HomeMy WebLinkAbout6.a. Request by Rebecca and Ronald Gruenes
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Planning Commission Meeting: July 23, 2019
Tentative City Council Meeting: August 20, 2019
AGENDA ITEM: 19-32-SMP, 19-33-V, 19-34-RZ Request
by Rebecca and Ronald Gruenes for a
Rezoning, Simple Plat, and Variance to
create a three-lot subdivision called Deer
Haven.
AGENDA SECTION:
Public Hearing
PREPARED BY: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner AGENDA NO. 6.a.
ATTACHMENTS: Site Location Map, Resolution, Proposed
Plat, Existing Conditions, Site Plan
(proposed lots and building pads),
Wetland Delineation Report (Excerpt)
Aerial Photograph, City Engineer Review
Memorandum, Letter from John and
Diane Sleizer
APPROVED BY: KL
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Motion by the Planning Commission (acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments) to
adopt a resolution approving a variance to allow the creation of two lots that share one
driveway and that do not meet the minimum lot width requirement for a RR – Rural
Residential Zoning District;
Motion to recommend the City Council adopt an ordinance rezoning the subject property
from AG Agricultural to RR Rural Residential;
Motion to recommend the City Council approve a Simple Plat for Bacardi Ridge with the
following conditions:
1) Conservation easements in a form acceptable to the City shall be recorded with the
final plat and cover the wetland and wetland buffers as identified on the plat and
associated drawings.
2) All shared portions of the driveway serving Lots 1 and 3 shall be improved to a
minimum width of 16 feet with a one-foot clear zone on either side of the driveway.
3) All driveways shall be capable of supporting access by emergency vehicles and
equipment.
4) All driveways shall be removed from wetland buffer zones; the buffer area lost to
driveways shall be added elsewhere around the same wetland to achieve an
average buffer meeting the requirements of the specific wetland classification.
5) The plat shall be revised to include the dedication of 25 feet of right away along the
western property line and along the present alignment of Coffee Trail to the south.
6) The plat shall be updated to include all required drainage and utility easements
along property lines.
7) The applicant shall provide documentation concerning the existing 60-foot wide
2
ingress and egress easement along the southern property line.
8) The City will require a custom grading plan prior to the construction of homes on
Lots 1 and 2 along with a plan documenting any significant trees to be removed for
said homes. The removal of trees shall be minimized around each new building site.
9) The final plat and associated wetlands and wetland buffers shall be revised to
comply with the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act Notice of Decision for the
property.
10) A fee in lieu of park land dedication of $3,400 for Lots 1 and 2 shall be paid prior to
the issuance of a building permit for each lot.
11) The applicant shall pay the required storm water trunk area assessment of $3,772
per acre prior to recording the final plat. This assessment shall be based on a newly
developed area of 10.23 acres (with further exclusions for wetlands and ponding
areas per the City’s fee schedule). The remaining fee for the property shall be
collected if the southern 6.5 acres is ever further subdivided in the future.
12) The site plan shall be updated to include the proposed primary and alternate private
sewage treatment areas based upon appropriate soil and compaction testing prior to
final approval by the City Council. Each lot must accommodate a sewage treatment
system meeting all City requirements and designed by a licensed septic designer.
13) A shared driveway agreement acceptable to the City for Lots 1 and 3, Block 1 shall
be executed and recorded with the property.
14) Incorporation of recommendations from the City Engineer in a review memorandum
dated July 18, 2019 relative to drainage, grading, easements, utilities, storm water
management, and other subjects covered in the review.
SUMMARY
The Planning Commission is being asked to consider a request by Rebecca and Ronald Gruenes to
subdivide an existing 16.73 acre parcel at 3904 120th Street West into three lots within a new subdivision;
Deer Haven. As part of the subdivision request, the applicants are seeking to rezone the property from its
current designation of AG – Agriculture to RR – Rural Residential, and are also seeking approval of a
variance from the Commission (acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments) to allow the creation of
a lot that does not meet the 200 foot minimum lot width requirement of the RR – Rural Residential zoning
district. The subdivision will create two new lots in addition to a lot that will incorporate the existing
house on the property. Staff is recommending approval of all three components of the request with the
conditions listed above.
Property Owners: Don Stein, 3904 120th Street West
Applicant: Rebecca and Ronald Gruenes, 48545 Shanaska Creek Road, Kasota, MN
Location: 3904 120th Street West (PID 340181017020)
Site Area in Acres: 16.73 Acres
Comprehensive Plan Designation RR – Rural Residential
Current Zoning: AG-Agriculture
Proposed Zoning: RR – Rural Residential
BACKGROUND
The subject property is located in the extreme northwestern portion of Rosemount roughly 1.3 miles west
of South Robert Trail along 120th Street. Rosemount’s boundary with the City of Eagan follows 120th
Street, with Lebanon Hills Regional Park located directly to the north. All of the surrounding property is
rural residential in nature, with a mixture of lots ranging in size from one to 18 acres. The applicants’
parcel is located within a grouping of lots zoned AG – Agriculture on the City’s zoning map although
none meet the minimum density of one house per 40 acres required by ordinance. The entire area is
3
guided for Rural Residential development, which supports an overall density of one house per five acres
(and is consistent with the density of past developments in this part of the City).
The area to be subdivided includes one parcel that is 16.73 acres in size with just under 450 feet of
frontage along 120th Street. Prior to 2003, the site was part of a larger grouping of four parcels owned by
the estate of Elizabeth Stein. In 2003, the City approved a consolidation of parcels that resulted in the
creation of the subject property as well as the neighboring parcel to the east (in this case four smaller
parcels were combined to make two larger lots). The house currently located on the property was
constructed in 1992 and is situated roughly 450 feet south of 120th Street and is not visible from the road.
A 12-foot wide gravel driveway provides access to the house, and winds through a series of wetlands,
culverts, and wooded areas before arriving at the structure.
One of the more unique aspects of this particular part of Rosemount is an abundance of lakes, wetlands,
and other water features. The City’s Comprehensive Wetland Management Plan identifies five wetlands
on the property of varying types, one of which includes an open body of water that extends into the
neighboring parcel to the east. Because there are wetlands on the site, the applicant is required to submit a
wetland delineation report identifying individual wetlands, and any plat documents must include the
boundaries of all verified wetlands. This report has been submitted and is currently under review by the
local Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP). The public comment period for the wetland review is set to
expire on August 8th, with a final decision from the City’s consultant shortly thereafter. The included site
plan and plat have already been updated to reflect the initial comments from an on-site meeting; any
subsequent changes due to the panel’s findings will need to be reflected in the final plat documents.
The applicants have entered into a purchase agreement with the current owner with a contingency that
they be allowed to split the property into three lots. In order to accomplish this subdivision, they are first
requesting that the site be rezoned from AG Agricultural to RR Rural Residential. The proposed rezoning
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the City’s future land use map which classifies this area as
Rural Residential with a maximum density of one residence per five acres. The second request necessary
to allow the splitting of the existing parcel into three lots is a variance in order to create lots that do not
meet the RR district standards for lot width and frontage on a public street. In this case, the current parcel
is slightly less than 450 feet in length, which does not provide enough length for three parcels with 200
feet of frontage on 120th Street. The location of wetlands on the property and present configuration of the
parcel further restrict the ability to provide access to the site in a manner that complies with the City’s
zoning requirements.
The proposed subdivision will create three lots from the larger 16.73 acre parcel, one of which will have
the required amount of frontage along a public street while the other two will not. The largest parcel of
10.77 acres would be designed as a “flag lot” with 130 feet of frontage along 120th Street, with the stem
portion of the flag containing most of the existing driveway. The second parcel of 3.11 acres would
include the existing house and would be a land-locked parcel that would share a driveway with Lot 1. The
remaining lot of 2.51 acres would have 318 feet of frontage along 120th Street and could be served by a
new driveway from the pubic road. All lots comply with the minimum dimensional standards of the RR
district with the exception of Lots 1 and 2 which do not comply with the minimum width and street
frontage requirements. Given the width of the existing lot and location of wetlands on the property, it
does not appear possible to create three lots from the 16+ acre site without a variance.
