC also indicated that there are no known resources; however, the developer will coordinate with the SMSC Director of Cultural Resources prior to starting reclamation activities on the site to confirm that no culturally important features exist on or near the site that could be impacted by the project. Visual There are no scenic views or vistas within or near the project area. The development will result in increased lighting and noise associated with a typical mixed -use development. Lighting will be used in parking areas that aim to reduce glare and light pollution. Lighting plans will be reviewed by the city during the development plan reviews and will conform to city ordinance. Air/GHG Emissions: During construction, particulate emissions will temporarily increase due to generation of fugitive dust. Construction dust control is required to be in conformance with City ordinances and the NPDES Construction Stormwater permit. The developer anticipates using water to control dust during reclamation activities. The construction and operation of the proposed site development is not anticipated to involve processes that would generate odors. The City will address any concerns about odor, chemicals, and safety related to the water treatment plant during the water treatment plant design. The project's predicted GHG emissions are estimated at 16,862 CO2e (metric tons/year) over the life of the development (50 years) excluding the roadways. This project will work to implement any applicable state or local GHG measures as required. The City of Shakopee does not currently have GHG requirements or measures. Noise: Existing sources of noise include surrounding roadways, including Trunk Highway 169. Construction noise levels and types typical of construction equipment will occur because of this project. Construction noise will be limited to daytime hours consistent with the City of Shakopee's construction and noise ordinances. Construction equipment will be fitted with mufflers that would be maintained throughout the construction process. Overall, noise impacts are not anticipated. Following construction, noise in the area will be typical of a suburban housing development and mixed -use commercial development. Additional traffic added to surrounding roadways is not expected to generate noise to a degree which would exceed noise standards or diminish quality of life for people living or working nearby. The City will address any concerns about noise related to the water treatment plant during the water treatment plant design. SHAKOPEE GRAVEL REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MN WSB PROJECT NO. R-24495-000 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 6 Page 118 of 198 Transportation: The proposed project will generate additional traffic that will require improvements to the local transportation system. Based on the traffic analysis performed for the project, the following mitigation measures have been identified and will be reviewed during project development and incorporated, as appropriate, following coordination with local transportation agencies: • A traffic signal at the 17th Avenue and Emblem Way/ north site driveway intersection. • Provide a minimum of 2 -lanes (i.e., a left- and a shared thru/right-turn lane) on both the north and south approaches of the 17th Avenue (CR 16) and Emblem Way / North Site Driveway intersection; providing dedicated left-, thru, and right -turn lanes on the north and south approaches would have additional benefits. • Realign Emblem Way or the proposed development driveway to ensure north - south lane continuity. • Locate internal roadways and driveways a minimum of 330 feet apart, including Philipp Avenue from 17th Avenue (CR 16); review internal intersections and provide appropriate internal traffic controls (i.e., stop signs) in collaboration with the City Engineer. • Review truck maneuverability and loading / wayfinding procedures to limit potential internal circulation conflicts and locate signage / landscaping to avoid creating any sight distance issues. • Provide multimodal facilities (i.e., sidewalk and / or trail) throughout the site with connectivity to existing adjacent facilities. 2. MINNESOTA RULE 4410.1700, SUBP. 7.B - CUMULATIVE POTENTIAL EFFECTS OF RELATED OR ANTICIPATED FUTURE PROJECTS As a result of project phasing and additional regulatory oversight, the project will not cause any known or reasonably expected cumulative potential effects. Reasonably foreseeable developments in the surrounding area have been identified and are not anticipated to combine with the proposed project impacts to result in cumulative potential effects. 3. MINNESOTA RULE 4410.1700, SUBP. 7.C - THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS ARE SUBJECT TO MITIGATION BY ONGOING PUBLIC REGULATORY AUTHORITY SHAKOPEE GRAVEL REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MN WSB PROJECT NO. R-24495-000 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 7 Page 119 of 198 a) The following permits or approvals will be required for the project: Unit of Government Type of Application Status Federal US Environmental Protection Agency Sole Source Aquifer Project Review Only applicable if project has federal financial assistance State Pollution Control Agency NPDES/SDS Construction Stormwater Permit To be obtained Intent to Perform Demolition Notification To be obtained Section 401 Certification To be obtained, if necessary Sanitary Sewer Extension To be obtained Department of Health Watermain Extension Plan Review To be obtained Well and Boring Sealing Record To be submitted Department of Natural Resources Water Appropriation (Construction Dewatering) Permit Local To be obtained, if needed City of Shakopee TIF Hearing To be obtained Commercial & Industrial Building Permit To be obtained Residential Building Permit To be obtained Sewer and Water Permit To be obtained Grading Permit To be obtained Preliminary Plat To be obtained Final Plat To be obtained Minor Subdivision To be obtained Planned Unit Development To be obtained Sign Permit To be obtained Right of Way Permit To be obtained Scott County WMO Plan Review To be completed Scott County Right of Way Permit To be obtained Access Permit To be obtained SHAKOPEE GRAVEL REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MN WSB PROJECT NO. R-24495-000 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 8 Page 120 of 198 b) The City of Shakopee finds that the potential impacts identified as part of the proposed Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment project can be addressed through the regulatory agencies as part of the permitting process. 4. MINNESOTA RULE 4410.1700, SUBP. 7.D - THE EXTENT TO WHICH ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS CAN BE ANTICIPATED AND CONTROLLED AS A RESULT OF OTHER AVAILABLE ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES UNDERTAKEN BY PUBLIC AGENCIES OR THE PROJECT PROPOSER, INCLUDING OTHER EISs. The City finds: 1. The proposed project includes various measures to reduce adverse impacts to the environment and existing natural resources. 2. The project is subject to local, regional, state, and federal requirements. 3. The developer will secure all necessary permits and will adhere to all requirements of the permits. 4. Considering the results of environmental review and permitting processes for similar projects, the City of Shakopee finds that the environmental effects of the project can be adequately anticipated, controlled, and mitigated. CONCLUSIONS The Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment EAW and comments received have generated information adequate to determine that the proposed project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects. The EAW has identified areas where the potential for environmental effects exist, but appropriate mitigation measures can be incorporated into the project plans and the required approvals and permits to mitigate these effects will be obtained. If the project cannot be approved by regulating agencies as currently conceptualized, the applicant may need to revise the plan to meet regulatory requirements. The project will comply with all local, county, and federal review agency requirements. Based on the criteria established in Minnesota Rule 4410.1700, and the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, the project does not have the potential for significant environmental effects to trigger the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Therefore, an EIS is not required for the Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment project. City Council concurrence by Resolution No. R2024- 092, declaring a negative need for an Environmental Impact Statement, is included in Appendix D. Pursuant to Minnesota Rules Part 4410.1700, Subpart 5, a copy of this RGU Record of Decision is being provided, within 5 days, to all persons on the MEQB Distribution List, to persons commenting and to persons who requested a copy. This Record of Decision will also be made available at the City of Shakopee. AGENCY COMMENTS AND CITY OF SHAKOPEE RESPONSES A 30 -day comment period for the Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment EAW ended on May 23, 2024. The comments obtained through the EAW process can inform the permitting process and future steps for SHAKOPEE GRAVEL REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MN WSB PROJECT NO. R-24495-000 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 9 Page 121 of 198 projects like this one. Comments were received from the Minnesota DNR, MPCA, Scott County Transportation Services Division, SMSC, and three Shakopee residents. Responses are provided to comments related to the environmental review and analysis of the project. These letters and responses are provided in Appendix A. SHAKOPEE GRAVEL REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MN WSB PROJECT NO. R-24495-000 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECORD OF DECISION PAGE 10 Page 122 of 198 Appendix A Agency Comments and Responses SHAKOPEE GRAVEL REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MN WSB PROJECT NO. R-24495-000 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECORD OF DECISION APPENDIX Page 123 of 198 rievN DEPARTMENT OF Ill NATURAL RESOURCES Division of Ecological and Water Resources Region 3 Headquarters 1200 Warner Road Saint Paul, MN 55106 May 23, 2024 Michael Kerski Director of Planning and Development City of Shakopee 485 Gorman Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Dear Michael Kerski, Transmitted by Email Thank you for the opportunity to review the Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) located in Scott County. The DNR respectfully submits the following comments for your consideration: 1. Page 7, Project Description. This section indicates that the project area will sit empty for approximately a year (or up to six years for later phases) post reclamation in order to allow for the settling of the backfill. It would be helpful if the reclamation plan was included with the EAW in order to better understand project conditions and vegetation management, since the site could be colonized by wildlife, including the federally -endangered Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (RPBB), during this time. The project area overlaps with a High Potential Zone for RPBB, and therefore, the timing of ground disturbance should be coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to avoid any impacts to this species after reclamation. Please see DNR Natural Heritage letter (MCE# 2024-00221) for more information. 2. Page 9, Project Description. This section states that there are no future stages of this project planned, however, the new water treatment plant appears to be a connected project. How will that project address any potential environmental review needs? 3. Page 25, Geology. This section states that backfilled soil will need to settle for anywhere from 3-18 months. How will the project area be vegetated during this time? Will the site be managed for invasive species? 4. Page 26, Soils and Topography. How will the developer process the 4 million cubic yards of soil that will be excavated at the site in order to remove organic material? How much organic material is anticipated to be removed, and how will it be disposed of? 5. Page 31, Groundwater. Because the site is located within the Shakopee Wellhead Protection area, potential pollutants need to be handled with care in order to protect the drinking water of the city. This is especially relevant during significant excavation activities. Page 124 of 198 6. Page 35, Stormwater. This section discusses existing conditions and proposed conditions post - development, but should also discuss how stormwater will be managed during active construction as well as post -reclamation while backfill is settling and during project phasing. It will be important to manage dust, erosion, and invasive species over this potentially multi -year stage of the project. 7. Page 35, Stormwater. The proposed conditions section states that overflow stormwater will be directed to an, "infiltration chamber." Should this instead be a filtration chamber? Given the extensive disturbance and compaction of the site, soil infiltration is unlikely to be feasible within the project area. 8. Page 35, Stormwater. The DNR recommends that the proposer consider utilizing stormwater for landscape irrigation. The re -use of stormwater for irrigation will reduce the volume of stormwater and stormwater pollution flowing downstream of the site. In addition, the use of stormwater for irrigating landscaping will conserve valuable groundwater. 