Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-22-2019 Planning Commission Packet PUBLIC ATTENDANCE MEETING DATE I \ aaj aoi9 ❑ COUNCIL 0 PLANNING COMMISSION ❑ OTHER Assistive Listening Device available upon request. .f'u ''; et u.1.^.`s '.r , 'j`rr . ,� Please complete fheloflgwing o orr ati0n_far gity recon -,,,, y ,p4 °h . } = PRESENT FOR(from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 1. Iz t°.c0U b L , CoAh i ' a f o (dah, ,-e/di 7 2. S-14 .'�c � d c, 270/ji•re /Lc 44"e c. 7 3. jere04 Aj, e 5 ZQ)(ac Cro k� roc Gv'w-j 4. i ()i-4 (Atrf Vey t II(0 d rr 5. (X V LO / OV 1/11Lvl r� 6. 60/1/U" U I W1VV }'iii 7. iffitdAA,e i 8./0/210 0° /7/(69(41-kir Zi6 ) W67-7--0/1 0//CI 0-t-1/1C7 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. V:\(LEGAL FORMS)\(FORMS)\PUBLIC ATTENDANCE.DOC \VO`�'� Agenda Planning Commission Meeting Tuesday,January 22,2019, 6:30 P.M. y� �~ Orono Council Chambers,2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 t4kESHo - 952-249-4600/www.ci.orono.mn.us Audience Members: Please sign in for the public record if you wish to address the Planning Commission. The sign in sheet is in the lobby. Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available in the Public Packet— located in the lobby near the sign in sheet. Applicants will be asked to move to the lectern to answer questions after staff presents the application. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for an upcoming City Council meeting. A quorum of the City Council may be in attendance of a Planning Commission meeting to hear comments made, though no action or deliberation of the Council will occur. Council Representative: Richard Crosby II Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes New Business 1. LA18-000062 Sven Gustafson,387 Orono Orchard Road, Preliminary Plat(Staff: Melanie Curtis) 2. LA18-000087 Robert Brook, 1165 Ferndale Road W, Variance (Staff: Laura Oakden) 3. LA18-000091 AJ Helgerson, 2870 Goldenrod Way, Variance (Staff: Laura Oakden) 4. LA18-000098 Jen Ishaug, 4245 Chippewa Lane, Variances (Staff: Laura Oakden) 5. LA18-000099 John Ortiz, 835 Forest Arms Lane, Variances (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 6. LA18-000102 Maria Larenas and Charlie and Co Design, 2455 North Shore Drive, Variances/ IUP (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 7. LA18-000103 All Energy Solar o/b/o Eleanor Ferril, 240 Wakefield Road, Variance (Staff: Jeremy Barnhart) 8. LA18-000095 Chuck Alcon, o/b/o Eric and Andrea Larson, 690 Brown Road North, Sketch Plan (Staff: Jeremy Barnhart) Update on recent City Council meeting Other issues for discussion Adjournment Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us—follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair John Thiesse, Commissioners Bob Erickson,Kevin Landgraver, Dennis Libby, Chad Olson, and Jon Ressler. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Jeremy Barnhart, City Planners Melanie Curtis and Laura Oakden, and Recorder Jackie Young. Mayor Dennis Walsh was present. Chair Thiesse called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 15,2018 Landgraver moved,Olson seconded,to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of October 15,2018,as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS 2. LA18-000086 PAUL VOGSTROM,2710 PENCE LANE,VARIANCE,6:32 P.M.—7:30 P.M. Paul Vogstrom,Applicant,was present. Curtis stated this application is regarding a lot to be created pending a final plat. This lot has an approximate 100-foot wide building envelope without encroaching into the average lakeshore variance. The proposed house encroaches approximately 18 to 19 feet into the average lakeshore setback. Staff reviewed the practical difficulty analysis submitted by the applicant and found it lacking. Average lakeshore setback variances may be granted when the request is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the zoning chapter. The burden for demonstrating a practical difficulty is on the applicant. Based on the justification provided, Staff finds there are no valid practical difficulties supporting granting of the variance. It appears that the uniqueness of the lot is created by the pending plat and the requested encroachment is largely a convenience factor. Approving a variance without justification establishes a precarious precedent where variances are concerned. Public comments have been included in the Planning Commission's packet. Staff recommends denial of the variance. Paul Vogstrom,Applicant, stated at the last meeting they had a different line of sight arrangement that was depicted on the plat map. Vogstrom indicated he has spoken with the neighbors regarding their proposal,re-examined the plat, and then moved around the proposed house on the lot because in looking at it, he redesigned it to what makes sense. Vogstrom stated in his view the proposal meets the spirit of the rules. Page 1 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Mark Gronberg, Surveyor, stated he came into the project about halfway through and that there was some information from a previous surveyor that had the average sightline depicted in green, which has since been pushed further back based on comments from Staff. The original house that was on the lot is depicted in red and was 76 feet back from the lake. The original proposal is depicted in blue, which is located behind that. Further on into the process Staff said that the setback should be measured from the closest point to the lake on the two adjoining lots. Gronberg indicated he was a little surprised by that since in his 44 years of working in the City he has never seen it measured that way. In other cities it is usually the sightline distance between the closest corners. Gronberg noted in March, when he was working on the Judd Dayton application,the average lakeshore setback was prepared by City Staff showing the line going from the closest point to the lake from the adjoining corners. Gronberg stated he knows there has been some discrepancy in the past as to how the ordinance has been interpreted, and when this average lakeshore setback line kept getting pushed back,they Vogstroms felt they needed to request a variance. Curtis noted this is a Staff approximation of the average lakeshore setback since it was not depicted on a formal survey. Curtis stated if they drew the line from the closest point to the lake,the line would likely vary by 20 to 30 feet. Gronberg stated the ordinances are great when there is a straight shoreline, but when the shoreline is not straight,that causes some problems. Gronberg noted the sightline for the proposed house is behind the two existing houses and does not appear to meet the intent of the ordinance. The Dunkley house is approximately 25 feet from the lake and the other house is approximately 80 feet from the lake,which is quite a difference. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:39 p.m. Kelly Hueler, 2715 Pence Lane, stated she is not sure what the comments were relative to talking to the neighbors since they were not spoken to about this drawing even though they live next door. Hueler stated it was their understanding that the lot that was permitted or approved was to be a conforming subdivision and that there were to be no requests for variances. The Dunkley home was granted three variances and there were clearly some legitimate reasons for practical difficulties. However, relative to where the original house was positioned previously,that house was completely torn down and the foundation removed. If the applicants had wanted to keep the previous foundation and work from that,that was an option available to any potential developer or prospective buyer. The applicants chose not to do that and the foundation has been removed. Hueler stated it is their understanding that the lines that were drawn is the way the setbacks have been measured and that the lot was to be conforming,which means there would be no reason to grant a variance. Greg Hueler stated the lot someone purchases is the buyer's choice, and if the desired house does not fit on the lot,they should look at buying a different lot. Kelly Hueler noted they did not object to the Dunkleys' variance requests primarily because it was an existing residence and they had practical difficulties that were legitimate. There is absolutely no reason for this lot to be granted any variances since it should be a conforming lot and there is a sufficient building envelope available behind the average lakeshore setback line. Page 2 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Greg Hueler noted they also did not oppose the subdivision because it was conforming. Kelly Hueler commented the rules should apply equally to everyone and that they should be able to rely on that Hueler noted they also have concerns about the proposal as it relates to the potential for runoff and that there is a drainage system between the two houses. Hueler stated she is not exactly sure who is in control of what but that there is a tremendous amount of water that needs to be dealt with and addressed when the lot is finalized or when a building permit is applied for. Paul Vogstrom stated he did work with the Huelers in the past and that they all met on the property prior to designing the lot. Vogstrom noted they have the right to be able to subdivide the property and have a cul-de-sac, which is something the Huelers opposed. That request was respected and the proposal does not include a cul-de-sac. Vogstrom indicated he walked the site with the Huelers and identified where they should locate the new house at the time when the original house existed on the property. Vogstrom stated he suggested moving the house back slightly to improve the Huelers' line of sight and that he lined it up with their property so it would work for everybody. Following that meeting, they then went through the process of a sketch plan and a formal application. The Huelers were worried about the driveway and so changes were made to that. Vogstrom indicated they went through a lot more work in an attempt to satisfy the Huelers and that they could have done it a different way which would have made it a lot easier. Vogstrom stated they tore the house down because they felt they were doing the right thing by helping to save the Huelers' view. In addition, a willow tree was removed and the house was pushed back. If the house is placed further back on the lot, it will block the Huelers' view from their front yard, and by pushing the house forward,that helps protect some of the sightlines. Vogstrom stated he tried to reach an agreement on the outlot and that he created a lot of different designs for the Huelers. Vogstrom commented he is upset because the Huelers are not telling the full story and that they have tried to work with everybody in the City. Vogstrom stated the variance makes sense and works for the neighbors. Eric Vogstrom, 2710 Pence, stated when they appeared here previously,the average lakeshore setback line was in a different location. Curtis stated the previous surveyor did not have it correct. Curtis pointed out where the line of sight was depicted originally and noted that the additional piece or bump-out was added to the house. Eric Vogstrom stated the Planning Commission recommended that they soften the impact and show some flexibility. Mr. Hueler wanted to keep his side view and they also had a willow tree that they took down. Vogstrom stated they listened to the feedback,which is why it was designed this way and that the window that is blocked is the view from the master bedroom closest. Curtis stated she did not move the setback line but clarified it at the City Council meeting because it was located incorrectly by a previous surveyor. Eric Vogstrom stated at the last two meetings the setback was shown in a different location and the only time it moved to the present spot was when they went to the City Council. Vogstrom stated they Page 3 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. attempted to work with the City and listen to the Huelers. At the sketch plan meeting Mr. Thiesse pointed out that this is a peninsula and there is not much they can do about the average line of sight. Thiesse stated to his knowledge he was corrected on that later in the meeting. Eric Vogstrom stated the spirit of the rule is for everyone to basically be the same. Vogstrom noted he is now 120 feet at the closest part and 130 feet at the two furthest points,which is not the spirit of the rule. Because the lot meanders,Vogstrom stated in his view there is a practical difficulty. Vogstrom stated at the sketch plan meeting, everyone was on board, but then after that everything changed because the Dunkleys could not reach an agreement with the Huelers to purchase the property. Vogstrom stated they did not realize the repercussions of combining the lot or they would not have done that. Vogstrom stated in his view they have honored what Mr. Hueler requested by maintaining his side view,which he did not originally have, and that they have shown a lot of flexibility and have followed the direction of the City. Greg Hueler pointed out he last talked to Paul Vogstrom a year and a half ago and that they have not had any discussion about this proposal. Kelly Hueler noted they are not opposing the conforming lot as it was approved by the City Council and that they all want to be treated fairly. Hueler stated their home is an existing home, and if they decide to renovate,they may also have some practical difficulties similar to the Dunkleys. But because this is a brand new lot, it is required to be conforming and that there is a buildable pad. Hueler stated anything they do or say that is outside the code has anything to do with anything. Hueler noted the window that was mentioned is not the master closet but is their master bedroom. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:55 p.m. Ressler stated it is his understanding that the proposed structure has not changed but what has changed is what was understood to be the average lakeshore setback line. Curtis noted the house has a different orientation and footprint and the bump-out is new. Curtis stated the average lakeshore setback line was depicted on the plat but the house was not discussed and was not in the location it is now. At that time the Vogstroms were proposing a conforming plat,which is what the Planning Commission approved. Vogstrom stated the Planning Commission recommendation was based on an incorrect plat. Curtis stated at the last meeting where this plan was reviewed,the proposed house was not in the location that is now being proposed and that the Planning Commission only recommended approval of the lot. Eric Vogstrom noted the average lakeshore setback line was in a different spot and that they relocated the house to help protect the Huelers' view. Paul Vogstrom commented they have been through a lot with this application and that they have always wanted to make it right. Vogstrom indicated he worked with the neighbors and talked with them many, many times and that he fought very hard for them not to have that cul-de-sac. Vogstrom stated they could Page 4 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. have kept this very simple,but they were trying to accommodate the Huelers. As a result, they combined the lot and moved the house back. Vogstrom stated their proposal does not obstruct the Huelers' view from their front yard or from their master bedroom and that he is hoping to do what is right. Vogstrom asked what the spirit is of an average lakeshore setback variance and why is it in place. Thiesse stated it is in place to protect the neighbors' view shed and that the proposed house is ahead of the line that has been described as the view shed. Vogstrom asked which view is being protected. Thiesse stated the City has decided on a line and the proposed house is in front of it. Libby noted there is an envelope to build a house. Libby asked whether there is some type of architectural or design deficiency of building within the envelope. Vogstrom stated it is the odd shape of the lot and that it bottlenecks up between the two properties. Vogstrom indicated they are trying to avoid doing a detached garage so they do not have another structure in the hopes that would make the Huelers happy. Vogstrom stated the line of sight should be looked at from all sides of the home and that the average setback line has been depicted wrong and interpreted differently. Vogstrom stated in his view this average lakeshore setback is protecting all sides and that he respected their view with this design. Eric Vogstrom stated when they came back on June 18,that is when they thought the line of sight was established. When they came back again on September 17,the setback line was still there. On October 8 at the City Council meeting,that is the first time they found out the line got screwed up. Vogstrom stated the old line was there from June until October, and then right before the Council meeting, it got moved back an extra seven feet. Vogstrom stated in their view the curved lot creates a practical difficulty. Libby asked if Mr. Gronberg was referring to the meander of the lakeshore and how it is not always a consistent straight line. Gronberg stated it is not a straight line and that it juts out on this lot and goes way back on the Dunkley lot. Landgraver asked whether the shape of the shoreline has anything to do with the average lakeshore setback line. Curtis stated it does not and that the Dunkley home that the western point is measured from is nonconforming. The code reads: The average lakeshore setback line shall be a straight line connecting the most lakeward protrusions of the residents' buildings on the immediately adjacent lakeshore lots, which is what the code reads today and has read in the past. Thiesse asked if that is what the line indicates. Page 5 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated it does. Curtis indicated she spoke with Mr. Gronberg about Staffs reading of the average lakeshore setback determination. Staff interprets it to be the most lakeward protrusion of each of the adjacent homes. Mr. Gronberg has correctly depicted it at the 23-foot mark. Libby asked whether there have been instances in the past or whether there could be instances where the meandering lakeshore could cause a practical difficulty. Curtis stated it does and the Council and Planning Commissions in the past have weighed all of the factors in each particular situation. In situations where a variance was granted to the average lakeshore setback, in almost all of those situations the neighbors were supportive of the encroachment. Landgraver stated he knows this has been a long process and that he does not want to get into what the prior stuff was since the Planning Commission needs to make the decision upon the right measurements. Landgraver noted the plan does show a variance to what was sketched before but that he is not seeing a lot of practical difficulty for this design and that he is not in favor of granting the variance. Ressler stated he struggles with it because he initially thought the line was where it was depicted previously and that everyone seemed to be comfortable with it. Adding the bump-out makes it more difficult because it was not part of the original plan and going back to what was understood as the average lakeshore setback is becoming a little bit irrelevant. Ressler indicated he was prepared to be in support of the application if the structure was in compliance with the previous line but that the bump-out changes that. Ressler noted Orono has a lot of lakeshore and that maybe the City should take a harder look at how it recognizes the average lakeshore setback. Ressler stated he would like to see that bump-out eliminated or improved in some way and that he does not support it as is. Libby asked what the nature is of the modified bump-out and what purpose it serves. Paul Vogstrom indicated it is a one-story bump-out and serves as a sunroom area to maximize the views, maximizes the property, and still respects the views of the neighboring property. Libby asked if physical movement of the entire structure would deprive them of this panoramic view. Vogstrom indicated he would not be able to have an attached garage up front and that they would need to do an L-shaped garage. Libby commented it appears there is plenty of room at the rear. Vogstrom stated all it is doing is creating a bottleneck and gives the appearance of an alley. It would also block the Huelers' front view from the north side of the house and they will be looking at a garage,which is something they have been opposed to seeing before. Vogstrom stated in his view it needs to be looked at from what is right and what fits with the lot and that they are protecting the line of sight. Thiesse noted the Planning Commission is responsible for enforcing the average lakeshore setback line. Vogstrom stated that is the reason behind a variance and that this is a perfect spot for a variance. Page 6 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Libby indicated he would be in favor of a variance. Olson stated he struggles with it if it is approved because of what kind of precedent will be set. The Planning Commission is supposed to uphold the setback lines, and as it stands right now,the house encroaches more than what he can be comfortable with. Erickson stated given the shape of the shoreline and the way it meanders and turns,that could be the basis for a practical difficulty. Orono has a lot of shoreline that is straighter than this and not too many that are curved like this. Erickson stated the parts that concern him have more to do with the procedure and the City's previous history with this property. The first proposal had multiple cul-de-sacs and multiple gates and multiple issues. The applicants then came back with a revised plan and the proposal was enormously improved, which the applicants deserve credit for. All the objections were removed, including any need for variances. Erickson stated he asked at that time specifically about whether this shape creates a situation where they are going to come back and ask for more variances and he was assured that wouldn't happen. The Planning Commission was further assured by the drawing at that time that showed the house right up against the line and not crossing it. Erickson noted that plan has yet to be finally approved by the City Council but the applicants are now asking for a variance. Erickson commented he has seen this type of hearing happen in many cities and the thing that consistently drives cities crazy is somebody gets approved for a certain plan and then one day it gets built and it is different. Erickson stated maybe the fact that the applicants are bringing in this change before the other part is approved prevents the City from getting surprised. Erickson stated he also has a little concern about the previous drawing showing the setback line in a somewhat different place and that in his view it is reasonable for the applicants to go by that line and not another line that is further back. Erickson stated it looks like there is not only that change but the applicants have also decided to redesign the house to intrude even more, which is somewhat problematic. Landgraver asked if the preliminary plat was approved by the City Council. Curtis indicated it has been and the final plat is on the November 26 agenda. Landgraver noted they did not discuss the average lakeshore setback previously because the Planning Commission was attempting to get a lot without the need for any variances. At that time the average lakeshore setback line did not seem to be the main consideration and the applicants did the right thing by bringing in Mark Gronberg. Landgraver stated regardless of that, he does not feel the Planning Commission is bound to stick with the previous average lakeshore setback. Thiesse stated there was a house footprint that was shown on the plan previously that was compliant with the old line. Eric Vogstrom stated if the line had not been moved,they would not have come back requesting a variance. Vogstrom stated they did not know it was incorrect and that they assumed it was correct. Vogstrom commented they are not trying to pull a fast one and that he hopes the City can compromise and say that this plan makes more sense. Page 7 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Curtis stated if that was the true logic for this design,then the house would look like the original plan without the 15-foot bump-out. Eric Vogstrom stated they created the bump-out because they hit the reset button. When they had the original setback line, he was fine with it, but then if he is going to go in for a variance,they want to get something that would make a little more sense. Vogstrom indicated they have been up here compromising and compromising but they have not seen anyone else compromise. Vogstrom stated in his view it is absolutely a practical difficulty given the curvature of the line. Libby asked if they returned to the original setback whether they would have the same discussion regarding encroachment of the structure. Curtis stated the only time the applicants have shown a conforming house location has been on the preliminary plat drawing but that unfortunately the average lakeshore setback line was not correct. Staff caught it when the plans were moving forward to the City Council. Thiesse noted the average lakeshore setback and the shoreline on the property are pretty much parallel and that the applicants are gaining the extra view to the west because the line goes up. Thiesse stated in his view he does not feel the applicants are losing anything. Thiesse noted this lot is a blank piece of paper and that a conforming house can be built on the lot. Landgraver moved,Olson seconded,to recommend denial of Application No.LA18-000086,Paul Vogstrom,2710 Pence Lane,granting of a variance to the average lakeshore setback. Erickson stated he would feel better about supporting the motion if the line presented at a previous meeting was still the line and that he would support a variance given the methodology that was used. Erickson stated he can see how the applicant was led to believe that that would be a workable solution and that he has a problem voting for denial at this point because he also recognizes that the applicants have put in a lot of effort into the application. Erickson stated what they are showing now is not hugely different from what was previously proposed. Thiesse stated moving the house further back is not that different either. Ressler noted the bump-out is a 15-foot difference. Thiesse stated it is his understanding Mr. Erickson was saying that he would not allow the bump-out but that he would allow the house at the previous line. Ressler stated he would also entertain approving the previous setback line since he feels there was agreement on the previous placement. Thiesse noted the setback line is incorrect and that he cannot support the variance. Landgraver stated the line is what it is as opposed to whatever the prior survey said. Landgraver stated he disagrees with the analysis and giving the applicants a pass. VOTE: Ayes 4,Nays 2,Ressler and Erickson Opposed. Page 8 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 3. LA18-000087 ROBERT BROOK, 1165 FERNDALE ROAD WEST,VARIANCE This item was removed at the request of the Applicant. 4. LA18-000044 CITY OF ORONO,2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT,7:30 P.M.—8:03 P.M. Barnhart stated tonight is the scheduled public hearing for the 2040 Comprehensive Plan Update. The City has been working on this update since March of 2017. Every city within the 7-county metropolitan area has to update their Comprehensive Plan every ten years and this one is due December 31, 2018. Each amendment must include specific topics that are mandated by state statute, and those include housing, land use,transportation, sanitary sewer and water. The City's Comprehensive Plan Update does include those topics. In addition,the Metropolitan Council provides projected numbers relating to Orono's anticipated population, household and employment growth over the next 10 to 20 years so the City can plan for that type of growth. Even though the City has to plan for that type of growth,that does not mean it will occur, nor does the City have to approve every project that comes before them. Barnhart stated this is the first hurdle that needs to be crossed in terms of a development proposal and some proposals have triggered an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. A committee was established by the City Council in March of 2017 and included 13 members. The committee met monthly and guided and advised Staff on changes to the plan. The Committee operated under three primary goals: 1. Retain rural character and natural resource protection policies established in previous plans. 2. Satisfy Metropolitan Council requirements. 3. Improve the readability of the document. The Plan retains the general development and land and water protection philosophies established by earlier plans. Preservation of rural character and preservation of water quality was very important to the committee. The Comprehensive Plan was published on the City's website and also sent to surrounding cities for their review and comment. A number of the changes were based on formatting changes and updated data from sources, including the state and the Metropolitan Council. The comments received during the public comment period have been incorporated into an exhibit to the document. In addition,two open houses were held for the residents this past year. Barnhart noted the City's housing goals have remained basically the same, and the table included in Staff's report reflects Orono's population, household and employment forecasts from 1970 through 2040. The City is required to provide opportunity for 154 units of affordable housing making the average or below the average median income. Currently there is around 639 units of that type in Orono. The City provides for those opportunities by guiding different sections of the City for higher density. Libby asked whether the Metropolitan Council provides the City with any metrics for growth besides the HUD. Page 9 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Barnhart indicated the Metropolitan Council does provide quite a bit of information and tools to help develop the plan. The Metropolitan Council also provides a projected number of new households. The City's Transportation Plan reflects regional transportation plans developed by Hennepin County and comments received from Medina. No new corridors were proposed in the update. One of the comments of the Metropolitan Council was to make the bus system more attractive to users to help alleviate traffic in certain areas. The Comprehensive Plan Update does retain the City's concept of the ring route, which was introduced in 2008. Some of the comments received related to high traffic levels on Shoreline Drive. Barnhart stated due to existing traffic levels, improvements in the Navarre area are somewhat challenging but Hennepin County's Transit Advantage Plan provides some alternatives to no new development. Barnhart noted the following changes are included in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan but that it is not an all-inclusive list: 1. Expansion of MUSA. The Plan proposes a single expansion of the MUSA boundary to serve vacant property on the north end of Wildhurst while preserving steep slopes and significant tree stands in the area. This is a change from the draft proposed in April. 2. Land Use. To meet the growth projections of the Metropolitan Council,the Land Use Map was updated. The map reflects a revised listing of land use categories. These ten categories are used throughout the document per Metropolitan Council requirements and include seven residential, two commercial/industrial, and a park/open space land use. Island residential is a new land use and is employed for the residences on Big Island and Deering Island. The plan shows low density residential as the predominant land use south of Fox Street. An earlier version of the land use map showed portions of these area as medium density residential, recognizing the development patterns established. Based on feedback,the Council directed these areas, including Crystal Bay, Casco Point, Fagerness Point, and Navarre, change back to low density residential. In the northern portion of the community, residential land uses were introduced to the Kelley Parkway and Wayzata Boulevard areas. The parcels south of Lake Classen were not changed from Rural Residential. In order to prevent larger scale expansion of the MUSA and introduction of density in the rural areas, increased opportunity for density had to be added in the Navarre and northern Orono areas. The Committee applied density in areas where they felt it was most appropriate, given transportation networks, neighboring land uses, and services available. 3. Planned Development Sites. It is a requirement of the planning process that sites be identified for potential growth in the next 20 years. The Committee updated the Planned Development sites map which shows five areas that could be the subject of development proposals. These five areas provide growth in a range of densities, from 0.5 to 2 units per acre to High Density Residential. 4 Navarre Area Plan. The Navarre Area Plan, conducted by the Planning Consultant,was incorporated in the Land Use Chapter, 3B, and influenced some of the land use in that area. Page 10 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. Editing. The committee worked hard to reduce the length of the document, removing redundant statements, in the hopes of making it more readable while retaining the major policy discussions. The Planning Commission should discuss whether they concur with the following seven guiding principles used in drafting the Comprehensive Plan Update: 1. Promote ecologically sensitive storm water management. 2. Establish and maintain native ecological communities. 3. Establish and maintain ecological connections. 4. Preserve and augment corridor enclosure. 5. Preserve views. 6. Preserve and maintain landmarks and unique points of local character. 7. Continue to work to educate property owners and residents on the effects development and land use have on the environment and character of the community The Planning Commission should also consider the following policy questions identified by Staff: 1. Does the Commission concur with the seven guiding principles outlined in Staff's report? 2. Does the Commission concur with the housing implementation plan? 3. Does the Commission concur with the Transportation Implementation Plan? 4. Does the Commission feel changes are necessary to the Land Use Plan? Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:01 p.m. Landgraver asked whether a lot of the language relating to green spaces was removed. Barnhart stated two of the comments were removed since they were redundant. Erickson moved,Libby seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000044,2040 Comprehensive Plan Amendment. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. 5. LA18-000084 CITY OF ORONO,TEXT AMENDMENT, GRADING AND LAND ALTERATION,8:04 P.M.—8:18 P.M. Oakden noted this is a continuation of the public hearing opened at the October Planning Commission meeting. Page 11 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Oakden stated the City is considering an ordinance that would revise the regulations for land alterations and would include grading, filling and topographic alterations in all districts. Simplifying the City Code will clarify the process pertaining to land alteration permits and help streamline the permitting process. The following changes are proposed: 1. Allowing some common land alteration permits to be administratively reviewed to expedite projects and still ensure the proposed grading meets city standards. 2. No longer classifying land alterations as a Conditional use Permit but processing them as an interim Use Permit to allow a sunset date for these activities. 3. Edit and clarify the City Code to clarify land alteration standards and conditions. 4. Section 78-1126(3)requires a conditional use permit for the cumulative placement of more than 1,000 cubic yards of fill when the fill is not being used to elevate the structure in accordance to flood fringe permitted uses. Per the suggested draft ordinance,the cumulative import/export of material over 500 cubic yards of material trigger an Interim Use Permit. As it relates to land alteration activity,the following changes are proposed: 1. Import/export of more than 500 cubic yards of material is now an Interim Use Permit rather than a Conditional Use Permit. 2. Import/export of less than 500 cubic yards of material requires a building permit or a land alteration permit. 3. Grading more than 50 cubic yards within a shore setback requires a building permit or land alteration permit. Previously a conditional use permit was required. 4. Grading less than 50 cubic yards on a property outside of the shore setback does not require a permit,which was kept the same. 5. Stockpiling more than 500 cubic yards of material will require an Interim Use Permit. 6. Repair of a failed shoreline will now require a building permit or land alteration permit instead of a CUP. 7. Mining will require an Interim Use Permit instead of a conditional use permit. To date no public comments have been received. Landgraver asked if someone could go ahead and construct a mini golf course in their back yard Oakden stated they would be allowed to move up to 50 cubic yards without a permit outside of the 0-75 foot area. Anything over 50 cubic yards would require a land alteration permit. Curtis noted that 50 cubic yard threshold was allowed a couple of years ago as long as drainage is not impacted. Page 12 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday,November 19,2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. Libby asked if that is still the same under the proposed amendment. Oakden stated if the grade is being altered within the shoreline, it will require a land alteration permit. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. Landgraver stated he has some minor suggestions regarding grouping of the items that he will provide to Staff. Landgraver noted Section 78-1727, Administrative Permit Required, Paragraph A(3),talks about 50 cubic yards, and then it talks about 50 cubic yards in the shore setback and then 50 cubic yards outside the shore setback. Landgraver stated it sounds like one is talking about volume and the other one is distance. Oakden stated if you are within the shore setback and moving less than 50 cubic yards,you will need a building permit or a land alteration permit, except no permit will be required for land movement less than 50 cubic yards outside the 75-foot zone. Oakden indicated she can clarify it but that it was included because that is a common question Staff receives. Ressler moved,Landgraver seconded,to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000084, City of Orono,Text Amendment—Grading and Land Alteration. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. UPDATE ON NOVEMBER 13,2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING Barnhart reported the City Council took the following actions at their November 13 meeting: • Approved the application for Brian Haas,4266 Avenue. • Approved an encroachment agreement for a retaining wall within a utility easement. • Tabled action on the text amendment for accessory structures to allow Staff to do one more review. The text amendment will go back before the City Council on December 10. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None ADJOURNMENT Olson moved,Landgraver seconded,to adjourn the Orono City Council meeting at 8:23 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6,Nays 0. ATTEST: John Thiesse, Chair Page 13 of 13 Date(Revised Plan)Application Received: 12/26/18 OAT Date Application Considered as Complete0l/14/19 g t VO 120-Day Review Period Expires: 05/14/19 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator �e `9kkSH04� From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 22 January 2019 Subject: #LA18-000062, Stonewood LLC, 387 Orono Orchard Road S, REVISED Preliminary Plat Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting approval of a revised preliminary plat. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval contingent upon meeting the MCWD and City Engineer's recommendations and permitting requirements of the MCWD. Background/Update This application is a modification of the preliminary and final plat reviewed and approved in 2018(same application number LA18-000062).The developer recently sold the northern lot and completed a boundary line adjustment between the two properties. The boundary line adjustment created a more substantial building area on the sold lot (385 Orono Orchard Rd S), and to facilitate the revised preliminary plat to create only one additional buildable lot from the subject property (387 Orono Orchard Road S). The previous plat was approved for 5 lots. Many of the previous review comments still apply, the proposal conforms to the RR-1B zoning district and continues to be less dense than the prescribed minimum density contemplated within the 2020-2040 comprehensive plan. The property is outside the MUSA boundary and septic system designs have been submitted for each lot. The existing driveway access point will continue to serve the separate northern lot (385 Orono Orchard Road S)which is not part of this subdivision. A new private driveway access is proposed to serve both of the properties as shown on the grading plan attached as Exhibit B. The preliminary plat drawing illustrates the proposed building pad areas for each new lot;the existing home on the property(shown on Parcel A) is proposed to remain at this time.The RR- 1B setbacks will be met; both lots are shown meeting or exceeding the minimum 200-foot lot width measured at the front setback. Relationship to Surrounding Development Properties in the immediate neighborhood consist of 4 to 21 acre lots;the City's golf course is to the north of the property.The proposed subdivision is consistent with respect to the rural character of the surrounding neighborhood. FILE#LA18-000062 22 Jan 2019 Page 2 of 4 Lot Dimensions as Proposed: Wetland Dry Buildable Total Acres Lot Width Existing 385 Orono 4.46±acres 6.63±acres 11.10±acres ±618' Orchard Road South Property -As adjusted Lot 1—"Parcel A" ±350 square 2.1±acres 4.23±acres ±413' feet Lot 2—"Parcel B" ±570 square 4.5±acres 6.9±acres ±205' feet General Site Characteristics This site is within the rural residential area south of the City golf course and north of Fox Street, historically made up of larger wooded estate properties. The property contains both natural and cultivated wooded areas as well as sloping grades and wetlands. There is an existing home and small garage located on the subject property, both which may remain following the subdivision;the setbacks are met. The existing driveway configuration will remain with the exception of the new curb cut serving the subject property. The Conservation Design Report by Anderson Engineering submitted for the original plat (see Exhibit E) provides a more detailed overview of the natural site characteristics. The revised subdivision plan reflects the developer's desire to protect significant tree stands; removal of invasive and diseased trees will be done on an as-needed basis.The goal of the revised development design and grading plan is to minimize tree removal and clearing. They hope to preserve the existing vegetation along the Orono Orchard Road corridor. Planning Commission should review the Report and discuss the recommendations. As each of the lots exceed 1.99 acres in area,there is no limit on overall structural building coverage. City Engineer Comments The City Engineer is reviewing the preliminary plat plans. Engineering comments will be forthcoming once the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District has received and reviewed the stormwater plan. If there are any changes needed resulting from the MCWD or City Engineer's review,the applicant can respond to those prior to placement on the City Council agenda. If the comments result in significant changes to the plat layout it may be brought back to the Planning Commission for another review. Easements Drainage& Utility.The City requires standard perimeter drainage and utility easements around all property boundaries in the Plat and drainage easements over the wetland areas. The easements shown on the proposed preliminary plat drawing should be revised to conform to the standard;the Final Plat must meet the City standards. Drainage and Utility Easements are required over any stormwater facilities that may be required FILE#LA18-000062 22 Jan 2019 Page 3 of 4 by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Private, Shared Driveway. The property is proposed to be served via a private driveway accessing Orono Orchard Road South at the northern point of"Parcel A" and meeting up with the existing drive. The driveway will be expanded to serve "Parcel B" and an access easement should be established for each of proposed lots; a maintenance agreement for the private driveway should also be provided by the developer.A maximum of two lots can be served via a private driveway. Park Dedication The Comprehensive Plan does not suggest the need for new trails or sidewalks along this section of Orono Orchard Road. There are no plans for future park land needs on the subject property, staff anticipates park dedication being satisfied via a cash donation. The Park Fee is determined as 8% of the fair market value of the land being subdivided, but must be between a minimum of $3,250 and a maximum of$5,550 per residential dwelling unit. For the proposed development, the Park Fee would be based only on the one newly created lot.The City's Assessor will be consulted to determine the market value of the land for establishing the amount of the fee. Stormwater and Drainage Improvements The developer should coordinate with the MCWD and provide confirmation regarding the permits or approvals they will require for this subdivision. According to the Anderson Engineering report, conservation easements will protect the wetland buffer areas as required by the MCWD.Additionally, according to the report,there were to be two stormwater infiltration basins installed, following MCWD approval of a stormwater plan,the grading plan should be updated to reflect any necessary stormwater pond areas. Placement and sizing will be determined by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Rules. The development is subject to the 2019 Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee of$8,060.00 per lot in a 2 acre zone.Therefore$8,060 x 2 lots=$16,120.00. Utility Locations and Availability The subject property is not located within the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA). Therefore City sewer is not available to the property.They have provided septic system designs for each of the lots which appear to be acceptable.The plans will be reviewed more closely at permitting by the Building Official for conformance with the regulations. Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval in accordance with the forthcoming recommendations of the City Engineer as well as the requirements of the MCWD.The Planning Commission's options for action on the proposed plat are: • Recommend approval of the plat as presented,with appropriate conditions; • Recommend denial,stating reasons; or • Table the application providing direction and guidance to the developer. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Preliminary Plat Drawing 12/07/18 Exhibit B. Proposed preliminary grading plan 12/07/18 FILE#LA18-000062 22 Jan 2019 Page 4 of 4 Exhibit C. Recorded Boundary Line Adjustment Exhibit D. Septic Plans 07/04/18 Exhibit E. Conservation Design Plan by Anderson Engineering 06/21/18 Exhibit F. Wetland Delineation—Jacobson Environmental 05/30/18 Exhibit G. MCWD—NOD Wetland Approval 07/10/18 Exhibit H. Map Exhibit I. Property Owners List 5 89.482,E A.,A •-... I 3 • /,, I . , , '..,t . ... •• i'.. , N 1 .,,.t. — , I . ....,,, -.. '... \ ' I 3 3 N . ' 0 50 100 150 °‘ '\5 I / A SCALE IN FEET \•,, . ' I I 2 , . X(gge.0).pROMEED'MI EiEvATICN , \ , , . •011ECTSA SLAV ACE M.o. .„ ...‘,..„ , COx .CANTILEVERED Dv... 011 -OVERYFACVL,IX ' / H I OFF ..C,RACE R,OP ELE-v.41,..x 1 -,„ I i TEE .TOP Of Fot.roAnox ELVAIIC. .1.1.64 1 • ',., R. , ,, 7 •..... i ''• 'a>, , ',, •„ 9'// !' I /4;s. ‘4 .,,,,,,;., .., / , I ADDRESS- I 387 ORONO ORCHARD 7000 i 3 • , ‘.3 „// / .0% ORONO,MN .\\ 03 7 z a .s. 'i i H C.V.LI.oEsmiri,01111/tO,R) PARCEL A ' \ ___ — Q1 !.1. . 2990.13 Sf/6.9 AC I C=3,. rt:,'''g.4.3'i P '1,1',M' 197700 5F/4.5 AC '''"--. ----•-1 / RA Keto.[AS l COSTER,(Or 2 (RUA DWG AREA) 1( tj. (, J &1 /' I ';'"';'.'-°'L:;'r;LZ°:47'"%=2:.7°Zr1 ... .. h. "7,•.,.d1,:, J , 7 , i, 153555 So/li I AL Mi.' I C kl -S Z . i. '...11 2 zr<..,-,,,,,' ." ,.. ,-,).:-.1 lots I and 2,4/000/,.51.1,01-0E110,400171.. EXCEPT Mat . /• no,th,/ OR i io• deSoliPod os f si iowsl l i 0 0o,nnnaing ot t, ,o0070e,, co,,,e,,0000,o,0. gh,,„ 0 0 r North 0 degrees 05 minutes 55 seconds We. olon0 the east line of lot 1 c distance. or 110.00 feet to the northeast , CD 0 0 PARCELS t••1 184530 51/4.2.3 AC ,I y i I. [' degrees 25 minutes 53 seconds ..a distance of 261.89 1,4 004 91200 59/2.1 AC Il I -4-, „..,d feet; thence nbrth 50 degr.s JO minutes 10 seconds West a ! L 0.1 04 04 1 t, Rla' nl.l,' distance of 589.6.1 feel; then. North 0 degree>07 minutes e (1000000 010(A) o of Lot 2 and there termino,ng..50 EOCEPt that port of Lot 1,lying south of a line run Iron c point on the east line 0 Nis. f / l' it IR '(:1'., of said Rol 2,distant 205.00 feel north of th• southeast di stance o I 272.00 I eet nor th o I the south.. conn•r tt 03(R) l• / 1 e he 0.7,,,,me..terminating, Hennepin,Punt, OR,OoeSola PARCEL 0 1 1 !I That port of 1,Black I.SoMITI,OFTLOFF e/7//N lying south o Siff ' ''•„ -DIE 50,..55-I CORWR Of LOT 2 Al 5' Inel.50,11,050 rownER,LOI 2---' ; '' 1' 8':''' "..*`, t / ‘"7 I:77:1151 :: 7 ”;71 7Ttt7T ';IT0f iiUR 89.015 ; I e r r e n , I 258 • V;i ir.44; i i '� 1 ,,, , _. N J rt f _ a - . l'' 50 100 150 PP'i ityy 8 1 � // SCALE IN FEET r vi j f I i a9., �eiT� - 1192,7 SF/50.§07 s., ue /1.i/ .0 � i I 1 y i t1-1' �._ .ti' / I I CC III h W � ( / - ADDRESS- ' .( 030"0.0;0 ORCHARD ROAD F Q 'yIII{{{������yyy. P021 SF A-.- toot •4, `�' 1 X299028 SF/4A AO': �� 9CYISINE L.,OESCPIPTICP(11,0/10, g 1, �. .+.= 19n00 sFils Ac' ( 1 —./�� / rbagurl cw<x Belo i1 ^.�� slececwc'aae�J. e. ., �.., i do �^ r // Y r.a / ' s, A 11AG 13ys i %/ rr N: _ W Q v 9. _ R�-v5E0 SC IUVS -_-='---.`L � _ � — 50 z�tF- _. '�l - o � u — F iro'— — �� �' O sv 1n PROPOSED r,3,wwsc cars,ec ro/. 0 �" W OZ vA,ecec A O CO 0 t l A 1 �e nw i � ,P1RCEL B l O 0 QV 1Sr/4 25 AC 261 89 O0 S 80 Y 'n, 912 SF/2v AC 30 10 FCLU s,iop<c AREA) n J/./i / / OO I.-- _1--_Al �<.,-; '\>:/ /' /, i "iS I 8 4 m.1 k4� _ g _3 / / I �r lM gl o;� i .W Sa N.5T CF,0,. h e9xib•Ab w ,,,9, K seg ..,< I .72--- I: .�e 1e.,. : ;NY -a,sirAi Doc No A10621530 Certified, filed and/or recorded on Dec 18, 2018 2:56 PM Office of the County Recorder Hennepin County, Minnesota Martin McCormick, County Recorder Mark Chapin, County Auditor and Treasurer Deputy 26 Pkg ID 1772034E Document Recording Fee $46.00 Document Total $46.00 This cover sheet is now a permanent part of the recorded document. 11 11 111 111 11 111 11 Doc No T05583045 Certified, filed and/or recorded on Dec 12, 2018 3:32 PM Office of the Registrar of Titles Hennepin County, Minnesota Martin McCormick, Registrar of Titles Mark Chapin, County Auditor and Treasurer Deputy 120 Pkg ID 1770050E Document Recording Fee $46.00 Document Total $46.00 Existing Certs 1470890 This cover sheet is now a permanent part of the recorded document. 6' �rx t7�'�'rIf(i�f1'�p X� > wd�a. M M" �'�.aW ks�.Cµ,^4 P a; or' �'�t��;►:ruS" �p 0.ti Ca:'wCe.F3'9 frY �I�1i 4 1�ar;n 1& i 1 WPtMi}I- s 1 ` fM A' kn' �� iktlL 7� d `,.Y fii; ke.-ral i w�iYr�v� rial r s. .. . e• , . .40:0- a r i',. . K`gib°f N��p` r, 4' 5 �+ lti�i o F N '— f .0 i* ,o e'+ low Ari i k1t�" I M_a® .11i'''Ki 11°4 ®F a D. 0 i':,,, ,Pti ry�y� ,4:f ii I yM.'; .. tlt, I h'4 u, '#4r '.11A 9�s 4 M C i,,,, .4' y 4'K. .W$1 a V k v,a'� V. 'V,1' a. , 11 ii �ll'ii d 6 p �� :r ®, �®,R C OE fi ® 'I' ',�2 13,411) t,/D B. tC p a2--400 i rhk ''.k.-:rod ;." ..itin't '� • -4,�-.n k ,5_-3'k.1's��,� r�r:vii� ,t .,;k '�, 4 �� '7, '�i MRti�".�i • Yob �aT H?�+'.. State of Minnesota Case No.#LA18-000088 City of Orono The undersigned Community Development Director for the City of Orono certifies as follows: According to City Code Section 82-200,the land subdivision as described in Exhibit A,and depicted in Exhibit B are excepted from the subdivision requirements outlined within Orono Municipal Code Chapter 82,Article III, Divisions 1 through 4 because it: Is an adjustment of a lot line by the relocation of a common boundary [Cite Sec. 82-200(a)(4)]. 1I/f f/8 '-ii'lltA Date J remy arnhart Community Development Director City of Orono State of Minnesota ) County of Hennepin ) The foregoing certificate was acknowledged before me by Jeremy Barnhart,the Community Development Director of the City of Orono this 16th day of ►ovember,2018. cllrll./lllllrllJl�.11lJ-/ll./lll� LiAtilii—L-14...iA,....4/ OF ti ', ANDREA LEE HENTGES ,j,,; . Notary Public ','‘--4‘*_�� ' NOTARY PUBLIC-MINNESOTA �; -: `.b - ° pAy Commission Expires Jan.31,2023 -: i aim 3 �1111111IJl./J.rll./ll✓Y!-rlll./lJ- My commission expires: Q VL 3� This instrument was drafted by: City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, Minnesota,55356 #LA18-000088 Exhibit A Page 2 of 3 Existing Legal Descriptions: Lot 1,and Lot 2, Block 1,Smith Dettloff Addition, Hennepin County, Minnesota Proposed Legal Descriptions: PARCEL A That part of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1,SMITH-DETTLOFF ADDITION,which lies northerly of a line described as follows;Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 1;thence North 0 degrees 05 minutes 55 seconds West along the east line of Lot 2 a distance of 211.14 feet the point of beginning;thence South 89 degrees 54 minutes 04 seconds West a distance of 114.64 feet;thence South 38 degrees 54 minutes 49 seconds West a distance of 232.95 feet;thence North 50 degrees 30 minutes 10 seconds West a distance of 589.61 feet;thence North 0 degrees 07 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 115.50 feet to the north line of Lot 2 and there terminating, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PARCEL B Lots 1 and 2, Block 1,SMITH-DETTLOFF ADDITION, EXCEPT that part lies northerly of a line described as follows;Commencing at the southeast corner of said Lot 1;thence North 0 degrees 05 minutes 55 seconds West along the east line of Lot 2 a distance of 410.99 feet to the northeast corner of Lot 2,the point of beginning;thence North 84 degrees 25 minutes 53 seconds West a distance of 261.89 feet; thence North 50 degrees 30 minutes 10 seconds West a distance of 589.61 feet;thence North 0 degrees 07 minutes 06 seconds West a distance of 115.50 feet to the north line of Lot 2 and there terminating, Hennepin County, Minnesota. #LA18-000088 14 Cll Exhibit B Page 3 of 3 g N 00VJ'J2''F 67990 N OOC706".W T5.529 N 00'07'06"W 1155 kt n •IP- y n ,, i r 3� N.13 /7 1/41 -./ A /. a s ' i • r O 7, / i , 6 R i r." $. $ jme cur Lee v cora —,\ '+ ,/ ^i" j N,61857 \\`O i �� pp y4y S CVOS'J6^E 6/9.30 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD "Mit-P-1 I !TIMM. 1 ,•=1 s'" r.1 Ri � Oo N q x A fq, _ �.a. :z� ;Ye r,x 19 g i.111og :a E ; R.Z ktilEt IltOlillifi !111:111i „t,,.,o„w PROPOSED LOT LINE `nllvta Afros ever verrow REALLIGNMENT- sua nnc maw muc _..._.___ STONEW000 LLC '°"` PC Exhibit D LA18-000062 Joseph Olson D.B.A. Rusty Olson's--Soil and Percolation Testing Joseph J. Olson--MPCA License #810 11481 Riverview Rd. NE, Hanover, MN 55341 (763) 498-8779 fax (763) 498-8290 July 4,2018 Stonewood LLC. Proposed lot 1 PID#02 I 1723230005 387 Orono Orchard Road S. Orono,Hennepin County This on-site Sewage Treatment System is partially designed for a Type 1,five-bedroom home in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Chapter 7080 and local ordinances. Once the house size, location and septic primary and future sites are chosen this design can be completed. The periodically saturated soils were located at 14-20 Inches(mottled soil).Due to the periodically saturated soils,a pressurized mound system will need to be installed to treat the septic effluent.The bottom of the treatment area must be located at least 3'above the saturated soils. The soils at a depth of 12"have a percolation rate averaging 7 MPI. A 2250-gallon septic tank or its equivalent needs to be installed.All tanks need to be insulated if there is less than two feet of cover over the top of the tanks.Clean outs must be installed on the end of the laterals for maintenance. Use 7/32-inch perforations on the laterals. A 1250-gallon pumping chamber will need to be installed to lift the effluent to the treatment area.The power supply and switches must be located outside the manhole and pumping chamber in a weatherproof enclosure.A warning device must be installed with a light and sound device;this is in case of a pump failure. Keep all heavy equipment off of the proposed treatment areas before and after construction.The treatment area must be fenced off before construction begins.This Design is not valid&the System will need to be relocated if failure to protect the areas proposed for the On-Site Sewage Treatment systems occurs. With proper installation and maintenance,this system should have no problem in treating septic effluent effectively.Nothing other than gray water,(laundry,showers,etc.)Human water and toilet tissue should be disposed of into the septic tanks.Garbage disposals are not recommended. Iron filters cannot go into the system.Additives must not be used they may cause harmful damage to your septic system. It is recommended that you pump the septic tanks every two years. Since ly, Joseph J.Olson 'F9-2 ;J ' s'\ \ o oJ1, / \ ' x1� ; o i111i1i\ \_ A ‘ \ \ .„., .;\;. \ I o � �6 - ,A I (33 m i 11 v 'off $ 'c s'e." \, l g'/ \ / 1 / va ,% �' 4, Q 1 (.,4 r,. . ,. / / -.? 1,6 - . Ns/ 'Ay \, /, �• f 'l \ �... —- N - /f 1" / �/ G? y ... 1 / • i k IO �-``q. '• / /f `'�r� ��0�ti %��� / �- �„kt 770:: ,�� -,�sr � \ 11;\11 �rtn' �/ / �r r7 .k,,,... � / Qf A P-o» \ `,, R / E • ' ., / `'� / • /.,., J^Z v/� \\ ._ �L.. ,Sad / / 1 \4 -t -T„" 9�t' . • L7 �•_1 [�6ttp • f / `, IP-- '�/ .�1 `'�� .�.._.. - o`er "'y- � �'`. ` -.� I �Q.,._G?t3‘ , 13 N / `" - ,fir " ` � C, N n0 ----0.7"--..-"v„ ' aN ' • 6s.c., 14.-----5'.7..-----'--- .‘-97cQa2.).4) \\7-5-, .1 ----,\e'd-64,-.4:ANI"..*. V"! / \ ' 'N' ' Nu'09 D''96,c'\;:'-'`',. .., • -P .- / 't 1/ } _ �. '� i, 4 1‘ \. 41,,,,,, 4„,,,,,,,s.N., ,„..,, ,„ . . ,, . „.c.,),, ,.\, .. _.. ... ,r., \ ..., ..._,.._. (e . ,,, / .., .,. .‘._. ..... ,,, ......„ x... . ..... ....... .. -......., ,.. t) - _ �.. 1 , ..,1• \. ` /. mv. ` .. \� - 0 •..� (� a ` \ 5(J \ \/` /``.,\ C> coy-Rcx --7---,':_"` : ' • \ ^' N p \ • •,1 J ; •w,,,.._ .:4--,,,......f • ,.f / CQ 'Zi D.\`\4`,`., 2011 purple code Mound Design www.SepticResource.com (vers 15.2) Property Owner: Stonewood LLC. Date: 6/18/2018 Site Address: Proposed Lot1 PID: 0211723230005 Comments: Site A instructions: =enter data =adjust if desired = computer calculated - DO NOT CHANGE! )) 5 bedroom Type I Residential System 21 750 GPD design flow 3 Yes Garbage disposal or pumped to septic 50% larger tank with multiple comp/tanks 4) 2250 Gal Septic tank (code minimum) 2250 Gal Septic tank (design size / LUG req'd) Tank options: none 5) 1.21GPD/ft2 mound sand loading rate contour loading rate of 12 req's a min 62.5 ft. long rockbed 6) 10.0 ft rockbed width 63.0 ft rockbed length 7) 3.0 ft lateral spacing 3.0 ft perforation spacing (maximum of 3 for both) end feed manifold connection 8) 3 laterals 61.0 feet long 21.0 perfs / lateral 63 perfs total (1/2 a perf means the first perf starts at the middle feed manifold) 9) 7/32 inch perfs at 1 feet residual head gives 0.56 gpm flow rate per perforation for this perf size & spacing, & pipe size on line 12, max perfs/lateral= 30 , line#8 must be less --> OK 10) 4.0 doses per day (4 minimum) i) 188 gallons per dose (treatment volume) 2.00 5x 12) 2.00 inch diameter laterals must be used to meet"4x pipe volume" requirement 2.00 3x 13) feet of 2.0 inch supply line leads to ##### gallons of drainback volume (Tip: "top feed" manifold to control the drainback) )4) ######gallons TOTAL pump out volume (treatment+ drainback) 15) feet vertical lift from pump to mound laterals, leads to a: )ci 36 GPM G ##### feet of head, Pump requirement (note: >50gpm may require an extra 3-6'of head) :7) 750 gal Dose tank (code minimum) 1300 gal Dose tank (design size / LUG req'd) at 25.49 gpi leads to a )a) ######inch swing on Demand float, or timed dosing of ##### min ON (confirm pump rate with drawdown (this delivers Average flow, =70%of Peak design flow) ##### hrs OFF test and adjust as necessary) )9) 12 inches from bottom of tank to"Pump OFF"float 20) ###### inches from bottom of tank to"Pump ON"float, or 12 inches to"Timer ON"float if time dosed 2)) ###### inches from bottom of tank to"Hi Level"float, or ##### inches to"Hi Level"float if time dosed 22) ######gallons reserve capacity (after High Level Alarm is activated) 123) 0.45 gpd/ft2 Absorption area Soil Loading Rate, which gives a mound ratio of 2.7 (minimum) (this must match the soil boring tog) desired mound ratio 2.7 24) 15 percent site slope (0-20% range) 15 (%downslope site slope, if different than upslope) 25) 16 inches, or 1.3 ft. to Redox or other limiting condition (need at least 12"to be a Type I) Treatment zone contains 0 inches of 0%soil credit, and 0 inches of 50%soil credit. Giving a: 26) 20 inch, or 1.7 ft. Sand Lift Mound CRITICAL FOR FUTURE CERTIFICATIONS!!! 