HomeMy WebLinkAbout8A - Variance Hearing Crouse
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
MEETING DATE:
AGENDA #:
PREPARED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
AGENDA ITEM:
JANUARY 22, 2002
8A
STEVE HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AN APPEAL OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A VARIANCE TO THE
LAKE SHORE SETBACK ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15507
CALMUT AVENUE
History: On February 23, 2001, the Planning Department received a
variance application from Mr. D. Mark Crouse (applicant/owner) to allow a
deck to be located 4' from the Ordinary High Water Elevation on the
property located at 15507 Calmut Avenue. The deck was constructed in the
year 2000 without a required building permit. Upon processing this
application staff determined a second variance was required to permit the
impervious surface coverage area to exceed 30 percent. A building permit
for the house on this lot was issued in 1995. A condition of approval of the
permit stipulated the impervious surface area was not to exceed 30 percent.
It should be noted most of the additional impervious surface area, such as
the driveway and patio, were added after the completion of the existing
house. The variance requested would have permitted an impervious surface
of 57.5% on this lot.
On June 25, 2001, the Planning Commission denied the deck setback
variance, and on June 29, 2001, the applicant appealed the Planning
Commissions denial of the variance. On August 20, 2001, the City Council
upheld the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the variance to
permit a 4- foot deck structure setback from the OHWM.
The subject lot has a total area of7,689 square feet and allows for 2,307
square feet of impervious surface to equal the 30% coverage area.
The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on this item on June
25, 2001, on July 23, 2001, and on September 10, 2001. After review of the
applicant's request with respect to the variance hardship criteria, the
Planning Commission directed staff to draft a resolution approving a
variance to allow an impervious surface coverage area of 36 percent.
On September 24, 2001, the Planning Commission reconsidered their earlier
action. The Commission determined a 36% impervious surface variance
would not complete the driveway to the existing garage. The Commission
L:\O 1 files\O 1 appeal\O 1-099\CrsAplccrpt. DOC 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
therefore approved a 38% impervious surface and directed staff to prepare a
resolution to that effect.
This variance allowed the applicant to keep a portion of an existing
driveway to access his 3-stall garage, while removing the additional parking
and rear yard patio areas to accomplish the 38% coverage area. (See
Attachments - Certificate of Survey Dated 10/22/01; Proposed Driveway
Dimensions; and the Minutes of the September 24, 2001, Planning
Commission meeting).
The applicant did not appeal the Planning Commission's decision.
On October 26, 2001, the Planning Department received a new variance
application from Ms. Allison Gontarek, Huemoeller & Bates Attorneys At
Law, representing Mr. D. Mark Crouse. This variance request was for an
increased impervious surface coverage area of 46.4% rather than the
approved 38% in order to retain the existing patio area on the lakeside of the
home. The applicant submitted an engineer's report on the need for the
patio area to provide soil stabilization around the structures foundation
(Attachment - Applicants Hardship Narrative).
The subject lot has a total area of 7,689 square feet to the 904' elevation, and
allows for 2,307 square feet of impervious surface to equal the 30%
coverage area.
The area for the house and garage totals 2,152 square feet. The area for the
proposed driveway amounts to 792 square feet, and plus 84 square feet to
keep the existing front and sideyard steps totals 3,028 square feet or 39.4%
impervious area. The lakeside yard patio area of 539 square feet will add
7% to the previously approved impervious surface coverage area of 38%.
The total requested impervious surface coverage area equals 3,567 square
feet or 46.4% of the total lot area (Attachment - Impervious Surface
Worksheet).
The applicant proposed a 46.4% impervious surface coverage area to permit
the existing patio area to remain due to the need for a "cap" over the fill area
around the home's foundation for soil stabilization, as recommended by the
engineering firm Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc. (Attachment-
Applicants Engineers Letter).
The applicant also proposed removing 372 square feet of concrete by
modifying the existing 4-foot concrete sidewalks to a maximum width of3'
as permitted under the Zoning Ordinance. Sidewalks less than 3' wide are
not considered impervious surface by definition. In addition, the applicant
proposed removing approximately 186 square feet of existing driveway area
in the public right-of-way, and 570 square feet of parking area along the
garage on the subject lot.