Plans submitted by the applicant depict the existing conditions on the site, the proposed lot lines and plat
boundaries, and a general location for building sites on the two vacant parcels. Prior to building on the
two new parcels, the applicant will need to secure a building permit, at which time the City would review
site grading and tree removal plans. No septic or soils data has been provided to the City, and the
applicant will also need to demonstrate compliance with the City’s well and septic system design
requirements prior to the issuance of a building permit.
4
ISSUE ANALYIS
Rezoning
The applicant has requested a zoning map amendment to change the zoning of the property from AG –
Agricultural to RR – Rural Residential. The proposed rezoning is consistent with the City’s future land use
map which guides the northwestern portion of Rosemount for rural residential land uses. Upon final
adoption of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan, which is presently under review by the Met Council, the City
will be updating the zoning map to bring it into conformance with the updated plan. As part of this
review, staff is proposing to take a look at existing parcels zoned AG that are under 20 acres in size to
determine if they should also be rezoned to rural residential to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Variance Request and Standards
The subject property presents many challenges for development of any additional lots beyond the existing
home due in part to the shape and configuration of the parcel and in part to the location of wetlands
across the site. All of these factors restrict where a driveway or road could be placed. The one serving the
exiting residence currently runs through a narrow area between four wetlands and an adjoining property.
In addition, the site is heavily wooded with many larger deciduous trees, and any new home sites should be
sited to avoid tree removal as much as possible.
The maximum density allowed within a RR zoning district is one house per five acres, and the site is
capable of supporting three total residential units without exceeding this requirement. The zoning
ordinance requires platted lots of 2.5 acres in size. Although it is a relatively large property (with a depth of
over 1,200 feet south of 120th Street), the frontage along 120th Street is limited to 450 feet, which would
not allow three lots meeting the 200 foot lot width requirement. The southern boundary of the property
does touch a portion of the Coffee Trail right-of-way, but is limited to only the eastern 25 feet of this road.
It would not be possible to extend Coffee Trail to serve lots on the subject property without acquiring
additional right-of-way from the neighboring property. In addition, the applicant does not believe that an
extension of Coffee Trail is feasible at this time because the improved portion of the road is over 200 feet
from the property boundary.
Given the restrictions for providing access to the proposed lots, the applicant is requesting variances from
two specific sections of the Zoning Ordinance as follows:
• Section 11-2-7 Street Access Required. This section of code require that every building
hereafter erected shall be located on a lot having frontage on a public street.
• Section 11-4-3 RR Min Lot Requirements and Setbacks. This section of code specifies that
the minimum lot width for platted land within a RR zoning district is 200 feet.
Looking at the proposed subdivision, the requested variances would allow the platting of Lot 3 without
any frontage on a public street (while meeting the width requirement) and platting of Lot 1 with a width of
130 feet, or 70 feet short of the 200 foot minimum. Access to Lot 3 (the existing home) would occur via
the existing driveway that would now be shared with and located on Lot 1.
According to Section 11-12-2.G, there are five criteria for the Board of Appeals and Adjustments to
review when considering a variance request. The five criteria used to assess each request along with staff’s
findings for each are listed below. While weighing a variance request against these criteria, there are also
two key issues to consider. The first is whether there the owner proposes to use the property in a
reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. The second is whether the project can be
redesigned to eliminate or reduce the need for a variance. The Board of Zoning Appeals must approve or
deny each request based on findings related to each of the five standards.
5
1. The variance request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance.
Finding: Staff finds that the request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance
because it allows for rural residential development at the densities permitted within a RR – Rural
Residential zoning district. The applicant is not requesting any exceptions to the lot area, setbacks,
or other dimensional standards, and is proposing wetland buffers that consistent with the City’s
wetland management plan.
2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Finding: The site is designated as Rural Residential. The variance will permit the platting of three
lots with a gross density of one house per 5.77 acres consistent with the land use designation and
zoning ordinance. Additionally, the variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan as it relates
to wetlands.
3. Granting of the variance allows reasonable use of the property.
Finding: There is sufficient room on the property for the applicant to extend a public road into
the property; however, doing so would result in significant impacts to the wetlands, trees, and
rolling topography of the site. The proposed driveway and lot width variance will allow the
residential density permitted under the zoning ordinance while utilizing the existing driveway to
provide reasonable access to two lots instead of one. This will reduce overall impacts on the site
while providing safe access to each residential structure.
4. There are unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner.
Finding: The site is covered by a series of wetlands that greatly reduce the amount of land
available for new residential structures and driveways, and the overall configuration of the lot was
established long before the City adopted its wetland management plan and ordinances. While
wetlands are not uncommon in the northwest portion of the City, the location of wetlands on the
applicants’ property greatly limits the ability to construct or expand a driveway to serve the site.
5. Granting of the variance does not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The City’s northwest rural area contains rural lots ranging in size from one to 18 or more
acres in size, and the RR zoning standards allow for lots with a minimum size of 2.5 acres
(provided the overall density does not exceed one unit per five acres). The applicant is not seeking
variances from any density standards, and the variance will allow the sharing of a driveway between
two otherwise conforming parcels with regards to lot area. The closest neighboring residential
structures are approximately 250 feet to the closet point of any new homes proposed. Staff finds
that the essential character of the locality will remain intact.
Simple Plat
The applicant is proposing a simple plat for the subdivision, which allows the City to waive some of the
normal subdivision application requirements and to combine the preliminary and final plat review into one
action. While the proposed plat does create two new buildable parcels, the resulting rural lots will not be
served by any new public improvements (roads or public sewer and water); therefore, many of the City’s
standard plat application materials are not necessary for this subdivision.
The proposed lots to be created will be 2.51, 3.11, and 10.77 acres in size, two of which will share an
existing driveway while the other will access directly to 120th Street. The applicant will need to draft and
execute a shared driveway easement and agreement to ensure its availability for use by both lots.
In the future, any site improvements and permits for home construction will need to comply with the
City’s zoning regulations.
6
Wetlands/Conservation Easements
As noted throughout this report, the most significant issue associated with the proposed plat is the
location of several wetlands on the property. Under City and State requirements for wetlands, the
applicant must complete a wetland delineation report for the property, and all identified wetlands must be
documented on the proposed subdivision. The applicant has hired Soil Investigation and Design, Inc. to
prepare this report (an excerpt of which is attached), which is in the process of being reviewed by the
City’s water resources consultant. The local technical evaluation panel (TEP) has recently met on site to
discuss the report, and the public comment period concerning the evaluation ends on August 8th. The City
is still waiting to receive some information from the applicant before a final decision is made, and the final
review will confirm the classification and boundaries for each of the wetlands. The City’s consultant will
be in attendance at the Planning Commission meeting to summarize the wetland review process.
The attached existing conditions plan, simple plat, and site plan depict the wetlands as identified in the
wetland delineation report. Please note that one of the wetlands identified by the report (located
immediately southwest of the existing home) is considered an incidental wetland and therefore would not
be regulated under the City’s ordinances. Information verifying this classification needs to be submitted
and confirmed prior to recording of the plat. The applicant has also grouped two of the wetlands mapped
by the City into one wetland and will be tracked as such in this memorandum.
