The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11-19-2024 Planning Commission PacketAgenda Planning Commission Monday, November 18, 2024, 6:00 PM 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 /oronomn.gov 1. Call to Order 2. Pledge of Allegiance 3. Approval of Agenda 4. Approval of Minutes 4.1. Planning Commission Minutes of October 21, 2024 5. Public Hearings 5.1. #LA24-000040, Eva Kotilinek o/b/o Barry & Robin ORourke, 2300 6th Avenue N, Preliminary Plat, (Melanie Curtis) 5.2. LA24-000050, RLA Family LP, 1449 Shoreline Drive, Variance and Commercial Site Plan Review (Laura Oakden) 5.3. LA24-000058, Tim Brown, PHI Decks, 975 Wildhurst Trail, Variances (Matthew Karney) 5.4. LA24-000059, Blue Pencil Collective/Kelsey Johnson (Developer) o/b/o Bradley Pass, 215 North Arm Lane (incl. PIDs 06-117-23-24-0002 and 06-117-23-23-0021), Preliminary Plat: Idyllvale Shores (Melanie Curtis) 5.5. LA24-000060, TVL Studios, 755 Tonkawa Rd, Conditional Use Permit for Retaining Walls (Matthew Karney) 5.6. LA24-000062, Text Amendment: Sections 78-1 and 78-823 Industrial Uses (Laura Oakden) 5.7. LA24-0000064, Text Amendment: Driveway, Road, and Tree Alteration Standards within the Shoreland Overlay District (Laura Oakden) 6. Other Items 7. Adjournment Audience Members: Information regarding each of the agenda items is available on the city website under meetings and in the public packet located in the lobby near the entrance. 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. Sign up for email notifications at https://www.oronomn.gov/ 1 Date: November 18, 2024 Item: 4.1 Presenter: Laura Oakden, Community Development Director Section: Approval of Minutes Title: Planning Commission Minutes of October 21, 2024 1.Purpose: Approve the Planning Commission Minutes of October 21, 2024. 2.Planning Commission Action Requested: Approve the Planning Commission Minutes. AGENDA ITEM Exhibits 10.21.2024 Planning Commission Minutes 2 Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting Monday,October 21, 2024, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Page 1 of 4 Chair Bollis called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1.ROLL CALL Orono Planning Commission members present:Chair Chris Bollis, Commissioners Bob Erickson,Scott Kirchner, Ted Schultze and Gary Kraemer. Commissioners Mark McCutcheon and Jon Ressler were absent. Staff present: Community Development Director Laura Oakden and City Planner Melanie Curtis. 2.PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3.APPROVAL OF AGENDA Kirchner moved, Kraemer seconded, to approve the Agenda. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 4.APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2024 Schultze moved, Kirchner seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of September 16, 2024. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 5.PUBLIC HEARINGS 5.1.LA24-000046, JOHN ERICKSON, 865 PARTENWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES, PUBLIC HEARING The Planning Commission is requested to review the Staff report, receive a presentation,and discuss and approve variances for a new raised deck replacing a patio and for hardcover in the 75-foot setback. The Planning Commission discussed the item and asked questions of staff and a representative of the applicant. Chair Bollis opened the public hearing at 6:05 p.m. There were no public comments Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 6:05 p.m. Commissioners pointed out there would be an actual reduction in hardcover, the site has a narrow building envelope, setbacks would be improving and the staff is recommending approval. Kirchner moved, Kraemer seconded, to approve LA24-000046, 865 Partenwood Road,Variances as applied. VOTE: Ayes: 5, Nays 0. 3 Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting Monday,October 21, 2024, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Page 2 of 4 5.2.LA24-00005, OUTDOOR ESCAPES O/B/O MARIA SWENSON, 875 FOREST ARMS LANE, ALS VARIANCE, PUBLIC HEARING The Planning Commission is requested to review the Staff report, receive a presentation,and discuss and approve an average lakeshore setback variance for a new, smaller deck to replace an existing deck. The Planning Commission discussed the item and had no questions for the applicant, who was present. Chair Bollis opened the public hearing at 6:11 p.m. There were no public comments Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 6:11 p.m. Commissioners said the project replaces one deck with another without coming any further forward toward the lake and may actually improve sightlines for the neighbors. Kraemer moved, Kirchner seconded, to approve LA24-000052, 875 Forest Arms Lane,ALS Variance. VOTE: Ayes: 5, Nays 0. 5.3.LA24-000053 LECY BROTHERS HOMES &REMODELING, O/B/O KEN LEVITT, 700 NORTH ARM DRIVE, VARIANCES, PUBLIC HEARING The Planning Commission is requested to review the Staff report, receive a presentation,and discuss and approve variances to build a new 2-story home replacing another two-story home on the lot. Staff was in support of the setback and hardcover variances conditional on the applicant revising the deck so there is no new encroachment and correcting a .3 overage in hardcover prior to placement on the City Council agenda. The Planning Commission discussed the item and asked questions of staff and the applicant, Ken Levitt, 700 North Arm Drive. Chair Bollis opened the public hearing at 6:28 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 6:28 p.m. Commissioners said practical difficulty has been established and the proposal removes a two-level portion of the existing house footprint and replaces it with a deck, which makes the additional foot and a half for the deck reasonable. Kirchner moved, Schultze seconded, to approve LA24-000046, 700 North Arm Drive Variances as applied with the condition of adjusting hardcover.VOTE: Ayes: 5, Nays 0. 4 Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting Monday,October 21, 2024, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Page 3 of 4 5.4.LA24-000055 CITY OF ORONO TEXT AMENDMENT, CANNABIS, PUBLIC HEARING The Planning Commission is requested to review the Staff report, receive a presentation,and discuss the proposed regulations for Cannabis businesses in the City within the conditions allowed by State law. The State can begin issuing licenses in 2025.Community Development Director Oakden explained once an application is received State law allows the City 30 days to react, which is shorter than the Conditional Use Permit process. For that reason,staff is proposing Cannabis businesses as permitted uses in business and industrial districts except for the buffer areas around schools, parks, daycares and other similar uses identified by law. Oakden said the buffers proposed are the strictest the City can designate.The new regulations are for high-potency Cannabis businesses including retail and manufacturing. The Planning Commission discussed the item and asked questions of staff.Discussion centered on the buffer areas.They asked if the buffer can be applied to churches that have Sunday School and other similar activities for children. Commissioners complimented staff on taking the initiative to be prepared for any applications that come forward in 2025. Chair Bollis opened the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair Bollis closed the public hearing at 7:07 p.m. Commissioners expressed frustration with some of the State rules and concerns about turning the process to issue registrations over to Hennepin County, as the City Council has discussed. Hennepin County has offered to manage the registration process within State Statute. The City would need to indicate that the request was for a location in an allowed area. Action at this meeting was to deal only with the text amendment setting areas and buffers for a permitted use. Kraemer moved, Schultze seconded, to approve LA24-000055, draft City of Orono Text Amendment, Cannabis. VOTE: Ayes: 4, Nays 1 (Erickson). 6.NEW BUSINESS 6.1 LA24-000054, ROB PAGE, 430 OLD CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, SITE PLAN REVIEW The site plan would be for an 85-unit garage condo development, which consists of purchased interior storage units for cars boats and RVs that could be used as storage by individuals or a business such as an electrician. The site is the last vacant property in the industrial area. Staff does not support the plan as proposed due to the potential for residential conversion. Staff could support it as a storage facility with conditions and suggested a text amendment to include garage condos as a conditional use. The Planning Commission discussed the item and asked questions of staff and the applicant, Rob Page. He said the facility would have no common areas and no place to congregate,and residential habitation would be prohibited. It would be proposed to be built in three phases. It would be managed by an HOA, which is the reason for the condo designation. 5 Minutes Planning Commission Regular Meeting Monday,October 21, 2024, 6:00 PM City Council Chambers 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Page 4 of 4 Commissioners said they were not opposed to the concept and the location in the industrial zone,but that it could potentially be better managed as a conditional use or through some other vehicle. Kirchner moved, Schultze seconded, to deny LA24-000054, Old Crystal Bay Site Plan as proposed. VOTE: Ayes: 5, Nays 0. 7.OTHER ITEMS Community Development Director Oakden introduced Matt Karney, the new City Planner,who attended as an observer. She said there is an applicant for the Planning Commission seat vacated by Commissioner Libby. She updated the Planning Commission on items that had proceeded to the City Council. 8.ADJOURNMENT Ressler moved, Kraemer seconded,to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting at 8 p.m.to November 18,2024.VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. ATTEST: _________________________________________ Christopher Bollis, Chair 6 Date: November 18, 2024 Item: 5.1 Presenter: Melanie Curtis, Planner Section: Public Hearings Title: #LA24-000040, Eva Kotilinek o/b/o Barry & Robin ORourke, 2300 6th Avenue N, Preliminary Plat, (Melanie Curtis) 1.Purpose: This application contemplates preliminary plat approval to subdivide an existing 8.4-acre property into two (2) buildable lots. 2.MN§15.99 Application Deadline: This application was submitted on July 16, 2024 and was considered to be complete on October 24, 2024. The 120 Day subdivision review timeline will end on February 21, 2025. 3.Background: The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property at 2300 6th Avenue North to create one additional buildable lot. The applicant proposes to maintain the existing driveway access on 6th Avenue, splitting it off to serve the new lot approximately 60 feet into the property. The existing home will remain on proposed Lot 2; a new home is proposed on Lot 1 and the existing barn is proposed to remain. 4.Public Comment: No public comments have been received for this application. 5.Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval as applied. 6.Planning Commission Action Requested: Planning Commission should hold a public hearing and make a motion to approve the subdivision as applied. AGENDA ITEM Exhibits Exhibit A - Planning Report Exhibit B - Application Exhibit C - Existing Conditions Exhibit D - Aerial Photo Exhibit E - Preliminary Plat Exhibit F - Septic Designs.pdf Exhibit G - Map & Labels 7 Date Application Received: 07/16/2024 Date Application Considered as Complete: 10/24/2024 120-Day Review Period Expires: 02/21/2025 To: Chair Bollis and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 18 November 2024 Subject: #LA24-000040, Eva Kotilinek o/b/o Barry & Robin O’Rourke, 2300 6th Avenue N, Subdivision/Preliminary Plat Public Hearing BACKGROUND The applicant is proposing to subdivide the property at 2300 6th Avenue North to create one additional buildable lot. The applicant proposes to maintain the existing driveway access on 6th Avenue, splitting it off to serve the new lot approximately 60 feet into the property. The existing home will remain on proposed Lot 2; a new home is proposed on Lot 1 and the existing barn is proposed to remain. The subdivision is proposed for the current owners’ daughter and family to build a smaller home on Lot 1; the existing barn will remain on Lot 1. The owners will remain in their home on Lot 2. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-420 – Lot Area/Width: RR-1B DISTRICT Lot Area Lot Width Required 87,120 s.f. (2.0 acres) 200’ Existing 368,517.6 s.f. (8.46 acres) 692’ Proposed Lot 1 133,293 s.f. (3.06 acres) 268’ Proposed Lot 2 2356,224 s.f. (5.4 acres) 424’ Section 78-1403- Structural Building Coverage: Both lots are proposed to exceed the minimum 2.0-acre area requirement and will not be subject to building coverage limitations. Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 - Hardcover Calculations: The property is located within Tier 3 of the Stormwater Overlay District with a 35% maximum hardcover limit. Based on the size of the proposed properties there should be no concern regarding compliance with the 35% limitation. PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW Conformity with 2020 - 2040 Orono Community Management Plan (“CMP”) The CMP guides the property for Rural Residential, 1 unit per 2 acres. The proposal involves the Application Summary: The applicant is requesting preliminary plat approval to subdivide the existing 8.4-acre property into two (2) buildable lots. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. 8 FILE #LA24-000040 18 November 2024 Page 2 of 4 creation of 2 lots at 0.23 units per acre. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Conformity with RR-1B Zoning District Standards The property is currently zoned RR-1B One Family Rural Residential (2.0 acre). Lot 1 is proposed to be 3.06 acres and Lot 2 is proposed to be 5.4 acres, meeting the zoning district standard. There are no identified wetlands or bluffs on the property. Accessory Buildings + Horses The existing property contains a 3,290 square foot barn (the main building is 2,700 with two 270 square foot open-sided “porches” on each side) and a 414 square foot shed. Both of which were used to support horses in the past. The property owners no longer keep horses on the property. The shed on Lot 1 will be removed but they intend to maintain the existing barn for residential storage and personal purposes. The change in the property’s acreage will make the accessory building footprint nonconforming. A 3.06-acre property is permitted a maximum of 2800 square feet of accessory buildings. If approved, the property would not be eligible to have any additional accessory buildings unless the barn is removed or reduced to a conforming size. Lot 2, proposed to have 5.4 acres, would be allowed a maximum of 4,400 square feet of accessory building footprint(s). Relationship to Surrounding Development The proposed lots are consistent in both character and size with the neighboring lots. 6th Avenue North is a County Road (CSAH 6) and a major thoroughfare that serves as access to the property. Conservation Design The requirements of this conservation design ordinance are meant to preserve and enhance the ecological/aesthetic character of properties within the City. The regulations which drive the need for this review are listed within Sections 78-1632 and 82-300 as follows: 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). Sec. 82-300. Conservation design required. The following residential subdivisions shall be subject to the provisions of chapter 78, article XII with regards to conservation design. a. All proposed residential subdivisions greater than five acres in total area and proposing Urban medium or higher densities (greater than three units per acre) b. All proposed residential subdivisions greater than seven acres and proposing two acre minimum lot size or smaller. c. The city council may waive this requirement due to the nature of the proposed subdivision. As the property is over 8 acres in total area and involves the creation of lots over 2.0 acres, the proposed project does not trigger the requirements for a conservation design. Utilities The property is not located within the MUSA and therefore not eligible for city sewer. Private 9 FILE #LA24-000040 18 November 2024 Page 3 of 4 septic systems and private water supply wells will serve the property. The existing home to remain on Lot 2 has an existing well and septic system currently located within the boundaries of the proposed Lot 2. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District A 2 lot subdivision does not trigger a stormwater review by the MCWD. Erosion control permits may be required for the construction of a new home on Lot 1. Hennepin County There are no changes in the driveway access. The applicant should confirm with Hennepin County regarding permitting before the City Council reviews the plat. Drainage and Utility Easements Standard perimeter drainage and utility easements will be required around all property boundaries in the plat 10 feet in width around the outside boundaries and 5 feet on either side of the shared property line within the plat as required by Hennepin County. Driveway Easement The applicant is proposing a shared driveway for access from CSAH 6 in the current location. A driveway easement and maintenance agreement will be required. Fees Park Dedication Fee The Parks, Open Space and Trail Plan chapter of the CMP does not specify the need for a neighborhood park at this location. Wolsfeld Woods is located approximately ¼ mile to the east and Baker Park Reserve is located less than a mile to the west. There is an existing on-street trail located along CSAH 6 on the south side of this property. As there is no defined need for park land at this location, it would appear that the dedication of actual land for park purposes is not required. Absent the need for park land dedication, a Park Dedication Fee instead of land would be appropriate per City Ordinance. The development will be subject to the City’s Park Dedication Fee at the time of Final Plat. This fee is determined by the fair market value of the land being subdivided. The Hennepin County Assessor will be consulted to determine the market value of the land to establish the amount of the fee*. The applicant is proposing one new building site. Stormwater Drainage Trunk Fee The stormwater drainage trunk fee (“SWDT fee”) will be determined by the City’s Fee Schedule at the time of the Final Plat submittal. According to the current 2024 Fee Schedule, the development of a property within a 2-acre residential zone requires payment of $8,060 per each new lot and/or development of a vacant lot. As proposed, the applicant will be subject to payment of a SWDT fee for one new lot or $8060*. *Final fee amounts will be provided at the time of Final Plat. Engineer Comments There are no comments from the City’s Engineer at this time. A grading review will be conducted at the time of the building permit for Lot 1. 10 FILE #LA24-000040 18 November 2024 Page 4 of 4 Public Comments To date, no public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration: 1. The Commission should discuss the square footage of the barn proposed to remain on Lot 1. 2. A shared driveway is proposed off of Co Rd. 6. A shared driveway easement and maintenance agreement should be submitted with the final plat. Does the commission have any concerns or questions regarding shared driveway? 3. Does the Commission have any issues or concerns with this application that weren’t addressed within the report? Planning Staff Recommendation This application contemplates a simple lot split. However, as there is no simplified process, the applicant will still be required to prepare a Final Plat for approval and recording. Planning Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat without modification to the existing barn. Regarding the barn, once the property is split, the barn becomes a legal nonconforming building and cannot be modified to expand the footprint, height, or volume. 11 Land Use Application Summary Application Date:07/16/2024 Address:2300 6th AVE North Orono, MN 55356 Parcel Number:2711823320002 Land Use Number:LA24-000040 Application Submitted By:Agent on behalf of property owner Owner:Name: BARRY & ROBIN O'ROURKE Address: 2300 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 Applicant:Name: Eva Kotilinek Company: Address: 4932 KAMA LN NE Albertville, MN 55301 evakotilinek@gmail.com Contact Information:Associated Contact: Eva Kotilinek evakotilinek@gmail.com Associated Contact: Mark Gronberg markg@gronbergassoc.com Associated Contact: Dan Kotilinek dk91067@gmail.com Associated Contact: Project Description:Preliminary Plat to create two lots 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: 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 2300 6th Ave N 0 410 820205 Feet Date: 7/17/2024 Buffer Size:500 Map Comments: 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 29 30 38 27-118-23 31 0017 WILLIAM TYLER & MIKI MORI 2160 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 31 0021 GREGORY R WAGENER LAURA L WAGENER 1120 COX FARM RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 31 0022 LANCE O & KRISTI A EVERSON 1090 COX FARM RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 31 0027 TARYN HYLAND 80 BROADWAY AVE NE UNIT 719 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55413 38 27-118-23 31 0028 STEVEN R GIBSON RACHEL D GIBSON 4070 WILD MEADOW DR MEDINA MN 55340 38 27-118-23 32 0002 BARRY & ROBIN O'ROURKE 2300 6TH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 32 0003 JOSEPH C THIES 1180 WILLOW DR N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 32 0004 BOB & HEIDI NEAR 1160 WILLOW DR N ORONA MN 55356 38 27-118-23 32 0008 JESSICA M SWEARINGEN LANCE L SWEARINGEN 1180 PHILLIPS DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 32 0009 TIMOTHY LAMBRECHT 1200 PHILLIPS DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 32 0010 JOEL B DROBA MARTHA C LUNDELL 1340 PHILLIPS DR MEDINA MN 55356 38 27-118-23 32 0013 PATRICK L RUDOLPH 2350 SHADOWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 32 0014 RONALD J & DAWN J REHBEIN 2320 SHADOWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 32 0015 BRYAN J KRAMER JESSICA M KRAMER 2280 SHADOWOOD DR ORONO MN 55356 38 27-118-23 32 0016 SARAH M KOSTIAL 1115 COX FARM RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 32 0017 ERIC S ZONER 1050 COX FARM RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 32 0019 STEPHEN M/KATHLEEN JOHNSTON 2335 SHADOWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 32 0021 SHADOWOOD FARM HOMEOWNERS 2335 SHADOWOOD DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 27-118-23 32 0022 JAMES A COX 1020 N WILLOW DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 41 0002 KELLY L YOUNG 1125 WILLOW DR N LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 41 0010 CALEB KENNEDY HEATHER HOLCOMBE 1085 WILLOW VIEW DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 28-118-23 44 0018 WILLOW VIEW HOA/MARY ELLIS 925 WILLOW VIEW DR ORONO MN 55356 38 28-118-23 44 0020 WILLOW VIEW HOA/GUS NICKLOW 1050 WILLOW VIEW DR ORONO MN 55356 80 27-118-23 23 0002 TIMOTHY LAMBRECHT 1200 PHILLIPS DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 80 27-118-23 23 0005 JOEL B DROBA MARTHA C LUNDELL 1340 PHILLIPS DR MEDINA MN 55356 80 27-118-23 23 0006 ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP 15250 WAYZATA BLVD STE 101 WAYZATA MN 55391 80 27-118-23 23 0009 DAVID M TOLCHINER 2395 COX TRAIL LONG LAKE MN 55356 80 27-118-23 23 0013 ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CORP 15250 WAYZATA BLVD STE 101 WAYZATA MN 55391 80 27-118-23 24 0003 WILLIAM TYLER & MIKI MORI 2160 SIXTH AVE N LONG LAKE MN 55356 80 27-118-23 24 0005 SEAN P BAGAN/ANDREA M BAGAN 1250 PHILLIPS DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 31 80 27-118-23 24 0006 MITCHELL & JENNIFER PALMER 1280 PHILLIPS DR LONG LAKE MN 55356 80 28-118-23 14 0047 BONITA L KELLER 2415 KELLER RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 80 28-118-23 14 0054 JOE PELLEGRENE JAIME PELLEGRENE 2410 KELLER RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 32 Date: November 18, 2024 Item: 5.2 Presenter: Laura Oakden, Community Development Director Section: Public Hearings Title: LA24-000050, RLA Family LP, 1449 Shoreline Drive, Variance and Commercial Site Plan Review (Laura Oakden) 1.Purpose: The applicant is requesting hardcover, fencing, and parking lot setback variances in addition to a site plan review relating to establishment of a new parking lot for an existing marina. 2.MN§15.99 Application Deadline: The application was made on September 12, 2024 and deemed complete on October 29,2024. Following the 60-day review period this application expires on December 28, 2024. 3.Background: The applicant made a site plan review application to allow a new parking lot configuration for the site at 1449 Shoreline Drive. The parcel has lake frontage on 3 sides acting as a peninsula. North Shore Drive (CSAH 15) bisects the property. The existing marina has boat slips and pedestrian access to docks located on both sides of the county road. The applicant is requesting approval of the new parking lot, hardcover, and fencing within the 75’ lakeshore setback on the west side of the property within the 75' lakeyard setback. 4.Public Comment: No public comments have been received. 5.Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. 6.Planning Commission Action Requested: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing and if the commission agrees with staff's analysis a motion should be made for approval of the proposed application. AGENDA ITEM Exhibits Ex A. 1449 Shoreline Dr, Staff Report Ex B Land Use Application Summary Ex C Practical Difficulty Statements. Ex D Proposed Site Plan Hardcover and Parking Calcs Final. Ex E Site Plan- 2013 Ex F Hennepin County Comments Ex G Orono Police Chief Correy Farniok Ex H Location Map and Photos. Ex I Resolution 7361- 2023 Vacation. Ex J Mailing Map and List. 33 To:Chris Bollis and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From:Laura Oakden, Community Development Director Date:November 18, 2024 Subject:#LA24-000050, RLA Family LP, 1449 Shoreline Drive, Variance and Commercial Site Plan Review-Public Hearing Background The applicant made a site plan review application to allow a new parking lot configuration for the site at 1449 Shoreline Drive. The parcel has lake frontage on 3 sides acting as a peninsula. North Shore Drive (CSAH 15) bisects the property. The existing marina has boat slips and pedestrian access to docks located on both sides of the county road. The property was impacted by Hennepin County’s Tanager Bridge project. As part of the Tanager Bridge project the county used the area in question for construction staging and it was eventually vacated by the County and combined with the applicant’s property. The property owner has now utilized the construction staging areas for new parking to support their existing marina business. The marina business was granted approval for additional boat slips by the Lake Minnetonka Conservation District in September 2024. With the additional boat slips and the high traffic area, the applicant is requesting approval of the new parking lot, hardcover, and fencing within the 75’ lakeshore setback on the west side of the property where the same improvements are not permitted. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information The applicant has identified the proposed lake frontage, peninsula shape, county road location, and safety issues as practical difficulties. They indicate that the parking lot and fencing on the site are critical to supporting safety and facilitating pedestrian access for the commercial business. There is no conforming location for a parking area due to the shape and limitations of the parcel. Planning Staff Analysis: Staff acknowledges the site constraints of the lot, the unique shape of the parcel, and the amount of lakeshore on the parcel limits a reasonable building envelope for improvements. The parking lot and fencing location with in the 75 foot lakeshore setback are reasonable for the use of the site. The marina is a water-oriented business which is a permitted use within the B-2 business district. There are few locations where marina businesses are permitted on Lake Minnetonka. It is anticipated that a marina business would require improvements within the lake yard setback to support accessibility, maneuverability, and safety for the site. Allowing a parking lot on the west side of the marina would improve safety for customers accessing docks and would reduce pedestrian crossings on the county road. Additionally, it is outlined in the City Code that parking for access to docks should not be separated by a public roadway. This application would correct a current nonconformity with the site Staff is in support of the application as proposed. Any additional intensification beyond the scope identified by the submitted plans will require an additional Site Plan Review. Application Summary: The applicant is requesting hardcover, fencing, and parking lot setback variances in addition to a site plan review relating to establishment of a new parking lot for an existing marina. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. 34 FILE #LA24-000050 November 18, 2024 Page 2 of 8 Lot Area/Width: B-2 Lot Area Lot Width Required 2 Acres 200’ Actual 124,320 s.f. (2.85 acres)3,470’ @ OHWL Setbacks: B-2 Required Proposed Lake 75’30’ Front/ County Road 15 (Shoreline Dr)30’10’ City Code Section 78-673: (3) Setback along streets.No operation or activities except for storage and parking may be conducted closer than 50 feet to the right-of-way of any existing street, road or highway. Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Tier Allowed Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 124,320 s.f 31,080 s.f. (25%) 46,851 (37.7 %) Site Plan Review: Parking Calculations. Within the B-2 lakeshore business district, the off-street parking facilities shall be sufficient to eliminate any traffic or parking congestion likely to be caused by the business conducted. The parking areas need not be paved but shall be provided with appropriate stormwater runoff quality/quantity controls as may be required in this division. Six parking spaces shall be provided for each ten boat slips on water or on land. At least eight off-street parking spaces, plus one additional space for each 800 square feet of floor area over 1,000 feet, including warehousing, and all outside sales and storage areas related to the sales and service functions. Employee parking spaces shall be in addition to the parking spaces required in subsections (1)—(7) of this section. The number of employee parking spaces shall be designated on an official parking plan to be kept on file with the city. Required Parking Calculations: Per LMCD approval: 143 Boat slips are permitted. X 0.6 parking per slips = 86 stalls Retail space 1,164 s.f = 9 stalls 3 employees= 3 stalls TOTAL STALLS REQUIRED= 98 stalls 35 FILE #LA24-000050 November 18, 2024 Page 3 of 8 Proposed Parking Calculations: NEW Western Parking Lot= 39 stalls Northern Parking lot: 118 stalls (38 double stalls, 32 double compact stalls, 48 standard stalls.) The applicant notes that the double stalls are used by the employees and shared parties and boat storage. The stalls if they are not used as double parking would result in 83 stalls in the northern parking lot. OVERALL PARKING AVALIABLE = 157 Overall parking not utilizing the double-parking stalls = 112 stalls Parking Standards: The required parking spaces may not be separated by a public roadway from the dock, a storage space, mooring space, floor space or ramp they are designed to serve. Required off-street parking space may not be utilized for open storage of goods or for the storage of boats; except that during the winter storage season each year, the required off- street parking may be used for winter storage of boats, provided that 20 percent of the required parking spaces remain as a functional parking area. During the transition seasons (April 15 to May 31 and September 16 to November 15), adequate parking shall be maintained on the site, sufficient to eliminate traffic or parking congestion; but in no case shall parking be reduced to less than 20 percent of the required spaces Parking may not be allowed in any required yard or landscaping area Where these minimum parking requirements prove to be inadequate for a given use, additional parking may be required in order to continue that use. Required Yards The minimum required yard areas for the B-2 district shall be landscaped and planted with evergreen and deciduous shrubs and trees in accordance with a detailed landscape plan. Storage of boats, vehicles, equipment and materials shall not be allowed within any required yard. The applicant is proposing to maintain the green landscaped space throughout the site. Any expansions of hard surface or removal of landscaped areas would require additional approvals. Landscaping The minimum landscaping areas shall be as follows: a. The lakeshore landscaping area shall be an area that is parallel to the entire lakeshore adjacent to the licensed marina operation and equal to ten percent of the average lot depth, but in no case shall it be less than ten feet nor more than 75 feet. Breaks in the landscaping area for access to the lake shall not exceed an aggregate width of 30 feet for each marina operation. The applicant is proposing to maintain an approximate 30 foot setback from the OHWL to the edge of the western parking lot as green space that will remain vegetated with trees and shrubs. b. Side yard landscaping area shall be an area that is parallel to the side lot line and not 36 FILE #LA24-000050 November 18, 2024 Page 4 of 8 within the lakeshore landscaping area or front yard landscaping area and shall not be less than ten feet deep. There are no changes proposed to the side yard landscaping area with this project. c. Front yard landscaping area shall be an area that is parallel to the street or opposite the lakeshore landscaping area and shall not be less than ten feet deep. Breaks in the landscaping area for access to the public road shall not exceed an aggregate width of 50 feet for each marina operation. The applicant is proposing to maintain 10’ of space along the west parking lot and the CSAH 15 ROW. All ground cover in the required landscaping areas shall be natural living materials, such as grass or other planted ground cover. Decorative rock beds and the like, whether or not lined with plastic, fabric or other weed inhibitors, shall constitute no more than ten percent of the required landscape areas. The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing green ground cover in the landscaping areas. Circulation. Traffic circulation systems shall be designed to accommodate anticipated traffic demands. Vehicular traffic generated by marina business shall be channeled and controlled in a manner which will avoid congestion or interference with other vehicular transportation systems and pedestrians and which will avoid creating traffic hazards and excessive traffic. Staff finds the proposed plan layout to be reasonable and should improve pedestrian and traffic circulation. Fencing. All landscape areas shall be sufficiently delineated by berming, curbing or other acceptable physical barrier so as to eliminate the encroachment of vehicle parking, winter and summer boat storage, and other materials or equipment storage into the required landscape areas. The applicant has installed a fence around the new, western parking lot. The purpose for the fencing is to provide safety for pedestrians due to the steep topography between the parking lot and the OHWL. The fencing will also prevent parking and hardcover encroachment into the landscaping area. Engineering and Police Department Reviews: The City Engineer and Police chief are reviewing the plan as it relates to drainage, stormwater, grading, and access. Additional comments will be presented at the council meeting. Applicable Regulations: Hardcover Variance (Section 78-1680) The property is approximately 2.85 acres. The majority of the hardcover is located within the 75’ lakeshore setback due to the nature of the business, the property’s narrow peninsula shape, and the location of the county road . The proposed parking lot area is necessary for the business to improve safety and circulation to the site. 75-foot Lakeshore Setback Variances- Fence (Section 78-1279) 37 FILE #LA24-000050 November 18, 2024 Page 5 of 8 Fences are considered accessory structures and are not permitted within the 75’ lakeyard setback. Fences/barriers are suggested for marinas around improvements such as parking areas in order to protect required landscape area. Additionally there is a steep slope between the edge of the parking area and the lake. A fence would project the landscaping areas from vehicle encroachment and provide a safety measure to customers from the steep slopes on the parcel. Required Off- Street Parking Setback (78-1511 and 78-688) Within the B-2 district, parking shall not be allowed in a required yard or landscaping area. All vehicle parking must be on an approved hard surface. The landscaping area requires a minimum setback of 10’ from the ROW and 30’from the edge of the OHWL which is met by the proposed plan. The required street yard setback is 30’ in the district. The code also states all required yards must be met for parking; however, a different code section ,78-673 states that parking is permitted within 50’ of of a right of way. The code seems to indicate multiple setback requirements for parking areas within the b-2 district as follows: 1.Parking is permitted within 50’ of a ROW . (this standard is met) 2.Required street yard: 30’ (this standard is not met) 3.Required landscape area: minimum 10’(this standard is met) The code outlines multiple setbacks and overlapping standards for a parking lot. This is not only cumbersome to interpret, but seems to contradict the variance code sections. When there are contradictions or conflicts exist within the City Code, the stricter standard must be applied. In this scenario, the parking lot must meet the 30’ street yard setback. Due to the lot’s shape, depth, and relationship to the OHWL, there is no conforming location for a parking lot. 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. 14, 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 §462.357 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 variances requested for the construction of a parking area and fencing are necessary for the safety and circulation maneuverability for this permitted use in this district. This criterion is met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variance is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the 38 FILE #LA24-000050 November 18, 2024 Page 6 of 8 protection of natural resources including our natural waterways. The applicant has designed the improvement to maintain natural landscape areas around the lakeshore; the fencing protects this area from further encroachments. The proposed project will reestablish green space that was removed from the county project staging area and improve the accessibility to the permitted marina use. This criterion is met. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The property owner currently has limited use of the site as the existing marina is located almost entirely within the 75- foot lakeyard setback. The western parking lot will have defined edging with the fencing and improve pedestrian safety to access the site. The area has been disturbed for many years during and following theCounty road/ bridge reconstruction project. The applicant will reestablish green space and vegetation around and near the lake. The proposed additional parking area is reasonable and necessary for safety and accessibility supporting the permitted use on the site. This criterion is met. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The applicant took over an existing marina business. Arial images suggest there has been a similar marina business use operating at this location since the 1950s. The County used the location of the western parking lot in 2021- 2023 as a staging area for the reconstruction of the Tanager Bridge and removed the existing vegetation in this area. Following the County’s project completion the vacated land was combined with the marina property. The marina owner was left with this disturbed piece of land. The marina operates on the east and west side of the parcel. Adding a parking area to the west side of the property reduces pedestrian crossings over the country road and allows for easier access to the docking areas. Improved vehicle circulation is necessary for the safety of the site. The circumstances of this area are unique because of the lot’s peninsula shape and the County’s disturbance of the area are outside the controls of the land owner. This criterion is met. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The proposed variance to allow a new parking lot and fencing where there was construction disturbance is not likely to adversely alter the character of the neighborhood. The natural vegetation and green spaces will be re- established and the improvement would reduce pedestrian and vehicle crossings over a county road.This criterion is met. 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 are not a factor in this 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. 17, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable. 39 FILE #LA24-000050 November 18, 2024 Page 7 of 8 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 a marina is a permitted use in the B-2 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 narrow building envelope resulting from the lake on three (3) sides of the property and a county right of way cutting through the property are unique to this property. Additionally it is outlined in the City Code that parking for this use should not be separated by a public roadway. This application would correct a current nonconformity with the site. This criterion is met. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The property is surrounded by lakes on three (3) sides; the location of the existing structures, and the impact of the right-of-way on the building envelope are unique to the subject property. This criterion is met. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The new parking lot supports safety for pedestrians and vehicles in the area. Additionally it protects landscaping and natural vegetation around the lakeshore from vehicle impacts. The application supports the preservation of the property right of the applicant. This criterion is met. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the variance improves safety for the site as it will reduce the pedestrian demand on the crosswalk over a county road and improves the circulation for the site. This criterion is met. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. There are practical difficulties that support the application as proposed. The variance requested for a parking lot and fencing in the 75 foot lakeshore and street setback areas, the hardcover in the 75 foot setback will improve the overall safety and accessibility for a uniquely challenging lot. This criterion is met. 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. Public Comments No public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the proposed parking lot a reasonable use of the site? 40 FILE #LA24-000050 November 18, 2024 Page 8 of 8 2. Does the commission find the west parking lot necessary for the operation of the marina? 3. Are there any other conditions the commission should consider as part of this request? Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the requested variances. 41 Letter View file:///C/Users/loakden/Downloads/Land%20Use%20Application%20Summary%20(37).htm[11/14/2024 9:14:56 PM] Land Use Application Summary Application Date:09/12/2024 Address:1449 Shoreline Drive Orono, MN 55391 Parcel Number:1111723210001 Land Use Number:LA24-000050 Application Submitted By:Property Owner Owner:Name: RLA FAMILY L P Address: 3205 CRYSTAL BAY RD WAYZATA MN 55391 Applicant:Name: Travis Anderson Company: Address: 3222 North Shore Dr Orono, MN 55391 travis@nsmarina.com Contact Information:Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description:Parking 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: 42 Letter View file:///C/Users/loakden/Downloads/Practical%20Difficulties%20Documentation%20Form%20(24).htm[11/14/2024 9:14:55 PM] PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA24-000050 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted bythe Zoning Chapter. Response: Ok 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by thelandowner. Response: Yes 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: Yes 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use forthe property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: Ok 5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight forsolar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined inMinnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. Response: Ok 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any usethat is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's landis located. Response: Ok 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling asa two-family dwelling. Response: Ok 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to suchproperty or immediately adjoining property. Response: Yes 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which saidland is located. Response: Ok 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of asubstantial property right of the applicant. Response: Yes 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, 43 Letter View file:///C/Users/loakden/Downloads/Practical%20Difficulties%20Documentation%20Form%20(24).htm[11/14/2024 9:14:55 PM] morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. Response: Ok 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but isnecessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: Yes 44 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES INSTRUCTIONS FOR VARIANCES Minnesota State Statutes Section §462.357, Subd. 6(2) and City Code Section 78-123 require that practical difficulties be demonstrated for a variance to be granted. The difficulties must be unique to the property as variances run with the land and not the landowner. Personal and economic situations are not considered valid practical difficulties. HOW DO I PROVE A PRACTICAL DIFFICULTY? This form lists the 12 criteria used to determine if practical difficulties exist and how the variance will affect the surrounding community. To prove practical difficulties, the applicant should address all the relevant points listed below and answer them as clearly as possible. Since you are requesting the code variance or exception, you have the burden of proving that the variance is justified. The information you provide to the City is what is used in determining a denial or approval recommendation. There will be space within your online application to address the below criteria. *Tip: fill the responses out on a separate document then cut and paste them into the variance application in case the application does not save. According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. This Statement is True 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Statement is True 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; Yes b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; This Statement is True. Please see letter from John Ekola of Hennepin County c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. This Statement is True and will actually enhance the safety of the area along with the safety of those traveling or using County Rd 15. 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. 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 does not apply 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. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Not applicable 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Yes this is true 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. This statement is 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 granting of the variance will actually improve safety concerns for those traveling or using County Rd 15 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. True Practical Difficulties Statement If you feel the practical difficulties cannot fully be described in the above criteria, describe the practical difficulties prev enting compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements in a separate narrative and upload it to your application. 45 Last updated: January 2024 46 Practical Difficulties 1. Hennepin County made the 0-75' hardcover when constructing the bridge as they used our property to stage equipment for the construction as a ddressed in the letter from Hennepin County. 2. Hennepin County, when creating the new bridge supplied appropriate drainage and filtering with the slope of the property to flow any water into the swale t hat was created for filtering any water run off before entering the lake. 3. The 0-75' hardcover is used by the local police department to stage their vehicles for surveillance for the community as shown from the email from Orono Police Chief Correy Farniok. 4. On the east side of the property their is a catch pond that filters any runoff of water before entering the lake. 5. Hennepin County highly recommends that the fence be permitted , as stated in their email, as the fence is there to protect people from falling down the slope th ey created when using that area for work equipment. They supplied a fence on the South East corner of the new bridge for the same reason but we took the initiative and did one our selves to protect all parties involved against a lawsuit from someone falling. 