9. Page 35, Stormwater. The significant increase in impervious surfaces will also increase the amount of road salt used in the project area. Chloride released into groundwater as well as local lakes and streams does not break down, and instead accumulates in the environment, potentially reaching levels that are toxic to aquatic wildlife and plants. Consider promoting local business and city participation in the Smart Salting Training offered through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. There are a variety of classes available for road applicators, sidewalk applicators, and property managers. More information and resources can be found at this website. Many winter maintenance staff who have attended the Smart Salting training — both from cities and counties and from private companies — have used their knowledge to reduce salt use and save money for their organizations. We encourage the City of Shakopee to consider requiring that developments with a significant area of impervious surfaces develop a chloride management plan that outlines what BMP's and strategies will be used to reduce chloride use within the project area and include this plan within Operations and Maintenance Agreements that are tied to the property. We also encourage cities and counties to consider how they may participate in the S atewd _ Ih,ll.ir.;d Management Plan and provide public outreach to reduce the overuse of chloride. Here are some educadonallresources for residents as well as a sam,pall, orc'.,m�,ance regarding chloride use. 10. Page 35, Stormwater. Because the project area overlaps a High Potential Zone for the federally - endangered, RPBB, we encourage the development to use weed -free, native seed mes in landscaping and stormwater features to the greatest extent possible in order to provide pollinator and wildlife habitat. Native plants are also more drought -tolerant and require less irrigation and soil inputs. 11. Page 36, Figure 12: Stormwater Overview. Figure 12 indicates that there will be 114.4 acres of impervious surface post -construction, while Table 4: Cover Types shows that there will be 72 acres of impervious surfaces post -construction. Please clarify this discrepancy. 12. Page 39, 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 Page 125 of 198 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 1 year. 13. Page 39, Water Appropriation. Two calcareous fens are located within 5 miles of the project location. Proposed water appropriations may need to be examined for the potential to impact the calcareous fen, which could result in a longer review period for a DNR Water Appropriation Permit Application. 14. Page 46, Rare Features. The RPBB habitat assessment should also include the habitat that will be created post -reclamation and the potential impacts to RPBB that colonize the site prior to the start of construction for each development phase. 15. Page 47, Dust. Given the level of disturbance within the project area, the excavation of 4 million cubic yards of soil, the processing of the soil to remove organic matter, extensive backfilling activities, and the length of time the site will sit prior to construction, fugitive dust is likely to be a significant challenge. It will be important that the site is effectively stabilized using non-invasive vegetation, and managed for invasive species. We do not recommend that products containing chloride be used for dust suppression. 16. Appendix B. This section should include coordination with USFWS through IPaC. Thank you again for the opportunity to review this document, and please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Melissa Collins Regional Environmental Assessment Ecologist I Ecological and Water Resources Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 Phone: 651-259-5755 Email: melissa.collins@state.mn.us CC: David Stradtman, Rachel Development Equal Opportunity Employer Page 126 of 198 MINNESOTA POLLUTION 11 CONTROL AGENCY 520 Lafayette Road North II St. Paul, Minnesota 55155-41'34 I 651-296-6300 800-657-3864 I Use your preferred relay service I in fopcacostate.rnn.us I Equal Opportunity Employer May 22, 2024 Michael Kerski Director of Planning and Development, City of Shakopee 485 Gorman Street Shakopee, MN 55379 mkerski@shakopeemn.gov RE: Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment — Environmental Assessment Worksheet Dear: Michael Kerski Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment project (Project) located in Shakopee, Scott County, Minnesota. The Project consists of a residential and mixed -use development is proposed on approximately 146 acres southwest of the intersection of Mystic Lake Drive (County Highway 83) and 17th Avenue East (County Highway 16), in Shakopee, Minnesota. This proposed development is located at the site of a sand and gravel pit and includes 223 single family homes, 98 attached townhomes, up to 534 apartment units, 174,300 square feet of mixed commercial uses, and approximately 24 acres of open space. Construction will also include a water treatment plant owned and operated by the Shakopee Public Utilities Commission, stormwater infrastructure, internal roads, and utilities. Regarding matters for which the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) has regulatory responsibility and other interests, the MPCA staff has the following comments for your consideration. 401 Certification Section 7. Cover Types, indicates that there are no wetland impacts before or after development. Also, Section 8. Permits and Approvals Required, does not include the Federal, Section 404 individual standard permit, hence no MPCA Section 401 -certification is required as well. However, if this should change and the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit is needed, then the State of Minnesota Section 401 Water Quality certification will also be needed. The applicant will then be required to complete the 401 - program Antidegradation Assessment [process] to acquire a 401 -water quality certification with conditions, have a possible waiver issued, or for a rare denial without prejudice issued. Watershed The plan mentions that this area will create a heat island. Additional efforts could help mitigate the heat island by reducing impervious area, create space for trees, create space for native grasses, and create space for more green space. The permit and approval table; Scott County is listed but the Scott Watershed Management Organization (SWMO) is not listed. Please add to list and check in with them. Page 127 of 198 Michael Kerski Page 2 May 22, 2024 We appreciate the opportunity to review this Project. Please be aware that this letter does not constitute approval by the MPCA of any or all elements of the Project for the purpose of pending or future permit actions by the MPCA. Ultimately, it is the responsibility of the Project proposer to secure any required permits and to comply with any requisite permit conditions. If you have any questions concerning our review of this EAW, please contact me by email at Chris.Green@state.mn.us or by telephone at 507-476-4258. Sincerely, This document has been electronically signed. Chris Green Project Manager Environmental Review Unit Resource Management and Assistance Division CG:rs cc: Dan Card, MPCA Kirsten Dieterman, MPCA Aaron Hinz, MPCA William Wilde, MPCA Kirsten Barta, MPCA Lauren Dickerson, MPCA Innocent Eyoh, MPCA David Sahli, MPCA Julie Henderson, MPCA Deepa deAlwis, MPCA Page 128 of 198 May 23, 2024 SCOTT COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DIVISION PROGRAM DELIVERY • TRAFFIC • HIGHWAY OPERATIONS • MOBILITY MANAGEMENT GOVERNMENT CENTER EAST, 200 FOURTH AVENUE WEST •SHAKOPEE, MN 55379 (952) 496-8346 • Fax: (952) 496-8365 www.scottcountymn.gov LISA J. FREESE ANTHONY J. WINIECKI, P.E. Transportation Services Director County Engineer Michael Kerski Community Development Director City of Shakopee 485 Gorman St. Shakopee, MN 55379 SUBJECT: Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment EAW County Highway 16 and 83 Dear Michael, We have reviewed the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment dated April 16, 2024, including the Traffic Study conducted by TC2, and have the following comments: • The County Highway (CH) 16 (17th Ave/Emblem Way) access shall provide three lanes at the approach, including a dedicated left, thru, and a right -turn lane. Additional right of way dedication shall be included on the plat to accommodate the three lanes and right of way sight triangles. • We agree that post -development traffic operations will require a traffic signal at the CH 16 and Emblem Way intersection. This signal shall be fully funded by the development. Provide signal warrant analysis for anticipated timing of signal installation based on phased development, including the percentage of site developed threshold. • Development access at CH 83 shall be constructed as a % intersection with the proposed development. Thrush Street will remain as a full access intersection. Future intersection control to be determined. • We recommend providing an internal local street to connect the single-family residential to the commercial area, allowing internal connectivity within the proposed development. • A future traffic signal may be needed at the CH 16 and Kinlock Way/Dean Lakes Trail intersection due to additional area development traffic. An Equal Opportunity/Safety Aware Employer Page 129 of 198 • A minimum of 75 feet of right of way dedication from county highway centerline is required for CH 16 and CH 83. • All infrastructure improvements, including future upgrades, constructed on the County Highway System will be the funding responsibility of the developer. Approved plans and permits from the County will be required prior to installation of any improvements. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the EAW. If you have questions or need further information, please contact me at tdill@co.scott.mn.us or 962-496-8839. Sincerely, 1+f( Terri Dill Principal Planner —Transportation Page 130 of 198 ee ou unity e a a,; 1„ ton 2330 SIOUX TRAIL.. NW • PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372 TRIBAL OFFICE: 952.445.8900 • FAX: 952.233.4256 May 22, 2024 City of Shakopee Mr. Michael Kerski Director of Planning and Development 485 Gorman Street, Shakopee, MN, 55379 Re: City of Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment EAW Dear Mr. Kerski OFFICERS Cole W. Miller Chairman Natasha K. Hacker Vice- Chairwoman Ashley J. Corn forth Secretary/T cia,siner The Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community (SSC), pursuant to the Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EA W) dated April 16, 2024, submits this response. The SMSC provides these comments with the understanding that both the City of Shakopee and the SMSC's long range plans are subject to modification, and that the SMSC's comments should not be construed as an agreement or consent, and that proper permits and approvals would still be required. I. 4. 1 L oject Magnitude: (Page 10) EAW: The project magnitude as itemized in Figure 4 section C, proposes a total of 223 single-family residential units, 98 attached townhomes, between 422-534 apartment units, and 174,300 sf of commercial building area within this proposed mixed -use re- development. SMSC Comment: The adjacent. SMSC lea°aairie aareaas tee the east are being restored and preserve el. This includes habitat for the SMSC Bison herd. The SMSC would request that additional efforts be made to reduce the construction impacts on those adjacent natural areas, specifically to reduce blowing trash from construction activities, etc. 19, Transportation EAW: lvi includes: measures recommended to improve operations in or near the project area • A traffic signal at the 17th Avenue and Emblem Way/ north site driveway intersection. 1 Page 131 of 198 RE: City of Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment EAW May 22, 2024 • Provide a minimum of 2 -lanes (i.e., a left- and a shared thru/right-turn lane) on both the north and south approaches of the 17th Avenue (CR 16) and Emblem Way / North Site Driveway intersection; providing dedicated left-, thru, and right -turn lanes on the north and south approaches would have additional benefits. • Realign Emblem Way or the proposed development driveway to ensure north -south lane continuity. • Locate internal roadways and driveways a minimum of 330 feet apart, including Philipp Avenue from 17th Avenue (CR 16); review internal intersections and provide appropriate internal traffic controls (i.e., stop signs) in collaboration with the City Engineer. • Review truck maneuverability and loading / wayfinding procedures to limit potential internal circulation conflicts and locate signage / landscaping to avoid creating any sight distance issues. • Provide multimodal facilities (i.e., sidewalk and / or trail) throughout the site with connectivity to existing adjacent facilities. SMSC Comment: The SMSC would support the above efforts to mitigate traffic impacts to the area. III. Historic properties (Archaeological/cultural): EAW: The project area has been disturbed by the current use as a gravel mine. Therefore, no cultural resources are expected to occur within the project area. Correspondence from SHPO indicates there are no known historic or cultural resources on the site (Appendix B). SMSC Comments: The SMSC concurs with SHPO that there are no known or recorded historic sites within the property boundaries, however the SMSC recommends the City consult with the SMSC Director of Cultural Resources for confirmation that no culturally important features exist on or near the site that could be affected by the proposed redevelopment. Thank you for considering the SMSC's comments to the City of Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment EAW. We look forward to our governments continuing to work together to pursue a shared community vision. Should you have any questions or concerns, please reach out to SMSC staff. Sincerely, Natasha K. Hacker Vice -Chairwoman 2 Page 132 of 198 Dear Mr. Michael Kerski, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) for the city of Shakopee. I have recently purchased a lot to build my home on Wren street, which appears to be very close to the designed spot of the water treatment center (as indicated by figure 4). Figure 4: Proposed Project Concept !If); .............................. iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiidnl vu IIIu oloolou 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 I have concerns regarding this designated location as my research shows that those who live near a water treatment plant experience headaches, nausea, irritability, and tiredness. Had I known that this was the plan prior to my purchase, I would not have purchased my lot with MI homes. I chose the city of Shakopee to build my home as I believe that it would be a safe and healthy environment to raise my children. I fear that living so close to this water treatment center would impact the health of the residents, especially the children who would play outside nearby. Page 133 of 198 In another plan "The Legislation for Shakopee Gravel Pit" (found here: https://www.l rl. m n . gov/archive/minutes/senate/2022/S u by rope rty/20220420/su by rope rty 20220420 TIF-Legislation-Shakopee-Gravel-Flyer.pdf ) shows a different concept for the land use. While this plan doesn't show a water treatment center, would it be possible to have the water treatment center in the northeast Icoation? This would then minimize the impact of the water treatment center's effect on the residents' health while still being included in the local area. l,(,',$l�l 'l }ri pqf lJw/lG/l l i4io 271C/44 VlVl J�7r1�^l�f�PnJ�PJA�Bkllnl�/17117D" oimoi , l ,,,,,,i.lt„,)„,10Y:Ill' ,filitie i , , L„ rj1,?,!? r irlfoitiok?,1 iiiill,i:, f#11tIrir '''''''ill")iy,;,$11(i')'Ifil',,',,ii'(!)