The City Engineering Department reviewed this request, including the
engineer's letter ofrecommendation to allow the applicant to keep the
existing patio for soil stability. The Engineering Department noted the
L:\Ol files\O 1 appeal\O 1-099\CrsAplccrpt.DOC
2
The subject property is a nonconforming platted lot of record, but was
developed by the current ownership, which did not meet the conditions
spelled out in the building permit for the principal structure, which
included a maximum 30% impervious surface coverage area. However,
in order to construct a driveway for the approved 3-stall garage, the
Planning Commission granted a 38% impervious surface coverage area.
The request for a 46.4% coverage area for the patio area, while
recommended by the applicant's engineer, has not been supported with
calculations by the engineer. In addition, the City Engineering
Department has suggested an alternative solution to the problem.
2. Conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar
to the property or immediately adjoining property, and do not
apply, generally, to other land or structures in the Use District in
which the land is located.
The existing conditions of the lot area and dimensions are peculiar to the
property, and generally do not apply to most other lots within the
Shoreland District. However, when all required conditions are applied,
the approved variance for a 38% impervious surface area allows for the
driveway.
3. The granting ofthe proposed Variance is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the
owner.
The approved legal building site precluded the need for the additional
variance requests. The owner created the hardship when he decided on
the building dimensions and location of the structure, as well as the
excessive paving of the subject lot. The Planning Commission
previously determined the need for some variance to impervious surface;
however, the Commission determined a 38% coverage allowed the
applicant reasonable use of the property.
4. The granting of the proposed Variance will not impair an adequate
supply of light and air to the adjacent property, unreasonably
increase the congestion in the public streets, increase the danger of
fire, or endanger the public safety.
The granting of the requested variances will not impair light and air to
adjacent properties or increase congestion, danger of fire or endanger
public safety.
5. The granting of the Variance will not unreasonably impact on the
character and development of the neighborhood, unreasonably
diminish or impair established property values in the surrounding
area, or in any other way impair the health safety, and comfort of
the area.
L:\Ol files\Ol appeal\O 1-099\CrsAplccrpt.DOC
4
absence of calculations in the letter to support the recommendation for the
cap. The Engineering Department suggests there are alternative methods to
stabilize the soils and retaining wall, which would eliminate the patio cap
and the impervious surface coverage area (Attachment - City Engineering
Dept. Memo).
The Department of Natural Resources submitted comments on the original
variance request dated 3/21/01. In essence, their main concern is the
existing impervious surface coverage area of approximately 60%, which
poses a problem regarding storm water runoff and lake water quality. The
DNR is not supportive of issuing an after-the-fact variance, and
recommends bringing the impervious coverage area into compliance which
is 30% or less. In addition, he DNR is not convinced by the engineer's letter
of recommendation, and suggested the City Engineer provide an independent
review. However, should it be determined the patio cap is necessary for
structural reasons, perhaps other non-essential hard surfaces can be
eliminated in their place.
Current Circumstances: On December 10,2001, the Planning Commission
conducted a public hearing. After reviewing staffs report, and accepting
comments from the applicant's representative, the Commission determined
the request did not meet eight of the required nine hardship criteria for
approval and denied the variance (See Attachment draft Planning
Commission Minutes from December 10, 2001).
On December 11, 2001, counsel for the applicant submitted a notice of
appeal of the action by the Planning Commission denying Mr. Crouse's
variance application for a 46.4% impervious surface coverage area.
A follow-up inspection of the subject property has been conducted. The deck
and impervious surface area remain, as documented on the certificate of
survey. Staff shall enforce all of the required conditions for compliance by
requiring the property owner to remove the deck and excessive impervious
surface area on the subject property upon a final decision by the City
Council.
Issues: Variance requests must be evaluated based on the hardship criteria
as listed in the City Ordinance Subsection 1108.406: Issuance. These
criteria and the suggested findings are discussed below.
VARIANCE HARDSHIP STANDARDS
1. Where by reason of narrowness, shallowness, or shape of a lot, or
where by reason of exceptional topographical or water conditions or
other extraordinary and exceptional conditions of such lot, the strict
application of the terms of this Ordinance would result in peculiar
and practical difficulties or exceptional or undue hardship upon the
owner of such lot in developing or using such lot in a manner
customary and legally permissible within the Use District in which
said lot is located.