27) 27.0 ft.Total ABSORPTION width (with sand beyond rockbed as follows:) 228) 0.0 ft. upslope and sideslope 17.0 ft. Downslope Individual slope ratios give BERM widths (topsoil beyond rockbed) of: 29) 4:1 upslope ratio 9 ft. upslope berm 30) 3:1 sideslope 16 ft. sideslope berms 3)) 3:1 downslope 29 ft. downslope berm 32) Overall Dimensions: 10.0 ft. wide by 63.0 ft. long Rock bed 48 ft. wide by 95 ft. long Mound footprint 4" inspection pipe 18" cover on top 1<Upslope berm 9 . Downslope berm 29 MI" 12" cover on sides (6"loamy cap&6"topsoil) 1.7 Clean sand Lift ___ 1.3 Depth to Limiting Limiting Condtior``. Absorption Width 27.0 _ _ Note: For 0-to 1%slopes, Absorption Width is measured from the Dec/equally in both directions. For slopes >1%, Absorption Width is measured downhill from the upslope edge of the Bed 33) Rock Bed: 10.0 ft. by 63.0 ft. by 6 inches under pipe, plus 20%gives 21 yd'or*1.4= 29 ton 34) Mound Sand: (note: volume is based on 3:1/4:1 slope from top of rockbed, Exchange sand for loamy cap if desired) 28.4 up + 158.8 downslope + 19.3 ends+ 56.4 under rock = 315 yd'or*1.4= 442 ton plus 20% 35) Loamy Cap: 44 ft. by 91 ft. 6"deep, plus 20%gives 89 yd'or*1.4= 125 ton 36) Topsoil: 48 ft. by 95 ft. 6"deep, plus 20%gives 102 yd'or*1.4= 143 ton I hereby cer' y •►- ave completed this work in accordance with all applicable ordinances, rules and laws. // Rusty Olson"s Soil ft Perc 810 6/18/2018 igner Signature Company License# Date 2011 purple code Mound Design www.SepticResource.com (vers 15.2) Property Owner: Stonewood LLC. Date: 6/18/2018 Site Address: Proposed Lott PID: 0211723230005 Comments: Site B instructions: = enter data =adjust if desired = computer calculated . DO NOT CHANGE! 1) 5 bedroom Type ! Residential System 2) 750 GPD design flow 3) Yes Garbage disposal or pumped to septic 50%larger tank with multiple comp/tanks 4 2250 Gal Septic tank (code minimum) 2250 Gal Septic tank (design size / LUG req'd) Tank options: none 1.2 GPD/ft2 mound sand loading rate contour loading rate of 12 req's a min 62.5 ft. long rockbed c,) 10.0 ft rockbed width 62.5 ft rockbed length 7) 3.0 ft lateral spacing 3.0 ft perforation spacing (maximum of 3 for both) end feed manifold connection s: 3 laterals 60.5 feet long 21.0 perfs / lateral 63 perfs total (1/2 a pert means the first perf starts at the middle feed manifold) 3) 7/32 inch perfs at 1 feet residual head gives 0.56 gpm flow rate per perforation for this perf size&spacing, & pipe size on line 12, max perfs/lateral= 30 , line#8 must be less --> OK i0) 4.0 doses per day (4 minimum) I i) 188 gallons per dose (treatment volume) 2.00 5x 12) 2.00 inch diameter laterals must be used to meet"4x pipe volume' requirement 2.00 3x i3) feet of 2.0 inch supply line leads to ##### gallons of drainback volume (Tip: "top feed"manifold to control the drainback) 1-) ######gallons TOTAL pump out volume (treatment+ drainback) i>> feet vertical lift from pump to mound laterals, leads to a: 16) 36 GPM® ##### feet of head, Pump requirement (note: >50gpm may require an extra 3-6'of head) n) 750 gal Dose tank (code minimum) 1250 gal Dose tank (design size / LUG req'd) at 25.49 gpi leads to a iso ######inch swing on Demand float, or timed dosing of ##### min ON (confirm pump rate with drawdown (this delivers Average flow, =70%of Peak design flow) ##### hrs OFF test and adjust as necessary) 19) 12 inches from bottom of tank to"Pump OFF"float 20) ###### inches from bottom of tank to"Pump ON"float, or 12 inches to"Timer ON"float if time dosed 21) ######inches from bottom of tank to"Hi Level"float, or ##### inches to"Hi Level"float if time dosed 22) ######gallons reserve capacity (after High Level Alarm is activated) 123) 0.45 gpd/ft2 Absorption area Soil Loading Rate, which gives a mound ratio of 2.7 (minimum) (this must match the soil boring log) desired mound ratio 2.7 24) 15 percent site slope (0-20%range) 15 (%downslope site slope, if different than upslope) 25) 18 inches, or 1.5 ft. to Redox or other limiting condition (need at least 12"to be a Type I) Treatment zone contains 0 inches of 0%soil credit, and 0 inches of 50%soil credit. Giving a: 26) 18 inch, or 1.5 ft. Sand Lift Mound CRITICAL FOR FUTURE CERTIFICATIONS!!! 27) 27.0 ft.Total ABSORPTION width (with sand beyond rockbed as follows:) 28) 0.0 ft. upslope and sidestope 17.0 ft. Downslope Individual slope ratios give BERM widths (topsoil beyond rockbed) of: 29) 4:1 upslope ratio 9 ft. upslope berm 30) 4:1 sidestope 20 ft. sidestope berms 31 3:1 downslope 30 ft. downslope berm 32) Overall Dimensions: 10.0 ft. wide by 62.5 ft. tong Rock bed 49 ft. wide by 103 ft. long Mound footprint 4' inspection pipe 18" cover on top kUpslope berm 9 ) Downslope berm 30 111111 12" cover on sides (6"loamy cap&6"topsoil) 1.5 Clean sand lift ___C 1.5 Depth to Limiting Limiting ondition —• __----� —— Absorption Width 27.0 Note: For 0 to 1% slopes, Absorption Width is measured from the Bedequally in both directions. For slopes >1%, Absorption Width is measured downhill from the upslope edge of the Bed 33) Rock Bed: 10.0 ft. by 62.5 ft. by 6 inches under pipe, plus 20%gives 21 yd'or*1.4= 29 ton 34) Mound Sand: (note: volume is based on 3:1/4:1 slope from top of rockbed, Exchange sand for loamy cap if desired) 27.1 up + 158.7 downslope + 23.7 ends + 52.1 under rock= 314 yd3 or*1.4= 439 ton plus 20% 35) Loamy Cap: 45 ft. by 99 ft. 6"deep, plus 20%gives 99 yd'or*1.4= 139 ton 36; Topsoil: 49 ft. by 103 ft. 6"deep, plus 20%gives 112 yd'or X1.4= 157 ton I hereby - .at I have completed this work in accordance with all applicable ordinances, rules and laws. Rusty Olson"s Soil Et Perc 810 6/18/2018 ►esigner Signature Company License# Date Soil Observation Log www,SepticResource.com vers 12.4 Owner Information Property Owner/project: Stonewood LLC Date 6/19/2018 Property Address/PID: Proposed Lot 1 PID# 021172323000 Soil Survey Information ❑refer to attached soil survey Parent matl's: El Till ❑Outwash ❑ Lacustrine ❑Alluvium ❑ Organic ❑ Bedrock landscape position: ❑Summit ❑ Shoulder ❑l Side slope ❑Toe slope soil survey map units: L41 C2 L41E slope 15 % direction-Linear Soil Log#1 0 Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 997.9 Depth to SHWT 16 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-4 Topsoil <35 10yr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 4-16 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 16-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/l0y Firm Strong Blocky loose loose single grain {�5 friable weak granular blocky 35-50 >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain friable weak granular blocky 35-50 >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive Comments: Proposed Lot 1 PID#0211723230005 Soil Log#2 0 Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 997.9 Depth to SHWT 16 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence Grade shape 0-4 Topsoil <35 10yr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 4-16 Clay Loam <35 10yr514 Friable Strong Blocky 16-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr514 10y4/8,1-6/10y Firm Strong Blocky loose loose oose single grain friable weak granular blocky 35-50 >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35 50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive Proposed Lot 1 PID#0211723230005 Soil Log#3 Ei Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 1004.6 Depth to SHWT 18 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-8 Topsoil <35 10yr3/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 8-18 Clay Loam <35 10yr4/3 Friable Strong Blocky 18-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 I0y4/8,1-6/lOy Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain friable weak granular blocky 35-50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive l <35 loose loose single grain 35 50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic play rigid strong massive I hereby certii ,this wor s completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local rag's. Rusty Olson's Soil & Pere 810 tgner Signature Company License ii Proposed Lot 1 PID#0211723230005 Soil Log#4 QQ Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 1004.5 Depth to SHWT 20 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-8 Topsoil <35 10yr4/2 Friable Moderate Block) 8-20 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Stron2Blocky 20-26 Sandy Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 I0y4/8,1-6/l0y Friable Strong IlloJsy <35 loose loose single grain friable weak granular Klock 35 -50 >50 firm moderate prismatic plata rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain friable weak granular blocky 35-50 >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive Proposed Lot 1 PID#0211723230005 Soil Log#5 0 Boring ❑ Pit Elevation N/A Depth to SHWT 14 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-6 Topsoil <35 10yr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 6-14 Clay Loam <35 10vr5'4 Friable Strong Blocky 14-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/10y Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain friable weak granular blocks 35-50 firm moderate prismatic platy >50 rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain friable weak granular block} 35-50 >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive I hereby certi . this work was completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local req's. Rusty Olson's Soil&Pere 810 signer Signature Company License# Soil Observation Log www.SepticResourcc.com vers 12.4 Owner Information Property Owner/project: Stonewood LLC Date 6/19/2018 Property Address/PID: Proposed Lot 1 PID # 021172323000 Soil Survey Information ❑refer to attached soil survey Parent mates: 0 Till ❑Outwash ❑ Lacustrine ❑Alluvium ❑Organic ❑ Bedrock landscape position: ❑ Summit ❑Shoulder 0 Side slope ❑Toe slope soil survey map units: L41C2 L41E slope 15 % direction- Linear-convex Soil Log#6 0 Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 1004.6 Depth to SHWT 18 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-8 Topsoil <35 10yr3/2 Friable Moderate Blocks 8-18 Clay Loam <35 IOyr4/3 Friable Strong Blocky 18-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/lOy Firm Strong Blocky loose loose oose single grain friable weak uranular block 35-50 >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35 50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive 'omments: Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 • Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 8:45 A.M. On 6/27/18 Location: Proposed lot 1 PID#0211723230005 Hole number: 1 Date hole was prepared: 6/26/18 Depth of hole bottom_12"_inches, Diameter of hole 6"_inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-4 Topsoil 10yr412 4-12 Clay loam 10yr5/4 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6/26/18 depth of initial water filling 12 inches above the hole bottom Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least 4 hours Automatic Siphon Maximum water depth above hole bottom during tests 6 inches Time Time Depth Drop in H2O Perc Rate 8:55 9:10 6" 1.6 9.4 9:17 9:32 6" 1.6 9.4 9:33 9:48 6" 1.6 9.4 AVERAGE PERC. RATE 9.4 MPI Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 8:45 A.M. On 6/27/18 Location: Proposed lot 1 PID#0211723230005 Hole number: 2 Date hole was prepared: 6/26/18 Depth of hole bottom 12"_inches, Diameter of hole_6"_inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-4 Topsoil 10yr4/2 4-12 Clay loam 10yr5/4 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6/26/18 depth of initial water filling 12 inches above the hole bottom Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least 4 hours Automatic Siphon Maximum water depth above hole bottom during tests 6 inches ' Time Time Depth Drop in H2O Perc Rate 8:56 9:11 6" 3.7 4.1 9:16 9:31 6" 3.6 4.2 9:34 9:49 6" 3.5 4.3 AVERAGE PERC. RATE 4.2 MPI Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 8:45 A.M. On 6/27/18 Location: Proposed lot 1 PID#0211723230005 Hole number: 3 Date hole was prepared: 6/26/18 Depth of hole bottom_12 inches, Diameter of hole_6" inches, Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-8 Topsoil 10yr3/2 8-12 Clay loam 10yr4/3 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6/26/18 depth of initial water filling 12 inches above the hole bottom Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least 4 hours Automatic Siphon Maximum water depth above hole bottom during tests 6 inches Time Time Depth Drop in H2O Perc Rate 8:57 9:12 6" 1.6 9.4 9:15 9:30 6" 1.6 9.4 9:35 9:50 6" 1.6 9.4 AVERAGE PERC. RATE 9.4 MPI r Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 8:45 A.M. On 6/27/18 Location: Proposed lot 1 PID#0211723230005 Hole number: 4 Date hole was prepared: 6/26/18 Depth of hole bottom _12"_inches, Diameter of hole_6"_inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-8 Topsoil 10yr4/2 8-12 Clay loam 10yr5/4 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6/26/18 depth of initial water filling 12 inches above the hole bottom Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least 4 hours Automatic Siphon Maximum water depth above hole bottom during tests 6 inches I Time Time Depth Drop in H2O Perc Rate 8:58 9:13 6" 4.0 3.7 9:14 9:29 6" 3.8 3.9 9:36 9:51 6" 3.7 4.0 AVERAGE PERC. RATE 3.9 MPI Joseph Olson D.B.A. Rusty Olson's--Soil and Percolation Testing Joseph J. Olson--MPCA License #810 11481 Riverview Rd. NE, Hanover, MN 55341 (763) 498-8779 fax (763) 498-8290 July 4,2018 Stonewood LLC. Proposed lot 2 PID 4 0211723230006 387 Orono Orchard Road S. Orono, Hennepin County This on-site Sewage Treatment System is partially designed for a Type 1,five-bedroom home in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Chapter 7080 and local ordinances. Once the house size, location and septic primary and future sites are chosen this design can be completed. The periodically saturated soils were located at 18-20 Inches(mottled soil). Due to the periodically saturated soils,a pressurized mound system will need to be installed to treat the septic effluent.The bottom of the treatment area must be located at least 3'above the saturated soils. The soils at a depth of 12"have a percolation rate averaging 4.7 MPI. A 2250-gallon septic tank or its equivalent needs to be installed. All tanks need to be insulated if there is less than two feet of cover over the top of the tanks.Clean outs must be installed on the end of the laterals for maintenance. Use 7/32-inch perforations on the laterals. A 1250-gallon pumping chamber will need to be installed to lift the effluent to the treatment area.The power supply and switches must be located outside the manhole and pumping chamber in a weatherproof enclosure.A warning device must be installed with a light and sound device;this is in case of a pump failure. Keep all heavy equipment off of the proposed treatment areas before and after construction.The treatment area must be fenced off before construction begins.This Design is not valid&the System will need to be relocated if failure to protect the areas proposed for the On-Site Sewage Treatment systems occurs. With proper installation and maintenance,this system should have no problem in treating septic effluent effectively.Nothing other than gray water,(laundry,showers,etc.)Human water and toilet tissue should be disposed of into the septic tanks.Garbage disposals are not recommended. Iron filters cannot ao into the system.Additives must not be used they may cause harmful damage to your septic system.It is recommended that you pump the septic tanks every two years. Sincerely, Joseph J.Olson 2011 purple code Mound Design www.SepticResource.com (vers 15.2) Property Owner: Stonewood LLC. Date: 6/16/2018 Site Address: Proposed Lot 2 PID: 0211723230006 Comments: Site A& B instructions: =enter data =adjust if desired = computer calculated - DO NOT CHANGE! )) 5 bedroom Type I Residential System 2) 750 GPD design flow 3) Yes Garbage disposal or pumped to septic 50% larger tank with multiple comp/tanks 4) 2250 Gal Septic tank (code minimum) 2250 Gal Septic tank (design size / LUG req'd) Tank options: none >) 1.2 GPD/ftz mound sand loading rate contour loading rate of 12 req's a min 62.5 ft. long rockbed 6) 10.0 ft rockbed width 62.5 ft rockbed length 7) 3.0 ft lateral spacing 3.0 ft perforation spacing (maximum of 3 for both) end feed manifold connection 8) 3 laterals 60.5 feet long 21.0 perfs / lateral 63 perfs total (1/2 a perf means the first perf starts at the middle feed manifold) 0) 7/32 inch perfs at 1 feet residual head gives 0.56 gpm flow rate per perforation for this perf size £t spacing, a pipe size on line 12, max perfs/lateral= 30 , line#8 must be less --> OK 10) 4.0 doses per day (4 minimum) ))) 188 gallons per dose (treatment volume) 2.00 5x 122) 2.00 inch diameter laterals must be used to meet"4x pipe volume" requirement 2.00 3x )3) feet of 2.0 inch supply line leads to #####gallons of drainback volume (Tip: "top feed"manifold to control the drainback) 14) ###### gallons TOTAL pump out volume (treatment+drainback) is, feet vertical lift from pump to mound laterals, leads to a: 16) 36 GPM® ##### feet of head, Pump requirement (note: >50gpm may require an extra 3-6'of head) )7, 750 gal Dose tank (code minimum) 1250 gal Dose tank (design size / LUG req`d) at 25.49 gpi leads to a )8) ######inch swing on Demand float, or timed dosing of ##### min ON (confirm pump rate with drawdown (this delivers Average flow, =70%of Peak design flow) ##### hrs OFF test and adjust as necessary) 19) 12 inches from bottom of tank to"Pump OFF"float 20) ###### inches from bottom of tank to"Pump ON"float, or 12 inches to"Timer ON"float if time dosed 2)) ######inches from bottom of tank to"Hi Level"float, or ##### inches to"Hi Level"float if time dosed 224 ######gallons reserve capacity (after High Level Alarm is activated) I'3) 0.45 gpd/ft2 Absorption area Soil Loading Rate, which gives a mound ratio of 2.7 (minimum) (this must match the soil boring log) desired mound ratio 2.7 24) 20 percent site slope (0-20% range) 20 (% downslope site slope, if different than upslope) 25) 18 inches, or 1.5 ft. to Redox or other limiting condition (need at least 12"to be a Type I) Treatment zone contains 0 inches of 0%soil credit, and 0 inches of 50%soil credit. Giving a: 26) 18 inch, or 1.5 ft. Sand Lift Mound CRITICAL FOR FUTURE CERTIFICATIONS!!! 27) 27.0 ft.Total ABSORPTION width (with sand beyond rockbed as follows:) 28) 0.0 ft. upslope and sideslope 17.0 ft. Downslope Individual slope ratios give BERM widths (topsoil beyond rockbed) of: 29) 4:1 upslope ratio 8 ft. upslope berm 30) 3:1 sideslope 17 ft. sideslope berms 31) 3:1 downslope 41 ft. downslope berm 32) Overall Dimensions: 10.0 ft. wide by 62.5 ft. long Rock bed 59 ft. wide by 97 ft. long Mound footprint 4" inspection pipe 18" cover on top ,<Upslope berm 8 Downslope berm 41 } 12" cover on sides (6"loamy cap&6"topsoil) [7:51 Clean sand lift _ 1.5 Depth to Limiting Limiting Condition . Absorption Width 27.0 ~—_ Note: For 0 to 1%slopes, Absorption Width is measured from the Bedequally in both directions. For slopes >1%, Absorption Width is measured downhill from the upslope edge of the Bed 33) Rock Bed: 10.0 ft. by 62.5 ft. by 6 inches under pipe, plus 20%gives 21 yds or*1.4= 29 ton 34) Mound Sand: (note: volume is based on 3:1/4:1 slope from top of rockbed, Exchange sand for loamy cap if desired) 22.3 up + 253.5 downslope + 22.5 ends+ 57.9 under rock= 427 yd3 or*1.4= 598 ton plus 20% 35) Loamy Cap: 55 ft. by 93 ft. 6"deep, plus 20%gives 114 yds or*1.4= 160 ton 36) Topsoil: 59 ft. by 97 ft. 6"deep, plus 20%gives 127 yd''or*1.4= 178 ton I hereby certify that I have completed this work in accordance with all applicable ordinances, rules and laws. Rusty Olson"s Soil& Pert 810 6/16/2018 Designer Signature Company License# Date Soil Observation Log iwww.SepticResource.com vers 12.4 Owner Information Property Owner/project: Stonewood LLC Date 6/19/2018 Property Address!PID: Proposed Lot 2 PID # 021172323000 Soil Survey Information ❑refer to attached soil survey Parent matl's: Till ❑Outwash ❑ Lacustrine ❑Alluvium ❑ Organic ❑ Bedrock landscape position: ❑Summit ❑Shoulder 0 Side slope ❑Toe slope soil survey map units: L41E L41 E slope 17 % direction- Linear Soil Log#1 0 Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 955.3 Depth to SHWT 18 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-8 Topsoil <35 10yr3/1 Friable Moderate Blocky 8-18 Clay Loam <35 10yr4/3 Friable Strong Blocky 18-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/10y Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain friable weak granular blocky 35-50 firm moderate prismatic platy >50 rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain friable weak granular blocky 35 50 firm moderate prismaticplaty >50 massive rigid strong Comments: Proposed Lot 2 PID#0211723230006 Soil Log#2 0 Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 955.7 Depth to SHWT 18 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-8 Topsoil <35 10yr3/81 Friable Moderate Blocky 8-18 Clay Loam <35 2.5y513 Friable Strong Blocky 18-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 I0y4/8,1-6/l Oy Firm Strong Blocky loose loose <35 single grain friable weak granular blocky 35 50 firm moderate prismatic plate >50 rigid strong massive loose loose single grain <35 friable weak granular blocky 35 SO platy >50 firm moderate prismatic rigid strong massive Proposed Lot 2 PID# 0211723230006 Soil Log#3 Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 961.1 Depth to SHWT 18 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-8 Topsoil <35 10yr3/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 8-18 Loam <35 IOyr4/3 Friable Strong Blocky 18-24 Clay Loam <35 IOyrS/4 IOy4/8,1-6/IOy Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain friable weak granular blocky 35-50 firm moderate prismatic platy >50 rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain friable weak granular blocky 35-50 firm moderate prismatic platy >SO rigid strong massive I hereby certiij'this work was completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local reqs. Rusty Olson's Soil& Pere 810 Designer Signature Company License Proposed Lot 2 PID#0211723230006 Soil Log#4 0 Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 961.3 Depth to SHWT 20 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-8 Topsoil <35 10yr3/1 Friable Moderate Blocky 8-16 Loam <35 10yr4/3 Friable Strong Blocky 16-20 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 20-26 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/IOy Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain friable weak granular blocky 35-50 firm moderate prismatic platy >50 massive rigid strong Proposed Lot 2 PID #0211723230006 Soil Log#5 LI Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 952.5 Depth to SHWT 18 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-10 Topsoil <35 10yr3/1 Friable Moderate Blocky 10-18 Clay Loam <35 10yr4/3 Friable Strong Blocky 18-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/10y Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain friable weak granular blocky 35-50 >50 firm moderate prismatic plat~ rigid strong mass1ve <35 loose loose single grain friable weak granular block) 35-50 firm moderate prismatic plat >50 rigid strong massive I hereby-certin'this work was completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local rey's. Rusty Olson's Soil & Pere 810 Designer Signature Company License t Soil Observation Log www.SepticResource.com vers 12.4 Owner Information Property Owner/project: Stonewood LLC Date 6/19/2018 Property Address/PID: Proposed Lot 2 PID#021172323000 Soil Survey Information ❑refer to attached soil survey Parent matl's: 2 Till ❑Outwash ❑ Lacustrine ❑Alluvium ❑Organic ❑ Bedrock landscape position: ❑ Summit ❑ Shoulder LI Side slope ❑Toe slope soil survey map units: L41E L41 E slope 17 % direction- Linear Soil Log#6 El Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 957.7 Depth to SH WT 20 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-10 Topsoil <35 10yr3/1 Friable Moderate Blocky 10-20 Loam <35 10yr4/3 Friable Strong Blocky 20-26 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 I0y4/8,1-6/l0y Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive 'omments: Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 10:50 A.M. On 6/26/18 Location: Proposed lot 2 PID#0211723230006 Hole number: 1 Date hole was prepared: 6/25/18 Depth of hole bottom_12"_inches, Diameter of hole_6",_inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-8 Topsoil 10yr3/1 8-12 Clay loam 10yr4/3 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6/25/18 depth of initial water filling 12 inches above the hole bottom Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least 4 hours Automatic Siphon Maximum water depth above hole bottom during tests 6 inches Time Time Depth Drop in H2O Perc Rate 11:08 11:23 6" 4.7 3.2 11:43 11:58 6" 4.6 3.3 11:59 12:14 6" 4.6 3.3 AVERAGE PERC. RATE 3.3 MPI Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 10:50 A.M. On 6/26/18 Location: Proposed lot 2 PID#0211723230006 Hole number: 2 Date hole was prepared: 6/25/18 Depth of hole bottom_12" inches, Diameter of hole_6"_inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-8 Topsoil 10yr3/1 8-12 Loam 2.5y5/3 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6/25/18 depth of initial water filling 12 inches above the hole bottom Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least 4 hours Automatic Siphon Maximum water depth above hole bottom during tests 6 inches Time Time Depth Drop in H2O Perc Rate 11:09 11:24 6" 5.5 2.7 11:42 11:57 6" 5.5 2.7 12:00 12:15 6" 5.5 2.7 AVERAGE PERC. RATE 2.7 MPI 1 Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 10:50 A.M. On 6/26/18 Location: Proposed lot 2 PID#0211723230006 Hole number: 3 Date hole was prepared: 6/25/18 Depth of hole bottom 12"_inches, Diameter of hole_6" inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-8 Topsoil 10yr311 8-12 Loam 10yr4/3 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6/25/18 depth of initial water filling 12 inches above the hole bottom Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least 4 hours Automatic Siphon Maximum water depth above hole bottom during tests 6 inches Time Time Depth Drop in H2O Perc Rate 11:10 11:25 6" 5.5 2.7 11:41 11:56 6" 5.5 2.7 12:01 12:16 6" 5.5 2.7 AVERAGE PERC. RATE 2.7 MPI Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 10:50 A.M. On 6/26/18 Location: Proposed lot 2 PID#0211723230006 Hole number: 4 Date hole was prepared: 6/25/18 Depth of hole bottom_12" inches, Diameter of hole_6"_inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-8 Topsoil 10yr311 8-12 Loam 10yr4/3 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6/25/18 depth of initial water filling 12 inches above the hole bottom Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least 4 hours Automatic Siphon Maximum water depth above hole bottom during tests 6 inches Time Time Depth Drop in H2O Perc Rate 1 11:11 11:26 6" 1.5 10.0 11:40 11:55 6" 1.5 10.0 12:02 12:17 6" 1.5 10.0 AVERAGE PERC. RATE 10.0 MPI Joseph Olson D.B.A. Rusty Olson's--Soil and Percolation Testing Joseph J. Olson--MPCA License #810 11481 Riverview Rd. NE, Hanover, MN 55341 (763) 498-8779 fax (763) 498-8290 July 4,2018 Stonewood LLC. Proposed lot 3 PID#0211723230006 387 Orono Orchard Road S. Orono,Hennepin County This on-site Sewage Treatment System is partially designed for a Type 1,five-bedroom home in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Chapter 7080 and local ordinances. Once the house size,location and septic primary and future sites are chosen this design can be completed. The periodically saturated soils were located at 18-24 Inches(mottled soil). Due to the periodically saturated soils,a pressurized mound system will need to be installed to treat the septic effluent.The bottom of the treatment area must be located at least 3' above the saturated soils. The soils at a depth of 12"have a percolation rate averaging 5 MPI. A 2250-gallon septic tank or its equivalent needs to be installed.All tanks need to be insulated if there is less than two feet of cover over the top of the tanks.Clean outs must be installed on the end of the laterals for maintenance. Use 7/32-inch perforations on the laterals. A 1250-gallon pumping chamber will need to be installed to lift the effluent to the treatment area.The power supply and switches must be located outside the manhole and pumping chamber in a weatherproof enclosure.A warning device must be installed with a light and sound device;this is in case of a pump failure. Keep all heavy equipment off of the proposed treatment areas before and after construction.The treatment area must be fenced off before construction begins.This Design is not valid&the System will need to be relocated if failure to protect the areas proposed for the On-Site Sewage Treatment systems occurs. With proper installation and maintenance,this system should have no problem in treating septic effluent , ' effectively.Nothing other than gray water,(laundry,showers,etc.)Human water and toilet tissue should be disposed of into the septic tanks.Garbage disposals are not recommended. Iron filters cannot go into the system.Additives must not be used they may cause harmful damage to your septic system. It is recommended that you pump the septic tanks every two years. Sincerer v' Joseph J.Olson �_. _ .�� 4SCAL -SO,- . __ • 7V • ' MVV ) !\ X97a' 11\ N. 1 _ 4----..„ � ` "�V-r` \ ' WL. ; N. \ \ �� I �.\ i , Lam` 2 /. t / N. .,` ,--= -l2CJQ SF/2. A) \�� \ N. \ 110050 SF .5 AC. r � * "'o ° P CSR \ go i n , ...5,,g •s sw ° .. /' N i � t vSip N -'' x j____mr1,4 ' \i y'a Sil� ..''1,...--. •C S .'l ..\ 12,1b., ,.�C&N ',Cs'. °p N �\ >-92,,•3n0 2. . --AC ' r o° \• -. , -' '� EXISTING ,5 ' '� HOUSE ` / , / \ \i, / I, --- \ 4 A,C N \ 2' ,o°t' `, ' r \,.............i \ .\\ \ t k ati \ O �T r ( �, .--.::--, N. \ , i , \--'"7/1. _ _ f .,`` , ''t. ` i \� \ \\7 r `` /'/ ,'�. 2)1 'q I i,/ 1„ c\ / '1/4i! 2011 purple code Mound Design www.SepticResource.com (vers 15.2) Property Owner: Stonewood LLC. Date: 6/16/2018 Site Address: Proposed Lot 3 PID: 0211723230006 Comments: Site A instructions: =enter data =adjust if desired = computer calculated - DO NOT CHANGE! )) 5 bedroom Type I Residential System 2) 750 GPD design flow 3) Yes Garbage disposal or pumped to septic 50%larger tank with multiple comp/tanks 4) 2250 Gal Septic tank (code minimum) 2250 Gal Septic tank (design size / LUG req'd) Tank options: none s) 1.2 GPD/ft2 mound sand loading rate contour loading rate of 12 req's a min 62.5 ft. long rockbed 6) 10.0 ft rockbed width 62.5 ft rockbed length 2) 3.0 ft lateral spacing 3.0 ft perforation spacing (maximum of 3 for both) end feed manifold connection 8) 3 laterals 60.5 feet long 21.0 perfs / lateral 63 perfs total (1/2 a perf means the first perf starts at the middle feed manifold) 9) 7/32 inch perfs at 1 feet residual head gives 0.56 gpm flow rate per perforation for this perf size 8 spacing, ax pipe size on line 12, max perfs/lateral= 30 , line#8 must be less --> OK 10) 4.0 doses per day (4 minimum) u) 188 gallons per dose (treatment volume) 2.00 5x 12) 2.00 inch diameter laterals must be used to meet"4x pipe volume" requirement 2.00 3x )3) feet of 2.0 inch supply line leads to ##### gallons of drainback volume (Tip: "top feed"manifold to control the drainback) )4) ######gallons TOTAL pump out volume (treatment+drainback) 15) feet vertical lift from pump to mound laterals, leads to a: )6) 36 GPM @ ##### feet of head, Pump requirement (note: >50gpm may require an extra 3-6'of head) 17) 750 gal Dose tank (code minimum) 1250 gal Dose tank (design size / LUG req'd) at 25.49 gpi leads to a )8) ###### inch swing on Demand float, or timed dosing of ##### min ON (confirm pump rate with drawdown (this delivers Average flow, =70%of Peak design flow) ##### hrs OFF test and adjust as necessary) 19) 12 inches from bottom of tank to"Pump OFF"float 2u) ###### inches from bottom of tank to"Pump ON"float, or 12 inches to"Timer ON"float if time dosed 21) ###### inches from bottom of tank to"Hi Level"float, or ##### inches to"Hi Level"float if time dosed 22) ######gallons reserve capacity (after High Level Alarm is activated) I ,3) 0.45 gpd/ft2 Absorption area Soil Loading Rate, which gives a mound ratio of 2.7 (minimum) (this must match the soil boring log) desired mound ratio 2.7 24) 2 percent site slope (0-20% range) 20 (%downslope site slope, if different than upslope) 25) 18 inches, or 1.5 ft. to Redox or other limiting condition (need at least 12"to be a Type I) Treatment zone contains 0 inches of 0%soil credit, and 0 inches of 50%soil credit. Giving a; 26) 18 inch, or 1.5 ft. Sand Lift Mound CRITICAL FOR FUTURE CERTIFICATIONS!!! 27) 27.0 ft.Total ABSORPTION width (with sand beyond rockbed as follows:) 28} 0.0 ft. upslope and sideslope 17.0 ft. Downslope Individual slope ratios give BERM widths (topsoil beyond rockbed) of: 29) 4:1 upslope ratio 13 ft. upslope berm 30 4:1 sideslope 15 ft. sideslope berms 31) 3:1 downslope 28 ft. downslope berm 4.1 I 32 Overall Dimensions: 10.0 ft. wide by 62.5 ft. long Rock bed 51 ft. wide by 93 ft. long Mound footprint .i 4" inspection pipe 18" cover on top Upslope berm 13 ) Downslope berm �8 } � � 12" cover on sides (6"loamy cap&6"topsoil) 1.5 dean sand lift 1.5 Depth to Limiting Limiting Condition `'—_—_---_---___—____ 27.0 _`` _ —— Absorption Width Note: For 0 to 1% slopes, Absorption Width is measured from the 6'edequalty in both directions. For slopes >1%, Absorption Width is measured downhill from the upslope edge of the Bed. 331 Rock Bed: 10.0 ft. by 62.5 ft. by 6 inches under pipe, plus 20%gives 21 yd'or*1.4= 29 ton 34 Mound Sand: (note: volume is based on 3:1/4:1 slope from top of rockbed, Exchange sand for loamy cap if desired) 36.2 up + 87.2 downslope + 10.8 ends + 37.0 under rock= 206 yd'or*1.4= 288 ton plus 20% 35) Loamy Cap: 47 ft. by 89 ft. 6"deep, plus 20%gives 93 yd'or*1.4= 130 ton 36) Topsoil: 51 ft. by 93 ft. 6"deep, plus 20%gives 105 yd'or*1.4= 147 ton I hereby rtify that I have completed this work in accordance with all applicable ordinances, rules and laws. Rusty Olson"s Soil ft Perc 810 6/16/2018 esigner Signature Company License# Date 2011 purple code Mound Design www.SepticResource.com (vers 15.2) Property Owner: Stonewood LLC. Date: 6/16/2018 Site Address: Proposed Lot 3 PID: 0211723230006 Comments: Site B instructions: = enter data =adjust if desired = computer calculated - DO NOT CHANGE! 11 5 bedroom Type I Residential System 750 GPD design flow 3) Yes Garbage disposal or pumped to septic 50% larger tank with multiple comp/tanks 4) 2250 Gal Septic tank (code minimum) 2250 Gal Septic tank (design size / LUG req'd) Tank options: none 5) 1.2 GPD/ft2 mound sand loading rate contour loading rate of 12 req's a min 62.5 ft. long rockbed 61 10.0 ft rockbed width 62.5 ft rockbed length 7) 3.0 ft lateral spacing 3.0 ft perforation spacing (maximum of 3 for both) end feed manifold connection 8) 3 laterals 60.5 feet long 21.0 perfs / lateral 63 perfs total (1/2 a perf means the first perf starts at the middle feed manifold) 9) 7/32 inch perfs at 1 feet residual head gives 0.56 gpm flow rate per perforation for this perf size Et spacing, Et pipe size on line 12, max perfs/lateral= 30 , line#8 must be less --> OK 1n) 4.0 doses per day (4 minimum) 11; 188 gallons per dose (treatment volume) 2.00 5x 12i 2.00 inch diameter laterals must be used to meet"4x pipe volume"requirement 2.00 3x 13) feet of 2.0 inch supply line leads to ##### gallons of drainback volume (Tip: "top feed"manifold to control the drainback) 14) ###### gallons TOTAL pump out volume (treatment+drainback) 1s) feet vertical lift from pump to mound laterals, leads to a: 16) 36 GPM @ ##### feet of head, Pump requirement (note: >50gpm may require an extra 3-6'of head) 17) 750 gal Dose tank (code minimum) 1250 gal Dose tank (design size / LUG req'd) at 25.49 gpi leads to a IS) ######inch swing on Demand float, or timed dosing of ##### min ON (confirm pump rate with drawdown (this delivers Average flow, =70%of Peak design flow) ##### hrs OFF test and adjust as necessary) 1 99) 12 inches from bottom of tank to"Pump OFF"float 29) ###### inches from bottom of tank to"Pump ON"float, or 12 inches to"Timer ON"float if time dosed 21, ###### inches from bottom of tank to"Hi Level"float, or ##### inches to"Hi Level"float if time dosed 22) ######gallons reserve capacity (after High Level Alarm is activated) 123) 0.45 gpd/ft2 Absorption area Soil Loading Rate, which gives a mound ratio of 2.7 (minimum) (this must match the soil boring log) desired mound ratio 2.7 24) 9 percent site slope (0-20% range) 9 (%downslope site slope, if different than upslope) 25) 20 inches, or 1.7 ft. to Redox or other limiting condition (need at least 12"to be a Type I) Treatment zone contains 0 inches of 0%soil credit, and 0 inches of 50%soil credit. Giving a: 26) 16 inch, or 1.3 ft. Sand Lift Mound CRITICAL FOR FUTURE CERTIFICATIONS!!! 27) 27.0 ft.Total ABSORPTION width (with sand beyond rockbed as follows:) 28) 0.0 ft. upslope and sideslope 17.0 ft. Downslope Individual slope ratios give BERM widths (topsoil beyond rockbed) of: 29) 4:1 upslope ratio 10 ft. upslope berm 30) 4:1 sideslope 17 ft. sideslope berms 3)) 4:1 downslope 26 ft. downslope berm 32) Overall Dimensions: 10.0 ft. wide by 62.5 ft. long Rock bed 46 ft. wide by 97 ft. long Mound footprint 4" inspection pipe 18" cover on top Upslope berm 10 > Downslope berm 26 cv 12" cover on sides (6"loamy cap&6"topsoil) 11.01. Clean sand lift __ 1.7 Depth to Limiting Limiting Condition .-.___________ Absorption Width 127.0 _ _ Note: For 0 to 1% slopes, Absorption Width is measured from the Bedequally in both directions. For slopes >1%, Absorption Width is measured downhill from the upslope edge of the Bed 33) Rock Bed: 10.0 ft. by 62.5 ft. by 6 inches under pipe, plus 20%gives 21 yd3 or*1.4= 29 ton 34) Mound Sand: (note: volume is based on 3:1/4:1 slope from top of rockbed, Exchange sand for loamy cap if desired) 26.2 up + 107.1 downslope + 15.5 ends+ 41.3 under rock= 228 yd3 or*1.4= 319 ton plus 20% 35) Loamy Cap: 42 ft. by 93 ft. 6"deep, plus 20%gives 87 yd'or*1.4= 122 ton 36) Topsoil: 46 ft. by 97 ft. 6"deep, plus 20%gives 99 yd'or*1.4= 139 ton I hereby cer that I have completed this work in accordance with all applicable ordinances, rules and laws. Rusty Olson"s Soil& Perc 810 6/16/2018 l �:''gner Signature Company License# Date Soil Observation Log www.SepticResource.com vers 12.4 Owner Information Property Owner/project: Stonewood LLC Date 6/20/2018 Property Address/PID: Proposed Lot 3 PID # 021172323000 Soil Survey Information ❑ refer to attached soil survey Parent matl's [E]Till ❑ Outwash ❑ Lacustrine ❑ Alluvium ❑Organic ❑ Bedrock landscape position: ❑Summit ❑Shoulder Eji Side slope ❑Toe slope soil survey map units: L41E L41 E slope 6-17 % direction- Linear-convex Soil Log#1 El Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 988.1 Depth to SHWT 22 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-4 Topsoil <35 10yr412 Friable Moderate Blocky 4-22 Clay Loam <35 l0yr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 22-30 Clay Loam <35 10yr6/4 10y4/8,1-6/l0y Firm Strong Blocky loose loose single grain <35 friable weak granular blocky 35 50 firm moderate prismatic platy >50 rigid strong massive loose loose <35 single grain 35 50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic plat rigid strong massive Comments: Proposed Lot 3 PID# 0211723230006 Soil Log#2 0 Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 988.1 Depth to SHWT 20 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-4 Topsoil <35 10yr3/2 Friable Moderate Block} 4-10 Clay Loam <35 10yr4/3 Friable Strong Blocky 10-20 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 20-30 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/l0y Firm Strong Blocky loose loose <35 single grain friable weak granular blocky 35 -50 >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive Proposed Lot 3 PID#0211723230006 Soil Log#3 0 Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 991.7 Depth to SHWT 18 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-8 Topsoil <35 10yr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 8-18 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 18-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6110y Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain friable weak granular blocky 35-50 >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain friable weak granular blocky 35-50 >50 firm moderate prismatic plat rigid strong massive I hereby certi '•this , •k was completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local red's. Rusty Olson's Soil& Pere 810 igner Signature Company License# Proposed Lot 3 PID# 0211723230006 Soil Log#4 Q Boring ❑Pit Elevation 991.7 Depth to SHWT 24 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-16 Topsoil <35 10yr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 16-24 Loam <35 10yr4/4 Friable Strong Blocky loose loose single grain <35 friable weak granular blocky 35-50 firm moderate prismatic platy >50 massive rigid strong loose loose <35 single grain friable weak _granular blocky 35 50 firm moderate prismatic plan >50 rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain friable weak granular blocky 35 50 firm moderate prismatic plat. >50 rigid strong massive Proposed Lot 3 PID#0211723230006 Soil Log#5 2 Boring ❑Pit Elevation 988.1 Depth to SHWT 18 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-4 Topsoil <35 10yr3/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 4-8 Clay Loam <35 10yr4/3 Friable Strong Blocky 8-18 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 18-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/l0y Firm Strong Blocky' loose loose <35 single Qrain friable weak granular blocky 35-50 firm moderate prismatic platy >50 rigid strong massive I hereby certify this work was completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local reqs. i Rusty Olson's Soil& Pere 810 ID:' dee Signature Company License m Soil Observation Log www.SepticResource.com vers 12.4 Owner Information Property Owner/project: Stonewood LLC Date 6/20/2018 Property Address/PID: Proposed Lot 3 PID# 021172323000 Soil Survey Information ❑refer to attached soil survey Parent matl's: E Till ❑ Outwash ❑ Lacustrine ❑Alluvium ❑Organic ❑ Bedrock landscape position: ❑Summit ❑Shoulder []Side slope ❑Toe slope soil survey map units: L41E L41E slope 6-17 % direction-Linear-convex Soil Log#6 0 Boring ❑ Pit Elevation N/A Depth to SH WT 20 inches Depth(in) Texturefragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-12 Topsoil <35 10yr3/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 12-20 Loam <35 10yr4/3 Friable Strong Blocky 20-26 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,I-6/1fly Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain friable weak granular blocky 35-50 >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain friable weak granular blocky 35-50 X50 firm moderate prismatic plat). rigid strong massive :omments: Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 9:51 A.M. On 6/27/18 Location: Proposed lot 3 PID#0211723230006 Hole number: 1 Date hole was prepared: 6/26/18 Depth of hole bottom 12" inches, Diameter of hole_6 inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-4 Topsoil 10yr412 4-12 Clay loam 10yr5/4 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6/26/18 depth of initial water filling 12 inches above the hole bottom Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least 4 hours Automatic Siphon Maximum water depth above hole bottom during tests 6 inches I Time Time Depth Drop in H2O Perc Rate 10:01 10:16 6" 2.6 5.8 10:19 10:34 6" 2.6 5.8 10:35 10:50 6" 2.6 5.8 I AVERAGE PERC. RATE 5.8 MPI Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 9:51 A.M. On 6/27/18 Location: Proposed lot 3 PID#0211723230006 Hole number: 2 Date hole was prepared: 6/26/18 Depth of hole bottom_12"_inches, Diameter of hole_6"_inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-4 Topsoil 10yr4/2 4-10 Clay loam 10yr4/3 10-12 Clay loam 10yr514 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6/26/18 depth of initial water filling 12 inches above the hole bottom Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least 4 hours Automatic Siphon Maximum water depth above hole bottom during tests 6 inches Time Time Depth Drop in H2O Perc Rate 10:02 10:17 6" 2.4 6.3 10:18 10:33 6" 2.4 6.3 10:36 10:51 6" 2.4 6.3 AVERAGE PERC. RATE 6.3 MPI Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 10:50 A.M. On 6/26/18 Location: Proposed lot 3 PID#0211723230006 Hole number: 3 Date hole was prepared: 6/25/18 Depth of hole bottom,12"_inches, Diameter of hole_6"_inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-8 Topsoil 10yr4/2 8-12 Clay Loam 10yr514 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6/25/18 depth of initial water filling 12 inches above the hole bottom Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least 4 hours Automatic Siphon Maximum water depth above hole bottom during tests 6 inches Time Time Depth Drop in H2O Perc Rate 11:12 11:27 6" 2.9 5.2 11:38 11:53 6" 2.7 5.5 12:04 12:19 6" 2.7 5.5 AVERAGE PERC. RATE 5.4 MPI Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 10:50 A.M. On 6/26/18 Location: Proposed lot 3 PID#0211723230006 Hole number: 4 Date hole was prepared: 6/25/18 Depth of hole bottom 12 inches, Diameter of hole_6"_inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-12 Topsoil 10yr412 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6/25/18 depth of initial water filling 12 inches above the hole bottom Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least 4 hours Automatic Siphon Maximum water depth above hole bottom during tests 6 inches Time Time Depth Drop in H2O Perc Rate 11:13 11:28 6" 5,5 2.7 11:39 11:54 6" 5.5 2.7 12:03 12:18 6" 5.5 2.7 AVERAGE PERC. RATE 2.7 MPI Joseph Olson D.B.A. Rusty Olson's--Soil and Percolation Testing Joseph J. Olson--MPCA License #810 11481 Riverview Rd. NE, Hanover, MN 55341 (763) 498-8779 fax (763) 498-8290 July 4,2018 Stonewood LLC. Proposed lot 4 PID#0211723230006 387 Orono Orchard Road S. Orono,Hennepin County This on-site Sewage Treatment System is partially designed for a Type 1,five-bedroom home in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Chapter 7080 and local ordinances. Once the house size,location and septic primary and future sites are chosen this design can be completed. The periodically saturated soils were located at 14-20 Inches(mottled soil). Due to the periodically saturated soils,a pressurized mound system will need to be installed to treat the septic effluent.The bottom of the treatment area must be located at least 3' above the saturated soils. The soils at a depth of 12"have a percolation rate averaging 8 MPI. A 2250-gallon septic tank or its equivalent needs to be installed.All tanks need to be insulated if there is less than two feet of cover over the top of the tanks. Clean outs must be installed on the end of the laterals for maintenance. Use 7/32-inch perforations on the laterals. A 1250-gallon pumping chamber will need to be installed to lift the effluent to the treatment area.The power supply and switches must be located outside the manhole and pumping chamber in a weatherproof enclosure. A warning device must be installed with a light and sound device;this is in case of a pump failure. Keep all heavy equipment off of the proposed treatment areas before and after construction.The treatment area must be fenced off before construction begins.This Design is not valid &the System will need to be relocated if failure to protect the areas proposed for the On-Site Sewage Treatment systems occurs. With proper installation and maintenance,this system should have no problem in treating septic effluent effectively.Nothing other than gray water,(laundry,showers,etc.)Human water and toilet tissue should be disposed of into the septic tanks.Garbage disposals are not recommended.Iron filters cannot go into the system.Additives must not be used they may cause harmful damage to your septic system. It is recommended that you pump the septic tanks every two years. Sinc Joseph J.Olson | ..4 , i VP \(..7:\\ \ ''„\ / 1 \ ".., ' ''' .----...,,........ ..::::=.. . ,..... .........._,..:'_:,..:-..1.,,,....'''',:•-. ''.- ''''.....c. _______ 711.‘ t,'-'" '<O.? \i i i ..""--'- '(,,,, 4:1$4:',.. ..•,..... . 1,-; 21. 7AI ,'''' 1 To / ____ CY) 0) \ \ ' t —_ _ C;(:•el q r_r___',...Y .,—.451. '0,/ ',,,, ''',„. /"C 4 (--- n.i..0c. • i ,i ‘.................. ...........-----—:jfeC)e:9'-!7' 4.--- -- - - ----- ---- . \ I'.,. . /, \\101111 ..- . t . , d)z:.„,) -P / -6 't4 6, ---(' ———.."---- ‘,P .- \ "%- ---...,, I . 0* f-4 al... \ , \ . , I ' \ \ , \ - 1 tAi 00°03'32" E 679.90 \, \ , o ; , • ‘ ......_ _........„,„1.,_ _ ,_ ____ _ _ _•,.4,i,_ ____. _ ____.\,.%.„_...4,-... ,..,..,_ 7/ VA\LIN \ '\ '. • • •., / cP _ -.-......migimer... ,' , 'N.,: i V ' '' -!"-.1:'•-••IIIIIIIIAIWII ''''...,...Airn. ../ 441031ew-Nosow.--14;;4111ZA41, *''. \\ N, ',,, ,,die:27 ,. CNiiiillP . '' "^-,,,,,, Li .111111111W.IPP.-1 'ir 414;111" - % \ '''' /Z... '.. . . < --..,....._ --.,_ / / 4941111P.ki p •=_,? re..• --ct , ...,. Frit ,/- ..-4 0 ,• , ,:••-i .., ,..› •••., ....,• 0 i ' _0--' (i) _..c.i - *<5'/ ./ •74-4" / '' I VAVilliall 0 .. 16, 1 CP P11 III, / c, ,./ 1 Lic,)) elfr, ) .I At; '''.•..,. ._ .,_ .- • ..,.* '..„„, ---,.., ."--•....„,„. ' -9!)? -0„. h• ..4k N- a v,) / / / ...,, ......, -,/.. C..) 'N. €•,, -,"\t-', `'' C ..., ^...-‹ ......< .._...._ I -.... -_-.......--. --..----......-. / 1 / /1"--- - / /- KC.-- - . 1'1"i)--------- %)‘ Ill -._ "f r ......;..„___...7. _ ..._.7 „.7 ______"---......;-::: ,,,,.....'-'"____,:. :,,, .."--,,\ : , \: - ‘ ...' : /- I. ,0, , --__ ____: ..„_ ........ .4 -,01 ,.• it. t 1 1 -------- _,........._ ..........i. ;,----- \ tt _— \ • .---,..-,,.......... . ........"--- -„..- .,-- ..----." . i , 00 .„ ,, c.,,,,.• 1 ,,,--' ..., .2-6 0 ,- 0 cs1 ‘• I ,--',,,•1 ,.....4.--_,. ____,... _ ... ,, ..„ ...N \ .,....___-- \ I . / :1_1;2 / ,'5 . . .....1 \. P.' ( vt,..;/... , . -• \., ,i 0 - 0 vk\ 4 ..-il, ... 6;9' °O ---- / 1,....'''` . ' .. Q ) ,.. ,,..„ tIN •, 0 -7-- • *dPI5Zr- n 13 / "0 ',. : 1101111111111,„ • 4,,.., .. __ ,,_,,, _._ m 0 . .0, IP„ ..., N.1 -- \ \ < I 1 QJ1 ,- ''`.'-... • ''.. 00dpj%. .,<1.- --- '-'"r.. / ...."\ 2011 purple code Mound Design www.SepticResource.com (vers 15.2) Property Owner: Stonewood LLC. Date: 6/16/2018 Site Address: Proposed Lot 4 PID: 0211723230006 Comments: Site A Et C instructions: =enter data =adjust if desired = computer calculated - DO NOT CHANGE! ,) 5 bedroom Type I Residential System 2) 750 GPD design flow 3) Yes Garbage disposal or pumped to septic 50% larger tank with multiple comp/tanks 4) 2250 Gal Septic tank (code minimum) 2250 Gal Septic tank(design size / LUG req'd) Tank options: none 5) 1.2 GPD/ftz mound sand loading rate contour loading rate of 12 req's a min 62.5 ft. long rockbed 6) 10.0 ft rockbed width I 62.5 Ift rockbed length 7) 3.0 ft lateral spacing 3.0 ft perforation spacing (maximum of 3 for both) end feed manifold connection s) 3 laterals 60.5 feet long 21.0 perfs / lateral 63 perfs total (1/2 a perf means the first perf starts at the middle feed manifold) ) 7/32 inch perfs at 1 feet residual head gives 0.56 gpm flow rate per perforation for this perf size Et spacing, Et pipe size on line 12, max perfs/lateral= 30 , line#8 must be less --> OK ,(, 4.0 doses per day (4 minimum) II) 188 gallons per dose (treatment volume) 2.00 5x )'-) 2.00 inch diameter laterals must be used to meet"4x pipe volume" requirement 2.00 3x 13) feet of 2.0 inch supply line leads to ##### gallons of drainback volume (Tip: "top feed" manifold to control the drainback) 14, ######gallons TOTAL pump out volume (treatment+ drainback) 15) feet vertical lift from pump to mound laterals, leads to a: is, 36 GPM® ##### feet of head, Pump requirement (note: >50gpm may require an extra 3-6'of head) )7) 750 gal Dose tank (code minimum) 11250 Igal Dose tank (design size / LUG req'd) at 25.49 gpi leads to a Ito ######inch swing on Demand float, or timed dosing of ##### min ON (confirm pump rate with drawdown (this delivers Average flow, =70%of Peak design flow) ##### hrs OFF test and adjust as necessary) )Q) 12 inches from bottom of tank to"Pump OFF"float 20) ###### inches from bottom of tank to"Pump ON"float, or 12 inches to"Timer ON"float if time dosed 21) ######inches from bottom of tank to"Hi Level"float, or ##### inches to"Hi Level"float if time dosed ) I######Igallons reserve capacity (after High Level Alarm is activated) 23) 0.45 gpd/ft2 Absorption area Soil Loading Rate, which gives a mound ratio of 2.7 (minimum) (this must match the soil boring tog) desired mound ratio 2.7 24) 15 percent site slope (0-20% range) 12 (%downslope site slope, if different than upslope) 25) 12 inches, or 1.0 ft. to Redox or other limiting condition (need at least 12"to be a Type I) Treatment zone contains 0 inches of 0%soil credit, and 0 inches of 50%soil credit. Giving a: 26) 24 inch, or 2.0 ft. Sand Lift Mound CRITICAL FOR FUTURE CERTIFICATIONS!!! 27) 27.0 ft.Total ABSORPTION width (with sand beyond rockbed as follows:) 28) 0.0 ft. upslope and sideslope 17.0 ft. Downslope Individual slope ratios give BERM widths (topsoil beyond rockbed) of: 2e. 4:1 upslope ratio 10 ft. upslope berm 30) 3:1 sideslope 17 ft. sideslope berms 31) 3:1 downslope 30 ft. downslope berm 32) Overall Dimensions: 10.0 ft. wide by 62.5 ft. long Rock bed 50 ft. wide by 97 ft. long Mound footprint 4" inspection pipe 18" cover on top {Upstope berm 10 ttt Downslope berm 30 12°' cover on sides (6"loamy cap&6"topsoil) 2.0 Clean sand lift 1.0 Depth to Limiting Limiting Condition-- Absorption Width 27.0 Note: For 0 to 1%slopes, Absorption Width is measured from the .89c/equally in both directions. For slopes >1%, Absorption Width is measured downhill from the upslope edge of the Bed. 33, Rock Bed: 10.0 ft. by 62.5 ft. by I 6 (inches under pipe, plus 20%gives 21 yd'or*1.4= 29 ton 34) Mound Sand: (note: volume is based on 3:1/4:1 slope from top of rockbed, Exchange sand for loamy cap if desired) 36.6 up + 159.2 downslope + 22.5 ends+ 63.7 under rock= 338 yd3 or*1.4= 474 ton plus 20% 35) Loamy Cap: 46 ft. by 93 ft. 6"deep, plus 20%gives 95 yd'or*1.4= 133 ton 36) Topsoil: 50 ft. by 97 ft. 6"deep, plus 20%gives 108 yd'or*1.4= 151 ton I hereby cer ' that I have completed this work in accordance with all applicable ordinances, rules and laws. Rusty Olson"s Soil& Perc 810 6/16/2018 j ' igner Signature Company License# Date 2011 purple code Mound Design www.SepticResource.com (vers 15.2) Property Owner; Stonewood LLC. Date: 6/16/2018 Site Address: Proposed Lot 3 PID: 0211723230006 Comments: Site B instructions: =enter data =adjust if desired = computer calculated - DO NOT CHANGE! t i 5 bedroom Type I Residential System ') 750 GPD design flow 3) Yes Garbage disposal or pumped to septic 50%larger tank with multiple comp/tanks -)) 2250 Gal Septic tank (code minimum) 2250 Gal Septic tank (design size / LUG req'd) Tank options: none ,) 1.2 GPD/ft2 mound sand loading rate contour loading rate of 12 req's a min 62.5 ft. tong rockbed 6) 10.0 ft rockbed width 62.5 ft rockbed Length 7) 3.0 ft lateral spacing 3.0 ft perforation spacing (maximum of 3 for both) end feed manifold connection 8) 3 laterals 60.5 feet long 21.0 perfs / lateral 63 perfs total (1/2 a perf means the first perf starts at the middle feed manifold) 7/32 inch perfs at 1 feet residual head gives 0.56 gpm flow rate per perforation for this perf size a7 spacing, art pipe size on line 12, max perfs/lateral= 30 , tine#8 must be less --> OK io) 4.0 doses per day (4 minimum) )1) 188 gallons per dose (treatment volume) 2.00 5x 12) 2.00 inch diameter laterals must be used to meet"4x pipe volume"requirement 2.00 3x t 31 feet of 2.0 inch supply line leads to ##### gallons of drainback volume (Tip: "top feed" manifold to control the drainback) 14) ######gallons TOTAL pump out volume (treatment+drainback) is, feet vertical lift from pump to mound laterals, leads to a: 16) 36 GPM® ##### feet of head, Pump requirement (note: >50gpm may require an extra 3-6'of head) »i 750 gal Dose tank (code minimum) 1250 gal Dose tank (design size / LUG req'd) at 25.49 gpi leads to a 18) ######inch swing on Demand float, or timed dosing of ##### min ON (confirm pump rate with drawdown (this delivers Average flow, =70%of Peak design flow) ##### hrs OFF test and adjust as necessary) 19) 12 inches from bottom of tank to"Pump OFF"float 2o) ###### inches from bottom of tank to"Pump ON"float, or 12 inches to"Timer ON"float if time dosed 21) ###### inches from bottom of tank to"Hi Level"float, or ##### inches to "Hi Level"float if time dosed ######gallons reserve capacity (after High Level Alarm is activated) I 23) 0.45 gpd/ft2 Absorption area Soil Loading Rate, which gives a mound ratio of 2.7 (minimum) (this must match the soil boring log) desired mound ratio 2.7 24) 6 percent site slope (0-20%range) 6 (%downslope site slope, if different than upslope) 25) 16 inches, or 1.3 ft. to Redox or other limiting condition (need at least 12" to be a Type I) Treatment zone contains 0 inches of 0%soil credit, and 0 inches of 50%soil credit. Giving a: 26) 16 inch, or 1.3 ft. Sand Lift Mound CRITICAL FOR FUTURE CERTIFICATIONS!!! 27) 27.0 ft.Total ABSORPTION width (with sand beyond rockbed as follows:) 28) 0.0 ft. upslope and sideslope 17.0 ft. Downslope Individual slope ratios give BERM widths (topsoil beyond rockbed) of: 29) 4:1 upslope ratio 11 ft. upslope berm 30) 4:1 sideslope 16 ft. sideslope berms 31) 4:1 downslope 21 ft. downslope berm 32) Overall Dimensions: 10.0 ft. wide by 62.5 ft. long Rock bed 42 ft. wide by 95 ft. long Mound footprint 4" inspection pipe 18" cover on top Upslope berm 11 < Downslope berm 21 12" cover on sides (6"loamy cap&6"topsoil) 1.3 Clean sand lift 1,3 Depth to Limiting Limiting Condition —`"_—— — _______ Absorption Width 27.0 — —— Note: For 0 to 1%slopes, Absorption Width is measured from the Dec/equally in both directions. For slopes >1%, Absorption Width is measured downhill from the upslope edge of the Bed. 33) Rock Bed: 10.0 ft. by 62.5 ft. by 6 inches under pipe, plus 20%gives 21 yd'or*1.4= 29 ton 34) Mound Sand: (note: volume is based on 3:1/4:1 slope from top of rockbed, Exchange sand for loamy cap if desired) 28.2 up + 72.5 downslope + 12.7 ends+ 37.8 under rock= 181 yd'or*1.4= 254 ton plus 20% 35) Loamy Cap: 38 ft. by 91 ft. 6"deep, plus 20%gives 77 yd'or*1.4= 108 ton 36) Topsoil: 42 ft. by 95 ft. 6"deep, plus 20%gives 89 yd'or*1.4= 125 ton I hereby certify that I have completed this work in accordance with all applicable ordinances, rules and laws. Rusty Olson"s Soil Et Perc 810 6/16/2018 igner Signature Company License# Date 2011 purple code Mound Design www.SepticResource.com (vers 15.2) Property Owner: Stonewood LLC. Date: 6/16/2018 Site Address: Proposed Lot 3 PID: 0211723230006 Comments: Site D Upslope instructions: =enter data =adjust if desired = computer calculated - DO NOT CHANGE! li 5 bedroom Type I Residential System 750 GPD design flow 3, Yes Garbage disposal or pumped to septic 50% larger tank with multiple comp/tanks 2250 Gal Septic tank (code minimum) 2250 Gal Septic tank (design size / LUG req'd) Tank options: none >> 1.2 GPD/ft2 mound sand loading rate contour loading rate of I 12 Ireq's a min 62.5 ft. long rockbed ti 10.0 ft rockbed width 62.5 ft rockbed length 7) 3.0 ft lateral spacing I 3.0 Ift perforation spacing (maximum of 3 for both) end feed manifold connection x) 3 laterals 60.5 feet long 21.0 perfs / lateral 63 perfs total (1/2 a perf means the first perf starts at the middle feed manifold) 7/32 inch perfs at 1 feet residual head gives 0.56 gpm flow rate per perforation for this perf size Ft spacing, & pipe size on tine 12, max perfs/lateral= 30 1, line#8 must be less --> OK 10) 4.0 doses per day (4 minimum) 1 l i 188 gallons per dose (treatment volume) 2.00 5x 1 2) 2.00 inch diameter laterals must be used to meet"4x pipe volume" requirement 2.00 3x l3) feet of 2.0 inch supply line leads to ##### gallons of drainback volume (Tip: "top feed"manifold to control the drainback) 14) ######gallons TOTAL pump out volume (treatment+ drainback) 15) feet vertical lift from pump to mound laterals, leads to a: ,ci 36 GPM @ ##### feet of head, Pump requirement (note: >50gpm may require an extra 3-6'of head) 17) 750 gal Dose tank (code minimum) 1250 gal Dose tank(design size / LUG req'd) at 25.49 gpi leads to a is) ######inch swing on Demand float, or timed dosing of ##### min ON (confirm pump rate with drawdown (this delivers Average flow, =70%of Peak design flow) ##### hrs OFF test and adjust as necessary) 19) 12 inches from bottom of tank to"Pump OFF"float 20) ###### inches from bottom of tank to"Pump ON"float, or 12 inches to "Timer ON"float if time dosed 2„ ######inches from bottom of tank to"Hi Level"float, or ##### inches to"Hi Level"float if time dosed _, ######gallons reserve capacity (after High Level Alarm is activated) 23) 0.45 gpd/ft2 Absorption area Soil Loading Rate, which gives a mound ratio of 2.7 (minimum) (this must match the soil boring tog) desired mound ratio 2.7 24) "15 percent site slope (0-20%range) 15 (%downslope site slope, if different than upslope) 25 16 inches, or 1.3 ft. to Redox or other limiting condition (need at least 12"to be a Type I) Treatment zone contains 0 inches of 0%soil credit, and 0 inches of 50%soil credit. Giving a: 26) 16 inch, or 1.3 ft. Sand Lift Mound CRITICAL FOR FUTURE CERTIFICATIONS!!! 