AGENDA Rogers Planning Commission May 4, 2026 - 7:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. APPROVE AGENDA Council members may add items to the agenda for discussion purposes or staff direction only. The Council will not normally take official action on items added to the agenda. 3. CONSENT AGENDA These items are considered to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a Councilmember so requests, in which event the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and placed elsewhere on the agenda. 3.1 Approve Minutes from April 6, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting 4. JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION - CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION 4.1 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update Kick-Off 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1 Consideration of a Site Plan and Variance Request for a Retail Center at 21355 136th Ave (Lot Adjacent to Maynards) by Cloutier Properties 6. NEW BUSINESS 7. CORRESPONDENCE AND REPORTS 7.1 Past Planning Commission Items Report 8. ADJOURN Page 1 of 131 STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: May 4, 2026 ROGERS PLANNING Agenda Item: 3.1 COMMISSION Subject: Approve Minutes from April 6, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting Prepared By: Alec Henderson, City Planner Overview / Background / Analysis Approve Minutes from April 6, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting Staff Recommendation Approve Minutes from April 6, 2026 Planning Commission Meeting Financial Impact: NA Source Fund: NA Budgeted? N/A Supporting Documentation A. April 6 2026 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 131 City of Rogers Planning Commission Meeting Minutes April 6, 2026 1. CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Rogers was called to order by Chair Lohr on Monday, April 6, 2026, at 7:00 PM at Rogers Community Room, 21201 Memorial Drive, Rogers, MN, 55374 and online in theTeams application. Commissioners present: Clark Lohr, Peter Mullin, Aaron Sattersten, Todd Kussman, Adam Hunt, Sean McDermid, Patrick Ruppe Commissioners absent: Sarah Larson, Nick Auman Staff present: Brett Angell, Community Development Director; Alec Henderson, City Planner; Also Present Patrick Brunner, Cardo (Consultant) Council Liaison: Joel Brockman 2. APPROVE AGENDA Commission Member Hunt moved, Commission Member Mullin seconded a motion to approve the agenda. Motion carried 7-0. 3. CONSENT AGENDA The following items were considered on the Consent Agenda: • Meeting Minutes from February 2, 2025 • Meeting Minutes from March 3, 2026 Commission Member Mullin moved, Commission Member Hunt seconded a motion to approve the Consent Agenda. Motion carried 7-0. 3.1 Motion to Approve: • Meeting Minutes from February 2nd, 2025; and • Meeting Minutes from March 3rd, 2026 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4.1 Consider Approval of Preliminary Plat for Northview Preserve 2nd Addition City Planner Henderson presented the item. Summergate Development applied for preliminary plat approval for Northview Preserve 2nd Addition, a 10-lot single-family Page 3 of 131residential subdivision on approximately 4.5 acres (PID 2212023330004, the Thompson Property). The site is zoned R2 – Single-Family Residential and guided Low Density Residential (2–5 units/acre) in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposal connects into the original Northview Preserve development. No variances or special approvals were requested; the plat meets all applicable zoning and subdivision standards, including a 10,000 sq. ft. minimum lot size, required setbacks, and all public roads. Stormwater management is handled via a single storm facility grading into the original Northview Preserve. A landscaping plan providing 42 trees throughout the site was submitted, with particular attention to Territorial Road frontage. Staff also noted that the original Northview Preserve plat will require a replat (Northview Preserve 3rd Addition) to shift Bluebird Way slightly southward to accommodate the connection, with a related right-of- way vacation to be processed by the City Council. Staff recommended approval of Resolution 2026-34. Chair Lohr opened the public hearing. No members of the public spoke. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners had no concerns or questions regarding the application. Commission Member Lohr moved, Commission Member Mullin seconded a motion to recommend approval of Resolution 2026-34, approving the Northview Preserve 2nd Addition Preliminary Plat, subject to conditions set forth in the staff report. Motion carried 7-0. 4.2 Consider Amendments to Zoning Code Section 125-42 Variances City Planner Henderson presented the item. Staff proposed amendments to Zoning Code Section 125-42 to align the City's variance standards with Minnesota Statute § 462.357, Subd. 6, as amended in 2011. The current code uses the term "undue hardship," which is no longer consistent with state law. The proposed amendments replace "hardship" with "practical difficulties" and apply the state-required three-factor practical difficulties test: (1) the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the ordinance; (2) the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; and (3) the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Extra-statutory findings not required by state statute were removed, and general language was cleaned up for clarity. Staff recommended approval of Ordinance 2026-09. Chair Lohr opened the public hearing. No members of the public spoke. The public hearing was closed. In response to a commissioner question, Henderson confirmed that the language permitting access to sunlight for solar energy systems is mandated by state law and is therefore retained in the ordinance. Commission Member Mullin moved, Commission Member Ruppe seconded a motion to recommend approval of Ordinance 2026-09. Motion carried 7-0. Page 4 of 131 4.3 Consider Amendments to Sec. 125-54, 125-55, and 125-84 Related to Accessory Structures and Fences City Planner Henderson presented the item. Staff proposed amendments to the code sections governing accessory structures and fences. Key changes to accessory structures include: increasing the maximum accessory structure size in the R2 zoning district from 528 sq. ft. to 650 sq. ft.; lifting the prohibition on accessory structures in front yards if zoning setback requirements are met; clarifying ambiguous language; and adding a conditional use permit process for accessory structures exceeding size limits. R1 and agricultural size standards forwarded by the Council were supported and not changed. Fence amendments were largely consistent with existing regulations, including cleanup of language for clarity, maintenance of the same relaxations of regulation, and alignment of corner lot visibility requirements with other code sections. A fence handout summarizing residential fence requirements was shown. Chair Lohr opened the public hearing. Daniel Wolfert addressed the Commission, seeking clarification on R1 accessory building sizes and requirements for driveway access to accessory structures. Henderson explained the size table and the conditional use permit process. No additional public comments were received. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners discussed the complexity of the ordinance and had no further suggestions for the amendment. Commission Member Mullin moved, Commission Member Hunt seconded a motion to recommend approval of Ordinance 2026-04, amending Section 125054, 125-55, 125-84 related to accessory structures and fences. Motion carried 7-0. 5. NEW BUSINESS 5.1 Review a Concept Plan by Oasis Group, inc. for a Senior Residential Living Facility at 13020 Hawkins Drive City Planner Henderson presented the concept plan. Oasis Group proposes a 160-unit senior residential living facility at 13020 Hawkins Drive (PID 22-120-23-0001), a 10.18- acre site currently used for agriculture. The site is zoned R3 – Mid Density Residential and guided Medium Residential (5–11 units/acre) in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use, a senior residential living facility, requires a Conditional Use Permit in the R3 district. The proposed development consists of 100 independent living units, 40 assisted living units, and 20 memory care units in a three-story, approximately 165,900 sq. ft. building, with 149 parking stalls (43 underground and 106 surface). A 1-acre park dedication is proposed. The proposed density of approximately 26.2 units/acre significantly exceeds the R3 maximum of 11.0 units/acre. Henderson summarized the development history of the site, noting that a 2024 proposal Page 5 of 131by Dean Johnson Homes for 53 townhome units was tabled and did not advance, and that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan supports medium-density and lifecycle housing at this location. Staff identified three potential application pathways: • Option A: Acquire adjacent Weber land (~9 acres), reguide to R3, and proceed with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Preliminary Plat, and CUP — resulting in a density within R3 parameters. • Option B: Pursue a Planned Unit Development (PUD) on the Hawkins parcel only, requiring the City Council to find the density deviation is in the public interest, with subsequent rezoning to PUD and a CUP. • Option C (Hybrid): Incorporate a portion of the Weber land with a PUD, reducing the density deviation and allowing for a trail/greenway corridor along Hawkins Drive. Henderson also noted that a neighborhood meeting was held on April 2, 2026. Approximately 6–10 residents attended. Concerns raised included the height of the proposed three-story building in proximity to single-family homes, traffic impacts on 129th Avenue, and 24-hour operations. Residents expressed positive reactions to the project's design and layout, but questioned its location. The developer offered full cutoff lighting, berming, and building step-backs to address concerns. The applicant team (Corey Brunton, architect; Simeon Wiechmann and Serge Maretski described the community need for senior housing, citing a feasibility study supporting local demand. They also highlighted sustainable design features including solar and geothermal systems. The applicant proposed screening and berming along the building's perimeter to address compatibility concerns with adjacent single-family properties. Commission discussion focused on density, building height relative to surrounding homes, traffic impacts on 129th Avenue, and compatibility with the neighborhood character. Commissioners requested that a traffic study be submitted as part of any future formal application. Questions were raised regarding the appropriateness of the site's R3 zoning designation and the history of prior land use decisions. Suggestions were offered regarding landscaping improvements and lighting mitigation measures. Commissioners expressed general support for the concept of senior housing, while indicating that key issues: particularly density, height, and traffic, would need to be addressed in a formal application. As this was a concept plan review, no formal action was taken. Commission feedback was provided to the applicant for consideration in preparing a future PUD application. 5.2 Review and Consideration of the Main Street Master Plan Patrick Brunner of Cardo presented the updated Main Street Master Plan. The plan was restarted to reflect recent changes including the civic campus development and a planned Main Street turn-back. The plan establishes a framework for pedestrian safety Page 6 of 131improvements, business support, mixed-use zoning, and parking enhancements in the Main Street corridor. A key feature of the updated plan is a proposed "peanut" roundabout design at the railroad crossing to improve traffic flow and pedestrian safety. Commissioners discussed roundabout design, traffic flow, parking signage, and coordination with existing businesses. Concerns were raised regarding vehicle stacking at the railroad crossing, pedestrian safety, and public awareness of available parking in the area. The plan is intended to set the groundwork for the City's upcoming Comprehensive Plan update. Commission feedback was noted to be forwarded to the City Council. 5.3 Consideration of Amendments to City Code Chapter 22-XIV Licensing Procedures and Regulations Related to Cannabis Businesses Community Development Director Angell summarized the proposed amendments. The item concerned potential modifications to buffer requirements for cannabis retailer licenses, specifically the 500-foot separation from daycares and the 1,000-foot separation from schools. Staff reported that an applicant had requested a reduction from 500 feet to 475 feet, or a change in how the buffer distance is measured. A separate property owner requested reevaluation of the 1,000-foot school buffer. Commissioners discussed measurement methods, the level of discretion available to the City, and the risks associated with buffer reductions. Following discussion, the Commission reached consensus to maintain the existing 500-foot separation requirement, while adjusting the measure from business to business adding a requirement that applicants provide scaled drawings clearly depicting lease boundaries and buffer distances. Commission Member Ruppe moved, Commission Member Hunt seconded a motion to ecommend approval of the amendments to City Code Chapter 22-XIV maintaining the 500-foot buffer requirement, the buffer being measured from business to business, and requiring scaled drawings from license applicants. Motion carried 7-0. 6. CORRESPONDENCE AND REPORTS Past Commission Items Review are online. No discussion. 6.1 Past Planning Commission Items Report 7. ADJOURN Commission Member Ruppe moved, None seconded a motion to adjourn at 9:07 PM. Motion carried 7-0. Respectfully Submitted, Alec Henderson, City Planner Page 7 of 131 STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: May 4, 2026 ROGERS PLANNING Agenda Item: 4.1 COMMISSION Subject: 2050 Comprehensive Plan Update Kick-Off Prepared By: Brett Angell, Community Development Director Recommended Council Action Overview / Background / Analysis On a decennial basis, Twin Cities metropolitan communities are required to complete an update to their comprehensive plans. A comprehensive plan is a long-term policy document which guides a city's growth over the next few decades. Comprehensive plans aid to ensure the thoughtful approach for cities to ensure all components of services are aligned as growth or redevelopment continues. Chapters within comprehensive plans commonly include: land use, housing, utilities, transportation, parks, implementation, and more. Comprehensive plans for the metropolitan area are guided by statutory and Metropolitan Council requirements, which the Metropolitan Council published via its Imagine 2050 system statements. The City of Rogers adopted its 2040 Comprehensive Plan in mid-2020. The 2040 plan has served as the guiding document for the city since its adoption. Earlier in 2026, the City of Rogers published a request for proposals (RFP) for a consultant(s) to assist with the 2050 Comprehensive Plan update. Following receipt of proposals, each was reviewed and scored. Ultimately, the City of Rogers selected and has entered in an agreement with TC2 (lead agency), SRF, and Landform for this item. Kick-off meetings and initial information gathering have occurred with staff. The intention of this Planning Commission - City Council kick-off meeting is to go over the anticipated schedule, identify early priorities, review the community engagement plan, and provide the consultants with necessary information as they begin the more intensive work. The consultants presentation and community engagement plan are attached to this item for review in advance of the discussion. In total, the update process is anticipated to take approximately 1.5–2 years with the intention of having the 2050 plan adopted by the city council in early 2028. Staff Recommendation Receive the presentation from the city's consultant and provide feedback and input. Financial Impact: Not applicable. Source Fund: Not applicable. Page 8 of 131 Budgeted? N/A Supporting Documentation A. Rogers 2050 CPU Engagement Plan B. May 4 2026 CCPC Presentation Page 9 of 131 City of Rogers Our 2050 Community Guide Comprehensive Plan Update | Engagement Plan DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION Prepared by TC2 Page 10 of 131City of Rogers 2050 Comprehsivne Plan Update Enagement Plan Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Contents .......................................................................................................... 