!!,c;,,!,111, jli?i'iliii;),i'liiiilt,)'','j,/ln,I,II,Ifi'l'',,,,,,''',,''''',i''''',,'''I''')''ii(1,k),1',IIII'F'ij,l'i OA ,0„ 4 ', N„,,,,\,,?,,I,,':' I believe that by moving the water treatment center to the northeast location of the plan, we would be able to still utilize the purpose of the water treatment center while not having it impact the health of the residents. Thank you for listening to my concerns! Best, Karen Page 134 of 198 Alison Harwood From: Sent: To: Subject: EXTERNAL EMAIL Michael Kerski <MKerski@shakopeemn.gov> Thursday, May 23, 2024 6:10 PM Alison Harwood; Amanda Schwabe Fwd: Comments on Environmental Assessment Worksheet Get Outlook for iOS From: anthony Le <anthony.wunpae@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, May 23, 2024 5:44 PM To: Michael Kerski <MKerski@shakopeemn.gov> Subject: Comments on Environmental Assessment Worksheet Hello Mr. Michael Kerski, I am writing to express my concerns regarding adding a water treatment center so close to residential property. I recently purchase my home on Wren street which will be a block away from the designated spot of the center. I myself have respiratory conditions and worry that this center may increase my sensitivity. I've also done my research and see that it can also cause headaches and nausea. I plan on raising my family in this area for years to come and worry about how this would affect my children. Would it be possible to find another spot for the water treatment center as no land has been dug up yet and if it can moved to an area with less residents- I believe this would greatly benefit the community and protect the health of generations to come. Thank you for listening to my concerns. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Anthony 1 Page 135 of 198 Mr. Michael Kerski Director of Planning and Development 485 Gorman Street Shakopee, MN 55379 Mr. Kerski, We have been residents of Wyndam Drive for over 10 years. Our property borders the western edge of the gravel pit. We have two concerns about the proposed development regarding stormwater and tree removal/root damage. Stormwater In June of 2014 there were three large storms over a two week period. After the second, all stormwater ponds in the area were at capacity. When the third storm came there was nowhere left for the water to go. The ponds overflowed, flooding streets and neighborhoods. The backyards on the east side of Wyndam Drive were flooded with water all the way up to the back of the houses. Several houses had their basements flooded. Others, including us, quickly put up sandbags along the back of their houses to prevent the water from coming in. In response, the city of Shakopee created an emergency overflow and additional ponding area in the southwest corner of the gravel pit property (see link below). Water still pools in the lower parts of the backyards during heavy rains, but since this was implemented there have been no significant instances of flooding. lnVtI a:// w..Ih_1IkcIp .iina.goe/Iiviin-I..iic/rny_.trectts.tirca t-iiinnlir; a U tuireM- itaierat. /lln.a irn n 6 i iia .. ii o in. We would like to ensure the new development is considering this emergency overflow area, either preserving it or creating an alternative path for water to flow that would prevent flooding. Also, please make certain the new development is graded in such a way that does not send additional water onto the Wyndam Drive properties. Trees There are two rows of large trees along the property line divided by a fence. One row is on the homeowners' side and the other on the gravel pit side. The trees on the gravel pit side are approximately 5-10 feet from the fence and were planted approximately 20 years ago when the neighborhood was developed. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) indicates that 100% of trees on the site are to be removed. Shakopee's Tree Page 136 of 198 Preservation Ordinance standards for site development indicate that 60% of trees are permitted for removal. prillt"hr% ljd IdIg11111100001,1,0010100oolvfronivII' nII�IVIIVuui nluMli n'n�Imluuliii� 4001414106 Most trees on the homeowner's side of the property line are within 3-10 feet of the fence and are also approximately 20 years old. Shakopee's Tree Preservation Ordinance defines the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) to be a radius of 1.5 feet per inch of diameter of the tree trunk at 4.5 feet off the ground. The largest tree on our property has a 14.5 inch diameter and is located 3 feet from the fence. The CRZ for this tree would be approximately 22 feet and would extend 19 feet into the gravel pit property. There are other similarly Page 137 of 198 located trees of the same size on homeowner's properties all along Wyndam Drive. The tree preservation ordinance states that there shall be no construction activity within in the CRZ of significant trees (trunk diameter greater than 6 inches) of adjacent properties. 111,1,1000,1111,11111,1 0,000"04m, 0001400000000000000000000000000000000000 „„iiiii Page 138 of 198 We request consideration to require the trees along the western border of the gravel pit property to be preserved. We believe the trees being located on what will be the back of residential yards will not require removal to construct new homes. To the benefit of the developer, mature trees add value to property. The increased privacy could also add appeal to potential buyers of new homes. We also request that the city ensures the developer will be following the Shakopee Tree Preservation Ordinance by creating a tree preservation plan and observing the critical root zone areas of adjacent properties. Sincerely, Brian and Christine Kale 1825 Wyndam Drive Page 139 of 198 SHAKOPEE GRAVEL EAW - COMMENT RESPONSE MATRIX Comments I Response Project Description The reclamation plan will include a section outlining vegetation management. Disturbed areas will be temporarily seeded with a cover crop or other temporary seeding that does not contain pollinator species. This vegetation will not provide foraging habitat to the bee. During the reclamation process, excavation and compaction is not anticipated to be completed during winter months, which will avoid disturbance if overwintering bees are present in the area. The EAW included evaluation of the water treatment plant. Geology Temporary vegetation and normal erosion control BMPs will be established on disturbed areas that This section states that backfilled soil will need to settle for anywhere from 3-18 months. How will the project area be vegetated will be left to settle. Vegetation will be maintained to control invasive species by spraying or during this time? Will the site be managed for invasive species? mowing. Soils and Topography Organic material that is not suitable for buildable areas is not expected to be removed from the site. These materials will be used in non -buildable areas such green spaces or stormwater management areas. The only material that may be removed from the site would be contaminated soils, which are How will the developer process the 4 million cubic yards of soil that will be excavated at the site in order to remove organic not expected. If found, those would be disposed of at facility licensed to receive contaminated material? How much organic material is anticipated to be removed, and how will it be disposed of? materials. Groundwater Comment noted. Appropriate BMPs will be in place during site reclamation and construction Because the site is located within the Shakopee Wellhead Protection area, potential pollutants need to be handled with care in activities to protect the groundwater resources. order to protect the drinking water of the city. This is especially relevant during significant excavation activities. Storm water During active construction, temporary BMPs such as silt fences, sediment basins, and erosion control blankets will be used to minimize sediment runoff. The use of water trucks and dust suppressants (primarily water) will also be implemented to manage and reduce dust emissions from construction activities. A SWPPP will be developed and implemented. This section discusses existing conditions and proposed conditions post-development,but should also discuss how stormwater wil In post -reclamation backfill areas, settling will be monitored and grading will be adjusted as be managed during active construction as well as post -reclamation while backfill is settling and during project phasing. It will be necessary to prevent water accumulation and ensure proper drainage. Erosion control measures important to manage dust, erosion, and invasive species over this potentially multi -year stage of the project. will be kept until vegetation is established and the site is stabilized. Each phase of the project will include specific stormwater management plans tailored to the activities and conditions of that phase. Regular assessments will be conducted to adapt and refine stormwater management practices as needed throughout the project's lifecycle. The proposed condition is being designed as an infiltration chamber. Comment noted. Opportunities to re -use stormwater will be evaluated during project design. Comment noted. The city will explore the resources available to reduce chloride use. The project proposes to plant native, weed -free, seed mixes to permanently revegatate disturbed areas where practicable. 72 acres is the net new impervious. Figure 12 has been updated and is attached to the findigs of fact. 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 review, may be used for the dewatering if the dewatering volume is less than 50 million gallons and the The Permit table noted that a DNR Water Appropriation Permit will be obtained, if needed. time of the appropriation is less than 1 year. Permit for Temporary Appropriation, with its lower permit application fee and reduced time for review. This section indicates that the project area will sit empty for approximately a year (or up to six years for later phases) post reclamation in order to allow for the settling of the backfill. It would be helpful if the reclamation plan was included with the EAW in order to better understand project conditions and vegetation management, since the site could be colonized by wildlife, including the federally -endangered Rusty Patched Bumble Bee (RPBB), during this time. The project area overlaps with a High Potential Zone for RPBB, and therefore, the timing of ground disturbance should be coordinated with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to avoid any impacts to this species after reclamation. Please see DNR Natural Heritage letter (MCE# 2024-00221) for more information. This section states that there are no future stages of this project planned, however, the new water treatment plant appears to be a connected project. How will that project address any potential environmental review needs? The proposed conditions section states that overflow stormwater will be directed to an, "infiltration chamber." Should this instead be a filtration chamber? Given the extensive disturbance and compaction of the site, soil infiltration is unlikely to be feasible within the project area. The DNR recommends that the proposer consider utilizing stormwater for landscape irrigation. The re -use of stormwater for irrigation will reduce the volume of stormwater and stormwater pollution flowing downstream of the site. In addition, the use of stormwater for irrigating landscaping will conserve valuable groundwater. The significant increase in impervious surfaces will also increase the amount of road salt used in the project area. Chloride released into groundwater as well as local lakes and streams does not break down, and instead accumulates in the environment, potentially reaching levels that are toxic to aquatic wildlife and plants. Consider promoting local business and city participation in the Smart Salting Training offered through the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. There are a variety of classes available for road applicators, sidewalk applicators, and property managers. More information and resources can be found at this website. Many winter maintenance staff who have attended the Smart Salting training — both from cities and counties and from private companies — have used their knowledge to reduce salt use and save money for their organizations. We encourage the City of Shakopee to consider requiring that developments with a significant area of impervious surfaces develop a chloride management plan that outlines what BMP's and strategies will be used to reduce chloride use within the project area and includethis plan within Operations and Maintenance Agreements that are tied to the property. We also encourage cities and counties to consider how they may participate in the Statewide Chloride Management Plan and provide public outreach to reduce the overuse of chloride. Here are some educational resources for residents as well as a sample ordinance regarding chloride use. Because the project area overlaps a High Potential Zone for the federally-endangered,RPBB, we encourage the development to use weed -free, native seed mixes in landscaping and stormwater features to the greatest extent possible in order to provide pollinator and wildlife habitat. Native plants are also more drought -tolerant and require less irrigation and soil inputs. Figure 12 indicates that there will be 114.4 acres of impervious surface post -construction, while Table 4: Cover Types shows that there will be 72 acres of impervious surfaces post -construction. Please clarify this discrepancy. N d U O N N 7,2 C N,0 � O • C N E C a m O Z M Page 140 of 198 SHAKOPEE GRAVEL EAW - COMMENT RESPONSE MATRIX Response Comment noted. Rare Features The RPBB habitat assessment should also include the habitat that will be created post -reclamation and the potential impacts to Comment noted. The RPBB habitat assesment will include information regarding each development RPBB that colonize the site prior to the start of construction for each development phase. hase of the project. Dust Given the level of disturbance within the project area, the excavation of 4 million cubic yards of soil, the processing of the soil to remove organic matter, extensive backfilling activities, and the length of time the site will sit prior to construction, fugitive dust is Comment noted. The applicant plans to utilize water for dust suppression. likely to be a significant challenge. It will be important that the site is effectively stabilized using non-invasive vegetation, and managed for invasive species. We do not recommend that products containing chloride be used for dust suppression. Appendix B This section should include coordination with USFWS through IPaC. 