27) 27.0 ft.Total ABSORPTION width (with sand beyond rockbed as follows:) 28) 0.0 ft. upslope and sideslope 17.0 ft. Downslope Individual slope ratios give BERM widths (topsoil beyond rockbed)of: 29) 4:1 upslope ratio 8 ft. upslope berm 30) 4:1 sideslope 19 ft. sideslope berms 3 n 3:1 downslope 27 ft. downslope berm 32) Overall Dimensions: 10.0 ft. wide by 62.5 ft. long Rock bed 45 ft. wide by 101 ft. long Mound footprint 4" inspection pipe 18" cover on top ,<Upslope berm 8 • Downslope berm 27 12" cover on sides ' — (6"loamy cap&6"topsoil) 1.3 Clean sand lift 1.3 Depth to Limiting Limiting Condition "_�___ _�_ __� Absorption Width 27.o _— —— — Not_e_ : For to 1%slopes, Absorption Width is measured from the Bedequally in both directions. For slopes >1%, Absorption Width is measured downhill from the upslope edge of the Bed. 33) Rock Bed: 10.0 ft. by 62.5 ft. by 6 inches under pipe, plus 20%gives 21 yds or*1.4= 29 ton 34) Mound Sand: (note: volume is based on 3:1/4:1 slope from top of rockbed, Exchange sand for loamy cap if desired) 23.1 up + 142.7 downslope + 21.8 ends+ 48.2 under rock= 283 yd3 or*1.4= 396 ton plus 20% 35) Loamy Cap: 41 ft. by 97 ft. 6"deep, plus 20%gives 88 yds or*1.4= 123 ton 36) Topsoil: 45 ft. by 101 ft. 6"deep, plus 20%gives 101 yds or*1.4= 141 ton I hereby certify that I have completed this work in accordance with all applicable ordinances, rules and laws. Rusty Olson"s Soil Et Perc 810 6/16/2018 signer Signature Company License# Date 2011 purple code Mound Design www.SepticResource.com (vers 15.2) Property Owner: Stonewood LLC. Date: 6/16/2018 Site Address: Proposed Lot 4 PID: 0211723230006 Comments: Site D Downslope instructions: =enter data 1 ( =adjust if desired = computer calculated - DO NOT CHANGE! n I 5 'bedroom Type I I I Residential System 2) I 750 'GPD design flow 3) I Yes 'Garbage disposal or pumped to septic 50%larger tank with multiple comp/tanks 4) 2250 Gat Septic tank (code minimum) 2250 Gal Septic tank (design size / LUG req'd) Tank options: none s) I 1.2 JGPD/ft2 mound sand loading rate contour loading rate of I 12 Ireq's a min 62.5 ft. long rockbed 6) 110.0 'ft rockbed width 62.5 ft rockbed length 7) I 3.0 Ift lateral spacing 3.0 ft perforation spacing (maximum of 3 for both) lend feed 'manifold connection 8) 3 laterals 60.5 feet long 21.0 perfs / lateral I 63 Iperfs total (1/2 a perf means the first perf starts at the middle feed manifold) ) 7/32 inch perfs at 1 feet residual head gives 0.56 gpm flow rate per perforation for this perf size if spacing, Et pipe size on line 12, max perfs/lateral = 30 , tine#8 must be less --> OK to) 4.0 doses per day (4 minimum) 11) 188 'gallons per dose (treatment volume) 2.00 5x 12) 2.00 inch diameter laterals must be used to meet"4x pipe volume" requirement 2.00 3x 13) feet of 2.0 "inch supply line leads to ##### gallons of drainback volume (Tip: "top feed"manifold to control the drainback) 14) ######gallons TOTAL pump out volume (treatment+ drainback) )5) 1feet vertical lift from pump to mound laterals, leads to a: )6) 36 GPM @ ##### feet of head, Pump requirement (note: >50gpm may require an extra 3-6'of head) 17) I 750 'gal Dose tank (code minimum) 11250 'gal Dose tank (design size / LUG req'd) at 125.49 Igpi leads to a )8) I######Iinch swing on Demand float, or timed dosing of ##### min ON (confirm pump rate with drawdown (this delivers Average flow, =70%of Peak design flow) ##### hrs OFF test and adjust as necessary) 19) 12 inches from bottom of tank to"Pump OFF float 20) ######inches from bottom of tank to"Pump ON"float, or 12 inches to"Timer ON"float if time dosed 2)) ###### inches from bottom of tank to "Hi Level"float, or ##### inches to"Hi Level"float if time dosed I######'gallons reserve capacity (after High Level Alarm is activated) 23) 0.45 gpd/ft2 Absorption area Soil Loading Rate, which gives a mound ratio of 2.7 (minimum) (this must match the soil boring log) desired mound ratio 2.7 24) 11 percent site slope (0-20%range) 11 (%downslope site slope, if different than upslope) 25) 18 inches, or 1.5 ft. to Redox or other limiting condition (need at least 12"to be a Type I) Treatment zone contains 0 inches of 0%soil credit, and 0 inches of 50%soil credit. Giving a: 26) 18 inch, or 1.5 ft. Sand Lift Mound CRITICAL FOR FUTURE CERTIFICATIONS!!! 27) 27.0 ft.Total ABSORPTION width (with sand beyond rockbed as follows:) 28) 0.0 ft. upslope and sideslope 17.0 ft. Downslope Individual slope ratios give BERM widths (topsoil beyond rockbed) of: 29) 4:1 upslope ratio 0 ft. upslope berm 30) 4:1 sideslope 18 ft. sideslope berms 31, 4:1 downslope 33 ft. downslope berm 32) Overall Dimensions: 10.0 ft. wide by 62.5 ft. long Rock bed 43 ft. wide by 99 ft. long Mound footprint 4" inspection pipe 18" cover on top <Upslope berm 0 ) Downslope berm 33 } .r 12" cover on sides (6"loamy cap&.6"topsoil) 1.5 Clean sand lift 1.5 Depth to Limiting Limiting Condition ____------ -_.__ Absorption Width 27.0 _ Note: For 0 to 1%slopes, Absorption Width is measured from the Bedequally in both directions. For slopes >1%, Absorption Width is measured downhill from the upslope edge of the Bed. 33) Rock Bed: 10.0 ft. by 62.5 ft. by 6 inches under pipe, plus 20%gives 21 yd'or*1.4= 29 ton 34) Mound Sand: (note: volume is based on 3:1/4:1 slope from top of rockbed, Exchange sand for loamy cap if desired) 29.1 up + 155.1 downslope + 19.2 ends+ 47.5 under rock= 301 yd'or*1.4= 421 ton plus 20% 35) Loamy Cap: 39 ft. by 95 ft. 6"deep, plus 20%gives 82 yd'or*1.4= 115 ton 36) Topsoil: 43 ft. by 99 ft. 6"deep, plus 20%gives 95 yd'or*1.4= 133 ton I hereby certify that I have completed this work in accordance with all applicable ordinances, rules and laws. Rusty Olson"s Soil 8 Perc 810 6/16/2018 t igner Signature Company License# Date Soil Observation Log www.SepticResource.com vers 12.4 Owner Information Property Owner/project: Stonewood LLC Date 6/20/2018 Property Address/PID: Proposed Lot 4 PID# 021172323000 Soil Survey Information ❑refer to attached soil survey Parent matl's: ❑, Till ❑Outwash ❑ Lacustrine ❑Alluvium r_11 Organic [I] Bedrock landscape position: ❑Summit ❑Shoulder Il Side slope ❑Toe slope soil survey map units: L41C2 slope 6-15 % direction- Linear-convex Soil Log#1 ❑✓ Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 989.4 Depth to SHWT 14 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-4 Topsoil <35 10yr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 4-14 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 14-20 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/10y Firm Strong Blocky 20-24 Clay Loam <35 2.5y513 10y4/8,1-6/l0y Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive 'omments: Proposed Lot 4 PID# 0211723230006 Soil Log#2 1] Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 989.7 Depth to SHWT 20 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-6 Topsoil <35 I0yr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 6-16 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 16-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/l0y Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single gain 35 50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive loose loose oose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive Proposed Lot 4 PID#0211723230006 Soil Log#3 Q Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 993.0 Depth to SHWT 18 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-6 Topsoil <35 10yr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocks 6-18 Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 18-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/l0y Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain 35 -50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive loose loose <35 single grain 35 -50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive /hereby certify this work was completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local reel's. Rusty Olson's Soil & Perc 810 esigner Signature Company License 4 Proposed Lot 4 PID#0211723230006 Soil Log#4 ❑✓ Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 993.3 Depth to SHWT 18 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-6 Topsoil <35 10yr4/2 Friable Moderate Block) 6-18 Loam <35 10yr514 Friable Strong Blocky 18-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 l0y4/8,1-6110y Firm Strong Blocky X35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky )50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strona massive <J5 loose loose single grain 35 50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive Proposed Lot 4 PID#0211723230006 Soil Log#5 0 Boring El Pit Elevation 989.6 Depth to SHWT 14 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-4 Topsoil <35 10yr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 4-14 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 14-20 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/10y Firm Strong Blocky 20-24 Clay Loam <35 2.5y5/3 10y4/8,1-6/l0y Finn Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain 35 50 friable weak granular blocks >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive I hereby cert'this work was completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local reqs. Rusty Olson's Soil & Pere 810 esigner Signature Company License# Soil Observation Log www.SepticResource.com vers 12.4 Owner Information Property Owner/project: Stonewood LLC Date 6/20/2018 Property Address t PID: Proposed Lot 4 PID# 021172323000 Soil Survey Information ❑refer to attached soil survey Parent matl's: [I]Till ❑Outwash ❑ Lacustrine ❑Alluvium ❑Organic EI Bedrock landscape position: ❑Summit ❑Shoulder Q Side slope ❑Toe slope p soil survey map units: L41 C2 slope 6-15 % direction- Linear-convex Soil Log#6 0 Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 991.6 Depth to SHWT 18 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-6 Topsoil <35 10yr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 6-18 Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 18-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 I0y4/8,1-6/10y Finn Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain 35 50 friable weak granular block) >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single gain 35 50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive Comments: Soil Observation Log www.SepticResource.com vers 12.4 Owner Information Property Owner 1 project: Stonewood LLC Date 6/23/2018 Property Address/PID: Proposed Lot 4 PID# 021172323000 Soil Survey Information ❑ refer to attached soil survey Parent matl's: 0 Till ❑ Outwash ❑ Lacustrine ❑Alluvium []Organic ❑ Bedrock landscape position: ❑Summit ❑Shoulder ❑✓ Side slope El Toe slope p soil survey map units: L41C2 slope 6-15 % direction- Linear-convex Soil Log#7 0 Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 993.0 Depth to SHWT 18 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-6 Topsoil <35 10yr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 6-18 Clay Loam <35 10yr514 Friable Strong Blocky 18-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/l0y Finn Strong Blocky loose loose single grain <35 35 -50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive :omments: 1 Proposed Lot 4 PID#0211723230006 Soil Log#8 El Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 993.0 Depth to SHWT 18 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-6 Topsoil <35 10yr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 6-18 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky I8-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/10y Finn Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain 35 50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate Prismatic platy rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate Prismatic platy rigid strong massive Proposed Lot 4 PID# 0211723230006 Soil Log#9 0 Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 995.9 Depth to SHWT 16 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistencegrade shape 0-6 Topsoil <35 10yr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 6-16 Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 16-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/l0y Firm Strong Blocky loose loose <35 single grain friable weak granular blocky 35-50 >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular block} >50 firm moderate prismatic plat rigid strong massive I hereby certify this work was completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local red's. Rusty Olson's Soil & Pere 810 signer Signature Company License 4 Proposed Lot 4 PID #0211723230006 Soil Log#10 2 Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 995.9 Depth to SHWT 18 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-6 Topsoil <35 10yr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 6-18 Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 18-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/10y Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain 35 -50 friable weak granular hhork\ >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive loose loose <35 single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigidstrong massive Proposed Lot 4 PID#0211723230006 Soil Log#11 El Boring El Pit Elevation 989.6 Depth to SHWT 14 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-6 Topsoil <35 10yr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 6-16 Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 16-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 lOy4/8,1-6/10y Firm Strong Blocky loose loose <35 single grain 35 50 friable weak granular blocky >S0 firm moderate Prismatic platy rigid strong massive loose loose <35 single grain 35 50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive I hereby certify this work was completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local rep's. Rusty Olson's Soil & Perc 810 esigner Signature Company License Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 10:50 A.M. On 6/26/18 Location: Proposed lot 4 PID#0211723230006 Hole number: 1 Date hole was prepared: 6/25/18 Depth of hole bottom_12"_inches, Diameter of hole_6" inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-4 Topsoil 10yr4/2 4-12 Clay loam 10yr514 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6/25/18 depth of initial water filling 12 inches above the hole bottom Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least 4 hours Automatic Siphon Maximum water depth above hole bottom during tests 6 inches Time Time Depth Drop in H2O Perc Rate 11:18 11:33 6" 1.5 10.0 11:34 11:49 6" 1.5 10.0 12:08 12:23 6" 1.5 10.0 AVERAGE PERC. RATE 10.0 MPI 1 Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 10:50 A.M. On 6/26/18 Location: Proposed lot 4 PID#0211723230006 Hole number: 2 Date hole was prepared: 6/25/18 Depth of hole bottom_12"_inches, Diameter of hole,_6" _inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-6 Topsoil 10yr412 6-12 Clay loam 10yr5/4 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6/25/18 depth of initial water filling 12 inches above the hole bottom Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least 4 hours Automatic Siphon Maximum water depth above hole bottom during tests 6 inches Time Time Depth Drop in H2O Perc Rate 1 11:17 11:32 6" 1.1 13.3 11:35 11:50 6" 1.1 13.3 12:07 12:22 6" 1.1 13.3 AVERAGE PERC. RATE 13.3 MPI Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 10:50 A.M. On 6/26/18 Location: Proposed lot 4 PID#0211723230006 Hole number: 3 Date hole was prepared: 6/25/18 Depth of hole bottom_12"_inches, Diameter of hole_6"_inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-6 Topsoil 10yr4/2 6-12 Loam 10yr514 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6/25/18 depth of initial water filling 12 inches above the hole bottom Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least 4 hours Automatic Siphon Maximum water depth above hole bottom during tests 6 inches Time Time Depth Drop in H2O Perc Rate 11:16 11:31 6" 4.5 3.3 11:36 11:51 6" 4.3 3.4 12:06 12:21 6" 4.2 3.5 AVERAGE PERC. RATE 3.4 MPI Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 10:50 A.M. On 6/26/18 Location: Proposed lot 4 PID#0211723230006 Hole number: 4 Date hole was prepared: 6/25/18 Depth of hole bottom 12" inches, Diameter of hole_6"_inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-6 Topsoil 10yr4/2 6-12 Loam 10yr5/4 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6/25/18 depth of initial water filling 12 inches above the hole bottom Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least 4 hours Automatic Siphon Maximum water depth above hole bottom during tests 6 inches Time Time Depth Drop in H2O Perc Rate 11:15 11:30 6" 5.5 27 11:37 11:52 6" 5.5 2.7 12:05 12:20 6" 5.5 2.7 AVERAGE PERC. RATE 2.7 MPI Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 11:59 A.M. On 6/28/18 Location: Proposed Lot 4 PID#0211723230006 Hole number: 5 Date hole was prepared: 6/27/18 Depth of hole bottom 12"_inches, Diameter of hole 6"_inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-6 Topsoil 10yr4/2 6-12 Clay loam 10yr5/4 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6/27/18 depth of initial water filling 12 inches above the hole bottom Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least 4 hours Automatic Siphon Maximum water depth above hole bottom during tests 6 inches Time Time Depth Drop in H2O Perc Rate 12:09 12:24 6" 2.7 5.6 12:27 12:42 6" 2.6 5.8 12:43 12:58 6" 2.6 5.8 AVERAGE PERC. RATE 5.7 MPI Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 11:59 A.M. On 6/28/18 Location: Proposed Lot 4 PID#0211723230006 Hole number: 6 Date hole was prepared: 6/27/18 Depth of hole bottom 12" inches, Diameter of hole_6"_inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-6 Topsoil 10yr4/2 6-12 Clay loam 10yr5/4 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6/27/18 depth of initial water filling 12 inches above the hole bottom Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least 4 hours Automatic Siphon Maximum water depth above hole bottom during tests 6 inches ! Time Time Depth Drop in H2O Perc Rate 12:10 12:25 6" 3.0 5.0 12:26 12:41 6" 3.0 5.0 12:44 12:59 6" 3.0 5.0 AVERAGE PERC. RATE 5.0 MPI Joseph Olson D.B.A. Rusty Olson's--Soil and Percolation Testing Joseph J. Olson--MPCA License #810 11481 Riverview Rd. NE, Hanover, MN 55341 (763) 498-8779 fax (763) 498-8290 July 4,2018 Stonewood LLC. Proposed lot 5 PID##0211723230006 387 Orono Orchard Road S. Orono,Hennepin County This on-site Sewage Treatment System is partially designed for a Type I,five-bedroom home in accordance with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Chapter 7080 and local ordinances. Once the house size and location are chosen this design can be completed. The future site must be the duel rock bed system. The periodically saturated soils were located at 14-24 Inches(mottled soil). Due to the periodically saturated soils,a pressurized mound system will need to be installed to treat the septic effluent. The bottom of the treatment area must be located at least 3' above the saturated soils. The soils at a depth of 12"have a percolation rate averaging 9 MPI. A 2250-gallon septic tank or its equivalent needs to be installed.All tanks need to be insulated if there is less than two feet of cover over the top of the tanks.Clean outs must be installed on the end of the laterals for maintenance. Use 7/32-inch perforations on the laterals. A 1250-gallon pumping chamber will need to be installed to lift the effluent to the treatment area.The power supply and switches must be located outside the manhole and pumping chamber in a weatherproof enclosure.A warning device must be installed with a light and sound device;this is in case of a pump failure. Keep all heavy equipment off of the proposed treatment areas before and after construction.The treatment area must be fenced off before construction begins.This Design is not valid&the System will need to be relocated if failure to protect the areas proposed for the On-Site Sewage Treatment systems occurs. With proper installation and maintenance,this system should have no problem in treating septic effluent effectively.Nothing other than gray water,(laundry,showers,etc.)Human water and toilet tissue should be disposed of into the septic tanks.Garbage disposals are not recommended. Iron filters cannot go into the system.Additives must not be used they may cause harmful damage to your septic system. It is recommended that you pump the septic tanks every two years. Sinc Joseph J. Olson \ 1 1 \ \\ t J- ' \, i 1 N 00°03'32" ! 1 .1.• 'acm,., :.••• r., :0. _ ...„ ,.... ,. , .......„. „.., ......_ 7., :•• ,, , / • \ I I • ir2v , co N (.. .„. , ii l'.7A1 \ I I --N i r AZ1 Q) CY) ......... , . /t, / / , ,... lil, ----- --1-, - II/ / IC5' , ..”, 117 i () A C3 I .---\ \------ 0 rrt - 1-----61 St ----S444LPI 01 ....- , tood — i ---t , 00 00------ ii I I : _040 __ ...... _____.., a rn _ .......-- I, I •..,,,,-.4 - , *, „0„, , D___..___. ---I--- _ j....._ . ' 1 ...,,, IA kv,t 1 _ .., , ...,_.. ____ .111" , ., i.-, ... , : -,,.. i -90.• I , , ,,, .,,,,q,.., 995 1 ,..., . :;,,I, 1 ,..,-,.. ,.., t j .. ......._:— A --7\ .g,.. / 14.1 17 , ------ • ,, — --- — ...., •Lii •;,,,,., , er , - L . ,,,, 2b5 •-4-q•-,\ ‘ . \ ,----------•1_ 1- -----1-' - - -457- -•:- ..., '•-. - -•L -, - _LP06.,..Cil _...' 9 , L, . ___..,„.., ÷ •"•...,„__, I , . ,,, 1 ,0.)., ,, /, / , . i, / / ...., ,, ,,.. , ..„, \00 / i , , . , „.•. .............._ /.., „.,.. ...,... ......_.. I ' I ! iCk. ,,,6• . k -:-..0, / I 1 / . / . 1 \ , \ ( 'V?h i i . • \ t N\\., „,,,-- • . v ., \ , .I ,i, -... -9-8- ...,,. • .1 \ • .., .. .. I - .,101 -11:•• I '+,! .•.'" ' \ . ,.' . „ 1 1 . ( 1 1 .., • illf•# \ \ ....4;\ IP\ 3 t i , \ 1 i \ le 44 ) ! ‘, c3\•., • s'-'—',, 4 •-. \ yr. 3 t'.3•01%\\ 1-5;,,. s' -,... t 1 \ i/ 41 A 0;, \ - • Gt. ,:.',-, •,,a," -,. 2011 purple code Mound Design www.SepticResource.com (vers 15.2) Property Owner: Stonewood LLC. Date: 6/18/2018 Site Address: Proposed Lot 5 PID: 0211723230006 Comments: Site A instructions: =enter data = adjust if desired = computer calculated - DO NOT CHANGE! >) 5 bedroom Type I Residential System 2) 750 GPD design flow 3) Yes Garbage disposal or pumped to septic 50%larger tank with multiple comp/tanks 4) 2250 Gal Septic tank (code minimum) 2250 Gal Septic tank (design size / LUG req'd) Tank options: none s) 1.2 GPD/ft2 mound sand loading rate contour loading rate of 12 req's a min 62.5 ft. long rockbed 6) 10.0 ft rockbed width 62.5 ft rockbed length 7) 3.0 ft lateral spacing 3.0 ft perforation spacing (maximum of 3 for both) end feed manifold connection s) 3 laterals 60.5 feet long 21.0 perfs / lateral 63 perfs total (1/2 a perf means the first perf starts at the middle feed manifold) 9) 7/32 inch perfs at 1 feet residual head gives 0.56 gpm flow rate per perforation for this perf size£t spacing, Et pipe size on line 12, max perfs/lateral= 30 , line#8 must be less --> OK iii) 4.0 doses per day (4 minimum) t) 188 gallons per dose (treatment volume) 2.00 5x 12) 2.00 inch diameter laterals must be used to meet"4x pipe volume" requirement 2.00 3x )3) feet of 2.0 inch supply line leads to ##### gallons of drainback volume (Tip: "top feed"manifold to control the drainback) 14) ######gallons TOTAL pump out volume (treatment+drainback) u) feet vertical lift from pump to mound laterals, leads to a: )6) 36 GPM @ ##### feet of head, Pump requirement (note: >50gpm may require an extra 3-6'of head) 17) 750 gal Dose tank (code minimum) 1250 gal Dose tank (design size / LUG req'd) at 25.49 gpi leads to a 18) ###### inch swing on Demand float, or timed dosing of ##### min ON (confirm pump rate with drawdown (this delivers Average flow, =70%of Peak design flow) ##### hrs OFF test and adjust as necessary) 19) 12 inches from bottom of tank to"Pump OFF"float 2U) ###### inches from bottom of tank to"Pump ON"float, or 12 inches to"Timer ON"float if time dosed 21) ###### inches from bottom of tank to"Hi Level"float, or ##### inches to "Hi Levet"float if time dosed 22) ###### gallons reserve capacity (after High Level Alarm is activated) 23) 0.45 gpd/ft2 Absorption area Soil Loading Rate, which gives a mound ratio of 2.7 (minimum) (this must match the soil boring log) desired mound ratio 2.7 24) 15 percent site slope (0-20%range) 15 (%downslope site slope, if different than upslope) 25) 22 inches, or 1.8 ft. to Redox or other limiting condition (need at least 12"to be a Type I) Treatment zone contains 0 inches of 0%soil credit, and 0 inches of 50%soil credit. Giving a: 26) 14 inch, or 1.2 ft. Sand Lift Mound CRITICAL FOR FUTURE CERTIFICATIONS!!! 27) 27.0 ft.Totat ABSORPTION width (with sand beyond rockbed as follows:) 228) 0.0 ft. upstope and sidestope 17.0 ft. Downslope Individual slope ratios give BERM widths (topsoil beyond rockbed) of: 29) 4:1 upslope ratio 8 ft. upslope berm 30) 4:1 sideslope 19 ft. sidestope berms 3n 3:1 downslope 36 ft. downslope berm 3.5-1 32) Overall Dimensions: 10.0 ft. wide by 62.5 ft. long Rock bed 54 ft. wide by 101 ft. long Mound footprint 4" inspection pipe 18" cover on top <Upslope berm 8 a Downslope berm 36 111.111.1.11111111111111111.1111111.11111111 !1�� 12" cover on sides (6"loamy cap&6"topsoil) 111 111 1.2 Clean sand lift 1.8 Depth to Limiting Absorption Width _ Note:_ Far O to 1% slopes, Absorption Width is measured from the Bedequatly in both directions. For slopes >1%, Absorption Width is measured downhill from the upslope edge of the Bed 33) Rock Bed: 10.0 ft. by 62.5 ft. by 6 inches under pipe, plus 20%gives 21 yd'or*1.4= 29 ton 34) Mound Sand: (note:volume is based on 3:1/4:1 slope from top of rockbed, Exchange sand for loamy cap if desired) 19.9 up + 130.6 downslope + 19.9 ends+ 44.4 under rock= 297 yd3 or*1.4= 416 ton plus 20% 35) Loamy Cap: 50 ft. by 97 ft. 6"deep, plus 20%gives 108 yd'or*1.4= 151 ton 36) Topsoil: 54 (ft. by 101 ft. 6"deep, plus 20%gives 121 yd'or*1.4= 169 ton I hereby c tify that I have completed this work in accordance with all applicable ordinances, rules and laws. Rusty Olson"s Soil Et Perc 810 6/18/2018 esigner Signature Company License# Date 2011 purple code Mound Design www.SepticResource.com (vers 15.2) Property Owner: Stonewood LLC. Date: 6/16/2018 Site Address: Proposed Lot 5 PID: 0211723230006 Comments: Site B instructions: =enter data =adjust if desired = computer calculated - DO NOT CHANGE! )) 5 bedroom Type I Residential System 2) 750 GPD design flow 3) Yes Garbage disposal or pumped to septic 50% larger tank with multiple comp/tanks 4) 2250 Gal Septic tank (code minimum) 2250 Gal Septic tank (design size / LUG req'd) Tank options: none 5) 1.2 GPD/ft2 mound sand loading rate contour loading rate of 12 req's a min 62.5 ft. long rockbed 6) 10.0 ft rockbed width 62.5 ft rockbed length 7) 3.0 ft lateral spacing 3.0 ft perforation spacing (maximum of 3 for both) end feed manifold connection 8) 3 laterals 60.5 feet long 21.0 perfs / lateral 63 perfs total (1/2 a perf means the first perf starts at the middle feed manifold) 9) 7/32 inch perfs at 1 feet residual head gives 0.56 gpm flow rate per perforation for this perf size it spacing, ft pipe size on line 12, max perfs/lateral= 30 , line#8 must be less --> OK 10) 4.0 doses per day (4 minimum) II) 188 gallons per dose (treatment volume) 2.00 5x 12) 2.00 inch diameter laterals must be used to meet"4x pipe volume" requirement 2.00 3x )3) feet of 2.0 inch supply line leads to #####gallons of drainback volume (Tip: "top feed"manifold to control the drainback) 14) ######gallons TOTAL pump out volume (treatment+drainback) )5) feet vertical lift from pump to mound laterals, leads to a: )6) 36 GPM G ##### feet of head, Pump requirement (note: >50gpm may require an extra 3-6'of head) 17) 750 gal Dose tank (code minimum) 1250 gal Dose tank (design size / LUG req'd) at 25.49 gpi leads to a 18) ###### inch swing on Demand float, or timed dosing of ##### min ON (confirm pump rate with drawdown (this delivers Average flow, =70%of Peak design flow) ##### hrs OFF test and adjust as necessary) 19) 12 inches from bottom of tank to"Pump OFF"float 20) ###### inches from bottom of tank to"Pump ON"float, or 12 inches to"Timer ON"float if time dosed 2)) ###### inches from bottom of tank to "Hi Level"float, or ##### inches to"Hi Level"float if time dosed 22) ######gallons reserve capacity (after High Level Alarm is activated) 133) 0.45 gpd/ft2 Absorption area Soil Loading Rate, which gives a mound ratio of 2.7 (minimum) (this must match the soil boring log) desired mound ratio 2.7 24) 15 percent site slope (0-20%range) 15 (%downslope site slope, if different than upslope) 25) 14 inches, or 1.2 ft. to Redox or other limiting condition (need at least 12"to be a Type I) Treatment zone contains 0 inches of 0%soil credit, and 0 inches of 50% soil credit. Giving a: 26) 22 inch, or 1.8 ft. Sand Lift Mound CRITICAL FOR FUTURE CERTIFICATIONS!!! 27) 27.0 ft.Total ABSORPTION width (with sand beyond rockbed as follows:) 28) 0.0 ft. upslope and sideslope 17.0 ft. Downslope Individual slope ratios give BERM widths (topsoil beyond rockbed)of: 29) 4:1 upslope ratio 10 ft. upslope berm 30) 3:1 sideslope 16 ft. sideslope berms 31) 3:1 downslope 41 ft. downslope berm 32) Overall Dimensions: 10.0 ft. wide by 62.5 ft. long Rock bed 61 ft. wide by 95 ft. long Mound footprint 4" inspection pipe 18" cover on top Upslope berm 10 Downslope berm 41 12 cover on sides (6"loamy c " il) 1.8 := Z6Z 1.2 ing Limiting Condition _ ____ ___�____ _ Absorption Width — Note For O to 1%slopes, Absorption Width is measured from the Bedequally in both directions. For slopes >1%, Absorption Width is measured downhill from the upslope edge of the Bed. 33) Rock Bed: 10.0 ft. by 62.5 ft. by 6 inches under pipe, plus 20%gives 21 yd3 or*1.4= 29 ton 34) Mound Sand: (note: volume is based on 3:1/4:1 slope from top of rockbed, Exchange sand for loamy cap if desired) 31.9 up + 170.8 downslope + 20.9 ends+ 59.8 under rock= 340 yd3 or*1.4= 476 ton plus 20% 351 Loamy Cap: 57 ft. by 91 ft. 6"deep, plus 20%gives 115 yd3 or*1.4= 161 ton 36) Topsoil: 61 ft. by 95 ft. 6"deep, plus 20%gives 129 yd'or*1.4= 181 ton I hereby cer ' that I have completed this work in accordance with all applicable ordinances, rules and laws. Rusty Olson"s Soil& Perc 810 6/16/2018 signer Signature Company License# Date Soil Observation Log www.SepticResource.com vers 12.4 Owner Information Property Owner/project: Stonewood LLC Date 6/20/2018 Property Address/PID: Proposed Lot 5 PID# 021172323000 Soil Survey Information ❑refer to attached soil survey Parent matl's: [l Till ❑Outwash ❑ Lacustrine ❑Alluvium ❑ Organic ❑ Bedrock landscape position: ['Summit ❑ Shoulder 0 Side slope ❑Toe slope soil survey map units: L41 C2 L22E slope 15 % direction-Linear-convex Soil Log#1 [] Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 991.0 Depth to SHWT 24 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-6 Topsoil <35 10yr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 6-16 Sandy clay Loam <35 10yrS/4 Friable Strong Blocky 16-24 Loamy Sand <35 10yr6/4 Friable Moderate Granular 24-28 Loamy Sand <35 10yr6/4 10y4/8,1-6/10y Friable Moderate Granular 28-36 Loam <35 2.5y6/4 10y4/8,1-6/10y Firm Strong Blocky Comments: Proposed Lot 5 PID#0211723230006 Soil Log#2 EJ Boring ❑Pit Elevation 990.8 Depth to SHWT 22 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-8 Topsoil <35 10yr3/1 Friable Moderate Blocky 8-16 Loam <35 10yr4/3 Friable Strong Blocky 16-22 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 22-30 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/10y Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain 35 50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive Proposed Lot 5 PID#0211723230006 Soil Log#3 Q Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 983.9 Depth to SHWT 14 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-4 Topsoil <35 10yr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 4-14 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 14-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/10y Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain 35 50 friable weak granular blocky; >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35 50 friable weak granular blocks >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive 1 hereby certi,f'this work was completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local rear's. Rusty Olson's Soil & Perc 810 esigner Signature Company License 4 Proposed Lot 5 PID# 0211723230006 Soil Log#4 Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 979.8 Depth to SHWT 14 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-4 Topsoil <35 10yr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 4-14 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 14-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/10y Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35 50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive Proposed Lot 5 PID#0211723230006 Soil Log#5 [l Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 990.8 Depth to SHWT X inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-8 Topsoil <35 10yr3/l Friable Moderate Blocky 8-16 Clay Loam <35 10yr4/3 Friable Strong Blocky 16-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 Firm Strong Blocky 24-30 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive I hereby certify this work was completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local req's. ��� Rusty Olson's Soil &Pere 810 esigner Signature Company License# Soil Observation Log www.SepticResource.com vers 12.4 Owner Information Property Owner/project: Stonewood LLC Date 6/20/2018 Property Address/PID: Proposed Lot 5 PID#021172323000 Soil Survey Information ❑refer to attached soil survey Parent matl's: 0 Till ❑ Outwash ❑ Lacustrine ❑Alluvium ❑ Organic Q Bedrock landscape position: ❑Summit ❑Shoulder Li Side slope ❑Toe slope soil survey map units: L41C2 L22E slope 15 % direction-Linear-convex Soil Log#6 ❑., Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 980.0 Depth to SHWT 14 inches Depth(in) Texture fragment% matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-4 Topsoil <35 10yr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 4-14 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 14-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/10y Firm Strong Blocky �J5 loose loosC single grain 35 50 friable weak granular blocky firm rm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive loose loose <35 friable single grain 35_50 weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic plate rigid strong massive omments: 1 Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 8:45 A.M. On 6/27/18 Location: Proposed lot 5 PID#0211723230006 Hole number: 2 Date hole was prepared: 6/26/18 Depth of hole bottom 12" inches, Diameter of hole_6" inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-8 Topsoil 10yr3/1 8-12 Loam 10yr4/3 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6/26/18 depth of initial water filling 12 inches above the hole bottom Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least 4 hours Automatic Siphon Maximum water depth above hole bottom during tests 6 inches Time Time Depth Drop in H2O Perc Rate 10:09 10:24 6" 3.1 4.9 10:29 10:44 6" 3.0 5.0 10:47 11:02 6" 3.0 5.0 AVERAGE PERC. RATE 4.9 MPI Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 8:45 A.M. On 6/27/18 Location: Proposed lot 5 PID#0211723230006 Hole number: 3 Date hole was prepared: 6/26/18 Depth of hole bottom 12"_inches, Diameter of hole_6" inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-4 Topsoil 10yr4/2 4-12 Clay Loam 10yr5/4 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6/26/18 depth of initial water filling 12 inches above the hole bottom Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least 4 hours Automatic Siphon Maximum water depth above hole bottom during tests 6 inches I Time Time Depth Drop in H2O Perc Rate 10:10 10:25 6" 1.1 13.6 10:28 10:43 6" 1.1 13.6 10:48 11:03 6" 1.1 13.6 AVERAGE PERC. RATE 13.6 MPI Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 8:45 A.M. On 6/27/18 Location: Proposed lot 5 PID#0211723230006 Hole number: 4 Date hole was prepared: 6/26/18 Depth of hole bottom 12"_inches, Diameter of hole 6" inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-4 Topsoil 10yr4/2 4-12 Clay Loam 10yr5/4 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6/26/18 depth of initial water filling 12 inches above the hole bottom Method used to maintain at least 12 inches of water depth in hole for at least 4 hours Automatic Siphon Maximum water depth above hole bottom during tests 6 inches ' Time Time Depth Drop in H2O Perc Rate 1 10:11 10:26 6" 1.3 11.5 10:27 10:42 6" 1.3 11.5 10:49 11:04 6" 1.3 11.5 AVERAGE PERC, RATE 11.5 MPI 110 PC Exhibit E LA18-000062 Conservation Designl r' Analysis imio!! ... .,,,--,,,,,,,,,m ,,,,,..,..., ,?0,4 5 „ ,r; ,, t ,,4. ,,.. „. . _,....., '°*-!,,t.';''' ...4*. ' ''''”' y t �, ton wood LLC `"" 40 Ll 1 ttt•iYr`i" t ` 1-4-t.,,''''' a# 1 r +44 T y,' K P�' v u sit a,.f h• j a 4, p t ,� ' ,fes i �. s � ♦T '�` .11;44.4..r yv•" � 5 5.a ,.is r.�� t§' ti f ..�„� `", , �t , ` � 387 Orono Orchard Road ., e y, M s - n u pi nMinnesota a. 'f. ciy7 to ) t • , - 'Yly� by• 1 `F X yt �'' �y� t f`,5 _ • .6�." `i ,,r -,... •t X-vuil�,; * s }',11.,_,1'4'; ' kc.'�, ' ,, °�1} ''' 1 9 'f, y� c2,� k\?tjt '�T�py i Fes, t NPf E Y, Iy Xt f' '+`r r qd b ,�t(id 3• �k Y t 1 f i ,T rya ., ; 4 1 i ,,,A41-',-is s it OA 7 s 1 .iii $4.--::4000.- ‘,,,, No..i. ,,,,._,,,,,,,,,,,,,t4,0/ ,,,,‘,-..,:_.I, ..,.,.-,--,,,,,I,,t..,,,..:1 . „..i,,.,.. ,, , .4,....„ 4 '''''07 I 'P 4 ''i i 0.1 ''''" ' - ..N...' ".- , ‘ .. 1 *.t.'',1.; .-,,,'N',. ytt..' ...\\ ' 7 c.}+i , +,cIt _ ` ft 1 ., , ,, )At, %.,..,,,- ' I;I:',"\;./'I 1 ' . ' ,-****X ' ' 4\,e'**- � i , y • w }fir. .` i r r t�. 3 • �t P 54 4 ' lym ''h, Minnesota 5 41 " - �'= KK, 763-412-4000 Main 763-412-409 Fax ._ e . li.";'''f"' Jai` r# 'Y _ • , �L- ` �-"'"7„,,',,,k7;42..:,,,' a rvic*1).t1;.'•-Disabled Vetera # `ne 'Small Busin=ss STONEWOOD, LLC CONSERVATION DESIGN ANALYSIS Table of Contents Contact Information 2 Summary 3 Background 4 1. Rural Oasis Study 6 2. Natural Resource Inventory 7 3. Conservation Design Master Plan 12 4. Density & Performance Bonuses 12 5. Long-Term Preservation & Buyer Education 13 Conclusion 13 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD ORONO, MN .LUNE 2018 1 STONEWOOD, LLC CONSERVATION DESIGN ANALYSIS Contact Information Prepared For: Stonewood, LLC 153 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 J. Sven Gustafson Phone: 952-930-3000 Email: sven@stonewood.com Prepared By: Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC 13605 1st Avenue North Suite 100 Plymouth, MN 55441 Phone: (763) 412-4000 Fax: (763) 412-4090 Website: www.ae-mn.com Ben Hodapp, PWS Environmental Group Lead Phone: 763-412-4005 Email: bhodapp@ae-mn.com 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD ORONO, MN JUNE 2018 2 STONEWOOD, LLC CONSERVATION DESIGN ANALYSIS Summary ELEMENT ��& ' � `��` ��� ?��`'�� ;� ^' m*� Rural Oasis Study None Not adjacent to City documented corridor. Construction of the cul-de-sac will overlay the existing road and no new connection to Orono Orchard Road and associated vegetation clearing is required. Landcover Minor Will likely convert mapped"Forest'and"Planted or Cultivated Vegetation" categories to "Artificial Surface and Associated Areas". Existing forest is dominated by black walnut,spruce,elm,ash,white pine,cedar,tamarack, maple, basswood, and oak trees,with no cultivation present. Trees Minor Tree clearing is required and will be limited to areas necessary for development. Rare Plants None Site has history of significant disturbance and consequently does not contain rare plants,nor suitable habitat to support rare plants.Additionally, recent wetland field survey did not report observations of rare plants. Wetland None No impacts to wetland resources are planned. The appropriate wetland buffer width will be incorporated into any future development plans. Buffers None Establishes 40 to 75-foot average width buffer around each of the three project site wetlands and provides formal protection via recorded declaration providing significant ecological community and water quality benefits. Existing Drainage Positive Maintains existing drainage to receiving water (Lake N1innotonko) resulting in protection and enhancement of drainageways. Stormwater Positive Provides two filtration basins along the north and south sides of the Management proposed cul-de-sac resulting in protection and enhancement of water quality. Greenways/Open Minor Preserves approximately 2.25 acres of wetland and corresponding Space vegetated wetland buffer resources,to include limiting the number of trees cleared and maximizing greenways/open space within the project site, thereby resulting in protection of the ecological community and its integrity Views Minor A vegetated stormwater infiltration basin located north of the proposed cul-de-sac may be seen from Orono Orchard Road; however, views from the road are not significantly impacted. Landmarks None Project will not impact local area landmarks. City of Orono Conservation Ordinance Requirements Analysis: 1( 1. Protection and enhancement of drainageways and water quality 1 2. Protection and enhancement of ecological communities 1 3. Reinforcement and establishment of ecological connections throughout the city 1 4. Augmentation and preservation of viewsheds including corridor enclosure and buffering 1 5. Preservation of views 1 6. Preservation or reinterpretation of local landmarks 387 ORON0 ORCHARD ROAD Onomo, MN JUNE 2018 3 STONEWOOD, LLC CONSERVATION DESIGN ANALYSIS Background Stonewood, LLC is proposing development of Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Smith Dettloff Addition (PID: 0211723230006), (Project Site) generally located at 387 Orono Orchard Road South in Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The proposed development would result in five residential lots (Figure 1) which meet the intent and requirements of the City of Orono's Conservation Design ordinance. The Ordinance is meant to preserve and enhance the ecological and aesthetic character of the community by requiring: 1. Protection and enhancement of drainageways and water quality 2. Protection and enhancement of ecological communities 3. Reinforcement and establishment of ecological connections throughout the city 4. Augmentation and preservation of viewsheds including corridor enclosure and buffering 5. Preservation of views 6. Preservation or reinterpretation of local landmarks I r ''1 flit 1 /'%..� �' e --...,....�a.r d' . ' ti `11 Or t.L U Ik.AN 1 0_ r Aw l.kti: ., u n c :,.'", _ , " -.. , !�/. ,' r I Ity�$i s;,---- :---,,,„,,,,,,,;;;;,,,,,,,,,,:,,::k c,.� . .. ` "r,�•+O. %Fi* 44._ , t� -'/- ��"'�_-'��.'•, 11,,,,, -.,,--..=c_ �1 , �-`�' �. SAI `rJ.,� /� , . /_� �_ `� sl , `_ .� . � . `t ' IN•14� v 1 f �,/,. r / ,.-_ \oy�, / # ! !•� .�� f ' r rl /r 1, i 14 �s . ,. ..,,,,_ \-, sio, , .- r. , I \ ,, 1 \ 41,— .5,,,, , --/ ,,,, ik, t /7,7/ , , 1 ... ), _, ,, , „ x ,, /fir a jy / 1 10: , -..,... --.00,-4 "el Il 7 �\{; / +r Ya! , V f4, ,�✓, /: r, tr PIT -Iwit\\ xY/ ., '7,11--e''—....-/<:: l /� /' .i ,s , 1 V dielr,i9','/ '/ •,rye 0 \Ir it ,ii, ,,,.. iii.:7,.„. , , \\I ,,, ., 4" , ..... ,/ Ago :,;,,,,,,, -,,./,/ , 1 , . 1,0 / /..;°, /////' '‘) 1 ' -N ‘ r c-4'411'1' 4,1/ '1,//:/ ' i / y l'• 0 ca I ..mi I , 1: t r �,^ rt/ d' / / 1 — —r7/ # i 'I1 t 1 r i,, . / r / I i If / i I / �� 1 i IJ il 1 - fgs ii t/'1 111;11,' r l'// �/ { 11 ::f 01, ! jl . %• '/ Ai / 1 0 I f 1111 1 1 oil..;. - yl/t d/ .,';, /, r; i`r ( � 1 \! 11 1,1 1 1 1i , j� r h 1jt,/,,,,/ 1/'11 1:1\1\:1111‘ I a if 1 1 i1— .. 41,-/.i,l '1 I 1 v I t t ..*'/' rr /' Figure 1. Proposed five lot subdivision plan. 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD ORONO, MN JUNE 2018 4 STONEWOOD, LLC CONSERVATION DESIGN ANALYSIS The project site has been developed as a single family residential home with landscaped features as early as 1940. Land use has not significantly changed up to present day. .,,,,,..i,-', i n R ,-;4'1'. yl ; .,.....;;:„.4 , .4. ..,, ,:tt, ::, ' .4 r{ � ; , 4. Y ,I J . ,• � ' 1 ' s -.1c- _ y./�'�yj�,r _ ip�r•,t - `k-y aw • f.4 T' t '` . ., F # cf •. 3= £ r / h•RP •_.' :'4F`'a.� y ,i° r ` 's. 2015 Aerial Photo 1953 Aerial Photo The Project Site is currently characterized as predominantly upland area vegetated by a forest stand dominated by black walnut, spruce, elm, ash,white pine, cedar,tamarack, maple, basswood, and oak trees. Three wetlands are present on the site and are vegetated by duck weed, willow, dogwood, cattail, sedge, ivy, and various grasses. Additional wetland discussion is presented in the Natural Resources Inventory section, below. 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD ORONO, MN JUNE 2018 5 STONEWOOD, LLC CONSERVATION DESIGN ANALYSIS 1. Rural Oasis Study The Project Site is north of the Fox Street corridor documented int the City of Orono's 2005 Rural Oasis Study. Each of the five lots will be accessed by a single cul de sac that will be connected to Orchard Road. The access road will be sited along an existing road and will run along the project site contours, thus limiting adverse views of the cul-de-sac. Vegetation along the Orono Orchard Road viewshed will be preserved, thus maintaining the rural character and environmental health of the City of Orono. Mgr � ...,., . �- - ritilif Fil I, ko'-' 1 416101, t • i ' ��v I B:CR 6 west 7 ` �� � au �� �_ d 1C''''.r",,,,-,1,741,a1�+ A:CR 6 east .sseis. :is ,/,) fie* �: 4 i� C:Highway 12 q 1 w�w�t a 1 Q� 44 d �rk I 1 _ r v City of q�°`I `�' J o t i� -i Long Lake 4t A t :' ill ■ r iiii Wad �I , I, ,1 _ .�,,:1.� 1 1 , ', 1` t'�'i-4 t; _ K ss C o II Q, , 3 _ @ astu6 Bay , :-. nom_ ]nr�. .� , „o 441r- ` � i s '4 o �� " 1II y 1_ ''�• H:Fox I ` Site Location �'Il . "a,"ri'°'y '1 IF .�101: �} .--..t•\!. t . Y }' 6 I • �i 1 aim..M E. �+"�a. I511 a,'t- Yr smNh F�^i\ � iii "; , g�,IY ��TM, J North Shore y� r Figure 2. Rural Oasis Analysis Corridors 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD ORONO, MN JUNE 2018 6 STONEWOOD, LLC CONSERVATION DESIGN ANALYSIS 2. Natural Resource Inventory A. MLCCS Land Cover Classification The City of Orono- Land Cover Classification and Natural Resource Inventory(2006) identifies the Project Site landcover class as Level 2000 — Planted or Cultivated Vegetation and 3000 — Forests. More specifically, Hennepin County Natural Resources map identifies vegetation as Maple Basswood Forest, Oak Forest with 51-75% Impervious Cover, Short grasses with sparse tree cover on upland soils, and cattail marsh. No cultivation is present at the project site. Land Cover Classification - Level 3 City of Orono Land Cover Classification and Natural Resources Inventory 7.61"-:.': . i ►elli , a�' } 8-',L',--.10...„-- ,.. _44,..r. c.`... 4iv , _ .,,L. qi.I. 1:. .roti. +.1� ,, ,1*, r 1w '_h "' !d 14 :it's t ■i' Ayyi •'a�3-1� 'it _� j,. i.-' 'A4<.. roar o ft'► .r:iii"gr,'� i ltimik- -•'•t.- 1 . •A e�"1sr+, Itf i�?`;w,••, ;fp 5;',1 1• ,. „, . II-reit a gait 1:,,417j1#x. �A /+ arm= w B j .tv �1q�'`14`J ni i llfi !!!. }�4e`_, .Y'' `ie 11 __ t 1 FI t.i.;;11-3 k1 K,i •, r ,q 11.7' •► Kt' 1 ,0� f .1• R'. imp 4,10..-4,....f; ''4 .• ji, Pnw y r t t s.• rr t4' U/ IV; r;..:%,,,,n-lin 1f' lq r:� v-� i 'i {-mss.. •• ..r....,! 1►4!-- ,-,;...4.,,.rt 11s 4' ► A r t ' ' ,,..31-4.-- tii j N `"y .... watt. I; t r" . r , t ' , _' Site Location 140:it i? 4iiiik. ii 4 4 if) ...Am: Ar . , ,)J „ ' . :...r....-H'''''::.',.. •44'.:..‘If;r:111°'?:''''''.:L4illi;:11i 4:' 0,- • -.4,.. -c-. e L:e ' .1.k. '411 4 Aci , 4 r--- ,....z.,, ,,,4 414'bi'' -a ,. IA, Legend petty Boundary 11E40000 woo0lano -50000 Shnubland 'Cdor Caiegooes kr Level 3 Lauf Cover Class.focaopo Q 60000 FFe1t a[au5 D 7.2.'ti!I 4,500 5.D00 70000 I case 1IFeet EJ 10000 ArWi a1 Surfaces and Associated Areas 111.80000 Sparse Vegefason 1 inch equals 4.500 feet J 2 000 Planted or Cultara4ed Vegetation 11111 90000 water -30000 Forests Figure 3. Land Cover Classification 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD ORONO, MN .LUNE 2018 7 STONEWOOD, LLC CONSERVATION DESIGN ANALYSIS B. Tree Survey A tree survey was completed as part of the property survey and is included in Appendix A. The tree survey identified black walnut, spruce, elm, ash, white pine, cedar, tamarack, maple, basswood, and oak trees having a maximum 50-inch diameter at breast height(DBH). C. Wetland Inventory A wetland delineation completed May 2018 by Jacobson Environmental, PLLC identifies three wetlands listed in the table below. Boundary approval is pending review by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Wetland ID Type, 14; . Notes' _ , Basin 1 5—Shallow, Open-water Duckweed Basin 2 1/6—Seasonally Flooded Slender willow, reed canary grass,gray dogwood Basin/Shrub-Carr Basin 3 3/7—Shallow Wooly sedge, narrowleaf cattail, reed canary marsh/hardwood swamp grass, box elder, green ash. cr Basin 2 '106, ^y, 0.0223 acres cs cy Basin 1 4 0.227 acres Sro gA6 9R 958 ggti X92 Off' 584A rn c;-)55 b046i1 �0 1r > 6 O 02 p 4 E Basin 3 2 acres S71 Map layers NSamPio_p nnepfn cnunty_percek co contour_2!3m 0 .02 .04 .00 Miles Wetland Boundary Figure 4. Wetland Delineation The City of Orono code of ordinances defers wetland jurisdiction to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Average wetland buffer widths for wetland basin 1 and 3 is 75 feet, with a 65-foot minimum applied buffer. Wetland basin 2 has an average buffer width of 40 feet, with a 34-foot minimum applied buffer.The appropriate buffer width will be maintained,as District rules 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD ORONo, MN JUNE 2018 8 STONEWOOD, LLC CONSERVATION DESIGN ANALYSIS and local site conditions dictate. Additionally, the buffer will require permanent monuments signifying the existence and location of the buffer. D. Topographic Survey (Drainage) The Grading and Site Plan indicates that the Project Site generally ranges from a topographic high of 1010 feet to a low of 960 feet (wetland basin 3 water level). The existing drainage is generally overland flow toward one of two wetlands and ditched wetland that drains to an unnamed tributary to Lake Minnetonka.The grading and site plan proposes modest grading (red circles in Figure 5) and installation of two stormwater infiltration basins (red arrow in Figure 5). Infiltration basins as well as the previously noted base wetland buffer width will mitigate water quality received by the unnamed tributary to Lake Minnetonka. � ; • ! I/ A. /t /+Il11jI1 ,d �tC'. „•„ " wis / ,, r _ t/..t. '- ti \ .w —'dg/ / , 7 1 ' y /0' / ; V 1 I 1s, " -- �— ts^- t I �•" +I�I `�� al I ._,•-- - / I `� ' 1 1� ' tilt' ", � , l, - _� g- V•.'/. !f/7'>. i,//1 rr� lr j� , ~�'92��� I 1 4+k�� � ---74.4/ ��� 1 ���r� ' _ '� ,, <,____..._,,, -� - -/_t!X -�/ '."� .a., S q^ f /�r a40 1 L �'"Y A /'fit ti-..-✓` • . � / .,71/ • �ie � ✓ k C-.. 1"i/���j'a ,-',_ .„ ,-^, � .+i.., /11, ���" \ . •. \ I A Ople • .fel.' ' „:"4.-- ' A/.i:001 N„,„. itt,.,/, • I,' I - ,tet Ifni v I \N. .. / ' -F F."ibboosaosci AC-WL ♦- vi / - /" I 4014 3'7 ��rrtw9tr rx ., S-Y/ `i ���a` {{ // // // / /�•it/ + W �.;Meiwietto. �// ' ,r /,, / + I /, , / I r i- I 1 .. '�+ '> , r it a /.,,,. ..«:... ��' trn/ ,; � , 4. \_.� ,/jr tir it i�1'ar!! / frr/ ',I t I I'gatarri 4.��/, / / 11'�I'/,/1,///,// I • illiii /meg 11' III .s �/. ///,////,',/,// s 'I\..., vV 11;,1 1111 11 ///,/ �h ..,11/.;/ %//%/i/1IIt�1 I s �I✓ . II,1 , , or ."//.r :`l,• / / J Figure 5. Grading and Site Plan. Red lines depict proposed area of grading and red arrows show stormwater infiltration basins. 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD ORONO, MN JUNE 2018 9 STONEWOOD, LLC CONSERVATION DESIGN ANALYSIS E. Conceptual Greenways &Open Space Corridors A greenway is defined as privately or publicly owned corridors of open space which often follow natural land or water features and which are primarily managed to protect and enhance natural resources.The City of Orono-Conceptual Greenway Corridor Alignment Map appears to depict the Project Site within mapped conceptual green spaces. It also identifies the Project Site as potentially Other Natural and Semi-Natural Communities. Three wetlands totaling 2.25 acres and associated vegetated buffer resources will be preserved in the design.Additionally,tree and vegetation clearing will be minimized throughout the project site to the extent practical to preserve existing greenways and connections for wildlife. , Conceptual Greenway Corridor Alignment Fs, Cit of Orono Land Cover Classification and Natural Resources Inventory '',`` } 4 - 6q.` # .. �`0. !'7 4 _ *1 ' , - •. .\!` ii:. • -,,4 „e*,:, ,---1,:it \,„, ,';'-is'ilw,.'1:1-',v,'* '',:.,:i.q-THL.,-, qi.,-..-: -.. IN% 1 .."- .....:'r','Itt: ..,' .:1,4,4:4.-- ,___-q,,„ . .r.. 6fr. 6 '"; fie. r , , ' ' %J J Site Location . i ' -,. - t. tin Nr eii. {; x Legend (=city Boundary .';Steen Slope sods rw,,i,n cw.n DNa-Saennkc and Natural Areas ;.a""." ®aegerki Parks Nalurai community Quality Conceptual!aeerway Cce e1ar I d-ligh Quality 111111111111 __Adjacent enenonay CeOk5ors Mediien Quality ii 2.250 4.500 &.ODD Other Natural anti semi,fiatund Corrakni tes eiiiiiiiini Feet —Streams1 inch equals 4.500 deet z:i Existing Welands 100 Year Floodplain Figure 6. Conceptual Greenway Corridors 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD ORONo, MN JUNE 2018 10 STONEWOOD, LLC CONSERVATION DESIGN ANALYSIS F. Existence of Rare Plant Communities The City of Orono-Natural Areas with Potential for Rare Species Map identifies the Project Site as potentially Other Natural and Semi-Natural Communities with no specified potential for rare species. The project site historical use as single family residence and landscaped features amounts to moderate ecological disturbance and consequently does not likely contain rare plants, nor suitable habitat to support rare plants. Additionally, recent wetland field survey did not report observations of rare plants. Natural Areas with Potential for Rare Species City of Orono Land Cover Classification and Natural Resources inventory ° •r 1 • +z y �T y ° Site Location I,. Legend pctyeamr IMcaapunt.t o.twemom.ndaun l v+slpox LwYee toeeeee.ee door 4,tots.tatty, SS ft, ry nnun+ Mina!Camnnekf wdL**own, N:rt rytar, 1.N.D 4,ee de Out M Orb"Morse as Wel Te Wow-fomnMyN ed FY.�r sMiwy YMW tooth Aid�M -VU:.+udw-.+k'yt+si•wydmdr Simme.¢eawt wruefd.uua.d mh �Mudtiwnywrleuvw-u Me Yred.e �At eseoy.*t4y. �WunwaMw was ata,pt A At N.V. MweA,teoe FItA<e,wnnw[gpt 9Ynyn yxamy �e aw se O.omoamyreed.. A*A.dwyal r�wy-><txw>ybmta �,'.Lt�w7 tnPWt sf.IR+ SIM Com maw•xe e.4 oe d 10 bsx Cattnu.* +e..w.�.ermed.d /Irar T..Yws ro-,.m...wow..w, .,«.y:. 0 2,250 4.500 9.000 Feet H Figure 7. Natural Areas with Potential for Rare Species 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD ORONO, MN JUNE 2018 11 STONEWOOD, LLC CONSERVATION DESIGN ANALYSIS G. Need for Proactive Management and Protection Disturbed areas will be stabilized with turf grass seed/sod typical of residential home sites. Stabilization will be accompanied by continued maintenance until fully established and self- sustaining. Additionally, any diseased trees and invasive trees will be addressed on an as needed basis. 3. Conservation Design Master Plan A. Consideration of Existing Drainage 387 Orono Orchard Road preserves existing drainage patterns to Lake Minnetonka. B. Establishment of stormwater management system and methods of phosphorus reduction 387 Orono Orchard Road enhances stormwater collection and treatment through installation of two stormwater infiltration basins. C. Removal of invasive species and diseased trees 387 Orono Orchard Road results in the removal of diseased trees and invasive species on an as needed basis. D. Protection of significant tree stands and mitigation of stands to be impacted 387 Orono Orchard Road proposes to preserve existing significant tree stands. E. Protection of existing wetlands, augmentation of buffers, mitigation of impacts and enhancement of degraded systems 387 Orono Orchard Road will protect existing project site wetlands and their vegetative buffers. F. Justification and mitigation of any negative impact to ecological communities No significant impacts to ecological communities are expected. G. Maintenance of ecological connections 387 Orono Orchard Road is identified by the City of Orono as a conceptual greenway corridor. Tree clearing will be minimized throughout the project site to preserve existing green way corridors and connections to area wildlife. H. Maintenance and protection of existing positive views and mitigation of negative views 387 Orono Orchard Road minimizes grading and clearing of vegetation,thus limited impacts to the views from Orono Orchard Road. I. Preservation or reinterpretation of existing landmarks Project does not impact local community landmarks. 4. Density & Performance Bonuses The project is not requesting any density or performance bonuses. 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD ORONO, MN JUNE 2018 12 STONEWOOD, LLC CONSERVATION DESIGN ANALYSIS 5. Long-Term Preservation & Buyer Education Existing wetland(s) and associated upland buffer(s) will be required to be protected by conservation easement and declarations recorded on the property deeds. The declaration(s) will generally prohibit cultivation, cropping, mowing, fertilizing, and placement of mulch or yard waste, except for periodic cutting or burning that promotes the health of the buffer. Additionally, the buffer will require permanent monuments signifying the existence and location of the buffer. Conclusion The proposed development project located at 387 Orono Orchard Road meets the City of Orono's conservation design standards and results in preservation, significant enhancement and protection of Orono's ecological and aesthetic character. 14z14-PP45 ACA June 21, 2018 Benjamin J Hodapp, PWS Date Environmental Group Lead �.,,--, MN Certified Wetland Delineator#1016 t BENJAMINJ,HODAPP Anderson Engineering of Minnesota,LLC 1. 001832 C> 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD ORONo, MN JUNE 2018 13 APPENDIX A Proposed Development Site Plan Preliminary Plat and Permit Plans r.,-,»e'° 077 000M3NOJS awe,o A.� ,rZ u, � x. .i�Awwn ` 1N3YYd073A30 03©dOdld MY `�.i"'_ f ' a n a x i.r g$ u uj ar w0 u Q ObO8 Otlbht011O ONodO 5 r .A '� c , .rte "gym $ % �'c S wi i‘ `w a n +6 q a e V I 1 \ e I 1 Ii I 1. I i9 $ _/ f%.I 3 + '711 - 1- 40 1h \ `tea fro i . 11$ -� _ � - -"r are t t ,1 0.t.„,,,... r OM155 ' cti i K it te �!l yt 43 4 ‘...4. a ', i n r 1 \\ g I. 1 i6 � Y r G91, 50(. Rb ,it, t p "s 1 ,... SW "1 t r. .. n- I . L yam. � rr 69Vi M»fJ.LU00 N 00 6[9 1 3.,ZS(1100 N _ z I 1 1 b ` j i;-1 YiYdd -, o z k ,"s N $ ::::: PRELIMINARY PLAT AND PERMIT PLANS 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD PROJECT e_,.,. _s-- �1J_ ORONO MN }.@ v1�:�� ' it MRrinar PRohaalonal Sarvlcaa * 4' '$ _ ! 44 kalEngineer COnI11I x - mPa�n a6,Dmam..psmn66�316.TP6, 4 • .. • «ry :. _ of ADAM T PARKER PROJECT AREA `' RCATE 6,20/1.8 EGHn.,,� eLIU Q fitr! e a. • nw +--�6 erten a K r a. o V N A RensgHsmAvnuc ISSUE VICINITY MAP: SCALE NONE. ginZIH C To DIE coNsua TA,nr[ORE O. aCauSNE R,or avE OWNER MO alUSI BE 387 Orono Orchard o IMPORTANT NOTES REGARDING USE OF PROJECT SHEET INDEX Orono,MN 0 ProjZ LEGEND THESE PLAN DOCUMENTS AND ISSUE FOR CONSTRUCTION DATE: SHEET NO. DESCRIPTION (— SPECIFICATIONS xxxxxxCLIENT EXISTING PROPOSED 1 COVER PAGE o CI) TNS■ORK SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WW1. ID 1 PLAN DOCUMENTS.R 2 GRADING AND SITE PLAN NCWDING ALL MEETS ASSSHOWN(04 N TIE NOD.AND LATEST PROJECT ,........—.4- 3 EROSION CONTROL AND SWPPP E "•".55.x' MANUAL AND SPECIFICATIONS K/ECN REFERENCE TIE CURRENT PLN "�'�" 'T�— �yBDN, I..vRi 4 DETAILS-ESC AND SWPPP NOTES rs- � v ' 5 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN i s i PROJECT CONSTRUCTION SHALL ALSO=FON TO REOUIREIEHT3 PROVIDED ,N,......,,N,......,— BY THE MMA AS PMPROGRAM OP TIE ROOD DAMAGE REDUCTION PROM. FOR ® _ CHECKED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CONTACT TE PROJECT OWNER PIDOR TO ——•— CONSTRUCTION. E CONTRACTOR ALL BE RESPONSWLE TO OBTAN ............ -- ALL — — ATP TSH REOUNED DOCUMENTS MD SP6Fl0ATNNS PRIOR TO COMMENCING YAWN. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO REPORT ANY APPARENT ERRORS OR —aFan SURVEY INFORMATION ^^C•Hp^R . H .DR. sPEC,.D OMSSKNS PRIOR TO ENDOW OR COMMENCNG WORK ....sm'. ® inTHE PIAN DOMONTS ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DESIRN/BN/BURD ...... 0 ALL ELEVATION INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS PROCESS.WINE THE DOCUMENTS MAY CONTAIN CRITICAL DESIGN ARE TO NAVDBB UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. DATA wavxv.w..0 PADms o \ INFORMATION,ADDIRDIUL FIELD ADJUSTMENTS OR REVISIONS MAY OCOMR COLLECTION OF FCOSTING TOPOGRAPHY WAS OBTAINED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. NNE OMEN ROEMER 11E RICHT 112 MARIE FROM SURVEY INFORMATION BY OTHERS. 3 ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS 10 ITEMS 5110101 ON THESE PIANS. i T REzh�"1nEFeuuis �� E 3 /// \\\ \\\\ \ \\ / M-0070 '327 679:90, —— N 0070706' W 235.89 I \ \1\\1Th„c / 180 \ f. 1 \ + ���� \ �\ 735 \\`\\1\\\, \ . \\\ \ \ \�\ / ` -�\ 1 111\I I 1 I \\ \ \ Q� - I Ir ••• ' ��\ +ITI �I I 1 1 1 0 \ \ _ r a om/ i►,`,'�\ I �� o \\\ r(1 1 I I I I I S.\ —--F- ` fib. 0 o N`\ \ \ �� III 1Qs \ \ loo --I--- vxn- JI , 1` N m-\ \�\a\\ i� all \//\ 1. ) I 1 _ yAE A,/ /�,,�� N til\ \ �' II (A.,\\\ \ \,. '�``?\s „,.4,.,,,‘N. ...._ ...L.,... -- , _,„lpi.g.-_-__ -\ 7 r g....„....‹,,,, , ..., -,..__,..._ — \\\,,,,<, . ,,, i„„,,,,,,,,,k N, \ /. ---> 1 ; IF `Rik ,'`4-2.."4. ' S " / -- r...'����<—, - � \�'�\\ \ -'kb f1 y'` - -:-:----------------4----7:-=--- f \ ,24\ __ ,,,,,,......(2,___71:::_:___ \ \0\ i. i. 7' '-i ( VI 1 —\ * /------1 � � �► e ti\ d o I r ' j \ \'+ � R Y�1� \�/ / 4 \ 11 \v \\ \�` 1 \ I I t o/• � I 1 ^ /\I\1I z\ � +$+. :.�„ � z-,,, = � /0/011', ll+ ��``•. \� \\ �\\ I I $'/tel f� %• 1,,, . \ \ \r£-'\\\\\\\\k\h r// / r( /ii c(:: --; ‘ -.• \\ V.:. \''-'\117:—.' lgi F://///' ��\�_ ::,-----:--.2,-,----- \ \� �� 1D N (s l'. _ .x (.�, 1,. of ' \ \> _--g—k/ /)//o, • \ m \ Wit- \ \tea .ti, N.. g , ,s---'„ ,,---,'- '-`,N N N` - .4....... .4ii . A.,,,.. ..: .4.,i , ,-,. N. ,N N .„.„. , , .. ..,. , ,,,,.... ...... , --m N.. . N.- , ,-. . _,, d \ \ \�\ �� �� Q1,,: r o } 44, i •••,,iz‘\ 1,C.Ck N '4:A.,,o's ••••?4, ,,, .1,044,t ,, i Xj � ' � 1 , I \' \\\ � / � \ -- J J I � \:*\;- a — ;, '4' \she S 00705'56' E 818.38 i _, \ Fg\ —T, _.„......-.=� \ - ,, ,.!,1,-...4',\,s,\ _,i.4, s\ \ \ I 7RUN17�� --� Ihf�&HARD—�\ — ,1 '!► \ .\\\\ 0.�n i 1 \\ • \ —,,,,,—• o_Ga88m Ern a 6' .964 ?t al,o ! o zgi 6� A� s� JI Ii€` ogm p. `•0 R 6 .. `;gI :q.,d Ir m 8' a "I S d °,€ii —n 0g �� A € m i (Ial e 5 ! P x s rgm: = Hsi m g ? r ^,P RP, 7 3 P S o P s f s m O e Ha a€ no ;� n =E 1i; 3t ' ' ' W. , m m § � 5^ � nm�m A,m�rm Ip ., a e> `i, =o n 0 • ='gib zi q § � 3o nm eI 9 - __. i i §.€aaP: mz �- ate£.` § rsRz:y I 11 4.�' i� t 4.#gc s Z O ,gy Xt ! 4 \ ; X 1. a',' �� S 1� i " , (g i .4111°. .111i ai€ Y P p- ms""m3 z mF�� y1 a =iI DRAWING NO PpO;8 -STON-01 DGRADING AND SITE PLAN dddMS CINV1081N00 NOIS083 1,o-Nois-91. SIC 31/110N1W080 , ON 133r021d ON ONIMV/30) 'A- 1 F91;;IINV i I HI !nq D';91 '19.•; i Aggni ,c ,2 i ,; ril „., silo .,.2'i- -9.1gx ,....-.1. •/ i i i rN' t digi.ri.k , 1E! 1 a.- • 6 g pl•iiiiti :;4: il ! ML4 ,A.I. I 982,: 0 Z ; illihi!fi A-0 9.,19 ff1-4., ., LI i: i WV§ 5 ii13101" 0 im El i" ' -1 1 E.......85 g r..1%,,, Vs9,.7, s o Sit,,s; biqq 8 - ).2 .ii.11 ir-. •• "C• HAIM mE R : , WAX g P,O.:o ?; g< ! • i i, . . . , \\\N. -• 1•! _ \ GavHD --- ___ONLMID ,\ .`$•:„*AiWZ4i.,.._ ' - •--_., '-'--- \ -- 8E818 , ..\\ Ay; - --..... ..\.--No -- \/ ( /r \ • ...,./.A.. ......-„, &-t..... " ..,' .1/4„._ -:.-- ..-.-....''"-"' '.41, - ---------=,-.--- >4\\\j' "- •I _ -..w..,, ....•,,‘,.., ., . \ t ., ...,‘ ."7 „,-,Nii.ib,.-„,;•.,,,,.....,. \ei::,,, \\ .2,,,,: ..1/4.4. 1 \4\*'• ..s-':IC .''.. -'. -N, i \\t \ . ••, r.. \ il \ ,\c..k. 0 ,.• ,. ...-0 . , k;";, ,.s.'7,-.... .. 4- --'. 0!1• 1TitV•,•' N \ \ N N., Z W \ .______ ________. N x gii'•-c<:): I. ...„.k .2\;,,,..rk...,‘ -- .S.Z.W...NN. ',',' NN.---„,.-: -_-, 0 . ,_-• kr-4,-, r.* ,0...47,k4,.„\:: .,,,,v,,,---s, ..----,,,,,,_„,,. ,, E gt5 6 N. i '":‘` h ',--,_41i#••' '''''' 't4e\N ' . x 1--CL Y a 4').''. Ak ..e7, ./ NI.N....''':', .''' ''''',‘N ',.'N N.,,N Ei H. , s. ...,.... ,,.. of , /, ,.. - ,..... ..„ .. ...... ...„.. cox') 3,2 / ///_•„,01,,,,, s‘, _ .„.--i 1 iv , "...„‘ • ,. k.,_N --"--- ---„------- 6 '7 i/ ---- =:----=•"\ •••+'‘41A t,,..'' c'N.- ‘ ` \ ' '\',-\ ,. .,-,.--...:::----:.:-..--:",,-,,--_-_,--_ ,- FN c., 1 'v,,,. ,i;,-----'---- k4i0 ,Nc: ‘. . ,. 1 . N. \-•.\\``,.-.7-,-,---„----,_---_,-_-_----t-_---,------------- 0//V// - \ ,,.. \V A. \ -..- A A •••• --..-..---,-----,----------,_>-_-,-. -_-----. - EZ n \ 4` *6 - -,-_----,--,z--,---_----------z---- --...---, Lpcx.,' •q/ /// 8,//,/i \\\,\ \\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ ,-...lk:',. )\I'_V_._I'7(./,.,.