L:\O 1 files\OlappeaJ\Ol-099\CrsAplccrpt.DOC
3
RECOMMENDED
MOTION:
REVIEWED BY:
1. Adopt Resolution 02-XX upholding the decision of the Planning
Commission to deny this variance request.
2. Overturn the decision of the Planning Commission and direct staff to
prepare a resolution with findings of fact for approval of the variance.
3. Defer action on the appeal at this time and continue the agenda item for
specific purpose.
The staff recommends Alternative #1.
L:\O 1 files\O 1 appeal\O 1-099\CrsAplccrpt.DOC
6
The granting of the variance for increased impervious surface area will
adversely affect the above stated values by reducing the
infiltration/buffer area, which helps to remove the pollutants and
increase the potential for shoreland erosion with additional upland water
runoff into Prior Lake and thereby affecting the adjacent properties.
6. The granting of the proposed Variance will not be contrary to the
intent of this Ordinance and the Comprehensive Plan.
The granting of the variance is contrary to the intent of the Ordinance
and the Comprehensive Plan by allowing excessive impervious surface
conditions than were originally approved by a building permit (30%),
and increased by Variance Resolution to 38%.
7. The granting ofthe Variance will not merely serve as a convenience
to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate a demonstrable undue
hardship or difficulty.
The granting of the variance requests appears to serve as a convenience
to the applicant, since other means are available to provide soil stability
around the structure.
8. The hardship results from the application of the provisions of this
Ordinance to the affected property and does not result from actions
ofthe owners of the property.
The hardship results from the actions of the property owner when he
constructed the dwelling in 1995, and subsequently added the deck and
paved areas without permits.
9. Increased development or construction costs or economic hardship
alone shall not be grounds for granting a Variance.
Financial considerations alone shall not be grounds for granting this
variance request. The property owner created the need for these
variance requests by not following the approved conditions for the
original building permit.
Conclusion: The staff recommends the City Council uphold the decision of
the Planning Commission to deny the applicant's variance request for a
46.4% impervious surface area because the request does not meet eight of
the required nine hardship criteria. The Planning Commission approved a
38% impervious surface area variance to allow the applicant to keep the
existing 3-car driveway. In addition, the City Engineering Department
suggested another option for shoring up the retaining wall and stabilizing the
soils around the foundation that would not result in additional impervious
surface area or the need for the patio cap area.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Council has the following alternatives:
L:\O 1 files\O 1 appeal\O 1-099\CrsAplccrpt.DOC
5
RESOLUTION 02.
RESOLUTION OF THE PRIOR LAKE CITY COUNCIL UPHOLDING A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
DENY A 16.4% VARIANCE TO PERMIT A 46.4% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA
ABOVE THE 904' ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 15507 CALMUT AVENUE
MOTION BY:
SECOND BY:
WHEREAS,
on January 22, 2002, the Prior Lake City Council considered an appeal by Mr. D. Mark Crouse of the
Planning Commission's denial of a request for a 16.4% variance to penn it a 46.4% impervious surface
coverage area of the total lot area above the 904' Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) rather than the
required maximum 30% coverage area, for the property legally described as follows:
Legal Description:
Lot 9, and that part of lot 10, "North Grainwood", and that part of Government Lot 5, Section 25, Township
115, Range 22, Scott County, Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest comer of said Lots 10 and 9 and also 8, a distance of 165.00 feet to the
actual point of beginning of the land to be described; thence westerly along the north line of said plat to
the easterly right-of-way line of the Chicago, Milwaukee, S1. Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence northerly
along said easterly right-of-way line to its intersection with the westerly extension of the southerly line of
the northerly 45.00 feet (as measured at right angles to the northerly line) of said Lot 10; thence easterly
along said southerly line to the shoreline of Prior Lake, thence southerly along said shoreline to the south
line of said Lot 9; thence westerly along said south line of said Lot 9, to the southwest corner thereof;
thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot 8, to the actual point of beginning;
and
WHEREAS,
the City Council finds that the requested variance does not meet the standards for granting variances set
forth in Section 1108.400 of the City Code, and that the appellant has not set forth adequate reasons for
overturning the decision of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS,
the City Council has detennined that the Planning Commission's decision denying the requested
variances should be upheld, and said variances should be denied.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF PRIOR LAKE:
1) The above recitals are incorporated as if fully set forth herein.