6. The 0-75' hardcover area provides area for the boat slips on Tanager so then customers do not have to cross County Rd 15. Not only is it good for our customers and their safety but also for the common good of those driving North and South on County Rd 15 which is heavily used. 47 48 49 Hennepin County Public Works Transportation Department Phone: 763-745-7500 Public Works Facility FAX: 763-478-4000 1600 Prairie Drive TDD: 763-478-4030 Medina, MN 55340-5421 www.hennepin.us An Equal Opportunity Employer October 2, 2024 Property Owner 1449 Shoreline Dr Orono, MN 55391 RE: Tanager Bay Bridge Replacement In 2021 Hennepin County replaced Bridge 27592 also referred to as the Tanager Bay Bridge carrying CSAH 15 over Lake Minnetonka. This project was a critical need as CSAH 15 is the primary route for Hwy 394 to the Lake Minnetonka community that carries approximately 20,000 vehicles per day. The project was also a critical need as the Tanager Bay Bridge was at the end of it’s service life and had significant weight restrictions for commercial traffic that resulted in lengthy detours. Because the Lake Minnetonka economy depends on the summer tourism and leisure activities, it was crucial to minimize and mitigate traffic impacts as much as possible. To accomplish this, Hennepin County partnered with adjacent property owners so we could stage construction and relocate the new bridge to keep the roadway open for approximately 80% of the project. This required a substantial acquisition of temporary and permanent easements on both sides of the bridge. It also required building a construction staging area on 1449 Shoreline Dr. that sits adjacent to Tanager Bay on the western side of CSAH 15. All construction considerations and impacts went through the necessary environmental permitting processes and received Federal, State and City approvals. The existing conditions out there today are a direct result and need of the project that occurred in 2021. This was a successful partnership between government, private industry and engaged residents to help move a complex and time sensitive project forward while minimizing and mitigating impacts for the general public. Sincerely, John D. Ekola, PE Hennepin County Bridge Engineer Public Works Department 1600 Prairie Drive Medina, MN 55340-5421 Direct: 612-596-0370 john.ekola@hennepin.us 50 51 52 Multiple Dock Expansion Property: 1449 Shoreline Dr, Orono, MN 55391 For Illustrative Purposes Only. Source: Hennepin County Interactive Property Map, 08/01/2024 Browns Bay 1449 Shoreline Dr Brown’s Bay 53 Multiple Dock Expansion Property: 1449 Shoreline Dr, Orono, MN 55391 For Illustrative Purposes Only. Source: Hennepin County Interactive Property Map, 08/01/2024 Browns Bay 1449 Shoreline Dr Brown’s Bay Tanager Lake 54 55 56 57 58 LAND TYPE Torrens (T) DOC NUM 6013816 Certified, filed and/or recorded on May 18, 2023 11:58 AM Office of the Registrar of Titles Hennepin County, Minnesota Amber Bougie, Registrar of Titles Daniel Rogan, County Auditor and Treasurer Deputy 26 Pkg ID 2564961 E Document Recording Fee 46.00 Multiple Certificates Affected Fee 20.00 Document Total 66.00 Existing Certs 1346856, 1402067 This cover sheet is now a permanent part of the recorded document. 59 1 I 4t 2ro CITY OF ORONO M RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL K-,,, ilt"' No. 7361 kEsHOV- A RESOLUTION VACATING A PORTION OF THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY WHEREAS,the City of Orono, (the "City")has jurisdiction over the public right-of-way proposed to be vacated as described in attached Exhibits A and B and depicted on Exhibit C hereinafter the"Rights-of-Way"); and WHEREAS, RLA Family LP at 1449 Shoreline Drive;PID 11-117-23-21-0001, and Ellen Schmitt, at 1475 Shoreline Drive;PID 11-117-23-23-0002,(collectively the "Owners") each own land abutting the Rights-of-Way; and WHEREAS, during 2020 - 2022 Hennepin County conducted a road reconstruction project to realign the Tanager Bridge and CSAH 15. Following the realignment, it was determined that portions of the remaining rights-of-way would no longer be needed to serve the roadway; and WHEREAS, in 2020, the City passed Resolution No. 7098 supporting the need to vacated the unused Rights-of-Way following completion of the County's project. WHEREAS, following project completion in 2022, Hennepin County transferred the Deeds for the Right-of-Way to the City; and WHEREAS, the City has initiated the process to vacate of the Right-of-Way; and WHEREAS,the Orono City Council finds that the existing Rights-of-way have no apparent present or future benefit to the public; and WHEREAS, there are no public utilities located within the Rights-of-Way; and WHEREAS,pursuant to Minnesota Statutes § 412.851, notice of the proposed vacation was submitted to the Commissioner of the DNR by certified mail for their comment on February 15 2023; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 412.851,notice of a public hearing on the vacation of the Rights-of-Way was published in the Laker Pioneer Newspaper on April 1, 2023; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 412.851, said notice of public hearing was also posted at the Long Lake and Crystal Bay Post Offices on April 1, 2023; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Minnesota Statutes § 412.851, said notice of public hearing was mailed to the Owners affected by the proposed vacation on March 31, 2023, and 223254v1 60 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL G No. 7361 IC 5Iio WHEREAS,the Orono Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested parties regarding the vacation of Rights-of-Way at a public hearing opened on April 17, 2023 in the City of Orono City Council Chambers; and NOW THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Orono,Minnesota, makes the following findings: FINDINGS 1. The proposed vacation of the Rights-of-Way does not affect access to or use of any adjoining property. No access to adjacent or nearby properties will be limited by the vacation. 2. The City does not intend to develop, improve, or use the Rights-of-Way for road or lake access purposes. 3. The unimproved subject Rights-of-Way, as they exist, serve no public purpose. 4. For the foregoing reasons, it is in the public interest to vacate only the Rights-of-Way as described and depicted on the attached Exhibits A,B, and C. DECISION NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota as follows: 1. That the Rights-of-Way legally described and depicted in Exhibits A, B, and C are hereby vacated. 2. In accordance with Minn. Stat. § 412.851,the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a certified copy of this Resolution with the County Auditor and the County Recorder/Registrar of Titles in accordance with the terms of this Resolution. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORONO THIS 8th DAY OF MAY,2023. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 223254v1 61 Atif.L. Ar_CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL 1 G- No. 7361 EXHIBIT A: Description of the Right-of-Way to be Vacated That part of HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 15, PLAT 51 in Government Lot 2, Section 11, Township 117, Range 23 which lies northerly of the channel shown on HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 15, PLAT 51 and southeasterly of the following described line: Commencing at the intersection of Match Line No. 8 on HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 15,PLAT 51 on Sheet 5 of 7 Sheets and the east line of HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE A!D HIGHWAY NO. 15, PLAT 51; thence southwesterly along said east line of HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 15, PLAT 51 on an assumed bearing of South 38 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 68.14 feet; thence North 31 degrees 55 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 128.29 feet;thence North 34 degrees 16 minutes 31 seconds East a distance of 138.74 feet;thence North 25 degrees 29 minutes 45 seconds East a distance of 152.96 feet;thence North 18 degrees 31 minutes 17 seconds East a distance of 27. 17 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence North 25 degrees 25 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 90.00 feet; thence North 64 degrees 34 minutes 44 seconds West a distance of 11.37 feet;thence North 25 degrees 25 minutes 16 seconds East a distance of 294.52 feet to the east line of HENNEPIN COUNTY STA TE AID HIGHWAY NO. 15, PLAT 51 and said line there terminating. 223254v1 62 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL No. 7361 Exhibit B: Description of the Right-of-Way to be Vacated That part of HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 15, PLAT 51 in Government Lot 2, Section 11, Township 117,Range 23 which lies southerly of the channel shown on HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 15,PLAT 51 and southeasterly of the following described line and its northeasterly extension; Commencing at the intersection of Match line No. 8 on HENNEPIN COUNTY STA TE AID HIGHWAY NO. 15, PLAT 51 on Sheet 5 of 7 Sheets and the east line of HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE AD HIGHWAY NO. 15, PLAT 51;thence southwesterly along said east line of HENNEPIN COUNTY STATE AID HIGHWAY NO. 15, PLAT 51 on an assumed bearing of South 38 degrees 30 minutes 00 seconds West a distance of 68.14 feet to the point of beginning of the Hne to be described;thence North 31 degrees 55 minutes 14 seconds East a distance of 128.29 feet;thence North 34 degrees 16 minutes 31 seconds East a distance of 138.74 feet; thence North 25 degrees 29 minutes 45 seconds East a distance of 152.96 feet more or less to the southerly line of said channel and said line terminating. 223254vI 63 223254v1 CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7361 Exhibit C: Depiction of the Proposed Vacation 64 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 1449 Shoreline 0 200 400100 Feet Date: 9/17/2024 Buffer Size:500 Map Comments: 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 65 38 11-117-23 21 0001 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 10 5TH ST S #110 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 38 11-117-23 22 0014 ROBERT ALAN GANZ KERI SAMANTHA GANZ 13956 EMERALD RIDGE MINNETONKA MN 55305 38 11-117-23 22 0015 XIAOYING LAI 1420 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 11-117-23 22 0017 EOF INVESTMENTS LLC 10 5TH ST S #110 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55402 38 11-117-23 23 0002 ELLEN A SCHMITT 1475 SHORELINE DR WAYZATA MN 55391 38 11-117-23 23 0010 CAROLYN A STREICH 9156 E ANDORA HILLS DR SCOTTSDALE AZ 85262 38 11-117-23 23 0011 JOSHUA DAVID JASBERG SUZANNE GEIER JASBERG 1485 GREEN TREES RD ORONO MN 55391 38 11-117-23 23 0012 JAMES T & JUDITH L BRASS 1495 GREEN TREES RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 11-117-23 23 0013 BARBARA E BURWELL 701 CARLSON PARKWAY SUITE# 1010 MINNETONKA MN 55305 38 11-117-23 23 0017 CHRISTOPHER G WILLSON 1480 GREEN TREES RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 11-117-23 23 0018 GREEN TREES HOMEOWNERS ASSOC C/O JACK O YOST 4972 COMSTOCK LN N PLYMOUTH MN 55446 66 1� m 1��WZPV b c� Laura Oakden From: Barbara Schmidt <barbara@studiobstyle.com> Sent: Monday, November 18, 2024 2:21 PM To: Laura Oakden Subject: Questions Hi Laura - I'm inquiring regarding the large parking lot to be added to North Shore Marina. Can you explain how the runoff will affect Tanager Lake and Lake Minnetonka? Is there a DNR assessment? Is there an environmental impact study? If this is a planned expansion, shouldn't there be more documentation about traffic and congestion? Has the Minnehaha Watershed District looked at this project? Please address issues during the public meeting tonight - thank you - Barbara Schmidt, 50 Landmark Drive. 1 hVi Nib Laura . den From: Correy Farniok Sent. Monday, November 18, 2024 10:28 AM To: Laura Oakden Subject: RE: 1449 Shoreline Dr- Marina Parking lot project I would support this project if the intent is to increase pedestrian safety by reducing pedestrian crossings. From: Laura Oalcden <loakden@oronomn.gov> Sent: Wednesday, November 13, 2024 4:10 PM To: Adam Edwards <aedwards@oronomn.gov>; Correy Farniok <CFarniok@oronomn.gov> Subject: 1449 Shoreline Dr- Marina Parking lot project Adam and Corey, Talce a look at the attached site plan. North Shore Marina is looking to formally install the parking lot to the south of the site. (Where Henn Co did construction staging for the tanager bridge `project.) Please let me Know if you have any comment, concerts or supportive statements for the proposed project. Thanks, Laura Oalcden Community Development Director City of Orono Direct: 952-249-4602 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 www.oi onomn.gov i Date: November 18, 2024 Item: 5.3 Presenter: Matt Karney, Planner Section: Public Hearings Title: LA24-000058, Tim Brown, PHI Decks, 975 Wildhurst Trail, Variances (Matthew Karney) 1.Purpose: The applicant requests 75-foot lake setback and average lakeshore setback variances for a new two-level deck/porch addition, and new hardcover within 75 feet of the OHWL. 2.MN§15.99 Application Deadline: The application was made on October 23, 2024 and deemed complete on November 5, 2024. Following the 60-day review period this application expires on January 4, 2025. 3.Background: The applicant proposes a two-level deck/porch addition that includes extension of an existing Juliet-style deck over a newly expanded and enclosed lower deck area, within 75’ of the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). Stairs are proposed from the upper level to the yard, but a portion of the deck that wraps around the house on the north side will be removed, lowering the hardcover of the deck by approximately 18 square feet (s.f.). Due to the property’s location as a peninsula lot, all improvements on this lot will be impacted by the Average Lakeshore Setback (ALS) set by the adjacent home sites. 4.Public Comment: No public comments have been received. 5.Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends approval. 6.Planning Commission Action Requested: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing and if the commission agrees with staff's analysis motion should be made for approval of the proposed application. AGENDA ITEM Exhibits Exhibit A-Staff Report.pdf Exhibit B-Application & PD Form.pdf Exhibit C-Cover Letter.pdf Exhibit D-Existing Survey.pdf Exhibit E-Proposed Survey.pdf Exhibit F-Building Plans.pdf Exhibit G-Hardcover Worksheet.pdf Exhibit H-Adj Owners.pdf Exhibit I-Site Photo.pdf Exhibit J-Mailing.pdf 67 Date Application Received: 10/23/2024 Date Application Considered as Complete: 11/05/2024 60-Day Review Period Expires: 01/04/2025 To: Chair Bollis and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Matthew Karney, Planner Date: 18 November 2024 Subject: #LA24-000058, Tim Brown, PHI Decks,975 Wildhurst Trail, Variances – Public Hearing Background The applicant proposes a two-level deck/porch addition (“deck addition”) that includes extension of an existing Juliet-style deck over a newly expanded and enclosed lower deck area, within 75’ of the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). Stairs are proposed from the upper level to the yard, but a portion of the deck that wraps around the house on the north side will be removed, lowering the hardcover of the deck by approximately 18 square feet (s.f.). Due to the property’s location as a corner-lake lot, all improvements on this lot will be impacted by the Average Lakeshore Setback (ALS) set by the adjacent home sites. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has indicated that there are practical difficulties affecting the property. The existing residence and decks are severely impacted by the lot’s size and configuration, making it difficult to improve existing conditions without relief. The proposal does involve increasing the massing of the existing residence, by enclosing the lower deck as a porch, but allows the owners to get more beneficial use of their property while not encroaching further lakeward. Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: The existing decks are located within the 75’ lakeshore setback, roughly 49 feet from the OHWL, and all improvements of the lot are within the ALS, severely limiting the ability of the property owner to develop their property without needing relief from the Zoning Regulations. The enclosure of the lower deck by extending the upper deck will increase the building footprint, but the structural coverage will be approximately 10%, where up to 20% is allowed. Staff views the unique characteristics of the property as a practical difficulty, with the overall reduction of hardcover as a sufficient offset for the increase in structural massing with the enclosure of the lower deck. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-305 & 78-1279 – Setbacks: LR-1B Required Existing Proposed Interior Side (West) 10’ 15’ Existing Home No Change Interior Side (South) 10’ 16.3’ Existing Home No Change Application Summary: The applicant requests 75-foot lake setback and average lakeshore setback variances for a new two-level deck/porch addition, and new hardcover within 75 feet of the OHWL. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. 68 FILE #LA24-000058 18 November 2024 Page 2 of 5 Lakeshore 75’ ~49’ Existing Deck ~49’ Proposed Porch Average Lakeshore The existing home and decks are ~87’ lakeward of the diagonal average lakeshore setback line. The proposal will reduce this encroachment by ~2’. However, the proposed upper level deck will create new massing encroachment within the setback. Section 78-1403 – Structural Building Coverage: Total Lot Area Total Structural Coverage 22,741 s.f. (0.52 acre) Allowed: 4,548 s.f. * Existing: 1,812 s.f. Proposed: 2,312 s.f. *Maximum footprint of structures cannot exceed 20% of lot size on lots >10,000 s.f. Code Sec. 78-1403 (a)(1) Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 – Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Overlay District Tier Total Area in Zone Allowed Hardcover Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tier 1 22,741 s.f. 5,685 s.f. (25 %) 3,587 s.f. (15.8%) ~729 s.f. within 75’ 3,569 s.f. (15.7%) ~711 s.f. within 75’ Applicable Regulations: 75-foot Lake Setback & Average Lakeshore Setback Variances (Section 78-1279) The ALS excludes most of the property from development. When applying the 75’ lakeshore setback, the eastern portion of the house, including the upper and lower decks are existing within setbacks, where any improvements would necessitate setback relief. The proposed upper deck is being expanded within the setback but will be entirely over the existing lower deck footprint, but the lower deck will become enclosed and increase the structural coverage on the lot. Due to the orientation of the abutting homes this upper level deck expansion should not impact any abutting sightlines or views of the lake. The lower level deck will ne screened in created a porch at the grade level of the home. The lower level porch is a change in character from the current open deck that exists today within the required setbacks. A new deck stair is being proposed along the south side of the deck within the setbacks. 75-foot Hardcover Variance (Section 78-1680) The proposed deck addition results in an overall reduction of hardcover on the property by 18 s.f. as the addition involves utilizing the existing deck footprint. 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 69 FILE #LA24-000058 18 November 2024 Page 3 of 5 construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06, subd. 14, 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 §462.357 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 ALS and the 75’ lakeshore setback make the development and improvement of this property challenging. The proposal does not further encroach into either setback beyond the house and decks that are existing and decreased the overall hardcover for the site, meeting the intent and purpose of the Ordinance. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan: The proposed variances to construct a deck addition with no additional setback encroachments with an overall reduction in hardcover is consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls: The request to permit the home addition within the 75-foot setback and average lakeshore setback appears to be reasonable considering the location of the existing home, the orientation of the neighboring homes to the lakeshore, and the existing mature vegetative screening. The request is reasonable. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner: The location of the existing home prevents changes or expansions of the home consistent with the neighborhood. The proposed overall hardcover level is being reduced and the addition will not impact the views of the lake from the neighboring homes. The circumstances are unique to the property. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality: The variance is requested to permit the construction of a small addition to the home designed to minimize impacts on the lake. The project will not create any further encroachment toward the lake and the location will not impact the neighbor’s views of the lake and will fit the character of the neighborhood according to the submitted information. 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. 70 FILE #LA24-000058 18 November 2024 Page 4 of 5 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. 17, 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; improvements to a single-family home are allowed within in the LR-1B district. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling: This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property: The subject property is encumbered by an ALS that severely limits the ability of the property to be developed and improved. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located: The unique peninsula share of the property being a similar distance to the lake as its neighbors, but within the ALS creates a practical difficulty for the owners. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant: Granting the variances are necessary for the expansion of the upper deck to create an enclosed porch on the lower deck and preservation of the property rights of the owners. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter: Granting the requested variances in this unique situation is not contrary to the intent of the Zoning Regulations. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty: 71 FILE #LA24-000058 18 November 2024 Page 5 of 5 The requested variance is necessary to address the conditions of the existing decks and does not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant. 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. Public Comments Supportive comments from the adjacent property owners have been received and are attached as Exhibit H. No additional input from the public has been received by staff for as of the writing of this report. Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the variances to construct the two-level deck/porch addition.. 72 Land Use Application Summary Application Date:10/23/2024 Address:975 Wildhurst Trail Orono, MN 55364 Parcel Number:0711723120002 Land Use Number:LA24-000058 Application Submitted By:Agent on behalf of property owner Owner:Name: COREY ROBERT OLSON Address: ANNETTE SUE OLSON 75631 265TH ST Applicant:Name: Tim Brown Company: PHI Decks Address: 3500 Vicksburg LN N #302 Plymouth, MN 55447 permits@phidecks.com Contact Information:Associated Contact: Tim Brown permits@phidecks.com Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description:Replace existing lower deck and match existing depth. Reduce the overall width along the side of the house. Expand the upper deck to the same depth as the lower and add a staircase to the lower deck. Reduce overall footprint of decks 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: Exhibit B Land Use Application 73 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA24-000058 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: By expanding the upper deck, we will address usability concerns without further encroaching on the lake setback. This enhancement will facilitate better access to the lake while maintaining the property’s existing footprint. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: The plight of the landowner arises from unique circumstances, including the existing configuration of the property and the presence of a small, unuseable upper deck. These conditions limit the property's functionality and are not a result of any actions taken by the landowner. The proposed replacement of the upper deck seeks to improve usability while adhering to the established footprint, addressing these unique challenges. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality as the proposed upper deck will align with the existing lower deck, maintaining the current footprint and appearance of the property. No additional encroachment or structural changes that impact the surrounding area will occur. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: Economic considerations are not the basis for this variance request. The practical difficulty arises from the desire to maintain the current use and functionality of the property without expanding the footprint, ensuring that the property remains consistent with its current design while complying with setback requirements. 5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116J.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. Response: The practical difficulty arises from the existing upper deck being unusable due to its small size. We are requesting to extend the upper deck to match the depth of the lower deck, which would create a more functional and usable space. This extension will not expand the existing footprint or further encroach on the lakefront setback. 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: This variance request does not seek to permit any use that is not allowed under the current zoning regulations. 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Response: n/a 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response: n/a 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: n/a 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: Granting this application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right, as it will allow us to create a functional and usable upper deck space. 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: n/a 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: Granting this variance is not merely for convenience but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable difficulty. The current upper deck is too small to be functional, and extending it to match the lower deck is essential to create a usable outdoor space. 74 Land Use Application – Variance Request 975 Wildhurst Trail Orono, MN 55364 We are requesting a variance to replace our existing non-conforming lower deck with a newer, safer structure and extend our upper deck to the same depth as the lower deck. The existing lower deck encroaches on the lakefront setback, but we do not intend to further encroach on the setback or expand the overall footprint beyond what currently exists. The upper deck, as it stands, is too small to be functional. Extending it to match the depth of the lower deck will create a more usable and enjoyable outdoor space. Additionally, we propose adding a staircase from the upper deck to the yard, providing more accessible outdoor living space. This staircase will occupy approximately 80 square feet; however, we plan to reduce the size of the lower deck by more than this amount, ensuring that the overall structure’s footprint remains smaller than it currently is. Exhibit C Cover Letter 75 Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC13605 1st Avenue North,Suite 100Plymouth, MN 55441763-412-4000 (o) 763-412-4090 (f)www.ae-mn.comENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE LAND SURVEYINGENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTUREExhibit D Survey (Existing)76 Anderson Engineering of Minnesota, LLC13605 1st Avenue North,Suite 100Plymouth, MN 55441763-412-4000 (o) 763-412-4090 (f)www.ae-mn.comENGINEERING ARCHITECTURE LAND SURVEYINGENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 31'-9"15'-10"5'-9"4'-2"26'-0"Rebuild existingdecksExhibit ESurvey (Proposed)77 July 18, 2024 CLIENT Annette Olson 975 Wildhurst Trail, Mound, MN 55364 PHI Decks 3500 VICKSBURG LN N #302 PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 612-399-6744 MN Lic #BC636117 D1 COVER PAGE Exhibit F Building Plans 78 July 18, 2024 CLIENT Annette Olson 975 Wildhurst Trail, Mound, MN 55364 PHI Decks 3500 VICKSBURG LN N #302 PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 612-399-6744 MN Lic #BC636117 D2 GROUND FLOOR Footings: Helical Footings Posts: Ground contact treated 6x6 posts Ledger: Treated 2x10 flashed and bolted with LedgerLOKs Beams: See table below Joists: Treated 2x10 joists spaced at 12" on center Stringers: Treated 2x12 stringers spaced at 16" o.c. with 2x structural treads Decking: 5/4x6 Azek PVC decking HOUSE2 x 10 LEDGER FLASHED AND BOLTED TO HOUSE HELICAL FOOTING 6X6 TREATED SUPPORT POSTS LCP6Z/LCE4Z POST CAP DECK LATERAL LOAD CONNECTION CONFORMING TO MINNESOTA RESIDENTIAL CODE R507.2.3 J2 PRIVACY WALL GOING TO UPPER DECK WITH ELECTRIC FIREPLACE HALF PRIVACY WALL 15'-10"26'-0" Label Material Ply(s) FB1 1-1/2" x 11 1/4" PWT LVL 3 FB2 2x10 Treated SP #1 2 J1 2x10 Treated SP #1 1 FB1 FB2 FB2 79 July 18, 2024 CLIENT Annette Olson 975 Wildhurst Trail, Mound, MN 55364 PHI Decks 3500 VICKSBURG LN N #302 PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 612-399-6744 MN Lic #BC636117 D3 UPPER DECK Footings: Helical Footings Posts: Ground contact treated 6x6 posts Ledger: Treated 2x10 flashed and bolted with LedgerLOKs Beams: See table below Joists: Treated 2x10 joists spaced at 12" on center Stringers: Treated 2x12 stringers spaced at 16" o.c. with 2x structural treads Decking: 5/4x6 Azek PVC decking Railings: Kadenz aluminum railings with 3" posts. Max baluster spacing of 4". 36" tall Stairs: Max riser 7-3/4" Min run 10-1/2" Railing height 34"-38" Gripable railing installed Specifications STAIRS 7-3/4" MAX RISE 10" MINIMUM RUN GRIPPABLE HANDRAIL AT 34"-38" 6X6 TREATED SUPPORT POSTS LCP6Z/LCE4Z POST CAP DECK LATERAL LOAD CONNECTION CONFORMING TO MINNESOTA RESIDENTIAL CODE R507.2.3 2 x 10 LEDGER FLASHED AND BOLTED TO HOUSE 26'-0"15'-10"4'-2"5'-9" 4'-0"11'-8"31'-9" FB3 FB4 FB4 FB5 Label Material Ply(s) FB3 1-1/2" x 11 1/4" PWT LVL 3 FB4 2x10 Treated SP #1 2 FB5 2x10 Treated SP #1 1 J2 2x10 Treated SP #1 1 80 July 18, 2024 CLIENT Annette Olson 975 Wildhurst Trail, Mound, MN 55364 PHI Decks 3500 VICKSBURG LN N #302 PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 612-399-6744 MN Lic #BC636117 D4 DECKBOARD LAYOUT DECK LATERAL LOAD CONNECTION CONFORMING TO MINNESOTA RESIDENTIAL CODE R507.2.3 GROUND LEVEL DECK UPPER LEVEL DECK 81 July 18, 2024 CLIENT Annette Olson 975 Wildhurst Trail, Mound, MN 55364 PHI Decks 3500 VICKSBURG LN N #302 PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 612-399-6744 MN Lic #BC636117 D5ELEVATIONS STAIRS 7-3/4" MAX RISE 10" MINIMUM RUN GRIPPABLE HANDRAIL AT 34"-38"HELICAL FOOTING 6X6 TREATED SUPPORT POSTS LCP6Z/LCE4Z POST CAP KADENZ ALUMINUM RAILS AT 3' RETRACTABLE SCREENS (3)3'-0"9'-3 1/2"1'-0"13'-3 1/2"82 July 18, 2024 CLIENT Annette Olson 975 Wildhurst Trail, Mound, MN 55364 PHI Decks 3500 VICKSBURG LN N #302 PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 612-399-6744 MN Lic #BC636117 D6DETAILS 83 City of Orono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: Prepared by: Date: Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 1* Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 1: EXISTING HARDCOVER In the following table identify all items of existing hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to site plan or survey (must accompany this form). Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict the existing hardcover status of the property. *For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter that are within the 75-foot setback or split at the 75’ setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Survey Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Total (Square Feet) (Example) (Garage) (24’ x 30’) (720 S.F.) A S.F. B S.F. C S.F. D S.F. E 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 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 Existing Hardcover S.F. Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78-1684): S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover S.F. (3) Net Existing Hardcover [Subtract line (2) from line (1)]S.F. (4) Total Lot Area S.F. Existing Hardcover Percentage [ (3) ÷ (4) ] % House Driveway Concrete Walks Deck Walls 1,812 153 115 989 518 22,741 3,587 3,587 15.7 Exhibit G Hardcover 84 City of Orono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: Prepared by: Date: Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 2: PROPOSED HARDCOVER In the following table, identify all items of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to the site plan or survey (must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are intended to remain, as well as all proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict the proposed hardcover of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter that are within the 75- foot setback or split at the 75’ setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Survey Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Total (Square Feet) (Example) (Garage) (24’ x 30’) (720 S.F.) A S.F. B S.F. C S.F. D S.F. E 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 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 S.F. Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78-1684): S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover S.F. (3) Net Proposed Hardcover [Subtract line (2) from line (1)]S.F. (4) Total Lot Area S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [ (3) ÷ (4) ] % House Driveway Concrete Walks Deck Walls 1,812 153 500 115 989 22,741 3,569 3,569 15.7 85 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM , (we) _B_r _°'-_J _P_F_Ol_(_F_of_C/_9_J_w_,_' )d_h_vi_rs_+_· _-Jt_r_ot.._,_, I[print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at _________ also referred to as Land Use Application No.---'?=------I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgment, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the :&;;:?�fue propose;eighboFs p�; o�use ;;:Co:�; � �=er� Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please su bmit yo ur comments to the B uilding & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM I (we) ______________ of ___________________ _ [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at _________ also referred to as Land Use Application No. _______ _ I (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgment, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Co uncil that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use req uires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please su bmit yo ur comments to the B uilding & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. Adjacent Property Owner Form -January 2024 Exhibit H Adj. Owners' Acknowledgments 86 87 Exhibit I Site Photo(s) 88 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 975 WIldhurst 0 200 400100 Feet Date: 10/23/2024 Buffer Size:500 Map Comments: 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 Exhibit J Mailing Details 89 38 07-117-23 12 0002 COREY ROBERT OLSON ANNETTE SUE OLSON 75631 265TH ST GRAND MEADOW MN 55936 38 07-117-23 12 0003 BRAD PFAFF 993 WILDHURST TR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0009 JOSEPH R FELDMANN DONELLE L FELDMANN 805 FOREST ARMS LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0011 NATHAN M BRANDENBURG BETH M BRANDENBURG 825 FOREST ARMS LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0012 BRET C RIEMENSCHNEIDER JENNIFER S RIEMENSCHNEIDER 835 FOREST ARMS LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0013 KRISTIN PEARSON 855 FOREST ARMS LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0014 MARIA SWENSON 875 FOREST ARMS LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0015 CHAD D GUSTAFSON MEGAN A GUSTAFSON 895 FOREST ARMS LA MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0016 BRENDON LAWRENCE JILL LAWRENCE 4265 FOREST LAKE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0023 FOREST ARMS COUNTRY CLUB ADDN HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 960 FOREST ARMS LANE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0024 FOREST ARMS COUNTRY CLUB ADDN HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 960 FOREST ARMS LANE MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 12 0025 KENNETH ANDERSON LORI ANDERSON 4225 FOREST LAKE DR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 13 0085 VERNON F PETERSON 3155 VICKSBURG LN N PLYMOUTH MN 55447 38 07-117-23 13 0206 CITY OF ORONO P O BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 07-117-23 13 0207 CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 07-117-23 13 0208 CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 07-117-23 13 0209 CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 07-117-23 13 0210 CITY OF ORONO PO BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 38 07-117-23 13 0216 RITA JANE ZEBECK 4658 CARLTON DUNES DR #14 AMELIA ISLAND FL 32034 38 07-117-23 13 0217 PETER J RYSKAMP LISA M V RYSKAMP 1000 WILDHURST TR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 21 0003 THOMAS W FLECK LAURIE A FLECK 995 WILDHURST TR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 21 0004 BRIAN L & ANN K TURBEVILLE 997 WILDHURST TRL MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 21 0005 TONY SCOTT STINAR ALISON STINAR 999 WILDHURST TR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 21 0013 MELISSA J MUNSCH 1001 WILDHURST TR ORONO MN 55364 38 07-117-23 21 0015 JANE E KLINE 4455 WEST BRANCH RD MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 21 0018 MATTHEW JOHNSON SUSANNE JOHNSON 1003 WILDHURST TR ORONO MN 55364 38 07-117-23 21 0019 MATTHEW JOHNSON SUSANNE JOHNSON 1003 WILDHURST TR ORONO MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0045 CORY PLOEN & BRENDA PLOEN 1006 WILDHURST TR MOUND MN 55364 38 07-117-23 24 0046 MARY ELLEN KAPPES 1074 WILDHURST TR MOUND MN 55364 90 Date: November 18, 2024 Item: 5.4 Presenter: Melanie Curtis, Planner Section: Public Hearings Title: LA24-000059, Blue Pencil Collective/Kelsey Johnson (Developer) o/b/o Bradley Pass, 215 North Arm Lane (incl. PIDs 06-117-23-24-0002 and 06-117-23- 23-0021), Preliminary Plat: Idyllvale Shores (Melanie Curtis) 1.Purpose: This application contemplates preliminary plat approval to create five, 2+ acre buildable lots and new private roads. The existing properties are within the LR-1A and RR-1B districts. 2.MN§15.99 Application Deadline: The application was received on October 23rd, and considered to be substantially complete on November 6, 2024. Therefore the 120 day subdivision application review timing will expire on March 6, 2025. 3.Background: The applicant, on behalf of the property owners, requests approval to create a 5-lot subdivision from their 25+ acre, wooded property north of North Arm Lane. They have prepared a preliminary plat showing the lot configuration which includes private roads for review and comment. 4.Public Comment: At the time of publication, comments from 6 neighbors have been received. Staff anticipates additional forthcoming comments and, if received, those comments will be forwarded to the planning commission or provided at the time of the public hearing. 5.Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the application be tabled. 6.Planning Commission Action Requested: The Commission review the application and accept any additional public testimony at the public hearing. The Commission should provide feedback as indicated within the Staff Report, attached as Exhibit A, and a motion should be made to tabled the application to allow the applicant to respond to feedback. AGENDA ITEM Exhibits Exhibit A - Staff Report_Prelim Plat Exhibit B - Application & Narrative Exhibit C - Survey_Existing Conditions Exhibit D - Preliminary Plat Exhibit E - Prel Plat - COLORED Exhibit F - Lot Analysis Summary Exhibit G - Aerial Photos Exhibit H - Grading & SWPPP 91 Exhibit I - Conservation Design Master Plan Exhibit J - Stormwater Mgmt Exhibit K - Wetland Delin & NOD Exhibit L - MCWD Incomplete Letter Exhibit M - Road & Storm_Civil Exhibit N - Tree Removals and Preservation Exhibit O - Boulevard Landscaping Exhibit P - Zoning & Land Use Maps Exhibit Q - Public Comments Exhibit R - Map & Labels 92 Date Application Received: 10/23/2024 Date Application Considered as Complete: 11/06/2024 120-Day Review Period Expires: 03/06/2025 To: Chair Bollis and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner mcc Date: 18 November 2024 Subject: #LA24-000059, Blue Pencil Collective/Kelsey Johnson (Developer) o/b/o Bradley Pass 215 North Arm Lane, including PIDs 06-117-23-24-0002 and 06-117-23-23-0021 Subdivision/Preliminary Plat: “Idyllvale Shores” Public Hearing PRELIMINARY PLAT REVIEW General Site Characteristics The developer is proposing a subdivision involving three individual tax parcels (one addressed 215 North Arm Lane, and two associated, unaddressed properties: PIDs 06-117-23-24-0002 and 06-117-23-23- 0021), referred to within this report collectively as “the property”. This report contemplates their request for preliminary plat approval to create five, 2+ acre buildable lots and new private roads. Until recently, the property to be platted as “Idyllvale Shores” contained a residential home and outbuildings. Wooded slopes and wetlands make up the majority of the property to be developed. Application Summary: This application involves three individual tax parcels (1 containing an existing home), and contemplates preliminary plat approval to create five, 2+ acre buildable lots and new private roads. The existing properties are within the LR-1A and RR-1B districts. The applicant requests preliminary plat approval to create a 5-lot plat. The following is proposed: 1. Lot 1: 2.5 total acres; 2.5 dry, buildable acres (no wetland): 2. Lot 2: 2.5 total acres; 2.5 dry, buildable acres (no wetland): 3. Lot 3: 3.0 total acres; 2.6 dry, buildable acres (0.44-acre wetland): 4. Lot 4: 5.0 total acres; 3.9 dry, buildable acres (1.0-acre wetland): 5. Lot 5: A lakeshore lot. 6.0 total acres; 2.9 dry, buildable acres (*contiguous acreage is not identified), (3.1 acres wetland); and 6. Outlot: A 5.6-acre lake access open space outlot (2.1 acres of which are wetlands). All of the properties will be served by new, private roads (within an outlot) with two cul-de-sacs extending north off of North Arm Lane. All lots will be served by private wells and septic systems. Staff Recommendation: Based on the need for additional information and/or clarification, Staff recommends tabling the application until the January meeting to allow the developer time to provide the required information. 93 FILE #LA24-000059 18 November 2024 Page 2 of 7 The east portion of the property abuts Lake Minnetonka and has a defined width of 322 feet at the OHWL (due to the curvature of the shoreline) and approximately 470 feet at the 75-foot setback. When measured along the shoreline contour, the property has approximately 545 linear feet of shoreline. Lake Minnetonka is classified by the DNR as a Recreational Development Lake requiring a 75-foot structure and building setback from the ordinary high water level (“OHWL”). A wetland delineation has been completed and the wetlands have been depicted on the preliminary plat drawing with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District-required buffers shown (“MCWD”). The wetland delineation, attached as Exhibit K, was approved by the MCWD in June. Conformity with 2020 – 2040 Orono Community Management Plan The 2020 - 2040 Comprehensive Plan guides the properties for Rural Residential which allows 1 unit per 2 acres. The site is 25.35 acres in area ending at the OHWL of Lake Minnetonka. The plat includes the creation of outlots for new roads and a common space for lake access. Although the property to be subdivided is relatively large in area, the property’s current orientation, topography, and wetland areas (encumbering over a quarter of the land) limit the creation of more than the proposed number of lots. According to the policies in the CMP, this rural area is limited by the natural conditions. The area does not require urban services and remains to be low-density. The 5- lot development density is calculated at 0.19 units per acre, well below the density guidance of 0.5 units per acre. Conformity with Zoning District Standards The properties are currently zoned LR-1B One Family Lakeshore Residential and RR-1B One Family Rural Residential both require a minimum of two (2) acres per lot. All of the newly created parcels conform to the current zoning district standards relating to size and width. All existing structures have been or will be removed before recording the Final Plat. New buildings constructed must meet the required zoning district standards as no variances have been requested. The properties are outside of the MUSA and will be served by private septic systems. Relationship to Surrounding Development The proposed 5-lot single-family development with 2.5-plus acre lot sizes is relatively isolated; it is located at the end of a dead-end road and surrounded by larger, wooded residential properties sized from 2.5 acres up to 15 acres. The development will be consistent with its residential neighbors. Road Layout and Standards The developer is proposing to connect the development to North Arm Lane with the new private road split near the south end, each terminating in a cul-de-sac. As proposed, the plans reflect a 50-foot wide outlot extending to the northern cul-de-sac with a 24-foot wide paved, private road with a rural section; and an oversized, ±63 foot-wide portion of the outlot containing a curbed road with a paved with of 25.3 feet from the back of curb to back of curb, ending in a cul-de-sac to serve the lots in the development. The new private road is proposed to extend 435 feet beyond the northerly extent of the existing North Arm Lane off of North Arm Drive. This configuration results in a total road length of 1,385 for the northern roadway extension and 1,592 for the western extension. The City standards limit dead-end roads to 1,000 linear feet maximum. The Commission should discuss this, however there does not appear to be a viable alternate access that would conform. The northerly road length could be reduced somewhat by changing the configuration of the road and/or proposed Lot 4 to move the cul-de-sac further to the south. The developer has proposed the new roads to be private. However, due to the dead-end nature of the current public roadway, without a proper cul-de-sac or turnaround, winter maintenance and snow removal are challenging. The City Engineer's comments include consideration for the new roads to be dedicated as rights-of-way on the plat making the roads public. The additional financial and maintenance burdens of accepting new city roads may be offset by logistical improvements resulting in better maneuverability for snowplows in the two cul-de-sacs. 94 FILE #LA24-000059 18 November 2024 Page 3 of 7 Rural Oasis + Conservation Design + Wetlands The Developer’s engineer, Civil Methods prepared a Conservation Design Master Plan (“CDMP”) for the development following the Conservation Design requirements outlined within Chapter 78, Article XII (beginning with Section. 78-1631). The Idyllvale Shores CDMP is attached as Exhibit I and reviewed the development against the City’s Rural Oasis Study and provided an overview of the property relating to Drainage, Land Use, Natural Resources Inventory, Public Waters Inventory, and Wetlands. The property was not one of the development sites analyzed in Orono’s 2005 Rural Oasis Study (R.O.S) and was not situated along an identified rural oasis corridor. Their CDMP acknowledges that this property is partially located within a greenway corridor, and contains areas of maple-basswood and oak forests with the potential to contain rare species. The developer did not survey the rare species but rather ensured that proper protective measures would be taken if rare species were encountered during development. According to the CDMP report, the plans prioritize the preservation of the existing woodland and wetland areas and the maintenance of the existing natural ecological connections. Landscaping + Tree Preservation City Code Section 82-225(b) stipulates deciduous trees (“boulevard trees”) are to be planted within five feet of the right-of-way of the roads within and abutting the subdivision. One tree shall be planted for every 40 feet of frontage along each road. A plan has been provided for tree preservation and removals (Exhibit N), and a development landscaping plan reflecting the installation of 55 trees consisting of a mix of honeylocust, oak, and maple is attached as Exhibit O). The tree preservation and removal plan identified 1,206 total trees on the property; 419 trees are to be removed due to their condition or location within the development. The plan reflects 2,180 linear feet of road frontage requiring 55 trees. According to their schedule, the developer is proposing to plant 55 trees in a relatively uniform placement along the western road and more selectively placed along the northern road, likely to avoid the proposed stormwater infiltration area. Lot Layout + Lot Standards – LR-1A, Lakeshore Residential and RR-1B, Rural Residential The LR-1A and RR-1B districts each have a minimum lot area requirement of 2.0 dry, contiguous acres and 200 feet in width for each newly created lot. See Exhibit P for clarification of the district boundary line between the two districts. Please review Exhibit F for a full breakdown and code analysis of the proposed lots. According to the City Code, lot width for non-lakeshore lots in either district is measured at the 50-foot front building setback paralleling the roadway. For lakeshore lots, the minimum 200-foot width is measured in a straight line between the points where the side property lines intersect the 929.4’ OHWL contour for Lake Minnetonka, and in a straight line measured at the required 75-foot structure setback from the OHWL. 95 FILE #LA24-000059 18 November 2024 Page 4 of 7 After reviewing the preliminary plat drawing it does not appear the calculations for “dry” meet the requirements within the code [Cite: Section 82-254 – Lot area, minimum]. In areas not served by sanitary sewer, each lot must contain a minimum of two acres of contiguous dry buildable land exclusive of public rights-of-way, vehicular easements, or areas at or below the floodplain elevation for a specific property. The preliminary plat drawing identifies the gross area, dry area, and wetland area but does not explicitly identify the qualifying contiguous land areas. Further, the definition of “dry, buildable land” excludes areas where slopes exceed 30%. The developer has identified three small areas where portions of slopes exceed 30%. The preliminary plat should identify all bluffs and steep slopes. Bluffs are defined as having the following characteristics: (1)Part or all of the feature is located in a shoreland area; (2)The slope rises at least 25 feet above the ordinary high water level of the water body; (3)The grade of the slope from the toe of the bluff to a point 25 feet or more above the ordinary high water level averages 30 percent or greater; and (4)The slope must drain toward the water body) and steep slopes (defined as: areas where average slopes are 12 percent or greater as measured over horizontal distances of 50 feet or more, that are not bluffs) confirm this [Cite: Sec 78-1211 - Shoreland Definitions]. The preliminary plat should be updated to address the minimum required lot areas and any other missing or ambiguous information identified above. As submitted, Lot 5 (the lakeshore lot) does not meet the 200’ width requirement at the lake or the required minimum 2 acres of dry, contiguous buildable area and must be reconfigured to meet the city standards. Development Outlot: Included in the development is proposed “Lot 6” which does not meet the requirements to be considered a buildable lot. It appears the developer intends to create an outlot for lake access or common, private open space for the development. City Code Section 78-1278 provides for the creation of an outlot to provide owners of off-lake lots within the development access to the lake. However, this lot, as proposed does not meet the minimum requirements to do so. The developer should discuss their intent for this property. A lot created for lake access purposes must meet the following minimum standards: Standard / Minimum Requirement: Discussion: 1. Lakeshore access lots shall be designated as an outlot and shall not be considered to be a buildable lot. “Lot 6” is currently shown as a non-buildable lot and should be platted as an “outlot”. 