-V-,\,-, /'4_,I--_-_-_„-,.,-,v0N\.\„ *\\,-,• ,,---_-'--.-,-,--,-------------,----'-------'-::':-\:-.<-:\'-,','---.-,,<ZZ;---;'.-,„-,.-,----3.---.:•--.z.-,..,.,\.•.,:..„,:---.,-..,-,......-`-,.-,.-„.:1.-..-,' , et2.L_„„(,L_- ,,,,,,.„ ,.... ,i„,__\ ____/„.. ......, \ \-;,>•-•.,,,,, 0 • „,, ,I ,,, i ,\ , ,, , .„\ • __ tatis:\.‘ E. .. E , \ .A \ \\ /1,41 ili)),f• ' ,,,k /-•.a,, .i„ ACV/00;g418_\\ 4At••,, 1: 2 ‘/Ii ce \,,,,„\, '.- i , /i?) \ ,t,...\\ - , \______... •: ...• i•-• --r-,..INA4113 ,-s„, c'-'c' CO — i • 'i IV' ' (.3 .--. i._.,1_1,,,)\.---''',1/ -7/ \71,, ', \ ,\ 1 ,-- ,...*._ -•,...,IA, i,,,,0 , I..,gP o_c '-----f---=-----r-'-; -- \ \ \\\\- -- ------.6**4t74 I - lit ‘i \\\ .\• s 0 - ------:' 1. v..N. -"-- ,--:-:-,i- .,---Z---,\\ \ \.., .t,-\ \ , \ , •--/ 1 . .,„, ..,,,,,,_ val `N, N, ' N / /. •••,,„ . v,,ii/ • . , V ,...._----:—----\4,,a,S 4. N—----va :_=-7:-------1--- -—'1'7: ---,,I...,,, -.. \•..."•-_$ No V co _I-LT__,_- -st,-:••• -, N_-A,'S„. t w / /-------1--- -' -' t ' 71)1 1 , / -,-, ...-..„-,.... _ • •\ / •s \ \ / ',;:---S, ,' \N 1, \ \\,\\1q.,\ \ --\N------__ \ co • \\, u_O a Z \\\S's's - 9'I, — \ GHca N _.c.”- _DOW ta \ \ON pc,-7-,1,,,,._:•Z'•..„..--- ..,..',_,:,:::',.„ --:-N---SN;(31..,'\1.,:.1 k( 1 ,1-— ., \ \%\,,...._.,k. :,t,N....(s.„,,,N,,,,., ,5,,,„\\70\\V s\.k.. 1‘\ Ofs.,...,..., C7) N ''.... K -- -<1 ,.. -. ‘... -2.---N. X' -, N.,2'..•NN.,:k•-.N N,-..-.... , ,._ 1 ‘7,,` $1 t 17 `k NN • ,,'-:,'-• ' b. . ., N •-\s'•0',.'",•-•,--= ',-.a< ,,,'Z'-.k22,-.,-, 1 .•%. ,) ,,,, -. -.-'-.:..--z.,,,---:- :s\„, ,- '-„' 1 -,v1,,./- —,44 -, — — ., .//, _ N- •,------ N ----- --k-4,- s••• \,,_,\F 2 , • , .,,, -.-_-_,--'-__•t---,„--'--,.-:-'---,7,,,,,---.-_,-4 1,, ,%.,, ,/,--- \ \ ••••• 1 s \ . /k. \‘ \ •(., -------,,-,----,--.-F,-----_-,..,„-::::-- ,_ ° A -\ \\ ,\ 1 III 11 7 7--- \\ \\\\\\\• 4,,,... "".,,, 7"/-\., 1 , \,.., ----3,-„,----____ <„,,,,,,-,..-,---,-,,,, - s1.9 . ;11,111/(1/ill 7 i r.,7„....;-_.‘,,_'s\•\\,\ \\\\\\\\ : 't l‘1 -\‘-la s -.. -,...--..,•-;,,, A.\,..._ .....-- W i (I , I 11, w. /V\,\\1\\\\Lo\ \-te.\, 1 ',..N /\ \, \ 1, i ‘ 1 _ LI / \h M 4s'1)13 .:\\ \'''.\ • ) i 2 ' s\ N'\' / 1 i I))‘):,1 \\ ' AtrX77 /--- \\\\ il\ \\ \ \, ...\., , j 1 ik..\ \\c-tee,. . ..., • -__,_ --- i ) i ii ii 1 o \\\\ _.., St..,,, \\ J) , ( J) /, ....IL \ , ,,,,,,, ,, \\\\i\\ ----__ \ ,. I a ;,"..,'-"'--:..----.=-----=----;:',,:'--",----- i\ (i I 1 i'I • ' •\ \\,- --•--- --------------— -----I I\ --,:,,-,-._.,--____,\\\\\\s v., 1 ..„. \\ \ N N, . ,- _ , --_-_:_-:_-__--____ ..,„•7//ix, ' ,NA,.,:s 1 1::\\:.,,1; r --:/ .,t. -----: :\-------\-----::\ 22: --- \ _ ,,,2"-,\„.\\ \\\, \ --,,,_...... ...."-. ..NN ---,' / ,--- r*. ,____,----___ ._../ --:-.-"--------- --' \\\\1101 --, \ / 1 / / ---- ------"\--- t• \ \I)IINII'l ,„1 1 v-, ''',.\ \\ — / I I 1 / --_—_—_--—7 - , --. \ \ \ ' 11'/11 H ,- ...,\ ''. 7.- N N / \ \((1 (1— / N.N .'"--- / \ / ----- ---- — \\\ L \, A\\\\'\ . -..., \ \ I '-- '...., -,.. „ — \ \\ \ s \\,\\"\ \ --,.\------- '"'•‘, s • •\, • \ _ss•,•,.. .\-• s].,....,...... II \ \\\\\\ / SKON OS3/ciddMS - SlIV130 [0-Na1S-8 1. Sii7 ON 103/061d ON OW,.., . „ N ... ,. ,• " ; , N ill)! iii1/ .apt ( M l'ag4a -0 ffi 2 5 E'Clii-111 tIH .a „; 2' !RN -5 liliii lt7 tili. e -%15! 441,-.41 li; matillqat ',-.3-1 i alaW§ .°.!12 ll ,t oils !I,14 1 ii5H1 ,1 'flPt, ' g i F6; 8 'a' ...4 iliondif. il 11 ! ri l l• / o v,. .±. !-. '— . i! 10 • ' F i,, 4: ;.: •IWO- g .1!;ii v a• , law , ) ! zl :•..,..1 ll ..14 ;! ; :4#41i. - tt If 2 q H 4411, !li 1[1 H < ii 4 IL[i: 1 1-1 hili11194 " 1 P "'A N. • iii i.i 0 - ,, :::],:•,:t•:•::,' 7 0 'lig w i!ItiilMih ! 7. v I i ,,fi. Pi Al i Ar/AA At! ii F.1 iilt '''ip‘ *L•''‘7.0 i , - ii WIt. i'lit:°:.• . gh 14 0 --- ,,q,,ketat-•" „ il I2 I 1,14111i „I..q i, ':iiiiii3i:i • -E, I 6 -<'j iiMi Aati ! i' 0 Xii 11 t . i ' 4 1 !,,. - io! , 1- , — v 51 Iiii 1 0 ''' 1 Ili fl . ' 0-11 J .7-1i upi . , ip,• 3,, mpi p Al- ,i h, ,t ... !F,. .. gait i._ Itiii.W,11 a 4iik - ;;;Ii it it 0 Oia, 011- il 5, • ' ii 4- E • 04 !.4 v :1,— ' ' 0-_ ;HI ,,\ ::.:: 9: r 2 !ji. Ag ifi 11:fii i!,ea, IV V 1 Ai iicli! 0 ._., .!, 1 I TI , 1. 1,7 i.41!::" ." 1'! a = ,0 14 i \---- •!:-. -."-ia''i il I 4111i 1 i 1 \ iliblqi L—\4r4 tO! , / 14-1: W ' . \ *r:e.-.0 ii PfiPi0 IIji Vif'''' 1Phi;11 il \ Hi It !t141454 i ea 4! !! 1-- r,q'H'!! tee,W M A ON :6Pi. 0 gd!th % !ill 41ni LA i 4 , i i & 4u g '..4 v q .q m gp Vi 4: hil$t r" 1 11 4 ii ii' gil la 1! l!i AN p. i P gP Ili iq il iR! 4!41 pi! i imp mq 1 ..E g 'g' g $2141 ib 1 i ?.g El 0 4 gtE g4 §, gth 41.4 8' 1 4." ii 0 ig - !'„' li gg;g t _ligg 0 $0 e ig e ! iN1 0 i 1 e.0 q ? J.9 q ,q Tgqg , 1 .?,gi iiii; na H '°: i i 1 HIn gi ' PI l' '-1 'Pi '11 N !6 qig WI i aiW.. Hifi I; a 1 g t I NH.; 5,1 i ! L! d V% W Pi 0 hgl MONI ; i i i Uh 'i 'A'' 4.1.10 iPil .',i e! 'i' 5 R ,1 Inii i, ' i 14 11 lil; 1g Ili 0 N, IglOWP !Sli W g"; g ,Ii:q .'i !dh R! R i ,' k Ag IM' 1 1 g 44 0 g vgl qg .4' Eqi q P-$fl1i 14, gg ? ;iSgi4 .'0.! .22- '2 'f ' ,1 ong, i . 45A ,. E. AR ERA EgE 4g WE, ggSgg.tog gi g F r iP15a HO2 q n f ') li ilH$ q 1 41 ° '11 hg5 Tqilil i liN h0 j 10411 49k it r ,i ' ; igh li ! li! H 11 WO 0 W ;11 P4 lli wing qb 5;:ii il dilfl! liN1 ii §1° 1 I 0 Ali! 11 : "t' U q lili 4p W gq Vig 1E2N1hip,,,i1g1, 1 inl 11;4 KA liP° 1; Hilig ° 1;41 4 OW !! li !Ili 411 011 Ht ON 10140thi 10, MI ;1 r1Na ? i Ail m! H;,q§p li 1W k§ ,m .gg ‘. . , „4iagil NV1d INJWJOVNVW 1131VMWa01Sa ( 1 60-NOISN86 tld S/S ll J Va0, ;moo/. VOL -I •-' !E°' t , £soT €a=�3tg 'o O 2 23 3< o \\• \ °ems ❑avHi _� s.n0_ \ .'i� �;\ "gym\lll - �, , ( \A. N / . ��v VvNV•vv�Nv ,� 1 IIS \\\\ 4� ate; \�:„ ,N fa. ,.//;- _-"-_..,-___ i*.45, I/ `. - '-. ``.'\‘,\V--, -----`---,.-----•- I rr l /r•\\\\\ \\ -,71—,oz- ®\ W /rV Ill I 'I I �) 11\1 . VA 1 '" .�v I� '�� vy�v O \ \ w^ a N•81k r` 1)rr/�\\\ IPO/ /_I/ \\ \\\` De /'_ . - v?�� �1, 'i.p til --� _- — \ \\� \ \ 'N /i ----V- '--- \-1. / / --_\\ \�\\\.\ -.,-..-N \\\\\ \\\ \\\v// 966_ x it ld/ ;t-`- \\\\\1\111\ " �� N \ / / _ ^ '� \-tll l l ,,,..-,--.\-,', \ _i / fl/ (r /i ce= �.� -. A� i I I II III �v�' / 1 V A ll((rr—— / • \\\l I I /\1\1\\\\I\ ''`; \1\1\ / \\ 6 \ , �\ \� \ \ /tia\,,\\ \\ \ : \ I \\ N \\\\ "' 1q / / ' \ \ \ ,/\�\ ,llI I 1 1\\\\\ \ \\. \ g \\\1\\`1\1 1 n^tel I I 1\ \ \1 ♦ \ ►- Id l 1- " ni 1e,a V\\� 111\)11 \\\\11 ® : \\\ 11 V/ s g 5 -//\� \ I ii /% l \\\\\�%` � _`_=oior-\"-.-. 'I \ I a'i q// W € $ J=—_ \ s \\,, \ \��_\\ \\\\ // �___ // / e t ' 6 \� \ ---.N\ \\\.,/ v 1_9_4 4_ J /tel 1 P w --t=`- \\\\\11111 -....-.. ,,\,::-.-r r// 5Cr — �_/ e, E 9 ! rt -!e' !1ii '�\\a\\11111111) ,...,. .ss, -� / I 3 F6 �!:l `'Q -it--D\\\\1111111111111 \\\\, / \ rlr (r i' r ! FE z� SE{ i - ,,.. %-\l'\11 1 1\111111111 N . \ \ \\\\\\\ / F I eF `t I s sa r nm nnunmx . ---4-444 4__/ \ \ \ \/ :i !.9k ni f Sex ti i ca 9!'sf .l 9oaii 11 PC Exhibit F LA18-000062 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT 05/30/2018 2018-127 387 Orono Orchard Road, Orono, MN Jacobson Environmental, PLLC jacobsonenv@msn.com Jacobson Environmental, PLLC www.jacobsonenvironmental.com Environmental Consultants Wayne Jacobson, P.S.S.,W.D.C., P.W.S.,A.F.S. 5821 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 802-6619 Cell Email: jacobsonenv@msn.com Table of Contents 1.0 SUMMARY 2 2.0 METHODS 3 2.1 EXISTING INFORMATION REVIEW 3 2.1.1 Antecedent Precipitation 3 2.1.2 National Wetlands Inventory 3 2.1.3 Web Soil Survey 3 2.1.4 Public Waters Inventory 3 2.1.5 Topographic Map 4 2.2 FIELD DELINEATION 4 2.2.1 Vegetation 4 2.2.2 Hydric Soils 5 2.2.3 Cautions Used in Applying the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils 5 3.0 RESULTS 6 3.1 WETLAND BASIN DESCRIPTIONS 6 4.0 CONFIRMATION OF JURISDICTIONAL STATUS 7 5.0 CERTIFICATION 7 Appendices Appendix A Antecedent Precipitation Data Appendix B Sample Data Sheets Appendix C Site Photographs Appendix D Wetland Type and Boundary Approval Forms Figures Figure 1 Site Location Map Figure 2 National Wetland Inventory Map Figure 3 Soils Map Figure 4 Public Waters Inventory Map Figure 5 Delineation Map Figure 6 Topographic Map Figure 7 Hydric rating Map Wetland Delineation-Mitigation-Permitting-Monitoring-Banking-Functional Analysis-T&E Surveys 1 Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW's-Soil ID-Soil Analysis & Delineation-Environmental Referrals Pond & Lake Weed Control &Fish Stocking-Tree Surveys-Natural Resource Management Plans Jacobson Environmental, PLLC www.jacobsonenvironmental.com Environmental Consultants Wayne Jacobson, P.S.S.,W.D.C., P.W.S.,A.F.S. 5821 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 802-6619 Cell Email: iacobsonenv@imsn.com 1.0 SUMMARY Jacobson Environmental, PLLC (JE) visited the project site at PIDs 0211723230006 and 0211723230005 on May 29, 2018. The site was approximately 16.13 acres in size, and was located at Sec. 2, T117N, R23W, Orono, Minnesota. See Figure 1 for a Site Location Map. The purpose of the investigation was to identify areas within the project boundary meeting the technical criteria for wetlands, delineate the jurisdictional extent of the wetland basins, and classify the wetland habitat according to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation: Midwest Region. Wetlands are areas that are saturated or inundated with surface and or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in hydric soil conditions. Examples of wetlands include seasonally flooded basins, floodplain forests, wet meadows, shallow and deep marshes, shrub swamps, wooded swamps, fens, and bogs. Wetland boundaries were determined through a routine analysis of the vegetation, soils and hydrology which must all show wetland characteristics for an area to be delineated as a wetland. Three basins were delineated within the project area, which are summarized below and shown on Figure 5. Basin Circular Size ID 39 Cowardin Eggers & Reed Dominant Vegetation (acres) 0.227 1 Type 5 PUBG Shallow, open water Lesser Duckweed community 0.0223 PEM1A/PS Seasonally flooded Slender Willow, Reed 2 Type 1/6 S1C basin/shrub-carr Canary Grass, Gray Dogwood 2 PEM1C/PF Shallow Marsh/hardwood Wooly Sedge, Narrowleaf 3 Type 3/7 01Ad swamp (ditched) Cattail, Reed Canary Grass, Box Elder, Green Ash All figures and appendices referenced by this report are presented at the end of the text. Wetland Delineation-Mitigation-Permitting-Monitoring-Banking-Functional Analysis-T& E Surveys 2 Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW's-Soil ID-Soil Analysis & Delineation-Environmental Referrals Pond & Lake Weed Control &Fish Stocking-Tree Surveys-Natural Resource Management Plans Jacobson Environmental, PLLC www.jacobsonenvironmental.com Environmental Consultants Wayne Jacobson, P.S.S.,W.D.C., P.W.S.,A.F.S. 5821 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 802-6619 Cell Email: jacobsonenv@msn.com This wetland delineation was performed by Jacobson Environmental, PLLC under the direction of Wayne Jacobson, Minnesota Professional Soil Scientist#30611, Society of Wetland Scientists—Professional Wetland Scientist#1000, University of Minnesota/ BWSR Wetland Delineator, Certified #1019, American Fisheries Society—Associate Fisheries Scientist#A-171. 2.0 METHODS 2.1 EXISTING INFORMATION REVIEW Prior to field delineation, Jacobson Environmental reviewed the following information: 2.1.1 Antecedent Precipitation The previous three month's precipitation data obtained from the Minnesota State Climatology Office suggest that the sampling period occurred under normal conditions. Antecedent precipitation data can be found in Appendix A. The growing season in this area is approximately from mid-April to mid-October, when the air temperature averages above 28 degrees F. This delineation was completed during the growing season. 2.1.2 National Wetlands Inventory The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) identified three wetlands (PEM1C/PSS1C, PUBG, PEMIC)within the property boundary(Figure 2). 2.1.3 Web Soil Survey The National Resource Conservation Service Web Soil Survey (Figure 7) identified the following soils: Soil Hydric Rating Muskego, Blue Earth, and Houghton soils 100 Lester loam 0 Hamel, overwash-Hamel 45 Lester-Kilkenny complex 5 Muskego and Houghton soils 100 2.1.4 Public Waters Inventory The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources Public Waters Inventory shows that one public water exists on the property(Figure 4). Wetland Delineation-Mitigation-Permitting-Monitoring-Banking-Functional Analysis-T&E Surveys 3 Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW's-Soil ID-Soil Analysis & Delineation-Environmental Referrals Pond &Lake Weed Control &Fish Stocking-Tree Surveys-Natural Resource Management Plans Jacobson Environmental, PLLC www.jacobsonenvironmental.com Environmental Consultants Wayne Jacobson, P.S.S.,W.D.C., P.W.S.,A.F.S. 5821 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 802-6619 Cell Email: jacobsonenv@msn.com 2.1.5 Topographic Map A topographic map with aerial photo overlay was obtained from MnTOPO (Figure 6). This map was reviewed for suspected wetland areas based on topography and vegetative cover. 2.2 FIELD DELINEATION The wetlands on the subject property were delineated using the routine determination methodology set forth in the 1987 U.S.Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation: Midwest Region as follows: 1) The vegetative community was sampled in all present strata to determine whether 50% of the dominant plant species were hydrophytic using the 50/20 method. 2) Soil pits were dug using a Dutch auger to depths of 18"-40", noting soil profiles and any hydric soil characteristics. 3) Signs of wetland hydrology were noted and were compared to field criteria such as depth to shallow water table and depth of soil saturation found in the soil pits. Transects were established in representative areas of each wetland. Each transect consisted of one sample point within the wetland and one sample point in upland. Other areas which have one or more of the wetland vegetation, soils, or hydrologic characteristics present, or where questionable conditions exist may also have been sampled. Data sheets for each sample point are available in Appendix B. Wetland classifications discussed in the text are set forth in Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States(FWS/OBS Publication 79/31, Cowardin et al. 1979) and Wetlands of the United States (USFWS Circular 39, Shaw and Fredine, 1971.)Additionally, plant community types as named by Eggers and Reed (1998) are given. Wetland edges were marked with orange numbered pin flags or"wetland boundary" flagging tape tied on vegetation as site conditions warrant. Sample points are marked with orange numbered pin flags. Any wetlands or sample points were mapped using GPS. 2.2.1 Vegetation The plant species within the parcel were cataloged and assigned a wetland indicator status according to: Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin, 2016. The National Wetland Plant List:2016 Wetland Ratings, Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Wetland Delineation-Mitigation-Permitting-Monitoring-Banking-Functional Analysis-T& E Surveys 4 Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW's-Soil ID-Soil Analysis & Delineation-Environmental Referrals Pond & Lake Weed Control &Fish Stocking-Tree Surveys-Natural Resource Management Plans Jacobson Environmental, PLLC www.jacobsonenvironmental.com Environmental Consultants Wayne Jacobson, P.S.S.,W.D.C., P.W.S.,A.F.S. 5821 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 802-6619 Cell Email: iacobsonenv(smsn.com In the text of this report and on the enclosed data forms, the plant indicator status follows the plant's scientific name unless a status has not been assigned. The hydrophytic plant criterion is met when more than 50 percent of the dominant species by the 50/20 rule for each stratum (herb, shrub/sapling, tree, and woody vine)were assigned an obligate (OBL)1, facultative wet(FACW), and/or facultative (FAC) wetland status. With the 50/20 rule, dominants are generally measured by absolute % cover in each stratum which individually or collectively account for more than 50% of total vegetative cover in the stratum, plus any other species which itself accounts for at least 20% of the total vegetative cover. 2.2.2 Hydric Soils A hydric soil is a soil formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. If a soil exhibits the indicators of a hydric soil or is identified as a hydric soil the hydric soil criterion is met. The break between hydric and non-hydric soils was determined by excavating soil pits along transects crossing the wetland/upland eco-tone and evaluating the soil colors, textures, and presence or absence of redoximorphic indicators (i.e., mottles, gley or oxidized rhizospheres). Hydric Soil Indicators for the Midwest Region were noted as presented in the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States version 8.1 (USDA NRCS 2017) if present at each sample point. Upper soil profiles were also compared to the mapped or inclusionary soil series found in the sample area for soil identification purposes. 2.2.3 Cautions Used in Applying the Field Indicators of Hydric Soils There are hydric soils with morphologies that are difficult to interpret. These include soils with black, gray, or red parent material; soils with high pH; soils high or low in content of organic matter; recently developed hydric soils, and soils high in iron inputs. In some cases, we do not currently have indicators to assist in the identification of hydric soils in these situations. If the soil meets the definition of a hydric soil, the lack of an indicator does not preclude the soil from being hydric. The indicators were developed mostly to identify the boundary of hydric soil areas and generally work best on the margins. Not all the obviously wetter hydric soils will be identified by the indicators. Redoximorphic features are most likely to occur in soils that cycle between anaerobic (reduced) and aerobic(oxidized) conditions. Morphological features of hydric soils indicate that saturation and anaerobic conditions have existed under either contemporary or former hydrologic regimes. Where soil morphology seems inconsistent with the landscape, vegetation, or observable hydrology, it may be necessary to obtain the assistance of an experienced soil or wetland scientist to determine whether the soil is hydric. 1 OBL=Obligate Wetland,occurs an estimated 99%in wetlands.FACW=Facultative Wetland,has an estimated 67%-99% probability of occurrence in wetlands. FAC=Facultative,is equally likely to occur in wetlands and non-wetlands,34%-66% probability. FACU=Facultative Upland, occurs in wetlands only occasionally, 1%-23%probability.UPL=Upland,almost never occurs in wetlands,<1%probability. N1=No Indicator,insufficient information available to determine an indicator status. Positive or negative sign previously indicated a frequency toward higher(+)or lower(-)frequency of occurrence within a category. Wetland Delineation-Mitigation-Permitting-Monitoring-Banking-Functional Analysis-T& E Surveys 5 Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW's-Soil ID-Soil Analysis & Delineation-Environmental Referrals Pond & Lake Weed Control &Fish Stocking-Tree Surveys-Natural Resource Management Plans Jacobson Environmental, PLLC www.jacobsonenvironmental.com Environmental Consultants Wayne Jacobson, P.S.S.,W.D.C., P.W.S., A.F.S. 5821 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 802-6619 Cell Email: jacobsonenv@msn.com To clarify, when investigating hydric soils in this area, one must consider the following: • Many of these soils have black or gray parent materials. • Many of the soils have a high organic matter content. • The hydric soil margin is typically higher than the wetland boundary margin on the site. • Not all the obviously wetter soils will be identified by the indicators. • Many of the hydric soils are Mollisols which are classic problem hydric soils in many cases. 3.0 RESULTS 3.1 WETLAND BASIN DESCRIPTIONS Basin 1 Basin 1 was an approximately 0.227-acre, type 5, PUBG, shallow, open-water community wetland. The basin was dominated by Lesser Duckweed (OBL). Hydrology indicators included Al (surface water), A2 (high water table), A3 (saturation), and B14 (true aquatic plants). Wetland soils met indicators Al2 (thick dark surface) and F6 (redox dark surface). Adjacent upland was typically dominated by Kentucky Bluegrass (FAC), Ground Ivy(FACU), and Common Plantain (FACU). Primary hydrology indicators were not observed at the upland sample point. Hydric soil indicators All (depleted below dark surface) and F3 (depleted matrix)were found in the upland sample point soil. The wetland boundary followed a change in vegetation from wetland to upland plant communities, as well as a gradual to distinct change in topography. The basin was shown as a PUBG wetland on the NWI map (Figure 2) and was located within an area mapped as Lester-Kilkenny complex (RATING=5) by the Web Soil Survey(Figure 7). Sample data sheets 1-UP and 1-WET in Appendix B correspond to this basin. Basin 2 Basin 2 was an approximately 0.0223-acre, type 1/6, PEM1A/PSS1C, seasonally flooded basin/shrub- carr wetland. The basin was dominated by Slender Willow(FACW), Reed Canary Grass (FACW), and Gray Dogwood (FAC). Hydrology indicators included D2 (geomorphic position) and D5 (FAC neutral test). Wetland soils met indicators Al2 (thick dark surface). Wetland Delineation-Mitigation-Permitting-Monitoring-Banking-Functional Analysis-T& E Surveys 6 Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW's-Soil ID-Soil Analysis & Delineation-Environmental Referrals Pond & Lake Weed Control &Fish Stocking-Tree Surveys-Natural Resource Management Plans Jacobson Environmental, PLLC www.jacobsonenvironmental.com Environmental Consultants Wayne Jacobson, P.S.S.,W.D.C., P.W.S.,A.F.S. 5821 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 802-6619 Cell Email: iacobsonenv@msn.com Adjacent upland was typically dominated by Reed Canary Grass (FACW), Stinging Nettle (FACW), Kentucky Bluegrass (FAC), and Ground Ivy(FACU). Primary hydrology indicators were not observed at the upland sample point and no hydric soil indicators were found in the upland sample point soil. The wetland boundary followed a change in vegetation from wetland to upland plant communities, as well as a gradual change in topography. The basin was shown as a PEMIC/PSS1C wetland on the NWI map (Figure 2) and was located within an area mapped as Hamel, overwash-Hamel (RATING=45) by the Web Soil Survey(Figure 7). Sample data sheets 2-UP and 2-WET in Appendix B correspond to this basin. Basin 3 Basin 3 was an approximately 2-acre, type 3/7, PEM1 C/PFO1Ad, shallow marsh/hardwood swamp (ditched)wetland. The basin was dominated by Wooly Sedge (OBL), Narrowleaf Cattail (OBL), Reed Canary Grass (FACW), Box Elder(FAC), and Green Ash (FACW). Hydrology indicators included A2 (high water table) and A3 (saturation). Wetland soils met indicators Fl (loamy mucky mineral) and A3 (black histic). Adjacent upland was typically dominated by Reed Canary Grass (FACW), Virginia Waterleaf(FAC), Green Ash (FACW), Common Buckthorn (FAC), Kentucky Bluegrass (FAC), and Ground Ivy(FACU). Primary hydrology indicators were not observed at the upland sample point. Hydric soil indicator All (depleted below dark surface) was found in the upland soil at sample point 3-1-UP. The wetland boundary followed a change in vegetation from wetland to upland plant communities, as well as a gradual change in topography. The basin was shown as a PEMIC wetland on the NWI map (Figure 2) and was located within an area mapped as Muskego and Houghton soils (RATING=100) and Lester loam (RATING=O) by the Web Soil Survey (Figure 7). Sample data sheets 3-1-UP, 3-1-WET, 3-2-UP, and 3-2-WET in Appendix B correspond to this basin. 4.0 CONFIRMATION OF JURISDICTIONAL STATUS Jacobson Environmental is submitting this report to the client and regulatory agencies to request a wetland boundary and type determination. We have enclosed an official WCA Approval of Wetland Type and Boundary form in Appendix D along with a USCOE wetland delineation concurrence request. 5.0 CERTIFICATION Wetland Delineation-Mitigation-Permitting-Monitoring-Banking-Functional Analysis-T&E Surveys 7 Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW's-Soil ID-Soil Analysis & Delineation-Environmental Referrals Pond &Lake Weed Control &Fish Stocking-Tree Surveys-Natural Resource Management Plans Jacobson Environmental, PLLC www.jacobsonenvironmental.com Environmental Consultants Wayne Jacobson, P.S.S., W.D.C., P.W.S.,A.F.S. 5821 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 (612) 802-6619 Cell Email: iacobsonenv@msn.com I certify that this wetland delineation meets the standards and criteria described in the 1987 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and the 2010 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation: Midwest Region. This was a Routine On-Site Determination and the results reflect the conditions present at the time of the delineation. I certify that this report has been prepared in accordance with regulatory standards. Thank you for the opportunity to provide wetland services on this important project. If any wetland impacts are planned for this project, permits would be necessary from the LGU and other agencies. 1/4"*._ '' 05/30/2018 _ Way e E Jacobso D"ate Professional Soil Scientist#30611 Professional Wetland Scientist#1000 Wetland Delineator, Certified#1019 Associate Fisheries Scientist#A-171 Jacobson Environmental, PLLC. Wetland Delineation-Mitigation-Permitting-Monitoring-Banking-Functional Analysis-T& E Surveys 8 Phase I Environmental Assessments-EAW's-Soil ID-Soil Analysis & Delineation-Environmental Referrals Pond &Lake Weed Control &Fish Stocking-Tree Surveys-Natural Resource Management Plans Figures Go gleMaps 387 Orono Orchard Rd S Figure 1 Site Map ��n,-. Orono Country Club Q i Woodhill Country Club 4-401 rza+ is .na .w> 1,387 Orono Orchard Road South ve wRo shmetne Dr 2 aicem,un St - Roger Hawkinson - Vacuum Cleaners Y 0 ,vN • R. { K=inda;e Rd e, M -,..Your Boat Club Minnetonka Tail eGoggle �� �y�® Map data 02018 Google 1000 ft I 1 Figure 2 NWI Map i afe PEMIC PSS1 C PUBG • k .PEMIC NPEMIA Map layers ,hennepin_county_parcels ECMN_NWI_UTM 0 .025 .05 .075 Miles Soil Map—Hennepin County,Minnesota a (Figure 3 Soils Map) _ 455703 455750 455930 455850 455903 455850 455000 44°58'26"N 44°58'26"N ii a N 4. 1 LI 6 L36A 03 L41 E j///j_ a 8 e5 O 6 te 1 44:'''4'111‘ L41C2 0 o . i LL2/2EQ /11 a / i ,,,,,,,// / i C 4 i. =-0 1 1 L,. , E, LA „, a •/ . ' —', M q L22E L22E r 8060 it 1lp maw Uotk bo wallIM 81 anile,TzgAloo 44°58'12"N e. 44°58'17 N 455703 455750 455800 4558W 455500 455950 458000 3 3 M Map Scale:1:2,060 if printed on A portrait(8.5"x 11")sheet. F;,, N Meters 0 30 80 120 180 n Feet /,v\ 0 00 p Map projection:100 Web Mercator200 Comer coordinates:WGS84 4Edge tics:UTM Zone 15N WGS84HO USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/29/2018 0001 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 3 Soil Map—Hennepin County,Minnesota Figure 3 Soils Map Map Unit Legend Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Acres in AOI Percent of AOI L16A Muskego,Blue Earth,and 0.0 0.1% Houghton soils,ponded,0 to 1 percent slopes L22E Lester loam, 10 to 22 percent 4.2 22.7% slopes L36A Hamel,overwash-Hamel 0.3 1.7% complex,0 to 3 percent slopes L41 C2 Lester-Kilkenny complex,6 to 8.8 47.7% 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded L41 E Lester-Kilkenny complex, 16 to 2.3 12.5% 22 percent slopes L50A Muskego and Houghton soils, 2.8 15.4% 0 to 1 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 18.4 100.0% USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/29/2018 mom Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Figure 4 PWI Map • • f 3 Map layers hennepin_county_parcels 4/11111, p I 1/•;- public_waters_basin_delineation — public_waters_watercourses_deli t 0 .025 .05 .075 Miles Figure 5 Delineation) Map IN Basin 2 �� 0.0223 acres l� III \`, "� _ ����� _ /' � //J//,' � t r k i%%--- � '� /l - y �_ �� ,-' ------N: �� .� •.Basin 1 � ._� // ! _ , / � �/� J, �,- �y � o 0.227 acres � � � !` �� -/,-/--%/,)/// ,,,,,,kttir) '_ _ /� / - __ �� � /,- `, i - A ---:.-------- �N__-_ /�/ // i__ F C l r i \\ �/ -'fit - -� _ --/ 1 / A _ `� r ac —'--'"-,,, ,T-------:.----./////./ _.. /�//� "� ( ( ; � j- ----'- --,'//,// ,�Q /, / I F ...) -\) ~//:1M/ill/ ` f f I ----.,- / / ''• K./4:"., /-/ ---- \ / ) / ,/ ,0- -7---,-:::-.--i-- : / _-- arq �` / %// / \ \� v � y i ill;%/�`/�.:, f 1 / ) / ___ ,.- Basin 3 -� ll� Y / r/ B acres T 1 \,/ !l- a. r'a -- rya '. ', --- _ . `` .ifi). I \\ \~`_� ../-7///7,,,/,/I � h c -yam- �.:r �� _�. k , - \ ', 1 .'! , . \ _,...-------„, \ ' _..---,4-„"..:-- -2/>,1"///' :::',1'.-",-;:*....--4e,-"". - ''-;:i-.,A'- , r - - \r- „..,.. , \ \\ — --,, ‘..., ----,-., -,,,,,,,,-, //,/ . , , , \\ ,/ N ---_,---„,----7, - . - . a la e (//./.7-:///. i / f '� /,,,- '..,... ) ,, , ) ) ,)) i _________:;.„.„„,„..„.. ,..., . _ -- ,_„ Sample_p » l // ---- hennepin county parcels %� / // / / � !/////////./: a / � contour_2f_3m i �. �(/' /, >:', ,, / / _ ::N ,. ,,- \‘'''''' . l ,` ' (, l #t � a '� ����/ 0 .02 .04 .06 Ir. . I �` Miles ç\ / / \/� V �i � Wetland Boundary Fet,. ,z,____:,__.igure 6 T*.7._ opographic Map 980 ,—_\s,-\\,..;:>,/,„ ------ ,,,,‘,.,:„. Wo .ill Ave 17).13 i / .. i , \ „.) /i -....) i 6° ii 5€11/CCIft ) Y'vf----',- .1- )'---- ---'" ,„.....,..___,,,s . _Z) ' ':,%,0Th- 41--. i i 12 096 9.4 0 tY 7 p16 .......) , .... -.- j. . (///(}, 4 .o ',.--.... .....k' ) '--. 'N.; o . (---------‘940 \ \___7... 0 \I"—:-.3) •17,,, ("1‘.111 Oli: ,,,,...../' ra \\. ;) ?C. '‘tC t'''''''-.-V V ''', -t:1.--:\\\ Dickens° Oib tiin \ ``' �- I? , ( ) "-Th r, The State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources makes no representations or warranties expressed or implied,with respect to the use of maps or geographic data provided a herewith regardless of Its format or the means of its transmission.There is no guarantee or representation to the user as to the accuracy,currency,suitability,or reliability of this data for any purpose.The user accepts the data"as is." Scale:1:6,761 N The State of Minnesota assumes no responsibility for loss or damage incurred as a result of any user reiance on this data.All maps and other material provided herein are protected by copyright Extreme care was used during the compilation of this product.However,due to changes in ownership and the need to rely on outside Information,errors or omissions may exist If you should discover an oversight, we encourage you to let us{mow by calling the DNR at 1-888-646-6367 or by a-mall at info.dnr©state.mn.us. • Created on 5/29/2018 Note:Elevation images and contours were generated from LIDAR derived elevation surfaces acquired 2007-2012. Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Hennepin County, Minnesota (Figure 7 Hydric Rating Map) 455700 455750 455900 455850 45592) 4,6K0 459)02 44°58'26"N 44°58'26"N I Lir i 8 zr 8 2 0 2', 0 6 i 0 O o.) . L50A • i 1,991= L22E I lM] p any not Ike wtfuuOdl se tO 44°58'12"N 44°58 12"N 455700 455750 455900 45530 45 900 4S44i'7 45532) 3 3 Map Scale:1:2,060 if printed on A portrait(8.5'x 11")sheet Meters N 0 33 60 120 180 Feet ,N\ 0 100 Z00 400 600 Map projection:Web Mercator Corner coordinates:WGS84 Edge tics:UTM Zone 15N WGS84 USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/29/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 1 of 5 Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Hennepin County, Minnesota Figure 7 Hydric Rating Map Hydric Rating by Map Unit Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI L16A Muskego,Blue Earth, 100 0.0 0.1% and Houghton soils, ponded,0 to 1 percent slopes L22E Lester loam, 10 to 22 0 4.2 22.7% percent slopes L36A Hamel,overwash-Hamel 45 0.3 1.7% complex,0 to 3 percent slopes L41C2 Lester-Kilkenny 5 8.8 47.7% complex,6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded L41 E Lester-Kilkenny 5 2.3 12.5% complex, 16 to 22 percent slopes L50A Muskego and Houghton 100 2.8 15.4% soils,0 to 1 percent slopes Totals for Area of Interest 18.4 100.0% USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/29/2018 MOM Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 5 Appendices Appendix A Minnesota State Climatology Office State Climatology Office - DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources University of Minnesota home I current conditions I journal I past data I summaries I agriculture I other sites I about us Precipitation Worksheet Using Gridded Database Precipitation data for target wetland location: county: Hennepin township number: 117N township name: Excelsior range number: 23W nearest community: Long Lake section number: 2 Aerial photograph or site visit date: Tuesday, May 29, 2018 Score using 1981-2010 normal period first prior third prior values are in inchessecond prior month: month: A'R'following a monthly total lest Ma indicates provisional value derived from April month: rch February radar-based2018 2018 estimated precipitation total for this location: missing missing missing there is a 30% chance this location will have less than: 1.93 1.24 0.40 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than: 2.74 1.97 0.88 type of month: dry normal wet missing missing missing monthly score missing missing missing multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet) messing Other Resources: • retrieve daily precipitation data • view radar-based precipitation estimates • view weekly precipitation maps • Evaluating Antecedent Precipitation Conditions (BWSR) Minnesota State Climatology Office State Climatology Office- DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources University of Minnesota home I current conditions I journal I past data I summaries I agriculture I other sites I about us Nearest Station Precipitation Data Retrieval Minnesota's precipitation data archive is searched for data closest to a selected target location for each month. Values from the site closest to the target location are returned below after clicking the retrieve monthly data or retrieve daily data buttons. The precipitation data are made up of measured rainfall and the measured liquid content of snowfall. Temperature, snowfall, and snow depth data from National Weather Service reporting stations are no longer retrieved from this application. To obtain those data, see our newest data retrieval tool (May 2014). National Weather Service precipitation data continue to be available from this application. Obtaining data for legal purposes Guide for column headers in the data table target location: Hennepin-Excelsior-Long Lake 117N 23W S2 (latitude: 44.97102 longitude: 93.55357) click to select target location years: 2018 • to 2018 • number of missing days allowed per month: 3 retrieve monthly data retrieve daily data results: Target: T117 R23 52 mon year cc tttN rrW ss nnnn 00000000 pre (inches) dis Jan 2018 10 116N 23W 15 NWS CHAN_NWS 1.42 7 mi . Feb 2018 10 116N 23W 15 NWS CHAN_NWS 1.28 7 mi . Mar 2018 10 116N 23W 15 NWS CHAN_NWS 1.29 7 mi . Apr 2018 10 116N 23w 15 NWS CHAN_NWS 2.59 7 mi . May 2018 27 117N 23W 31 BYRG 2.08 6 mi . Jun 2018 m 999 mi . Jul 2018 m 999 mi . Aug 2018 m 999 mi . Sep 2018 m 999 mi . oct 2018 m 999 mi . Nov 2018 m 999 mi . Dec 2018 m 999 mi . Where indicated:Missing values are shown as'm'.Days on which precip accumulated in the gage are shown as'.'TTTT RR SS'is the'public land survey(PLS)'or'legal'location of the observed data.Section values greater 36 are SECTIC'TIC'locations plus 100.'NWS ID'the National Weather Service Cooperative station number.Note that the'PLS'will always be correct for precipitation data while the'NWS ID'will always be correct for the temperature data.If no PLS info is supplied the the'NWS ID'number applies to all shown data. State Climatology Office- MnDNR - Ecological and Water Resources Appendix B WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Midwest Region Project/Site 387 Orono Orchard Road City/County: Orono/Hennepin Sampling Date: 5/29/18 Applicant/Owner: George Stickney State: Minnesota Sampling Point: 1-UP Investigator(s): ACM Section,Township, Range: Sec.2,T117N, R23W Landform (hillslope,terrace,etc.): footslope Local relief(concave, convex, none): none Slope(%): 3 Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name Lester-Kilkenny complex \11/VI Classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Y (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation ,soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"normal circumstances" Are vegetation ,soil , or hydrology naturally problematic? present? Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? N Hydric soil present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? N Indicators of wetland hydrology present? N f yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominan Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30'radius ) %Cover t Species Staus Number of Dominant Species 1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 10 Y FACW that are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2 Juglans nigra 7 Y FACU Total Number of Dominant 3 Acer saccharum 5 N FACU Species Across all Strata: 4 (B) 4 Pinus strobus 5 N FACU Percent of Dominant Species 5 Larix laricina 3 N FACW that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 50.00% (A/B) 30 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub straturr (Plot size: 15'radius ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total%Cover of: 2 OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 3 FACW species 13 x 2= 26 4 FAC species 50 x 3= 150 5 FACU species 62 x 4= 248 0 =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5= 0 Herb stratum (Plot size: 5'radius ) Column totals 125 (A) 424 (B) 1 Plantago major 40 Y FAC Prevalence Index=B/A= 3.39 2 Glechoma hederacea 30 Y FACU 3 Poa pratensis 10 N FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Taraxacum officinale 10 N FACU Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Trifolium pratense 5 N FACU -Dominance test is>50% 6 -Prevalence index is<_3.0` 7 Morphogical adaptations*(provide 8 supporting data in Remarks or on a 9 separate sheet) 10 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 95 =Total Cover (explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) `Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 1 present,unless disturbed or problematic 2 Hydrophytic 0 =Total Cover vegetation present? N Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Sampling Point: 1-UP Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type* Loc** Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR2/1 100 loam 8-10 10YR3/2 100 clay loam 10-24 10YR4/1 98 7.5YR4/6 2 C PL clay loam *Type:C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM =Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histisol (Al) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K, L,R) Histic Epipedon(A2) Sandy Redox(S5) Dark Surface(S7)(LRR K, L) Black Histic(A3) Stripped Matrix(S6) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) Stratified Layers(A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Other(explain in remarks) -2 cm Muck(A10) X Depleted Matrix(F3) X-Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _Redox Dark Surface(F6) -Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand Sandy Mucky Mineral(51) Redox Depressions(F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3) problematic Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Hydric soil present? Y Depth(inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Surface Water(A1) Aquatic Fauna(B13) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) High Water Table(A2) -True Aquatic Plants(B14) Drainage Patterns(B10) Saturation(A3) -Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows(C8) Sediment Deposits(B2) (C3) -Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) -Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) -Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) (C6) -FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Thin Muck Surface(C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Gauge or Well Data(D9) Water-Stained Leaves(B9) -Other(Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth(inches): - Water table present? Yes No X Depth(inches): >24 Indicators of wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 20 hydrology present? N (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data(stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Midwest Region Project/Site 387 Orono Orchard Road City/County: Orono/Hennepin Sampling Date: 5/29/18 Applicant/Owner: George Stickney State: Minnesota Sampling Point: 1-WET Investigator(s): ACM Section,Township, Range: Sec. 2,T117N, R23W Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): toeslope Local relief(concave, convex, none): none Slope(%): 1 Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name Lester-Kilkenny complex VWI Classification: PUBG Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Y (If no,explain in remarks) Are vegetation ,soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"normal circumstances" Are vegetation ,soil , or hydrology naturally problematic? present? Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Hydric soil present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Y f yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominan Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) %Cover t Species Staus Number of Dominant Species 1 that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2 Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across all Strata: 2 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species 5 that are OBL, FACW, or FAG: 100.00% (A/B) 0 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size: 15'radius ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total %Cover of: 2 OBL species 45 x 1 = 45 3 FACW species 35 x 2= 70 4 FAC species 10 x 3= 30 5 FACU species 5 x 4= 20 0 =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5= 0 Herb stratum (Plot size: 5'radius ) Column totals 95 (A) 165 (B) 1 Lemna minor 45 Y OBL Prevalence Index=B/A= 1.74 2 Phalaris arundinacea 20 Y FACW 3 Urtica dioica 15 N FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Hydrophyllum virginianum 10 N FAC Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Taraxacum officinale 5 N FACU X-Dominance test is>50% 6 X-Prevalence index is<_3.0* 7 Morphogical adaptations*(provide 8 supporting data in Remarks or on a 9 separate sheet) 10 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 95 =Total Cover (explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: 30'radius ) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 1 present,unless disturbed or problematic 2 Hydrophytic 0 =Total Cover vegetation present? Y Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Sampling Point: 1-WET Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type* Loc** Texture Remarks 0-2 10YR2/1 100 loamy muck 2-12 10YR2/1 98 7.5YR4/6 2 C PL loamy clay 12-20 10YR2/1 98 7.5YR4/6 2 C PL clay 20-26 10YR4/1 98 7.5YR4/6 2 C PL clay *Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM= Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histisol(Al) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K, L, R) Histic Epipedon(A2) _-Sandy Redox(S5) Dark Surface(S7)(LRR K, L) Black Histic(A3) Stripped Matrix(S6) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) Stratified Layers(A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Other(explain in remarks) -2 cm Muck(A10) Depleted Matrix(F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) X Redox Dark Surface(F6) X Thick Dark Surface(Al2) -Depleted Dark Surface(F7) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Redox Depressions(F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or -5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3) problematic Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Hydric soil present? Y Depth(inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) X Surface Water(A1) Aquatic Fauna(B13) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) X High Water Table(A2) X True Aquatic Plants(B14) Drainage Patterns(B10) X Saturation(A3) -Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows(C8) Sediment Deposits(B2) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) -Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) _Algal Mat or Crust(B4) -Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils X Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) (C6) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Thin Muck Surface(C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Gauge or Well Data(D9) Water-Stained Leaves(B9) -Other(Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes X No Depth (inches): +3 Water table present? Yes X No Depth (inches): +3 Indicators of wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0 hydrology present? Y (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data(stream gauge,monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Midwest Region Project/Site 387 Orono Orchard Road City/County: Orono/Hennepin Sampling Date: 5/29/18 Applicant/Owner: George Stickney State: Minnesota Sampling Point: 2-UP Investigator(s): ACM Section, Township, Range: Sec.2,T117N, R23W Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): footslope Local relief(concave, convex, none): none Slope(%): 5 Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name Hamel, overwash-Hamel VWI Classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Y (If no,explain in remarks) Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"normal circumstances" Are vegetation , soil , or hydrology naturally problematic? present? Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed,explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Hydric soil present? N Is the sampled area within a wetland? N Indicators of wetland hydrology present? N f yes,optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominan Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30'radius ) %Cover t Species Staus Number of Dominant Species 1 Fraxinus nigra 10 Y FACW that are OBL,FACW, or FAC: 4 (A) 2 Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across all Strata: 5 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species 5 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 80.00% (A/B) 10 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size: 15'radius ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total%Cover of: 2 OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 3 FACW species 45 x 2= 90 4 FAC species 35 x 3= 105 5 FACU species 25 x 4= 100 0 =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5= 0 Herb stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) Column totals 105 (A) 295 (B) 1 Phalaris arundinacea 15 Y FACW Prevalence Index=B/A= 2.81 2 Urtica dioica 15 Y FACW 3 Glechoma hederacea 15 Y FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Poa pratensis 15 Y FAC Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Alliaria petiolata 10 N FAC X-Dominance test is>50% 6 Pilea pumila 5 N FACW X-Prevalence index is<_3.0* 7 Solanum dulcamara 5 N FAC Morphogical adaptations*(provide 8 Viola sororia 5 N FAC supporting data in Remarks or on a 9 Cirsium arvense 5 N FACU separate sheet) 10 Trifolium pratense 5 N FACU Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 95 =Total Cover (explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: 30'radius ) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 1 present,unless disturbed or problematic 2 Hydrophytic 0 =Total Cover vegetation present? Y Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Sampling Point: 2-UP Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type* Loc** Texture Remarks 0-18 10YR2/2 100 loam 18-20 10YR2/1 100 clay loam 20-24 10YR3/1 100 clay *Type: C=Concentration, D= Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histisol(A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K, L,R) Histic Epipedon(A2) Sandy Redox(S5) Dark Surface(S7)(LRR K, L) Black Histic(A3) Stripped Matrix(S6) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) Stratified Layers(A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Other(explain in remarks) -2 cm Muck(A10) Depleted Matrix(F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _Redox Dark Surface(F6) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Redox Depressions(F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or -5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3) problematic Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Hydric soil present? N Depth(inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Surface Water(A1) Aquatic Fauna(813) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) High Water Table(A2) -True Aquatic Plants(B14) Drainage Patterns(B10) Saturation(A3) -Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows(C8) Sediment Deposits(B2) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) -Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) -Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) (C6) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Thin Muck Surface(C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) -Gauge or Well Data(D9) Water-Stained Leaves(B9) -Other(Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): - Water table present? Yes No X Depth (inches): >24 Indicators of wetland Saturation present? Yes No X Depth(inches): >24 hydrology present? N (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data(stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Midwest Region Project/Site 387 Orono Orchard Road City/County: Orono/Hennepin Sampling Date: 5/29/18 Applicant/Owner: George Stickney State: Minnesota Sampling Point: 2-WET Investigator(s): ACM Section, Township, Range: Sec.2,T117N, R23W Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): footslope Local relief(concave, convex, none): none Slope(%): 3 Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name Hamel, overwash-Hamel VWI Classification: PEM1A/PSS1C Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Y (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation ,soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"normal circumstances" Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology naturally problematic? present? Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed, explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Hydric soil present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Y f yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominan Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) %Cover t Species Staus Number of Dominant Species 1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 15 Y FACW that are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 6 (A) 2 Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across all Strata: 8 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species 5 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 75.00% (A/B) 15 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size: 15'radius ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Cornus racemosa 15 Y FAC Total%Cover of: 2 OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 3 FACW species 60 x 2= 120 4 FAC species 35 x 3= 105 5 FACU species 30 x 4= 120 15 =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5= 0 Herb stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) Column totals 125 (A) 345 (B) 1 Phalaris arundinacea 15 Y FACW Prevalence Index=B/A= 2.76 2 Vitis riparia 15 Y FACW 3 Pilea pumila 15 Y FACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Glechoma hederacea 10 Y FACU Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Solanum dulcamara 10 Y FAC X Dominance test is>50% 6 Galium triflorum 10 Y FACU X Prevalence index is 5_3.0* 7 Parthenocissus quinquefolia 5 N FACU Morphogical adaptations*(provide 8 Cirsium arvense 5 N FACU supporting data in Remarks or on a 9 Viola sororia 5 N FAC separate sheet) 10 Alliaria petiolate 5 N FAC Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 95 =Total Cover (explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: 30' radius ) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 1 present,unless disturbed or problematic 2 Hydrophytic 0 =Total Cover vegetation present? Y Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Sampling Point: 2-WET Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type* Loc** Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR2/1 100 loam 4-18 10YR2/1 100 clay loam 18-24 10YR4/2 98 7.5YR4/6 2 C PL clay loam *Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. "`Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histisol(Al) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K, L, R) Histic Epipedon(A2) Sandy Redox(S5) Dark Surface(S7)(LRR K, L) Black Histic(A3) Stripped Matrix(S6) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) Stratified Layers(A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Other(explain in remarks) -2 cm Muck(A10) Depleted Matrix(F3) -Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Redox Dark Surface(F6) X-Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Redox Depressions(F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or -5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3) problematic Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Hydric soil present? Y Depth(inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required)! Surface Water(Al) Aquatic Fauna(B13) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) High Water Table(A2) -True Aquatic Plants(B14) Drainage Patterns(B10) Saturation(A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows(C8) Sediment Deposits(B2) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) -Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils X Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) (C6) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Thin Muck Surface(C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) Gauge or Well Data(D9) Water-Stained Leaves(B9) Other(Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): - Water table present? Yes No X Depth (inches): >24 Indicators of wetland Saturation present? Yes No X Depth(inches): >24 hydrology present? Y (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data(stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Midwest Region Project/Site 387 Orono Orchard Road City/County: Orono/Hennepin Sampling Date: 5/29/18 Applicant/Owner: George Stickney State: Minnesota Sampling Point: 3-1-UP Investigator(s): ACM Section, Township, Range: Sec.2,T117N, R23W Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): footslope Local relief(concave,convex, none): none Slope(%): 3 Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name Muskego and Houghton soils KIWI Classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Y (If no,explain in remarks) Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"normal circumstances" Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology naturally problematic? present? Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed,explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Hydric soil present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? N Indicators of wetland hydrology present? N f yes,optional wetland site ID: Remarks:(Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominan Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30'radius ) %Cover t Species Staus Number of Dominant Species 1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 35 Y FACW that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 5 (A) 2 Acernegundo 15 Y FAC Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across all Strata: 7 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species 5 that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 71.43% (A/B) 50 =Total Cover _ Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size: 15' radius ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Rhamnus cathartica 25 Y FAC Total%Cover of: 2 Juglans nigra 10 Y FACU OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 3 FACW species 60 x 2= 120 4 FAC species 85 x 3= 255 5 FACU species 35 x 4= 140 35 =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5= 0 Herb stratum (Plot size: 5'radius ) Column totals 180 (A) 515 (B) 1 Hydrophyllum virginianum 30 Y FAC Prevalence Index=B/A= 2.86 2 Alliaria petiolate 15 Y FAC 3 Arctium minus 15 Y FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Phalaris arundinacea 10 N FACW Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Parthenocissus quinquefolia 10 N FACU X-Dominance test is>50% 6 Pilea pumila 10 N FACW X-Prevalence index is 55.3.0` 7 Arisaema triphyllum 5 N FACW Morphogical adaptations*(provide 8 supporting data in Remarks or on a 9 separate sheet) 10 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 95 =Total Cover (explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: 30'radius ) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 1 present,unless disturbed or problematic 2 Hydrophytic 0 =Total Cover vegetation present? Y Remarks:(Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Sampling Point: 3-1-UP Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type' Loc** Texture Remarks 0-4 10YR2/1 100 clay loam 4-12 10YR2/1 100 silty clay 12-18 10YR4/1 98 7.5YR4/6 2 C PL clay 18-24 10YR4/1 100 sand *Type:C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histisol(Al) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K, L, R) Histic Epipedon(A2) -Sandy Redox(S5) Dark Surface(S7)(LRR K, L) Black Histic(A3) _Stripped Matrix(S6) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K, L, R) -Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) _-Stratified Layers(A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) _Other(explain in remarks) _2 cm Muck(A10) Depleted Matrix(F3) X Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _-Redox Dark Surface(F6) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Redox Depressions(F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or -5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3) problematic Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Hydric soil present? Y Depth(inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Surface Water(A1) Aquatic Fauna(B13) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) High Water Table(A2) -True Aquatic Plants(B14) Drainage Patterns(B10) Saturation(A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows(C8) Sediment Deposits(B2) (C3) -Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) -Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) -Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) (C6) -FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Thin Muck Surface(C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) -Gauge or Well Data(D9) Water-Stained Leaves(B9) -Other(Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): - Water table present? Yes No X Depth (inches): >24 Indicators of wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 16 hydrology present? N (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data(stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Midwest Region Project/Site 387 Orono Orchard Road City/County: Orono/Hennepin Sampling Date: 5/29/18 Applicant/Owner: George Stickney State: Minnesota Sampling Point: 3-1-WET Investigator(s): ACM Section, Township, Range: Sec. 2,T117N, R23W Landform(hillslope,terrace, etc.): toeslope Local relief(concave,convex, none): none Slope(%): 1 Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name Muskego and Houghton soils VWI Classification: PEM1C/PFO1Ad Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Y (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation ,soil , or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"normal circumstances" Are vegetation ,soil , or hydrology naturally problematic? present? Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed,explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Hydric soil present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Y f yes, optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominan Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30'radius ) %Cover t Species Staus Number of Dominant Species 1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 50 Y FACW that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 4 (A) 2 Acer negundo 10 N FAC Total Number of Dominant 3 Species Across all Strata: 5 (B) 4 _ Percent of Dominant Species 5 that are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 80.00% (A/B) 60 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size: 15'radius ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Rhamnus cathartica 60 Y FAC Total %Cover of: 2 OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 3 FACW species 50 x 2= 100 4 FAC species 100 x 3= 300 5 FACU species 10 x 4= 40 60 =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5= 0 Herb stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) Column totals 160 (A) 440 (B) 1 Hydrophyllum virginianum 15 Y FAC Prevalence Index=B/A= 2.75 2 Parthenocissus quinquefolia 10 Y FACU 3 Rhamnus cathartica 10 Y FAC Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Acer negundo 5 N FAC Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 X-Dominance test is>50% 6 X-Prevalence index is<_3.0* 7 Morphogical adaptations*(provide 8 supporting data in Remarks or on a 9 separate sheet) 10 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 40 =Total Cover (explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: 30'radius ) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 1 present,unless disturbed or problematic 2 Hydrophytic 0 =Total Cover vegetation present? Y Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) Sample point 3-1-WET contained 55% leaf litter. US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Sampling Point: 3-1-WET Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type* Loc** Texture Remarks 0-8 10YR2/1 100 mucky peat 8-24 10YR2/1 100 loamy clay *Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M =Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histisol(Al) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K, L,R) Histic Epipedon(A2) Sandy Redox(S5) Dark Surface(S7)(LRR K, L) X Black Histic(A3) Stripped Matrix(S6) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) Stratified Layers(A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Other(explain in remarks) -2 cm Muck(A10) Depleted Matrix(F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) Redox Dark Surface(F6) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Redox Depressions(F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or -5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3) problematic Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Hydric soil present? Y Depth(inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Surface Water(A1) Aquatic Fauna(B13) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) X High Water Table(A2) -True Aquatic Plants(B14) Drainage Patterns(B10) X Saturation(A3) -Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows(C8) Sediment Deposits(B2) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) -Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils X Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) (C6) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Thin Muck Surface(C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) -Gauge or Well Data(D9) X Water-Stained Leaves(B9) -Other(Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth (inches): - Water table present? Yes X No Depth (inches): 0 Indicators of wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 0 hydrology present? Y (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data(stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Midwest Region Project/Site 387 Orono Orchard Road City/County: Orono/Hennepin Sampling Date: 5/29/18 Applicant/Owner: George Stickney State: Minnesota Sampling Point: 3-2-UP Investigator(s): ACM Section,Township, Range: Sec.2,T117N, R23W Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): footslope Local relief(concave,convex, none): none Slope(%): 3 Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name Lester loam VWI Classification: Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Y (If no, explain in remarks) Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"normal circumstances" Are vegetation ,soil , or hydrology naturally problematic? present? Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed,explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? N Hydric soil present? N Is the sampled area within a wetland? N Indicators of wetland hydrology present? N f yes,optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominan Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30'radius ) %Cover t Species Staus Number of Dominant Species 1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 25 Y FACW that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 2 (A) 2 Juglans nigra 10 Y FACU Total Number of Dominant 3 Tilia americana 10 Y FACU Species Across all Strata: 5 (B) 4 Acer saccharin um 5 N FACW Percent of Dominant Species 5 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40.00% (A/B) 50 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size: 15'radius ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Total%Cover of: 2 OBL species 0 x 1 = 0 3 FACW species 30 x 2= 60 4 FAC species 40 x 3= 120 5 FACU species 75 x 4= 300 0 =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5= 0 Herb stratum (Plot size: 5' radius ) Column totals 145 (A) 480 (B) 1 Poa pratensis 35 Y FAC Prevalence Index=B/A= 3.31 2 Glechoma hederacea 30 Y FACU 3 Cirsium arvense 15 N FACU Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Taraxacum officinale 10 N FACU Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Plantago major 5 N FAC -Dominance test is>50% 6 -Prevalence index is<_3.0` 7 Morphogical adaptations`(provide 8 supporting data in Remarks or on a 9 separate sheet) 10 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 95 =Total Cover (explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: 30'radius ) `Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 1 present,unless disturbed or problematic 2 Hydrophytic 0 =Total Cover vegetation present? N Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Sampling Point: 3-2-UP Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type* Loc** Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR2/1 100 sandy clay loam 12-16 10YR3/2 98 7.5YR4/6 2 C PL sandy clay 16-24 10YR4/1 98 7.5YR4/6 2 CS PL sand *Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histisol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K, L, R) Histic Epipedon(A2) Sandy Redox(S5) Dark Surface(S7)(LRR K, L) _Black Histic(A3) _Stripped Matrix(S6) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K, L,R) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) Stratified Layers(A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Other(explain in remarks) -2 cm Muck(A10) Depleted Matrix(F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _Redox Dark Surface(F6) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand Sandy Mucky Mineral(Si) Redox Depressions(F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or -5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3) problematic Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Hydric soil present? N Depth (inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required;check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Surface Water(A1) Aquatic Fauna(B13) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) High Water Table(A2) -True Aquatic Plants(B14) Drainage Patterns(B10) Saturation(A3) -Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows(C8) Sediment Deposits(B2) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) (C6) FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Thin Muck Surface(C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) -Gauge or Well Data(D9) _Water-Stained Leaves(B9) -Other(Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth(inches): - Water table present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 20 Indicators of wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 14 hydrology present? N (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data(stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM -Midwest Region Project/Site 387 Orono Orchard Road City/County: Orono/Hennepin Sampling Date: 5/29/18 Applicant/Owner: George Stickney State: Minnesota Sampling Point: 3-2-WET Investigator(s): ACM Section,Township, Range: Sec.2,T117N, R23W Landform(hillslope,terrace,etc.): toeslope Local relief(concave,convex, none): none Slope(%): 1 Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name Muskego and Houghton soils VWI Classification: PEM1C/PFO1Ad Are climatic/hydrologic conditions of the site typical for this time of the year? Y (If no,explain in remarks) Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology significantly disturbed? Are"normal circumstances" Are vegetation ,soil ,or hydrology naturally problematic? present? Yes SUMMARY OF FINDINGS (If needed,explain any answers in remarks.) Hydrophytic vegetation present? Y Hydric soil present? Y Is the sampled area within a wetland? Y Indicators of wetland hydrology present? Y f yes,optional wetland site ID: Remarks: (Explain alternative procedures here or in a separate report.) VEGETATION -- Use scientific names of plants. Absolute Dominan Indicator Dominance Test Worksheet Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30'radius ) %Cover t Species Staus Number of Dominant Species 1 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 5 Y FACW that are OBL, FACW,or FAC: 9 (A) 2 Juniperus virginiana 5 Y FACU Total Number of Dominant 3 Quercus bicolor 5 Y FACW Species Across all Strata: 10 (B) 4 Percent of Dominant Species 5 that are OBL,FACW,or FAC: 90.00% (A/B) 15 =Total Cover Sapling/Shrub stratum (Plot size: 15'radius ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Rhamnus cathartica 60 Y FAC Total%Cover of: 2 OBL species 35 x 1 = 35 3 FACW species 60 x 2= 120 4 FAC species 65 x 3= 195 5 FACU species 10 x 4= 40 60 =Total Cover UPL species 0 x 5= 0 Herb stratum (Plot size: 5'radius ) Column totals 170 (A) 390 (B) 1 Carex pellita 25 Y OBL Prevalence Index=B/A= 2.29 2 Phalaris arundinacea 20 Y FACW 3 Typha angustifolia 10 Y OBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 4 Urtica dioica 10 Y FACW Rapid test for hydrophytic vegetation 5 Pilea pumila 10 Y FACW X Dominance test is>50% 6 Vitis riparia 10 Y FACW X Prevalence index is 553.0* 7 Parthenocissus quinquefolia 5 N FACU Morphogical adaptations*(provide 8 Solanum dulcamara 5 N FAC supporting data in Remarks or on a 9 separate sheet) 10 Problematic hydrophytic vegetation* 95 =Total Cover (explain) Woody vine stratum (Plot size: 30'radius ) *Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be 1 present,unless disturbed or problematic 2 Hydrophytic 0 =Total Cover vegetation present? Y Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet) US Amy Corps of Engineers Midwest Region SOIL Sampling Point: 3-2-WET Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth Matrix Redox Features (Inches) Color(moist) % Color(moist) % Type* Loc** Texture Remarks 0-6 10YR2/1 100 mucky peat 6-18 10YR2/1 100 mucky clay 18-24 10YR2/2 100 peat *Type:C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Histisol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix(S4) Coast Prairie Redox(A16)(LRR K, L, R) Histic Epipedon(A2) Sandy Redox(S5) Dark Surface(S7)(LRR K, L) Black Histic(A3) Stripped Matrix(S6) Iron-Manganese Masses(F12)(LRR K, L, R) Hydrogen Sulfide(A4) X Loamy Mucky Mineral(F1) Very Shallow Dark Surface(TF12) Stratified Layers(A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix(F2) Other(explain in remarks) 2 cm Muck(A10) Depleted Matrix(F3) _Depleted Below Dark Surface(A11) _Redox Dark Surface(F6) Thick Dark Surface(Al2) Depleted Dark Surface(F7) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand Sandy Mucky Mineral(S1) Redox Depressions(F8) hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat(S3) problematic Restrictive Layer(if observed): Type: Hydric soil present? Y Depth(inches): Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators(minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators(minimum of two required) Surface Water(Al) Aquatic Fauna(B13) Surface Soil Cracks(B6) X High Water Table(A2) -True Aquatic Plants(B14) Drainage Patterns(B10) X Saturation(A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor(C1) Dry-Season Water Table(C2) Water Marks(B1) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows(C8) _Sediment Deposits(B2) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery(C9) Drift Deposits(B3) -Presence of Reduced Iron(C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants(D1) Algal Mat or Crust(B4) -Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils X Geomorphic Position(D2) Iron Deposits(B5) (C6) X FAC-Neutral Test(D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery(B7) Thin Muck Surface(C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface(B8) -Gauge or Well Data(D9) Water-Stained Leaves(B9) Other(Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface water present? Yes No X Depth(inches): - Water table present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 6 Indicators of wetland Saturation present? Yes X No Depth(inches): 0 hydrology present? Y (includes capillary fringe) Describe recorded data(stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region Appendix C t • .to , r ! � • alf,,,,-.,-,.„'.-.,• • ri, *is, '.. Y ,f,;:=,.x 3w` its.r Rz + z t o 1-UP 1-WET �� r �' • . -: to ink 4 '.r-...fit.. !agv;�P"a;.: # 4)461 ! mY41'Y Y":'� '7 i:. •'may �5". 1H. 4 �'• y. *4t4'. a�� � — "�s �f 'Fri' C �i.tit y. .•!` *{ ' flRN'_ x J .;s. rl 1 '. `s }.*'.. At, s. 2-UP n x y • .1-Re•resentative - f � „4 ,i w / E' INpf ►t fit' c r ., 1,•”A, 1 ."" t , 4 .. •,,,...... . ,::.. „ .L _5 F i_ `,� I 4,.. v. „...,....., i , , ,,,.:,„, ,., , „..,:,„ . . . .„. K c • 1 �. . • a 2-WET 2-Representative 7 ;e - :: r� • ��fi',•r `''''A‘" a'- 11"''' 1 r.` * 1 . erg ski 1vr . ,�; ,. 1Y 3-1-UP 3-1-WET +`of t 'f.;,--:„ .f�w 4 �w -1‘;41•-`51044•: 1 x s�.;�s4. . 'J -.t, •t �` I v Yss' i , •4 l rt - °. Air, f a. p i t"' I lFf o 9. 1. 3-1-Re•resentative 3-2-UP , a : .w - ... • • .� .. s R 1 ;. I 1 r , 3-2-WET 3-2-Representative Appendix D Project Name and/or Number: 2018-127 PART ONE: Applicant Information If applicant is an entity(company,government entity, partnership,etc.),an authorized contact person must be identified. If the applicant is using an agent(consultant,lawyer,or other third party)and has authorized them to act on their behalf,the agent's contact information must also be provided. Applicant/Landowner Name: George Stickney Mailing Address: Coldwell Banker Burnet, 201 East Lake Street, Wayzata, MN 55391 Phone: (952) 476-3694 E-mail Address: GStickney@cbburnet.com Authorized Contact(do not complete if same as above): Mailing Address: Phone: E-mail Address: Agent Name: Wayne Jacobson Mailing Address: 5821 Humboldt Avenue North, Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Phone: (612)802-6619 E-mail Address: jacobsonenv@msn.com PART TWO: Site Location Information County: Hennepin City/Township: Orono Parcel ID and/or Address: 0211723230005, 0211723230006 Legal Description(Section,Township,Range): Sec. 2, T117N, R23W Lat/Long(decimal degrees): Attach a map showing the location of the site in relation to local streets,roads,highways. Approximate size of site(acres)or if a linear project,length(feet): 16.13 acres If you know that your proposal will require an individual Permit from the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,you must provide the names and addresses of all property owners adjacent to the project site. This information may be provided by attaching a list to your application or by using block 25 of the Application for Department of the Army permit which can be obtained at: http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Portals/57/docs/regulatory/RegulatoryDocs/engform 4345 2012oct.pdf PART THREE: General Project/Site Information If this application is related to a delineation approval, exemption determination,jurisdictional determination,or other correspondence submitted prior to this application then describe that here and provide the Corps of Engineers project number. Describe the project that is being proposed,the project purpose and need,and schedule for implementation and completion.The project description must fully describe the nature and scope of the proposed activity including a description of all project elements that effect aquatic resources(wetland, lake,tributary,etc.)and must also include plans and cross section or profile drawings showing the location,character,and dimensions of all proposed activities and aquatic resource impacts. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 3 of 11 Project Name and/or Number: 2018-127 PART FOUR: Aquatic Resource Impact' Summary If your proposed project involves a direct or indirect impact to an aquatic resource (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) identify each impact in the table below. Include all anticipated impacts, including those expected to be temporary. Attach an overhead view map, aerial photo, and/or drawing showing all of the aquatic resources in the project area and the location(s) of the proposed impacts. Label each aquatic resource on the map with a reference number or letter and identify the impacts in the following table. Type of County,Major Aquatic Duration of Aquatic Impact(fill, Existing Plant Watershed#, Resource Impact Overall Size of Resource ID (as excavate, Size of Community and Bank Type Permanent(P) Aquatic noted on drain,or Impact Type(s) in Service Area# overhead view) (wetland,lake, remove or Temporary Resource Impact Area' of Impact tributary etc.) (T)' vegetation) Areas 'If impacts are temporary;enter the duration of the impacts in days next to the"T". For example,a project with a temporary access fill that would be removed after 220 days would be entered"T(220)". 2lmpacts less than 0.01 acre should be reported in square feet. Impacts 0.01 acre or greater should be reported as acres and rounded to the nearest 0.01 acre. Tributary impacts must be reported in linear feet of impact and an area of impact by indicating first the linear feet of impact along the flowline of the stream followed by the area impact in parentheses). For example,a project that impacts 50 feet of a stream that is 6 feet wide would be reported as 50 ft(300 square feet). 3This is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de minimis exemption under MN Rules 8420.0420 Subp.8,otherwise enter"N/A". 4Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3rd Ed.as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp.2. 'Refer to Major Watershed and Bank Service Area maps in MN Rules 8420.0522 Subp.7. If any of the above identified impacts have already occurred, identify which impacts they are and the circumstances associated with each: PART FIVE: Applicant Signature n Check here if you are requesting a pre-application consultation with the Corps and LGU based on the information you have provided. Regulatory entities will not initiate a formal application review if this box is checked. By signature below, I attest that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further attest that I possess the authority to undertake the work described herein. Signature: Date: I hereby authorize Wayne Jacobson to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request,supplemental information in support of this application. 1 The term "impact"as used in this joint application form is a generic term used for disclosure purposes to identify activities that may require approval from one or more regulatory agencies. For purposes of this form it is not meant to indicate whether or not those activities may require mitigation/replacement. Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 4 of 11 Project Name and/or Number: 2018-127 Attachment A Request for Delineation Review, Wetland Type Determination, or Jurisdictional Determination By submission of the enclosed wetland delineation report, I am requesting that the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers,St. Paul District (Corps)and/or the Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit(LGU)provide me with the following(check all that apply): ®Wetland Type Confirmation ® Delineation Concurrence. Concurrence with a delineation is a written notification from the Corps and a decision from the LGU concurring, not concurring,or commenting on the boundaries of the aquatic resources delineated on the property. Delineation concurrences are generally valid for five years unless site conditions change. Under this request alone,the Corps will not address the jurisdictional status of the aquatic resources on the property, only the boundaries of the resources within the review area (including wetlands,tributaries, lakes,etc.). ® Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination.A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD)is a non-binding written indication from the Corps that waters,including wetlands, identified on a parcel may be waters of the United States. For purposes of computation of impacts and compensatory mitigation requirements,a permit decision made on the basis of a PJD will treat all waters and wetlands in the review area as if they are jurisdictional waters of the U.S. PJDs are advisory in nature and may not be appealed. n Approved Jurisdictional Determination.An approved jurisdictional determination(AJD)is an official Corps determination that jurisdictional waters of the United States are either present or absent on the property.AJDs can generally be relied upon by the affected party for five years.An AJD may be appealed through the Corps administrative appeal process. In order for the Corps and LGU to process your request,the wetland delineation must be prepared in accordance with the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual,any approved Regional Supplements to the 1987 Manual, and the Guidelines for Submitting Wetland Delineations in Minnesota(2013). http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/DelineationJDGuidance.aspx Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 5 of 11 PC Exhibit G Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act LA18-000062 Notice of Decision Local Government Unit(LGU) Address Minnehaha Creek Watershed District 15320 Minnetonka Blvd Minnetonka,MN 55345 1. PROJECT INFORMATION Applicant Name Project Name Date of Application George Stickney 387 Orono Orchard Road,Orono, Application Number MN 05/30/2018 W18-08 Noticed 6/14/2018 ® Attach site locator map Type of Decision: ® Wetland Boundary or Type ❑No-Loss ❑ Exemption ❑ Sequencing [' Replacement Plan ❑ Banking Plan Technical Evaluation Panel Findings and Recommendation(if any): ❑ Approve [' Approve with conditions ❑ Deny Summary(or attach): 2. LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT DECISION Date of Decision: July 10, 2018 Approved ❑ Approved with conditions(include below) ❑ Denied LGU Findings and Conclusions(attach additional sheets as necessary): George Stickney has applied for wetland boundary &type confirmation for the wetlands located at 387 Orono Orchard Road in the City of Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota(PIDs 0211723230005, 021172323006). Legal description: Section 2, Township 117N, Range 23W. A wetland delineation was conducted by Jacobson Environmental on May 29, 2018. A complete delineation report and WCA application were submitted to MCWD on May 30, 2018. Three wetlands were delineated on site. Wetland 1 was classified as a Type 5 Shallow open water wetland, Wetland 2 was classified as a Type 1/6 Seasonally flooded basin/shrub carr wetland, and Wetland 3 was identified as a Type 3/7 shallow marsh/hardwood swamp wetland. MCWD reviewed the boundaries in the field on July 10, 2018. MCWD was in agreement with the wetland boundaries and types identified on site. MCWD approves the wetland boundaries and types as delineated in the field and documented in the delineation report. This decision is valid for five years. A future project located on this property may require a permit from the MCWD. BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 1 of 3 For Replacement Plans using credits from the State Wetland Bank: Bank Account# Bank Service Area County Credits Approved for Withdrawal (sq. ft. or nearest .01 acre) Replacement Plan Approval Conditions. In addition to any conditions specified by the LGU, the approval of a Wetland Replacement Plan is conditional upon the following: n Financial Assurance: For project-specific replacement that is not in-advance,a financial assurance specified by the LGU must be submitted to the LGU in accordance with MN Rule 8420.0522, Subp. 9 (List amount and type in LGU Findings). n Deed Recording: For project-specific replacement, evidence must be provided to the LGU that the BWSR "Declaration of Restrictions and Covenants" and "Consent to Replacement Wetland" forms have been filed with the county recorder's office in which the replacement wetland is located. ❑ Credit Withdrawal: For replacement consisting of wetland bank credits,confirmation that BWSR has withdrawn the credits from the state wetland bank as specified in the approved replacement plan. Wetlands may not be impacted until all applicable conditions have been met! LGU Authorized Signature: Signing and mailing of this completed form to the appropriate recipients in accordance with 8420.0255, Subp. 5 provides notice that a decision was made by the LGU under the Wetland Conservation Act as specified above. If additional details on the decision exist,they have been provided to the landowner and are available from the LGU upon request. Name Title Katherine Sylvia Permitting Program Manager Signature Date Phone Number and E-mail 07/10/2018 (952)473-2855 ksylvia@minnehahacreek.org THIS DECISION ONLY APPLIES TO THE MINNESOTA WETLAND CONSERVATION ACT. Additional approvals or permits from local, state, and federal agencies may be required. Check with all appropriate authorities before commencing work in or near wetlands. Applicants proceed at their own risk if work authorized by this decision is started before the time period for appeal (30 days) has expired. If this decision is reversed or revised under appeal, the applicant may be responsible for restoring or replacing all wetland impacts. This decision is valid for three years from the date of decision unless a longer period is advised by the TEP and specified in this notice of decision. 3. APPEAL OF THIS DECISION Pursuant to MN Rule 8420.0905, any appeal of this decision can only be commenced by mailing a petition for appeal,including applicable fee,within thirty(30)calendar days of the date of the mailing of this Notice to the following as indicated: Check one: ® Appeal of an LGU staff decision. Send n Appeal of LGU governing body decision. petition and$0 fee(if applicable)to: Send petition and$500 filing fee to: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Executive Director 15320 Minnetonka Blvd Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Minnetonka,MN 55345 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 2 of 3 4. LIST OF ADDRESSEES • SWCD TEP member: Stacey.lijewski@hennepin.us ® BWSR TEP member: Ben Carlson—ben.carlson@state.mn.us n LGU TEP member(if different than LGU Contact): • DNR TEP member: Jason Spiegel—jason.spiegel@state.mn.us ® DNR Regional Office(if different than DNR TEP member): Becky Horton— becky.horton@state.mn.us n WD or WMO(if applicable): ® Applicant(notice only)and Landowner(if different): George Stickney-gstickney@cbbumet.com ® Members of the public who requested notice(notice only): Melanie Curtis, City of Orono- mcurtis@ci.orono.mn.us,Wayne Jacobson-jacobsonenv@msn.com ® Corps of Engineers Project Manager(notice only): Melissa Jenny- Melissa.m.jenny@usace.army.mil ❑ BWSR Wetland Bank Coordinator(wetland bank plan applications only) 5. MAILING INFORMATION >For a list of BWSR TEP representatives: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/aboutbwsr/workareas/WCA areas.pdf >For a list of DNR TEP representatives: www.bwsr.state.mn.us/wetlands/wca/DNR TEP contacts.pdf >Department of Natural Resources Regional Offices: NW Region: NE Region: Central Region: Southern Region: Reg.Env.Assess.Ecol. Reg.Env.Assess. Ecol. Reg.Env.Assess. Reg.Env.Assess.Ecol. Div.Ecol.Resources Div.Ecol.Resources Ecol. Div.Ecol.Resources 2115 Birchmont Beach Rd. 1201 E.Hwy.2 Div.Ecol.Resources 261 Hwy. 15 South NE Grand Rapids,MN 1200 Warner Road New Ulm,MN 56073 Bemidji,MN 56601 55744 St.Paul,MN 55106 For a map of DNR Administrative Regions, see: http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/dnr regions.pdf >For a list of Corps of Project Managers: www.mvp.usace.army.mil/regulatory/default.asp?pageid=687 or send to: US Army Corps of Engineers St. Paul District,ATTN: OP-R 180 Fifth St. East, Suite 700 St. Paul, MN 55101-1678 >For Wetland Bank Plan applications, also send a copy of the application to: Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources Wetland Bank Coordinator 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 6. ATTACHMENTS In addition to the site locator map, list any other attachments: ® Approved wetland boundaries BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 3 of 3 Figure 6 Topographic Map 7 ,,,-- ,, �� v . ,:„, ______\ 7-2/7:_,,,pc ,,, / \ '. 'vo „Ave .,p , . ,:c5':":' $ r r_ ,b,20 ..." , , , ,,,(§ , d'` 066 °es /- ) )'\'' fo--- -----/ - „1/1 6_-_1,./.---- ,/,,/,--- --' •-• 0E6 s6 0 0r6,6,,'�, +}` .).,,---- 086 .. (^'^1 lam" y �"Y J o , d .. �/f r Via,„.. ,)1, ° \'M\''.0 \\\\..„I\ /// ...7.—\\) 0 o i(''' , . gar EO 1.;\,,,,6 — a. p 5 ",...r ,„,..,....„.__\::,.....--\\ I)ckenso Ibl niall 041 1---- -- ' 1, ,_ ; ' ) The State of Minnesota and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources makes no representations or warranties expressed or implied,with respect to the use of maps or geographic data prosded wies herewith regardless of its format or the means of its transmission.There is no guarantee or representation to the user as to the accuracy,currency,suitability,or reliability of this data for any purpose.The user accepts the data"as is.” Scale.1.6,761 N The State of Minnesota assumes no responsibility for loss or damage incurred as a result of any user mance on this data.All maps and other material provided herein are protected by copyright Extreme care was used during the compilation of this product.However,due to changes in ownership and the need to rely on outside information,errors or omissions may exist If you should discover an oversight, we encourage you to let s know by calling the DNR at 1-888-646-6367 or by e-mail at info.dnr@state.mn.us. • Created on 5/29/2018 Note:Elevation Images and contours were generated from LiDAR derived elevation surfaces acquired 2007-2012. Figure 5 DelineationI Map _ a \" O Basin 2 -- ` 0.0223 acres s� � = R! I `v� �'.:�`,Basin 1 a\ / f � �` �'%'�oi` 0.227 acres , __ r � Co- ---,,,--,:::-------_-_",/,&//,>:`,----_",---- ( l �D 1 •f /y - fa , .-',// / -- t0 i' / - ' , \ )i tY ....„______ / /-..,,,,/ \ , ,, ,,,, \) 1 / \ ( -/'//////0r,/,, -..1:.-t-ilgi.'441-..4-_,',.-.....,4., ',! PI) / caiik • / l`/ f ( . ,' _�// 2, t1 , `. r �,. F z r/ ` ��� �� \ ii iii/-(fr kms. /, " /////b1////////- ,- I \` MM �i --%-:::::::::::------11-----1:------7,1711 ,, - ` i. fes' .r i' /I l/ /rr` �1 ,,,,,,,--. t'�, / `\ ill/////y/+i Basin 3 j layersT-------7-7--• . . \ r 1 I':I!1''; \ ' '- 12:''." ''' . / ihiy.// . :. .,;:„.-..,..,,,.....,,i,-,7,..,:•:i.,,,:,-,-4.,,,,:-,z, • •A .? ''. ''''''"--------,- f''''',,,,ft?•:;;LiT ''-'-'7:--•/ -- \ j i'1 i• \ s''-------''„ ':- '//1.-A:///i I i-, ':4:.'''C'''';',*-7:1 , :':ig.".4.3. ..'*- / ' r I . : .. 7.:F:'':14 Gli )j 1\ )\\ ( N—::----,------ - --.,-- .- ' -'-- . ;...------ "7://:>:/' '''""4///1" %fes% i:'. �ji�//�i Sa p e_p / r! /// con ou in_county_parcels hen �A l f` t l �� f� /ff. / is�` / �� COntOUr_Zf_3n1�� ', 4. t,, , ...-/ i j 0 A2 .04 .06 r 2 .:7-3:N.:4,.,...,.. / Miles Wetland Boundary PC Exhibit H Hennepin Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map LA18-000062 Date: 6/26/2018 : fir: 16'0; t p, 101 .5011 y, Wood ,„ 7:. ....'''''. 14400 1r ..,..“..' ' .,• F 1 ,47_,•:)'4,, , , . . . ., v • yy it .,,,._.,,,,, _ ;...:- .iiii, :::,, ,:.;;E., . , t , _ .. .,. ..E,..,:„......„,„. r "*s Y 3 . ..„ . ,,,,, E.E„.E......„3,......,, ; .... ..,.....„ .... , . .-- ...„....: .-„; ;;;,:. ;..,,,,,,„.:-.:, . - . ,E;;...,-....,„.. ;;;., Em.f..--$.1w..., , -!; - ,. . -,-. -E. E.:: '''-:..„:",''''":-2..,.„ ...,,,',. :...7.,,....- :,,..:-.:„. .„,,,,, , ., b , r -Ili ,.... - - --- - ----- - r . 4-.i,---- --.!;;',:ii-i:f.---';-: r iiii,$14i,l S fi, 3 �t ' { 3. Y ,fig lit 11.111 -'-'1.11-' i G DICItB EO[i sad rcr to Q sVI CZ tit O Buffer Size: 500 feet 0 120 240 480 ft Map Comments: IIIIIIIII This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy;(ii)is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal,engineering or surveying purposes.Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage,injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information,contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South,Minneapolis,MN 55487/gis.info@hennepin.us PC Exhibit I 38 02-117-23 22 0005 38 02-117-23 32 0007 CITY OF ORONO RANDY C KURTH LA18-000062 P O BOX 66 1570 FOX ST CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 23 0005 38 02-117-23 32 0008 TIMOTHY LUCE TRAFF PARTNERSHIP HOLDINGS LLC 385 ORONO ORCHARD RD S C/0 WAYCROSSE INC WAYZATA MN 55391 P O BOX 5628 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440 38 02-117-23 23 0006 38 02-117-23 32 0009 TIMOTHY L/ELISABETH M TRAFF FAR VIEW LLC 387 ORONO ORCHARD RD S C/0 WAYCROSSE INC WAYZATA MN 55391 PO BOX 5628 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440 38 02-117-23 23 0007 38 03-117-23 14 0004 WHITNEY MACMILLAN CAROL G&CONLEY BROOKS JR P O BOX 5628 1640 FOX ST MPLS MN 55440 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 23 0008 PARTNERSHIP HOLDINGS LLC P O BOX 5628 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440 38 02-117-23 24 0002 BENJAMIN S JAFFRAY 320 ORONO ORCHARD RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 24 0003 WILLIAM MCGUIRE 315 WOODHILL RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 24 0006 STEELE B OSBORN 360 ORONO ORCHARD RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 31 0047 KAPLAN STRANGIS&KAPLAN PA 5500 WELLS FARGO CENTER 90 7TH ST S MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 38 02-117-23 32 0001 EDWARD H HAMM 408 ST PETER ST SUITE 434 ST PAUL MN 55102 Date Application Received: October 17,2018 Date Application Considered as Complete:October 17,2018 �0�0 60-Day Review Period Expires: Application was extended To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator 4kEsHO0 From: Laura Oakden, Planner Date: January 22, 2019 Subject: LA18-000087, Robert Brook, 1165 Ferndale Road,Variance, Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a 6 foot tall fence in the side street yard where a 42 inch tall fence is permitted. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends the planning commission review the findings. Background The applicant is requesting a 6 foot tall privacy fence to be constructed in the side street yard between the two driveway entrances. Ferndale road is a local street and per City Code only allows a maximum 42 inch tall fence on local roads. The applicant has stated the high volume of traffic and use of the road has created a burden on the property. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-1405 a.(8)b.: DISTRICT LR-1A Required Max Fence Height Proposed Fence Height Street Street 42 inches (3.5') 72 inches (6') Lakeshore 75' Met Average Lakeshore Setback is met Applicable Regulations: Variance (78-1405 a.(8)b.1.) Fences within the required street (rear)yard or side street yard of a lakeshore lot shall not exceed 42 inches above existing ground level. Exception: A fence not exceeding six feet in height may be located along the street lot line of a lake frontage lot which abuts a major thoroughfare. A major thoroughfare for purposes of this section means any county road or state highway. If such fence involves fill or berming,the total combined height of both fence and fill shall not exceed six feet above the height of the crown of the major thoroughfare. Governing Regulation:Variance(Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances LA18-000087 11/19/2018 Page 2 of 3 where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2)variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The Planning Commission should discussion the intent of the fence setbacks to determine if the proposed fence location is in harmony with the intent of the Ordinance. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. An addition of a fence to a property with an existing home is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The use of a fence is a reasonable accessory use within the LR-1A District. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The applicant states the section of Ferndale is busy and acts like a county road and so,should follow the city code exception to allow for a 6 foot fence. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. A fence should not alter the character of the area. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn.Stat. §216C.06,subd. 2,when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as the use for a fence is an allowed accessory use in the LR-1A District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The property abuts a roadway that is heavily used and accesses other municipality's business district. Due to the unique shape of the lot the home is located close to the right of way creating the need for separation for safety and privacy. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The applicant finds this to be true due to the position of the home to the right of way creating the need separation. LA18-000087 11/19/2018 Page 3 of 3 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant.The applicant has stated this to be true. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.The applicant has stated this to be true. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty.The applicant has stated this to be true. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B,and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis Staff finds the request to be reasonable. While not a county road or state highway, Ferndale Road is a busy street that connects Orono to Wayzata's downtown area. Our Code allows for a 6 foot fence in this location if the home was located on the major thoroughfare such as a county road or state highway. The shape of the lot is also unique compared to its neighbors in the shape and location of the principle structure sitting close to the right of way where separation could improve safety conditions for the property. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. The Planning Commission should discussion the intent of the fence setbacks to determine if the proposed fence location is in harmony with the intent of the Ordinance. 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. If the Commission does not feel that the standards for variance have been adequately met, they could consider directing an amendment to the fence regulations. 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation The Planning Commission should discuss the proposed questions provided by staff. If the Planning Commission supports the proposed findings a MOTION to recommend approval is supported. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Site Plan Exhibit D. Site Photos Exhibit E. Property Owners List and Map Exhibit A Land Use Application Summary LA18 000087 PC Application Date: 10/17/2018 Address: 1165 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA,MN 55391 Parcel Number: 0211723430026 Land Use Number: LA18-000087 Application Submitted By: Property Owner Owner: Name: ROBERT BROOK&SHARON QUINN Address: 1165 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA,MN 55391 Applicant: Name: Robert Brook Address: 1165 Ferndale Road West Orono,MN 55391 Contact Information: Associated Contact:Todd Irvine Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description: Front Yard Fence Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application Appeal of Admin Decision Concept Application Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Application Subdivision Application -- Subdivision Exception Vacation Application "`. Variance Application -- Applicant Signature: VQ&O-kJ Exhibit B LA18-000087 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM PC LA18-000087 1.The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response:Yes.The variance to build a 6ft fence is for privacy purposes. Home is close to a very busy section of Ferndale Road W and abandoned property across the street used as a parking lot.The current 42" front fence restriction does not provided any privacy protection. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response:Yes. Circumstances are specific to the uniqueness of the property the lot configuration and proximately to Ferndale Road W.The variance request increase privacy and safety for the home owner. 3.The variance, if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response:The fence setback is 22ft which is deep into the front lot.There will be landscaping both behind and in front of the fence and will not interfere with utilization,visibility nor function (e.g., snow plowing of Ferndale Road west.The fence design will be consistent with the quality, look and feel of the existing property(see design drawing) 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: Okay, project is not addressing economic consideration rather privacy and safety. 5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes,Section 116106,Subd. 2,when in harmony with this Chapter. Response: NA 6.The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Response: NA 7.The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Response: NA 8.The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response: NA 9.The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: NA 10.The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: Yes, privacy and safety. 11.The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health,safety,comfort, morals,or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. Response: Yes 12.The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response:Yes Exhibit C LA18-000087 40 • / PC i P ■ SVEIVEN VPS° h CEDAR ,�!,� \ T \ / V FOR FEDVACE 4.11READED MOSTEi...wr,,, Stariellir DESIGN•BUILD AM ' 4004.4 ‘ 40rt 4 � ��RN R0 XXX ' '^ - u \ ASPHALT . \•,,,,„po / b N , !., .4, E T.•BE / \� _„_ CggS \ RIVEWAY ,.ie ���-.AKED--IOt f^WJ' F ���{{{'''���//►fir` .FENCE \ H 111' II iiii \ _ �IKAW a ` ,.. 1 I FENCE TO DE PAWED \\ FENCE DETAIL LE\ i/ " .4 O /� xa.e,p.r-oo' O G RAGE ® FENCEP�o i o\\ RESID CE \ ^. % 7.; n .7±4...7.... \ V ... OPLAN "'xxe,1.,,... IlmIN D. MED 10 FENCE PLANS 1 Exhibit D Hennepin Hennepin County Property Map LA18-000087 Dat PC yy } 1'41.4., x T , ¢I Vlu:. M- . ..14 ': ,, iwissio:::,_, .a,,, '.:"'" :4,'''' f \oN , i ..ss. ' k'"''' -'''' ' ' - 140, ,, 0,....r ,... „. e 4 '. % • ,.. _.....4-.. �*""i 1 : . x"tom 3 `�:,.. .1'1:',.,:,::i;"',..ii,,,, :,:p., 0 c:2:.'i-. i illicit_ 4 'S` - 1 inch = 50 feet t PARCEL ID: 0211723430026 Comments: OWNER NAME: Robert Brook & Sharon Quinn PARCEL ADDRESS: 1165 Ferndale Rd W, Orono MN 55391 PARCEL AREA: 4.65 acres, 202,613 sq ft A-T-B: Torrens SALE PRICE: $1,600,000 SALE DATA: 07/2014 SALE CODE: Excluded From Ratio Studies This data(i)is furnished AS Is with no representation as to completeness or ASSESSED 2017, PAYABLE 2018 accuracy;(ii)is furnished with no warranty of any kind;and(iii)is notsuitable PROPERTY TYPE: Seasonal-Residential Rec for legal,engineering or surveying purposes. HOMESTEAD: Non-Homestead Hennepin County shall not be liable for any MARKET VALUE: $1,895,000 damage,injury or loss resulting from this data. TAX TOTAL: $25,671.46 COPYRIGHT©HENNEPIN ASSESSED 2018, PAYABLE 2019 COUNTY 2018 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential Lake Shore HOMESTEAD: Non-homestead MARKET VALUE: $1,878,000 i f T [ ,:,„,-- , — ,,,, t,-4,1111er K *L i# rte« „. ' V 1 1 * 4", -='-` ' la ,ti ,. 'i ,. •g t + bt 4 40 T Y .. jY s w • 4 it yw.•'''t�r"°dt,t' 'T».�':. � "'.� � _ .C� s+�+ • y`...£ e.,!.�.. gy �a , re- , aml•. • � �8 y • 4414, r,,—n 04 arma'', J ''. '`%r , r '+ ....'c'--....- -f '' '4, i `.Yia >e- -. ' v>t , i £ :fc tS, t w � j.e•5. " c }.r .` ia 'w's4fiwq ' !,' ",. `, _ 4 t '!s_ C • , • . ' lfia `� " } r-1 � t4 . ' }fE f !T-- $ ' ',� .a( - +' i., tij4 ix #> •-41f 41:),), ,.� F ' 41- 4 ,, ` i ..• ' e'roiir M+n • A. ♦ ae:3e•'a•:.i . k ' r iF r. yf �e r [* .Md 5.5. ' - --s<. Ililkr iA '�►.i If 7. g -°,rte f f rz •4 ,' F, tr y. y ; ! , J +tYl"t• • r �. �„',ffi sem.. �e .#F e � r^te cif : ., , F • • '1 r r i • • • ` ' J 1. yy •• • s :F x '"J , 5 ice'J 's q. . 4 ,. .1 L i* S F F; 'hi r :::i �js jr �. fil 1 ` .4"'" �I ,f. 9 k� �e.• J dam`,. `fi rhe z+ + Fj d a ` A .4,' ` :., ..: 1 y���a.. y vF J' I f r , • .,: t %. ., 1 - 1'`I'.C•F 4'-11-;'''' °l'.. 4 . " . •••‘!,•111! / r ' i* ''' - '.. ' 1 ' i ,7441 pppp Y 4 , ,,'4.49. - ' it ,• .; ! :,, _. ,,,,,,, , ...„.„. • ,, 4 ..,..-f . tom£ . t ' b it, i3 a :�' 1 i li i I ..1.k 5 II, ) i 111141,, I i 5 s, ax -• `�^ •yam _` y, +,` 'ate„`."°`' *i ' sz , �,. .a �!`•".:.•t[ �^E„ asst _•-. t • xi y .a ...-zf ez'ti g*ar4.•.. •N•t T ` ��'.• .� .1 ,y,", tom:; .. ar � .~ ; k .• 111 1�Sj�;" t4 � Ni.s,a}a',� -�et9et."4X . + al+4: .'l L' '-.._ ice-, Y ' a+4`.r �,. .. �`t 1 •r' t' .yam - _ c» % e `* .. tt _C { .4=.. tiw t e t tt a yaY k �� _ _ s -4, '7'7.. -,_ - .q. IN, • fti € .:. i. • ti y t a :4.4pr ';. a a. y°— `F • ` � `��� . a h 'f y* 4. s `fit "0 Aga 'A ''. ' ' •.` `n r ` , . r,, er V. , 'r { ~; ,, 4' ✓•r{. f 4 ik,.w 1 RS J 4e' a ! f + r .4, 4y ti, J'i l 9 a, • . ......iii... V. i iii. ,..„. . if . ., iAiIá Exhibit E LA18-000087 Hennepin Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Pc Date: 10/22/2018 qtr ;; -4 . ...., (12) 480 1230 b 1 MI lo 25 5. ,. � i 0 ll '''' !'''''''':I':',:: IiiII:7p559(41) 15 Y « 5. • ger . Ale gig. 'lb• r,• M {'SS''I� 1195 g '�% 1205 (2s) 1225 (15} 1265 (2) AA 1205 1225 ., 1265 ill) ; Z�r z ts= rYt r-yp� rf 4r3 innetonk 1105 t��� ` r,. fpl IV 107D 1101 ( 10954410 zo) l73) { � \ _ 1065 /1055 f wyl1 (29 Buffer Size: 500 feet 0 60 120 240 ft Map Comments: I I I I I l l l I 1165 Ferndale Road West This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy,(ii)Is furnished with no war anty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal,engineer ng or surveying purposes.Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage,injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information,contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 fith Street South,Minneapolis,MN 554871 gis.info@hennepin.us RUN DATE:10/22/2018 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM(PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE:1 38 02-117-23 12 0001 38 02-117-23 42 0002 38 02-117-23 43 0020 WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB K K JACKSON/R J KEITH JR TR J G&S M LEBEDOFF 200 WOODHILL RD 1055 EDGEWOOD HILLS RD 1101 FERNDALE RD W ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 WOODHILL CNTRY CLUB KATHARINE K JACKSON JONATHAN G/SARAH M LEBEDOFF 200 WOODHILL RD 1045 EDGEWOOD HILL RD 1101 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 31 0003 38 02-117-2342 0003 38 02-117-23 43 0021 W MCGUIRE&N M MCGUIRE C F P ROSENBERG/C ROSENBERG LUCAS DETOR/ELIZABETH DETOR 480 RUSSELL AVE 450 WOODHILL RD 1065 FERNDALE RD W ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 WILLIAM MCGUIRE C F PETER ROSENBERG LUCAS DETOR NADINE M MCGUIRE CECILIA H ROSENBERG ELIZABETH DETOR 315 WOODHILL RD 450 WOODHILL RD 1065 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 310040 38 02-117-23 42 0004 38 02-117.23 43 0023 L A WOTIPKA&L A WOTIPKA ANNE LARSON SIMONSON TRUST WILLIAM F/KATHLEEN A WANNER 1205 DICKENSON ST 1065 EDGEWOOD HILLS RD 1095 FERNDALE RD W ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 LINDA A&LEE A WOTIPKA ANNE LARSEN SIMONSON WILLIAM F WANNER JR 1205 DICKENSON ST 1065 EDGEWOOD HILLS RD KATHLEEN A WANNER WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 1204 CHESTNUT AVE MINNEAPOLIS MN 55403 38 02-117-23 31 0041 38 02-117-23 42 0006 38 02-117-23 43 0025 E E LINDEEN&M RAICHE NATURE CONSERVANCY JAMES WYMAN&KATHLYN WYMAN 559 RUSSELL AVE 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 1185 FERNDALE RD W ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 ERIN ELIZABETH LINDEEN NATURE CONSERVANCY JAMES C WYMAN MARIAH RAICHE 1101 RIVER PKWY W STE 200 KATHLYN R WYMAN 559 RUSSELL AVE MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 1185 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 31 0042 38 02-117-23 42 0011 38 02-117-23 43 0026 DONALD E&JOANNE K DAVIDSON CITY OF ORONO ROBERT BROOK&SHARON QUINN 568 KEENE AVE 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 1165 FERNDALE RD W ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 DONALD E&JOANNE K DAVIDSON CITY OF ORONO ROBERT BROOK&SHARON QUINN 568 KEENE AVE P 0 BOX 66 1165 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 31 0048 38 02-117-23 42 0012 38 02-117-23 43 0029 THOMAS C GIEL WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB KAREN E MCCOURTNEY TRUSTEE 1225 DICKENSON ST 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 1055 FERNDALE RD W ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 THOMAS C GIEL WOODHILL COUNTRY CLUB KAREN E MC COURTNEY 1225 DICKENSON ST 200 WOODHILL RD 1055 FERNDALE RD W ORONO MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 34 0002 38 02-117-23 42 0013 38 02-117-23 43 0031 ELISABETH J DAYTON HENNEPIN CO REGIONAL RR AUTH THE LAURA E GESME TRUST 1225 SHORELINE DR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 1070 FERNDALE RD W ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 ELISABETH J DAYTON HENNEPIN COUNTY DEAN&LAURA GESME 601 CARLSON PKWY STE 1100 REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY 1070 FERNDALE RD W MINNETONKA MN 55305 701 4TH AVE S SUITE 400 WAYZATA MN 55391 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 38 02-117-23 34 0010 38 02-117-23 43 0007 38 02-117-23 43 0033 ROGER K&NANCY MCCABE ERROL J CHUGG C L TRUWIT&P J PICARD 1265 SHORELINE DR 1080 FERNDALE RD W 1105 FERNDALE RD W ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ROGER K&NANCY MCCABE ERROL J CHUGG CHARLES L TRUWIT 1265 SHORELINE DR 1080 FERNDALE RD W PAULA J PICARD WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 1105 FERNDALE RD W WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 34 0013 38 02-117-23 43 0011 38 02-117-23 44 0028 W J POPP&T E POPP ERROL J CHUGG THE NATURE CONSERVANCY 1305 SHORELINE DR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 00000 WILLIAM J&TERI E POPP ERROL J CHUGG NATURE CONSERVANCY 1305 SHORELINE DRIVE 1080 FERNDALE RD W 1101 RIVER PKWY W STE 200 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 38 02-117-23 42 0001 38 02-117-23 43 0015 TIMOTHY W KNUTSON J M JACKLEY&M H JACKLEY 538 RUSSELL AVE 1205 SHORELINE DR ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 TIMOTHY W KNUTSON JAY&MARY JACKLEY 538 RUSSELL AVE 1205 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 Hennepin County has developed electronic forms of certain property information databases.Hennepin County makes reasonable efforts to produce and publish the most current property information available.The viewer should understand,however,that Hennepin County makes no representation or warranties,either express or implied,or as to merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained herein. II Date Application Received: October 25,2018 Date Application Considered as Complete: December 20,2018 60-Day Review Period Expires: February 18,2019 d � To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator lkEsxoV`� From: Laura Oakden, Planner Date: January 22, 2019 Subject: LA18-000091,AJ Helgerson, 2870 Goldenrod Way,Variance Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow an Air Conditioning unit within 5 feet of a property line and within the drainage and utility easement. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends denial of the request Background The applicant is requesting to leave the A/C unit in its current location on east side yard of the property. It is currently within 5 feet of the property line and within a drainage and utility easement, which is not permitted by City Code 78-1405 (7). This is a new home, constructed in 2018; When the home survey was first submitted the proposed home showed the A/C unit on the west side yard where it was noted as not permitted for being placed in a drainage and utility easement and within the side yard setback. The applicant has submitted practical difficulty statement explaining the challenges with moving the A/C unit to the rear of the home. Orono Preserve is a new subdivision, and many of the homes are built setback to setback. There have been 4 other homes within the Orono Preserve development where the A/C unit was placed in a not permissible location. The property owners were able to move the A/C unit to a conforming location, either to the rear yard or other side yard where it met city standards. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET DISTRICT RPUD Orono Preserve Required Existing Front 25' 25.5' Rear 40' +/-270' Side (east) 5' 5' Side (west) 10' 10' Wetland and D/U in Rear yard N/A 40' Applicable Regulations: Variance (78-1405 (7)) Air conditioning or heating equipment may be located within a required yard but shall be located within five feet of the building it serves; shall not be located within an existing or required drainage and/or utility easement; and shall be located at least five feet from any LA18-000091 1.22.2019 Page 2 of 4 lot line. Governing Regulation:Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2)variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. An A/C unit in a nonconforming location is not in harmony with City Code. The intent of the requirement(of not being placed in the side yard)is to separate the noise caused by the unit and minimize the impact on the neighboring property. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The placement of the A/C unit is accessory to the single family home on the property. The principle structure follows the comprehensive plan, but placement of the A/C unit seems to be a convenience for the property. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The single family home is a reasonable use for the property. The variance request for the A/C unit is a convenience to the property owner when a reasonable conforming location is available in the rear yard. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; Staff find this not the be true. 4 other homes in addition to this address had A/C units located in nonconforming locations. The other 4 properties were able to move the units to meet City Code. and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance will alter the character of the neighborhood by allowing the A/C unit within a few feet of a property line and in a utility easement. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as LA18-000091 1.22.2019 Page 3 of 4 defined in Minn.Stat.§216C.06,subd. 2,when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.This condition is not applicable,as the use for a single family home with an A/C unit is an allowed use in this District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Staff finds this not to be true. No unique or special conditions were submitted to staff regarding this property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. Staff finds this not to be true. No unique or special conditions were submitted to staff regarding this property. Other properties in this development have to follow the same standards and have similar setbacks and drainage and utility easements. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has stated that granting this variance will improve the enjoyment of the property for the owner and neighbors due to noise abatement and visually. Staff finds this does not meet the standards for a variance. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals,or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.The applicant has stated this to be true and noted that the location on the side of the home verses the rear makes the area safer for the children because it is further away from the play area. It would "alleviate the potential of electrocution, dismemberment as well as other potential hazards from high rpm fan blades and 240 volt electricity." Staff finds by placing the A/C unit in a conforming location in the rear yard would meet the code and variance request does not meet this standard. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Staff finds granting this variance would be a convenience to the applicant and does not meet the variance standards. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis The applicant did not submit complete written practical difficulties. The Commission should consider asking the applicant to supply verbal comment for the variance standards. Staff recommends denial of the submitted variance request to allow for the existing A/C unit to remain in the side yard,where is it placed within 2 feet of the property line and completely within LA18-000091 1.22.2019 Page 4 of 4 the drainage and utility easement. Four other properties, in addition to this property all had A/C units installed in nonconforming locations. The four other properties were able to move the A/C unit to meet City Code. This property has an opportunity to move the A/C unit to the rear yard of the property to meet City Code. Granting this variance would serve as a convenience and the submitted request does not meet the standards for granting a variance. Engineer Comments Then encroachment into the easement should not be permitted unless there is some hardship. As the AC could be moved to the rear of the building there does not appear to be a hardship. If Council was to allow the encroachment and encroachment agreement should be required. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty? 2. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? Planning Commission options for consideration The Planning Commission may consider the following alternative motions: 1. Motion to recommend denial the variance request and have the applicant move the A/C unit to a conforming location. 2. Motion to recommend approval of the request contingent on an executed encroachment agreement 3. Motion to recommend approval of the request contingent on the executed encroachment agreement and moving the A/C unit to the west side of the property. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Survey/Site Plan Exhibit D. Site Pictures Exhibit E. Map of other A/C unit violations, but able to move to conforming locations. Exhibit F. Property Owners List and Map Letter View PC LA18-000091 Land Use Application Summary Exhibit A )plication Date: 10/25/2018 Address: 2870 GOLDENROD WAY LONG LAKE, MN 55356 Parcel Number: 3311823240045 Land Use Number: LA18-000091 Application Submitted By: Property Owner Owner: Name: AJ HELGERSON Address: JILLIAN MARIE HELGERSON 2870 GOLDENROD WAY LONG LAKE, MN 55356 Applicant: Name: AJ Helgerson Address: JILLIAN MARIE HELGERSON2870 GOLDENROD WAY LONG LAKE, MN 55356 Contact Information: Associated Contact: Jason Thomas Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description: Encroachment Agreement AC unit to North Side yard Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application 0 Appeal of Admin Decision 0 Concept Application 0 Conditional Use Permit 0 Site Plan Application 0 Subdivision Application 0 Subdivision Exception 0 Vacation Application 0 Variance Application 0 Applicant Signature: file:///C/Users/loakden/Downloads/Land%20Use%20Application%20Summary%20(6).htm[1/3/2019 10:29:13 AM] Letter View PC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA18-000091 LA18-000091 Exhibit B 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: N/A 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: NA 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: NA 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: NA 5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 1167.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. Response: NA 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Response: NA 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Response: N/A 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response: N/A 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: NA 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: The granting of the application will improve the enjoyment of the property for the owner as w as the enjoyment of the adjacent properties of the neighbors on both sides due to noise abatement as well as visually. file:///C/Users/loakden/Downloads/Practical%20Difficulties%20Documentation%20Form%20(6).htm[1/3/2019 10:29:13 AM] Letter View 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. sponse: The granting of the variance will improve Safety, Health, Comfort, and enjoyment of the owner _..d the owners neighbors as well. In moving the AC unit to the side of the structure vs the back yard we would be making it the area safer for our children and our neighbors children, by having the unit located away from the main back play area and our of sight. This would alleviate the potential of electrocution, dismemberment as well as other potential hazards from high rpm fan blades and 240 volt electricity. This also provides enough space for city vehicles and equipment to access to the easement and/or right-of-way. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: NA file:///C/Users/loakden/Downloads/Practical%20Difficulties%20Documentation%2OForm%20(6).htm[1/3/2019 10:29:13 AM] LEGAL DESCRIPTION ® PC D,S.BM}4.OPONOPRESERVE,HENNPW GRADING AS-BUILT FOR: 10:60 I! .,,,.\\\6\ LA18-000091 CODNTY.M94NE5OTA DAVID WEEKLEYHOMESM 4 '� 9.6, •� c Exhibit C LorAREA: Y � /C�\LOT MEA-20.74850 FT.OR 0478 ACRES -` 4 ‘:T 0211029 `MPERVIOUS AREA-3046 SO FT(107") 44 BOLDING FOOTPRINT MEA 8157 SO.Fr. 9 _ tr 3 12800 Whitewater Drive or���� a'� ��5 Tc r� \\ CONCRETE PAD 9. .16 FT Suite 20 ...,y0�e °o8.\-425 55 1p. ti SIDEWALK 25SLE Minnetonka,MN 55343 6 ` c gBKP � D\V BENCHMARKS: \ sw '�^., OO m TNN LOCATED MONO THE NORTHWEST LWE NOTES: Ion 67 111,0 JP� 028 �� iP OF LOT B,BLOCK 1,ORONO PRESERVE. \ J� HAVING AN ELEVATION OF 102934 FEET.. 1. SURVEY PREPARED FROM ALUAN ENGINEERING,INC. \ /.. <, TA...." •01$\ Q,. C j �\\ W GRADING PIAN DATED JULY T.2018 V \ PROPOSED ELEVATIONS: 2. BEARINGS ME ASSUMED PER PUT T"„fa ' S. re 34, D w.L \ � FIRST FLOOR e1008.W A. BUM.DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE BASED ON FIRE, A+. �� FNfFt e � V. 40 91 TOP OF FOUNDATION -1054.0 FLOOR ARCHITECTURAL PIANS ALL DIMENSIONS M D ' N4.:$2. _ GARAGE FLOOR 1051.8 LOCATIONS ARE TO BE VERIFIED IN THE FIELD WITH THE J' '112 -y / '� BASEMEN FLOOR 1028.5 ARCHITECTURAL PLANS S /'o MY .I'�q• \.22 / 0J -.0: LOWEST M1�00,201k MY y REAR POSSIBLE FLOOR -ION.e OJ x J• '4 "63 EBTGRADE .+051.4 66 n s q 91 1023 9 91 EXISTING ELEVATIONS: es4 �, �,/ >< F .„� D o�Q /Iy'.97 RR.FLOOR 251005.60 ro2J 5] $ f _ % \ ION. OO� ,�� h TOP OF FOUNDATION -10310 AA 4 v 6/ :�n 29.05 RAGE FLOOR 25 1032. BASEMENT FLOOR 25 1025,3 \ 4 CJ 9 NCO/ /2 ),. •woHEsr GRADE -10015 RI f '1'43 \ "24'. a % erN i-. .63 r.c > LEGEND: a 4 l. ire,, \I TJX - L, \/' 934.0 EOSIINGS ATATN 0 CABLE lV sox 0 23 DAVID WEEKLEYHOMES PLAN: w xWETLAND e TI J.7s>; - / 0 SET CAP IROVMONUMENT16426 4 —FR___ gLFFER —5* ; 025.. 66134.01 PROPOSE TOR g WATER VALVE 99 FT-WALKOUT BASEMEN- \ %t. 102284 2 2407 1028,3 '[y/ �� DIRECTOR OF DRAINAGE X WATERSTORM ALAESIAME _ 2AOU1100AL STEPS �/ IELEV N 10Ja ”- 'JCB CURS STOP ANFLAN DA DATE.REV �4 15 f �" E- o WHIRR MA HOE a PLM T 72PEV.OBGWI7 ( �a4.t EOF EMERGENCY DVERFLOW 2 i E +�'i.♦ jTLP' L� (P) PROPOSED ELEVATION 1 f r�n LOWEST ROSSIBLE FLOOR _ R t ' S.�V 1C TOP OFCIIAB ROO PROPOSED CONTOURS i 6 f 4 I O 050 _ A6• m IRON MONMEORip/ND EASRNG 111EE o f + I ;,.P 07 N h 0010 tMO 2 p a£cmc9OV GA wERAWO MONUMENT r m TELEPRONEBOX -- f , + ___... __ _.. BUILDING Pao d 4 9 1I w •r*' ® NC UNIT Y 2 0 V ° AA ' 9 0 j r 4 4 ° �' LEGEND q +E V \V -...r.��EXISTING rRE£nmGaASBOUNDARY E f 11 0>40\ �»�-�-- ]AEF PROTECTION LIAR 9 01430 1n7 � �.^°^"„"•"x �, J q 9 / --�—z 1e,._.0SIGNIFICANT CONIFEROUS 7REE TORE/RCN °14413,016. P ~De0 DA""Owi. iyQi _ 2 I I q 1 '2,n 0 S10M'FICAMDEOTD000S TRE£TO REMNN e0 WmT o. J6y 1e.4717 u 5425 . ew 0 10 20 40 {,1 SIGNIFICANT CONIFEROUS TREE TO IE REMOVED AlA0Enq ADDRESS: 1 - ORONO PRESERVE 7,J MaR6.H.000 6L3 OLE E f 12x,4 , SIGNIFIUWT00000OU5 TREE TORE REMOVED wn....,. M. s ^ 2870 GOLDENROD WAY ----- -'- OHONO,MINNESOTA 12 758.3050 wnw ` ORONO,MINNESOTA SCALE IN FEET (j(.) AOOITIONAL SIGNIFICANT TREES-OFFSITE LOT 15,BLOCK 4 758 .20 .0 1,, I PC - — LA18-000091 I Exhibit D . w*.,, MINI , ,f i I,- - , a 1 .i t' wti 1 y 1 r ItI '1 F G q ,., f a,t 1 . • j ::,...., '::1'. w� i u4 41iW gy«Y u 4 r f , . . 1. .4, i c. If#*-1;!:,,,-:. -. : -- •.Tp,.