2) The City Council makes the following findings:
a. Mr. D. Mark Crouse applied for a variance from Section 1104.306 of the City Code in order to pennit a 46.4%
impervious surface coverage area of the total lot area above the 904' OHWM rather than the required minimum 30%
coverage area as shown in Attachment 1 on property located in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) and SO (Shoreland)
Districts at the following location, to wit;
1:\01 files\O 1 appeal\O 1-099\ccres.doc Page 1
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
15507 Calmut Avenue NE, Prior Lake MNJ legally described as
Lot 9, and that part of lot 10J "North Grainwood", and that part of Govemment Lot 5, Section 25J Township 115, Range
22, Scott CountYJ Minnesota described as follows:
Commencing at the northwest comer of said Lots 10 and 9 and also 8J a distance of 165.00 feet to the actual point of
beginning of the land to be described; thence westerly along the north line of said plat to the easterly right-of-way line
of the ChicagoJ Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad; thence northerly along said easterly right-of-way line to its
intersection with the westerly extension of the southerly line of the northerly 45.00 feet (as measured at right angles to
the northerly line) of said Lot 10; thence easterly along said southerly line to the shoreline of Prior LakeJ thence
southerly along said shoreline to the south line of said Lot 9; thence westerly along said south line of said Lot 9, to the
southwest corner thereof; thence southerly along the westerly line of said Lot 8, to the actual point of beginning;
b. The Planning Commission reviewed the application for variance as contained in Case File #01-093, and held a
hearing thereon December 10,2002.
c. The Planning Commission concluded the variance request did not meet the hardship criteria and denied the request.
d. Mr. D. Mark Crouse appealed the decision of the Planning Commission in accordance with Section 1109.400 of the
City Code on December 11 J 2001.
e. The City Council reviewed the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and the information contained in Case
File #01-093 and Case File #01-099, and held a hearing thereon on January 22,2002.
f. The City Council has considered the effect of the proposed variances upon the health, safety, and welfare of the
community, the existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safetYJ the
effect on property values in the surrounding area and the effect of the proposed variances on the Comprehensive
Plan. The additional impervious surface reduces the infiltration/buffer area, which helps to remove pollutants from the
surface water and increases potential for shoreland erosion due to additional runoff.
g. The City Council has determined the request does not meet eight of nine hardship criteria. There are not unique
circumstances or conditions regarding the property. Any hardship was caused by the actions of the applicant through
the design and placement of the proposed structures. There are no unique characteristics to the property that would
constitute a hardship.
h. The denial of the requested variances does not constitute a hardship with respect to literal enforcement of the
ordinance, as there exists reasonable use of the property without the variances. There are other alternatives to
providing soil stability around the structureJ which do not increase the impervious surface.
3) The contents of Planning Case File #01-093 and Planning Case File #01-099 are hereby entered into and made a part of
the public record and the record of the decision for this case.
4) Based upon the Findings set forth aboveJ the City Council hereby upholds the decision of the Planning Commission
denying a variance to permit a 46.4% impervious surface coverage area of the total lot area above the 904' OHWM rather
than the required minimum 30% for applicant D. Mark Crouse.
1 :\0 1 files\O 1 appeaJ\O 1-099\ccres.doc
Page 2
Passed and adopted this 22nd day of January, 2002.
Haugen Hauaen
Petersen Petersen
Ericson Ericson
Gundlach Gundlach
Zieska Zieska
YES NO
{Seal} City Manager
1:\01 files\O 1 appeal\O 1-099\ccres.doc Page 3
ATTACHMENT
- CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
01' \0
of \,;
c.Ofl14(.fI
14'1l o~ ,0
of I.
A
.~~
. <i>\' "Oe
~'fo.'.. \0
...~'. .\,eu ~e(
~O\ 06' ".
~ 1<' <;0;
\1."
\.