Under its wetland management plan, the City requires easements over each wetland in addition to buffer
areas around each wetland. Furthermore, each wetland is also classified for management and protection
based on the initial evaluation conducted by the City and verified prior to development. For the subject
property, the following classifications and associated buffers will apply based on the delineation report
(theses are also mapped on the submitted plat documents):
Wetland # Classification Buffer
1 Preserve 75 ft.
2 Manage 2 30 ft.
3 Incidental N/A
4 Manage 2 30 ft.
5 Manage 3 15 ft.
The City requires that all wetlands and buffer areas be covered by a drainage and utility easement on a plat,
and will also require a separate conservation easement over these areas as well. The attached plat and site
plans depict the boundaries of the wetlands as described in the delineation report along with drainage and
utility easements up to the required buffer line. The City does allow for buffer averaging around individual
wetlands in instances where is not possible or feasible to maintain a uniform buffer distance around the
entire wetland. Because the existing driveway extends through one of the required buffers, the applicant is
proposing to move this buffer elsewhere on the property to maintain an average around the affected
wetlands. The impacted and mitigated buffer areas are shown as the cross-hatched areas on the site plan.
After reviewing the wetland area and buffering plan, staff has the identified the following issues with the
plan as presented:
• Certain portions of the driveway extend into the Wetland #2 buffer area. No portions of the
driveway should be located with a proposed buffer area.
• The City’s wetland management regulations require a 30 foot setback for any structures from the
buffer to allow for usable yard space. There are two locations on the plan where this setback will
conflict with a deck on the existing house or the building pad for Lot 2.
7
• Some of the mitigated buffer area is shown around Wetland 4, but there are no proposed
encroachments into the buffer around this wetland. The applicant will need to add this mitigation
area back to the buffer around the impacted wetlands (either Wetland 1 or 2). Staff is
recommending an expansion of Wetland 1 around the incidental wetland southeast of the existing
house to bring the buffer average of Wetland 1 back to 75 feet.
• Conservation easements over the buffer areas will need to be signed by the applicant and recorded
with the final plat.
Upon completion of the City’s wetland review, any modifications or revisions to the boundaries of the
wetlands must be incorporated into the plat.
Access and Driveway Issues
The driveway currently serving the existing house on the site is a single-lane road with a crushed-rock
service that is roughly between 10 to 12 feet in width, although there is open area, non-graveled on both
sides of the drive. Although this width may be sufficient for serving a single home, staff is concerned that
the present configuration is not appropriate for use by more than one residence. In order to ensure that
there is sufficient room for multiple users to access two building sites and to accommodate access by
emergency and service vehicles, staff is recommending that the driveway be improved to a minimum width
of 16 feet with a clear zone (no trees, shrubs, or branches) of a least one foot on either side of the
driveway. In addition to access, the clear zone is also intended to help provide a minimal amount of space
for snow storage in the winter months. Please note that the final buffer zones around the wetlands must
be designed to accommodate a minimum of 18 feet around the driveway based on the staff
recommendation.
Public R ight-of-Way Dedication
The proposed plat is adjacent to 120 Street and will therefore need to dedicate right-of-way for that
portion of the road located on the applicant’s property. The proposed 33-foot dedication will meet this
requirement. In addition, the subject property is located north of the furthest limits of the Coffee Trail
right-of-way. Although Coffee Trail is not improved all the way to the property, staff is recommending
that the applicant provide right-of-way dedication for that portion of Coffee Trail that could continue
north at some point in the future. The expected dedication for the applicants’ property is 25 feet along the
western property boundary. The City does not have any plans to construct the road in the near future, but
this dedication would help ensure that there will be options available in the future, especially as other
properties in the area are developed.
The plat indicates that there is an existing ingress and egress easement along the southern property
boundary. Staff has not been able to find any documentation concerning this easement in the City’s files,
and is asking that the applicant provide any records they may have concerning the easement for review by
the City.
Lot Standards
The site is proposed to be rezoned to the RR – Rural Residential zoning district, which allows lots with a
minimum size of 2.5 acres if platted, and maximum overall density of one house per five acres. All three
lots will meet this minimum lot size standard, and the overall proposed density of three houses on 16.73
acres (one house per 5.77 acres) will meet the density standard. Please note that the resulting lot sizes are
exclusive of the dedicated right-of-way, which also does not change the ultimate maximum number of
allowed units for this area. While a general concept plan for the location of new houses has been
provided, the City will be able to determine compliance with all other setback and dimensional standards at
the time a building permit is submitted for each lot. Staff will determine the front yard as the lot line
facing 120th Street. The noted building pad locations do not appear to conflict with any required setbacks.
8
Lot Standards
Lot Area Lot Width Maximum Density
RR – Rural Residential 2.5 Acres 200 feet 1 unit/5 Acres
Current Proposed
Lot Area Lot Width Lot Area Lot Width
Lot 1, Block 1
16.73 acres 449.25 ft.
10.77 acres 130.76
Lot 2, Block 1 2.51 acres 318.90
Lot 3, Block 1 3.11 acres 697.68
Although the site plan does include a general building area, the applicant has not indicated where the
proposed septic treatment systems would be located on each lot. The site plan should be updated to
include an area that meets the minimum standards for a primary and secondary treatment system,
including appropriate compaction and soils testing prior to City Council action.
Grading, Storm Water Management, and Tree Preservation
With only two new buildable, rural lots within the proposed subdivision, and no public road construction,
the City has not required an overall grading, erosion control, or storm water management plan for the
project. Instead, the building permit for each lot much be accompanied by a custom lot grading plan that
demonstrates compliance with the City’s grading and erosion control standards. Likewise, the City has not
required an overall tree protection and replacement plan, and will instead evaluate tree impacts with the
specific grading plans for each lot. The City does allow for tree removal of up to 25% of the trees on a
development site without a requirement for replacement, and given the large size of the property, the
applicant will not come close to exceeding this number. In order to preserve the rural character of the
area, removal of tress on the new building sites should be kept to the minimum necessary to construct the
house and driveway.
Drainage and Utility Easements
In addition to the easements over wetlands and buffer areas, the applicant will need to provide the
standard drainage and utility easements over the lot lines of all lots platted within the subdivision. These
easements are missing from the plat and will need to be added to the final version.
Development Fees
Although many of the City’s standard development fees will not apply to the proposed subdivision
because it will not be served by public water and sewer service, there are two development fees that will
apply as follows:
• Fee in Lieu of Land Dedication - $3,400 per each new lot.
• Surface Water Trunk Area Assessment for the Lebanon Hills Subwatershed Area - $3,772 per acre.
Please note that the City has applied the storm water fee to the developed portion of any subdivision and
excluded outlots and future development areas from the calculation. Although the applicants are
subdividing all of the subject property, there is a large area in the southern portion of the site that is not
directly connected to the rest of the property. Staff is recommending that only the northern portion of the
property be subject to the area assessment, with the understanding that if the southern area is ever
subdivided in the future the assessment could be applied to this property at this time. Staff is estimating
that approximately 6.5 acres of the site could be left off of the surface water trunk area and collected only
when and if this part of the property is developed.
9
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of a Variance, Rezoning, and Simple Plat request for the Deer Haven plat with
conditions. This recommendation for approval is based on the information provided to the Planning
Commission.
Dakota County, MN
Property Information
July 11, 2019
0 875 1,750437.5 ft
0 270 540135 m
1:9,600
Disclaimer: Map and parcel data are believed to be accurate, but accuracy is not guaranteed. This is not a legal document and should not be substituted for a title search,appraisal, survey, or for zoning verification.
CITY OF ROSEMOUNT
DAKOTA COUNTY, MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION BA2019-01
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF TWO
LOTS THAT SHARE ONE DRIVEWAY AND THAT DO NOT MEET THE MINIMUM
LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT FOR AN RR – RURAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING
DISTRICT.