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 2 Process Overview ...................................................................................................... 2 Central Themes ......................................................................................................... 2 Engagement Approach .................................................................................................. 2 Public Outreach Methods .............................................................................................. 3 In-person engagement ............................................................................................... 3 Online engagement ................................................................................................... 4 Public Engagement Plan ................................................................................................ 4 Engagement Timeline ................................................................................................ 4 Phase 1: Goals, Issues and Opportunities ................................................................... 5 Phase 2: Strengthening the Plan.................................................................................. 6 Phase 3: Finalizing the Plan ........................................................................................ 7 1 Page 11 of 131 City of Rogers 2050 Comprehsivne Plan Update Enagement Plan Introduction The Community Engagement Plan is intended to be a living, working document that will evolve as we collaborate with staff and elected officials throughout the course of the update. It will be refined and adjusted as we engage the community, gather feedback, and apply a range of engagement tools and techniques over time. Process Overview The City of Rogers is beginning the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan in alignment with the Metropolitan Council’s 2050 planning cycle. This update presents an important opportunity to reflect on the community’s evolving needs, respond to emerging regional and local trends, and ensure compliance with the Metropolitan Council’s statutory requirements. As of the 2020 census, 13,925 people live in Rogers. However, the population of Rogers is growing, with population forecasts predicting 21,300 people in the city by the year 2040, and 25,200 by the year 2050. To create a livable community, which meets the needs and desires of present and future residents, the project team will bring community members along in the process of updating the City’s Comprehensive Plan. By inviting community members into the update process early on, we are able to meaningfully incorporate their input into plan policies and implementation steps. Central Themes The project team currently understands the following topic areas to be central points of discussion for the 2050 Plan. As the planning process begins to evolve, these topics will be refined to best meet the vision and goals for the City of Rogers: • Growth and Infrastructure Planning • Resiliency and Sustainability • Downtown Planning and Neighborhood Identity • Economic Shifts Engagement Approach To make the broad and expansive nature of the comprehensive planning process accessible and approachable to community members, the project team will be tailoring 2 Page 12 of 131 City of Rogers 2050 Comprehsivne Plan Update Enagement Plan questions and activities to focus on community members’ current lived experiences and how they want to live their daily life. Below is a sample of questions that could be asked throughout the engagement process. Attached is also a more detailed survey to be used as part of Phase I engagement. • How do you travel to and from work/school/home? How would you like to travel to/from these places? • Where in Rogers do you feel a sense of place and belonging? • Where in Rogers do you feel a sense of community? • Outside of work/school, where do you frequently visit in Rogers? • What do you enjoy about living in Rogers? Public Outreach Methods Throughout the duration of engagement, the project team will be using a variety of methods to reach community members, recognizing that different communities are best reached through different methods of engagement. Below is a summary of the engagement methods that the project team will use to communicate with the public about the plan. More details on when and how each method will be used are further elaborated in the Public Engagement Plan section. In-person engagement Planning Commission / City Council Workshops Small, facilitated discussions with members of the Planning Commission and City Council will be held to allow for deeper dialogue about key areas of the 2050 Plan. By actively engaging local elected leaders in the development of the 2050 Plan, it helps to empower them to confidently use the plan in their decision-making roles. Community Pop-Ups Tabling at community events provides us with the opportunity to meet community members where they are and reduces the barriers to engaging with the 2050 Plan. Pop-ups can be seen as “mini meetings” and will be leveraged to share information and gather feedback from community members who might not otherwise engage with the project. Community Focus Groups Small, facilitated discussions with community members which allow for deeper discussion about key areas of the 2050 Plan. Focus groups help to uncover uncovering nuanced 3 Page 13 of 131 City of Rogers 2050 Comprehsivne Plan Update Enagement Plan perspectives and local knowledge that might not surface in larger forums and are ideal for discussing localized impacts and fostering ongoing relationships. Open House An open house provides an opportunity to invite the community to learn about the 2050 Plan and provide feedback through a variety of activities. The project team is available to answer questions and dive into deeper discussion about the project with community members. Online engagement Project Website An interactive online website will serve as a central hub for sharing project updates, documents, timelines, and opportunities for feedback. It provides 24/7 access to information and can host interactive features like comment forms, maps, and surveys. Online Survey Online surveys will be used to collect feedback from community members who may not be able to attend in-person events. Questions asked on the online surveys will mirror questions asked and activities at in-person events. Email Updates Community members will be able to sign up for email updates on the 2050 Plan development process through the project website and at in-person engagement events. Information about the plan, upcoming engagement events and ways to provide feedback will be provided through these email updates. Public Engagement Plan Engagement Timeline Engagement for the 2050 Plan will occur in three phases: • Phase 1 (April – August 2026) will focus on identifying issues and opportunities within the community and developing goals for the 2050 Plan. • Phase 2 (August – December 2026) will focus on strengthening the plan by identifying topic areas or central themes that need to be integrated throughout the 2050 Plan. 4 Page 14 of 131 City of Rogers 2050 Comprehsivne Plan Update Enagement Plan • Phase 3 (January – April 2027) will focus on finalizing the plan and sharing the results with the community. To meet the goals of each phase, the project team will be using a variety of engagement methods, as outlined in the Public Outreach Methods section. The plan below is subject to change as the project evolves. Phase 1: Goals, Issues and Opportunities This phase will first begin with the two workshops with the Planning Commission and City Council to develop a shared understanding of the purpose, goals and key topic areas of the 2050 Plan. PC/CC Workshop #1 Audience Planning Commission, City Council Kick-off the planning process and confirm the key topic areas for Purpose consideration. Timing May 4, 2026 – Confirmed Online Survey Audience Community members Focus on lived experiences to help identify issues and opportunities within the Purpose community. Results will be used to update the plan’s vision and goals. Timing June 2026 PC/CC Workshop #2 Audience Planning Commission, City Council Develop a consensus on a revised vision for the 2050 Plan and begin to Purpose develop goals that can be used to help the City reach the vision. Timing July 2026 After the Planning Commission and City Council have had an opportunity to provide a foundation for the future vision and goals of the City, the project team will take the vision and goals to the community to receive input on how they can be refined to reflect the community. 5 Page 15 of 131City of Rogers 2050 Comprehsivne Plan Update Enagement Plan Pop-ups (3) Audience Community members Confirm the City’s vision and goals and introduce central themes for discussion: Examples include • Purpose Growth and Infrastructure Planning • Resiliency and Sustainability • Downtown Planning and Neighborhood Identity • Economic Shifts Timing July 2026 • Rogers Farmers Market Potential • Movies in the Park locations • Entertainment in the Park • Summer Art Fair Phase 2: Enhancing the Plan This phase will first begin with one workshop with the Planning Commission and City Council to develop a series of action items, policies and strategies that could be used to achieve the goals identified in Phase 1. PC/CC Workshop #3 Audience Planning Commission, City Council Report back on community engagement activities and how participant input is Purpose shaping revised goals and informing the topic areas and central themes to be addressed as part of the focus group discussions. Timing August / September 2026 After the Planning Commission and City Council have identified what is needed to achieve the plan goals, these findings will be taken to the public for their feedback and thoughts on which actions should be prioritized. Focus Groups Meetings (4) Audience Community members Discuss central themes and determine how they should be reflected in the Purpose 2050 Plan, focusing on stronger policies and actionable strategies. Each 6 Page 16 of 131City of Rogers 2050 Comprehsivne Plan Update Enagement Plan focus group will be organized around specific topics and structured in an open-house format to encourage group discussion and interactive activities. Timing September- December 2026 Online Survey Audience Community members Confirm revised goals, policies, and action items associated with new themes Purpose being integrated into the 2050 Plan. The survey will help prioritize what is most important to focus on over the next five to ten years. Timing September- December 2026 Phase 3: Finalizing the Plan Once the plan is finalized the key outcomes of the plan and the overarching themes will be shared with the community. Open House Audience Community members Share the finalized 2050 Plan and introduce the priority action items and Purpose policy topics that will be used to support the City’s vision and goals. Timing March – April 2027 Pop-ups (2) Audience Community members Share the finalized 2050 Plan and introduce the priority action items and Purpose policy topics that will be used to support the City’s vision and goals. Timing March – April 2027 7 Page 17 of 131City of Rogers 2050 Comprehsivne Plan Update Enagement Plan Community Survey #1 – Draft Questions for Discussion Daily Life & Community Experience 1) What do you like most about living or spending time in Rogers? (Select up to 3) a) Quiet neighborhoods b) Parks, trails, and open space c) Schools and family-friendly environment d) Sense of safety e) Location and access to nearby cities f) Local businesses and services g) Community events and activities h) Other (please specify) 2) What most often makes daily life harder than it should be? (Select one) a) Traffic or congestion b) Limited shopping, dining, or services nearby c) Housing costs d) Lack of transportation options e) Limited recreational or social options f) Access to childcare or schools g) Nothing—daily life works well for me h) Other (please specify) 3) Do you feel welcome and that you belong in Rogers? (Select one) a) Yes, very much b) Mostly yes c) Neutral / not sure d) Mostly no e) No, not at all 4) What influences the most welcome or connected you feel? (Select up to 2) a) Neighbors and social connections b) Community events and activities c) City services and communication 8 Page 18 of 131 City of Rogers 2050 Comprehsivne Plan Update Enagement Plan d) Businesses and public spaces e) Schools or faith/community organizations f) Sense of diversity and inclusion g) Other (please specify) Housing & Neighborhoods 5) How easy is it to find housing in Rogers that fits your needs and budget? (Select one) a) Very easy b) Somewhat easy c) Neither easy nor difficult d) Somewhat difficult e) Very difficult 6) What types of housing do you think Rogers needs more of? (Select all that apply) a) Starter homes / smaller single-family homes b) Townhomes or condos c) Apartments or rentals d) Housing for seniors or aging in place e) Affordable housing options f) Larger family homes g) No additional housing needed h) Other (please specify) 7) What matters most to you in a neighborhood? (Select up to 3) a) Safety b) Quiet streets c) Walkability d) Access to parks or trails e) Nearby shopping and services f) Good schools g) Strong sense of community h) Other (please specify) Transportation & Getting Around 8) What helps you get around Rogers most easily today? (Select all that apply) a) Well-maintained roads 9 Page 19 of 131 City of Rogers 2050 Comprehsivne Plan Update Enagement Plan b) Easy vehicle access and parking c) Sidewalks or trails d) Short travel distances e) Low traffic volumes f) I mainly drive and have few issues g) Other (please specify) 9) What makes getting around Rogers difficult or frustrating? (Select up to 2) a) Traffic congestion b) Gaps in sidewalks or trails c) Feeling unsafe walking or biking d) Limited transit options e) Poor lighting or visibility f) Confusing intersections g) Nothing is particularly difficult h) Other (please specify) 10) Do you feel unsafe traveling in any areas of Rogers? (Select one) a) Yes b) No c) Not sure 11) If yes, why? (Select all that apply) a) Speeding traffic b) Lack of sidewalks or crossings c) Poor lighting d) High traffic volumes e) Snow or ice conditions f) Other (please specify) 12) Which improvement would most improve how you get around? (Select one) a) Safer streets and intersections b) Better sidewalks and trails c) Traffic congestion improvements d) More transit or ride options e) Better road maintenance f) No changes needed 10 Page 20 of 131 City of Rogers 2050 Comprehsivne Plan Update Enagement Plan g) Other (please specify) Business & Economic Opportunity 13) Does Rogers have the kinds of jobs and businesses you want to see? (Select one) a) Yes, mostly b) Some, but more variety is needed c) Not really d) Not sure 14) What types of businesses or jobs would you like more of? (Select up to 3) a) Restaurants and entertainment b) Retail and everyday services c) Professional or office jobs d) Light industrial or trades e) Small/local businesses f) Remote-work or flexible spaces g) Not sure h) Other (please specify) 15) What would most support local businesses in Rogers? (Select up to 2) a) More customers and foot traffic b) Better locations or commercial spaces c) Easier regulations or permitting d) Workforce availability e) Better transportation access f) City promotion or events g) Other (please specify) Parks, Public Spaces & Community Amenities 16) How often do you use parks, trails, or public spaces in Rogers? (Select one) a) Daily b) Weekly c) Monthly d) Rarely e) Never 11 Page 21 of 131City of Rogers 2050 Comprehsivne Plan Update Enagement Plan 17) What amenities or spaces would you like more of? (Select up to 3) a) Parks or playgrounds b) Trails or walking paths c) Community gathering spaces d) Recreation facilities e) Natural areas f) Cultural or event spaces g) No additional amenities needed h) Other (please specify) Quality of Life & Sustainability 18) What does a “healthy and sustainable” future for Rogers mean to you? (Select up to 3) a) Clean air and water b) Affordable cost of living c) Well-maintained infrastructure d) Responsible growth e) Energy-efficient buildings and services f) Strong local economy g) Access to nature and open space h) Other (please specify) 19) What are your biggest concerns about Rogers’ future? (Select up to 2) a) Rising costs and affordability b) Traffic and congestion c) Loss of community character d) Environmental impacts e) Limited services or infrastructure f) Growth happening too fast g) No major concerns h) Other (please specify) 20) What should city leaders focus on most in the next 10–20 years? (Select up to 3) a) Transportation and infrastructure b) Housing options c) Economic development d) Parks and recreation 12 Page 22 of 131City of Rogers 2050 Comprehsivne Plan Update Enagement Plan e) Environmental protection f) Public safety g) Community character and quality of life h) Other (please specify) 21) Which statement best describes the future you want for Rogers? (Select one) a) A quiet suburban community that grows slowly b) A balanced city with steady growth and strong local services c) A more vibrant city with expanded jobs and amenities d) A city focused on sustainability and long-term resilience e) Not sure Optional Closing Question Is there anything else you’d like to share about your experience living or spending time in the city? 13 Page 23 of 131 Our 2050 Community Guide May 6, 2026 Comprehensive Plan Update Page 24 of 131Discussion items 1. Setting the stage for the update 2. Share process and approach for the update 3. Start sharing ideas for central themes to be addressed Page 25 of 131 Who was part of the 2018 Comprehensive Plan Update? Page 26 of 131What is a Comprehensive Plan? The Comprehensive Plan is the City’s long-range vision (year 2050 outlook) It guides: Development and growth, infrastructure and capital planning, and policy and decision-making. The update is a chance to: • Revisit the community’s priorities • Address new challenges • Make sure the plan works for how the City operates today Page 27 of 131Regional Requirements State law sets the stage for comprehensive planning requirements Page 28 of 131The Metropolitan Council is the regional planning agency charged with planning and coordinating the growth and development of the seven-county metropolitan area. Page 29 of 131Imagine 2050 is the Metropolitan Council’s 30-year regional development guide that sets shared policies for land use, transportation, housing, water, and parks to address large-scale issues and help local governments plan coordinated growth and infrastructure across the region. 