Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07-16-2018 Planning Commission Packet
PUBLIc ATTENDANCE MEETING I J Z'6 I D COUNUL K LANN G COMiiMMMON C OTHER Assistive Listening Device available upon request. Please cornpflete the ffoftwMg information for City records. PRESENT FOR (from agenda) NAME (please print) ADDRESS NAME OR NUMBER 4 r -Fd(�- Z—,91�-c'iQ.6L:v 5. 6. --- 7. n j�t►� �,� , 8.w f V W, -- 1 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. V:1(LEGAL FORMS)1(FORMS)1PUBLIC ATTENDANCE.DOC AGENDA City of Orono Planning Commission Meeting for July 16, 2018; 6:30 PM Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Council Representative: Aaron Printup 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. New Business 1. Approval of Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 18, 2018. 2. LA18-000060 Jay Mittelstaedt, 1980 Heritage Lane, Variance (Staff: Laura Oakden) 3. LA18-000061 Jim Cleary, 275 Crestview Avenue, Variances (Staff: Laura Oakden) 4. LA18-000062 Stonewood LLC, 385 & 387 Orono Orchard Road South, Subdivision: Preliminary Plat (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 5. LA18-000063 LA18-000063, Matt Johnson, 1432 Shoreline Drive, Variance (Staff: Laura Oakden) 6. LA18-000057 City of Orono, Text Amendment — Accessory Structures Setback (Staff: Jeremy Barnhart) 7. LA18-000059 City of Orono, Text Amendment — Signs (Staff: Jeremy Barnhart) 8. Update on July 9, 2018 City Council meeting. 9. Other issues for discussion. Planning Commission Comments Planning Liaison for August 13, 2018 Meeting: Dennis Libby ADJOURNMENT Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us — follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notifications MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 18, 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, Dennis Libby, Mark McCutcheon, 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. NEW BUSINESS 1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF MAY 21, 2018 Libby moved, Olson seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono City Council meeting of May 21, 2018, as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 2. LA18-000050 STONEWOOD, LLC, 1020 TONKAWA ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:31 P.M. — 6:34 P.M. Sven Gustafson, Stonewood, was present. Curtis stated the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit to install a full bathroom, including shower, in an accessory garage. The applicants are removing an existing garage and constructing a detached garage closer to the home. A conditional use permit is required for the full bathroom. Staff has completed an analysis of the conditional use permit and findings are included in the staff report. A neighbor did ask to review the plans but submitted no public comments. City Staff has received no other public comments regarding this application. Staff recommends approval conditioned upon the property owners' agreement to the filing of a covenant in the title of the property providing that the accessory building will not be: one, used for a home occupation unless specifically approved by the City or if allowed by this Code; two, used as a dwelling unless a guest house conditional use permit is obtained; and three, rented, leased or otherwise provided for use as a dwelling under any circumstances. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Sven Gustafson, Stonewood, stated he does not have anything to add to Staffs report and would be able to answer any questions. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:32 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:32 p.m. Page 1 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 18, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 2. LA18-000050 STONEWOOD, LLC, 1020 TONKAWA ROAD, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, 6:31 P.M. — 6:34 P.M. — Continued Thiesse commented the application is reasonable and straight forward. Ressler moved, Olson seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000050, Stonewood, LLC, 1020 Tonkawa Road, granting of a conditional use permit. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 3. LA18-000053 EMILY NORLING, 3508 IVY PLACE, VARIANCE, 6:34 P.M. — 6:37 P.M. Brianna Letnes was present on behalf of the Applicant. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting variances for average lakeshore setback and hardcover that exceeds 25 percent in order to construct a 10' x 14' deck on the south side of the home which abuts a neighboring unimproved right-of-way. The plans show the stairs to the deck as the only new proposed hardcover to the property. This deck would encroach in the average lakeshore setback, which is established by the distance of the house to the north from the lake and would be located 78.5 feet from the lake. The neighbors to the north have provided an acknowledgement form in support of the proposed project. The property is located in the Tier 1, Storm Water Quality District with a 25 percent maximum hardcover. The property received a variance in 2012 when they built the home to allow 27 percent hardcover on the site. The applicant is requesting 27.4 percent hardcover to account for the 55.5 square feet needed to build the stairs off of the deck. There does not appear to be obvious opportunities to remove hardcover. Staff finds there is practical difficulties inherent to the property. The property did receive lot area, lot width, side yard setback variances, hardcover and average lakeshore setback variances when the home was newly constructed in 2012. The lot is substandard in area and width. The applicant is proposing minimal new hardcover with the proposed deck stairs and the proposed deck will align with the existing deck and be constructed over an existing patio creating no new sightline encroachments for the northern property. It appears that the hardcover variance is in part supported by the longer than typical driveway to accommodate the long, narrow lot. Planning Staff finds the proposed variance reasonable. The Planning Commission should review the proposed variance and make a motion to recommend approval if the provided findings meet all of the variance standards. The Planning Commission had no questions for Staff. Brianna Letnes, 3508 Ivy Place, Wayzata, stated she can answer any questions. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:36 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:36 p.m. Page 2 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 18, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 3. LA18-000053 EMILY NORLING, 3508 IVY PLACE, VARIANCE, 6:34 P.M. — 6:37 P.M. — Continued Thiesse stated the application is pretty straight forward and the only question he would have is whether the stairs could fit within the footprint of the deck. Thiesse noted since the deck is proposed to only be 10' x 14', it is likely the stairs would take up most of the footprint, which he would consider to be a practical difficulty. Olson and Ressler indicated they are in agreement. Olson moved, Libby seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LAI 8-000053, Emily Norling, 3508 Ivy Place, granting of variances. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 4. LA18-000056 STUART CLEAVELAND, BLACK BEAR BUILDERS, 710 BIG ISLAND, VARIANCES, 6:37 P.M. — 6:49 P.M. Stuart Cleaveland, Black Bear Builders, and Christopher Neugent, owner, were present. Oakden stated the applicant is requesting variances for hardcover and a retaining wall in the 75 -foot lake yard setback. The applicant proposes three improvements within the 75 -foot lake yard labeled A, B, and C on the plan. Improvements A and B are permitted by code and no variances are necessary. Improvement C requires a variance and is the subject of this application. The property currently has a small path with a retaining wall to access the west dock. The retaining wall is failing with a significantly slanted walking path. Included as part of the proposed improvements are extensive landscaping around the shoreline and throughout the property. The applicants are further proposing to remove four trees within the 75 -foot lake yard and will plant eight native trees in various locations in the lake yard. The applicant is also proposing a 4 -foot walkway from the main dock and stairs to the house as well as additional hardcover for access from the lake to the detached garage. They are proposing to use a variety of materials including pavers on the walking, rock to match the existing riprap along the shore, geogrid grass pavers, and gravel pavers. These improvements are allowed per City Code 78-1282(6) for handicap accessibility. The entire property is located lakeward of the average lakeshore setback line determined by the properties at 700 Big Island and 720 Big Island. Within 75 feet of the ordinary high water level of any lake no hardcover shall be placed, located or constructed except regulated by the Shoreland Overlay District. Staff finds due to the nature of the lot at the point of the island there are practical difficulties supporting granting the 75 -foot lake yard setback and hardcover in the lake yard variances for access improvements to the property. The applicant is looking to reconstruct a failing retaining wall and walkway for access to the west dock. As part of the project, the applicant will be adding hardcover in the 75 -foot lake yard to create access for a handicap family member to the cabin from the lake. No public comments have been received. Staff recommends approval of the proposed improvements. Page 3 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 18, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 4. LA18-000056 STUART CLEAVELAND, BLACK BEAR BUILDERS, 710 BIG ISLAND, VARIANCES, 6:37 P.M. — 6:49 P.M. — Continued Thiesse asked if Staff is sure the wall will not exceed 4 feet. Oakden stated to her knowledge it will not but the applicant can better address that. Thiesse noted if the wall exceeds four feet, it will need to be engineered. Libby asked if there is an aerial of the property. Libby stated he is interested in the proximity of the adjacent property. Oakden displayed an aerial photograph of the property and pointed out the location of the lot, the adjoining property, and the proposed dock. Ressler asked what type of material the retaining wall will be constructed out of. Oakden stated to her knowledge it is rock. Stuart Cleaveland, Black Bear Builders, stated included in the Planning Commission packet should be a picture depicting the proposed wall. Cleaveland indicated it will be a boulder wall, with pavers on the flat portion. Cleaveland stated unfortunately their landscape architect is running behind and is not here yet. Libby commented this is a great location on the Island. Libby asked if there have been any conversations with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Oakden noted the dock will require approval from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District and that it is the applicant's responsibility to obtain that permit. City Staff will not issue the building permit until that approval from the MCWD is received. Cleaveland indicated they are still in communication with the MCWD and that he will be contacting them after the meeting. Cleaveland stated he has not heard of any issues at this point. Neugent stated the slope is basically falling and that their intent is to stabilize it. Ressler asked if they will also be doing riprap. Neugent indicated that is there currently. Cleaveland stated the riprap they are proposing is in a different location. Ressler asked if that is noted in the Staff report. Oakden stated she noted in the memorandum that they are realigning the path and retaining wall but that she will clarify that before it goes before the City Council. Page 4 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 18, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 4. LA18-000056 STUART CLEAVELAND, BLACK BEAR BUILDERS, 710 BIG ISLAND, VARIANCES, 6:37 P.M. — 6:49 P.M. — Continued Thiesse stated a lot of times the City will require screening along the shoreline to conceal the wall somewhat but that since it is a boulder retaining wall, it will not look much different than the riprap along the shore in a number of different locations along the Island. Cleaveland stated to his knowledge they will be doing vegetation around the retaining wall. Oakden pointed out the dark green on the map is the area where the applicants are working with the MCWD to improve the shoreline and that there will be vegetation included with that. Thiesse asked if there will be a sidewalk to the lake. Oakden stated project areas A and B fall under the City's handicap accessibility code. McCutcheon asked if there were previous steps or whether the area is pretty flat. Neugent stated the path itself is very crooked and unstable and is a dangerous path. McCutcheon commented he is glad the buffer area has been increased. Oakden stated to her knowledge there are no stairs in that area. McCutcheon stated he was concerned about runoff going down the stairs and into the lake. Neugent stated by moving the path further back, that will help with the runoff and will be better for the lakeshore. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 6:48 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 6:48 p.m. Thiesse stated the application is very straight forward and that they are working hard to maintain and preserve the shoreline. Olson moved, Erickson seconded, to recommend approval of Application No. LA18-000056, Stuart Cleaveland, 710 Big Island, granting of hardcover variances. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. 5. LA18-000055 PAUL VOGSTROM, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN, 6:49 P.M. — 8:07 P.M. Paul Vogstrom, Applicant, was present. Curtis noted the applicant submitted some slightly updated plans this afternoon and the location of the driveway gate coming off of Walters Point has been revised. Page 5 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 18, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. LA18-000055 PAUL VOGSTROM, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN, 6:49 P.M. — 8:07 P.M. — Continued Curtis stated in 2017 the Dunkleys requested a lot line rearrangement after purchasing the adjacent property and demolishing the home on that lot. The goal of their former application was to move the common property line between the two properties to enlarge their residence lot in order to construct an addition while leaving a lot to build a new home between their home and the property at 2715 Pence Lane. The lot line rearrangement application required a number of variances, and after receiving unsupportive feedback from both the Planning Commission and the City Council, the applicants withdrew that request. The property owners then combined the two properties into one PID so they could proceed with the permitting for the addition to the existing home. The lot combination was completed and the property currently addressed 2709 Walters Port Lane now has a total of 4.3 dry acres and approximately 515 feet in width measured in a straight line at the OHWL. It is zoned LR -1B, which has a one -acre minimum lot area. The addition to the home required average lakeshore setback, 75 -foot setback and hardcover variances. which were granted. The variances were granted in November of 2017 and the addition is under construction currently. Today the property owners are requesting feedback on a very similar proposal. Because the property as it exists today results from the recent combination of 2709 Walters Port Land and 2710 Pence Lane, a subdivision, rather than a lot line rearrangement, is necessary. A subdivision must conform to the standards of the City Code. The Commission should discuss the appropriate level of flexibility for a subdivision. The Commission and Council should be very cautious when considering a subdivision that does not meet the standards of the City Code. Waivers and variances at the creation of a lot almost always require further variances and waivers when the property is actually used. The issues identified during the initial proposal remain unresolved. The applicant is now proposing to create a new lakeshore lot between their Walters Port home and the Hueler property at 2715 Pence. Their plans show a one -acre lot east of the Dunkley home, wrapping around the Hueler lot. The plan suggests the proposed new lot is 1.0 acres and meets the 140 -foot width at the lake and at the 75 -foot setback. These dimensions will be verified during the formal review phase. Based on the configuration, the proposed Lot 2 is narrow in the middle where a conforming house would be located. The house shown on the sketch requires an average lakeshore setback variance to create a building envelope. Curtis noted the blue line depicts the average lakeshore setback for this lot. Curtis stated she is not sure at this point based on the plans before her whether it would be possible to locate a house on the property conforming to the average lakeshore setback and at the present time a significant amount of the project would take place in front of the average lakeshore setback. In addition, the roadway or driveway entering the property may require additional variances for Lot 2 since it does not meet the standards of a private roadway. If it is to be an outlot, which is one of the requirements to create a third lot, it would require a cul-de-sac. The applicants are proposing a disconnect from their current driveway at Walters Port and a gated connection at the L or the corner on the south end of Walters Port in an effort to accommodate some sort of turnaround although not meeting the code minimums. Page 6 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 18, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. LA18-000055 PAUL VOGSTROM, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN, 6:49 P.M. — 8:07 P.M. — Continued Curtis indicated she has identified a number of issues in the staff report that the Planning Commission should discuss. The goal of tonight's review is to provide the property owners and developer with an overview of the pertinent City ordinances, how they affect the proposed plat, and then discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the proposal. The above issues for discussion reveal a number of issues with the proposed plat and should provide direction to the applicant regarding the plat. As a sketch plan review, any comments or suggestions to the applicant are non-binding but should be extremely helpful. Thiesse asked if the applicants could terminate one of the driveways and not make it looped driveway. Curtis stated the Walters Port home is currently served off of Pence Lane driveway as is the Hueler residence. The applicants also still have a connection to Walters Port but that lot no longer exists. Thiesse asked if they are proposing to have that lot brought back. Curtis indicated they are. Thiesse asked whether the City would allow the driveway to serve two lots by one of the driveways and one house served by another driveway if the applicants were to terminate the loop to Walters Port where that driveway hits the main road. Curtis pointed out there will be three houses served off of Pence. Thiesse asked if that would be more compliant. Curtis stated if they would not connect their existing home to Pence Lane, that would help from a driveway/road standpoint but that is not the applicants' goal. Curtis stated her understanding is that they are trying to accommodate some type of access and turnaround for emergency vehicles but it appears to be too much in a place that does not really allow that to happen. Curtis displayed an aerial photograph of the area and pointed out the location of the demolished house and the Hueler home. Curtis noted the existing house currently accesses onto Walters Port with no connection onto Pence Lane. McCutcheon asked if they could feasibly put a house on the proposed lot. Curtis indicated they could place a smaller house on the lot. If the house is located behind the blue line, it is unclear whether the width would be of a sufficient size to be adequate. Thiesse asked if the original house met the 75 -foot setback. Curtis stated to her knowledge it did not. Paul Vogstrom noted the green line is the old house. Erickson asked if there are still three gates being proposed. Page 7 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 18, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. LA18-000055 PAUL VOGSTROM, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN, 6:49 P.M. — 8:07 P.M. — Continued Curtis stated to her understanding there are three gates, but the applicant will need to address that. Curtis stated in one of the renderings there appears to be a gate and that she is not sure if that was the end of a driveway or an outlot. Thiesse asked how the City feels about a house being moved and whether it has any grandfathered lakeshore setback. Curtis stated the lots have been combined. Paul Vogstrom, Applicant, stated they only have two gates proposed and that the one in the middle was possibly going to be an outlot but they instead are going to move the driveway just a little bit east of the Y. Vogstrom stated they are actually proposing to have Lot 2 access off of Walters Port and then Lot 1 would still access from Pence Lane. Currently it is accessing from Walters Port. Walters Port would then end near the kidney shaped berm. Curtis asked if he is proposing that Lot 1 access via Pence and that Lot 2 cross the private driveway of Lot 1 to have their access off of Walters Port. Vogstrom indicated that is correct. Vogstrom stated when they looked at developing the property a year ago with an improved road, nobody in the neighborhood was in favor of that and that it just seemed to be less impactful by doing what they are proposing, which is similar to another plan they had submitted. Vogstrom commented they are attempting to make this all work with what they are dealing with, and that one of the issues is the turnaround in and out of Walters Port. Vogstrom indicated during a neighborhood meeting last week there was a medical situation and that it was hard for the ambulance to come and go, which is the reason why the gate has been moved a little further south to allow for a vehicle turnaround in that area. Vogstrom stated they are trying to improve an existing problem on Walters Port. Vogstrom stated adding a cul-de-sac is feasible but that the neighbors are not in favor of it. Vogstrom stated the last time he presented on this, they had discussed an idea where they could make the existing driveway wider and also have a turnaround. Vogstrom indicated he met with the fire chief regarding that proposal and he was on board with that. Vogstrom stated he is trying to understand the reasoning for the new and improved road but that they are trying to accommodate it but that they require some variances in order to go on Walters Port and also go around from Pence. As far as the average setback, Vogstrom noted there was an existing home on the lot that was combined, which was removed, and that the lots were combined in order for the Dunkleys to get their addition going on their existing house. Vogstrom stated the lot combination lot triggered something else and that prior to the removal of the home, they had the right to build in that footprint. Vogstrom stated they are now proposing to move it back 17 feet so it is out of the line of sight, and since that lot has a point at the shoreline, it does not make sense to not grant the variance. Thiesse commented it would have been easier if they had not combined the lots. Thiesse asked if the intent is for Pence to be the driveway of choice for the property. Page 8 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 18, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. LA18-000055 PAUL VOGSTROM, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN, 6:49 P.M. — 8:07 P.M. — Continued Vogstrom stated it would be for Lot 1 and that they would also like to have Lots 1, 2, and 3 access off of that driveway, but that they are willing to sacrifice the access for Lot 2 so the need for an extra variance is not triggered. Vogstrom indicated they are willing to work with Staff to resolve the issues. Thiesse asked how wide Pence is. Vogstrom indicated it is 11 to 12 feet wide and that they are proposing to widen it to 16 to 18 feet. Thiesse asked how wide Walters Port is. Eric Vogstrom stated it is16 feet. Thiesse asked if both roads are driveways. Curtis indicated Pence is a driveway and Walters Port Road is a private road. Vogstrom stated having a 50 -foot right-of-way impacts the wetland and that they have studied the impacts of that. Vogstrom noted a lot of the water flows from around the whole development and surrounding properties into a pipe and then directly into the wetland. Vogstrom stated they are proposing to work with the Watershed District so they can take the pipe going to the northern part of the land and filter it into the land and eventually into the wetland. Thiesse noted Staff has identified 11 items the Planning Commission should discuss. Curtis requested the Commission also discuss the driveway crossing over onto Walters Port. Thiesse noted this is not a public hearing but that he would allow public comments on the sketch plan. Greg Hueler, 2715 Pence Lane, stated since this project started, he has had between 20 to 30 neighbors call him to ask him what is going on. Hueler stated during this process they have seen a number of surveys showing this to be a point, which is not the case, and that it is a straight line down from his property to the Dunkleys' property. Some of the neighbors have been asking what the consequences are of tearing out big trees near the shoreline and what the consequences are of moving tons of dirt and getting a stop and desist order. Hueler stated there are a whole lot of things that are problematic for him with the project. Hueler noted the developer talked about the existing home that was torn down. Hueler noted since the home is no longer there, it is a moot problem. Hueler stated the original plan was shut down but that the Dunkleys are now back asking for a subdivision, which most of the citizens think is going to be more restrictive. Hueler stated the applicants are now proposing to put a house in half of his sightline and that he is wondering why the City would allow that. There is 83 feet between the proposed house and his property line, and if the house is located in the spot where Ms. Curtis is suggesting, the Dunkleys could maybe put a garage in there but not the type of house that the neighbors would like. Hueler recommended the Commissioners come look at the property. Page 9 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 18, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. LA18-000055 PAUL VOGSTROM, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN, 6:49 P.M. — 8:07 P.M. — Continued Hueler stated in his view more people would have been here if they had known about the meeting but that a lot of people are watching what is happening here and that there likely will be more feedback. Hueler indicated the last phone call he had with Sue Dunkley was where she said she would sue them, which she did the next day, and that she said they will get another lot categorically. Hueler questioned whether there are people in authority that have given her that kind of feedback. Hueler stated he has a concern with that and that it has been a frustrating process. There were no further public comments regarding the sketch plan. Thiesse noted the first discussion point listed in Staff's report is that the Commission and Council should discuss the appropriate level of flexibility for a subdivision. Thiesse asked if they require one acre. Curtis stated that is necessary for a lot with frontage on a road. Thiesse asked if they meet that. Curtis stated it is unclear at this point and that it sounds like the applicants are proposing the access as an outlot that stops and that this would be their frontage on a substandard road. Eric Vogstrom stated the new lot would be one acre and that currently the site is five acres. Erickson noted at the time of the original proposal the minutes reflect that there were considerable differences of opinion between the neighbor and the applicant regarding the legal description and other elements of the proposal and that he is just wondering if those differences have been addressed. Hueler stated the topic of the lawsuit is the Dunkleys want to overthrow the easements that have been in place for decades but that the current easement is still in place. Thiesse asked if he has an easement, Hueler stated they have two easements. One easement is to use the 600 feet of roadway from the gate to their home and the second easement is from Kelly Avenue to the gate. That easement has an undivided interest for three homes to share that little strip of road. Hueler stated in his view what is being proposed with the new lot crossing the driveway is that everyone is going to use that driveway, which they say is going to Walters Port, but that most vehicles will use it to get to Pence Lane Vogstrom stated what is in dispute is the access easement before the gate, which was really the big opposition when they formally brought the plan before the Planning Commission the first time. Vogstrom noted they presented a sketch plan before that meeting and that the sketch plan received full support from Staff and Mr. Hueler. Vogstrom indicated they have been working on a driveway that will have less impact for the neighbors and that they basically have been just trying to accommodate what the neighbors would like to see happen. Thiesse stated when he drove through the property the last time, there were a lot of trees removed. Vogstrom stated there have been trees removed and that the landscape designer can address that. Page 10 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 18, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. LA18-000055 PAUL VOGSTROM, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN, 6:49 P.M. — 8:07 P.M. — Continued Vogstrom noted the previous application had a number of different variances and that he did not have the time to go through them one by one. Vogstrom indicated he is trying to get an idea of what to do from here, and that if a 50 -foot cul-de-sac is needed, that is what they will do, but that they are trying to make it better for everyone and have a turnaround for Walters Port. Vogstrom stated he would love to have everyone walk the lot and have a neighborhood meeting about the best way to use this property. Curtis noted the trees beyond the 75 -foot setback are not protected, and with a subdivision, the applicant is required to do a Conservation Design. It was originally presented as a sketch plan for a lot line rearrangement. Thiesse asked in order for the driveway to be compliant whether it would need to have a 50 -foot wide right-of-way with a full cul-de-sac at the end of it. Curtis stated that is correct and that it would be a private road. Thiesse stated it appears the cul-de-sac is there to allow emergency vehicles to come in, turn around, and then go back out. Curtis stated that was discussed previously and to her knowledge the Fire Chief is open to discussing that as well as the City Council. Curtis stated the plan is not clear and it is not a concise and well understood access at this time. Curtis noted the second lot accessing via Walters Port will be addressed Walters Port but that it will be in the middle of two Pence Lane properties. Curtis stated the cul-de-sac could vary somewhat but that she candidly does not think this plan resolves the access issues. Thiesse commented he does not think so either and that the applicants are looking for direction. Thiesse stated in his view a 16 -foot road is not wide enough for either road but that a cul-de-sac might not be necessary because the intent is there with the two roads. Thiesse stated at the end of the day they could make the addresses all Pence Lane since they are going to use either road. Erickson stated he tends to agree with John Thiesse and that an additional road can be substituted for a cul-de-sac. Erickson stated what concerns him in this case is the use of gates that could nullify the other road. Erickson asked what would happen if there is an emergency. Vogstrom noted there would be a lock box on the gates. Curtis stated UPS and other vehicles would not have access to that lock box. Vogstrom stated currently the gate automatically opens when someone drives up to it. Erickson commented that would work as long as there is no power outage. Eric Vogstrom stated the gate could be hooked to a generator. Vogstrom indicated they have met with the fire chief and that he is definitely for it. Vogstrom stated they did not want to put the big cul-de-sac in because they do not believe the Huelers would like that. Vogstrom indicated they did meet with all the neighbors last week and went over the plans and that a lot of the neighbors are supportive. Page 11 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 18, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. LA18-000055 PAUL VOGSTROM, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN, 6:49 P.M. — 8:07 P.M. — Continued Thiesse asked if a 24 -foot wide road would work for them. Eric Vogstrom indicated it would. Thiesse stated he can live without a cul-de-sac but that he would like to see the gates go away. Thiesse asked if Walters Port could be increased to 24 feet wide. Curtis indicated that is unknown at this time. Thiesse stated that will need to be addressed at some point. Mark flowery, MH Design Group, stated he is working on the landscaping portion of the project. As it relates to the 24 -foot wide road, the plan would be to actually move the road off the property line. Currently the road is located a couple of feet off the property line and that they would like to move it so they can do some screening with evergreens. flowery noted up at the top of the property there are some evergreens and they would like to continue that, but if they have to widen the road to 24 feet, they would lose that screening. flowery stated they are also attempting to solve the issue of water on that side of the road. Currently there are three properties that drain into a pipe that goes directly to the wetland and that they would like to capture that water so there is not water running immediately into the wetland. Vogstrom pointed out to the north and south of the pond they would have a wider width, such as 24 feet, so people would be able to pass. Thiesse stated in his opinion the current road is not wide enough. Libby asked if this property is served by the Orono School District and whether busses come and pick up children. Eric Vogstrom indicated it is the Mound Westonka School District. Libby stated in addition to emergency vehicles, the road should also be able to accommodate larger vehicles such as school busses. Libby stated the Planning Commission needs to make sure the road is adequate going into the future. Libby asked whether the utilities would be retained in their present location. Curtis stated the existing utilities in the easements would not change and that the applicants are proposing to add a hydrant or move a hydrant. Eric Vogstrom indicated they did meet with the fire chief and that they assumed if the fire chief was okay with the plan, the City would be as well. Curtis asked whether he has seen the current plan. Page 12 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 18, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. LA18-000055 PAUL VOGSTROM, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN, 6:49 P.M. — 8:07 P.M. — Continued Vogstrom indicated the fire chief has not seen this exact plan. Vogstrom asked if they got his okay on it whether that would satisfy the City's requirement. Thiesse noted the City Council has the final decision. Erickson stated in addition to the fire department, they also have the police and ambulance crew. Howery stated the Dunkleys are more than happy to accommodate the fire chief and emergency vehicles. Thiesse asked where gate two is located. Curtis indicated it is on Lot 1, which is the Dunkley property. Eric Vogstrom stated to his knowledge both gates are on the Dunkley property. Curtis pointed out the location of the two gates. Ressler commented it seems like adding gates kind of eliminates the purpose of making the road a loop regardless if the gate is motion sensored. Ressler asked if the gates are that important. Vogstrom noted there are two gates and not three and that he can speak with the Dunkleys about them. There is a gate currently on Pence, which opens automatically. Vogstrom stated they did talk about adding a third gate with a strobe light that would open automatically so people did not have to get out of their cars. Vogstrom stated they would like to have the gate because they do not want someone who is not familiar with the area driving all around. Thiesse commented there are a lot of gates in the City of Orono and that could be part of the applicants' flexibility. Vogstrom indicated they are open to suggestions. Libby stated a gate usually has fencing associated with it and a desire for privacy. Libby asked if the gates are in conjunction with fencing. Vogstrom indicated there are little stone columns holding the gate. Libby asked if the gate is more to delineate the driveway rather than for security or safety. Vogstrom stated it was probably more aesthetic and that the gate opens automatically if someone drives up to it. Libby asked if he sees any kind of safety issues with the crossing of the two driveways. Page 13 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 18, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. LA18-000055 PAUL VOGSTROM, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN, 6:49 P.M. — 8:07 P.M. — Continued Vogstrom stated right now that area is wide open and that they will keep visibility in mind when landscaping. Vogstrom stated the Walters Port driveway will be for emergency access and that all three properties will access off of Pence, with a turnaround for trucks and other vehicles. Thiesse stated in his view gated roads are not an acceptable alternative to a cul-de-sac, and that if they are going to continue to propose gates, they should be prepared to defend them before the City Council. Ressler commented anything they can do to simplify it would be helpful and that maybe they should consider placing the gates on each individual property. Erickson stated he was visiting relatives over the weekend and that they have a gate hooked up to a generator. Erickson stated the power went out and the generator did nothing. Erickson stated fortunately the power company got the power going again in four hours, but that if someone was having a heart attack, that would be a long four hours. Erickson indicated it turned out the battery was old and needed to be replaced. Erickson stated if something like that happens in an emergency situation, that could have big consequences. Erickson questioned whether the City would assume any liability if they approve the gate. Thiesse asked if they are proposing any outlots for the roads. Vogstrom stated they are open to that but that they would rather not. Curtis asked if the driveway is an outlot. Vogstrom indicated it is not at this point and that they are not proposing an outlot. Vogstrom stated his thought was that they could go on Walters Port and not have to create an outlot for the new road. Curtis noted that road does not have road frontage and as a result they would be creating a back lot and a second back lot with no frontage. Curtis noted that back lot needs to be 150 percent of the area. Vogstrom stated that would happen if they have the third driveway. Curtis noted they need to have frontage on the road or it is considered a back lot. Curtis stated a big piece of this is that lot does not have road frontage at all. Eric Vogstrom indicated they would be open to doing an outlot. Thiesse asked if they can have two back lots. Curtis stated the City typically only allows one back lot. Thiesse noted Item No. 7 relates to the need for a conforming building envelope, which this lot does not appear to have, and that a newly created lot is required to have a conforming building envelope. Item No. 7 states: An average lakeshore setback variance would be necessary for Lot 2 as configured. The alignment of the shoreline for proposed Lot 2 is not a peninsula but rather a curved shoreline, which is very common along the lake. The creation of the new lot in this configuration would be a self-created Page 14 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 18, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. LA18-000055 PAUL VOGSTROM, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN, 6:49 P.M. — 8:07 P.M. — Continued practical difficulty which would not be supportable. Thiesse noted in order to expedite the project, the Dunkleys combined the lots and that subsequently changed the situation. Thiesse stated the applicants cannot create their own practical difficulty, which was done in this case. Vogstrom stated that is something that he will have to address with the Dunkleys. Thiesse stated as it relates to the average lakeshore setback, if the neighboring properties are against it, that holds a lot of water with him. Vogstrtom stated he does not see anyone's view being blocked. Hueler requested the Planning Commissioners walk the property. Vogstrom pointed out the location of the old home and noted their proposal would be back here. Vogstrom stated the new house is not going to block his view. Thiesse noted that neighbor currently has a view across that shed because somebody combined the lot, which needs to be taken into consideration. Vogstrom stated the lakeshore clearly has a point. Libby stated in his view the shoreline meanders but that he would not consider it to be a point. Eric Vogstrom stated the shoreline is irregular. Thiesse commented the average lakeshore setback is a stickler. Ressler commented it is difficult to grant a variance to that when the neighbors are supportive of it and it is even more difficult when the neighbors are opposed to it. Ressler commented the Planning Commission has to look at it now without the house being there. Thiesse stated the situation with the average lakeshore setback now was created by the owner because they combined the two pieces of property. Vogstrom stated in their view there is a point and that should be taken into consideration. Vogstrom stated by attempting to accommodate the neighbors, new issues have been created. Thiesse stated in his view the situation was created because the two lots were combined. Erickson stated if variances are granted now before a house is built and then later somebody builds a house on the lot, it could lead to more variances down the road. Curtis noted a new lot should have a conforming building envelope. Thiesse suggested the developer do more work on creating a conforming building envelope. Page 15 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 18, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. LA18-000055 PAUL VOGSTROM, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN, 6:49 P.M. — 8:07 P.M. — Continued Curtis stated this is essentially a subdivision to create this lot and that she is not sure what the precedent is for granting an average lakeshore variance for the house at the same a new lot is being created. Curtis stated she does not believe that is typically done. Vogstrom indicated they could some do modifications but that it was his understanding it could not go beyond what was previously there. Curtis asked if they would be requesting the average lakeshore setback for what is proposed on the plan. Vogstrom indicated he would be. Vogstrom stated he would like to meet with everybody on site so they can understand what everyone's sightlines are. Ressler stated they are looking at the fundamentals of the setback and it is an encroachment on the setback, which is something that has to be taken into consideration. Ressler suggested the developer try to be more conforming and think of ways he can soften the encroachment. Curtis suggested they stake the house on the site so the Commissioners and neighbors can view it. Curtis noted the Planning Commission cannot meet on site with the developer as a group. Libby requested he do a clear survey with the setback markers on there. Barnhart suggested he contact Staff when the work is done so they can take pictures and notify the Planning Commissioners. Thiesse asked if Mr. Hueler's view was blocked by the previous house. Hueler indicated it was a one-story house but that the porch did extend past the 75 -foot setback. Hueler noted the previous house and foundation is gone, which has improved their view, and that they would like to keep it. Eric Vogstrom noted the trees block part of his view. Ressler commented it would be great if they could soften it a bit and show some flexibility. Thiesse stated Item No. 8 reads that Staff will need to confirm whether or not Lot 2 meets the width requirement at the OHWL and at the 75 -foot setback. Thiesse noted Staff will need to have that information. Item No. 9 states that it is unclear from the plans whether or not Lot 1 wraps around Lot 2 to encompass the Huelers' driveway or if a portion of the lot is to be sold/transferred to the Huelers. Vogstrom stated they will create a more accurate plan. Thiesse noted Item No. 10 stated that the current plan appears to remove the driveway connection from 2709 Walters Port to Walters Port. The property address will need to be changed if there is no connection Page 16 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 18, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. LA18-000055 PAUL VOGSTROM, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN, 6:49 P.M. — 8:07 P.M. — Continued to Walters Port Lane for this property. It is unclear from the current plan what is to happen with the underlying land of the existing connection of Walters Port Lane to the property. Curtis stated technically they have a connection to Walters Port. Thiesse stated more clarification on that would be helpful. Thiesse stated he does not think they can have two roads come together and three driveways coming together and claim that is meeting the intent of what the City requires. Item No. 11 requires that the emergency response people involved. Thiesse stated getting it on the plans is one thing and getting it approved is completely different and that it is a process. Thiesse stated just because the police chief and fire chief indicate they like it does not mean it will be approved. Thiesse asked whether there are any other issues the Planning Commission should discuss. Curtis stated the Planning Commission has provided feedback on the issues Staff has raised but that they could address the second back lot more if they would like. Curtis noted the applicants have heard similar direction before on the second back lot. Thiesse commented the City does give flexibility from time to time typically on minor items but not major items. Curtis stated the City is interested in a solution that eliminates the pressure on Walters Port and create something that would be functional and supportive to the properties on Pence. Curtis stated she is not sure if two side-by-side roadways is necessarily the best option. Thiesse stated he would like to emphasize that they are proposing a subdivision with a house that is no longer there. Thiesse requested the developer work hard at making something that fits the requirements of the code closer now that the property has been combined. Howery stated one item they would like to propose is to show the impact of what the code says will work but the problems that that would cause. Howery stated in theory they can widen the road and create a big asphalt turnaround, which would result in more hardcover coming to this driveway and the other driveway, but the visual impact and the hardcover impact that this big turnaround would really incur on the whole project and scope should be taken into consideration. Howery stated they would like to minimize the asphalt and make the turnaround work, especially with the wetland and Lake Minnetonka. Howery stated in his view this plan would be far better from a landscape point of view and how it can be buffered from the wetland. Howery stated their proposal fits better with the character of the lot and everybody involved and would result in a lot less hardcover. Curtis stated Staff has been and would be supportive of an alternative that would meet the intent. Hueler asked if the cul-de-sac would still allow for a 1 -acre lot. Thiesse stated that would be the question. Page 17 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 18, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 5. LA18-000055 PAUL VOGSTROM, 2709 WALTERS PORT LANE, SKETCH PLAN, 6:49 P.M. — 8:07 P.M. — Continued Hueler asked if that solves the view setback problem. Curtis indicated it does not. Hueler asked if the view setback problem was partially caused by the house being removed and building the addition they did. Thiesse stated it was. Erickson commented that periodically you see cul-de-sacs where the middle of it is landscaped, which is an option. Libby stated it can essentially be a turnaround that feeds in and out, which is kind of a middle ground that the Planning Commission is looking for. Ressler suggested the developer look at ways to make the plan come together more agreeable for everybody. Vogstrom stated people have had a change of heart, which has made it difficult. Ressler stated at the end of the day, the City of Orono wants to see demonstration that he is trying to make it more agreeable. Vogstrom stated when they presented the sketch plan, everybody loved it. Curtis stated she does not think that is accurate. Vogstrom stated everyone agreed it would work. Thiesse noted there was a house there at the time, which is no longer the case, and that the situation has changed. Vogstrom stated they have spent countless hours in meetings trying to make everyone happy. Erickson asked if there would be a risk from the standpoint of the City in creating a second back lot. Curtis stated in her view there would be. Curtis stated the City has a rule for back lot situations where there is not enough width to create two frontage lots that are conforming but where the area is exceeded. Curtis stated there are some standards to be met due to the sensitivity and unique character of a back lot because someone's front lot is someone else's back yard and there is a shared driveway. The City will allow for that to happen once in a development but not on multiple lots. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. Page 18 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 18, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 6. LA18-000057 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT — ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SETBACK, 8:07 P.M. — 8:22 P.M. Barnhart stated the proposed ordinance would clarify and restate the setbacks for accessory structures throughout the City. The City has specific rules for accessory structures and buildings based on their size and, in some cases, the size of the lot and whether it is a lakeshore lot and where on the property it is located. These exceptions and regulations have evolved over time to the point where they are difficult to understand and require extensive flowcharting to drill down to the applicable regulation. Staff is proposing a wholesale rewrite of this section of the Code. Three primary goals have been identified: 1. Ease of use. The user can find the applicable regulation using common logic. 2. Ease of understanding. The user can understand the regulation and how it applies to their question. Reduce the number of exceptions. Remove unnecessary regulation. In some cases regulations designed to address a singular concern will be removed in the interest of Goals 1 and 2 above. Barnhart stated another objective will be to reduce the number of exceptions. The draft ordinance will include applicable definitions for accessory use or structure, building and structure, and oversized accessory structures. Staff proposes delineating the setbacks for accessory structures in a table format within each district along with an example table for discussion purposes for the LR-lA zoning district. Sample zonal impacts include a lake lot and a nonlake lot. Other zonal impacts to be taken into consideration are the lake yard, the public area adjacent to a street, hardcover limits, and massing. The orange on the map depicts the more immediate impact to the neighbors. Barnhart noted he did not include potential setbacks because those would change based on the different zone. The blue area depicts the building zone where the main principal structure and oversized accessory structures would be appropriate. The green depicts the intermediate area where an oversized accessory structure might go. Barnhart stated the proposal by Staff is to codify those areas for each individual zoning district using that as the underlying philosophy. Barnhart noted there will still be some things that will be unique to each lot. Barnhart stated he would like to know if the Planning Commission feels there is a problem with the zoning code as it relates to accessory structures and what they would like to see in the ordinance for it to be successful to the users of the ordinance. McCutcheon asked if Staff would like to have a diagram of what is possible instead of having a list of setbacks. Barnhart stated the diagram would be useful from a discussion standpoint but that in the actual code there would be setback numbers. Barnhart stated the ordinance is very conceptual at this stage, and if the Planning Commission thinks accessory structures are okay in the intermediate zone for whatever zoning Page 19 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 18, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 6. LA18-000057 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT — ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SETBACK, 8:07 P.M. — 8:22 P.M. — Continued district, that would transfer into an actual table and numbers so the user would find all their appropriate requirements in one spot. Curtis asked if the City has an issue with the actual numbers or whether it would be more for clarification. Barnhart stated it is more clarification of how those numbers are applied. Thiesse commented this would be a wonderful way to put it together and that it would be easier to follow. Barnhart stated he does not see the numbers as being a major issue but the challenge has been determining what the setback is for a lakeshore lot and what that same building setback is for a lot not on the lake. Barnhart stated he wants to look at what is an appropriate location for an accessory building and then put an ordinance together that satisfies that appropriateness. Curtis stated a 760 -foot garage is different than a 760 foot shed on a lakeshore lot because from a regulation standpoint a garage is allowed to be closer to the rear setback line than a shed. Libby stated by simplifying this, it would also be better for the Planning Commission and that in his view Staff is on track for making it simpler. Thiesse commented he likes the direction Staff is going with this. Barnhart stated he will come back with an actual version of an ordinance likely in July and continue to iron out the details. Chair Thiesse opened the public hearing at 8:21 p.m. There were no public comments relating to this application. Chair Thiesse closed the public hearing at 8:21 p.m. The Planning Commission took no formal action on this item. 7. UPDATE ON JUNE 11, 2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING Barnhart reported on the following actions taken by the Orono City Council: - The Kathy Meyers variance was approved on Consent - The Long Lake Boulevard variance was approved - The final plat for the Lakewest Development on Ivy Place was approved - A conditional use permit was granted for the application on Smith but the City Council denied the second driveway - The text amendment for gate opacity was approved without a limit - Staff pulled the text amendment for meeting notification off the Council agenda because of some changes the City Attorney requested. Page 20 of 21 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Monday, June 18, 2018 6:30 o'clock p.m. 6. LA18-000057 CITY OF ORONO, TEXT AMENDMENT — ACCESSORY STRUCTURES SETBACK, 8:07 P.M. — 8:22 P.M. — Continued - Passed a resolution authorizing submittal of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan to the Metropolitan Council Barnhart stated people can sign up for the notify me e-mails on the City's website to receive notification of meetings and to receive the Planning Commission and City Council agendas. Barnhart stated the City's new website is expected to go live by the end of June. Thiesse asked if anyone has discussed notification on sketch plans. Barnhart stated it is on the list of items to be discussed. Barnhart noted the purpose of a sketch plan is primarily a policy review of what is being proposed to make sure it is consistent with the applicable rules. 8. PLANNING COMMISSION LIAISON FOR JULY 9, 2018, CITY COUNCIL MEETING JOHN THIESSE 9. OTHER ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION None 19 W.1001121KK17►5lu I K313 None ADJOURNMENT Ressler moved, Olson seconded, to adjourn the Orono Planning Commission meeting at 8:25 p.m. VOTE: Ayes 6, Nays 0. ATTEST: John Thiesse, Chair Page 21 of 21 Date Application Received: 6.19.2018 Date Application Considered as Complete: 6.22.2018 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 8.21.2018 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner Date: July 16, 2018 Subject: LA18-000060, Mittelstaedt Inc o/b/o Gregory Gruman, 1980 Heritage Dr, Variance, Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a front yard setback variance Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. Background The Owner proposes to remove an existing detached accessory building located within the front yard setback (19.6 feet from the front lot line) and replace it with a larger garage which will be attached to the home and constructed to reduce the existing front yard setback (21.6 feet from the front property line). The front yard of this property abuts Heritage Drive and the home is oriented towards the Dakota Trail. The home sits at the end of a cul -da -sac and there no additional houses beyond this property. The proposed addition will house maintenance equipment and recreational items that are currently stored outside in the elements. The applicant has stated the most practical location for the proposed structure is in the same location of the detached shed. The house, driveway, site topography, wetlands, and the existing landscape make it difficult to position the proposed structure in any other location. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-305 - Setbacks: DISTRICT LR -1A Required Existing Proposed Front 50' +/-50' (House) 19.6 (Existing Detached Garage) 21.6' (New Home Addition) Rear 50' 102.3' 102.3' Side (west) 30' +/- 185' +/- 185' Side (east) 30' 187.9' 187.9' Section 78-305 - Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT LR -1A Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,712 s.f. (2 acres) 200' Actual 125,488 (2.88 acre) +/- 400' Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: *No structural coverage limits on lots over 2 acres. LA 18-000060 July 16, 2018 Page 2 of 4 Section 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Total Area in Allowed Existing Proposed Overlay District Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover Tier 43,920.8 s.f. 6,934 s.f. 8,864 s.f. Tier 3 125,488 s.f. (35%) (5.5%) (7.1%) Applicable Regulations: Front Yard Setback (78-305) The applicant is requesting an addition to the home that would be 21.6 feet from the front property line where 50 feet is required. The applicant is looking to demo an existing detached garage in this area and rebuilt the garage and attach it to the home. 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 applicant is proposed an addition to an existing home on a residential lot which is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variance resulting in a permit for an addition to a 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 applicant is proposing use of the property in a reasonable manner with the construction on an addition to a single family home. There is unique topography on the property. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The plight of the property owner is due to the unique topography of the lot and the existing orientation of the home on the property. and LA 18-000060 July 16, 2018 Page 3 of 4 c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed addition will replace a detached structure on the property and will not alter the essential 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 home is an allowed 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 land has potential wetlands on either side of the property as well unique topography creating a limited building envelope. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The land has potential wetlands on either side of the property as well unique topography creating a peculiar property. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Staff finds this statement to be true to allow for an addition to a single family home on this parcel. 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 requested variances would not impair health, safety, comfort or morals and would be in keeping with 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 application has stated the unique topography creates challenges for a building envelope for an addition to the single family home. 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 there is be practical difficulties with the property to grant a front yard setback variance due to the location of the wetland, topography of the lot, and orientation of the home. LA 18-000060 July 16, 2018 Page 4 of 4 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 If the Planning Commission finds adequate findings the staff would support a motion to recommend approval for the proposed variance. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Survey Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Property Owners List and Map Exhibit F. Site Pictures Letter View Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 06/19/2018 Address: 1980 HERITAGE DR WAYZATA, MN 55391 Parcel Number: 1011723420006 Land Use Number: LAI 8-000060 Application Submitted By: Agent on behalf of property owner Owner: Name: GREGORY D GRUMAN Address: CARRIE L GRUMAN 1980 HERITAGE DR WAYZATA, MN 55391 Applicant: Name: Jay Mittelstaedt Address: 11730 Braddock Ave SE Watertown, MN 55388 - Contact Information: Associated Contact: Jay Mittelstaedt Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description: Detached Garage Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application Appeal of Admin Decision ❑ Concept Application Conditional Use Permit ❑ Site Plan Application 0 - Subdivision Subdivision Application ❑ Subdivision Exception ❑ Vacation Application 0 - Variance Variance Application 0 - Applicant Applicant Signature: PC LA18-000060 Exhibit A file://for-mail/ ... 0%233992%20thru/LA18-000060%20(1980%20Heritage)%20Var/Land%20Use%20Application%20Summary%20(16).htmU/10/2018 7:48:32 AM] The Owner proposes to remove an existing storage structure located within the front yard setback and replace it with a larger storage structure constructed to reduce the existing front yard setback. The front yard of this property abuts Heritage Drive at the Dakota Trail. There are no additional houses beyond this property. The proposed storage structure will be attached to the existing house and will be large enough to house typical maintenance equipment and recreational items that are currently stored outside in the elements. Due to the original orientation of the house and driveway, the existing shed was constructed in what is considered the front yard of the property. For the same reasons, the most practical location for the proposed structure is in the same location. The original site plan, the driveway, the site topography, and the existing landscape make it difficult to position the proposed structure in any other location. 1. The Owner proposes to construct a garage in the front yard of the property. Part of the structure will be within the required setback for structures in the front yard. The structure is allowed in the front yard, but not positioned as requested. 2. The original house and driveway were positioned on the property such that the side of the house where the garage is proposed is considered the front yard of the property. The topography of the property is such that the most practical location of the proposed garage is as requested. There are also trees on the property that will make it difficult to position the new structure without damage to the landscape. These conditions were not created by the current landowner. 3. The current property consists of a house with a detached garage and outdoor storage. The proposed plan consists of a house with an attached garage and the outdoor storage will be moved indoors. This should improve the essential character of the locality. 4. The practical difficulty is due to previous site planning and topography. Economic considerations are not applicable. 5. N/A 6. The Owner proposes to continue to use the property as allowed for property in the zone where the land is located. 7. N/A 8. The special conditions are peculiar to this property and were created by the original orientation of the residence and the location of the driveway from the street. 9. This is a unique situation created by the original site plan and the topography. 10. This property is located in a harsh and variable climate (Minnesota) and reasonable protection of one's private property from the elements is necessary. Constructing an enclosure for that protection is considered reasonable. 11. The intent of the Zoning Code is to allow for residential construction in this location. The Owner proposes to do just that. Allowing the proposed variance will not impair the health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. 12. The construction of an attached garage in the proposed location on the lot is allowed by the Code. The Owner proposes a structure large enough to contain the equipment and recreation vehicles that he owns. There is a smaller structure located on the proposed building site that encroaches into the setback more than the proposed structure. The topography and original placement of the house make it impractical to place the proposed attached garage in any other location on the property. We consider the need for storage on the site, with topographical challenges, and the original orientation of the house to be demonstrable practical difficulties for this project. Letter View PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA18-000060 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: The Owner proposes to construct a garage in the front yard of the property. Part of the structure will be within the required setback for structures in the front yard. The structure is allowed in the front yard, but not positioned as requested. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: The original house and driveway were positioned on the property such that the side of the house where the garage is proposed is considered the front yard of the property. The topography of the property is such that the most practical location of the proposed garage is as requested . There are also trees on the property that will make it difficult to position the new structure without damage to the landscape. These conditions were not created by the current landowner. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: The current property consists of a house with a detached garage and outdoor storage. The proposed plan consists of a house with an attached garage and the outdoor storage will be moved indoors. This should improve the essential character of the 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: The practical difficulty is due to previous site planning and topography. Economic considerations are not applicable. S. 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: The Owner proposes to continue to use the property as allowed for property in the zone where the land is located. 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: The special conditions are peculiar to this property and were created by the original orientation of the residence and the location of the driveway from the street. This is a unique situation created by the original site plan and the topography. file:///or-mail/... 92%20thru/LA18-000060%20(1980%20Heritage)%20Var/Practical%20Difficulties%20Documentation%20Form%20(9).htm[7/10/2018 7:48:09 AM] Letter View 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: This property is located in a harsh and variable climate (Minnesota) and reasonable protection of one's private property from the elements is necessary. Constructing an enclosure for that protection is considered reasonable. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: The intent of the Zoning Code is to allow for residential construction in this location. 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 Owner proposes to do just that. Allowing the proposed variance will not 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: The construction of an attached garage in the proposed location on the lot is allowed by the Code. The Owner proposes a structure large enough to contain the equipment and recreation vehicles that he owns. There is a smaller structure located on the proposed building site that encroaches into the setback more than the proposed structure. The topography and original placement of the house make it impractical to place the proposed attached garage in any other location on the property. We consider the need for storage on the site, with topographical challenges, and the original orientation of the house to be demonstrable practical difficulties for this project. file:///or-mail/... 92%20thru/LA18-000060%20(1980%20Heritage)%20Var/Practical%20Difficulties%20Documentation%20Form%20(9).htm[7/10/2018 7:48:09 AM] so �` Certificate of Survey S/ 1 Prepared for. -' 0 1 Jay Mittelstoedt ops ? V O ' gran in t, erg't0. \e rim a e Itu 3 Q) 14 34 E b ° O •��p,38 89 253 E'r centerlrn 185: (Flet} o e: et o, 110.23 meas. i88.s�_ rrJ-0") a'� o .3 _ r: a -_Plat)qj - _ — — J m .� ! Len ter of--- -.� N 4) 3) - Sec. 10-117-23 t�` 7j }� f --E. & W. Quarter Section °A d r line of Sec. 10-117-23 �► ,'� ! s :'G 'r } f Exi t, cryt� ti _100?fo(o eel) d c oyei�i//.� .c c - z k 3 I o o© m 41 Ul CS a Jl Jf 3 \ °Ar.0 LS 1 , Site Address: �, r c I Z � ygt X90 1980 Heritage Dr. • 2 6 c I / - Orono, MN 55391LA I A aver 8�9 `- _ --- o u�i L_ I �a , 1 _ (0 Ben ch m ork: o o or f 4 ,t Shed R tainmg all 1 til 1 �\ 4 Hennepin County monument Station Name: DERUS � a d, o I 1 Elevation = 941.49 (per Hennepin County) 'U j o I m J Ni lb � r? � � � Existing HardcoverL50 QQ sq. ft.) Pro osed Hardcover s ff. � ° ��?'� d ��' i �1 ` 44 �; House 2, 869 House 2, 869 � I O Garage 629 Proposed Garage Addn. 1,352 f _41StS , 1� �. Gravel Driveway 2,130 Proposed Driveway 898 -a > Lfi h Concrete 500 Proposed Overhang 309 Pavers 536 Grovel Driveway 2,130 a ° Retaining Wall 72 Concrete 500 Shed 198 Pavers 536 6,934 Retaining Wall 72 ° °� - Shed 198 \� $� Lot Area 125,488 8,864 940 Total Hardcover 5,5Z Lot Area 125,488 Total Hardcover 7.1% �R �'n +"r> Legend N�?�\x`09 ° l l �I - �„J `+J Gy �•� 7 w • Found Iron Monument Ile Boundary Description (supplied by clients Existing 00 Lot 6, AUDITOR'S SUBDI VISION NUMBER 356, except � ---�_ O Wel! _ the South 105.0 feet as measured at right angles Found JLM 5 �i �l- to the Southwesterly line of said Lot 6, Hennepin �� v L$ Lift Station/�� / : - County, Minnesota_ IV ® Set Nail X07 6, oar Q . Subject to any and all easements of record. Lo �,� q_ _ Note: N a so o SC o so izo ALE\ I ; Contours shown have been supplemented with �NO ti 1i a LiDAR records avoiloble through the Minnesota DNR. cv a Ln 1 inch = 60 feet ri 3 3 Bearings based Hennepin County coordinate system. 3 32'-6" I I I I CD I I n �L 0 6'-4" 10'-0" 16'-2" o I ONTINUOU SLAB TO D(FER (OPT.) [REINSTALL EXSTNG WINDOWS BY OWNER -------------' _1 IIII IIII +III --�--� -- - - - -- oaI NEW GARAGE IIII III III II I ROOM ATTIC TRUSSES I NSULAINAND DRYWALL GARBAGE CAN CLOSET FNIISH (FUTURE) OPEN ABOVE EXISTING GARAGE I \ ---------------------- I I I NSTPLL NEW PED. DOOR I I I I I tFBDN�rIN � INSTALL NEW 8"x18' ' •-----------------------lii ' I � I I rb� GARAGE DOOR I I INSTALL NEW 7'-6"x18' 117- - '� INSTALL NEW FOR 18' 'DOOR ' I I- 12'-0" 18'-0" _ 2 0EW ----------- 22'-0" ANEW FLOOR PLAN /---,ROOF ADD'N. PLAN `t fcNL 1/�•-�•�• NMFi WRM FIoaIRYlldd FFa1 -------------- 11 II II II II --——————— —— ———— —I rmc.ax r¢.n saE EXISTING I II DETACHED II" GARAGE DEMO I o II DETACHED IXGARAGE� N o I �wnw oa II maa®amu �I-------1 I; I II I I II I A FO�UNDATIO� PLAN II I I II -------�==Jl 30'-0" I 1 I ------ - - - - 0 � rrrii�rr wars wwr.r na.e EXISTING ft'� OIL-- GARAGE GARAGE EXISTING GARAGE EXI T. �t Lpa" HO SE IMpftMM CUT OPENING FO ----------' NEW PED. DOOR �tEMOVE 2 DOST. I GARAGE DOORS WGARAGEALL FOR D00 i I — — — — — EXISTING FIG. k FDN. WALL — — — _ 6x6 POST ON I o CONICAL FOOTING d 8'-0 - 8'-0" - 32'-0"----------- 22'-0" WIDEN FOOTING AT EXIST. FDN WALL 8" TO SUPPORT STRUC. DNIq PIM ODEMO PLAN FOUNDATION PLAN raudrnnPLn 2 v.• _ , � FaadnOMaeaL Al II I II I II I I r 1ST f0071NG ENTIRE WALL WRH 5 COURSE 8" CMU FDI I I BREAK LINE AT SLAB (OPT.) WALL, 8x20 CONC FTG.I W/2 �4 REBAR II \ I I SIN-FLOOR HYDRONIC HEAT II I I WIDEN FOOTING AT EXISTING FON I I I WALmom L 8" AT GIRDER LOCATION II I I NEW II GARAGE I II I II I I I 8� LONG DAYLIGHTED EXIST. FTG. &� I I TRENCH DRAIN FDN. WALL I II I II I II I I I I 5 COURSE 8" CMU FON WALL , 8x20 CONC FTG I W/2 �4 REBAR 32'-6" I I I I I I 0 1 1 1 I 0 6'-4" 10'-0" 16'-2" o �NRNUOUt SLAB I 1 1 TO UTERI (OPT.) I I I I ' 1"'TONSTALL EXISTING WINDOWS BY OWNER I 1 I -------------' I 1 I I 1 I I 1 I I I -- I I I NEW I I I I GARAGE I ROOM & A111C TRUSSES C) INSULATION AND GARBAGE CANNLOO CLOS FNIISH (FUTURE) O Ef I I I I VE mom EXISTING GARAGE--- - - - - -- - I I I I NSTALL NEW PED. DOORMpftMN I 1 I I tYptlrlq�dM INSTALL NEW B'" 18' i ---- I 1 I I GARAGE DOOR 1 INSTALL NEW 7'-6"x18' i — — — — — — — — — — — — — — A INSTALL NEW M FOR 18' L GARAGE DOOR 'mu QQQE 12,_0., 18,_0., J7d2 0" 18._0.. -------____-- 22'-0" SIR. NEW FLOOR PLAN ROOF ADD'N. PLAN NMRaarPYn Woa1�OYnl PYn Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Date: 6/26/2018 ianagerLake r, f rA Shore Dr Smiths Bay Buffer Size: 500 feet 0 245 490 980 ft Map Comments: I I I I I I I I I 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 38 10-117-23 110002 38 10-117-23 24 0018 38 10-117-23 310024 14ENNEPIN COUNTY BETTE PERL CITY OF ORONO REGIONAL RAILROAD AUTHORITY 1145 WILLOW DR S PO BOX 66 701 4TH AVE S SUITE 400 WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55415 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 10-117-23 13 0001 38 10-117-23 24 0019 38 10-117-23 310025 MARTHA J ABBOTT ET AL DOUGLAS & NORMA SC14NOOR CITY OF ORONO 301 PARKVIEW TER 1220 LAKEVIEW AV PO BOX 66 GOLDEN VALLEY MN 55416 WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 10-117-23 13 0013 38 10-117-23 24 0020 38 10-117-23 310026 DAVID F SCOTT JENNIFER K JOHNSON NIELSEN CITY OF ORONO 1905 HERITAGE DR ERIC E NIELSEN PO BOX 66 WAYZATA MN 55391 P O BOX 54 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 10-117-23 13 0014 38 10-117-23 24 0021 38 10-117-23 310029 THOMAS WILSON & JENNY WILSON LESLIE ANN HANSON TIMOTHY HANSON 1955 HERITAGE DR 1205 LAKEVIEW AVE 1270 ARBOR ST WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 13 0016 38 10-117-23 24 0022 38 10-117-23 310064 FOXHILL ASSN PAUL ADAMS CYNTHIA JORGENSON NANCY BJERKE LAURA LYNN ADAMS 1205 BROWN RD S 1035 HERITAGE LA 1212 ARBOR ST WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 13 0022 38 10-117-23 24 0023 38 10-117-23 310065 BRUCE A WEIDNER W A JOHNSON & A M FARNHAM DAN KUTZLER 1155 HERITAGE LA 1225 LAKEVIEW AVE 57037 HWY 57 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 DODGE CENTER MN 55927 38 10-117-23 24 0005 38 10-117-23 24 0024 38 10-117-23 310066 CHRIS MILANO & TRACY MILANO KEITH S NORD MONICA T & MICHAEL E BROWN 9704 GRAND OAK DR 1245 LAKEVIEW AVE 1241 BROWN RD S AUSTIN TX 78750 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 24 0006 38 10-117-23 24 0033 38 10-117-23 310069 DUANE A & PATRICIA S GLEW KENT O OBERMAIER WILLIAM KROLL & LUCY KROLL 1135 BROWN RD S 1130 WILLOW DR S 1230 ARBOR ST WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 24 0007 38 10-117-23 310022 38 10-117-23 310096 TIMOTHY E CAMPION CRAIG & JUDY CHRISTENSEN MATTHEW N 1 ANSON RYAN CAMPION 1251 BROWN ROAD S 2060 SPATES AVE 1150 WILLOW DR S WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 24 0008 38 10-117-23 310023 38 10-117-23 310099 KARA H O'BRIEN CRAIG & JUDY CHRISTENSEN SUSAN S TENNEY 1140 WILLOW DR S 1251 BROWN ROAD S 1240 ARBOR ST WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 310104 38 10-117-23 42 0017 TERRY D & CHRISTINE M MORSE MAJID FEHRESTI 2080 SPATES AVE 1910 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 310106 38 10-117-23 42 0018 REGINA ENGEBRITSON MICHAEL DOUGHERTY 1250 ARBOR ST 2535 PARK AVENUE WAYZATA MN 55391 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55404 38 10-117-23 42 0002 38 10-117-23 42 0019 TASHITAA TUFAA W GREGORY COWARD JR 1185 HERITAGE LA KATHERINE L COWARD WAYZATA MN 55391 1950 HERITAGE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 42 0003 STEPHEN & JENNI CHARRIER 1910 HERITAGE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 42 0004 GILLES MOUA 1860 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 42 0005 JOSEPH DUTCHER 1930 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 42 0006 GREGORY D GRUMAN CARRIE L GRUMAN 1980 HERITAGE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 42 0007 ALAN NETTLES & ANNE NETTLES 1940 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 42 0012 MARIE L CORNEJ 1950 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 10-117-23 42 0016 LELAND MARTINI CHRISTINE MARTINI 1920 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 Legend Hennepin County Natural Resources Map 2 Foot Elevation Contours Date: 6/27/2018 Index F - - XWA ,. Intermediate Wetlands Potential Wetland -HCWI ReProbable Wetland - HCWI 912 Probable Wetland - NWI A X32 sA ._ 1A0 t i PID: 1011723420006 Comments: Address: 1980 HERITAGE DR, 1 inch = 100 feet A ORONO Owner Name: G D GRUMAN& Thisdata(i)isfumished 'AS IS' with norepresentation C L G R UM A N as to completeness or accu racy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (ie) is notsuitable for legal, Acres: 2.89 engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injuryor loss resulting from this data. COPYRIGHT ©HENNEPIN COUNTY 2018 From: Greg Coward To: Laura Oakden Subject: Re: 1980 Heritage Drive Date: Saturday, July 14, 2018 2:21:42 PM La u ra, We am writing to you and the Planning Commission to express our support for the proposed project by our neighbors, the Gruman's. Thank you Greg & Kathy Coward 1950 Heritage Dr. Wayzata, MN 55391 Home: (952) 476-0439 Cell: (612) 384-8990 wgc(�Dbitstream. net Laura Oakden From: Sent: To: Subject: To Planning Commission: Sandra Niccum <gonon6t@aim.com> Monday, July 16, 2018 3:54 PM Laura Oakden 275 Crestview Avenue lot variance request I'm all for the tearing down and rebuilding at 275 Crestview Avenue. I hear the builder is only requesting a rear lot, probably front lot, variance. If the question ever comes up for a side lot variance, however, I would just like you to take into consideration that my house, 285 Crestview Avenue, is only 3 to 4-1/2 feet from the property line, as it was build nearly 90 years ago. My bathroom and bedroom windows are on that side of the house! I think you can understand my concerns. Thank you, Sandi Niccum 285 Crestview Avenue n 4 � �V V x N r0 Cr) g o n' S057c4" a -Fence a �� u 50 (plat } N,. v) • � o�° � �� 0 1 \� I ro.3o v I O vA'q ou m1 r4. fl -1- 24.0-- \ I rn dC _ °_, i� 95 - 4.81.3 •,o m ro.o yW tr NG7v)' I N N T-12.3 N $ to \ 12.2 ;� a IoDeck gl x n 14.'o N N t .o I 6y6 �cnwb 'C,' C, Cb y. � �' I a� I � Q\J o 3 1�ggl�o rp' , y �• � °� �°.' 70:2YI o i � � o � i 6. f �� Cb m I .s4mLn a \ •\ � ' m\\ c a 2L3 - /0�0 I p . �5 I { (961.0) ,o LL p, 4.1 x dH 4 V I CIL d a Q /��•0)�O � NQl It 9 I ,i- .-1950. -Edge of 7tiiml ou p96 ^•' (D o 3 •. w,, CrestviewCb Ave re o°kz;j y b Ov II » � II Q p�y;-O II II �o A Y i II II of II II � � S•+ OD Ucbir W OU., n? 0 W A [A R W 0 O O sel -,z 0 0 J n I N i � o a -• a c IT, obx i� o ]I, »g- > , » j- C p ° A o �' °° �• C O [s] O y lD fn A I;1 R a �� �p OO O�Ib vOvi4 U1 4 A o � N IIS ��pp .p v j1 i U�4 NIOAVNi"0000� I Date Application Received: 06.19.2018 Date Application Considered as Complete: 06.28.2018 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 08.27.2018 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner Date: July 16, 2018 Subject: LA18-000061, Jim Cleary Everlast Enterprises Inc, 275 Crestview Ave, Variances, Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting lot area, lot width and rear setback variances Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval Background The applicant is proposing to demo the existing home and accessory structures and build a new single family home on 275 Crestview Ave. The applicant is proposing to place the new home to match the front setback of the neighboring properties. The home will be centered on the lot. The applicant is proposing a 2 story home with a full basement. The property is nonconforming to size at 0.14 Acres in the LR -1A, 2 Acre district. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-305 - Setbacks: DISTRICT LR -1A Required Proposed Front 24.5' (*see below) 24.5' Rear 50' 32.8' Side (North) 10' 12.3' Side (South) 10' 10.2' *Sec. 78-1406. - Additional yard provisions. (3) R districts: adjacent lots. In any R district, where the average depth of at least two existing front yards for buildings within 150 feet of the lot in question and within the same block front is less or greater than the minimum front yard depth required for the district, the required front yard shall not be less than the average depth of such existing front yards; however, the depth of a front yard shall not be less than ten feet nor be required to exceed 50 feet. Section78-305 - Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT LR -1A Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2 acres) 200' Actual 6,250s.f. (0.14 acre) 50' Section 78-1403- Structural Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 6,250s.f. (0.14 acre) Allowed: 2,000 s.f. Proposed: roughly 1500, s.f. (Structure + Cantilevers + Stoop) LA18-000061 July 16, 2018 Page 2 of 4 *Sec. 78-1685. (2) On lots of less than 10,000 square feet in area, the total combined footprints of all principal and accessory structures shall not exceed 2,000 square feet. Section 78-1700 -Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Total Area in Allowed Existing Proposed Overlay District Zone Hardcover Hardcover Hardcover Tier 2,187.5 s.f. 18.29 s.f. 2,165 s.f. Tier 3 6,250s.f (35%) (29.89%) (34.6%) Applicable Regulations: Rear Setback (78-305) The applicant is proposing to construct a new home and are requesting a 32.8 foot rear yard setback for the deck and 40.8 foot from the principle structure to the rear property line where 50 feet is required in the LR -1A Zoning District. Lot Area and Width (78-72) Lot Area and Width Variance (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. Not Met. 2. A Type 1 sewage treatment system consistent with Minnesota Rules, chapter 7080, can 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 35 percent of the entire lot area. 4. All other zoning district standards can be met. Not Met. The applicant's need for a setback variance resulting in the property's inability to conform to #1 and #4 above. Therefore, a lot width and area variance is also required in order to develop the property. 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. LA18-000061 July 16, 2018 Page 3 of 4 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 applicant is proposing to construct a new single family home on a residential lot which is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. The lot width and lot area variances are consistent with the general intent of the Ordinance. The variances for a rear yard setback request is reasonable considering buildable area of the property. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in a permit for a new single family residence in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The applicant is proposing use of the property in a reasonable manner with the construction on a single family home. There is limited space to construct a conforming structure on the site. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The plight of the property owner is due to the existing substandard lot size and The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The character of the neighborhood is not likely to be significantly altered from replacement of the residence 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 home is an allowed 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 size of the lot with in the LR -1A zoning district is unique for the requested lot width, lot area and setback variances. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The size of the lot and its locations as it pertains to the existing zoning district is peculiar to the property 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The Commission should discuss whether the rear yard setback is necessary to support property rights. 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 requested variances would not impair health, safety, comfort or morals and would be in keeping with the intent of the zoning code LA18-000061 July 16, 2018 Page 4 of 4 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 has stated the shallow lot has setback challenges for construction of a single family home. The property is unique in size for this zoning district. The Commission should discuss whether the additional 18 feet of structure is necessary or a convenience. 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 is inherent practical difficulties with the small lot on the LR -1A, 2 acre zone. The applicant has made an effort to meet the district standards for a new home and is requesting the rear yard setback, lot area and lot width variances. The Commission should discuss whether the rear yard setback encourages development out of character with the neighborhood. Engineer Comments A full review will be done at the time of building permit application. 1. The applicant will need to ensure that none of the hardcover runoff is directed toward the neighboring lots. 2. The applicant will need to apply for a utility permit concurrent with any demo permit to ensure the sanitary sewer service is properly disconnected. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 2. The Commission should review discuss the proposed house as it fits into the character of the neighborhood. 3. The applicant is not requesting a height variance at this time. The commission should confirm the home will not exceed the 30 foot maximum height requirement. 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Proposed Survey and Setback Map Exhibit D. Proposed Plans and Elevations Exhibit E. Submitted Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Property Owners List and Map Exhibit G. Site Pictures 6/19/2018 View File Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 06/19/2018 Address: 275 CRESTVIEW AVE LONG LAKE, MN 55356 Parcel Number: 0511723140023 Land Use Number: LA 18-000061 Application Submitted By: Property Owner Owner: Name: Everlast Enterprises Inc Address: 4109 North Shore Dr Mound, MN 55364 Applicant: Name: Jim Cleary Address: Contact Information: Associated Contact: Jim Cleary Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description: New Single Family Home 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: J, t&z� https://www2.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermitController 1/1 Letter View PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA18-000061 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: Variance approval request is based on requirement to build a reasonably sized single family home suited for lot and neighborhood without impact on neighbors, neighborhood, city, or the environment. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: The setbacks are 50 foot front & rear. We would like to apply for lot & width variance . We would like to apply for a 30 foot front setback. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: No it will not. The project will result in a 2 -story, 4 bedroom home that will add to the character 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: With current setbacks , a single family home of desirable style and size and placement is not possible. S. 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: 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: Single family homes are allowed in a Tier 3 Zone 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: No. Most of the lots in the neighborhood do not currently adhere to present setback restrictions. Most of the houses on Crestview have 30 foot setbacks. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: Most of the lots in the neighborhood do not currently adhere to present setback restrictions. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a file: ///or -mail/ ... 061%20(275%20Crestview%20Ave)%20Var/Submittals/Practical%20Difficulties%20Documentation%20Form%20(10).htm[7/10/2018 8:07:53 AM] Letter View substantial property right of the applicant. Response: A reasonably sized, desirably placed , new single family residence cannot be built on the property without a variance. 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: Approving this request will have zero impact on health & safety of any residents nor have any impact at all on the supply of light or air to adjacent properties. Nor will there be any impact on street congestion or public safety; nor diminish property values in any way. In fact, approval of this proposal will enhance property values on Crestview. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: The new single family residence cannot be built on the property without a variance Previous house was 700 sq ft. file: ///or -mail/ ... 