WHEREAS, Rebecca and Ronald Gruenes, 48545 Shanaska Creek Road, Kasota, MN (the
“Applicant”), has submitted an application to the City Rosemount (the “City”), for a variance to
allow the creation of two lots that share one driveway and that do not meet the minimum lot width
requirement for am RR – Rural Residential zoning district; and
WHEREAS, notice has been published, mailed and posted pursuant to the Rosemount Zoning
Ordinance, Section 11-12-2; and
WHEREAS, the Rosemount Board of Appeals and Adjustments held a public hearing and
considered said on said matter on July 23, 2019; and
NOW, THEREFORE, based on the testimony elicited and information received, the Rosemount
Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following:
FINDINGS
1. That the procedures for obtaining said Variance are found in the Rosemount Zoning
Ordinance, Section 11-12-2.
2. That all the submission requirements of said Section 11-12-2 have been met by the
Applicant.
3. That the Variance will be located on property legally described as follows (the applicant’s
current lot prior to subdivision/recombination):
All that part of the W 1/2 of Government Lot 1 in Section 7 and of the W 1/2 of the NE
1/4 in Section 18 all in Township 115N, Range 19W, Dakota County, Minnesota described
as follows:
Commencing at the Northeast corner of said W 1/2 of Government Lot 1 and running
thence West along the North line thereof a distance of 618.28 to the point of beginning of
the land to be described; thence continuing West along said North line a distance of 450.00
feet; thence South and parallel to the West line of said Government Lot 1 and said NE 1/4 a
1
distance of 296.48 feet; thence Westerly parallel with the North line of said W 1/2 of NE
1/4 a distance of 242.07 feet to the West line of said W 1/2 of said NE 1/4; thence
Southerly along said West line a distance of 433.28 feet; thence Easterly parallel with the
north line of said W 1/2 of Government Lot 1 a distance of 697.97
feet; thence Northerly a distance of 730.50 feet to the point of beginning.
and
All thot part of the West Half of Government Lot One (1) in Section Seven (7) and of the
West Half of the Northeast Quarter in Section Eighteen (18), all in Township One hundred
fifteen (115) North, Range Nineteen (19) West, Dakota County, Minnesota described as
follows: Commencing at the northeast corner of said West Half of Government Lot One (1)
and running thence west along the north line thereof a distance of 618.28 feet to the point of
beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing west along said north line 450.00
feet; thence south and parallel to the west line of said Government Lot 1 and said Northeast
Quarter a distance of 296.48 feet; thence westerly parallel with the north line of said West
Half of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 242.07 feet to the west line of said West Half of
said Northeast Quarter; thence southerly along said west line 830.60 feet; thence easterly
parallel with the north line of said West Half of the Northeast Quarter 388.70 feet; thence
southeasterly 321.43 feet along a line whose terminus is a point on the east line of said West
Half of the Northeast Quarter distant 1437.58 feet south of the northeast corner of said
West Half of
Government Lot 1; thence north 1228.47 feet to the point of beginning.
Subject to an easement for ingress and egress over the south 60 feet thereof. Said 60 feet
being measured at right angles to said south line.
EXCEPT:
All that part of the W 1/2 of Government Lot 1 in Section 7 and the W 1/2 of the NE 1/4
in Section 18 all in Township 115 N, Range 19 W, Dakota County, Minnesota described as
follows: Commencing at the Northeast corner of said W 1/2 of Government Lot 1and
running thence West along the North line thereof a distance of 618.28 feet to the point of
beginning of the land to be described; thence continuing West along said north line a
distance of 450.00 feet; thence South and parallel to the west line of said government Lot 1
and said NE 1/4 a distance of 296.48 feet; thence Westerly parallel with the North line of
said W 1/2 of NE 1/4 a distance of 242 07 feet to the West line of said W 1/2 of said NE 1
/4; thence Southerly along said West line a distance of 433.28 feet; thence Easterly parallel
with the north line of said W 1/2 of Government' Lot 1a distance of 697.97 feet; thence
northerly a distance of 730.50 feet to the point of beginning.
4. The variance request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance. Finding :
Staff finds that the request is in harmony with the purposes and intent of the ordinance
because it allows for rural residential development at the densities permitted within a RR-
Rural Residential district. The applicant is not requesting exception to the lot area, setbacks,
or other dimensional standards, and is proposing lots and wetland buffers that comply with
the City’s wetland management plan.
5. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding : The site is designated as
Rural Residential. The variance will permit the platting of three lots with a gross density of
2
one house per 5.77 acres consistent with that land use designation. Additionally, the variance
is consistent with the comprehensive plan as it relates to wetlands.
6. Granting of the variance allows reasonable use of the property. Finding : There is sufficient
room on the property for the applicant to extend a public road into the property; however,
doing so would result in significant impacts to the wetlands, trees, and rolling topography of
the site. The proposed driveway and lot width variance will allow the residential density
permitted under the zoning ordinance while utilizing the existing driveway to provide access
to two lots instead of one. This will reduce overall impacts on the site while providing safe
access to each residential structure.
7. There are unique circumstances to the property which are not created by the landowner.
Finding : The site is covered by a series of wetlands that greatly reduce the amount of land
available for new residential structures and driveways, and the overall configuration of the lot
was established long before the City adopted its wetland management plan and ordinances.
While wetlands are not uncommon in the northwest portion of the City, the location of
wetlands on the applicants’ property greatly limits the ability to construct or expand a
driveway to serve the site.
8. Granting of the variance does not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding : The
City’s northwest rural area contains rural lots ranging in size from one to 18 or more acres in
size, and the RR zoning standards allow for lots with a minimum size of 2.5 acres (provided
the overall density does not exceed one unit per five acres). The applicant is not seeking
variances from any density standards, and the variance will allow the sharing of a driveway
between two otherwise conforming parcels with regards to lot area. The closest neighboring
residential structures are approximately 250 feet to the closet point of any new homes
proposed. Staff finds that the essential character of the locality will remain intact.
CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
Based on the foregoing, the Applicant’s application for a Variance is granted, subject to the
following condition:
1) Approval of a request to rezone the property from AG – Agricultural to RR – Rural
Residential and approval of the simple plat for Deer Haven.
Passed and duly adopted this 23rd day of July 2019, by the Board of Appeals and Adjustments of the
City of Rosemount, Minnesota.
__________________________________
Melissa Kenninger, Chair
ATTEST:
________________________________
Stacy Bodsberg, Planning & Personnel Secretary
3
1
Ron and Rebecca Gruenes
3904 120th Street
Rosemount, MN
Wetland Delineation Report
Prepared for
Ron and Rebecca Gruenes
3904 120th Street
Rosemount, MN
by
Soil Investigation & Design, Inc.
2809 78th Ave. N.
Brooklyn Park, MN 55444
Date: May 29, 2019
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 1 of 11
Joint Application Form for Activities Affecting Water Resources
in Minnesota
This joint application form is the accepted means for initiating review of proposals that may affect a water resource (wetlan d,
tributary, lake, etc.) in the State of Minnesota under state and federal regulatory programs. Applicants for Minnesota Department
of Natural Resources (DNR) Public Waters permits MUST use the MPARS online permitting system for submitting applications to
the DNR. Applicants can use the information entered into MPARS to substitute for completing parts of this joint application form
(see the paragraph on MPARS at the end of the joint application form instructions for additional information). This form is only
applicable to the water resource aspects of proposed projects under state and federal regulatory programs; other local
applications and approvals may be required. Depending on the nature of the project and the location and type of water resources
impacted, multiple authorizations may be required as different regulatory programs have different types of jurisdiction over
different types of resources.
Regulatory Review Structure
Federal
The St. Paul District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) is the federal agency that regulates discharges of dredged or fill
material into waters of the United States (wetlands, tributaries, lakes, etc.) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) and
regulates work in navigable waters under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act. Applications are assigned to Corps project
managers who are responsible for implementing the Corps regulatory program within a particular geographic area.