2050 Policy and System Plans Imagine 2050, includes five policy plans. Each plan includes objectives, policies, and actions that align with regional vision, values, and goals. Page 30 of 131Continued growth is expected in Rogers, with Forecasts 2020 2030 2040 2050 population Population 13,295 18,300 21,300 25,200 projections Households 4,534 6,400 7,500 8,900 suggesting an Employment 9,817 13,200 15,100 17,900 additional 11,900 residents by 2050. Page 31 of 131Requirements we Pedestrian Infrastructure Plans must support safe, accessible, and connected will need to pedestrian networks that link neighborhoods to key destinations. Plans should incorporate design principles address together. that accommodate walking and biking for all ages and examples abilities, and align local pedestrian systems with regional trails and transit. Climate Action Integration Housing Density Rogers is considered an “Emerging Suburban Edge” Cities must now incorporate statewide greenhouse gas and “Diversified Rural” community. Sewered reduction targets, aiming for a 50 percent reduction by residential needs to meet 3.5 units per acre, and the 2030 and net zero emissions by 2050. This includes diversified rural areas need to be 4 units per 40 strategies for mitigation and adaptation across sectors. acres. Natural Systems and Water Supply Planning Affordable Housing Goals Plans must address surface water, wastewater, and water supply systems with updated tools and examples The regional need for future affordable housing provided by the Council. units is 39,700. Rogers’ share of the region’s future need for low-income housing is 545 new units of affordable housing. Page 32 of 131Vision + Guiding Principles Chapter update example Page 33 of 131Land Use Chapter update example Page 34 of 131Water Resource Chapter update example Page 35 of 131Process + Approach Page 36 of 131Page 37 of 131Engagement Plan • Online Tools and Project Website • Pop-Up Events • Focus Groups • Workshops/Open Houses • Community Survey Page 38 of 131At the heart of the process are multiple workshops with you to create a plan that supports your decision-making roles. Page 39 of 131Common Themes Page 40 of 131Quality of Life Housing • Missing middle shortage • Build-to-rent and single-family rental • Aging population + lifecycle housing • Remote/hybrid work continues Page 41 of 131Quality of Life Commercial/Retail • Shrinking retail market • Big-box market is saturated • Grocery anchored centers remain strong • Space is being redesigned to accommodate e-delivery and online shopping • Tenant mix that focuses on essentials + value + convenience Page 42 of 131Quality of Life Employment • Office inventory reduction via conversions and demos • Industrial demand remains strong with an emphasis on quality and efficiency • Demand for data centers and tech space is on the rise • Curb-side management and door-to-door deliveries Page 43 of 131Quality of Life Recreation • Third spaces • After work or weekend adventures vs. week-long trips • Safer connections for all modes, ages, and abilities • Indoor space for socializing and light exercising Page 44 of 131Group Discussion Page 45 of 131What themes or trends do you want this plan to address? Page 46 of 131How do we now define sustainability or resiliency? Page 47 of 131How can the comprehensive plan better serve you in your decision- making role? Page 48 of 131Thank You! Lance Bernard, Project Manager lbernard@transportationcollaborative.com Page 49 of 131 STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: May 4, 2026 ROGERS PLANNING Agenda Item: 5.1 COMMISSION Subject: Consideration of a Site Plan and Variance Request for a Retail Center at 21355 136th Ave (Lot Adjacent to Maynards) by Cloutier Properties Prepared By: Brett Angell, Community Development Director Overview / Background / Analysis In 2025, the City of Rogers entered into a purchase agreement with Cloutier Properties ("Developer" or "Buyer") for the sale of city-owned property at 21355 136th Ave. The purchase agreement corresponded to the future development of the site into a new multi-tenant commercial building of approximately 10,000 square feet. The proposed development and site plan under consideration corresponds to this sale. The Developer has been pre-leasing to tenants and has had solid interest from prospective tenants. No leases have been signed to date, but there is an expectation the building will be fully leased around the time construction is completed of the building shell. With the proposed development and property sale, the Developer and Theilen and Green Architecture (collectively referred to as the "Applicant") have submitted a site plan and variance request to the city for consideration. The proposed development includes the construction of a new multi-tenant commercial building of approximately 9,100 square feet that would be separated into four (4) tenant spaces. Of the four tenant spaces, it is anticipated that it will include two fast casual restaurants (one of which would have a drive-thru), a take-out space, and a retail/office tenant. Property Details The Subject Property is currently comprised of two parcels totaling approximately 1.31 acres and is located at the intersection of Rogers Drive and 136th Avenue, directly adjacent to Maynards restaurant. The property was originally acquired by the City of Rogers in 2006 for future city facility consideration. However, it was determined that the site would no longer be needed for future city functions. The site has not been developed in the past and has been maintained as an open grass area for the past several decades. Directly to the east of the Subject Property includes excess right-of-way from a point in time at which the roads in the area were re-aligned. As a part of this development request, the excess right-of-way will be vacated and incorporated into the development parcel. The excess right-of-way provides additional opportunities for signage or other related development needs. Zoning and Guidance Page 50 of 131The Subject Property is zoned as RC - Regional Employment Center and guided as commercial within the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. The proposed use as a multi-tenant commercial building is consistent with the zoning and guidance for the property. The listed tenant uses are all consistent with the zoning and guidance as well. Adjacent uses to all sides include various commercial uses including: Maynards restaurant to the west, 21st Century Bank to the north, multi-tenant commercial (medical offices) to the east, and stormwater ponds and Dairy Queen to the south. The proposed building meets all required building setback distances. The proposed development requires a setback to the required parking setbacks, as this property is within the corridor overlay district which has a 20 ft parking setback for front and side yards. Details related to the variance request can be found below. The proposed development meets all other zoning code requirements for landscaping, building height, and architectural materials. Site Plan Details The proposed development includes an approximately 9,100 square foot building sitting fairly centralized on the site. The front face of the building would face towards the east (towards Rogers Drive). Parking is situated around the edges of the site. The southern tenant space would be structured to allow for a drive-thru and stacking for the drive-thru would occur on the rear side of the building. The design for the drive-thru allows for the stacking of over 12 cars before impacting any drive lanes. The northern tenant space includes a small space for an outdoor patio space. The trash enclosure is located on the southwest corner of the property. The north, east, and south drive aisles would allow for two-way traffic. The west (rear) drive lane would be a one-way, abutting the angled parking. The proposed drive lane widths meet the city standards for width. Parking and Access The proposed development includes two access points on the north and south sides of the property. The access points are pushed as far to the west as possible to ensure proper truck turning movements within the site. The proposed access points and truck turning movements exhibit have been reviewed by the Fire Department and they are comfortable with the proposed design. The proposed development has a total of 93 parking stalls, five of which would be ADA- accessible and in the front of the building. Most of the stalls are located in the front and sides of the building for visitors/customers. Twenty of the stalls provided would be angled in the rear of the building, which are anticipated to be utilized primarily by the employees of the businesses. The proposed number of stalls is consistent with code requirements as the city code includes a provision corresponding to the total number of stalls being reduced for developments with cross parking agreements. Stormwater Management This area is served via regional stormwater pounding, which will be utilized for this Page 51 of 131development and has adequate capacity. The development will have to meet all rules and regulations as required by the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission (ECWMC). The development exceeds the 1-acre threshold for disturbance and will have to receive ECWMC approval. A copy of the stormwater management plan is included with this item. Architecture The proposed architecture includes a mix of brick, glazing, stone veneer, EIFS, and precast and metal accents. The colors are primarily different tones of gray. The proposed materials are consistent on all sides of the building. At its top height, the building would be about 22 feet in height, below the maximum height restriction. The proposed materials are consistent with the corridor overlay district standards. Landscaping The applicant is proposing to plant 20 trees along with additional shrubs and grasses. The trees are primarily focused on the north and south sides of the property. The site is currently undeveloped and there are no trees that would be removed as part of this development, so all would be newly planted. The proposed landscaping meets the requirements of city code. Variance Request The applicant is requesting a variance from the 20-ft parking setback on the north, south, and east property lines. The proposed variance would allow for a 10-ft parking setback from the south and north property lines and a 0-ft setback, at the minimum point, from the west. The requested parking setback variances are related to the irregular shape of the lot, multiple street frontages, and the existing right-of-way around the building allowing for a greater perceived setback. If the variance is granted, the south parking lot setback from the curb would be at approximately 25 feet. The north would be 20 feet, and the west would be at about 22 feet, at its closest points. The proposed distances would be aligned with many nearby properties, many of which have parking setback under 10 feet from property lines. Variance requests require the Planning Commission to make findings of fact that the proposed variance is consistent with the regulations and criteria as defined in City Code section 125-42. This includes that the variances are in harmony with the comprehensive plan, there are non-economic practical difficulties present, and the circumstances requiring the variance are unique to the property and not created by the owner. Variance requests are reviewed on their own merits. Each request should be considered if it meets the code provisions for granting variances. Key factors in approving variances can be simplified to: Does the proposal put the property to use in a reasonable manner? Are there unique circumstances to the property? If the variance is granted, would it alter the essential character of the locality? Staff Recommendation Open the public hearing and take public comment on the proposed variance request to reduce the parking setbacks. Page 52 of 131 Staff recommends the Commission motion to recommend approval of Resolution 2026- 49 approving the site plan and variance request for a retail center at 21355 136th Ave by Cloutier Properties. A draft of Resolution 2026-49 is included for review. Financial Impact: Not applicable. Source Fund: Not applicable. Budgeted? N/A Supporting Documentation A. Resolution No. 2026-49 136th Ave Site Plan and Variance B. Narrative C. Variance Narrative D. Civil and Architectural Plans E. Stormwater Management Plan Page 53 of 131 RESOLUTION NO. 2026-49 APPROVING A SITE PLAN AND VARIANCES RELATED TO CLOUTIER PROPERTIES MULTI-TENANT RETAIL DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 21355 136th AVENUE WHEREAS, Theilen and Green and Cloutier Properties (collectively referred to as “Applicant”) have submitted applications to the City of Rogers (“City”), requesting approval of a Site Plan and Variances for a development on the property located at 21355 136th Avenue. The proposed development includes an approximately 9,100 square feet multi-tenant commercial building as depicted in Exhibit B. The proposed variances are related to parking setbacks; and WHEREAS, the property is 1.31 acres and zoned Regional Employment Center (RC), located at 21355 136th Avenue and legally described in Exhibit A (“Subject Property”) (PIDs: 14-120-23- 42-0015 and 14-120-23-42-0021); and WHEREAS, section 125-27 – Site Plan governs the procedures around site plan review processes, and subsection (b) states: “the Planning Commission shall evaluate the effects of the proposed site plans. This review shall be based upon, but not be limited to, compliance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and provisions of this Ordinance”; and WHEREAS, the proposed use at the Subject Property for a multi-tenant commercial building comprised of an quick service restaurants, take out, and retail use are permitted uses in the RC zoning district (§125-50 Table 4E); and WHEREAS, the proposed development includes an approved parking plan of 93 total spaces allocated via City Code 125-86 Parking. All parking shall be utilized as open to customers of any on-site tenant; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Minnesota Statute §462.357, the Planning Commission (“Commission”) held a Public Hearing (“Hearing”) on May 4th, 2026, to consider and receive public comment on the variance requests; and WHEREAS, notice of the Hearing was posted, published in the City’s official newspaper, mailed to any and all owners of affected properties, as required by State Statute; and, WHEREAS, on May 4th, 2026, the Commission reviewed the request and voted unanimously to recommend approval to the City Council of the Site Plan Review, with the following conditions: a. Applicant entering into all required agreements with the City prior to issuance of a building permit. b. All engineering and community development comments shall be satisfied prior to construction. c. Any necessary Elm Creek Watershed Permitting and Requirements shall be met prior to construction. 