2. A lake access outlot shall not be subject to minimum lot area or width standards, except that the number of off-lake properties to gain access via the lake access outlot shall not exceed the number obtained by dividing the outlot width measured at the shoreline by the required zoning district lot width, rounded down to the nearest whole number. Four of the lots do not have lake access. To serve all four lots, the lake access outlot would need to have a minimum defined width of 800 feet (=4 lots x 200’). As proposed, the outlot’s width at the OHWL is ±300 feet and could only support one off- lake property. 3. Such outlot shall be jointly owned by all owners of the off-lake lots in the subdivision who are provided riparian access rights on the access outlot. Only one property could own and use the outlot for lake access purposes. 4. No such access outlot shall be created as part of a subdivision plat except when the building lots within the subdivision are separated by an existing public or private roadway from the lakeshore, and the land on either side of the roadway was in common ownership as of the effective date of Ordinance No. There is no existing roadway to support the creation of a lake access outlot. 96 FILE #LA24-000059 18 November 2024 Page 5 of 7 101, adopted February 24, 1992. 5. Covenants or other equally effective legal instruments must be developed that specify which lot owners have authority to use the access lot and what activities are allowed. The activities may include watercraft launching, loading, storage, beaching, mooring or docking. They can also include other outdoor recreational activities that do not significantly conflict with general public use of the public water or the enjoyment of normal property rights by adjacent property owners. Examples of the nonsignificant conflict activities include swimming, sunbathing or picnicking. The covenants must limit the total number of vehicles allowed to be parked and the total number of watercraft allowed to be continuously moored, docked or stored over water, and must require centralization of all common facilities and activities in the most suitable locations on the lot to minimize topographic and vegetation alterations. They must also require all parking areas, storage buildings and other facilities to be screened by vegetation or topography as much as practical from view from the public water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions. Such covenants are subject to city approval. N/A Utilities Stormwater Drainage Improvements Stormwater facilities will be required in addition to payment of the City’s Stormwater Drainage Trunk fee. The Developer has completed stormwater management and grading plans which are currently under review by the City Engineer and the MCWD. Their stormwater management plan reflects grading and three stormwater infiltration basins to address the stormwater resulting from the new hardcover of the development. All stormwater facilities, basins, swales, etc. should be incorporated into drainage and utility easements on the Final Plat. The developer will be required to make adjustments to their plans if directed by the MCWD or City Engineer. The final, approved stormwater management and grading plans will be required as part of the Final Plat application submittals. Septic Systems + Wells The developer has provided septic designs for each of the proposed lots. Individual septic system installation permits are required in conjunction with building permits for the new homes. Private water supply wells should also be sited with the building permits. Fees  Stormwater Drainage Trunk Fee The stormwater drainage trunk fee (“SWDT fee”) will be determined by the City’s Fee Schedule at the time of the Final Plat submittal. According to the current 2024 Fee Schedule, the development of a property within a 2- acre residential zone requires payment of $8,060 per each new lot and/or development of a vacant lot. As proposed, the developer will be subject to payment of a SWDT fee for 4 lots or $32,240*.  Park/Trail Easement + Park Fees or Dedication The Parks, Open Space, and Trail Plan chapter of the Orono Comprehensive Plan does not specify the need for a neighborhood park at this location. The City’s Lowry Woods Nature Conservation Area is a passive park located 97 FILE #LA24-000059 18 November 2024 Page 6 of 7 approximately 1/3 of a mile to the north of the property; the MN DNR’s Luce Line State trail is located about ½ mile to the north. As there is no defined need for a land dedication for a park or trail in this location, it would appear that the dedication of actual land for park purposes is not required. Absent the need for a land dedication, a Park Dedication Fee would be appropriate according to the City Ordinance. The development will be subject to the City’s 2025 Park Dedication Fee. This fee is determined by the fair market value of the land being subdivided. The Hennepin County Assessor will be consulted to determine the market value of the land to establish the amount of the fee. Currently, the project includes 3 separate properties, two of which are currently buildable. The developer is proposing five building sites or 3 new lots. The park fee for this development will be approximately $11,455.74*. *The fee amounts will be confirmed at the time of Final Plat submittal. Issues for Discussion 1. The City Engineer suggests the development road be platted as an extension of the public road versus a private road (without clear demarcation). The Commission should discuss this recommendation with the developer and make a recommendation regarding the status of the new development road(s). 2. The status of the proposed lake access outlot “Lot 6” is unclear. The Commission should ask the developer to describe their intent for this lot, i.e. what is its intended purpose? The plans don’t specify it as an outlot or clearly identify it as a buildable lot on the preliminary plat. It does not meet the lot standards. If the intent is to create an outlot for shared lake accessit does not appear meet those standards either. The wetland separates the lakeshore portion of this lot from the western half abutting the road eliminating opportunities for creating a driveway. How will the lakeshore be accessed? Are there any planned improvements? Lake access? What are the potential wetland impacts? 3. The developer’s plans show building pads. They should confirm if it is their intent to create building pads to establish new “existing grades” for building height determination as part of the plat which can only be accomplished through the subdivision grading or by approval of an interim use permit. If it is their intent, the building pad grading will be included in the required development improvements covered by the development security. Building Height is defined as: “the vertical distance between the highest existing ground level or ten feet above the lowest ground level, whichever is lower, and the top of the cornice of a flat roof, or the deck line of a mansard roof, or the uppermost point on a round or other arch-type roof, or the median height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof. Topographic changes which elevate the adjoining ground level above the existing terrain shall not be considered in determining building height.” 4. The preliminary plat calculates the wet versus dry areas of each lot but does not identify the contiguous dry area required by the city code. Additionally, it is unclear if the steep slopes and bluffs have been accurately identified on the plans and subsequently accounted for in the lot area calculations. The developer should submit updated plans to reflect the calculations in the format required by the City Code. 5. Lot 5 does not meet the city standards for lot width or lot area. Lot 5 should be revised to meet the minimum lot dimensional requirements. 6. Does the Commission find the proposed plan preserves the existing rural character in the area? 98 FILE #LA24-000059 18 November 2024 Page 7 of 7 7. The Commission should ask for additional information regarding the tree and landscaping plan. Are the existing trees to remain accounted for in the plan? Does the Developer’s plan provide the desired natural aesthetic? 8. Does the Planning Commission agree with the Developer’s findings in the Conservation Design Master Plan? If not, what is lacking? Staff Recommendation As applied, Staff cannot support the application. Staff recommends the planning commission review the issues for discussion and provide appropriate feedback to the developer. The application should be tabled to allow the developer to respond to the feedback. Comments from the City’s Engineer will be provided upon receipt of a revised preliminary plat. 99 Land Use Application Summary Application Date:10/23/2024 Address:215 North Arm Orono, MN 55364 Parcel Number:0611723240001 Land Use Number:LA24-000059 Application Submitted By:Agent on behalf of property owner Owner:Name: BRADLEY PASS Address: The Pass Family Trust - Bradley Pass Applicant:Name: Kasey Johnson Company: Blue Pencil Collective Address: 2150 3rd Street White Bear Lake, MN 55110 kasey@bluepencilcollective.com Contact Information:Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description:Subdivision - Preliminary Plat (Idlyllvale Shores) - includes PID 06-117-23-24-0002 and 06-117-23-23- 0021 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: 100 IDYLLVALE SHORES PROJECT NARRATIVE 2150 3rd Street, Suite 5, White Bear Lake MN 55110 www.bluepencilcollective.com 1 We are proposing a unique residential community in the City of Orono called Idyllvale Shores. Named after the original homestead and natural habitat, and complete with access to the sought-after Lake Minnetonka, this community is the last of its kind in the area. Located off North Arm Drive, the community will focus on intertwining living with conservation. Natural stormwater ponding co-exists with wetland preserves while native, indigenous plant and animal species thrive in a reserved oasis complete with walking trails where the community can experience it all firsthand. Idyllvale Shores is rich with deciduous woodland/forest, upland grassland with scattered red cedar, common buckthorn-dominated shrubland, three wetlands, and one linear water body. The 25 acres will be divided into five 2-2.5-acre, single-family lots and a shared lot nature preserve. Building covenants will identify areas within each site that are to remain natural, wetland management areas maintained by the HOA, and potential lot improvement areas. Each home will be custom and architecturally designed to honor the land, views and privacy. Rooted in the homeowners' longstanding connection to Orono and specifically the property, Idyllvale Shores, they are dedicated to preserving the land that has been a cherished part of their family’s history. Having seen the growth and development of the area, their primary goal is to protect the natural landscape and ensure its beauty and ecological value are maintained. The development of Idyllvale Shores embodies this commitment, thoughtfully balancing the need for housing with the preservation of the area’s distinctive natural character. The project’s construction will consist of site grading for infrastructure, including roads, trails, utilities, stormwater facilities, and building pads within a pre-identified lot improvement area surrounded by natural wetlands. Construction of the site will begin in 2024/2025. Project plans that include the existing conditions and preliminary grading plan for the proposed development are included within this document. Access for the development is planned via North Arm Lane, which will service the lots of the development. The need for this project is to provide single-family housing in the western part of the metro area, responding to the expanding residential housing market in the City of Orono. Orono has experienced moderate growth over the past two decades, with a population increase of 7.4% from 2000 to 2022. The city's 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which aims to accommodate population growth while preserving the natural environment and improving public infrastructure, further supports the feasibility and necessity of the Idyllvale Shores development. Idyllvale Shores will be a curated, nature-driven community with six homes that fade into the landscape and encourage a lifestyle of harmony. It will be a place that sets the precedent for generations to come; we can coexist with nature, respectfully. 101 LAKE MINNETONKA(NORTH ARM)NORTH ARM LANE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES NOTES:THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN HAVE BEEN LOCATED FROM FIELDSURVEY INFORMATION AND EXISTING DRAWINGS. THE SURVEYOR MAKES NOGUARANTEE THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN COMPRISE ALL SUCHUTILITIES IN THE AREA, EITHER IN SERVICE OR ABANDONED. THE SURVEYORFURTHER DOES NOT WARRANT THAT THE UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWNARE IN THE EXACT LOCATION INDICATED ALTHOUGH HE DOES CERTIFY THATTHEY ARE LOCATED AS ACCURATELY AS POSSIBLE FROM THE INFORMATIONAVAILABLE. THIS SURVEY HAS NOT PHYSICALLY LOCATED THE UNDERGROUNDUTILITIES. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL LOCATE TICKET NUMBER(S) XXXXXXXX.SOME MAPS WERE RECEIVED, WHILE OTHER UTILITIES DID NOT RESPOND TOTHE LOCATE REQUEST. ADDITIONAL UTILITIES OF WHICH WE ARE UNAWAREMAY EXIST.CALL BEFORE YOU DIG!TWIN CITY AREA:TOLL FREE:1-800-252-1166651-454-0002Gopher State One CallLEGAL DESCRIPTION:SURVEY NOTES:(THE FOLLOWING LEGAL DESCRIPTION IS PROVIDED BY THE OWNER. NO TITLE OPINIONOR TITLE COMMITMENT WAS PROVIDED) SUBJECT TO CHANGE.All that part of the East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6, Township 117 North,Range 23, West of the 5th Principal Meridian, bounded by a line described as follows:Commencing at the Southwest corner of the Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 of theNorthwest 1/4 of said Section 6; thence South along the West line of said East 1/2 ofthe Northwest 1/4 to a point distant 854.5 feet North of the Southwest corner of saidEast 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4; thence East parallel with the South line of said East 1/2of the Northwest 1/4, a distance of 280 feet; thence South parallel with the West lineof said East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 to the South line of said East 1/2 of theNorthwest 1/4; thence East along the South line of said East 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4,a distance of 33 feet; thence North parallel with the West line of said East 1/2 of theNorthwest 1/4, a distance of 854.5 feet; thence East parallel with the South line of saidEast 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 to a point distant 22 rods East of the West line of saidEast 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4; thence North parallel with the West line of said East 1/2of the Northwest 1/4 to the South line of said Northwest 1/4 of the Northeast 1/4 ofthe Northwest 1/4; thence West along said South line to the point of beginning.ALSO, All that part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6, Township117, Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of theSoutheast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section thence West along the North lineof the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section 6 to a point distant 22 rodsEast of the Northwest corner of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of said Section6; thence South and parallel with the West line of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest1/4 of said Section 6 to a point distant 854.5 feet North of the South line of theNorthwest 1/4 of said Section 6; thence East to a point on the East line of theNorthwest 1/4 of said Section 6 distant 854.5 feet North of the Southeast corner of theNorthwest 1/4 of said Section 6; thence North along said East line to the point ofbeginning.ALSO, That part of the Southeast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 6, Township 117,Range 23, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast corner of saidSoutheast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4; thence West along the South line of saidSoutheast 1/4 of the Northwest 1/4 a distance of 1020.6 feet to the point of beginningof "Line A"; thence North parallel with the West line of said Southeast 1/4 of theNorthwest 1/4 a distance of 854.5 feet to the point of beginning of the property begindescribed, and said "Line A" there ending; thence East parallel with said South line adistance of 290 feet; thence South parallel with the West line of said Southeast 1/4 ofthe Northwest 1/4 a distance of 75 feet; thence West parallel with said South line adistance of 290 feet to said "Line A11; thence North along said "Line A11 to the pointof beginning.EXCEPT the right of way of North Arm Lane, as dedicated as public highway, perDocument No. 7835812.ANDOutlet B, IDYLL VALE FARM, according to the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County1Minnesota.TITLE NOTES:0NORTH80160NO TITLE OPINION OR TITLE COMMITMENT WAS PROVIDED THAT WOULD SHOWEASEMENTS OR ENCUMBRANCES OF RECORD. EASEMENTS MAY EXIST THAT ARE NOTSHOWN. SUBJECT TO CHANGE.1.10' DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS AS SHOWN ON OUTLOT B.AREA:TOTAL AREA AS SHOWN = 1,104,200 SQ.FT. / 25.35 ACRESPORTIONS OF THIS PROPERTY LIES WITHIN ZONE AE,AREAS DETERMINED TO BE WITHIN THE 0.2% ANNUAL CHANCEFLOODPLAIN OTHER AREAS INCLUDING ALL BUILDINGS ARELOCATED IN ZONE X, AREAS DETERMINED TO BE OUTSIDE THE0.2% ANNUAL CHANCE FLOODPLAIN AS SHOWN ON FEMA FLOODINSURANCE RATE MAP NUMBER 27053C0285E HAVING ANEFFECTIVE DATE OF NOVEMBER 4TH, 2016. THE BASE FLOODELEVATION OF 931.1 IS SHOWN ON THE SURVEY FOR REFERENCEPURPOSES ONLY. VERIFIED BY OTHERS.FLOOD INFORMATION:SEPTIC/WELLTHE EXISTING SEPTIC AND WELL WERE NOT LOCATEDAT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY.1. WETLANDS SHOWN ON THIS SURVEY WEREPROVIDED BY THE OWNER AS SHOWN ONSURVEY BY JAMES R. HILL, INC. DATED 8-12-23.NOT VERIFIED BY CORNERSTONE LANDSURVEYING, INC.WETLAND NOTES:PID#0611723240001CONTACT:KASEY JOHNSONBLUE PENCIL COLLECTIVE651.419.6367kasey@bluepencilcollective.comBPC24001SURVBPC01CERTIFICATE OFSURVEYCOUNTY/CITY:REVISIONS:PROJECT LOCATION:LAND SURVEYING, INC.CORNERSTONESuite #2001970 Northwestern Ave.Stillwater, MN 55082Phone 651.275.8969dan@cssurvey.netDATEREVISIONPROJECT NO.FILE NAME215NORTH ARM LANECITY OF ORNOHENNEPINCOUNTY5-8-24PRELIMINARY ISSUECERTIFICATION:I hereby certify that this plan was prepared byme, or under my direct supervision, and that I ama duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws ofthe state of Minnesota.Daniel L. Thurmes Registration Number: 25718Date:__________________5-8-24IDYLLVALESHORES1.BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE HENNEPIN COUNTYCOORDINATE SYSTEM NAD 1983-1996.2.UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHOWN PER VISUALINSPECTION. THERE MAY SOME UNDERGROUND UTILITIES,GAS, ELECTRIC, ETC. NOT SHOWN OR LOCATED.3.CONTOURS SHOWN PER LIDAR DATA OBTAINED FROMTHE DNR MNTOPO WEBSITE. NOT FIELD VERIFIED.4.DATE OF FIELD LOCATION OF BUILDINGS, ROAD, ETC. =5-3-24. ADDITIONAL TOPOGRAPHY ON 9-9-24 INAREAS OF PROPSOED ROADS AND WITHIN 75' OF OHWL.5.ELEVATIONS BASED ON GPS DERIVED VALUES FOR NAVD88.LEGENDUNDERGROUND TELEPHONEOVERHEAD UTILITYUNDERGROUND GASFENCEBUILDING LINEBITUMINOUS SURFACECONCRETE SURFACEFOUND CAST IRON MONUMENTFOUND MONUMENT (AS NOTED)SET IRON PIPE MARKED WITH MN LICENSE NO. 25718CABLE TV PEDESTALELECTRIC METERELECTRIC TRANSFORMERGUY WIREPOWER POLEGAS METERTELEPHONE PEDESTALSANITARY CLEANOUTWATER WELLMAIL BOXTREESPID#0611723230001PID#0611723240002UNIDENTIFIED MANHOLE6-30-24ADD SEPTIC BORINGS9-10-24ADDITIONAL TOPO102 KEBDESIGNED: LIC. NO.: DATE: KENT E. BRANDER DRAWN: CHECKED: KEB DMP44578 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 11-06-2024 CIVIL METHODS, INC. P.O. Box 28038 St. Paul, MN 55128 o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.com DATE / REVISION:SHEET NO: 11-06-2024 Permit Submittal Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 11/6/2024 11:42 AMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\24021_Idyllvale Shores Orono\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\PRELIMINARY PLAT.dwgPROJECT: PROJ. LOCATION: PROJ. OWNER: 215 NORTH ARM LN, ORONO, MN 55364 BRADLEY J & CAROL A PASS Feet 0 60 120 1 89732 SF GROSS 89732 SF DRY 0 SF WET LEGEND: 103 LEGEND: KEBDESIGNED: LIC. NO.: DATE: KENT E. BRANDER DRAWN: CHECKED: KEB DMP44578 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 11-06-2024 CIVIL METHODS, INC. P.O. Box 28038 St. Paul, MN 55128 o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.com DATE / REVISION:SHEET NO: 11-06-2024 Permit Submittal Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 11/6/2024 11:42 AMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\24021_Idyllvale Shores Orono\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\PRELIMINARY PLAT.dwgPROJECT: PROJ. LOCATION: PROJ. OWNER: 215 NORTH ARM LN, ORONO, MN 55364 BRADLEY J & CAROL A PASS Feet 0 60 120 104 105 Lot Analysis Lot 1: Proposed Lot 1 will have 2.5 total acres; all of which is upland. This lot will have 220 feet of frontage on the new private road cul-de-sac. There are no wetland areas on the property. An approximate 1.0-acre building envelope is proposed. A building pad is proposed to be created for a home with a proposed garage elevation of 1,011’. Lot 2: Lot 2 is shown with 3.2 total acres; and 3.26 dry, buildable acres. The property has a total width of 212 feet of frontage on the road; approximately 99 feet are on the cul-de-sac. This lot will have an approximate 1.0-acre building envelope. A building pad for a home with a 1003.2’ garage elevation is shown to be created by the developer. Lot 3: Lot 3 is a corner lot with frontage on each road. The “front” for zoning purposes is defined as the shorter frontage. Therefore, the north/south road is determined to be the front, with a width of 290 feet; a portion of which is on the cul-de-sac. This lot has 3.0 total acres; 2.6 is dry. The 0.44-acre wetland on the property is primarily in the northern portion and is shared with proposed Lot 4. An infiltration basin is proposed on this property requiring easements. Accounting for the infiltration basin, wetland, and wetland buffer areas, the building envelope is approximately 0.9 acre in area. The developer is proposing a building pad for a home with a garage-floor elevation of 973’. Lot 4: Lot 4 is shown to have 5.0 total acres; 3.9 dry, buildable acres. This lot has 217 feet in width measured at the 50-foot setback from the cul-de-sac. This lot shares the large wetland with Lot 3; an infiltration basin is proposed to be constructed near the wetland between two buffer areas. The buildable envelope is approximately 2+ acres although there are steeper slopes (~18%) on the northern portion of the property. A building pad is proposed showing a garage-floor elevation of 986.5’. Within this property, the developer proposes a culvert or other mechanism to construct the driveway over an intermittent stream connecting wetlands on either side. Lot 5: Lot 5 is proposed as a lakeshore lot. It is approximately 163 feet wide at the OHWL, and 173 feet wide at the 75-foot setback where 200 feet of width is required. It has 6.0 total acres in area, 1.7 acres of which are contiguous dry, buildable (including approximately ½ acre of land encumbered by wetland buffer). Another acre of upland is situated between the wetland and the OHWL of the lake disconnected from the building site and does not count toward buildability. This lot must be reconfigured to conform. As proposed, an infiltration basin is shown on the southeastern area of the buildable portion of the lot near the building pad further limiting options for development. A building pad with a first-floor elevation of 997’ is shown in addition to a potential building pad for an ADU (986.7’). A second driveway access for the ADU is shown. “Lot 6”: Outlot? “Lot 6” is not proposed as a buildable lot and must be platted as an Outlot. There are no minimum dimensional standards for open space outlots. As proposed, it has 5.6 acres in total area, with 2.15 acres of wetland. According to City Code 82-2. Definitions, an outlot is defined as “a lot depicted on a final plat which intended for open space preservation, access, future development or other use”. The developer should share their plans for this lot, i.e. is it intended to be an outlot ? Identify improvements, use, etc. See the analysis of this lot beginning on page 4. 106 107 108 B a y s i d e R d N Arm LnBa y s id e T r l 1016 10149 5 8 104093610229481004103 0 93 2 9321016 10 1 4 98 0 93210121014 10241010 103096810409601034 996 980 93 0938938103610121 0 3 01034 9 8 0 1012 1012 9661018102410341018 10401 0 4 0 1 0 1 2 1032 1030 94210161024 1012 10341034104210201022 9501008102 0 95210249681014 10321028 10261022 10149 7 8 10 3 6 97 8 1020 1018 10361018930 970 93210409781010103810381044 95010281032 93010289 3 010161030 102410261020 1024 10221034 101 0 1 0 0 8 1 0 0 6 102210 0 4 1012 1 0 3 2 1014 1 0 0 2 9349 3 2 10201 0 0 0 930 10181016 9 9 6 9 9 8 9 9 4 9 9 2 926990 928 9361030 1020 10241022 938 1028 102 6 940990 992 994996 950 998100095210029421004944 95 4 10069569461008948 10141012101810101016 96095 8 964962966968978980 98 2 98497 0 986988 97 2 974 976 Delineated Aquatic ResourcesBrad & Carol Pass215 North Arm Lane and PINs 0611723240002 & 0611723230021Orono, MN Figure 5 ´ Survey Area (25 ac.) Wetland Boundary Waterbody Channel Transect LiDAR (2' contours) Sources: color Hennepin 6 in, 2021,MnGeo, MN Department of Natural Resources,US Census Bureau, Date: 6/10/2024 0 200 400Feet Wetland 1(appx. 1.52 ac.) Wetland 3(appx. 1.80 ac.) Wetland 2(appx. 3.49 ac.) Channel 1(appx. 286 lf) channelflows throughdouble culvert 109 41235LEGEND: X.X% KEBDESIGNED: LIC. NO.: DATE: KENT E. BRANDER DRAWN: CHECKED: KEB DMP44578 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 10-23-2024 CIVIL METHODS, INC. P.O. Box 28038 St. Paul, MN 55128 o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.com DATE / REVISION:SHEET NO: 10-23-2024 Permit Submittal Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10/23/2024 1:01 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\24021_Idyllvale Shores Orono\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\50_GRADING OVERALL.dwgPROJECT: PROJ. LOCATION: PROJ. OWNER: 215 NORTH ARM LN, ORONO, MN 55364 BRADLEY J & CAROL A PASS Feet 0 60 120 110 1 2 3 5 4“ ” KEBDESIGNED: LIC. NO.: DATE: KENT E. BRANDER DRAWN: CHECKED: KEB DMP44578 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 10-23-2024 CIVIL METHODS, INC. P.O. Box 28038 St. Paul, MN 55128 o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.com DATE / REVISION:SHEET NO: 10-23-2024 Permit Submittal Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10/23/2024 1:01 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\24021_Idyllvale Shores Orono\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\51_GRADING.dwgPROJECT: PROJ. LOCATION: PROJ. OWNER: 215 NORTH ARM LN, ORONO, MN 55364 BRADLEY J & CAROL A PASS Feet 0 50 100 Feet 0 50 100 LEGEND: X.X% 111 1 2 3 5 4LEGEND: KEBDESIGNED: LIC. NO.: DATE: KENT E. BRANDER DRAWN: CHECKED: KEB DMP44578 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 10-23-2024 CIVIL METHODS, INC. P.O. Box 28038 St. Paul, MN 55128 o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.com DATE / REVISION:SHEET NO: 10-23-2024 Permit Submittal Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10/23/2024 1:01 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\24021_Idyllvale Shores Orono\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\60_EROSION.dwgPROJECT: PROJ. LOCATION: PROJ. OWNER: 215 NORTH ARM LN, ORONO, MN 55364 BRADLEY J & CAROL A PASS Feet 0 50 100 Feet 0 50 100 112 KEBDESIGNED: LIC. NO.: DATE: KENT E. BRANDER DRAWN: CHECKED: KEB DMP44578 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 10-23-2024 CIVIL METHODS, INC. P.O. Box 28038 St. Paul, MN 55128 o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.com DATE / REVISION:SHEET NO: 10-23-2024 Permit Submittal Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10/23/2024 1:01 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\24021_Idyllvale Shores Orono\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\61_SWPPP.dwgPROJECT: PROJ. LOCATION: PROJ. OWNER: 215 NORTH ARM LN, ORONO, MN 55364 BRADLEY J & CAROL A PASS C/D C/D C/DC C C B B/D C Feet 0 3000 6000 113 CONSERVATION DESIGN MASTER PLAN IDYLLVALE SHORES ORONO, MN DATE:10-23-2024 CMI PROJECT NO.:24021 PREPARED FOR: Bradley J Pass PREPARED BY: Civil Methods, Inc. PO Box 28038 St. Paul, MN 55128 ENGINEER CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Name:Kent Brander, PE Signed: Date:10-23-2022 Registration: MN No. 44578 114 Idyllvale Shores – Conservation Design Master Plan October 2024 Civil Methods, Inc.Page | i Table of Contents 1.INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 2.CONSERVATION DESIGN OVERVIEW .............................................................................................................. 1 2.1 LOCAL AND REGIONAL ECOLOGICAL CONNECTION............................................................................................... 1 2.2 RURAL OASIS STUDY CONSIDERATIONS ............................................................................................................ 1 2.3 NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY .................................................................................................................. 2 2.3.1 REVIEW OF MLCCS DATA............................................................................................................................. 2 2.3.2 TREE SURVEY ............................................................................................................................................ 3 2.3.3 WETLAND INVENTORY ................................................................................................................................. 3 2.3.4 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY ................................................................................................................................ 4 2.3.5 ADDITIONAL SITE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................................... 4 3.CONSERVATION DESIGN MASTER PLAN COMPONENTS ................................................................................. 4 3.1 EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEM ......................................................................................................................... 4 3.2 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ............................................................................................................ 5 3.3 MANAGEMENT OF INVASIVE AND DISEASED VEGETATION ..................................................................................... 5 3.4 WOODLAND PRESERVATION.......................................................................................................................... 6 3.5 WETLAND PRESERVATION............................................................................................................................. 6 3.6 MITIGATION OF NEGATIVE IMPACTS ................................................................................................................ 6 3.7 MAINTENANCE OF ECOLOGICAL CONNECTIONS .................................................................................................. 7 3.8 VIEW PRESERVATION ................................................................................................................................... 7 3.9 LANDMARK PRESERVATION ........................................................................................................................... 7 4.REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................................. 7 APPENDIX A – PROJECT MASTER PLAN APPENDIX B – TREE SURVEY APPENDIX C – WETLAND REPORT FIGURES APPENDIX D – TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY APPENDIX E – ORONO NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY FIGURES 115 Idyllvale Shores – Conservation Design Master Plan October 2024 Civil Methods, Inc.Page | 1 1.INTRODUCTION The applicant (Bradley J. Pass) is proposing a unique residential community in the City of Orono called Idyllvale Shores. Named after the original homestead and natural habitat, the goal of this development is to emphasize environmental conservation. Stormwater treatment will be provided to mitigate any potential impacts to local hydrologic systems, and no impacts to area wetlands are proposed. The site is rich with deciduous woodland/forest, upland grassland with scattered red cedar, three wetlands, and one intermittent water body. The portion of the property to be used for the development will be divided into five single-family lots, with substantial land area left undisturbed. It is anticipated that building covenants will identify areas within each site that are to remain natural, wetland management areas maintained by the HOA. Each home will be designed to honor the land, views and privacy. The project’s construction will consist of site grading for infrastructure, including roads, wells and septic systems, stormwater facilities, and building pads within a pre-identified lot improvement area surrounded by natural wetlands. Construction of the site is proposed to begin in 2025. The project Master Plan is included in Appendix A. Access for the development will be from North Arm Lane, which will branch into two cul-de-sac roadways serving the five planned residential lots. This project will be a valuable addition to the City of Orono, providing single-family housing in the expanding residential market while maintaining the rural and environmentally connected character of the community. 2.CONSERVATION DESIGN OVERVIEW 2.1 LOCAL AND REGIONAL ECOLOGICAL CONNECTION Rooted in the homeowners' longstanding connection to Orono and this specific property, the applicant is dedicated to preserving the land that has been a cherished part of their family’s history. Having seen the growth and development of the area, their primary goal is to protect the natural landscape and ensure its beauty and ecological value are maintained. The development of Idyllvale Shores embodies this commitment, thoughtfully balancing the need for housing with the preservation of the area’s distinctive natural character. 2.2 RURAL OASIS STUDY CONSIDERATIONS With the project located at the end of North Arm Lane, it is largely secluded from the typical views of people driving through the city. While it is adjacent to two corridors identified in the 116 Idyllvale Shores – Conservation Design Master Plan October 2024 Civil Methods, Inc.Page | 2 Orono Rural Oasis study (McCulley and Bayside), it is not entirely visible from either of these routes, neither of which were studied in detail. The project is only accessible from North Arm Lane, which currently ends at the entrance to the existing rural driveway. Given that most of the vegetation is to remain in place, even the view from North Arm Lane enjoyed currently by residents and passersby will retain its existing character. Driving on Bayside Road or North Shore Drive West, the view of the proposed development is obscured by existing residential lots. These lots have significant vegetation and trees that already preserve the rural character of the area. Even when the project is completed, it may only be possible to glimpse some of the new houses or roadway from one of these corridors during certain times of the year. In general, the development will not be substantially visible except from the new roads that will be constructed as part of the project. The area is visible from the north arm of Lake Minnetonka. However, this visual access is limited and is not a significant view for the community. In any case the proposed development does not disrupt the view from the lake, because most of the local vegetation will be preserved. 2.3 NATURAL RESOURCES INVENTORY An inventory of natural resources pertaining to the site has been completed as part of the overall project planning and design. The Orono city code indicates that the natural resources inventory should include a review of the MLCCS data pertinent to the site, a tree survey, a wetland inventory, a topographic survey, and an analysis of the site with respect to conceptual greenways and open space corridors, existence of rare plant communities, and the potential need for proactive management and protection. 2.3.1 REVIEW of MLCCS data The following figure shows the Level 1 MLCSS data for the property in question. 117 Idyllvale Shores – Conservation Design Master Plan October 2024 Civil Methods, Inc.Page | 3 The classifications present on the property include forests (dark green), artificial surfaces and associated areas (pink), shrubland (dark brown), herbaceous (light green), planted or cultivated vegetation (yellow), woodland (olive), and water (blue). This is generally consistent with what is known to be on the property. The MLCCS review provides a valuable top-level look at the site land cover, illustrating how the project site is a good representation of the diverse natural character of the City of Orono. The low-density residential development planned for the site will allow much of the site to remain untouched, and overall to preserve the existing on-site natural resources. 2.3.2 TREE SURVEY A detailed tree survey was performed for the site on 9/17/2024 by Rehder Forestry Consulting. The tree survey is included as Appendix B. In addition to the mapped trees, Rehder provided the following summary of the site: Observations: Lots of sugar maple on site (1/3rd). Most of the western parcel is sugar maple. There is a large pocket of dead/dying ash trees (1/3rd), which may be a good place for a home site. Speaking of ash trees, obviously there is a lot of Emerald Ash Borer (EAB) on site. It is running its course through this site but the western side is much worse than the eastern side, but all ash trees will die. If the ash trees still had some green on them we tagged them but gave them a poor condition rating and put EAB in the notes. If they were completely dead we skipped them but there were more tagged than not tagged. The northern section is quite wet with a cluster of sugar maple on the hillside. The "south" side has a mix of lowland trees as well as more sugar maple. The east has very large buckthorn throughout but also some nice large shade trees. The further south you go the more it turns into willow shrubs and other smaller wetland species, but few trees. About a third of the trees on site have a poor rating. The reason why they have a poor rating can be found in the notes. 2.3.3 WETLAND INVENTORY A wetland delineation report was performed for the site on 4/11/2024 by Midwest Natural Resources, Inc. That report was provided as part of the overall project submittal and can be provided separately upon request. The key figures from that report are included in this report as Appendix C. In summary, the boundaries of three wetlands and one linear waterbody were delineated within the site. 118 Idyllvale Shores – Conservation Design Master Plan October 2024 Civil Methods, Inc.Page | 4 2.3.4 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY A topographic survey was performed for the site on 9/10/2024 (latest update) by Cornerstone Land Surveying, Inc. The survey is included in this report as Appendix D. This survey formed the basis of the overall design for the site. 2.3.5 ADDITIONAL SITE ANALYSIS Appendix E includes key figures from the Orono Natural Resources Inventory, specifically the figures depicting the Conceptual Greenway Corridor Alignment and the identified Natural Areas with Potential for Rare Species. The project location is shown on each of the figures. The project is partially located in a conceptual greenway corridor. The main part of the corridor in this location is connected to the north arm of Lake Minnetonka. No alteration of that part of the property is planned for this project. Previous iterations of the project included a driveway and house extending toward the water body, but the project has been modified to eliminate that component. The project components that are in the remaining portion of the conceptual greenway corridor (houses and private roads) will involve removal of some vegetation, but the narrower street section, large lots, and preserved trees will help to maintain the connected nature of the corridor to the extent possible. The map of natural areas with potential for rare species shows that the project is located near maple-basswood forest and oak forest mesic subtype. A survey of rare species was not conducted for the site, but it appears that only a small portion of the indicated areas would be potentially affected by the project, so they would remain fundamentally intact. If rare species are encountered, proper measures will be taken to ensure their protection. Much of the area most likely to contain rare species, including all project wetlands and the area of the project adjacent to the north arm of Lake Minnetonka, will be untouched. 3.CONSERVATION DESIGN MASTER PLAN COMPONENTS 3.1 EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEM The property currently features a residential dwelling, several accessory structures, landscaped areas, woodlands, wetlands, and direct access to Lake Minnetonka (North Arm). The site is characterized by a mix of soils with limited infiltration capacity. Stormwater runoff from the site flows southeast towards Lake Minnetonka. The site's topography is generally steep in the upland areas, influencing the direction of runoff. Three wetlands have been identified on the property and are detailed in a separate report. Runoff from the site flows through these wetlands before discharging into Lake Minnetonka. A natural overflow channel connects Wetland 1 to Wetland 2, with Wetland 2 discharging at the southern property boundary. 119 Idyllvale Shores – Conservation Design Master Plan October 2024 Civil Methods, Inc.Page | 5 Wetland 3 is a direct connection to Lake Minnetonka, receiving runoff from both the site and additional upland areas. Additional information about the existing drainage system can be found in the wetland delineation report as well as the stormwater management plan prepared for the project. 3.2 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM The proposed development includes the construction of two cul-de-sac roads, a shared walking path, five single-family homes with associated driveways, septic systems, wells, and necessary site grading and landscaping. A small portion of wetland (less than 400 square feet) will be impacted to accommodate a driveway culvert for Lot 4. However, no other wetlands will be affected, and existing wetlands will be protected during construction. The overall site drainage pattern will remain unchanged, with all runoff eventually discharging southeast into Lake Minnetonka. The project will increase the impervious area by approximately 1.82 acres, bringing the total to 2.37 acres. To manage stormwater runoff, three stormwater basins will be installed to capture, infiltrate, and treat the runoff before it reaches the lake. The stormwater management system proposed for the site will be highly effective at mitigating any potential hydrologic impacts of the project. As required by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD), the stormwater BMPs will reduce runoff volume from the site in an amount equal to one inch over all final site impervious area. They will also provide rate control, ensuring that for all regulated storms, the peak flow rate from the site in aggregate will not increase under proposed conditions. The analysis and additional documentation of the stormwater management system is provided in the project stormwater management plan. 3.3 MANAGEMENT OF INVASIVE AND DISEASED VEGETATION Two prevalent invasive species were identified in the project area: buckthorn and reed canary grass. Buckthorn, a non-native shrub, can outcompete native plants and degrade habitat quality. Reed canary grass, a tall perennial, can form dense stands that displace native vegetation. To effectively manage these invasive species, a combination of mechanical, chemical, and biological control methods may be employed. The following resources may be consulted for specific guidance on management of these species: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/woody/buckthorn/index.html https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/invasives/terrestrialplants/grasses/reedcanarygrass.html Additionally, the emerald ash borer (EAB) poses a significant threat to ash trees in the region. Given the presence of EAB, it is anticipated that all ash trees on the site will eventually die. Therefore, the removal of ash trees should not be considered a negative impact of the 120 Idyllvale Shores – Conservation Design Master Plan October 2024 Civil Methods, Inc.Page | 6 development. Instead, the project can focus on mitigating the spread of EAB and planting native tree species to replace the lost ash trees. By proactively addressing invasive species and the emerald ash borer, the Idyllvale Shores project demonstrates a commitment to environmental responsibility and contributes to the preservation of the region's natural ecosystems. 3.4 WOODLAND PRESERVATION The Idyllvale Shores project prioritizes the preservation of the existing woodland on the development site. While some tree removal will be necessary to accommodate the proposed development, it's important to note that many of the trees slated for removal are already diseased or dying. These trees pose a safety hazard and would likely need to be removed regardless of the development. Moreover, much of the project area will remain undisturbed, with extensive woodland preserved on the site's periphery. This not only helps to maintain the natural character of the development but also provides a valuable buffer between the residential areas and the surrounding environment. By carefully considering the health of existing trees and minimizing the impact on the overall woodland ecosystem, the Idyllvale Shores project demonstrates a commitment to environmental stewardship and ensures the long-term sustainability of the development. 3.5 WETLAND PRESERVATION The Idyllvale Shores project initially anticipated potential wetland impacts due to the proposed development, specifically for an additional residential lot originally envisioned at the eastern end of the project area. That was a responsible alternative, but due to regulatory obstacles combined with a fundamental desire to preserve the natural resources of the site, design modifications were completed to avoid any significant wetland disturbance. The current design preserves the existing wetlands and minimizes our ecological footprint. This approach both protects the wetlands and safeguards the surrounding natural habitat, including valuable tree stands. Additionally, the project incorporates infiltration basins with vegetation to mitigate water quality impacts and reduce the impact on wetlands. 3.6 MITIGATION OF NEGATIVE IMPACTS The Idyllvale Shores project prioritizes the mitigation of negative environmental impacts. One significant mitigation strategy involves the installation of infiltration basins, which will capture, infiltrate, and treat stormwater runoff before it reaches Lake Minnetonka. These basins will help to reduce the volume and rate of flow, preventing downstream flooding and preserving the health of the wetlands. 121 Idyllvale Shores – Conservation Design Master Plan October 2024 Civil Methods, Inc.Page | 7 By avoiding wetland impacts and preserving existing woodlands, the project also mitigates potential negative effects on the local ecosystem. The retention of trees and natural features helps to maintain the visual appeal of the area and reduces the risk of erosion. Additionally, the project's design incorporates measures to minimize noise and light pollution, further mitigating potential impacts on the surrounding environment. These mitigation efforts collectively contribute to the project's overall sustainability and ensure retention of ecological connections. 3.7 MAINTENANCE OF ECOLOGICAL CONNECTIONS The Idyllvale Shores project is designed to maintain existing ecological connections within the development area. By preserving most the site's natural features, including woodlands and wetlands, the project helps to ensure the continuity of ecological processes and the flow of wildlife. The preserved areas will provide habitat for various species and contribute to the overall health of the local ecosystem. 