State
There are three state regulatory programs that regulate activities affecting water resources. The Wetland Conservation Act
(WCA) regulates most activities affecting wetlands. It is administered by local government units (LGUs) which can be counties,
townships, cities, watershed districts, watershed management organizations or state agencies (on state -owned land). The
Minnesota DNR Division of Ecological and Water Resources issues permits for work in specially-designated public waters via the
Public Waters Work Permit Program (DNR Public Waters Permits). The Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) under Section
401 of the Clean Water Act certifies that discharges of dredged or fill material authorized by a federal permit or license comply
with state water quality standards. One or more of these regulatory programs may be applicable to any one project.
Required Information
Prior to submitting an application, applicants are strongly encouraged to seek input from the Corps Project Manager and LGU staff
to identify regulatory issues and required application materials for their proposed project. Project proponents can request a pre-
application consultation with the Corps and LGU to discuss their proposed project by providing the information required in
Sections 1 through 5 of this joint application form to facilitate a meaningful discussion about their project. Many LGUs provide a
venue (such as regularly scheduled technical evaluation panel meetings) for potential a pplicants to discuss their projects with
multiple agencies prior to submitting an application. Contact information is provided below.
The following bullets outline the information generally required for several common types of determinations/authorizations .
• For delineation approvals and/or jurisdictional determinations, submit Parts 1, 2 and 5, and Attachment A.
• For activities involving CWA/WCA exemptions, WCA no-loss determinations, and activities not requiring mitigation,
submit Parts 1 through 5, and Attachment B.
• For activities requiring compensatory mitigation/replacement plan, submit Parts 1 thru 5, and Attachments C and D.
• For local road authority activities that qualify for the state’s local road wetland replacement program, submit Parts 1
through 5, and Attachments C, D (if applicable), and E to both the Corps and the LGU.
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 2 of 11
Submission Instructions
Send the completed joint application form and all required attachments to:
U.S Army Corps of Engineers. Applications may be sent directly to the appropriate Corps Office. For a current listing of areas of
responsibilities and contact information, visit the St. Paul District’s website at:
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory.aspx and select “Minnesota” from the contact Information box.
Alternatively, applications may be sent directly to the St. Paul District Headquarters and the Corps will forward them to the
appropriate field office.
Section 401 Water Quality Certification: Applicants do not need to submit the joint application form to the MPCA unless
specifically requested. The MPCA will request a copy of the completed joint application form directly from an applicant when they
determine an individual 401 water quality certification is required for a proposed project.
Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit: Send to the appropriate Local Government Unit. If necessary, contact your
county Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) office or visit the Board of Wate r and Soil Resources (BWSR) web site
(www.bwsr.state.mn.us) to determine the appropriate LGU.
DNR Public Waters Permitting: In 2014 the DNR will begin using the Minnesota DNR Permitting and Reporting System (MPARS) for
submission of Public Waters permit applications (https://webapps11.dnr.state.mn.us/mpars/public/authentication/login).
Applicants for Public Waters permits MUST use the MPARS online permitting system for submitting applications to the DNR. To
avoid duplication and to streamline the application process among the various resource agencies, applicants can use the
information entered into MPARS to substitute for completing parts of this joint application form. The MPARS print/save function
will provide the applicant with a copy of the Public Waters permit application which, at a minimum, will satisfy Parts one and two
of this joint application. For certain types of activities, the MPARS application may a lso provide all of the necessary information
required under Parts three and four of the joint application. However, it is the responsibility of the Applicant to make sure that
the joint application contains all of the required information, including identification of all aquatic resources impacted by the
project (see Part four of the joint application). After confirming that the MPARS application contains all of the required
information in Parts one and two the Applicant may attach a copy to the joint application and fill in any missing information in the
remainder of the joint application.
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 3 of 11
Project Name and/or Number:
PART ONE: Applicant Information
If applicant is an entity (company, government entity, partnership, etc.), an authorized contact person must be identified. If the
applicant is using an agent (consultant, lawyer, or other third party) and has authorized them to act on their behalf , the agent’s
contact information must also be provided.
Applicant/Landowner Name: Ron and Rebecca Gruenes
Mailing Address: 3904 120th St, Rosemount
Phone:
E-mail Address: gruenes@hickorytech.net
Authorized Contact (do not complete if same as above):
Mailing Address:
Phone:
E-mail Address:
Agent Name: Paul Brandt PSS
Mailing Address: 2809 78th Ave. N Brooklyn Park, MN 55444
Phone: 651-260-3783
E-mail Address: pbrandt@soilinvestigations.us
PART TWO: Site Location Information
County: Dakota City/Township: Rosemount
Parcel ID and/or Address: 340181017020
Legal Description (Section, Township, Range): S18, T115W, R19W
Lat/Long (decimal degrees):
Attach a map showing the location of the site in relation to local streets, roads, highways.
Approximate size of site (acres) or if a linear project, length (feet): 16.73 acres
If you know that your proposal will require an individual Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you must provide the
names and addresses of all property owners adjacent to the project site. This information may be provided by attaching a list to
your application or by using block 25 of the Application for Department of the Army permit which can be obtained at:
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Portals/57/docs/regulatory/RegulatoryDocs/engform_4345_2012oct.pdf
PART THREE: General Project/Site Information
If this application is related to a delineation approval, exemption determination, jurisdictional determination, or other
correspondence submitted prior to this application then describe that here and provide the Corps of Engineers project number.
Describe the project that is being proposed, the project purpose and need, and schedule for implementation and completion. The
project description must fully describe the nature and scope of the proposed activity including a description of all project elements
that effect aquatic resources (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) and must also include plans and cross section or profile drawings
showing the location, character, and dimensions of all proposed activities and aquatic resource impacts.
Boundary & Type determination.
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 4 of 11
Project Name and/or Number:
PART FOUR: Aquatic Resource Impact1 Summary
If your proposed project involves a direct or indirect impact to an aquatic resource (wetland, lake, tributary, etc.) identify each
impact in the table below. Include all anticipated impacts, including those expected to be temporary. Attach an overhead view map,
aerial photo, and/or drawing showing all of the aquatic resources in the project area and the location(s) of the proposed impacts.
Label each aquatic resource on the map with a reference number or letter and identify the impacts in the following table.
Aquatic Resource
ID (as noted on
overhead view)
Aquatic
Resource Type
(wetland, lake,
tributary etc.)
Type of Impact
(fill, excavate,
drain, or
remove
vegetation)
Duration of
Impact
Permanent (P)
or Temporary
(T)1
Size of Impact2
Overall Size of
Aquatic
Resource 3
Existing Plant
Community
Type(s) in
Impact Area4
County, Major
Watershed #,
and Bank
Service Area #
of Impact Area5
None
1If impacts are temporary; enter the duration of the impacts in days next to the “T”. For example, a project with a temporary access fill that
would be removed after 220 days would be entered “T (220)”.
2Impacts less than 0.01 acre should be reported in square feet. Impacts 0.01 acre or greater should be reported as acres and rounded to the
nearest 0.01 acre. Tributary impacts must be reported in linear feet of impact and an area of impact by indicating first the linear feet of impact
along the flowline of the stream followed by the area impact in parentheses). For example, a project that impacts 50 feet of a stream that is 6
feet wide would be reported as 50 ft (300 square feet).
3This is generally only applicable if you are applying for a de minimis exemption under MN Rules 8420.0420 Subp. 8, otherwise enter “N/A”.
4Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3rd Ed. as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp. 2.
5Refer to Major Watershed and Bank Service Area maps in MN Rules 8420.0522 Subp. 7.