'the IPaC report is attached. 401 Certification Section 7. Cover Types, indicates that there are no wetland impacts before or after development. Also, Section 8. Permits and Approvals Required, does not include the Federal, Section 404 individual standard permit, hence no MPCA Section 401 - certification is required as well. However, if this should change and the Clean Water Act Section 404 permit is needed, then the Comment noted. State of Minnesota Section 401 Water Quality certification will also be needed. The applicant will then be required to complete the 401-programAntidegradation Assessment [process] to acquire a 401 -water quality certification with conditions, have a possible waiver issued, or fora rare denial without prejudice issued. Watershed The plan mentions that this area will create a heat island. Additional efforts could help mitigate the heat island by reducing The final phase of redevelopment will include green space and landscape plantings that include impervious area, create space for trees, create space for native grasses, and create space for more green space. The permit and trees and native plantings. Scott County WMO does not provide approvals for development but will approval table; Scott County is listed but the Scott Watershed Management Organization (SWMO) is not listed. Please add to list provide review and comment during the design review for the site. and check in with them. Comment noted. The funding and implementation timeline of the traffic signal at the CH 16 and Emblem Way intersection will be agreed upon by area agencies and the project team. It is anticipated that the signal will be warranted under various development scenarios, including once the adjacent developments north of CH 16 (17th Avenue) are constructed, which will also benefit from the future signal. The timeline for meeting a signal warrant is dependent on which land uses are developed first (i.e., residential versus commercial), their location within the overall development, and access to adjacent roadways. Thus, since the development is anticipated to begin construction upon approval and assumed to be fully completed by year 2030, installation of the traffic signal should be completed as soon as possible in anticipation of the proposed development. Comments Two calcareous fens are located within 5 miles of the project location. Proposed water appropriations may need to be examined for the potential to impact the calcareous fen, which could result in a longer review period for a DNR Water Appropriation Permit Application. The County Highway (CH) 16 (17th Ave/Emblem Way) access shall provide three lanes at the approach, including a dedicated left, thru, and a right -turn lane. Additional right of way dedication shall be included on the plat to accommodate the three lanes anc right of way sight triangles. We agree that post -development traffic operations will require a traffic signal at the CH 16 and Emblem Way intersection. This signal shall be fully funded by the development. Provide signal warrant analysis for anticipated timing of signal installation based on phased development, including the percentage of site developed threshold. T V C N Q MN Pollution Control Agency Scott County Transportation Services Division Page 141 of 198 SHAKOPEE GRAVEL EAW - COMMENT RESPONSE MATRIX Response Comment noted. The City and project team will review this recommendation for further consideration. The traffic study did not identify a need as part of this study, but intersection volumes and crash history should continue to be monitored to determine if / when a traffic control modification is needed. Comment noted. Comment noted. Project Magnitude The adjacent SMSC prairie areas to the east are being restored and preserved. This includes habitat for the SMSC bison herd. The SMSC would request that additional efforts be made to reduce the construction impacts on those adjacent natural areas, Comment noted. specifically to reduce blowing trash from construction activities, etc. Transportation The SMSC would support the efforts to mitigate traffic impacts to the area. (Comment noted. Historic Properties (archaeological/cultural) The SMSC concurs with SHPO that there are no known or recorded historic sites within the property boundaires, however the The City will require the developer to coordinate with the SMSC Director of Cultural Resources prior SMSC recommends the City consult with the SMSC Director of Cultural Resources for confirmation that no culturally important to development. features exist on or near the site that could be affected by the proposed redevelopment. The City will address any concerns about noise, odor, chemicals, traffic, safety, and security related to the water treatment plant during the water treatment plant design. The City will address any concerns about noise, odor, chemicals, traffic, safety, and security related to the water treatment plant during the water treatment plant design. Comment noted, the proposed retention pond and underground chamber are designed to handle a 100 -year storm event, thereby containing stormwater effectively and preventing additional flooding. The grading in the proposed development will not send any additional water to Wyndam Drive. An alternative path for water flow will be incorporated to ensure continued flood protection for the neighborhood. Comments Development access at CH 83 shall be constructed as a V. intersection with the proposed development. Thrush Street will remain as a full access intersection. Future intersection control to be determined. We recommend providing an internal local street to connect the single-family residential to the commercial area, allowing internal connectivity within the proposed development. A future traffic signal may be needed at the CH 16 and Kinlock Way/Dean Lakes Trail intersection due to additional area development traffic. A minimum of 75 feet of right of way dedication from county highway centerline is required for CH 16 and CH 83. All infrastructure improvements, including future upgrades, constructed on the County Highway System will be the funding responsibility of the developer. Approved plans and permits from the County will be required prior to installation of any improvements. I have concerns regarding this designated location [of the water treatement plant] as my research shows that those who live near a water treatment plant experience headaches, nausea, irritability, and tiredness. Had I known that this was the plan prior to my purchase, I would not have purchased my lot with MI homes. I chose the city of Shakopee to build my home as I believe that it would be a safe and healthy environment to raise my children. I fear that living so close to this water treatment center would impact the health of the residents, especially the children who would play outside nearby. In another plan "The Legislation for Shakopee Gravel Pit" (found here: https://www.l rt m n.gov/arch ive/mi nutes/senate/2022/S u by rope rty/20220420/s u b p rope rty_20220420_TI F -Leg islati o n -S hakopee- Gravel-Flyer.pdf ) shows a different concept for the land use. While this plan doesn't show a water treatment center, would it be possible to have the water treatment center in the northeast Icoation? This would then minimize the impact of the water treatment center's effect on the residents' health while still being included in the local area. I believe that by moving the water treatment center to the northeast location of the plan, we would be able to still utilize the purpose of the water treatment center while not having it impact the health of the residents. I am writing to express my concerns regarding adding a water treatment center so close to residential property. I recently purchase my home on Wren street which will be a block away from the designated spot of the center. I myself have respiratory conditions and worry that this center may increase my sensitivity. I've also done my research and see that it can also cause headaches and nausea. I plan on raising my family in this area for years to come and worry about how this would affect my children. Would it be possible to find another spot for the water treatment center as no land has been dug up yet and if it can moved to an area with less residents - I believe this would greatly benefit the community and protect the health of generations to come. Thank you for listening to my concerns. Please let me know if you have any questions. In June of 2014 there were three large storms over a two week period. After the second, all stormwater ponds in the area were at capacity. When the third storm came there was nowhere left for the water to go. The ponds overflowed, flooding streets and neighborhoods. The backyards on the east side of Wyndam Drive were flooded with water all the way up to the back of the houses. Several houses had their basements flooded. Others, including us, quickly put up sandbags along the back of their houses to prevent the water from coming in. In response, the city of Shakopee created an emergency overflow and additional ponding area in the southwest corner of the gravel pit property (see link below). Water still pools in the lower parts of the backyards during heavy rains, but since this was implemented there have been no significant instances of flooding. https://www.s ha kopeem n.gov/I ivi ng-here/my-street/street-infrastructure-projects/flood-mitigation We would like to ensure the new development is considering this emergency overflow area, either preserving it or creating an alternative path for water to flow that would prevent flooding. Also, please make certain the new development is graded in such a way that does not send additional water onto the Wyndam Drive properties. T V C N Q Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Shakopee Resident (Wren Street) Shakopee Resident (Wren Street) Shakopee Resident (1825 Wyndam Drive) Page 142 of 198 SHAKOPEE GRAVEL EAW - COMMENT RESPONSE MATRIX Response The developer will be required to follow the Tree Preservation Regulations (City Code 151.113) as applicable for each type of development. Comments There are two rows of large trees along the property line divided by a fence. One row is on the homeowners' side and the other on the gravel pit side. The trees on the gravel pit side are approximately 5-10 feet from the fence and were planted approximately 20 years ago when the neighborhood was developed. The Environmental Assessment Worksheet (EAW) indicates that 100% of trees on the site are to be removed. Shakopee's Tree Preservation Ordinance standards for site development indicate that 60% of trees are permitted for removal. Most trees on the homeowner's side of the property line are within 3-10 feet of the fence and are also approximately 20 years old. Shakopee's Tree Preservation Ordinance defines the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) to be a radius of 1.5 feet per inch of diameter of the tree trunk at 4.5 feet off the ground. The largest tree on our property has a 14.5 inch diameter and is located 3 feet from the fence. The CRZ for this tree would be approximately 22 feet and would extend 19 feet into the gravel pit property. There are other similarly located trees of the same size on homeowner's properties all along Wyndam Drive. The tree preservation ordinance states that there shall be no construction activity within in the CRZ of significant trees (trunk diameter greater than 6 inches) of adjacent properties. We request consideration to require the trees along the western border of the gravel pit property to be preserved. We believe the trees being located on what will be the back of residential yards will not require removal to construct new homes. To the benefit of the developer, mature trees add value to property. The increased privacy could also add appeal to potential buyers of new homes. We also request that the city ensures the developer will be following the Shakopee Tree Preservation Ordinance by creating a tree preservation plan and observing the critical root zone areas of adjacent properties. T V C N Q Page 143 of 198 Appendix B Updated Figure 12 SHAKOPEE GRAVEL REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MN WSB PROJECT NO. R-24495-000 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECORD OF DECISION APPENDIX Page 144 of 198 I^l^II^tlIUW06111 R� I D,R "luluuljmumu '1� � �PI'�I1I'llllolil I '''m �I��1,�� M1IiVViI llil;��1 . yrl p„ ICI uun��nnrmrn wII m'11ni N fr�l."'I I �I 11"u'I''Y' 46f1i, I„11 'y" Philipp, 40: rr 141 11x pP WAY'I�N Vu, ` • •5111 mIm � I "111hh r YV',�C' '� "I'1i°°111111., onwuur .9'o18uuVu,u",� �� '�u"1 «; y„e E uuunnwM,, '17„TH"AVEE l lilul' �u111�L 1111V iy111m'Iii�;m ' g . amulrmw nwliuulio"�IW IINV au'„ ' u'" Haul NMIM41�u1 W �tl,,.,, �'M��,NW'u�Vll�"�WN�W'-1�191uW Ip'"I ^6 mom„ ,II''IIW,„" _ m dm, d M�I„„ "W„„"H,,..' .Mr "" r ;' ;r•,6"siedr 'I 1' �.