3.8 VIEW PRESERVATION While the project may have some limited visual impacts on the surrounding area, the overall goal is to preserve the existing views and character of the neighborhood. By maintaining natural vegetation and minimizing development within sensitive areas, the project helps to protect the visual appeal of the area for both residents and visitors. 3.9 LANDMARK PRESERVATION While there may not be any designated landmarks within the project area, the development's focus on preserving the natural features and character of the site contributes to the preservation of the area's overall heritage. The wetlands, woodlands, and other natural elements provide a sense of place and contribute to the unique character of the community. 4.REFERENCES City of Orono. Orono Natural Resources Inventory. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Buckthorn Control (web site). Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Reed Canary Grass Control (web site). 122 Appendix A – Project Master Plan 123 124 Appendix B – Tree Survey 125 126 127 128 129 Appendix C – Wetland Report Figures 130 !( INDEPENDENCE MINNETRISTA ORONO Lat: 44.976826Long: -93.640389 Survey Site LocationBrad & Carol Pass215 North Arm Lane and PINs 0611723240002 & 0611723230021Orono, MN Figure 1 ´ Survey Area !(Reference Point Sources: OpenStreetMap, US Census Bureau, Date: 4/10/2024 0 400 800Feet !( ORONO 131 Co Rd 19INDEPENDENCE MINNETRISTA ORONO Co Rd 19 Minnetonka-North Arm(27013313-P) Unnamed(27094400-W) Unnamed(27092100-W) Unnamed(27109500-W) Unnamed(27094500-W) MN DNR Public Waters InventoryBrad & Carol Pass215 North Arm Lane and PINs 0611723240002 & 0611723230021Orono, MN Figure 2 ´ Survey Area PWI Stream PWI Waterbody Sources: USDA Farm Service Agency NAIP Imagery, 2021,MnGeo, MN Department of Natural Resources,US Census Bureau, Date: 4/10/2024 0 400 800Feet 132 B a y s i d e R d N Arm LnBayside TrlL2ABH PEM1A PFO1APEM1C PEM1C PEM1A PEM1Cd L2UBH US FWS National Wetlands InventoryBrad & Carol Pass215 North Arm Lane and PINs 0611723240002 & 0611723230021Orono, MN Figure 3 ´ Survey Area NWI Wetland - PEM NWI Wetland - PFO NWI Wetland - L1/L2 Sources: USDA Farm Service Agency NAIP Imagery, 2021,MnGeo, MN Department of Natural Resources,US Fish and Wildlife Service,US Census Bureau, Date: 4/10/2024 0 100 200Feet 133 B a y s i d e R d N Arm LnBayside TrlHamel,overwash-Hamelcomplex,0 to 3 % slopes Glencoe clay loam,0 to 1 % slopes Hamel,overwash-Hamel complex,0 to 3 % slopes Lerdal loam,1 to 3 % slopes Lerdal loam,1 to 3 % slopes Muskego,Blue Earth,and Houghton soils,ponded,0 to 1 % slopes Lester loam,morainic,25 to 35 % slopes Angus-Kilkennycomplex,2 to 6 % slopes Angus-Kilkenny complex,2 to 6 % slopes Angus-Kilkenny complex,2 to 6 % slopes Angus-Kilkenny complex,2 to 6 % slopes Angus-Kilkennycomplex,2 to 6 % slopes Lester loam,10 to 22 % slopes Cordova loam,0 to 2 % slopes Lester-Kilkennycomplex,6 to 10 % slopes,moderately eroded Lester-Kilkenny complex,6 to 10 % slopes,moderately eroded Lester-Kilkennycomplex,6 to 10 % slopes,moderately eroded Lester-Kilkenny complex,6 to 10 % slopes,moderately eroded Lester-Kilkennycomplex,6 to 10 %slopes,moderatelyeroded Lester-Kilkenny complex,6 to 10 % slopes,moderately eroded Glencoe clay loam,0 to 1 % slopes Lester-Kilkennycomplex,16 to 22 %slopes Lester-Kilkenny complex,16 to 22 % slopes Hennepin County Soil Survey / SSURGO Soil Map UnitsBrad & Carol Pass215 North Arm Lane and PINs 0611723240002 & 0611723230021Orono, MN Figure 4 ´ Survey Area Hydric Soil Non-Hydric Soil Sources: USDA Farm Service Agency NAIP Imagery, 2021,MnGeo, MN Department of Natural Resources,USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service,US Census Bureau, Date: 4/10/2024 0 100 200Feet 134 B a y sid e R d N Arm LnBa y s i de Tr l 9 5 8 104093610229481004 1030 9329321016 1010 1014 10241022 10121014 980 10309681040960 980 103693893810121 0 3 01034 9 8 0 1 0 1 2 1 0 1 2 1 0 4 0 9421012 966101810241018 10401 0 3 0 10441016 1032 1012 10161 0 2 4 1 0 4 2 1034103410201020 100810321014950 101410141028 10241020 9521026 9681022 10369 7 8 1018 1020978 10361018932930 970 10401038101097810389501 0 28103293010289 3 010161030 1020 102410261024 10221 0 3 4 1010 10081 0 0 6 1004 10221 0 3 2 10121014 1 0 0 2 9349 3 2 10181 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 930 10169 9 6 9 9 4 9 9 8 9 9 2 9269 9 0 928 9361030 1020 10241022 938 1028 1026 940990992994996 9 5 0 998100095210029 4 21004944 954 1006956946100894 8 10141012101810101016 960958 964962966968978 980982 9849709 8 6988 972 974 9 7 6 Delinea ted Aqua tic R esourcesBrad & Carol P ass215 North Arm Lane and P INs 0611723240002 & 0611723230021Orono, MN F igur e 5 ´ Surv ey Area (25 ac.) Wetland Bounda ry Waterbody Channel Transect LiDAR (2' contours) Sources: color Hennepin 6 in, 2021,MnGeo, MN Department of Natural Resources,US Census Bureau, Date: 4/11/2024 0 200 400Feet Wetland 1(appx . 1.52 a c.) Wetland 3(appx . 1.80 a c.) Wetland 2(appx . 3.49 a c.) Channel 1(appx . 286 lf) 135 Appendix D – Topographic Survey 136 137 Appendix E – Orono Natural Resources Inventory Figures 138 City of Orono Land Cover Classification and Natural Resource Inventory 23 March 2006 139 City of Orono Land Cover Classification and Natural Resource Inventory 26 March 2006 140 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IDYLLVALE SHORES ORONO, MN DATE:10-23-2024 CMI PROJECT NO.:24021 PREPARED FOR: Blue Pencil Collective PREPARED BY: Civil Methods, Inc. PO Box 28038 St. Paul, MN 55128 ENGINEER CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Name:Kent Brander, PE Signed: Date:10-23-2024 Registration: MN No. 44578 141 Idyllvale Shores – SWMP October 2024 Civil Methods, Inc.Page | i Table of Contents 1.INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................. 1 2.EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................... 2 3.PROPOSED SITE CONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................ 2 4.STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS ........................................................................................... 3 4.1 RUNOFF VOLUME CONTROL .......................................................................................................................... 3 4.2 RUNOFF RATE CONTROL .............................................................................................................................. 3 4.3 WETLANDS ...................................................................................................ERROR!BOOKMARK NOT DEFINED. APPENDIX A – SOILS INFORMATION APPENDIX B – DRAINAGE DIAGRAMS APPENDIX C – HYDROCAD REPORT 142 Idyllvale Shores – SWMP October 2024 Civil Methods, Inc.Page | 1 1.INTRODUCTION The Idyllvale Shores project includes the construction of a rural residential subdivision and related infrastructure at an existing property at 215 North Arm Ln, Orono, MN 55364 (Hennepin County PID 0611723240001). Five lots with new homes are planned, as well as a shared lot with a walking path and two roads terminating in cul-de-sacs to serve the properties. This Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) addresses the grading and stormwater controls necessary to mitigate the impacts of the project. Governmental agencies with jurisdiction over drainage and stormwater for this project include: ·City of Orono (City) ·Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) ·Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) Where needed, site conditions have been modeled with the HydroCAD modeling software using the TR-20 methodology and Atlas 14 design rainfall amounts. Applicability ·Project requires an NPDES/SDS Permit because more than 1 acre of soil is disturbed. ·Project is subject to the rules and permitting requirements of the MCWD, including but not limited to: erosion control permit, wetland permit, and stormwater permit. ·Project is generally subject to the City of Orono rules, standards, and permitting requirements. Regulatory Stormwater Requirements: 1)An erosion and sediment control plan meeting all agency requirements and a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) meeting the requirements of the MPCA construction stormwater permit must be provided. 2)Volume reduction practices consistent with Appendix A of the MCWD stormwater rule must be installed to provide volume reduction in an amount equal one inch times the area of impervious surface stated in Table 1 of the stormwater rule. 3)Rate control practices must be provided to prevent an increase in the peak runoff rate from the site, in aggregate, for design storm events. 4)There must be two feet of vertical separation (freeboard) between the 100-year HWL of a waterbody or stormwater practice and the low opening of any hydraulically connected structure. 143 Idyllvale Shores – SWMP October 2024 Civil Methods, Inc.Page | 2 2.EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS Under existing conditions, the property contains a house and several accessory structures, landscaped areas, woods, wetlands, other green space, and open water pertaining to Lake Minnetonka (North Arm). The total impervious area on site is approximately 24,016 SF. Soil mapping for the area indicates a prevalence of Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) Type C or C/D soils of limited infiltration capacity (Soil Map, Appendix A). A low infiltration rate of 0.25 IN/HR is assumed for the site soils. Stormwater runoff from the overall site drains to the southeast to Lake Minnetonka. Runoff flow in the interior of the site is governed by local topography, which is generally steep in the upland areas. Drainage area boundaries and flow directions at the site are illustrated in Appendix B. Three wetlands have been identified and delineated on the property and are described in detail in the project wetland delineation report. Runoff from the site flows to these wetlands before discharging into Lake Minnetonka. There is an existing overland overflow channel connecting Wetland 1 (upstream) to Wetland 2 (downstream); Wetland 2 discharges at the southern property boundary, with flow proceeding southeast to Lake Minnetonka. Wetland 3 is the open water and surrounding area at the southeast corner of the property. It receives runoff from the additional connected upland on the property, and it is directly connected as part of the Lake Minnetonka open water area. 3.PROPOSED SITE CONDITIONS The proposed conditions include the construction of two cul-de-sac roads, five single-family homes with associated driveways, septic fields, and wells, and all associated grading, landscaping, and stormwater management features. A small amount of wetland (less than the de minimis amount of 400 SF) is expected to be filled or impacted for placement of the driveway culvert serving Lot 4. Aside from that, no other wetland impacts are expected to occur, and the wetlands will be protected during construction. The overall site drainage patterns will remain the same, with all runoff from the site eventually discharging southeast to Lake Minnetonka. The overall project is expected to result in a total of 85,746 SF (1.97 AC) of impervious area on the site. Three stormwater basins are proposed to capture and infiltrate runoff from the project area, providing rate control, volume control, and associated water quality treatment prior to discharge downstream. These basins are illustrated in Appendix B. 144 Idyllvale Shores – SWMP October 2024 Civil Methods, Inc.Page | 3 4.STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS 4.1 RUNOFF VOLUME CONTROL Runoff volume control must be provided in an amount equal to one inch times the area of regulated site impervious area. The amount of on-site impervious area under proposed conditions is 85,746 SF, resulting in a volume reduction requirement of 7,146 CF. Drawdown of water levels in infiltration basins must occur within 48 hours. Using an infiltration rate of 0.25 IN/HR, determined from the best available information about site soils, this would allow for an overall ponding depth of 1.0 FT. The infiltration basins as designed will retain a volume of 8,097 CF at a depth of 1.0’. This design meets the infiltration volume and depth requirements. 4.2 RUNOFF RATE CONTROL Stormwater management measures must limit peak runoff flow rates to that from existing conditions for the 2-, 10-, and 100-year storms. The rate control requirement is determined in aggregate from the site. This requirement is also met with the three proposed stormwater infiltration basins. The following table summarizes the aggregate peak flow rates for both existing and proposed conditions. Table 1: Summary of Peak Discharge Rates Location Conditions Existing Proposed Node 1R 1R 2-YR STORM 12.6 10.5 10-YR STORM 30.4 27.2 100-YR STORM 77.0 75.9 Final Discharge (Aggregate) 145 Appendix A – Soils Information 146 Hydrologic Soil Group—Hennepin County, Minnesota (24021_Property) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/29/2024 Page 1 of 449801804980250498032049803904980460498053049806004980180498025049803204980390498046049805304980600449330449400449470449540449610449680449750449820449890449960 449330 449400 449470 449540 449610 449680 449750 449820 449890 449960 44° 58' 37'' N 93° 38' 34'' W44° 58' 37'' N93° 38' 3'' W44° 58' 23'' N 93° 38' 34'' W44° 58' 23'' N 93° 38' 3'' WN Map projection: Web Mercator Corner coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 15N WGS84 0 150 300 600 900 Feet 0 45 90 180 270 Meters Map Scale: 1:3,110 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet. Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. 147 MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION Area of Interest (AOI) Area of Interest (AOI) Soils Soil Rating Polygons A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Lines A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Soil Rating Points A A/D B B/D C C/D D Not rated or not available Water Features Streams and Canals Transportation Rails Interstate Highways US Routes Major Roads Local Roads Background Aerial Photography The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at 1:12,000. Warning: Soil Map may not be valid at this scale. Enlargement of maps beyond the scale of mapping can cause misunderstanding of the detail of mapping and accuracy of soil line placement. The maps do not show the small areas of contrasting soils that could have been shown at a more detailed scale. Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map measurements. Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey URL: Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857) Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more accurate calculations of distance or area are required. This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as of the version date(s) listed below. Soil Survey Area: Hennepin County, Minnesota Survey Area Data: Version 19, Sep 10, 2023 Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales 1:50,000 or larger. Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Jun 29, 2023—Sep 13, 2023 The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were compiled and digitized probably differs from the background imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident. Hydrologic Soil Group—Hennepin County, Minnesota (24021_Property) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/29/2024 Page 2 of 4 148 Hydrologic Soil Group Map unit symbol Map unit name Rating Acres in AOI Percent of AOI L16A Muskego, Blue Earth, and Houghton soils, ponded, 0 to 1 percent slopes B/D 1.6 6.3% L22E Lester loam, 10 to 22 percent slopes C 0.8 3.0% L22F Lester loam, morainic, 25 to 35 percent slopes B 0.5 2.0% L24A Glencoe clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes C/D 2.9 11.5% L35A Lerdal loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes C/D 1.0 3.9% L36A Hamel, overwash-Hamel complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes C/D 4.8 19.1% L40B Angus-Kilkenny complex, 2 to 6 percent slopes C/D 2.0 8.0% L41C2 Lester-Kilkenny complex, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded C 8.3 32.6% L41E Lester-Kilkenny complex, 16 to 22 percent slopes C 3.4 13.4% Totals for Area of Interest 25.3 100.0% Hydrologic Soil Group—Hennepin County, Minnesota 24021_Property Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey National Cooperative Soil Survey 7/29/2024 Page 3 of 4 149 Appendix B – Drainage Diagrams 150 NORTH ARM LANE 41235NORTH ARM LANE 41235CIVIL METHODS, INC.PO Box 28038St. Paul, MN 55128o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.comIDYLLVALE SHORESBRADLEY J & CAROL A PASS215 NORTH ARM LANE, ORONO, MNDRAINAGE DIAGRAMEXISTING CONDITIONPROPOSED CONDITIONLEGEND: Feet0100200151 Appendix C – HydroCAD Report 152 E1 Existing South E2 Existing Lot 4 E3 Existing Southwest corner 1R Existing to offsite Routing Diagram for 24021_Idyllvale_EX Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc., Printed 10/23/2024 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link 24021_Idyllvale_EX Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 2HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Rainfall Events Listing Event# Event Name Storm Type Curve Mode Duration (hours) B/B Depth (inches) AMC 1 2-Year MSE 24-hr 3 Default 24.00 1 2.86 2 2 10-Year MSE 24-hr 3 Default 24.00 1 4.26 2 3 100-Year MSE 24-hr 3 Default 24.00 1 7.32 2 153 24021_Idyllvale_EX Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 3HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 0.551 98 (E1, E2) 1.532 85 Wetland (E2) 16.154 70 Woods, Good, HSG C (E1, E2, E3) 18.237 72 TOTAL AREA MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"24021_Idyllvale_EX Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 4HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment E1: Existing South Runoff =7.70 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume=0.712 af, Depth= 0.73" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (ac) CN Description 11.162 70 Woods, Good, HSG C *0.541 98 11.703 71 Weighted Average 11.162 70 95.38% Pervious Area 0.541 98 4.62% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 17.2 100 0.0400 0.10 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.86" 5.7 550 0.1040 1.61 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 22.9 650 Total Summary for Subcatchment E2: Existing Lot 4 Runoff =4.76 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume=0.420 af, Depth= 0.82" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (ac) CN Description 4.582 70 Woods, Good, HSG C *1.532 85 Wetland *0.010 98 6.124 74 Weighted Average 6.114 74 99.84% Pervious Area 0.010 98 0.16% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 11.9 100 0.1000 0.14 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.86" 2.1 230 0.1330 1.82 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 9.9 590 0.0200 0.99 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 23.9 920 Total 154 MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"24021_Idyllvale_EX Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 5HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment E3: Existing Southwest corner Runoff =0.37 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume=0.022 af, Depth= 0.64" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (ac) CN Description 0.410 70 Woods, Good, HSG C *0.000 98 0.410 70 Weighted Average 0.410 70 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Reach 1R: Existing to offsite Inflow Area =18.237 ac, 3.02% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.76" for 2-Year event Inflow =12.64 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume=1.154 af Outflow =12.64 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume=1.154 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24021_Idyllvale_EX Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 6HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment E1: Existing South Runoff =18.95 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume=1.582 af, Depth= 1.62" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description 11.162 70 Woods, Good, HSG C *0.541 98 11.703 71 Weighted Average 11.162 70 95.38% Pervious Area 0.541 98 4.62% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 17.2 100 0.0400 0.10 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.86" 5.7 550 0.1040 1.61 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 22.9 650 Total Summary for Subcatchment E2: Existing Lot 4 Runoff =11.06 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume=0.915 af, Depth= 1.79" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description 4.582 70 Woods, Good, HSG C *1.532 85 Wetland *0.010 98 6.124 74 Weighted Average 6.114 74 99.84% Pervious Area 0.010 98 0.16% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 11.9 100 0.1000 0.14 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.86" 2.1 230 0.1330 1.82 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 9.9 590 0.0200 0.99 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 23.9 920 Total 155 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24021_Idyllvale_EX Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 7HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment E3: Existing Southwest corner Runoff =0.94 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume=0.051 af, Depth= 1.51" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description 0.410 70 Woods, Good, HSG C *0.000 98 0.410 70 Weighted Average 0.410 70 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Reach 1R: Existing to offsite Inflow Area =18.237 ac, 3.02% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.68" for 10-Year event Inflow =30.43 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume=2.549 af Outflow =30.43 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume=2.549 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24021_Idyllvale_EX Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 8HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment E1: Existing South Runoff =48.82 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume=3.934 af, Depth= 4.03" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (ac) CN Description 11.162 70 Woods, Good, HSG C *0.541 98 11.703 71 Weighted Average 11.162 70 95.38% Pervious Area 0.541 98 4.62% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 17.2 100 0.0400 0.10 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.86" 5.7 550 0.1040 1.61 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 22.9 650 Total Summary for Subcatchment E2: Existing Lot 4 Runoff =27.09 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume=2.208 af, Depth= 4.33" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (ac) CN Description 4.582 70 Woods, Good, HSG C *1.532 85 Wetland *0.010 98 6.124 74 Weighted Average 6.114 74 99.84% Pervious Area 0.010 98 0.16% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 11.9 100 0.1000 0.14 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.86" 2.1 230 0.1330 1.82 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 9.9 590 0.0200 0.99 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Short Grass Pasture Kv= 7.0 fps 23.9 920 Total 156 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24021_Idyllvale_EX Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 9HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment E3: Existing Southwest corner Runoff =2.48 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume=0.133 af, Depth= 3.89" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (ac) CN Description 0.410 70 Woods, Good, HSG C *0.000 98 0.410 70 Weighted Average 0.410 70 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 10.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Reach 1R: Existing to offsite Inflow Area =18.237 ac, 3.02% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.13" for 100-Year event Inflow =76.98 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume=6.275 af Outflow =76.98 cfs @ 12.34 hrs, Volume=6.275 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs 157 P1 Proposed to Basin P2 Proposed to Basin P2A Direct P3 Proposed to Basin P3A Proposed to Basin P4 Direct from North P5 Offsite Direct P6 Southwest corner 1R Proposed to Offsite CB3 Inlet at street P1i Infiltration Basin 1 P2i Infiltration Basin 2 P3i Infiltration Basin 3 Routing Diagram for 24021_Idyllvale_PR Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc., Printed 10/23/2024 HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link 24021_Idyllvale_PR Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 2HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Rainfall Events Listing Event# Event Name Storm Type Curve Mode Duration (hours) B/B Depth (inches) AMC 1 2-Year MSE 24-hr 3 Default 24.00 1 2.86 2 2 10-Year MSE 24-hr 3 Default 24.00 1 4.26 2 3 100-Year MSE 24-hr 3 Default 24.00 1 7.32 2 158 24021_Idyllvale_PR Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 3HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 2.382 98 (P1, P2, P2A, P3, P3A, P4, P5, P6) 1.549 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C (P1, P2, P3, P3A) 1.532 85 Wetland (P4) 12.644 70 Woods, Good, HSG C (P1, P2A, P4, P5, P6) 18.107 75 TOTAL AREA MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"24021_Idyllvale_PR Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 4HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P1: Proposed to Basin Runoff =6.54 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume=0.520 af, Depth= 1.17" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (ac) CN Description *1.429 98 0.344 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3.556 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 5.329 78 Weighted Average 3.900 70 73.18% Pervious Area 1.429 98 26.82% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 10.4 100 0.0200 0.16 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.86" 7.3 650 0.0880 1.48 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 17.7 750 Total Summary for Subcatchment P2: Proposed to Basin Runoff =1.12 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume=0.061 af, Depth= 1.50" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (ac) CN Description *0.184 98 0.304 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.488 83 Weighted Average 0.304 74 62.30% Pervious Area 0.184 98 37.70% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 8.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P2A: Direct Runoff =2.51 cfs @ 12.22 hrs, Volume=0.164 af, Depth= 0.67" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" 159 MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"24021_Idyllvale_PR Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 5HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (ac) CN Description *0.054 98 2.869 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 2.923 71 Weighted Average 2.869 70 98.15% Pervious Area 0.054 98 1.85% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 12.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P3: Proposed to Basin Runoff =1.40 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume=0.074 af, Depth= 1.15" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (ac) CN Description *0.140 98 0.638 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.778 78 Weighted Average 0.638 74 82.01% Pervious Area 0.140 98 17.99% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 8.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P3A: Proposed to Basin Runoff =0.64 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume=0.034 af, Depth= 1.21" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (ac) CN Description *0.073 98 0.263 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.336 79 Weighted Average 0.263 74 78.27% Pervious Area 0.073 98 21.73% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 8.0 Direct Entry, MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"24021_Idyllvale_PR Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 6HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P4: Direct from North Runoff =4.31 cfs @ 12.37 hrs, Volume=0.377 af, Depth= 0.90" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (ac) CN Description 3.390 70 Woods, Good, HSG C *1.532 85 Wetland *0.090 98 5.012 75 Weighted Average 4.922 75 98.20% Pervious Area 0.090 98 1.80% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 23.9 Direct Entry, Same as "Existing condition" calc Summary for Subcatchment P5: Offsite Direct Runoff =2.84 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume=0.224 af, Depth= 0.91" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" Area (ac) CN Description *0.401 98 2.560 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 2.961 74 Weighted Average 2.560 70 86.46% Pervious Area 0.401 98 13.54% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 11.9 100 0.1000 0.14 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.86" 5.2 500 0.1040 1.61 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 17.1 600 Total Summary for Subcatchment P6: Southwest corner Runoff =0.29 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume=0.017 af, Depth= 0.72" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86" 160 MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"24021_Idyllvale_PR Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 7HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (ac) CN Description 0.269 70 Woods, Good, HSG C *0.011 98 0.280 71 Weighted Average 0.269 70 96.07% Pervious Area 0.011 98 3.93% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 9.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Reach 1R: Proposed to Offsite Inflow Area =18.107 ac, 13.16% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.79" for 2-Year event Inflow =10.53 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume=1.194 af Outflow =10.53 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume=1.194 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Pond CB3: Inlet at street Inflow Area =2.961 ac, 13.54% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.91" for 2-Year event Inflow =2.84 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume=0.224 af Outflow =2.84 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume=0.223 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary =2.84 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume=0.223 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 961.27' @ 12.28 hrs Surf.Area= 23 sf Storage= 44 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 4.6 min calculated for 0.223 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 2.2 min ( 821.9 - 819.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 958.00'861 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet)(sq-ft)(cubic-feet)(cubic-feet) 958.00 13 0 0 961.00 13 39 39 962.00 50 32 71 963.00 440 245 316 964.00 650 545 861 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 958.00'18.0" Round Culvert L= 60.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 958.00' / 957.00' S= 0.0167 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Device 1 961.00'24.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"24021_Idyllvale_PR Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 8HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Primary OutFlow Max=2.84 cfs @ 12.28 hrs HW=961.27' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 2.84 cfs of 13.50 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 2.84 cfs @ 1.69 fps) Summary for Pond P1i: Infiltration Basin 1 Inflow Area =5.329 ac, 26.82% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.17" for 2-Year event Inflow =6.54 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume=0.520 af Outflow =1.29 cfs @ 12.86 hrs, Volume=0.520 af, Atten= 80%, Lag= 34.9 min Discarded =0.04 cfs @ 12.86 hrs, Volume=0.197 af Primary =1.25 cfs @ 12.86 hrs, Volume=0.324 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 951.88' @ 12.86 hrs Surf.Area= 7,045 sf Storage= 11,474 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 656.1 min ( 1,457.2 - 801.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 950.00'38,556 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet)(sq-ft)(cubic-feet)(cubic-feet) 950.00 5,166 0 0 951.00 6,140 5,653 5,653 952.00 7,165 6,653 12,306 954.00 9,390 16,555 28,861 955.00 10,000 9,695 38,556 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 950.00'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 947.50'18.0" Round Culvert L= 50.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 947.50' / 947.00' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #3 Device 2 951.00'8.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Device 2 952.00'4.0' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.04 cfs @ 12.86 hrs HW=951.88' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.04 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.25 cfs @ 12.86 hrs HW=951.88' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 2=Culvert (Passes 1.25 cfs of 16.22 cfs potential flow) 3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.25 cfs @ 3.57 fps) 4=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 161 MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"24021_Idyllvale_PR Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 9HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond P2i: Infiltration Basin 2 Inflow Area =0.488 ac, 37.70% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.50" for 2-Year event Inflow =1.12 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume=0.061 af Outflow =0.60 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume=0.061 af, Atten= 47%, Lag= 6.5 min Discarded =0.01 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume=0.030 af Primary =0.59 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume=0.031 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 945.15' @ 12.26 hrs Surf.Area= 1,164 sf Storage= 1,097 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 724.4 min calculated for 0.061 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 724.6 min ( 1,507.5 - 782.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 944.00'3,707 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet)(sq-ft)(cubic-feet)(cubic-feet) 944.00 744 0 0 946.00 1,475 2,219 2,219 947.00 1,500 1,488 3,707 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 944.00'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 942.00'8.0" Round Culvert L= 20.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 942.00' / 941.80' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 0.35 sf #3 Device 2 945.00'12.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Discarded OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 12.26 hrs HW=945.15' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.01 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.59 cfs @ 12.26 hrs HW=945.15' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 2=Culvert (Passes 0.59 cfs of 2.82 cfs potential flow) 3=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 0.59 cfs @ 1.26 fps) Summary for Pond P3i: Infiltration Basin 3 Inflow Area =1.114 ac, 19.12% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.17" for 2-Year event Inflow =2.03 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume=0.108 af Outflow =0.83 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume=0.108 af, Atten= 59%, Lag= 9.7 min Discarded =0.01 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume=0.049 af Primary =0.82 cfs @ 12.32 hrs, Volume=0.059 af Secondary =0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume=0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 953.18' @ 12.32 hrs Surf.Area= 1,893 sf Storage= 1,856 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 677.0 min ( 1,478.2 - 801.2 ) MSE 24-hr 3 2-Year Rainfall=2.86"24021_Idyllvale_PR Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 10HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 952.00'9,255 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet)(sq-ft)(cubic-feet)(cubic-feet) 952.00 1,250 0 0 953.00 1,783 1,517 1,517 955.00 2,970 4,753 6,270 956.00 3,000 2,985 9,255 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 952.00'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 950.00'8.0" Round Culvert L= 30.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 950.00' / 949.80' S= 0.0067 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 0.35 sf #3 Device 2 953.00'12.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Secondary 954.80'Custom Weir/Orifice, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28) Head (feet) 0.00 0.50 Width (feet) 4.00 8.00 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 12.32 hrs HW=953.18' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.01 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=0.82 cfs @ 12.32 hrs HW=953.18' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 2=Culvert (Passes 0.82 cfs of 2.62 cfs potential flow) 3=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 0.82 cfs @ 1.41 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=952.00' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 4=Custom Weir/Orifice ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 162 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24021_Idyllvale_PR Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 11HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P1: Proposed to Basin Runoff =12.80 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume=0.969 af, Depth= 2.18" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description *1.429 98 0.344 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3.556 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 5.329 78 Weighted Average 3.900 70 73.18% Pervious Area 1.429 98 26.82% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 10.4 100 0.0200 0.16 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.86" 7.3 650 0.0880 1.48 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 17.7 750 Total Summary for Subcatchment P2: Proposed to Basin Runoff =2.00 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume=0.107 af, Depth= 2.63" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description *0.184 98 0.304 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.488 83 Weighted Average 0.304 74 62.30% Pervious Area 0.184 98 37.70% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 8.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P2A: Direct Runoff =6.37 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume=0.378 af, Depth= 1.55" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24021_Idyllvale_PR Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 12HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (ac) CN Description *0.054 98 2.869 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 2.923 71 Weighted Average 2.869 70 98.15% Pervious Area 0.054 98 1.85% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 12.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P3: Proposed to Basin Runoff =2.76 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume=0.142 af, Depth= 2.19" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description *0.140 98 0.638 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.778 78 Weighted Average 0.638 74 82.01% Pervious Area 0.140 98 17.99% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 8.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P3A: Proposed to Basin Runoff =1.23 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume=0.064 af, Depth= 2.28" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description *0.073 98 0.263 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.336 79 Weighted Average 0.263 74 78.27% Pervious Area 0.073 98 21.73% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 8.0 Direct Entry, 163 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24021_Idyllvale_PR Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 13HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P4: Direct from North Runoff =9.61 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume=0.795 af, Depth= 1.90" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description 3.390 70 Woods, Good, HSG C *1.532 85 Wetland *0.090 98 5.012 75 Weighted Average 4.922 75 98.20% Pervious Area 0.090 98 1.80% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 23.9 Direct Entry, Same as "Existing condition" calc Summary for Subcatchment P5: Offsite Direct Runoff =6.25 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume=0.456 af, Depth= 1.85" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description *0.401 98 2.560 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 2.961 74 Weighted Average 2.560 70 86.46% Pervious Area 0.401 98 13.54% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 11.9 100 0.1000 0.14 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.86" 5.2 500 0.1040 1.61 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 17.1 600 Total Summary for Subcatchment P6: Southwest corner Runoff =0.72 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume=0.037 af, Depth= 1.60" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24021_Idyllvale_PR Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 14HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (ac) CN Description 0.269 70 Woods, Good, HSG C *0.011 98 0.280 71 Weighted Average 0.269 70 96.07% Pervious Area 0.011 98 3.93% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 9.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Reach 1R: Proposed to Offsite Inflow Area =18.107 ac, 13.16% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.76" for 10-Year event Inflow =27.20 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume=2.662 af Outflow =27.20 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume=2.662 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Pond CB3: Inlet at street Inflow Area =2.961 ac, 13.54% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.85" for 10-Year event Inflow =6.25 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume=0.456 af Outflow =6.25 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume=0.455 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Primary =6.25 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume=0.455 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 961.45' @ 12.26 hrs Surf.Area= 30 sf Storage= 49 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 2.4 min calculated for 0.455 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 1.2 min ( 813.2 - 812.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 958.00'861 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet)(sq-ft)(cubic-feet)(cubic-feet) 958.00 13 0 0 961.00 13 39 39 962.00 50 32 71 963.00 440 245 316 964.00 650 545 861 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 958.00'18.0" Round Culvert L= 60.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 958.00' / 957.00' S= 0.0167 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Device 1 961.00'24.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads 164 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24021_Idyllvale_PR Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 15HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Primary OutFlow Max=6.24 cfs @ 12.26 hrs HW=961.45' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 6.24 cfs of 13.99 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 6.24 cfs @ 2.20 fps) Summary for Pond P1i: Infiltration Basin 1 Inflow Area =5.329 ac, 26.82% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.18" for 10-Year event Inflow =12.80 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume=0.969 af Outflow =7.17 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume=0.969 af, Atten= 44%, Lag= 12.6 min Discarded =0.05 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume=0.204 af Primary =7.13 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume=0.765 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 952.56' @ 12.48 hrs Surf.Area= 7,783 sf Storage= 16,459 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 384.8 min calculated for 0.969 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 385.1 min ( 1,182.2 - 797.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 950.00'38,556 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet)(sq-ft)(cubic-feet)(cubic-feet) 950.00 5,166 0 0 951.00 6,140 5,653 5,653 952.00 7,165 6,653 12,306 954.00 9,390 16,555 28,861 955.00 10,000 9,695 38,556 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 950.00'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 947.50'18.0" Round Culvert L= 50.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 947.50' / 947.00' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #3 Device 2 951.00'8.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Device 2 952.00'4.0' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.05 cfs @ 12.48 hrs HW=952.56' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.05 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=7.13 cfs @ 12.48 hrs HW=952.56' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 2=Culvert (Passes 7.13 cfs of 17.66 cfs potential flow) 3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.86 cfs @ 5.32 fps) 4=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 5.27 cfs @ 2.44 fps) MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24021_Idyllvale_PR Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 16HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond P2i: Infiltration Basin 2 Inflow Area =0.488 ac, 37.70% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.63" for 10-Year event Inflow =2.00 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume=0.107 af Outflow =1.80 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume=0.107 af, Atten= 10%, Lag= 2.1 min Discarded =0.01 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume=0.031 af Primary =1.79 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume=0.076 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 945.31' @ 12.19 hrs Surf.Area= 1,224 sf Storage= 1,291 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 428.3 min ( 1,206.8 - 778.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 944.00'3,707 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet)(sq-ft)(cubic-feet)(cubic-feet) 944.00 744 0 0 946.00 1,475 2,219 2,219 947.00 1,500 1,488 3,707 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 944.00'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 942.00'8.0" Round Culvert L= 20.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 942.00' / 941.80' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 0.35 sf #3 Device 2 945.00'12.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Discarded OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 12.19 hrs HW=945.31' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.01 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=1.79 cfs @ 12.19 hrs HW=945.31' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 2=Culvert (Passes 1.79 cfs of 2.90 cfs potential flow) 3=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 1.79 cfs @ 1.83 fps) Summary for Pond P3i: Infiltration Basin 3 Inflow Area =1.114 ac, 19.12% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.22" for 10-Year event Inflow =3.98 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume=0.206 af Outflow =2.75 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume=0.206 af, Atten= 31%, Lag= 4.3 min Discarded =0.01 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume=0.051 af Primary =2.74 cfs @ 12.23 hrs, Volume=0.155 af Secondary =0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume=0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 953.52' @ 12.23 hrs Surf.Area= 2,094 sf Storage= 2,532 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 367.0 min calculated for 0.206 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 367.3 min ( 1,161.6 - 794.3 ) 165 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24021_Idyllvale_PR Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 17HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 952.00'9,255 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet)(sq-ft)(cubic-feet)(cubic-feet) 952.00 1,250 0 0 953.00 1,783 1,517 1,517 955.00 2,970 4,753 6,270 956.00 3,000 2,985 9,255 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 952.00'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 950.00'8.0" Round Culvert L= 30.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 950.00' / 949.80' S= 0.0067 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 0.35 sf #3 Device 2 953.00'12.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Secondary 954.80'Custom Weir/Orifice, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28) Head (feet) 0.00 0.50 Width (feet) 4.00 8.00 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 12.23 hrs HW=953.52' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.01 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=2.74 cfs @ 12.23 hrs HW=953.52' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 2=Culvert (Passes 2.74 cfs of 2.77 cfs potential flow) 3=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 2.74 cfs @ 3.48 fps) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=952.00' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 4=Custom Weir/Orifice ( Controls 0.00 cfs) MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24021_Idyllvale_PR Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 18HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P1: Proposed to Basin Runoff =28.52 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume=2.106 af, Depth= 4.74" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (ac) CN Description *1.429 98 0.344 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 3.556 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 5.329 78 Weighted Average 3.900 70 73.18% Pervious Area 1.429 98 26.82% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 10.4 100 0.0200 0.16 Sheet Flow, Grass: Short n= 0.150 P2= 2.86" 7.3 650 0.0880 1.48 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 17.7 750 Total Summary for Subcatchment P2: Proposed to Basin Runoff =4.08 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume=0.218 af, Depth= 5.36" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (ac) CN Description *0.184 98 0.304 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.488 83 Weighted Average 0.304 74 62.30% Pervious Area 0.184 98 37.70% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 8.