- i‘,„ '. - -- '--;*..... _.. .t.-..-- :. w iv,'-1k Y y9"y :... ,„_-**-•- ,MWa1 �►(i fwrf , SICde.-to E-Sedc_CraA, r S __.u �t� .E•si CrctAr v�grd��m LA18-000091 VN r lit t«at1Cr, _ .. °"°i Exhibit E '" CRYSTAI, B r SINES S-NT' 2 JADDITION O" --y , t ! CRYSTAL BAY 'VAMP' —_- 1 INDUSTRIA! m�I BUSINESS CENTER mmv. OLD CRYSTAL ' Y ROAD NORTH J • L mum _ PrItaTIOIOSO 3 CRYSTA BAY ROAD NORTH ,, CLC CRYSTAL r NORTH . OLD ars mm . ,r r __ "" Y Y , • "'¢- . \ i > s - + i! �" 1—�r '-� '-i -1 _ -1r-'-- _ l �' i ,it ii ' J 11 t 'ioi i , I S I to 1 n I tp I �� a ' e e ttt 1\ S It r 2 �r� i". �� z i 3 I j� �"YJ'.., _ V--L4-:'V...:- _ I p i ` tt'1 p -,;;;1.- & -- -- � .�... 1 moo. --�` --- -''t> `` :+"'tt �� A-'�t 1` i 1 d y .-- "'"..," mow:-'.., <' . Itli01; ri ' 7I - ., t.w .. r',.. 9. _' 1� q .off. I .. '" rr -- r___- - r.,,. ' - r----i �„a ..._, IVi r .,., s...-.,... .. �i i e 1 i e '%.- \ e p to tt i �..a e - „S' h.ry 1 Moved,AIG 1" n ^""_ ..i ,"^ -,,01 1 �n DI i n :. CocrKorTv4vNok 1aat�o'n Ohl I S ;I YYY �� 3�r�rwe�r- ,.te i N"'n`,,,� �� 4�+4. \ N q, 31 • i 1 J f' �.i m 11 �/ �� , '� .,....:0_,--- - l ti all I b , i i 1 ; ..>., A ``' ;a ,�, 1I \) 3 s H , •r a .cr VS '' 1 t I ` t 4 1 II t �. --li 1�aw=.,'.S.�`: m. ..�- 7 +a am i I ( ,� iii....z-, T'• rn " • "" • > ... .-,. Nmamr rM°°' 1..„,,,„„,,„w fv v --, I, I "{'"',f `'^'°"m z, ,,,, "'I MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF `"""" tI TRANSPORTATION ' M�.3 G I " I '� ,"�,`I.'} DUMAS ORCHARDS I RIGHT-OF-WAY PLAT NO. 27-130 i tsw 511dc.!m DI 1 1 li, —..,mn,.,r.„...� .mm.l,»..,.,�.,, ... . ko E•Sick o'<rt- : ilt-yr ; —Y ._.;t . .w.M-......._ .,5 Iv Ifl mM,1/1 a....... i-Q—; O ALLIµANT seem ry i PC LA18-000091 Hennepin Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Exhibit F r..:;,,,:,..".!..k7t,:...-:-.....-,-7. -.7., ---- 7 . -1„ " 41� 565 r 1560 07) - - 550 (te) I 545 1 1 540(te) 550 535!3�! 1530 j (2a) I 6 W, will t ' tit_ 7a ! �= �_ = Sao 0l / 0 (a ~ 490 71 N 450 . 111=11111111111111 u 475 (40) 480!x) - o 2830 t - (4t) { z",4;....81-'. {44 • 2833(ta) • _• 28 ' 2840 2880 2835 A tNipl . '10,* 2837 r tis) �,, > ^� 2639 i, -`= t o 2841 go) (?9) x Ls‘ '5`.Iden .. r L is ��77✓�FF''t a a >.m i ` fix'7:: fir ¢ r6: ''----1 - �r i , :143 4 (Q! • Buffer Size: 500 feet 0 60 120 240 ft Map Comments: IIIIIIIII 2870 Goldenrod Way,Orono This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy;(ii)Is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) Is notsultable for legal,engineering or surveying purposes.Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage,injury or loss resulting from this data. For more Information,contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South,Minneapolis,MN 554871 gis.info@hennepin.us RUN DATE:10/26/2018 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM(PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE:1 38 33-118-23 13 0016 38 33-118-23 24 0029 38 33-118-23 24 0040 CRYSTAL CLIFF LLC WEEKLEY HOMES LLC WEEKLEY HOMES LLC 430 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N 2839 GOLDENROD WAY 475 SANDHILL DR ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 OLD CRYSTAL BAY LLC WEEKLEY HOMES LLC WEEKLEY HOMES LLC ATTN JAKE BARKLEY 1111 N POST OAK RD 1111 N POST OAK RD 3640 BAYSIDE RD HOUSTON TX 77055 HOUSTON TX 77055 ORONO N W 55356 38 33-118-23 23 0002 38 33-118-23 24 0030 38 33-118-23 24 0041 R E DUMAS&K G DUMAS OP5 ORONO LLC OP5 ORONO LLC 3025 WAYZATA BLVD W 2841 GOLDENROD WAY 2830 GOLDENROD WAY ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ROBERT E&KATHRYN G DUMAS OP5 ORONO LLC OP5 ORONO LLC 3025 WAYZATA BLVD 1660 HIGHWAY 100 S STE#400 1660 HIGHWAY 100 S STE#400 BOX 607 ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 33-118-23 24 0021 38 33-118-23 24 0031 38 33-118-23 24 0042 WEEKLEY HOMES LLC STEPHANIE HAWKINSON OP5 ORONO LLC 520 SANDHILL DR 2895 WOOD DUCK TR 2840 GOLDENROD WAY ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 WEEKLEY HOMES LLC STEPHANIE HAWKINSON OP5 ORONO LLC 1 111 N POST OAK ROAD 2895 WOOD DUCK TR 1660 HIGHWAY 100 S STE#400 HOUSTON TX 77055 LONG LAKE MN 55356 ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 38 33-118-23 24 0022 38 33-118-23 24 0032 38 33-118-23 24 0043 WEEKLEY HOMES LLC WEEKLEY HOMES LLC OP5 ORONO LLC 510 SANDHILL DR 2885 WOOD DUCK TR 2850 GOLDENROD WAY ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 WEEKLEY HOMES LLC WEEKLEY HOMES LLC OP5 ORONO LLC 1111 N POST OAK RD 1111 N POST OAK RD 1660 HIGHWAY 100 S STE#400 HOUSTON TX 77055 HOUSTON TX 77055 ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 38 33-118-23 24 0023 38 33-118-23 24 0033 38 33-118-23 24 0044 WEEKLEY HOMES LLC STEVEN WENDLING&D WENDLING WEEKLEY HOMES LLC 500 SANDHILL DR 2875 WOOD DUCK TR 2860 GOLDENROD WAY ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 WEEKLEY HOMES LLC STEVEN WENDLING WEEKLEY HOMES LLC 1111 N POST OAK RD DOREE WENDLING 1111 N POST OAK RD HOUSTON TX 77055 2875 WOOD DUCK TR HOUSTON TX 77055 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 33-118-23 24 0024 38 33-118-23 24 0034 38 33-118-23 24 0045 WEEKLEY HOMES LLC ANDREA N RATFIELD AJ HELGERSON/J M HELGERSON 490 SANDHILL DR 2865 WOOD DUCK TR 2870 GOLDENROD WAY ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 WEEKLEY HOMES LLC ANDREA N RATFIELD Al HELGERSON 1111 N POST OAK RD 2865 WOOD DUCK TR JILLIAN MARIE HELGERSON HOUSTON TX 77055 LONG LAKE MN 55356 2870 GOLDENROD WAY LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 33-118-23 24 0025 38 33-118-23 24 0035 38 33-118-23 24 0046 WEEKLEY HOMES LLC OP5 ORONO LLC JASON BERGLUND&A BERGLUND 480 SANDHILL DR 2855 WOOD DUCK TR 2880 GOLDENROD WAY ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 WEEKLEY HOMES LLC OP5 ORONO LLC JASON BERGLUND 1111 N POST OAK RD 1660 HIGHWAY 100 S STE#400 AMANDA BERGLUND HOUSTON TX 77055 ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 2880 GOLDENROD WAY LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 33-118-23 24 0026 38 33-118-23 24 0037 38 33-118-23 31 0010 OP5 ORONO LLC OP5 ORONO LLC GN RY CO 2833 GOLDENROD WAY 535 SANDHILL DR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 00000 OP5 ORONO LLC OP5 ORONO LLC B N&SANTA FE RR CO 1660 HIGHWAY 100 S STE#400 1660 HIGHWAY 100 S STE#400 PROPERTY TAX DEPT ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 ST LOUIS PARK MN 55416 PO BOX 961089 FORT WORTH TX 76161 38 33-118-23 24 0027 38 33-118-23 24 0038 38 33-118-23 31 0013 WEEKLEY HOMES LLC WEEKLEY HOMES LLC STATE OF MN 2835 GOLDENROD WAY 495 SANDHILL DR 365 OLD CRYSTAL BAY RD N ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 WEEKLEY HOMES LLC WEEKLEY HOMES LLC MN DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION 111 1 N POST OAK ROAD 1111 N POST OAK RD DIRECTOR OF RAV OPERATIONS HOUSTON TX 77055 HOUSTON TX 77055 395 JOHN IRELAND BLVD STPAUL MN 55155 38 33-118-23 24 0028 38 33-118-23 24 0039 38 33-118-23 32 0002 WEEKLEY HOMES LLC WEEKLEY HOMES LLC BURLINGTON NORTHERN INC 2837 GOLDENROD WAY 485 SANDHILL DR 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 55356 ORONO MN 00000 WEEKLEY HOMES LLC WEEKLEY HOMES LLC B N&SANTA FE RR CO 1 11 1 N POST OAK RD 1111 N POST OAK RD PROPERTY TAX DEPT HOUSTON TX 77055 HOUSTON TX 77055 PO BOX 961089 FORT WORTH TX 76161 RUN DATE:10/26/2018 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM(PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE:2 Hennepin County has developed electronic forms of certain property information databases.Hennepin County makes reasonable efforts to produce and publish the most current property information available.The viewer should understand,however,that Hennepin County makes no representation or warranties,either express or implied,or as to merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained herein. Date Application Received: December 12,2018 �O1 YO Date Application Considered as Complete:January 4,2019 60-Day Review Period Expires: March 5,2019 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner Date: January 22, 2019 Subject: LA18-000098,Jen and Tony Ishaug,4245 Chippewa Ln,Variance, Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting front yard setback variance for a detached garage. Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission should discuss the findings, if there is support a motion can be made to recommend approval. Background The new accessory building requirements allow a detached garage 1000 sq.ft. or smaller to be forward of the principal building, subject to conditions which include the structure should be consistent in material and color with the principal structure. The applicants have sized and designed the garage to fit these requirements. The new accessory buildings ordinance requires any accessory building forward of the principal building to meet the front yard setback. The applicants are requesting a variance to allow a 20 foot setback instead of the 100 foot required setback due to the topography of the property. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-395 -Setbacks: DISTRICT RR-1A Required Principal Existing Accessory Proposed Front 100' 192' 20' Rear 100' 320' +/-600' Side (West) 50' 50' +/-230' Side (East) 50 198' 50' Section 78-395 - Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT RR-1A Lot Area Lot Width Required 217,800 s.f. (5 acres) 300' Actual 211,701 s.f. (4.86 acre) 330' Section 78-1403-Structural Coverage: The property is over 2 acres and does not have any structure coverage requirements. Section 78-1700-Hardcover Calculations: The property is not located in the hardcover zone. LA18-000098 January 22,2019 Page 2 of 4 Applicable Regulations: Variance (78-1440 b.) (b) Within the RR-1A and RR-1B districts, an accessory building less than 1,000 square feet may be located streetward of the principal building provided the following condition are met: a. Principal building setbacks shall be met;and b. The accessory building shall be consistent in design, color and exterior material with the principal building. Governing Regulation:Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2,when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2)variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. A detached garage as an accessory use to a single family home is in harmony in the RR-1A district. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. A detached garage as an accessory building in a single family zone is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The use of the property for the single family home with a detached garage is reasonable for the RR-1A district. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The applicant has stated this to be true due to the existing structures on the lot and the unique topography located in the front yard of the property. and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The applicant has stated the proposed location would be placed behind existing mature trees and outside of existing challenging topography limiting the need to excessive grading. The property is located at the end of a dead-end road limiting its visibility in the neighborhood. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. LA18-000098 January 22,2019 Page 3 of 4 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn.Stat. §216C.06,subd. 2,when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as the use for a single family home with a detached garage is an allowed use in the RR-1A District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.The property has some unique topography with the grading sloping down along the East side of the parcel limiting some of the buildable footprint forward of the principal structure. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.The topography is unique to this lot within the neighborhood. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant has stated this to be true by allowing the property owners to maintain the appearance of the property. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter.The property owners believe that granting the proposed variance will not in any way impair the health, safety, comfort, morals,or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The property owners believe the granting of the variance is necessary to alleviate the demonstrable difficulties of topography along the East side of the property and in the rear of the property. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Septic System Status Staff has completed a preliminary review of the project for compatibility with the septic system, and has determined that the project is not likely to impact the existing or future septic sites. The site plan for the building permit should call out the alternate septic site. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B,and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis Due to the unique topography and configuration of improvements on the property the request for a front yard setback variance seems reasonable. Engineer Comments LA18-000098 January 22,2019 Page 4 of 4 There are no issues with the proposed grading, When the building permit is submitted the associated site plan should depict the location of the erosion control measures and call out the top and bottom elevation of the proposed retaining wall. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation The Planning Commission shall consider the submitted finding. If the commission agrees with the findings a MOTION to recommend approval would be required. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Site Plan Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Hennepin County Topography Map Exhibit F. Pictures Exhibit G. Property Owners List and Map Exhibit H. Adjacent Property Owner Signatures Letter View PC Land Use Application Summary LA18 0 8 Exhibit it A A )plication Date: 12/11/2018 Address: 4245 CHIPPEWA LA MAPLE PLAIN, MN 55359 Parcel Number: 3111823420001 Land Use Number: LA18-000098 Application Submitted By: Property Owner Owner: Name: JENNIFER ISHAUG Address: 4245 CHIPPEWA LA MAPLE PLAIN, MN 55359 Applicant: Name: Jen Ishaug Address: 4245 Chippewa Lane Maple Plain, MN 55359 Contact Information: Associated Contact: Tony Ishaug Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description: Accessory Building Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application 0 Appeal of Admin Decision 0 Concept Application 0 Conditional Use Permit 0 Site Plan Application 0 Subdivision Application 0 Subdivision Exception 0 Vacation Application 0 Variance Application 0 Applicant Signature: k-vtui 441 file:///C/Users/loakden/Downloads/Land%20Use%20Application%20Summary%20(5).htm[12/20/2018 11:40:58 AM] Letter View PC PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA18-000098 LA18-000098 Exhibit B 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: Property owner proposes to build an accessory structure for storage of personal property belonging to the owner. Property owner is not going the change the property use. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: Topography of property makes it difficult to access accessory building in rear yard and allow reasonable accessibility. The rear yard, in particular the south east corner, has a tendency to be very wet due to drainage. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: Proposed location is tucked behind the existing mature trees and the proposed building to adhere to the look and character of the primary residence will maintain the character of locality. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: To build an accessory structure in the rear yard would entail significant changes in topography which would have the likelihood of adverse alterations in character and drainage of the said property and adjacent properties as well. 5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 1163.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. Response: N/A 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Response: N/A ( No change in property use) 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Response: N/A 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response: Topography of property creates challenges and limits the feasible areas for building as accessory structure. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: Topography / slope of the rear yard is much more dramatic than that of other properties in the file:///C/Users/loakden/Downloads/Practical%20Difficulties%20Documentation%20Form%20(5).htm[12/20/2018 11:40:45 AM] Letter View neighborhood. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a bstantial property right of the applicant. Response: The proposed building will allow property owner to maintain the appearance and the property beyond the level of other properties and will allow owners to achieve greater enjoyment of the property. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. Response: Property owner believes that granting the proposed variance will not in any way impair the health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: Property owner believes that granting this variance is necessary to alleviate the demonstrable difficulty of topography in the rear yard. file:///C/Users/loakden/Downloads/Practical%20Difficulties%20Documentation%20Form%20(5).htm[12/20/2018 11:40:45 AM] PC LA18-0000 a a MA.,e41 Exhibit C .WefeJ HAT) ar-c SF comets C El','semE'vki A E Mt' ?Al S 89°28'41" W 330.46. to,' *.rot cs4'3 �W'7 pne 1 ET/4..�,I 7 jf1� -- o,' <(1.i-I Q2.. •' the NK W4, / • I�bo 4�J __ ,a ! ,.J SE I/11 See.3� 1,o-23 'ro tel. , „_ i. 1 • V\ ''(1,''' ) 4-.." - :yr est Orp or Mt 330 fest South 1/2, ,i‘y V���1NW 1/4,SE 1/4,S4c.31-116-23 f.` Q {{ y`, 1 1} g �."".„ 1 i 1974.51 9 v $ e . ,r11t: "` (973j e ik 7 6#0.-->- . / Z=! :��� �1D'' i re 'd o o-' e 1 r p� '/ e • fl7 r If l Kiri ) �` r' ,� ' 9.5 r'/ �pV. 20 .e ry�,7� )1.1� f oC rf t' ' i t 74. //J p7 7 � // 188+- ......_�.. 3 (271.0).. ."'",t ... I�r dJ ' 1 02 a r. In ( (7aa) 4" «,m I' +1 ( m f)4 Tri `Jfssl .. /o i i 45 ; ,•�..� 1 r t Z -r' 0 !w ) / 3* `d ( - o 8 •,,,_...„....„,,,� i dw n ti. 1�' I t/ . e , Ar / 1� ? �err� ���•� � ( t � (97o9) �2 4�^, Y l �! 73 (' v > Y G ° t, .7 ' :,:s.T. . V' ,' I-- 1 ,- - - ' . :' :4 4; r {, 'e m)2 % PC LA18-000098 —, Exhibit D ,/o.A,, , /,.,-- 11, ,ryi •.2 ... u r• \ V I1, ‘)4 ---e! r I . I , . ,_0,, , _1 1 . 0 _._., ,r, IIIT„,,,,,,„,./,„,,A,,,,,, , " .,, , , ,,,, ,, i , ['IL 111.1.1. 0111 am no C%1 co CI Lo iii'lIc Int MI INIIII . 2 NM 9- —A. el cq lc. co Ln : I I iNni e•e Tit ..6. MAW 0 Cd In :II: 5'-C' rifilli Cn Z Lel' liNi. AO alik cf) ,c ..„..., - . 1,_ 38-0" N,r, t N —I ✓ co —I 'j-'.. FRONT ELEVATION ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,r,„,,, re C13 2 v,,,,,,FE.,,FP,IF NI,f,.L:,,,,,,,• l'' 4 , 4110 ,„"1WoMmIMioMnINueannHsMmOMgoInMloIirWia-4r01.111n11 m1MeIuMniInNmMMoImIN i 1 j,0MMIEMMr ic Z0M d g oli earl LIJ Ca et z cra MESTMAIIM .R. ▪ x in 00•01;44:.44444 PiIii: ilit a. T-I -------' 22'-C" PROJECT 0 L,7.E,17EVATON RGri ELEVA,ON CO CO X OA 01 DRAWN DY 1-0' I- IA 0 a 0 0 REAR ELEVATION ,,,-., a 4.4 c>' Cpl 'r4'."r�• w l u{,0' ra s -1-'4V4,';`.. 41 .,' f f 1 Fres • ` . 'VV p�+£1y.it a� }*x� ',4�M{. #."I' ,,,,• r f ,-,,, ® ;�.1 .14-- ,}4 � a{ 2.-.1,"x'1 .,'if`,y i`yWi'r .' rG'>. �. �rR +* ..', ''.1'''' t . „..n ''.. .,-- *1:. :',,-, --,. •4'''''' 411 tor*, : " ;.".!)""-:..7:1; '-; I ri—;:zi .":,-'"r4S;:z - -°' -'§, Sts ,. ,,, -as, ,.. c ' t ri'.[� c4--' +n 1 '1 <, _;t-„ r• - �^-. _ a;, 3 I w s 4 4 Q'k \II L -. y °*”? . ,�, '`! f t ratges**r,..4,, _ . 6, t1�.. e °# 'rw',14.:-• y .`�'.."� .0 c l6 te q ra r t p -.°' .+^. % � ,. 'I Rh' I_ *+rr'+*t+ �i'tt •Drat - Z a+. " s i"{y + A'I �� x yy •f"rr. - wv. .." s,• • $ -. '.. ,' ,_„ s �. may. r—,,. ', -+ 4...,-,4,,,, ,.s �' .,'.,_ rt .' _ -"*SMI -;� "r-� ..-.., f b - , , - , , , , _ , 1 r. s 'y I 1E _� ,ii �t s �; �1 I ` Ai�'l i(�i� 1�� r� " - I III 1' _ — wIi` ri a M ` 44 ..1. a. 1- ;r + •.i7' may+ I t'..'," i i r .. PC LA18-000098 Hennepin County Natural Resource . __, s Map Exhibit Date:12/26/2018 ,. ,Chipaewt: s. �-7:, _f f • .', ' . -" 1 .4. A-- . 8 fix, a ', { i < Y '} tri§ � t Y s '� 'n s4f't .>3 u _. ''' p s �,,j� A r' t i a a gyri k t .7 „j.1.:*.'.' u ( r' eft+^ tir .4.-:#4:3,`,4,,,, ,L8" 0.,b.a.:I;iti..,:,,,i-7:,„:„...1 • 1 J t ilik‘-' :I ' r f f� .- Fr #' t r, f f / ;` ' / 1 PID:3111823420001 Legend Address 5 CPEWA 2 Foot Elevation Contours ORONO Owner Name-ANTHONYHIPISHAUGLA,2878 — Index J ISHAUG Acres:4.86424 Intermediate Point Location(UTM 15N):450 .207,4981370.53 Comments: 1 inch=50 feet 101 This date 6)ro fumished'Ox IS'wih ro representation as to amgete �wr.�-y;Ii)€hrmisnedwmravarranyor ant k'nd',end Iiia is nobultuS6 for burl,erg irearirg or sonsvrg proposes. in County shell mf be Iladefor anydamge, nlury or lazasresJrenndrg from Mis data. WPYRIOHTC HENNEPIN COUNTY 2018 950 Si r> :::‘::::::'''''''.5:1;' -'''''' c{ -...a ,.� s..^- ... �o• - — LA18-000098 �.r Exhibit F ..r",, "' to i ehr M e. ref 1 ri b s� 1 4 }€ . ry ._,.it .3 v ii; .� r S �21Y14:-,.. d txIv� _ _... _ t/I; .,. -,‘*- ,r .. _ —____,:__:,, --;,,c...,t,,i,', , • j, ti r- - -4 ( � I 2011 t , . Pod r n74t*‘_,,,,,:: _ r v. . +a ' , .. !# jg - 5 pri .. :- 1'� fi \.. t - n _ r � k �f -s' „a --;:-11:-: _ I. . ;F,;,,: e.a,.� � 3 a rT ,r r � :'.:-.,:`,1,. r -' - ,. -iib xc '� a0. ' � s Myr \ t ; r • , /1/ '''''-'-''''4-":CP''''y \ ''''''''*‘-'1,. .,_,,4 .r. . ^� . L 14,.:. .4 _d_...1 . .... + , _. , . , . . . .... ....... ,, ... .. ,,,__ _,, ,,,,_ _ .__ ___________._______________________ �r . dtF. t� .,Anrz; . . � .. .. ,, �� ._,.._.. . ...,..,„ . .. .rte' ,,,,,,,....„,,,::.:,,:....,,,,e.„-4...• .s 0 ? .! `.. IIii littituAit:. j alliEntiffli , z Ij.1 zriid ryu iF3' Z`. e ,p 4" tE� vra*rY",,, , , • Existing Home- Garage exterior will be w , .g3, s designed to match material and color ,a x , PC Hennepin Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map LA18-000098 D Exhibit G 4360 4 4325 F5) 4315 tiro, 4305(,q 4220 itz) #. a �, 4145 I 4265 t'yi '`A ' ` . ,z , it w � tnY tai •4355 : , gyp; 3. ---"*".....lommummagninquill „Rt CiI Q-a ita L ,.. 1 i III I I 1 II liii i I I I I I 1'ihillil'iallb'-"I 4 1 1 I"4 1 rAill Buffer Size: 500 0 50 100 200 Feet Map Comments: I lit 4245 Chippewa Lane This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy;(i)Is fum'shedv.ithnowarranty of any kind; and (ii) Is notsuitabte for Ngal,engineering orsuneiing purposes.Hennepin County shal not be liable(or anydamag e,Injury L.. or loss resulting from this data. For more information,contact Hennepin CountyGlS Office 300 6th Street South,Minneapolis,MN 55487lgis.lnfoahennepn.us 0 RUN DATE:12/1312018 IIENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM(PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE:1 38 31-118-23 13 0015 38 31-118-23420019 38 31-118-23 44 0003 DIANE M ERICHSEN T J&K L MCCAFFREY HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND 4225 WATERTOWN RD 4265 CHIPPEWA LA 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55359 ORONO MN 55359 ORONO MN 00000 DIANE M ERICHSEN THOMAS&KATHLEEN MCCAFFREY HENNEPIN FORFEITED LAND 4225 WATERTOWN RD 4265 CHIPPEWA LA FOR SALE TO ADJACENT MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 PROPERTY OWNER ONLY 38 31-118-23 41 0013 38 31-118-23 42 0020 38 31-118-23 44 0004 M R&M E PLANK TRUSTEES JOHNS W&LYNN E YOUNG ANDREW HANSEN&ALEX HANSEN 4145 WATERTOWN RD 4355 CHIPPEWA LA 50 CRISTOFORI CIR ORONO MN 55359 ORONO MN 55359 ORONO MN 55359 MICHAEL R&MARY E PLANK JOHN YOUNG ANDREW HANSEN&ALEX HANSEN 327 N CARRINGTON AVE 4355 CHIPPEWA LA 50 CRISTOFORI CIR BUFFALO WY 82834-1615 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 ORONO MN 55359 38 31-118-23 41 0014 38 31-118-23 43 0001 S HOLZSCHUH&K HOLZSCHUH STATE OF MINN 4115 WATERTOWN RD 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55359 ORONO MN 00000 SHAWN HOLZSCHUH DNR REAL ESTATE MGMT KIMBERLY HOLZSCHUH ATTN DEBBIE GURTIN 4115 WATERTOWN RD 500 LAFAYETTE RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 ST PAUL MN 55155 38 31-118-23 42 0001 38 31-118-23 43 0002 ANTHONY ISHAUG&J ISHAUG STATE OF MINN 4245 CHIPPEWA LA 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55359 ORONO MN 00000 JENNIFER ISHAUG DNR REAL ESTATE MGMT ANTHONY ISHAUG ATTN DEBBIE GURTIN 4245 CHIPPEWA LA 500 LAFAYETTE RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 ST PAUL MN 55155 38 31-118-23 42 0006 38 31-118-23 43 0011 STATE OF MINN DAVID A DETERS 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 145 TURNHAM RD ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55359 DNR REAL ESTATE MGMT DAVID A DETERS ATTN DEBBIE GURTIN 145 TURNHAM RD 500 LAFAYETTE RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 ST PAUL MN 55155 38 31-118.23 42 0009 38 31-118-23 43 0014 JPETRUSA&JPETRUSA J R&J K LESSER 4325 CHIPPEWA LA 165 CRISTOFORI CIR ORONO MN 55359 ORONO MN 55359 JOSEPH PETRUSA JOHN LESSER JANELLE PETRUSA 165 CRISTOFORI CIR 4325 CHIPPEWA LA MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 42 0010 38 31-118-23 43 0015 GREGORY HALLDIN ETAL W F&E KNAPP 4315 CHIPPEWA LA 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55359 ORONO MN 00000 GREGORY HALLDIN WILLIAM F&EVELYN KNAPP 4315 CHIPPEWA LANE 85 CRISTOFORI CIR MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 42 0011 38 31-118-23 43 0018 J L CORNICK&D L CORNICK A W ROCHEL&S S ROCHEL 4305 CHIPPEWA LA 125 TURNHAM RD ORONO MN 55359 ORONO MN 55359 JAMES&DEBRA CORNICK ANTHONY W&SURYA ROCHEL '.. 4305 CHIPPEWA LA 125 TURNHAM RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 42 0012 38 31-118-23 44 0001 DBG LLC STATE OF MINN 4220 CHIPPEWA LA 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55359 ORONO MN 00000 DEG LLC DNR REAL ESTATE MGMT 4725 WEST LN ATTN DEBBIE GURTIN SHOREWOOD MN 55331 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155 38 31-118-23 42 0015 38 31-118-2344 0002 J GORSUCH&S GORSUCH STATE OF MINN 4360 CHIPPEWA LA 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55359 ORONO MN 00000 JEFFREY GORSUCH DNR REAL ESTATE MGMT SARAH GORSUCH ATTN DEBBIE GURTIN 4360 CHIPPEWA LA 500 LAFAYETTE RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 ST PAUL MN 55155 PC LA18-000098 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS'ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOI Exhibit H I (we) �, '_i9 u r rv, 0°r rt t t/� of #365,- eti ,.ieliaea}W 444 c_ ad,,o 1W Al . [print name(s)] [prini address] / -.5 3 .C. have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 1-/J(lc CA,'f eLv4 /,,talso referred to as Land Use Application No. / o r I,!:,- I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. ?rte rte( 9/i /,.y Property Owner Date 0.4...._ a"._______ perty Owner Pr aDate cf/Z-y/ y If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building &Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I (we) 164-ii lr ee h Mc( ct ` istof yZ 6'5- C t , �� .v0. L Al [print name(s)] ) [print akdress] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at 4/"YS- (i)ii lr r.✓r. CaAc also referred to as Land Use Application No. 1(-o 0 //S'r I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. 441.— Property Owner Date —4P')-7 Pie i/dki /6 --- -AY' Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building &Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. Variance Application—September 2017 Page 15 Date Application Received: 12/12/18 O�T Date Application Considered as Complete:01/04/19 l VO 60-Day Review Period Expires: 03/05/19 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members i Dustin Rief, City Administrator SHO From: Melanie Curtis, Planner MCC Date: 22 January 2019 Subject: #LA18-000099,John Ortiz with Mom's Design Build o/b/o Bret&Jennifer Riemenschneider, 835 Forest Arms Ln, Average Lakeshore Setback Variance Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting an average lakeshore setback variance to permit the construction an addition to the home on the lakeside of the home with a pergola covered deck completely ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. Also proposed is a new 30" raised patio. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. Background Building improvements must meet all required setbacks;on a lakeshore property this includes the 75-foot lake setback and the average lakeshore setback. Based on the neighboring home locations, the home on the subject property is approximately 19 feet ahead of the average lakeshore setback line. They would like to construct a small addition to the home over the deck on the lakeside however, not further toward the lake than the existing home. An open pergola- roofed area is proposed to be constructed lakeward of the new addition on a new elevated patio. The patio will be elevated 30"from grade,which is permitted in the average lakeshore setback. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-350&78-1279-Setbacks: LR-1B Required Existing Proposed Rear/Street 30' 38.6' No Change West Side 10' 36' No Change East Side 10' 33' No Change Lakeshore 75' 200' (house) Pergola±193' House 200' Average Lakeshore A portion of the existing home as well as the improvements are lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. FILE#LA18-000099 22 Jan 2019 Page 2 of 5 Section 78-350- Lot Area/Width: LR-1B Lot Area Lot Width Required 43,560 s.f. (L0 acre) 140' 140' at the OHWL& 172' at the 75' Actual 45,933 s.f. (1.05 acres) SB Section 78-1403-Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 45,933 s.f. (1.05 acre) Allowed: 9,186 s.f. (20%) Proposed: 3,964 s.f. (8.6%) Section 78-1680- Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Total Area in Allowed Proposed Overlay District Zone Hardcover Existing Hardcover Hardcover Tier Tier 1 45,933 s.f. 11,483 s.f. 6,018 s.f. 6,585 s.f. (25%) (13.3%) (14.3%) Applicable Regulations: Average Lakeshore Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) The existing lake side grade-level deck will be removed and replaced with a larger patio, elevated 30" from existing grade. Construction an addition to fill in a notched-in area of to the home and an open, pergola-roofed area on the new patio is also proposed. The proposed improvements will extend as much as 11 feet closer to the lake than the existing home; approximately 33 feet into the average lakeshore setback.The patio is less than 42"from grade,therefore is not required to be located behind the average lakeshore setback line. The proposed improvements will be entirely lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. The applicants' home encroaches into the average lakeshore setback line, there is no conforming location on the lake side of the home to construct structural improvements. The neighboring properties likely have no lake views over the applicants' property as both of the adjacent homes are oriented away from the applicants'property. A variance to allow the structural improvements (addition and pergola) to encroach up to 33 feet ahead of the average lakeshore setback is requested. Governing Regulation:Variance(Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties FILE#LA18-000099 22 Jan 2019 Page 3 of 5 also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2)variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The requested average lakeshore setback variance is in harmony with the Ordinance as the most adjacent neighbors are situated such that their channel/lake views are not across the subject property and their views will not be impacted by the improvements. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.The variances resulting in a permit for construction of an addition to an existing single family residence in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The request to permit construction of building and structural improvements lakeward of the average lakeshore setback appears to be reasonable as the owners of the adjacent properties have stated that they are not adversely impacted;the mature vegetation,topography, and home orientation separate the Property from the adjacent neighbors. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; the location of the existing home, the orientation and location of the neighboring homes,the depth of the lake yard,and the channel character of the lake shoreline in question are conditions not created by the landowner; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. It does not appear that the requested average lakeshore setback variance to permit additions to the home will adversely impact views of the lake currently enjoyed by the adjacent property owners or alter the character of the locality. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn.Stat. §216C.06,subd. 2,when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.This condition is not applicable, as the use for a residential home is an allowed use in the LR-1B District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The location of the existing home, the orientation and location of the neighboring homes,the depth of the lake yard, and the FILE#LA18-000099 22 Jan 2019 Page 4 of 5 channel character of the lake shoreline in question are unique conditions affecting the subject property and the immediately adjoining properties. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The location of the existing home, the orientation and location of the neighboring homes, the depth of the lake yard, and the channel character of the lake shoreline in question are unique conditions affecting the subject property and the immediately adjoining properties and are not common conditions of properties in the LR-1B district overall. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant states that the variance is necessary to preserve their right to improve their home and property. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the requested variances will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort, or morals; nor will it be contrary to the intent of the Code. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The application of the average lakeshore setback severely limits the options for improving the property/home; the granting of the requested variance is necessary to alleviate a practical difficulty resulting from the location of the existing home, the orientation and location of the neighboring homes, the depth of the lake yard, and the channel character of the lake shoreline. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding the applicable Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis The applicants' property fronts on a long channel and is somewhat disconnected from the lake. The configuration of the subject property along the end of the channel creates a unique situation regarding the view. The neighboring home to the south at 855 Forest Arms Lane is set back further on their property than the subject home. It has no lake view the applicants' property;their home is oriented to the south. The neighbor to the north at 825 Forest Arms Lane faces more directly west toward the channel rather than over the applicants' property. The properties along the lake side of Forest Arms Lane have deep lake yards and the homes are situated nearer to the street side of the properties. The depth of the lake yards combined with the curvature of the channel shoreline result in difficulty for the property owner in identifying a conforming location for improvements to their property. Additionally, there are mature trees separating the applicants' property from both of their neighbors which will likely screen most of the views of the improvements. Staff finds practical difficulties supporting the variances in the location of the existing home, the orientation and location of the neighboring homes, the depth of the lake yard, and the channel FILE#LA18-000099 22 Jan 2019 Page 5 of 5 character of the lake shoreline in question. Public Comments Public comments have been received and area attached as Exhibit J. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the average lakeshore setback variance to allow construction of the home addition and pergola up to 33 feet ahead of the average lakeshore setback line as shown on the proposed plans. The 30" patio is permitted ahead of the average lakeshore setback. Approval should be subject to the applicant providing an updated survey accurately depicting the existing conditions as well as the proposed improvements prior to issuance of any permits for the project. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Summary& Narrative Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Existing Survey-Annotated Exhibit D. Side-by-side Existing& Proposed Site Plan Exhibit Exhibit E. Proposed Site Plan Drawing Exhibit F. Proposed Plans & Elevations Exhibit G. Site Photos Exhibit H. Aerial Photos Exhibit I. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit J. Neighbor Comments Exhibit K. Property Owners List Exhibit L. Plat Map 12/27/2018 Permit Detail PC Exhibit A Land Use Application Summary LA18-000099 Application Date: 12/12/2018 Address: 835 FOREST ARMS LA MOUND, MN 55364 Parcel Number: 0711723120012 Land Use Number: LA 18-000099 Application Submitted By: Agent on behalf of property owner Owner: Name: BRET& JENNIFER RIEMENSCHNEIDER Address: 835 FOREST ARMS LA MOUND, MN 55364 Applicant: Name: John Ortiz Address: 12276 Johnson Memorial Drive Shakopee, MN 55379 Contact Information: Associated Contact: Carl Isaacson Associated Contact: Jim Sweeney Associated Contact: Heather Sweeney Associated Contact: Katie Zemlicka Project Description: Average Lakeshore Setback Variance Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application Appeal of Admin Decision Concept Application ' Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Application Subdivision Application --. Subdivision Exception Vacation Application Variance Application Applicant Signature: 0-\IT— https://www.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController 1/1 MOM'S DESIGN BUILD Riemenschneider Residence 835 Forest Arms Lane Orono, MN 55364 December 11, 2018 Pre-application Summary,#18-001413 We are requesting a variance with regard to the Average Lakeshore Setback Line and proposing to install improvements on the lake-side of the home. We would like to expand and improve the outdoor and indoor living spaces and surrounding landscape environment of the Riemenschneider Residence. Our goal is to create a more usable space for friends and family so they can enjoy the interior and exterior spaces and create an extension of the home.The proposal includes construction of an elevated patio with a pergola and house addition.The house addition will bump out the kitchen 12'-6" past its current kitchen location but not past the existing house footprint. The new addition will take the place of the current exterior deck location. The new pergola will extend 16' past the new kitchen addition. The raised patios will be less than 42" up from grade and therefore are not required to be located behind the average lakeshore setback line. Furthermore,the current backyard deck is located completely beyond the Average Lake Shore Setback Line and our proposed home addition, patio and pergola is also proposed to be completely beyond the Average Lakeshore Setback Line towards the water. The following is a list of proposed improvements: • Home addition on the lake-side of the house • Expanding the interior kitchen • A new patio • A new pergola with screens • New retaining walls, not exceeding 42 inches in height • New and improved landscape beds and plants We have included plans and details in the online submittal for your review. If there are any questions feel free to contact us. Thank you for your consideration. Moms Design Build Team Jim Sweeney 612-708-7083 12276 Johnson Memorial Dr. Shakopee,MN 55379 Office: 952.277.6667 Fax: 952.233.5250 MomsDesignBuild.com MOM'S DESIGN BUILD 12276 Johnson Memorial Dr. Shakopee, MN 55379 Office: 952.277.6667 Fax:952.233.5250 MomsDesignBuild.com 1/17/2019 View File PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA18-000099 1.The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response:Yes the property owner proposes to make changes to the backyard landscape as well as add an addition to the house which are both allowable and permittable construction activities.The homeowners?goal is to create a better,more useable outdoor living space as well as create a larger interior space so they can have great living spaces for family and friends. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response:Yes,the homeowners?ability to expanded and improve their landscape and home is restricted due to the Average Lakeshore Setback.In this particular case the Average Lakeshore Setback is determined by the two neighboring properties on each side of the Riemenschneider Residence.The two neighboring houses are setback from the Forest Lake Channel more than the Riemenschneider?s house and as a result the setback line will not allow for new or additional construction in the backyard. Furthermore,there is no ability to build or expand toward the road(Forest Arms Lane)because the Riemenschneider house already sits within several feet of the front-yard setback. 3.The variance,if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response:Correct,the proposed home addition and landscape improvements are specifically designed to fit into the existing house style and in general fit the local architectural and landscape style of the neighborhood. 4.Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: N/A 5.Practical difficulties include,but are not limited to,inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes,Section 1163.06,Subd. 2,when in harmony with this Chapter. Response:N/A 6.The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Response: N/A the property is in compliance and zoned LR-1B. 7.The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Response: N/A 8.The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response:Yes, because the neighboring houses are located farther away from the Forest Lake Channel this results in the Average Lakeshore Setback line running through the Riemenschneider property where their house is located rendering the backyard impossible to build on or improve upon without a request for a variance.Also,the character and shape of the Forest Lake Channel causes the neighboring homes to be rotated at angles,so they face directly to the water. Furthermore,due to the curve of the channel and topography,the Average Lakeshore Setback is located far into the property because the houses are also placed in flat locations on the lot and in a skewed layout in relation to the waters edge. 9.The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response:Correct,the conditions of this property are unique due to the water channel,topography along the channel and the skewed layout of the neighboring houses.We do not feel that our proposed improvements will hinder or adversely affect any neighbor,surrounding properties or part of the local community. 10.The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response:Yes,we feel that granting this variance request will allow for further enjoyment and intended use of the backyard space as well as the interior of the house.Granting the variance provides the best opportunity for the interior spaces and exterior spaces to improve the architectural appeal of the home and become more enjoyable for the home owners. 11.The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health,safety,comfort,morals,or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. Response:Correct,our variance request will in no way adversely or negatively impact anyone in any manner. 12.The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response:Yes,granting this variance request will allow for great indoor and outdoor spaces to be created and as a result,friends and family will have a better space to live in.Additionally,granting the variance request will allow the house to be improved upon and gain more value which in turn improves the neighborhood and overall property value. https://vwvw.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController?Action=ListPermits&WorkOrder_ID=78888284&ciDisplay=null&getPrint=true 1/1 060233 07.111.23 RIEVIENSCHNEIIJER,BRET d:JENNIFER ADVANCE SURVEYING& ENGINEERING CO. 2300 5 HM_No.101 4-4 ,1436,62355341 Pham r952)4747964 Fax(952)474 4367 BRET& JENNIFER RIEMEN.SCHNEIDER \ ° ------ tib SFR\EYED..4Pnl,2006 OR ,,.,\FIED 64.111 19,2nb ^ 1 IF.G.U.OFSCRIPIION: Note: / i��<"? Int F,Blocb 2,RAO ST ARMS,xennemn Com,nnnneuro. Addition '''''S's1,14, SCOPE.OFF'ORIS . I 1.snc, ds and th.>aat of boundary hoer ofthe above legal a n4 _,_,never ..`.' --.42,,,. ''°,• `.�"'C e ofam.e,,,,adces not ude dete�ax n c w 0.i eb built ' b'� Pleau chccR the legal desermtiat nods vansteams a nods can \ If necessary,to make sure that nta emu,and.1a,y what ore.a1sush competent LL its Mat - -` _ - `'..` iV .i :\� 4:I l • 2�Sbowny the lwu ut.sh shown onnion o(euse sun,u�tg�mpravevwe deemed imPawn. _ _%•'�� `i t ��•`i w� Seams nen monuments a,en;agold alum to roan the comets or tlopem. - /�;; moi rho ns and how N IshY or n _� _/ 1 it , relate tly the 4 AmN P dcd this ds bn a �� i' - 1 other feature shown on the map when detemutung°Met elmatrons for us.s.on Ova site , 3 Whsle we n r=movement to the v ,y F >w ��' t rr'j e� �/ �� plate as you ne nor are we as Na 4 B / emplmem are We ng confirm that mal ''ono i �' prme,t to gam their approvals If you Lan STAND‘RD SYMBOL A ONITNTION. '��ar I I j1\ P R P Pug bean m License Number 9235,set,wars o I ' 1 V'` \ , \ ` �,� :tom`,`\ \ m• `\`, \ �� \may`,`` .`. N. `': �` ,:=^���—_`.'-- a \ .\� �R'� ;��'_.;_ `ice �' �`___ \Y N • o • GRAPHIC SCALE • E �\\ �1L ora NO.050299 Existing House Footprint Proposed New Footprint—with Pergola PC Exhibit D N ' <.-7...5- °° A18-000099 J,"30 r, i 1. ,. ,/ pp. Nip ,e,..,,, ---.1,,...7,9,„, -, . ,„.0.19. ... • . „ ,. .. , .. 7 ,---c,„;:„.,, ,-;----40._,—// . .. . .. „. ,,, .,,, 41IS i,_, , i dc 1 7 '¢ 'c; r aft // , / fo . l..`. µ� .x , • , 1. MOM'S PROPERTY LINE • A p DESIGN B U I l D • / ,, V,Ar r n �\ � .omu<� Boyo-^cw.n,eee, a*' " x ,v. iv \ _ ^114,14 FRONT TARO SETBACK REAMER SWEENEYd • �'""� ,, _, ARIE ZEJALICKA •5>�,1�`f HEATHER$WEENEYd ,y /4 . t - JOHN ORLZ • AVERAGE HOUSE SETBACK LINE FROM a / y, ��• , • LIJ SIDE YnAD SETBACK - � �e %I U _C' �I /' L /.bLLJ o R 0 • . . t.:''' 1441P.4 -I ' ' tY d _____H..... w H ,.• s �,., E m W o E HOUSE z FROM KEw LLJ \ * L —�% . SIDE YARD SETBACK CY ,, ck. Ne �s KERNNNH ° J O • '-2- `moo° �� f' s _ l R X0,2 / / Z.-=.-:74.F.5.-^4.,:z.....:-4.:i s ; \\ N ';',;:\ ' , • 1/4/19 • 1 Houde Aaaioao ,4\ RPL E AN-REVISED I.x.r.,F:Stone Minima,WY A Iis H•Stone SHSPow la eacerwamen Zs se,m.K lire O OVERALL PROPOSED SITE PLAN __ ��" L-1 a I/C°a°cuusory 2_ (liijpi•iE4'i j r - iti: :Ii ,; 7 i Ili 25 j I i''>sses oNoaoNv� vis aoeam ;f ;Ilgllr ail' [ilj ;�, b gg_ °0 e41o1 Pau5 o% iw i3DN3aIS3e13013NHDSN3W3121 'o- . s=Y h° i!iilifjlii' s= n6 , ;_ �// SFS c," a y ' a w LL 3 ' / , '', * 1 p Lz,. Aptit'i �;' ' ArN\ \\ tip , , , / / t f r i %) o ff 'yr `°ro e a` // t o .: • ., l it -,figi : ��GtC 4',..,____-4. 1,,,21,.ii ...., s!!„,;.0.. N. / t '� F4.,....-.„ ....,II , ,, LL W L ,B° ; e •1, 333 a 3, S _ � l i{ € i in m y i i 99esS'NW'ouo�p'auo�swiy ysaoj seg i�l-III�6iijlji Q= E3 2 i §' JN2QIS32J QI�NH3SNJ 4 I21 k`((!j!i;ljllji� m o 5 �� Yi g 4l iol Pau6isa0 i!il iidliii�i e`o k E' a` iiithilliih!i i v.2 sm a— I;, 3 1 fr no ill ''1" ---_ mu 1.1'- . .6. YI Ii i MOM'S DESIGN•BUILD in ox1xsxm. v»p xvruu. i_, T HEATHER SWEENEY `T ___4=- )1(4,iL I Enil1ER SWEENEY .. 1.a' t rayl ��. 1 wmo-.H-n t-xem —I ¶ oc• urun�xcww•[�s v. rt ii8..4 a... +N pi -. i... a.. u I i .i rill-G ` �I e m,c.. a.... �• m. H 1 II-- I - - __ t -- w II Hr,U U U o Lu iz � � N h w � • '-',,' ' ,!II'11I, r-11 - - L - - 1-- _-_..., ,, iv ,..1-' f _ g 2 � ' l � � ,,) , ZwE , p w. .a1d.aaRa a ,om[, Er_IA °r _ „ . mill { �• B ..-,,,===i..,.., O--II . isER oNaREnA1N0 iF ._._T.-Ex-iER 1I L . (I " �� � ;t Imo1 I M 12/10/2018 24n rri " Nt " t O°' gy '" 'C . _ . > IL'n 41,.311:1'4:i ° _„, : 4. ; f* '' :' . ;`.*:..!$..* '* ,1407 , 'x,--i-.• -,..:';.'-c.-.7 -'',-•,., ,:z.-;.7-,., ,,. .', ' ‘44`0,.....i'' . =::" ;*.- . -.'-','F'•P,, '''.. : ''. '...Aft - - t-, 1,-;,, fiit it.,.:.- "•`--: ' 4 ' s-. - t ' ..4415.:4.,.. ;,.,,,, '.:s•*,,;;;,;„:"',.........,,,..:.„. .; ..11, . v _,4:._,,,,...„,,' ',,,,z..3.4,,:,..1.,s,,,„..,,t,,,,,,4,,,:_ 1-;..- ', .,-, , ,, -'„• - _f-----f•-:,,-- r,,, 7.-- ,., ... ... 4 ..,1....,... . . ,..., —, r. .. „,-.7n,.......,i lir ...1.:..,_ -...,,..,,,, ,, , . - , - . . , ':.."i l'. 1” I , -- . A )0;3: Si: ii, c 1 1 - i , tt.,,, Iv: ,17:1-.-- 1 : _L. ,, - 1 ,,- - . . : 1.4.„,,, te„.„7,1 ,,,2:-. 1 ,:. , ' ,„ 41 4.,. . ,,,z,,..,,,,,„.....f.4.,., . _ ., e...,„, . „,„.,,,/ -_..,.,,,ts,fs 1., I, , !----- --7----,,--,-, p, • -,:;::;iii ike14.--1 'w,--t-'.!___--,, .',,- ' ',,".- •- - ; - ..- . , . •....., - - s- 4-,',, ,- % .,., '' ', '"-'--,-',, • -,:v;,,-, ,,:, -,,, ,_..--,, -,„- -',L',';'- '.- kl,,,kPf,..,1,1-,,.,.....„:14.,-,,,j''nn, ..3.44- ‘n-— ,.,, '-•-•- -- n , ,n. , — . ; -., - '.„-.,.-n.,::,,,.,., ,., ;_ . ..,,,.,,,..4,;!. '„? ,•.,..‘,.,n..„, ,.',-;,.,j, ,,,,,. --*J°nt-,....,..,,,.;4- n. —--,-- . , , _ -— _.,. ,n. ,- ' . ' ., - "' .°...°,.-J.°,7° '-'"" , . ...!..J., °'4nnA4i112_,i,A.,,,,.,c'r• ,, l',*,,,,...,',../, , ., 4.1, ,,/: ,,.:4,. . , , _ , . ,,, —., . ,,1 , .,,4,,,,"`;' .' „,I!",`","..,.,:y ^,- '''' 4'Ion 4..'.,4'':•^5.;,,,. 2,,, ',,':, -i,,,,,,,,.- , ,,,-, . . _ - . .-,;,....-?. 0. ,, ., xz s r � 1 a ,�. } /.j' 1 \'''!'y� 1 � ,. Ott\-- 4} .'4 p ` ir, ,1i• :. F.:'" fie+ t S awl r .r. — _._-... tr' Kik e_. _._-.. � _ r 1 1 1------11-I-- '-.: ------------:::---': 1 I 'lig ell _ ..i. r ' As'"`f — ,Al I .LP,..L49a �ti"al - - r } ''....."+,..1,;C:',',..'':',.'... r r p � `,r8 r a .-.y 9. ' `# x 2 r " ,� , ",'f'', t t t a ' = $'Y•L a' a 'e g { tt,,.;\:44::'11'.4� .* 4�R ,..-+�„,;:e.,,,,, a t ' - RI 1 '�1 � s...;s„• e3 r,61,-:-y�ti.'•-• l f r �: `'f mt. ' }v s s e ist a t ei C;',,11:4% � �r w 3 �v � .'” ,� �y� s�, ��r tY � Cl' t t , s i . i '�. t J.r t s '�?'-'fir f l v "e t\",� �, ,i_ .. 4,',\,-,-'''''(i. i X a� ,`,1a"� '';:. •., i b rtl .-t fr r ,r .,- �6� .fl' ``$ i / aem o=q 0..',4‘11 `r t 71/0 1 tH.. At-, �t Lq`� �j" t,,,, ac. '.r.' 6''1 2e i6l jY.r r ¢� a�> a/ �+ ,+'1 SI r1rd';"4..r.,. . 4' i ^ # y R . a ae- k :14.444;:f;..1.'" e ? ',s a ::::',;t.' ea '� :t �, a y�G- ti 6t wic de •s >wit. t a va - k, `r€ ° •' ' „ . , $ 1...7.' '.f '1*-1. ,,a 41� ,,t`i ' r7' �� ,�Y.T �� ,a,„,,,.-.,;$'--'0.. ,tP,°.-' g fj Y.�c ; ' _ f r '1I'' V''' p s ' +}� '0 f' '` •- to 4'0`FSS3.T .6i' 0'i, . s ,4'/�' t `ia1 t'4,e.'7' .b .^b 2ia e,P 6 d y^. *.' 44 ile �,' ' e� . '� ✓�f° ° z+:�1xw aYea i►�v P my r, � ; �'�rxeg.' >"t. o A ro ,� P'A .. .%(i ,`-• • ,'Vi x� S �,p r .� •�.' .., r. '� y•, "w � 8 s el 411. I 1 I gig) fti . 4,4„ F / Y T n ..� � 4 • "� r` i. • 1a i� • gar, p �Ii�'t!!t tf ��� � �i �� ?x.�`�` � � �t•`, � 1�� ! 1!N �.r, a�l',�� r�'��!i��r`� ..,...,:i',-„.• M1 �±, t s 1 ff iV��',vi r usf 'r.' u ``fit '4 30 A �r�4 ,,i'fA 3 .4, 'e �� ! j� 3' ...41"t 4 , a �18i �, i� 1i'e`t°d3 i�W.'l ( "`• g.„,,...11,-,f Y 'ice , ' ' ,T ig apq ` 7 �r }.1F! : c,bi r `tt -. \ 4k 4�i7• he hG i7�4 i' • 4,�i!'E�,i^- }, ,ii if .._,kvii,-,.7 ! G J6d 77 'i !• b.RW�Is a -tom! ,' 4'li �1 r:, 34� �i:, 6f� .-.,:0'/P '; \v ,.••NQAy 1 61 � t , s ..a.. „. 1:. l µ 7 .pfs ! 4 rt c .;,. ,, - • : ..1-c,,,,.:: A :„,,,!,,,,i'ii- ‘co, . ,fat,:o.,'.1.,,?.,...„,,. . :',i-- '„-,..-.-,::::•-,,,,., .,'.i.., •.,,: ,,,i ,,,,,:-i t It'll . N yP� a1 A Ili '.; h 7 iii. .70,4, ,,.: ,Nik CO ' v,„411 ,va-,..-ti-, ..,:.. -•• •',7, ...,A,.,,,,,,,,,3• :pp, . .: 1 . ,I ill t ....e,... } � to Y' 4 t '`r._ ', r ``' !� `ham 1( '11 VA r 4` '13f3.. op ” ... t 11' bra w.r,:$x.. t *°'=r 7+11 ,fie - . .,�. .,it a v ` • • 5a e • I 1`i �y ffA .1. A „,,,,,,,.. .,, r I, 1,7 . ;, , , 1 •,, Nil; \. ., •' ' ,Ifk • ., OtAt - V1 ,„,:.k . • YYY 4.1. y. ifr . • �}. 1 ye � '�X .• • � 4'''''. J. :.ki . •/, -. • ' _',. • A.i. _ A. ..„..„.1 :, ...).c.5 , 4,. . . .„ ,w, bot,.*i.,,,,,, ,:.' ,4 ';'-''•''''.k.'' ' . 41A,V.0!-- `..4,-,to 1 -- i}4-. +T� is, ?� 0't4 Tj, 4,. ?. moi. -. �,4i [t f yj.4444 I T E. I, :. � I 4, tft • 44' vR -1,...l , sqi‘ �,, ` ! �-. `ti 1 ,� Ott dM'T,P.�}1.4 .:.",%‘• 1• i .',i f A 4 ( ', ▪±h''• a L-. Ive i "'Ili v' t 4' y /' G ''''n e r -. ''y �Y 5! i,s +f h t 1 ,C•t�-i! l,d7t7� I J,16,er 'i_r • ct}, �.; � T r 1,,,,...... ., t;'`' rt.; g5 41 1 .. tf'S.r .4,..,.. I iiiiii z � _.. 141P� •\ +.- 1.11' • •F� -� ,t ®l ltX �\ 10."ti�tst ii a C 5�fr :4-t T � .f 91'''' ..f :h' 1 j:�i fj \i t I 1\ 3. '>'v' 1 'i * :14'7x ' - . At. / • •e I ):” ' 2 �yrr'y X11 1 ` , Oil w .01, . ft, , • • ! J '.7'. - feet ,1 1 • t. IE , 5 N —�.-, .IV r Subject \ }ryT �, ___ ____ ' '‘ \ / ,, .,, / / ' ',: , \ �` \ / j '\` \ r o N ,\ / , , I \ - // Pores ts \ ,e/ \ / io-:.`• 4-----— 1 1S)Cr1..u,'n. rUu,iT.,5 .2 3FERE,IP2015ftidometry / �,. /� 1i Brand �' ., O � ��� ~ / '7� , � ', f .ti r/, ab . _. , ., 4`4 . L.___ _ • / veto n+l :' § / 410.'r n f � Location of Y,- - \ ti J proposed f > ` 7 improvements s„ , 4 f _ ../1":1/ lop! -____ ,,,,_ t____,. `. � / Y o 33tk by N 4%%44,k4e.Q.' ' ' ' t; ' ,..,,.,,,,,," ..-- Approximate Lake Views �✓ e r • , _ 0. u"rt i s Approximate Lake Views City of Orono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet (, Property Address: 835 Forest Arms Lane, Orono, MN 55364 'tfSNOQ'� Prepared by: Mom's Design Build Date: 12-10-18 Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 2: PROPOSED HARDCOVER In the following table, identify all items of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to site plan or survey (must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are intended to remain, as well as all proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Total Survey (Square Feet) (Example) (Garage) (24'x 30') (720 S.F.) A House 3504 S.F. B Concrete Driveway 1278 S.F. C Front Walk and Stoop 165 S.F. D House Addition 295 S.F. E New Patio 675 S.F. F Stone Landscape Steps&Landings 55 S.F. G Air Conditioner 6 S.F. H Stone Steppers to Lake 72 S.F. Shed 165 S.F. Wood Steps to lake above 75'setback line 325 S.F. K Wood steps to the lake below 75'setback line 45 S.F. L S.F. M S.F. N S.F. O S.F. P S.F. Q S.F. R S.F. S S.F. T S.F. S.F. ✓ S.F. VV S.F. X S.F. Y S.F. Z S.F. (1) Total Proposed Hardcover 6585 S.F. Excludable Hardcover(See City Code Sec 78-1684): Backyard retaining walls(65 SF) S.F. Existing Boulder retaining walls(35 SF) S.F. First 100 SF of patio 100 S.F. Existing Timber Walls(80 SF) S.F. S.F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover 100 S.F. (3) Net Proposed Hardcover [Subtract line(2)from line(1)] 6485 S.F. (4) Total Lot Area 45,933 S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [(3)_(4)] 1 4.1 94 Last Updated: July 2018 Note: This is an information sheet only, every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information contained herein;however, if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code, the Code provisions will prevail. Page 9 of 9 City of Orono r-0,,,,Q*,,, Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: 835 Forest Arms Lane, Orono, MN 55364 `stPrepared by: Mom's Design Build Date: 12-10-18 Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one)Cher Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 1: EXISTING HARDCOVER In the following table identify all items of existing hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to site plan or survey (must accompany this form). Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict existing hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Total Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Survey (Square Feet) (Example) (Garage) (24'x 30') (720 S.F.) A House 3,504 S.F. B Concrete Driveway 1,278 S.F. C Front Walk and Stoop 144 _ S.F. D House Addition 134 S.F. E New Patio 134 S.F. F Stone Landscape Steps&Landings 370 S.F. G Air Conditioner 165 S.F. H Stone Steppers to Lake 310 S.F. I Shed 10 S.F. J Wood Steps to lake above 75'setback line 51 S.F. K Wood steps to the lake below 75'setback line 14 S.F. L S.F. M S.F. N S.F. O S.F. P S.F. Q S.F. R S.F. S S.F. T S.F. U S.F. ✓ S.F. W S.F. X S.F. Y S.F. Z S.F. (1) Total Existing Hardcover 6,118 S.S.F. Excludable Hardcover(See City Code Sec 78-1684): First 100 SF of hardcover 100 S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover 100 S.F. (3) Net Existing Hardcover [Subtract line(2)from line(1)] 6,018 S.F. (4) Total Lot Area 45,933 S.F. Existing Hardcover Percentage [(3)_(4)] 13.1 % (Proposed Hardcover next page) Last Updated: July 2018 Note: This is an information sheet only, every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information contained herein; however, if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code, the Code provisions will prevail. Page 8 of 9 PC MOM Exhibit J LA18-000099 Pearson Comments December 10, 2018 To whom it may concern, I (we) have viewed the proposed landscape and remodel plan that our neighbors Bret and Jen Riemenschneider would like to install at their home located at 835 Forest Arms Lane, Orono, MN 55364. We do not feel that the proposed plans would negatively affect us in any way nor, would it interfere with our sightlines to the lake. We are in support of their landscape and remodel improvement plans that they would like to have built. Print Name: pc etir ,,z5),_ Signature: 12U24,4. c1 Date: /7-7 7 /-0 / 8 12276 Johnson Memorial Dr. Shakopee,MN 55379 Office:952.277.6667 Fox:952.233.5250 MomsDesignBuild.com MOM'S DESIGN BUILD December 10, 2018 Brandenberg Comments To whom it may concern, I (we) have viewed the proposed landscape and remodel plan that our neighbors Bret and Jen Riemenschneider would like to install at their home located at 835 Forest Arms Lane, Orono, MN 55364. We do not feel that the proposed plans would negatively affect us in any way nor, would it interfere with our sightlines to the lake. Weare in support of their landscape and remodel improvement plans that they would like to have built. Print Name: M i 70Jrs ,,J v Signature,: Date: -2 /- - 12276 Johnson Memorial Dr. Shakopee,MN 55379 Office: 952.277.6667 Fax:952.233.5250 MomsDesignBuild.com RUN DATE:12/13/2018 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM(PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE:1 38 06-117-23 32 0017 38 07-117-23 12 0008 38 07-117-23 12 0029 SOURCE LAND DEVELOPMENT INC ANN S FISCHER TRUSTEE R&J DAVISSON 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 860 NORTH ARM DR ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55364 SOURCE LAND DEVELOPMENT INC ANN S FISCHER RONALD&JUDITH DAVISSON 18215 45TH AVEN STE D C/O MEL AMMON 860 N ARM DR PLYMOUTH MN 55446 14698 GALAXIE AVE MOUND MN 55364 APPLE VALLEY MN 55124 38 06-117-23 43 0014 38 07-117-23 12 0009 38 07-117-23 21 0003 C KONING&P A KONING J R FELDMANN&D L FELDMANN MARC L MARTEUJAIME J MARTEL 795 LAKEVIEW PKWY 805 FOREST ARMS LA 995 WILDHURST TR ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 CHRISTOPHER KONING JOSEPH R FELDMANN MARC L MARTEL PATRICIA A KONING DONELLE L FELDMANN JAIME J MARTEL 795 LAKEVIEW PKWY 805 FOREST ARMS LA 995 WILDHURST TR MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 38 06-I 17-23 43 0015 38 07-117-23 12 0010 38 07-117-23 21 0004 SOURCE LAND DEVELOPMENT INC M&M MC ELLIGOTT BRIAN L&ANN K TURBEVILLE 4315 LAKEVIEW CT 815 FOREST ARMS LA 997 WILDHURST TR ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 SOURCE LAND DEVELOPMENT INC MICHAEL&MARY MC ELLIGOTT BRIAN L&ANN K TURBEVILLE 18215 45TH AVE N STE D 815 FOREST ARMS LA 997 WILDHURST TRL PLYMOUTH MN 55446 MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 43 0016 38 07-117-23 12 0011 38 07-117-23 21 0005 M R HENDRICKS ETAL IT REV TR N BRANDENBERG/B BRANDENBURG MICHAEL GRAY&DIANE GRAY 4325 LAKEVIEW CT 825 FOREST ARMS LA 999 WILDHURST TR ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 MARK&JILL HENDRICKS NATHAN M BRANDENBURG MICHAEL GRAY&DIANE GRAY 4325 LAKEVIEW CT BETH M BRANDENBURG 999 WILDHURST TR MOUND MN 55364 825 FOREST ARMS LA MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23120002 38 07-117-23120012 38 07-117-23210006 BANK OF AMERICA N A B C&J S RIEMENSCHNEIDER CHRISTOPHER D MORGART 975 WILDHURST TR 835 FOREST ARMS LA 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 00000 BANK OF AMERICA N A BRET C RIEMENSCHNEIDER CHRISTOPHER D MORGART C/O REVERSE MTG SOLUTIONS JENNIFER S RIEMENSCHNEIDER 1003 WILDHURST TR 14405\VALTERS RI)#200 835 FOREST ARMS LA MOUND MN 55364 HOUSTON TX 77014 MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0003 38 07-117-23 12 0013 38 07-117-23 21 0015 BRAD PFAFF KRISTIN PEARSON JANE E KLINE 993 WILDHURST TR 855 FOREST ARMS LA 4455 WEST BRANCH RD ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 BRAD PFAFF KRISTIN PEARSON JANE E KLINE 993\VILDHURST TR 855 FOREST ARMS LA 4455 WEST BRANCH RD MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23120004 38 07-117-23 120014 B L MAYES&C A MAYES JR G S SWENSON&M SWENSON 800 FOREST ARMS LA 875 FOREST ARMS LA ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 CLIFFORD&BRENDA MAYES GREGORY S&MARIA SWENSON 800 FOREST ARMS LA 875 FOREST ARMS LA ORONO MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23120005 38 07-117-23120015 JEFF C CORDES/TRACY N CORDES C D GUSTAFSON/M A GUSTAFSON 830 FOREST ARMS LA 895 FOREST ARMS LA ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 JEFF C CORDES/TRACY N CORDES CHAD D GUSTAFSON 830 FOREST ARMS LA MEGAN A GUSTAFSON MOUND MN 55364 895 FOREST ARMS LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0006 38 07-117-23 12 0016 1 WINDLER JR&S WINDLER B LAWRENCE J LAWRENCE 860 FOREST ARMS LA 4265 FOREST LAKE DR ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 55364 JAMES WINDLER JR BRENDON LAWRENCE STEPHANIE WINDLER JILL LAWRENCE 860 FOREST ARMS LA 4265 FOREST LAKE DR MOUND MN 55364 MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0007 38 07-117-23 12 0023 C A CLARK&B A SEGNER-CLARK FOREST ARMS CTRY CLUB ADDN 890 FOREST ARMS LA 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55364 ORONO MN 00000 C A CLARK&B A SEGNER-CLARK FOREST ARMS COUNTRY CLUB 890 FOREST ARMS LA ADDN HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC MOUND MN 55364 960 FOREST ARMS LANE MOUND MN 55364 Hennepin Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Date: 12/13/2018 iii.111.14 765 peg 4330 775 ill441% 41R ti 4325 pr . . . .„ , , „. , , , , ‘ . , , . , „ , .... ,e. ramino 000 tR ..„. z 1 ‘ , t ut.. nai 830p , 44 .1860 �. ISI Y I', 1111 <'J.,# 825 •l l y i r :„,,,,,,,:',44--,;46)7 , 4 065 (w I •-...- 875 (w (i 895 r 915 l I,19r� 4265 4250 , {{ r '.j.1'4 421 ,. x 1**'44 - ' 4225 93 pI 875czi I a' i F �, 4215 agg . rD5 1006 tit is ":.,..'`,'..4$- —_ ._W' ._.