061%20(275%20Crestview%20Ave)%20Var/Submittals/Practical%20Difficulties%20Documentation%20Form%20(10).htm[7/10/2018 8:07:53 AM] x Q SO 07'34 "W cn -Fence 0 49 95 (comp) — 50 (plot) 0 0 a gg6 Cb r1iG4�9rI 6v rn co �pc(DO p ,O 3 Ul 00 x X04 24.0 m i 14.1 I ----_ i � �,- 12.3 4.81�� Q0 v N I p O K3 SA 1T-0 12.2 ^ �NDeck °o x N O p �\ 56.3)o 1-0 �r x U -� U pr 1 1 a �, 90 Q O 84.1 5 I C�)1 pZp �'O nl �; o o= a I C�° ►V O p � `r ,� o- o � y `'' � •� U Q� ca I rn kQ v 2 6 10.21 O ro 22.2 9sB . � x 4 4.4 J� S \ o cam, .83 �� k�\ rri Q y .. . �m \\ � it o ti CID c3 \�Zs o �N \rnU�c x \�Oc (b N�� II o (961.0)-- � 4.1 1 I x.� x 10 ©� .Qn N0.0 '33"E x50.0 -Edge of;$ituminous - Cres t v1 e w � Ave -Cen tete rn o 0 0 '6i lor-6IG)�l� Q Q Q Q �' �A N n =1Q�0 r II CCnNrn�"OCnu� O k O �1 j• o �a rn ro �O n i v N,) Na c ;" �0N Edge' itum1n0u CVCrestview -x — *' Ol O cb �ro-O°Cb o� II Il coo II II �o cz �+ j •c�'�o�i�"�cnm ol �z A ve \�- -Cen teiTn e rn 0 0 N C�) oD J 3 0 \ Lookout Wa I I 91 11 Cantilever Above 36'-0' II 1 22'-0' �OP� G�gB lUH SUMP t UJ/ TOP FOUNDATION r� UTURE r w/ vltY FURN. R4D0 NT 2' SLAB LEDGE 8" BELOUJ II l BATH RCPGH IN ONLY — — -4 1 OFD. 1 1 III I 3-2x4 COLUMNS IDE X EEP FUTURE BEDROOM #4 ON 24' �CONC FOO NCxS N coNc. p o L J ILL 2-2x10 HdR MECH -----� CONC. r ----------� -------------- 21'-10' 1 X I "' NOTE: FLOOR C — — — — TRUSS LENGTH: r SHEATHING TO FUTURE REC ROOM N LU FUTURE FLUSH OUT WITHCONC. z STORAGE 8' REINR POURED CONWALL EIDGE OFUJ/ roLONG CURB FO NDATION coNc. 20°x8° coNc. FTG. s� 20'x8' GONG. FTG. 8 8'-0" TALL x 8" WIDE POURED LONG UJALL 1 I/2" TI-IERMA RIGID INSUL. �t 2-2X10 HDR DOUBLE TREATED SILL PLATE ° " 6'-8' 17'-111/2' 1 (o'-01/2' (� , Cantilever 3 -4 1/21 16 -1 1/2' Above 36'-0' 22'-0' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 318 5F, ISSUE permit JOB #12915 SHEET # OF 5 O v� N rn N N00 .> O � W U OC 00 Ln LU U) E2 i_u 1— Z LU i= N ■ ISSUE permit JOB #12915 SHEET # OF 5 .�IAIN LEVEL PLCCR FLAN 5GALE. 1/4" = V-0" 999 5F. ISSUE permit JOB #12915 SHEET # 2 OF 5 0 U N N � N 00 c3 O� w 00 Lu cL o� w w f I � JIM r M irtr«f� `h+� g M ISSUE permit JOB #12915 SHEET # 2 OF 5 UFFER LEVEL FLCCR FLAN SCALE: 1/4" - 1'-O" 1102 5.1-. ISSUE permit JOB #12915 SHEET # 3 OF 5 O U rn N v� N � U Noc .> V) O � w � O ooc U) E2 CL Lu Z w i= ISSUE permit JOB #12915 SHEET # 3 OF 5 5I1DE ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" � c.anuiever I I L_OWERLEVEL 5I1)E ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = V-0- 12 0 2' Cantilever L 8' Cantilever ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ INSULATED METAL — — — — GARAGE DOORS ❑ — — ❑ PONT ELEVATION SCALE: 1/8" = V -0 - REAR ELEVATION SCALE: I/8' = 1'-0" DING ARGI-4. GRADE - COMPOSITION 5I-41NGLES FASCIA TRIM 5D6 TOP OF PLATE EL. IIS' --V —LP SMART SIDIN (Front only) 5' TRIM 5DS. Zo UPPER LEVEL -ATL€L. 110'-5 1/8' T �t - WIN w J -' EL. 10C '-10 1/2' MAIN LEVEL . EL. 100'-0' L 8' Cantilever LOUDER LEVEL LEY. EL � 8" �)m LOUDER LEVEL EL. 91'-8 i WINDOW SCHEDULE NUMBER UNIT SIZE COMMENTS 101 1 a� 102 2 - 36 x 42 CASE 103 1 U N J 205 Not used 206 1 - 36 x 60 D.H. 207 11 - 36 x 24 AWNING 208 Everlast will provide LEY. EL � 8" �)m LOUDER LEVEL EL. 91'-8 i WINDOW SCHEDULE NUMBER UNIT SIZE COMMENTS 101 1 - 36 X 42 CASE 102 2 - 36 x 42 CASE 103 1 - 36 X 42 CASE 205 Not used 201 1 - 72 x 80 SLIDING GLASS DOOR 202 1 - 28 x 66 D.H. 203 1 - 48 x-66 PICTURE 204 1 - 28 x 66 D.H. 205 Not used 206 1 - 36 x 60 D.H. 207 11 - 36 x 24 AWNING 208 Everlast will provide 209 1 - 36 x 80 + 12 Entry w 210 1 - 28 x 60 D.H. 211 1 - 36 x 42' D.H. 212 2 - 28 x 60 D.H. 301 2 - 36 x 60 D.H. 302 1 - 28 x 60 D.H. 303 Not Used cn f 304 28 x 24 AWNING 305 1 - 36 x 60 D.H. 306 1 - 36 x 60 D.H. 307 1 - 36 x 60 D.H. 308 11 - 36 x 60 D.H. 309 11 - 28 x 60 D.H. 310 11 - 32 x 60 D.H. WINDOW NOTES: 1. UNIT SIZES ARE BASED ON GENERIC VINYL WINDOWS. MFG. TO BE DETERMINED. SIZES ADJUSTED AS NEEDED. 2. DOUBLE GLAZED GLASS W/ LOW -E AND ARGON GAS. TEMPERED GLASS PER CODE. 3. FIXED UNITS WITHIN GROUPING TO MATCH PROFILE OF VENT UNITS. 4. SET DOOR UNITS ON 1/2" BEVELED BOARD & PAN OVER. 5. GRID MUNTINS TO BE 7/8" WIDE SDL. 6. WINDOWS GROUPED UNDER ONE NUMBER TO BE FACTORY MULLED. GROUPS UNDER MULTIPLE NUMBERS TO BE SHIPPED SEPARATE. 7. VERIFY INTENT OF WINDOW TAPING INSTRUCTIONS W/ WINDOW MFGR. INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS. ISSUE permit JOB #12915 SHEET # OF 5 O U v� N U � N . I 00 4_j cn f uLJ E2 a. LU Z W fir'• li 1t •��i�r��� ISSUE permit JOB #12915 SHEET # OF 5 17.1 _-**M RpmPnnM 3/4" OSB GLUE @ NAIL - TYP. II I I I 16' OPEN WEB FLR. TRUSS MECHANICAL CHASE IN FLOOR TRUSS - 3/4" OSB GLUE E NAIL - T 7 16' OPEN WEB FLR. TRUSS MECHANICAL CHASE IN FLOOR TRUSS R-22 CLOSED CELL FOAM INSUL. ,a RIM MECN 1/2' GYP BD FIRE PROTECTION N � r z 1 1/2" THERMAX RIGID INSUL.--\ u_ PASSIVE RADON PIPE 3 1/2" CONIC. SLAB FROM SUMP UP THRU ROOF ° o O `FORMA PRAIN IN GRAVEL BED W/ FILTER MAT. 25'-(o' SECTION SCALE: 1/4' = I'-0' aao >O 4" GRAVEL BASE BELOW J V.B. -CARRY Y.B. UP WALL 2" ABOVE SLAB THEN TRIM 4 SEAL TO FLOOR/ WALL JOINT 4' DRAIN TILE IN GRAVEL BED W/ FILTER MAT NOTES PELOW ,ARE TYi=ICAL OF OTHER 611„ILAR CONDITIONS -f�1�VtY. �31�f�L/G VVI II—. 71--t IIV.3L="7 -15• FELT -ICE 6 WATER SHIELD FROM FASCIA TO 36" BEYOND SHEATHING LINE -1/2" OSB SHEATHING W/ "H" CLIPS -ROOF TRUSSES -BLOWN IN INSULATION (R-44 MIN.) -VAPOR BARRIER q,L44' -5/8" GYP. BD. u_I TOP OF PLATE EL. SUB FASCIA 11NUM SOFFIT W/ VENTS TYP. WALL CONSTRUCTION -VINYL SIDING -TYVEK BUILING WRAP - 1/16" OSB. SHEATHING -2x6 STUD WALL -BATT INSULATION (R-19 MIN.) -VAPOR BARRIER -1/2" GYP. BD. UPPER LEVEL EL. 109'-5 I/8" TOP OF PLATE EL. Im9'-1 1/8' WINDOW HEAD EL. 10ro'-10 1/2" 8" CAN _MAIN LEVEL EL. 1001-01 DOUBLE 2X6 TREATED SILL r k15EALER 8 1/2" DIA. ANCHOR BOLTS s 48" O.C. J FORMA DRAIN IN GRAVEL BED W/ FILTER MAT CONC. FTG, 011 AN SECTION 5GALE: 1/4' = 1'-0' P OF PLATE EL. 1DOW HEAD 116'-4 3/8" EVEL EL. 109'-5 Z/8' PLATE EL. I09'-1 1/8" CANTILEVER EL. 98' -m" -2" STYROFOAM FROM T.O. FOUNDATION N N TO 2" BELOW FROST N z -WATERPROOFING TO T.O. OF FOUNDATIC -8" POURED CONCRETE FDN. WALL zoo U r U -1 1/2" CELOTEX o U = Z W LOWER LEVEL 1/4" EL. 91'-8 J FORMA DRAIN IN GRAVEL BED W/ FILTER MAT CONC. FTG, 011 AN SECTION 5GALE: 1/4' = 1'-0' P OF PLATE EL. 1DOW HEAD 116'-4 3/8" EVEL EL. 109'-5 Z/8' PLATE EL. I09'-1 1/8" CANTILEVER EL. 98' -m" ISSUE permit JOB #12913 SHEET # 5 OF 5 U N N oc ooun L LJ CI) E2 Ci. Lu Z W fir'• I✓ ISSUE permit JOB #12913 SHEET # 5 OF 5 /C-0 \`RkE.51fOp'k� City of Orono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: 275 CRESTVIEW AVE, ORONO, MN 55356 Prepared by: Everlast Enterprises- Jim Cleary Date: 6-19-18 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 Certificate of Survey (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 within the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Hardcover Item (Describe) Survey Length x Width Total (Square Feet) Example (Garage) (24'x 30') (720 S.F.) A and Garage 2 story tuck -under 58 x 24 11198 S.F. B DRIVEWAY 21 x 30 630 S.F. C Stoop & Steps 47 S.F. D Paver Walkway 100 S.F. E Deck 100 S.F. F S.F. G S.F. H S.F. I S.F. J S.F. K S.F. L S.F. M S.F. N S.F. O S.F. P S.F. Q I S.F. R S.F. S — S.F. T S.F. U S.F. V S.F. W S.F. X — S.F. Y S.F. Z S.F. 1 Total Proposed Hardcover 2265 S.F. Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78-1684): 10 x 10 100 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 6250 S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [ (3) _ (4) ] 34.6 % Variance Application — April 2016 Page 8 From: Jim Cleary To: Laura Oakden Subject: Existing Hardcover calcs for 275 Crestview Date: Thursday, June 28, 2018 11:09:11 AM Hello Laura, Here are the existing hardcover calculations. The proposed ones are included in our initial application. shed: 189.52 s.f. garage: 336.99 s.f. house: 781.78 s.f. gravel drive: 560 s.f Thank you - Jim ®❑ c: 612-868-0748 w: EverlastEnterprises.com Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Date: 6/26/2018 205 (53) (54) 3470 3440 �i 61 (17) 3285 1(67) 32ra 225 (38) (42) 235 3390 (51) 3444 (12) 350 (43) 230 7 3424 (44) (46) 3310 (a) (29) (19) 3382 Eastlake St 245 3348 3465 3435 3415 3409 3405 0(64) 20) (60) S+ , 240 — 6 3403 C/R (50) RCS 255 21 405 245 (55) 265 250 (2e) (22) 270 (63) 285 a 295(1s) (28) Q (24) 290 ti (61) 280 285 (25) Y O d > 300 (29) 315 Q 43 3400330 320 325 (30) (62) > � Q� 330 3400 (a1) 325 U 320 34771 3464 (38) (42) 3390 (57) 3444 (52) (33) 350 (43) 7 3424 (44) (46) 3310 (a) 3382 Eastlake St (69) 3348 3465 3435 3415 3409 3405 0(64) (52) 3407 (60) S+ , — 6 3403 C/R RCS 405 Buffer Size: 500 feet Map Comments: Z3 3300 (58) 3300 3280 (s) 37: 1 \ 31: 1 0 60 120 240 ft I I I I I I I 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 38 05-117-23 110006 38 05-117-23 13 0053 38 05-117-23 14 0024 LUCY C DOUGHERTY TIMOTHY & NATALIE VAUGHAN SANDRA J NICCUM MICHAEL T DOUGHERTY 205 TONKA AVE 285 CRESTVIEW AVE 3285 GRAHAM HILL RD ORONO MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 ST PAUL MN 55155 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 12 0015 38 05-117-23 13 0054 38 05-117-23 14 0025 DNR REAL ESTATE MGMT TODD M & MARIE T ZIESMER SANDRA J NICCUM ATTN DEBBIE GURTIN 3440 BAYSIDE RD 285 CRESTVIEW AVE 500 LAFAYETTE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 ST PAUL MN 55155 38 05-117-23 13 0012 38 05-117-23 14 0008 38 05-117-23 14 0028 BLAIR MILESKI & APRIL NEWTON JOHN W WOJCIK & KIT L WOJCIK PAUL O & SHERRY L SKOOG 3420 BAYSIDE RD 3310 BAYSIDE RD 735 DICKEY LKE DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 LAKE LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 13 0028 38 05-117-23 14 0012 38 05-117-23 14 0029 MICHAEL JAMIESON DNR REAL ESTATE MGMT CASEY WEBBER NATALIE JAMIESON ATTN DEBBIE GURTIN ELLEN M REDMOND 295 TONKA AVE 500 LAFAYETTE RD 230 TONKA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 ST PAUL MN 55155 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 13 0029 38 05-117-23 14 0018 38 05-117-23 14 0030 BARBARA J HUBER SCOTT D HOCHSTEDLER KAE PARTNERS LLC 3390 BAYSIDE RD 290 CRESTVIEW AVE 1400 MAPLEWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 13 0030 38 05-117-23 14 0019 38 05-117-23 14 0031 DANA S BRUMITT BRYAN QUADERER WENDY SULLIVAN 3400 BAYSIDE RD 235 CRESTVIEW AVE 325 CRESTVIEW AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 13 0042 38 05-117-23 14 0020 38 05-117-23 14 0033 MARK A HUNSLEY JOHN D TIES BARBARA J HUBER NANCY E HUNSLEY 245 CRESTVIEW AVE 3390 BAYSIDE RD 3464 E LAKE ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 13 0046 38 05-117-23 14 0021 38 05-117-23 14 0039 JEANNE M BRAUN STEPHANIE REIMAN RYAN K RYDBERG 14342 HARBOUR LANDINGS DR 255 CRESTVIEW AVE 340 TONKA AVE UNIT C LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 FT MYERS FL 33908 38 05-117-23 13 0050 38 05-117-23 14 0022 38 05-117-23 14 0043 BRIAN W HENNING KAE PARTNERS LLC THOMAS R BETZ REBECCA L HENNING 1400 MAPLEWOOD DR 300 CRESTVIEW AVE 245 TONKA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 13 0051 38 05-117-23 14 0023 38 05-117-23 14 0049 RYAN A TOFTELAND EVERLAST ENTERPRISES INC DNR REAL ESTATE MGMT MARTHA S TOFTELAND 4109 N SHORE DR ATTN: DEBBIE GURTIN 225 TONKA AVE MOUND MN 55364 500 LAFAYETTE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 ST. PAUL MN 55155 38 05-117-23 14 0050 DNR REAL ESTATE MGMT ATTN DEBBIE GURTIN 500 LAFAYETTE RD ST PAUL MN 55155 38 05-117-23 14 0052 BARBARA JOANNE HUBER 3390 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0055 JEFFREY S MELBY 240 CRESTVIEW AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0056 JOHN & TRUDY LEHMEYER 320 CRESTVIEW AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0057 WINFIELD R STEPHENS III 3770 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0058 DENNIS LAPPEN 3300 BAYSIDE RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0059 MICHAEL/GRETCHEN GILBERTSON 375 LEAF ST LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0061 PHILIP & KAREN SKOOG 280 TONKA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0062 SUSAN A M GOHMAN 330 TONKA AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0063 ROBIN WEISS GRIERSON 270 CRESTVIEW AVE LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0066 KEITH P KORSI & AMY S KORSI 3215 GRAHAM HILL RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0067 SCOTT NAISBITT NANCY FAHIM 3225 GRAHAM HILL RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0068 ROBERT C & COURTNEY R KILL 3235 GRAHAM HILL RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 14 0069 MICHAEL & MARILYN HUTHWAITE 3382 BAYSIDE RD ORONO MN 55356 270 mew Aire9 • Orono, KrH newts Street View - Aug 2015 I Y' y "}' Atli:. /�y-�• -- �"��� Y +{ �'��. , t f .4 ' � 4' '..7 f -��p , - ... ",'T 4" � "iF � �A �•�_ �. # - A }Y:�, r! ,. � ��£�' t � pie �e - a� 17s , s _ _ i c. , 'A. ecx.- yp� , ( f + . r &, ,. i. � � ,. � e•'A � ' ., ti ✓ �� � � � � -moi p :'�, M a t " i _ I ` I r r _ "�a Y 14 A 2 •.". �� �+ It ',i. w 4 • y Date Application Received: 06/19/18 Date Application Considered as Complete: 07/05/18 120 -Day Review Period Expires: 11/02/18 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner h'1GG Date: 16 July 2018 Subject: #LA18-000062, Stonewood LLC, 385 + 387 Orono Orchard Road S, Subdivision/Preliminary Plat — Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval for a residential subdivision of the two individual properties (addressed 385 Orono Orchard Road South and 387 Orono Orchard Road South) totaling 16.3 acres to create 5 single family lots. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval contingent upon meeting the MCWD and City Engineer's recommendations and permitting requirements of the MCWD. PRELIMINARY PLAT/PRD CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVIEW Conformity with 2010 - 2030 Orono Community Management Plan The 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan guides the property for Low Density Residential, 0.5 to 2 units per acre. The proposal involves creation of 5 lots (3 more than existing) with a calculated density of 0.3 units per acre (or 1 unit per 3 acres) based on the gross area. The proposal is less dense than the prescribed minimum density contemplated within the comprehensive plan. Conformity with RR -1B Zoning District Standards The property is currently zoned RR -1B One Family Rural Residential (2.0 acre). Three delineated wetlands on the property do not impact available buildable areas of the lots. The property is outside the MUSA boundary and septic system designs have been submitted for each lot. The existing driveway configuration is proposed to be improved and will be upgraded in width and contained within an Outlot to serve as the private road in the same general location for the Plat. The preliminary plat drawing illustrates the proposed building pad areas for each new lot; the existing home on 387 (Lot 3) is proposed to remain at this time. The RR -113 setbacks will be met; with the exception of Lot 4, all lots are shown with 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 with the City's golf course bordering on the north side of the property. The proposed subdivision is generally consistent with respect to the rural character of the surrounding neighborhood. FILE # LA18-000062 16 July 2018 Page 2 of 4 Lot Areas as Proposed: Note, Lot 4 is shown meeting the minimum acreage and setback requirements for the RR -113 district, however the ±110 foot width at the building setback requires flexibility to allow less than the minimum 200 feet. This does not seem problematic, however, the developer should increase the width of Lot 4 as much as feasible, and the existing driveway on Lot 3 would then need to be modified. 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 property, both which may remain following the subdivision; the setbacks are met. The existing driveway configuration for the most part will remain; modifications may be necessary due to the need to accommodate more width for Lot 4. The Conservation Design Report by Anderson Engineering (see Exhibit E) provides a more detailed overview of the natural site characteristics. The plan indicates the developer's intent to protect significant tree stands; removal of invasive and diseased trees will be done on an as - needed basis. The goal of the 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 coverage. City Engineer Comments The City Engineer is reviewing the preliminary plat plans. Additional engineering comments will be forthcoming. General comments on the road layout plan were provided to the applicant as follows: The proposed intersection layout with Orono Orchard Road should provide adequate site triangles and turning radii, and the roads should intersect at perpendicular angles. The road as proposed should be re -worked to better meet the requirements of City Code 82-281. Specifically this code states that "Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect as nearly as possible at right angles. A proposed intersection of two new streets at an angle or less than 75 degrees shall not be acceptable. An oblique street should be curved approaching an intersection and should be approximately at right angles for at least 100 feet from the intersection. Not more than two streets shall intersect at any one point unless specifically approved by the city." If appropriate, a variance for a distance of less than 100' could possibly be supported from an engineering Wetland Dry Buildable Total Existing Properties (2 lots) 2.25± acres 13.89± acres 16.3± acres Lot 1 ± 350 square feet 2.2± acres 2.2± acres Lot 2 ± 570 square feet 2.5± acres 2.67± acres Lot 3 2.1± acres 2.1± acres 2.1± acres Lot 4 ±1,100 square feet 2.4± acres 2.4± acres Lot 5 1.93± acres 3.8± acres 5.8± acres Outlot - Road 1.13± acres Note, Lot 4 is shown meeting the minimum acreage and setback requirements for the RR -113 district, however the ±110 foot width at the building setback requires flexibility to allow less than the minimum 200 feet. This does not seem problematic, however, the developer should increase the width of Lot 4 as much as feasible, and the existing driveway on Lot 3 would then need to be modified. 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 property, both which may remain following the subdivision; the setbacks are met. The existing driveway configuration for the most part will remain; modifications may be necessary due to the need to accommodate more width for Lot 4. The Conservation Design Report by Anderson Engineering (see Exhibit E) provides a more detailed overview of the natural site characteristics. The plan indicates the developer's intent to protect significant tree stands; removal of invasive and diseased trees will be done on an as - needed basis. The goal of the 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 coverage. City Engineer Comments The City Engineer is reviewing the preliminary plat plans. Additional engineering comments will be forthcoming. General comments on the road layout plan were provided to the applicant as follows: The proposed intersection layout with Orono Orchard Road should provide adequate site triangles and turning radii, and the roads should intersect at perpendicular angles. The road as proposed should be re -worked to better meet the requirements of City Code 82-281. Specifically this code states that "Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect as nearly as possible at right angles. A proposed intersection of two new streets at an angle or less than 75 degrees shall not be acceptable. An oblique street should be curved approaching an intersection and should be approximately at right angles for at least 100 feet from the intersection. Not more than two streets shall intersect at any one point unless specifically approved by the city." If appropriate, a variance for a distance of less than 100' could possibly be supported from an engineering FILE # LA18-000062 16 July 2018 Page 3 of 4 standpoint to a reduced distance of be 45-50 feet (adequate length to accommodate a school bus). The 30 mph road will only serve 5 lots, so there should not be a need to support a queue of vehicles. If there are any changes needed the applicant can respond to those prior to placement on the City Council agenda. Ultimately, the developer should prepare a final plat application which responds to and incorporates these recommendations. 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 are not shown on the proposed preliminary plat drawing; the Final Plat must meet the City standards. Drainage and Utility Easements are required over any stormwater facilities that may be required by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Private Road. The property is proposed to be served via a private road with a minimum 24 -foot width to be contained within a 50 -foot wide outlot with a platted 100 -foot cul-de-sac. Road, Drainage and Utility easements shall be granted over the entirety of this outlot. Access easements shall be provided over the outlot/private road for each of proposed lots; a maintenance agreement for the private road should also be provided by the developer. Park Dedication The City has no plans for trails that may specifically require dedication of land from this property. 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 newly created lots (3 new lots). 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 will be two stormwater infiltration basins installed, the grading plan should be updated to reflect the pond areas. Placement and sizing will be determined by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Rules. The development is subject to the 2018 Stormwater and Drainage Trunk Fee of $4,030.00 per acre. For the 2 -acre zoning districts, any lot exceeding 2.0 gross acres, including wetland, shall be charged a maximum trunk fee equal to the trunk fee for a 2.0 acre parcel. Therefore $4,030 x 10 [5 lots x 2.0 = 10.0 total acres] = $40,300.00. 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 FILE # LA18-000062 16 July 2018 Page 4 of 4 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 recommendation 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. Application Summary Exhibit B. Narrative Exhibit C. Preliminary Plat Drawing 07/05/18 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. MCWD Development Comments 06/18/18 Exhibit I. Stormwater Summary 06/20/18 Exhibit J. City Code Sections Exhibit K. Map Exhibit L. Property Owners List Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 06/19/2018 Address: 387 ORONO ORCHARD RD S WAYZATA, MN 55391 Parcel Number: 0211723230006 Land Use Number: LA 18-000062 Application Submitted By: Agent on behalf of property owner Owner: Name: TIMOTHY L/ELISABETH M TRAFF Address: 387 ORONO ORCHARD RD S WAYZATA, MN 55391 Applicant: Name: Sven Gustafson Address: 153 Lake St. E Wayzata, MN 55391 Contact Information: Associated Contact: George W Stickeny Associated Contact: David Stickney Associated Contact: Sven Gustafson Associated Contact: Project Description: Subdivision 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: Subdivision of 387 Orono Orchard Road We propose to divide the subject property into 5 parcels of relatively similar size. The roadway will be placed in the location of the existing drive, saving the majority of the surrounding trees. The existing home will remain, with driveway and septic being relocated within the new property boundaries. All lots will meet/ exceed 2 acres in area. All lots, with one exception, will meet the required width measurement. The one lot, off the end of the cul de sac is limited in width due to the property lines at the curve of the cul de sac, as well as the necessary locations of septic sites, driven by the location of a neighboring property's well. There are 3 areas that have been identified as wetlands on the property. Great care has been taken to develop the new lots around the existing large trees. As this is a preliminary plat proposal, some of the documentation remains in development and will be completed as approvals continue, and with direction from city staff. 1, ff s EXISTING HOUSE N 89005'48" W 775.97 ORONO. GOLF COURS.E '0' 4V SITE LOCATION MAP TYPICAL HOUSE PAD DESIGNS ARE SHOWN INDIVIDUAL LOT GRADING TO BE CUSTOM DESIGNED A T HOUSE CONS TRUC TION LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, SMITH DETTLOFF ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN. AREA = 703000 SF/ 16.3 ACRES ADDRESS - 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD ORONO, MN Q N' O 50 100 150 SCALE IN FEET = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE COH = CANTILEVERED OVERHANG OHL = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE GFE = GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION TFE = TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION LFE = LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION 1, ff s EXISTING HOUSE N 89005'48" W 775.97 ORONO. GOLF COURS.E '0' 4V SITE LOCATION MAP TYPICAL HOUSE PAD DESIGNS ARE SHOWN INDIVIDUAL LOT GRADING TO BE CUSTOM DESIGNED A T HOUSE CONS TRUC TION LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOTS 1 AND 2, BLOCK 1, SMITH DETTLOFF ADDITION, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN. AREA = 703000 SF/ 16.3 ACRES ADDRESS - 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD ORONO, MN Q 0 W > a LJ > D th 0 JZ CL 0) r4oz I ItIt ui - 0 Lo to LLJ 0) Lj,j c) �Z�'z or Lol 181 00 C'4 uj Q J.-) Joseph Olson D.B.A. Rusty Orlson's--Soil and Percolation Testing Joseph J. Olson--MPCA License #814 11481 Riverview Rd. NE, Hanover, MN 55341 (763) 498-8779 fax (763) 498-8290 July 4, 2018 Stonewood LLC. Proposed lot PID #0211723230005 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 7132 -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. Sincely, Joseph J. Olson 2011 purple code Mound Design www.SepticResource.com (vers 15.2) Property Owner: Stonewood LLC. Site Address: Proposed Lot 1 Comments: Site A Date: 6/18/2018 PID: 0211723230005 instructions: = = enter data = adjust if desired = = computer calculated - DO NOT CHANGE! ibedroom Type Residential System 750 GPD design flow Yes Garbage disposal or pumped to septic 50% larger tank with multiple comp/tanks 4) 2250 Gal Septic tank (code minimum) 22.50 Gal Septic tank (design size / LUG req'd) Tank options: none 1.2 GPD/ft2 mound sand loading rate contour loading rate of =req's a min 62.5 ft. long rockbed r,) 10.0 ft rockbed width 63.0 ft rockbed length 71 3.0 ft lateral spacing 3.0 ft perforation spacing (maximum of 3 for both) end feed manifold connection s� laterals 61.0 feet long 21.0 perfs / lateral F 63 perfs total (1 /2 a perf means the first perf starts at the middle feed manifold) 9) 7/3Z inch perfs at feet residual head gives 0.56 gpm flow rate per perforation for this perf size I* spacing, Ex pipe size on line 12, max perfs/lateral = 30 line #8 must be less -•3 OK ons 4.0 doses per day ( 4 minimum) 11 188 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) 34) ###### gallons TOTAL pump out volume (treatment + drainback) is: 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) 1300 gal Dose tank (design size / LUG req'd) at 25,49 gpi leads to a IX; ###### 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) 19i 12 inches from bottom of tank to "Pump OFF" float 2rri ###### 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) '71 '81 '1)i 1i31 32i 33 0.45 gpd/ftz 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 15 percent site slope (0-20% range) 15 (% downslope site slope, if different than upslope) 16 inches, or 1.3 ft. to Redox or other limiting condition (need at least 12" to be a Type 1) Treatment zone contains F 0inches of 0% soil credit, and FOinches of 50% soil credit. Giving a: 20 inch, or 1.7 ft. Sand Lift Mound CRITICAL FOR FUTURE CERTIFICATIONS!!! 27.0 ft.Total ABSORPTION width (with sand beyond rockbed as follows:) P17.0]ft. ft. upslope and sideslope Downslope Individual slope ratios give BERM widths (topsoil beyond rockbed) of: 4:1 upslope ratio 9 ft. upslope berm 3:1 sideslope 16 ft. sideslope berms 3:1 downslope 29 ft. downslope berm Overall Dimensions: Upslope berm 0 10.0 ft. wide by 63.0 ft. long Rock bed 48 ft, wide by 1 95 ft. long Mound footprint 4" inspection pipe r - 18" cover on top bene 29 12" cover on sides (6" loamy cap 8c. 6" topsoil) 1.7 Clean sand lift _ _ 1.3 Depth to Limiting L"'16119 Condition . _ - - - _ _ Absorption Width Note: For 0 to 1% slopes, A.hsorpticn Width is measured from the Bedegually in both directions. For slopes }1%, Absorptioo Width is measured downhill from the upslope edge of the Bed. Rock Bed: 10.0 ft. by 63.0 ft. by ©inches under pipe, plus 20% gives =yd' or *1.4= 29 ton 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 =F-315 yd' or *1.4= 44Z ton plus 20% 3�i Loamy Cap: 44 ft. by 91 ft. 6" deep, plus 20% gives F 89 yd' or *1.4= 125 ton 3c+} Topsoil: 48 ft. by 95 ft. 6" deep, plus 20% gives EHJ yd' or *1.4= 143 Ton I hereby cer ' y shave completed this work in accordance with all applicable ordinances, rules and laws. Rusty Olson"s Sail It 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 Lot 1 PID: 0211723230005 Comments: Site B instructions: F—� = enter data = adjust if desired W computer calculated - DO NOT CHANGE! tr bedroom Type �I Residential System ,r 75D GPD design flow 3, Yes Garbage disposal or pumped to septic 50% larger tank with multiple comp/tanks I 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 n) 1Q.0 ft rockbed width 62.5 ft rockbed length 71 ft lateral spacing 3.0 ft perforation spacing (maximum of 3 for both) end feed manifold connection s, laterals 6D.5 feet long 21.0 perfs / lateral 63 perfs total (1 /2 a pert means the first perf starts at the middle feed manifold) 0I inch perfs at feet residual head gives 0.56 gpm flow rate per perforation for this perf size Ft spacing, Et pipe size on line 12, max perfs/lateral = 30 line #8 must be less OK 10 4.0 doses per day (4 minimum) 111 gallons per dose (treatment volume) 2.00 5x 11) 2.00 inch diameter laterals must be used to meet 'Ax pipe volume" requirement 2.00 3x 13) feet of 2.D inch supply line leads to ##### gallons of drainback volume (Tip: "top feed" manifold to control the drainback) !a) ######', gallons TOTAL pump out volume (treatment + drainback) t i feet vertical lift from pump to mound laterals, leads to a: ni 36 GPM @ ##### feet of head, Pump requirement (note: >50gpm may require an extra 3-6' of head) a 750 gal Dose tank (code minimum) 1250 gal Dose tank (design size / LUG req'd) at 25.49 gpi leads to 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) OFF test and adjust as necessary) t >> 12 inches from bottom of tank to "Pump OFF" float o ###### inches from bottom of tank to "Pump ON" float, or12 inches to "Timer ON" float if time dosed 1) ###### 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) 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 _'di 15 percent site slope (0-20% range) 15 (% downslope site slope, if different than upslope) �i 18 inches, or =ft. to Redox or other limiting, condition (need at least 12" to be a Type 1) Treatment zone contains=inches of 0% soil credit, and 5inches of 50% soil credit. Giving a: 26 inch, or 1.5 ft. Sand Lift Mound CRITICAL FOR FUTURE CERTIFICATIONSI!I 27) ft.Total ABSORPTION width (with sand beyond rockbed as follows:) 1-81 Nft. ft. upslope and sideslope Downslope Individual slope ratios give BERM widths (topsoil beyond rockbed) of: }9� 41 upslope ratio 9 ft. upslope berm ny 4:1 sideslope 20 ft. sideslope berms 31 3:1 downslope 30 ft. downslope berm Overall Dimensions: 10.0 1 ft. wide by 62.5 ft. long Rock bed 49 ft. wide by 103 ft. long Mound footprint 4" inspection pipe 18" cover on top iJpslope berm 0 J 1� b Downslope berm 30 12" cover on sides (6" loamy cap & 6" topsoil) 1.5 Clean sand lift _ _ _ 1.5 Depth to Limiting IL imitilig Condition AbsorDtion Width z7.0 Note: For 0 to 1% slopes, Absorption Width is measured from the 6ed'equaLly 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 inches under pipe, plus 20% gives =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% Loamy Cap: 45 ft, by 99 ft. 6" deep, plus 20% gives 99 yd' or *1.4= 139 ton 3f) Topsoil: 49 ft. by 103 ft. 6" deep, plus 20% gives 112 yd' or *1.4= 157 ton I hereby l at 1 have completed this work in accordance with all applicable ordinances, rules and 'laws. Rusty Olson"s Soil Ft Perc 810 6/18/2018 finer Signature Company License# Date Property Owner / project: Property Address / PID: Parent matl's: landscape position: soil survey map units: Soil Observation Log %l t\\%.SeDticResourcc.corn vcr� i?. Owner Information Stonewood LLC Proposed Lot 1 PID # 021172323000 Date 6/19/2018 Soil Survey Information [] refer to attached soil survey 0 Till ❑ Qutwash ❑ Lacustrine ❑ Alluvium ❑ organic ❑ Bedrock ❑ summit ❑ Shoulder Q Side slope ❑ Toe slope L41 C2 L41 E slope 15 % direction- Linear Soil Log #1 Q 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 Blockv 4-16 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 16-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1 -6/10y Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular block% >50 firm moderate Prismatic platN rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular block >50 Ern► moderate prismatic plat% rigid strong massive Comments: Proposed Lot 1 PID # 0211723230005 Soil Log #2 ❑ 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 Block, 4-16 I Clay Loam I <35 I 10yr5/4 Friable IStrong 16-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1 -6/10y Firm Strong Block% 8-18 1 Clay Loam I <35 18-24 e Clay Loam <35 <35 35-50 >50 <35 35-50 >50 10yr4/3 I 0yr5/4 Friable IStrong IBlockN 10y4/8,1 -6/10y IFinn loose friable firm rigid loose friable fi nn rigid Strong Blocky loose single grain weak granular block% moderate prismatic platy Strong massive 1 loose single grain <35 granular blocky moderate loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky >50 fin -n moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 fi-iabie weak granular block% >50 firm moderate prismatic plan rigid strong massive Proposed Lot 1 PID # 0211723230005 Soil Log #3 ❑✓ Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 1004.6 Depth to SHWT 18 inches Depth (in) Texture fragment % matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-8 Topsoil <; 10yr3/2 Friable Moderate Block 8-18 1 Clay Loam I <35 18-24 e Clay Loam <35 <35 35-50 >50 <35 35-50 >50 10yr4/3 I 0yr5/4 Friable IStrong IBlockN 10y4/8,1 -6/10y IFinn loose friable firm rigid loose friable fi nn rigid Strong Blocky loose single grain weak granular block% moderate prismatic platy Strong massive 1 loose single grain weak granular blocky moderate prismatic platy strong massive I hereby certify this wor s completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local reqs. Rusty Olson's Soil & Perc 810 tgner Signature Company License 4 rroposed Lot 1 Y11) # 0211723230005 Soil Log #4 ❑ 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 1Oyr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 8-20 Clay Loam <35 lOyr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 20-26 Sandy Clay Loam <35 1Oyr5/4 l Oy4/8, I -6/l Oy Friable Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain 35 - 50 friable weak gramtlar block) >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular block >50 fin-n.moderate prismatic plat` rigid strong massive Proposed Lot 1 PID # 0211723230005 Soil Log #5 ❑ Boring ❑ pit ElevationN/A Depth to SHWT 14 inches Depth (in) Texture fragment % matrix color redox color consistence 'rade shape 0-6 Topsoil <35 1Oyr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 6-14 Clay Loam <35 1Oyr5/4 f=riable Strong blocky 14-24 Clay Loam <35 1Oyr5/4 1Oy4/8,1-6/1Oy Firth Strong Blocky <35 loose loose sin. -le Brain 35-50 friable k weak granular blod� >50 finn moderate prismatic pl a� rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 fi•iable weak granular blocky >50 finn moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive 1 hereby cern this work was completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local red's. Rusty ©Ison's Soil & Perc 810 sign�Signa�ture���� Company License # Property Owner / project: Property Address / PID: Soil Observation Log wSeptic Resource. com vers 12.4 Owner Information Stonewood LLC Proposed Lot 1 PID # 021172323000 Date 6/1912018 Soil Survey Information ❑ refer to attached soil survey Parent inatl's: E] Till ❑ Outwash ❑ Lacustrine ❑ Alluvium ❑ Organic ❑ Bedrock landscape position: ❑ Summit ❑ Shoulder Q Side slope ❑ Toe slope soil survey map units: L41C2 L41 slope 15 % direction- Linear -convex Soil Log #6 El 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 Bloc< 8-18 Clay Loam <35 10yr4/3 Friable Strong Block. 18-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 IQy4/8,1-6/10y Finn Strong Block; <35 loose loose Single Arai„ 35-50 friable weals granular blocky' >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak g ranular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive Comments: Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Pere. starting at 8:45 A.M. On 6127118 Location: Proposed lot 1 PID #0211723230005 Hole number: 1 Date hole was prepared: 6126118 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 6126118 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 ime i ime Depth Drop in H2O Pere 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: Musty Olson's Perc. starting at 8:45 A.M. On 6127118 Location: Proposed lot 1 PID #0211723230005 Hole number: 2 Date hole was prepared: 6126118 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 10yr514 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6126118 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 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 6127118 Location: Proposed lot 1 PID #0211723230005 Hale number: 3 Date hole was prepared: 6126118 Depth of hole bottom _12"_ inches, Diameter of hole _6"_inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-8 Topsoil 10yr312 8-12 Clay loam 10yr4f3 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6126/18 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 Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 8:45 A.M. On 6127118 Location: Proposed lot 1 PID #0211723230005 Hole number: 4 Date hole was prepared: 6126118 Depth of hole bottom _12"_ inches, Diameter of hole _6"_ inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-8 Topsoil 10yr412 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 6126118 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 8:58 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, 20I8 Stonewood LLC. Proposed lot 2 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 1820 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 7132 -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 cannotgo 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. Site Address: Proposed Lot 2 Comments: Site A£t B Date: 6/16/2018 PID: 0211723230006 instructions: = = enter data = adjust if desired = = computer calculated - DO NOT CHANGE! ebedroom Type Residential System GPD design flow Yes Garbage disposal or pumped to septic 50% larger tank with multiple comp/tanks 41 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 of12 req's a min 62.5 ft. long rockbed 6 14.0 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 ,41 laterals 60.5 feet long 21.0 perfs f lateral 63 perfs total (112 a perf means the first perf starts at the middle feed manifold) 9) 7I32 inch perfs at feet residual head gives 0.56 gpm flow rate per perforation for this perf size Ft spacing, Ft pipe size on line 12, max perfs/lateral = 30 line #8 must be less > OK Icy 4.0 doses per day (4 minimum) 11 i 188 gallons per dose (treatment volume) 2.00 5x 12) 2.04 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) 141 ###### gallons TOTAL pump out volume (treatment + drainback) feet vertical lift from pump to mound laterals, leads to a: Ic;r 36 GPM @ ##### feet of head, Pump requirement (note: >50gpm may require an extra 3-6' of head) 17r 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 Uhrs min ON (confirm pump rate with drawdown (this delivers Average flow, =70% of Peak design flow) OFF test and adjust as necessary) IQ) 12 inches from bottom of tank to "Pump OFF" float 211) ###### inches from bottom of tank to "Pump ON" float, or 12 inches to "Timer ON" float if time dosed ,il ###### inches from bottom of tank to "Hi Level" float, or ##### inches to "Hi Level" float if time dosed 121 ###### gallons reserve capacity (after High Level Alarm is activated) 2 _, i 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 20 percent site slope (0-20% range) 2fl (% downslope site slope, if different than upslope) 18 inches, or 1.5 ft. to Redox or other limiting condition (need at least 12" to be a Type 1) Treatment zone contains inches of 0% soil credit, and =inches of 50% soil credit. Giving a: 18 inch, or 1.5 ft. Sand Lift Mound CRITICAL FOR FUTURE CERTIFICATIONSH! 27.0 'ft.Total ABSORPTION width (with sand beyond rockbed as follows:) P17, ft. upslope and sides(ope 0 ft. Downslope Individual slope ratios give BERM widths (topsoil beyond rockbed) of: 4:1 upslope ratio 8 ft. upslope berm 3:1 sideslope 17 ft, sideslope berms 3:1 downslope 41 ft. downslope berm 132) Overall Dimensions: Upslope berm F-8--] 1 10.0 ft. wide by 62.5 ft. long Rock bed 59 ft. wide by 1 97 ft. long Mound footprint 4" inspection pipe x-18" ever on top berm 41 12" cover on sides (6" loamy cap.6" topsoil) 1.5 Clean sand lift _ __ 1�.5 Depth to Limiting Limiting Con'ditior�_- F—A-bsor-o-tion__ Widt__h 4 27• _ -� --�-- --- - -- - Note: For 0 to 1 slopes, Absorption Width is measured from the Bedeq�ially in both directions. For slopes >1%, Absorption Width is measured downhill from the upslope edge of the Bed. } Rock Bed: 10.0 ft. by 62.5 ft. by ®inches under pipe, plus 20% gives 21 yd' or *1.4= 29 ton 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 yd' or *1.4= 598 ton plus 20% 35 j Loamy Cap: 55 ft. by 93 ft. 6" deep, plus 20% gives 114 yd3 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, Designer Signature Rusty Olson"s Soil & Perc Company 810 6/16/2018 License# Date Soil Observation Log �ti\vu.Sept icResource.coin 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 El Side slope ❑ Toe slope soil survey map units: L41E 1-41 E slope 17 % direction- Linear Soil Log #1 El 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 1 0yr3/1 Friable Moderate Blocky 8-18 Clav foam <35 I0trLi Friable Strong 131nc1« 18-24 Clay Loam <35 1Oyr5/4 I Oy4/8,1-6/1 Oy Firm Strong t3locks <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular hlnck% >S0 firm moderate prismatic plea% rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive C'nn�n��a�tti: Proposed Lot 2 PID # 0211723230006 Soil Log 92 ❑ Boring 0 Pit Elevation 955.7 Depth to SHWT 18 inches Depth (in) Texture fragment % matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-8 Topsoil <35 1Oyr3/81 I Friable Moderate [flocky 8-18 1 Clay Loam 1 <35 1 2.5y5/3 FriableStrong (Blocky 18-24 Clay Loam <35 lOyr5/4 IOy4/8,1-6/lOy Firm Strong Blocky 8-18 1 Loam 1 <35 18-24 1 Clay Loam 1 <35 <35 35 - 50 >50 <35 35-50 >50 I Oyr4. I Oyr5/4 Friable I Strong Blocky 10y4/8,1 -6/10y IFinn loose friable firm rigid loose friable firm rigid Strong 1131ockN loose single grain weak granular blocky moderate prismatic platy strong massive loose single grain <35 granular blocky moderate loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky firm moderate prismatic plate >50 rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35 -50 friable weak granular blocky firm moderate prismatic platy >50 rigid strong massive Proposed Lot 2 PID # 0211723230006 Soil Log #3 Q Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 961.1 Depth to SHWT 18 inches Depth (in) Texture fragment % matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-8 Topsoil 1 <35 1Oyr3/2 Friable Moderate Block% 8-18 1 Loam 1 <35 18-24 1 Clay Loam 1 <35 <35 35 - 50 >50 <35 35-50 >50 I Oyr4. I Oyr5/4 Friable I Strong Blocky 10y4/8,1 -6/10y IFinn loose friable firm rigid loose friable firm rigid Strong 1131ockN loose single grain weak granular blocky moderate prismatic platy strong massive loose single grain weak granular blocky moderate prismatic platy strong massive I hereby cert{b, this work was completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local reqs. busty Olson's Soil & Pere 810 Designer Signature Company License 4 Proposed Lot 2 PID # 0211723230006 Soil Log #4 ❑� 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 1Oyr3/1 Friable Moderate 131ockN S-16 Loam <35 1 Qyr4/3 Friable Strong Blocky 16-20 Clay Loam `35 1Oyr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 20-26 Clay Loam 35 1Oyr5/4 I Oy4/8,1-6/1 Oy Firm Strong Blocky <35 louse loose single grain 35-50 friable weal{ granular block-, >50 fine moderate prismatic plate rigid strong massive Proposed Lot 2 PID # 0211723230006 Soil Log 95 0 Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 952.5 Depth to SHWT 18 inches Depth (in) Texture fragment % matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-10 Topsoil J 1Oyr3 l Friable Moderate Block% 10-18 Clay Loam <35 1Oyr4/3 Friable Strong Blocky 18-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 IOy4/8,1-6/1Qy Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic plat rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky X50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive 1 herehy, certify this work was completed in accordance with NIN 7080 and any local reqs. Designer Signature Rusty Olson's Soil & Perc Company 810 License P Property Owner / project: Property Address / PID: Soil Observation Log www.SepticResource.com vers 12. Owner Information Stonewood LLC Proposed Lot 2 PID # 021172323000 Date 6/19/2018 Soil Surve Information ❑ refer to attached soil survey Parent maffs: ❑✓ Tall ❑ Outwash ❑ Lacustrine ❑ Alluvium ❑ Organic ❑ Bedrock landscape position: ❑ Summit ❑ Shoulder F�] Side slope ❑ Toe slope soil survey map units: L41E L41E slope 17 % direction- Linear Soil Log #6 0 Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 957.7 Depth to SHWT 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 IOy4/8,1-6/10y Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky >50 finn moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky - >50 finn moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive Comments: Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 10:50 A.M. On 6126118 Location: Proposed lot 2 PID #0211723230006 Hole number: 1 Date hole was prepared Depth of hole bottom _ Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches 0-8 8-12 6/25118 12"_ inches, Diameter of hole ,6"_ inches. Soil texture Topsoil 10yr311 Clay loam 10yr413 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6125/18 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" 11:59 12:14 6" 4.6 3.3 4,6 3.3 AVERAGE PERC. RATE 3.3 MIDI Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc, starting at 10:50 A.M. On 6126118 Location: Proposed lot 2 PID #0211723230006 Hole number: 2 Date hole was prepared: 6125118 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 2.5y513 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6125118 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 Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc, starting at 10:50 A.M. On 6126118 Location: Proposed lot 2 PID #0211723230006 Hole number: 3 Date hole was prepared: 6125118 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 10yr413 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6125118 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 L 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 6126118 Location: Proposed lot 2 PID #0211723230006 Hole number: 4 Date hole was prepared Depth of hole bottom _ Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches 0-8 8-12 6125118 12"_ inches, Diameter of hole _6"_ inches. Soil texture Topsoil 10yr311 Loam 10yr413 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6125/18 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 11:11 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.I.