1 Page 54 of 131 d. SAC Determination shall be submitted to the Metropolitan Council and all building and connection fees paid prior to issuance of the building permit. e. The applicant shall receive approval for the vacation of public right-of-way directly adjacent to the property to be included in the overall development site. f. Applicant shall provide striping for individuals to cross the drive-thru aisleway. g. One-way signage shall be placed or marked near the northwest side of the property for the rear of the building. h. The trash enclosure shall match the general aesthetic of the principal structure. i. Permits shall be required to be issued within one year of the date of this approval or an extension to these approvals granted by the City Council. WHEREAS, following the Hearing, the Commission recommended approval of the variance requests for the parking setback and impervious surface requirements provided based on the following findings of fact: 1. The subject property is legally described as found in Exhibit A; and 2. The Applicant has applied to the City for variances to City Code 125-57 related to the required 20-foot parking setback; and 3. The proposal would vary from the Code requirement via providing a 10-foot parking setback on the north and south sides and a 0-foot parking setback on the north side of the property; and 4. Following a public hearing on the application, the Rogers Planning Commission has recommended approval of the variance on May 4, 2026; and 5. The City Council of the City of Rogers reviewed the requested variance at its May 12th, 2026, meeting; and 6. Variances are guided by applicable State Statute Section 462.357 Subd. 6 and City Ordinance Section 125-42(c); and 7. The Applicant is in conformance with the existing neighboring properties due to the existing conditions of many of these properties being below the required setback; and 8. The Property has an effective 20-foot setback from back of curb to the property line due to the public right-of-way adjacent to this location; 9. The property is bound by roads on three of the sides and other structuring of the development would not be feasible; 10. The Property is served by regional stormwater systems which have the capacity to handle the excess impervious surface. 11. The Variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of City Code and is consistent with the character of other uses in the zoning district. 12. There are practical non-economic difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance, and the Variance is the result of circumstances caused by the City Code requirements related to the development. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROGERS, MINNESOTA, the Site Plan Review and Variance requests from Cloutier Properties are hereby approved for the proposed multi-tenant commercial building of approximately 9,100 square feet at 21355 136th Avenue, and variances from City Code 125-57 related to the reduction of the parking setback from 20 feet to 10 feet on the south and north side of the property and 2 Page 55 of 131reduction of the parking setback from 20 feet to 0 feet on the east side of the property, based on the conditions found in this resolution. Moved by Councilmember , seconded by Councilmember The following voted in favor of said resolution: The following voted against the same: The following abstained: Whereupon said resolution was declared duly passed and adopted, and was signed by the Mayor, and attested by the City Clerk dated this 4th day of May, 2026. __________________________________ Shannon Klick, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________________________ Stacie Brown, City Clerk 3 Page 56 of 131 EXHIBIT A LEGAL DESCRIPTION Subject Property LOT 1, BLOCK 2, DIAMOND LAKE VILLAGE, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AND OUTLOT B, WALTER DEHN COMMERCE CENTER 5TH ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA Abstract Property PIDs #14-120-23-42-0021 and 14-120-23-42-0015 4 Page 57 of 131EXHIBIT B SITE PLAN 5 Page 58 of 131Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 2 Diamond Lake Village and Outlot B Walter Dehn Commerce Center 5th Addition according to the plat thereof on file and in the office of the County Recorder of Hennepin County, Minnesota Narrative of the Project: The existing vacant lot located at 21355 136th Ave N. Rogers, MN is the site for a new +/- 9,620 SF single-story retail building for four (4) retail tenants and a drive thru “pickup window”. The current site is undeveloped grass field; and we are looking to revitalize the area by providing a new building that is complementary in both look and use. As the property is located in the RC – Regional Employment Center zoning district that allows all permitted, permitted accessory, or conditional uses contained in Sec 125-67 of the zoning code; as the tenant services that would occupy the building would include retail sales, personal service businesses, and essential services. For the site layout the new building will be placed toward the center of the lot to allow site access on both sides of the property and allow maximum flow around the site. A drive thru “pickup” window is proposed to the South side as there is a shift in fast-casual dining as more customers use online apps to place orders ahead of time. As a result we are seeing a new concept being developed by those types of tenants that allow customers to notify their arrival and pick up their pre-made order at the window, reducing congestion on-site as there will not be a waiting period for the order to be made. The proposed drive thru includes a menu board and minimum 5 que stacking for vehicles. The proposed building’s exterior façade will be a mixture of brick, stone, EIFS, and glazing with metal awning accents that provide a modern appeal to the retail building, while also including outdoor patio area for seating with landscaping along the east elevation facing Rogers Drive. The trash enclosure will occupy the northwest corner of the lot and will be finished in a complimentary material in brick and stone matching the building. Page 59 of 131 Page 60 of 131Legal Description: Lot 1, Block 2 Diamond Lake Village and Outlot B Walter Dehn Commerce Center 5th Addition according to the plat thereof on file and in the office of the County Recorder of Hennepin County, Minnesota Narrative of the Project: The existing vacant lot located at 21355 136th Ave N. Rogers, MN is the site for a new +/- 9,620 SF single-story retail building for four (4) retail tenants and a drive thru “pickup window”. The current site is undeveloped grass field; and we are looking to revitalize the area by providing a new building that is complementary in both look and use. We are requesting a variance from the 20-foot parking setback requirement on the north, south and eastern property line and the 10-foot setback requirement on the west property line. Due to the irregular corner lot with roadways on 3 sides of the building, a 20-foot set back is a hardship on the site. Strict enforcement would result in losing 10% of the required parking. We are proposing a 10-foot setback on both the north and south property line and a 5-foot set back on the west property line. Due to the irregular shape of the site at the corner of Rogers Dr. We are requesting a 0-foot setback at the corners of the triangular shaped wedge as shown on the site plan. This would still allow parking to be 30’ from the curb line. Page 61 of 131 Page 62 of 131SITE GIS DATA SITE PLAN NOTES ZONING: RC - REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT CENTER PARKING THE FOLLOWING USES ARE PERMITTED WITHIN THIS DISTRICT: • STALL SIZE = 9'-0" X 18'-0" a. COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE USES • DRIVE AISLES = 26'-0" b. RESTAURANT • REQUIREMENTS: a. MAX IMPERVIOUS = 75% 1. DINING (SEATING): 1 SPACE FOR EACH 40 SF OF FLOOR AREA b. MAX HEIGHT = 45'-0" MAX 2. DINING (TAKE-OUT): 1 SPACE FOR EACH 15 SF OF FLOOR AREA c. BUILDING SETBACKS 3. KITCHEN: 1 SPACE FOR EACH 80 SF OF FLOOR AREA • FRONT = 30'-0" MIN 4. RETAIL: 1 SPACE FOR EACH 200 SF OF FLOOR AREA • SIDE = 10'-0" MIN OR 30'-0" MIN. AT STREET 5. OFFICE/ BUSINESS: 1 SPACE FOR EACH 200 SF OF FLOOR AREA • REAR = 20'-0" 6. HEALTH/FITNESS CLUB: 1 SPACE FOR EACH 200 SF OF FLOOR AREA • PARKING = 7. MEDICAL/DENTAL CLINIC: 6 SPACES PER DOCTOR 1. FRONT = 20'-0" 2. SIDE = 20'-0" ESTIMATED REQUIRED PARKING: 128 3. SIDE = 20'-0" PROVIDED PARKING: 93 4. REAR = 10'-0" PARKING CAN BE REDUCED TO NOT LESS THAN 60% OVERALL FOR SHARED PARKING CITY STAMP AREA 7455 VILLAGE DRIVE, SUITE #110 LINO LAKES, MN 55014 763 -553 -7927 WWW.TANDGARCH.COM PROPERTY LINE 16505 75TH AVENUE NORTH MAPLE GROVE, MN 55311 763 -234 -8108 20 STALLS 18 ' - 0" " - 0 9' TRASH 12' - 6" ENCLOSURE MENU BOARD ONE WAY DIRECTIONAL SIGN 26' - 0" DRIVETHRU 9' - 0" 10' - 0" 3' - 6 7/8" 26' - 0" SPRINK./ UTILITY FAST CASUAL +/- 2,552 SF 26' - 0" FAST CASUAL +/- 2,409 SF RETAIL/BUSINESS +/- 2,364 SF TAKE-OUT +/- 1,754 SF DINING PARKING (ASSUME ROGERS, MN DINING PARKING (ASSUME 900 SF): 1/40 = 22.5 RETAIL: 1/200 LOBBY PARKING (ASSUME 5 STALLS 1,000SF): 1/40 = 25 KITCHEN PARKING (ASSUME 19' - 0" 150 SF): 1/15 = 10 KITCHEN PARKING (ASSUME 1,652 SF): 1/80 = 20.65 8 STALLS 1,409SF): 1/80 = 17.6 TOTAL REQUIRED: 11.8 KITCHEN PARKING (ASSUME 1,604 SF): 1/80 = 20 TOTAL REQUIRED: 43.15 POTENTIAL TOTAL REQUIRED: 42.6 9' - 0" TOTAL REQUIRED: 30 DRIVE-THRU OR PICK UP ELM CREEK CENTER WINDOW PROPERTY LINE TOTAL BUILDING: 9,725 GSF 4' - 0" 12' - 2 13/16" OUTDOOR RAIL PATIO ISSUE DATE 11 STALLS 10' - 0" (627 SF) OR 2 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 02/18/26 9 STALLS ADDITIONAL PARKING CONCEPTUAL PLAN & ELEVATIONS 03/11/26 SPACES PERMIT & BID SET TBD 17 STALLS ? TBD ? TBD PROPERTY LINE 20' - 0" PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 1 '0 - 0 /1 23 STALLS 2" REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE MONUMENT SIGN NE Y LI ERT P ROP RO P PE RT Y L INE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN Project Number 498 Date 03/19/2026 Drawn By ? Checked By ? EX01 CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 1 1/16" = 1'-0" Scale 1/16" = 1'-0" 4/27/2026 10:19:11 AM Page 63 of 131 T.O. LOW PARAPET 119' - 5" 25 23 18 25 4.8" 34" 4.6" 34" 3.6" 34" 5" 34" 1 1/2" EIFS 5/8" GYP BD SPRINKLER & METER 6" METAL STUDS 105 94 SF T.O. WINDOWS 112' - 0" CAVITY INSULATION CITY STAMP AREA TENANT 1 TENANT 2 TENANT 4 TENANT 3 101 102 104 103 2415 SF 2374 SF 2577 SF PATH OF 1761 SF TRAVEL 27'-8" PATH OF PATH OF TRAVEL 37'-6" TRAVEL 7455 VILLAGE DRIVE, SUITE #110 PATH OF LINO LAKES, MN 55014 32'-2" TRAVEL 763 -553 -7927 29'-6" WWW.TANDGARCH.COM 1 1/2" RIDGED INSULATION T.O SILL 16505 75TH AVENUE NORTH 102' - 5" MAPLE GROVE, MN 55311 763 -234 -8108 STONE 24 24 18 25 FINISHEDfinish FLOOR floor 1 5" 34" 4.8" 34" 4.8" 34" 3.6" 34" 100' - 0" LIFE SAFETY PLAN (AREA PLAN) WALL SECTION 3 2 3/32" = 1'-0" 3/8" = 1'-0" ROGERS, MN A580 4 ELM CREEK CENTER ISSUE DATE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 02/18/26 CONCEPTUAL PLAN & ELEVATIONS 03/11/26 PERMIT & BID SET TBD SPRINKLER/METER 15' - 0 1/2" ROOM ? TBD 105 ? TBD 94 SF 45' - 11 5/16" 44' - 9" 34' - 11 5/16" 48' - 10 3/4" 6' - 10" TENANT 1 1 A580 PRELIMINARY 101 TENANT 4 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 2415 SF TENANT 2 49' - 11 5/8" 53' - 5 3/8" 104 102 TENANT 3 2577 SF 2374 SF 103 1761 SF A580 2 REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE CONCEPTUAL FLOOR PLAN 3 A580 Project Number 498 Date 03/19/2026 CONCEPTURAL FLOOR PLAN 1 1/8" = 1'-0" Drawn By ? Checked By ? EX02 Scale As indicated 4/27/2026 10:19:12 AM Page 64 of 131 EXTERIOR MATERIALS GENERAL EXT ELEV NOTES 1. GENERAL EXTERIOR ELEVATION NOTES T.O. PIER 1 EIFS -1 122' - 0" T.O. PIER ROOF SYSTEM W. INSUL PRECAST SILL ACCENT CULTURED STONE 120' - 8" BRICK EIFS DARK GRAY EPDM -1 PRC -1 VENEER BR -1 EIFS -1 MANUF TBD MANUF: CUSTOM STN -1 ACCENT BRICK T.O. LOW MANUF: TBD MANUF: TBD COLOR: BLACK COLOR: ACCENT MANUF: TBD PARAPET COLOR: TBD COLOR: CUSTOM 119' - 5" COLOR: TBD BR -1 T.O. WINDOWS 112' - 0" CITY STAMP AREA GLAZING METAL CANOPY PRC -1 STN -1 T.O SILL 102' - 5" ALUM W/ GLAZING 7455 VILLAGE DRIVE, SUITE #110 COPING/FLASHING EXTERIOR HM PAINT ALUM -B / GLZ -1 LINO LAKES, MN 55014 MTL -1 PT -1 3' - 0" 2' - 5" FINISHEDfinish FLOOR floor 1 MANUF: TBD 763 -553 -7927 MANUF: TBD MANUF: SHERWIN COLOR: ANNODIZED BLACK WWW.TANDGARCH.COM 100' - 0" COLOR: MATTE BLACK WILLIAMS COLOR: TRICORN BLACK ELEVATION - NORTH 1 1/8" = 1'-0" 16505 75TH AVENUE NORTH MAPLE GROVE, MN 55311 T.O. PIER 1 763 -234 -8108 122' - 0" ACCENT BRICK BR -1 EIFS -1 ACCENT BRICK BR -1 T.O. PIER 120' - 8" T.O. LOW PARAPET 119' - 5" T.O. WINDOWS 112' - 0" PRC -1 T.O SILL 102' - 5" 3' - 0" 2' - 5" 3' - 0" 2' - 5" finishFINISHED floor 1 FLOOR 100' - 0" 100' - 0" STOREFRONT STOREFRONT ALUM SUN SHADE STN -1 ALUM SUN SHADE ALUM SUN SHADE STN -1 ALUM SUN SHADE ROGERS, MN GLAZING GLAZING ELEVATION - EAST 3 1/8" = 1'-0" ELM CREEK CENTER T.O. PIER 1 EIFS -1 BR -1 ACCENT BRICK 122' - 0" ISSUE DATE T.O. PIER CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 02/18/26 120' - 8" T.O. LOW CONCEPTUAL PLAN & ELEVATIONS 03/11/26 PARAPET PERMIT & BID SET TBD 119' - 5" ? TBD ? TBD T.O. WINDOWS 112' - 0" METAL CANOPY PRC -1 GLAZING T.O SILL 102' - 5" PRELIMINARY 3' - 0" 2' - 5" FINISHED FLOOR NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 100' - 0" DRIVE-THRU WINDOW STN -1 REVISION SCHEDULE ELEVATION - SOUTH NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 2 1/8" = 1'-0" T.O. PIER EIFS -1 BR -1 120' - 8" T.O. LOW PARAPET 119' - 5" CONCEPTUALEXTERIOR ELEVATIONSELEVATIONS Project Number 498 Date 03/19/2026 T.O SILL 102' - 5" Drawn By - Checked By KMT 3' - 0" 2' - 5" FINISHED FLOOR 100' - 0" STN -1 EX03A580 ELEVATION - WEST 4 1/8" = 1'-0" Scale As indicated 4/27/2026 10:20:41 AM Page 65 of 131 CITY STAMP AREA 7455 VILLAGE DRIVE, SUITE #110 LINO LAKES, MN 55014 763 -553 -7927 WWW.TANDGARCH.COM 16505 75TH AVENUE NORTH MAPLE GROVE, MN 55311 763 -234 -8108 ROGERS, MN ELM CREEK CENTER ISSUE DATE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 02/18/26 CONCEPTUAL PLAN & ELEVATIONS 03/11/26 PERMIT & BID SET TBD ? TBD ? TBD PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS Project Number 498 Date 03/19/2026 Drawn By ? Checked By ? EX04 Scale 12" = 1'-0" 4/27/2026 10:19:12 AM Page 66 of 131 CITY STAMP AREA 7455 VILLAGE DRIVE, SUITE #110 LINO LAKES, MN 55014 763 -553 -7927 WWW.TANDGARCH.COM 16505 75TH AVENUE NORTH MAPLE GROVE, MN 55311 763 -234 -8108 ROGERS, MN ELM CREEK CENTER ISSUE DATE CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN 02/18/26 CONCEPTUAL PLAN & ELEVATIONS 03/11/26 PERMIT & BID SET TBD ? TBD ? TBD PRELIMINARY NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION REVISION SCHEDULE NO. DESCRIPTION DATE CONCEPTUAL RENDERINGS Project Number 498 Date 03/19/2026 Drawn By ? Checked By ? EX05 Scale 12" = 1'-0" 4/27/2026 10:19:12 AM Page 67 of 131 THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION DEPICTED IN THESE PLANS ARE SHOWN ACCORDING TO CI/ASCE 38-02, "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA," LEVEL D STANDARDS. LEGEND NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Page 68 of 131NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Page 69 of 131NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION Page 70 of 131 939.5 Main Street Frontage938.1 Road 940.2 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION B i t u m i n o u s 8" PVC 941.0 End of concrete curb 938.8 940.2 941.8 (n) inv = 926.64 tcc942.6 (se) inv = 926.62 tcc 942.79 tcc 939.5 S 937.52 943.23 Sanitary Manhole rim=939.70 tcc C 940.7 N 89°16'32" E 164.56 938.8 937.49 943.2 cped 941.0 tcc Utility Easement 943.15 Drainage & S 72°20'27" W 83.87 10 14" maple 23.29 937.7 tcc Outlot B941.6 Walter Dehn Commerce Center 5th 937.12 tcc 10 tcc 937.60 942.99 84.33 (Walter Dehn Commerce Center 5th) concrete curb tcc N 89°57'01" W tcc 937.01 10 937.04 83.88 (Diamond Lake Village) 11" pine Rogers Drive 939.7 936.3 Utility Easement 13" pine 939.1 Drainage & 940.0 tcc concrete curb 941.6 936.85 15" cherry 942 937.8 943.1 943.2 Light