~o'
e,e ,.,.
r-c.~ ,,'!>'""
~ C,oO\~ \.
~O-('" ~e1<'
~o
tl\e
~
~
~
~O'tt:", Of Co~C
e..~E~E,,^tl.\~
'to
~
...
o
-:::.
\
\
,-- - .-
\
\
\
" \
"'IJ '~
578024'0 \ ~
(J\ \0 _
\0.
~ \ ~b to
'0 ~ -t9. -S
u.l \'0 00
z ~\ ..
Ctl.6\~
~
~
o
J:
s:
m
z
-I
I
"
:D
o
."
o
tJ)
m
C
C
:D
;::
m
~
=-<
c
-
s:
m
z
tJ)
-
o
z
tJ)
Lot siZe 7689
36% impervious
House
Driveway that
allows access to
3rd stall
2768
(2152)
616
792
176 (2%)
\
ATTMHUENT
-
9/24/01 PC MINUTES
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 01-
015PC AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
B. Case File #01-017 Mark Crouse Variance Resolution.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented Resolution 01-015PC as directed by the
Planning Commission at the September 10, 2001 meeting.
Stamson clarified the variance requiring a paved driveway. The concern was the
applicant would leave the patio and return to a dirt driveway. We want to avoid that
situation. Horsman responded the driveway ordinance regulates a Class 5 action.
Allison Gontarek, representing the applicant, asked to be recognized.
Chairman V onhof stated the public hearing was closed.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY LEMKE, RECOMMENDING CITY
COUNCIL TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 01-11PC.
Discussion:
Criego said he did not vote for this the last time based on the 36% impervious surface.
Although the Commission felt the property should have a driveway and a reduced
sidewalk. The applicant at the time was not prepared to reduce the impervious surface as
much as the Commission wanted him to. Questioned the intent to have a driveway with
normal curb entrance to a three car garage or only provide concrete to a two car garage.
Stamson responded his initial Motion was for staff to determine the impervious surface
percentage. The intent was for a three car garage. The issue was to redraft and not delay
another two weeks.
Horsman responded it would be very difficult to get pavement to the third car garage with
the 36% impervious surface.
Rye stated the original Motion should be modified to be consistent with the Resolution.
MOTION BY STAMSON, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO RECONSIDER THE VOTE
OF SEPTEMBER 10,2001 MEETING PERTAINING TO THIS ISSUE.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY STAMSON, APPROVING A VARIANCE TO
PERMIT A MAXIMUM OF 38% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE WITH THE
CONDITIONS THE APPLICANT SUBMIT TO THE CITY A REVISED SURVEY
L:\Ol files\Ol plancomm\Ol pcminutes\MN092401.doc 9
Planning Commission Meeting
September 24. 2001
IDENTIFYING THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REMAINING AND ALL
CONDITIONS OF THE VARIANCE RESOLUTION BE MET INCLUDING THE
CONDITION THE APPLICANT REMOVE THE CANOPY AND DOCKAGE NOT
INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL SURVEY.
Horsrnan explained the additional impervious surface and his discussions with the
Department of Natural Resources regarding the dockage.
Lemke commented this clarifies the Motion from two weeks ago.
V onhof stated he believes the variance criteria in this matter are not met and this specific
condition has been created by the property owner and will not support the Motion.
V ote taken indicated ayes by Criego, Lemke, Stamson and Atwood, nays by V onhof.
MOTION CARRIED.
6. New Business:
A. Discuss infiltration systems and engineered runoff management.
Criego recommended continuing this matter to another meeting.
7. Announcements and Correspondence:
8. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:11 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN09240 1.doc
10
HUEMOELLER& BATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 67
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
Telephone: 952.447.2131
Facsimile: 952.447.5628
E-mail: huemoellerbates@aol.com
OCT 2 6 2nOl
BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER
JAMES D. BATES
ALUSONJ.GONTAREK
OF COUNSEL:
CHARLESC.HALBERG
October 26, 2001
Prior Lake Planning Commission
16220 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake MN 55372
Via Hand Delivery
Re: Request for variance from D. Mark Crouse for increase in impervious
surface limitation for 15507 Calmut Avenue
Dear Planning Commission Members:
The purpose for this letter is to address the hardship criteria and the need for a
variance, above the variance for 38% impervious surface granted for a reasonable
driveway, on the above property.