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. Sincerel �T Joseph J. Olson u 2411 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! ibedroom Type �I Residential System 0 750 GPD design flow 31 Yes Garbage disposal or pumped to septic 50% larger tank with multiple comp/tanks 41 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 of12 req's a min 62.5 ft. long rockbed 6, 1Q.Q 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) laterals 60.5 feet long 21.0 perfs / lateral 63 perfs total (1 /2 a perf means the first pert starts at the middle feed manifold) ai 7132 inch perfs at 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 toi 4.0 doses per day (4 minimum) iii 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) i s; feet vertical lift from pump to mound laterals, leads to a: 16) 36 GPM @ ##### feet of head, Pump requirement (nate: >50gpm may require an extra 3-6of head.) iii 750 gal Dose tank (code minimum) 1250 gal Dose tank (design size / LUG req'd) at 25.49 gpi leads to a inch swing on Demand float, or timed dosing of Nhrs min ON (confirm pump rate with drawdown (this delivers Average flow, =70% of Peak design flow) OFF test and adjust as necessary) iay 12 inches from bottom of tank to "Pump OFF" float 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 lli ###### gallons reserve capacity (after High Level Alarm is activated) 31i 1311 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 percent site slope (0-20% range) 20 (% downslope site slope, if different than upslope) 18 inches, or 1.5 ft. to Redox or other limiting condition (need at least 12" to be a Type 1) Treatment zone contains= inches of 0% soil credit, and =inches of 50% soil credit. Giving a: 18 inch, or 1.5 ft. Sand Lift Mound CRITICAL FOR FUTURE CERTIFICATIONS!!! 27.0 ft.Total ABSORPTION width (with sand beyond rockbed as fol(ows:) 0.0 ft. upslope and sideslope 17.0 ft. Downslope Individual slope ratios give BERM widths (topsoil beyond rockbed) of: 4:1 upslope ratio 13 ft. upslope berm 4:1 sideslope 15 ft. sideslope berms 3:1 downslope 28 ft. downslope berm Overall Dimensions: Upslope berm = 10.0 ft. wide by 62.5 ft. long Rock bed 51 ft. wide by 1 93 ft. long Mound footprint 4" inspection pipe r— 18" cover on top 1.5 II Clean sand lift 1.5 Limiting Condition ---------------- Depth to Limiting Absorption Width Downslope berm 28 12" cover on sides (6" loamy cap &6" topsoil) 27.0 -I-- - - ---- Note: For Oto 1% slopes, Absorp&67 Width is measured from the Bedequatly in .both directions. For slopes >1%, Absorption Width is measured downhill from the upslope edge of the Bed Rock Bed: 10.0 ft. by 62.5 ft. by ®inches under pipe, plus 20% gives 21 yd' or -1.4= 29 ton 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% 3 r Loamy Cap: 47 ft. by 84 ft. 6" deep, plus 20% gives 93 ydj or *1.4= 1 3-0-1 ton 361 Topsoil: 51 ft. by 93 ft. 6" deep, plus 20% gives 105 .yd-' or *1.4= =ton hereby rtify that I have completed this work in accordance with all applicable ordinances, rules and laws. Rusty Olson"s Soil ix 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. Site Address: Proposed Lot 3 Comments: Site B Date: 6/16/2018 PID: 0211723230006 instructions: = = enter data = adjust if desired = = computer calculated - DO NOT CHANGE! I 0bedroom Type �I Residential System 11 GPD design flow .3 Yes Garbage disposal or pumped to septic 50% larger tank with multiple comp/tanks -I) 225D Gat 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 6) 10.0 ft rockbed width 62.5 ft rockbed length 7) 3.0 ft lateral spacing 3.D ft perforation spacing (maximum of 3 for both) end feed manifold connection si laterals 60.5 feet long Z1.0 perfs / lateral 63 perfs total (1 /2 a perf means the first perf starts at the middle feed manifold) >> 7/32 inch perfs at i Ifeet 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 --> 0I1; 10) 4.0 doses per day ( 4 minimum) 1 I 188 gallons per dose (treatment volume) 2.00 5x I,, 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) tai ###### gallons TOTAL pump out volume (treatment + drainback) ifeet vertical lift from pump to mound laterals, leads to a: i6 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 Zhr5 min ON (confirm pump rate with drawdown (this delivers Average flow, =70% of Peak design flow) OFF test and adjust as necessary) iso;Winches inches from bottom of tank to "Pump OFF" float inches from bottom of tank to "Pump ON" float, or 12 inches to "Timer ON" float if time dosed '_1) 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) 29) 3oi 31) 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 percent site slope (0-20% range) �9 (% downslope site slope, if different than upslope) 20 inches, or 1.7 ft. to Redox or other limiting condition (need at least 12" to be a Type 1) Treatment zone contains inches of 0% soil credit, and =inches of 50% soil credit. Giving a: 16 inch, or 1.3 ft. Sand Lift Mound CRITICAL FOR FUTURE CERTIFICATIONS!!! 27.0 ft.Total ABSORPTION width (with sand beyond rockbed as follows:) 0.0 ft. upslope and sideslope 17.0 ft. Downslope Individual slope ratios give BERM widths (topsoil beyond rockbed) of: 4:1 ups(ope ratio iD ft, upslope berm 4:1 sideslope 17 ft. sideslope berms 4:1 downslope 26 ft. downslope berm Overall Dimensions: Ui)slone berm 1 10 10.0 1 ft. wide by 62.5 ft. long Rock bed 46 ft. wide by 1 97 ft. long Mound footprint 4" inspection pipe r— 18" cover on top 1.3 11 dean sand lift _ _ 1.7 Limiting Condition ---------------- Depth to Limiting Absorption Width Downslope berm 26 12" cover on sides (6" loamy cap &. 6" topsoil) 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. Rock Bed: 10.0 ft. by 62.5 ft. by inches under pipe, plus 20% gives 21 yd' or *1.4= 29 ton 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 = F228 yd' or *1.4= 319 ton plus 20% ) Loamy Cap: 42 ft. by 93 ft. 6" deep, plus 20% gives 87 yd' or *1.4= 122 ton Topsoil: 46 ft. by 97 ft. 6" deep, plus 20% gives 99 yd' or *1.4= 1-3-9-1 ton I hereby cer ' 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 finer Signature Company License# Date Soil Observation Log www.SepticResource.com vers 12.4 Owner Information Property owner / project: Stonewood LLC Date 6120/2018 Property Address / PID; Proposed Lot 3 PID 4 021172323000 Soil Surve Information ❑ refer to attached soil survey Parent coati's: ❑, Till ❑ Outwash ❑ Lacustrine F1 Alluvium ❑ Organic ❑ Bedrock landscape position: ❑ summit ❑ Shoulder 21 Side slope ❑ Toe slope soil survey map units: L41E L41E slope 6-17 % direction- Linear -convex Soil Log N 0 Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 988.1 Depth to SHWT 22 inches Depth (in) Texture fragment % matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 8-4 Topsoil X35 1Oyr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 4-22 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 22-30 Clay Loam <3 1 Oyr6/4 l Oy4/8,1-6/ 1 Oy 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 blockN firer moderate prismatic plia% >50 rigid strong massive Comments: Proposed Lot 3 PID # 0211723230006 Soil Log #2 ❑� 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 10yr312 Friable Moderate Blocky 4-10 Clay Loam I Oyr4/3 Friable Strong Blocky 10-20 Clay Loam <35 1Oyr5!4 Friable Strong Block% 20-30 Clay Loam <35 1Oyr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/IOy Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular riocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive Proposed Lot 3 PID # 0211723230006 Soil Lag #3 0 Boring 0 Pit Elevation 991.7 Depth to SHWT 18 inches Depth (in) Texture fragment % matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-8 Topsoil <35 1Oyr4f2 Friable Moderate Blocky 8-18 Clay Loam _ 10yr5!4 Friable Strong Block} 18-24 Clay Loam <35 1Oyr5/4 IOy48.1-6]ON }-ir111 Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single gain 35-50 friable weak granular block,, >50 Finn moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic plat} rigid I strong massive I hereby certi , this was completed in accordance with igner Signature MN 7080 and any local reqs. Rusty Olson's Soil & Pere Company 810 License 4 Proposed Lot 3 PID # 0211723230006 Soil Log #4 E Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 991.7 Depth to SHWT 24 inches Depth (in) Texture fragment % matrix color redox calor consistence grade shape 0-16 Topsoil <35 1Oyr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 16-24 Loam <35 1Oyr4/4 Friable Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 f1 iable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular block >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular block firm moderate prismatic plat} >50 rigid Istrong massive Proposed Lot 3 PID # 0211723230006 Soil Log #5 0 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 <:y 1 Oyr4/3 Friable Strong Blocky 8-18 Clay Loam <3 5 1Oyr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 18-24 Clay Loam 35 1Oyr5/4 I Oy4/8,1-6/1 Oy Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single gram 35-50 friable weak granular blk ck� firm moderate prismatic plat) >50 rigid strong massive I hereby certify= this work was completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local red's. . z/,— Rusty Olson's Soil & Perc 810 igner Signature Company License Soil Observation Log xvww.Sept icResource. corn vers 12.4 Owner Information Property Owner / project: Stonewood LLC Date 6/20/2018 Property Address / PID: Proposed Lot 3 PID # 021172323000 Sail Survey Information ❑ refer to attached soil survey Parent matl's: ❑- Till ❑ outwash ❑ Lacustrine ❑ Alluvium ❑ Organic ❑ Bedrock landscape position: ❑ summit ❑ Shoulder r] Side slope ❑ Toe slope soil survey map units: L41 L41E slope 6-17 % direction- Linear -convex Soil Log 96 ❑ Boring ❑ Pit Elevation N/A Depth to SHWT 20 inches Depth (in) Texture fragment % matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-12 Topsoil <35 10%r3.2 Friable Moderate Blocky 12-20 Loan `3- IOyr4/3 Friable Strong 13 ocl,` 20-26 Clay Loam < 3 5 1 Oyr5/4 I Oy4/8,1-6/IOy Finn Stroll- Blocky 435 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive 435 loose loose Finale grain, 35-50 friable weak granular blocky >50 finn moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive Comments: Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 9:51 A.M. On 6127118 Location: Proposed lot 3 PID #0211723230006 Hole number: 1 Date hole was prepared: 6126118 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 10yr514 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6126118 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 10:01 10:16 6" 2.6 5.8 1019 10:34 6" 2.6 5.8 1035 10:50 6" 2.6 5.8 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 6127118 Location: Proposed lot 3 PID #0211723230006 Hale number: 2 Date hole was prepared: 6126118 Depth of hole bottom _12"_ inches, Diameter of hole _6"_ inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-4 Topsoil 10yr4i2 4-10 Clay loam 10yr413 10-12 Clay loam 10yr5/4 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6/26118 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 10:02 10:17 6" 2.4 6.3 1018 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 6126118 Location: Proposed lot 3 PID #0211723230006 Hole number: 3 Date hole was prepared: 6125118 Depth of hole bottom _12"_ inches, Diameter of hole _6"_ inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-8 Topsoil 10yr412 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 6125/18 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 1112 11:27 6" 2.9 5.2 11:38 11:53 6" 2.7 5.5 12:04 1219 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 6126118 Location: Proposed lot 3 PID #0211723230006 Hole number: 4 Date hole was prepared: 6125118 Depth of hole bottom _12"_ inches, Diameter of hole _6"_ inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-12 Topsoil 10yr4l2 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6/25118 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 1113 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 I, 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 7132 -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. Sine Joseph J. Olson jI N 00 003 f J.;� 11 E I Ike rT I 2011 purple code Mound Design www.SeptieResource.com (vers 15.2) Property Owner: Stonewood LLC. Date: 6/16/2018 Site Address: Proposed Lot 4 PID: 0219723230006 Comments: Site A Et C instructions: = = enter data = adjust if desired = computer calculated - DO NOT CHANGE! I s bedroom Type 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 1 1.2 GPD/ft2 mound sand loading rate contour loading rate of =req's a min 62.5 ft. long roekbed 01 10.0 ft roekbed 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 81 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) Q) 7/32 inch perfs at 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 1�) 4.0 doses per day (4 minimum) iii 188 gallons per dose (treatment volume) 2.00 5x l_') 2.00 inch diameter laterals must be used to meet "4x pipe volume" requirement 2.00 3x i rfeet of 2.0 inch supply line leads to ##### gallons of drainback volume (Tip: "top feed" manifold to control the drainback) 141 ###### gallons TOTAL pump out volume (treatment + drainback) feet vertical lift from pump to around laterals, leads to a: rc„ 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 iso ###### inch swing on Demand float, or timed dosing of Whrs min ON (confirm pump rate with drawdown (this delivers Average flow, =70% of Peak design flow) OFF test and adjust as necessary) 10) R�t##,### inches from bottom of tank to "Pump OFF" float N inches from bottom of tank to "Pump ON" float, or 12 inches to "Timer ON" float if time dosed 21 r 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) >>> 0.45 gpd/ft2 Absorption area Soil Loading Rate, which gives a mound ratio of2.7 (minimum) (this must match the soil boring log) desired mound ratio 2.7 24) 15 percent site slope (0-20% range) 12 (% downslope site slope, if different than upslope) I1) 12 inches, or 1.0 ft. to Redox or other limiting condition (need at least 12" to be a Type 1) Treatment zone contains inches of 0% soil credit, and F 70inches of 50% soil credit. Giving a: !6) 24 inch, or 2.0 ft. Sand Lift Mound CRITICAL FOR FUTURE CERTIFICATIONS!!!. 71 27.0 ft.Total ABSORPTION width (with sand beyond rockbed as follows:) R) D.D ft. upslope and sideslope 17.0 ft. Downslope Individual slope ratios give BERM widths (topsoil beyond rockbed) of: QI upslope ratio 10 ft. upslope berm )) 3:1 sideslope 17 ft. sideslope berms )) 3:1 downslope 3D ft. downslope berm Overall Dimensions: 10.0 ft. wide by 62.5 ft. long Rock bed 50 ft. wide by 1 97 1 ft. long Mound footprint 4" inspection pipe 18" cover on top berm 1a .l I., Downslope berm 30 12" corer on sides (6" loamy cap & 6" topsoil) 2.0 Clean sand lift ____ 1.0 Depth to Limiting Larnting Coindition---------___—_ Absorption Width — 27.0 Note: For 0 to 1% slopes, Ahsorptian Width is rneasured from the Bedequatly in both directions. For slopes >1'%, Absorption Width is measured downhill from the upslope edge of the Bed 1) Rock Bed: 10.0 ft. by 62.5 ft. by inches under pipe, plus 20% gives 21 yd' or *1.4= 29 ton 4) 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 + 154.2 downslope + 22.5 ends + 63.7 under rock =F338 yd' or *1.4= 474 ton plus 20% 35) Loamy Cap: 46 ft. by 93 ft. 6" deep, plus 20% gives 36) Topsoil: 5D ft. by 47 ft. 6" deep, plus 20% gives I hereby cert' that I have comp s work in accordance with all ap 95 yd' or *1.4= 133 ton 108 yd' or *1.4= 151 ton ordinances, rules and laws. Rusty Olson"s Soil €t Perc 810 6/16/2018 r Signature Company License# Date 2011 purple code Mound Design wWw.SeptiGftesource.cnm (varc 15 9) Property Owner: Stonewood LLC. Site Address: Proposed Lot 3 Comments: Site B Date: 6/16/2018 PID: 0291723230006 instructions: E-7 � enter data 0 = adjust if desired = = computer calculated - DO NOT CHANGE! I ) bedroom Type C� Residential System 750 GPD design flow � 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 1 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 rel 10.0 ft rockbed width 62.5 ft rockbed length 7) 3A ft lateral spacing 3.0 ft perforation spacing (maximum of 3 for both) end feed manifold connection 8) 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) 91 inch perfs atfeet residual head gives 0.56 gpm flow rate per perforation for this perf size 8: spacing, & pipe size on line 12, max perfs/lateral = 30 line #8 must be less --> OK iii} 4.0 doses per day (4 minimum) 11) 188 gallons per dose (treatment volume) 2.00 5x l,a 2,00 inch diameter laterals must be used to meet 'Ax 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) l; feet vertical lift from pump to mound laterals, leads to a: l6 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 19) ###### inch swing on Demand float, or timed dosing of ahrs min ON (confirm pump rate with drawdown (this delivers Average flow, =70% of Peak design flow) OFF test and adjust as necessary) 19) 12 inches from bottom of tank to "Pump OFF" float 10 ###### inches from bottom of tank to "Pump ON" float, or12 inches to "Timer ON" float if time dosed 21 l ###### inches from bottom of tank to "Hi Level" float, or ##### inches to "Hi Level" float if time dosed n, ###### gallons reserve capacity (after High Level Alarm is activated) 0.45 gpd/ftZ 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 '_4 percent site slope (0-20% range) �(% downslope site slope, if different than upslope) ,5> 16 inches, or 1.3 ft. to Redox or other limiting condition (need at least 12" to be a Type 1) Treatment zone contains F07inches of 0% soil credit, and F07inches of 50% soil credit. Giving a: a, 16 inch, or 1.3 ft. Sand Lift Mound CRITICAL FOR FUTURE CERTIFICATIONS! l! ,7) 27.0 ft.Totat ABSORPTION width (with sand beyond rockbed as follows:) 's)K ft. upslope and sides€ope ft. Downslope Individual slope ratios give BERM widths (topsoil beyond rockbed) of: >_q) 4:1 upslope ratio 11 ft. upslope berm 3os 4:1 sideslope 16 ft. sideslope berms 3l) 4:1 downslope 21 ft. downslope berm 7 Overall Dimensions: 10.0 1 ft. wide by 62.5 ft. long Rock bed 42 ft. wide by 95 ft. long Mound footprint 4" inspection pipe r-- 18" cover on tap Upslooe germ L11 Downslope berm 21 12" cover on sides (6" loamy cap & 6" topsoil) 1.3 Clean sand lift _ _ 1.3 Depth to Limiting Lim ftin Condition Absorption Width -- Note:_ For 0 to 1% slopes, Ahsorption Width is measured from the &edequally in both directions. For slopes >1%, Ahsorption Width is measured downhill from the upslope edge of the Bea'. ;; Rock Bed: 10.0 ft. by 62.5 ft. by ®inches under pipe, plus 20% gives FYI—]yd' or £1.4= 29 ton i4) 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 yda or "1.4= 254 ton plus 20% 351 Loamy Cap: 38 ft. by 91 ft. 6" deep, plus 20% gives 77 yd' or X1.4= 10$ ton 3o1 Topsoil: 42 ft. by 95 ft. 6" deep, plus 20% gives 89 yd' or'1.4= 125 ton hereby certify that I have completed this work in accordance with at[ applicable ordinances, rules and taws.. Rusty Olson"s Soil Et Perc 810 6/16/2018 igner Signature Company License# Date 2011 purple code Mound Design www.5epticResource.com (vers 15.2) Property Owner: Stonewood LLC. Date: 6/46/2018 Site Address: Proposed Lot 3 PID: 0211723230006 Comments: Site D Upslope instructions: = = enter data = adjust if desired = computer calculated - DO NOT CHANGE! ibedroom Type I 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 Gat Septic tank (design size / LUG req'd) Tank options: none 51 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 7w 3.0 ftlateral spacing 3.0 ft perforation spacing (maximum of 3 for both) end feed manifold connection slaterals 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) 91 7/32 inch perfs at 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 111 4.0 doses per day (4 minimum) 11r 1$8 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) Meet 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) l rfeet vertical lift from pump to mound laterals, leads to a: lr;, 36 GPM @ ##### feet of head, Pump requirement (note: >50gpm may require an extra 3 6' of head) 171 750 gal Dose tank (code minimum) 125Q gal Dose tank (design size / LUG req'd) at 25.49 gpi leads to a 181 ###### inch swing on Demand float, or timed dosing of Ohrs min ON (confirm pump rate with drawdown (this delivers Average flow, =70% of Peak design flow) OFF test and adjust as necessary) 19 12 inches from bottom of tank to "Pump OFF" float cn ###### inches from bottom of tank to "Pump ON" float, or12 inches to "Timer ON" float if time dosed 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) 0.45 gpd/ft2 Absorption area Soil Loading Rate, which gives a mound ratio of2.7 (minimum) (this must match the soil boring log) desired mound ratio 2.7 241 15 percent site slope (0-20% range) 15 (% downslope site slope, if different than upslope) '-sr 16 inches, or 1.3 ft. to Redox or other limiting condition (need at least 12" to be a Type 1) Treatment zone contains[ inches of 0% soil credit, and =inches of 50% soil credit. Giving a: 101 inch, or 1.3 ft. Sand Lift Mound CRITICAL FOR FUTURE CERTiFICATIONS1l± '-7) 27.0 ft.Total ABSORPTION width (with sand beyond rockbed as follows:) 's) 0.0 ft. upslope and sideslope 17.0 ft. Downslope Individual slope ratios give BERM widths (topsoil beyond rockbed) of: ei 4:1 upslope ratio 8 ft. upslope berm .oi 4:1 sideslope 19 ft. sideslope berms ti 3:1 downslope 27 ft. downslope berm Overall Dimensions: 10.0 1 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 herrn27 L,Downslope berm 12" cover on sides (6" loamy cap & 6" topsoil) 1.3 Clean sand lift 1.3 — Depth to Limiting - r Lirnitin9 Condition —" ---- ---�— __ _ Absorvtion Width 27.0 Note: For 0 to 1% slopes, Absorption Width is measured from the Bedequally in both directions. For slopes >1`i4, Absorption Width is measured downhill from the upslope edge of the Bed Rock Bed: 10.0 ft. by 62.5 ft. by inches under pipe, plus 20% gives =yd-' or *1.4= 29 ton 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 + F21.8ends + 48.2 under rock = 283 yd' or *1.4= 346 ton plus 20% Loamy Cap: 41 ft. by 97 ft. 6" deep, plus 20% gives 88 yd1 or *1.4= 123 ton Topsoil: 45 ft. by 101 ft. 6" deep, plus 20% gives 101 yd' or *1.4= 141 ton hereby certify erSignature I have completed this work in accordance with all applicable ordinances, rules an Rusty Olson"s Soil Et Pert Company 810 6/16/2018 License# Date 2011 purple code Mound Design uMnu e .. Property Owner: Stonewood LLC. Date: 6/16/2018 Site Address: Proposed Lot 4 RID: 0211723230006 Comments: Site D Downslope instructions: = = enter data = adjust if desired = computer calculated - DO NOT CHANGE! II bedroom Type Residential System ,) 750 GPD design flow 3) Yes Garbage disposal or pumped to septic 50% larger tank with multiple comp/tanks 41 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 W 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) 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 feet residual head gives D,56 gpm flow rate per perforation for this perf size Ft spacing, Et pipe size on line 12, max perfs/lateral = 30 1, line #8 must be less > OK 10) 4.0 doses per day ( 4 minimum) 1 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 j� 2.00 3x 131 �Jfeet of 2.0 inch supply line leads to ##### gallons of drainback volume (Tip: "top feed" manifold to control the drainback) 1-11 ###### gallons TOTAL pump out volume (treatment + drainback) 1 feet vertical lift from pump to mound laterals, leads to a: 161 36 GPM @ ##### feet of head, Pump requirement (note: 3509pm may require an extra 3-6' of head) 171 750 gal Dose tank (code minimum) 1250 gal Dose tank (design size / LUG req'd) at25,48 gpi leads to a 181 ###### inch swing on Demand float, or timed dosing of =hrs min ON (confirm pump rate with drawdown (this delivers Average flow, =70% of Peak design flow) OFF test and adjust as necessary) IQ>Winches inches from bottom of tank to "Pump OFF" float 10) inches from bottom of tank to "Pump ON" float, or 12 inches to "Timer ON" float if time dosed 211 from bottom of tank to "Hi Level" float, or ##### inches to "Hi Level" float if time dosed 2-2; ###### gallons reserve capacity (after High Level Alarm is activated) '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 1 2.7 4) 11 percent site slope (0.20% range) i 1 (% downslope site slope, if different than upslope) si 18 inches, or 1.5 ft. to Redox or other limiting condition (need at least 12" to be a Type 1) Treatment zone contains r 70inches of 0% soil credit, and =inches of 50% soil credit. Giving a: 6) 1$ inch, or 1.5 ft. Sand Lift Mound CRITICAL FOR FUTURE CERTIFICATIONS!!! 71 27.0 ft.Total ABSORPTION width (with sand beyond rockbed as follows:) 8) 0.0 ft. upslope and sidestope 17.0 ft. Downslope Individual slope ratios give BERM widths (topsoil beyond rockbed) of: 4:1 upslope ratio 0 ft. upslope berm o) 4:1 sidestope 18 ft, sidestope berms )) 4:1 downslope 33 ft. downslope berm Overall Dimensions: 10.0 1 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 U pslope berm 0 ,,, Downslope bene 33 12" cover on sides (6" louay cap & 6" topsoil) 1.5 Clean sand lift _ _ 1.5 Depth to Limiting Limiting Condition — — _ — Absorption Width — 027. ----- Note: For 0 to 1% slopes, A6sorptian Width is measured from the Bedequally in bath directions. For slopes >1%, Absorption Width is measured downhill from the upslope edge of the Bed Rock Bed: 10.0 ft. by 62.5 ft. by ®inches under pipe, plus 20% gives 21 yd' or *1.4= 29 ton ) 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 =F301 yd' or *1.4= 421 ton plus 20% Loamy Cap: 39 ft. by 95 ft. 6" deep, plus 20% gives 82 yd' or *1.4= 115 ton 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 ft Perc 810 6/16/2018 igner Signature Company License# Date Property fawner / project: Property Address / PID: Parent matl"s: landscape position: soil survey map units: Soil Observation Log Owner Information Stonewood LLC Proposed Lot 4 PTD 4 021172323000 ti3N��%.SepticResource.com vers 12.4 Date 6/20/2018 Soil Survey Information ❑ refer to attached soil survey ❑� Till ❑ Outwash ❑ Lacustrine ❑ Alluvium ❑ Organic ❑ Bedrock ❑ summit ❑ Shoulder Side slope ❑ Toe slope L41 C2 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 I Oy4/8,1-6/1 Oy Finn Strong Blocky 20-24 Clay Loam <35 2.5y5/3 IOy4/8,1-6/l0y Firm Strong Blockv <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive Comments: Proposed Lot 4 PIIS # 0211723230006 Soil Lo #2 0 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 1Oyr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 6-16 Clay Loam <35 l Oyr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 16-24 Clay Loam <35 1Oyr5/4 I Oy4/8,1-6/1 Oy Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blockv >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 #3 ❑ 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 1Oyr4/2 Friable Moderate Iiio':i« 6-18 Loam <35 1Oyr5/4 Friable Strong 131ockN. 18-24 Clay Loam <35 1Oyr5/4 IOy4/8,1-6/1Oy Firm 5II.0»lu 131uckN <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular block\ >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky >50 ftrm moderate prismatic platy rigid I strong massive 1 hereby certify this work was completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local red's. Rusty Olson's Soil & Perc 810 esigner Signature Company License # posed Lot 4 PID # 0211723230006 Soil Log #4 ❑ Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 993.3 Depth to SHWT 18 inches 7th (in) Texture fragment % matrix color redox color consistence grade sh, 0-6 Topsoil <35 10yr4/2 Friable Moderate Bl icl, 6-18 I Loam I <35 I 10yr5/4 le IStrong 1131ocky 18-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1 -6/10y Friable Firm Strong Blocky Clay Loam <35 435 Friable Strong loose loose single grain = 35 10yr5/4 35-50 Firm Strong Blocky fi-iable weak granular blocky 2.5y5/3 IOy4/8,1-6/IOy X50 Strong Blocky. finn moderate prismatic plan loose loose single grain rigid strong massive friable weak <35 >50 loose loose single grain moderate prismatic platy 35-50 friable weak granular blocky massive >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid Strong massive 'roposed Lot 4 PID # 0211723230006 Soil Log #5 Q Boring ❑ pit Elevation 989.6 Depth to SHWT 14 inches Depth (in) Texture frag meet % matrix enlor ,•arinv rninr IAY - +®nnn � L 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 I Oy4/8,1-6/10y Firm Strong Blocky 20-24 Cla\ I:uaw <35 2.5y5/3 IOy4/8,1-6/IOy Firm Strong Blocky. <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular hl cky >50 firrn moderate prismatic platy rigid Strong massive I hereby certifjy this work was completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local req's. Rusty Olson's Soil & Perc 810 esigner Signature Company License # Property Owner / project: Property Address / PID: Soil Observation Log Owner Information Stonewood LLC Proposed Lot 4 PILI # 021172323000 www.SepticResource.com vers 12.4 Date 6/20/2018 Soil Survey Inrformation ❑ refer to attached soil survey Parent matl's: 0 Till ❑ Outwash ❑ Lacustrine ❑ Alluvium ❑ Organic ❑ Bedrock landscape position: ❑ Summit ❑ Shoulder ❑ Side slope ❑ Toe slope soil survey map units: L41C2 slope 6-15 % direction- Linear -convex Soil Log #6 Depth (in) E Boring Texture ❑ pit fragment % Elevation matrix color 991.6 Depth redox color to SHWT consistence 18 inches shape grade 0-6 Topsoil <35 10yr4/2 Friable Moderate Blockv 6-18 Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Block% 18-24 Clay Loam <35 1Oyr5/4 IOy4/8,1-6/10y Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single erai 35-50 friable weak granular bluek\ >50 firm moderate prismatic plat) rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular block< >50 fit7n moderate prismatic plx, rigid strong massive Comments Soil Observation Log ivww.Sept icResource.com vers 124 Owner Information Property Owner / 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: ❑ Till ❑ Outwash ❑ Lacustrine ❑ Alluvium ❑ organic ❑ Bedrock landscape position: ❑ summit ❑ Shoulder 0 Side slope ❑ Toe slope p soil survey map units: L41 C`.2 slope 6-15 % direction- Linear -convex Soil Log #7 ❑ 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 1Oyr4/2 Friable Moderate Block` 6-18 Clay Loam <35 I Oyr5/4 Friable Strong Block 18-24 Clay Loam <35 1Oyr5/4 I Oy4/8,1-6/1 Oy Finn Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky X50 firm moderate prismatic plate rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky, >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive Comments: Proposed Lot 4 PID # 0211723230006 Soil Log #8 ❑ Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 993.0 Depth to SHWT 18 Depth (in) Texture fragment % matrix color redox color consistence grade 0-6 Topsoil <.1 1Oyr4/2 Friable Moderate inches shape; Block\ 6-18 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong BlockN 18-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 I Oy4/8,1-6/1 Oy Finn Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single gain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35 - 50 friable weak Qranular blocky >50 firrt moderate prismatic plat), rigid strong massive Proposed Lot 4 PID # 0211723230006 Soil Log #9 Boring ❑ Pit Elevation 995.9 Depth to SHWT 16 inches Depth (in) Texture fragment % matrix color redox color consistence grade shape 0-6 Topsoil <35 1Oyr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 6-16 Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 16-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/1Oy Firm Strong Bloc;% <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single gain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firli moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive I hereby certif, this work was completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local reqs. Rusty Olson's Soil & Perc 810 signer Signature Company License # Proposed Lot 4 PID # 0211723230006 Soil Log #10 ❑ 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 6-1 S Loam .35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Blocky 13-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/l0y Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocks >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid Strong 5 massive <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular bloL:h >50 firm moderate prismatic plat} rigid strong massive Proposed Lot 4 PID # 0211723230006 Soil Log 411 ❑� Boring ❑ 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 Block. I6-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/l0y Firm Strong Blocky <35 l loose loose single �!ra141 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 plat.% rigid strong massive I hereby° certify this work was completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local reqs. Rusty Olson's Soil & Perc 810 signer Signature Company License ii Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 10:50 A.M. On 6126118 Location: Proposed lot 4 PID #0211723230006 Hole number: 1 Date hole was prepared: 6125118 Depth of hole bottom i12"_ 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 6125/18 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 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 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"i inches, Diameter of hole 6°° inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-6 Topsail 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 6/25/18 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 11:17 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 Pere. starting at 10:50 A.M. On 6126118 Location: Proposed lot 4 PID #0211723230006 Hole number: 3 Date hole was prepared: 6125118 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 6125118 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 Fime Time Depth Drop in H2O Pere 11:16 11:31 6" 4.5 3.3 11:36 11:51 6" 4.3 3.4 12:06 1221 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 6126/18 Location: Proposed lot 4 PID #0211723230006 Hole number: 4 Date hole was prepared: 6125118 Depth of hole bottom _12"_ inches, Diameter of hole 6"_ inches. Soil data from test hole: Depth, inches Soil texture 0-6 Topsoil 1 0yr412 6-12 Loam 10yr514 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches.- Date nches:Date of initial water filling 6125118 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 1115 11:30 6" 5.5 2.7 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 6/28118 Location: Proposed Lot 4 PID # 0211723230006 Hole number: 5 Date hole was prepared: 6127118 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 10yr514 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6127118 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 -ime 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 10 r412 [•'1S% p Y Clay loam 10yr514 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 ime i ime Uepth 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.I.A. Rusty Olson's--Soil and Percolation Testing Joseph J. Olson--MPCA License #810 11481 Riverview Rd. NE, Hanover, MN 55341 July 4, 2018 (763) 498-8779 fax (763) 498-8290 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 1, 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 verforations 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 I iLN OO003'J2"' 2011 purple code Mound Design www.SepticResource.cam (vers 15 91 Property Owner: Stonewood LLC. Date: 6/18/2018 Site Address: Proposed Lot 5 PID: 0211723230006 Comments: Site A instructions: 0 = enter data = adjust if desired 0 = computer calculated - DO NOT CHANGE! I,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 a) 2250 Gat 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 c1) 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) Lend feed manifo(d connection 9) laterals 60,5 feet long 21.0 perfs / lateral 63 perfs total (1/2 a perf means the first pert starts at the middle feed manifold) 9) 7/32 inch perfs at feet residual head gives 0.56 gpm flow rate per perforation for this perf size Ft spacing, Ft pipe size on line 12, max perfs/latera( = F-30-1, line #8 must be less - OK 10) 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 iii feet of 2.0 inch supply line leads to ##### gallons of drainback volume (Tip: "top feed" manifold to control the drainback) lar ###### gallons TOTAL pump out volume (treatment + drainback) i 5 feet vertical lift from pump to mound laterals, leads to a: fi(1) 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 Mhrs min ON (confirm pump rate with drawdown (this delivers Average flow, =70% of Peak design flow) OFF test and adjust as necessary) iy 12 inches from bottom of tank to "Pump OFF" float inches from bottom of tank to "Pump ON" float, or 12 inches to "Timer ON" float if time dosed ^_i ) ###### inches from bottom of tank to "Hi Level" float, or ##### inches to "Hi LeveC float if time dosed °_i ###### gallons reserve capacity (after High Level Alarm is activated) -) 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 1 2.7 24) 15 percent site slope (0-20% range) 15 (% downslope site slope, if different than upslope) 2,) 22 inches, or 1.8 ft. to Redox or other limiting condition (need at least 12" to be a Type 1) Treatment zone contains=inches of 0% soil credit, and =inches of 50% soil credit. Giving a: 1-61 inch, or 1.2 ft. Sand Lift Mound CRITICAL FOR FUTURE CERTIFICATIONS!!! 27i 27.0 ft.Total ABSORPTION width (with sand beyond rockbed as follows:) '-si 0.0 ft. upslope and sideslope 17,0 ft. Downslope Individual slope ratios give BERM widths (topsoil beyond rockbed) of: ?7i 4:1 upslope ratio 8 ft. upslope berm 30i 4:1 sideslope 19 ft. sideslope berms 31 3:1 downslope 36 ft. downslope berm 3.5-1 31) Overall Dimensions: 10.0 ft. wide by 62.5 ft. long Rock bed 54 ft. wide by 1 101 1 ft. long Mound footprint U,nslotie berm on 4" inspection pipe r— 18" cover on top 1.2 Clean sand lift D-8 Depth to Limiting 1 —•-- ----_— Absorption Width Downslope berm 1 36 12" cover on sides (6" loamy cap &6" topsoil) Limfting 27.01 Mote: For 0 to 1% slopes, Abso,ption Width is measured from the 23edequally in both directions. For slopes ?1%, Absorption Width is measured downhill from the upslope edge of the Bed. 31 Rock Bed: 10.0 ft. by 62.5 ft. by 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 yd' or *1.4= 416 ton plus 20% Loamy Cap: 50 ft. by 97 ft. 6" deep, plus 20% gives Topsoil: 54 ft. by 101 ft. 6" deep, plus 20% gives fy that I have completed this work in accordance with all a igner Signature Rusty Olson"s Soil Et Perc Company 108 yd' or *1.4= 151 ton 121 yd' or*1.4= 169 ton Le ordinances, rules and laws, 810 License# 6/1R/7nlR va Le 2411purptecode Mound Design www.SepticResource.cam (vers 15.2) Property Owner: Stonewood LLC. Date: 6/16/2018 Site Address: Proposed Lot 5 PID: 0211723230006 Comments: Site B instructions: E-7 =enter data = adjust if desired = computer calculated - DO NOT CHANGE! bedroom Type Residential System 750 GPD design flow Yes Garbage disposal or pumped to septic 50% larger tank with multiple comp/tanks 4r 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 712-1req'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 9) laterals 60.5 feet long 21.0 perfs / lateral 63 perfs total (112 a perf means the first perf starts at the middle feed manifold) 9) 7132 inch perfs at feet residual head gives 0.56 gpm flow rate per perforation for this perf size Et spacing, it pipe size on fine 12, max perfs/lateral = 30 line #8 must be less - OK ire, 4.0 doses per day ( 4 minimum) 11 ) 188 gallons per dose (treatment volume) 2.00 5x 121 2.00 inch diameter laterals must be used to meet 'Ax pipe volume" requirement 2.00 3x 13feet 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) 151 feet vertical lift from pump to mound laterals, leads to a: ib1 36 GPM @ ##### feet of head, Pump requirement (note: >50gpm may require an extra 3-6' of head) 17i 750 gal Dose tank (code minimum) 1250 gal Dose tank (design size / LUG req'd) at 25.49 gpi leads to a ig1 ###### 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) 1'1 12 inches from bottom of tank to "Pump OFF" float 2u7 ###### 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) 23i 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 2�r 15 percent site slope (0-20% range) 15 (% downslope site slope, if different than upslope) 15) 14 inches, or 1.2 ft. to Redox or other limiting condition (need at least 12" to be a Type 1) Treatment zone contains7oinches of 0% soil credit, and F Qinches of 50% soil credit. Giving a: ,c, 22 inch, or 1.8 ft. Sand Lift Mound CRITICAL FOR FUTURE CERTIFICATIONS!!! 7, 27.0 ft.Total ABSORPTION width (with sand beyond rockbed as follows:) 1siF0.0 ft. upslope and sideslope 17.0 ft. Downslope Individual slope ratios give BERM widths (topsoil beyond rockbed) of: syr 4:1 upslope ratio 10 ft. upslope berm _ni 3;1 sides(ope 16 ft. sideslope berms 1) 3:1 downslope 41 ft. downslope berm Overall Dimensions: Uvslove berm ting Cond 10.0 ft. wide by 62.5 ft. long Rock bed 61 ft. wide by 95 ft. long Mound footprint 4" inspection pipe r— 18" cover- on top W 1 g Clean sand lift 1Depth to Limiting t-----4._ -----...._–_–_ Absorption Width berm 1 41 12" cover on sides (6" loamy cap & 6" topsoil) 27.0 _-_–_._.i-- ---- – Nate: For Q to 1% slopes, A&orption Width is measured from the cgedequally in both directions. For slopes >1%, Ahsorption Width is measured downhill from the upslope edge of the Bed Rock Bed; 1D.0 ft. by 62.5 ft. by ®inches under pipe, plus 20% gives 21 yd' or *1.4= 29 ton 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.$ downslope + 20.9 ends + 54.