If any of the above identified impacts have already occurred, identify which impacts they are and the circumstances associated
with each:
PART FIVE: Applicant Signature
Check here if you are requesting a pre-application consultation with the Corps and LGU based on the information you have
provided. Regulatory entities will not initiate a formal application review if this box is checked.
By signature below, I attest that the information in this application is complete and accurate. I further attest that I possess the
authority to undertake the work described herein.
Signature: Date: May 29, 2019
I hereby authorize to act on my behalf as my agent in the processing of this application and to furnish, upon request,
supplemental information in support of this application.
1 The term “impact” as used in this joint application form is a generic term used for disclosure purposes to identify
activities that may require approval from one or more regulatory agencies. For purposes of this form it is not meant to
indicate whether or not those activities may require mitigation/replacement.
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 5 of 11
Project Name and/or Number:
Attachment A
Request for Delineation Review, Wetland Type Determination, or
Jurisdictional Determination
By submission of the enclosed wetland delineation report, I am requesting that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District
(Corps) and/or the Wetland Conservation Act Local Government Unit (LGU) provide me with the following (check all that apply):
Wetland Type Confirmation
Delineation Concurrence. Concurrence with a delineation is a written notification from the Corps and a decision from the LGU
concurring, not concurring, or commenting on the boundaries of the aqu atic resources delineated on the property. Delineation
concurrences are generally valid for five years unless site conditions change. Under this request alone, the Corps will not a ddress
the jurisdictional status of the aquatic resources on the property, only the boundaries of the resources within the review area
(including wetlands, tributaries, lakes, etc.).
Preliminary Jurisdictional Determination. A preliminary jurisdictional determination (PJD) is a non-binding written indication
from the Corps that waters, including wetlands, identified on a parcel may be waters of the United States. For purposes of
computation of impacts and compensatory mitigation requirements, a permit decision made on the basis of a PJD will treat all
waters and wetlands in the review area as if they are jurisdictional waters o f the U.S. PJDs are advisory in nature and may not be
appealed.
Approved Jurisdictional Determination. An approved jurisdictional determination (AJD) is an official Corps determination that
jurisdictional waters of the United States are either present or absent on the property. AJDs can generally be relied upon by the
affected party for five years. An AJD may be appealed through the Corps administrative appeal process.
In order for the Corps and LGU to process your request, the wetland delineation must be prep ared in accordance with the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, any approved Regional Supplements to the 1987 Manual, and the Guidelines for
Submitting Wetland Delineations in Minnesota (2013).
http://www.mvp.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/DelineationJDGuidance.aspx
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 6 of 11
Project Name and/or Number:
Attachment B
Supporting Information for Applications Involving Exemptions, No Loss
Determinations, and Activities Not Requiring Mitigation
Complete this part if you maintain that the identified aquatic resource impacts in Part Four do not require wetland
replacement/compensatory mitigation OR if you are seeking verification that the proposed water resource impacts are either
exempt from replacement or are not under CWA/WCA jurisdiction.
Identify the specific exemption or no-loss provision for which you believe your project or site qualifies:
Provide a detailed explanation of how your project or site qualifies for the above. Be specific and provide and refer to attachments
and exhibits that support your contention. Applicants should refer to rules (e.g. WCA rules), guidance documents (e.g. BWSR
guidance, Corps guidance letters/public notices), and permit conditions (e.g. Corps General Permit conditions) to determine the
necessary information to support the application. Applicants are strongly encouraged to contact the WCA LGU and Corps Project
Manager prior to submitting an application if they are unsure of what type of information to provide:
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 7 of 11
Project Name and/or Number:
Attachment C
Avoidance and Minimization
Project Purpose, Need, and Requirements. Clearly state the purpose of your project and need for your project. Also include a
description of any specific requirements of the project as they relate to project location, project footprint, water management,
and any other applicable requirements. Attach an overhead plan sheet showing all relevant features of the project (buildings,
roads, etc.), aquatic resource features (impact areas noted) and construction details (grading plans, storm water management
plans, etc.), referencing these as necessary:
Avoidance. Both the CWA and the WCA require that impacts to aquatic resources be avoided if practicable alternatives exist.
Clearly describe all on-site measures considered to avoid impacts to aquatic resources and d iscuss at least two project alternatives
that avoid all impacts to aquatic resources on the site. These alternatives may include alternative site plans, alternate sites, and/or
not doing the project. Alternatives should be feasible and prudent (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 2 C). Applicants are encouraged
to attach drawings and plans to support their analysis:
Minimization. Both the CWA and the WCA require that all unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources be minimized to the greatest
extent practicable. Discuss all features of the proposed project that have been modified to minimize the impacts to water
resources (see MN Rules 8420.0520 Subp. 4):
Off-Site Alternatives. An off-site alternatives analysis is not required for all permit applications. If you know that your proposal
will require an individual permit (standard permit or letter of permission) from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, you may be
required to provide an off-site alternatives analysis. The alternatives analysis is not required for a complete application but must
be provided during the review process in order for the Corps to complete the evaluation of your application and reach a final
decision. Applicants with questions about when an off-site alternatives analysis is required should contact their Corps Project
Manager.
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 8 of 11
Project Name and/or Number:
Attachment D
Replacement/Compensatory Mitigation
Complete this part if your application involves wetland replacement/compensato ry mitigation not associated with the local road
wetland replacement program. Applicants should consult Corps mitigation guidelines and WCA rules for requirements.
Replacement/Compensatory Mitigation via Wetland Banking. Complete this section if you are proposing to use credits from an
existing wetland bank (with an account number in the State wetland banking system) for all or part of your
replacement/compensatory mitigation requirements.
Wetland Bank
Account # County Major
Watershed #
Bank
Service
Area #
Credit Type
(if applicable) Number of Credits
Applicants should attach documentation indicating that they have contacted the wetland bank account owner and reached at
least a tentative agreement to utilize the identified credits for the project. This documentation could be a signed purchase
agreement, signed application for withdrawal of credits or some other correspondence indicating an agreement between the
applicant and the bank owner. However, applicants are advised not to enter into a binding agreement to purchase credits until the
mitigation plan is approved by the Corps and LGU.
Project-Specific Replacement/Permittee Responsible Mitigation. Complete this section if you are proposing to pursue actions
(restoration, creation, preservation, etc.) to generate wetland replacement/compensatory mitigation credits for this proposed
project.
WCA Action Eligible
for Credit1
Corps Mitigation
Compensation
Technique2
Acres Credit %
Requested
Credits
Anticipated3 County Major
Watershed #
Bank
Service
Area #
1Refer to the name and subpart number in MN Rule 8420.0526.
2Refer to the technique listed in St. Paul District Policy for Wetland Compensatory Mitigation in Minnesota.
3If WCA and Corps crediting differs, then enter both numbers and distinguish which is Corps and which is WCA.