This is a situation familiar to both staff and the Commission members. We
respectfully address the nine hardship criteria and how they apply to Mr. Crouse's
property. !
First, Mr. Crouse's property is a narrow, .non-conforming lot, left over from a
railroad right of way and other'larger developments. It required two variances to
upgrade the existing house built in 1978. Mr. Crouse took the original structure, raised it
to meet the current code for elevation requirements and developed it in a manner
customary within the neighborhood in which he is located.
Second, when Mr. Crouse built his house, the permit issued allowed for a three car
garage. At the time of construction, a hard surface driveway was not required by
ordinance. It has now been determined and agreed that a reasonable driveway, allowing
for access to the third garage stall increases the need for impervious surface to 38% of
the lot. Similarly, there is attached a report by an engineering expert explaining the
requirement for a "cap" on the area between the house and the adjacent lakeshore. The
report states that raising the elevation to meet code required the exterior backfill to be
raised and stabilized for structural support and erosion control. The need for additional
~
it
(1
:I:
3:
m
z
-I
I
)>
-c
-c
r-
-
~.
Z
-I
en
J:
)>
~
C
en
:I:
-
-c
z
)>
:xl
:xl
~
<:
m
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Page 2
October 26. 2001
impervious surface to create a useable driveway and to provide for a cap to ensure
stability between the house and the lakeshore are two conditions that arise from the
unique shape, size and proximity of the lot to the adjacent lakeshore, and that do not
apply, generally, to other land or structures in the Shoreland District.
Third, the variance, as requested, is necessary to (1) provide access to a garage
that was built under permit, and (2) structurally support the house. Without receiving the
requested variance, Mr. Crouse is denied access to his garage and his property is subject
to damaging erosion.
Fourth, the proposed variance will not impair in any manner either the supply of
light or air to the adjacent property, unreasonably increase the congestion in the public
streets, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety.
Fifth, attached to this letter are signed statements made by Mr. Crouse's neighbors
as to the benefit his improvements to his property have had on the neighborhood.
Sixth, the granting of the variance request will preserve the spirit and intent of the
Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances by contravening the undue hardship created by conditions
unique to the property due to its shape and size and proximity to the lakeshore.
Seventh, it is the expert opinion of a qualified engineer that frost action and
erosion must be minimized between the structure and the retaining wall. This i.s not a
convenience issue, it is a structural requirement.
Eighth, the limitation of impervious surface for lots in the Shoreland District is an
essential part of management of the natural resources in and around Prior Lake.
However, strict application of the Ordinances creates hardship for unusual and non-
conforming lots. Mr. Crouse purchased an undersized platted lot of record. He applied
for and was granted a permit to raise and add on to the existing home which created
approximately 28% impervious surface over his lot. He raised the house to comply with
the current code for old and new elevation. Complying with the elevation requirements
of the code created structural problems for the approved structure. Resolving the
structural problems adds to the impervious surface problem (that did not exist when the
parcel was originally created and improved). Complying with new driveway
requirements compounds the impervious surface problem. The hardship results from the
application of the old and new ordinances requiring a paved driveway and applying the
new elevation requirements to an existing building footprint.
Ninth, this has been a very expensive journey for Mr. Crouse. He will have to
expend more money once the variance is determined to remove concrete he paid to have
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Page 3
October 26.2001
installed. Although economic hardship alone is not the basis for approving a variance
request, the statute allows consideration of the economics involved.
Finally, the issue of whether the need for the variance is attributable to the
applicant. We submit that the need for a variance here results from the combined impact
of old and new ordinances on this property. Long after the size, shape, location and use
of this property were established, a series of new laws on lot sizes, setbacks, paved
driveways, minimum elevation, maximum impervious surface, and the like, have made
variances a necessity. Complying with one law, requires variances of another. The
problem is with the inter-related restrictions, and not with the actions of the applicant to
comply with the laws. The need for a variance now arises from a previous lawful action
by the applicant - remodeling an existing house with an approved building permit. It
does not seem that the lawful actions of a homeowner should provide the basis for the
denial of a subsequent variance, where the need for the variance is the result of
subsequently adopted laws.