Pole tcc 941 942.51 15" cherry P o s s i b l e B o u n d a r y 938.1 943 940 5 tcc 936.30 tcc 941.94 938.4 936.8 tcc 941.79 939.9 Light Pole 942.8 934.9 944.74 top nut hydrant 941.2 942.6 S 00°43'28" E 349.05 941.3 N 00°43'28" W 349.06 941.2 941.2 determined tcc 10 941.45 Estate to be Additional325.76 Real 10" pine 936.5 936.4 tcc 937.1 935.53 938.7 942 10" pine 936.1 tcc 8' in PVC 941.14 (w) inv = 926.718" DIP (n) inv = 926.64 941.9 100.0 Sanitary Manhole Water Service rim=940.97 941.8 8" PVC S 12" pine tcc 941.5 935.8 940.80 (w) inv = 929.09 Light (n) inv = 929.09 Pole Storm Manhole (w) inv941 = 928.94 rim=940.59 (e) inv = 928.87 tcc 933.7 D D 935.5 934.73 936.1 Storm Manhole 941.0 937.6 rim=940.54 16" maple 941.2 935.7 10 5 8" PVC tcc 939.86 8" PVC 937.9 936.0 934.9 tcc 934.17 10" DIP 940.9 939 940.2 938 937 11" cherry 933 932.2 940 934.8 P o s s i b l e B o u n d a r y 936 13" cherry Rogers Drive 934.3 Light Pole tcc 933.31 tcc 938.74 937.9 933.8 938.8 935.8 935.0 5 P a r k i n g L o t 935 13" pine 931.2 933.9 concrete932 curb Sign 10 tcc 11" pine 937.95concrete curb 933.7 934 8" in PVC (e) inv = 927.91 (s) inv = 928.01 tcc tcc 937.1 932.58 931.83 tcc Sanitary Manhole Light cpedC 10 937.56 10 rim=934.07 S Pole T 935.9 934.8 933.5 937.2 tped N 89°16'32" E 164.11 tcc Sign Sign 936.85 tcc tcc tcc tcc tcc tcc 933.14 (n) inv935.64 = 913.17 935.00 934.43 933.92 936.25 (e) inv = 913.19 (w) inv = 913.19 136th Ave Sanitary Manhole S rim=936.04 S D 830 LEGEND Page 71 of 131 █ Main Street █ Frontage Road █ █ █ █ R5.5 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION B i t u m i n o u s█ █ █ R5.0 8" PVC █ End of concrete curb █ █ (n) inv = 926.64 24.0 █ (se) inv = 926.62 █ Sanitary ManholeS █ rim=939.70 C █N 89°16'32" E 164.56 938.8 cped █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ 10.1 11.7 █ █ 14" maple 937.7 █ 5.0 █ █ (TYP.)18.0 █ concrete curb █ █ (TYP.) 11" pine █ Rogers Drive 9.0 █ 939.7 █ BW=937.6 █ TW=937.9 █ 26.1 13" pine █ 939.1 █ █ concrete curb█ █ 15" cherry BW=936.8 █ 937.8 TW=938.3 (TYP.) █ █ Light 9.0 Pole ►► █ █ 15" cherry P o s s i b l e B o u n d a r y 938.1 █ █ █ █ 12.0 █ ►► █ █ (TYP.) █ 18.0 █ █ █ (PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) ►► █ ►► PROPOSED BUILDING █ (TYP.) 9.0 FFE = 938.5 █ █ BW=936.3TW=937.6 Light Pole (TYP.) █ █ 9.0 944.74 top nut hydrant █N 00°43'28" W 349.06 █ ►► ►► (TYP.) █ █ 18.0 █ 10" pine █ █ 936.5 ►► █ ►► █ (PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) █ PROPOSED BUILDING █ 10" pine █ FFE = 938.5 8' in PVC █ 936.1 (w) inv = 926.718" DIP █ (n) inv = 926.64 ►► BW=935.2TW=938.2 26.0 █ 100.0 Sanitary Manhole█ Water Service rim=940.97 941.8 ►► █ S 8" PVC █ ▌ 12" pine █ 935.8 █ ►► █ (w) inv = 929.09 Light (n) inv = 929.09 █ █ Pole Storm Manhole (w) inv = 928.94 ▌ (PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) ►► rim=940.59 █ (e) inv = 928.87 D D PROPOSED BUILDING █ █ Storm Manhole FFE = 938.5 rim=940.54 █ 16" maple 935.7 █ ▌ █ █ ►► ►► █ █ █ 21.5 █ ▌ BW=934.3 9.0 8" PVC TW=937.6 (TYP.) █ █ ►► ▌ ►► █ 8" PVC █ (PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) (TYP.) PROPOSED BUILDING █ 10" DIP █ 18.0 ▌ █ FFE = 938.5 █ █ █ ▌ ►► ►► 11" cherry BW=934.1TW=936.4 934.8 █ P o s s i b l e B o u n d a r y █ █ ▌ █ 13" cherry █ █ 934.3 ►► ▌ ►► Rogers Drive█ █ Light █ █ Pole ▌ █ 19.1 (TYP.)18.0 █ █ ▌ ►► (TYP.) █ ►► █ 9.0 █ █ BW=934.0TW=934.0P a r k i n g L o t ▌ █ ▌ ▌ █ ▌ ▌ 26.0 ▌ █ 13" pine ►► ►► █ 5.1 933.9 █ concrete curb Sign █ █ (TYP.) ▌ 11" pine concrete curb █ 933.7 9.0 █ (TYP.)18.0 26.0 ►► ►► █ 8" in PVC█ (e) inv = 927.91 █ (s) inv = 928.01 ►► ►► ►► ►► ►► █ Sanitary Manhole Light cpedC █ 10.0 S Pole T rim=934.07 █ 937.2 R5.0 tped █ N 89°16'32"R5.0 E 164.11 █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ Sign Sign █ █ █ █ █ █ █ (n) inv = 913.17 (e) inv = 913.19 (w) inv = 913.19 136th Ave Sanitary Manhole S rim=936.04 Site Plan ►► LEGEND SITE DATA: Page 72 of 131 █ Main Street █ Frontage Road █ █ █ █ B i t u m i n o u s█ █ 941 939█ 8" PVC █ End of concrete curb █ █ (n) inv = 926.64 tcc █ (se) inv = 926.62 tcc 942.79 tcc S 937.52 █ Sanitary Manhole 943.23 █ rim=939.70 tcc C █N 89°16'32" E 164.56 938.8 937.49 cped █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ tcc 943.15 941 █ █ 14" maple 937.7 tcc █ 940 █ 937.12 tcc tcc 937.60 942.99 █ █ concrete curb tcc tcc 937.01 939 █ █ 937.04 11" pine █ Rogers Drive █ 939.7 █ █ █ 939 13" pine █ 939.1 █ 938 █ tcc concrete curb█ 936.85 █ 15" cherry █ 937.8 █ █ Light Pole tcc ►► █ 942.51█ 15" cherry P o s s i b l e B o u n d a r y 938.1 █ █ 938 █ █ █ ►► █ █ █ 938 938 █ 942 █ (PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) tcc █ 941 936.30 ►► █ tcc ►► PROPOSED BUILDING 941.94 █ 940 tcc FFE = 938.5 █ 941.79 █ Light Pole 939 █ █ 944.74 top nut hydrant 938 █N 00°43'28" W 349.06 █ ►► ►► 938 █ █ tcc 941.45 █ 10" pine 938937 █ █ 936.5 ►► tcc █ ►► █ (PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) 935.53 █ PROPOSED BUILDING █ 10" pine █ FFE = 938.5 936.1 tcc 8' in PVC █ (w) inv = 926.718" DIP 941.14 █ (n) inv = 926.64 ►► 938 █ 100.0 Sanitary Manhole█ Water Service rim=940.97 941.8 ►► █ S █ 8" PVC ▌ █ 12" pine tcc 935.8 940.80 █ ►► █ (w) inv = 929.09 Light (n) inv = 929.09 █ █ Pole Storm Manhole (w) inv = 928.94 ▌ (PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) ►► rim=940.59 █ (e) inv = 928.87 tcc D D PROPOSED BUILDING █ 934.73 █ Storm Manhole FFE = 938.5 rim=940.54 █ 16" maple 935.7 █ ▌ █ █ ►► ►► █ █ █ █ ▌ 8" PVC █ █ tcc 939.86 ►► ▌ ►► █ 8" PVC █ (PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) tcc 934.17 █ PROPOSED BUILDING █ 10" DIP 938 ▌ █ FFE = 938.5 █ █ █ ▌ ►► ►► 11" cherry 934.8 █ P o s s i b l e B o u n d a r y █ 938 █ ▌ █ 939 13" cherry █ █ 934.3 ►► ▌ ►► Rogers Drive█ 938 █ █ 938 Light █ Pole tcc ▌ 933.31 █ █ tcc 938.74 █ ►► ▌ █ ►► █ █ P a r k i n g L o t █ 938 ▌ 937 █ ▌ █ ▌ ▌ ▌ 937 ▌ █ ►► 937 13" pine █ ►► 933.9 █ concrete curb Sign █ tcc 937 █ ▌ 11" pine 937.95concrete curb █ 933.7 █ 936 ►► ►► █ 8" in PVC█ (e) inv = 927.91 █ (s) inv934 = 928.01 tcc tcc ►► ►► ►► ►► ►► █ 932.58 931.83 tcc 935 Sanitary Manhole Light 937.56 cpedC █ S Pole T rim=934.07 █ 937.2 tped █ N 89°16'32" E 164.11935 █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ 935 █ tcc Sign Sign █ 936.85 tcc █ █tcc █ █ █ █ tcc tcc tcc tcc 933.14 (n) inv935.64 = 913.17 935.00 934.43 933.92 936.25 (e) inv = 913.19 (w) inv = 913.19 136th Ave Sanitary Manhole S rim=936.04 LEGEND ►► 830 830 Page 73 of 131 █ Main Street █ Frontage Road █ █ █ █ B i t u m i n o u s█ █ █ 8" PVC █ End of concrete curb █ █ (n) inv = 926.64 █ (se) inv = 926.62 █ Sanitary ManholeS █ rim=939.70 C █ 938.8 cped █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ 14" maple 937.7 █ █ █ █ concrete curb █ █ 11" pine █ Rogers Drive █ 939.7 █ █ █ 13" pine █ 939.1 █ █ concrete curb█ █ 15" cherry █ 937.8 █ █ Light Pole ►► █ █ 15" cherry P o s s i b l e B o u n d a r y 938.1 █ █ █ █ █ ►► █ █ █ █ █ █ (PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) ►► █ ►► PROPOSED BUILDING █ FFE = 938.5 █ █ Light Pole █ █ top nut hydrant 944.74 █ █ ►► ►► █ █ █ 10" pine █ █ 936.5 ►► █ ►► █ (PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) █ PROPOSED BUILDING █ 10" pine █ FFE = 938.5 8' in PVC █ 936.1 (w) inv = 926.718" DIP 1 █ (n) inv = 926.64 ►► █ 100.0 Sanitary Manhole█ Water Service rim=940.97 941.8 ►► █ S 8" PVC █ ▌ 12" pine █ 935.8 █ ►► █ █ Light █ Pole Storm Manhole (w) inv = 928.94 ▌ (PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) ►► rim=940.59 █ (e) inv = 928.87 D D PROPOSED BUILDING █ █ Storm Manhole FFE = 938.5 rim=940.54 █ 16" maple 935.7 █ ▌ 1 █ █ ►► ►► █ █ 1 █ █ 1 ▌ 8" PVC █ █ ►► ▌ ►► █ 8" PVC █ (PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) █ 10" DIP █ PROPOSED BUILDING ▌ █ FFE = 938.5 █ █ █ ▌ ►► ►► 11" cherry 934.8 █ P o s s i b l e B o u n d a r y █ █ ▌ █ 13" cherry █ █ 934.3 ►► ▌ ►► Rogers Drive█ █ Light █ 2 █ Pole ▌ █ █ █ ►► ▌ █ ►► █ 2 1 █ █ P a r k i n g L o t ▌ █ ▌ ▌ ▌1 █ 1 ▌ ▌ ►► █ 13" pine █ ►► 933.9 █ concrete curb Sign █ █ ▌ 11" pine concrete curb █ 933.7 █ ►► ►► █ 8" in PVC█ (e) inv = 927.91 █ (s) inv = 928.01 ►► ►► ►► ►► ►► █ Sanitary Manhole Light cpedC █ S Pole T rim=934.07 █ 937.2 tped █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ Sign Sign █ █ █ █ █ █ █ (n) inv = 913.17 (e) inv = 913.19 (w) inv = 913.19 136th Ave Sanitary Manhole S rim=936.04 ►► S D ►► LEGEND Page 74 of 131 █ Main Street █ Frontage Road █ █ █ █ B i t u m i n o u s█ █ 941 939█ 8" PVC █ End of concrete curb █ █ (n) inv = 926.64 █ (se) inv = 926.62 █ Sanitary ManholeS █ rim=939.70 C █N 89°16'32" E 164.56 938.8 cped █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ 941 █ █ 14" maple 937.7 █ 940 █ █ █ concrete curb 939 █ █ 11" pine █ Rogers Drive █ 939.7 █ █ █ 939 13" pine █ 939.1 █ 938 █ concrete curb█ █ 15" cherry █ 942 937.8 █ █ Light Pole ►► 941 █ █ 15" cherry P o s s i b l e B o u n d a r y 938.1 █ █ 938 █ █ █ 943 █ ►► 940 █ █ 938 938 █ 942 █ (PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) █ 941 ►► █ ►► PROPOSED BUILDING █ 940 FFE = 938.5 █ █ Light Pole 939 █ █ 944.74 top nut hydrant 938 █N 00°43'28" W 349.06 █ ►► ►► 938 █ █ █ 10" pine 938937 █ █ 936.5 ►► █ ►► █ (PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) █ PROPOSED BUILDING █ 942 10" pine █ FFE = 938.5 8' in PVC █ 936.1 (w) inv = 926.718" DIP █ (n) inv = 926.64 ►► 938 █ 100.0 Sanitary Manhole█ Water Service rim=940.97 941.8 ►► █ S 8" PVC █ ▌ 12" pine █ 935.8 █ ►► █ (w) inv = 929.09 Light (n) inv = 929.09 █ █ Pole Storm Manhole (w) inv = 928.94 ▌ (PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) ►► rim=940.59 █ (e) inv941 = 928.87 D D PROPOSED BUILDING █ █ Storm Manhole FFE = 938.5 rim=940.54 █ 16" maple 935.7 █ ▌ █ █ ►► ►► █ █ █ █ ▌ 8" PVC █ █ ►► ▌ ►► █ 8" PVC █ (PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) █ PROPOSED BUILDING █ 10" DIP 938 ▌ 939 █ FFE = 938.5 █ 938 █ █ ▌ ►► ►► 937 11" cherry 933 940 934.8 █ P o s s i b l e B o u n d a r y █ 938 █ ▌ █ 939 936 13" cherry █ █ 934.3 ►► ▌ ►► Rogers Drive█ 938 █ 938 Light █ █ Pole ▌ █ █ █ ►► ▌ █ ►► █ █ P a r k i n g L o t █ 938 ▌ 937 █ ▌ █ ▌ ▌ ▌ 935 937 ▌ █ ►► 937 13" pine █ ►► 933.9 █ concrete932 curb Sign █ 937 █ ▌ 11" pine concrete curb █ 933.7 █ 936 ►► ►► 934 █ 8" in PVC█ (e) inv = 927.91 █ (s) inv934 = 928.01 ►► ►► ►► ►► ►► █ 935 Sanitary Manhole Light cpedC █ S Pole T rim=934.07 █ 937.2 tped █ N 89°16'32" E 164.11935 █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ 935 █ Sign Sign █ █ █ █ █ █ █ (n) inv = 913.17 (e) inv = 913.19 (w) inv = 913.19 136th Ave Sanitary Manhole S rim=936.04 █ ►► █ █ LEGEND █ Page 75 of 131SWPPP DESIGNER: · · · Page 76 of 131 939.5 █ Main Street █ Frontage Road █ █ █ █ 940.2 B i t u m i n o u s█ █ █ 8" PVC 941.0 █ End of concrete curb █ 941.8 █ (n) inv = 926.64 942.6 █ (se) inv = 926.62 █ Sanitary ManholeS █ rim=939.70 C █N 89°16'32" E 164.56 938.8 cped █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ 14" maple 23.29 937.7 █ █ █ █ concrete curb █ █ 11" pine █ Rogers Drive █ 939.7 █ █ █ 13" pine █ 939.1 █ █ concrete curb█ █ 15" cherry █ 937.8 █ █ Light Pole ►► █ █ 15" cherry P o s s i b l e B o u n d a r y 938.1 █ █ █ █ █ ►► █ █ █ █ █ █ (PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) ►► █ ►► PROPOSED BUILDING █ FFE = 938.5 █ █ Light Pole █ █ 941.2 944.74 top nut hydrant █N 00°43'28" W 349.06 941.3 █ ►► 941.2 ►► █ 941.2 █ █ 10" pine █ █ 936.5 ►► █ ►► █ (PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) █ PROPOSED BUILDING █ 10" pine █ FFE = 938.5 8' in PVC █ 936.1 (w) inv = 926.718" DIP █ (n) inv = 926.64 ►► █ 100.0 Sanitary Manhole█ Water Service rim=940.97 941.8 ►► █ S 8" PVC █ ▌ 12" pine █ 935.8 █ ►► █ (w) inv = 929.09 Light (n) inv = 929.09 █ █ Pole Storm Manhole (w) inv = 928.94 ▌ (PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) ►► rim=940.59 █ (e) inv = 928.87 D D PROPOSED BUILDING █ █ Storm Manhole FFE = 938.5 rim=940.54 █ 16" maple 935.7 █ ▌ █ █ ►► ►► █ █ █ █ ▌ 8" PVC █ █ ►► ▌ ►► █ 8" PVC █ (PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) █ 10" DIP █ PROPOSED BUILDING ▌ █ FFE = 938.5 █ █ █ ▌ ►► ►► 11" cherry 934.8 █ P o s s i b l e B o u n d a r y █ █ ▌ █ 13" cherry █ █ 934.3 ►► ▌ ►► Rogers Drive█ █ Light █ █ Pole ▌ █ █ █ ►► ▌ █ ►► █ █ █ P a r k i n g L o t ▌ █ ▌ █ ▌ ▌ ▌ ▌ ►► █ 13" pine █ ►► 933.9 █ concrete curb Sign █ █ ▌ 11" pine concrete curb █ 933.7 █ ►► ►► █ 8" in PVC█ (e) inv = 927.91 █ (s) inv = 928.01 ►► ►► ►► ►► ►► █ Sanitary Manhole Light cpedC █ S Pole T rim=934.07 █ 937.2 tped █ N 89°16'32" E 164.11 █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ Sign Sign █ █ █ █ █ █ █ (n) inv = 913.17 (e) inv = 913.19 (w) inv = 913.19 136th Ave Sanitary Manhole S rim=936.04 Pumper Fire Truck Page 77 of 131 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN Elm Creek Center 21355 136th Avenue N Rogers, Minnesota March 27, 2026 Revised – April 24, 2026 Prepared By: Prepared For: Demarc Land Surveying & Engineering Thielen & Green 7601 73rd Avenue North 7455 Village Drive, Suite #110 Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55428 Lino Lakes, MN 55014 763.560.3093 I hereby certify that this Plan, Specification or Report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 52706 03.27.26 Jeffrey A Prasch, PE License Number Date Project Engineer Page 78 of 131 Stormwater Management Plan Elm Creek Center – Rogers, MN Revised – April 24, 2026 Table of Contents Table of Contents ..................................................................................................................................... i 1.0 Project Overview .......................................................................................................................... ii 2.0 Design Considerations ................................................................................................................ ii 3.0 Rate, Volume, and Water Quality Control .................................................................................. ii Table 3.1 – Discharge Rate Summary ............................................................................... ii 4.0 Storm Sewer Design .................................................................................................................... ii Appendix A – Figures Figure 1 – Drainage Areas Existing Conditions Figure 2 – Drainage Areas Proposed Conditions Figure 3 – Precipitation Data Figure 4 – Rational Method Appendix B – Existing Conditions 2-Year Summary……………......…...………................……........1-6 Appendix C – Existing Conditions 10-Year Summary…………........…...……...............……….........7-9 Appendix D – Existing Conditions 100-Year Summary……………........…..…...............………….10-18 Appendix E – Proposed Conditions 2-Year Summary…………………………...…...…....…...….......1-5 Appendix F – Proposed Conditions 10-Year Summary……………………...…....................…..........6-7 Appendix G – Proposed Conditions 100-Year Summary………………………......…...…...…..........8-14 Appendix H – Soils Summary……………………...……….……………………...……….…...….……….1-5 i Page 79 of 131 Stormwater Management Plan Elm Creek Center – Rogers, MN Revised – April 24, 2026 1.0 Project Overview A building and associated parking lot is proposed at 21335 136th Avenue North in Rogers, MN. The approximate 1.5-acre site is currently vacant that consists of open space and few trees. There are commercial buildings to the west and Main Street Frontage Road to the south, 136th Avenue N to the north, and Rogers Dr to the east. Currently most of the stormwater runoff is directed via surface flow to the west. The remaining of the stormwater runoff flows to the streets to the south, east, and north. The existing drainage conditions are shown in Figure 1. The proposed improvements will include a building and parking lot with a proposed land disturbance of 1.57 acres. Regional ponding has been provided to treat the stormwater and meet rate, volume, and water quality requirements. Therefore, no on-site stormwater facilities will be required. Majority of the site will be routed via surface flow and storm sewer to the existing storm sewer that will discharge to off-site regional ponding. The remaining stormwater runoff will continue to run off to the north and west. Figure 2 shows the proposed drainage conditions. 