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P2A: Direct Runoff =16.55 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume=0.961 af, Depth= 3.94" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" 166 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24021_Idyllvale_PR Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 19HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (ac) CN Description *0.054 98 2.869 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 2.923 71 Weighted Average 2.869 70 98.15% Pervious Area 0.054 98 1.85% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 12.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P3: Proposed to Basin Runoff =6.07 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume=0.312 af, Depth= 4.82" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (ac) CN Description *0.140 98 0.638 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.778 78 Weighted Average 0.638 74 82.01% Pervious Area 0.140 98 17.99% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 8.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Subcatchment P3A: Proposed to Basin Runoff =2.66 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume=0.138 af, Depth= 4.92" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (ac) CN Description *0.073 98 0.263 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 0.336 79 Weighted Average 0.263 74 78.27% Pervious Area 0.073 98 21.73% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 8.0 Direct Entry, MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24021_Idyllvale_PR Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 20HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment P4: Direct from North Runoff =22.86 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume=1.871 af, Depth= 4.48" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (ac) CN Description 3.390 70 Woods, Good, HSG C *1.532 85 Wetland *0.090 98 5.012 75 Weighted Average 4.922 75 98.20% Pervious Area 0.090 98 1.80% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 23.9 Direct Entry, Same as "Existing condition" calc Summary for Subcatchment P5: Offsite Direct Runoff =15.05 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume=1.066 af, Depth= 4.32" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (ac) CN Description *0.401 98 2.560 70 Woods, Good, HSG C 2.961 74 Weighted Average 2.560 70 86.46% Pervious Area 0.401 98 13.54% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 11.9 100 0.1000 0.14 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.86" 5.2 500 0.1040 1.61 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 17.1 600 Total Summary for Subcatchment P6: Southwest corner Runoff =1.82 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume=0.094 af, Depth= 4.01" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Split Pervious/Imperv., Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" 167 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24021_Idyllvale_PR Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 21HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area (ac) CN Description 0.269 70 Woods, Good, HSG C *0.011 98 0.280 71 Weighted Average 0.269 70 96.07% Pervious Area 0.011 98 3.93% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet)(ft/ft) (ft/sec)(cfs) 9.0 Direct Entry, Summary for Reach 1R: Proposed to Offsite Inflow Area =18.107 ac, 13.16% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.29" for 100-Year event Inflow =75.85 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume=6.469 af Outflow =75.85 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume=6.469 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.0 min Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Summary for Pond CB3: Inlet at street Inflow Area =2.961 ac, 13.54% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.32" for 100-Year event Inflow =15.05 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume=1.066 af Outflow =15.05 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume=1.065 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.1 min Primary =15.05 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume=1.065 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 961.99' @ 12.26 hrs Surf.Area= 50 sf Storage= 70 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 1.1 min calculated for 1.065 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 0.6 min ( 801.1 - 800.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 958.00'861 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet)(sq-ft)(cubic-feet)(cubic-feet) 958.00 13 0 0 961.00 13 39 39 962.00 50 32 71 963.00 440 245 316 964.00 650 545 861 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 958.00'18.0" Round Culvert L= 60.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 958.00' / 957.00' S= 0.0167 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #2 Device 1 961.00'24.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24021_Idyllvale_PR Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 22HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Primary OutFlow Max=15.05 cfs @ 12.26 hrs HW=961.99' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 15.05 cfs of 15.31 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 15.05 cfs @ 4.79 fps) Summary for Pond P1i: Infiltration Basin 1 Inflow Area =5.329 ac, 26.82% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.74" for 100-Year event Inflow =28.52 cfs @ 12.26 hrs, Volume=2.106 af Outflow =19.69 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume=2.106 af, Atten= 31%, Lag= 9.0 min Discarded =0.05 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume=0.211 af Primary =19.64 cfs @ 12.41 hrs, Volume=1.895 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 953.58' @ 12.41 hrs Surf.Area= 8,921 sf Storage= 24,997 cf Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: outflow precedes inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 200.6 min ( 990.4 - 789.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 950.00'38,556 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet)(sq-ft)(cubic-feet)(cubic-feet) 950.00 5,166 0 0 951.00 6,140 5,653 5,653 952.00 7,165 6,653 12,306 954.00 9,390 16,555 28,861 955.00 10,000 9,695 38,556 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 950.00'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 947.50'18.0" Round Culvert L= 50.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 947.50' / 947.00' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 1.77 sf #3 Device 2 951.00'8.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Device 2 952.00'4.0' long Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir 2 End Contraction(s) Discarded OutFlow Max=0.05 cfs @ 12.41 hrs HW=953.58' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.05 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=19.64 cfs @ 12.41 hrs HW=953.58' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 2=Culvert (Inlet Controls 19.64 cfs @ 11.11 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate (Passes < 2.52 cfs potential flow) 4=Sharp-Crested Rectangular Weir (Passes < 23.88 cfs potential flow) 168 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24021_Idyllvale_PR Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 23HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond P2i: Infiltration Basin 2 Inflow Area =0.488 ac, 37.70% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.36" for 100-Year event Inflow =4.08 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume=0.218 af Outflow =3.08 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume=0.218 af, Atten= 24%, Lag= 3.6 min Discarded =0.01 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume=0.032 af Primary =3.07 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume=0.186 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 945.68' @ 12.21 hrs Surf.Area= 1,358 sf Storage= 1,764 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 222.3 min calculated for 0.218 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 222.5 min ( 993.9 - 771.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 944.00'3,707 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet)(sq-ft)(cubic-feet)(cubic-feet) 944.00 744 0 0 946.00 1,475 2,219 2,219 947.00 1,500 1,488 3,707 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 944.00'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 942.00'8.0" Round Culvert L= 20.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 942.00' / 941.80' S= 0.0100 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 0.35 sf #3 Device 2 945.00'12.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Discarded OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 12.21 hrs HW=945.68' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.01 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=3.07 cfs @ 12.21 hrs HW=945.68' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 2=Culvert (Inlet Controls 3.07 cfs @ 8.81 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate (Passes 3.07 cfs of 3.11 cfs potential flow) Summary for Pond P3i: Infiltration Basin 3 Inflow Area =1.114 ac, 19.12% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.85" for 100-Year event Inflow =8.72 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume=0.450 af Outflow =3.30 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume=0.450 af, Atten= 62%, Lag= 9.8 min Discarded =0.02 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume=0.052 af Primary =3.29 cfs @ 12.31 hrs, Volume=0.398 af Secondary =0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs, Volume=0.000 af Routing by Dyn-Stor-Ind method, Time Span= 0.00-96.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 954.76' @ 12.31 hrs Surf.Area= 2,825 sf Storage= 5,560 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 182.2 min calculated for 0.450 af (100% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 182.5 min ( 966.5 - 784.0 ) MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24021_Idyllvale_PR Printed 10/23/2024Prepared by Civil Methods, Inc. Page 24HydroCAD® 10.10-5a s/n 07283 © 2020 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 952.00'9,255 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet)(sq-ft)(cubic-feet)(cubic-feet) 952.00 1,250 0 0 953.00 1,783 1,517 1,517 955.00 2,970 4,753 6,270 956.00 3,000 2,985 9,255 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Discarded 952.00'0.250 in/hr Exfiltration over Surface area #2 Primary 950.00'8.0" Round Culvert L= 30.0' Ke= 0.500 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 950.00' / 949.80' S= 0.0067 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013, Flow Area= 0.35 sf #3 Device 2 953.00'12.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads #4 Secondary 954.80'Custom Weir/Orifice, Cv= 2.62 (C= 3.28) Head (feet) 0.00 0.50 Width (feet) 4.00 8.00 Discarded OutFlow Max=0.02 cfs @ 12.31 hrs HW=954.75' (Free Discharge) 1=Exfiltration (Exfiltration Controls 0.02 cfs) Primary OutFlow Max=3.29 cfs @ 12.31 hrs HW=954.75' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 2=Culvert (Barrel Controls 3.29 cfs @ 9.41 fps) 3=Orifice/Grate (Passes 3.29 cfs of 5.01 cfs potential flow) Secondary OutFlow Max=0.00 cfs @ 0.00 hrs HW=952.00' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 4=Custom Weir/Orifice ( Controls 0.00 cfs) 169 BWSR NOD Form – November 12, 2019 1 Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision Local Government Unit: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District County: Hennepin Applicant Name: Brad and Carol Pass Applicant Representative: Ken Arndt (MRN) Project Name: 215 North Arm Lane LGU Project No. (if any): W24‐010 Date Complete Application Received by LGU: 04/16/2024 Date of LGU Decision: 06/17/2024 Date this Notice was Sent: 06/17/2024 WCA Decision Type ‐ check all that apply ☒ Wetland Boundary/Type ☐ Sequencing ☐ Replacement Plan ☐ Bank Plan (not credit purchase) ☐ No‐Loss (8420.0415) ☐ Exemption (8420.0420) Part: ☐ A ☐ B ☐ C ☐ D ☐ E ☐ F ☐ G ☐ H Subpart: ☐ 2 ☐ 3 ☐ 4 ☐ 5 ☐ 6 ☐ 7 ☐ 8 ☐ 9 Replacement Plan Impacts (replacement plan decisions only) Total WCA Wetland Impact Area: Wetland Replacement Type: ☐ Project Specific Credits: ☐ Bank Credits: Bank Account Number(s): Technical Evaluation Panel Findings and Recommendations (attach if any) ☐ Approve ☐ Approve w/Conditions ☐ Deny ☒ No TEP Recommendation LGU Decision ☒ Approved with Conditions (specify below)1 ☐ Approved1 ☐ Denied List Conditions: 1. Any impacts to the wetlands will require additional permitting (WCA sequencing/replacement/bank and MCWD permits). 2. Must comply with all applicable local, state, and federal laws, regulations, and ordinances. Decision‐Maker for this Application: ☒ Staff ☐ Governing Board/Council ☐ Other: Decision is valid for: ☒ 5 years (default) ☐ Other (specify): 1 Wetland Replacement Plan approval is not valid until BWSR confirms the withdrawal of any required wetland bank credits. For project‐ specific replacement a financial assurance per MN Rule 8420.0522, Subp. 9 and evidence that all required forms have been recorded on the title of the property on which the replacement wetland is located must be provided to the LGU for the approval to be valid. LGU Findings – Attach document(s) and/or insert narrative providing the basis for the LGU decision1. ☐ Attachment(s) (specify): ☒ Summary: The TEP (Maggie Menden/Trey Jonas (MCWD) and Jed Chesnut (BWSR) met on‐site with the applicant representative (Ken Arndt) on 5/21. The TEP provided comments on the delineation and asked that the report be updated. These comments consisted of connecting the channel between wetland 1 and wetland 2, as well as a slight change in the NW corner of wetland 2. The updated and approved delineation report is attached (Updated 6/10/2024). 1 Findings must consider any TEP recommendations. 170 BWSR NOD Form – November 12, 2019 2 Attached Project Documents ☒ Site Location Map ☐ Project Plan(s)/Descriptions/Reports (specify): Appeals of LGU Decisions If you wish to appeal this decision, you must provide a written request within 30 calendar days of the date you received the notice. All appeals must be submitted to the Board of Water and Soil Resources Executive Director along with a check payable to BWSR for $500 unless the LGU has adopted a local appeal process as identified below. The check must be sent by mail and the written request to appeal can be submitted by mail or e‐mail. The appeal should include a copy of this notice, name and contact information of appellant(s) and their representatives (if applicable), a statement clarifying the intent to appeal and supporting information as to why the decision is in error. Send to: Appeals & Regulatory Compliance Coordinator Minnesota Board of Water & Soils Resources 520 Lafayette Road North St. Paul, MN 55155 travis.germundson@state.mn.us Does the LGU have a local appeal process applicable to this decision? ☒ Yes1 ☐ No 1If yes, all appeals must first be considered via the local appeals process. Local Appeals Submittal Requirements (LGU must describe how to appeal, submittal requirements, fees, etc. as applicable) Send petition and $100 fee to: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District ATTN: Permitting 15320 Minnetonka BLVD Minnetonka, MN 55345 Notice Distribution (include name) Required on all notices: ☒ SWCD TEP Member: Stacey Lijewski – Stacey.lijewski@co.hennepin.mn.us ☒ BWSR TEP Member: Jed Chesnut – jed.chesnut@state.mn.us ☐ LGU TEP Member (if different than LGU contact): ☒ DNR Representative: Wes Saunders‐Pearce – wes.saunders‐pearce@state.mn.us ☐ Watershed District or Watershed Mgmt. Org.: ☒ Applicant: 1abjpass@gmail.com ☒ Agent/Consultant: ken.arndt@mnrinc.us Optional or As Applicable: ☒ Corps of Engineers: usace_requests_mn@usace.army.mil ☐ BWSR Wetland Mitigation Coordinator (required for bank plan applications only): ☐ Members of the Public (notice only): ☐ Other: Signature: Date: 06/17/2024 This notice and accompanying application materials may be sent electronically or by mail. The LGU may opt to send a summary of the application to members of the public upon request per 8420.0255, Subp. 3. 171 Prepared by: Midwest Natural Resources, Inc. 1032 West 7th Street, Suite 150 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 www.mnrinc.us Prepared for: Brad & Carol Pass 2536 18th Ave. S. Minneapolis, MN 55404 WETLAND DELINEATION REPORT 215 NORTH ARM LANE AND PINS 0611723240002 & 0611723230021, ORONO, MN APRIL 11 (UPDATED 6-10-24), 2024 172 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents............................................................................................................................................ 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................... 2 Desktop Review ............................................................................................................................................... 2 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................... 2 Results .............................................................................................................................................................. 3 Wetlands ...................................................................................................................................................... 3 Other Aquatic Resources ........................................................................................................................... 4 Tables Table 1. Delineated Wetland Features ..................................................................................................... 3 Appendices Appendix A Supporting Site Figures Figure 1. Survey Site Location Figure 2. MN DNR Public Waters Inventory Figure 3. US FWS National Wetlands Inventory Figure 4. Hennepin County Soil Survey – SSURGO Soil Map Units Figure 5. Delineated Aquatic Resources Appendix B Climate Data Table 1. Precipitation Worksheet Using Gridded Database Table 2. Recent Precipitation Table 3. Monthly Average High Temperature Appendix C Wetland Determination Data Forms & Representative Photos Appendix D MnRAM Management Classification & Site Response Reports 173 2 INTRODUCTION Midwest Natural Resources, Inc. (MNR) was contracted by Brad & Carol Pass to provide wetland delineation services for their properties located at 215 North Arm Lane and PINs 0611723240002 & 0611723230021 in Orono, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Appendix A, Figure 1). On April 9, 2024 MNR conducted a routine wetland delineation within the site to determine any wetland boundaries. In all, the boundaries of three wetlands and one linear waterbody were delineated within the site. No other areas within the survey area were reviewed for the presence of wetland. DESKTOP REVIEW Prior to conducting the field surveys, MNR staff conducted a desktop review to evaluate existing data within the project area including the following. All data are illustrated in the figures in Appendix A. • MN DNR Public Waters Inventory (PWI) (Figure 2) • US FWS National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) (Figure 3) • Hennepin County Soil Survey (Figure 4) • LiDAR elevation • Aerial imagery • Climate data (Appendix B) METHODS The entire survey area was surveyed via pedestrian surveys to investigate the presence of wetlands, and the potential wetland features identified in the desktop review were targeted for investigation. All potential wetlands were evaluated utilizing the Routine “Onsite” Determination Method contained in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region for the 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual Technical Report Y-87-1. For each potential wetland within the survey area, the three wetland parameters (vegetation, hydrology, and soils) were examined to determine wetland status. If positive wetland status was determined, a sample transect was established where the wetland/upland transition occurs. In each transect, the three parameters (vegetation, hydrology, and soils) were documented at a sample point within the wetland and in the adjacent upland. Vegetation was assessed at each sample point by identifying the dominant species present and noting wetland indicator status. Hydrologic indicators were evaluated for characteristics including, but not limited to, the presence or absence of inundated or saturated soils, high water table, drift lines, drainage patterns, and landscape position. The final parameter, soils, was assessed by digging a soil pit to at least 18 inches, where feasible, and examining the soil profile for indicators of hydric soils. In locations where a soil pit could not be dug due to the presence of buried utilities, soils were assumed hydric or non-hydric based on the dominant vegetation and presence or absence of hydrologic indicators, respectively. All data and information pertaining to each wetland and upland sample point were collected using the applicable Corps wetland determination forms, and representative photos of each feature reviewed were collected. Wetland boundaries were recorded spatially with GPS units (Trimble GeoXT 6000) and were flagged in the field. Areas not meeting wetland criteria were documented with a non- wetland sample point and a representative photograph. 174 Midwest Natural Resources, Inc. – 215 North Arm Lane & PINs 0611723240002 & 611723240021, Orono, MN 3 All spatial data was collected in WGS84 and post-processed in ArcMap using Trimble Positions Desktop Add-in. RESULTS MNR conducted the field survey of the Pass properties on April 9, 2024 and it is noted that the survey area consists of a single-family residence with out-buildings, deciduous woodland/forest, upland grassland, upland grassland with scattered red cedar, common buckthorn dominated shrubland, three wetlands, and one linear water body. In total, four aquatic resources were mapped within the site including three wetlands and one linear water body. Wetlands A total of three wetlands were mapped within the site (Appendix A, Figure 5). Below is a table that summarizes the delineated wetlands by Circular 39 type, Cowardin classification, Eggers and Reed Plant Community, and by size in acres followed by a general description for the single feature. Additional information and photos pertaining to the documented wetland features are available in the wetland determination forms provided in Appendix C. Included in Appendix D are the MnRAM Classification and Site Response Reports for Wetlands 1-3. Table 1. Delineated Wetland Features1 Wetland ID Feature ID Cowardin Classification Circ. 39 Type/s Eggers & Reed Plant Community Type Acres Wetland 1 23-249-w1 PEMD Type 2 Fresh Wet Meadow 1.52 Wetland 2 23-249-w2 PEMD/C Type 2/3 Fresh Wet Meadow/Shallow Marsh 3.49 Wetland 3 23-249-w3 PEMC & L2ABH Type 3 Shallow Marsh 1.80 1The Feature ID corresponds to the sampling point name on the Wetland Determination Forms and in the spatial data Wetland 1 MnRAM: Manage 2 Wetland 1 is a Type 2 (PEMD; Fresh Wet Meadow) wetland located within the northern extent of the survey area and is approximately 1.52-acres in area within the site. This wetland extends off-site to the northwest as a similar type wetland and is dominated primarily by reed canary grass. Within the far southwestern part of Wetland 1 there appears to be areas of seepage discharge with very moist to saturated soils observed. Located at the southern end of this wetland is a channel that drains the wetland in a southernly direction. The DNR updated National Wetlands Inventory (June, 2013) maps this wetland as a PEM1A wetland. The MN DNR Public Waters Inventory does not map any public waters where Wetland 1 is located. Wetland 2 MnRAM: Manage 1 Wetland 2 is a Type 2/3 (PEMD/C; Fresh Wet Meadow/Shallow Marsh) wetland located within the eastern part of the survey area and is approximately 3.49-acres in area within the site. This wetland extends off-site to the south as a similar type wetland. The fresh wet meadow community is dominated primarily by reed canary grass with some lake sedge and the shallow marsh community is dominated by cattail and lake sedge. Located in the northwest corner of this wetland is a channel that drains water from Wetland 1. The DNR updated National Wetlands Inventory (June, 2013) maps 175 Midwest Natural Resources, Inc. – 215 North Arm Lane & PINs 0611723240002 & 611723240021, Orono, MN 4 Located between Wetlands 1 and 2 is an intermittent, linear water body. Photo taken from the southern end of Wetland 1 facing south. At the time of the surveys in November 2023 and April 2024, water was observed flowing through the channel. Channel 1 has a double culvert located within the southern 1/3 of its length which has allowed for accessing the land east of the channel. this wetland as a PEM1C wetland. The MN DNR Public Waters Inventory does not map any public waters where Wetland 2 is located. Wetland 3 MnRAM: Preserve Wetland 3 is a Type 3 (PEMC; Shallow Marsh) wetland located within the far eastern part of the survey area and is approximately 1.80-acres in area within the site. This wetland extends off-site to the south and east as a similar type wetland with an excavated open water channel. The emergent part of this wetland is dominated by cattail with reed canary grass, bluejoint, and lake sedge. Located in the southeastern corner of this wetland is an excavated open water area of the north arm to Lake Minnetonka that allows boats to navigate to the lake and dock. The DNR updated National Wetlands Inventory (June, 2013) maps this wetland as a PFO1A, PEM1C, L2ABH wetland complex. The MN DNR Public Waters Inventory maps Wetland 3 as public waters Minnetonka-North Arm (27013313- P). Other Aquatic Resources Channel 1 176 Appendix A – Supporting Site Figures 177 !( INDEPENDENCE MINNETRISTA ORONO Lat: 44.976826Long: -93.640389 Survey Site LocationBrad & Carol Pass215 North Arm Lane and PINs 0611723240002 & 0611723230021Orono, MN Figure 1 ´ Survey Area !(Reference Point Sources: OpenStreetMap, US Census Bureau, Date: 4/10/2024 0 400 800Feet !( ORONO 178 Co Rd 19INDEPENDENCE MINNETRISTA ORONO Co Rd 19 Minnetonka-North Arm(27013313-P) Unnamed(27094400-W) Unnamed(27092100-W) Unnamed(27109500-W) Unnamed(27094500-W) MN DNR Public Waters InventoryBrad & Carol Pass215 North Arm Lane and PINs 0611723240002 & 0611723230021Orono, MN Figure 2 ´ Survey Area PWI Stream PWI Waterbody Sources: USDA Farm Service Agency NAIP Imagery, 2021,MnGeo, MN Department of Natural Resources,US Census Bureau, Date: 4/10/2024 0 400 800Feet 179 B a y s i d e R d N Arm LnBayside TrlL2ABH PEM1A PFO1APEM1C PEM1C PEM1A PEM1Cd L2UBH US FWS National Wetlands InventoryBrad & Carol Pass215 North Arm Lane and PINs 0611723240002 & 0611723230021Orono, MN Figure 3 ´ Survey Area NWI Wetland - PEM NWI Wetland - PFO NWI Wetland - L1/L2 Sources: USDA Farm Service Agency NAIP Imagery, 2021,MnGeo, MN Department of Natural Resources,US Fish and Wildlife Service,US Census Bureau, Date: 4/10/2024 0 100 200Feet 180 B a y s i d e R d N Arm LnBayside TrlHamel,overwash-Hamelcomplex,0 to 3 % slopes Glencoe clay loam,0 to 1 % slopes Hamel,overwash-Hamel complex,0 to 3 % slopes Lerdal loam,1 to 3 % slopes Lerdal loam,1 to 3 % slopes Muskego,Blue Earth,and Houghton soils,ponded,0 to 1 % slopes Lester loam,morainic,25 to 35 % slopes Angus-Kilkennycomplex,2 to 6 % slopes Angus-Kilkenny complex,2 to 6 % slopes Angus-Kilkenny complex,2 to 6 % slopes Angus-Kilkenny complex,2 to 6 % slopes Angus-Kilkennycomplex,2 to 6 % slopes Lester loam,10 to 22 % slopes Cordova loam,0 to 2 % slopes Lester-Kilkennycomplex,6 to 10 % slopes,moderately eroded Lester-Kilkenny complex,6 to 10 % slopes,moderately eroded Lester-Kilkennycomplex,6 to 10 % slopes,moderately eroded Lester-Kilkenny complex,6 to 10 % slopes,moderately eroded Lester-Kilkennycomplex,6 to 10 %slopes,moderatelyeroded Lester-Kilkenny complex,6 to 10 % slopes,moderately eroded Glencoe clay loam,0 to 1 % slopes Lester-Kilkennycomplex,16 to 22 %slopes Lester-Kilkenny complex,16 to 22 % slopes Hennepin County Soil Survey / SSURGO Soil Map UnitsBrad & Carol Pass215 North Arm Lane and PINs 0611723240002 & 0611723230021Orono, MN Figure 4 ´ Survey Area Hydric Soil Non-Hydric Soil Sources: USDA Farm Service Agency NAIP Imagery, 2021,MnGeo, MN Department of Natural Resources,USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service,US Census Bureau, Date: 4/10/2024 0 100 200Feet 181 B a y s i d e R d N Arm LnBa y s id e T r l 1016 10149 5 8 104093610229481004103 0 93 2 9321016 10 1 4 98 0 93210121014 10241010 103096810409601034 996 980 93 0938938103610121 0 3 01034 9 8 0 1012 1012 9661018102410341018 10401 0 4 0 1 0 1 2 1032 1030 94210161024 1012 10341034104210201022 9501008102 0 95210249681014 10321028 10261022 10149 7 8 10 3 6 97 8 1020 1018 10361018930 970 93210409781010103810381044 95010281032 93010289 3 010161030 102410261020 1024 10221034 101 0 1 0 0 8 1 0 0 6 102210 0 4 1012 1 0 3 2 1014 1 0 0 2 9349 3 2 10201 0 0 0 930 10181016 9 9 6 9 9 8 9 9 4 9 9 2 926990 928 9361030 1020 10241022 938 1028 102 6 940990 992 994996 950 998100095210029421004944 95 4 10069569461008948 10141012101810101016 96095 8 964962966968978980 98 2 98497 0 986988 97 2 974 976 Delineated Aquatic ResourcesBrad & Carol Pass215 North Arm Lane and PINs 0611723240002 & 0611723230021Orono, MN Figure 5 ´ Survey Area (25 ac.) Wetland Boundary Waterbody Channel Transect LiDAR (2' contours) Sources: color Hennepin 6 in, 2021,MnGeo, MN Department of Natural Resources,US Census Bureau, Date: 6/10/2024 0 200 400Feet Wetland 1(appx. 1.52 ac.) Wetland 3(appx. 1.80 ac.) Wetland 2(appx. 3.49 ac.) Channel 1(appx. 286 lf) channelflows throughdouble culvert 182 Appendix B – Climate Data 183 Appendix B, Climate Data Past Year’s Precipitation Data from Gridded Database Source: Minnesota State Climatology Office website: https://climateapps.dnr.state.mn.us/gridded_data/precip/wetland/wetland.asp Since the delineation of the Pass properties was conducted on April 9, 2024 daily precipitation data from the months of January February and March were reviewed. Precipitation data for the three months prior to April were obtained from the Minnesota Climatology Working Group for the area of Hennepin County where the nearest precipitation data was collected. Precipitation data was obtained using the following as the target location: County: Hennepin Township Number: 117N Township Name: Excelsior Range Number: 23W Nearest Community: Stubbs Bay Section Number: 6 Aerial photograph or site visit date: Tuesday, April 9, 2024 Table 1. Precipitation Worksheet Using Gridded Database (Score Using 1991-2020 Normal Period) values are in inches first prior month: March 2024 second prior month: February 2024 third prior month: January 2024 estimated precipitation total for this location: missing missing missing there is a 30% chance this location will have less than: 1.02 0.52 0.47 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than: 1.75 1.11 1.18 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 Table 2. Recent Precipitation from Excelsior 1.8 W Weather Station January February March 1st 7 days of April Precipitation (in.) 0.28” (rain) 2.5” (snow) 0.83” (rain) 6.5” (snow) 2.03” (rain) 14” (snow) 0.06” Average Temperature Climate Data Source: MN Department of Natural Resources Local Climatological Data: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/historical/lcd.html?loc=msp Average monthly high temperature for the three months preceding the month of the site visit as well as the day of the survey are recorded in Table 3 below. Temperature data were obtained from the MN Department of Natural Resources Local Climatological Data website and is based on weather measurements collected by the National Weather Service and the Federal Aviation Administration. Table 3. Monthly Average High Temperature January February March April 9, 2024 Temperature (°F) 27.3° 42.9° 46.5° 61° 184 Appendix C Wetland Determination Data Forms & Representative Photos 185 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 4 - Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Hamel, overwash-Hamel complex, 0 to 3 percent slopes 4 4 FACW Minnesota 0 216.00 Brad & Carol Pass Concave 44.975667 0.00 4 FACU 0.00 5 4 Y Depression 4 108.00 0.00 2.00 10 Cirsium arvense 2 0.00 N 100.0 Phalaris arundinacea 224.00110.00 0.00 30 30 4 4 Grace Lehinger, Aria Searles, Cody Lachinski, Ken Arndt 98 Y 0-2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica 4 2 4 0 sec 06 T117N R023W Orono/Hennepin 23-249-w1-w 100.00 FACW -93.639762 4 2024-04-09 15 WGS84 Emergent wetland dominated strongly by reed canary grass. 8.00 2 10.0 Fresh meadow dominated strongly by reed canary grass. Soils are saturated peat with standing water present. A channel drains this wetland to the south toward Wetland 2. 0.00 2.04 215 & North Arm Lane & PINs 0611723240002 & 0611723230021 186 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 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 (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 0-24 10YR 4 4 4 4 Standing water is present and soils are saturated at the surface. 2/1 4 4 p 4 1 0 23-249-w1-w 4 04 4 4 peat100 Soils meet the A3 indicator. 187 188 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 4 - Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) None 4 FAC 4 5 UPL Minnesota 5.0 40.00 Brad & Carol Pass Convex 44.975712 5.00 4 FACU 0.00 5 5 Y Slope 4 20.00 55.00 60.00 20 Solidago canadensis 5 0.00 FACW Y 110.0 5 Bromus inermis FACU 570.00140.00 15.00 30 30 Fraxinus pennsylvanica N 5 4 Grace Lehinger, Ken Arndt, Aria Searles, Cody Lachinski 50 Y Trifolium pratense UPL 0-2 N Juniperus virginiana 25 4 4 Y Phalaris arundinacea FACU 0 sec 06 T117N R023W Orono/Hennepin 23-249-w1-u 40.00 N FACU 15 -93.639677 Cirsium arvense 2024-04-09 Y 15 WGS84 Rhamnus cathartica N Upland sideslope dominated by smooth brome, goldenrod and reed canary grass. 10 FACW 240.00 Medicago sativa 2 25.0 Upland sideslope dominated by smooth brome, reed canary grass, goldenrod and redcedar. Soils are non-hydric. 275.00 4.07 215 & North Arm Lane & PINs 0611723240002 & 0611723230021 189 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 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 (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 8-17 0-8 17-24 10YR 10YR 4 No wetland hydrology indicators present. 2/2 CL CL SICL 5/4 4 2/1 4 4 23-249-w1-u 100 4 100 clay loam clay loam silty clay loam 100 10YR Soils are clay mineral and do not meet hydric indicators. 190 191 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 4 - Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Glencoe clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 4 4 FACW OBL Minnesota 2.0 4.00 Brad & Carol Pass Concave 44.974401 15.00 4 OBL 75.00 5 4 Y Depression 4 2.00 0.00 0.00 Calamagrostis canadensis 2 75.00 OBL Y 90.0 Carex lacustris FAC 124.0092.00 45.00 30 30 N 2 4 4 Grace Lehinger, Aria Searles, Cody Lachinski, Ken Arndt 35 PEMC Eutrochium purpureum 0-2 N 4 25 4 Typha latifolia 0 sec 06 T117N R023W Orono/Hennepin 23-249-w2-w 100.00 15 -93.637561 4 2024-04-09 N 15 WGS84 Cornus alba Emergent wetland dominated by lake sedge, Joe-pye weed, bluejoint and cattail. 15 0.00 2 0 Type 2/3, fresh meadow/shallow marsh wetland dominated by cattail, bluejoint, lake sedge, and Joe-pye weed with a fringe of reed canary grass. Soils are saturated peat with standing water. 0.00 1.35 215 & North Arm Lane & PINs 0611723240002 & 0611723230021 192 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 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 (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 18-24 0-18 10YR 2.5YR 10YR 2.5YR M M 4 4 4 C C 4 Soils are saturated and standing water is present. 2/1 4/6 4 4 PEAT PEAT4/6 4 3/1 1 0 23-249-w2-w 4 595 04 4 4 595 Soils meet the A3 hydric indicator. 193 194 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 4 - Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Glencoe clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes 4 4 FACU 5 5 FACU Minnesota 35.0 30.00 Brad & Carol Pass Convex 44.974452 FAC 55.00 4 FAC 5.00 5 Y Sideslope 4 15.00 0.00 65.00 20 N Rhamnus cathartica 6 5.00 FACW Y 65.0 15 Solidago canadensis OBL 460.00140.00 165.00 30 30 Prunus serotina N 20 4 Grace Lehinger, Ken Arndt, Cody Lachinski, Aria Searles FACW 25 Y Calamagrostis canadensis FACU 0-2 Fraxinus pennsylvanica N Rhamnus cathartica 15 20 4 4 Y Equisetum sylvaticum 0 sec 06 T117N R023W Orono/Hennepin 23-249-w2-u 50.00 Rhamnus cathartica N FAC 10 -93.637520 2024-04-09 Y 15 WGS84 Zanthoxylum americanum Upland forest dominated by common buckthorn in the canopy and shrub layers, with saplings, bluejoint, goldenrod and horsetail at the ground layer. 5 FACU 260.00 Rubus idaeus 3 40.0 Upland forested slope dominated by common buckthorn and goldenrod. The soils were hydric but there were no wetland hydrology indicators present. 0.00 Y 3.29 215 & North Arm Lane & PINs 0611723240002 & 0611723230021 195 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 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 (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 18-24 0-18 10YR 2.5YR 10YR 2.5YR M M 4 C C 4 No wetland hydrology indicators present. 2/1 4/6 SIL SICL4/62/1 4 4 4 23-249-w2-u 298 4 silty loam silty clay loam 595 Soils are dark mineral with small amounts of redox throughout and meets the F6 hydric soil indicator. 196 197 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 4 - Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Lester-Kilkenny complex, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded 4 4 OBL Minnesota 0 50.00 Brad & Carol Pass Concave 44.974427 0.00 4 FACW 60.00 5 4 Y Depression 4 25.00 0.00 0.00 Phalaris arundinacea 2 60.00 OBL Y 85.0 Typha angustifolia OBL 110.0085.00 0.00 30 30 N 4 4 Grace Lehinger, Ken Arndt, Cody Lachinski, Aria Searles 40 PEM1C Calamagrostis canadensis 0-2 N 4 25 4 Carex lacustris 0 sec 06 T117N R023W Hennepin County 23-249-w3-w 100.00 10 -93.636120 4 2024-04-09 15 WGS84 Emergent wetland dominated by reed canary grass with cattail, bluejoint and lake sedge also common. 10 0.00 2 0 Wetland 3 is a shallow marsh dominated by cattail and reed canary grass with bluejoint and lake sedge. 0.00 1.29 215 & North Arm Lane & PINs 0611723240002 & 0611723230021 198 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 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 (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 0-24 10YR 2.5YR M 4 4 4 C 4 4 Soils were saturated at a depth of 1" from the soil surface. 2/1 4/6 4 4 SICL 4 2 4 23-249-w3-w 14 4 silty clay loam595 Soils meet the F6 hydric soil indicator. 199 200 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM – Midwest Region Project/Site: City/County: Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner: State: Sampling Point: Investigator(s): Section, Township, Range: Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Local relief (concave, convex, none): Slope (%): Lat: Long: Datum: Soil Map Unit Name: NWI classification: Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes No (If no, explain in Remarks.) Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? Yes No Remarks: VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants. Dominance Test worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A) Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: (B) Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: (A/B) Prevalence Index worksheet: Total % Cover of: Multiply by: OBL species x 1 = FACW species x 2 = FAC species x 3 = FACU species x 4 = UPL species x 5 = Column Totals: (A) (B) Prevalence Index = B/A = Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 2 - Dominance Test is >50% 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.0 1 4 - Morphological Adaptations 1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present, unless disturbed or problematic. Absolute Dominant Indicator Tree Stratum (Plot size: ) % Cover Species? Status 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. = Total Cover Herb Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. = Total Cover Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size: ) 1. 2. = Total Cover Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) Lester-Kilkenny complex, 6 to 10 percent slopes, moderately eroded 4 FAC 4 5 10 FAC Minnesota 25.0 50.00 Brad & Carol Pass Convex 44.974382 90.00 4 FACU 0.00 5 Y Sideslope 4 25.00 0.00 25.00 20 Y Prunus serotina 5 0.00 FACW N 70.0 15 Rhamnus cathartica FACU 420.00140.00 270.00 30 30 Fraxinus pennsylvanica N 25 4 4 Grace Lehinger, Ken Arndt, Aria Searles, Cody Lachinski FACU 40 Y Rubus idaeus FAC 3-7 Prunus serotina N Rhamnus cathartica 4 10 4 Y Phalaris arundinacea 0 sec 06 T117N R023W Orono/Hennepin 23-249-w3-u 80.00 N FAC 10 -93.636263 4 2024-04-09 Y 15 WGS84 Rhamnus cathartica Upland forested side slope dominated by common buckthorn at the shrub and ground layers with sparse green ash and black cherry trees above. 5 FACW 100.00 Galium boreale 4 45.0 Upland forested side slope with green ash and black cherry in the canopy and common buckthorn at the shrub and ground layers. Soils are non-hydric. 0.00 3.0 215 & North Arm Lane & PINs 0611723240002 & 0611723230021 201 US Army Corps of Engineers Midwest Region – Version 2.0 SOIL Sampling Point: 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) % Type1 Loc2 Texture Remarks 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Coast Prairie Redox (A16) Histic Epipedon (A2) Sandy Redox (S5) Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Black Histic (A3) Other (Explain in Remarks) 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 (A12) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) Redox Depressions (F8) wetland hydrology must be present, 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) unless disturbed or problematic. Restrictive Layer (if observed): Type: Depth (inches): Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required) Surface Water (A1) Water-Stained Leaves (B9) Surface Soil Cracks (B6) High Water Table (A2) Aquatic Fauna (B13) Drainage Patterns (B10) Saturation (A3) True Aquatic Plants (B14) Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Water Marks (B1) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Crayfish Burrows (C8) Sediment Deposits (B2) Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3) Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Drift Deposits (B3) Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1) Algal Mat or Crust (B4) Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) Geomorphic Position (D2) Iron Deposits (B5) Thin Muck Surface (C7) FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) Gauge or Well Data (D9) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Other (Explain in Remarks) Field Observations: Surface Water Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Water Table Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): (includes capillary fringe) Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: 12-24 0-12 10YR 10YR 4 No wetland hydrology indicators present. 2/1 SIL SICL2/2 4 4 4 23-249-w3-u 100 4 silt loam silty clay loam 100 Soils are dry mineral and do not meet hydric indicators. 202 203 Appendix D MnRAM Management Classification & Site Response Reports 204 Management Classification Report for 50 215 North Arm Lane Site2023‐249 Wetland 1 County Corps Bank Service Area HENNEPIN 20 7 ID: Mississippi (Metro)Watershed, # Based on the MnRAM data input from field and office review and using the classification settings as shown below, this wetland is classified as Functional rank of this wetland based on MnRAM data Functional Category Self‐defined classification value settings for this management level Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Habitat Structure (wildlife) Amphibian Habitat Fish Habitat Shoreline Protection Aesthetic/Cultural/Rec/Ed and Habitat Stormwater/Urban Sensitivity and Vegetative Diversity Wetland Water Quality and Vegetative Diversity Characteristic Hydrology and Vegetative Diversity Flood/Stormwater Attenuation* Commericial use* Downstream Water Quality* Low Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable Not Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate The critical function that caused this wetland to rank as Moderate Details of the formula for this action are shown below: Manage 2 Moderate Moderate Low Moderate Low Moderate ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ ‐ Manage 2 Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Structure was /Low / / / ‐ ‐ ‐ (Q3e*2+Q39+Q40+Q41+(Q23+Q24+Q25)/3+Q13+ Q20)/8 Value Description Maintenance of Characteristic Wildlife Habitat Str Question 13 Outlet: hydrologic regime0.1 20 Stormwater runoff0.1 23 Buffer width1 24 Adjacent area Management1 25 Adjacent area diversity0.5 39 Detritus0.5 3e <No Description Found>0.1 40 Wetland interspersion/landscape0.5 * The classification value settings for these functions are not adjustable 205 Management Classification Report for 50 215 North Arm Lane Site2023‐249 Wetland 1 County Corps Bank Service Area HENNEPIN 20 7 ID: Mississippi (Metro)Watershed, # 41 Wildlife barriers0.5 Wednesday, April 10, 2024This report was printed on: * The classification value settings for these functions are not adjustable 206 50215 North Arm Lane Site MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:2023-249 Wetland 1 Location:27-117-23-06-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/FlowThru 8-1 0 inches 8-2 0% 9 10 acres 11-Upland Soil Kilkenny 11-Wetland Soil Hamel loam 12 C 13 C 14 B 15 A 16 100% 17 C 18 A 19 B 20 C 21 B 22 B 23 250 feet 24-A 100% 24-B 0% 24-C 0% 25-A 0% 25-B 100% 25-C 0% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Adjacent area slope Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMB Type 2 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: 26-A 30% 26-B 70% 26-C 0% 27 A 28 B 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 NA 38 NA 39 B 40 B 41 B 42 Inadequate 43 A 44 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 C 50 Yes 51 C 52 C 53 A 54 B 55 B 56 C 57 NA Gentle Moderate Steep Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 58 Discharge 59 Discharge 60 Recharge 61 Discharge 62 Discharge 63 Recharge 64 No 65 66 3.49 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 B 72 C Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on: 4/10/2024 Mississippi (Metro)Watershed: Service Area:7WS#20 207 Management Classification Report for 49 215 North Arm Lane Site2023‐249 Wetland 2 County Corps Bank Service Area HENNEPIN 20 7 ID: Mississippi (Metro)Watershed, # Based on the MnRAM data input from field and office review and using the classification settings as shown below, this wetland is classified as Functional rank of this wetland based on MnRAM data Functional Category Self‐defined classification value settings for this management level Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Habitat Structure (wildlife) Amphibian Habitat Fish Habitat Shoreline Protection Aesthetic/Cultural/Rec/Ed and Habitat Stormwater/Urban Sensitivity and Vegetative Diversity Wetland Water Quality and Vegetative Diversity Characteristic Hydrology and Vegetative Diversity Flood/Stormwater Attenuation* Commericial use* Downstream Water Quality* Moderate Moderate Moderate Not Applicable Not Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Moderate Moderate High Moderate The critical function that caused this wetland to rank as High Details of the formula for this action are shown below: Manage 1 High High Moderate High Moderate High High High High ‐ High ‐ Manage 1 Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat was /Moderate / / / Moderate Moderate Moderate (Q43) * [( Q44 + 2*Q23wildlife + Q14 +Q 41 + Q20 reversed)/6] Value Description Maintenance of Characteristic Amphibian Habitat Question 14 Upland land use0.5 20 Stormwater runoff1 23 Buffer width1 41 Wildlife barriers0.5 43 Amphib breeding potential--fish presence1 44 Amphib & reptile overwintering habitat0.1 Wednesday, April 10, 2024This report was printed on: * The classification value settings for these functions are not adjustable 208 49215 North Arm Lane Site MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:2023-249 Wetland 2 Location:27-117-23-06-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Depressional/FlowThru 8-1 6 inches 8-2 30% 9 10 acres 11-Upland Soil Kilkenny 11-Wetland Soil Hamel loam 12 B 13 A 14 B 15 A 16 100% 17 C 18 A 19 B 20 C 21 B 22 B 23 250 feet 24-A 100% 24-B 0% 24-C 0% 25-A 0% 25-B 100% 25-C 0% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Native Mixed Sparse Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) PEMB Type 2 Plant Community:Fresh (Wet) Meadow Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: PEM1C Type 3 Plant Community:Shallow Marsh Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: 26-A 35% 26-B 65% 26-C 0% 27 A 28 B 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 C 38 C 39 B 40 B 41 B 42 Adequate 43 A 44 C 45 46 NA 47 48 No 49 C 50 Yes 51 C 52 C 53 A 54 B 55 B 56 C Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 57 NA 58 Discharge 59 Discharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Recharge 63 Discharge 64 No 65 66 1.52 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 B 72 C Commercial crop--hydro impact Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on: 4/10/2024 Mississippi (Metro)Watershed: Service Area:7WS#20 209 Management Classification Report for 51 215 North Arm Lane Site2023‐249 Wetland 3 County Corps Bank Service Area HENNEPIN 20 7 ID: Mississippi (Metro)Watershed, # Functional rank of this wetland based on MnRAM data Functional Category Self‐defined classification value settings for this management level Vegetative Diversity/Integrity Habitat Structure (wildlife) Amphibian Habitat Fish Habitat Shoreline Protection Aesthetic/Cultural/Rec/Ed and Habitat Stormwater/Urban Sensitivity and Vegetative Diversity Wetland Water Quality and Vegetative Diversity Characteristic Hydrology and Vegetative Diversity Flood/Stormwater Attenuation* Commericial use* Downstream Water Quality* Moderate Moderate Low High Not Applicable Moderate Not Applicable Moderate Moderate High Moderate The critical function that caused this wetland to rank as Moderate Details of the formula for this action are shown below: Based on the MnRAM data input from field and office review and using the classification settings as shown below, this wetland is classified as Preserve (formerly Manage 1) High High Moderate High Moderate High High High High ‐ High ‐ Manage 1 Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat was /Moderate / / / Moderate Moderate Moderate [Q46*2)+Q24+Q18+Q20R+Q28]/6 Value Description Maintenance of Characteristic Fish Habitat Question 18 Sediment delivery1 20 Stormwater runoff1 24 Adjacent area Management1 28 Nutrient loading0.5 46 Fish habitat quality1 Wednesday, April 10, 2024This report was printed on: * The classification value settings for these functions are not adjustable 210 51215 North Arm Lane Site MnRAM: Site Response Record For Wetland:2023-249 Wetland 3 Location:27-117-23-06-001 4 No 5 No 6 No 7 Lacustrine 8-1 60 inches 8-2 30% 9 8 acres 11-Upland Soil Lester-Kilkenny 11-Wetland Soil Muskego, Blue Earth, Houghton soils 12 NA 13 A 14 B 15 A 16 60% 17 C 18 A 19 B 20 C 21 B 22 B 23 250 feet 24-A 100% 24-B 0% 24-C 0% Outlet for flood control Outlet for hydro regime Dominant upland land use Wetland soil condition Vegetation (% cover) Emerg. veg flood resistance Sediment delivery Upland soils (soil group) Stormwater runoff Subwatershed wetland density Channels/sheet flow Adjacent buffer width Adjacent area management Full Manicured Bare Adjacent area diversity/structure Listed, rare, special species? Rare community or habitat? Pre-European-settlement condition? Hydrogeomorphology / topography: Maximum water depth % inundated Immediate drainage--local WS 10 Esimated size/existing site: (see #66) L2AB2H Plant Community:Shallow, Open Water C Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: PEM1C Type 3 Plant Community:Shallow Marsh Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: L2AB2H N/A Plant Community:Shallow, Open Water C Cowardin Classification: Circular 39: 25-A 0% 25-B 100% 25-C 0% 26-A 0% 26-B 50% 26-C 50% 27 A 28 B 29 No 30 0% 31 0 feet 32 33 34 35 No 36 No 37 C 38 C 39 B 40 B 41 B 42 Adequate 43 C 44 C 45 46 A 47 48 No 49 C 50 Yes 51 C 52 C 53 A 54 B Native Mixed Sparse Gentle Moderate Steep Adjacent area slope Downstream sens./WQ protect. Nutrient loading Shoreline wetland? Rooted veg., % cover Wetland in-water width Emerg. veg. erosion resistance Erosion potential of site Upslope veg./bank protection Rare wildlife? Scare/Rare/S1/S2 community Vegetative cover Veg. community interspersion Wetland detritus Interspersion on landscape Wildlife barriers Hydroperiod adequacy Fish presence Overwintering habitat Wildlife species (list) Fish habitat quality Fish species (list) Unique/rare opportunity Wetland visibility Proximity to population Public ownership Public access Human influence on wetland Human influence on viewshed Shoreline Wetland Amphibian-breeding potential 55 B 56 B 57 NA 58 Recharge 59 Discharge 60 Recharge 61 Recharge 62 Recharge 63 Discharge 64 No 65 66 1.8 0 0 67 0 feet 68 69 0 70 0 71 B 72 B Spatial buffer Recreational activity potential Commercial crop--hydro impact Wetland soils Subwatershed land use Wetland size/soil group Wetland hydroperiod Inlet/Outlet configuration Upland topo relief Restoration potential LO affected by restoration Existing size Restorable size Potential new wetland Average width of pot. buffer Ease of potential restoration Hydrologic alterations Potential wetland type Stormwater sensitivity Additional treatment needs Groundwater-specific questions For functional ratings, please run the Summary tab report. Additional information This report printed on: 4/10/2024 Mississippi (Metro)Watershed: Service Area:7WS#20 211 11/14/24 Pass Family Trust Attn: Civil Methods- Kent Brander 215 North Arm Lane Orono, MN 55364 CC: City of Orono- Melanie Curtis RE: MCWD Permit Application #24-544: Idyllvale Shores Subdivision Development Current Status: INCOMPLETE Dear Applicants, Thank you for a Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) permit application for the project references above (Project). MCWD received your application on 11/05/2024. Based on the materials submitted, the application has been reviewed and found to be incomplete. To help ensure a complete submittal, below is a detailed summary of revisions and information that will be needed in order to comply with MCWD’s Erosion & Sediment Control, Stormwater Management, Wetland Protection, Waterbody Crossings & Structures, and Floodplain Alteration Rules. Project Understanding Based on MCWD’s understanding of the project scope, Pass Family Trust is proposing to create a 5- parcel subdivision at 215 North Arm Lane in Orono, MN. Erosion Control Rule MCWD’s Erosion Control Rule is triggered by projects that propose to disturb more than 5,000 square feet or move 50 cubic yards of material. The Project proposes to disturb 7.31 acres and excavate 10,000 cubic yards; therefore, the rule is triggered. To meet MCWD’s Erosion Control rule requirements, please address the following items: • Proposed site plan showing the erosion control BMPs: o Location of concrete washout area (off-site, contained in truck, on-site with required impervious liner) • Water features: o 100-year flood elevation contour and ordinary high water elevation contour of all waterbodies (lakes, streams, wetlands) • Final stabilization method (seed, sod, blanket) 212 Floodplain Alteration Rule MCWD's Floodplain Alteration Rule is triggered when there is work below the 100-year flood elevation. The 100-year high water elevation for Lake Minnetonka is 931.5 feet (NGVD 29). The 100-year high water elevation for the tributary is unknown at this time and will need to be determined by the applicant. This rule requires that compensatory storage be created to offset any proposed volume of fill. The Project proposes to disturb land at or below the 100-year high-water level or proposes fill to be placed below the 100-year high-water level for the placement of the northern driveway; therefore, the rule is triggered. To meet MCWD’ Floodplain Alteration rule requirements, please address the following items: • Determine the OHW and 100-year elevations for the tributary driveway crossing. • Existing conditions site plan: o Existing elevation contours of the work area o Ordinary high-water elevation (OHW) o 100-year flood elevation • Proposed site plan: o Proposed elevation contours of the work area o Ordinary high-water elevation (OHW) o 100-year flood elevation o Low openings (doors, windows, etc.) to all structures • Calculation of cut and fill: o Quantity of proposed cut and fill corresponding to areas of cut and fill on the site plans (no net fill is allowed) o Sum of proposed cut and fill between OHW and 100-year flood elevation o Calculations must be signed by a professional engineer, architect, land surveyor, or landscape architect Waterbody Crossings and Structures: MCWD’s Waterbody Crossings and Structures Rule is triggered when work is proposed within the bed or bank of a waterbody. This rule requires that the proposed work maintains hydraulic capacity, navigational capacity, and wildlife passage, and has no adverse impacts to water quality. To meet MCWD’s Waterbody Crossings & Structures rule requirements, please address the following items: • Please provide a plan set with detailed grading plans for the site, culvert/pipe information and details for stormwater BMPs so they can be evaluated for compliance with the water body crossings rule. • Delineate full drainage area of Wetland 1 so that culverts can be sized appropriately. Culverts must retain adequate hydraulic capacity. A project in a watercourse may not increase upstream or downstream flood stage. • Please provide documentation that the wetland/waterbody crossing is the “minimal impact” solution to the specific need. The applicant must consider, as applicable, rerouting to avoid a crossing or designing a crossing to avoid disturbance below top of bank. Please provide at least two alternative designs that minimize or avoid the proposed impact to demonstrate that the minimal impact solution is proposed. Additionally, please provide an analysis, by a professional engineer or qualified hydrologist, of the effect of the project on hydraulic capacity and water quality. 