To promote the most appropriate and orderly development within the community,
the Minnesota statutes authorize zoning ordinances and allow for the Board of
Adjustment:
To hear requests for variances from the literal provision of the ordinance in
instances where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship
because of circumstances unique to the individual property under
consideration, and to grant such variances only when it is demonstrated
that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
ordinance.
...
Minn. Stat. g462.357, Subd. 6(2) (emphasis added). Case law states that "[t]he statute is
clearly intended to allow cities the flexibility to grant variances where. . . the property
owner would like to use the property in a reasonable manner that is prohibited by the
ordinance." Rowell v. Board of Adiustment of the City of Moorhead, 446 N.W.2d 917,
922 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989). The "correct standard is whether the proposal was reasonable
under the circumstances, and would not be allowed except by granting the variances."
Nolan v. City of Eden Prairie, 610 N.W.2d 697, 701 (Minn. Ct. App. 2000).
Mr. Crouse should be able to use and protect his property in a reasonable manner.
Accessing his garage is reasonable, preventing erosion that could destabilize his
foundation is reasonable. The issue of granting a variance after the fact as opposed to
consideration of a proposed use is difficult. We respectfully request the Commissioners
consider whether it is reasonable to potentially compromise the structural stability of a
permitted home based on the timing of the request for a variance.
Prior Lake Planning Commission
Page 4
October 26.2001
Based on the principles set forth under Minnesota statutes and the Rowell and
Nolan decisions, we believe the Planning Commission should find as follows:
1. Literal enforcement of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinances will result in undue
hardship with respect to the Crouse property because it will preclude the preservation
and enjoyment of Mr. Crouse's property rights, including a driveway to serve his
property as required by ordinance and a concrete slab that is necessary for structural
support.
2. The undue hardship results from the circumstances unique to the property
because of the shape and size of the lot and its proximity to the lakeshore, as evidenced
by the granting of variances in 1978.
3. The undue hardship is caused by the provisions of the Prior Lake Zoning
Ordinances and is not the result of the actions of the owner, because the owner's use of
the land is reasonable and the literal application of the ordinance would preclude such
reasonable use.
4. A variance preserves the spirit and intent of the Prior Lake Zoning Ordinance,
produces substantial justice and is not contrary to the public interest, because the
reasonable use is consistent in all respects with the existing and proposed land use in the
neighborhood, and provides an enhancement to the neighborhood as a whole.
We respectfully request that the Planning Commission approve the requested
variance to increase the impervious surface limitation on Mr. Crouse's property to 46.5%
to allow for a reasonable driveway and the erosion control provided by the cap between
the house and lakeshore.
Very truly yours,
~:J_ GrrJ~
Allison J. Gontarek W~
AJG:cak
Attachments
cc: D. Mark Crouse
01' \..o'T \0
, \..INe.
L" r NOf',r~__ .----...-..r
coo"'" 1-----.. ,
~' cot lo-r .
\ ~~
\ ~\
~c"''''''''':.~'' t'" .. ~ . 'JJ\l'l0~~~ ~
. 'T\)i$ <l!:ag ~\t ).- I:"~ I' O'J'T\..Oi sol.l'Tl'I \0 e. Irs
loIO'Tf. \ ':>' I 'Nt. 0 r",E \..Oi
'0 '\ ,..,nOl/""'. \ <::;)\J.I-I \..Y.'E' ilo\..SO 0 f'T. 0\1' ,," At~ ....!..;:-7'
'" \ ~-~E. \..Ilo"~, 45.0 ,fI'/.tc.. ...-
% \ \ \ i ~IOTl'T, \~10l'l <f'....,..-
S.. tIIl'I ." ~g \ \1\i\'lE.'1 E.l~iE.f'2.' 5'3"1:.
,"",Ec'.~:af:':0'"" ~ \ \ 'N'\"Ni505,"'_ ~.__--
\.. . ":~/:,\ .'(' II) \. '\ .48"0;"
- \.:. r ,:,' ..;. \4 , ..-'
,;:;" . i ,i-~.\ ;i':' ;~:: SAN. 1.1,\ \
~V ; ",'"1' f::'~'~ll~.~l( ...~ \ \
\.~ii'l': -::;,\.. Tt~\3' O.