� , '�' ,r „� Viii "WI I /' goo, . V11'° 1N1Ih"'Muq•�"um iupd1 I V, 1ui1IV 111 M�Q II IIII'' ,1 , , W"1"V1p�I��7iQ�\i''1m I III ug v � WI r f' II�IIr' ,W I' mmp "✓ "1�'I�mi 1N� NA Nlu lil uu II uu Vµ", ��,m Nw111„Q, ii r'1il 'n 'I 11 ii 1 "'r'" ,1h,i mv'•I"° ""'1 V;, mm ,au "'"r m ^"11" ,IIIomN" oo Aiimii a ul �'''uouiIVuIVIMwu1uI1�0W""��/NOPM''��"" q'im1111N�,',Vulllli�� IV1u14liIIW .ww. L "!�""1µnh " nu, �iMro�un„u1111 ry ��VIi111w�1��I��N"9 ��'� IpN1ml°�' 11"IINm1N 1111 "A ' IHN I° ^'IIQWg1P,lolly"' W1N iI�Iliili;;,, 9'ONdhiP'' ul Ij Un all, , J,.w'u"lu I'ilwl'I„'„ii18TH`AVE,'EIn 111119' w, �� IIpIIINII �'m„Y ladu I r l,il w uV lii Mull�llW�ll VII" �lliwwIII"II'bVIIIIIII00 IINu I'I I IWI�C rVr mi 111111u,�,,,,,,m,M111111IV"im M1, ",,,,,/ mW'°411 p,IVJ �ib q� �w N*!rV{8rI A,,`YquV QI',Ih yW, 3�,''IN „ y°"o',,,u f Total Impervious Pre -construction = 1 ac Post -construction = 72 ac Basin Volume = 62.3 ac -ft Total BMP Area = 9.1 ac 46m VP, • NW u"u"II 1'u' $6 �1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH III mNWuw ,, Iu WI IiI"I' IWi;ImI 'I,ul CM' ',!!!!,n, „�,• l ui6,rm,y,,,V"y'.d,S �hm1,^,pnulwuuuiliiM'Jlo NV C'"REEK BLVD "�l"1111x'w'�I,W" 11111111WWW'�p`e'a r '8m�i�uuu� V 11' �Illlluuu�uuuou I III I VIIWIIIIIIIIII 1'I' u a'n' III N, " 'I" IIU ,pµNMuuuryauu� „ IIry��I 11�1,1y1,�,m"uIN' ml"I"t"'f„1;,1ull"II„oI!!!,!„ u�" IIW4 re! ICI In ill Woo' Y �IQIIIIIII�' "11111"I I�uf III j Ilegato WI I�1luulllllllRh W Ilu'1111pW 11 wa;;'••1 W''iiiiiiiiiiiiiiil IIII 1 1 IIIIII ^^ a I'il'I" 1u°uito N Po'k6""""'u"""'IV'vur' V!m'11m111�1111e""µII1,m';il ��1iiu o''IIIIIugl rl�1p'''Uluul"'I,•dud �I m 11111 p IVll7' �RALI!BEL'L" DR" ' °''IIuI�11111111111M1�1 uu1uuuu11111°°l o"""". Miu''II9 i'iu;uilfyrvi411'Iu1d' I'I''u1'III II'I'Il,,,, 1111'i silo, Im"""""'ym,, ,w; I'Iilmiillllllll'Ialiulll 1,1,1' M1W �I,INII'd',rud`�' Jl �61 °' 'I"d1"""uuuuuuuuu'IINI'u^'IPL/o IIII i µIIII'i'Y;I";tl,ll I 1 Il yam„ rhrruSh"n,St u,1 VII MI"a N um °" m " 11 "II n VIII �IIIIIIIN�IIII �V umw.'i1'. Stormwater Overview Shakopee Gravel EAW Shakopee, MN m1�1,, iummldlll�ul'wluuuu Manhole A FES i llf�� '•� I ^m 1 llild'IIIIIIIIIIIII VIII Il p'wtYl°';61""'" 14IIiiiuulllllllllllllllllllllllll I Catchbasin Storm Sewer Proposed Sediment Basin Project Location IIIII Proposed Filtration Chamber Stormwater Detention Pond ,uu II a I 'uuuoulum' U N 0 600 Feet 1 inch = 600 feet Hvoinfill Appendix C USFWS IPaC Report SHAKOPEE GRAVEL REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MN WSB PROJECT NO. R-24495-000 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECORD OF DECISION APPENDIX Page 146 of 198 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: 2024-0057156 Project Name: Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment • ',....,::,„„,„„!!,:,,11,11„1,1,111H. March 03, 2024 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: 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/or may be affected by your proposed project. The species list fulfills the requirements of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (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. Please feel free to contact us if you need more current information or assistance regarding the potential impacts to federally proposed, listed, and candidate species and federally designated and proposed critical habitat. Please 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. This verification can be completed formally or informally as desired. 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 IPaC by completing the same process used to receive the enclosed list. The purpose of the Act is to provide a means whereby threatened and endangered species and the ecosystems upon which they depend may be conserved. Under sections 7(a)(1) and 7(a)(2) of the Act and its implementing regulations (50 CFR 402 et seq.), Federal agencies are required to utilize their authorities to carry out programs for the conservation of threatened and endangered species and to determine whether projects may affect threatened and endangered species and/or designated critical habitat. A Biological Assessment is required for construction projects (or other undertakings having similar physical impacts) that are major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment as defined in the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2) (c)). For projects other than major construction activities, the Service suggests that a biological Page 147 of 198 °Project code° 2024-005"7156 03/03/2024 - evaluation similar to a Biological Assessment be prepared to determine whether the project may affect listed or proposed species and/or designated or proposed critical habitat. Recommended contents of a Biological Assessment are described at 50 CFR 402.12. If a Federal agency determines, based on the Biological Assessment or biological evaluation, that listed species and/or designated critical habitat may be affected by the proposed project, the agency is required to consult with the Service pursuant to 50 CFR 402. In addition, the Service recommends that candidate species, proposed species and proposed critical habitat be addressed within the consultation. More information on the regulations and procedures for section 7 consultation, including the role of permit or license applicants, can be found in the "Endangered Species Consultation Handbook" at: https://www.fws.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ endangered-species-consultation-handbook.pdf Migratory Birds: In addition to responsibilities to protect threatened and endangered species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA), there are additional responsibilities under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA) to protect native birds from project -related impacts. Any activity, intentional or unintentional, resulting in take of migratory birds, including eagles, is prohibited unless otherwise permitted by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (50 C.F.R. Sec. 10.12 and 16 U.S.C. Sec. 668(a)). For more information regarding these Acts, see Migratory Bird Permit I What We Do I U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (fws.gov). The MBTA has no provision for allowing take of migratory birds that may be unintentionally killed or injured by otherwise lawful activities. It is the responsibility of the project proponent to comply with these Acts by identifying potential impacts to migratory birds and eagles within applicable NEPA documents (when there is a federal nexus) or a Bird/Eagle Conservation Plan (when there is no federal nexus). Proponents should implement conservation measures to avoid or minimize the production of project -related stressors or minimize the exposure of birds and their resources to the project -related stressors. For more information on avian stressors and recommended conservation measures, see https://www.fws.gov/library/collections/threats-birds. In addition to MBTA and BGEPA, Executive Order 13186: Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, obligates all Federal agencies that engage in or authorize activities that might affect migratory birds, to minimize those effects and encourage conservation measures that will improve bird populations. Executive Order 13186 provides for the protection of both migratory birds and migratory bird habitat. For information regarding the implementation of Executive Order 13186, please visit https://www.fws.gov/partner/council-conservation- migratory-birds. We appreciate your concern for threatened and endangered species. The Service encourages Federal agencies to include conservation of threatened and endangered species into their project planning to further the purposes of the Act. Please include the Consultation Code in the header of this letter with any request for consultation or correspondence about your project that you submit to our office. Attachment(s): ■ Official Species List Page 148 of 198 °Projec cost 2024-00571...56 03/03/2024 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 149 of 198 111,,,deject code 2.0271.-(105"717e 03/03/2024 PROJECT SUMMARY Project Code: Project Name: Project Type: Project Description: 2024-0057156 Shakopee Gravel Redevelopment Mixed -Use Construction Redevelopment of a gravel mine into residential housing, retail, commercial, and a water treatment plant. Project Location: The approximate location of the project can be viewed in Google Maps: https:// www. google.com/maps/@44.77201035,-93.47659733736225,14z run.. Parrk Counties: Scott County, Minnesota Page 150 of 198 Project coat 2024-00571...56 03/03/2024 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. 1. 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. 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 Tricolored Bat Perimyotis sub flavus No critical habitat has been designated for this species. Species profile: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/species/10515 BIRDS NAME Endangered Proposed Endangered 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 Page 151 of 198 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 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/VQTZ2 ZHORBFELEDG5J7WOPJFTI/documents/ generated/5967.pdf Candidate 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. yof/ Page 152 of 198 °Projec occt 2024-00571..°56 03/03/2024 IPAC USER CONTACT INFORMATION Agency: Name: Address: Address Line City: State: Zip: Email Phone: WSB Hayden Garza 2700 La Frontera Blvd 2: Suite 110 Round Rock TX 78681 hgarza@wsbeng.com 5127364511 /o'r Page 153 of 198 Appendix D Resolution No. R2024-092 SHAKOPEE GRAVEL REDEVELOPMENT CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MN WSB PROJECT NO. R-24495-000 FINDINGS OF FACT, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECORD OF DECISION APPENDIX Page 154 of 198 6.B. Shakopee Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2024 FROM: Kyle Sobota, Senior Planner TO: Planning Commission Subject: PUBLIC HEARING - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to the Valley Crest PUD Policy/Action Requested: Adopt Resolution PC2024-006, a resolution approving an amendment to the Valley Crest PUD to allow a reduced setback for decks on lots adjacent to certain stormwater basins. Recommendation: Adopt the resolution, as presented. Discussion: Site Information: Applicant: Emily Becker, M/I Homes Property Owner: M/I Homes Lot Area: 3.75 acres total for 8 lots Current Zoning: Planned Unit Development, PUD 2040 Comp. Plan: Suburban Residential Emily Becker, representing M/I Homes, has applied for a PUD Amendment to the Valley Crest PUD to allow for a 20' setback to the 100 -year High -Water Line (HWL) for decks adjacent to specific stormwater basins on eight lots. This request is considered a minor amendment by City Code; as it involves less than 10 percent of the PUD area (56 acres). Minor PUD amendments are only reviewed by the Planning Commission, unless the Commission's decision is appealed to the City Council. The specific lots included in the request are Lots 1-7, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 3 all in Valley Crest Second Addition. The current PUD requirement is a 30' setback for deck posts and a 28' setback to a cantilever. Certain home designs the applicant offers on some of the lots provide limited Page 155 of 198 space for a future deck. Staff has worked with a couple current homeowners in Valley Crest to find deck designs that meet requirements, in one case a spiral staircase was utilized to meet the setback requirement. The purpose of a 30' setback to the HWL of basins are as follows: • Provide adequate horizontal separation from stormwater basins in the event of flooding • Provide a back or sideyard area on lots adjacent to stormwater basins that is not entirely slope Decks that do not have a patio underneath them are considered pervious and do not have a flooding risk like an enclosed structure, such as a basement. This request only applies to decks, and does not apply to porches, or other additions to the houses. The proposed amendment does not alter the proposed grades on these specific lots. In 2019, the City Council approved a 20' setback for decks to specific basins in the Stagecoach PUD. The Engineering Department and Planning and Development Department recommend approval of this request, as adequate spacing is provided to the actual house and the amount of impervious surface is not increased on these particular lots. ATTACHMENTS: o Location / Area Map • Applicant Narrative o Lot Locations o House Design / Setback Exhibit • Resolution PC2024-006 Page 156 of 198 Page 158 of 198 Valley Crest INTRODUCTION AND DETAILS M/I Homes is requesting a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to allow flexibility for decks to encroach into the required setback from the High -Water Level (HWL). Currently, the PUD Resolution mandates that dwelling units (including the deck) be setback at least 30 feet from the HWL. This required setback has significantly decreased the allowable buildable area on these lots from 85 to 145 feet (where the required HWL setback does not exist) from 67 to 69 feet. This inhibits the ability of some of our plans to have a deck. We are requesting that the deck setback be reduced to 20 feet on Lots 1 -7, Block 1 and Lot 2, Block 3 of Valley Crest 2nd Addition. DETAILS We are only requesting that decks without roofs be allowed to encroach up to ten feet into the required setback from the HWL. We are not requesting that houses be allowed to encroach. We believe that this is justified given decks make less of an impact and are not counted towards impervious surface. The impervious surface on the subject lots would not be increased with this decreased setback. PUD STANDARDS All other required PUD standards would be adhered to. 2 I 0") 00"0000 c00 wm Page 159 of 198 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII VIII liiiiiiiiiiiii„„„ 1111»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»»» 11111,111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i »1111» IIIIIIIWIIIIIII II »»»»»» »„ I»»U»»»»»»»» » 4411 IIII 1 /1 I !,, 1111 iii ,iii u u�imml „::�� «rrrgm;;;;;;;n nnnnnm;N;;;;;;rr ItlIIIIIIIIIIIIIIMuuuuuuuuuuumifllllllllllllllllllllllllllllltlllllllllllllll�llllllll 1 ////////// lllllllllllllluuuuuuunuuuuuuuuuuuuu@nuuuuuuuuuuuuuu uum ii��m�IIIIIIIIIIII� tl1111111111111111111111111111hIIIIIl111111111111111111111hHuuu llliuu �Illhallla II Illllllllllllhlllllll ��M„ �IIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIII��iN!!!!!!