$ under rock =340 yd' or *1.4= 47b ton plus 20% Loamy Cap: 57 ft. by 91 ft. 6" deep, plus 20% gives Topsoil: 61 ft. by 95 ft. 6" deep, plus 20% gives I hereby ce5ifythat I have completed this work in accordance with all igner Signature Rusty Olson"s Soil It Perc Company 115 yd'or*1.4= 161 ton 129 yd'or*1.4= 181 ton ordinances, rules and laws. 810 6/16/2018 License# Date Property Owner / project: Property Address / PID: Soil Observation Log Owner Information Stonewood LLC Proposed Lot 5 PTD 4 021172323000 www.SepticResource.com vers 12.4 Date 6/20/2018 Soil Survey Information ❑ refer to attached soil survey Parent matl"s: Q Till ❑ Outwash ❑ Lacustrine ❑ Alluvium ❑ Organic ❑ Bedrock Landscape position: ❑ Summit ❑ Shoulder ❑ Side slope ❑ Toe slope soil survey map units: L41 C'2 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 IOyr4/2 Friable Moderate Blocky 6-16 Sandy clay Loam I Oyr5/4 Friable Strong Rlocl,% 16-24 Loamy Sand =3 IOyr6/4 Friable Moderate Uniuular 24-28 Loamy Sand IOyr6/4 IOy4/8,1-6/IOy Friable Moderate ciranul<u 28-36 Loam <, 2.5y6/4 I Oy4/8,1-6/1 Oy Firm Strong Block} Comments: rroposecl Lot ) FID # 0211723230006 Soil Log 42 ❑ 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 13 "AN 16-22 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Nod,% 22-30 Clay Loam t0yr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/1Oy Firm Stroll- l3locky <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky >50 Finn moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive Proposed Lot 5 PID # 0211723230006 Soil Log #3 El 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 IOy4/8,1-6/10y Firm Strong Block} <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 plate rigid strong massive I hereby certify this work was completed in accordance with MN 7080 and any local reqs. Rusty Olson's Soil & Perc 810 �esner Signature Company License # Proposed Lot 5 PID # 0211723230006 Soil Log 44 0 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 1Oyr4/2 Friable Moderate Block% 4-14 Clay Loam 3 5 ION r5 4 Friable Strong Block• 14-24 Clay Loam <35 1Oyr5/4 10y4/8,1-6/1Oy Firm Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky >50 flrin moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocky >50 firm moderate prismatic plate rigid I strong massive Proposed Lot 5 PID # 0211723230006 Soil Log #5 0 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 10yr3/1 Friable Moderate Biockv 8-16 Clay Loam <35 IOyr4/3 Friable Strong Block\ 16-24 Clay Loam <35 1Oyr5/4 Finn Strong iliock: 24-30 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 Finn 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 reqs. Rusty Olson`s Soil & Pere 810 esigner Signature Company License 9 Property Owner / project: Property Address / PID; Parent matl's: landscape position: soil survey map units: Soil Observation Log Owner Information Stonewood LLC Proposed Lot 5 PID 9 021172323000 wxn".Septic Resource. com vers 12.4 Date 6/20/2018 Soil Survey Information ❑ refer to attached soil survey 2] Till ❑ Outwash ❑ Lacustrine ❑ Alluvium ❑ Organic ❑ Bedrock ❑ Summit ❑ Shoulder 0 Side slope ❑ Toe slope L41C;2 L22E slope 15 % direction- Linear -convex Soil Log #6 21 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 - 10yr5/4 Friable Strong Block% 14-24 Clay Loam <35 10yr5/4 IOy4/8,1-6/l0y Finn Strong Blocky <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular bloekv >50 firm moderate prismatic platy rigid strong massive <35 loose loose single grain 35-50 friable weak granular blocks >SQ firm moderate prismatic plate rigid strong massive Comments: Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 8:45 A.M. On 6127118 Location: Proposed lot 5 PID #0211723230006 Hale number: 1 Date hole was prepared: 6/26118 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 Sandy 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 Mme Time Depth Drop in H2O Perc Rate 10:08 10:23 6" 2.7 5.7 10:30 10:45 6" 2.5 6.0 10:46 11:01 6" 2.5 6.0 AVERAGE PERC. RATE 5.9 MPI Percolation Test Data Sheet Lie,#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 8:45 A.M, On 6127118 Location: Proposed lot 5 PID #0211723230006 Hale number: 2 Date hole was prepared: 6/26118 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 i ime I ime 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 Mph Percolation Test Data Sheet Lic.#810 Percolating test readings made by: Rusty Olson's Perc. starting at 8:45 A.M. On 6127118 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 10yr412 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 6126/18 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 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 6127118 Location: Proposed lot 5 PID #0211723230006 Hale number: 4 Date hole was prepared: 6126118 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 10yr514 Method of scratching side wall: Knife Depth of gravel in bottom of hole 2 inches: Date of initial water filling 6126/18 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 10:11 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 Conservation Design Analysis Stonewood, LLC 387 Orono Orchard Road Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota AE Comm. #15136 -" June 21, 2018 Anderson EngineeriM Minnesota, LLC 13605 1 St Avenue North Plymouth, Minnesota 55441 763-412-4000 Main 763-412-4090 Fax A Service -Disabled Veteran -Owned Small Business STONEWOOD, LLC CONSERVATION DESIGN ANALYSIS Table of Contents ContactInformation.........................................................................................................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 JUNE 2018 STONEWOOD, LLC CONSERVATION DESIGN ANALYSIS Contact Information Prepared For: Prepared By: Stonewood, LLC 153 East Lake Street Wayzata, MN 55391 J. Sven Gustafson Phone: 952-930-3000 Email: sven stonewood.com 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(q)_ae-mn.com 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD ORONO, MN JUNE 2018 STONEWOOD, LLC Summary CONSERVATION DESIGN ANALYSIS ELEMENT IMPACT NOTE Rural Oasis Study None Not adjacent to City documented corridor. Construction of the cul-de-sac 3. will overlay the existing road and no new connection to Orono Orchard v/ 4. Road and associated vegetation clearing is required. Landcover Minor Will likely convert mapped "Forest' and "Planted or Cultivated Vegetation" v/ 6. 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 Minnetonka) 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: v/ 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 v/ 4. Augmentation and preservation of viewsheds including corridor enclosure and buffering ,/ 5. Preservation of views v/ 6. Preservation or reinterpretation of local landmarks 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD ORONO, MN JUNE 2018 STONEWOOD, LLC Background CONSERVATION DESIGN ANALYSIS 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 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. + r Al . ' -. i 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 in 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. I B4 CR 6 west ` -4- lag r ,� `r A. CR 6 east —� s C: Highway 12 City of 1 �� f .'...': W tertowr� i._: o �L,_.�--`,1 Lang Lake a rv7 - 1 , F. `° -� M A e3 S B ,Stubbs Ba L H: Fox qm Site Location ' , 5 Forest No"h �I'� Laky 1 ...ygrer ly� r ter J: North Shore NJ Figure 2. Rural Oasis Analysis Corridors 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD ORONO, MN JUNE 2018 6 STONEWOOD, LLC 2. Natural Resource Inventory CONSERVATION DESIGN ANALYSIS 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. Legend p cv 3,6t,aaly 4WW 1 Wodland -517066 shn-band Tdur CaiBlpms for Lw el 3 Land Cover r9___.G,_.m; l= &DWO He t7atom E3 70666 tv1DMasb" �] 10WO Arhdivaa SLataces aW mated uveas f QppO sparse ve,W.Wn CD2= 917600 wetter = 300 Fare$ 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD ORONO, MN r 0 2,2'Sn a.5(1D �.Uqi} Feet 1 inch equals 6,660 feet Figure 3. Land Cover Classification JUNE 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 Notes Basin 1 5 — Shallow, Open -water Duckweed Basin 2 1/6 — Seasonally Flooded Basin/Shrub-Carr Slender willow, reed canary grass, gray dogwood Basin 3 3/7 — Shallow marsh/hardwood swamp Wooly sedge, narrowleaf cattail, reed canary grass, box elder, green ash. 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. `�rJ jp�ppp �, t J� if �. ,✓!.. i , f�r � l r + r fi 1J r ffffJf� J � ❑ rJ J'reffr f +A I I �I� I I J rJllfff''rr�f��fJr+`�rJ'rJ � f � I fs rl IJ ffJJJ f f Jf J f I I AT _ J Jff�l J ' rJJ�JfJJJ A/!J ffrJJ fjJ `.I y IIIIYII}� R I .r f f rJ ,, I I TI -1 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 '�fri r rf r '+Id�T�f�f � + � ` � g .. °� � pI + I' `'�� - ° �`'�"'e�iw �r`o`�m��`M i•�'•',1. � i r y, i iii yrs J y Ilk' J Y 40 — 1 �r •� f �� � rr r ! f � r rJ 1 3+' it � �' I !_OY$�' `' • f, r1r I I= `�rJ jp�ppp �, t J� if �. ,✓!.. i , f�r � l r + r fi 1J r ffffJf� J � ❑ rJ J'reffr f +A I I �I� I I J rJllfff''rr�f��fJr+`�rJ'rJ � f � I fs rl IJ ffJJJ f f Jf J f I I AT _ J Jff�l J ' rJJ�JfJJJ A/!J ffrJJ fjJ `.I y IIIIYII}� R I .r f f rJ ,, I I TI -1 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. Lewd © city smundary ;steep str s atls " DNR $Mnlift and f takwal Areas "�&a Parks NaluraB Community CmIlly CanaeptUN GneerwW Corridor =H4h awlty adjmem Gfeenway corrmrs 111 nwh miry• CnfW NahWal Wd Baffi-Nat>gal COMILAVeS - urns lD Ext5tlrpg Wetlands 100 Ywv Fkmoain 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD ORONO, MN 0 2,250 OM 91ow Feet I inch "c ats 4.5X feet Figure 6. Conceptual Greenway Corridors 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 ,ureas with Potential for Rare Species City of Orono Land Cover Classtflcation and Natural Resources Inventory C31 a —, NKwxl Cam.aipAef Mln+oimh,l"br Rxr 4ws� Elm o^7, sWiw�rv0li.d . welaae wtl i wxs aw E.m � e�x• .vas swrrc rdaave �unr rr xaaamlq'aaced - CY�t manly-fM.Mun.�'1!. a aim S_5DD a ODD 19 Feel Figure 7. Natural Areas with Potential for Rare Species 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD ORONO, MN JUNE 2018 11 ®1 F.—pU,. s<f.v^ Cat waMlud-r�vWan_ �MYw Henn die L-. � hw 4nt� ylMi �!riH�aYwr �Ra ps-An moron: °ter #�YrvG s.�:]¢r. !��'9�1i "-rfiwc+a �N?W,ww�wr rysn-[�asma}5eohes -R'Lfi °wa sm>p atlPi �M1ti�imaGasNfWs M1'� �M.ex.wmraxsnary wen va en�_xwuyx M�ursxanc � fSY k a.Y ie-=- wo�rz TTI �Gtl b.�.v�>r,le�a -=- iia-a�d. a ODD 19 Feel 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. Lona -Term Preservation & Buver 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. 61il =g /-A' Benjamin J Hodapp, PWS Environmental Group Lead MN Certified Wetland Delineator #1016 Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC 387 ORONO ORCHARD ROAD ORONO, MN June 21, 2018 Date rA:- BENJAMIN a HO@APP 001832 JUNE 2018 13 APPENDIX A Proposed Development Site Plan Preliminary Plat and Permit Plans 077 GOOM-7NOIS NV7d 3115 .LN3ndO73,130 (73SOdOYd LD 10 1 Z15 .65 -------------------------------- ---------------------- 1. ONONO GVOcY Ap QVIO, �A N LN W - tuot cl, I JL, N-1 00 goi, ------ L 66%z M M.M" A' w B 8 z 30Vd 83AO:3 O 10-NOiS-9 S/ON IN IMbtlO Mn M H E -2 56 .2 - 0 MMI,J . 6 M 2 21� Hun. H- 0 -MIR :w 0 Q Mj. o 9 F- < < z o < ol < Z< < Z. o z z o a . . . >Ld cL o� 920 z LL q U) aW J --) o o z. Lu CL (DiI z o z W C) 0 < C-) W W C) Lil 0 C) LU cr� < z L#-- 0 P C) C) D x O w ( x x u) x Li 0 z x UX 0 0 LU I,-- co L o 1 2 P. 0 gRg! :51-, M:p H .a -Z -19; 1 z UNI-, 14L Z�- <�o Z. Z. 2� 1 9 6 i.- -WQ RH1 2, O 'zo -R! AR-G.�! o'LL, z -- a. x -. P ! 1 6, �oz Z (f) ;� Ld = aae F- a- 1.- a M E z 10 -1 x 5 zu -15. HM. NVId 311S (3NV!DNiavbi!o O 10-NOiS-9 mlfl R. QY M fl qNw HN 'S is gg 0-0 5 1 cml R 0 8 M2 gz� IH 2g — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 8ys Z-------------------------- 0 I Z V� ED A -7j Z, �z, 00 7T — — — — — — — — — — — — — 081 6e,scc� m N\PC6L9 1H — — — — dddms aNV 10d1NOO NOIS083 IO 10-NOiS-9L�j G/C ON --J M, Ml - I'M MH itlj� 2 MW �H2 t HU PHE 2 H M. L-LL— 0-0 HOd HMNF] — — — — — --- 4? -- — — — — — — \ ----------- Ei O,� w c) log of -Z— —J um e j LLJ V) In < 0 Of IL LL wl dVH:)a mz — — — — — — — — — — — S &Z� A� g of ------------ ivy A z v U) ol -I " LLJXA.\ N CL Ra V t CL Will SRON OS3/dddMS S11V13aEl 6O-NO1S-96 I fiH iM i�g I I I M I —M� jjmW- wm. u 2 1 . I r Hil LO L i M Nil it ill! I j2h NM Iffih F It HH, Nd H M'! I'WE H1, R E E gig H in H P.0 i 0H MH 12 gill ffid h u dilg H -i ,�H HiHi H RN HHH Rm. IMoog i- H P.9 N�[ MM g ond RMIN H -Hu.; 91 R9 d2�-; p.1 ;!HjP� 11RH HH, i NM PHU-, n qg P �,we N u -w a UNHHU ea Uji i gfimm RON 1; 1 In— -H� 1�1 I U MUM Hpfl N s1j"6 H 1- H fi�� h, fl i E=0�3 z WE �, . — - U .R.P g ffig M RUNH- 1w Mp H H �, �x HP 011. M RUN a €aH HIH gi PHU NVId IN3lN3!DVNVIN 831VMV4801S O 10-NO1S-9 ffl-94'i WH o L O. , HM Huffl Hm M j co 2 a- 0 LLJ CL 't) CL - - - - - - - - - - U\ V Mi jU I 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 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 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, T1 17N, 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 Cowardin Eggers &Reed Dominant Vegetation Size ID 39 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 PEM1 C/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, PEM1C) 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 Muske o, Blue Earth, and Houghton soils 100 Lester loam 0 Hamel, overwash-Hamel 45 Lester -Kilkenny complex 5 Muske o 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: jacobsonenv@msn.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)', 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. 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 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 Al 1 (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: jacobsonenv@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 PEM1C/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, PEM1C/PF01Ad, 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 F1 (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 A11 (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 PEM1C 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: jacobsonenv@msn.com 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. 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. I,r Professional Soil Scientist #30611 Professional Welland Scientist #1000 Wetland Delineator, Certified #1019 Associate Fisheries Scientist #A-171 Jacobson Environmental, PLLC, 05/30/2018 D°ate 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 387 Orono Orchard Rd S Go Maps Figure I Site Map Orono Country Club Woodhill Country Club 12 La,,,A CV - - - - - - - W-dhIII Aye 387 Orono Orchard Road South wcadnW Ry .h,,Te4inp Or Dlakwaan St Roger J Hawkinson Vacuum Cleaners Fcy - lwnd.le Rd iv 4-05 Your Boat Club j% Minnetonka Y �itench [qL Go gle 01 Q Map data @2018 Google 1000 ft Figure 2 NWI Map a 455700 44° 58'26'N I 44° 58'12" N I Soil Map—Hennepin County, Minnesota (Figure 3 Soils Map) 455750 455860 455850 455900 N M 456000 44° 58'26'N I 455700 455750 4558W 455850 455900 3 M Map Scale: 1:2,060 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Meters rn N 0 30 60 120 180 Feet 0 100 200 400 600 Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: LTM Zone 15N WGS84 Ul Natural Resources Web Soil Survey lim Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey 1 e 44° 58'12" N 456000 3 rn 5/29/2018 Page 1 of 3 Soil Map—Hennepin County, Minnesota Map Unit Legend Figure 3 Soils Map USDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/29/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 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 Lester loam, 10 to 22 percent L22E 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 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 3 Figure 4 PWI Map Map layers Miles Wetland Boundary Figure 6 Topographic Map 0 0.0275 0.055 01 0.165 Mlles Scale: 1:6,761 a 455700 44° 58'26'N I 1 a 44° 58'12" N Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Hennepin County, Minnesota (Figure 7 Hydric Rating Map) 455750 455800 455&50 455900 455950 N M 456000 44° 58'26'N I 455700 455750 455800 455850 455900 3 M Map Scale: 1:2,060 if printed on A portrait (8.5" x 11") sheet. Meters rn N 0 30 60 120 180 Feet 0 100 200 400 600 Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: LTM Zone 15N WGS84 Ul Natural Resources Web Soil Survey lim Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey e 44° 58'12" N 456000 3 rn 5/29/2018 Page 1 of 5 Hydric Rating by Map Unit—Hennepin County, Minnesota Hydric Rating by Map Unit Figure 7 Hydric Rating Map usDA Natural Resources Web Soil Survey 5/29/2018 Conservation Service National Cooperative Soil Survey Page 3 of 5 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 Lester loam, 10 to 22 0 4.2 22.7% L22E percent slopes L36A Hamel, overwash-Hamel 45 0.3 1.7% complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes L41 C2 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 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 KI 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 inches month: second prior month: A'R' following a monthly total indicates a provisional value derived from April month: February radar -based estimates. 2018 March 2018 20u 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) missing 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 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 v to 2018 • number of missing days allowed per month: 3 retrieve monthly data retrieve daily data results: Where indicated: Missing values are shown as 'm'. Days on which precip accumulated in the gage are shown as'J.'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 Target: T117 R23 S2 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'J.'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, T1 17N, R23W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): footslope Local relief (concave, convex, none): none Slope (%): 3 Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name Lester -Kilkenny complex 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? 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.) VhUh I A I IUN -- Use sclentltic names of plants. Dominance Test Worksheet Absolute Dominan Indicator 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: F 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 :53.0' 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 Surface Water (Al) loam 8-10 10YR3/2 100 High Water Table (A2) clay loam 10-24 10YR4/1 98 7.5YR4/6 2 C PL clay loam Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (61) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (132) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (64) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (135) *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Histisol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) X Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Gauge or Well Data (D9) Hydric soil present? Y Remarks: Field Observations: 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 (613) Surface Soil Cracks (136) High Water Table (A2) True Aquatic Plants (1314) Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (61) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (132) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (64) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (135) (C6) FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Water -Stained Leaves (69) 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, T1 17N, 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.) VhUh I A I IUN -- Use sclentltic names of plants. Dominance Test Worksheet Absolute Dominan Indicator 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 FAC: 100.00% (A/B) 0 = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub straturr (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 :53.0* 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 (Inches) Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type* Loc" Texture Remarks 0-2 10YR2/1 100 Aquatic Fauna (613) 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 Sediment Deposits (132) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (64) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils X Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (135) (C6) X FAC -Neutral Test (D5) *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Histisol (Al) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 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) _Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Gauge or Well Data (D9) Hydric soil present? Y Remarks: Field Observations: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) X Surface Water (Al) Aquatic Fauna (613) Surface Soil Cracks (136) X High Water Table (A2) X True Aquatic Plants (1314) Drainage Patterns (1310) X Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (61) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (132) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (64) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils X Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (135) (C6) X FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Water -Stained Leaves (69) 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, T1 17N, 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.) VhUh I A I IUN -- Use sclentltic names of plants. Dominance Test Worksheet Absolute Dominan Indicator 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 straturr (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: F 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 petiolate 10 N FAC X Dominance test is >50% 6 Pilea pumila 5 N FACW X Prevalence index is :53.0* 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 Surface Water (Al) loam 18-20 10YR2/1 100 High Water Table (A2) clay loam 20-24 10YR3/1 100 Saturation (A3) clay Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (61) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (132) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (64) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (135) (C6) *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Histisol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Water -Stained Leaves (69) Hydric soil present? N Remarks: Field Observations: 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 (613) Surface Soil Cracks (136) High Water Table (A2) True Aquatic Plants (1314) Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (61) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (132) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (64) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (135) (C6) X FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Water -Stained Leaves (69) 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, T1 17N, 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.) VhUh I A I IUN -- Use sclentltic names of plants. Dominance Test Worksheet Absolute Dominan Indicator 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 straturr (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: F 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 :53.0* 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 petiolata 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 Surface Water (Al) loam 4-18 10YR2/1 100 High Water Table (A2) clay loam 18-24 10YR4/2 98 7.5YR4/6 2 C PL clay loam Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (61) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (132) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (64) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils X Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (135) *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Histisol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) X Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Gauge or Well Data (D9) Hydric soil present? Y Remarks: Field Observations: 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 (613) Surface Soil Cracks (136) High Water Table (A2) True Aquatic Plants (1314) Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (61) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (132) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (64) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils X Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (135) (C6) X FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Water -Stained Leaves (69) 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, T1 17N, 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 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? 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.) VhUh I A I IUN -- Use sclentltic names of plants. Dominance Test Worksheet Absolute Dominan Indicator 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 Acer negundo 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 straturr (Plot size: 15' radius ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Rhamnus cathartics 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 petiolata 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 :53.0* 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 Surface Water (Al) clay loam 4-12 10YR2/1 100 High Water Table (A2) silty clay 12-18 10YR4/1 98 7.5YR4/6 2 C PL clay 18-24 10YR4/1 100 Dry -Season Water Table (C2) sand Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (132) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (64) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (135) *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Histisol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) X Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Gauge or Well Data (D9) Hydric soil present? Y Remarks: Field Observations: 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 (613) Surface Soil Cracks (136) High Water Table (A2) True Aquatic Plants (1314) Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (61) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (132) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (64) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (135) (C6) FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Water -Stained Leaves (69) 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, T1 17N, 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.) VhUh I A I IUN -- Use sclentltic names of plants. Dominance Test Worksheet Absolute Dominan Indicator 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 straturr (Plot size: 15' radius ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Rhamnus cathartics 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 :53.0* 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 Surface Water (Al) mucky peat 8-24 10YR2/1 100 X High Water Table (A2) loamy clay Drainage Patterns (1310) T Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (61) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (132) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (64) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils X Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (135) (C6) *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Histisol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) X Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): 7 -Water -Stained Leaves (69) Hydric soil present? Y Remarks: Field Observations: 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 (613) Surface Soil Cracks (136) X High Water Table (A2) True Aquatic Plants (1314) Drainage Patterns (1310) T Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (61) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (132) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (64) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils X Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (135) (C6) FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Gauge or Well Data (D9) 7 -Water -Stained Leaves (69) 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, T1 17N, 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.) VhUh I A I IUN -- Use sclentltic names of plants. Dominance Test Worksheet Absolute Dominan Indicator 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 saccharinum 5 N FACW Percent of Dominant Species 5 that are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 40.00% (A/B) 50 = 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 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: F 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 :53.0' 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 (Inches) Color (moist) % Redox Features Color (moist) % Type* Loc" Texture Remarks 0-12 10YR2/1 100 Aquatic Fauna (613) 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 Water Marks (61) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (132) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (64) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (135) (C6) FAC -Neutral Test (D5) *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Histisol (Al) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Stratified Layers (A5) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Matrix (F3) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) _Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Gauge or Well Data (D9) Hydric soil present? N Remarks: Field Observations: 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 (613) Surface Soil Cracks (136) High Water Table (A2) True Aquatic Plants (1314) Drainage Patterns (1310) Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (61) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (132) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (64) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (135) (C6) FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Water -Stained Leaves (69) 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, T1 17N, 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.) VhUh I A I IUN -- Use sclentltic names of plants. Dominance Test Worksheet Absolute Dominan Indicator 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 straturr (Plot size: 15' radius ) Prevalence Index Worksheet 1 Rhamnus cathartics 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: F 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 :53.0* 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 Surface Water (Al) mucky peat 6-18 10YR2/1 100 X High Water Table (A2) mucky clay 18-24 10YR2/2 100 X Saturation (A3) peat Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (61) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (132) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (64) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils X Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (135) (C6) *Type: C = Concentration, D = Depletion, RM = Reduced Matrix, MS = Masked Sand Grains. **Location: PL = Pore Lining, M = Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: Histisol (Al) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (Al2) _Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Stripped Matrix (S6) X Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils: Coast Prairie Redox (A16) (LRR K, L, R) Dark Surface (S7) (LRR K, L) Iron -Manganese Masses (F12) (LRR K, L, R) Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12) Other (explain in remarks) *Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and weltand hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Water -Stained Leaves (69) Hydric soil present? Y Remarks: Field Observations: 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 (613) Surface Soil Cracks (136) X High Water Table (A2) True Aquatic Plants (1314) Drainage Patterns (1310) X Saturation (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (Cl) Dry -Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (61) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (132) (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (133) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (64) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils X Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (135) (C6) X FAC -Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (137) Thin Muck Surface (C7) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (138) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Water -Stained Leaves (69) 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 rs - I 3 �y r -- _ +!"', N41 4 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@cbbumet.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 1 1 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. Aquatic Resource ID (as noted on overhead view) Aquatic Resource Type (wetland, lake, tributary etc.) Type of Impact (fill, excavate, drain, or remove vegetation) Duration of Impact Permanent (P) or Temporary (T)1 Existing Plant Overall Size of Size of Community Aquatic Impactz Type(s) in Resource a Impact Area' County, Major Watershed #, and Bank Service Area # of Impact 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)'. 21mpacts 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". 4U se Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3rd Ed. as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp. 2. 5Refer 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 ❑ 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 1 1 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. ❑ 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 1 1 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act 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) ❑ Dcmcd 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 Name Title Katherine Sylvia Withdrawal (sq. ft. or nearest Signature Date Phone Number and E-mail .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: ❑ 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). ❑ 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 ❑ 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 ❑ 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 ❑ WD or WMO (if applicable): ® Applicant (notice only) and Landowner (if different): George Stickney- gttickney@cbburnet.com ® Members of the public who requested notice (notice only): Melanie Curtis, City of Orono- mcurtis(a,ci.orono.mn.us, Wayne Jacobson-jacobsonenv@msn.com ® Corps of Engineers Project Manager (notice only): Melissa Jenny - Melissa. m. j enny@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.nm.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: htlp:Hfiles.dnr.state.mn.us/aboutdnr/dnr_regions.pdf );,,For a list of Corps of Project Managers: www.=.usace.army.mil/re ug latoO /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 El BWSR Forms 7-1-10 Page 3 of 3 Figure 6 Topographic Map 0 0.0275 0.055 01 0.165 Mlles Scale: 1:6,761 Map layers Miles Wetland Boundary MINNEHAHA CREEK QUALITY OF WATER June 18, 2018 Proposed Subdivision: 387 Orono Orchard, Orono Rules Triggered: WATERSHED DISTRICT QUALITY OF LIFE Erosion Control, Wetland Protection and Stormwater Management Rules Stormwater Management: MCWD Stormwater Management Rule is triggered for land disturbance that creates new or replaces existing impervious surface and/or subdivides a parcel greater than one acre in size into three or more lots. For the purposes of determining treatment scope, the project is considered redevelopment. The project as proposed shows an increase in impervious surface greater than 50%. Therefore phosphorus, rate, and volume control is required for the entire site's impervious surface. Table 4: Stormwater management requirements for redevelopment resulting in an increase in impervious surface Site Size Site Disturbance Impervious Surface Increase Requirements Treatment Scope <_ 1 acre N/A N/A Incorporate 13MPs N/A < 50% increase in Additional impervious < 40% site impervious surface Phosphorus Control, surface Rate Control, and o >_ 50/ increase in Entire site's impervious disturbance Volume Control > 1 impervious surface surface acre Phosphorus Control, >_ 40% site Rate Control, and Entire site's impervious disturbance N/A Volume Control surface Volume control is achieved by abstraction of the first 1" of rainfall off the site's impervious surface. Phosphorous control is assumed to be achieved through the volume control. If abstraction of one 1" is not feasible an abstraction analysis must be provided that lists the variables limiting the feasibility of providing the required abstraction and the efforts undertaken to improve the feasibility of abstraction. If abstraction of 1 inch is not feasible, a half inch of abstraction shall be provided and phosphorus control should be provided as though an inch was abstracted. In that case, water quality modeling, such as P8 or MIDS should be submitted with a dummy model showing the phosphorus removal from infiltrating a 1 inch event over all of the impervious surface. We collaborate with public and private partners to protect and improve land and water for current and future generations. ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 15320 Minnetonka Boulevard, Minnetonka, MN 55345 • (952) 471-0590 • Fax: (952) 471-0682 • www.minnehahacreek.org MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT QUALITY OF WATERS QUALITY OF LIFE Rate control is achieved by demonstrating there is no increase in the 1, 10, & 100 year storm event. Since the final size and location of the homes is unknown, a concept stormwater management plan should be submitted based on anticipated home sizes and locations. That concept should be based on an estimated hardcover calculation including homes, driveways, and accessory structures. Individual permits will be required for the homes. If the final designs for the homes have more hardcover than the concept stormwater plan, modifications to the proposed stormwater facilities may be required. Wetland Protection: The buffer provision of the MCWD Wetland Protection rule is triggered whenever the Stormwater Management rule is triggered. Wetland buffers must be provided on that part of the wetland edge that is down gradient from the activity or construction. Wetland buffer widths are determined by the management class of the wetlands as shown in the table below: Management Class Base Buffer Width Minimum Applied Buffer Width Manage 3 20 feet 16 feet Manage 2 30 feet 24 feet Manage 1 40 feet 34 feet Preserve 75 feet 67 feet The Applied Buffer Width, the actual width of wetland buffer(s) required for a permitted project, shall be the Base Buffer Width as reduced by beneficial slope or soil conditions pursuant to the following formulas: For every 5 percent decrease in average buffer slope from 20 percent, the Base Buffer Width may be reduced 2 feet. 2. For every grade of Hydrologic Soil Group above Type D for the predominant buffer soil condition, the Base Buffer Width may be reduced 2 feet. Reductions for beneficial slope or soil conditions shall not reduce the buffer width to less than the applicable Minimum Applied Buffer Width. Buffer width may vary based on demonstrated site constraints, provided that a width of at least 50 percent of the Applied Buffer Width is maintained at all points, there is no reduction in total buffer area, and the buffer provides wetland and habitat protection at least equivalent to a buffer of uniform Applied Buffer Width. Buffer width averaging calculation will exclude any part of the buffer exceeding 200 percent of the Applied Buffer Width. The large wetland adjacent to Orono Orchard Road and the wetland on the northwestern corner of the property are classified as Preserve by the District's Functional Assessment of Wetlands, corresponding to a 75 foot base buffer width. The pond on the property was not included in the FAW. A brief review of the wetland from aerial photos and the submitted delineation report suggests that it is a Manage 1 wetland, or lower. A 40 foot buffer may be applied to that wetland, or a MnRAM could be conducted to determine the appropriate management class for the pond. We collaborate with public and private partners to protect and improve land and water for current and future generations. ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 15320 Minnetonka Boulevard, Minnetonka, MN 55345 • (952) 471-0590 • Fax: (952) 471-0682 • www.minnehahacreek.org MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT QUALITY OF WATER QUALITY OF LIFE Any buffer area that is disturbed by construction activities must be replanted with native vegetation according to an approved buffer restoration plan and have a minimum of five years of monitoring. Additional information regarding buffer vegetation requirements can be found in the attached wetland protection rule. An application for boundary and type concurrence was submitted to the District. That application is currently under review. Please note that review of the delineated boundaries may result in adjustment from the boundaries shown in the report and on the concept plan. Submittal Requirements: 1. Site plans, including: a. Existing and final grades b. Erosion and sediment control devices c. Wetland boundaries d. Wetland buffer locations i. Calculation of required and provided buffers if buffer averaging is proposed e. Wetland buffer sign locations i. Signs must be located at each property line and as needed to delineate the contour of the buffer, with a maximum spacing of 100 feet f. Proposed stormwater management facilities 2. Stormwater management report, including: a. Existing and proposed runoff rates for all down gradient property boundaries b. HydroCAD, or other appropriate, modeling for the 1, 10, and 100 year events c. Calculation of abstraction required and provided d. Calculations required by Appendix A of the Stormwater Management Rule, if applicable 3. Soil borings at the locations of all proposed stormwater BMPs to a depth of at least 5 feet below the bottom of the practice Additional submittal requirements may apply depending on proposed activities. See rule text for additional requirements. TimAlina- Upon submittal of a formal application, MCWD has 15 business days to deem an application complete or incomplete. If an incomplete letter is sent requesting more information, the "clock" stops. As such, the completeness of your application will largely determine the length of the review period. Once the application is deemed complete, MCWD has 60 calendar days to approve or deny the permit. After the application is complete, a 14 day public notice is sent to property owners within 600' of the project. If requested, the permit must go before the Board of Managers, which meets twice a month, on the 2nd & 4" Thursday. In the event that there are no comments, a Letter of Conditional Approval is sent outlining We collaborate with public and private partners to protect and improve land and water for current and future generations. ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 15320 Minnetonka Boulevard, Minnetonka, MN 55345 • (952) 471-0590 • Fax: (952) 471-0682 • www.minnehahacreek.org MINNEHAHA CREEK I QUALITY OF WATER WATERSHED DISTRICT QUALITY OF LIFE the remaining administrative items. Administrative items may include reimbursement of fees, NPIDES coverage card, financial assurance and a declaration for stormwater facilities and wetland buffers. Please do not hesitate to contact me at 952-641-4518 or eshowalter@minnehahacreek.org with questions as they arise. Sincerely, Elizabeth Showalter Permitting Technician CC: Melanie Curtis, City of Orono We collaborate with public and private partners to protect and improve land and water for current and future generations. 15320 Minnetonka Boulevard, Minnetonka, MN 55345 • (952) 471-0590 • Fax: (952) 471-0682 • www.minnehahacreek.org 387 Orono Orchard Stormwater Summary by Adam Parker, PE MPS 6-20-18 Lot 1 Drainage Summary Parcel Size Greater than 2 acres (proposed will be 2 acres or more) Additional Lots None Existing Structure on Lot No, only service road, currently registered as vacant lot per Hennepin County Proposed Impervious Surface including reconstructed road within parcel 0.25 acres % of Site 12.63% Area of newly created or expanded road within parcel 3000 sf Note: Additonal Storage or Treatment Area Added but not sized at this time due to City Entrance Configuration outside of parcel (transportation access) Lot 2 Drainage Summary (Stormwater Rate, Volume Required) Parcel Size Additional Lots Greater than 2 acres (proposed will be 2 acres or more) 2 triggers full treatment of impervious surface Proposed Impervious on Lot (including existing building and driveways, roads) 42415 sf Required Treatment ( 1 inch over impervious surface) 3534.6 cu ft Treatment Credits Tree Protection Areas (5% assumed over the boundaries shown on plan) 93.8 with 5% canopy factor applied Rain Garden 1 depth 992.0 - 992.90 (Surface Infiltration Basin 3723 cu ft (fully infiltrates assuming 0.3 in/hr drawdown) Total Proposed Storage 3816.8 cu ft Stormwater Rates Existing Proposed 1 -year 0.8 0.6 10 -year 3.2 1.2 100 -year 9.2 6.2 note, the RG -1 starting elevation is above infiltration volume 11000 sf of lot one is impervious 2 ac lot Existing - Lot 2 area S4 Reach on [l Link 5000 sf of rearyard roof included for proposed drainage area PR Pr osed - Subdivided 3P Lot 2 Area RG1 prepared by Adam Parker PE (MN,WI,TX,BC,AB) 387 -Orono Orchard Road -Drainage GRAYS 24 -hr S1 1 -yr Rainfall=2.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 6/20/2018 HvdroCADO 10.00-11 s/n 01636 © 2014 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 2 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 481 points Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -Q Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment EX: Existing - Lot 2 area Runoff Area=155,473 sf 11.40% Impervious Runoff Depth>0.43" Flow Length=850' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=30.1 min CN=65 Runoff=0.78 cfs 0.127 of Subcatchment PR: Proposed - Runoff Area=160,473 sf 26.43% Impervious Runoff Depth>0.74" Flow Length=850' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=25.6 min CN=71 Runoff=1.79 cfs 0.227 of Pond 3P: RG1 Peak Elev=993.67' Storage=7,437 cf Inflow=1.79 cfs 0.227 of Outflow=0.62 cfs 0.212 of Total Runoff Area = 7.253 ac Runoff Volume = 0.354 of Average Runoff Depth = 0.59" 80.97% Pervious = 5.873 ac 19.03% Impervious = 1.380 ac prepared by Adam Parker PE (MN,WI,TX,BC,AB) 387 -Orono Orchard Road -Drainage GRAYS 24 -hr S1 1 -yr Rainfall=2.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 6/20/2018 HvdroCADO 10.00-11 s/n 01636 © 2014 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 3 Summary for Subcatchment EX: Existing - Lot 2 area Runoff = 0.78 cfs @ 12.42 hrs, Volume= 0.127 af, Depth> 0.43" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -Q, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs GRAYS 24 -hr S1 1 -yr Rainfall=2.50" Area (sf) CN DescriDtion 12,609 98 Existing House and Driveway 5,109 98 Existing Street on Lot 137,755 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 155,473 65 Weighted Average 137,755 88.60% Pervious Area 17,718 11.40% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 30.1 850 0.0200 0.47 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment EX: Existing - Lot 2 area Hydrograph 0.85 � 0.075 hkA�124-1 r_ 54 11�/rL 0.78 cfs 0.7-/Lka�nf�11�4.56 — I -i L 0.65- - �_piQolf ►r a�1155i,473�f1 0.55 _'i' _I#_�- yq1(� /p= ..