213 Wetland Protection Rule MCWD's Wetland Protection Rule is triggered when work is proposed within a wetland, and/or when impervious surfaces are created upgradient of wetlands on site. The Wetland Protection Rule requires the establishment of wetland buffers, the width of which is determined by the wetland's management classification. To meet MCWD’s Wetland Protection rule requirements, please address the following items: • Proposed site plans with: o Existing and proposed elevation contours o Proposed grading and other disturbance in wetland or buffer o Proposed wetland buffer sign locations (must be at all lot lines and spaced less than 100 feet apart) o If buffer averaging is proposed, calculation of required and provided buffer area and indication of the minimum, maximum, and average widths on the site plans. o If excavating in the wetland, proposed location of spoils placements and specifications to stabilize and vegetate spoils • Wetland buffer vegetation plan (if the buffer is not currently vegetated or will be disturbed by construction): o Description of seed and plant materials, including supplier and origin o Seed/planting bed preparation (ex. Clearing, disking, raking, herbicide control, soil amendment, or addition) o Seeding/planting method o Application rate of seeds or plugs (pounds of seed per acre or plants per unit area) o Measures for site protection and erosion prevention during establishment o An inspection and maintenance schedule describing activities (ex. Watering, mowing, invasive species control, herbicide application, burning, etc.) for five years of establishment o The criteria for buffer vegetation establishment Stormwater Management Rule MCWD’s Stormwater Management Rule is triggered by the creation of new or replacement of existing impervious surface. Development – greater than 1 acre The Project proposes development on a site that is greater than one acre in size, has 1.97 acres of new/fully reconstructed impervious area, will disturb 36.55% of the site, and has an impervious surface change of 257%; therefore, the rule is triggered. Infiltration: The required treatment scope includes the volume reduction of 1-inch times the area of impervious surface (see Table 1) and no increase in peak runoff rates from the site. 214 To meet MCWD’s Stormwater Management rule requirements, please address the following items: • Please provide a plan set with detailed grading plans for the site, culvert/pipe information and details for stormwater BMPs so they can be evaluated for compliance with Stormwater Management Rule. • A 0.25 in/hr infiltration rate needs to be validated with detailed soil information such as soil borings or test pits in the location of the proposed BMPs. If proposing to meet rules by infiltration through site soils, the applicant must characterize soils by use of a method identified in the Minnesota Stormwater Manual and must document the characterization and the methodology used. • Please delineate subwatersheds based on the wetland, stormwater basins or other outlet point they drain to. • Currently in existing conditions a large portion of E1 would drain to Wetland 1 rather than Wetland 2. Please revise as appropriate. • Drainage diagram shows a 4Pi which is not shown in the modeling. Please remove from drainage diagram or provide modeling information. • P3A would not flow to P3i in proposed conditions. Update model or grading as appropriate. • Not all of P1 will flow to P1i. Please revise grading or drainage diagram subwatershed. 215 • SWMP Narrative notes a proposed impervious of 85,746 sf (1.97 acres) but HydroCAD modeling notes an impervious area of 2.38 acres. Please correct so it is consistent and ensure new homes entire impervious is considered. • Please clarify the existing and proposed conditions for the connection between Wetland 1 and Wetland 2. • Delineate full drainage area of Wetland 1 so that culverts can be sized appropriately. Culverts must retain adequate hydraulic capacity. A project in a watercourse may not increase upstream or downstream flood stage. Procedural Requirements Public Notice Once your application is conditionally approved, District rules require that a public notice to be sent to all properties within 600 feet of the subject property. The public notice includes a 14-day comment period allowing members of the public to receive further information and/or request a public hearing. Fees Permit fees include a $10 application fee, a public notice mailing fee, and any engineering or legal fees incurred during the review process. Financial assurance totals will be calculated at the end of the review process. Maintenance Instrument The Project will be required to complete a maintenance declaration for the wetland buffers, waterbody crossings, and stormwater facilities. Permit Timeline Under Minnesota Statutes 15.99, MCWD staff have 15 business days to review and respond to permit applications and inquiries. Staff will review submitted materials and communicate with the applicant and property owner of the status. 216 If you have any questions or would like to discuss the information above, please contact me at acouture@minnehahacreek.org. Kind regards, Abigail Couture Abigail Couture Permitting Assistant 217 Street A, -0+50 - 5+00 KEBDESIGNED: LIC. NO.: DATE: KENT E. BRANDER DRAWN: CHECKED: KEB DMP44578 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 10-23-2024 CIVIL METHODS, INC. P.O. Box 28038 St. Paul, MN 55128 o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.com DATE / REVISION:SHEET NO: 10-23-2024 Permit Submittal Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10/23/2024 1:00 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\24021_Idyllvale Shores Orono\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\40_STREET.dwgPROJECT: PROJ. LOCATION: PROJ. OWNER: 215 NORTH ARM LN, ORONO, MN 55364 BRADLEY J & CAROL A PASS Feet 0 50 100 “ ” 218 Street B, 9+50 - 16+00 3 KEBDESIGNED: LIC. NO.: DATE: KENT E. BRANDER DRAWN: CHECKED: KEB DMP44578 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 10-23-2024 CIVIL METHODS, INC. P.O. Box 28038 St. Paul, MN 55128 o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.com DATE / REVISION:SHEET NO: 10-23-2024 Permit Submittal Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10/23/2024 1:00 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\24021_Idyllvale Shores Orono\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\40_STREET.dwgPROJECT: PROJ. LOCATION: PROJ. OWNER: 215 NORTH ARM LN, ORONO, MN 55364 BRADLEY J & CAROL A PASS Feet 0 50 100 “ ” 219 KEBDESIGNED: LIC. NO.: DATE: KENT E. BRANDER DRAWN: CHECKED: KEB DMP44578 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 10-23-2024 CIVIL METHODS, INC. P.O. Box 28038 St. Paul, MN 55128 o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.com DATE / REVISION:SHEET NO: 10-23-2024 Permit Submittal Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10/23/2024 1:01 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\24021_Idyllvale Shores Orono\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\70_DETAILS.dwgPROJECT: PROJ. LOCATION: PROJ. OWNER: 215 NORTH ARM LN, ORONO, MN 55364 BRADLEY J & CAROL A PASS 220 KEBDESIGNED: LIC. NO.: DATE: KENT E. BRANDER DRAWN: CHECKED: KEB DMP44578 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 10-23-2024 CIVIL METHODS, INC. P.O. Box 28038 St. Paul, MN 55128 o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.com DATE / REVISION:SHEET NO: 10-23-2024 Permit Submittal Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 10/23/2024 1:01 PMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\24021_Idyllvale Shores Orono\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\70_DETAILS.dwgPROJECT: PROJ. LOCATION: PROJ. OWNER: 215 NORTH ARM LN, ORONO, MN 55364 BRADLEY J & CAROL A PASS 221 41235LEGEND: KEBDESIGNED: LIC. NO.: DATE: KENT E. BRANDER DRAWN: CHECKED: KEB DMP44578 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 11-06-2024 CIVIL METHODS, INC. P.O. Box 28038 St. Paul, MN 55128 o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.com DATE / REVISION:SHEET NO: 11-06-2024 Permit Submittal Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 11/6/2024 11:47 AMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\24021_Idyllvale Shores Orono\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\80_LANDSCAPING.dwgPROJECT: PROJ. LOCATION: PROJ. OWNER: 215 NORTH ARM LN, ORONO, MN 55364 BRADLEY J & CAROL A PASS Feet 0 60 120 222 1 2 3 5 KEBDESIGNED: LIC. NO.: DATE: KENT E. BRANDER DRAWN: CHECKED: KEB DMP44578 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 11-06-2024 CIVIL METHODS, INC. P.O. Box 28038 St. Paul, MN 55128 o:763.210.5713 | www.civilmethods.com DATE / REVISION:SHEET NO: 11-06-2024 Permit Submittal Set. NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION 11/6/2024 11:47 AMPrint Date:File Loc:C:\CM\Civil Methods, Inc\CMI - Documents\7. Projects\24021_Idyllvale Shores Orono\08_DRAWINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS\C3D\Sheets\80_LANDSCAPING.dwgPROJECT: PROJ. LOCATION: PROJ. OWNER: 215 NORTH ARM LN, ORONO, MN 55364 BRADLEY J & CAROL A PASS Feet 0 50 100 223 4485 215 215 235 4620 340 200 4375 4720 185 270 125 4730 4455 75 100 4495 NORTH ARM LABayside TrlBAYS I D E R D RR-1B Preliminary Plat: Idyllvale Shores - Zoning Maxar City Limits Roads Parcels Zoning RR-1A - One Family Rural Residential - 5 Acres RR-1B - One Family Rural Residential - 2 Acres LR-1A - One Family Lakeshore Residential - 2 Acres PRD - Planned Residential Development 11/13/2024, 1:04:21 PM 0 0.05 0.10.03 mi 0 0.09 0.170.04 km 1:4,514 City of Orono Earthstar Geographics | This data set was created by Hennepin County Resident and Real Estate Services Survey Division. | This dataset is compiled monthly by the Hennepin County GIS Office from parcel geometry that is created and maintained by the Hennepin 224 215 235 4620 340 200 4485 215 4375 4355 125 4720 185 270 4455 100 4495 4565 75 NORTH ARM LABayside TrlBAYS I D E R D Preliminary Plat: Idyllvale Shores - Land Use Maxar City Limits Roads Parcels Planned Land Use Rural Preserve (1 unit / 5 acres) Rural Residential (1 unit / 2 acres) 11/13/2024, 1:10:48 PM 0 0.05 0.10.03 mi 0 0.09 0.170.04 km 1:4,514 City of Orono Earthstar Geographics | This data set was created by Hennepin County Resident and Real Estate Services Survey Division. | This dataset is compiled monthly by the Hennepin County GIS Office from parcel geometry that is created and maintained by the Hennepin 225 From:Melissa Kjolsing To:Melanie Curtis Subject:Comments for 215 N Arm Lane (Idyllvale Shores) from 350 N Arm Lane Date:Thursday, November 14, 2024 7:00:43 PM Hello Melanie, Below are the comments we'd like to formally submit to the City of Orono. Can you confirm that our comments will be included in the Orono Planning Commission packet for this coming meeting on Monday, November 18, 2024? Thank you, Melissa and Michael COMMENTS: As nearby residents of the proposed development at 215 N Arm Lane, we have serious concerns we want to share with Orono's Planning Commission. The area under discussion has abundant wetlands to support natural habitat for numerous native species. They thrive on this land because it's removed from dense traffic, noise pollution and human activity. To see it taken away due to a development is heartbreaking and frustrating, and we are against moving forward. People move to this area because of the cohabitation with nature and wildlife. We feel this development directly contradicts the values of the nearby community and the previous owners of the property who left it undeveloped. We and other neighbors have expressed time again that we are eager to preserve the state of the property through significant financial investment including purchasing the property for preservation. The current plans drastically change the property experiences for nearby residents with the addition of roads, cars and services traveling to and from the proposed properties. In addition to our concerns, we see an opportunity for the city to purchase this property to support community access to natural space between N Shore Drive W and West Branch Road. This community currently has no other public spaces that are accessible by pedistrations without having to cross busy and fast-driving roads. There are approximately 100 homes in this community that would benefit from this space while continuing to support its values of preservation and coexisting with wildlife. Lastly, we have fears about the natural resources of this lakeshore residential district being compromised by the proposed plan and that the quality of the stormwater runoff into the wetlands and Lake Minnetonka is endangered. We have reviewed the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District rules and regulations and have identified a number of concerns: 1. The wetland buffer rules either are not followed or cannot be verified to be followed. a. According to article XI, division 3 of the Orono Code, wetland buffer rules from the Minnehaha creek watershed district (MCWD) shall apply where established. The wetlands in the plan are classified as “preserve” according to the City of Orono Wetlands and Drainage Districts map, accessed November 11, 2024. The MCWD Wetland Protection Rule 5 effective April 29, 2024 has established buffer widths for wetlands based on wetland management classification, including those classified a “preserve”. Such wetlands have a setback base width of 75 feet, with a minimum of 67 feet depending on favorable slope or soil conditions. The plan does not signify the width of the wetland buffer. This resident questions whether the 226 plan meets the minimum requirements. Visually, the plan does not appear to follow the MCWD Wetland Protection Rule. There is at least one principal residence structure on the map that is unlikely to be in compliance with wetlands setback if the buffer were required to be any larger than shown. 2. The plan shows excavation occurring within the wetland buffer. a. At least one principal residence structure, a cul de sac, and a driveway show excavation within the wetland buffer. No excavation may occur in a buffer according to MCWD Wetland Protection Rule 6. Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes 103D.341. 3. Inadequate stormwater runoff control for the south easternmost lot. a. The principal residence structure is situated on a slope draining directly to protected wetlands and is situated so close to the wetland buffer that the ability to adequately protect the quality of stormwater runoff by an infiltration basin or other control is strongly questioned. The lot generally slopes toward and has such a long border with protected wetlands as to likely further degrade wetland quality and Lake Minnetonka water quality due to stormwater runoff. 4. Non-buildable lot as the north easternmost lot. a. The lot that comprises the north easternmost lot in the development is not buildable. Any potentially buildable portion of the lot has no road access because it is cut off from the proposed road by wetlands. The permitters are encouraged not to allow such a subdivision that could encourage subsequent attempts to excavate on areas that prohibit excavation. 227 Pass Property Development Phil and Mandy Little 4620 North Arm Lane Orono Planning Commission Meeting – Nov. 18, 2024 Background on this property over the years is that Carol Armstrong Pass’ family has a long history in the area, and was approached by a couple of neighbors around her property over the years to purchase some of the property to protect them from development. When asked, Carol said no as she didn’t want to sell as she wanted to preserve her land to prevent the possibility of development in the future. She also attempted to gift the land to Orono to be used as a park or protected natural habitat and Orono refused as they did not have the funds to maintain it. Carol also joined along with neighbors to fight against the Bayside Trail Cul de Sac development as she was concerned about what it would do to the wetlands and surrounding area of her property. We are certainly perplexed knowing her wishes for the property that she verbalized to people over the years, and now that after she is gone this land is going to be developed which is what she fought against over the years. The only Armstrong family member that resided in the house on the property that we know of is Carol’s brother until his passing. Because the Pass family has never lived out here to my knowledge, other than Carol as a child, we are assuming other members would have little or no attachment to this property. We certainly understand the family’s desire to receive compensation for this property since there is no attachment to it since her death. Maybe no one other than Carol knew about any of the surrounding neighbors desire to purchase additional property which is why no one was approached. We only found out about the development this summer when a hunter came on to our property and our neighbor’s asking permission to bow hunt on it because he had lost the ability to hunt on the 20 acres behind us due to a development coming in. In contacting the City of Orono they confirmed that it was in the planning stage. I contacted the 10 property owners that share boundaries with the Pass Property. None of them had knowledge of the project. The 11 property owners are; Little Froemming Thull Neilson Sipprell Holloway Nord Paldrmic & Potvin Haus Jabbour White It seems that this development is to be “shoehorned” into a wetland area with no regards to the properties surrounding the development. The area of impervious surface is breathtaking. The fact that it runs 24 ft wide along the entire boundary of our property is unacceptable – the planned buffer is inadequate, there is no protection from 2 inch trees being planted that will provide any protection in our lifetime. 12 inch trees would be a minimum. 228 North Arm Lane serves 8 homes, why is it necessary to have two cul de sacs for 5 homes? Having the road along our boundary will decrease our property value. We would ask that the cul de sacs be removed. Perhaps a long driveway would suffice to each home. I would ask the owners how are we to be compensated for the loss this will cause us? With 2 ½ acre sites, why do we have a road within 60 feet of our property boundary and the structure on our property? In the 2040 Comprehensive Plan it states “future rural developments will be guided so as to have minimal impact on the land or on existing rural neighborhoods…….Care will be exercised to ensure that no new development encroaches upon its neighbor’s open space activities.” This clearly is encroaching upon our open spaces. How can anyone say that site grading, hardcover, wells and septics, storm water facilities, and building pads will preserve this land and protect the natural landscape? Animal species will be disrupted for many years with the amount of hard cover and disruption to their habitat during this development. In the Orono’s 2040 Comprehensive Plan “The foremost guiding principle and goal of Orono’s planning is to protect and preserve Lake Minnetonka, and all lakes and natural resources, its water quality and recreational assets….It includes preservation of the associated marshes, wetlands and natural drainageways as the primary, most practical and cost effective method of preventing flooding and of filtering out the nutrient pollution from stormwater runoff….To maintain our local character and identity. This character is defined by strong neighborhoods, preponderance of wildlife, open spaces, lakes and wetlands. To protect and preserve our many natural resources including all lakes, creeks, marches, wetlands, woodlands, groundwater and steep slopes. To preserve open spaces, light, air and solar access for all citizen while maintaining night sky.” We are concerned about this developer having little knowledge of this area other than having stated in their narrative “access to the sought-after Lake Minnetonka – and it being the last of its kind in the area, located off North Arm Dr.” It is not located off North Arm Dr., but is located off of North Arm Lane which is just that, a lane, that is not wide enough for two cars to pass at the same time. The narrative states the lane “will service the lots of the development.” This development will certainly not “improve the public infrastructure” for this lane or any of the surrounding properties. We do not believe that any of this supports the “feasibility and necessity of the Idyllvale Shores development.” The construction and noise will be in our backyard and along the Lane for years. The tree removal is devastating. While there are a number of trees that need to be removed there are many being removed to accommodate “hardcover.” This is hardly preservation of a natural habitat. We understand the family has a right to do what they wish with their property, but are concerned with the disregard for the impact this will have on the environment, an old established neighborhood and relationships people thought they had with Carol. Not every square inch of land needs to be developed. We would ask that the Planning Committee not approve this plan at this time. In talking with the Watershed District they said the application would take 1-2 months to make it through their process. What rights do we have as current landowner and citizens from developers and who in Orono represents us? 229 Pass Property Development – Idyllvale Shores Project From Jeff & Pat Thull 612-325-3438 210 - 270 North Shore Drive West We just became aware of the application for development of three properties, one of which adjoins the east border of our property, which we purchased July 2011. We met Carol Pass in 2013, deceased owner of the proposed development property when she approached us regarding the development of the Bayside Meadows property also bordering each of our properties. She expressed her concerns that the development would impact the wetlands on her property (ironically now proposed for development). She asked us to support her efforts to approach the Lake Minnetonka Watershed District to prevent or restrict the Bayside Development plan due to the impact it would have on the Pass property. Now we see a proposal for 5 more homes and associated hardscapes draining into and encroaching on the same property she wanted to preserve. She was very emphatic on her intentions to not develop her property. At the time we expressed our interest in buying the 5-acre parcel next to us from her to assure it would remain undeveloped. She told us of her plan to preserve the wooded area. The appraised value of $10,000 for the parcel adjoining our property suggested to us that the woods were in some type of preservation program. We were quite surprised and disappointed when we received the notice regarding the development and recalled her being adamant that it would never be developed. Sadly, we found out it was being developed after she passed away earlier this year. The following are our concerns on the development of this property: • The development appears to place two, 24’ wide roads and two, 50’ cul-de-sacs in this small land area • The heavy hardscape of the roads and cul-de-sac will only service 5 home sites • One of the roadways will be placed along the border of current homes. This does not comply with the intent of the Orono 2040 Comprehensive Plan “Care will be exercised to ensure that no new development encroaches upon its neighbor’s open space activities.” • Why is one 50’ cul de sac squeezed between or infringing on the wetlands and servicing only one of the five lots? • Removal of heavy tree cover which currently supports 8-12 deer including two does who each had twins this year, turkeys roosting in the trees and a rare Great Gray owl currently protected by the MN DNR in the Superior National Forest. Wildlife managers and foresters are currently working towards protecting nesting areas across Minnesota. We see the owl and hear its hooting regularly. 230 • Walking trails and lake access is mentioned but are not indicated in the plans and it would appear they would have to be built in the wetlands area. • The project narrative from Blue Pencil Collective references “preserving the land that has been a cherished part of their family’s history” yet appears to be clearing a large percentage of the standing forest and installing a large percentage of hardscapes. As a result of the above issues, we suggest the land, forest and wetlands be preserved. If the Council decides to disregard these issues, we strongly suggest the development should be limited to one access road, three homes, and comply with the 2040 Comprehensive Plan as noted above. We appreciate your consideration. Jeff and Pat Thull 612-325-3438 231 From:James Neilson To:Melanie Curtis Subject:Idyllvale Shores Date:Friday, November 15, 2024 7:07:35 AM Hello Melanie - Thank you for sending the information on the proposed development. I will be out of town on the meeting date so I would like for this correspondence to serve as my comments and position for the record. Overall, I believe the plan represents a total disconnect from the City's fundamental underlying principles, goals and philosophy for growth management. The construction of two long cul-de-sac roadways to serve five homesites is blatantly intrusive, Especially the east to west cul-se-sac that ravages the property line with the neighbors living south of the development. The removal of 419 of a total of 1306 significant trees is a gross injustice to this beautiful natural environment and is really quite astonishing and insulting. I see nothing in this plan that conforms to the City's commitment -- . "Orono will retain its own special identity through careful growth management in the best interest of the environment, the natural resources, the watershed of Lake Minnetonka and the community of citizens, both present and future." The proposed lot 5 is next door to my home at 340 North Arm Lane. Everything about the lot 5 development looks like a disaster. The house pad is right up against the wetland buffer at the rear and right up against the side yard setback to the south against my property. The septic drainfield appears to actually encroach into the wetland buffer. The amount of grading work that cuts out the area for the housepad and driveway is severe. The infiltration basin wedged in between the house pad and the property line is in an insane location. How can these areas remain safe, stabilized and protected? Massive tree removal and earth excavation on lot 5 will wipe out any buffer that might have existed between our homes and deny us our pastoral views causing an irreparable detrimental effect. This proposed lot 5 development is not in accordance with the City's vision for responsible development, protection of natural amenities and is not in the best interest of the environment, the natural resources, the watershed of Lake Minnetonka and of the surrounding properties and neighbors. I believe the developer is pushing the limits of site accommodation here and the City needs to be steadfast in its resolve to protect our natural amenities, safeguard the woodland wildlife habitat and preserve the quality of life of the existing immediate neighbors. I urge the City to exercise overwhelming prudence in their review of this proposed development, This area is very environmentally sensitive as the entire valley bordered by North Arm Drive W on the west and Bayside Road on the north drains to the southeast through the property into Lake Minnetonka. It is a huge watershed. This is a delicate and very important natural resource. Furthermore, several adjacent property owners have established homes that are vulnerable to the overdevelopment character of this proposed development. Please act to preserve and protect the established character and vital natural amenities of this site and to protect the individual interests of the immediate neighbors and all Orono citizens. Thank you, James Neilson 232 340 North Arm Lane Orono, MN 55364 233 From:Joe Haus To:Melanie Curtis Subject:Idyl vale Shores development. Date:Friday, November 15, 2024 9:05:32 AM Hi Melanie, thanks for sending over the info on the Idyll vale shores development. The amount of time from the last changes submitted and when the review is scheduled for a project of this size seems rushed and it is difficult as a Orono resident to make time to evaluate the request. With my travel schedule already set and being out of town it is frustrating that I am unable to attend the meeting and ask questions to aid in my understanding. A longer period of time for residents to get up to speed and plan would be warranted. My questions and possible concerns are related to the stormwater management plan and if it will add run off flow of water to my property or impact the wetlands? I see a request for a drainage easement that I would like to understand in more detail what is involved. Can that request be explained in the meeting? There is a natural waterway (stream) south of my property that is active in the spring and wetter periods. It has done a good job of drainage for the 24 years we have had our property. With 5 building sites hard cover and driveways I have concerns about the impacts to drainage affecting specifically my property and the wetlands as a whole. If there are any other requested variances I would like to have them explained as well. I will be on- line for the meeting if possible and all my tech works. Thanks for your consideration and help Joe Haus 234 235 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 215 North Arm 0 410 820205 Feet Date: 10/24/2024 Buffer Size:500 Map Comments: 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 236 237 38 06-117-23 12 0009 STEVEN C WHITE PATRICIA L H WHITE 4375 BAYSIDE RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 06-117-23 13 0005 ANDREW MICHAEL KNUTSON NATALIE MARIE KNUTSON 4355 BAYSIDE RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 06-117-23 21 0002 GEORGETTE GABRIEL JABBOUR 23500 SMITHTOWN ROAD SHOREWOOD MN 55331 38 06-117-23 21 0003 JOSEPH J HAUS SUZANNE M HAUS 4485 BAYSIDE RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 06-117-23 21 0004 ERICA BRIX 4495 BAYSIDE RD ORONO MN 55359 38 06-117-23 21 0009 NEBOJSA PALDRMIC ANNE POTVIN 4565 BAYSIDE RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 06-117-23 21 0010 NEBOJSA PALDRMIC ANNE POTVIN 4565 BAYSIDE RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 06-117-23 22 0009 CATHERINE WELCH 4645 BAYSIDE RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 06-117-23 22 0023 MAXWELL D SAWOCHKA KELLY L SAWOCHKA 150 NORTHSHORE DR W ORONO MN 55359 38 06-117-23 22 0024 KIRK KIRSCHT & AMY KIRSCHT 180 NORTH SHORE DR W MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 06-117-23 22 0026 RANDALL ROBERT NORD P O BOX 429 MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359-0429 38 06-117-23 22 0027 CASS L HOLLOWAY MELISSA KUKLOK 200 BAYSIDE TRAIL ORONO MN 55359 38 06-117-23 22 0028 TIMOTHY PRATT & KAREN PRATT 185 BAYSIDE TRAIL ORONO MN 55359 38 06-117-23 22 0029 BRENT MERRITT & TONI MERRITT 125 BAYSIDE TRAIL ORONO MN 55359 38 06-117-23 22 0030 STEVEN A BECKLEY ELIZABETH A BECKLEY 75 BAYSIDE TR MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 06-117-23 23 0002 PHILIP LITTLE AMANDA S LITTLE 4620 NORTH ARM DR W MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 23 0004 KRISTIAN R LINDEEN 330 NORTH SHORE DR W MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 23 0005 DANIEL & LINDA IVERSON 4640 NORTH ARM DR MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 23 0007 MELISSA STODDARD 4700 NORTH ARM DR W MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 23 0015 ADAM J FROEMMING JENIFER R FROEMMING 4720 NORTH ANN DR ORONO MN 55364 38 06-117-23 23 0016 ROBYN E GIFFORD JOHNSON 4730 NORTH ARM DR W MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 23 0017 ADAM J FROEMMING JENIFER R FROEMMING 4720 NORTH ANN DR ORONO MN 55364 38 06-117-23 23 0018 JEFFREY P THULL PATRICIA E THULL 210 NORTH SHORE DR W MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 23 0019 JEFFREY P THULL PATRICIA E THULL 210 NORTH SHORE DR W MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 23 0020 JEFFREY P THULL PATRICIA E THULL 210 NORTH SHORE DR W MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 23 0021 BRADLEY JOHN PASS GABRIEL ARMSTRONG PASS 2536 18TH AVE S MINNEAPOLIS MN 55404 38 06-117-23 24 0001 BRADLEY J & CAROL A PASS 2536 18TH AVE S MINNEAPOLIS MN 55404 38 06-117-23 24 0002 BRADLEY J & CAROL A PASS 2536 18TH AVE S MINNEAPOLIS MN 55404 38 06-117-23 24 0011 MARK J & M LARSON 366 NORTH ARM LA MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 24 0012 BRIAN J & EMILY L HEDEEN 360 NORTH ARM LA MOUND MN 55364 238 38 06-117-23 24 0013 JAMES R NEILSON 340 NORTH ARM LA MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 24 0014 MELISSA M DEMEUSE MICHAEL A DEMEUSE 350 NORTH ARM LA MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 24 0015 DAVID E & CARLA J SIPPRELL 345 NORTH ARM LA MOUND MN 55364 38 06-117-23 24 0016 DENNIS R ROLLINS 4590 NORTH ARM DR W MOUND MN 55364 239 Date: November 18, 2024 Item: 5.5 Presenter: Matt Karney, Planner Section: Public Hearings Title: LA24-000060, TVL Studios, 755 Tonkawa Rd, Conditional Use Permit for Retaining Walls (Matthew Karney) 1.Purpose: The applicant requests a conditional use permit to construct new and replacement retaining walls as a part of a deck replacement within 75 feet of the OHWL. 2.MN§15.99 Application Deadline: The application was made on October 23, 2024, and deemed complete on November 5, 2024. Following the 60-day review period, the application expires on January 4, 2025. 3.Background: The applicant proposes a replacement of an existing, non-conforming deck and set of retaining walls with a new deck and retaining wall structure. Per the applicant, the existing deck and retaining wall system was built with the existing residence in the 1960s, and is in declining condition. The proposed deck and retaining walls are being designed to be sensitive to the property’s lakeward slope, while reducing the overall impacts of the improvements the have existed since the property was initially developed. 4.Public Comment: No public comments have been received. 5.Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends approval. 6.Planning Commission Action Requested: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing and if the commission agrees with staff's analysis, a motion should be made for approval of the proposed application. AGENDA ITEM Exhibits Exhibit A-Staff Report.pdf Exhibit B-Application.pdf Exhibit C-Cover Letter & Landscape Plan.pdf Exhibit D-Survey.pdf Exhibit E-Site Plans.pdf Exhibit F-Hardcover.pdf Exhibit G-Mailing.pdf 240 Date Application Received: 10/23/2024 Date Application Considered as Complete: 11/05/2024 60-Day Review Period Extension Expires: 01/04/2025 To: Chair Bollis and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Matthew Karney, Planner Date: 18 November 2024 Subject: #LA24-000060, TVL Studios, 755 Tonkawa Rd Conditional Use Permit (Retaining Walls) – Public Hearing Background The applicant proposes a replacement of an existing, non-conforming deck and set of retaining walls with a new deck and retaining wall structure. According to the applicant, the existing deck and retaining wall system was built with the existing residence in the 1960s, and is in declining condition. The proposed deck and retaining walls are being designed to be sensitive to the property’s lakeward slope, while reducing the overall impacts of the improvements the have existed since the property was initially developed. Conditional Use Permit Analysis: The applicant has provided a narrative with existing and proposed conditions, a site plan of existing and proposed conditions, a hardcover worksheet, and a survey of the property. The proposed deck and retaining walls exceed four (4) feet in height, but are decreased from the existing height of up to six (6) feet to five and a half (5.5) feet with the proposed design, benefitted further by the proposed deck and walls being lowered six (6) inches closer to grade/the lake. Additionally, hardcover within the 75-foot lakeshore setback is to be reduced by approximately 133 s.f. with the proposal. Conditional Use Permit (Sections 78-1279 and 78-916) Section 78-1279(5)(c) states: “A wall in the shore setback zone, within a defined bluff and bluff setback; and/or a replacement wall 4 feet in height or greater; and/or any new walls shall require a conditional use permit. New walls and replacement walls greater than 4 feet in height must meet the following conditions. The wall must be”: 1. Designed to correct an established erosion problem: The proposed retaining walls are replacing existing walls in poor condition, that have provided slope stability for the site and facilitated lake access for several decades. This criterion is met. 2. Suitable given the demonstrated need: The proposed retaining walls are found to be suitable in comparison to the existing retaining walls in terms of providing slope stability and erosion control. This criterion is met. 3. Designed by a registered engineer or landscape architect, depending on the project scope: The proposed retaining walls were designed by licensed landscape architects. This criterion is met. 4. Designed to be the minimum size necessary to control the erosion problem: Application Summary: The applicant requests a conditional use permit to construct new and replacement retaining walls as a part of a deck replacement within 75 feet of the OHWL. Staff Recommendation: Planning Staff recommends approval. 241 FILE # LA24-000060 18 November 2024 Page 2 of 4 The proposed retaining walls are designed to reduce hardcover in the 75’ lakeshore setback, overall wall height, and the width of the proposed deck. This criterion is met. In addition to the conditions listed in Section 78-1279, Section 78-916 provides a list of conditions supporting Conditional Use Permit (CUP) issuance. The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a CUP as the use permit was applied for or in modified form. Based on the application and the evidence submitted, the city must find that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be: 1) Consistent with the community management plan: The new deck and retaining wall will reduce the visual massing of improvements along the lakefront and the hardcover within the 75’ lakeshore setback will decrease, aspects that are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code: Retaining walls within the lakeyard are permitted where they are deemed necessary to protect the integrity of the slope. Retaining walls have existed on the property stabilizing the slope for over fifty years. The proposed retaining walls will be reworked 6” lower, into the grade to further reduce erosion and with a stronger, thinner material to reduce the overall square footage of the wall from 234 s.f. to 29 s.f. 3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management: The property meets this standard. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system: The property meets this standard. 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost: This proposal is not anticipated to impact public services. 6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future: As the existing deck and retaining walls have fallen into a state of disrepair, staff finds the proposal to replace the existing structures with a new deck and retaining wall system that overall reduces the size of the deck, maximum height of the retaining walls, and the overall hardcover to be compatible with the surrounding area into the future. 7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan: The installation of new retaining walls and deck to improve existing lakeshore conditions is consistent with the character of the surrounding area. 242 FILE # LA24-000060 18 November 2024 Page 3 of 4 8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan: The retaining walls are proposed to be landscaped, reducing the visual impact of the walls from the lake. The earth-tone colors of the proposed walls will further reduce their visibility within the natural landscape of the lakefront. The applicant should provide additional testimony for screening and landscaping in the impacted area. 9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses: The improvements to the deck and retaining walls should not create an adverse impact on properties in the neighborhood. 10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses: The applicant has provided a landscape plan with two (2) landscaping options for the walls. Staff recommends that the second (2nd) option be implemented as the minimum screening required as a condition of approval. The applicant should provide additional testimony for screening and landscaping in the impacted area. 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means: The proposal is not anticipated to create a nuisance. 12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access: The proposal is not anticipated to create excessive traffic burdens on the nearby road network. 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact: The proposed deck and retaining walls are designed to better integrate with the grades, existing bituminous walkway, and the lakeshore than the existing deck and retaining walls. The addition of landscaping to screen the proposed retaining walls will further allow the improvements to blend in with the natural landscape. 14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of- way or neighboring residential uses or districts: The proposal does not include the installation of any exterior lighting. 