Explain how each proposed action or technique will be completed (e.g. wetland hydrology will be restored by breaking the tile……)
and how the proposal meets the crediting criteria associated with it. Applicants should refer to the Corps mitigation policy
language, WCA rule language, and all associated Corps and WCA guidance related to the action or technique:
Attach a site location map, soils map, recent aerial photograph, and any other maps to show the location and other relevant
features of each wetland replacement/mitigation site. Discuss in detail existing vegetation, existing landscape features, lan d use
(on and surrounding the site), existing soils, drainage systems (if present), and water sources and movement. Include a
topographic map showing key features related to hydrology and water flow (inlets, outlets, ditches, pumps, etc.):
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 9 of 11
Project Name and/or Number:
Attach a map of the existing aquatic resources, associated delineation report, and any documentation of regulatory review or
approval. Discuss as necessary:
For actions involving construction activities, attach construction plans and specifications with all relevant details. Discuss and
provide documentation of a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis of the site to define existing conditions, predict project outcomes,
identify specific project performance standards and avoid adverse offsite impacts. Plans and specifications should be prepared by
a licensed engineer following standard engineering practices. Discuss anticipated construction sequence and timing:
For projects involving vegetation restoration, provide a vegetation establishment plan that includes information on site
preparation, seed mixes and plant materials, seeding/planting plan (attach seeding/planting zone map), planting/seeding
methods, vegetation maintenance, and an anticipated schedule of activities:
For projects involving construction or vegetation restoration, identify and discuss goals and specific outcomes that can be
determined for credit allocation. Provide a proposed credit allocation table tied to outcomes:
Provide a five-year monitoring plan to address project outcomes and credit allocation:
Discuss and provide evidence of ownership or rights to conduct wetland replacement/mitigation on each site:
Quantify all proposed wetland credits and compare to wetland impacts to identify a proposed wetland replacement ratio. Discus s
how this replacement ratio is consistent with Corps and WCA requirements:
By signature below, the applicant attests to the following (only required if application involves project-specific/permittee
responsible replacement):
• All proposed replacement wetlands were not:
• Previously restored or created under a prior approved replacement plan or permit
• Drained or filled under an exemption during the previous 10 years
• Restored with financial assistance from public conservation programs
• Restored using private funds, other than landowner funds, unless the funds are paid back with interest to the individual
or organization that funded the restoration and the individual or organization notifies the local government unit in
writing that the restored wetland may be considered for replacement.
• The wetland will be replaced before or concurrent with the actual draining or filling of a wetland.
• An irrevocable bank letter of credit, performance bond, or other acceptable security will be provided t o guarantee successful
completion of the wetland replacement.
• Within 30 days of either receiving approval of this application or beginning work on the project, I will record the Declarati on of
Restrictions and Covenants on the deed for the property on which the replacement wetland(s) will be located and submit proof
of such recording to the LGU and the Corps.
Applicant or Representative: Title:
Signature: Date:
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 10 of 11
Project Name and/or Number:
Attachment E
Local Road Replacement Program Qualification
Complete this part if you are a local road authority (county highway department, city transportation department, etc.) seeking
verification that your project (or a portion of your project) qualifies for the MN Local Government Road Wetland Replacement
Program (LGRWRP). If portions of your project are not eligible for the LGRWRP, then Attachment D should be completed and
attached to your application.
Discuss how your project is a repair, rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement of a currently serviceable road to meet
state/federal design or safety standards/requirements. Applicants should identify the specific road deficiencies and ho w the
project will rectify them. Attach supporting documents and information as applicable:
Provide a map, plan, and/or aerial photograph accurately depicting wetland boundaries within the project area. Attach associated
delineation/determination report or otherwise explain the method(s) used to identify and delineate wetlands. Also attach and
discuss any type of review or approval of wetland boundaries or other aspects of the project by a member or members of the local
Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) or Corps of Engineers:
In the table below, identify only the wetland impacts from Part 4 that the road authority has determined should qualify for the
LGRWRP.
Wetland Impact ID
(as noted on
overhead view)
Type of Impact
(fill, excavate,
drain)
Size of Impact
(square feet or
acres to 0.01)
Existing Plant Community
Type(s) in Impact Area1
County, Major Watershed #,
and Bank Service Area # of
Impact2
1Use Wetland Plants and Plant Community Types of Minnesota and Wisconsin 3rd Ed. as modified in MN Rules 8420.0405 Subp. 2.
2Refer to Major Watershed and Bank Service Area maps in MN Rules 8420.0522 Subp. 7.
Discuss the feasibility of providing onsite compensatory mitigation/replacement for important site-specific wetland functions:
Please note that under the MN Wetland Conservation Act, projects with less than 10,000 square feet of wetland impact are
allowed to commence prior to submission of this notification so long as the notification is submitted within 30 days of the impact.
The Clean Water Act has no such provision and requires that permits be obtained prior to any regulated discharges into water of
the United States. To avoid potential unauthorized activities, road authorities must, at a minimum, provide a complete application
to the Corps and receive a permit prior to commencing work.
By signature below, the road authority attests that they have followed the process in MN Rules 8420.0544 and have determined
that the wetland impacts identified in Part 4 are eligible for the MN Local Government Road Wetland Replacement Program.
Road Authority Representative: Title:
Signature: Date:
Minnesota Interagency Water Resource Application Form February 2014 Page 11 of 11
Technical Evaluation Panel Concurrence: Project Name and/or Number:
TEP member: Representing:
Concur with road authority’s determination of qualification for the local road wetland replacement program? Yes No
Signature: _________________________________________ Date:
TEP member: Representing:
Concur with road authority’s determination of qualification for the local road wetland replacement p rogram? Yes No
Signature: _________________________________________ Date:
TEP member: Representing:
Concur with road authority’s determination of qualification for the local road wetland replacement program? Yes No
Signature: _________________________________________ Date:
TEP member: Representing:
Concur with road authority’s determination of qualification for the local road wetland replacement p rogram? Yes No
Signature: _________________________________________ Date:
Upon approval and signature by the TEP, application must be sent to: Wetland Bank Administration
Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources
520 Lafayette Road North
Saint Paul, MN 55155
2
WETLAND DELINEATION SUMMARY
• The site at 3904 120th St. Rosemount, MN was inspected on May 1, 2019 for the
presence and extent of wetland.
• The NWI map showed Two wetland complexes within site boundaries these
include PEM1C/PABG/PF01A; and a PEM1A
• The entire site was inspected other wetlands exist please refer to Figure 4.
• The soil survey mapped showed Kingsley-Mahtomedi complex,
Kingsley sandy loam, Quam silt loam, Kennebec variant silt loam,
and Otterholt silt loam within site boundaries.
• The DNR Protected Waters Map showed one Protected Water(s) within site
boundaries. No number identification was listed for this body of water.
• Five wetlands were found on the site. We were retained to delineate the wetland
area(s) within site boundaries as summarized below.
Wetland
ID Circular 39 Cowardin
Wetland Plant
Community Type
(Eggers and Reed)
404 Jurisdictional
Observations
1 Type
3,5,7 PEM1C/PABG
/PF01A
Fresh Meadow
Designated protected
water
2 Type 2
PEM1A
Fresh Meadow
seasonally Flooded
None
3 Type 2
PEM1A
Fresh Meadow
seasonally Flooded
None
4 Type 2
PEM1A
Fresh Meadow
seasonally Flooded
None
3
5 Type 2
PEM1A
Fresh Meadow
seasonally Flooded
None
4
I. INTRODUCTION
The site was examined on May 1, 2019 for the presence and extent of wetland. The
approximately 16.73 acre property is located at 3904 120th St. Rosemount, MN Dakota County,
Minnesota (Figure 1), and corresponded to Dakota County PID 340181017020.
The site has one residence and one shed structure on it. The property consisted primarily of
deciduous woodland in upland portions and wetlands of varying vegetative cover in lowland
areas (Figure 2). Site topography is significant consisting of broad flat wetland areas adjacent to
slopes that can exceed 15 percent (Figure 3).
Adjacent land use was residential to the east, west and south Lebanon Hills Regional Park
Lies to the north..
METHODS
Wetlands were identified using Routine Determination methodology described in the Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Waterways Experiment Station, 1987) and Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Northcentral and Northeast
Region Version 2.0) as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act.
Wetland boundaries were identified as the upper-most extent of wetlands, which met criteria for
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology. Wetland-upland boundaries were
marked with pink pin flags.
Soils, vegetation, and hydrology were documented at representative locations along the wetland-
upland boundary. Plant species dominance was estimated based on the percent aerial or basal
coverage visually estimated within a 30-foot radius for trees and vines, 15-foot radius for the
shrub layer, and a 5-foot radius for the herbaceous layer within the community type being
sampled.