�7t-af 3 045 �oill p �V. J 656 a 0.35 low -Len `� 0.3 [0 p 0.25-/tc 36_11 niirtL 1 -L A E 0.5 W6I5 T 1 -T o .. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) ❑Runoff prepared by Adam Parker PE (MN,WI,TX,BC,AB) 387 -Orono Orchard Road -Drainage GRAYS 24 -hr S1 1 -yr Rainfall=2.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 6/20/2018 HvdroCADO 10.00-11 s/n 01636 © 2014 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 4 Summary for Subcatchment PR: Proposed - Subdivided Lot 2 Area Runoff = 1.79 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 0.227 af, Depth> 0.74" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -Q, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs GRAYS 24 -hr S1 1 -yr Rainfall=2.50" Area (sf) CN DescriDtion 15,165 98 Revised Street Section - Expanded Per Orono Requirements 4,141 98 New Driveway for New Structures 10,500 98 New Structures 12,609 98 Existing House and Driveway - No alteration 118,058 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 160,473 71 Weighted Average 118,058 73.57% Pervious Area 42,415 26.43% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 25.6 850 0.0200 0.55 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment PR: Proposed - Subdivided Lot 2 Area Hydrograph 2 1 1 1 79 cfs GRAYS 2�-hlr S�1 11 -yr kailnfall=21.50" 1 Runoff Area=160,473 sf Runoff Vollumer=9.2?71 aid 3 1'Ia�a# Dep ti>I0 � low Length -850' �Io1pe=0.0200 tc125.6 niin I (;N=71 1 1 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) ❑Runoff prepared by Adam Parker PE (MN,WI,TX,BC,AB) 387 -Orono Orchard Road -Drainage GRAYS 24 -hr S1 1 -yr Rainfall=2.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 6/20/2018 HvdroCADO 10.00-11 s/n 01636 © 2014 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 5 Summary for Pond 3P: RG1 Inflow Area = 3.684 ac, 26.43% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 0.74" for 1 -yr event Inflow = 1.79 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume= 0.227 of Outflow = 0.62 cfs @ 12.89 hrs, Volume= 0.212 af, Atten= 66%, Lag= 34.8 min Primary = 0.62 cfs @ 12.89 hrs, Volume= 0.212 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Starting Elev= 993.00' Surf.Area= 4,791 sf Storage= 3,723 cf Peak Elev= 993.67' @ 12.89 hrs Surf.Area= 6,231 sf Storage= 7,437 cf (3,714 cf above start) Plug -Flow detention time= 319.0 min calculated for 0.127 of (56% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 84.2 min ( 897.0 - 812.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 992.00' 27,710 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 992.00 2,655 0 0 996.00 11,200 27,710 27,710 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 993.00' 6.0" Vert. 6" Tile Outlet with filter rock section outlet C= 0.600 #2 Primary 995.50' Emergency Overflow, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28) Head (feet) 0.00 0.50 Width (feet) 8.00 16.00 Primary OutFlow Max=0.62 cfs @ 12.89 hrs HW=993.67' (Free Discharge) 11=6" Tile Outlet with filter rock section outlet (Orifice Controls 0.62 cfs @ 3.13 fps) 2=Emergency Overflow ( Controls 0.00 cfs) prepared by Adam Parker PE (MN,WI,TX,BC,AB) 387 -Orono Orchard Road -Drainage GRAYS 24 -hr S1 1 -yr Rainfall=2.50" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 6/20/2018 HvdroCAD® 10.00-11 s/n 01636 © 2014 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pace 6 3 1 0 LL Pond 3P: RG1 Hydrograph 1.79 Ilnilo�v'Ai ea=I 3'6641 a cfs Delay bl w *93.67'1 t6ra6e: 7tA71 cif 0.62 cfs �IIIIII� 1111111 IIIIIIIII _IIIIIIIII IIII'Illl 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Inflow p Primary prepared by Adam Parker PE (MN,WI,TX,BC,AB) 387 -Orono Orchard Road -Drainage GRAYS 24 -hr S1 10 -yr Rainfall=4.29" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 6/20/2018 HvdroCADO 10.00-11 s/n 01636 © 2014 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 7 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 481 points Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -Q Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment EX: Existing - Lot 2 area Runoff Area=155,473 sf 11.40% Impervious Runoff Depth>1.31" Flow Length=850' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=30.1 min CN=65 Runoff=3.22 cfs 0.388 of Subcatchment PR: Proposed - Runoff Area=160,473 sf 26.43% Impervious Runoff Depth>1.77" Flow Length=850' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=25.6 min CN=71 Runoff=4.95 cfs 0.544 of Pond 3P: RG1 Peak Elev=994.59' Storage=14,009 cf Inflow=4.95 cfs 0.544 of Outflow=1.09 cfs 0.521 of Total Runoff Area = 7.253 ac Runoff Volume = 0.932 of Average Runoff Depth = 1.54" 80.97% Pervious = 5.873 ac 19.03% Impervious = 1.380 ac prepared by Adam Parker PE (MN,WI,TX,BC,AB) 387 -Orono Orchard Road -Drainage GRAYS 24 -hr S1 10 -yr Rainfall=4.29" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 6/20/2018 HvdroCADO 10.00-11 s/n 01636 © 2014 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 8 Summary for Subcatchment EX: Existing - Lot 2 area Runoff = 3.22 cfs @ 12.42 hrs, Volume= 0.388 af, Depth> 1.31" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -Q, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs GRAYS 24 -hr S1 10 -yr Rainfall=4.29" Area (sf) CN DescriDtion 12,609 98 Existing House and Driveway 5,109 98 Existing Street on Lot 137,755 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 155,473 65 Weighted Average 137,755 88.60% Pervious Area 17,718 11.40% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 30.1 850 0.0200 0.47 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment EX: Existing - Lot 2 area Hydrograph 3.2;c;f s RA' YS 24h'r � 11AD--y 3 kailnfall=41,2§� I I I Runoff Area�=155A73 V Runoff Vglune=Q.388i aid_ 2- - Dept>1. 1" �,,unoff wLn h -I ,ILL e t 850 �Iolpe=0.0 Ob tc=30.11 m i nl- -1 GN=65 /////////////////////////% /////////////////%/////// ❑Runoff prepared by Adam Parker PE (MN,WI,TX,BC,AB) 387 -Orono Orchard Road -Drainage GRAYS 24 -hr S1 10 -yr Rainfall=4.29" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 6/20/2018 HvdroCADO 10.00-11 s/n 01636 © 2014 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 9 Summary for Subcatchment PR: Proposed - Subdivided Lot 2 Area Runoff = 4.95 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 0.544 af, Depth> 1.77" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -Q, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs GRAYS 24 -hr S1 10 -yr Rainfall=4.29" Area (sf) CN DescriDtion 15,165 98 Revised Street Section - Expanded Per Orono Requirements 4,141 98 New Driveway for New Structures 10,500 98 New Structures 12,609 98 Existing House and Driveway - No alteration 118,058 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 160,473 71 Weighted Average 118,058 73.57% Pervious Area 42,415 26.43% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 25.6 850 0.0200 0.55 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment PR: Proposed - Subdivided Lot 2 Area Hydrograph I I I ❑Runoff 5 '4.95 cfs 6RA4 S 124hr S1'10 -yr kailn6ll�:41.20" l 4 Runoff Area -160,473 sf Runoff VolluLhme=Q.5441 aiJ 1 3' �,,unoff Deiptl ">I1.177 w Len th= , 2 I� - 850 �ope 00 0� fc=�2�.61 rainI 1 GW=71 D 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) prepared by Adam Parker PE (MN,WI,TX,BC,AB) 387 -Orono Orchard Road -Drainage GRAYS 24 -hr S1 10 -yr Rainfall=4.29" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 6/20/2018 HvdroCADO 10.00-11 s/n 01636 © 2014 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 10 Summary for Pond 3P: RG1 Inflow Area = 3.684 ac, 26.43% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 1.77" for 10 -yr event Inflow = 4.95 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 0.544 of Outflow = 1.09 cfs @ 13.06 hrs, Volume= 0.521 af, Atten= 78%, Lag= 43.9 min Primary = 1.09 cfs @ 13.06 hrs, Volume= 0.521 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Starting Elev= 993.00' Surf.Area= 4,791 sf Storage= 3,723 cf Peak Elev= 994.59' @ 13.06 hrs Surf.Area= 8,179 sf Storage= 14,009 cf (10,286 cf above start) Plug -Flow detention time= 231.3 min calculated for 0.435 of (80% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 103.3 min ( 915.5 - 812.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 992.00' 27,710 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 992.00 2,655 0 0 996.00 11,200 27,710 27,710 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 993.00' 6.0" Vert. 6" Tile Outlet with filter rock section outlet C= 0.600 #2 Primary 995.50' Emergency Overflow, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28) Head (feet) 0.00 0.50 Width (feet) 8.00 16.00 Primary OutFlow Max=1.09 cfs @ 13.06 hrs HW=994.59' (Free Discharge) 11=6" Tile Outlet with filter rock section outlet (Orifice Controls 1.09 cfs @ 5.57 fps) 2=Emergency Overflow ( Controls 0.00 cfs) prepared by Adam Parker PE (MN,WI,TX,BC,AB) 387 -Orono Orchard Road -Drainage GRAYS 24 -hr S1 10 -yr Rainfall=4.29" Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 6/20/2018 HvdroCAD® 10.00-11 s/n 01636 © 2014 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pace 11 3 3 0 LL il Pond 3P: RG1 Hydrograph 4.95 cfs 11nilo�v'Ai ea -3'6641 a �tbra�e�1 �,bd9 �Cfl 14 1 --A I 11111111111 11111111111 1.09 cfs II l l IIIIIIIIII 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Inflow 0 Primary prepared by Adam Parker PE (MN,WI,TX,BC,AB) 387 -Orono Orchard Road -Drainage GRAYS 24 -hr S1 100 -yr Rainfall= 7.40 " Prepared by {enter your company name here) Printed 6/20/2018 HvdroCAD® 10.00-11 s/n 01636 @2014 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 12 Time span=0.00-24.00 hrs, dt=0.05 hrs, 481 points Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -Q Reach routing by Stor-Ind+Trans method - Pond routing by Stor-Ind method Subcatchment EX: Existing - Lot 2 area Runoff Area=155,473 sf 11.40% Impervious Runoff Depth>3.45" Flow Length=850' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=30.1 min CN=65 Runoff=9.17 cfs 1.025 of Subcatchment PR: Proposed - Runoff Area=160,473 sf 26.43% Impervious Runoff Depth>4.07" Flow Length=850' Slope=0.0200 '/' Tc=25.6 min CN=71 Runoff=11.84 cfs 1.251 of Pond 3P: RG1 Peak Elev=995.78' Storage=25,269 cf Inflow=11.84 cfs 1.251 of Outflow=6.19 cfs 1.212 of Total Runoff Area = 7.253 ac Runoff Volume = 2.276 of Average Runoff Depth = 3.76" 80.97% Pervious = 5.873 ac 19.03% Impervious = 1.380 ac prepared by Adam Parker PE (MN,WI,TX,BC,AB) 387 -Orono Orchard Road -Drainage GRAYS 24 -hr S1 100 -yr Rainfall= 7.40 " Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 6/20/2018 HvdroCADO 10.00-11 s/n 01636 © 2014 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 13 Summary for Subcatchment EX: Existing - Lot 2 area Runoff = 9.17 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 1.025 af, Depth> 3.45" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -Q, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs GRAYS 24 -hr S1 100 -yr Rainfall=7.40" Area (sf) CN DescriDtion 12,609 98 Existing House and Driveway 5,109 98 Existing Street on Lot 137,755 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 155,473 65 Weighted Average 137,755 88.60% Pervious Area 17,718 11.40% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 30.1 850 0.0200 0.47 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment EX: Existing - Lot 2 area Hydrograph 10-L9.17 cfs 9 ' 6RA)�S 24 -hr S11100 -yr 8 �I kai�nf 11�7L4(rtl" fi 7 Runoff Area=155;473 V I - _ 6 'f Yolum�=1.0?5fiafj off Depth>l4 5 i LL0 1 1en-g1th=8501 4 1 �lo�e�=�.010b r 3 1 fc: 3Af niin 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 CN�=6I5 1 1 1 1 1 1 -1 T 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) ❑ Runoff prepared by Adam Parker PE (MN,WI,TX,BC,AB) 387 -Orono Orchard Road -Drainage GRAYS 24 -hr S1 100 -yr Rainfall= 7.40 " Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 6/20/2018 HvdroCADO 10.00-11 s/n 01636 © 2014 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 14 Summary for Subcatchment PR: Proposed - Subdivided Lot 2 Area Runoff = 11.84 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 1.251 af, Depth> 4.07" Runoff by SCS TR -20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted -Q, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs GRAYS 24 -hr S1 100 -yr Rainfall=7.40" Area (sf) CN DescriDtion 15,165 98 Revised Street Section - Expanded Per Orono Requirements 4,141 98 New Driveway for New Structures 10,500 98 New Structures 12,609 98 Existing House and Driveway - No alteration 118,058 61 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG B 160,473 71 Weighted Average 118,058 73.57% Pervious Area 42,415 26.43% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 25.6 850 0.0200 0.55 Lag/CN Method, Subcatchment PR: Proposed - Subdivided Lot 2 Area Hydrograph 13 _T T_ T I I _F I 11.8412 cfs 11 RAS 12�-hlr � 11 0-jf 1- 10 �I ailnf�ll 7.40" - —I -I- 9 adoff Area=160,473 # I 8 up off Ilu1n�=j .11__afj 0 7 ° Pept�>�.Q7� - 6I w nth= ,� 5 I l� e 8501 S� 4p�� QQ 4 1 Tc;�2..61 xiin_ 1 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I� + 14 �- I� 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) ■Runoff prepared by Adam Parker PE (MN,WI,TX,BC,AB) 387 -Orono Orchard Road -Drainage GRAYS 24 -hr S1 100 -yr Rainfall= 7.40 " Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 6/20/2018 HvdroCADO 10.00-11 s/n 01636 © 2014 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 15 Summary for Pond 3P: RG1 Inflow Area = 3.684 ac, 26.43% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 4.07" for 100 -yr event Inflow = 11.84 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume= 1.251 of Outflow = 6.19 cfs @ 12.72 hrs, Volume= 1.212 af, Atten= 48%, Lag= 24.5 min Primary = 6.19 cfs @ 12.72 hrs, Volume= 1.212 of Routing by Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-24.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Starting Elev= 993.00' Surf.Area= 4,791 sf Storage= 3,723 cf Peak Elev= 995.78' @ 12.72 hrs Surf.Area= 10,724 sf Storage= 25,269 cf (21,546 cf above start) Plug -Flow detention time= 197.0 min calculated for 1.127 of (90% of inflow) Center -of -Mass det. time= 119.3 min ( 928.3 - 809.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 992.00' 27,710 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic)Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq -ft) (cubic -feet) (cubic -feet) 992.00 2,655 0 0 996.00 11,200 27,710 27,710 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 993.00' 6.0" Vert. 6" Tile Outlet with filter rock section outlet C= 0.600 #2 Primary 995.50' Emergency Overflow, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28) Head (feet) 0.00 0.50 Width (feet) 8.00 16.00 Primary OutFlow Max=6.12 cfs @ 12.72 hrs HW=995.78' (Free Discharge) 11=6" Tile Outlet with filter rock section outlet (Orifice Controls 1.50 cfs @ 7.65 fps) 2=Emergency Overflow (Weir Controls 4.62 cfs @ 1.64 fps) prepared by Adam Parker PE (MN,WI,TX,BC,AB) 387 -Orono Orchard Road -Drainage GRAYS 24 -hr S1 100 -yr Rainfall= 7.40 " Prepared by {enter your company name here} Printed 6/20/2018 HvdroCAD® 10.00-11 s/n 01636 © 2014 HvdroCAD Software Solutions LLC Paae 16 N V 3 0 LL E Pond 3P: RG1 Hydrograph ITT 11.84 cfs in� co IA%e�_�1684 �e�ak�l�v�9�.78'II $#t r 619-6f 1 I TTTT IT -II 6.19 cfs 4 I --t+ TIT T 11 T TIT I I I TIT TITT 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Time (hours) Inflow p Primary Waters Map for: Map Prepared by Adam Parker, PE MPS adamp@mariner-ps.com 6/15/18 0 70 140 280 420 560 P.: 387 Orono Orchard Road Site Feet Client: Stonewood Properties I� L36A L16A' S L41 E A • / L22E L22D2 r� - .�� tV J w • •l '. d' g � Y - 9 L22C2 L22E 4 L41 C2 1! L50A _ - L41 r , s � 1 � ",u SIA � � �f•. 1t L41C2 41 od, • •l '. d' g � Y - 9 Wetlands Map for: Map Prepared by Adam Parker, PE MPS adamp@mariner-ps.com 6/15/18 0 70 140 280 420 560 P.: 387 Orono Orchard Road Site Feet Client: Stonewood Properties Sec. 78-420. - Area, height, lot width and yard requirements. (a) Height. No structure or building in the RR -1B district shall exceed 30 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. (b) Lots. The following minimum requirements shall be observed: Side Yard Lot Lot Front Side Rear Area Width Yard Yard Adjacent Yard to Street (acres) (feet) (feet) (feet) (feet) feet) 2 1 200 50 30 30 1 50 (c) Within the RR -1 B 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. ARTICLE XII. - CONSERVATION DESIGN DIVISION 1. - GENERALLY Sec. 78-1631. - Purpose and intent. The City of Orono as a result of the Rural Oasis Study conducted in 2005 finds that there is an intrinsic link between the natural systems and the valued scenic character that exist throughout the community. The requirements of this conservation design ordinance are meant to preserve and enhance this ecological/aesthetic character 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 and improvement of views; and (6) preservation or reinterpretation of local landmarks. (Ord. No. 67 3rd series, § 1, 1-11-2010) Sec. 78-1632. - Applicability. The Conservation Design Master Planning requirements of this article apply to all proposed residential subdivisions or multi -unit residential developments greater than five acres in total area or guided for urban density (greater than one unit per two acres). (Ord. No. 67 3rd series, § 1, 1-11-2010) Sec. 78-1633. - Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this article, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Conservation design means a two -phased approach to design and development that maintains or improves ecological assets, provides infrastructure that works with the land, and incorporates people's instinctive desire to experience nature. Some conservation design strategies include: identifying and avoiding sensitive natural features, planning roads along contours, allowing lots to border natural open space, integrating ecological stormwater management, using smaller lots, and educating developer and buyers about the ecological values of the landscape. The first phase entails an inventory and analysis of the potential development site's natural features, existing land uses, and wetland delineation. The second phase entails analyzing the design implications of the findings from the initial phase, alternative stormwater design, and a conceptual design for road and lot layouts. Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) means the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS) displays data on natural/semi-natural and cultural cover types at the highest level of classification. The next four levels of classification each reveal further specifications such as plant types, soil hydrology, hardcover and plant species. Using MLCCS data is the first step in producing a natural resource inventory of a development site. Orono Natural Resource Inventory means an element of the Orono Community Management Plan that displays the ecological connections within and beyond the City of Orono. Corridor enclosure means the nature, appearance and relative degrees of screening provided by roadside vegetation. Corridor enclosure types include: Open enclosure: Long views beyond the right-of-way, no real sense of corridor enclosure. Edged enclosure: Solid wall of vegetation along roadside, views focused along corridor. Tunneled enclosure: Vegetation begins to completely enclose roadway, above and sides, creating a "small scale" roadway experience. Varied enclosure: Enclosure changes rapidly along corridor, short stretches of open, edged, and tunneled corridor. View analysis means the process of determining whether a view is positive or negative. Positive views: Views of natural areas, water bodies, established parks, wetlands, rural and historic land uses. Negative views: Views of structures, particularly multi -family residential, institutional, and commercial and industrial uses. Views of power lines, telephone poles and other utility infrastructure. Landmark preservation and enhancement means preserving and maintaining distinct cultural features, landmarks and unique points of local character, both natural and man-made, to maintain a familiar sense of place in the community. Ecological Management Categories: Level 1: Ecological "off-limits" areas, including wetlands and required buffers, historic drainage. Level 2: Ecological opportunities, including existing degraded drainageways and existing degraded ecosystem remnants. Level 3: Ecological possibilities: Areas suitable for stormwater treatment. Note: These Ecological Management Categories are not intended to directly correlate with MLCCS M -34X Natural Community Quality Modifiers. Significant tree stand means a grouping or cluster of coniferous and/or deciduous trees with contiguous crown cover, occupying 500 or more square feet of property, which are comprised of deciduous trees six inches or larger in diameter (d.b.h.) or coniferous trees 12 feet or more in height. Additionally, those forest or woodland remnants identified as high, moderate or good quality in the Orono Natural Resources Inventory shall be considered as significant tree stands. (Ord. No. 67 3rd series, § 1, 1-11-2010; Ord. No. 94 3rd series, § 9, 9-24-2012) DIVISION 2. - BASIC APPLICATION AND PLAN REQUIREMENTS Sec. 78-1634. - Application requirements and procedures. The developer shall follow the steps outlined below as part of the development review process: (1) Review and respond to the Goals and Policies for Environmental Protection and Natural Resource Management as established in the Orono Community Management Plan and the recommendations contained within the Orono Natural Resources Inventory. The intent is to establish the property's ecological connections both within Orono and as part of the regional ecological system. (2) If the property exists adjacent to a documented corridor in the Rural Oasis Study, review and respond to the existing aesthetic and ecological analysis. (3) If the property is not adjacent to a documented corridor in the Rural Oasis Study, developer shall have a qualified consultant prepare a similar analysis and submit it to the city for review. This analysis shall include the documentation of views, corridor enclosure, and landmarks through a plan analysis and photographs. Developer shall be charged a standard fee established in the city fee schedule to cover the expenses of the city in hiring a consultant to review the ecological site analysis submitted by the developer. (4) Additionally, submit a natural resources inventory of the site, including all of the following elements: a. Review of the MLCCS data pertinent to the site. b. Tree survey, including all significant individual trees greater than six feet diameter, and stands of trees, identifying tree species and size. c. Wetland inventory, including delineation reports. d. Topographic survey indicating existing drainage patterns. e. Analysis of the site based on the findings and recommendations of the Orono Natural Resources Inventory with regards to: • Conceptual greenways and open space corridors; • Existence of rare plant communities; • Potential need for proactive management and protection. (Ord. No. 67 3rd series, § 1, 1-11-2010) Sec. 78-1635. - Basic Conservation Design Master Plan requirements and evaluation criteria. The developer shall prepare a Conservation Design Master Plan for development of the property, consisting of written and visual documentation including maps in an acceptable electronic format, addressing the following topics: (1) Consideration of the existing drainage system; (2) Establishment of a stormwater management system, using multi -cell treatment principles, and defining proposed methods of stormwater phosphorus reduction; (3) Removal of invasive species and diseased trees; (4) Protection of significant tree stands and woodlands that support scenic and/or ecological goals, including mitigation of any such stands to be impacted by development activities; (5) Protection of existing wetlands, including augmentation of buffers, mitigation of impacts, and enhancement of degraded systems; (6) Justification and mitigation of any negative impact to ecological communities. "Negative impact" includes any modification to a lower level of ecological community quality, as described by the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (M -34X Modifiers); (7) Maintenance of ecological connections through site design, as shown on the Orono Natural Resource Inventory; (8) Maintenance and protection of existing positive views, and mitigation of any existing or proposed negative views using appropriate measures such as site layout, screening, building design and coloration, etc.; and (9) Preservation or reinterpretation of existing landmarks. The planning commission and city council shall evaluate the Conservation Design Master Plan to determine whether the proposed development: (1) Preserves existing drainage patterns and enhances stormwater collection and conveyance by applying an ecologically -based multi -cell stormwater management system that improves ecosystems by reducing reliance on manmade infrastructure, reducing downstream runoff of contaminants, and enhancing ecological connections; (2) Includes a program for the removal of invasive species and diseased trees; protects significant tree stands and woodlands that support scenic and/or ecological goals; and includes mitigation of any such stands that will be impacted by development activities; (3) Protects existing wetlands by implementing new buffers or augmenting existing buffers; mitigates identified wetland impacts; and enhances degraded wetland systems; (4) Results in no negative impact to ecological communities of Ecological Management Categories 1 and 2; results in no negative modification of any ecological communities as described by the Minnesota Land Cover Classification System; and establishes, maintains and improves native ecological communities including natural and semi -natural areas to provide wildlife habitat and support natural ecological functions (i.e. drainage, filtering, buffering, etc.); (5) Establishes or maintains ecological connections through site design, as shown on the Orono Natural Resource Inventory that will enhance stormwater collection and conveyance, promote ecological and wildlife corridors, and provide recreational opportunities for residents; (6) Preserves and where appropriate augments or improves roadway corridor enclosure to promote community aesthetics associated with the city's rural character; preserves open rural views and other aesthetic elements of the landscape; and mitigates the negative visual impacts of development; (7) Preserves, maintains, or reinterprets existing landmarks and unique points of local character, and preserves distinct cultural features that will maintain a familiar sense of place in the community. (Ord. No. 67 3rd series, § 1, 1-11-2010) DIVISION 3. - DENSITY BONUS STANDARDS Sec. 78-1636. - Density bonuses for urban density development. For residential development in Orono's defined urban area (zoning districts allowing densities in excess of one unit per two acres, and including properties identified in the Orono Community Management Plan for conversion to urban density) within the ranges of the guided density a density bonus may be allowed if the city council finds that the performance bonus requirements of this division have been met. The city council shall determine the extent of density bonus awarded for such properties. Example: Properties guided in the Community Management Plan for a density range of two—four units per acre have a base density of two units per acre; while the high end of the density range is not guaranteed, the city council at its discretion may allow development at a final density of up to four units per acre through the performance bonus process. (Ord. No. 67 3rd series, § 1, 1-11-2010) Sec. 78-1637. - Performance bonus requirements. Within the urban density area, developers have the opportunity to increase the base density by going above and beyond the Basic Conservation Design Master Plan requirement. By implementing a combination of development enhancements that not only preserve but improve the natural characteristics of the property or preserve and enhance existing landmarks, the developer shall become eligible for a density bonus. The extent of such density bonus shall be determined by the city council. Development enhancements include but are not necessarily limited to the following: (1) Reforestation beyond existing woodland limits; (2) Water quality improvements; (3) Improvements in ecological grade of existing communities; (4) Upgrading of edge buffering to maximum, or tunneled, character; and (5) Major preservation or enhancement of existing landmarks. (Ord. No. 67 3rd series, § 1, 1-11-2010) DIVISION 4. - LONG-TERM PRESERVATION Sec. 78-1638. - Preservation requirements. The developer shall establish and implement measures that will ensure the preservation and maintenance of those elements of the development that are determined to require long-term or permanent protection from development or misuse. Such measures may include but are not limited to: conservation easements; deed restrictions; private covenants; transfer of ownership to agencies such as the Minnesota Land Trust or the Nature Conservancy, or to the city via dedication, etc. (Ord. No. 67 3rd series, § 1, 1-11-2010) Sec. 78-1639. - Buyer education. The developer shall establish covenants documenting the elements of the development to be protected and how they are to be protected, and shall establish a defined program for education of the initial purchasers of lots within the development as to the limitations that affect future use of the property. (Ord. No. 67 3rd series, § 1, 1-11-2010) DIVISION 5. - RESOURCES Sec. 78-1640. - Resources. The primary references for facilitating the conservation design process include the following: • Orono Rural Oasis Study (DSU, 2005). • 2008-2030 City of Orono Community Management Plan, Chapter 3A—Environmental Protection Plan (City of Orono, 2009). • Orono Natural Resources Inventory (Hennepin County Department of Environmental Services/Bonestroo Natural Resources Group, 2006). • Minnesota Land Cover Classification System (MLCCS). Sec. 82-253. - Lot dimensions. Lot dimensions shall comply with the minimum standards of chapter 78. Where lots are more than double the minimum required area for the zoning district, the city may require that such lots be arranged so as to allow further subdivision and the opening of future streets where they would be necessary to serve such potential lots, all in compliance with chapter 78. In general, side lot lines shall be at right angles to street lines (or radial to curving street lines) unless a variation from this rule will give a better street or lot plan. Dimensions of corner lots shall be large enough to allow for erection of buildings, observing the minimum front yard setback from both streets. Depth and width of properties reserved or laid out for business, commercial or industrial purposes shall be adequate to provide for the off-street parking and loading facilities required for the type of use and development contemplated, as established in chapter 78. Sec. 82-254. - Lot area, minimum. The minimum area requirements for each proposed lot as prescribed in chapter 78. The lot area must also comply with chapter 58, article II. Public and private rights-of-way, vehicular or pedestrian easements, or surface areas below the ordinary high water mark of any surface water or wetlands or floodplain areas may not be used in order to meet any portion of the minimum lot area requirements. Sec. 82-281. - Design standards. (a) Generally. In order to provide for roads of suitable location, width and improvement to accommodate prospective traffic and afford satisfactory access to police, firefighting, snow removal, sanitation and road maintenance equipment, and to coordinate roads so as to compose a convenient system and avoid undue hardships to adjoining properties, the following design standards for roads are required: (1) Road surfacing and improvements. After the sewer and water utilities have been installed by the subdivider, the subdivider shall construct all road pavement, shoulders, drainage improvements and structures, curbs, culs-de-sac, and sidewalks in conformance with all construction standards and specifications adopted by the city and shall be incorporated into the construction plans required to be submitted to the subdivider for final subdivision approval. (2) Rights-of-way. Rights-of-way shall be in accordance with the following performance standard a. Minimum right-of-way widths. Principal arterial, intermediate arterial As recommended by the State Department of Transportation Minor arterial 80 feet Collector 70 feet Local 50 feet Parkway 100 feet Culs-de-sac 50 feet radius b. Rights-of-way are needed for future roadways in the opinion of the city. c. Right-of-way widths or additional widths in existing rights-of-way in excess of the standards designated in this chapter when, due to topography, additional width is necessary to provide adequate earth slopes. Such slopes shall not be in excess of 3:1. (b) Railroads and limited -access roadways. Railroad rights-of-way and limited -access roadways where so located as to affect the subdivision of adjoining lands shall be treated as follows: (1) In residential districts, a buffer strip at least 25 feet in depth in addition to the normal depth of the lot required in the district shall be provided adjacent to the railroad right-of-way or limited - access roadway. (2) In districts zoned for business, commercial or industrial uses, the nearest street extending parallel or approximately parallel to the railroad shall be at a sufficient distance to ensure suitable depth for commercial or industrial sites. (3) Streets parallel to the railroad when intersecting a street which crosses the railroad at grade shall be at a distance of at least 150 feet from the railroad right-of-way. Such distance shall be determined with due consideration of the minimum distance required for future separation of grades by means of appropriate approach gradients. (4) Streets crossing the railroads shall be avoided. (c) Intersections. (1) Streets shall be laid out so as to intersect as nearly as possible at right angles. A proposed intersection of two new streets at an angle or less than 75 degrees shall not be acceptable. An oblique street should be curved approaching an intersection and should be approximately at right angles for at least 100 feet from the intersection. Not more than two streets shall intersect at any one point unless specifically approved by the city. (2) Proposed new intersections along one side of an existing street shall coincide with any existing intersections on the opposite side of such street. Intersection jogs with centerline offsets of less than 150 feet shall not be permitted, except where the intersected street has separated dual drives without median breaks at either intersection. Where streets intersect major streets, their alignment shall be continuous. Intersections of arterial roadways shall be at least 800 feet apart. (3) Minimum curb radius at the intersection of two local streets shall be at least 15 feet, and minimum curb radius at an intersection involving a collector street or local streets in a commercial or industrial area shall be at least 25 feet. Alley intersections and abrupt changes in alignment within a block shall have the corners cut off in accordance with standard engineering practice to permit safe vehicular movement. (4) Intersections shall be designed with a flat stopping area of at least 30 feet in a residential area and 60 feet in a commercial or industrial area. The stopping area shall be designed to provide a maximum grade of two percent. (5) Where any street intersection will involve earth banks or existing vegetation inside any lot corner that would create a traffic hazard by limiting visibility, the subdivider shall cut such ground and/or vegetation (including trees) in connection with the grading of the right-of-way to the extent deemed necessary by the city to provide an adequate sight distance. (6) The crown of all streets, including intersections, shall be three percent or less. (d) Typical section. The typical section indicated in this subsection is as determined for a clay subgrade (A-6 soil classification) and may be subject to change. Soil borings may be required to be determined by the city. (1) Private street, residential R.O.W.* M.P.W.** Units (feet) (feet) 3-6 50 24 i Over 7 50 28 (2) Public street, residential R.O.W.* Units (feet) 3-10 50 Over 10 50 Maximum cul-de-sac length = 1,000 feet Maximum number of units on cul-de-sac = 10 (3) Public street, commercial or industrial R.O.W.* M.P.W.** Units (feet) (feet) 1+ 70 32 *Right -of -Way **Minimum Paved Width Section 8 -inch class 5 100% crushed 3 -inch 2341 bituminous surface 8 -inch class 5 100% crushed 3 -inch 2341 bituminous surface Section 8 -inch class 5 100% crushed 3 -inch 2341 bituminous surface 8 -inch class 5 100% crushed 3 -inch 2341 bituminous surface Section 8 -inch class 4 8 -inch class 5 100% crushed 4 -inch 2341 bituminous surface (e) Horizontal and vertical control. Horizontal and vertical control shall be as follows: Functional Design Vertical Class Speed Control (mph) Maximum Horizontal Control Minimum Width Private stree (residential) Public street (residential) Public street (commercial a industrial) (Code 1984, § 11.33) Sec. 82-284. - Road dedication and reservations. Gradient Radius (percent) (feet) 12 I 275 10 I 275 400 (a) New perimeter streets. Street systems in new subdivisions shall be laid out so as to eliminate or avoid new perimeter half -streets. Where an existing half -street is adjacent to a new subdivision, the other half of the street shall be improved and dedicated by the subdivider. The city may authorize a new perimeter street where the subdivider improves and dedicates the entire required street right-of- way width within his own subdivision boundaries. (b) Widening and realignment of existing roads. Where a subdivision borders an existing narrow road or when the comprehensive municipal plan or some other agency indicates plans for realignment or widening a road that would require use of some of the land in the subdivision, the subdivider shall be required to improve and dedicate at his expense such areas for widening or realignment of such roads. Such frontage roads and streets shall be improved and dedicated by the subdivider at his own expense to the full width as required by this chapter. (c) Use of reserved land. Land reserved for any road purposes may not be counted in satisfying yard or area requirements of chapter 78, whether the land is to be dedicated to the city in fee simple or an easement is granted to the city. (Code 1984, § 11.40) Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Date: 6/26/2018 r` Dickenson St Q D: y 7 L L Buffer Size: 500 feet 0 120 240 480 ft Map Comments: I I I I I I I I I 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 38 02-117-23 22 0005 CITY OF ORONO POBOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 02-117-23 23 0005 TIMOTHY LUCE TRAFF 385 ORONO ORCHARD RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 23 0006 TIMOTHY L/ELISABETH M TRAFF 387 ORONO ORCHARD RD S WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 23 0007 WHITNEY MACMILLAN P O BOX 5628 MPLS MN 55440 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 310047 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 38 02-117-23 32 0007 RANDY C KURTH 1570 FOX ST WAYZATA MN 55391 38 02-117-23 32 0008 PARTNERSHIP HOLDINGS LLC C/O WAYCROSSE INC P O BOX 5628 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440 38 02-117-23 32 0009 FAR VIEW LLC C/O WAYCROSSE INC PO BOX 5628 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55440 38 03-117-23 14 0004 CAROL G & CONLEY BROOKS JR 1640 FOX ST WAYZATA MN 55391 Date Application Received: 6.20.2018 Date Application Considered as Complete: 6.22.18 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 8.21.2018 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Laura Oakden, Planner Date: July 16, 2018 Subject: LA18-000063, Matt Johnson, 1432 Shoreline Drive, Variance, Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting variance in the 75 foot lakeyard setback and the average lakeshore setback for a 6' tall privacy fence. Staff Recommendation: The Planning Commission should discuss of the proposed request is in harmony with the intent of the ordinance and review of the proposed findings and if they are supported by the commission staff recommends approval of the variance. Background The applicant is requesting to construct a 6 foot tall white privacy fence along the south property line which abuts a neighboring property. The 75 foot lake yard setback impacts the subject property from both the west (Tanager Lake) and the east side (Browns Bay). The lot is substandard to size for the LR -1A, 2 acre, District. The applicant is looking to create additional separation between the neighbor to the south which uses the property as a commercial parking lot as well as a home. A fence would mitigate sound and visibility between the two properties. The applicant has stated there is an existing fence post located in the lake yard they would like to connect the new fence to the existing post. The fence will connect to a fence along the east property line; this fence, though with the 75 lake yard from Browns Bay, replaces a preexisting fence, no variance was required. The applicant has submitted a narrative with pictures for you to review. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-305- Setbacks: DISTRICT LR -1A Required Proposed Lakeshore 75' 1 15' Average Lakeshore The fence is proposed to be 6 feet, 42 inched is permitted in places. Applicable Regulations: Nonencroachments (78-1405)8b 2. Fences within the required side yard of a lakeshore lot shall not exceed six feet in height, and shall not exceed 42 inches in height for any portion located lakeward of a line drawn between the most lakeward projection of the fence owner's principal residence structure and the most lakeward projection of the principal residence structure on the adjacent property abutting the side yard in which the fence is located. LA 18-000063 July 16, 2018 Page 2 of 4 3. Fences shall not be constructed within the defined lakeshore yard of a lakeshore lot, i.e., shall not be located within 75 feet of the shoreline for general development lakes, 100 feet for recreational lakes, or 150 feet for natural environment lakes. 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 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. 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. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The property has a limited space due to the lakeshore on both sides and the commercial use of the parking lot to the south of the property creates a more intense use of the abutting property. and 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 LA 18-000063 July 16, 2018 Page 3 of 4 located. This condition is not applicable, as the use for a fence is an allowed 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 75 foot lakeyard setback covers majority of the property making the space peculiar. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The applicant has stated this to be true. There are no other known situations where a residence abuts a commercially used residential property. 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 fence will create a separation from a property that is used for commercial use protecting the safety, and comfort between the two properties. 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 there are some practical difficulties to support the request due to the location of the 75 foot lake yard setback covering majority of the side property where the fence is proposed. The adjacent property is residentially zoned, but the large gravel lot in the street side of the building is used for parking for much of the year, supporting the commercial marina to the north. The main impact visually will be from back deck of 1440 Shoreline, the Commission could recommend a 42 height limit in this area. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration The Planning Commission should discuss the proposed location and height of the fence and discuss if it is reasonable. The Planning Commission should discussion the intent of the fence setbacks to determine if the proposed project is in harmony with the intent of the Ordinance. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Planning Staff Recommendation The Planning Commission should discuss the proposed questions provided by staff. If the Planning LA 18-000063 July 16, 2018 Page 4 of 4 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. Project Narrative Exhibit D. Proposed Survey Exhibit E. Setback Exhibit Exhibit F. Fence Product Information Exhibit G. Property Owners List and Map Letter View PC Land Use Application Summary LA18-000063 Exhibit A Application Date: 06/20/2018 Address: 1432 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA, MN 55391 Parcel Number: 1111723220014 Land Use Number: LA18-000063 Application Submitted By: Property Owner Owner: Name: SUSANNE JOHNSON Address: MATTHEW JOHNSON 1432 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA, MN 55391 Applicant: Name: matt johnson Address: 1432 Shoreline Drive Wayzata, MN 55391 Contact Information: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description: Fence Only Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application ❑ Appeal of Admin Decision ❑ Concept Application ❑ Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Application ❑ Subdivision Application 0 Subdivision Exception 0 Vacation Application 0 Variance Application 0 Applicant Signature: file:///or-mail/... 