��1111111111168iiiiiiiiiiiiiNiiiiiii IIIIIIIIIIIIHIIIIIIIIIIII� 1 n1111111111111111111111111111n1111111111111111IIIIIIIIIIII111IIIIIIIIIIm 11111111 1 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIdIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIhnuuuuuuuuuuuuuuNuum IIIIIIIIIIIIH' ��»»»»»,,,,,, uulnulllpuv((((uu«((i.bllllllllll;;;;;[ 111111 uuuim,,,,uuuumu11!,uuum II !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!101111111111111111111111111111 h MP IIIIV i uuuuuuuuuu°iiiiiitlmllluuuuuuuuuuu """I Illllllllllhll IIII!!llhlllllllllllllllllllllllllllhlllllllllllllllllllllllllllnllllllllllllllhlllllllllllllnllllllll !III IIIII. IIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII)IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ill 1 lull IIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIII JiJiJiJiJiJim»»» 11jjjjjjif'I'iiii fff II ffffl NIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIMM II111111IIIIIV11111111 IIIIIIIIIIIIINI uuu IIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIVIIIIIIpuuunuuuuuuuuuuuuulnlllllll 17111111 I l IIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIII �VIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIV ....,.Vllllllllllllllllllllllllllllulllllll d111I 'iiiiiiiiiiiiWIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIBII� IIIII4 iiiiiiIIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIII»»»mllllllllllllllllllllllll»..., uN Nuuuuuulu»»»INJiJiJiJiJiJiNIIIIInllllllllllllllllllllll II II Iluuuuuul mmmmM»»»ImmmmAumIllm,llllllllllllll�llllll. IIII! IIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIIIItluIIllllllllpuuml 11IIII�IIIIh�iiiiiiiiiiii�1111111111111111111111111N��g IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIII ,,,,liiiiiiiiiiiiiuiiiiiiiiiiii(llllllllllllniiiiiiiiiiiiipiiiii IIIIIIIIII uur�NNIIIM'muu�u.�uu� NIIIII6IIIII)))))IIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIH)IIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIII°IIIIIIIIIIIIIi°°°°°°I"I" 1111111 IIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIINIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII Illllllllllllµl I I I I I I I I I I I I )IllllIIIIII UIIIIIIIIII11111111111 III )mom)) IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIImml IAIO MC a»auu.111111NJEL.N. I IIIIIIII II IIIIIIIIIINI II N NII IIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII III NII I IIIIIIIIIIIII 1111 I I II II 111111111111111 II 11111 111111 IIIIIIIIIIIII IN III 1111111 11111 1111111111111IIIIIII6111111n111111111111111111 (MINI1111111111111111 1111111111111n1111111111111111111 11111 111111111111111tl111 II IIIIIIIIIIIIIn1111111111111111111 11111 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIn111 II IIIIIIIIIIIII111111111111111111nnull III/ 1 III I I III inn x111111 1 Ni IJimiJiINIJiIJi'IIi1 iii IIIII uJi Ni JiJi I ' IIII Jill IIIIIIIIII11111111I11 I �ai »»»um 1pulpgp,l �IIII'n1i1111111111111111111i uum� NII 111111(;)(,',$()()()( NI Il�lllllllllllln II II IIII I ....IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIII II II J YIN 7 TI IL)I^I ^TL)f-r-T 91 \ m \ / 20A I, I i . GRAYSON CS I \ \ / 30 Ij \ \ / \/ / / \I / 7 247 1 I I I C --- 2 LEO AS -17 1 II I 248 — — — -17 I �a I I� IG 3 LEO AS I ml O I L — J occil 07, ii I- 43 §I bi 0 ''.6- I LEO AS 4 N I O I O 2451(-----7 11 Ie IC LEO AS 5 _ I I ^ 244 r� ---7 /1 / \ /\ I I C a' I 6 LEO AS I j '/ ,' z45- ---- % -\ \ 1 \ \ LEO AS ' 10 x 92 I� A F \ Ir-:) f�rl1\I NL_1\ 8 2 Y 7 44.4 cF 6S Rf1TTOAA-A(1R / H PO O O O O N co GRAYS( PLANS RECEI' 50.C 12.00 O O decl LEO PLANS RECEI' 49.C Propo o Hour O N L) O O 5 �1 3.02 RESOLUTION PC2024-006 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT #9, VALLEY CREST PUD WHEREAS, Emily Becker, representing M/1 Homes of Minneapolis / St Paul LLC, applicant and property owner, has applied to amend the Planned Unit Development of Valley Crest; and WHEREAS, the properties are legally described as: Lots 1-7, Block 1 & Lot 2, Block 3, Valley Crest Second Addition, Scott County, MN; and WHEREAS, the Shakopee City Council approved the Valley Crest PUD on April 20, 2021; and WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on June 6, 2024, at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment is considered a minor amendment by City Code because the proposal impacts less than ten percent of the Planned Unit Development area; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission approves the amendment to Planned Unit Development District #1; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, that the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee hereby adopts the following findings of facts relative to the above -named request: Criteria #1: Is the proposed development amendment consistent in all respects with the comprehensive plan? Finding #1: The proposed development complies with the current guiding for the site. The proposed amendment specifically relates to the setback of decks to specific stormwater basins. Criteria #2: Is the proposed development, including deviations from design standards compatible with surrounding land uses? Finding #2: The proposed development as single-family homes is consistent with the surrounding residential neighborhoods and complies with the comprehensive plan. Criteria #3: Does the proposed development provide adequate open space, circulation, pedestrian orientation, parking, recreation, screening, and landscaping? 1 Page 162 of 198 Finding #3: The applicant has provided the required open space in the development and has constructed trails and sidewalks throughout the development. Criteria #4. If the primary function of the PUD is to encourage development which will preserve and enhance worthwhile natural terrain characteristics, it should not force intense development to utilize all portions of a given site in order to arrive at the maximum density allowed. Finding #4: The proposed development plan is below the typical maximum density of single-family residential developments of 5 units / acre. Criteria #5: Does the PUD provide an overall compatibility of land uses and overall appearance and compatibility of individual buildings to other site elements or to surrounding development. The architectural style of buildings shall not solely be a basis for denial or approval of a plan. Finding #5: The applicant has proposed building elevations that are above the minimum standards provided in City Code. Criteria #6. Whether the proposed PUD plan would offer a greater general public benefit than would be realized under the underlying zoning district and/or general zoning provisions. Finding #6: The applicant has provided both open space and trails within the development. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all of the properties listed above in the Valley Crest Second Addition plat are hereby approved for an amendment to PUD District #9 in the Zoning Ordinance subject to the following conditions: 1. This amendment reduces the setback to the HWL of stormwater basins to 20' for all parts of decks on the above listed specific lots. This amendment does not reduce the setback for the initial construction of a house, porches, or other covered additions to the houses. Passed in regular session of the Planning Commission of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held on the 6th day of June, 2024. Planning Commission Chairperson Attest: Michael Kerski, Director of Planning and Development PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 485 Gorman Street Shakopee, MN 55379 2 Page 163 of 198 6.C. Shakopee Planning Commission Meeting June 6, 2024 FROM: Kyle Sobota, Senior Planner TO: Planning Commission Subject: PUBLIC HEARING - Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to the Canterbury Southwest PUD Policy/Action Requested: Recommend the City Council adopt the proposed Ordinance O2024-007, an ordinance amending the Canterbury Southwest PUD. Recommendation: Recommend City Council adoption of Ordinance O2024-007, as presented. Discussion: Site Information: Applicant: Bryce Hotzler, Greystone Construction Site Address: 2941 Winner's Circle Drive Property Owner: Canterbury DBSV Development LLC Lot Area: 1.55 acres Current Zoning: PUD 2040 Comp. Plan: Entertainment Bryce Hotzler of Greystone Construction has submitted an application for a PUD Amendment to the Canterbury Southwest PUD to allow for the construction of a roughly 28,000 square -foot office building that the applicant has called the High Stakes Venture building. The initial Canterbury Southwest PUD was approved in June of 2020. The development of each lot requires a PUD Amendment, as the building and final site design / tenants were unknown at the time of the initial PUD approval. To date, the following developments have been developed in Canterbury Southwest: Page 164 of 198 • Greystone Construction corporate office • Omry Apartments • Badger Hill / Bravi's • Next Steps Learning Center • Starting Gate Bldg: Mr. Pig's Smokery /OG ZaZa / Discover Strength (under construction) After development of this site, the southeasternmost lot at the intersection of Vierling Drive and Eagle Creek Boulevard that was noted as a hotel will be the only vacant lot in the Canterbury Southwest PUD. The proposed use of the site as an office building and a small restaurant complies with the Entertainment land use classification of the 2040 comprehensive plan. The initial PUD plan noted this site for a retail / restaurant building. Building Discussion: The proposed exterior building materials are: • Two colors of brick • Three colors / finishes of architectural metal panel • Pre -cast concrete sills The character / materials of the proposed building are similar in character to the Greystone office and Bravi's / Badger Hill, and Omry and meet the materials / design requirements of City Code. Staff is recommending a minor revision to the east elevation such as adding a different color of brick and/or design features, such as a soldier course of brick to break up the large area of brick where the mechanical / trash room is located. The applicant has noted different locations and areas for wall signage and a freestanding sign on the site. Each site is permitted to have a monument sign by the original PUD, up to a maximum of six feet in height. Site / Parking Discussion: Vehicle access to the parking lot is via both Winner's Circle Drive and Suzanne's Way and aligns with the driveways to adjacent sites. The applicant is proposing 73 parking spaces on the site. On -street parking is permitted along Shenandoah Drive. On -street parking is not allowed on Schenian Street, Suzanne's Way, or Winner's Circle Drive. The applicant is proposing pedestrian connections to the building from the trail along Shenandoah Drive and sidewalk along Suzanne's Way and proposes bicycle parking. At the time of the approval of the Starting Gate building to the west of this site (Mr. Pig's Page 165 of 198 Smokery / OG ZaZa / Discover Strength), the only known tenant was Mr. Pig's Smokery that required 69 of the 94 parking spaces on the Starting Gate site. The PUD Amendment for the Starting Gate building required 30 parking spaces on this site be reserved for Starting Gate tenants. The number of parking spaces required for this site is 66 spaces and 73 spaces are provided, for a surplus of seven parking spaces. The Starting Gate tenants, OG ZaZa and Discover Strength, have significantly less parking needs than Mr. Pig's Smokery. Planning staff estimates that twelve parking spaces are required for Discover Strength for five staff and up to seven clients at a time, reducing the number of parking stalls on this site for the Starting Gate from 30 to 5. The applicant has a tenant for the entire upper level of the building that is a construction contractor with hours of operation of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Approximately 25% of employees of the tenant leave the office in the early morning hours and are off -site the rest of the day, leaving their parking spaces available during the day. The applicant notes the potential for a 2,000 square -foot restaurant space in the northwest corner of the first level of this building, which would utilize parking spaces that are vacated during the day. Parking needs for a possible restaurant will be reviewed against other tenant's parking needs, amount of restaurant seating, and timing / operations of the tenants. Engineering staff has noted in their comment memo that traffic volumes will continue to be monitored for this development and the configuration of the intersection of Schenian Street and Eagle Creek Boulevard may be adjusted based on traffic volumes. The landscape plan proposes several trees in the drainage and utility easement along Shenadoah Drive, which will not be permitted. When required landscaping is not possible on a site, a contribution to the Tree Fund is required, which is used for planting of trees in boulevards and parks. Overall, staff is recommending the Planning Commission give this development a positive recommendation to the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: o Location Map o Applicant Narrative • Existing Conditions Survey o Civil Plans / Landscape Plan • Architectural Plans / Elevations • Engineering Department Comments • Draft Ordinance O2024-007 Page 166 of 198 Page 167 of 198 Shakopee Municipal Boundary r I ',11111111111111111Illllllllllllllllull, Si IAKOPE E May 31, 2024 111111 """ „ii 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Ilw "',I'liiiiii1I, flu I111Vk111, ' '�°r�ulrllliuilhlf , Canterbury Southwest PUD Amendment Page 168 of 198 s " 4IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII II��I'4'MY'w'Y',V��Wlpll„I��,�'wlJuwl i�'° """"""11111111111111111111111111 0 0.035 0.07 mi 7645 Lin dallle Avenue:;etin, 1Ullte 10O Minneapolis, Pv l2 55423 3 6,12.