Soils were characterized to a minimum depth of 18-24 inches (unless otherwise noted) utilizing
Munsell Soil Color Charts and standard soil texturing methodology. Hydric soil indicators used
in reporting are from the NTCHS Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States (USDA
Natural Resources Conservation Service Version 7, 2010) which are commonly found in the
Midwest.
Plants were identified using standard regional plant keys. Taxonomy and indicator status of plant
species was taken from the 2014 National Wetland Plant List (Lichvar, R.W. and Kartesz, J.T.
2009. North American Digital Flora: National Wetland Plant List, version 2.4.0
(https://wetland_plants.usace.army.mil). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and
Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH, and
BONAP, Chapel Hill, NC.)
5
III. RESULTS
Review of NWI, Soils, and DNR Information
The MN DNR Revised National Wetland Inventory Map (NWI) (http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us/) one
PEM1C wetland to the northwest, one PEM1C/PEM1A wetland complex in the center of the
property, and one PEM1C wetland along the eastern property boundary (Figure 3).
The Soil Survey of Hennepin County, Minnesota (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/) showed
the following soil types within site boundaries (Figure 4).
Map unit
symbol
Map unit name Hydric Rating
279C Otterholt silt loam, 6 to 15 percent slopes 8
342B Kingsley sandy loam, 3 to 8 percent slopes 5
342C Kingsley sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes 5
344 Quam silt loam 95
896E Kingsley-Mahtomedi complex, 15 to 25 percent
slopes
0
1816 Kennebec variant silt loam 10
W Water 0
The DNR Protected Waters Map, Hennepin County (http://deli.dnr.state.mn.us/) showed one
DNR Protected Water(s) within site boundaries (Figure 5)its number is 19018500.
Wetland Determinations and Delineations
Potential wetlands were evaluated in greater detail during field observations on May 1 2019.
The site is mostly wooded with several open areas along with a residence and auxiliary
buildings.
Five wetlands were identified and delineated on the site (Figure 2). Corresponding data forms
are included as Appendix A. The following description of wetland and adjacent upland reflects
conditions observed at the time of the field visit. At that time, vegetation was actively growing
and had not yet begun to senesce. Wetland hydrology was assumed to be wetter than normal for
that date based on the 30-day rolling precipitation total (Appendix B). A survey of the wetland
boundaries will be provided after delineation review is completed.
Wetland 1 was classified with the following components Type 3,5,7 (PEM1C/PABG/PF01A)
this varies from deep water habitat to forested wetland. This wetland water level is controlled by
a culvert. The transition from wetland is well defined by the water elevation controlled by the
culvert.
Wetland 2 was classified with the following components Type 2 (PEM1A) this is a fresh
meadow but actually a drainage for wetland 1 and the outlet to this wetland water level is
controlled by a culvert. The culvert has allowed for a well defined transition from wetland to
upland.
6
Wetland 3 was classified with the following components Type 2 (PEM1A) this is a fresh
meadow. It is immediately south of the septic system drainfield. The transition is defined by the
area that cannot be mowed because of saturated soils.
Wetland 4 was classified with the following components Type 2 (PEM1A) this is a fresh
meadow. The outlet to this wetland water level is controlled by a culvert. This is a complex
wetland and includes PFO1A wetlands consisting of drainages from upland areas and another
wetland. The lower part of the wetland is well defined by the culvert. This has allowed for a
well defined transition from wetland to upland. In the upper drainage area the transition is along
the bed of the intermittent stream that drains the upper portion of this and adjacent sites.
Wetland 5 was classified with the following components Type 2 (PEM1A) this is a fresh
meadow. This is an isolated depression that supports a seasonally flooded wetland. This wetland
is isolated the boundary is defined by the change from open grassy/wet to hydrophytic shrubs to
upland species.
The delineated boundary followed a change in vegetation composition and a change in
topography. Wetlands did not correspond to NWI-mapped wetlands.
Other Areas
No other areas were shown as wetland on the NWI map, no other areas were mapped with hydric
soil by the soil survey, and no other depressional areas dominated by a hydrophytic plant
community were observed on the site.
V. CERTIFICATION OF DELINEATION
The procedures utilized in the described delineation are based on the COE 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual as required by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and the Minnesota
Wetland Conservation Act. Both the delineation and report were conducted in compliance with
regulatory standards in place at the time the work was completed.
All site boundaries indicated on figures within this report are approximate and do not constitute
an official survey product.
Report completed by: Paul J. Brandt PSS
Delineation completed by: Paul J. Brandt PSS
I hereby certify that this plan, document, or report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Soil Scientist under the Laws of the state
of Minnesota.
Print Name: Paul J. Brandt PSS; Signature:
Date: May 29, 2019 License # 30007 .
7
Appendices
Figures:
Figure 1 – Site Location Map
Figure 2 – Delineated Wetlands Map
Figure 3 – Soils Map
Figure 4 - NWI Map
Figure 5 – DNR Protected Waters Map
Figure 6 – City Wetland Map
Aerial Photograph—3904 120th Street
MEMORANDUM
To: Kyle Klatt, Senior Planner
CC: Kim Lindquist, Community Development Director
Brian Erickson, Director of Public Works/City Engineer
Stacy Bodsberg, Planning & Personnel Secretary
From: Stephanie Smith, Assistant City Engineer
Date: July 23, 2019
Subject: Deer Haven Preliminary and Final Plat – Engineering Review
SUBMITTAL:
The following review comments were generated from documents prepared by Lake and Land
Surveying:
▫ Preliminary Plat (dated 4/25/2019)
GENERAL COMMENTS:
1. The applicant shall submit a plat signed by a professional engineer, licensed with the State of
Minnesota.
2. Stormwater trunk fees are due for this development within the Lebanon Hills Subwatershed
Area at $3,772 per acre.
RIGHT OF WAY AND EASEMENTS:
The proposed plat shows a 33-foot right-of-way dedication for 120th Street to match the prescriptive
right-of-way width.
3. The plat shall dedicate the western 25 feet of the site as right-of-way for an extension of
Coffee Trail to match half of the 50-foot dedication from the Oak Ridge Estates plat to the
south.
4. The plat shall dedicate perimeter D&U easements per City ordinance.
5. The applicant shall provide information on the 60-foot ingress and egress easement shown
on the southern property line. If this easement is in favor of a third party, it shall be
modified so as to prevent encumbering the Coffee Trail extension right-of-way.
6. Conservation easement shall be dedicated over the wetlands and wetland buffer areas.
7. An access easement and maintenance agreement is required between Lots 1 and 3, Block 1
over the shared driveway.
UTILITIES:
This area is outside the MUSA and does not contain City utilities.
8. The proposed new lots shall be served by private wells and septic systems. Proposed
locations of well, primary and secondary septic sites shall be shown for each lot.
DRIVEWAY:
The applicant proposes sharing the existing driveway between Lots 1 and 3, Block 1.
9. The Fire Marshal is requiring the shared portion of the driveway be a 16-foot minimum
width for emergency vehicle access.
10. All lots shall have a driveway turnaround for vehicles near the house.
GRADING & STORMWATER COMMENTS:
The applicant has not submitted proposed grading for the two new home sites that will be created
with this plat, so they will need to be evaluated with the building permit applications by the
Engineering Department.
11. New lots must meet City ordinance and requirements for grading and stormwater.
12. Grading in excess of 50 cubic yards will require a separate grading permit.
13. An erosion control and restoration plan is required for the work to widen the shared
driveway.
14. The applicant shall label the proposed lowest floor elevation and housing style (full
basement, walkout, sidewalkout, etc.). Note this may be adjusted with the Building Permit.
15. Man-made items, such as the existing driveway, are not allowed within the buffer area. Staff
recommends use of buffer averaging to achieve this.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the items listed above, please contact me at
651-322-2015.