233992%20thru/LA18-000063%20(1432%20Shoreline)%20VAR/Land%20Use%20Application%20Summary%20(15).htm[7/9/2018 11:03:22 AM] Letter View PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA18-000063 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: Residential use 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: The adjoining property has commercial use 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: Fence will match the road side fence 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 S. 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: 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: Adjoining property is used commercially 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: Commercial activity occurs daily- the activity from commercial vehicles, patrons use of lot, patron's vehicles and vehicle lights impact my property use and enjoyment. file:///or-mail/... %20thru/LA18-000063%20(1432%20Shoreline)%20VAR/Practical%20Difficulties%20Documentation%20Form%20(8).htm[7/9/2018 11:04:32 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. Response: it will not 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: The adjoining property has a documented history of late night activities that effects our normal use and enjoyment. file:///or-mail/ ... %20thru/LA18-000063%20(1432%20Shoreline)%20VAR/Practical%20Difficulties%20Documentation%20Form%20(8).htm[7/9/2018 11:04:32 AM] June 19, 2018 City of Orono 2750 Kelly Parkway Orono MN 55356 Re: Project Narrative —1432 Shoreline Dr— Privacy Fence City of Orono, We are requesting a variance to install a privacy fence between our property, 1432 Shoreline, and the adjoining property, 1440 Shoreline Dr. It is a very unique situation as 1440 Shoreline is residentially zoned but allows commercial parking on it and our property has two 75' lakeshore setbacks (From the east and west). The parking lot next door to us has many users - retail sales customers, boat club members, marina customers, boat rental customers and slip renters. To further complicate the situation, the City also allows users to park on the grass right up to the lake, so it affects our normal use and enjoyment when using our lakeside yard. Currently, there is an existing lilac and buckthorn barrier between the properties but offers little screenage, as seen in the picture below. A privacy fence seems appropriate to afford both properties reliable screenage and will further beautify the setting. There is evidence of a fence that did separate the properties at some point, but it appears that shrubs took over. Here is our current view —taken on Wednesday, June 20 2018, at 3:OOpm. (middle of the week, mid afternoon) Left side of picture is the existing fence that will match. Here are two pictures towards the lakeside. There is an existing fence post that we are proposing to use as the location for the end of the fence. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Matt & Susanne Johnson 1432 Shoreline Dr WMi M,uxu.l�n.+Y uxY.�urrrrns �1\ �L7 / �i i �uF I Ip �`•v, ,ri nT rrr v +t�ir" n..-rr.�.tixrnr.�.r.r • \ \ �i• `O / � i' i' I "`�+� � I I ws.�,YrolYn.w �,«:..�..`:.:.w.r�eY`.��.�`..� ' `A� �YdutYYs xp.✓b1YLe.Y"Y,�YC/Y LJ I \r —/ I N I L_ I II o r.......r+.os..w. Epyq ,1 � d \\ Nbq 2�3 � I 1 \ � ..d % m I / � �-r Sy .,�+.:..r::w`,.i`,:.."'••` ::.awe :w,..+`Y:n r 1 I L i1 \ - •E i �I � - inY W �r,�........,..-.,v...aow nonn.o.,.n.°+ N64.6" I I 1 Inw_.......r....Y...r.r.Pr...., s 1\ �', l v.> ' , � �-0 �, I i r r :Bf l \� � i -- "` - p I 11 I\ � F'V'► ,,`� _. V""ld a lot =� war v too, `,11 �1\ , o"�o mS�• p' _ , �. �� __ — �\ / •ty g '�• ,�*' / 4 / e��' 1 ,111 11 111 ` :�" nr,Y'iw`oe„"".,rm'", q \ AA SURVEY LEGEND 1 vel. w.tt nmue .�o,�clTb1cv suY.Y a-rYwr II / `` ��. --5- ^°•� Ip .o" dP.'.o m'°�""� II 11 11 v w.�on tela. ro o�.�ry rmar�©mra'°`�r`enmia • `� \ 'd• 6� I p se�vx. ��rvu�r o eucme vera — - aY.vY uc ' o swr� ,,•,•1"r 0 '� a�•oYUY°mmlYrom �"- ', 1 ' � maY owl m rm.axc vAvmar — - Ssw�luir aTYY \ ..->— un�irr sau _.. nan,la�wom,mwm YR YwYYi I1BE W°COP(r°. AMl1YJRCmMVEYAMftK IY.b1�Y.IYY Ymq.pMrtYyan rm YRYYIb Yird" YEL.11-r'A9.111. YiCD Ii,E1q. CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY IYiYYIYMIYwYt .rNY r61nfCRYNCMrlIF°MrrH°uf gYiYY wY.•IYmsG YI a.mP/I1r—lld Ys,•Y.ml.i W�. IEN@OioaYm .trYY001 SATHRE-BERGQUIST, INC. ORONO, PREPARED FOR: A 'YYpep,Y _- Yp41M1Y)RIIA ICOIYIIMFINIYHifIWTEIE NOBIML f16E8Y f IWYgT1a0IDNAY WAY TAWS (M)�1YA000 YOF1Y6r Mi1111E-09tlpOUrf, YIC.OFALL PEY!'OMYBlllir. Yq pfrq•1Y11. Yl1Yr4OCiaKf. YC. PbFAV[i IIEMgX! }m IIQD NW Yb(YIWR 9 on �rPEsawse mn°n1AYnP11nYSF2A�arrg1,� rrvsuorl. xa wu `v, ,ta MINNESOTA MATTJOHNSON 1 / rE4ruTM r.w+lAMMp mm"_"MrW== '�'Ma \\ V. / / / / / � rr• I '/} rM..YAWOr.►sr.rrr.. Yw. •rY.Y.r•ar Nialr / / 1 � , RO.rb�4.r\.r-r ti.rr Nti�Ya�r �r�Mr1Y `\ L7 / / / / S1R I '�. fOwstl�4R1.11..�11d/Iy�4rrrrR4Wr.wdl�r !lT rr.fli Yri�YS�f1y�4��M.I Dl2rY•�.r rr I [� rr1Y.a�.y,a OY,Rr Y.��r3wrl4 r.►Yr.•r.Pa. .NraaYrr.y r.r�rrHw�r•r.rraY.ar...Aas. coca SET11m1 len Loa) rAroR u0 r�'.o �•wYr'w r+r''''t��r Mar ��o�rrur `,\ � �J / / I IwIRTr nm Yf14iw 4rU.F1Y��arr�Y1/r A N I r I 3✓'� ! .9• s9urxiou[ _4-----1 I R LIrAr,rlmo..r,a•.o�w 1 ---+ I {' ' T now.lr,vs eu. «.,rW.n.,.o•q I1 � � � � r • o.....•Hra � r r.•, axe n. r.4 = ar •...r M9 v > pi \ Q ..+irr..+arM+. •.. wrrr r. arr nan it r.rr� ,I(�Nu \ \\ II '+srr."'iira>.rcr.ri..rsrci�.RM�liW ara3e I r..r r ; w o \ jY� + jt I1�rrYrrrr rAN�rrrlflrrHH,•IrHrl.Nrrrrr.rlAr• \y ,� Q r.�FrlrY•�Rr�rYl(r/�Yr.�.r�IpWr II I p3 \ 11\,, `, �� :�$Ne \ tea•• 'I 'I � Fi ��.�•+r.rarrrrrrra+aArr.rrrs ' I j \ Ng9 OZ I 1 �� •"\C. ..�� rn I ` Yr+rr....r..r.wr.r.s•a. rr��r.r.r.rr f I \ \ F1 I e.0--_- meq. I I I � __� � orrnw.err.wrr.r.rrlerr.�.rorgorso.r.,rrar�r. L_ L 1 0•Fdrb01rY11r1yp,r1�1►IS I Iw.ur \ \ ^�� � �` "IwW.r y 1 � I 1 , I � NSr�rr..rr.allra.r+rrl.�.rrrr..rl•. •'�M \ '' ' \ W Iro.r_9MN6•�i�rs..r.r.- pgvalaslrrrrrcrr `o------- 1 \ / j3 N I 1 :B:1 \� / ----- - / / 11 , -- oalalLa / / / Ott I t 1 :"' I I 1\ ,`� 1 •D -� �J• �`�/ - /, !i � //� / / / '�•'� , � - -- O \ 100 p � � I I � � ,`\ I/ - D ',I 'F', Sum �•�' \ A. 1 a / pp P fit 1l' � � 3 ,`, �' ����: 1�' �� � Sin r +♦�� m m � 1 1 1 1 \ ,`\ L. r 1 a arae TO SE lolwm MMNW_rr..rr..r.cr..� ✓ - 1 I orrHr.I+.•llrDu"Iatr.al `�� r.• - sem/ I SCALE IN PEES 7O* �\ \ w+• � '1 � la SURVEY LEGEND `,\ \\ �, \ 1 I 0• OAfT ON MOLSWDIr WOE WALX r EIEVArOM SIIY.Om t , I ■ GTON Y91 r>L N6r final DLYADON E140a10 SET.A01 Ia1[ FIL p DO ] "I" In OA.AR ISOOE a," r4, r•-N a '1 sy N rc vKV[ Mor TOP d r01aOAlIw ESEM1. -cn - CAELEL aa0 arc mL IR L0.6r OMM b' MORArr 0 G101 n PEDESTAL o SAM raaaar sn 0' ELECT TRANSFORMER *CLEr-t�1 aartaw vaDvosm \ dd' . ` • SIOMLY OMVMMi roan O eArmECTWC MANHOLE LPONT OOMTIIOI Marr O 0" MCO YLRSI -_ •� _- ORM TLE ,1,' •ar w� 1 C1 Pa. YOIF O W VALK = frMcf VOplalal0 ' \ • N' m Ww s Po'�1 POLL O OAS YKK - /LIR / q•a • m SANTAIIY MANHOLE 8 MNO TOIL - N -_ MMPI OM tftw*Kq SAN An OLLA W � SOIL Boom - W- O" IaNDERONOLO O.OWD DIVAr10. )IQ Rm1Oa NNMNNIMMN ■.jLjtw Tmm.5 • iTEw1 dun m me. [ PmEiAI _ fANIA.Y SEMEN /-// ® i0N1 YNIIOLc -'�- SrON1 SIM op `1 A�L.� O YAb IIWT , UTILM AAWSGM-N rcIDNHWc ERGAM paO �a �I�J •a ttr f'y„f , A/o MY O uMY Iwea[ _ muff aallalaam IIAIWIMM NELDINNONES aY n YR rN00. IIEE OOrrpO. AIDAR OONVEYANCEOi t�•d1.rWYVYr•.•af.al ar A.rwPeP•Mby—Mor a time ����� eEcrT TvarrrT NOES CERTIFICATE OF SURVEYFILE NO. KO F71yr IEaTOORY/NONBr� got u H.S f*AS .Yo•rlYatr.Alb'IJo�iLad ENwycr HlldrY !�' NLS•a�wcollrnY SaTO►OOT arl� a r a1eSaN Nor>roOamlaO M LEI�EWNTHIramTEu ATIda. ULL TmmOUT HndBa Mlr dWrrr. EEO '" .... g_og wrLDaw aNDAunrOATH rco"EmvtWC OF ALL PWAPON OLnY Eluu *,�aY ! ! SAT_HRE-BERGQUIST INC. ORONO, PREPARED FOR- rrr nNrN an OOr�na MC REWAYEO� MIOW► AWLLIG AT! �(`b dMq.70lt i -t ISO EOUM ENOMMfAY WAYWAI, W 567E1 la�)ANe= "' LOM OR PANrY LEGALLY REWOONIP FOR OALIAOW OR LOWEE NEauLTM_1f�� • S MINNESOTA FWMLLEORaMYEusE n.a,■.,rr,N.Lu aDNMwmftU-13.4O3" �o. P`>/ MATT JOHNSON 1 Project Checklist 6'x8' Linden - White Gate Hinges Gate Post Inserts A Re PR��Tip 4uired s Posts and Sport for gate (< -r hardware co rength for nnections Gate Post Insert *All gate kits include Boerboel° Heavy Duty Wrap Hinges. Latches, drop rods and accessories sold separately. _ Questions or need further help? Contact your Veranda Specialist at 1-877-279-4496 73014713 6ft. x 8ft. Linden Fence Kit (CC) (Actual Size 68in. H x 91 in. W) 73014520 6ft. x 4ft. Linden Walk Gate Kit" (Actual Size 68in. H x 46in. W) 73014521 6ft. x 5ft. Linden Drive Gate Kit' (Actual Size 68in. H x 58in. W) 73014881 5in. x 5in. x 108in. Line Post (CC) 73014882 5in. x 5in. x 108in. Corner Post (CC) 73014883 5in. x 5in. x 108in. End/Gate Post (CC) as 73003463 5in. x 5in. x 106in. Gate Post Insert (For use with 5in. x 5in. x 108in. Posts) 73013119 5in. x 5in. Contemporary Post Top 73014080 Post Top Clips Concrete Pea Gravel M Walk Gate Drive Gate Gate Hinges Gate Post Inserts A Re PR��Tip 4uired s Posts and Sport for gate (< -r hardware co rength for nnections Gate Post Insert *All gate kits include Boerboel° Heavy Duty Wrap Hinges. Latches, drop rods and accessories sold separately. _ Questions or need further help? Contact your Veranda Specialist at 1-877-279-4496 Project Planning Before beginning your project: • Be sure to check with your local zoning laws and Home Owner's Association • Call 811 to have your underground utilities marked on your property Project Planning: • Determine and sketch distance, location, obstacles and if any gates are needed • Mark your property line to prevent neighbor disputes Determine /oc Of gates bef ation be9�n installation�u Corner End Blank ❑- Line Post: Posts with holes on two opposite sides to connect fence sections. 1 I / © Corner Post: Connects two sections of fence coming together at 900. ❑E End Post: End a line of fence. Only one section of fence will connect to an end post. © Blank Post: Has no holes, and is used with a gate latch. NOTE: Pre -Built Panels will only use blank posts with brackets. No Line, Corner or End Posts are required. _ Questions or need further help? Contact your Veranda Specialist at 1-877-279-4496 R �7n a Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Date: 6/26/2018 Orono'Ln Orono Buffer Size: 500 feet 0 120 240 480 ft Map Comments: I I I I I I I I I 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 38 02-117-23 33 0010 ALFRED & INGRID L HARRISON 1410 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 11-117-23 210001 RLA FAMILY L P 3205 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 11-117-23 22 0004 EOF INVESTMENTS LLC 10 SOUTH 5TH ST #110 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 38 11-117-23 22 0005 EOF INVESTMENTS LLC 10 SOUTH 5TH ST #110 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 38 11-117-23 22 0010 EOF INVESTMENTS LLC 105TH STS#110 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 38 11-117-23 22 0013 CITY OF ORONO POBOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 11-117-23 22 0014 SUSANNE JOHNSON MATTHEW JOHNSON 1432 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 11-117-23 22 0015 S DAVID FELDSHON MD ARCHELLE GEORGIOU MD 1420 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 11-117-23 22 0017 EOF INVESTMENTS LLC 105TH STS#110 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: July 16, 2018 Subject: #LA18-000057, City of Orono, Text Amendment related to Accessory structure setbacks. Public Hearing Application Summary: The Draft ordinance would clarify and restate the setbacks for accessory structures throughout the city. Staff Recommendation: Hold a second public hearing. Staff will prepare an ordinance for future consideration, based on input received. Background This is the second discussion of proposed changes for the Accessory structure setbacks. A draft table (Exhibit A) has been prepared, based on the zonal impacts introduced last meeting. The discussion on Monday will center on applying applicable setbacks to each zoning district, based on the prescribed setbacks for principal structures and buildings. Areas highlighted in Yellow are not proposed; The cell contents are retained for formatting purposes. To confirm, this amendment, staff will be a wholesale rewrite. A new format is proposed, with the following primary goals: 1. Ease of Use. The user can find the applicable regulation using common logic. 2. Ease of Understanding. The User can understand the regulation, and how it applies to their question. Reduce the number of exceptions. 3. Remove unnecessary regulation. In some cases, regulations designed to address a singular concern will be removed, in the interest of goals 1 and 2 above. Applicable Definitions Accessory use or structure means a use or structure subordinate to and serving the principal use or structure on the same lot and customarily incidental to the principal use or structure. Building means any structure having a roof which may provide shelter or enclosure of persons, animals or chattel; and when the structure is divided by party walls without opening, each portion of such building so separated shall be deemed a separate building. FILE #LA18-000057 July 16, 2018 Page 2 of 2 Structure means anything which is built, constructed or erected, an edifice or building of any kind, or any piece of work artificially built up or composed of parts joined together in some definite manner, which requires a location on, below or above the ground, land or water, or attached to something having a location on the ground, land or water. The final ordinance continues to evolve and is not ready for review at this time. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Regulation Table for RL -1A Exhibit B. Draft Regulation Table — all districts Section 78-305 LR -1A A All Lots B Lake Lots 1 Principal Structure 2 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses)' 3 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 4 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures,) 5 Oversized Accesory Structure (over 1,000 sgft) 6 Garage Doors 7 Signs not attached to a building 8 Driveways C Non -Lake Lots 1 Principal Structure 2 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 3 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 4 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures) 5 Oversized Accesory Structure (Tennis courts, sport courts, paddocks, and arenas over 1,000 sqft) 6 Signs 7 Driveways 8 Garage doors Lot Area (Acre) Lot width (feet) 2 1 200 Lake yard Street Interior Side Wetland Height Notes Cid. <rr Interior Side Wetland Height Front Rear lido 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet All lake setbacks 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less re based on Public 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher Water 15 15/10, 30 which ever is less than house Classification: take 50 30 / 10 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet Classification, Lake 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house Minnetonka 75', 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A e.g. which ever is less 50 50 15 / 10 t 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher which ever is less than house 75 50/102 15/10 30 which ever is less 50 50 30/ 10 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 75 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house 5 5 5 5 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less N/A 75 50 15 / 10 30 which ever is less shall be at least 30 feet from the property line when the doors face an alley or street. 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 75 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less shall be at least 30 feet from the property line when the doors face an alley or street. 25 or MCWD buffer, 8 feet 75 5 5 5 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 75 5 which ever is less Interior Side Wetland Height Front Rear lido 1. 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. 2. Garage doors must face away from street, on site turnaround provided. 3. No accessory building shall be closer than 10 feet from any other building on the same lot. 78-1435 78-1436 78-1439 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building 78-1435 78-1436 78-1439 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet 50 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 50, 15 15/10, 30 which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 50 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 50 50 15 / 10 t 30 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 50 50 30/ 10 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 8 Feet 5 5 5 5 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 5 which ever is less shall be at least 30 feet from the property line when the doors face an alley or street. 1. 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. 2. Garage doors must face away from street, on site turnaround provided. 3. No accessory building shall be closer than 10 feet from any other building on the same lot. 78-1435 78-1436 78-1439 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building 78-1435 78-1436 78-1439 Section 78-305 LR -1A A All Lots B Lake Lots 1 Principal Structure 2 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 3 3 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 4 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures,) 5 Oversized Accesory Structure (over 1,000 sgft) 6 Garage Doors 7 Signs not attached to a building 8 Driveways C Non -Lake Lots 1 Principal Structure 2 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 3 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 4 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures) 5 Oversized Accesory Structure (Tennis courts, sport courts, paddocks, and arenas over 1,000 sqft) 6 Signs 7 Driveways 8 Garage doors Lot Area (Acre) Lot width (feet) 2 1 200 Lake yard Street Interior Side Wetland Height Cid. crr Interior Side Wetland Height Front Rear Gidr cruor 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet 50 50 30 / 10 a 30 which ever is less All lake setbacks 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher re based on Public 15 15 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house Water 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher Classification: Lake 50 30 / 10 30 which ever is less 30 feet Classification, Lake 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A Minnetonka 75', which ever is less e.g. 50 15/10' 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher which ever is less than house 75 50/10 15/10 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 75 50 30 / 10 a 30 which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 5 which ever is less 75 50 15/10, 30 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 75 50 30 / 10 30 which ever is less shall be at least 30 feet from the property line when the doors face an alley or street. 25 or MCWD buffer, 8 feet 75 5 5 5 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 75 5 which ever is less Interior Side Wetland Height Front Rear Gidr cruor Notes 1. 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. 2. Garage doors must face away from street, on site turnaround provided. 3. No accessory building shall be closer than 10 feet from any other building on the same lot. 78-1435 78-1436 78-1439 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building 78-1435 78-1436 78-1439 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet 50 50 30 / 10 a 30 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 50 a 15 15 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 50 50 30 / 10 a 30 which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 50 50 15/10' 30 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 50 50 30/10 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 8 Feet 5 5 5 5 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 5 which ever is less shall be at least 30 feet from the property line when the doors face an alley or street. Notes 1. 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. 2. Garage doors must face away from street, on site turnaround provided. 3. No accessory building shall be closer than 10 feet from any other building on the same lot. 78-1435 78-1436 78-1439 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building 78-1435 78-1436 78-1439 Section 78-230 (R -1A) A All Lots B Lake Lots 1 Principal Structure 2 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 3 3 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 4 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures,) 5 Oversized Accesory Structure (over 1,000 sqft) 6 Garage Doors 7 Signs not attached to a building 8 Driveways C Non -Lake Lots 1 Principal Structure 2 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 3 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 4 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures) 5 Oversized Accesory Structure (Tennis courts, sport courts, paddocks, and arenas over 1,000 sgft) 6 Signs 7 Driveways Lot Area (Acre) Lot width (feet) 1 140 Lake yard Rear Interior Side street ci,fa Wetland Height Front Rear Interior Side street Wetland Height Side 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet All lake setbacks 30 10 35 which ever is less are based on 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher Public Water 15 15 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house Classification: Lake 35 10 35 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet Classification, Lake 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house Minnetonka 75', 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A e.g. which ever is less 50 50 15/10, 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher which ever is less than house 75 50/102 15/10 30 which ever is less 50 50 30 / 10 t 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 75 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house 5 5 5 5 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less N/A 75 50 15 / 10 t 30 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 75 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less shall be at least 30 feet from the property line when the doors face an alley or street. 25 or MCWD buffer, 8f et 75 5 5 5 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 75 5 which ever is less Front Rear Interior Side street Wetland Height Side Notes 1. 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. 2. Garage doors must face away from street, on site turnaround provided. 3. No accessory building shall be closer than 10 feet from any other building on the same lot. 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet 35 30 10 35 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher so' 15 15 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher so 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 50 50 15/10, 30 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 50 50 30 / 10 t 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 8 Feet 5 5 5 5 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 5 which ever is less Notes 1. 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. 2. Garage doors must face away from street, on site turnaround provided. 3. No accessory building shall be closer than 10 feet from any other building on the same lot. 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building Section 78-255 (R-16) A All Lots B Lake Lots 1 Principal Structure 2 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 3 3 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 4 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures,) 5 Oversized Accesory Structure (over 1,000 sqft) 6 Garage Doors 7 Signs not attached to a building 8 Driveways C Non -Lake Lots 1 Principal Structure 2 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 3 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 4 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures) 5 Oversized Accesory Structure (Tennis courts, sport courts, paddocks, and arenas over 1,000 sgft) 6 Signs 7 Driveways Lot Area (Acre) Lot width (feet) 0.5 100 Lake yard Street Interior Side street ci,fa Wetland Height Front Rear Interior Side street Wetland Height Side 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet All lake setbacks 30 10 15 which ever is less are based on 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher Public Water 15 15 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house Classification: Lake 30 10 15 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet Classification, Lake 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house Minnetonka 75', 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A e.g. which ever is less 50 50 15/10, 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher which ever is less than house 75 50/102 15/10 30 which ever is less 50 50 30 / 10 t 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 75 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house 5 5 5 5 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less N/A 75 50 15 / 10 t 30 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 75 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less shall be at least 30 feet from the property line when the doors face an alley or street. 25 or MCWD buffer, 8f et 75 5 5 5 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 75 5 which ever is less Front Rear Interior Side street Wetland Height Side Notes 1. 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. 2. Garage doors must face away from street, on site turnaround provided. 3. No accessory building shall be closer than 10 feet from any other building on the same lot. 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet 30 30 10 15 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 503 15 15 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 50 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 50 50 15/10, 30 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 50 50 30 / 10 t 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 8 Feet 5 5 5 5 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 5 which ever is less Notes 1. 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. 2. Garage doors must face away from street, on site turnaround provided. 3. No accessory building shall be closer than 10 feet from any other building on the same lot. 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building Section 78-330 (LR -1B) A All Lots B Lake Lots 1 Principal Structure 2 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 3 3 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 4 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures,) 5 Oversized Accesory Structure (over 1,000 sqft) 6 Garage Doors 7 Signs not attached to a building 8 Driveways C Non -Lake Lots 1 Principal Structure 2 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 3 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 4 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures) 5 Oversized Accesory Structure (Tennis courts, sport courts, paddocks, and arenas over 1,000 sgft) 6 Signs 7 Driveways Lot Area (Acre) Lot width (feet) 1 140 Lake yard Street Interior Side street ci,fa Wetland Height Front Rear Interior Side street Wetland Height Side 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet All lake setbacks 30 30 / 10 t 20 which ever is less are based on 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher Public Water 15 15 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house Classification: Lake 35 10 20 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet Classification, Lake 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house Minnetonka 75', 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A e.g. which ever is less 50 50 15/10, 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher which ever is less than house 75 50/102 15/10 30 which ever is less 50 50 30 / 10 t 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 75 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house 5 5 5 5 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less N/A 75 50 15 / 10 t 30 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 75 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less shall be at least 30 feet from the property line when the doors face an alley or street. 25 or MCWD buffer, 8f et 75 5 5 5 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 75 5 which ever is less Front Rear Interior Side street Wetland Height Side Notes 1. Within the LR -1 B 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. 2. Garage doors must face away from street, on site turnaround provided. 3. No accessory building shall be closer than 10 feet from any other building on the same lot. 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet 35 30 30 / 10 t 20 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher so' 15 15 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher so 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 50 50 15/10, 30 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 50 50 30 / 10 t 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 8 Feet 5 5 5 5 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 5 which ever is less Notes 1. Within the LR -1 B 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. 2. Garage doors must face away from street, on site turnaround provided. 3. No accessory building shall be closer than 10 feet from any other building on the same lot. 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building Section 78-350 (1_114C) A All Lots B Lake Lots 1 Principal Structure 2 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 3 3 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 4 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures,) 5 Oversized Accesory Structure (over 1,000 sqft) 6 Garage Doors 7 Signs not attached to a building 8 Driveways C Non -Lake Lots 1 Principal Structure 2 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 3 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 4 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures) 5 Oversized Accesory Structure (Tennis courts, sport courts, paddocks, and arenas over 1,000 sgft) 6 Signs 7 Driveways Lot Area (Acre) Lot width (feet) 0.5 100 Lake yard Street Interior Side street ci,fa Wetland Height Front Rear Interior Side street Wetland Height Side 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet All lake setbacks 30 10 / 7.5 t 15 which ever is less are based on 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher Public Water 15 15 / 10 1 30 which ever is less than house Classification: Lake 30 10 / 7.5 t 15 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet Classification, Lake 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house Minnetonka 75', 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A e.g. which ever is less 50 50 15/10, 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher which ever is less than house 75 50/102 15/10 30 which ever is less 50 50 30 / 10 t 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 75 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house 5 5 5 5 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less N/A 75 50 15 / 10 t 30 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 75 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less shall be at least 30 feet from the property line when the doors face an alley or street. 25 or MCWD buffer, 8f et 75 5 5 5 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 75 5 which ever is less Front Rear Interior Side street Wetland Height Side Notes 1. Within the LR -1C 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. 2. Garage doors must face away from street, on site turnaround provided. 3. No accessory building shall be closer than 10 feet from any other building on the same lot. 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet 30 30 10 / 7.5 t 15 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 503 15 15 / 10 1 30 which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 50 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 50 50 15/10, 30 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 50 50 30 / 10 t 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 8 Feet 5 5 5 5 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 5 which ever is less Notes 1. Within the LR -1C 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. 2. Garage doors must face away from street, on site turnaround provided. 3. No accessory building shall be closer than 10 feet from any other building on the same lot. 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building Section 748-370 (1-11-1-C-1) A All Lots B Lake Lots 1 Principal Structure 2 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 3 3 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 4 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures,) 5 Oversized Accesory Structure (over 1,000 sqft) 6 Garage Doors 7 Signs not attached to a building 8 Driveways C Non -Lake Lots 1 Principal Structure 2 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 3 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 4 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures) 5 Oversized Accesory Structure (Tennis courts, sport courts, paddocks, and arenas over 1,000 sgft) 6 Signs 7 Driveways Lot Area (Acre) Lot width (feet) 0.5 100 Lake yard Street Interior Side street ci,fa Wetland Height Interior Wetland Height Front Rear ci,4o Side street 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet All lake setbacks 30 10 / 7.5 t 15 which ever is less are based on 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher Public Water 15 15 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house Classification: Lake 30 10 / 7.5 t 15 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet Classification, Lake 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house Minnetonka 75', 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A e.g. which ever is less 50 50 15/10, 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher which ever is less than house 75 50/10z 15/10 30 which ever is less 50 50 30 / 10 t 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 75 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house 5 5 5 5 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less N/A 75 50 15 / 10 t 30 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 75 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less shall be at least 30 feet from the property line when the doors face an alley or street. 25 or MCWD buffer, 8f et 75 5 5 5 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 75 5 which ever is less Interior Wetland Height Front Rear ci,4o Side street Notes 1. Within the LR -1C-1 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. 2. Garage doors must face away from street, on site turnaround provided. 3. No accessory building shall be closer than 10 feet from any other building on the same lot. Proposed Change to allow the small lot flexibility 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet 30 30 10 / 7.5 t 15 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 503 15 15 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 50 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 50 50 15/10, 30 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 50 50 30 / 10 t 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 8 Feet 5 5 5 5 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 5 which ever is less Notes 1. Within the LR -1C-1 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. 2. Garage doors must face away from street, on site turnaround provided. 3. No accessory building shall be closer than 10 feet from any other building on the same lot. Proposed Change to allow the small lot flexibility 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building Section 78-395 (RR -IA) A All Lots B Lake Lots 1 Principal Structure 2 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 3 3 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 4 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures,) 5 Oversized Accesory Structure (over 1,000 sqft) 6 Garage Doors 7 Signs not attached to a building 8 Driveways C Non -Lake Lots 1 Principal Structure 2 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 3 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 4 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures) 5 Oversized Accesory Structure (Tennis courts, sport courts, paddocks, and arenas over 1,000 sgft) 6 Signs 7 Driveways Lot Area (Acre) Lot width (feet) 5 300 Lake yard Street Interior Side street ci,fa Wetland Height Front Rear Interior Side street Wetland Height Side 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet All lake setbacks 100 50 100 which ever is less are based on 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher Public Water 15 15 / 10 1 30 which ever is less than house Classification: Lake 100 50 100 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet Classification, Lake 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house Minnetonka 75', 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A e.g. which ever is less 50 50 15/10, 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher which ever is less than house 75 50/102 15/10 30 which ever is less 50 50 30 / 10 t 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 75 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house 5 5 5 5 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less N/A 75 50 15 / 10 t 30 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 75 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less shall be at least 30 feet from the property line when the doors face an alley or street. 25 or MCWD buffer, 8f et 75 5 5 5 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 75 5 which ever is less Front Rear Interior Side street Wetland Height Side Notes 1. 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. 2. Garage doors must face away from street, on site turnaround provided. 3. No accessory building shall be closer than 10 feet from any other building on the same lot. 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet 100 100 50 100 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 503 15 15 / 10 1 30 which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 50 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 50 50 15/10, 30 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 50 50 30 / 10 t 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 8 Feet 5 5 5 5 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 5 which ever is less Notes 1. 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. 2. Garage doors must face away from street, on site turnaround provided. 3. No accessory building shall be closer than 10 feet from any other building on the same lot. 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building Section 78-420 (RR -1B) A All Lots B Lake Lots 1 Principal Structure 2 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 3 3 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 4 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures,) 5 Oversized Accesory Structure (over 1,000 sqft) 6 Garage Doors 7 Signs not attached to a building 8 Driveways C Non -Lake Lots 1 Principal Structure 2 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 3 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 4 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures) 5 Oversized Accesory Structure (Tennis courts, sport courts, paddocks, and arenas over 1,000 sgft) 6 Signs 7 Driveways Lot Area (Acre) Lot width (feet) 2 200 Lake yard Street Interior Side street ci,fa Wetland Height Front Rear Interior Side street Wetland Height Side 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet All lake setbacks 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less are based on 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher Public Water 15 15 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house Classification: Lake 50 30 / 10 2 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet Classification, Lake 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house Minnetonka 75', 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A e.g. which ever is less 50 50 15/10, 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher which ever is less than house 75 50/102 15/10 30 which ever is less 50 50 30 / 10 t 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 75 50 30 / 10 2 30 which ever is less than house 5 5 5 5 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less N/A 75 50 15 / 10 t 30 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 75 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less shall be at least 30 feet from the property line when the doors face an alley or street. 25 or MCWD buffer, 8f et 75 5 5 5 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 75 5 which ever is less Front Rear Interior Side street Wetland Height Side Notes 1. 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. 2. Garage doors must face away from street, on site turnaround provided. 3. No accessory building shall be closer than 10 feet from any other building on the same lot. 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet 50 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 503 15 15 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 50 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 50 50 15/10, 30 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 50 50 30 / 10 t 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 8 Feet 5 5 5 5 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 5 which ever is less Notes 1. 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. 2. Garage doors must face away from street, on site turnaround provided. 3. No accessory building shall be closer than 10 feet from any other building on the same lot. 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building Section 78-570 (RS) A All Lots B Lake Lots 1 Principal Structure 2 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 3 3 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 4 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures,) 5 Oversized Accesory Structure (over 1,000 sqft) 6 Garage Doors 7 Signs not attached to a building 8 Driveways C Non -Lake Lots 1 Principal Structure 2 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 3 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 4 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures) 5 Oversized Accesory Structure (Tennis courts, sport courts, paddocks, and arenas over 1,000 sgft) 6 Signs 7 Driveways Lot Area (Acre) Lot width (feet) 5 1 200 Lake yard Street Interior Side Wetland Height Side street Interior Side Wetland Height Front Rear Side street 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet 15% of lot 15% of lot which ever is less 30 width 15% of lot 30 75 30 width 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet 50 a 15 15 / 10 t 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher which ever is less than house 75 50/102 15/101 30 which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 75 50 30/101 30 which ever is less than house 50 50 15/10 30 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less N/A 75 50 15/10 30 which ever is less 50 50 30/10 30 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 75 50 30 / 10 t 30 which ever is less 8 Feet shall be at least 30 feet from the property line when the doors face an alley or street. 5 5 5 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, 8 feet 75 5 5 5 which ever is less 5 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 75 5 which ever is less Interior Side Wetland Height Front Rear Side street Notes Currently, setback is based on a sliding scale, based on lot size: (4) Minimum setback from internal side or rear property line shall be: a. All structures on lots 200 feet or more in width, 50 feet. b. All structures on existing record lots 100 feet or more in width but less than 200 feet in width, 30 feet. c. All structures on existing record lots less than 100 feet in width, ten feet 2. Garage doors must face away from street, on site turnaround provided. 3. No accessory building shall be closer than 10 feet from any other building on the same lot. 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet 15% of lot 15% of lot which ever is less 30 width width 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 50 a 15 15 / 10 t 30 which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher 50 50 30 / 10 30 which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 50 50 15/10 30 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 50 50 30/10 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 8 Feet 5 5 5 5 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A 5 which ever is less Notes Currently, setback is based on a sliding scale, based on lot size: (4) Minimum setback from internal side or rear property line shall be: a. All structures on lots 200 feet or more in width, 50 feet. b. All structures on existing record lots 100 feet or more in width but less than 200 feet in width, 30 feet. c. All structures on existing record lots less than 100 feet in width, ten feet 2. Garage doors must face away from street, on site turnaround provided. 