2.0 Design Considerations The City of Rogers (City) and the Elm Creek Watershed Management Commission (ECWMC) dictate the rate, volume, and water quality requirements for this site. There is off-site regional ponding that was sized to meet the rate, volume, and water quality requirements for the existing stub and storm sewer on the site. The on-site storm water system is based on their guidelines. The following design tools, methods, and considerations were used in the design of the on-site stormwater system: Rate and Volume Modeling Software – HydroCAD 10.20 Rainfall Distribution – MSE 24-hour Type III Rainfall Data – NOAA Atlas 14 rainfall data as shown in Figure 3. Soil Conditions – Hydrologic Soil Group C based on Web Soil Survey shown in Appendix H. Infiltration Rate = 0.20 in/hr 3.0 Rate, Volume, and Water Quality Control The existing regional pond has been designed to account for the development of this site per the City of Rogers and ECWMC. Table 3.1 summarizes the discharge rates for each storm event. Table 3.1 – Discharge Rate Summary Discharge Rate [cfs] Discharge Node Storm Event 2-Year 10-Year 100-Year Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Pre- Post- Total Offsite (6L) 2.06 5.25 4.64 8.15 10.67 14.19 The HydroCAD results for the rate control are included in Appendices B-G. 4.0 Storm Sewer Design The storm sewers were designed to convey the 10-year storm event peak discharge. The Rational Method Storm Sewer Calculations are shown in Figure 4. ii Page 80 of 131 Appendix A Figures Page 81 of 131 4L 939.5 Main Street Frontage Road B i t u m i n o u 940.2s 8" PVC End of concrete curb 941.0 (n) inv = 926.64 (se) inv = 926.62 942.6 941.8 S Sanitary Manhole C N 89°16'32" E 164.56rim=939.70 938.8 cped Utility Easement Drainage & S 72°20'27" W 83.87 10 14" maple 23.29 4S 937.7 10 84.33 (Walter Dehn Commerce Center 5th) concrete curb N 89°57'01" W 10 83.88 (Diamond Lake Village) 11" pine Rogers Drive 939.7 Utility Easement 13" pine Drainage & 939.1 concrete curb 942 15" cherry 937.8 941 Light 15" cherryPole P o s s i b l e B o u n d a r y 938.1 943 940 5 Light Pole top nut hydrant 941.2 944.74 S 00°43'28" E 349.05 N 00°43'28" W 349.06 941.2941.3 3L 941.2 10 325.76 10" pine 3S 936.5 942 1S 10" pine 8' in PVC (w) inv = 926.71 936.1 (n) inv = 926.648" DIP 100.0 Sanitary Manhole Water Service rim=940.97S 941.88" PVC 12" pine 935.8 (w) inv = 929.09 (n) inv = 929.09 Light (w) inv = 928.94 Storm Manhole (e) inv941 = 928.87 Pole rim=940.59D D Storm Manhole 16" maple rim=940.54 935.7 10 5 8" PVC 8" PVC 10" DIP 939 1L 938 937 933 940 11" cherry P o s s i b l e B o u n d a r y 934.8 936 13" cherry Rogers Drive 934.3 Light Pole 935 5 P a r k i n g L o t 13" pine 2S 933.9 932 concrete curb 10 Sign 11" pine concrete curb 934933.7 8" in PVC (e) inv = 927.91 (s) inv = 928.01 C cpedT 10 Sanitary10 ManholeS Light rim=934.07 Pole tped937.2 N 89°16'32" E 164.11 Sign Sign (n) inv = 913.17 (e) inv = 913.19 (w) inv = 913.19 136th Ave SanitaryS Manhole 2L rim=936.04 1R 1L 1P 1S DRAINAGEREACH ARROWLINK NUMBER NUMBERPOND/CATCHSUBCATCHMENTLEGEND BASIN NUMBER NUMBER Page 82 of 131 ELM CREEK CENTER 21355 136TH AVENUE N ROGERS, MN 939.5 █ Main Street█ Frontage█ Road B i t u m i█ n o u 940.2s 941 939 █8" PVC End of concrete curb 941.0 █ (n) inv = 926.64 (se) inv = 926.62 942.6 941.8 █ S Sanitary Manhole C █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █N 89°16'32" E 164.56rim=939.70█ 938.8 cped █ 941 14" maple 23.29 █ 940 █ 937.7 concrete curb █ 939 █11" pine Rogers Drive 939.7 █ 939 █13" pine █ 938 939.1 █ concrete curb 942 15" cherry █ 937.8 941 █ Light █ 15" cherryPole P o s s i b l e B o u n d a r y 938.1█ █ 938 943 ►► 940 █ █942 938 938 941 █ █ (PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) 940 PROPOSED BUILDING FFE = 938.5 █ 939 Light █ Pole top nut 938hydrant 941.2 944.74 ►► 938 ►► N█ 00°43'28" W 349.06 941.3 █ 941.2941.2 93893710"█ pine 936.5 █ (PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) █ PROPOSED BUILDING 942 FFE = 938.5 10" pine █ 8' in PVC █ (w) inv = 926.71 ►► 936.1 (n) inv = 926.648" DIP 100.0 938 Sanitary Manhole█ Water Service █ rim=940.97S 941.88" PVC 3S 12" pine ►► 935.8 █ ▌ (w) inv = 929.09 █ (n) inv = 929.09 Light (w) inv = 928.94 Storm Manhole (e) inv941 = 928.87 (PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) Pole D █ rim=940.59 D PROPOSED BUILDING █ 3L Storm Manhole FFE = 938.5 16" maple rim=940.54█ █935.7 ▌ █ ►► █ 8" PVC █ 8" PVC ►► (PER ARCHITECTURAL PLANS) █ 938 PROPOSED BUILDING 10" DIP █ 939 ▌ 938 FFE = 938.5 █ 937 933 █ 940 ▌ 11" cherry █ P938 o s s i b l e B o u n d a r y ►► 934.8 █939 936 █13" cherry 938 934.3 Rogers Drive█ ►► 938 Light ▌ █ █ Pole ▌ █ █ 938 P a r k i n g L o t 937 935 █ ▌ ▌ █ 937 ►►2S 13" pine 1L ►► 937 933.9 932 ▌ █ concrete curb █ 937 Sign 11" pine concrete curb 936 1S934█933.7 8" in934 PVC █ (e) inv = 927.91 ►► ►► 935 (s) inv = 928.01█ C cpedT Sanitary ManholeS Light █ 935rim=934.07 Pole tped937.2 N 89°16'32" E 164.11 █ █ █ █ █ █ █ █ 935 Sign Sign █ █ █ (n) inv = 913.17 (e) inv = 913.19 (w) inv = 913.19 136th Ave SanitaryS Manhole 2L rim=936.04 1R 1L 1P 1S DRAINAGEREACH ARROWLINK NUMBER NUMBERPOND/CATCHSUBCATCHMENTLEGEND BASIN NUMBER NUMBER Page 83 of 131 ELM CREEK CENTER 21355 136TH AVENUE N ROGERS, MN NOAA Atlas 14, Volume 8, Version 2 Location name: Rogers, Minnesota, USA* Latitude: 45.2017°, Longitude: -93.5509° Elevation: 937 ft** * source: ESRI Maps ** source: USGS POINT PRECIPITATION FREQUENCY ESTIMATES Sanja Perica, Deborah Martin, Sandra Pavlovic, Ishani Roy, Michael St. Laurent, Carl Trypaluk, Dale Unruh, Michael Yekta, Geoffery Bonnin NOAA, National Weather Service, Silver Spring, Maryland PF_tabular | PF_graphical | Maps_&_aerials PF tabular PDS-based point precipitation frequency estimates with 90% confidence intervals (in inches)1 Average recurrence interval (years) Duration 1 2 5 10 25 50 100 200 500 1000 0.363 0.427 0.535 0.627 0.758 0.862 0.969 1.08 1.23 1.35 5-min (0.283‑0.468) (0.332‑0.551) (0.415‑0.691) (0.484‑0.813) (0.570‑1.00) (0.636‑1.15) (0.694‑1.31) (0.747‑1.48) (0.824‑1.72) (0.882‑1.90) 0.531 0.625 0.783 0.918 1.11 1.26 1.42 1.58 1.81 1.98 10-min (0.414‑0.686) (0.487‑0.807) (0.608‑1.01) (0.709‑1.19) (0.835‑1.47) (0.931‑1.68) (1.02‑1.92) (1.09‑2.17) (1.21‑2.52) (1.29‑2.78) 0.648 0.762 0.955 1.12 1.35 1.54 1.73 1.93 2.20 2.41 15-min (0.505‑0.836) (0.594‑0.985) (0.741‑1.24) (0.865‑1.45) (1.02‑1.80) (1.14‑2.05) (1.24‑2.34) (1.33‑2.65) (1.47‑3.07) (1.58‑3.39) 0.903 1.07 1.34 1.58 1.91 2.18 2.45 2.73 3.12 3.41 30-min (0.704‑1.17) (0.832‑1.38) (1.04‑1.74) (1.22‑2.05) (1.44‑2.54) (1.61‑2.91) (1.75‑3.31) (1.89‑3.75) (2.08‑4.34) (2.23‑4.80) 1.17 1.38 1.74 2.06 2.53 2.92 3.33 3.77 4.38 4.87 60-min (0.910‑1.51) (1.07‑1.78) (1.35‑2.25) (1.59‑2.67) (1.92‑3.38) (2.16‑3.92) (2.39‑4.53) (2.61‑5.20) (2.94‑6.13) (3.18‑6.84) 1.43 1.68 2.13 2.54 3.15 3.66 4.21 4.81 5.65 6.33 2-hr (1.13‑1.83) (1.32‑2.15) (1.67‑2.72) (1.98‑3.25) (2.41‑4.18) (2.74‑4.88) (3.06‑5.69) (3.36‑6.59) (3.82‑7.86) (4.16‑8.83) 1.59 1.86 2.37 2.83 3.55 4.17 4.84 5.57 6.62 7.48 3-hr (1.26‑2.02) (1.48‑2.37) (1.87‑3.01) (2.23‑3.61) (2.75‑4.71) (3.14‑5.54) (3.54‑6.52) (3.92‑7.62) (4.50‑9.19) (4.94‑10.4) 1.87 2.18 2.78 3.34 4.22 4.98 5.81 6.73 8.06 9.14 6-hr (1.50‑2.34) (1.75‑2.74) (2.22‑3.49) (2.65‑4.21) (3.30‑5.55) (3.80‑6.57) (4.30‑7.78) (4.79‑9.15) (5.53‑11.1) (6.09‑12.6) 2.14 2.51 3.20 3.84 4.82 5.66 6.58 7.58 9.02 10.2 12-hr (1.74‑2.66) (2.04‑3.12) (2.58‑3.97) (3.08‑4.78) (3.80‑6.26) (4.35‑7.38) (4.90‑8.70) (5.43‑10.2) (6.24‑12.3) (6.84‑14.0) 2.47 2.86 3.59 4.26 5.30 6.18 7.13 8.17 9.67 10.9 24-hr (2.02‑3.02) (2.34‑3.51) (2.93‑4.41) (3.46‑5.25) (4.22‑6.80) (4.80‑7.96) (5.36‑9.34) (5.91‑10.9) (6.74‑13.1) (7.36‑14.8) 2.88 3.26 3.97 4.64 5.68 6.58 7.57 8.66 10.2 11.5 2-day (2.39‑3.49) (2.70‑3.95) (3.27‑4.82) (3.80‑5.65) (4.58‑7.22) (5.17‑8.41) (5.75‑9.84) (6.33‑11.5) (7.20‑13.8) (7.86‑15.6) 3.15 3.54 4.26 4.94 6.00 6.92 7.92 9.02 10.6 11.9 3-day (2.63‑3.79) (2.95‑4.26) (3.54‑5.14) (4.08‑5.98) (4.87‑7.57) (5.46‑8.78) (6.05‑10.2) (6.62‑11.9) (7.49‑14.2) (8.16‑16.0) 3.36 3.78 4.54 5.25 6.34 7.28 8.29 9.39 11.0 12.3 4-day (2.82‑4.03) (3.16‑4.53) (3.79‑5.45) (4.36‑6.32) (5.16‑7.95) (5.76‑9.18) (6.35‑10.6) (6.92‑12.3) (7.78‑14.7) (8.44‑16.5) 3.88 4.40 5.31 6.13 7.34 8.34 9.40 10.5 12.1 13.4 7-day (3.28‑4.60) (3.72‑5.22) (4.48‑6.32) (5.14‑7.31) (6.00‑9.06) (6.65‑10.4) (7.24‑11.9) (7.80‑13.6) (8.64‑16.1) (9.28‑17.9) 4.37 4.96 5.98 6.87 8.15 9.20 10.3 11.4 13.0 14.3 10-day (3.72‑5.15) (4.22‑5.86) (5.07‑7.07) (5.79‑8.14) (6.68‑9.98) (7.36‑11.4) (7.96‑13.0) (8.49‑14.7) (9.31‑17.1) (9.93‑19.0) 5.95 6.66 7.83 8.83 10.2 11.3 12.4 13.6 15.2 16.4 20-day (5.12‑6.92) (5.73‑7.76) (6.72‑9.15) (7.53‑10.3) (8.45‑12.3) (9.14‑13.8) (9.71‑15.5) (10.2‑17.3) (10.9‑19.7) (11.5‑21.6) 7.34 8.17 9.53 10.6 12.2 13.3 14.5 15.7 17.2 18.3 30-day (6.37‑8.49) (7.08‑9.46) (8.23‑11.0) (9.14‑12.4) (10.1‑14.5) (10.8‑16.1) (11.3‑17.8) (11.8‑19.7) (12.4‑22.2) (12.9‑24.0) 9.16 10.2 11.9 13.2 15.0 16.3 17.5 18.7 20.2 21.3 45-day (8.00‑10.5) (8.91‑11.7) (10.3‑13.7) (11.4‑15.3) (12.5‑17.6) (13.3‑19.4) (13.8‑21.4) (14.1‑23.4) (14.7‑25.9) (15.1‑27.8) 10.7 12.0 14.1 15.6 17.7 19.1 20.5 21.7 23.3 24.3 60-day (9.42‑12.3) (10.6‑13.8) (12.3‑16.1) (13.6‑18.0) (14.7‑20.7) (15.6‑22.7) (16.1‑24.8) (16.4‑27.0) (16.9‑29.6) (17.2‑31.6) 1 Precipitation frequency (PF) estimates in this table are based on frequency analysis of partial duration series (PDS). Numbers in parenthesis are PF estimates at lower and upper bounds of the 90% confidence interval. The probability that precipitation frequency estimates (for a given duration and average recurrence interval) will be greater than the upper bound (or less than the lower bound) is 5%. Estimates at upper bounds are not checked against probable maximum precipitation (PMP) estimates and may be higher than currently valid PMP values. Please refer to NOAA Atlas 14 document for more information. Back to Top PF graphical Page 84 of 131 Figure 4: Rational Method Storm Sewer Calculations Elm Creek Center - Rogers, Minnesota Storm Frequency: 10-Year Atlas 14 MNDOT IDF Region: Hennepin Type of Pipe: RCP Manning's Roughness Coefficient (n), RCP: 0.0120 Structure Pipe Time of Concentration (min) Area of Minimum Design Pipe Velocity of Runoff Runoff, Q Capacity Subcatchment, C x A Σ C x A Tdownstream node Intensity (in/hr) Required Pipe Diameter Design Full Subcatchment Coefficient, C Tcontrolling for Sewer Inlet To Node Length, L (ft) Slope (ft/ft) A (acre) Tinlet Tpipe [Tcontrolling (cfs) Full (cfs) Diameter (in) Pipe, V (fps) for Tinlet Intensity (in) +Tpipe] Proposed Storm Sewer to Existing Storm CB 105 CB 104 1S 61 0.0040 0.17 0.90 0.15 0.15 7.00 0.33 7.00 7.33 7.23 1.10 2.45 8.90 12 3.12 CB 104 CB 103 1S 128 0.0040 0.16 0.90 0.14 0.29 7.00 0.68 7.33 8.01 7.10 2.08 2.45 11.30 12 3.12 CB 103 CB 102 1S 61 0.0050 0.10 0.90 0.09 0.39 7.00 0.29 8.01 8.30 6.85 2.64 2.74 11.85 12 3.48 CB 102 CB 101 1S 101 0.0040 0.09 0.90 0.08 0.47 7.00 0.47 8.30 8.77 6.74 3.16 4.44 13.22 15 3.62 CB101 CB100 1S 147 0.0040 0.19 0.90 0.17 0.63 7.00 0.68 8.77 9.45 6.58 4.18 4.44 14.68 15 3.62 CB 106 CB 100 1S 143 0.0040 0.27 0.90 0.24 0.24 7.00 0.76 7.00 7.76 7.23 1.76 2.45 10.61 12 3.12 CB 100 CB EXISTING 1S 18 0.0040 0.48 0.90 0.43 1.31 7.00 0.06 9.45 9.51 6.35 8.33 15.54 19.01 24 4.95 4/24/2026 Page 85 of 131 Appendix B Existing Conditions 2-Year Summary Page 86 of 131 1S 2S 3S 4S Subcat 1S Subcat 2S Subcat 3S Subcat 4S 1L 2L 3L 4L West Offsite 136th Avenue Rogers Drive Main Street Frontage Road 5L Total Offsite Subcat Reach Pond Link Routing Diagram for Existing Conditions Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc, Printed 3/27/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 87 of 131Existing Conditions Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 3/27/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Area Listing (all nodes) Area CN Description (sq-ft) (subcatchment-numbers) 63,380 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C (1S, 2S, 3S, 4S) 63,380 74 TOTAL AREA Page 88 of 131Existing Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 3/27/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7201 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv. Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment 1S: Subcat 1S Runoff Area=46,534 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.82" Tc=7.0 min CN=74/0 Runoff=1.51 cfs 3,182 cf Subcatchment 2S: Subcat 2S Runoff Area=8,615 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.82" Tc=7.0 min CN=74/0 Runoff=0.28 cfs 589 cf Subcatchment 3S: Subcat 3S Runoff Area=6,031 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.82" Tc=7.0 min CN=74/0 Runoff=0.20 cfs 412 cf Subcatchment 4S: Subcat 4S Runoff Area=2,199 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.82" Tc=7.0 min CN=74/0 Runoff=0.07 cfs 150 cf Link 1L: West Offsite Inflow=1.51 cfs 3,182 cf Primary=1.51 cfs 3,182 cf Link 2L: 136th Avenue Inflow=0.28 cfs 589 cf Primary=0.28 cfs 589 cf Link 3L: Rogers Drive Inflow=0.20 cfs 412 cf Primary=0.20 cfs 412 cf Link 4L: Main Street Frontage Road Inflow=0.07 cfs 150 cf Primary=0.07 cfs 150 cf Link 5L: Total Offsite Inflow=2.06 cfs 4,335 cf Primary=2.06 cfs 4,335 cf Total Runoff Area = 63,380 sf Runoff Volume = 4,335 cf Average Runoff Depth = 0.82" 100.00% Pervious = 63,380 sf 0.00% Impervious = 0 sf Page 89 of 131Existing Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 3/27/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Subcat 1S Runoff = 1.51 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 3,182 cf, Depth= 0.82" Routed to Link 1L : West Offsite Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (sf) CN Description 46,534 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 46,534 74 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Subcat 2S Runoff = 0.28 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 589 cf, Depth= 0.82" Routed to Link 2L : 136th Avenue Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (sf) CN Description 8,615 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 8,615 74 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 3S: Subcat 3S Runoff = 0.20 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 412 cf, Depth= 0.82" Routed to Link 3L : Rogers Drive Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (sf) CN Description 6,031 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 6,031 74 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Page 90 of 131Existing Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 3/27/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Summary for Subcatchment 4S: Subcat 4S Runoff = 0.07 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 150 cf, Depth= 0.82" Routed to Link 4L : Main Street Frontage Road Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (sf) CN Description 2,199 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 2,199 74 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Link 1L: West Offsite Inflow Area = 46,534 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.82" for 2-Year event Inflow = 1.51 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 3,182 cf Primary = 1.51 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 3,182 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to Link 5L : Total Offsite Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link 2L: 136th Avenue Inflow Area = 8,615 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.82" for 2-Year event Inflow = 0.28 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 589 cf Primary = 0.28 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 589 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to Link 5L : Total Offsite Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link 3L: Rogers Drive Inflow Area = 6,031 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.82" for 2-Year event Inflow = 0.20 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 412 cf Primary = 0.20 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 412 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to Link 5L : Total Offsite Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link 4L: Main Street Frontage Road Inflow Area = 2,199 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.82" for 2-Year event Inflow = 0.07 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 150 cf Primary = 0.07 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 150 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to Link 5L : Total Offsite Page 91 of 131Existing Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 3/27/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link 5L: Total Offsite Inflow Area = 63,380 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.82" for 2-Year event Inflow = 2.06 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 4,335 cf Primary = 2.06 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 4,335 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Page 92 of 131 Appendix C Existing Conditions 10-Year Summary Page 93 of 131Existing Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 3/27/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Subcat 1S Runoff = 3.41 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 6,940 cf, Depth= 1.79" Routed to Link 1L : West Offsite Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 