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare: Staff finds the proposal does not come at a detriment to the public health, safety, or welfare of residents and landowners of the City of Orono. A CUP may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Additionally, a CUP shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are observed, but nothing in this 243 FILE # LA24-000060 18 November 2024 Page 4 of 4 section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. Public Comments The applicant did not submit signatures or letters from adjacent neighbors. No input from the public regarding this application has been received by staff for as of the writing of this report. Issues for Consideration 1. Is the landscape plan referred to as Option #2 within Exhibit C sufficient for screening the proposed retaining walls to Lake Minnetonka? Planning Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit to complete the replacement of retaining walls as a part of a deck replacement within 75 feet of the OHWL conditioned upon the walls being screened as proposed in the landscape plan attached as Exhibit C. 244 Permit Summary Application Date:10/23/2024 Address:755 Tonkawa Road Orono, MN 55356 Parcel Number:0511723330003 Permit Number:LA24-000060 Party Responsible for Construction: Owner:Name: SARAH L BUXTON Address: JULIE A BROWN 755 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE, MN 55356 Applicant:Name: Travis Van Liere Address: , Contact Information: Project Description:Construct a new deck in place of a non-conforming deck Permit Type - Subtype:LAND USE APPLICATION - Land Use Application Applicant Signature: 245 PROJECT NARRATIVE This project proposes to replace an existing non-conforming deck structure and retaining wall system located within the 75’ lakeshore setback, with a proposed new deck structure and retaining wall design and stairway that reduces the impact at the shoreline and more closely relates to the historic architecture and lakeside landscape of this 1960s home designed by renowned architect, John Howe. The project goal is to reduce the impact of the deck and wall system at the lake while integrating it better into the existing hill side slope while building a new deck that and wall system and stairway that will be sustainable, safe, visually appealing and in harmony with the existing home. The existing deck, walls and stairway appears to have been built in concert with the original home in the early 1960’s and seems to have been modified and repaired over the years. Overtime, the deck structure has settled and moved, which has created an uneven and unsafe surface level and appearance. The foundation and structure below the deck contains cracking concrete pier footings and separating, unaligned wood structural members. The existing wood stair way from the deck to the house is steep, unsafe and creating erosion issues with hillside with how the stairs were cut into the hill. The existing timber walls retaining the hillside beyond appear to be are to moving with the deck and sustaining rotting from water and erosion issues. The project proposes to remove the existing deck, retaining wall and stairway and replace it with more sustainable, structurally sound materials that are in harmony with the overall architecture of the home and promote low impact development standards along the lake. A summary of the proposed improvements are outlined below. • The existing concrete pier foundation system for the deck will be removed and replaced with a more structurally sound helical pier foundation system which will have less disruption and disturbance during installation. • The existing wood deck will be replaced with a new more sustainable deck surface. The proposed new deck design will have ¼” jointing between the boards and allow for runoff to pass through the deck surface rather than directly into the lake. • Additionally, the proposed new deck and wall system will be shifted southeasterly from the existing deck location and set down approximately 6” lower than the existing deck, better integrating it into the hillside, reducing erosion, and minimizing the need for steps / multiple levels. This will also eliminate the need for a railing at the edge of the deck (as grade will be less than 18” here). • The existing timber walls, approximately 3’ to 6’ in height and totaling 234 square feet and will be replaced with a thinner, structural metal wall system (reducing the wall area to 29 or 40 square feet in total). We provide two wall options. The overall height of walls is proposed to be reduced slightly as well from 6’ in to 5’6” in height. Two options are also proposed in this document to provide screening for the wall with vegetation. Option one utilizes planters and pots with vegetation, and option two proposes a tiered wall consisting of two 2’6” tall walls as well as pots. • The existing bituminous pathway will be extended to the new deck to create a more seamless transition from path to deck. • The existing 146 square foot wood stairway to the house will a safer stairway surface material and metal railing. • The grade for the stairs is proposed to reduce • The resulting project will reduce the overall hardcover within the 75’ setback by approximately 166-177 square feet depending on the option and reduce the overall existing deck length at the shoreline by 26’-5”, reducing the visual impact of the deck at the shoreline. • A new, native, shoreline planting will be implemented to further help with mitigating runoff directly to the lake. These improvements in total will create a safer, more accessible, durable lake access. Original lakeside landing design by John Howe. Hession, Jane King, 1951- and Tim Quigley. 2015. John H. Howe, Architect: From Taliesin Apprentice to Master of Organic Design. Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota Press. 755 TONKAWA ROAD - Orono, MN 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT SUBMITTAL 246 Timber wall Timber wall Uneven splintered edge meets bituminous path Uneven step up to deck Weathered lattice work covering 3’+/- timber wall Weathered lattice work covering 5-1/2’ +/- ht. timber wall Weathered lattice work covering timber wallAged deck boards and unleveled railing Aged deck boards and dilapidated railing 755 TONKAWA ROAD - Orono, MN 2 EXISTING SITE PHOTOS 247 Concrete settling at edge of wooden steps Cracking concrete piere footing Shifting structure below Cracking structure below Undulating deck and railingSettling concrete atop wooden stairs Decaying aged wooden steps heights varyDecaying aged wood landingDecaying aged wood and steps heights vary 755 TONKAWA ROAD - Orono, MN 3 EXISTING SITE PHOTOS 248 755 TONKAWA ROAD - Orono, MN 4 EXISTING VIEW FROM LAKE 249 755 TONKAWA ROAD - Orono, MN 5 RENDERING VIEW FROM LAKE - OPTION 1 - WITH PLANTERS/POTS FOR SCREEN PLANTINGS 250 755 TONKAWA ROAD - Orono, MN 6 RENDERING VIEW FROM DOCK - OPTION 1 251 755 TONKAWA ROAD - Orono, MN 7 RENDERING VIEW FROM BITUMINOUS TRAIL - OPTION 1 252 755 TONKAWA ROAD - Orono, MN 8 RENDERING VIEW FROM STAIR - OPTION 1 253 755 TONKAWA ROAD - Orono, MN 5 RENDERING VIEW FROM LAKE - OPTION 2 - TWO TIERED WALL WITH SCREEN PLANTINGS AND POTS 254 755 TONKAWA ROAD - Orono, MN 6 RENDERING VIEW FROM DOCK - OPTION 2 255 755 TONKAWA ROAD - Orono, MN 7 RENDERING VIEW FROM BITUMINOUS TRAIL - OPTION 2 256 755 TONKAWA ROAD - Orono, MN 8 RENDERING VIEW FROM STAIR - OPTION 2 257 258 259 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE AC GAS 1 AC EXST. HOUSE FFE: 958.8 940938LAKE MINNETONKA OHW: 929.4 P.A. 939.00 TOW RISR DN 10RISR DN 10934.00 BOS 939.02 BOS 939.00 TOS 944.02 TOS 944.04 BOS 949.04 TOS 949.06 BOS 954.06 TOS RISR DN 10RISR DN 10936.50 TOW 75' LAKESHORE SETBACKXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X XLOD LOD LOD LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD LODEND OF WALL 934.00FEMA FLOOD ELEVATION: 931.10TYP. 1 TYP.942944946948950952954P.A. 4 5 933.80 EX. 933.80 EX. 939.90 EX. TOW 953.80 EX. TOS 943.60 EX. BOS 934.50 EX. BOS 954.20 EX. TOW EX. LANDSCAPE EX. TERRACE E X . T E R R A C EEX. PATHPOT POT POT POT POT POT PROPOSED DECK ELEV.: 934.00 EX. DECK ELEV.: 934.50 1 1 TYP. 285' -7 " J G G M13'-8" 4' 1'10'10'4'3'-7"55'25'-11"25'-3" 5'-1" CLOS E S T P OI N T O F ENCR O A C H M E N T -1W -1W -2P -3P -1S 5 -1W 6 3 4 1 2 1 3 -1R -1R -1R -1R -1R -1R -3R 1 -4R -2R -1P -3R -2P -5R L J K G M -1W -1W -2S -2S -2S 59' -2 " SITE PLAN - OPTION 1 OVERLAY1 L101A SITE PLAN - OPTION 1 OVERLAY 1" = 10' N SCALE: 0 5'10'20'0 1" = 10'creation date:11/5/2024filepath:/Users/ajevert/TVLS Dropbox/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/WINTERTREE RESIDENCE/2. DWG/DRAWINGS/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - SET/L102 Op 1.dwglast saved:ajevert November 5, 2024 3:35 PMThe designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2024 Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T R A V I S V A N L I E R E 7 5 5 T O N K A W A R O A D W A Y Z A T A , M N W I N T E R T R E E R E S I D E N C E date:11/5/2024 Rev #Issue/Revision Date SCHEMATIC DESIGN SET 05/03/2024 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10/23/2024 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISIONS 11/05/2024 3255 GARFIELD AVE. S. #100 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 T 612 345 4275 GENERAL NOTES 1.SEE SHEET L000 FOR PROJECT INFORMATION, SHEET INDEX, AND LEGEND. 2.SEE SHEET L001 FOR GENERAL NOTES. 3.REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING INFO. 4.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, AND IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH PAVING, CONCRETE, AND WALL CONTRACTORS ON SLEEVE LOCATIONS UNDER DRIVEWAYS, WALKS, AND WALLS. 5.REFER TO SHEET L010 - EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN FOR BOUNDARY INFORMATION. ALL CONSTRUCTION STAKING MUST BE PERFORMED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. 6.DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE USED FOR ALL LAYOUT WORK. 7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY LAYOUT DISCREPANCIES. 8.ALL SITE ELEMENTS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 9.AUTOCAD FILE AVAILABLE TO CONTRACTOR UPON REQUEST FOR FIELD LAYOUT. KEYNOTES 1.EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREE(S) TYP. - SAVE AND PROTECT 2.EXISTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY/SITE FEATURE - SAVE AND PROTECT 3.EXISTING CITY STREET/ALLEY - SAVE AND PROTECT, REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS PER CITY STANDARDS 4.EXISTING SHORELINE EDGE - SAVE AND PROTECT 5.EXISTING LAKE MINNETONKA - SAVE AND PROTECT KEY PLAN NOT TO SCALE N Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: 11/5/2024 CS, AE Sheet: LAKE MINNETONKA OHW: 929.4 TONKAWA RD.P1 BITUMINOUS SURFACING PAVING SCHEDULE HATCH KEY DESCRIPTION -P S HANDRAIL1 SITE ELEMENT SCHEDULE SYMBOL KEY DESCRIPTION -S WALL SCHEDULE KEY DESCRIPTION W1 METAL RETAINING WALL -W P2 C.I.P. CONCRETE SURFACING P3 WOOD DECKING 75' SHORELINE SETBACK HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS EXISTING HARDCOVER G. DECKING 889 s.f. I. HOUSE 1,262 s.f. J. BITUMINOUS 418 s.f. K. CONCRETE 522 s.f. L. PAVERS 265 s.f. M. RETAINING WALLS 234 s.f. TOTAL AREA OF EXISTING HARDCOVER 3,590 s.f. EXISTING HARDCOVER TO BE REMOVED G. DECKING 889 s.f. J. BITUMINOUS 10 s.f. K. CONCRETE 0 s.f. L. PAVERS 12 s.f. M. RETAINING WALLS 167 s.f. TOTAL AREA OF EXISTING HARDCOVER TO BE REMOVED 1,078 s.f. PROPOSED HARDCOVER G. DECKING 611 s.f. J. BITUMINOUS 63 s.f. K. CONCRETE 198 s.f. L. PAVERS 0 s.f. M. RETAINING WALLS 29 s.f. TOTAL AREA OF PROPOSED HARDCOVER 901 s.f. AREA OF PROPERTY 92,924 s.f. TOTAL HARDCOVER (EXISTING AFTER REMOVAL, WITH PROPOSED)3,413 s.f. TOTAL REDUCTION IN HARDCOVER 177 s.f. REFER TO HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET FOR FULL PROPERTY HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS. S PLANTER POT2 SHEET NOTES 1.LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE 2.PROPOSED SILT FENCE 3.PROPOSED DOUBLE ROW SILT FENCE 4.EXISTING DOCK TO BE RELOCATED. SAVE AND PROTECT 5.PROPOSED DOCK LOCATION 6.SAWCUT EX. PAVING REMOVALS SCHEDULE KEY DESCRIPTION R1 EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED R2 EXISTING BITUMINOUS PATH TO BE REMOVED R3 EXISTING DECK TO BE REMOVED R4 EXISTING STAIRS TO BE REMOVED R5 EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED -R 1 260 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE AC GAS AC EXST. HOUSE FFE: 958.8 940938RISR DN 10RISR DN 10RISR DN 10RISR DN 1075' LAKESHORE SETBACKXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X X X X X XLOD LOD LOD LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD LODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLODLOD LODEND OF WALL FEMA FLOOD ELEVATION: 931.10942944946948950952954954.20 EX. TOW EX. LANDSCAPE EX. TERRACE E X . T E R R A C EEX. PATHP.A. 939.00 TOW 934.00 BOS 939.02 BOS 939.00 TOS 944.02 TOS 944.04 BOS 949.04 TOS 949.06 BOS 954.06 TOS 936.50 TOW 934.00 P.A. 933.80 EX. 939.90 EX. TOW 953.80 EX. TOS 943.60 EX. BOS 934.50 EX. BOS 939.00 TOW 936.50 TOW P.A. 1 TYP. 1 TYP. 4 5 LAKE MINNETONKA OHW: 929.4 POT POT POT POT POT POT PROPOSED DECK ELEV.: 934.00 EX. DECK ELEV.: 934.50 1 1 TYP. 285' -7 " J G G 13'-8" 4' 1'10'10'4'3'-7"55'25'-11"25'-3" 5'-1" CLOS E S T P OI N T O F ENCR O A C H M E N T -1W -1W -1W -2P -3P -1S 5 -1W -1W 6 3 4 1 2 1 3 -1R -1R -1R -1R -1R -1R -3R 1 -4R -2R -1P -3R -2P -5R L J K G -2P -2S -2S -2S M M 59' -2 " SITE PLAN - OPTION 2 OVERLAY1 L101B SITE PLAN - OPTION 2 OVERLAY 1" = 10' N SCALE: 0 5'10'20'0 1" = 10'creation date:11/5/2024filepath:/Users/ajevert/TVLS Dropbox/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/WINTERTREE RESIDENCE/2. DWG/DRAWINGS/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - SET/L102.dwglast saved:ajevert November 5, 2024 3:35 PMThe designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2024 Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T R A V I S V A N L I E R E 7 5 5 T O N K A W A R O A D W A Y Z A T A , M N W I N T E R T R E E R E S I D E N C E date:11/5/2024 Rev #Issue/Revision Date SCHEMATIC DESIGN SET 05/03/2024 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10/23/2024 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISIONS 11/05/2024 3255 GARFIELD AVE. S. #100 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 T 612 345 4275 GENERAL NOTES 1.SEE SHEET L000 FOR PROJECT INFORMATION, SHEET INDEX, AND LEGEND. 2.SEE SHEET L001 FOR GENERAL NOTES. 3.REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING INFO. 4.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, AND IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH PAVING, CONCRETE, AND WALL CONTRACTORS ON SLEEVE LOCATIONS UNDER DRIVEWAYS, WALKS, AND WALLS. 5.REFER TO SHEET L010 - EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN FOR BOUNDARY INFORMATION. ALL CONSTRUCTION STAKING MUST BE PERFORMED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. 6.DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE USED FOR ALL LAYOUT WORK. 7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY LAYOUT DISCREPANCIES. 8.ALL SITE ELEMENTS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 9.AUTOCAD FILE AVAILABLE TO CONTRACTOR UPON REQUEST FOR FIELD LAYOUT. KEYNOTES 1.EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREE(S) TYP. - SAVE AND PROTECT 2.EXISTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY/SITE FEATURE - SAVE AND PROTECT 3.EXISTING CITY STREET/ALLEY - SAVE AND PROTECT, REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS PER CITY STANDARDS 4.EXISTING SHORELINE EDGE - SAVE AND PROTECT 5.EXISTING LAKE MINNETONKA - SAVE AND PROTECT KEY PLAN NOT TO SCALE N Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: 11/5/2024 CS, AE Sheet: LAKE MINNETONKA OHW: 929.4 TONKAWA RD.P1 BITUMINOUS SURFACING PAVING SCHEDULE HATCH KEY DESCRIPTION -P S HANDRAIL1 SITE ELEMENT SCHEDULE SYMBOL KEY DESCRIPTION -S WALL SCHEDULE KEY DESCRIPTION W1 METAL RETAINING WALL -W P2 C.I.P. CONCRETE SURFACING P3 WOOD DECKING 75' SHORELINE SETBACK HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS EXISTING HARDCOVER G. DECKING 889 s.f. I. HOUSE 1,262 s.f. J. BITUMINOUS 418 s.f. K. CONCRETE 522 s.f. L. PAVERS 265 s.f. M. RETAINING WALLS 234 s.f. TOTAL AREA OF EXISTING HARDCOVER 3,590 s.f. EXISTING HARDCOVER TO BE REMOVED G. DECKING 889 s.f. J. BITUMINOUS 10 s.f. K. CONCRETE 0 s.f. L. PAVERS 12 s.f. M. RETAINING WALLS 167 s.f. TOTAL AREA OF EXISTING HARDCOVER TO BE REMOVED 1,078 s.f. PROPOSED HARDCOVER G. DECKING 611 s.f. J. BITUMINOUS 63 s.f. K. CONCRETE 198 s.f. L. PAVERS 0 s.f. M. RETAINING WALLS 40 s.f. TOTAL AREA OF PROPOSED HARDCOVER 912 s.f. AREA OF PROPERTY 92,924 s.f. TOTAL HARDCOVER (EXISTING AFTER REMOVAL, WITH PROPOSED)3,424 s.f. TOTAL REDUCTION IN HARDCOVER 166 s.f. REFER TO HARDCOVER CALCULATION WORKSHEET FOR FULL PROPERTY HARDCOVER CALCULATIONS. S PLANTER POT2 SHEET NOTES 1.LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE 2.PROPOSED SILT FENCE 3.PROPOSED DOUBLE ROW SILT FENCE 4.EXISTING DOCK TO BE RELOCATED. SAVE AND PROTECT 5.PROPOSED DOCK LOCATION 6.SAWCUT EX. PAVING REMOVALS SCHEDULE KEY DESCRIPTION R1 EXISTING WALL TO BE REMOVED R2 EXISTING BITUMINOUS PATH TO BE REMOVED R3 EXISTING DECK TO BE REMOVED R4 EXISTING STAIRS TO BE REMOVED R5 EXISTING FENCE TO BE REMOVED -R 1 261 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE AC GAS 1 AC EXST. HOUSE FFE: 958.8 LAKE MINNETONKA OHW: 929.4 P.A. RISR DN 10RISR DN 10RISR DN 10RISR DN 1075' LAKESHORE SETBACKFEMA FLOOD ELEVATION: 931.10TYP. 1 TYP. P.A. 4 5 EX. LANDSCAPE EX. TERRACE E X . T E R R A C EEX. PATHPOT POT POT POT POT POT PROPOSED DECK ELEV.: 934.00 1 1 TYP. 2 1 G1 1 OT 16 PL 1 OT G1 G1 35 PL 1 TYP. LANDSCAPE PLAN1 L401A LANDSCAPE PLAN - OPTION 1 1" = 10' N SCALE: 0 5'10'20'0 1" = 10'creation date:11/5/2024filepath:/Users/ajevert/TVLS Dropbox/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/WINTERTREE RESIDENCE/2. DWG/DRAWINGS/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - SET/L401 Op 1.dwglast saved:Home_Folder November 5, 2024 9:05 AMThe designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2024 Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T R A V I S V A N L I E R E 7 5 5 T O N K A W A R O A D W A Y Z A T A , M N W I N T E R T R E E R E S I D E N C E date:11/5/2024 Rev #Issue/Revision Date SCHEMATIC DESIGN SET 05/03/2024 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10/23/2024 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISIONS 11/05/2024 3255 GARFIELD AVE. S. #100 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 T 612 345 4275 GENERAL NOTES 1.SEE SHEET L000 FOR PROJECT INFORMATION, SHEET INDEX, AND LEGEND. 2.SEE SHEET L001 FOR GENERAL NOTES. 3.REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING INFO. 4.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, AND IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH PAVING, CONCRETE, AND WALL CONTRACTORS ON SLEEVE LOCATIONS UNDER DRIVEWAYS, WALKS, AND WALLS. 5.REFER TO SHEET L010 - EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN FOR BOUNDARY INFORMATION. ALL CONSTRUCTION STAKING MUST BE PERFORMED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. 6.DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE USED FOR ALL LAYOUT WORK. 7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY LAYOUT DISCREPANCIES. 8.ALL SITE ELEMENTS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 9.AUTOCAD FILE AVAILABLE TO CONTRACTOR UPON REQUEST FOR FIELD LAYOUT. KEYNOTES 1.EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREE(S) TYP. - SAVE AND PROTECT 2.EXISTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY/SITE FEATURE - SAVE AND PROTECT 3.EXISTING CITY STREET/ALLEY - SAVE AND PROTECT, REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS PER CITY STANDARDS 4.EXISTING SHORELINE EDGE - SAVE AND PROTECT 5.EXISTING LAKE MINNETONKA - SAVE AND PROTECT KEY PLAN NOT TO SCALE N Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: 11/5/2024 CS, AE Sheet: LAKE MINNETONKA OHW: 929.4 TONKAWA RD.SHEET NOTES 1.PROPOSED DOCK LOCATION PLANT SCHEDULE TREES KEY NAME QTY SIZE SPACING OT ORNAMENTAL TREE 2 12-14' HT. PERENNIALS KEY NAME QTY SIZE SPACING PL PERENNIAL PLANTING TBD TBD TBD TAG QTY TURF & SEED MIXES HATCH KEY NAME AREA SEED RATE G1 CUSTOM SEED MIX TBD TBD 1 262 PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE AC GAS AC EXST. HOUSE FFE: 958.8 RISR DN 10RISR DN 10RISR DN 10RISR DN 1075' LAKESHORE SETBACKFEMA FLOOD ELEVATION: 931.10EX. LANDSCAPE EX. TERRACE E X . T E R R A C EEX. PATHP.A. P.A. P.A. 1 TYP. 1 TYP. 4 5 LAKE MINNETONKA OHW: 929.4 POT POT POT POT POT POT PROPOSED DECK ELEV.: 934.00 1 1 TYP. 2 G1 1 OT 81 PL 1 OT G1 G1 1 TYP. LANDSCAPE PLAN1 L401B LANDSCAPE PLAN - OPTION 2 1" = 10' N SCALE: 0 5'10'20'0 1" = 10'creation date:11/5/2024filepath:/Users/ajevert/TVLS Dropbox/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/WINTERTREE RESIDENCE/2. DWG/DRAWINGS/CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT - SET/L401.dwglast saved:Home_Folder November 5, 2024 9:26 AMThe designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2024 Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T R A V I S V A N L I E R E 7 5 5 T O N K A W A R O A D W A Y Z A T A , M N W I N T E R T R E E R E S I D E N C E date:11/5/2024 Rev #Issue/Revision Date SCHEMATIC DESIGN SET 05/03/2024 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 10/23/2024 1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT REVISIONS 11/05/2024 3255 GARFIELD AVE. S. #100 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55408 T 612 345 4275 GENERAL NOTES 1.SEE SHEET L000 FOR PROJECT INFORMATION, SHEET INDEX, AND LEGEND. 2.SEE SHEET L001 FOR GENERAL NOTES. 3.REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING INFO. 4.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR, AND IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE WITH PAVING, CONCRETE, AND WALL CONTRACTORS ON SLEEVE LOCATIONS UNDER DRIVEWAYS, WALKS, AND WALLS. 5.REFER TO SHEET L010 - EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN FOR BOUNDARY INFORMATION. ALL CONSTRUCTION STAKING MUST BE PERFORMED BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR. 6.DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE USED FOR ALL LAYOUT WORK. 7.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY LAYOUT DISCREPANCIES. 8.ALL SITE ELEMENTS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 9.AUTOCAD FILE AVAILABLE TO CONTRACTOR UPON REQUEST FOR FIELD LAYOUT. KEYNOTES 1.EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREE(S) TYP. - SAVE AND PROTECT 2.EXISTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY/SITE FEATURE - SAVE AND PROTECT 3.EXISTING CITY STREET/ALLEY - SAVE AND PROTECT, REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS PER CITY STANDARDS 4.EXISTING SHORELINE EDGE - SAVE AND PROTECT 5.EXISTING LAKE MINNETONKA - SAVE AND PROTECT KEY PLAN NOT TO SCALE N Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: 11/5/2024 CS, AE Sheet: LAKE MINNETONKA OHW: 929.4 TONKAWA RD.SHEET NOTES 1.PROPOSED DOCK LOCATION PLANT SCHEDULE TREES KEY NAME QTY SIZE SPACING OT ORNAMENTAL TREE 2 12-14' HT. PERENNIALS KEY NAME QTY SIZE SPACING PL PERENNIAL PLANTING TBD TBD TBD TAG QTY TURF & SEED MIXES HATCH KEY NAME AREA SEED RATE G1 CUSTOM SEED MIX TBD TBD 1 263 City of Orono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: Prepared by: Date: Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 1* Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 1: EXISTING HARDCOVER In the following table identify all items of existing hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to site plan or survey (must accompany this form). Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict the existing hardcover status of the property. *For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter that are within the 75-foot setback or split at the 75’ setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Survey Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Total (Square Feet) (Example) (Garage) (24’ x 30’) (720 S.F.) A S.F. B S.F. C S.F. D S.F. E 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 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 Existing Hardcover S.F. Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78-1684): S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover S.F. (3) Net Existing Hardcover [Subtract line (2) from line (1)]S.F. (4) Total Lot Area S.F. Existing Hardcover Percentage [ (3) ÷ (4) ] 17.7% HOUSE 2,712 DETACHED GARAGE 544 STUDIO 522 BITUMINOUS 7,550 CONCRETE 1,034 PAVERS 848 DECKING WITIN 75' SETBACK 889 RETAINING WALLS 72 WALLS DECKING 306 100 16,872 406 16,466 92,924 755 TONKAWA RD., ORONO, MN TRAVIS VAN LIERE STUDIO, LLC.10/23/2024 HOUSE WITHIN 75' SETBACK 1,262 BITUMINOUS WITHIN 75' SETBACK 418 CONCRETE WITHIN 75' SETBACK PAVERS WITHIN 75' SETBACK RETAINING WALLS WITHIN 75' SETBACK 522 265 234 264 City of Orono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: Prepared by: Date: Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 2: PROPOSED HARDCOVER In the following table, identify all items of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to the site plan or survey (must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are intended to remain, as well as all proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict the proposed hardcover of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter that are within the 75- foot setback or split at the 75’ setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Survey Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Total (Square Feet) (Example) (Garage) (24’ x 30’) (720 S.F.) A S.F. B S.F. C S.F. D S.F. E 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 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 S.F. Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78-1684): S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover S.F. (3) Net Proposed Hardcover [Subtract line (2) from line (1)]S.F. (4) Total Lot Area S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [ (3) ÷ (4) ] 17.6% HOUSE DETACHED GARAGE STUDIO BITUMINOUS CONCRETE PAVERS DECKING WITIN 75' SETBACK 611 RETAINING WALLS RETAINING WALLS 755 TONKAWA ROAD, ORONO, MN TRAVIS VAN LIERE STUDIO, LLC.11/5/2024 16,706 279 16,427 92,924 DECKING 179 100 HOUSE WITHIN 75' SETBACK 1,262 471 CONCRETE WITHIN 75' SETBACK PAVERS WITHIN 75' SETBACK RETAINING WALLS WITHIN 75' SETBACK 720 253 107 BITUMINOUS WITHIN 75' SETBACK 2,712 544 522 7,550 1,034 848 72 265 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map 755 Tonkawa 0 200 400100 Feet Date: 10/24/2024 Buffer Size:500 Map Comments: 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 266 38 05-117-23 33 0003 WINTERTREE LLC 755 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 33 0011 WELDON W GILBERTSON 684 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 33 0012 OLIVIA M BRADLEY 16277 W WINDCREST DR SURPRISE AZ 85374 38 05-117-23 33 0013 BARBARA PUGH-MCCREIGHT 692 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 33 0014 TED H SPOONER 117 PORTLAND AVE APT 508 MINNEAPOLIS MN 55401 38 05-117-23 33 0015 THOMAS P GOODYEAR 712 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 33 0019 TEMPLE ISRAEL OF MINNEAPOLIS 2324 EMERSON AVE S MPLS MN 55405 38 05-117-23 34 0001 STANLEY S SANDIFORD 722 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 34 0002 PATRICK J MIDDLETON KATHLEEN J MIDDLETON 720 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 34 0003 STEVE & SARA ZAWOYSKI 724 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 34 0004 BRUCE R & COLLEEN LEA 740 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 34 0005 EJA LLC 4802 NICOLLET AVE MINNEAPOLIS MN 55419 38 05-117-23 34 0006 KAREN E WEATHERS 750 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 34 0007 BRENT BORDSON NANCY BORDSON 760 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 34 0008 DAVID G LATZKE 770 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 34 0009 CHADLER & BARBARA ANDERSON 774 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 34 0010 KEITH MENZEL 780 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 05-117-23 34 0013 GREGORY & AGNIESZKA HATFIELD 875 PARTENWOOD LA LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 21 0001 THE LANDSBERG FAMILY TRUST 801 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 21 0002 SCOTT BISSEN/MICHELLE MOREY 825 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 38 08-117-23 21 0003 DAVID W LARSON ET AL 847 TONKAWA RD LONG LAKE MN 55356 267 Date: November 18, 2024 Item: 5.6 Presenter: Laura Oakden, Community Development Director Section: Public Hearings Title: LA24-000062, Text Amendment: Sections 78-1 and 78-823 Industrial Uses (Laura Oakden) 1.Purpose: The City of Orono is proposing an ordinance to amend the Zoning Code to allow “garage condos” by conditional use permit within the Industrial District. 2.Background: At the October 2024 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed an application for a garage condo business in the Industrial District (I District). Garage condos are not listed as a permitted, accessory, or conditional use in the existing code language. As a result and following Staff’s guidance, the Planning Commission gave direction for staff to pursue a text amendment to consider garage condos as a conditional use within the Industrial district. 3.Public Comment: One public comment email has been submitted and is included as an Exhibit for your consideration. 4.Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approval. 5.Planning Commission Action Requested: Commissioners should open a public hearing and review the proposed ordinance. The commission should make a motion to approved the drafted language. AGENDA ITEM Exhibits Ex A TA- Garage Condo Staff Report Ex B Draft Proposed Garage Condo Ord. Ex C Current City Code- I District. Ex D Public Comment_ RP.. Ex E LA24-000054, 430 Old Crystal Bay Road, Staff Report 268 To:Chair Bollis and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From:Laura Oakden, Community Development Director Date:November 21, 2024 Subject:#LA24-000062, City of Orono Text Amendment: Sections 78-1 and 78-823 Industrial Uses Background At the October 2024 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission reviewed an application for a garage condo business in the Industrial District (I District). Garage condos are not listed as a permitted, accessory, or conditional use in the existing code language. As a result and following Staff’s guidance, the Planning Commission gave direction for staff to pursue a text amendment to consider garage condos as a conditional use within the Industrial district. The PC staff report from that meeting are included as exhibits as part of this packet. Proposed Language for review: New Definition to be added: Garage condo means a building or part of a building consisting of individual units for indoor storage of motor vehicles, boats, trailers, or recreational vehicles and such items as are customarily used for the care or upkeep of such motor vehicles, boats, trailers, or recreational vehicles. Individual units are owned or leased and may be capable of customization, alteration, or expansion by the owners or tenants of the units. Garage condos may include common spaces or office areas. New language proposed under the Conditional Uses section in the Industrial District: (11) Garage condos, provided that: a. No exterior parking or storage is permitted for a period longer than twenty-four (24) hours. A parking plan must be provided to demonstrate accessibility to the site. b. The premises shall not be used or customized for residential living purposes or community gatherings or events. c. The premises shall not be used for the operation of a business or for retail purposes, including but not limited to automobile repair. This does not prohibit minor maintenance, care, or upkeep of motor vehicles, boats, trailers, or recreational vehicles stored in individual units. d. The management, use, and customization of the garage condos, including common areas, and individual units, shall be governed by an Application Summary: The City of Orono is proposing an ordinance to amend the Zoning Code to allow “garage condos” by conditional use permit within the Industrial District. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. 269 LA24-000055 October 21, 2024 Page 2 of 2 association, which association rules shall place adequate controls to ensure compliance with applicable city code. e. The premises shall maintain adequate access to individual units and any common areas or office space for emergency response and snow removal/storage. f. The premises shall contain sufficient lighting and/or security measures to deter or mitigate criminal activity and ensure adequate access for emergency response. g. Any individual unit that is connected to the city sewer and water system shall have individual meters. Analysis: The City code lists “inside storage or warehousing”as a permitted use. The district also lists “warehouse conversion to mini-storage” as an allowed conditional use. The garage condos are considered an intensification of a storage or warehouse use. Garage condos are proposed to be individually owned and are designed to allow owners to customize and fully build out the units to include residential facilities with heated floors, and sewer and water serving each unit. Residential use is not allowed within the Industrial district and is not contemplated for this district within the comprehensive plan. Because the units will be individually owned it is important that an association is developed to set expectations of use and to address maintenance of the common/shared improvements such as the drive isles, siding, and roofing, landscaped, and stormwater areas. Additionally, garage condos in other cities have been used for gatherings and/or and locations for community events. Orono’s industrial district has limited space and accessibility which would make large events or gatherings logistically challenging. The Commission should discuss the listed conditions and make a recommendation regarding the proposed language for consideration by the City Council. Public Comments One public comment email has been submitted and is included as an Exhibit for your consideration. Issues for Consideration 1. Are there any issues or concerns with this proposal? 2. Are the proposed conditions reasonable? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the text amendment as presented. 270 233350v1 CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. ___________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 78-1, 78-823, AND ARTICLE V OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING GARAGE CONDOS THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ORONO ORDAINS: SECTION 1. Orono City Code Title VI, Chapter 78, Article I, Section 78-1 is hereby amended by adding the underlined language as follows: Farm animals means cattle, horses, mules, sheep, goats, llamas, alpacas, swine, ponies, ducks, geese, turkeys, chickens or guinea hens. Garage condo means a building or part of a building consisting of individual units for indoor storage of motor vehicles, boats, trailers, or recreational vehicles and such items as are customarily used for the care or upkeep of such motor vehicles, boats, trailers, or recreational vehicles. Individual units are owned or leased and may be capable of customization, alteration, or expansion by the owners or tenants of the units. Garage condos may include common spaces or office areas. Garage, private, means a detached accessory building or portion of the principal building, including a carport, which is used for storing passenger vehicles, and trailers. SECTION 2. Orono City Code Title VI, Chapter 78, Article IV, Section 78-823 is hereby amended by adding the underlined language and deleting the strikethrough language as follows: (a) General provisions. Within the I-Industrial District, no structure or land shall be used for one or more of the following uses without approval of a conditional use permit. The following are conditional uses in the I-Industrial District: [. . .] (10) Deferment of parking. (11) Garage condos, provided that: a. No exterior parking or storage is permitted for a period longer than twenty-four (24) hours. A parking plan must be provided to demonstrate accessibility to the site. b. The premises shall not be used or customized for residential living purposes or community gatherings or events. 271 233350v1 c. The premises shall not be used for the operation of a business or for retail purposes, including but not limited to automobile repair. This does not prohibit minor maintenance, care, or upkeep of motor vehicles, boats, trailers, or recreational vehicles stored in individual units. d. The management, use, and customization of the garage condos, including common areas, and individual units, shall be governed by an association, which association rules shall place adequate controls to ensure compliance with applicable city code. e. The premises shall maintain adequate access to individual units and any common areas or office space for emergency response and snow removal/storage. f. The premises shall contain sufficient lighting and/or security measures to deter or mitigate criminal activity and ensure adequate access for emergency response. g. Any individual unit that is connected to the city sewer and water system shall have individual meters. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication. ADOPTED this ___ day of October, 2024, by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota. CITY OF ORONO By: __________________________ Dennis Walsh, Mayor ATTEST: __________________________ Christine Lusian, City Clerk 272 233350v1 CITY OF ORONO HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA SUMMARY ORDINANCE NO. ____ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 78-1, 78-823, AND ARTICLE V OF THE CITY CODE REGARDING GARAGE CONDOS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that, on _______________, 2024, Ordinance No. _______ was adopted by the City Council of the City of Orono, Minnesota. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that, due to the lengthy nature of Ordinance No. ___, the following summary of the ordinance has been prepared for publication and approved by the City Council as authorized by state law. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that, Ordinance No. ______ amends City Code Sections 78-1, 78-823, and Article V regarding regulation of garage condos. A printed copy of the whole ordinance is available for inspection by any person during the City’s regular office hours or on the City’s website. APPROVED for publication by the City Council of Orono, Minnesota this ___ day of October, 2024. CITY OF ORONO By _____________________________ Dennis Walsh, Mayor ATTEST: ______________________________ Christine Lusian, City Clerk 273 Title VI - LAND USE Chapter 78 - ZONING REGULATIONS ARTICLE IV. - DISTRICT REGULATIONS DIVISION 18. I INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT Orono, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances Created: 2024-07-18 07:35:50 [EST] (Supp. No. 21, Update 3) Page 1 of 12 DIVISION 18. I INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT 1 Sec. 78-821. Purpose and review of building permit applications. (a)General provisions.The purpose of the Industrial District is to permit and encourage the development of high quality industrial uses which are compatible with the aesthetic character of the city and to encourage the development of such industries that are able and willing to achieve superior standards of design and environmental protection. To this end, the city may find that improvements are required to a particular site which are greater than the minimum standards found as part of this district. (b)Site plan review.All site reviews in any I-Industrial district shall be reviewed as set forth in article II, division 4 of this chapter. (c)Determination of use.Whenever a proposed use is not clearly defined as to its inclusion in the list of permitted, conditional, or accessory uses in this district, the zoning administrator shall make a determination. The zoning administrator may refer the item to the city council for a final determination, if desired. (d)Certificate of occupancy.Prior to occupancy of any building or premises within the I-Industrial district for which a building permit has been obtained, the applicant shall obtain a certificate of occupancy. As a part of this certificate, the applicant shall be required to demonstrate compliance with all of the terms of this division. (e)Existing land uses. (1)Any building or use that does not conform to the requirements of this division, existing prior to the passage of this division, shall be allowed to continue to operate in the same manner and to the same extent, subject to the requirements of article II, division 2 related to nonconforming uses and related matters. (2)Where such changes increase the total usable floor area of an existing nonconforming building by less than 25 percent, a property owner may maintain the existing building in its nonconforming state. The requirements for bringing improvements into conformance shall also be applied to legal, nonconforming site improvements such as parking lots and landscaping. Such changes or additions may be made to coordinate with the existing building materials and design without meeting the requirements of this division. The 25 percent threshold shall be measured cumulatively from the date of the adoption of this division, and shall not be exceeded without applying the requirements of subsection 78-821(e)(3). 1Editor's note(s)—Ord. No. 32 3rd series, § 2, adopted March 27, 2006, repealed the former div. 18, §§ 78-821— 78-825, and enacted a new div. 18, §§ 78-821—78-832, as set out herein. The former div. 18 pertained to similar subject matter and derived from Code 1984, § 10.50(1)—(5); Ord. No. 161 2nd series, §§ 8, 11, adopted June 7, 1997; Ord. No. 183 2nd series, § 3, adopted Feb. 22, 1999; Ord. No. 18 3rd series, § 3, adopted Sept. 27, 2004. Cross reference(s)—Businesses, ch. 26. 274 Created: 2024-07-18 07:35:49 [EST] (Supp. No. 21, Update 3) Page 2 of 12 (3)Where such changes increase the total usable floor area of an existing nonconforming building by 25 percent or more, the property owner shall be required to bring the building and property into full conformance with this division. The requirements for bringing improvements into conformance shall also be applied to legal, nonconforming site improvements such as parking lots and landscaping. The 25 percent threshold shall be measured cumulatively from the date of the adoption of this division. (f)All buildings in the I, Industrial District shall be required to be on platted lots.All changes to lot configuration shall require platting in accordance with chapter 82, article III, Orono Subdivision Regulations. No lot identified in whole or in part by a metes and bounds description shall be eligible for a building permit until a final plat has been approved and recorded for said lot. (Ord. No. 32 3rd series, § 2, 3-27-2006; Ord. No. 68 3rd series, § 10, 2-8-2010) Sec. 78-822. Permitted uses. (a)General conditions.The following are permitted uses within the I-Industrial District. (1)Automobile and truck painting, major repair, body and fender work, upholstering tire recapping and wholesale/fleet sales, but shall not include retail when within a completely enclosed building. The storage of automobiles or trucks in process of repair shall be within a fenced area. (2)Cabinet and carpentry shops, lumberyards millworks, electrical, plumbing and heating and air conditioning shop. (3)Manufacturing or assembly of a wide variety of products that produces no exterior noise, glare, fumes, obnoxious products, byproducts or wastes, or creates other objectionable impact on the environment. These shall include the following: a.Manufacturing, compounding, assembly, packaging, treatment or storage of products and materials. Expressly prohibited activities shall include: the stockpiling and recycling of aggregate materials or supplies of more than 25 cubic yards. (4)Office. (5)Office—Showroom. (6)Office—Warehouse. (7)Medical, dental and optical laboratories. (8)Research laboratories. (9)Inside storage or warehousing. (10) Governmental and public utility buildings and structures. (11) Essential services. (Ord. No. 32 3rd series, § 2, 3-27-2006) Sec. 78-823. Conditional uses. (a)General provisions.Within the I-Industrial District, no structure or land shall be used for one or more of the following uses without approval of a conditional use permit. The following are conditional uses in the I- Industrial District: (1)Open and outdoor storage as an accessory use, provide that: 275 Created: 2024-07-18 07:35:50 [EST] (Supp. No. 21, Update 3) Page 3 of 12 a.The open storage area is screened and landscaped from adjacent residential uses and public right-of-way. b.The open outdoor storage area is surfaced with concrete or bituminous. c.The open outdoor storage area shall not be within any front yard or side yard abutting a public right-of-way. The open outdoor storage shall be setback five feet from all side and rear lot lines and shall not be located within a utility or drainage easement. d.The open outdoor storage area shall not utilize any required off-street parking, loading areas, or access space. e.The open outdoor storage area shall not be used for storage of hazardous liquids, solids, gases, or wastes. f.The property owner shall keep all outdoor storage areas free of refuse, trash, debris, weeds, and waste fill. (2)Commercial and public radio and television transmitting antennas, and public utility microwave antennas. (3)Commercial, private, and public satellite dish transmitting or receiving antennas in excess of two meters in diameter. (4)Accessory, enclosed service activity other than allowed by a permitted use within the I-Industrial District. (5)Day care centers. (6)Trucking operations, but not distribution centers. (7)Trade schools. (8)Warehouse conversion to mini-storage. (9)Wholesale showrooms. (10) Deferment of parking. (b)Required conditions and policies of a conditional use permit.The burden of proof demonstrating compliance with the following criteria shall be the responsibility of the applicant. In determining whether to approve or deny a conditional use permit, the city council and planning commission shall find that the conditional use permit complies with the following criteria: (1)Comprehensive plan.The proposed action has been considered in relation to the specific policies and provisions of and has been found to be consistent with the official comprehensive plan of the city. (2)Compatibility.The proposed use is compatible with adjacent present and future anticipated land uses. (3)Performance standards.The proposed use conforms with all applicable performance standards contained in this division. (4)No depreciation in value.The proposed use will not tend to or actually depreciate the area in which it is proposed. (5)Nuisance.Nuisance characteristics generated by the use will not have an adverse effect upon existing and future development in adjacent areas. (6)Economic return.The use will provide an economic return to the community and be commensurate with other industrial uses for which the property could feasibly be used. In considering the economic 276 Created: 2024-07-18 07:35:50 [EST] (Supp. No. 21, Update 3) Page 4 of 12 return to the city, the planning commission and city council may give weight to the sociological impact of proposed use, both positive and negative. (Ord. No. 32 3rd series, § 2, 3-27-2006) Sec. 78-824. Accessory uses. (a)General conditions.Within an I-Industrial district, the only permitted accessory uses and structures are the following: (1)Fences. (2)Landscaping and decorative features. (3)Off-street loading. (4)Off-street parking. (5)Signs. (6)Mechanical and utility equipment, provided such equipment does not occupy a required yard adjacent to a street, and is fully screened from view of the public right-of-way. (7)Telecommunication reception/transmission devices. a.Accessory antennas.Accessory antennas shall be limited to radio and television receiving antennas, satellite dishes, TVROs, and amateur shortwave radio transmitting and receiving antennas. Accessory antennas that are accessory to the principal use of the property are permitted accessory uses in all zoning districts, provided they meet the following conditions: 1.Height.A ground mounted accessory antenna shall not exceed 20 feet in height from ground level. 2.Yards.Accessory antennas shall not be located within the required front yard setback, corner side yard setback or side yard setback abutting a street. 3.Roofs.If vegetation or obstructions interfere with satellite signals at a location in any allowable placement area, the accessory antenna may be placed on the roof of any authorized structure on the premises. 4.Setback.Accessory antennas shall not be located within a required yard or setback area or within drainage or utility easements. Antenna towers shall be set back from adjacent property lines a horizontal distance no less than the maximum height of the antenna. 5.Building permits.A building permit shall be required for the installation of any accessory antenna requiring a conditional use permit. Building permit applications shall be accompanied by a site plan and structural component data for the accessory antenna, including details of anchoring. The building official must approve the plans before installation. 6.Lightning protection.Each accessory antenna shall be grounded to protect against natural lightning strikes in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the city. 7.Electrical code.Accessory antenna electrical equipment and connections shall be designed and installed in conformance with the National Electrical Code as adopted by the city. 8.Color/content.Accessory antennas shall be of a neutral color and shall not be used as signage. 