€'6,1.1'636 April 25, 2024 High Stakes Venture Office Building - PUD Amendment Application Outlot D of the Canterbury Park Ninth Addition 2941 Winners Circle Drive Shakopee, MN 55379 Developer: Greystone Construction 2995 Winners Circle Drive Suite 200 Shakopee, MN 55379 Developer Contact Info: Bryce Hotzler / 952-278-1 134 / bhotzler@greystoneconstruction.com Architect: Tushie Montgomery Architects 7645 Lyndale Ave S. Ste. 100 Richfield, MN 55423 Architect Contact Info: Evan Jacobsen / Ph. 612-861-9636 / Email evanj@tmiarchitects.com Project Narrative High Stakes Venture Office Building is a proposed multi -tenant office building situated on Outlot D of the Canterbury Park - Winners Circle Development Planned Unit Development, abutting Shenandoah Drive and Suzannes Way. The proposed two-story, 28,000 SF building is intended to accommodate multiple tenants on the first floor and a single office tenant on the second floor. Views of the surrounding Canterbury Park and existing Winners Circle Development structures can be enjoyed by tenants on both floors of the building. The building has been thoughtfully designed to integrate within the surrounding site amenities by way of sidewalk connections and architecturally is clad with a mixture of high-grade materials consisting of brick masonry, vision glass, and quality metal panel. The proposed building design consists of a classic brick envelope highlighted by a rust -colored metal form that playfully interfaces with simple masonry volumes. The metal volume's earth tones create a dramatic aesthetic against the dark brick, while also harmonizing with other natural accents of the adjacent structures. Transitions between the contrasting materials were intentionally positioned to highlight the building's architectural features, such as areas of cantilevered steel structure and a second -floor roof deck. The entry features an open staircase positioned within a two-story glass lobby, designed to welcome occupants, and acting as a lantern which illuminates the entrance experience. The exterior glazing patterns react to the internal program of the building, with full glass walls providing ample natural light to the open office work areas on the second floor, and large windows spaced at regular intervals at the masonry portions of the design. The project team believes this project will be a great addition to the rapidly developing Canterbury Park district of Shakopee. The project will contribute to the energy and excitement of the area, with high - quality architecture which will facilitate additional business and commerce opportunities to support the growing local population. Page 1 Page 169 of 198 Parking Narrative As currently depicted, the proposed High Stakes Venture building would require approximately 66 parking stalls with the entire building being classified as office occupancy. As designed, the parking area provides 73 vehicle spaces, which meets the prescriptive requirements of the City Ordinance. In the event the building added a 2,000 SF restaurant tenant, our analysis estimates the parking requirement would increase by 4-5 total stalls per Ordinance, subject to the restaurant tenant's layout and available seats. An additional factor to evaluate while assessing the anticipated parking demand would be the second -level tenant's employee office requirements and tendencies. The hours of operation for the second -level tenant are Monday - Friday 7:00am - 5:00pm. However, based upon the tenant's current operations, they estimate roughly 25% of in -office staff would only be in the office for a short time in the morning, prior to leaving for the day to monitor off -site activities. As a potential restaurant would drive parking over the noon -hour and into the evening, presumably their additional parking demand could be offset by the spaces vacated by second level employees who leave early morning. Additionally, as a multi -state organization, it is anticipated that several of the workspaces on the second floor would be hotel -style workstations to accommodate out-of-state employees and are not anticipated to be occupied daily. The proposed lot for this development has a recorded Declaration of Easements for Access and Parking Agreement with the adjacent Starting Gate Venture Building Tenants to accommodate up to 30 parking stalls as a complimentary parking user based on business types and hours of operation. However, it is currently anticipated that the tenants of the Starting Gate Venture Shell Building will likely accommodate nearly all their parking needs on their given site and would only need to utilize a small fraction of the available 30 stalls. This is evidenced by the following metrics per tenant users (as currently understood at the time of submission, subject to change): Mr. Pig Smokery: Employees (1) GM + (6-10) Staff. Monday 11:00 AM -10:00 PM Tuesday 11:00 AM -10:00 PM Wednesday 11:00 AM -10:00 PM Thursday 11:00 AM -10:00 PM Friday 11:00 AM -12:00 AM Saturday 11:00 AM -12:00 AM Sunday 11:00 AM -10:00 PM OG Zaza Pizza: Employees (1) GM + (2) Staff. Monday 11:00 AM -10:00 PM Tuesday 11:00 AM -10:00 PM Wednesday 11:00 AM -10:00 PM Thursday 11:00 AM -10:00 PM Friday 11:00 AM -10:00 PM Saturday 11:00 AM -10:00 PM Sunday 11:00 AM -10:00 PM Discover Strength: Employees (1) GM + (4) Trainers. Max 4-7 Clients at a given time. Monday 5:30 AM -8:00 PM Tuesday 5:30 AM -8:00 PM Wednesday 5:30 AM -8:00 PM Thursday 5:30 AM -8:00 PM Friday 5:30 AM -8:00 PM Saturday 7:30 PM -2:30 PM :,car;jc 2 Page 170 of 198 Sunday 7:30 AM -2:30 PM As currently designed, the Starting Gate Venture Building's parking lot can provide 94 Parking stalls. Based upon prescriptive City Ordinance requirements, noted below, the provided spaces on -site are anticipated to be adequate. • Mr. Pig Smokery: 1 Space per 3 Seats (134 Interior + 72 Exterior) = 69 Stalls • OG Zaza: 1 Space per 3 Seats (54 Interior) = 18 Stalls • Discover Strength: 1 Space per 225 SF of floor area = 7 Stalls (1,545sf / 225sf) o This is more closely related to a Medical Office building than a traditional fitness facility. Clients work one on one with personal trainers, this is not a facility where people come and go at their leisure, all appointments are scheduled in advance. Page 3 Page 171 of 198 hid 8Z:Ol L bZOZ/SZ/b 00ruo10v0uo00uo0no'a Mall anal"aNNO ,e"enraee 3NO.SA3ddE CCINV0,10O,O 0060,100 000C 6/FeC NW `010,1CC', `d1OS3NNIW `AiNfOO 11OOS 33dONVHS 30 1110 3AI O 313 I0 S2j3NNIM 1P6Z 113HS S3)I`d1S HJIH 311111O3f02d N011VOIdddV and PC C CZ/EO ON 3nSS1 ,N011d1211S10 31Va 0 GH STAKES SHELL E SHELL / PROPERTY ADDRESS: 29 NNESOTA 55379 2 W a O APRIL 2024 SHEET LIST TABLE SHEET TITLE COVER SHEET GENERAL NOTES GENERAL NOTES EXISTING CONDITIONS REMOVAL PLAN CONTROL PLAN ECONSTRUCTION EROSIO OVERALL SITE PLAN z 0 H rn POST -CONSTRUCTION STABILIZATION P a a CO CO z So CO C7 F H So STORM SEWER CO w 0 CO w 0 CO w 0 CO w 0 w C CO H C CO w 0 CJ 0 a 0 a 0 o a 0 v 0 0 0 0 a CO w 0 CO F- 0 <7 CO F- 0 <7 CO F- 0 <7 CO F- 0 U <0 w 0 CO F- 0 <7 CO F- 0 U C 0 VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE NDSCAPE DETAILS Csi .uuv uoiyongsuo0euaµfia,0 NOONIININNG9 ZED-Z6Z oe BI'�6O151�H�1 3/059 wn 0303133 1� 003 MOO '0000 0 0 31au0IM966Z VIOS3NNIIN 'AiNf1OO noos 33dONVHS AO 111O 3N21O 31O2iIO S2i3NNIM Lb6Z 1-1BHS S3)1VIS HOIH '31111 1031'06d NOI133llddtl 003 3302130/30 ON 30SSI 'NOI1dI0OS30 '3130 PAVING, PAVEMENT MARKING, AND SIGNAGE NOTES (CONT.) PAVING, PAVEMENT MARKING, AND SIGNAGE NOTES • NALS WITH THE OWNER AND ENGINEER PRIOR TO REMOVAL Q 0 O • •F'= a UU LL UU O O 4 O 0 HES CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE UNDER CURB AND 0 0 0 z22w� m 0 00 O w 0 w N - I U X} Q 0 LLm �z 0a < zm �w Q z o LL a & z w o 'Ili! .�" O J m�c�z> j of O} w o LL m¢ y #O o� g 0 w aa2 H w g K z 0� O0 O, O O 0 w z 0 O O O F Q i U m N J t p w0 Z K w w o z Q oo�N Q ��o F W z V !ii o ¢omwo 0< C 4 z O w F 5 1H-1 x U o dz- UK K g W - Hw KOQF O w m " jJ=¢�c� � �o�0 HLW • O TJ L CONTROL NOTES topr,ploDampfiale S o z O ,m { VIOSANININ' Nno n o S 33dONVHS A01110 o 3/N2:10 31MAIO s 2NN7 L*; T-1BHS S3)1VIS HO|H 103 fOidd NOLLVTIddV and 'ON nssi STORM SEWER NOTES AND STRUCTURES SHALL MEET THE FOLLOWING ,uuo' uogongmoDampfia,0 NOLINIININNG9 Zeeae0 oe 3N OLSA3tL 3/099313 0303133 1� 003 6719E `03100 WO wau01M966Z VIOS3NNIW 'AiNf1OO11OOS 33dONVHS AO111O 3/N2:1O 31O2iIO S2i3NNIM L 76Z 1-1BHS S3)1VIS HOIH '3llll l33f0ld 3011tl01l333 and 300Z19Z/30 ON 30SS1 3011310100 3 0 '3130 w I- O z a z w V w J PROPERTY BOUNDARY w w w w w w w w w w w w w w U ,uuvuopr,ouo0euoµO,N N011111N15N09 zeeaeoruus 3N OLSA3tL 6/099 NO; 'aodo>1 1S 1� 003 01010 `00110 a4oi10 siau01M966Z VIOS3NNIW 'AiNf1OO11OOS 33dONVHS AO111O 3/N2:1O 31O2iIO S2i3NNIM Lb6Z 1-1BHS S3)1VIS HOIH '31111103f0dd N0I1tl01lddtl G0d bZOZ/9Z/30 ON 30SS1 'N0IldId0S30 3100 w I- O Z 0 wn V w J m 4 O U K � U' w � W 0 0 0 0 K CO w I- O >- w ,uuvuopr,ouo0euoµO,N N011111N15N09 zeeaeoruus 3N OLSA3tL 6/099 NO; 'aodo>1 1S 1� 003 01010 `00110 a4oi10 siau01M966Z VIOS3NNIW 'AiNf1OO11OOS 33dONVHS AO111O 3/N2:1O 31O2iIO S2i3NNIM Lb6Z 1-1BHS S3)1VIS HOIH '31111103f0dd N0I1tl01lddtl G0d bZOZ/9Z/30 ON 30SS1 'N0IldId0S30 3100 �z� w I- O Z 0 wn V w J QU CO w I- O >- w ,uuv uopr,ouo0euoµO,N N011111N15N09 Z.9eoruus 3N OLSA3tL 6/099 NO; 'aodo>1 1S 1� 003 01010 `00110 94oi10 siau01M 9662 VIOSaNNIW 'AINf1OO 11OOS 33dONVHS AO111O 3N21O 31O211O S2i3NNIM Lb6Z 1-1BHS S3)1VIS HOIH '31111103MOdd NOI1tl01lddtl GOd bZOZ/9Z/0 ON 30SS1 'NOI1dId0S30 3100 W I- O z / / / / / / / // / / / I/ / / / / / / / / a w V w J O 1111111111111 ,uuv uopr,OloDamilOa,0 011J It N.VS NG9 zeeaeoruus 3N OLSA3tL 62.E99NW'oddq")uus 003 01110 `00000 WO s1auUIM9662 ` IOSaNNIW 'AINf1O0 11O0S 33dONVHS A01110 3N210 3102110 S2i3NNIM Lb6Z 1-1BHS S3)1VIS HOIH '31II1103f01d NOI1tl3llddtl GOd bZOZ103/30 ON 3foGI 'NOI1dId0S30 '31V0 W I- 0 z i W PROPERTY BOUNDARY LOT LINE EASEMENT LINE CURB AND GUTTER BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT GRASS! LANDSCAPING PROPOSED PARKING COUNT uu V) Liu U0 cn O K 0 at O 0 O LOT AREA SUMMARY BUILDING SUMMARY 0 w at O O O a COMMERCIAL a 0 K 0 E It 0 at tisi It 0 RCEL SUMMARY 6 5 a a//""'")1f1:1:11I/1111f/4/ IW Iqy............ Pi 4 111/0111/004 4g)°,9 Aill,*1019,00000 /): "0000111C, 00," lePigli"44 ere ®111„;»101111 ®10000100: 1‘)) "11 110ijijojirr" O O rt 8 at O It 0 PARKING SUMMARY O n0 O 0 O a rY at BASED ON USE a 0 rL ILL 0 0 B3% IMPFRVIOI IS MAX GRFENSPACF SUMMARY- HIG 0 a d CD cn 0 0 z 0 It z It 0 0 It O 4 a K It IMPERVIOUS USED AC a OMRY SITE 3.5 a O a STARTING GATE -1.62 AC CD 0 0 0 d O at at O LSI a Or R3. ify ,uuvuoµr,ouo0euoµO,N N011111N15N09 zeeaeoruus 3N4O1SAati 6/099 NO; 'aodo>1 1S 1� 003 tiring `00110 WO siau01M966Z VIOS3NNIW 'AiNf1OO11OOS 33dONVHS AO111O 3N21O 31O2iIO S2i3NNIM Lb6Z 1-1BHS S3)1VIS HOIH '31111103M0dd N0I1tl01lddtl and bZ0Z/9Z/30 ON 30SS1 '00110100830 31VI Iz� 0 z W O w J w N- O Z w ` NOLSALo / s zM Mg66Z VIOSANININ'AIM-1001100S 33dONVHS A01110 o 3Al2:10 31MAIO s 2NN7 T-1BHS S3)1VIS HO|H NOLLVOIlddV and 'ON 3nssi GENERAL SWPPP NOTES EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL H H H )gh ( LH ‘L,1 ih }l2 <0 hi lb \:/ 10(10 \H \ SWPPP(CONTRACTOR): GREYSTONE CONSTRUCTION IMPAIRED WATERS, SPECIAL WATERS, AND WETLANDS ESTIMATED BMP QUANTITIES AND INSTALLATION SCHEDULE ?,§k 011 Fin \\\� REQUIRED TO CONTINUE SWPPP COVERAGE DURING 'LID 5 ifn 1010\\ 1015 \10)10 1010 ET PROTECTION ROSION CONTROL BLA CD CONS I RUC I ION EXIT CERTIFICATION 'ED DURING EACH INSPECTION: OTHFR ('.0N.RTRI ICTION VFHrI FS MINT RF I IMRFr1 TO A nEFINEn ARFA OF Q 3 E ro ° = s 2 :iii==artg660 V_LOS3NNIN` Nno LLOOS 33cIONVHSdo ,U13 DA@O13 oS NN7f6 YIHS S3)1V_LS Hell NUOVOrcUta oN 90001 z aina CO 0 z Li' nil!! \21'91�` \\ LC -chi raj"‘E°:101 tijh41:fich --)\/}/}®«®\\/fE/: E! \\\\\\\\\\!e / M LA ill cA j 9 - 00 j \ « \ \ NA!'I A A 9S :X & m ig taauopn.uoaauoA5Naa5 NO(A0 P14110O5 LE89-ebceee 3NOLSh3d9 6/¢55 Nw'a�a�ieu!t ON .1MS'anfa0 alo.il0 r�auuIM 5652 `d1OS3NNIAI '11NlOO11OOS 33dONVHS AO111O 3AIHG 31O211O S2JBNNIM 6P6Z YI HS SD)IVJ S HJIH :31111102ra id NOIIVOI1ddV and bZOZIDCDO ON Onosi NOI1dIa0000 :21V0 CO w I- O z a N O O O ¢ U O z > O w � ¢ w O z uJ V w J CD 2 0 2 CD O 2 NG SANITARY SEWER NG WATERMAIN NG SANITARY MANHOLE 0 CD CD O w w w w 0 O O CD V C f0 N wu ucuoo...Aw9 N011Jn Nl3N00 LE29,,B. 3N O1SA3d 6LCSS NI '.doINS 002 g 66 V1OS3NNIW `AiNflOOllOOS 33dONVHS 3O A11O DANCI 31O2iIO S2i3NNIM ft6Z 11DHS SD)1VJ S HJIH 31111103f0LId NalvonddV and NO06/060 'ON 3nSSl :N0I1d1210S30 31V0 w I- O z D z w V w J rul 0 0 0 ,uuv toprusooDampfia,N NO 0NIININNG9 Le(3aeoruus 3N C1LSA3tL 6/099 NW'aodo>1 IS 1� 00) MN)`aol0 a4oi13 siau01M966Z VIOS3NNIW 'AiNf1OO11OOS 33dONVHS AO111O 3/N2:1O 31O2iIO S2i3NNIM L 76Z 1-1BHS S3)1VIS HOIH '3-IA1103M0dd N0I103Ilddtl G0d 000Z1901b0 ON 30SS1 '1/011dId0S30 31VI m uJ I- O z z 'wn V w J PROPERTY BOUNDARY EASEMENT LINE 1.5" BLACK GRANITE ROCK MULCH, 3" DEPTH LANDSCAPE CODE REQUIREMENTS TREE PER 4,000 SF) PLANT SCHEDULE 0 z O U COMMON NAME CODE QTY BOTANICAL NAME OVERSTORY TREES m RED ROCKET MAPLE ACER RUBRUM 'RED ROCKET' ENTUCKY COFFEETREE TRUE NORT GYMNOCLADUS DIOICUS 'UMNSYNERGY' PRAIRIE GOLD® QUAKING ASPEN POPULUS TREMULOIDES 'NE ARB' ro CRIMSON SP IRE.' OAK QUERCUS X 'CRIMSCHMIDT' BOULEVARD AMERICAN LINDEN PRAIRIE EXPEDITION® AMERICAN ELM ULMUS AMERICANA 'LEWIS & CLARK' W W 00 cc 0 ( a O H 0 > K ��ooGo PRAIRIE ROSE CRABAPPLE PRINCESS KAY PLUM PRUNUS NIGRA'PRINCESS KAY' a 2 a .uuv uoiyongsuo0euaµfia,N NOI1111NiDM Geeae0O) 3NtlO.LSAati O" 3<0 NW'outlaryvy5 1� 00Z 00(10 `03110 043110 siauUIM 3662 `dlOSaNNIW 'AINf1OO 11OOS 33dONVHS dO 111O 3N21O 31O211O S2i3NNIM Lb6Z 1-1BHS S3)1VIS HOIH '31II1103f0dd NOIIVFllddtl and bZOZ19Z/b0 ,.ON 30SSI 1,10110110030 '31VI SPECIES AS SHOW ON PLAN 0 0 0 U 0 cu ZcC LL O o m J CO w CC Q O 0 U to0 H- < z Q O w w C] o w > O Q U LO z Q CC a CC CC 0 DOUBLE SHRED, HARD WOOD MULCH (3") MIN. ROCK MULCH, SEE PLANTING NOTES NON -WOVEN GEOTEXTILE FABRIC EDGING, SEE TURF RESTORATION NOTES EDGE CONDITION VARIES, SEE PLAN Eli i- 0 K< O w 0 < H J F Qicg C7 p0 F wjLL ~ m Z a z Sr .