46,534 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 46,534 74 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Subcat 2S Runoff = 0.63 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 1,285 cf, Depth= 1.79" Routed to Link 2L : 136th Avenue Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 8,615 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 8,615 74 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 3S: Subcat 3S Runoff = 0.44 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 900 cf, Depth= 1.79" Routed to Link 3L : Rogers Drive Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 6,031 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 6,031 74 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Page 94 of 131Existing Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 3/27/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 Summary for Subcatchment 4S: Subcat 4S Runoff = 0.16 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 328 cf, Depth= 1.79" Routed to Link 4L : Main Street Frontage Road Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 2,199 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 2,199 74 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Link 1L: West Offsite Inflow Area = 46,534 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.79" for 10-Year event Inflow = 3.41 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 6,940 cf Primary = 3.41 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 6,940 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to Link 5L : Total Offsite Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link 2L: 136th Avenue Inflow Area = 8,615 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.79" for 10-Year event Inflow = 0.63 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 1,285 cf Primary = 0.63 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 1,285 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to Link 5L : Total Offsite Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link 3L: Rogers Drive Inflow Area = 6,031 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.79" for 10-Year event Inflow = 0.44 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 900 cf Primary = 0.44 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 900 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to Link 5L : Total Offsite Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link 4L: Main Street Frontage Road Inflow Area = 2,199 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.79" for 10-Year event Inflow = 0.16 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 328 cf Primary = 0.16 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 328 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to Link 5L : Total Offsite Page 95 of 131Existing Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 3/27/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link 5L: Total Offsite Inflow Area = 63,380 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.79" for 10-Year event Inflow = 4.64 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 9,452 cf Primary = 4.64 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 9,452 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Page 96 of 131 Appendix D Existing Conditions 100-Year Summary Page 97 of 131Existing Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 3/27/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Subcat 1S Runoff = 7.84 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 16,115 cf, Depth= 4.16" Routed to Link 1L : West Offsite Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Area (sf) CN Description 46,534 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 46,534 74 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1S: Subcat 1S Hydrograph Runoff 7.84 cfs 8 MSE 24-hr 3 7 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" 6 Runoff Area=46,534 sf Runoff Volume=16,115 cf 5 Runoff Depth=4.16" Flow4 (cfs) Tc=7.0 min CN=74/0 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) Page 98 of 131Existing Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 3/27/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Subcat 2S Runoff = 1.45 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 2,983 cf, Depth= 4.16" Routed to Link 2L : 136th Avenue Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Area (sf) CN Description 8,615 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 8,615 74 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2S: Subcat 2S Hydrograph Runoff 1.45 cfs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Runoff Area=8,615 sf 1 Runoff Volume=2,983 cf Runoff Depth=4.16" Flow (cfs) Tc=7.0 min CN=74/0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) Page 99 of 131Existing Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 3/27/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 Summary for Subcatchment 3S: Subcat 3S Runoff = 1.02 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 2,089 cf, Depth= 4.16" Routed to Link 3L : Rogers Drive Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Area (sf) CN Description 6,031 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 6,031 74 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 3S: Subcat 3S Hydrograph Runoff 1.02 cfs 1 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Runoff Area=6,031 sf Runoff Volume=2,089 cf Runoff Depth=4.16" Flow (cfs) Tc=7.0 min CN=74/0 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) Page 100 of 131Existing Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 3/27/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 Summary for Subcatchment 4S: Subcat 4S Runoff = 0.37 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 762 cf, Depth= 4.16" Routed to Link 4L : Main Street Frontage Road Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Area (sf) CN Description 2,199 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 2,199 74 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 4S: Subcat 4S Hydrograph Runoff 0.4 0.37 cfs 0.38 0.36 MSE 24-hr 3 0.34 0.32 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" 0.3 0.28 Runoff Area=2,199 sf 0.26 0.24 Runoff Volume=762 cf 0.22 0.2 Runoff Depth=4.16" Flow0.18 (cfs) 0.16 Tc=7.0 min 0.14 CN=74/0 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) Page 101 of 131Existing Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 3/27/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Summary for Link 1L: West Offsite Inflow Area = 46,534 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.16" for 100-Year event Inflow = 7.84 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 16,115 cf Primary = 7.84 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 16,115 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to Link 5L : Total Offsite Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 1L: West Offsite Hydrograph Inflow 7.84 cfs Primary 7.84 cfs 8 Inflow Area=46,534 sf 7 6 5 4 Flow (cfs) 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) Page 102 of 131Existing Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 3/27/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 15 Summary for Link 2L: 136th Avenue Inflow Area = 8,615 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.16" for 100-Year event Inflow = 1.45 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 2,983 cf Primary = 1.45 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 2,983 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to Link 5L : Total Offsite Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 2L: 136th Avenue Hydrograph Inflow 1.45 cfs Primary 1.45 cfs Inflow Area=8,615 sf 1 Flow (cfs) 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) Page 103 of 131Existing Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 3/27/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 16 Summary for Link 3L: Rogers Drive Inflow Area = 6,031 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.16" for 100-Year event Inflow = 1.02 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 2,089 cf Primary = 1.02 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 2,089 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to Link 5L : Total Offsite Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 3L: Rogers Drive Hydrograph Inflow 1.02 cfs Primary 1.02 cfs 1 Inflow Area=6,031 sf Flow (cfs) 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) Page 104 of 131Existing Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 3/27/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 17 Summary for Link 4L: Main Street Frontage Road Inflow Area = 2,199 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.16" for 100-Year event Inflow = 0.37 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 762 cf Primary = 0.37 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 762 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to Link 5L : Total Offsite Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 4L: Main Street Frontage Road Hydrograph Inflow 0.37 cfs Primary 0.4 0.37 cfs 0.38 Inflow Area=2,199 sf 0.36 0.34 0.32 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 Flow0.18 (cfs) 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) Page 105 of 131Existing Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 3/27/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 18 Summary for Link 5L: Total Offsite Inflow Area = 63,380 sf, 0.00% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.16" for 100-Year event Inflow = 10.67 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 21,948 cf Primary = 10.67 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 21,948 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 5L: Total Offsite Hydrograph Inflow 10.67 cfs Primary 10.67 cfs 11 Inflow Area=63,380 sf 10 9 8 7 6 Flow (cfs) 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) Page 106 of 131 Appendix E Proposed Conditions 2-Year Summary Page 107 of 131 1S 2S 3S Subcat 1S Subcat 2S Subcat 3S 1L 2L 3L West Offsite 136th Avenue Rogers Drive 4L Total Offsite Subcat Reach Pond Link Routing Diagram for Proposed Conditions Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc, Printed 4/24/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 108 of 131Proposed Conditions Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 4/24/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 2 Area Listing (all nodes) Area CN Description (sq-ft) (subcatchment-numbers) 10,794 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C (1S, 2S, 3S) 42,719 98 Paved parking, HSG C (1S, 2S, 3S) 9,867 98 Roofs, HSG C (3S) 63,380 94 TOTAL AREA Page 109 of 131Proposed Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 4/24/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 3 Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7201 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv. Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment 1S: Subcat 1S Runoff Area=1,610 sf 14.91% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.09" Tc=7.0 min CN=74/98 Runoff=0.07 cfs 146 cf Subcatchment 2S: Subcat 2S Runoff Area=2,950 sf 61.21% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.93" Tc=7.0 min CN=74/98 Runoff=0.21 cfs 474 cf Subcatchment 3S: Subcat 3S Runoff Area=58,819 sf 85.92% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.37" Tc=7.0 min CN=74/98 Runoff=4.98 cfs 11,638 cf Link 1L: West Offsite Inflow=0.07 cfs 146 cf Primary=0.07 cfs 146 cf Link 2L: 136th Avenue Inflow=0.21 cfs 474 cf Primary=0.21 cfs 474 cf Link 3L: Rogers Drive Inflow=4.98 cfs 11,638 cf Primary=4.98 cfs 11,638 cf Link 4L: Total Offsite Inflow=5.25 cfs 12,258 cf Primary=5.25 cfs 12,258 cf Total Runoff Area = 63,380 sf Runoff Volume = 12,258 cf Average Runoff Depth = 2.32" 17.03% Pervious = 10,794 sf 82.97% Impervious = 52,585 sf Page 110 of 131Proposed Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 4/24/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 4 Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Subcat 1S Runoff = 0.07 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 146 cf, Depth= 1.09" Routed to Link 1L : West Offsite Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (sf) CN Description 1,370 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 240 98 Paved parking, HSG C 1,610 78 Weighted Average 1,370 74 85.09% Pervious Area 240 98 14.91% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Subcat 2S Runoff = 0.21 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 474 cf, Depth= 1.93" Routed to Link 2L : 136th Avenue Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (sf) CN Description 1,144 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 1,806 98 Paved parking, HSG C 2,950 89 Weighted Average 1,144 74 38.79% Pervious Area 1,806 98 61.21% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 3S: Subcat 3S Runoff = 4.98 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 11,638 cf, Depth= 2.37" Routed to Link 3L : Rogers Drive Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Page 111 of 131Proposed Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 4/24/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 5 Area (sf) CN Description 8,280 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 40,673 98 Paved parking, HSG C 9,867 98 Roofs, HSG C 58,819 95 Weighted Average 8,280 74 14.08% Pervious Area 50,539 98 85.92% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Link 1L: West Offsite Inflow Area = 1,610 sf, 14.91% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.09" for 2-Year event Inflow = 0.07 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 146 cf Primary = 0.07 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 146 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to Link 4L : Total Offsite Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link 2L: 136th Avenue Inflow Area = 2,950 sf, 61.21% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.93" for 2-Year event Inflow = 0.21 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 474 cf Primary = 0.21 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 474 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to Link 4L : Total Offsite Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link 3L: Rogers Drive Inflow Area = 58,819 sf, 85.92% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.37" for 2-Year event Inflow = 4.98 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 11,638 cf Primary = 4.98 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 11,638 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to Link 4L : Total Offsite Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link 4L: Total Offsite Inflow Area = 63,380 sf, 82.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.32" for 2-Year event Inflow = 5.25 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 12,258 cf Primary = 5.25 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 12,258 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Page 112 of 131 Appendix F Proposed Conditions 10-Year Summary Page 113 of 131Proposed Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 4/24/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 6 Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Subcat 1S Runoff = 0.13 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 285 cf, Depth= 2.12" Routed to Link 1L : West Offsite Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 1,370 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 240 98 Paved parking, HSG C 1,610 78 Weighted Average 1,370 74 85.09% Pervious Area 240 98 14.91% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Subcat 2S Runoff = 0.34 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 776 cf, Depth= 3.16" Routed to Link 2L : 136th Avenue Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 1,144 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 1,806 98 Paved parking, HSG C 2,950 89 Weighted Average 1,144 74 38.79% Pervious Area 1,806 98 61.21% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment 3S: Subcat 3S Runoff = 7.68 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 18,185 cf, Depth= 3.71" Routed to Link 3L : Rogers Drive Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Page 114 of 131Proposed Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 4/24/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 7 Area (sf) CN Description 8,280 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 40,673 98 Paved parking, HSG C 9,867 98 Roofs, HSG C 58,819 95 Weighted Average 8,280 74 14.08% Pervious Area 50,539 98 85.92% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Link 1L: West Offsite Inflow Area = 1,610 sf, 14.91% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.12" for 10-Year event Inflow = 0.13 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 285 cf Primary = 0.13 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 285 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to Link 4L : Total Offsite Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link 2L: 136th Avenue Inflow Area = 2,950 sf, 61.21% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.16" for 10-Year event Inflow = 0.34 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 776 cf Primary = 0.34 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 776 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to Link 4L : Total Offsite Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link 3L: Rogers Drive Inflow Area = 58,819 sf, 85.92% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.71" for 10-Year event Inflow = 7.68 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 18,185 cf Primary = 7.68 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 18,185 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to Link 4L : Total Offsite Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Link 4L: Total Offsite Inflow Area = 63,380 sf, 82.