277 Created: 2024-07-18 07:35:50 [EST] (Supp. No. 21, Update 3) Page 5 of 12 b.Amateur shortwave radio antennas and towers.Amateur shortwave radio antennas and towers which do not meet the conditions for accessory antennas may be allowed with a conditional use permit in all zoning districts provided they meet the following conditions: 1.Height.When an amateur shortwave radio antenna is mounted on an antenna tower, the total height of the antenna and tower shall not exceed 65 feet. 2.Yards.Amateur shortwave radio antennas and towers shall not be located within a front, corner side, or side yard. 3.Setbacks.Amateur shortwave radio antennas and towers shall not be located within any required setback area and shall be located no less than the height of the antenna and tower from the property line. (8)Other uses that are customarily incidental to, and subordinate to, the allowed permitted and conditional uses in this district. (Ord. No. 32 3rd series, § 2, 3-27-2006; Ord. No. 106 3rd series, § 19, 6-10-2013) Editor's note(s)—Ord. No. 106 3rd series, § 19, adopted June 10, 2013, set out provisions adding subsection 78- 824(a)(22). To maintain the current subsection numbering, and at the editor's discretion, these provisions have been included as subsection 78-824(a)(8). Sec. 78-825. Lot area, height, setbacks, and lot coverage. (a)Minimum lot requirements:40,000 square feet. (b)Minimum building area:10,000 square feet. (c)Lot width:200 feet. (d)Building setbacks (principal and accessory): (1)Front yard setback:35 feet. (2)Side yard setback, abutting a major street1:35 feet. (3)Side yard setback, abutting a minor street2:20 feet. (4)Side yard setback, interior:Ten feet. (5)Rear yard setback:20 feet. 1 This setback applies to side yards adjacent to Wayzata Boulevard and Old Crystal Bay Road. 2 This setback applies to side yards adjacent to all other roads, public or private, within the "I," industrial district. (e)Building height:No structure or building shall exceed 40 feet in height except as provided in section 78-1366. (f)Lot coverage:Not more than 35 percent of parcels of three acres or less may be covered by buildings or structures. Not more than 45 percent of parcels may be covered by buildings or other structures; except that when the total building floor area on a site is contained within a single building, and when the total area used for loading terminals, docks and berths is completely enclosed within the same single building, a lot coverage of not more than 60 percent will be permitted. (Ord. No. 32 3rd series, § 2, 3-27-2006; Ord. No. 94 3rd series, § 4, 9-24-2012; Ord. No. 173 3rd series, § 17, 6-27- 2016) 278 Created: 2024-07-18 07:35:50 [EST] (Supp. No. 21, Update 3) Page 6 of 12 Sec. 78-826. Building design and construction. (a)General provisions.In addition to other restrictions of this chapter, the use, construction, alteration or enlargements to any buildings or structure within this district shall meet the following standards: (1)Rooftop equipment:Rooftop equipment shall be screened from view from the ground at the property line with vertical extensions of the building walls or with parapets or other architectural design features of the same materials used on the walls of the building. Where the topography permits, it is desirable to screen such equipment from adjacent property, but it is not the intent of this requirement to increase the height of the screening significantly above that of the equipment in order to screen it from view from tall buildings or from higher ground. (2)Form, scale and proportion:The form and proportion of buildings shall be consistent or compatible with the scale, form and proportion of existing development in the immediate area. (3)Unusual buildings:The use of unusual shapes, color and other characteristics that cause new buildings to call excessive attention to themselves and create disharmony shall be avoided. (4)Mass and voids:The rhythm of structural mass to voids, such as windows and glass doors, of a front facade should relate to the rhythms established in adjacent buildings. (5)Long facades:Where large structures with overly-long facades (walls) are proposed, such as warehouses, building mass should be articulated with variations in the building plane and parapet height and through the use of other unique design or site plan features. (6)Architectural design:Architectural design should create harmony through the use of different textures, complementary colors, shadow lines and contrasting shapes. The use of walls in a single color, with little detailing or completely blank is discouraged. (7)Monotony:Monotony of design in single or multiple building projects shall be avoided. Variation of detail, form and siting shall be used to provide visual interest. (8)Roofs:Careful consideration of durable materials, proportions and shapes, emphasizing the importance of roofs as integral and embracing elements of the over-all design, is particularly important. (9)Materials:Use of substantial amounts of high quality masonry materials (face brick, stucco, stone) is encouraged. Buildings shall be constructed with no less than 67 percent of these materials, excluding window and door areas. Architectural concrete panels and rock faced concrete block may comprise a maximum of 33 percent of the exterior materials used on the building. The 67 percent threshold may be reduced, or the 33 percent threshold exceeded, only by conditional use permit for alternative materials. The city council shall consider the architectural quality and whether the proposed building exceeds the various requirements of this section 78-826 in deciding whether or not to grant a conditional use permit for alternative materials. The use of aluminum siding, metal ribbed panels and extensive mirrored glass surfaces is discouraged except as accent materials. Evaluation of building materials shall be based on the quality of its design and relationship and compatibility to building materials in the immediate neighborhood. (10)Design uniformity:Architectural treatments (e.g., building materials, colors, facade design, roof lines, screening) shall be consistent and compatible on all sides. Treatment that is uniform on all sides will be deemed to meet the requirements of this principle. Adjacent land uses, visibility from public streets and use of screening devices (walls, fences, berms, landscaping) are criteria to be considered when varying this treatment. The applicant will have the burden of demonstrating the reasons for differing treatment on different sides (e.g., the need for truck access on one side and pedestrian access on another). 279 Created: 2024-07-18 07:35:50 [EST] (Supp. No. 21, Update 3) Page 7 of 12 (Ord. No. 32 3rd series, § 2, 3-27-2006) Sec. 78-827. Off-street parking. (a)General provisions.If any increase in the size, or changes in the uses, of such an existing principal use is made beyond the size or for other than the uses above allowed, then additional off-street parking spaces shall be provided pursuant to this section, but only for the additional spaces resulting from the increase in size or changes in uses. (b)Number of uses.The required number of off-street parking spaces shall be located on the same lot as the principal use or on an adjacent lot under the control of the owner of the principal use. For purposes hereof, "control" may be derived from ownership or by lease or easement continuing for a period of not less than 25 years. In the alternative, the city council may approve off-site parking for a period coterminous with the building lease. The required parking spaces shall not be separated from the principal use building by a street. Seventy-five percent of all required spaces shall be located within 500 feet of the entrances to the principal use building and 100 percent shall be within 1,000 feet. (c)Setbacks. (1)Exposed parking spaces or drive aisles (except that portion of the driveway crossing the public right-of- way to give access to the street) shall be located within the following setbacks: a.Major street1 : 20 feet. b.Minor street2 : 10 feet. c.Rear lot line3 : 10 feet. d.Interior side lot line3 : 10 feet. 1 This setback applies to side yards adjacent to Wayzata Boulevard and Old Crystal Bay Road. 2 This setback applies to side yards adjacent to all other roads, public or private, within the "I", Industrial district. 3 Within adjoining industrial developments, private access, truck circulation area, and undivided parking areas may be permitted, provided that each individual parcel meets all other district requirements. (2)Parking, truck circulation area, and drive aisles shall be set back a minimum of ten feet from all buildings to provide a space for landscaping and sidewalks. Parking, truck circulation, and drive aisles may be located directly adjacent to buildings in rear and side yards which do not abut public streets, and where the property owner demonstrates that the proposed parking area will be fully screened from view of the public right-of-way. (d)Required parking. (1)Automobile service centers:One space for each 400 square feet of leasable area, plus one space for each employee on the maximum work shift. (2)Offices, medical and dental laboratories, business or professional offices:One space per 200 square feet. (3)Multi-tenant industrial buildings:One space for each 400 square feet of gross floor area, or the sum of the component gross floor areas as follows, whichever is greater: a.One space for each 200 square feet of office space. b.One space for each 2,000 square feet of warehouse space. 280 Created: 2024-07-18 07:35:50 [EST] (Supp. No. 21, Update 3) Page 8 of 12 c.One space for each 300 square feet of manufacturing, processing, packaging, treatment and assembly space. d.One space for each 500 square feet of space containing machines and equipment for conducting scientific research, testing or experimentation. (e)Floor area.The term "floor area" for the purpose of calculating the number of off-street parking spaces required shall be determined on the basis of the exterior floor area dimensions of the buildings, structure or use times the number of floors, minus ten percent. (f)Computation.When determining the number of off-street parking spaces, any fraction of a number shall constitute an additional space. (g)Snow storage in parking stalls.Provision shall be made in the parking area for adequate snow storage or removal in order to ensure that the required number of spaces is available at all times during the year. (h)Circulation.Traffic circulation systems shall be designed to accommodate anticipated traffic demands. Vehicular traffic generated by industrial uses shall be channeled and controlled in a manner which will avoid congestion or interference with other vehicular transportation systems and pedestrians and which will avoid creating traffic hazards and excessive traffic. (i)Parking size.Each parking space shall have a minimum width of nine feet and a minimum depth of 20 feet exclusive of aisle and maneuvering space. (j)Curb cut size.No curb cut access shall exceed 24 feet in width unless approved by the city engineer. (k)Grade.The grade elevation of any parking area or driveways shall not exceed four percent. (l)Surfacing.Except as otherwise determined by the city council, all industrial uses shall have customer parking areas and driveways which are surfaced with asphalt. (m)Lighting.Any lighting used to illuminate an off-street parking area shall be hooded and so arranged as to reflect the light away from adjoining property, abutting residential uses, and public rights-of-way. (n)Required screening.All open off-street parking areas of five or more spaces shall be screened with landscaping and/or other materials from abutting or surrounding residential districts. (o)Landscaped islands.A minimum of one landscaped parking island per 20 parking stalls shall be required within any industrial use. Areas meeting the conditions listed in section 78-827(c)(2) which are proposed for truck circulation, but converted to parking per a plan approved by the city shall be exempt from this provision. (p)Signs.No signs shall be so located as to restrict the sight lines and orderly operation and traffic movement within any parking lot or driveway. All signs shall be in conformance with section 78-1466 of this chapter. (q)Deferment of parking.A reduction in the number of required parking stalls may be permitted by a conditional use permit as outlined in section 78-823 provided that the following conditions are met: (1)Evidence is provided demonstrating that the parking requirements of the proposed use will be less than the parking required under this section during the peak demand period. Factors to be considered when reviewing the proposed parking demand shall include, but not to be limited to: a.Size, type, and use of building. b.Number of employees. c.Projected volume and turnover of employees. d.Projected frequency and volume of delivery or service vehicles. e.Number of company vehicles. 281 Created: 2024-07-18 07:35:50 [EST] (Supp. No. 21, Update 3) Page 9 of 12 f.Storage of vehicles on the site. (2)In no case shall the amount of parking provided be less than one-half to the amount of parking required by the ordinance. (3)The property owner can demonstrate that the site has sufficient property under the same ownership to accommodate the expansion of the parking facilities to meet the minimum requirements of this section if the parking demand exceeds on-site supply. (4)On-site parking shall only occur in areas designed and constructed for parking in accordance with this section. The area reserved as "proof-of-parking" shall be sodded or seeded and maintained as green space. No permanent buildings shall be permitted in the "proof-of-parking" area. (5)The conditional use permit approving parking deferral under this section shall be recorded per city practice, providing that additional parking shall be constructed in accordance with this section. (6)To qualify for a parking deferment, the site must comply with all current zoning requirements. (Ord. No. 32 3rd series, § 2, 3-27-2006) Sec. 78-828. Loading. (a)General provisions.In addition to other restrictions of this chapter, all loading or unloading into or out of trucks in excess of three-fourths ton capacity shall be conducted at facilities specifically designed and designated for that purpose. Those facilities, designated as "loading facilities" shall be subject to the following regulations: (1)A minimum of one loading berth per 50,000 square feet of gross floor area or part thereof. Loading berth shall be 55 feet in length, 14 feet in width, and 15 feet in height. (2)All loading docks shall be located within the perimeter of the principal or accessory building and shall be completely enclosed except for the opening needed for access to a vehicle during the time it is standing at a berth. (3)No loading facility shall be located within the required front street or side street setback for the principal building or within ten feet of an interior side lot line or rear lot line. (Ord. No. 32 3rd series, § 2, 3-27-2006) Sec. 78-829. Landscaping. (a)General provisions.Where any industrial use abuts a property zoned for residential use, the industry shall provide screening of the parking areas along the boundary of the residential property. Screening of such parking areas shall also be provided where a business or industry is directly across the street from a residential zone. (b)Fencing.All fences shall be placed within the property being fenced. (1)Fences extending across a required front yard or required side yard which abut a street on a corner lot shall be at least 75 percent open for a passage of air and light and shall maintain the traffic visibility. (2)Industrial fences shall not exceed eight feet in height. (c)Minimum number of plantings.Industrial Districts shall contain, at a minimum the greater of two trees per 1,000 square feet of gross floor area or two trees per 40 lineal feet of site perimeter whichever is greater. 282 Created: 2024-07-18 07:35:50 [EST] (Supp. No. 21, Update 3) Page 10 of 12 (d)Minimum planting size.All landscaping incorporated in said plan shall conform to the following standards and criteria. All plants must at least equal the following minimum size: (All trees shall be balled and burlapped (B&B) and shrubs shall be container grown unless otherwise approved by city staff. Type and mode of planting are dependent upon time of planting season, availability, and site conditions (soils, climate, ground water, irrigation, grading, etc.). Shade Trees: 1.5 to 2 inch. Ornamental Trees: 1 inch. Coniferous Trees: 4—6 feet. Large Deciduous Tree: 2—4 feet. Large Coniferous Shrubs: 2—4 feet. Small Deciduous Shrubs: 18—24 inches. Small Coniferous Shrubs: 18—24 inches. (e)Spacing: (1)Plant material centers shall not be located closer than three feet from the property line and shall not be planted to conflict with public plantings based on the judgment of the zoning administrator. (2)Where plant materials are planted in two or more rows, plantings shall be staggered in rows unless otherwise approved by the zoning administrator. (3)Where plants or screening is intended, large deciduous and coniferous shrubs shall not be planted more than four feet on center. (f)Types of new trees.Plantings, suitable trees include, but are not limited to the following: Oak. Red Maple. Sugar Maple. Hackberry. Birch. Honeylocust. Little Leaf Linden. American Linden. Green Ash. Ginkgo. Kentucky Coffee Tree. (g)Design.The landscape plan must show some form of designed site amenities (i.e., composition of plant materials, and/or creative grading, decorative lighting, exterior sculpture, etc., which are largely intended for aesthetic purposes). All areas within the property lines (or beyond, if side grading extends beyond) shall be treated. All exterior areas not paved or designated as drives, parking or storage, must be planted with ornamental vegetation (lawns, ground covers or shrubs) unless otherwise approved by the zoning administrator. 283 Created: 2024-07-18 07:35:50 [EST] (Supp. No. 21, Update 3) Page 11 of 12 (h)Seeding and sod.Seeding may be used when the city determines sod is not practical or desirable such as, but not limited to, open spaces, sites that are rough graded and areas that cannot be developed (such as those located within a power line easement). (i)Slopes and berms.Slopes that are to be maintained as turf in excess of 2:1 are prohibited unless approved by the zoning administrator. All berms must incorporate trees and plantings into the design. In no situation shall berms be used as the sole means of screening. (j)Ground areas under building roof overhangs.All ground areas under the building roof overhang must be treated with a decorative mulch and/or foundation planting. (k)Detention ponds.Stormwater ponds shall be landscaped with an average of a ten foot buffer strip of shade and ornamental trees, evergreens, shrubbery, natural grasses, groundcover and/or other plant materials to provide an aesthetically appealing setting. This landscaping plan shall be in addition to the required landscaping. (l)Irrigation systems.All principal use structures shall provide an exterior water supply for use in landscape purposes. The exceptions to this are one and two family dwellings and additions to existing structures equal to or less than ten percent of the square feet of the existing structure. (m)Landscape guarantee.All new plants shall be guaranteed for two full years from the time planting has been completed. All plants shall be alive and in satisfactory growth at the end of the guarantee period or be replaced. (Ord. No. 32 3rd series, § 2, 3-27-2006) Sec. 78-830. Drainage. (a)General provision.No land shall be developed and no use shall be permitted that results in water runoff causing floods, erosion or deposits on adjacent properties. Site and drainage plans shall be submitted by the applicant in such detail as required by the council, and those plans shall be reviewed by the city engineer before submission to the planning commission and the council for approval. Such runoff may be required to be properly channeled into a natural watercourse, ponding area, storm drain or other public facilities. Any change in grade affecting water runoff, whether onto adjacent property or otherwise, must be in compliance with the surface water management plan and shall be consistent with other applicable regulations of provisions of this code and subject to the approval of other agencies having jurisdiction over the area affected by the drainage. (Ord. No. 32 3rd series, § 2, 3-27-2006) Sec. 78-831. Lighting. (a)General provision.Any lighting used to illuminate a structure, an off-street parking area, or other area in an industrial district shall be arranged so as to deflect light away from any adjoining residential property or from any public right-of-way. All lighting shall be installed in accordance with the following provisions: (1)Lighting cutoff.The luminaire shall contain a cutoff which directs and cuts off the light at an angle of 90 degrees or less. (2)Lighting adjacent property.Lighting sources shall not be permitted so as to light adjacent property in excess of the maximum intensity. 284 Created: 2024-07-18 07:35:50 [EST] (Supp. No. 21, Update 3) Page 12 of 12 (3)Architectural/historical light fixtures.Architectural/historical light fixtures that feature globes that are not shielded or lighting of entire facades or architectural features of a building may be approved by the city council. In no case shall the light affect adjacent property in excess of the maximum intensity. (4)Light poles.All light poles shall be of a dark color. Light colored light poles shall be prohibited. (5)Height of source and pole.The maximum height of the fixture and pole above the ground grade permitted for light sources is 30 feet. A light source mounted on a building shall not exceed the height of the building. In no case shall the height of a light source mounted on a pole or on a building exceed the height limits of the zoning district in which the use is located unless allowed by conditional use permit. (6)Intensity.No light source or combination thereof which casts light on a public street shall exceed one foot-candle (meter reading) as measured from the right-of-way of said street nor shall any light source or combination thereof which casts light on adjacent residential property exceed four-tenths (0.4) foot candles (meter reading) as measured at the property line. (7)Location.The light source of an outdoor light fixture shall be set back a minimum of ten feet from a street right-of-way and five feet from an interior side or rear lot line. (8)Hours.The use of outdoor lighting for parking lots shall be turned off one hour after closing except for approved security lighting. (Ord. No. 32 3rd series, § 2, 3-27-2006) Sec. 78-832. Signage. (a)General provisions.All signs shall conform to the sign standards of City Code Title VI, Chapter 78, Article X, Division 4. (b)[Reserved.] (Ord. No. 32 3rd series, § 2, 3-27-2006; Ord. No. 2015 3rd series, § 2, 9-10-2018) Cross reference(s)—Orono Sign Code, § 78-1465 et seq. Secs. 78-833—78-845. Reserved. 285 From:Rob Page To:Laura Oakden Cc:David Ramsay; Ross Hedlund Subject:Re: Industrial Text Amendment Language Date:Thursday, November 14, 2024 4:30:19 PM Hi Laura, We’d like to submit that the word “or” be stricken from Section c. The language would read as follows: c. The premises shall not be used for the operation of a business for retail purposes, Thanks. On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 3:58 PM Laura Oakden <loakden@oronomn.gov> wrote: Hi Rob, I have been away from my phone but I wanted to follow up about the garage condos. Do you have any comments you would like to submit to the planning commission for consideration? Thanks, Laura Oakden Community Development Director City of Orono Direct: 952-249-4602 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 www.oronomn.gov From: Rob Page <robertlouis.page@gmail.com> Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2024 9:11 AM To: Laura Oakden <loakden@oronomn.gov> 286 Date: October 21, 2024 Item: 6.1 Presenter: Laura Oakden, Community Development Director Section: New Business Title: LA24-000054, Rob Page, 430 Old Crystal Bay Rd, Site Plan Review 1.Purpose: The applicant is requesting Site Plan Review for an eighty-five (85) unit Garage Condo development. 2.Background: The Applicant made a site plan application for review of a new business development at 430 Old Crystal Bay Road. This is the only vacant site location in the industrial development. The applicant has submitted a narrative along with the site plan application describing the proposed garage condo development. The development will contain individual storage units of 800-1450 sq.ft. for cars, boats, and/or RVs and a common upstairs mezzanine area. The storage units will be individually-owned and for individual use. Each unit is designed to have utility connections for water and sewer and is customizable to include additional amenities such as bathrooms, kitchens, and washers/dryers. The common spaces, general maintenance and drainage items will be managed through regulations to be set by the applicant. The development will not have a customer-facing/retail aspect outside the sale of individual units. The applicant’s site plan requests approval of the garage condo development as “Inside storage or warehousing,” which is listed as a permitted use for the I-Industrial District. The proposed garage condo development, however, is intended for use as private garage space for individual owners and a shared common area that do not fit within the use of “Inside storage or warehousing”. The shared common area is not intended to be used for storage or warehousing, or any commercial or industrial activity. While the garage units would be used for storing vehicles, to find that it fits within “Inside storage or warehousing” would convert the City Code’s designation of garages as an accessory use into a permitted use for this district. Therefore, the proposed garage condo development, which essentially proposed garages as a principal use and a shared common area as an accessory use, does not fit within the permitted use of “Inside storage or warehousing” for the industrial district. Additionally, the proposal indicates that the individual garage units have significant build-out capabilities, which would allow for the units to be used for residential purposes well beyond “Inside storage and warehousing”. Customizations could include full kitchens, bathrooms, laundry facilities, living rooms, and general living or sleeping space. Considering the potential for expansive residential conversion of units, which does not fit within the customary scope, usage and purposes of industrial district buildings, Staff does not support the proposal as submitted with the “Inside storage and warehousing” use classification. 3.Staff Recommendation: Staff recommend denial of the application as applied. The proposed development does not fit within the “Inside storage or warehousing” permitted use classification for the Industrial district. AGENDA ITEM 287 Staff would support a text amendment to the City Code to list garage condos as a conditional use defined so as to include developments like that proposed by the applicant. The conditional use permit for such garage condos would address parking, the availability for living/dwelling in the units and community events, along with other relevant standards. 4.Planning Commission Action Requested: Planning Commission should consider a motion to recommend denial of the application. Exhibits Ex A Staff Report LA24-000054, 430 CBR, Site Plan.docx Ex B Application and Narrative.pdf Ex C Site Plan and Structureal Coverage.pdf Ex D Landscape Plan.pdf Ex E Lighting Photometrics.pdf Ex F Orono Garages Exterior Elevations.pdf EX G Drainage Report.pdf Ex H Aerial Photos.pdf Ex I Applicable City Code Sections.pdf 288 Date: November 18, 2024 Item: 5.7 Presenter: Laura Oakden, Community Development Director Section: Public Hearings Title: LA24-0000064, Text Amendment: Driveway, Road, and Tree Alteration Standards within the Shoreland Overlay District (Laura Oakden) 1.Purpose: The City of Orono is proposing an ordinance to amend the Zoning Code regarding the driveway width standards and to fix a typo in the tree alteration requirements, all within the Shoreland Overlay District. 2.Background: In March of 2024, Planning Commission reviewed a variance request for a driveway to exceed 8 feet in width within the 75-foot setback from a protected tributary on a property in the Shoreland. The variance was approved but included direction to staff to amend the city code to make the language is consistent with the DNR model ordinance. This code change would allow staff and property owners to better determine a minimum driveway width within the setback and take site conditions (i.e. topography, wetlands, and accessibility) into consideration. While preparing this amendment, staff found a typo in Section 78-1268 that included driveways as part of the public and private road standards. Additionally, Staff found a typo in the vegetation alteration requirements. The typo creates a double negative in the city code creating confusion. Staff proposes to correct the double negative where is applied and reorganize the formatting of the section so it is easier to reference for each criterion. 3.Public Comment: One public comment email has been received and is has been included as an exhibit. The proposed code language has been sent to the DNR and we are awaiting feedback. 4.Staff Recommendation: Planning staff recommend approval as applied 5.Planning Commission Action Requested: The commission should hold a public hearing and if the commission agreed with staff's analysis should make a motion to approved the drafted language. AGENDA ITEM Exhibits Ex A TA Driveways and Tree Alt, Staff Report. Ex B Sec 78-1282 Draft Driveway Amnd Clean. Ex C Sec 78-1285 Draft Veg Alterations Ex D Sec 78-1286 Draft Road Amnd Ex E Existing City Code Language 78-1282, 78-1285, 78-1286. Ex F Public Comment_DG. 289 To:Chair Bollis and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From:Laura Oakden, Community Development Director Date:November 21, 2024 Subject:#LA24-0000064, City of Orono Text Amendment: Driveway, Road, and Tree Alteration Standards within the Shoreland Overlay District Background Included in this action are three areas of the Shoreland Overlay District regulations that should be amended including: 1. 78-1282: Driveways 2. 78-1285: Vegetation Alterations 3. 78-1286: Public and Private Road In March of 2024, Planning Commission reviewed a variance request for a driveway to exceed 8 feet in width within the 75-foot setback from a protected tributary on a property in the Shoreland. The variance was approved but included direction to staff to amend the city code to make the language is consistent with the DNR model ordinance. This code change would allow staff and property owners to better determine a minimum driveway width within the setback and take site conditions (i.e. topography, wetlands, and accessibility) into consideration. While preparing this amendment, staff found a typo in Section 78-1268 that included driveways as part of the public and private road standards. Staff is suggesting driveways be removed from the section regarding road standards and amend the driveway section to be reflective of the DNR model ordinance language. Additionally, Staff found a typo in the vegetation alteration requirements. The typo creates a double negative in the city code creating confusion. Staff proposes to correct the double negative where is applied and reorganize the formatting of the section so it is easier to reference for each criterion. Proposed Updates for review: City Code Edits Analysis 78-1282: Driveways Amend the language to eliminate the 8’ maximum width standard and implement the DNR model ordinance language This change would allow staff and the applicant to better determine a maximum driveway width within the shore setback to take site conditions into account. It would allow staff to analyzethe site conditions to determine the minimum improvement necessary in this sensitive area within creek and lake setbacks. Application Summary: The City of Orono is proposing an ordinance to amend the Zoning Code regarding the driveway width standards and to fix a typo in the tree alteration requirements, all within the Shoreland Overlay District. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. 290 LA24-000064 November 18, 2024 Page 2 of 2 78-1285: Vegetation alteration Housekeeping: Remove typos and reformat the section Resolve the double negatives within the language. Staff proposesto resolvethe double negatives and reformat the section so it is consistent with the organization of the rest of the City Code. 78-1286: Public and private roads Remove the word driveway from this section This section addresses new public and private roads located in the shore setback. Driveway standards should not be included in this section of the city code. Public Comments One public comment email has been receivedand is has been included as an exhibit.The proposed code language has been sent to the DNR and we are awaiting feedback. Issues for Consideration 1. Are there any issues or concerns with this proposal? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the amendments conditioned on the DNR approval. 291 Created: 2024-07-18 07:35:52 [EST] (Supp. No. 21, Update 3) Page 1 of 1 Sec. 78-1282. Driveways, stairways, lifts and landings. (a) Roads, Driveways, and parking areas must meet structure setbacks and must not be placed within bluff and shore impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no alternatives exist, they a driveway may be placed within these areas, and must be designed towhen designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters, and shall be designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the requirements of all agencies with jurisdiction and in accordance with City Code chapter 79 as approved by the minimize adverse impacts as determined by the Community Development Director;A driveway no wider than eight feet is permitted in the shoreland or tributary setback zone if the property has no other frontage on or access to a public or private road. (b) Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways, lifts and landings shall be allowed in the Shore Setback zone and must meet the following design requirements: (1) Stairways and lifts must not exceed four feet in width. (2) Landings for stairways and lifts shall not exceed 32 square feet in area. (3) Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings. (4) Stairways, lifts and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or pilings or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion. (5) Stairways, lifts and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, whenever practical. (6) Facilities necessary to provide shore area access to physically handicapped persons shall be allowed, provided that the dimensional and performance standards of subsections (1)—(5) of this section are completed in addition to the requirements of the Minnesota Regulations, chapter 1340. (7) A building permit shall be obtained for construction of stairways, lifts and landings regardless of whether such improvements are constructed above, at or below grade. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series, § 1(10.56(16)(F)), 2-24-1992; Ord. No. 59 3rd series, § 2, 5-11-2009; Ord. No. 243 3rd series, § 2, 4-13-2020) Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri) Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri) Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri), 10 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri), 10 pt Formatted: Font: (Default) +Body (Calibri), 10 pt 292 Created: 2024-07-18 07:35:52 [EST] (Supp. No. 21, Update 3) Page 1 of 1 Sec. 78-1282. Driveways, stairways, lifts and landings. (a) Driveways must not be placed within bluff and shore impact zones, when other reasonable and feasible placement alternatives exist. If no alternatives exist, a driveway may be placed within these areas when designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters , and shall be designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the requirements of all agencies with jurisdiction and in accordance with City Code chapter 79 as approved by the Community Development Director; (b) Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways, lifts and landings shall be allowed in the Shore Setback zone and must meet the following design requirements: (1) Stairways and lifts must not exceed four feet in width. (2) Landings for stairways and lifts shall not exceed 32 square feet in area. (3) Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings. (4) Stairways, lifts and landings may be either constructed above the ground o n posts or pilings or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion. (5) Stairways, lifts and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, whenever practical. (6) Facilities necessary to provide shore area access to physically handicapped persons shall be allowed, provided that the dimensional and performance standards of subsections (1)—(5) of this section are completed in addition to the requirements of the Minnesota Regulations, chapter 1340. (7) A building permit shall be obtained for construction of stairways, lifts and landings regardless of whether such improvements are constructed above, at or below grade. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series, § 1(10.56(16)(F)), 2 -24-1992; Ord. No. 59 3rd series, § 2, 5-11-2009; Ord. No. 243 3rd series, § 2, 4-13-2020) 293 Created: 2024-07-18 07:35:52 [EST] (Supp. No. 21, Update 3) Page 1 of 1 Sec. 78-1285. Vegetation alterations. (a) No tree within 75 feet of the shoreline of public waters identified in section 78-1217, or within the bluff impact zone, with a diameter of six inches or more (or 19 inches in circumference or greater) measured three feet above the ground may not be removed without first obtaining a permit from the city staff. Live tTrees removed within 75 feet of the shoreline shall be replaced at a similar setback from the OHWL as the removed tree, based on the following: (1) Live Ttrees less than 36 inches in diameter requires 1 inch of replacement tree per inch of tree diameter removed. (2) TLive trees greater than 36 inches in diameter, requires ½ inch of replacement tree per diameter inch of tree removed. (3) RReplacement trees shall be at least 1.5 inches in diameter, and of a type approved by the city. Trees mayust be inspected by city staff prior to their removal. All replacement trees shall be a species native to Minnesota as listed on the Minnesota DNR's Native Trees list. All replacement trees must be approved by the city. (4) Removal of Ddead, diseased, or trees deemed hazardous by a certified arborist may not be removed without a permit from city staff. The removed tree(s) shall be replaced at a ratio of one tree per tree removed, regardless of size. The replacement tree shall be replanted at a similar setback from the OWHL as the removed tree and, be approved by the city administrator or designee. The city may solicit the review of the tree by an independent arborist, at the property owner's expense. Replacement trees shall be at least 1.5 inches in diameter. All replacement trees shall be a species native to Minnesota as listed on the Minnesota DNR's Native Trees list. All replacement trees must be approved by the city. (b) Intensive vegetation clearing within 75 feet of the shoreline of public waters identified in section 78-1217, on steep slopes or within the bluff impact zone within the Shoreland Overlay District is prohibited. Limited clearing of shrubs and trees less than six inches in diameter and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees of any size is allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of permitted stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted lockboxes, provided that the screening of structures, vehicles or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced. (1) All intensive vegetation clearing, including the clearing of invasive species, shall require a permit from city staff and shall require the submittal of a revegetation plan acceptable to the city. The plan shall include erosion control measures if deemed necessary by the city. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series, § 1(10.56(16)(I)), 2-24-1992; Ord. No. 127 2nd series, § 7, 7-11-1994; Ord. No. 178 3rd series, § 14, 10-10-2016; Ord. No. 243 3rd series, § 2, 4-13-2020; Ord. No. 274 3rd series, § 1, 6-13-2022; Ord. No. 303 3rd series, § 3, 4-8-2024) Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: List 1 Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Underline Formatted: Block 1, Indent: Left: 0.31", Hanging: 0.31" Formatted: Underline Formatted: Underline Formatted: List 2, Indent: Hanging: 0.35" Formatted: Strikethrough 294 Created: 2024-07-18 07:35:52 [EST] (Supp. No. 21, Update 3) Page 1 of 1 Sec. 78-1285. Vegetation alterations. (a) No tree within 75 feet of the shoreline of public waters identified in section 78-1217, or within the bluff impact zone, with a diameter of six inches or more (or 19 inches in circumference or greater) measured three feet above the ground may not be removed without first obtaining a permit from the city staff. Live tTrees removed within 75 feet of the shoreline shall be replaced at a similar setback from the OHWL as the removed tree, based on the following: (1) Live Ttrees less than 36 inches in diameter requires 1 inch of replacement tree per inch of tree diameter removed. (2) TLive trees greater than 36 inches in diameter, requires ½ inch of replacement tree per diameter inch of tree removed. (3) RReplacement trees shall be at least 1.5 inches in diameter, and of a type approved by the city. Trees mayust be inspected by city staff prior to their removal. All replacement trees shall be a species native to Minnesota as listed on the Minnesota DNR's Native Trees list. All replacement trees must be approved by the city. (4) Removal of Ddead, diseased, or trees deemed hazardous by a certified arborist may not be removed without a permit from city staff. The removed tree(s) shall be replaced at a ratio of one tree per tree removed, regardless of size. The replacement tree s hall be replanted at a similar setback from the OWHL as the removed tree and, be approved by the city administrator or designee. The city may solicit the review of the tree by an independent arborist, at the property owner's expense. Replacement trees shall be at least 1.5 inches in diameter. All replacement trees shall be a species native to Minnesota as listed on the Minnesota DNR's Native Trees list. All replacement trees must be approved by the city. (b) Intensive vegetation clearing within 75 feet of the shoreline of public waters identified in section 78-1217, on steep slopes or within the bluff impact zone within the Shoreland Overlay District is prohibited. Limited clearing of shrubs and trees less than six inches in diameter and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees of any size is allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of permitted stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted lockboxes, provided that the screening of structures, vehicles or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced. (1) All intensive vegetation clearing, including the clearing of invasive species, shall require a permit from city staff and shall require the submittal of a revegetation plan acceptable to the city. The plan shall include erosion control measures if deemed necessary by the city. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series, § 1(10.56(16)(I)), 2-24-1992; Ord. No. 127 2nd series, § 7, 7-11-1994; Ord. No. 178 3rd series, § 14, 10-10-2016; Ord. No. 243 3rd series, § 2, 4-13-2020; Ord. No. 274 3rd series, § 1, 6-13-2022; Ord. No. 303 3rd series, § 3, 4-8-2024) 295 Created: 2024-07-18 07:35:52 [EST] (Supp. No. 21, Update 3) Page 1 of 1 Sec. 78-1286. New public and private roads. New public and private roads, parking areas, and public or private watercraft access ramps shall not be constructed within the Shore Setback of the public waters enumerated in section 78-1217. If no alternatives exist, such improvements shall be subject to the standard zoning variance review procedure, and such review shall consider the following: (1)Such improvements shall be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. (2)All roads and parking areas shall be designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the requirements of all agencies with jurisdiction and in accordance with City Code chapter 79. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series, § 1(10.56(16)(J)), 2-24-1992; Ord. No. 127 2nd series, § 8, 7-11-1994; Ord. No. 163 2nd series, § 3, 12-8-1997; Ord. No. 171 2nd series, § 2, 4-4-1998; Ord. No. 28 3rd series, § 17, 8-22-2005; Ord. No. 133 3rd series, §§ 2, 3, 1-26-2015; Ord. No. 219 3rd series, § 4, 12-10-2018; Ord. No. 243 3rd series, § 2, 4-13-2020) 296 Created: 2024-07-18 07:35:52 [EST] (Supp. No. 21, Update 3) Page 1 of 2 Sec. 78-1282. Driveways, stairways, lifts and landings. (a)A driveway no wider than eight feet is permitted in the shoreland or tributary setback zone if the property has no other frontage on or access to a public or private road. (b)Stairways and lifts are the preferred alternative to major topographic alterations for achieving access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to shore areas. Stairways, lifts and landings shall be allowed in the Shore Setback zone and must meet the following design requirements: (1)Stairways and lifts must not exceed four feet in width. (2)Landings for stairways and lifts shall not exceed 32 square feet in area. (3)Canopies or roofs are not allowed on stairways, lifts, or landings. (4)Stairways, lifts and landings may be either constructed above the ground on posts or pilings or placed into the ground, provided they are designed and built in a manner that ensures control of soil erosion. (5)Stairways, lifts and landings must be located in the most visually inconspicuous portions of lots, as viewed from the surface of the public water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, whenever practical. (6)Facilities necessary to provide shore area access to physically handicapped persons shall be allowed, provided that the dimensional and performance standards of subsections (1)—(5) of this section are completed in addition to the requirements of the Minnesota Regulations, chapter 1340. (7)A building permit shall be obtained for construction of stairways, lifts and landings regardless of whether such improvements are constructed above, at or below grade. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series, § 1(10.56(16)(F)), 2-24-1992; Ord. No. 59 3rd series, § 2, 5-11-2009; Ord. No. 243 3rd series, § 2, 4-13-2020) Sec. 78-1285. Vegetation alterations. (a)No tree within 75 feet of the shoreline of public waters identified in section 78-1217, or within the bluff impact zone, with a diameter of six inches or more (or 19 inches in circumference or greater) measured three feet above the ground may not be removed without first obtaining a permit from the city staff. Live trees removed within 75 feet of the shoreline shall be replaced at a similar setback from the OHWL as the removed tree, based on the following: (1)Trees less than 36 inches in diameter 1 inch of replacement tree per inch of tree diameter removed. (2)Trees greater than 36 inches in diameter, ½ inch of replacement tree per diameter inch of tree removed. (3)Replacement trees shall be at least 1.5 inches in diameter, and of a type approved by the city. Trees must be inspected by city staff prior to their removal. Removal of dead, diseased, or trees deemed hazardous by a certified arborist may not be removed without a permit from city staff. The removed tree(s) shall be replaced at a ratio of one tree per tree removed, regardless of size. The replacement tree shall be replanted at a similar setback from the OWHL as the removed tree and, be approved by the city administrator or designee. The city may solicit the review of the tree by an independent arborist, at the property owner's expense. Replacement trees shall be at least 1.5 inches in diameter. 297 Created: 2024-07-18 07:35:52 [EST] (Supp. No. 21, Update 3) Page 2 of 2 All replacement trees shall be a species native to Minnesota as listed on the Minnesota DNR's Native Trees list. All replacement trees must be approved by the city. (b)Intensive vegetation clearing within 75 feet of the shoreline of public waters identified in section 78-1217, on steep slopes or within the bluff impact zone within the Shoreland Overlay District is prohibited. Limited clearing of shrubs and trees less than six inches in diameter and cutting, pruning, and trimming of trees of any size is allowed to provide a view to the water from the principal dwelling site and to accommodate the placement of permitted stairways and landings, picnic areas, access paths, beach and watercraft access areas, and permitted lockboxes, provided that the screening of structures, vehicles or other facilities as viewed from the water, assuming summer, leaf-on conditions, is not substantially reduced. (1)All intensive vegetation clearing, including the clearing of invasive species, shall require a permit from city staff and shall require the submittal of a revegetation plan acceptable to the city. The plan shall include erosion control measures if deemed necessary by the city. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series, § 1(10.56(16)(I)), 2-24-1992; Ord. No. 127 2nd series, § 7, 7-11-1994; Ord. No. 178 3rd series, § 14, 10-10-2016; Ord. No. 243 3rd series, § 2, 4-13-2020; Ord. No. 274 3rd series, § 1, 6-13-2022; Ord. No. 303 3rd series, § 3, 4-8-2024) Sec. 78-1286. New public and private roads. New public and private roads, driveways, parking areas, and public or private watercraft access ramps shall not be constructed within the Shore Setback of the public waters enumerated in section 78-1217. If no alternatives exist, such improvements shall be subject to the standard zoning variance review procedure, and such review shall consider the following: (1)Such improvements shall be designed to take advantage of natural vegetation and topography to achieve maximum screening from view from public waters. (2)All roads and parking areas shall be designed and constructed to minimize and control erosion to public waters consistent with the requirements of all agencies with jurisdiction and in accordance with City Code chapter 79. (Ord. No. 101 2nd series, § 1(10.56(16)(J)), 2-24-1992; Ord. No. 127 2nd series, § 8, 7-11-1994; Ord. No. 163 2nd series, § 3, 12-8-1997; Ord. No. 171 2nd series, § 2, 4-4-1998; Ord. No. 28 3rd series, § 17, 8-22-2005; Ord. No. 133 3rd series, §§ 2, 3, 1-26-2015; Ord. No. 219 3rd series, § 4, 12-10-2018; Ord. No. 243 3rd series, § 2, 4-13-2020) 298 From:Dan Gustafson To:Laura Oakden; Christopher Bollis; Scott Kirchner; Adam Edwards Subject:Re: LA24-000063, LA24-000064 Date:Thursday, November 7, 2024 10:43:41 AM Attachments:image001.png Hanford_v_St_Paul_And_DR_Co.pdf Brisbine_v_St_Paul_And_SCR_Co.pdf State_by_Head_v_Slotness.pdf Lamprey v Metcalf.pdf Thank you Laura, You indicate LA24-000064 / 78-1282 follows the model ordinance from the DNR. Can you provide a copy to me for review? I'm concerned about the use of the term "landing" within the state-defined Shoreland 6120.2500.15 area, especially since a permit is required for construction in (b) 7. Riparian rights cases suggest that property owners have the right to build docks, piers, wharves, and landings on and in front of their property into the water without needing a permit, as these are vested property rights. I request that you revise the language to clarify that stair "landings" are distinct from docks, piers, wharves, or other waterfront structures providing access to the water, as outlined in the attached MN Supreme Court cases. Alternatively, you could remove the word "landing" entirely. If no changes are made, I will submit a formal written objection to the code and attend the public hearing to voice these concerns. Daniel Gustafson | (952) 473-1000 Wayzata.com LakeMinnetonkaRealEstate.com On Tue, Nov 5, 2024 at 4:01 PM Laura Oakden <loakden@oronomn.gov> wrote: Hi Dan, Thanks for your patience. I have included a short summary of the applications you had questions about below. LA24-000064 relates to a text amendment to two different areas within the shoreland overlay district. (See Attached) 1. 78-1282 will address driveways widths within lakeshore setback. The proposed language follows the DNR model ordinance 299 Sign In! NAME 2. 3. 6. 7. 8.i VC55 PLANNING COMMISSION Date: !\ N) / , I Zc>Z4%� ADDRESS 1�5Z) 9�L�`Iv.5 tr PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR: ITEM # PUBLIC COMMENT assistive listening device available upon request