-- 00) i Op m wfL) J= w o Q. m O Y 0 J- O J 0 H J U —' Y LL =O <Cc O— a U> w LL m 0 O O m U CO 0 I- 0 op, W Y Q Q J w m p w 0 Q H CC O Z Z coO c) o m Q Z J Z J o� �- D. —.0i —_,m N wZ p m CC >>Z cwo m 0 ',I- =CU 00 O w p O ti z ] m Z w co= ti O =Q .00 — W ZOO O cL C7 >2 cO Q Y co — CC K O = w 02 0 0 2 0_I r• LL CC H 0«0—I=—, Q cn O- z O 0 z DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING NOT TO SCALE O 0 00 3 00 O Etd 0 O r a ROCK MULCH (3") MIN. UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE ESPONSIBILITY Uj U 0 m = 2 W - Y 0cc w O 0 ww K m w � U H LL O z a CD CC MULCH, SEE LANDSCAPE NOTES PRUNE DAMAGED OR DESICCATED ROOTS. 0 CO l — Oz Cu CC0 m H Q Z W Q c = i - OJ w J ~ 0 2 O Z F Q 2 U N col Z W S W co Z O co r Q Q 2 0 w maw Ocn Hz H -CD wH- 2 d 0 0 i- OO w p z° o ,L.,0 m =O r cto I: O L. = $ Q PL. O ▪ J 61 O J z m U, Nu Y O 0 4 0¢ Q O U = 0 on H tAINING ONSITE AND SUBMIT OPERATION AND 1TURES OF ALL IRRIGATION COMPONENTS. LN00p,LnO Ip!TuaTod vIvIvIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIvIvIvIvIvIvIvIvIvIvIvIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIvIvIvIvIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 000000000000000000000000000000000 11111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111I IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII ..E ,L9 J II71 1 III II II II lo I_I_1I II lo III lo Io I o ll ll I ll o o ll o II mouNI 4mil 4m. imp SZ-3NIl )13V813S oNiminu VLI Y1VM341S 3?JnJOn?Jls a3dol ,.o.[.„vii. _ .„v/ _ i. _ I I I Io II 1< 0_ I U- IO II- 'El IX Iw I I I M01]8 OIlYd 3O 1N31 L L O 3?Jnl0ndis a3dols „9 - ,£ 0- ,V[ 0 ,4l ,1114 lllhlf1i IIIIIII II IIIIIIIIII Fill VI IIIII IIIIIIIII mIIII VIII 1111 J 111II111�11�1111II II IIII III,111i1111111111 11 1 III ll, I III IIIr it IIII II h�00 11„r * mIIIIIIIIi1oIV11��1111111iil1lilplll,l,llll�l�jllulw II1 Ill 111111III 1111 r" IIii�IIf If ll I Irlun ` �Iluu�ui II11mlull°111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII11'II 111111 11, I,,,III IIIIIIIIII III IIIIII IIIIIIIIImIII Idly �Iliilllillllllllliilllllliilllllliillllllliiilliliiillilllllllllllllill IIII I�lll Dill I�lll ;IIIIIIII�IIIIIII�IIIIIII�I IIII�IIIIIII�I 'l II Iii Iii Iii1 III illp1 III°1 I I III°1 :"'IIIIIIIII,I,IIIIIIII�BI,l�llllllli111111111111IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII I1I IIIIIIIIII IIII III IIII 11111111111 I1I IIII1(IIII IIII IIIIIIII II1111111'11 III°Illllliilillll ll 1111 �uu �IIl IIII U ,ll!!i�oJ.1111111111iiilil, 11Illliiil 111�,11IJ I1111111�I,I111111�IIIIII II�Ii1ii ��ll� Ill IIII III IIIIIIII IIIIII 11 o1 IIII1°'o I . IIII 1111 IIII III< IIII I In 1 III I IIII IIII uy IIII IIIIIII IIIIp°IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 'III III IIIll 111 i�iii!iili!iil�lliiiiiIllll��lllllill II {Ilf 1 I I III p1 III°IIII°IIIIIIIIIIIIIII°I IIIIIIIilIIjjljllllj11111111IIII11 1111111ll 111111 1 11111 III P;IIIl;il r IIII 11111 1111 1111111 II 111 II 111111 11 111 I "I IIVll lllll�lllllpIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIlllllll11i11,11i„,IIIi11i1111111111111II11111111111,,,,1J1IIIIIIIII IIIIII III r' I I I i IIIIII ii III I/ m 1lli IIII IIIIIIII II IJII FriIIIIIIII�IIIIT1IIIII��I�IIIIIIIII11IIIII�I� IIIIJIIIIIIJIIIII111111II 111111111111I111111111,/i1111,,,, W 0_NOX0 < O <IC) OI°(N 0_ , 00 010 z 0 0 11 _ ao Ow J U ZN U- M u Pyq%iijp,if ��m�o�ouMo111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1 1 N m „V MVIIl11000i'iINllllllllllll yiiil d ',m � N yyP pp� Q 81 161V om1V h, hhhhaMmmmmmmm pooh V Y hhhhIIIIIIIIIIIuur Ihhhh iW �uuuuulw .� ,'ii'i'Iihhichh4 hhoo hThh hNu� hh ihhhoh I .. NNII1' oonolonoulohhhhhhhhl h1111111 ll moo,I uuM �BmuV°�"m 111111 uuu hohoolh City of Shakopee Memorandum TO: Kyle Sobota, Senior Planner FROM: Darin Manning, Project Engineer SUBJECT: Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment — Multi -Tenant Building Shell CASE: AMEND -000217-2024 DATE: May 29, 2024 The staff review indicates a request to review a Planned Unit Development (PUD) amendment application for a new multi -tenant building shell. The site is located south of Shenandoah Drive, west of Vierling Drive, east of Schenian Street and north of Eagle Creek Boulevard. This review should be considered preliminary, as more comments will follow with additional submittals. However, the Engineering Department offers the following comments at this time to the applicant and to the planning department: 1. Plan review comments have been prepared and a copy of those comments are attached to this memo. Revise plans to address the provided comments and provide a comment response memo. 2. Pay all applicable fees/charges listed below, as required by the most current City of Shakopee Fee Schedule. • Trunk Storm Water Charge • Storm Water Management Plan Review Fees 3. Easements must be provided and approved by the City Engineer. 4. Obtain final approval of the site's storm water management plan. 5. Due to the intensification of trips in the development and consistent with the overall Canterbury Commons traffic study, the city will continue to evaluate the intersection of Schenian Street and Eagle Creek Boulevard for conversion to a right-in/right-out or a three-quarter intersection. H:\Development\High Stakes Venture Shell Building'Project Management \Letters and Memos\Staff Review \PUD Amendment (High Stakes Venture Shell) 05 28 24.docx 1 oft Page 194 of 198 6. Submit a turning movement diagram showing garbage truck movements through the site. 7. Prior to any land disturbing activity, a grading or building permit must be obtained. A submittal must include detailed construction plans. 8. It appears that shared parking is not being proposed for this development. If this changes in the future a copy of a cross -access and maintenance agreement for the shared spaces must be submitted to the City and recorded with the properties. 9. Private infrastructure must not encroach on the perimeter drainage and utility easements. 10. Obtain a NPDES construction site permit prior to any land disturbing activity. A copy of the permit must be provided to the city. 11. The owner must enter into a Utility Facilities Easement Agreement with the city. The document must be recorded with Scott County. 12. The contractor must submit a Supplemental Conditions of the Grading Permit to the city prior to any grading activities. 13. The contractor must submit a Construction Management Plan to the city prior to any construction activities. 14. Record plans need to be provided per the City of Shakopee Design Criteria, Section 2.5 and Section 11.2 (A -L). The record plans need to be certified and submitted to the engineering department. Provide a letter from the engineer of record certifying all improvements were constructed per approved plans and under the direct supervision of the engineer of record. The developer/engineer of record must provide a full-time onsite inspector during all utility installation. 15. Approval of the PUD Amendment does not constitute approval of the submitted plans. Recommendation The Engineering Department recommends approval of the application subject to the conditions above being addressed/completed by the applicant. H:\Development\High Stakes Venture Shell Building'Project Management \Letters and Memos\Staff Review \PUD Amendment (High Stakes Venture Shell) 05 28 24.docx 2 oft Page 195 of 198 ORDINANCE O2024-007 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SHAKOPEE, MINNESOTA, AMENDING PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT #3 IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2941 WINNER'S CIRCLE DRIVE WHEREAS, Bryce Hotzler, applicant, and Canterbury DBSV Development LLC, property owner, have applied to amend Planned Unit Development District #3, Canterbury Southwest PUD; and WHEREAS, the property is legally described as: Outlot A, Canterbury Southwest Third Addition; and WHEREAS, notices were duly sent and posted, and a public hearing was held before the Planning Commission on June 6, 2024, at which time all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended to the City Council that the subject property be adopted as an amendment to Planned Unit Development District #3 as stated; and WHEREAS, the City Council heard the matter at its meeting on June 18, 2024; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED, that the City Council of the City of Shakopee hereby adopts the following findings of facts relative to the above -named request: Criteria #1: Is the proposed development consistent in all respects with the comprehensive plan? Finding #1: The proposed development complies with the current guiding for the site, Entertainment district. Criteria #2: Is the proposed development, including deviations from design standards compatible with surrounding land uses? Finding #2: The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of the original Canterbury Southwest PUD and is compatible with the surrounding land uses. The original PUD proposed retail / restaurant spaces on this site. Tt is expected that the number of vehicle trips generated by this development will be less as an office building. Criteria #3: Does the proposed development provide adequate open space, circulation, pedestrian orientation, parking, recreation, screening, and landscaping? 1 Page 196 of 198 Finding #3: The applicant is proposing connections to the surrounding sidewalks and trail. The applicant is not proposing any major changes to the character of the original Canterbury Southwest PUD. This amendment is for the review of the building's elevations and other site improvements. Criteria #4. If the primary function of the PUD is to encourage development which will preserve and enhance worthwhile natural terrain characteristics, it should not force intense development to utilize all portions of a given site in order to arrive at the maximum density allowed. Finding #4: The proposed development plan is for an office building with the possibility for a small restaurant. Criteria #5: Does the PUD provide an overall compatibility of land uses and overall appearance and compatibility of individual buildings to other site elements or to surrounding development. The architectural style of buildings shall not solely be a basis for denial or approval of a plan. The proposed amendment to the Canterbury Southwest PUD is compatible with the PUD and the character of the surrounding buildings. The applicant has proposed building elevations that are above the minimum standards provided in City Code and in compliance with the Canterbury Southwest PUD. Criteria #6. Whether the proposed PUD plan would offer a greater general public benefit than would be realized under the underlying zoning district and/or general zoning provisions. The applicant is proposing the development of an attractive building that complements the streetscape investments made in the Canterbury Park area and goals of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED, that the proposed amendment to PUD District #3, the Canterbury Southwest PUD for the development of property at 2941 Winner's Circle Drive is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. An approved turning movement diagram showing garbage truck and fire truck movements through the site is required. 2. The applicant must comply with the Engineering Department comment memo dated May 29, 2024. 3. The development of the site, including the site plan, building elevations, setbacks, building height, and exterior materials must be consistent with the submitted and approved plans with this application and the original Canterbury Southwest PUD. 4. The size of a restaurant on this site is limited to 2,000 square -feet and the number of seats in the restaurant or on a patio will be limited by the amount of available off-street parking for this site. 5. Signage noting vehicle parking availability for the Starting Gate tenants and timed restrictions is required on both this site and the Starting Gate site. 6. Ground mounted or rooftop mechanical equipment must be screened or painted to match the surrounding building materials in accordance with City Code requirements. Units taller than 3'6" in height above the roof deck require screening and units less than 3'6" above the roof deck may be painted to match the surrounding building materials. 7. A shared access agreement must be provided and recorded on both this site and the Greystone Construction site, as the parking lots are connected. 8. Bicycle parking must be provided on the site and meet City Code requirements. 2 Page 197 of 198 9. The applicant must work with Planning staff to add additional design features and/or color of brick to the east elevation in the area of the mechanical / trash room. 10. Required landscaping that does not fit on the site due to utilities and other impervious surfaces requires a cash contribution to the City Tree Fund of $400 / tree. 11. The proposed boulevard trees along Suzanne's Way must be overstory species. Additional trees are required in parking lot islands as noted on plans. 12. Trash handling must take place inside the building. 13. The proposed monument sign must meet the maximum height requirement of the original PUD at 6' in height. 14. The quantity and area of wall signage on the building must be generally consistent with the locations and is limited to the sizes shown on the elevations. Passed in regular session of the City Council of the City of Shakopee, Minnesota held on the 18th day ofJune 2024. Mayor of the City of Shakopee Attest: Lori Hensen, City Clerk PREPARED BY: City of Shakopee 485 Gorman Street Shakopee, MN 55379 3 Page 198 of 198