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.64" for 10-Year event Inflow = 8.15 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 19,246 cf Primary = 8.15 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 19,246 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Page 115 of 131 Appendix G Proposed Conditions 100-Year Summary Page 116 of 131Proposed Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 4/24/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 8 Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Subcat 1S Runoff = 0.29 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 612 cf, Depth= 4.56" Routed to Link 1L : West Offsite Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Area (sf) CN Description 1,370 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 240 98 Paved parking, HSG C 1,610 78 Weighted Average 1,370 74 85.09% Pervious Area 240 98 14.91% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 1S: Subcat 1S Hydrograph 0.32 Runoff 0.3 0.29 cfs 0.28 MSE 24-hr 3 0.26 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" 0.24 0.22 Runoff Area=1,610 sf 0.2 Runoff Volume=612 cf 0.18 0.16 Runoff Depth=4.56" Flow0.14 (cfs) Tc=7.0 min 0.12 0.1 CN=74/98 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) Page 117 of 131Proposed Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 4/24/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 9 Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Subcat 2S Runoff = 0.62 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 1,433 cf, Depth= 5.83" Routed to Link 2L : 136th Avenue Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Area (sf) CN Description 1,144 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 1,806 98 Paved parking, HSG C 2,950 89 Weighted Average 1,144 74 38.79% Pervious Area 1,806 98 61.21% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 2S: Subcat 2S Hydrograph Runoff 0.65 0.62 cfs 0.6 MSE 24-hr 3 0.55 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" 0.5 Runoff Area=2,950 sf 0.45 Runoff Volume=1,433 cf 0.4 0.35 Runoff Depth=5.83" Flow0.3 (cfs) Tc=7.0 min 0.25 CN=74/98 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) Page 118 of 131Proposed Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 4/24/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 10 Summary for Subcatchment 3S: Subcat 3S Runoff = 13.28 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 31,889 cf, Depth= 6.51" Routed to Link 3L : Rogers Drive Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Area (sf) CN Description 8,280 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 40,673 98 Paved parking, HSG C 9,867 98 Roofs, HSG C 58,819 95 Weighted Average 8,280 74 14.08% Pervious Area 50,539 98 85.92% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 3S: Subcat 3S Hydrograph Runoff 14 13.28 cfs 13 MSE 24-hr 3 12 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" 11 Runoff Area=58,819 sf 10 9 Runoff Volume=31,889 cf 8 Runoff Depth=6.51" 7 Flow (cfs) Tc=7.0 min 6 CN=74/98 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) Page 119 of 131Proposed Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 4/24/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 11 Summary for Link 1L: West Offsite Inflow Area = 1,610 sf, 14.91% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.56" for 100-Year event Inflow = 0.29 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 612 cf Primary = 0.29 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 612 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to Link 4L : Total Offsite Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 1L: West Offsite Hydrograph Inflow 0.32 0.29 cfs Primary 0.3 0.29 cfs Inflow Area=1,610 sf 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 Flow0.14 (cfs) 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) Page 120 of 131Proposed Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 4/24/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 12 Summary for Link 2L: 136th Avenue Inflow Area = 2,950 sf, 61.21% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.83" for 100-Year event Inflow = 0.62 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 1,433 cf Primary = 0.62 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 1,433 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to Link 4L : Total Offsite Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 2L: 136th Avenue Hydrograph Inflow 0.62 cfs Primary 0.65 0.62 cfs Inflow Area=2,950 sf 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 Flow0.3 (cfs) 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) Page 121 of 131Proposed Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 4/24/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 13 Summary for Link 3L: Rogers Drive Inflow Area = 58,819 sf, 85.92% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.51" for 100-Year event Inflow = 13.28 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 31,889 cf Primary = 13.28 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 31,889 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routed to Link 4L : Total Offsite Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 3L: Rogers Drive Hydrograph Inflow 13.28 cfs Primary 14 13.28 cfs Inflow Area=58,819 sf 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 Flow (cfs) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) Page 122 of 131Proposed Conditions MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.13" Prepared by Gregory Group DBA Demarc Printed 4/24/2026 HydroCAD® 10.20-5c s/n 09313 © 2023 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Page 14 Summary for Link 4L: Total Offsite Inflow Area = 63,380 sf, 82.97% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.42" for 100-Year event Inflow = 14.19 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 33,934 cf Primary = 14.19 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 33,934 cf, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary outflow = Inflow, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Link 4L: Total Offsite Hydrograph Inflow 14.19 cfs Primary 15 14.19 cfs 14 Inflow Area=63,380 sf 13 12 11 10 9 8 Flow7 (cfs) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 38 40 42 44 46 48 50 52 54 56 58 60 62 64 66 68 70 72 Time (hours) Page 123 of 131 Appendix H Soil Summary Page 124 of 131 Soil Map—Hennepin County, Minnesota 93° 33' 5'' W 93° 33' 0'' W 456690 456700 456710 456720 456730 456740 456750 456760 456770 456780 456790 45° 12' 8'' N 45° 12' 8'' N 5005570 5005570 5005560 5005560 5005550 5005550 5005540 5005540 5005530 5005530 5005520 5005520 5005510 5005510 5005500 5005500 5005490 5005490 5005480 5005480 5005470 5005470 5005460 5005460 5005450 5005450 5005440 5005440 5005430 5005430 Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. 5005420 45° 12' 3'' N 5005420 45° 12' 3'' N 456690 456700 456710 456720 456730 456740 456750 456760 456770 456780 456790 Map Scale: 1:748 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. 93° 33' 5'' W Meters 93° 33' 0'' W N 0 10 20 40 60 Feet 0 35 70 140 210 Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS84 Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/26/2026 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Page 125 of 131Soil Map—Hennepin County, Minnesota Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI L37B Angus loam, 2 to 6 percent 2.5 100.0% slopes Totals for Area of Interest 2.5 100.0% Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/26/2026 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Page 126 of 131Map Unit Description: Angus loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes---Hennepin County, Minnesota Hennepin County, Minnesota L37B—Angus loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes Map Unit Setting National map unit symbol: 2syrq Landscape: Till plains Elevation: 690 to 1,840 feet Mean annual precipitation: 24 to 37 inches Mean annual air temperature: 43 to 52 degrees F Frost-free period: 140 to 180 days Farmland classification: All areas are prime farmland Map Unit Composition Angus and similar soils: 80 percent Minor components: 20 percent Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit. Description of Angus Setting Landscape: Till plains Landform: On leeward side of drainages hillslopes, Ground moraines Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve, rise Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex, linear Parent material: Fine-loamy till Typical profile Ap - 0 to 7 inches: loam Bt - 7 to 37 inches: clay loam BC - 37 to 50 inches: clay loam C - 50 to 79 inches: loam Properties and qualities Slope: 2 to 6 percent Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches Drainage class: Well drained Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high (0.20 to 2.00 in/hr) Depth to water table: About 39 to 51 inches Frequency of flooding: None Frequency of ponding: None Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 20 percent Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm) Available water supply, 0 to 60 inches: High (about 10.3 inches) Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/26/2026 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Page 127 of 131Map Unit Description: Angus loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes---Hennepin County, Minnesota Interpretive groups Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 2e Hydrologic Soil Group: C Ecological site: R103XY020MN - Loamy Upland Savannas Forage suitability group: Sloping Upland, Neutral (G103XS002MN) Other vegetative classification: Sloping Upland, Neutral (G103XS002MN) Hydric soil rating: No Minor Components Angus, moderately eroded Percent of map unit: 10 percent Landscape: Till plains Landform: On leeward side of drainages hillslopes, Ground moraines Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit, shoulder Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve, rise Down-slope shape: Convex Across-slope shape: Convex, linear Ecological site: R103XY020MN - Loamy Upland Savannas Other vegetative classification: Sloping Upland, Neutral (G103XS002MN) Hydric soil rating: No Cordova Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landscape: Till plains Landform: Ground moraines Landform position (three-dimensional): Dip Down-slope shape: Concave Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: F103XY027MN - Loamy Wet Forests Other vegetative classification: Level Swale, Neutral (G103XS001MN) Hydric soil rating: Yes Le sueur Percent of map unit: 5 percent Landscape: Till plains Landform: On leeward side of drainages hillslopes, Ground moraines Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve, talf Down-slope shape: Convex, linear Across-slope shape: Linear Ecological site: R103XY020MN - Loamy Upland Savannas Other vegetative classification: Level Swale, Neutral (G103XS001MN) Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/26/2026 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 2 of 3 Page 128 of 131Map Unit Description: Angus loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes---Hennepin County, Minnesota Hydric soil rating: No Data Source Information Soil Survey Area: Hennepin County, Minnesota Survey Area Data: Version 21, Sep 10, 2025 Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 3/26/2026 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Page 129 of 131 STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: May 4, 2026 ROGERS PLANNING Agenda Item: 7.1 COMMISSION Subject: Past Planning Commission Items Report Prepared By: Brett Angell, Community Development Director Overview / Background / Analysis The Planning Commission last met on Monday, April 6th with numerous items on the agenda. The items below highlight the discussion and current status of each. Northview Preserve 2nd Addition The Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed a preliminary plat for Northview Preserve 2nd Addition for a small extension of the Northview Preserve development following getting an additional property that would be added into the overall development. This item went to the City Council on April 14th and was approved. Section 125-42 Variances Code Amendments The Commission held a public hearing and reviewed code amendments for the section on variances and review process. The proposed amendments were to bring the existing code into compliance with statute. The commission recommended approval on the proposed amendments. This item went to Council on April 14th and was approved. Section 125-54, 55, and 84 — Accessory Structures and Fences Code Amendments Earlier in 2026, the Planning Commission and City Council review potential changes to the city code sections on fences and accessory structures. Following these reviews, changes based upon feedback were made to the proposed amendment. The Commission reviewed the proposed changed code and recommended approval. This item went to City Council on April 14th where it was approved. Main Street Master Plan The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed final draft of the Main Street Master Plan, which was developed throughout 2025 and early 2026. The item went to the City Council on April 14th, where the new plan was adopted by the City Council. With this adoption, it will serve as a baseline for the downtown area for the 2050 Comprehensive Plan update. Cannabis Business Licensing Regulations Code Amendments The Planning Commission reviewed numerous amendments to the cannabis licensing regulations. Many of the changes related to clean-up items following additional information from the Office of Cannabis Management or from operational observations from staff. Additionally, the commission provided guidance on the measuring of buffer Page 130 of 131lines following a request from a property owner. The City Council approved the amendments as recommended by the Commission on April 14th. Hawkins Drive Senior Living Concept Plan The Planning Commission reviewed a concept plan for a proposed senior living facility on Hawkins Drive that consisted of assisted living, memory care, and independent living units. This item went to the City Council for review at the April 14th meeting where feedback was shared. As this item was a concept plan, there were no formal votes on the item. The developer now has the ability to adjust plans based on the feedback and determine if they would like to move forward with additional applications. Additional items that have previously come before the Planning Commission that may be of interest: Little Caesars Update In 2025, a site plan was approved for a new Little Caesars to be built on a city-owned lot adjacent to Ripple Effect Brewing. Unfortunately, the purchase agreement has expired, and it does not appear likely that Little Caesars will be built on the lot for the foreseeable future. Northdale Light Industrial In 2024, the Planning Commission reviewed a proposed 3-building light industrial development on the north end of Northdale Blvd abutting the Crow River. In 2025, the development received final plat approval. The development will be in two phases- phase one including two buildings and phase two with one building. A pre-construction meeting recently took place and work on the site is anticipated to begin within the next few weeks. Staff Recommendation No action required. This item is for informational purposes. Financial Impact: Not applicable. Source Fund: Not applicable. Budgeted? N/A Supporting Documentation None Page 131 of 131