� . . Buffer Size: 500 0 50 100 200 Feet Map Comments: I I t l l l I I I 835 Forest Arms Lane This data (i) h furnkhed 'AS IS' with norepresentadmas to completeness or accuracy;(i)Is fum6hedsdth no6erranty otany pork"dand (ii) Is notsuitable for lagal,engineeringorsuteling poses.Hennepin County shat not beliatdetoranydan ge,lryury a loss resulting from this data. For more Inforrretion,contact Hennepin County GIS Olfice 300 6th Street South,Mlnneapols,MN 55487!gls.infoQhera1epin.us Date Application Received: 12/12/18 Date Application Considered as Complete:12/12/18 g-O�VTO 60-Day Review Extension Period Expires: 04/11/19 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members yet �~ Dustin Rief, City Administrator lkrSH°�� From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 22 January 2019 Subject: #LA18-000102, Charlie & Co. Design o/b/o North Shore Meadows LLC, 2455 North Shore Drive Variances & Interim Use Permit(IUP) Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting the following in conjunction with redevelopment of the property: 1. Lot area variance; 2. Lot width variance; 3. Average lakeshore setback variance; 4. Hardcover variance; and 5. An IUP for grading activity within 75 feet of the lake. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval of the IUP, the average lakeshore setback, lot width and lot area variances as noted. If the planning commission determines there are practical difficulties supporting the hardcover variance an approval recommendation may also be appropriate. Background The new owners of the property have enlisted the architects at Charlie & Co. Design to design a new home on the property.Their goal is to reduce the number of nonconformities to setback and hardcover while designing a functional home for the property. Due to the existing lot size and width,the project requires variances. The applicants are requesting lot area; lot width; average lakeshore setback; and hardcover variances to support their plans. An Interim Use Permit* (IUP) is also requested due to the total amount of grading activity within 75 feet of the lake. *The recent text amendment(Ordinance No. 219)modified how land alterations are handled. This proposed grading activity would have been previously covered under a CUP. FILE#LA18-000102 22 Jan 19 Page 2 of 7 LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-305;78-1279-Setbacks: LR-1A Required Proposed Rear/Street 50' ±200' West Side 16.2'* 22' East Side 16.2'* 17' Lakeshore 75' 88' Average Lakeshore The home meets the average lakeshore setback; a portion of the new patio is proposed within the average lakeshore setback area. *Sec 305(c) Within the LR-1A zoning district, the side yard setback for lots that are non- conforming as to their width shall be the lessor of 30 feet or equal to ten percent of the lot width as defined. However, in no case shall the side yard setback be less than ten feet. Section78-305-Lot Area/Width: LR-1A Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) 200' Actual 48,787 s.f. (1.12 acre) 161.2' @ 75'/160' @ OHWL Section 78-1403-Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 48,787 s.f. (1.12 acre) Allowed: 9,757 s.f. (20%) Proposed: 8,210 s.f. (16.8%) Section 78-1680 and 78-1700-Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Total Area Allowed Overlay in Zone Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover District Tier Tier 1 48,787 s.f. 12,196 s.f. 14,496 s.f. 772.3 14,320 s.f. 0 w/in (25%) (29.6%) w/in 75' (29.3%) 75' Note, there is a slight(5 square foot)discrepancy between the submitted hardcover calculation worksheets and the notations on the HC-2 site plan provided by the applicants. The applicants should clarify. The calculations used above are from the Hardcover Calculation worksheet Exhibit H. Applicable Regulations: Lot Area & Lot Width Variances (Section 78-305) Zoning Code Section 78-72 provides options for the redevelopment of lots which do not meet the minimum area or width requirements for the respective zoning district. Substandard properties within the Shoreland Overlay District, like the subject lot, are able to be redeveloped without variances if specific standards are met; such as: 1. All setback requirements can be met. 2. A Type 1 sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, can FILE#LA18-000102 22 Jan 19 Page 3 of 7 be installed or the lot is connected to a public sewer; and 3. The impervious surface coverage meets all hardcover location and square footage restrictions of this chapter and the total square footage of hardcover does not exceed 25 percent of the entire lot area. 4. All other zoning district standards can be met. The applicants' request for a hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances results in the property's inability to conform to standards 1, 3, &4 above.Therefore, lot width and area variances are also required in order to develop the property as proposed. Average Lakeshore Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) The applicants are proposing to construct the home to conform to all setbacks including the 84.7' average lakeshore setback as determined by the home to the west at 2465 North Shore Drive. The plan reflects a raised terrace/patio area which is situated partially within the previous/existing home footprint. The portion within the existing home footprint qualifies as an in kind (or less) improvement. However there is a narrow portion which does not qualify.This elevated terrace shown as the cross-hatched area Exhibit E (the applicants'AS-1 site plan) encroaches at most approximately 5.5 feet lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line. Further the terrace is an encroachment due to the applicants'grading plan for the lakeyard which proposes to balance out the side-sloped yard.The proposed home will have a first floor elevation of 950.5', 4.5' lower than the first floor of home to the west.As illustrated in the applicants'AS-3 section view (Exhibit F) looking from the lake,the proposed terrace including the curb wall sit at about 951.5' which is 42"from the new grade, and 3.5 feet lower than the first floor of the home to the west. Lastly, one purpose of the requested IUP is to permit the approximate 315 cubic yards of fill within the 75-foot setback; a secondary purpose is the establishment of new engineered grade elevation.The applicants do not wish to modify the grade to result in a taller home than is allowed, rather,they desire to balance the slopes.The terrace exceeds 42"from existing grades within the average lakeshore setback as a result. Hardcover Variance (Section 78-1700) The current property has a 29.6% hardcover level; including 772 square feet of hardcover in the 75-foot setback.The applicant is proposing 29.3% hardcover, a 0.3% (176 square foot) reduction, including removal of all of the existing non-conforming hardcover in the lake yard. There is a total of 2,320 square feet of driveway proposed, not including the car court area.This driveway accounts for approximately 16%of the proposed hardcover and 4.74%of the site.The property has a long narrow "neck"from the shared access outlot to the buildable area of the lot which may result in an excess of driveway hardcover. The applicants have attempted to reduce the impact of the home size as they are not maximizing the size of the home.The proposed structural/building coverage is 1,547 square feet less than the maximum footprint allowed. They have prepared a number of illustrations to show how they propose to improve the existing nonconformities on the property,those exhibits are attached. FILE#LA18-000102 22 Jan 19 Page 4 of 7 Governing Regulation:Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2,when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2)variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. . A single family residence is a permitted use within the LR-1A zoning district. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The residential principal structure and associated amenities are residential uses which are consistent with the comprehensive plan guiding of this and surrounding properties for residential use. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The property owner is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner but the size and width of the lot is below the minimum lot size standards for the LR-1A District. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The lot size and width were not created by the landowner and are unique conditions within the LR-1A District.The shape of the lot and the application of the average lakeshore setback are not created by the landowner; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed home and associated amenities will not alter the character of the neighborhood. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn.Stat. §216C.06,subd. 2,when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78.This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as the use for a single family residence is an allowed use in the LR-1A District. FILE#LA18-000102 22Jan 19 Page 5 of 7 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property.The lot area,lot width,and average setback standards applying to this property are similar to those of other properties in the neighborhood. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located.The standards applicable to this property apply to all other property in the neighborhood; however, due to the shape of the property as well as the setbacks,the applicants' hardcover variance requested may permit similar development of the property that other similar-sized lots in the neighborhood are afforded, a variance to lot area and width is required. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. In the opinion of staff,the property rights of the owner will be diminished if the lot area and lot width variances are not granted,as the new residence would not be able to be developed. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting of the variances would not impair health, safety, comfort or morals and would not be contrary the intent of the zoning code. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The size, shape, and width of the property, as well as the configuration create practical difficulties affecting the subject property;the variances are necessary and will not merely serve as a convenience to the owner. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Applicable Regulation: Interim Use Permit (Section 78-1726) The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant an Interim Use Permit (IUP). On the basis of the application and the evidence submitted,the city council determines that the use will comply with the following: 1) The use will meet the general performance standards in section 78-916 of this chapter; the proposed grading will conform to the standards within Section 78-916 of the Zoning Code. 2) The use is allowed as an interim use in the applicable zoning district;this statement is true. 3) The use will not delay anticipated development or redevelopment of the site;the proposed grading activity will be conducted in conjunction with the development of the new single family home on the property.This statement is true. 4) The use will not be in conflict with any provisions of the city code on an ongoing basis;the proposed grading activity will not be in conflict with the Code. 1. The use will not adversely affect the adjacent property,the surrounding neighborhood, or other uses on the property where the use will be located; this standard requires that the FILE#LA18-000102 22 Jan 19 Page 6 of 7 proposed grading and improvements must not substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the properties in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses. The result of the proposed grading will not change the intended residential use of the Property so there should be no change in the use and enjoyment of adjacent properties resulting from the export of fill materials. However, activity of importing approximately 315 cubic yards of fill and active grading of the Property during construction can have a temporary adverse impact on neighbors. The grading work on the Property as well as the forthcoming construction of the proposed home could result in additional noise, dust, vibration and traffic on the haul routes and immediate neighbors. To the degree possible, negative impacts should be limited and mitigated. 5) The use will not impose additional unreasonable costs on the public;the will be responsible for keeping debris off of the public roadways.The noise resulting from the trucks hauling and equipment moving the material in and around the site should be minimized to the extent possible. The grading and construction project will be monitored by the City Engineer and planning staff so as to minimize nuisances during the project. 6) The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty;the conclusion of the grading activity will coincide with the finalization of the construction of the proposed home on the property.An as-built survey will be submitted to confirm conformance with the approved grading plan at the closing of the permits. 7) And the applicant agrees in writing to any conditions that the city council deems appropriate for the use, including a requirement for a financial security to ensure removal of all evidence of the use upon termination, and restoration of the site to prior or better conditions.The conditions shall be set forth in a development agreement between the property owner and the city,which agreement shall be recorded with the Hennepin County Recorder or Registrar of Deeds.The conditions of approval will be documented as required. Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B,and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties& Interim Use Permit Analysis Staff finds practical difficulties inherent to the property's shape, size, and orientation which support the requested variances for lot area, lot width, and average lakeshore setback, and possibly hardcover to some extent based on the length of the driveway and the shape of the lot. Regarding the IUP, the proposed plan conforms to the standards of IUP review, the grading activity will be tied to the building permit. Engineer Comments The grading plan will be given a cursory review prior to the City Council's review of the application and thoroughly at the time of the building permit. Public Comments Comments from the public have been received and are included as Exhibit J. FILE#LA18-000102 22 Jan 19 Page 7 of 7 Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning staff recommends approval of the IUP to permit the grading as proposed, as well as the variances for lot area, lot width, and average lakeshore setback relating to the development of the new home. Additionally, regarding the hardcover variance should the planning commission determine that the lot's shape and the necessary driveway length serve as practical difficulties supporting the requested hardcover variance then a recommendation for approval of a hardcover variance would be appropriate. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Summary Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Summary Exhibit C. Supplemental Narratives with Photos - by the applicants Exhibit D. Existing Survey Exhibit E. Average Setback Site Plan Exhibits Exhibit F. Average Setback Cross Section Exhibit G. Hardcover Site Plan Exhibits Exhibit H. Submitted Hardcover Calculation Worksheets Exhibit I. Aerial Photos Exhibit J. Public Comments Exhibit K. Property Owners List Exhibit L. Plat Map 12/27/2018 Permit Detail Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 12/12/2018 Address: 2455 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA, MN 55391 Parcel Number: 0911723440008 Land Use Number: LA18-000102 Application Submitted By: Agent on behalf of property owner Owner: Name: NORTH SHORE MEADOWS LLC Address: 2265 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA, MN 55391 Applicant: Name: Maria J. Larenas Address: 212 3rd Ave.N. Minneapolis, MN 55401 Contact Information: Associated Contact: Gregg&Denise Steinhafel Associated Contact: Justin Dorschied Associated Contact: John Kraemer Associated Contact: Project Description: Average Setback; Hardcover; Lot Area; Lot Width+ IUP grading Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application Appeal of Admin Decision Concept Application Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Application Subdivision Application Subdivision Exception Vacation Application Variance Application Applicant Signature: t ak https://www.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController 1/1 1/11/2019 Permit Detail PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA18-000102 1.The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: HARDCOVER VARIANCE REQUEST: We are requesting a variance from the City of Orono on the allowable hardcover for 2455 North Shore Drive,Orono,MN.The current site has an existing home with a total hardcover percentage of 29.6%as surveyed by Mark Gronberg of Gronberg&Associates,Inc.(See Survey and Diagram HC-1).Current zoning ordinances call for a maximum hardcover of 25.0%and 20%structural coverage.We are requesting a variance to adopt a hardcover percentage slightly less than the existing hardcover while improving the property in a number of ways illustrated below. 2.The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: N/A 3.The variance,if granted,will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: HARDCOVER VARIANCE 1.84.7?Lake Setback(Structure): We intend to remove all existing,non-conforming structures,accessory buildings&carports(Diagram HC-1)to be replaced with a new home.The proposed home will abide by all the defined setbacks as identified by the survey and defined by the City of Orono (Diagram HC-2).This includes moving the proposed home away from the lake to comply with the new lake setback requirement established at 84.7' by the neighbors to the West(2465 North Shore Drive).The existing,non-compliant home is currently 76.0'off the lakeshore at the SE corner of the house running parallel to the lake(Diagram HC-3). a.The proposed house location will move the structure away from the lake 12.5?on the East side&9.3?on the West side of the existing home to adhere to the new 84.7?building setback established by the neighboring home to the West. b.Although allowed to build within the footprint of the existing home(Diagram HC-3),we feel it would be in the best interest of the lake,neighbors and City ordinances to pull the home back to the typical setbacks and not build within the existing footprint as part of this variance request(Diagram HC-4). 2. 16.2?Side Setbacks:We intend to comply with the updated side setback requirement of 16.2'on the East side of the existing home thus abandoning the current grandfathered side setback of 10'(Diagram HC-3). a.The proposed house location will move the structure away from the East setback by a total of 7.66?from the existing home location which does not meet the side setback requirement of 16.2'(Diagram HC-4). b.We intend to remove the existing,non-conforming outbuilding structure on the property which does not meet the side setback requirement of 16.2' 3. 75?Lake Setback(Hard Cover): We intend to remove all existing, non-conforming hardcover area(terrace,fountain&non-conforming deck& stairs)within the 75?lake setback.This 748.5 square feet of non-conforming hardcover accounts for 7.8%of the area inside the 75?setback and 2.62%of the existing total lot Hard Cover(Diagram HC-3). a.Although allowed to rebuild within this non-conforming Hard Cover area,we feel it would be in the best interest of the lake,neighbors and City ordinances to remove all non-conforming Hard Cover out of the 75?lake setback as part of this variance request. 4.Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: N/A 5.Practical difficulties include,but are not limited to,inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems.Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes,Section 1163.06,Subd. 2,when in harmony with this Chapter. Response: Hardcover Variance: Driveway Length:The practical difficulty of this particular lot requires for a longer than average driveway to access the buildable area,which results in 4.74%of the total Hard Cover(Diagram HC-2).This long driveway percentage alone accounts for the 4.25%increase to the allowable hardcover that we are requesting in this variance.The existing driveway accounts for 7.06%of the total Hard Cover(Diagram HC-1). a.The proposed house size is well under the allowed 20%structural coverage(Diagram HC-2). 6.The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Response: N/A 7.The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Response: N/A 8.The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. tesponse: Hardcover Variance: n summary,we are requesting the City's approval to maintain a slight hardcover reduction from the existing 29.6% hardcover to a proposed 29.25%.We make this request due to the practical difficulty of the shape/configuration of this lot resulting in a long driveway,and because we contend,we are making a very concerted effort to comply with current setback requirements in lieu of building within the established grandfathered structure and hardcover.We are removing all structures and hardcover that are too close to the lake and reducing the impact to the neighbors.We feel this approach is better for the lake,the neighbors and the environment.Thank you for your consideration. https://www.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController 1/2 1/11/2019 Permit Detail 9.The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: N/A 10.The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: LOT AREA&LOT WIDTH VARIANCE REQUEST: As part of this hardcover variance application,we are requesting a variance from the City of Orono to maintain the existing lot area and lot width. The practical difficulty of this particular lot in terms of lot area and lot width is that both are below the minimum requirements(Lot Area: 2 acres; Lot Width: 200 feet).We are not proposing a change to the existing lot area of 1.12 acres,or to the existing lot width of 161.2 feet(See Survey).Thank you for your consideration. 11.The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health,safety,comfort,morals,or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. Response: Hardcover Variance: In summary,we are requesting the City's approval to maintain a slight hardcover reduction from the existing 29.6%hardcover to a proposed 29.25%.We make this request due to the practical difficulty of the shape/configuration of this lot resulting in a long driveway,and because we contend,we are making a very concerted effort to comply with current setback requirements in lieu of building within the established grandfathered structure and hardcover.We are removing all structures and hardcover that are too close to the lake and reducing the impact to the neighbors. We feel this approach is better for the lake,the neighbors and the environment.Thank you for your consideration. 12.The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant,but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: Hardcover Variance: Driveway Length:The practical difficulty of this particular lot requires for a longer than average driveway to access the buildable area,which results in 4.74%of the total Hard Cover(Diagram HC-2).This long driveway percentage alone accounts for the 4.25%increase to the allowable hardcover that we are requesting in this variance.The existing driveway accounts for 7.06%of the total Hard Cover(Diagram HC-1). a.The proposed house size is well under the allowed 20%structural coverage(Diagram HC-2). https://www.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController 2/2 PC Exhibit C 2455 NORTH SHORE DR.AVERAGE SETBACK VARIANCE APPLICATION LA18-000102 Average Lakeshore Setback PROJECT LOCATION: 2455 North Shore Drive Narrative Orono, MN 55391 PROJECT TEAM: Architectural Designer: Charlie & Co. Design, Ltd. Builder: John Kraemer& Sons Landscape Architect: Southview Design AVERAGE SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST(42"TERRACE FROM EXISTING GRADE RULE): We are requesting a variance from the City of Orono on the Average Setback and the City Ordinance that requires any terrace built between the Average Setback (84.7') and the Lakeshore Setback (75') to be under 42"high from existing grade. As part of our respect for the lake, neighbors and City ordinances, we propose to abandon our ability to rebuild any hardcover inside the existing 782 sq ft of non-compliant hardcover and pull all new hardcover behind the 75' lakeshore setback. In lieu of rebuilding within the existing non-compliant hardcover, we are requesting a variance to be allowed to build a small portion of replacement lakeside terrace (282 sq ft) over 42" high above existing grade between the average setback and the lakeshore setback (Diagram AS-1). 1. Area of Variance: We would like to illustrate that this variance application only applies to 282 sq ft of the proposed 1,045 sq ft terrace shown (Diagram AS-1), since the remaining terrace area is either behind the 84.7' Average Setback or within the footprint of the existing home (Diagram AS-1). 2. Practical Difficulty: The current configuration of the sloping yard makes building a lakeside terrace in the allowable area difficult, resulting in a practical difficulty not consistent with the higher and flat neighboring lot to the West. The proposed design would maintain a flat, usable yard 6.0 feet below the neighboring lot (Diagram AS-3). a. We propose to remove the existing stairs and build new stairs entirely behind the 75' lakeshore setback resulting in zero hardcover inside the 75' setback. b. While moving the proposed slope to the East, we would not be increasing the angle of the slope nor changing the drainage to any neighboring lots or the lake itself(Diagram AS-3). 3. Conditional Use Permit: As part of this variance application, we will also be requesting a Conditional Use Permit for an additional 315 cubic yards of fill to create a level lakeside yard more synonymous with the neighboring property to the West. a. We request to extend the contour height of 948.0 across the useable lakeside yard as a continuation of the neighboring yard to the West (Diagram AS-2). b. Per the current ordinances, the proposed terrace will not exceed 42" in height above the proposed grade (Diagram AS-3). Page I 1 2455 NORTH SHORE DR.AVERAGE SETBACK VARIANCE APPLICATION EXISTING SITE IMAGES: Y i Vit?. , M» .w _ -aft " 3 l':' all * lig - we*ssiti #‘11.1 04 i , :... t ..-,, Image 01:View of Existing House from South. Existing non-compliant hardcover to be removed. Proposed design would move sloped portion of yard 10 feet to the East. y'+K , 5 �,"' -Yti aa � ,, e ,. s a r a� {k 3 a MILL ,___._..., - - -- j.11 i,., Iv ;, - aaaa� air r!uara ti 4a L4 Image 02: View of Existing House and yard. All existing, non-compliant hardcover to be completely removed. The proposed terrace and grading design would maintain a useable lakeside yard 6 feet below neighbor's yard in background. Page 12 2455 NORTH SHORE DR.AVERAGE SETBACK VARIANCE APPLICATION 4 r ti'.§,1 4�,' L t�ik� 4 f r,• ig $ICt jf d 15 r -:...-1141114 el - !Ill , - - ;. Hyde u.: jIlL „ . fri i 1 1 lli .�iw h r 11 -i�� t �4 �e i. 4 p 74+GE h Image 03:View of Existing House. Proposed design would move sloped portion of yard 10 feet to the East. OP: ��n 1 G►• ,, 1 , _,,, , „..,,, ,,, , tL. ii d Iiir ,, ,,s. . • �';ri v J,�..47k , il� '. .r=§.itiilU� i I111111111)*------' - - 0,•." 4,01.0 - N.N.11 N,..,§5.':•,-, - *-Ng-,- " - ----' ,, 4?. . _ t F `' - - 7 '''''' ''' -? '- ' - ' -,...4„,ite-,...., 1 ,,--vit 3- -- '.'-'=e4:ilk*; -e 9 Image 04:View showing 809 SF of non-conforming hardcover located within the 75'setback. Page 13 2455 NORTH SHORE DR.AVERAGE SETBACK VARIANCE APPLICATION 11> _ _ _` _ R „ ., , ,,,,..tasoftet,„` ,' arm .S �' .. ,. a > J-':4, 'it - - 4 ''''. ,....v. ,: ..%,‘, -'''' ' - 1. ' ” - * ''' '. '',W:::::; /:: ::'":':11:::::..4':::'4::::::4:::::1-4 1 Image 05:View showing non-conforming rock fountain located within the 75' setback. Page 14 2455 NORTH SHORE DR. HARDCOVER VARIANCE APPLICATION PROJECT LOCATION: Hardcover & Lot Area/Lot Width 2455 North Shore Drive Variance Narrative Orono, MN 55391 PROJECT TEAM: Architectural Designer: Charlie & Co. Design, Ltd. Builder: John Kraemer&Sons Landscape Architect: Southview Design HARDCOVER VARIANCE REQUEST: We are requesting a variance from the City of Orono on the allowable hardcover for 2455 North Shore Drive, Orono, MN. The current site has an existing home with a total hardcover percentage of 29.6%as surveyed by Mark Gronberg of Gronberg & Associates, Inc. (See Survey and Diagram HC-1). Current zoning ordinances call for a maximum hardcover of 25.0%and 20% structural coverage. We are requesting a variance to adopt a hardcover percentage slightly less than the existing hardcover while improving the property in a number of ways illustrated below. The following is our rationale for seeking a variance from the City of Orono to maintain a slightly reduced hardcover percentage of 29.25% (a reduction of 0.35%): 1. 84.7' Lake Setback (Structure): We intend to remove all existing, non-conforming structures, accessory buildings & carports (Diagram HC-1) to be replaced with a new home.The proposed home will abide by all the defined setbacks as identified by the survey and defined by the City of Orono (Diagram HC-2). This includes moving the proposed home away from the lake to comply with the new lake setback requirement established at 84.7' by the neighbors to the West (2465 North Shore Drive). The existing, non-compliant home is currently 76.0' off the lakeshore at the SE corner of the house running parallel to the lake (Diagram HC-3). a. The proposed house location will move the structure away from the lake 12.5' on the East side & 9.3' on the West side of the existing home to adhere to the new 84.7' building setback established by the neighboring home to the West. b. Although allowed to build within the footprint of the existing home (Diagram HC- 3), we feel it would be in the best interest of the lake, neighbors and City ordinances to pull the home back to the typical setbacks and not build within the existing footprint as part of this variance request (Diagram HC-4). 2. 16.2' Side Setbacks: We intend to comply with the updated side setback requirement of 16.2' on the East side of the existing home thus abandoning the current grandfathered side setback of 10' (Diagram HC-3). a. The proposed house location will move the structure away from the East setback by a total of 7.66' from the existing home location which does not meet the side setback requirement of 16.2' (Diagram HC-4). b. We intend to remove the existing, non-conforming outbuilding structure on the property which does not meet the side setback requirement of 16.2' Page 1 1 2455 NORTH SHORE DR. HARDCOVER VARIANCE APPLICATION 3. 75' Lake Setback (Hard Cover): We intend to remove all existing, non-conforming hardcover area (terrace, fountain & non-conforming deck & stairs) within the 75' lake setback. This 748.5 square feet of non-conforming hardcover accounts for 7.8% of the area inside the 75' setback and 2.62% of the existing total lot Hard Cover (Diagram HC- 3). a. Although allowed to rebuild within this non-conforming Hard Cover area, we feel it would be in the best interest of the lake, neighbors and City ordinances to remove all non-conforming Hard Cover out of the 75' lake setback as part of this variance request. 4. Driveway Length:The practical difficulty of this particular lot requires for a longer than average driveway to access the buildable area, which results in 4.74% of the total Hard Cover (Diagram HC-2). This long driveway percentage alone accounts for the 4.25% increase to the allowable hardcover that we are requesting in this variance.The existing driveway accounts for 7.06% of the total Hard Cover(Diagram HC-1). a. The proposed house size is well under the allowed 20% structural coverage (Diagram HC-2). In summary, we are requesting the City's approval to maintain a slight hardcover reduction from the existing 29.6% hardcover to a proposed 29.25%. We make this request due to the practical difficulty of the shape/configuration of this lot resulting in a long driveway, and because we contend, we are making a very concerted effort to comply with current setback requirements in lieu of building within the established grandfathered structure and hardcover. We are removing all structures and hardcover that are too close to the lake and reducing the impact to the neighbors. We feel this approach is better for the lake, the neighbors and the environment. Thank you for your consideration. LOT AREA& LOT WIDTH VARIANCE REQUEST: As part of this hardcover variance application, we are requesting a variance from the City of Orono to maintain the existing lot area and lot width. The practical difficulty of this particular lot in terms of lot area and lot width is that both are below the minimum requirements (Lot Area: 2 acres; Lot Width: 200 feet). We are not proposing a change to the existing lot area of 1.12 acres, or to the existing lot width of 161.2 feet (See Survey). Thank you for your consideration. Existing site images continued on following pages... Page 12 2455 NORTH SHORE DR. HARDCOVER VARIANCE APPLICATION EXISTING SITE IMAGES: , a r .,r ill ety, ..-. !---'.-- , _ .i:..,,-. ii _...i,,,,,, ? ! ,,,,.,fx, .,..i4,-,,,7 ---- mkada L - ... . _:•,:'__ L,_.,:___ , vii fit! i . fi — '�,,,, '_2__, - awe .,,,,....,_..L.:—.;,......--_w _ �rrr.....��N �._. • _ z ..r 11 WEST - EAST Image 01:View of Existing House from South. Entire South face of existing house extends approx. 6 feet past the allowable lakeshore setback. y. . Vie. 4 __ *.:,. 1 , „ -..or., , ,„...,„. ,,,,..; , ,...,,...,‘,.. : _...., .. .,;:s.____ ,,..,_ .... ,..,, 1, ,, ,-:.-.4 1 P f f,t :41 g,'''-' 0,:c1::' 0011 —' ''''' -'1'-'1-6-'-'''''''',:''''''''''''''''''''''''')%ft'''' grit I .-_ 4� 1 ', i? al n ;1 j �' tu. ix t $ ',, J� Aso�r �II11 M� . ..,..,,., l� ka ,,,iv 4. s .,^, .., r. 4� jai ii ,1 - ; Image 02:View of Existing House Looking NE. Non-Compliant South East Corner.This corner extends approx. 7 feet past the buildable lakeshore setback and 6 feet past the East side setback. Page 13 2455 NORTH SHORE DR. HARDCOVER VARIANCE APPLICATION '',70.1,;:C-i:, s' -,'"' ''''''',.: '''4'7.,,-.`44)41." ,{ iY ft arra 000 amine ' rx� a r Image 03:View of Existing House-Non-Compliant West Corner.This corner extends approix. 5.25'feet past the buildable lakeshore setback.Also showing non-compliant hardcover located within 75' setback. ;. . a lilt', , 4 ' ,i,,,,, ..,',A,,A1::?'t ;',' ,, -,.,:% ,, ,, k ill.: Oil 4 Qii. r Rji G } trY iffl+ r . �ar511i ���' - ill- - ' ' - p�ty� d ,.'* `� _yl will* e Image 04:View showing 809 SF of non-compliant hardcover located within the 75' setback, which accounts for 6.2%of the area inside the 75' setback. Page 14 2455 NORTH SHORE DR. HARDCOVER VARIANCE APPLICATION 4.„0.,„„ i 1 .. lw = -.. 54 y _ pi as , s+ -` .. .t ;R,� ..�� > `�`. '� �` 4 S - d Image 05:View showing non-compliant fountain located within the 75'setback. YTS` _ w y. >a ° : v -as r sm a `. ad e 3. 3, : _ a l' - Way. « , ..gy', �" Image 06:View of the West side of property showing the non-compliant outbuilding. Page 15 2455 NORTH SHORE DR. HARDCOVER VARIANCE APPLICATION a y; G.• rt 4.0,4'tri41) 4i "' t. u - ' `*:' 1 i#} t z +' t&,,;-,:41. .:ham` , ,„ i ,'4 # E �K �f t � ^ �,��f ls, L , \�., _ 4 ,-.` 7. .,.- '`+:1 / ,s ! Ap:40if,_,,,,,,,•1 /' � �' ,..-:„-,,,,i,,....,,��, � � iioft„ ,„.„,„ L 'il t 0. i.,' ,. ��,a4 i � ,,,,1 iffi * flmi _ ;. W—,ra nil . 4' ,,- 1 ' ,,z NIslia!‘——----:iii'—' T.--. .-- itili„.. . .._....14.., _ _ .. .. ... _ . . ......... ,..4.. ... _ ........_... ...,..7.._ ..............: .. ....... v ok, +�. ,1 `,..may. r w - - f "x art^•- Image 07:View looking North illustrating the practical difficulty of the long driveway approach. r z xt au 4 ,,, 4 $a' Ii `..., ._. �.... .. „y ` fi .-, i# ,. f ,, —lam. S r o- 1 *'. .. Image 08: View looking South illustrating the practical difficulty of the long driveway approach. Page 6 I PC • Exhibit D LA18-000102 CERTIFICATE FSHORE sxORE D 51 T' a CON11' N° • MEADOWS, LLC u ��,= OF LOT 1, AND OUTLOT A, i SCOTCH PINE ADDITION Rost,°,D• - \ HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA =5e6 ; \ / / / A — ,„.- vv /I % I J\ \\ � \101`51..1.II' \\\ ZS `� 15 Vic,'I�1\ 1'' jE / o I \ ,:‘,/'. \\ m IV 1 --nz---'T/ \ u 646.',:.°:i1:1; a..2;�u -_gs_GD .u.zt_;t. 1/�Uo EXISTNG ❑ /9 HOUSE ''': ' L \ I \ a.� d '41,4#'9, 0 1\P7$ I 'E i: DEM oil2 ‘,,,,,=::,,,,,. 014' .. \\ --\I a <':. \ Lor AREA_ \7 \v \ HOUSE \ 11�\ \ �/1\\,%\\ �¢P''s EXISTING i 1.1 s \t \ / / \1-1 ' H) ' 'c\ r'.h ,\L_____ sso'azE7e54E M —_aa.a e:s1e coiro>a • / � _ Z LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES \\ ' ..'''''''--Z"4,„........._ y Lot 1,and Outlal A.SCOTCH PINE ADDITION —1 \ \ \\\‘'L,\ �o N. // •: denotes iron marker found ) I \\ \\\ \\\ ‘i\ � \\1 \ �j/ WSJ): denotes evicting spat elevation,mean zea level datum 1 1 \ \\\ 1 4.\ --at,— denotes evicting contour line,mean sea level datum I I �_ I °.\ // I '� - (:1 Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. i t\_�—a`� / .... This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described 'ae I -^`� I I I `. property,and the location of two existing buildings,spot elevation, I T' (y�., J I 1 I '\Z topography and all visible'•hardcoveri thereon.It does not purport .4.- �' / / I -'` t stioany other improvements or encroachments. 10 1 1 d Q� I I ...0.,;','r gsar .....yry ENSTNG • / i R .I I y BIIRp -- 1.-- ,--"1 1�5 t/ / 4.'l /_ sa' it 1 O): \\ ,e I\ 'j / Y RE}E tot REA 4e.474'SF I 1 A //I P OR(G) BLA TDP �x ` 1I w I LOW– 7/ I (G) PRIVY I Il o f j/ / ME Of Iw / Of/ (n) gti� 1 1 I\ / awMo I aM) $1 I 1w / EXISTING ILII `ey` \ 1 I j 1 1 HOUSE f/ \�fn' \ . I // j / // /2405 I ��I111 //J III Is) \ yc \ ) I. 1 A II 1 I 6bi Y I ' i EXISTING u " c;\ If it 1 II tia HOUSE biro-I I __Tla 1\ tzj`.1 /2855 i?(seu el `I� 1 tai . I I(0)1 ,,l \ �Nrar $i' wan \ I)._ ! 11 /1 1 I 'Q---:--,' _7 #57'38'00"W 116.77 ----7 _,‘.--F \ \ \ 11 \Y_-_— ._.L__�_ ___9e_--_______ I5 — I l y___ _ _____ se-.___ gam- I' / _ - LAKE MINNETONKA - CRYSTAL BAY DATE ,000w«e I hereby certify that We pan.specification,or report PROJECT GRONBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC. r."0`. y Erect abler„nw. ,'.,a ��vit pe/5tai� µ'me.o�ia�•�S`veyor uwer the 11-10-15 CIVIL ENGINNERS,LAND SURVEYORS,LAND PLANNERS 2 A�woto Manse1•�2B 445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE.000 LAKE,MN 55356 Mork 5.Gronbere Mimeo Number 12755 16'1147 952-473-4141 PC ,' VI IQ Exhibit E mI �W ca LA'I 8-000702 I F"Iito yl PROPOSED N iHOUSE I . ^I -h--- I �_---- — olsisnr+p House I . , oa J -- 9� i �95tl �/ ...../j/la -IIT SE BACICL-- I ' •a ,'/ tri sr — ---- --_ ' I 1 '950- F%ISi.r .; I 90a e i''' Z •k;. E-k I . 9a2 9 0 5331 I I • ltlill GS'VR F O tl � Wp 2 , a. I l5 N�/' Sic • WI 4 „„�u, nroi, r �E 1�1 \�� l I ____ 910_________________ ________ _____ _ \ 93a_______ _______ ______ _______ 938—_____ / ____ ___________ ____ ________ ___ _____ __ __ ___ _ _____ __ _ ______ _______936___________ '' __ ___ R�=Ree I----- Ai,___ ___ __ 911— ____________________ ___ _ 931 __ _ _ _ _ _ ______ _________' PROPOSED NON-CONFORMING TERRACE SUBMITTED FOR VARIANCE(282 SO FT) —93o----___ _ Sao-"-_-- __ __________________ PROPOSED CONFORMING TERRACE WITHIN EXISTING HOUSE FOOTPRINT(257 SO FT) ------- PROPOSED CONFORMING TERRACE BEHIND AVERAGE SETBACK(503 SO FTI CRYSTAL.BAY A V E R A G F S E T B A C K (A S- 1 EXISTING NON-CONFORMING HARDCOVER TO BE REMOVED(782 50 FT) S c a e 3I p'K. 1 -O" • VI IQ i IF�-1 IW • yl PROPOSED �� i IHOUSE N �( fximnc rousf r -- I DASH`D i 1 1 L d 950'-d' I ( 3 e 950'D' ---'--_- 9�4 _______________________,95.0:__'�.� -.- I �� --- T SE BMKL—_ ---r- 3ao 1 — — .:.Au : a:AIM I �� - at. �� 75'SETBACK ;' I E "411 A -3 '95tr-- -- Nye. ______ ______ i iOSDfCK Rg •" I 906 W fxl_i.DECK / 7. I ( 'i;,7'.''',`"` 7' ,A 932 9 0 93g -STE%Il GY1 VR 1,1 EIF3 93g o- f r g tv.i.v. d, d. 0 ,, , ,, : 1 .... , E .1I i 1 ______ _ _ __ ____________________ --_______ _ ------ --------------------- ---- ____ ___ __ __ 930 ___ / x _ _______ ______ _____ _ Rlu_Ree 935 4 -------------- ----- - - ------------ -------- ____ ________ _____ ___9,0_ ------ CRYSTAL BAY AVERAGE SETBACK (AS-2) Fj EXISTING NON-CONFORMING HARDCOVER TO BE REMOVED(782 SO FT) S c a I e:3/3 2'= 1 '-0" C Exhibit F — LA18-000102 io 4nVI _ vsrwa Ru ii MR.MUSK-VON°1950 Cl nE_meEry LAWS 071-40411,40,41414 ni 044 rn c2 .... g__ .1. � 43k 4 min �'R' Yat I` In (2465 IGGHBOR0T6E O 0406, I WEST NO0.H 55 AVFRAGF SETBACK (AS-9) S c a I e: 1 4 6'= 1 0" PROPOSED HOUSE BEYOND(SCHEMATIC) 960 BRICK CURB WALL KEEP AT 4A° GUARD AI DECK&....,,.._ 9586 ABOVE PROPOSED GRADE MAX. GUARDRAILBEYOND 956___ ,\ \ 954 ZO - - - 952 O v - - -- > > f FIRST FLOOR=950 5 950 PROPOSED DISTANCE BETWEEN MAIN LEVELS '\ 946 TERRACE PAVERS BEYOND(950.01 _ ._ 944 Ls- DISTANCE BETWEEN LAWNS - _ 942 EXISTING LEVEL YARD&TERRACE(945.0) 940 .,8 EXISTING GRADE LINE 936 PROPOSED GRADE LINE 934 --- '-`-'----- ------ -------- '- -'-'---' - ----'--PROPOSED FILL-PENDING - ---- -------. ._-- 932 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 9$Q ■ PROPOSED FILL(WITHIN 75'of OHWL)=315 C.Y. A 5-3 SETBACK -PENDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AVERAGE (AS-3) Scale: 1/"= 1 ' 0" `� PC Exhibit G 1- -1 LA18-000102 I — I I i EXISTING i HARDCOVER AREASSqFt. SITE% NOTES : 3 3,457 7.06% 1 .. ®E 1`t X17 4,644 9.48%� I 4,789 9.78% i at PS/PATIO'S 1,502 3.07% I DECKS 104 0.21% RETAINING WALLS(NOT I^ INCLUDED IN HC) 302 0.62% TOTAL HARDCOVER 14,4% 29.60• I \ EXISTING LOT SIZE 48,970_ 1 1 EXISTING LOT WIDTH 162FT. — 1 I i I I \ I \ II \ I \\ I II \ III!!' it‘"7411 I I-y 1 •DRIVEWAY ! '.�I I^ i PARKING COURT *STRUCTURAL COVER 1 SIDEWALKS/STEPS/PATIOS I F I W. I I of O DECKS I d . I I Q KEY TO EXISTING SITE IMAGES I : ______ —Cr— WA41)"0 ..__ 75_SETBA d' '----I I Q ri I I 0 I 1 HC - 1 EXISTING HARD COVER CRYSTAL Bar 14 , 496 ( 29 . 60 % ) Scale : 1 " = 30 ' I I iIy I PROPOSED I HARDCOVER AREAS Key Sq.Ft. SITE% NOTES 2,320 4.74% 1 di ce j` :t. 2,760 5.64% C 8,210 16.77% 1 DECKS E D 920 1.88% 110 0.22% TOTAL HARDCOVER 14,320 29 25% EXISTING LOT SIZE 48,970 I N I I r� I \. III NN \o \ \ I I \ I \\ Ii ji I ; kit„, • I� A•DRIVEWAY I B 0 PARKING COURT ,; / I ' i//I I a" D 0 SIDEWALKS/STEPS/PATIOS I i I ; E O DECKS n; PROPOSED I I I *I 0 __, -- 84.T SEJ7.B� ` /-� -__--_._-_ 75'SETBACIF-1 I I I I R... . HC - 2 PROPOSED HARD COVER CRYSTAL BAY 14 , 325 ( 29 . 25 °/x ) Scale : 1 " = 30 ' i \1 \\ I I \ , \j'''-k; \ ,, A ii I : \T I 4. 1 IOUTBUILDING 1 I 1EX I1 gi FI iy I i.I q IW I I 1" I I.0 I' i I I Ia III O I I n1 I I I I II I I i I 1 11111ci I 0":1 1 I I 1 l EXISTING 1 HOUSE I 1 6 0•11111 I IL-------- I I _---- - 84.7 SETBACK I f%1ST.ROCK -�� ON PLASTIC ,1 %IST D' I _- - E%IST,WAf DEC% i ` _.-._ 75'SETBACK_.---- yl I I I [%IST.STEPS I I o I I I I )) I I I RIP RAP I I O DRIVEWAY CRYSTAL BAY O PARKING COURT ®STRUCTURAL COVER=473 Sq.Ft. e \E HC - 3 SIDEWALKS/STEPS/PATIOS=705 Sq.Ft. ` �/'f EXISTING HARD COVER 0 DECKS=104 Sq.Ft. ( NON - CONFORMING ) S TOTAL NON-CONFORMING HC= 1,282(2.62%) S c a I e : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 0 " II I C� `\\� \\\mss \--::°\��y i I 1 \e9 > \ 1 EXISTING \''9) n ''''''11\ HARDCOVER ��� \ �� 1 DASHED \ I \ I // ' \\ / ' \ 1 1 X . I I 11EXISTING \\ ,� i CARRIAGE i \ / / I HOUSE t I e 14) :,; ( ' ` \ r ', an rte' Iy i-r I 1 I 'Y I \ I I 1 t 1 't ) I , , , , , I I \\ NIL'x3i 1,.,,./ I I I t'I c , , , , , , � I I \ I I I I I PROPOSED ? � . I I, 1,HOUSE I t 111 n I I1 IT 1 EXISTING II. - =y...i:.:__:: . s i1 HOUSE t1II-----44---- 1 t1 _ --_84.7'SETBACK J 1 I I \ - "�-�-__ _ rte .,. \\\77.77t- 75'SETBA _- 1 I I 1: 1 r1-rT_ ri J I - i7 1 1 % I J I I / I I ` I 5ri --J I I I I I •EXISTING STRUCTURAL COVER CRYSTAL BAY 0 EXISTING HARDCOVER •PROPOSED STRUCTURAL COVER a H C - 4 \E O PROPOSED HARDCOVER ` PROPOSED �� & EXISTING ��—" HARD COVER S Scale : 1 / 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " • PC City of Orono Exhibit H (Q\*.-o7o� Hardcover Calculation Worksheet LA18-000102 yam r^l Dio�.rt ,-ddress 2 V51.5 r. /c r; t : r �` -• ?,epare Date: 3tor rnva:er Cual'ty Cverlay C istri.t Tier: (Circle one) ;Ter j' Tier 2 Tier 3 "tier 4 Tier 5 Stet; 1.. X1 'T111Q HARDCOV In the fo lowng table identify al_items of existing hardcoN er cn the property,keyed by letter to Certificate of&i.-vey tsrr/ey must acconvany this form). Use as many lines as necessa:y to accurately depict exist ng n arc c Dy er sta:us of the pro oeny. For Tier 1 prop a ties,identify any featui es by letter which are spl t at the 75'setback line ane calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. iKey:u Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Total Survey : (Square Feet) _1 1 Er ai,:,1,$) ? - igen - — —-_ (24'x.301 -__ 720 Si.7,1 I- /4'Of-f.�{" 41/ S. (__E _ /-----/, ,, ':/rt:;•.-- ;< „ _ 22 S. G --.;,,r /'x° �-1.-:,-e /1"` i 1 /e//(' S.=. 1 t /9,...„,-,-,,,,,-,-,..-,-, ,:_ ; -, :-- _ _ _ 1 6305' S.-_ _ LC .4L f 7 7 S.'.-/ 1< - - P0 S -/ _ L rv.%.v9. '8 S.. _ I ,, ,e'F- .r. 4 w _ /8 s.i.:. P . Ar-r; �,,I. ,-".S —_ `ie.5- S. ' F` j ,. t- ,47,--v-;,-?,' -; 'rt/ -- - I 6-.7 / S.-7 _ _/C_ _!�iy e, r'ti 4/'_ 1: I _ 75 S.:. 1 t..,_ . .1 ``r., I.,:` .../4 S.-- �v . ''/ /: ..:` - -�i /'2 R S.: 1^., ' ,/,?..;.-.-',.-.., ,e. 1 2 s.' r _ -i`. ` { 5..i' S.F."5--;- /t.. 1 12/ S. ;— _ A'&'( 1' ),,, f':,/,--i-/ C. I _ _ _ __ 2-6O Si', n +ot_al Ex s;(n3 Hai(-cove.' _ _ - -_ _ 1 lL1 7?g 5.+ 1 Excl ida>1e H.rdcovei (See City Ccde Sac 78-1384):- /. ---t -.._ ',./..• _-c' f-------- — -, /_s ._.- S. I- Y . -- -- ---- '-�~� f — , , 1 -- 5=- • • i 1 Total Exciudab'e Hardcover -�_.___.._2 - ' fi �. 2t 6 -"..�..1 i 3} !tet Exist n J Hardcot er jSur tract line(2)from lin_e(1) . I__,7y 5A:41235,. i4j Total LotA.'ea - v- - ---- — --- j ei', '_'-'0__.._._. 1 1 Existing Hardcover Percentage [(3) (4)] { 9 7 i; TbT-AL ocGt,UM'-YYYLiy frRyvp�vls')t...= 302 sy.ft: (Prol osec: Harocover next l:.a;r) r T. vvY41,1-S M,N1P,atS, `t') .;, -.,• 0)13 vY'DPr7 D MAL eyiST. t}Al2DCoVEYL = 19', 116.. --'J.-)-4' (Z 9. 6 0 City of Orono °No Hardcover Calculation Worksheet c��r f, Property Address: f3� 14 P7e4O � z45 �Poiz.�} S�fv ' t �lY ATA tlfv S�'3`l j s.co ell,16) Prepared by: corry41At. CO /#55 -n) Date: Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 2: PROPOSED HARDCOVER In the following table, identify all items of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to site plan or survey (must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are intended to remain, as well as all proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Total Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Survey (Square Feet) (Example) (Garage) (24'x 30') (720 S.F.) A (JO2j V5W1°fy') 21320 S.F. B P111-Y.A Of C,4vl4'r) Zr Co S.F. C 5 iY t VWes,.1. Ci0 Vk'VL- g 2 i 0 S.F. d Sib',w rt.Ks/STVPSf 0 S 9 Zo S.F. E 1yE1 S l ( S.F. F S.F. G S.F. H S.F. S.F. J S.F. K S.F. L S.F. M S.F. N S.F. O S.F. p S.F. Q S.F. R S.F. S S.F. T S.F. S.F. ✓ S.F. VV S.F. X S.F. y S.F. Z S.F. (1) Total Proposed Hardcover 1_4 32-a S.F. Excludable Hardcover(See City Code Sec 78-1884): S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover S.F. (3) Net Proposed Hardcover [Subtract line(2)from line(1)] S.F. (4) Total Lot Area S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [(3)_(4)] 2-1. 25 % Last Updated: July 2018 Note: This is an information sheet only, every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information contained herein;however, if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code, the Code provisions will prevail. Page 9 of 9 _ �; . 411 1t' ,. ,..,, ,.. ,..,, , .3,, .,-,.:-.) . irt, .' • 1' � ; � '''''Ai',"'--''' : ' r ' e i i'1, } / C . • - , ..,,,,,,,,,„ .. lr 4 . ,„ ... . :::-...„,,... .••- / -,4„,„. , ,,.. . . •,• -1,-,,,, .. _„,.,;.,-.•••,,,,,,,„,••-,,„„4„.„. .,,,..,.. A ...r Y : „ 1 . .,,,,, .„ r !p, „...,,,i, in;� ,prd f}7rf :„ ....„ / > ---,4'.,--,,,:-, 4,4,-4,-,:;'!--:7°,,,;..,, t ' l "i k' �,r{, rt f _ r'' s. , .. • '• L _' i "".,tom .�" --,i'1,-''',,i'4,,,.r -� : ,a Y x�C ' € `s' it-‘,1,...,:!,,,,,t,,,,, s ,Y ,,� , i • m .,A;i, Rv,.� ,.:4 r au :I �� ' ,,,-:::1-4. ,'..".'..i.', �;� , a, 4xc" > ( 7' . t� ' 4.'s +fi+ �y� `. i . *€ : a � ^, (° tz t '„ +'�'�++* y \' F � aricessaq, .y.E} '%� =tt "+ ¢\ ' '''1' ',' \ ti cx J \,u '■ amrto• 'v`sr >;z# W,..,`i',`,`,,'4.''' tY . y -4 i.tftkc .r.; --, �. '.,' 1vR4B y R�+ a + ice= ti -'''' '.--, '4 '- ' 'if :. ,-:1,4.'. .--",,,--' 2,;-.‘,.; 1, '''t a # f * r '' r 1, `a:q .'5 "+ // $ /T .J t irk / - r s sr fi 3 ir ,,,.<•,,/ 4t,,_,.. r bra j p '�. �B , a 1 4't ,. a .;.:•.,,,,k;-,5•:.-, ,i7.. -9,, �g " yY4 s �= vs •.'-;.1 t �� _ �i`�'Xir/// ,1` i 1 i # a g'. {fly` A -! f F A 3' �`{- f Robert A. 5-fovd'e and' J[e(en M. Mouse December 27, 2018 City of Orono REGEISreD 2750 Kelley Parkway JAN p 7 'L019 Orono, MN 55323 oRpNo Attn: Melanie Curtis, City Planner CITY _ Dear Melanie, We have reviewed the Variance Application requests submitted on behalf of the Stienhafel's for the a new home construction project at 2455 North Shore Drive and wholeheartedly support their requests. We live at the adjacent property 2435 North Shore Drive. We too believe that the practical difficulties associated with a small lot, long driveway and slopping topography warrants the hardcover, average setback, lot area and width variances as the Steinhafel's have requested. We applaud their willingness to remove all the existing nonconforming hardcover and • structures within the 75 foot lakeshore setback and moving the new home back further away from the lake and slightly to the west thus meeting all the conforming setback requirements. We believe that these actions demonstrate their desire to do the right thing for the lake and neighbors. We look forward to the Steinhafel's as neighbors and believe that their proposed project will be a significant upgrade to what currently exits. If you have any questions please contact me at 612-963-5622 or e mail me at robhovde1954@gmail.com. Yo s Very 1: RoCJAt ovde 21220 West Mountain Cove Place,Buckeye,Arizona 85396 RUN DATE;12/13/2018 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM(PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE:1 38 09-117-23 41 0002 38 09-117-23 44 0012 MANDEEP SINGH SODHI S B&B J LINDAHL JR 2515 NORTH SHORE DR 2465 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 MANDEEP SODHI BURTON JOHN LINDAHL JR 2515 NORTH SHORE DR P O BOX 26 WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 09-117-2341 0003 38 09-117-23 44 0013 CR BERGQUIST III/AE VANORDEN ADAM&HUNTER WRIGHT 2545 NORTH SHORE DR 2485 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 CARL R BERGQUIST ADAM&HUNTER WRIGHT ABIGAIL E VANORDEN 2485 NORTH SHORE DR 2545 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 41 0007 38 10-117-23 33 0001 C J SCHOEN&B M SCHOEN GREGG&DENISE STEINHAFEL 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 2385 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 CHARLES J SCHOEN GREGG STEINHAFEL 2430 NORTH SHORE DR DENISE STEINHAFEL WAYZATA MN 55391 2265 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 38 09-117-23 41 0008 C&B SCHOEN 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 00000 CHARLES I SCHOEN 2430 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 41 0009 CHARLES&BIRGITTA SCHOEN 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 00000 CHARLES&BIRGITTA SCHOEN 2430 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-2344 0003 D&M JR LEVY REVOC TRUST 2425 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 DOROTHY C&MORRIS G LEVY JR 2425 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09.117-23 44 0008 NORTH SHORE MEADOWS LLC 2455 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 NORTH SHORE MEADOWS LLC 2265 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 44 0009 NORTH SHORE MEADOWS LLC 2445 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 NORTH SHORE MEADOWS LLC 2265 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 09-117-23 44 0010 HOVDE PRESTIGE WORLDWIDE LLC 2435 NORTH SHORE DR ORONO MN 55391 HOVDE PRESTIGE WORLDWIDE LLC 25567 W 144TH ST OLATHE KS 66061 38 09-117-23 44 0011 NORTH SHORE MEADOWS LLC 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 00000 NORTH SHORE MEADO\VS LLC 2265 NORTH SHORE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 Hennepin Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Date: 12/13/2018 I:itiltt, ..t 2565 51/ 411114; 2545 (al 2515 pi k � 2485 na, `� 2465 0. 2445 ft s �. �*� 435' • ''moi ,.k 2425 F t #s y,, �-� a Buffer Size: 500 0 50 1O0 200 Feet Map Comments: I I I t l 1 1 1 1 2455 North Shore Drive This data i k furn'shed 'AS IS' with nor () epresentation as to completeness or accuracy;(i. Is fumishedkithnowarrantyofany knd; and (it) Is notsuitabie for tagat,engineering or sur%e�ing purposes.Hennepin County shat not be Iladefor anydanmge,Injury or loss resulting from INs data. For more Informa8on,contact Hennepin CountyGlSOffice 300 6th Street South. Minneapolis,MN 55987/gts.Info hennepin.us Memorial County Park %ce Z' epr N,sh A Noerenberg ir >.r a,z Y Memorial Gardens Minnetonka North Shore Marina Center For the Arts Creative Kids cifMaxwell Bay 51 Academy Orono CRYSTAL HAY 2455 North Shore Drive ...'& o Bohns Point , (:$'d Lafayette Club 9 e,, ct ,,cad N,Jr,7iwc,v R r- :- LOCATION MAP 2455 NORTH SHORE DR . , WAYZATA MN 55391 Date Application Received: December 19,2018 -SWATO Date Application Considered as Complete:December 19,2018 60-Day Review Period Expires: February 17,2019 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members �t Dustin Rief, City Administrator lkFSHO'g" From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: January 22, 2019 Subject: #LA18-0000103, Isaac Linstrom, All Energy Solar o/b/o William and Eleanor Ferril, 240 Wakefield Road Variance to allow Ground Mounted Solar Array where only those attached to structures are permitted. Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a variance to allow a ground mounted solar array where only those mounted to a roof are permitted. Staff Recommendation: If the Commission finds that the standards for variance are satisfied, they should recommend approval. Background The owner desires to install a solar array on a rack to be installed in their rear yard. Because the solar array is located on a rack, a variance is required;solar arrays are required to be roof mounted. The applicant's plans, including the site plan noting the location, are attached as Exhibit C. The variance requested is not a question of whether the array can be located on the property; the question is can the array be located on a rack, rather than on a building. Alternative Energy Systems are governed by Section 78-1379, attached as Exhibit E. Arrays are a permitted accessory use in all zoning district,though with the following requirements. Staff notes are in bold: (2) Standards. a. Exemption. Passive or building-integrated solar energy systems are exempt from the requirements of this section and shall be regulated as any other building element. N/A b. Roof-mounted systems allowed. The only solar energy systems allowed in the city are those that are roof-mounted, Variance Requested c. Height. Roof-mounted solar energy systems shall comply with the maximum height requirements in the applicable zoning district. At its highest point, the array will be 9-10 feet above grade. d. Setbacks. Roof-mounted solar energy systems shall comply with all building setbacks in the applicable zoning district and shall not extend beyond the exterior FILE#LA18-000103 January 22,2019 Page 2 of 5 perimeter of the building on which the system is mounted. To be verified, but as proposed the setbacks are met for both accessory buildings (as a shed), and for accessory structures. See Table below. e. Roof mounting. Roof-mounted solar collectors shall be mounted parallel to the surface of the roof and within three feet of the roof surface, unless manufacturer's documentation is provided indicating that collectors must be angled to provide optimum performance. No portion of the collectors or their mounting system shall extend above the peak or ridge height of a pitched roof. On a flat roof, collectors and their mounting systems shall not extend more than 5 feet above the roof surface. N/A f. Easements. Solar energy systems shall not encroach on public drainage, utility, roadway or trail easements. Known Drainage and Utility easements are located within the setbacks. g. Screening. Solar energy systems shall be screened from view to the extent possible without impacting their function. The applicant proposes removal of invasive species and replacing with natural vegetation. A plan should be provided prior to the City Council review of the variance. h. Maximum area. In all residential zoning districts, the collector and mounting system of a roof-mounted solar energy system shall cover no more than 70 percent of the roof to which it is affixed. N/A i. Aesthetics. All solar panels shall be designed, installed, positioned and constructed of materials so as not to cause any glare or reflective sunlight onto neighboring properties or structures, nor toward vehicular traffic on land or on a lake, and so as to not obstruct views. Reflection angles from collector surfaces shall be oriented away from neighboring windows. Where necessary, screening may be required to address glare. The applicant should be asked to discuss glare. Additional information has been provided as Exhibit D. j. Feeder lines. The electrical collection system shall be placed underground within the interior of each parcel. The collection system may be placed overhead near substations or points of interconnection to the electric grid. N/A LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-420-Setbacks: (For accessory structures Required Required Setbacks Setbacks for DISTRICT for an Accessory an Accessory Proposed Structure(no Building less Building) than 1,000 sf Front 25 50 300+ Rear 15 15 21 Side 15 15 15 Side 15 15 200+feet The two sets of setbacks,though identical in the side and rear yards, illustrates the requirements if the array was placed on a building or rack. In both cases,the setbacks can be maintained. FILE#LA18-000103 January 22,2019 Page 3 of 5 Section 78-1403-Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 130,680 s.f. (3 acres) Structural Coverage Limit does not apply as the property is over 2 acres. Section 78-1680 and 78-1700-Hardcover Calculations. The property is exempt due to its distance from receiving waters. Governing Regulation:Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health,safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located.The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.537 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance.The use of the property as residential, with a permitted use solar array is reasonable. The Commission should discuss whether the ground mounted array is reasonable. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The Comprehensive Plan supports the use of alternative energies. Thought it should be noted that this support is not given at the expense of the existing natural environment, meaning trees should not need to be removed en-mass to support solar. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The solar array mounted on a rack versus a building is reasonable from a hardcover, structural limitation, and massing perspective. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; This property is not unique with respect to the variance. and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Whether the array is located on a building or a rack, some trees may be removed. These trees are not protected, and may be removed at any time. The location is well screened from Wakefield Road, and from property to the west. Existing vegetation will screen it from the east and the south. An existing large berm will screen the improvement from the public Luce Line Trail. FILE#LA18-000103 January 22,2019 Page 4 of 5 The character is protected. The Commission may wish to have the applicant further define the tree and vegetation removal. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minn.Stat.§216C.06,subd. 2,when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. To meet the ordinance, the array would need to be installed on the principal structure whose roof planes do not lend itself to the desired affect, or the applicant would need to construct an undesired detached accessory building. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as the use for a solar array is a permitted use in all zones. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The requirement for the solar array to be placed on the roof of a building is intended to minimize hardcover and structural impact. Both of those concerns do not apply to this lot. The land itself is not peculiar. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The desire to place a solar array on the ground could be found in many zoning districts. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The ability to harness solar power is a right; the Commission will need to determine that there are no other options on the property. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals,or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. The proposed variance would allow a solar array to be ground mounted. A solar array is permitted to be placed on a building, including a new building in the same location as a proposed array. There is no impact to the health, safety, or welfare based on the difference between the two. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. It may be cheaper and easier to place the array on the roof of the existing structure, the applicants propose a variance to better suit their long range plans for the property. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Septic System Status Staff has completed a preliminary review of the project for compatibility with the septic system, and has determined that the project is not likely to impact the existing or future septic sites. FILE#LA18-000103 January 22,2019 Page 5 of 5 Practical Difficulties Statement Applicant has completed the Practical Difficulties Documentation Form attached as Exhibit B,and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Practical Difficulties Analysis Solar arrays are a permitted use in all districts, and the requirements that they be screened from view as much as practical presents challenges as it is virtually impossible to screen the roof of a building. The intent, is, though, to minimize the visual impact of the improvement on the neighbors,and protect against glare and reflection. The application has provided some additional information regarding the glare of these arrays, attached as Exhibit D. Though written from the perspective of impact to airports, it includes some information on glare. The proposed location within trees at the SW corner of the property is intended to offer a visual buffer from the neighboring properties. Variances are applied to the property, not the owner. The property is not unique supporting a variance from this code section. In lieu of variances, it seems appropriate to reevaluate the ordinance that requires a solar array to be mounted to a building only. Public Comments To date, no written comments have been received. Staff has fielded a phone call from a nearby property owner with questions as to reflection or glare from the array, and its location. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? In particular, what is the extent of the tree removal? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Site Plan and plans Exhibit D. Glare information Exhibit E. Section 78-1379 Alternative Energy Systems Exhibit F. Notification Map and Property Owners List Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 12/19/2018 Address: 240 WAKEFIELD RD WAYZATA, MN 55391 Parcel Number: 3611823310011 Land Use Number: LA18-000103 Application Submitted Agent on behalf of property owner By: Owner: Name: WILLIAM & ELEANOR FERRIL Address: 240 WAKEFIELD ROAD WAYZATA, MN 55391 Applicant: Name: Isaac Lindstrom Address: 1642 CARROLL AVE ST PAUL, MN 55104 Contact Information: Associated Contact: Isaac Lindstrom Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description: Variance Application for a ground mounted solar array Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application Appeal of Admin Decision Concept Application Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Application Subdivision Application Subdivision Exception Vacation Application Variance Application Applicant Signature: I , PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA18-000103 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: The property owner is proposing a ground-mounted solar array located in the southwest corner of their property. A ground-mounted solar array is a reasonable mannered use per the intent of the ordinance. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: The landowner's property is heavily forested, has a small pond in the front yard, and a septic system located north of the home. Additionally, the roof is heavily shaded by the trees located around the home. Each of these conditions was not caused by the property owners. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: This variance will not alter the essential character of the locality because it will be well screened from Wakefield RD due to the circumstances of the property. Also, the landowner is working with Prairie Restoration to remove non-native vegetation south of the ground mount and will be screening the solar array with native vegetation from the Luce Line State Trail. Thus improving the essential character of the locality with native vegetation. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: Access to direct sunlight is the driving practical difficulty. No economic considerations are the driving force of this variance application. 5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 1163.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. Response: Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357, Subd. 6 states that "Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy system". This location of the ground-mounted solar array has the most direct access to sunlight on the property, thus it complies with the guidelines of Minnesota Statutes, Section 462.357, Subd. 6. 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Response: Alternative energy systems are permitted within all zoning districts. 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Response: This question does not apply for this variance application. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response: Given the unique land cover of the property and the roof structure and orientation of the home, no other location on the property would allow for the best access to sunlight. This location of the proposed ground-mounted solar array has the most access to sunlight. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: This is a case by case issue. Some homes may have access to sunlight on their roofs while others will be similar to this property, where trees and shade prohibit access to sunlight. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: One of the goals of the Orono's 2030 Comprehensive Plan is "private stewardship of land and resources is preferable to inflexible public control". If granted, the proposed ground-mounted solar array would allow for the Ferril's to have direct control of their land and resources. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. Response: The proposed variance is in accordance with maintaining the health, safety, comfort, morals that are the intent of the zoning code. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: Granting this variance does not serve as a convenience to the applicant. This variance is necessary because this location has the best access to direct sunlight on the property. Any other location would have less direct access to sunlight. ♦I.ALL •ENERGY COMPANY INFORMATION ALL ENERGY SOLAR,INC AQ 1642 CARROLL AVE Cs- \ STPAUL,MN 00)620-337004 INFOQALLENERGVSOLAR.GOM ��`'\O d S. CLIENT INFORMATION 4%1P ELEANOR 8 WILLIAM FERRIC 240 WAKEFIELD ROAD ORONO,MN 55391 PO 18101 SYSTEM DETAILS St; NOTES 1.(24)JA SOLAR 360W MODULES=6.640kW 2.MOUNTING TYPE:FLUSH ROOF MOUNT 3.(24)ENPHASE ICI 7+ INVERTER(S) 4.ARRAY 141: : 4 rill. 351 TILT,1801 AZIMUTH \ ifilr. MER LOCATION N14, , 46, \ A' AZIMUTH N Nb 15 CryY� \� REVISIONS \ CANT:01119/19 CR 1 b 1 " SETBACK PROJECT-PAGE TITLE COVER PAGE NI. r 39'-1" a ,.._,.i `' PAGE NUMBER LL ♦I-EENERGY.._ COMPANY INFORMATION '' ALL ENERGY SOLAR,INC / \ `- ST164P UL,MN 5104 / s�\ ` S7 PAUL,GY OLAR (800)620-3370 INE LEN I Y FOCALCOM ,• \ � CLIENT INFORMATION LEANOFERR�ILIAM IL 240 WAKEFIELD ROAD ORONO,MN 55391 1,f PO 18101 SYSTEM DETAILS \ 1 � NOTES: 1.(24)JA SOLAR 360W MODULES=8.640kW 2.MOUNTING TYPE:FLUSH ROOF MOUNT 3.(24)ENPHASE 10 7+ INVERTER(S) 4.ARRAY 1' 35°TILT,180°AZIMUTH AZIMUTH SII �1 V REVISIONS LAST:12/14118 CR 1 'a' PROJECT-PAGE TITLE VIEW 1 PAGE NUMBER AO SOUTH ELEVATION ��ALL ENERGY I_ 38 11 I COMPANY INFORMATION I ALL ENERGY SOLAR INC 1642 CARROLL AVE ST PAUL,MN 55104 (800)620-3370 INFO ENLLENERGOSOLAR.CTM '? m CLIENT INFORMATION - - WILLIAM C FERRIL 240 WAKEFIELD ROAD LI �� ` --- - F,� ORONO,MN 55391 PO 18101 SYSTEM DETAILS NOTES: / / 1.ELEVATIONS MAY i 4VARY DEPENDING ON GROUND ELEVATION BUT ARE DRAWN TO THE BEST OF OUR - - ABILITY WEST ELEVATION NORTH ELEVATION I 11'-0" I I— i 38'-11 __—1 I I I i I illi I ( 1 1I �'I REVISIONS I LAST:13/14)18 CR F„ 3' ee - ,i 1F , P=;g t y A,fitia s11 PROJECT-PAGE TITLE �'„d s,,,,,,f:4,(,, § $` via t 3 ;, pi f :AIStN(t�t5 1 3 I o ; s a' +,,1. ELEVATION j-rlii,E a. •n t:,= I-5--=!II.: . . ....4; 11, , . --, .?,<� q: . I DRAWINGS t. m1".e.,i'f,�r, _ ;.. ,{>,=,' PAGE NUMBER Al Solar Access and Shade Report 11/21/2018 For: Eleanor Ferril By: Alex Molitor 1642 Carroll Ave St.Paul,MN 55104 Measurements made by Solmetric SunEyeTM-www.solmetric.com Solmetric Session Properties Name elanor Creation Date 11/20/2018 1:35 Note (none) 45.0°N,93.3°W Location Mag Dec:0.1°W Time Zone:GMT-06:00 Solar access averages of 3 skylines in this session Skylines Averaged: Sky01,Sky02,Sky03 Monthly Solar Access Averagim 89% 88% 87% 82% 81% 78% 77°6 82% 83°e 0 93% 91% Annual May-Oct Nov-Apr I 1111111 84% 82% 87% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TSRF averages of 3 skylines in this session: 83% Session Elevation vs. Azimuth Elevation vs Azimuth 90- if 7..., „,_-,_ 4r, r V- ., -, ..,,. ,.2 et ,,-,>- ,,,,,, ,f. 7----.--,,I,c,,f- , s .,:, .::, // -, ,- i , , , 40 /i\\ ,.rX�'l «:r. / \ % \ i \ W 30 ,fes !,\ A l� / ` ,\/, }_,_ I ''`,4r `/ ,\/ z _ j ' -N-:, , :/,, '7\ 1,` /N/ `: )/ tel' \,'„ ,/ ,/. ', 1. 67.5 90 1125 135 15.5 180 11)'S 275 147 5 270 292_5 Azimuth(d grecs) Azimuth Maximum Azimuth Maximinti Center Elevation Center Elevat,o 67.5° 74° 225.0° 70° 90.0° 87° 247.5° 77° 112.5° 87° 270.0° 75° 135.0° 75° 292.5° 71° 157.5° 72° 180.0° 71° 202.5° 73° Sky01 11/20/2018 1:35 —(no skyline note) Panel Orientation:Tilt=45°—Aamuth=180°—Skyline Heading=181° Solar Access:Annual:75%—Summer(May-Oct):70%—Winter(Nov-Apr):80% TSRF:74%—TOF: 99% 410 00, ttei ham► 12:00 _ .. F . ' Data by Solmetric SunEye'TM—www.solmetnc.com Monthly solar ate:(Freed;Tilt-45^:Aam=1809 81% 88 86% 82% ° 83% 86% 68°h I Ilinlildil Jan Feb Mar Apr May lien Jul Aug Sep Oct Nor Dec Data by Solmetric SunEye`"--www.sofinetric.com Elevation vsAzimuth 90- 80 " 70n 1111111.1'7 ° 11111111.10100 . 101.1 31111111g 41114 67.5 90 112.5 135 157.5 180 202.5 225 247.5 270 2925 Azimuth(degrees) Sky02 --11/20/2018 1:36 --(no skyline note) Panel Orientation:Tilt=45°—Azimuth=180°—Skyline Heading=179° Solar Access:Annual:90%—Summer(May-Oct):90%—Winter(Nov-Apr):91% TSRF: 90%--TOF: 99% ologrow,„1.%) ,14 11 17111011.4 opp42. ikil 1111 ■_�_.,(a.♦ .4.11,N44111111# .... N ' Solar Aroma �. -M,,11: Avoca: 90% •7F•,.,, ..s. / Nay-Ort 90% .,/" t :46..y/ NowApr- 91% Data by Solmetric SunEye"--www.solmetric.com Monthly solar acmes:(Faced;Tilt--450;Amn=1809 954x 91°6 9i46 IHIIIIIHII 91% 91%�6 894m ]an Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Data by Solmetric SunEye'"—www.solmetric.com Elevation vs.Azimuth 90- BO- r. 70 .,r 12 .....m`11* ci 1 : ".4 ' 11041rtatr°C ''''' littitA 4 ii0Nos.-11-0"*". -"-'474,4A0 Iz; 67.5 90 112.5 135 1575 180 202.5 225 247.5 270 292.5 Azimuth(degrees) Sky03 --11/20/2018 1:36 —(no skyline note) • Panel Orientation:Tilt=45°—Azimuth=180°—Skyline Heading=178° Solar Access:Annual:87%—Summer(May-Oct):85%—Winter(Nov-Apr):90% TSRF:86%—TOF: 99% 4111111111/nr474444 '411.111111111180.4 1,144441 y #1 *r T. 164 r t i •:a .a,'+, SalerA�ss 1� .,.r4.` Annual- 97% • ipt. ( Nav-Apr= Ela% Data by Solmetric SunEye^' www.solmetric.com Monthly salar ate:(Faced:Til1=45°;Avm=1809 92% t om 89% 89% 86% 89% 88% 91% 91% 93% 1111 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Data by Solmetric SunEyeT"--www.solmetric.com Elevation vs.Azimuth 90 00- . 01!:limit (j ! W 39 ,�f a 10 f f T • II! 1 67.5 90 112.5 135 157.5 190 202.5 225 247.5 220 292.5 A ,(d ) . ••;• M E I S T E R June 2014 CONSULTANTS GROUP Solar and Glare 4. Introduction _ .-_ ... - ;: _ _.< - .amu-,. .�. �.. A common misconception about solar photovoltaic (PV) panels is that they inherently cause or create "too much"glare, posing a nuisance to neighbors and a safety risk for pilots. While in certain situations the glass surfaces of solar PV systems can produce glint(a momentary flash of bright light)and glare(a reflection of bright light for a longer duration), light absorption, rather than reflection, is central to the function of a solar PV panel -to absorb solar radiation and convert it to electricity. Solar PV panels are constructed of dark-colored (usually blue or black) materials and are covered with anti-reflective coatings.Modern PV panels reflect as little as two percent of incoming sunlight,about the same as water and less than soil or even wood shingles(SEIA/Sandia 2013). Some of the concern and misconception is likely due to the confusion between solar PV systems and concentrated solar power(CSP)systems. CSP systems typically use an array of mirrors to reflect sunlight to heat water or other fluids to create steam that turns an electric generator. These typically involve large ground-mounted reflectors, usually in remote desert locations,and are not installed in residential or commercial areas or near airports. Solar PV system on the left compared to a parabolic trough CSP system on the right.Photo Copyright DOEINREL/ORNL . � \ ". ice,/` _ A a.' h • N N - • II N `+ t I. PV on or near . . �`� �,: E. SOLAR Powered by OUTREACHSunen/^�h ot PARTNERSHIP U.S.Department` of Energy .•:• MEISTER June 2014 ,?N ,ULT A N-IS ( hi� ,•=' • ' I d As of June 2013,there were over 3o solar projects in operation at airports in 15 different states (Barrett 2013). Solar installations have been successfully located at or near US international airports in Boston, New York, San Francisco, and Denver, among others. Yet concerns over glint (a quick reflection) and glare (a longer reflection) often arise when a PV system is proposed on or near an airport. Pilots are familiar with both glint and glare as reflection is a common phenomenon,especially off of bodies of water or in the form of glare from the sun itself. However, issues can arise if the solar PV system were to cast glare into an air traffic control tower.' The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has been actively reviewing the impact of glare from solar panels to streamline an evaluation process that ensures safety while creating more opportunity for solar installations on or near airports. The FAA filed notice of its Interim Policy for review of solar energy systems on federally obligated airports(i.e. airports which receive federal funding) in October of 2013.2 This policy requires that a sponsor of a federally obligated airport must request FAA review and approval to install solar on its "airport layout plan." Federally-obligated airports must also notify the FAA of its intent to construct any solar installation by filing FAA form 7460-1.The interim FAA policy also requires the use of the Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool for on-airport solar development. III. FAA and the'Solar Glare Hazard-Analysis Too In order to understand and model glare in accordance with FAA standards,Sandia National Laboratories developed the Solar Glare Hazard Analysis Tool(SGHAT).Standardized safety metrics define what glare intensity will cause unwanted visual impacts to Air Traffic Control towers and airplane pilots.SGHAT can be used to evaluate the potential of a particular PV array to produce glare intensity, predicting when and where glare will occur from a prescribed PV array at user-defined observation points (i.e. from the Air Traffic Control Tower or from a series of points along an aircraft landing route) and be combined with Google maps for an easy user interface.In instances where glare may be a concern,the tool can prescribe minor adjustments to the tilt, direction, and location of the panels to alleviate any issues. SGHAT will predict annual energy production for the various adjusted positions(SEIA/Sandia PPT). iV:-Ftaie tor L6CalGovernments► Local governments may wish to include airport guidance within their local zoning ordinances that address solar PV. The North Carolina Solar Center Template Solar Energy Development Ordinance for North Carolina3 includes a section on airports and recommends aviation notification steps for both on- airport solar projects and installations within 5 nautical miles of an airport. In addition to amendments to local zoning codes, local governments have the opportunity to conduct outreach to airports, http://www.unionleader.com/article/20120830/N EWS02/708309966/0/newhampshi re 2 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-10-23/pdf/2013-24729.pdf http://ncsc.ncsu.edu/wp-content/uploads/Template-Solar-Ordinance_V 1.0_1 2-2-18-I3.pdf SOLAR Powered by OUTREACH �•� L S h ot PARTNERSHIP U.S.Department of Energy MEISTER June 2014 i t;ft��t7At' r 11,uP • 4 / e . organizations and local stakeholders about methods for predicting and managing glare impacts from solar panels near airports or other locations. Such outreach furthers the safety goals of the FAA and the solar energy development goals of municipalities and communities. Spreading awareness of the safety of PV systems along with FAA guidance and glare measurement tools will help foster informed communities and enable the deployment of safe and productive solar PV projects in locations where glint and glare may be of concern. Useful Links Sandia Solar Glare Mapping Tools: https://share.sandia.gov/phlux V. Citations Barrett, S.,June 2013, Glare Factor: Solar Installations And Airports,Solar Industry, Volume 6, Numbers. http://www.solarindustrymag.com/issues/S113o6/FEAT 02 Glare Factor.html. Federal Register 2013,etc.:http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2o13-10-23/pdf/2013-2472q.pdf SEIA/Sandia Webinar on Solar PV and Glare: http://www.seia.org/sites/default/files/resources/Final%2o FAA%2oWebinar%2oSlides%2oAugust%202 o13.pdf Authors:Caroline Palmer and Chad Laurent,Meister Consultants Group,Inc. Meister Consultants Group, Inc. 198 N. Washington St., Suite 302, Boston, MA 02114 I www.mc- group.com This fact sheet,produced by Meister Consultants Group, Inc.,is supported by the following team of organizations:ICLEI-USA; International City/County Management Association (ICMA); Solar Electric Power Association (SEPA); Interstate Renewable Energy Council, Inc. (IREC);North Carolina Solar Center(NCSC);The Solar Foundation (TSF);American Planning Association (APA);and National Association of Regional Councils(NARC). This material is based upon work supported by the U.S. Department of Energy under Award Number DE-EE0003525.This fact sheet was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe on privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product,process,or service by trade name,trademark,manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof SOLAR Powered by OUTREACH .� ^►S h o1 t PARTNERSHIP U.S.Department of Energy Sec.78-1379.-Alternative energy systems. (a) Scope.Section 78-1379 applies to alternative energy systems in all zoning districts. (b) Purpose and intent.The purpose and intent of this section is to establish standards and procedures by which the installation and operation of alternative energy systems shall be regulated within the city.The city finds that it is in the public interest to encourage alternative energy systems that have a positive impact on energy production and conservation while not having an adverse impact on the community. (c) Definitions. For the purpose of section 78-1379 the following definitions shall apply unless the context clearly indicates or requires a different meaning. (1) General definitions. Accessory.A system designed as a secondary use to existing buildings or facilities,wherein the power generated is used primarily for on-site consumption. Alternative energy system.A ground source heat pump,wind energy conversion system,hydronic furnace or solar energy system. (2) Ground source heat pump system definitions. Closed loop ground source heat pump system.A system that circulated a heat transfer fluid,typically food-grade antifreeze,through pipes or coils buried beneath the land surface or anchored to the bottom of a body of water. Ground source heat pump system.A system that uses the relatively constant temperature of the earth or a body of water to provide heating in the winter and cooling in the summer.System components include open or closed loops of pipe,coils or plates;fluid that absorbs and transfers heat;and a heat pump unit that processes heat for use or disperses heat for cooling;and an air distribution system.Also sometimes referred to as a geothermal system. Heat transfer fluid.A non-toxic and food grade fluid such as potable water,aqueous solutions of propylene glycol not to exceed 20 percent by weight or aqueous solutions of potassium acetate not to exceed 20 percent by weight. Horizontal ground source heat pump system.A closed loop ground source heat pump system where the loops or coils are installed horizontally in a trench or series of trenches no more than 20 feet below the land surface. Open loop ground source heat pump system.A system that uses groundwater as a heat transfer fluid by drawing groundwater from a well to a heat pump and then discharging the water over land,directly in a water body or into an injection well. Vertical ground source heat pump system.A closed loop ground source heat pump system where the loops or coils are installed vertically in one or more borings below the land surface. (3) Solar energy systems definitions. Building-integrated solar energy system.A solar energy system that is an integral part of a principal or accessory building, rather than a separate mechanical device,replacing or substituting for an architectural or structural component of the building including,but not limited to,photovoltaic or hot water solar systems contained within roofing materials,windows,skylights and awnings. Flush-mounted solar energy system.A roof-mounted system mounted directly abutting the roof.The pitch of the solar collector may exceed the pitch of the roof up to five percent but shall not be higher than ten inches above the roof. Passive solar energy system.A system that captures solar light or heat without transforming it to another form of energy or transferring the energy via a heat exchanger. Photovoltaic system.A solar energy system that converts solar energy directly into electricity. Solar energy system.A device or structural design feature,a substantial purpose of which is to provide daylight for interior lighting or provide for the collection,storage and distribution of solar energy for space heating or cooling, electricity generation or water heating. (4) Wind energy conversion systems definitions. Horizontal axis wind turbine.A wind turbine design in which the rotor shaft is parallel to the ground and the blades are perpendicular to the ground. Hub.The center of a wind generator rotor,which holds the blades in place and attaches to the shaft. Hub height.The distance measured from natural grade to the center of the turbine hub. Monopole tower.A tower constructed of tapered tubes that fit together symmetrically and are stacked one section on top of another and bolted to a concrete foundation without support cables. Small wind energy conversion system(SWECS).A WECS of 5,000 kW nameplate generating capacity or less. Total height.The highest point above natural grade reached by a rotor tip or any other part of a wind turbine. Vertical axis wind turbine.A type of wind turbine where the main rotor shaft runs vertically. Wind energy conversion system(WECS).An electrical generating facility that consists of a wind turbine,feeder line(s),associated controls and may include a tower. Wind turbine.Any piece of electrical generating equipment that converts the kinetic energy of blowing wind into electrical energy through the use of airfoils or similar devices to capture the wind. Itkr Y— km ' Decrier •! , Nit _r um Ibad 1.604 kW- Me Grirbx !Gerentr i ` P.aort Harmmrifu Ms Wrilcsl Asci Wind Turbine Configurations (5) Hydronic furnace definitions. Hydronic furnace.An outdoor wood boiler that provides heating or hot water using a firebox surrounded by a water jacket enclosed within an insulated shed.A fire is started inside the firebox,and the water temperature is controlled by a thermostatically actuated damper. (d) Ground source heat pump systems. (1) Zoning districts.Ground source heat pump systems in accordance with the standards in this section are allowed as a permitted accessory use in all zoning districts. (2) Standards. a. System requirements. 1. Only closed loop ground source heat pump systems utilizing heat transfer fluids as defined in section 78- 1379(3)are permitted.Open loop ground source heat pump systems are not permitted. 2. Ground source heat pump systems in water bodies owned or managed by the City of Orono are not permitted. 3. Ground source heat pump systems in private ponds constructed within uplands and that are not protected wetlands are permitted. b. Setbacks. 1. All components of ground source heat pump systems including pumps, borings and loops shall be set back at least five feet from interior side and rear lot lines,at least ten feet from front lot lines,and maintain all State-mandated isolation distances. 2. Above-ground equipment associated with ground source heat pumps shall not be installed in the front yard of any lot or the side yard of a corner lot adjacent to a public right-of-way and shall meet all required accessory structure setbacks for the applicable zoning district. c. Construction. 1. All access shall be over the owner's land and due care shall be taken to avoid hazard,inconvenience or damage to public streets and nearby public or private property. 2. Necessary precautions shall be taken in stockpiling excavated materials to avoid erosion,dust or other infringements upon adjacent property. 3. All wiring,installation of pipes,grading and all other installations and construction shall be subject to inspection. 4. Disturbed land shall be restored to its prior condition after completion of construction. d. Easements.Ground source heat pump systems shall not encroach on public drainage,utility, roadway or trail easements. e. Noise.Ground source heat pump systems shall comply with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards outlined in Minnesota Rules Chapter 7030 as amended. f. Screening.Ground source heat pumps are considered mechanical equipment and are subject to the screening requirements of the applicable zoning district. (3) Safety.Ground source heat pumps shall be certified by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.and meet the requirements of the State Building Code. (4) Abandonment.If the ground source heat pump system remains nonfunctional or inoperative for a continuous period of one year,the system shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall constitute a public nuisance.The owner shall remove the abandoned system at their expense after a demolition permit has been obtained in accordance with the following: a. The heat pump and any external mechanical equipment shall be removed. b. Pipes or coils below the land surface shall be filled with grout to displace the heat transfer fluid.The heat transfer fluid shall be captured and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations.The top of the pipe, coil or boring shall be uncovered and grouted. c. Private pond ground source heat pump systems shall be completely removed from the bottom of the body of water. (5) Permits.A city building permit and any other required agency permits shall be obtained for any ground source heat pump system prior to installation.Borings for vertical systems are subject to approval from the Minnesota Department of Public Health. (e) Solar energy systems. (1) Zoning districts.Solar energy systems in accordance with the standards in this section are allowed as a permitted accessory use in all zoning districts. (2) Standards. a. Exemption. Passive or building-integrated solar energy systems are exempt from the requirements of this section and shall be regulated as any other building element. b. Roof-mounted systems allowed.The only solar energy systems allowed in the city are those that are roof- mounted, c. Height. Roof-mounted solar energy systems shall comply with the maximum height requirements in the applicab d. Setbacks.Roof-mounted solar energy systems shall comply with all building setbacks in the applicable zoning district and shall not extend beyond the exterior perimeter of the building on which the system is mounted. e. Roof mounting. Roof-mounted solar collectors shall be mounted parallel to the surface of the roof and within three feet of the roof surface,unless manufacturer's documentation is provided indicating that collectors must be angled to provide optimum performance.No portion of the collectors or their mounting system shall extend above the peak or ridge height of a pitched roof.On a flat roof,collectors and their mounting systems shall not extend more than 5 feet above the roof surface. f. Easements.Solar energy systems shall not encroach on public drainage,utility,roadway or trail easements. g. Screening.Solar energy systems shall be screened from view to the extent possible without impacting their function. h. Maximum area.In all residential zoning districts,the collector and mounting system of a roof-mounted solar energy system shall cover no more than 70 percent of the roof to which it is affixed. i. Aesthetics.All solar panels shall be designed, installed,positioned and constructed of materials so as not to cause any glare or reflective sunlight onto neighboring properties or structures,nor toward vehicular traffic on land or on a lake,and so as to not obstruct views. Reflection angles from collector surfaces shall be oriented away from neighboring windows.Where necessary,screening may be required to address glare. j. Feeder lines.The electrical collection system shall be placed underground within the interior of each parcel. The collection system may be placed overhead near substations or points of interconnection to the electric grid. (3) Safety. a. Standards and certification. 1. Certification.Solar energy systems shall be certified by Underwriters Laboratories,Inc.and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory,the Solar Rating and Certification Corporation or other body as determined by the building official.The city reserves the right to deny a building permit for proposed solar energy systems deemed to have inadequate certification. 2. The equipment or device must be designed and constructed in compliance with all applicable building and electrical codes,and(if for co-generation)must be in compliance with all state and federal regulations regarding co-generation of energy. b. Utility connection.All grid connected systems shall have an agreement with the local utility prior to the issuance of a building permit.A visible external disconnect must be provided if required by the utility. (4) Abandonment.If the solar energy system remains nonfunctional or inoperative for a continuous period of one year, the system shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall constitute a public nuisance.The owner shall remove the abandoned system at their expense after a demolition permit has been obtained. Removal includes the entire structure including transmission equipment. (5) Permits.A building permit shall be obtained for any solar energy system prior to installation. (f) Wind energy conversion systems. (1) Zoning districts.Small wind energy conversion systems(SWECS)in accordance with the standards in this section are permitted accessory uses on lots at least ten acres in gross area within the RR-1A and RR-1B Rural Residential zoning districts.SWECS in accordance with the standards in this section are allowed as a conditional use on lots at least five acres in gross area and subject to conditional use permit approval in the following commercial or industrial districts: B-1 Retail Sales; B-4 Office and Professional;B-6 Highway Commercial; B-6 PUD;and I Industrial. (2) Standards for SWECS in residential zoning districts. a. Number.No more than one SWECS is permitted per parcel. b. Height. In the RR-1A and RR-1B zoning districts,a maximum hub height of 30 feet is allowed as a permitted accessory use. c. Blade length.A maximum blade length of 15 feet is permitted. d. Clearance.The minimum distance from the ground for the lowest point of a blade or any other moving part shall be 12 feet. e. Roof mounting. Roof or wall mounted SWECS are not permitted. f. Setbacks.The base of the SWECS tower shall be set back at least 100 feet from all property lines.SWECS shall not be installed in the front yard of any lot or in the side yard of a corner lot adjacent to a public right-of-way. SWECS shall not be located more than 100 feet from the principal structure on the property. g. Easements.SWECS shall not encroach on public drainage,utility, roadway or trail easements. h. Noise.SWECS shall comply with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards outlined in Minnesota Rules Chapter 7030 at all property lines. i. Screening.SWECS are exempt from the screening requirements for the district in which they are located. j. Aesthetics.All portions of the SWECS shall be a nonreflective surface,subject to the approval of the city administrator or his/her designee.Only monopole towers are permitted.The appearance of the turbine,tower and any other related components shall be maintained throughout the life of the SWECS pursuant to industry standards.Systems shall not be used for displaying any advertising, nor for other uses including but not limited to cell phone antennas,flags,ham radio antennas,etc. No components unnecessary to the operation of the SWECS shall be allowed.Systems shall not be illuminated. k. Feeder lines.The electrical collection system shall be placed underground within the interior of each parcel. I. Vibration.No wind energy conversion system shall produce vibrations through the ground that are perceptible beyond the property on which it is located. m. Location. No SWECS shall be allowed within the Shoreland Overlay District.SWECS shall be setback a distance at least equal to the height of the SWECS from a floodplain, pond or wetland. (3) Standards for SWECS in commercial and industrial zoning districts. a. Number.No more than one SWECS is permitted per parcel. b. Height.In commercial and industrial zoning districts,a maximum hub height of 30 feet is allowed. c. Blade length.A maximum blade length of 15 feet is permitted. d. Clearance.The minimum distance from the ground for the lowest point of a blade or any other moving part shall be 12 feet. e. Roof mounting.Roof or wall mounted SWECS are not permitted. f. Setbacks.The base of the SWECS tower shall be set back at least 100 feet from all property lines.SWECS shall not be installed in the front yard of any lot or in the side yard of a corner lot adjacent to a public right-of-way. SWECS shall not be located more than 100 feet from the principal structure on the property. g. Easements.SWECS shall not encroach on public drainage, utility,roadway or trail easements. h. Noise.SWECS shall comply with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency standards outlined in Minnesota Rules Chapter 7030 at all property lines. i. Screening.SWECS are exempt from the screening requirements for the district in which they are located. j. Aesthetics.All portions of the SWECS shall be a nonreflective surface,subject to the approval of the city administrator or his/her designee.Only monopole towers are permitted.The appearance of the turbine,tower and any other related components shall be maintained throughout the life of the SWECS pursuant to industry standards.Systems shall not be used for displaying any advertising, nor for other uses including but not limited to cell phone antennas,flags, ham radio antennas,etc. No components unnecessary to the operation of the SWECS shall be allowed.Systems shall not be illuminated. k. Feeder lines.The electrical collection system shall be placed underground within the interior of each parcel. I. Vibration.No SWECS shall produce vibrations through the ground that are humanly perceptible beyond the property on which it is located. m. Location. No SWECS shall be allowed within the Shoreland Overlay District.WECS shall be setback a distance equal to the height of the WECS from a floodplain, pond or wetland. (4) Safety. a. Standards and certification. 1. Standards.SWECS shall meet minimum standards such as International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC)61400-2 or the American Wind Energy Association's(AWEA)Small Wind Turbine Performance and Safety Standard or other standards as determined by the city administrator or his/her designee. 2. Certification.SWECS shall be certified by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc.and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory,the Small Wind Certification Council or other body as determined by the city administrator or his/her designee.The city reserves the right to deny a building permit for proposed SWECS deemed to have inadequate certification or testing for operation in a severe winter climate. 3. Maintenance.SWECS shall be maintained under an agreement or contract by the manufacturer or other qualified entity.The owner of the SWECS shall once every two years have the SWECS inspected by a licensed qualified professional and submit to the city a report on the status and condition of the SWECS. b. Utility connection.All grid connected systems shall have an agreement with the local utility prior to the issuance of a building permit.A visible external disconnect must be provided if required by the utility. (5) Abandonment.If the SWECS remains nonfunctional or inoperative for a continuous period of one year,the system shall be deemed to be abandoned and shall constitute a public nuisance.The owner shall remove the abandoned system at their expense after a demolition permit has been obtained. Removal includes the entire structure including foundations to below natural grade and transmission equipment. (6) Permits.A building permit shall be obtained for any SWECS prior to installation. (7) Power distribution.The power produced from a SWECS shall only be used for on-site consumption except if connected to the local utility power grid per the provisions of this section. (g) Hydronic furnaces.Hydronic furnaces are not an allowed use or structure within any zoning districts in the city. (Ord. No. 119 3rd series,§ 1, 12-9-2013;Ord. No.142 3rd series,§§ 1,2,4-13-2015) Hennepin Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Date: 12/20/2018 pnt 3G4 `GE 324 ttal 315 a3 43 280 dial crone # 'k 5•' `, Ntt #fid 9 ¢� « t 250 nn 220 ^& (411 :1%,„ 2 w,�} p psi» 1ot! �1Aylt d: 0 470 rt Off: ;:1 �'r� qcr ihl $i0 - 200 1,41.. : (:::****7.0 Buffer Size: 500 0 50 100 200 Feet Map Comments: 1 1 1 1 ( 1 1 1 1 240 Wakefield Road This data (i) is furn'shed 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy;(i)is furnished with noverranty of any knd; and (il) is notsuitable for bgal,engineering or surteeying purposes.Hennepin County shat not be liable for any damage,Injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information,contact Hennepin CountyGtS Office 300 6th S treet South,Minneapolis,MN 55487/gis.info@hennepin.us RUN DATE:12/20/2018 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM(PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE:1 38 36.118-23 31 0005 38 36-118-23 31 0017 38 36-118-23 43 0001 H NORMAN NAFSTAD ET AL ANNANDALE LLC WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 375 WAKEFIELD RD 200 WAYZATA BLVD W ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 SUMMIT STATION HOMEOWNERS ANN C.WARNER WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB ATTN CINDY AND MIKE LEJEUNE 375 WAKEFIELD RD 200 WAYZATA BLVD W 480 OLD LONG LAKE RD WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 31 0006 38 36-818-23 34 0001 38 36-118-23 44 0004 STATE OF MINN WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB STATE OF MINN 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 00000 DNR REAL ESTATE MGMT WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB DNR REAL ESTATE MGMT ATTN DEBBIE GURTIN 200 WAYZATA BLVD W ATTN DEBBIE GURTIN 500 LAFAYETTE RD \VAYZATA MN 55391 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155 ST PAUL MN 55155 38 36-118-23 31 0007 38 36-118-23 34 0008 MARTHA L LONG SUMMIT STATION HMOWNRS ASSOC 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 00000 MARTHA LONG SUMMIT STATION HMOWNRS ASSOC 625 OLD LONG LAKE RD ATTN ANNE POLICINSKI WAYZATA MN 55391 450 OLD LONG LAKE RD WATZATA MN 55391-9681 38 36-118-23 31 0008 38 36-118-23 34 0009 ANNANDALE LLC SUMMIT STATION HMOWNRS ASSOC 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 00000 ANNANDALE LLC SUMMIT STATION HMOWNRS ASSOC C/O ANN C WARNER ATTN ANNE POLICINSKI 375 WAKEFIELD RD 450 OLD LONG LAKE RD WAYZATA MN 55391 WATZATA MN 55391-9681 38 36-118-23 31 0010 38 36-118-23 34 0010 RICHARD DAVIS&BETH DAVIS C L LITSEY&C A LITSEY 220 WAKEFIELD RD 490 OLD LONG LAKE RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 RICHARD DAVIS&BETH DAVIS CALVIN L LITSEY 220 WAKEFIELD RD CHRISTINE A LITSEY WAYZATA MN 55391 490 OLD LONG LAKE RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 31 0011 38 36-118-23 34 0011 W&E FERRIL M&C LEJEUNE 240 WAKEFIELD RD 480 OLD LONG LAKE RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 WILLIAM&ELEANOR FERRIL MICHAEL L LEJEUNE 240 WAKEFIELD ROAD 480 OLD LONG LAKE RD WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 31 0012 38 36-118-23 34 0012 VIRGINIA KAY CRAVEN R E GLESSING&I J GLESSING 250 WAKEFIELD RD 470 OLD LONG LAKE RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 VIRGINIA KAY CRAVEN ROLLAND E GLESSING 250 WAKEFIELD RD I JEAN GLESSING WAYZATA MN 55391 470 OLD LONG LAKE RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 31 0013 38 36-118-23 34 0013 T J BATINA&K S BATINA H NORMAN NAFSTAD TRUST 280 WAKEFIELD RD 460 OLD LONG LAKE RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 THOMAS J/KATHERINE S BATINA H NORMAN NAFSTAD 280 WAKEFIELD RD C/O GREGG NAFSTAD WAYZATA MN 55391 3435 N KILMER LA PLYMOUTH MN 55441 38 36-118.23 31 0014 38 36-118-23 34 0014 M R CIBUZAR&R L CIBUZAR C J POLICINSKI ET AL 320 WAKEFIELD RD 450 OLD LONG LAKE RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 MARK R CIBUZAR CHRISTOPHER POLICINSKI REBEKAH L CIBUZAR ANNE M POLICINSKI 320 WAKEFIELD RD 450 OLD LONG LAKE RD WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 31 0015 38 36.118-23 42 0003 C WAYNE LENEAVE WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB 360 WAKEFIELD RD 430 OLD LONG LAKE RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 C WAYNE LENEAVE WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB 360 WAKEFIELD RD 200 WAYZATA BLVD W WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 Hennepin County has developed electronic forms of certain property information databases.Hennepin County makes reasonable efforts to produce and publish the most current property information available.The viewer should understand,however,that Hennepin County makes no representation or warranties,either express or implied,or as to merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained herein. 240 Wakefield Road Orono, Minnesota cell 612 247 0710 elferril@aol.com billferril @aol.com Dec 14, 2018 Mark & Becky Cibuzar 320 Wakefield Road Orono, MN 55391 Dear Mark & Becky, We are considering installing solar energy panels. The site would be on our property at the southwest corner. The DNR and Prairie Restoration have agreed to clear an area at our cost for the best efficiency for the panels. The installation would include a buried conduit 18" deep along and on our property. The installation if approved is expected to be complete in the summer of 2019. We are seeking a variance from the city of Orono because this is a ground installation rather than on a building. We are working with All Energy Solar as well as the DNR and Prairie Restoration. We expect to control the invasive growth and possible erosion with material that will be pleasing in appearance. As prescribed by city rules we are seeking approval of our neighbors whose property is within 350'of our property line. I have a site map prepared by the engineers of All Energy Solar if you want more information. I am impressed and quite pleased to be working with them. Sincerely, Bill & Eleanor (Lou) Ferril I (We) a. - t. e above project. 240 Wakefield Road Orono, Minnesota cell 612 247 0710 elferril@aol.com billferril@aol.com Dec 14, 2018 Tom & Kiki Batina 280Wakefield Road Orono, MN 55391 Dear Tom & Kiki, We are considering installing solar energy panels. The site would be on our property at the southwest corner. The DNR and Prairie Restoration have agreed to clear an area at our cost for the best efficiency for the panels. The installation would include a buried conduit 18" deep along and on our property. The installation if approved is expected to be complete in the summer of 2019. We are seeking a variance from the city of Orono because this is a ground installation rather than on a building. We are working with All Energy Solar as well as the DNR and Prairie Restoration. We expect to control the invasive growth and possible erosion with material that will be pleasing in appearance. As prescribed by city rules we are seeking approval of our neighbors whose property is within 350'of our property line. I have a site map prepared by the engineers of All Energy Solar if you want more information. I am impressed and quite pleased to be working with them. Sincerely, ;LZ../ 6,,,K,-. 77. 4),,,e7-a,/-101-t: Bill & Eleanor (Lou) Ferril I( I (We) agree to the a,ove project. 240 Wakefield Road Orono, Minnesota cell 612 247 0710 elferril@aol.com billferril@aol.com Dec 14, 2018 Ann Warner 375 Wakefield Road Orono, MN 55391 Dear Ann, We are considering installing solar energy panels. The site would be on our property at the southwest corner. The DNR and Prairie Restoration have agreed to clear an area at our cost for the best efficiency for the panels. The installation would include a buried conduit 18" deep along and on our property. The installation if approved is expected to be complete in the summer of 2019. We are seeking a variance from the city of Orono because this is a ground installation rather than on a building. We are working with All Energy Solar as well as the DNR and Prairie Restoration. We expect to control the invasive growth and possible erosion with material that will be pleasing in appearance. As prescribed by city rules we are seeking approval of our neighbors whose property is (within 350' of our property line. I have a site map prepared by the engineers of All Energy Solar if you want more information. I am impressed and quite pleased to be working with them. Sincerely, Bill & Eleanor (Lou) Ferril I (We) agree to the above project. rL.lr�- / Date Application Received: November 7,2018 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator j,kESH04 From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: January 22, 2019 Subject: #LA18-000095, Chuck Alcon o/b/Eric and Andrea Larson, 690 Brown Road, Sketch Plan Application Summary: The applicant is requesting sketch plan consideration on a proposed 7 lot single family residential development to be served by municipal services and a new private road. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff requests input on the flexibility requested for lot width noted. It does appear that the intent of ordinance is satisfied with the proposed configuration. Background The city has reviewed development proposals for this property several times in the past, most recently in 2016. Those proposals often suggested a zoning change, introducing higher densities 2+ units per acre into an area guided for Low Density Residential (0.5 to 2 units per acre). The property currently contains one house, located on the south side. This house will be retained on lot 6. The existing driveway off of Brown Road serving this house will be removed. Proposal On behalf of the owner,the applicant proposes subdividing the existing 24.37 acre parcel into 7 buildable lots. The land use and density are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan guidance for the property. Roads/Access. Access to the subdivision will be a new private road off of Brown Road. This private road will terminate in a cul de sac. This new road appears to line up with the exit drive out of the Sugarwood development to the West. This will need to be verified. The 50 foot wide ROW is consistent with Orono Code. The paved width is not defined, but Orono Code prescribes 28 feet for this number of lots. The length of the cul de sac is approximately 927 feet, less than the 1000 foot maximum. Parks/Trails. There is an existing trail on the west side of Brown Road North. The plans do not suggest any interior sidewalks or trails through the development. The plans also do not show any proposed parkland dedication. The Comprehensive Plan does not identify the need for additional park land; it is anticipated that park dedication will be satisfied by a cash donation for the 6 new lots. Utilities. The property is in the Metropolitan Urban Service Area (MUSA);the applicant FILE#LA 18-000095 January 22,2019 Page 2 of 3 proposes connection to Sanitary Sewer. A new liftstaion will likely be necessary. City water will serve the new lots. The roads and all utilities will be installed by the developer. The water, sanitary sewer, and storm utilities will ultimately be accepted by the City. Lots 7 lots are proposed. Each lot meets or exceeds the lot area requirements of the zoning district (2 acres, dry buildable). Two lots do not meet the strict reading of the lot width standards (200 feet). The width of Lot 3 is measured at the building setback line, parallel 50 feet from the right of way line. This width is 144 feet,short of the required 200 feet. However, due to a tributary to Long Lake through this lot, a 75 lake yard also applies to each side of the tributary. At the 75 lake yard the width is approximately 351 feet. 7:771- A rea Width' ®{Cake Lot 1 2.04 2.04 206 Lot 2 5.41 4.16 476 143 Lot 3 3.08 2.08 351 Lot 4 3.35 3.27 224 201 Lot 5 2.33 2.01 220 206 Lot 6 4.06 3.23 205 185 Lot 7 2.46 2.46 322 The width of Lot 6 measured at the lake is 185 feet,where 200 feet is required. While this lot has 211 feet of shoreline, Orono Ordinances measure the width "...a straight line between the points at which the side lot lines intersect the OHWL, and at the required structure setback from the OHWL, measured in a straight line between the points of intersection of the side lot lines with the structure setback line." The Planning Commission should provide feedback whether or not some flexibility from the lot width standard will be supported. As a single lot,the average lake shore setback(ALS) is based on the location of the existing homes at 770 Brown Road to the north, and 650 Brown Road to the south. The City may wish to consider an 'interim' ALS to prevent the need for a variance for lot 5, should it be built first. Natural Environment. The developer proposes to retain vegetation along the north, south, and west property lines. The grading plan will need to be further evaluated to ensure that this goal can be met. The 75 lake yard setback for sewered lots adjacent to Recreational Development lakes is provided for lots 4, 5, and 6. A small creek runs through the property, running from the wetland in Lot 2,through lots 3 and FILE#LA 18-000095 January 22,2019 Page 3 of 3 4,to Long Lake Lake. This creek is considered a tributary, and the 75 lake yard applies. Lots 2— 4 retain adequate buildable area,though a driveway to serve Lot 3 will need to go through this setback area, and over the creek. The watershed district may have some comment on this proposal. A Conservation Design Plan will be required for this development per Section 82-300, and with it the wetland delineations will be confirmed. This project will trigger stormwater management rules. The applicant has been advised to visit with the watershed district early in the subdivision design process. Docks for lake lots 4, 5, and 6 may encroach into a wetland;these docks are limited to 8 feet in width. Public Comments The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on January 10th. Staff was not in attendance, but the applicant reported that about 9 neighboring residents were at the meeting and the concept was generally well received. Staff has received one comment letter. Though the letter incorrectly references a January 10, 2019 Council meeting, their comments are based on potential impacts to the wetland and creek; these issues we are looking for feedback from the watershed district on. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission have an opinion on the lot width issues identified for Lots 3 and 6? 2. Does the Planning Commission support some flexibility to the Average Lake Shore Setback for lots 4 and 5? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Proposed Plan Exhibit C. Applicants Narrative Exhibit D. Neighbor Comment Letter Exhibit E. Location Map Exhibit F. Aerial Photo 12/27/2018 Permit Detail Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 11/07/2018 Address: 690 BROWN RD LONG LAKE, MN 55356 Parcel Number: 3411823120007 Land Use Number: LA 18-000095 Application Submitted By: Agent on behalf of property owner Owner: Name: ERIC &ANDREA LARSON Address: 690 BROWN RD N LONG LAKE, MN 55356 Applicant: Name: Chuck Alcon Address: Contact Information: Associated Contact: Mark Gronberg Associated Contact: MIke Steadman Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description: Residential Subdivision - Sketch Plan Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application Appeal of Admin Decision Concept Application Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Application Subdivision Application = .� Subdivision Exception Vacation Application --' Variance Application Applicant Signature: https://www.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitCantral ler 1/1 PROPOSED SKETCH PLAN FOR ERIC & ANDREA LARSON Z= p. NaZp. IN SECTION 34-118-23 w a v a—=w„ HENNEPIN COUNY, MINNESOTA 3 gn 030 OW=.- co co p Qoja c4•O7 -- .:.� W W O N W 0 FY Z W 8 BROWN ROAD N �__—_�T' m(�J .. .-.-��� _- Z§W . ulm nx.mrr.ita39-1T41W]88.00 +,.." --7 �\ �— ar horv,m ak.wax Ce U}d 0. 344to - � S86°t]'41'E 453.90 r -'sa ly • o ,12,-,�'miLi I \. aQ ,- f l �� N 89'2'4-2 a•la ',!2ORY 44‘E r }: , • 1y 4 • A r o...,v.. .700 2 � 300 JAI '�'< , 8 k : 1. ,' s 4 ' \ ao �� SCALE IN FEET '�' \i' -.#' _ '' a+ \ Iia a.A 264+ AC".", 1 \ 33S+-A -.,'-�� .y �s g ' V , !� i `�, "���'et ,� 327+-AC. // as- ,6 „ 0 1, a sr..c `a J 1 ',y F' , C gam ' LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PREMISES: b y J 2 3a /' ° , ,�'.\, q,,.,:',.'' �*.,` k `G.33+-AC tr o Parcel 1.Thai part a Government La 1,Section 34.Township 118,Ramie 23.described aa k', i12.014— y .., fdbwa'.CamneMng•1 a pan17991ee1 amt am 133 ha smlh a ab Nplhwesl mora of e '..\, , IM''"'. ,-.4,..,., ,'' R.,Y\ AC DRY Y sib La l:u,enea v1en 799 reel to want w,e a eaie Loll'Inenon somm 19377 reel:mmwa S Ps $ {"'4 .' 7::: fes✓ `a•`+4p 2' / _ a 491q ahghs ectal b Me store a Lorp lake,tlrence mpNneml 8y abng lake shoe b a pant E Y ` O, xfiKh Laws Soap St dePem 28 mbWm Emlkarn BIe pact a lro&nronp.lnmce North 54 v' +`+ "X a 'T `b ,,,.,/,1,,,,,,,,t,,,,., ;,,,, r ;4y+T y` degrees 28 mnulea Nbet 181710.1 more«less to n.pdnl a Oepinnirp.acmNing b the 5 pk aa�M m r ° 1---).y., �,� United slelaa C mem Survey nureol.a+cePl tllal par a Wd aacl deo ee m logowa: i 0 j s C c O 05 '„� I Oor'e�bng aI tM noNm2ea mora d 0.NOMwgS Quarter a tlw Nomreaal Quarter a sae g • ', / ^.0• i 90H�1 or Sectmn peg pp thenaartlIce spr ��aledy 11......,e d,aranraa133 halo na 18 w 111///444rninuYledy abg sad wmhdv lone a dfabnc 11,?98.78 ha.9c4'1_trane £ A1., aenea 119 degrees gg mindlesbu,e lana darancea3aaiiha:uhemm eenea w.agreesN Ili gA,la� # M O k 6 {r?'t µi3 0:40: Y� wetanaaw lma'am W345 01.�b pm Iotti Rm s Nolns:Bnce Sp �'`a . , t f r ll!•// _ 1st ,� yyia ' t r l)ROP�t)EParc.2:Thalpe23 0NOMwaaz Quarte dare NortheastQuabraSecem4,Tavm..NortIna 5 r tr.. ✓ .� rt i �� '('f1N 118 NOM.Rangel 23 NhsldesMbee m/slows • E,`d _� �s� d 9�” eoomeeongmgthe westerly mmalasaa �retey- '. - ® .; '-4-rif 7.44 s 6s ys,,A ,,, distance sof 59170 feetNortheast Iof mesa ag of land le hee de thereof 2 I - . . .- 9892615 20 Boat edy atone aedwesle westerly aOeQ ao gn dfeeteflect hence deflectroaa endscribed,themeo r B . �\j' degrees e0 minutes a distance a 34414 het:thence da eee the len 904egrees e8 mnubs I 4111 '.,1 a dislen0 ,Iso 00 reel:thanes agnea rn p len eo,depeen W minutes a distance a ..' 'W - 3ea.1a ria ro me pam aeegimirq.Nemrhepro caear.nar.,amla. ---____ _ •:denotes iron emAer forme _— —— __ --—— —— 018 -.denotes esisting contour N........./.1.1. I 1 : GRASS AREA Bearings wawn as mase I =:'I :WOODED AREA upon the lienmepin ca,my coortlbale haela. WETLANDS :WETLAND BUFFER ADDRESS LO.l BROWN ROAD n. f-'1 LAKE Z04,1440L81104-u 6,o. a' :TREE PROTECTION AREA TOTALAREA.z4.a7 AC TOTAL DRY 20.89 AC.: 13443 (PROJECT TITLE) PROJECT NARRATIVE • Executive Summary- This sketch plan implements the land use direction and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan; all lots meet the area, set back and buffer requirements. In addition, with the implementation of the requested connections to City sanitary sewer and water in combination with the storm water management facilities and BMP's typically required with MCWD review and approval, the water quality of Long Lake, currently assigned a grade of D,will be measurably improved. • The Details- o Eric and Andrea Larson are requesting a review of a Sketch Plan for a residential development at 690 N. Brown Road, PID #3411823120007, a 24.37 acre parcel immediately adjacent to and with lake shore on Long Lake. The development objectives are to achieve a reasonable density given the site characteristics and achieve the highest and best use of the property. o The proposed Sketch Plan includes a total of 7 lots, 6 new lots (2 new lake shore)for single family homes, and 1 lake shore lot with an existing single family residence and one seasonal dock. The driveway for the existing residence will be removed and relocated to intersect the new roadway. o A single roadway access from Brown Road, aligned across from the entrance to the Sugarwoods development is proposed with a cu-de-sac This new roadway is proposed as a 7 ton, 24' width private road with an HOA responsible for snowplowing and maintenance; the HOA will also be responsible for the maintenance of the MCWD mandated storm water facilities on the project. o There are extensive wetlands on the property, which constitute 14.3% of the land area, not including the required buffers, and an unnamed water source in the north central part of the site. These have been delineated; the delineation was completed by Sambatek via their report dated July 7, 2016; the delineation is current. This report was submitted to MCWD for field verification and acceptance. This action was suspended and will be resumed with this application and field verified in the spring of 2019, when the growing season returns. o Sanitary sewer and water services are proposed as connections to the existing City utility services in Brown Road; this approach was selected due to the environmentally sensitive nature of the parcel and the adjacent lake, with a current lake quality grade of D. The grade differential will probably require a lift station with an emergency generator. Construction is planned for the early summer of 2019 with pads ready for home builders by August 2019. . o Park dedication is proposed as cash in lieu of land, one park dedication credit for the existing residence is requested. o Small utilities will be serviced by a joint trench using services now available on Brown Road, including three phase power for the lift station. o There are also woodlands in the SW and NE areas of the site; the tree preservation and Conservation Design report will address this site characteristic. o The total length of the shoreline, applying the LMCD definition of the line of contact of the body of water in the lake with the non-linear shoreline is 619+/-ft.; Lot 6 is 211+/-ft., Lot 5 is 206+/-ft., and Lot 4 is 202+/-ft. The two required shoreline distances for each lot, applying a linear point to point evaluation standard for an authorized dock for each lot are, 200 feet at the lake shore and 200 feet at the 75 foot setback from the lakeshore. These two requirements are met for new lots 5 and 6; for Lot 4 the 200' at the 75' setback is met and 92.5 % of the 200'requirement at the lakeshore is met (185'). This reduced length for lot 4 is due to the application of a linear evaluation requirement to a non-linear condition. Seasonal docks for all three lake lots are therefore justified. December 27,2018 City Council City of Orono RECEIVED 2750 Kelley Parkway JAN U 2019 Orono, MN 55323 CITY OF ORONO Subject: 690 Brown Road North potential subdivision We will be out of town during the January 10th city Council meeting when the subject comes up for approval. Following are our comments. We have reviewed the subject proposed subdivision and have a problem with the amount of the proposed wetland reduction on lot#3.This is caused by the proposed home site being on the east side of the wetland and creek. Placing a home in this location will mandate a significant reduction in the wetland and force a"bridge"of some sort across the creek. It appears so us that a redrawing of lots 2 and 3 could be done so as to place the home on lot 3 to the west of the wetland and creek. Yours truly, r Mary and Ted ScI3u tze 744 Brown Road North Long Lake, MN 55356 (m)763.218.6632 tedmschultze@gmail.com cc Huffer, North, Benson, Hogan,Stavig,Adams,Steadman Hennepin Hennepin County Property Map Date: 1/16/2019 '.,s4 , r ..1 F ' r ... .. r s % 4., s f i' till .. "111 # F. ,,... ,,-., ri . .- i „ 4.-.t, . , - ' !•-- ` - 1iq'iway_;2 -- ._ .. , u. z. ,- 1 inch = 1,600 feet PARCEL ID: 3411823120007 Comments: OWNER NAME: E J Larson/S A Larson Liv Tr PARCEL ADDRESS: 690 Brown Rd N, Orono MN 55356 PARCEL AREA: 23.72 acres, 1,033,305 sq ft A-T-B:Abstract SALE PRICE: $1,730,000 SALE DATA: 03/2000 SALE CODE: Warranty Deed This data(i)is furnished'AS IS'with no representation as to completeness or ASSESSED 2017, PAYABLE 2018 accuracy;(ii)is furnished with no warranty of any kind;and(iii)is notsuitable PROPERTY TYPE: Residential Lake Shore for legal,engineering or surveying purposes. HOMESTEAD: Non-Homestead Hennepin County shall not be liable for any MARKET VALUE: $2,692,000 damage,injury or loss resulting from this data. TAX TOTAL: $33,639.66 COPYRIGHT©HENNEPIN ASSESSED 2018, PAYABLE 2019 COUNTY 2019 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential Lake Shore HOMESTEAD: Non-homestead MARKET VALUE: $3,097,000 Hennepin Hennepin County Property Map Date: 1/16/2019 f 4 J L 3 f t €aby3�K `. �1 �.{ `� 1 tr,,,,, sp '''') ' :67'" . ' - — : ':---,., . ''''':,..it-.7.-.,4,. . I -1 4..p , 0,,,.., i ., . ,t . i , ...., a r ,... , ,� [ •, i `J •_ *s z. '* - "britt t. _ --.4,- -,- . 0*- , ..-.,,,f1,;' - . I , I * . . +..is - '� _ - �r 1 inch =400 feet PARCEL ID: 3411823120007 Comments: OWNER NAME: E J Larson/S A Larson Liv Tr PARCEL ADDRESS: 690 Brown Rd N, Orono MN 55356 PARCEL AREA: 23.72 acres, 1,033,305 sq ft A-T-B:Abstract SALE PRICE: $1,730,000 SALE DATA: 03/2000 SALE CODE:Warranty Deed This data(i)is furnished'AS IS'with no representation as to completeness or ASSESSED 2017, PAYABLE 2018 accuracy;(ii)is furnished with no warranty of any kind;and(iii)is notsuitable PROPERTY TYPE: Residential Lake Shore for legal,engineering or surveying purposes. HOMESTEAD: Non-Homestead Hennepin County shall not be liable for any MARKET VALUE: $2,692,000 damage,injury or loss resulting from this data. TAX TOTAL: $33,639.66 COPYRIGHT©HENNEPIN ASSESSED 2018, PAYABLE 2019 COUNTY 2019 PROPERTY TYPE: Residential Lake Shore HOMESTEAD: Non-homestead MARKET VALUE: $3,097,000 N M ' *r* 'If Lt'y q ll=" , ! .a+d °' }: 4.....,"w Bry t RN. !,'}0.cti14 ti } -, -,, , 4.„4. ' tit..,,, ,. . ..,* .-k4 , -4-' ''* "...„Ai,# . '„ x ° y »z tc Y I y H i e Y 4 { . r y S ,+ +Tir tea. $ f t k? i Ian+ 'I i'�*`+rr i "xSiflt. a 4 w °