3. No accessory building shall be closer than 10 feet from any other building on the same lot. 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building Section 78-646 (B-1) A All Lots B 1 Principal Structure 2 Parking Lots 3 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 4 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 5 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures) 6 7 Signs 8 Driveways Lot Area (Sq Ft) Lot width (feet) 20,000 1 100 Interior Side Side adj. Wetland Height Front Rear Side street to R zones 78-646 (e) 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building 78-646 (c,d) 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet 35 35 15 35 35 which ever is less 20 30 10 15 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, 8 Feet which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, j N/A which ever is less 78-646 (e) 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building 78-646 (c,d) Section 78-672 (B-2) A All Lots B Lake Lots 1 Principal Structure 2 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 3 3 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 4 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures,) 5 Oversized Accesory Structure (over 1,000 sqft) 6 Garage Doors 7 Signs not attached to a building 8 Driveways 9 Exterior Activities. Lot Area (Acre) Lot width (feet) Lot Depth (feet) 2 1 200 1 200 Lake yard Street InteriorSide street Wetland Height Side No operation or activities except for storage and parking may be conducted closer than 50 feet to the boundary of an adjoining property line which property is used for residential purposes or street, road, or highway.. Notes 1. 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. 2. Garage doors must face away from street, on site turnaround provided. 3. No accessory building shall be closer than 10 feet from any other building on the same lot. 25 or MCWD buffer, which ever is less 75 30 10 30 feet 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less shall be at least 30 feet from the property line when the doors face an alley or street. 25 or MCWD buffer, 8 feet which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less No operation or activities except for storage and parking may be conducted closer than 50 feet to the boundary of an adjoining property line which property is used for residential purposes or street, road, or highway.. Notes 1. 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. 2. Garage doors must face away from street, on site turnaround provided. 3. No accessory building shall be closer than 10 feet from any other building on the same lot. Section 78-707 (B-3) A All Lots B 1 Principal Structure 2 Parking Lots 3 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 4 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 5 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures) 6 Oversized Accesory Structure (Tennis courts, sport courts, paddocks, and arenas over 1,000 sqft) 7 Signs 8 Driveways Lot Area (Acre) Lot width (feet) FAR 2 1 1 0.28 lot line Wetland Front Rear Interior Side adjacent to R Side street zones Height 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet 60 60 60 60 100 which ever is less 20 30 5 20 15 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, 8 Feet which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less Section 78-736 (13-4) A All Lots Lot Area (Sq Ft) Lot width (feet) 20,000 100 B Front Rear Interior Side Abutting R Wetland Height Side street zones 1 Principal Structure 2 Parking Lots 2 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 3 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 4 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures) 5 Oversized Accesory Structure (Tennis courts, sport courts, paddocks, and arenas over 1,000 sqft) 6 Signs 7 Driveways 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet 35 35 15 35 35 which ever is less 20 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, 8 Feet which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building Section 78-766 (B-5) A All Lots Lot Area (Sq Ft) Lot width (feet) 20,000 100 B Front Rear Interior Side Abutting R Wetland Height iirl? ztrppt 7nnPc 1 Principal Structure 2 Parking lot 3 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 4 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 5 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures) 6 Oversized Accesory Structure (Tennis courts, sport courts, paddocks, and arenas over 1,000 sqft) 7 Signs 8 Driveways 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet 35 35 15 35 35 which ever is less 20 30 10 15 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, 8 Feet which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building Section 78-797 (B-6) A All Lots Lot Area (Acres) Lot width (feet) 2 100 B Front Rear Interior Side Wetland Height Side street 1 Principal Structure 2 Parking lot 3 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 4 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 5 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures ) 6 Oversized Accesory Structure (Tennis courts, sport courts, paddocks, and arenas over 1,000 sgft) 7 Signs 8 Driveways Currently the greater of 1.5 x building height, or 35 feet 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet 30 30 10 30 which ever is less 15 10 5 30 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, 8 Feet which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less Currently the greater of 1.5 x building height, or 35 feet 3. Not nearer the street than the principal building Section 78-825 (1-1) A All Lots B Non -Lake Lots 1 Principal Structure 2 Accessory Building (Sheds, Greenhouses, Pool Houses) 3 Oversized Accessory Building (Over 1,000 sq ft) 4 Accessory Structure (Pools, Patios, Decks unattached to the house, laundry drying equipment, compost structures ) 5 Oversized Accesory Structure (Tennis courts, sport courts, paddocks, and arenas over 1,000 sqft) 6 Signs 7 Driveways Minimum Building Lot Coverage: 3 Lot Area (Sq Ft) Lot width (feet) area (Sq Ft) acres or less Lot Coverage 3.01 acres or more 40,000 200 1 10,000 0.35 1 0.45 Interior Side Wetland Front Rear Side street Height 1. Based on the type of road 25 or MCWD buffer, 40 Feet 35 20 10 35/20 1 which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, 30 feet and No higher which ever is less than house 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, 8 Feet which ever is less 25 or MCWD buffer, N/A which ever is less 1. Based on the type of road To: Chair Thiesse and Planning Commission Members Dustin Rief, City Administrator From: Jeremy Barnhart, Community Development Director Date: July 16, 2018 Subject: #LA18-000059, City of Orono, Text Amendment related to Sign regulations. Public Hearing Application Summary: The draft ordinance would delete and replace all of the sign regulations within the city code. The ordinance is intended to remove sign regulations based on what the sign says, which is free speech concern. Other goals include clarifying the regulations. Staff Recommendation: Hold a public hearing, provide preliminary feedback, to be reviewed in August. Background Sign regulations must be content neutral; regulations must apply based on the time, place, or manner of the speech, rather than content. Our existing ordinance includes many references to the content of the sign. The draft ordinance was developed by the City Attorney's office. This draft is offered to gather preliminary feedback prior to finalizing the document for adoption later this summer. A couple of notable sections: 1. The draft continues to prohibit pole signs, where free standing signs are allowed, they must be monument style. 2. The draft retains the 4 temporary sign permits annually. 3. The new regulations introduces an sign standard table. This table is central the content neutral goals of this ordinances. All signs in the various districts are regulated the same manner. 4. The draft allows up to 35% of changeable copy, either electric or manual. 5. The draft does not require a permit to change the face (text) of a sign. This draft is prepared to begin the process of review. More comprehensive discussion is planned for the August PC meeting. Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Draft Sign Ordinance 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 ORDINANCE NO. CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE REPEALING AND REPLACING IN ITS ENTIRETY CITY CODE TITLE VI, CHAPTER 78, ARTICLE X, DIVISION 4 REGULATING SIGNS THE CITY COUNCIL OF ORONO ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Orono City Code Title VI, Chapter 78, Article X, Division 4 is repealed in its entirety and replaced with the following language: Sec. 78-1465. - Recitals. This Division shall be known, cited and referred to as the Orono Sign Code, except as referred to herein, where it shall be known as "this Division." Sec. 78-1466. - Purpose. Purpose. This Sign Code is intended to establish a comprehensive and balanced system of sign control that accommodates the need for a well-maintained, safe, and attractive community, and the need for effective communications, including business identification. It is the intent of these sign regulations, to promote the health, safety, general welfare, aesthetics, and image of the community by regulating signs that are intended to communicate to the public in all areas of the City. It is not the purpose or intent of this division to regulate the message displayed on any sign. The purpose of this division is to authorize: Page 1 (1) Permanent signs which establish a high standard of aesthetics and are appropriate for the planned character in each sign district as established in Section 78-1478; (2) Signs that are compatible with their surroundings; (3) Signs that are designed, constructed, installed, and maintained in a manner that does not adversely impact public safety or create a hazard to motorists, pedestrians, or cyclists; (4) Signs that are proportioned to the scale of, and are architecturally compatible with, principal structures; (5) Permanent signs which give preference to the on -premise owner or occupant; 44 (6) Temporary commercial signs and advertising displays which provide an 45 opportunity to advertise while restricting signs that create visual clutter and 46 hazards at public right-of-way intersections; 47 48 (7) Minimize adverse effects on nearby property; and 49 50 (8) Provide for fair and consistent enforcement of the sign regulations set forth herein 51 under the authority of the City. 52 53 Sec. 78-1467. - Findings. 54 55 Findings. The City finds it is necessary for the promotion and preservation of the public 56 health, safety, welfare, and aesthetics of the community to control the construction, location, 57 size, and maintenance of signs. Further the City finds: 58 59 (1) Permanent and temporary signs have a direct impact on and relationship to the 60 image and aesthetic of the community; 61 62 (2) The manner of installation, location, and maintenance of signs affects the public 63 health, safety, welfare, and aesthetics of the community; 64 65 (3) An opportunity for viable identification of community businesses, residences, and 66 institutions must be established; 67 68 (4) The safety of motorists, cyclists, pedestrians, and other users of public streets and 69 property is affected by the number, size, location, and appearance of signs that 70 create a hazard for drivers; 71 72 (5) Installation of signs suspended from, projecting over, or placed on the tops of 73 buildings, walks, or other structures may constitute a hazard during periods of 74 high winds and an obstacle to effective fire -fighting and other emergency service; 75 76 (6) Uncontrolled and unlimited signs and sign types adversely impact the image and 77 aesthetic attractiveness of the community and thereby undermine economic value 78 and growth; 79 80 (7) Uncontrolled and unlimited signs, particularly temporary signs which are 81 commonly located within or adjacent to public right-of-way or are located at 82 driveway/street intersections, result in roadside clutter and obstruction of views of 83 oncoming traffic. This creates a hazard to drivers and pedestrians and also 84 adversely impacts a logical flow of information; 85 86 (8) Commercial signs are generally incompatible with residential uses and should be 87 strictly limited in residential zoning districts; and 88 Page 2 89 (9) The right to express noncommercial opinions in any zoning district must be 90 protected, subject to reasonable restrictions on size, height, location, and number. 91 92 Sec. 78-1468. - Scope of Regulations. 93 94 The sign regulations set forth in this Division shall apply to all structures and land uses. 95 This Division describes the signage standards for the sign districts that overlay the zoning 96 districts of the City. Specific additional regulations are established for signs which are unique in 97 purpose and not easily addressed by district regulations. No person, property owner, or lessee 98 shall place, erect, alter, modify, enhance, or change in any way a sign that does not conform to 99 the requirements of this Division and all other applicable regulations. 100 101 Sec. 78-1469. - Definitions. 102 103 For the purposes of this Division, the following words and terms are defined as follows: 104 105 Auxiliary sign means a sign that provides direction for internal circulation, parking or 106 entry, restrictions on parking, security warnings, or other similar primarily noncommercial signs 107 that are directed at people that are entering, exiting, or on a particular property. Auxiliary signs 108 do not include outdoor advertising signs. 109 110 Banner means any temporary sign of lightweight fabric or similar material mounted to a 111 pole or a building at one (1) or more edges. 112 113 Billboard means see "Outdoor advertising sign." 114 115 Canopy/awning sign means a message or logo on an awning or canopy which is 116 constructed according to the requirements of the building code, is an integral part of the building, 117 and is consistent with the architecture and design of the building. 118 119 Clear vision area means an area within a triangle that is measured along the edge of the 120 driving surface of the road starting at the intersection of two roads and driveways (public or 121 private) and extending thirty (30) feet in each direction from the intersection and then a line 122 connecting these two end points. 123 124 Changeable message sign means a message that is not permanently attached to the sign 125 face but is not a dynamic display. The message is changed manually. 126 127 Commercial message sign means any message which identifies a business or product or 128 promotes the sale of any product or service. 129 130 Dynamic display means any characteristics of a sign that appear to have movement or 131 that appear to change, caused by any method other than physically removing and replacing the 132 sign or its components, whether the apparent movement or change is in the display, the sign 133 structure itself, or any other component of the sign. This includes a display that incorporates a 134 technology or method allowing the sign face to change the image without having to physically or Page 3 135 mechanically replace the sign face or its components. This also includes, but is not limited to, 136 any rotating, revolving, moving, flashing, blinking, projecting, or animated display and any 137 display that incorporates rotating panels, LED lights manipulated through digital input, "digital 138 ink," or any other method or technology that allows the sign face to present a series of images or 139 displays. 140 141 Freestanding sign means a self-supporting sign usually held up by uprights placed in the 142 ground or any other base that is anchored to the ground. 143 144 Grand opening means commencement of operation of a new business. For purposes of 145 the ordinance, a grand opening is considered to occur if there is a business name change or 146 change in type of business or activity. 147 148 Graphic sign means a sculpture attached to or sign painted directly on a wall that is 149 primarily symbolic or representational in nature and not alpha or numeric in content or copy. 150 151 Illuminated sign means any sign, which has characters, letters, figures, designs or outlines 152 which are illuminated by an artificial light source. 153 154 Incidental sign means any sign that is generally not understandable or readable from 155 property other than where the sign is located, such as from adjacent property or a public street, as 156 determined by the City Administrator or their designee. 157 158 Lighting, backlit means an illuminated sign where the light source which illuminates the 159 wall behind individual sign letters is hidden from view. The sign letters are opaque and appear 160 as a silhouette against the lighted surface. 161 162 Lighting, external means the sign is illuminated by means of external light fixtures 163 directed at the sign. 164 165 Lighting, internal means an illuminated sign having the source of illumination located 166 inside a translucent panel and is not directly visible. 167 168 Monument sign means a freestanding sign with its sign face mounted on the ground or 169 mounted on a base at least as wide as the sign and is less than sixteen (16) feet in height. 170 171 On premise sign means a sign whose message is related to the property or the activity 172 and use occurring on the property on which the sign is located. On -premise signs include multi - 173 tenant identification signs that may advertise tenants on different property provided such tenants 174 are within the same approved PUD and parking is shared between properties. 175 176 Outdoor advertising sign means any sign that is located outdoors and that advertises a 177 product, business, service, event, or any other matter that is not available, or does not take place, 178 on the same premises as the sign. Outdoor advertising signs are commonly called billboards. An 179 outdoor advertising sign does not include a sign that is not readily understandable or readable Page 4 180 from property other than where the sign is located, such as from adjacent property or a public 181 street, as determined by the City Administrator or their designee. 182 183 Permanent sign means any sign that is not temporary. 184 185 Pole sign means a freestanding sign that is elevated off the ground by one or more poles. 186 187 Portable sign means a temporary sign with or without copy and graphic that is designed 188 or intended to be moved or transported but not including banner signs. Examples of portable 189 signs include, but are not limited to: A -frame or T -frame signs, sandwich signs; signs designed to 190 be transported by trailer or on wheels; and signs mounted on a vehicle for advertising purposes, 191 except signs identifying a business when the vehicle is being used in the normal day-to-day 192 operation of that business. A sign may be a portable sign even if it has wheels removed, was 193 designed without wheels, or is attached to the ground, a structure, or other sign. 194 195 Projecting sign means a sign, other than a wall sign, that is attached to and projects more 196 than eighteen (18) inches from the building fagade. 197 198 Public sign means a traffic control sign in Minnesota State Statutes; any identification 199 sign installed in a public park by a public authority; and any other identification, regulatory, or 200 warning sign approved by the City Council for installation on public land. 201 202 Re facing means the process of replacing the sign copy, message, logo, or graphic on a 203 sign without altering or moving the structure to which the sign face is attached. 204 205 Roof sign means a sign that is mounted on the roof of a building or on a parapet wall that 206 is above the roof line. 207 208 Rotating sign means a sign or a portion of a sign which moves in a rotating, oscillating or 209 similar manner other than changing signs. 210 211 Service area canopy means an open air roof -like structure that projects from the wall of a 212 building or is freestanding and is for the purpose of shielding equipment and/or people from the 213 elements; is often found covering service or gasoline station islands. 214 215 Sign means any written message, pictorial presentation, number, illustration, decoration, 216 banner or other device that is used to announce, direct attention to, identify, advertise or 217 otherwise make anything known. For purpose of maintenance or removal, the term "sign" shall 218 also include frames and support structures. 219 220 Sign area means the area in square feet of the smallest rectangle, circle, or triangle that 221 contains the sign copy. 222 223 Sign height means the distance measured perpendicular from the highest point of the sign 224 structure to the average grade at the base of the sign. Page 5 225 Temporary sign means a sign designed to be displayed for a limited period of time that is 226 not permanently affixed to the land or to a structure. 227 228 Wall sign means a sign attached to or erected against an exterior wall surface of a 229 building or structure. 230 231 Window sign means a sign mounted inside of a building within the window area that is 232 applied or fastened to the window in a manner that is intended to be viewed from outside the 233 building. 234 235 Sec. 78-1470. - Application Process. 236 237 An application for a sign permit shall be made on the City's permit platform. The 238 applicant shall provide all required information. 239 240 Sec. 78-1471. - Review Process. 241 242 The City Administrator or their designee shall approve or deny the sign permit 243 application in an expedited manner, no more than thirty (30) days from the receipt of the 244 completed application, including applicable fees. All complete permit applications not reviewed 245 within thirty (30) days shall be deemed approved. Applicants shall be notified in writing if the 246 application is denied, including the reasons for denial. 247 248 Sec. 78-1472. - Appeals Process. 249 250 Appeals shall be made as outlined in Sections 78-96 through 78-99 no later than 10 days 251 following the decision. 252 253 Sec. 78-1473. - Fees. 254 255 Sign permit fees and the impoundment fee shall be set by the City Council by ordinance 256 from time to time. 257 258 Sec. 78-1474. - Inspection and Enforcement. 259 260 (1) Inspection authority. All signs shall be subject to inspection by the City 261 Administrator or their designee, who is hereby authorized to enter upon any 262 property or premise to ascertain whether the provisions of this division are being 263 obeyed. Such entrance shall be made during business hours unless an emergency 264 exists. 265 266 (2) Signs in Disrepair. The City Administrator or their designee may order the 267 removal of any sign that is not maintained in accordance with the maintenance 268 provisions of this ordinance. Upon failure to comply with such notice within the 269 time specified in such order, the City Council may declare the sign to be a public Page 6 270 nuisance, impound it, and assess the cost of removal to the sign owner or the sign 271 owner's agent. 272 273 (3) Impoundment of signs on public property or within public right of way. The City 274 Administrator or their designee may, at any time and without notice, impound 275 signs that have been installed on public property, within the public right-of-way, 276 or within a public easement that are in violation of this division. The sign owner 277 or their agent may retrieve an impounded sign subject to the following rules: 278 279 a. Payment of an impoundment release fee. Any subsequent 280 impoundment(s), within one calendar year, for a particular property or 281 sign owner will require payment of double the initial impoundment release 282 fee. 283 284 b. Any impounded sign may be retrieved from the impounded area within 285 three (3) business days of the impoundment or the City Administrator or 286 their designee may dispose of it. The impoundment area can be located by 287 contacting City Hall. Any cost incurred by the City for disposal of an 288 impounded sign may be assessed to the sign owner or the sign owner's 289 agent. 290 291 C. The City shall have no obligation to notify a property owner that it has 292 impounded a sign. 293 294 d. The City shall not be held liable for any damage to an impounded sign. 295 296 Sec. 78-1475. - Exempt Signs. 297 298 All signs shall require an approved sign permit prior to placement except for the signs 299 specifically noted in this Section. Exempted signs shall not reduce the permitted signage for a 300 property. These exemptions shall not relieve the owner of the sign from the responsibility of its 301 maintenance and its compliance with the provisions of this division or any other law or 302 ordinance regulation the same. 303 304 (1) Government signs. All government signs, including but not limited to traffic 305 control and other regulatory purpose signs, street signs, identification signs, 306 informational signs, danger signs, and railroad crossing signs. 307 308 (2) Non-commercial signs in an election year. Signs of any size containing non - 309 commercial speech may be posted in any number beginning 46 days before the 310 state primary in a state general election year until ten (10) days following the 311 general election and thirteen (13) weeks prior to any special election until ten (10) 312 days following the special election provided that the signs are in compliance with 313 Minnesota Statutes. 314 Page 7 315 (3) Address signs. Address identification signs not exceeding four (4) square feet in 316 area for each structure or portion of a structure with an assigned address. Street 317 Signs with moving, swinging, revolving, or rotating parts. identification numbers are required in all sign districts and should be clearly 318 visible from the street. 319 Freestanding pole signs. 352 320 (4) Exempt residential signs. Properties in Sign District 1 shall be allowed up to eight 321 Roof signs. (8) square feet of signage provided that a single sign is no larger than six (6) 322 square feet, the signs are not illuminated, and freestanding signs are at least five 323 Projecting signs. (5) feet from any property line. 324 357 325 (5) Portable signs. Portable A -frame, T -frame, sandwich, or other similar signs that 326 supported in conformance with applicable building or other codes and regulations. do not exceed six (6) square feet in size, are not illuminated, are located within 327 fifteen (15) feet of the primary entrance to a building, and are displayed only 328 during the hours of business operation. No more than two of these signs shall be 329 in place at any given time. 330 331 (6) Incidental signs. Incidental signs or signs within a building provided the sign is 332 not readily visible from the public right-of-way and adjacent properties. 333 334 (7) Window signs. Window signs that are inside of a building shall not require a 335 permit but shall be in accordance with Section 78-1478, Table 1. 336 337 (8) Non-commercial signs. Any sign display or device allowed under this section may 338 contain any otherwise lawful noncommercial message that does not direct 339 attention to a business operated for profit, or to a commodity service for sale, and 340 that complies with the size, height, and lighting requirements of this Division. 341 342 (9) Change of copy. No permit shall be required to change the text of a sign provided 343 the sign structure and face is not otherwise enlarged, modified, enhanced or 344 altered in any way. 345 346 See. 78-1476. - Prohibited Signs. 347 The following signs shall be prohibited in all sign districts: 348 349 (1) Signs with moving, swinging, revolving, or rotating parts. 350 351 (2) Freestanding pole signs. 352 353 (3) Roof signs. 354 355 (4) Projecting signs. 356 357 (5) Noncompliant signs. Any sign not constructed, wired, assembled, attached, or 358 supported in conformance with applicable building or other codes and regulations. Page 8 359 360 (6) Signs in the right-of-way. Signs in the public right-of-way except as provided for, 361 by Minnesota Statutes, or allowed by the agency regulating the right-of-way. 362 363 (7) Signs attached to public utility poles, trees, street signs, stoplights, or fences. 364 365 (8) Permanent outdoor advertising signs, including billboards. 366 367 (9) Portable signs. Portable signs shall be prohibited, except for portable A -frame, T- 368 frame, sandwich, or other similar signs that do not exceed six (6) square feet in 369 size. 370 371 (10) Signs in the clear vision area. 372 373 (11) Signs imitating traffic control signs. Signs that are designed to resemble official 374 traffic signs except signs which are used to control traffic on private property. 375 (12) Any sign, sign type, sign lighting, or sign technology not specifically listed as 376 permitted in this Division shall be prohibited. 377 378 Sec. 78-1477. - Regulation by Sign District. 379 380 For the purpose of regulating signs, the following sign districts are adopted: 381 District Description 1 All residential properties zoned R-1 A, R-1 B, LR -1 A, LR -1 B, LR -1 C, LR -1 C-1, RR -1 A, RR -1 B, RR -113- 1, RS, PRD, RPUD 2 M-6, All nonresidential uses located in a residential district 3 B-1, B-2, B-3, B-4, B-5, B-6 4 I, PID 382 383 Sec. 78-1478. - Permitted Sign Type, Area, Height, and Illumination by Sign District 384 385 All signs shall conform to the applicable standards in Table 1: Sign Standards by Sign 386 District. The following provisions shall also apply: 387 388 (1) Wall Sign. Wall signs shall not extend more than eighteen (18) inches from the 389 wall they are attached to. 390 391 (2) Monument Signs. 392 393 a. No more than one monument sign shall be permitted on any site except in 394 cases where properties front more than one public street. For properties 395 that front more than one public street, one additional monument sign may 396 be permitted provided that the additional monument sign does not exceed Page 9 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 Page 10 half the size of the maximum sign area allowed for a monument sign in the underlying district. b. The sign area of a monument sign shall only be calculated using one side of the sign. If the two sides are different sizes, the larger side shall be used for determining sign area. C. Monument signs shall be located at least five (5) feet from any property line and shall not project over the property line. Clear vision shall be maintained from all streets and driveways. d. The total area of a monument sign shall not exceed 1.5 times the permitted sign copy area of a monument sign. The total sign area includes all sign copy, graphics, and structure. (3) Service Area Canopy. Each edge of a service area canopy facing a street is permitted twenty-five (25) square feet of sign area in addition to all other sign area permitted on the site. Such signage may be illuminated externally, internally, or backlit, but no other part of the face of the canopy shall be illuminated. (4) Awnings and Canopies. No part of an awning or sun canopy shall be less than eight (8) feet or greater than twelve (12) feet above grade. Any sign area on the awning, if illuminated, will be deducted from the permitted sign area. The fabric or material used for the awning or canopy must be opaque and no internal illumination is permitted. (5) Adult Use Signs. In addition to this Division, all adult use oriented signs shall comply with the sign requirements in the Sexually Oriented Business Ordinance. 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 78-1477 Table 1: Si Sign Type District 1 Total Sign area on a parcel shall be in proportion to the lot frontage on a street, described by the ratio: 1 foot of street frontage to X feet of sign area 1:1 WALL Maximum sign copy area — single 6 sf sign Max Height wall heigl Lighting (a) Not permitt FREESTANDING Type (b) M Total sign copy area 6 sf Max Height 8 ft. Lighting Not permit GRAPHIC Total sign area 8 sf Max Height wall heig Lighting Not permit WINDOW Maximum coverage area Not permit AUXILIARY Max sign copy area per sign 8 sf Wall Height Not perm Freestanding Height 4 ft. (a) E = external, I = internal, B = backlit (b) M = monument, P = pole (c) Single pole support only. Table 1 ,n Standards by Sign District District 2 District 3 District 4 4 l:l 1:2.5 1:2 20 sf 60 sf 45 sf M 32 sf wall height wall height wall heit E/I/B E/i/B E/UB ted ht ted ted M M M 32 sf 45 sf 25 sf 8 ft. 12 ft. 8 ft. E/I/B E/I/B E/I/B 20 sf 60 sf 45 sf wall height wall height wall height E/I/B E/I/B E/I/B Not permitted 35% of window area, not to exceed 5% of building facade 35% of window area, not to exceed 5% of building facade 8 sf 8 sf 8 sf ed 4 ft. 6 ft. 8 ft. 4 ft. 6 ft. 8 ft. Sec. 78-1479. - Changeable Message Sign. No more than thirty-five (35) percent of the actual sign area of a permitted sign in a non- residential district shall be capable of displaying changing messages. The remainder of the sign area shall not have the capability to change messages even if not used. Sec. 78-1480. - Allocation of Permanent Signs on Multi -Tenant Development Sites. In multi -tenant buildings or sites, the permitted sign area and sign types, except for freestanding signs, may be installed by each individual business establishment that has exclusive Page 11 441 use of some portion of the street or otherwise primary level of the building and direct access to 442 the outside. Tenants located on the street or otherwise primary level in a center with a common 443 mall or atrium shall be considered to have direct access to the outside for the purpose of this 444 section. The management and ownership of any business establishment proposing to install 445 signage must be separate and distinct from the management and ownership of any other 446 establishment in the same building or on the same building lot. 447 448 (1) Multi -tenant buildings and properties sign allocation. Signage for establishments 449 occupying a multi -tenant building or site but not located on the street or primary 450 level of the building must be provided from the allocation of sign area and type to 451 the occupants of the street or primary level of the building as determined by the 452 property owner. 453 454 (2) Freestanding signs on multi -tenant buildings and properties. For freestanding 455 signs, a multi -tenant parcel shall be considered one parcel and freestanding signs 456 shall be permitted in accordance with Section 78-1478 Table 1. In the case of 457 multiple tenant sites, the permitted freestanding sign area shall be allocated by the 458 property owner among its tenants. 459 460 Sec. 78-1481. - Temporary On -premise Signs. 461 462 All temporary signs shall require an approved sign permit prior to placing the sign and 463 shall conform to the following: 464 465 (1) Temporary sign permit length. Temporary signs, including portable signs, 466 streamers, pennants, banners, inflatables, or other similar objects with a 467 commercial message may be displayed on (4) occasions per calendar year with a 468 maximum of ten (10) days for each occasion. The four (4) occasions may be used 469 consecutively with one permit. Temporary sign permits are nontransferable to 470 other properties or establishments on the same property. 471 472 (2) Single occupant parcels. 473 474 a. No more than one permitted temporary sign shall be permitted at any 475 given time. The area of the temporary signage shall not exceed one half of 476 the permitted sign area as allowed in Section 78-1478 Table 1 for a 477 particular sign type in the underlying sign district. 478 479 b. Freestanding temporary signs shall only be permitted in districts where 480 freestanding signs are permitted as allowed in Section 78-1478 Table 1. 481 482 (3) Multi -tenant parcels. 483 484 a. Each individual business establishment that has exclusive use of some 485 portion of the street or otherwise primary level of the building and direct 486 access to the outside qualifies for the temporary signs permitted in Section Page 12 487 78-1481 (1). Sign permits shall not be transferrable to other business 488 establishments. 489 490 b. Temporary wall signage may be permitted for each individual business 491 establishment that has exclusive use of some portion of the street or 492 otherwise primary level of the building and direct access to the outside. 493 The total temporary wall sign area for each tenant shall not exceed one 494 half of the permitted permanent wall sign area as allowed in Section 78- 495 1478 Table 1. Each business shall not have more than one wall or 496 freestanding temporary sign at a time. 497 498 C. One temporary freestanding sign may be permitted for each individual 499 business establishment that has exclusive use of some portion of the street 500 or otherwise primary level of the building and direct access to the outside. 501 The total area of all temporary freestanding signage for the parcel shall not 502 exceed one half of the permitted area of permanent freestanding signage 503 for the parcel as allowed in Section 78-1478 Table 1. The total permitted 504 temporary freestanding sign area shall be allocated by the property owner 505 or their designee among its tenants. 506 507 (4) Grand openings. New businesses with grand openings are eligible for one 508 additional temporary sign permit of any type permitted in the underlying sign 509 district with an approved permit. The sign may be in place for up to thirty (30) 510 days provided all other requirements in this section are met and the required 511 permits are obtained. This eligibility shall expire six months after the business 512 opens. 513 514 (5) Lease or vacant space. Buildings or parcels for sale or lease, or those with space 515 for sale or lease may obtain a temporary sign permit for one temporary wall or 516 monument sign that does not expire until seven (7) days after the building or 517 parcel is leased or sold. A wall sign shall not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in 518 size and shall be used in place of a permanent wall sign. A freestanding sign shall 519 not exceed thirty-two (32) square feet in size All other provisions in this Section 520 78-1481 shall apply. 521 522 (6) Residential, commercial, industrial developments. For the purpose of selling or 523 promoting a residential project of six or more dwelling units one sign not to 524 exceed 48 square feet; a commercial area three acres or more, or an industrial area 525 of ten acres or more, one sign not to exceed 96 feet of advertising surface may be 526 erected upon the project site. Such sign shall not remain after 90 percent of the 527 project is developed. 528 529 (7) Temporary sign height. A temporary sign shall not exceed the height limits listed 530 in Section 78-1478 Table 1 for a permanent sign of a particular sign type in a 531 given district, including inflatable signs and balloons. 532 Page 13 533 (8) Sign installation. A temporary sign shall be secured and well -constructed so as 534 not to create a hazard to pedestrians or vehicles. 535 536 (9) Illumination. A temporary sign shall not be illuminated. 537 538 (10) Location. The permitted location of all temporary signs is subject to change as 539 determined by the City Administrator or their designee in order to protect the 540 public health, safety, welfare, and aesthetics. 541 542 Sec. 78-1482. — Sign Standard Adjustments. 543 544 Adjustments to the requirements and standards for the height, number, type, lighting, 545 area, and/or location of a sign or signs established by this division may be approved with a Site 546 Plan Review or Planned Unit Development process as described in Chapter 78, Article II, 547 Division 4 and Chapter 78, Article VI of the Zoning Code. In order to approve any sign standard 548 adjustment, the following criteria of (1) or (2) shall be satisfied of this Section, and the necessary 549 criteria of (3) shall be satisfied: 550 551 (1) There are site conditions that require a sign adjustment to allow the sign to be 552 reasonably visible from a street immediately adjacent to the site. 553 554 (2) The sign adjustment will allow a sign of exceptional design or style that will 555 enhance the area or that is more consistent with the architecture and design of the 556 site. 557 558 (3) The sign adjustment will not result in a sign that is inconsistent with the purpose 559 of the zoning district in which the property is located or the current land use. 560 561 Sec. 78-1483. — Maintenance and Repair. 562 563 All signs shall be kept in good repair and free from peeling paint, rust, damaged or rotted 564 support, framework or other material, broken or missing faces or missing letters. Any structure 565 from which a sign has been moved or removed shall be repaired with materials and/or painted or 566 stained to match the existing background. 567 568 (1) Sign permit not required. Activities considered normal maintenance and repair 569 and not requiring a sign or building permit shall include activities such as 570 replacing or repairing lamps, ballasts, transformers, trim, sign fasteners, nuts, or 571 washers; painting the pole of freestanding signs; and painting the cabinet of 572 freestanding signs or building signs. 573 574 (2) Sign permit required. For any sign that required a permit, the following activities 575 shall not be considered normal maintenance and repair and a permit shall be 576 required: 577 578 Page 14 579 580 a. Removing the sign for the repair of the cabinet or any part thereof. 581 582 b. Changes made to a sign's size or illumination, including, but not limited 583 to, height, width, weight, area, adding or removing illumination. 584 585 C. Changes in poles, structural supports, bases or shrouds, footings, or anchor 586 bolts, moving the sign to a new location, or replacement of the interior or 587 exterior cabinet frame, except the sign face. 588 589 (3) Building permit. A building permit may be required for any signs involving the 590 construction of or changes to a sign structure and/or electrical connections as 591 determined by the Building Official. 592 593 Sec. 78-1484. - Nonconforming Signs. 594 595 It is the intent of this Division that nonconforming signs shall not be enlarged or 596 expanded, nor be used as grounds for adding other signs or uses prohibited elsewhere in the same 597 district. It is further the intent of this Division to permit legal nonconforming signs to remain 598 provided that such signs are safe, maintained so as not be unsightly, and have not been 599 abandoned or removed subject to the following provisions: 600 601 (1) Nonconforming sign continuance. A legal nonconforming sign may be continued 602 through repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance, or improvement but shall 603 not be expanded or moved to a new location. 604 605 (2) Nonconforming sign discontinuance. If the use of the nonconforming sign or sign 606 structure is discontinued for a period of one (1) year, the sign or sign structure 607 shall not be reconstructed or used except in conformity with the provisions of this 608 Division. 609 610 (3) Nonconforming sign damaged or destroyed. Should a nonconforming sign or sign 611 structure be damaged or destroyed by any means to an extent greater than fifty 612 (50) percent of its market value and all required permits for its reconstruction 613 have not been applied for within one -hundred eight (180) days of when the sign or 614 sign structure was damaged, it shall not be reconstructed or used except in 615 conformity with the provisions of this Division. 616 617 (4) Sign regulation conformance. Should a nonconforming sign or sign structure be 618 permanently moved for any reason for any distance, it shall thereafter conform to 619 the regulations for the sign district in which it is located after it is moved. 620 621 (5) Loss of nonconforming land use. An existing sign devoted to a use not permitted 622 by Chapter 78, Article IV of the Zoning Ordinance, in the zoning district in which 623 it is located shall not be enlarged, expanded, or moved except in changing the sign 624 to a sign permitted in the sign district in which it is located. Page 15 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 (6) Loss of nonconforming status. When a building or use loses its nonconforming status, all signs devoted to the structure or use shall be removed and all signs painted directly on the structure shall be repainted in a neutral color or a color which will harmonize with the structure. Sec. 78-1485. - Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this division 4 is for any reason held to be invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Division 4. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Division 4 in each section, subsection, sentence, or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared invalid. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall take effect , 2018 after its passage and publication. ADOPTED this day of , 2018 on a vote of _ ayes and nays by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota. ATTEST: Anna Carlson, City Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor Ordinance published in The Laker and The Pioneer newspapers the week of 2018. Page 16