~:: ':'." '.~~~'" 'OG:~~O I
T. '. 01'S;' ,% I
~:'at ~OoC('J.tl \{\ ~~\ ,,"-
"lI1.UI . 01 tIll'" .-- till.,., v
NOir, cfOO"P.cl!\~'eQ :.-r. F\.ot~1l;'/ '1:;1 . " "...
\oll'~1 ,.,OU ..' '08,,(ti:r..~ '~"\'"
-" ,Ifll"'. J ,I. . , . . .
h.- . - " W ::..:f<<- of./. .,'. Op;" ~,e ,.' t.'
....-. ,.. ...,:lu//. ' ,._~,d'- tI'" , . II
::; . r;' <!)~".. >>::':':j' ~': . , 'j":
.Z t:> ro """ ., ..
_ ," Q..di . N. :~,' "'. I;. O...,_L~._ I
~.i..":" ..;~.-... I . '" \ 'Y'" 1 .,7.
i >..' Tl: CI".~.... . rt) . ~._._r,,""
\ "",0 ii" ':J ", ocT. ....,
. _ . · . -\ <t-'$" '" "....... \
~_--::.~.:;-,;:;~- \;, ~ 0::: :"........ :~~; ..,
. .. ..-' .. -; E1( ORI"'" . . - . '!' I!'~ 8
t~OiE. of ::;o"'~ .. \ \:1 OIlCfel~ .k\
REb. . ;., "oJ'. \,\0'1.! t: .p-('nd\n ~..II
~O flf.tAt.1tl . ::J\'"! \\'li~':OI:') .,\' \0 .~
\ ;I:;;:~l\~- :~ \4 "'\.
\ . . ";~'\ 0 ell \ ' \
,11:, ~ Ill./ \
. :.t>:\ u ~./ \
;. {"('"'- ~ \\." '\
. . . -.i.l U ,.<1'
E~ISli" ':t~'''c~1~i~~E~~A t'" \
tlOTe.' "",dlticl\~\.."il~'ti:".e"l. ...tr ...----- '"
..;\llle ,0" S \;~ ., ';. " .':' \ ~ N ..--__.
,,,,,,e'v ,:;.~..': ...... ..... III -_ _ .
rJ::,;. .... ....\ ~ ~ ,..0
...~....~,- '", '", ,.., - ,.... co"td:1II ,
,,~:-. . ,.'
'\.'.' ..' ',.-',\
",::\
\ ;.,:~\
\ :', ..
r
"
\!'t,\~"':Jt'lUi,)
. ~1', ,\0 0'
~~. . .Vjo <ft('
~~\O ,11':)\'.<.\'\\'
, '0". -
\ \L"='
,\,....,. t.\.,
,0' '~I>G(.
Gt. .11,
\006 ~<.\'
\H\'\\
",'t.r:. 9 ~c
~ot\r) i .~~
cf'.y. ~o'~ ~
.'. ~ A~O~"
I '7" -7.'-:.:.:~
'-':",,' ..:f- ~ .
" .';r."
. -~ ~~
~~
Ul
uJ
:z:.
:.
\>I
~
o
j:
\II
l
./.,
\
,/
....\
\a.l
?
a:
..,
io
~
~
90).
.'-02s-- :',', ~---
,.....- 70 . '\O"IN '.. "....,
\579 26 . 'g.J'" .
\ E Of \..0'1' .:. I "'", '!r.
S.\..'(\~\..Il'l 'i.\ ~~-;..
\ . \ , 9....
I" \
\ ~ , \
\ ..
\;
Di.')('i~IF;-'()(.; i\~, PR(l"\-'IDED:
Lof <./ and that part of Lot 10. "NORTH GRAINWOOD", and that part of Gover 0101
LUI 5, Section 25. Township /15. Range 22. Scott Countv. Minnesotn descrihed n~'
tbllnws:
Commencing at the northwest comer of said Lm 10: thence southerly alnng the
ATTACHMENT - IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA
CITY OF PRlOR LAKE
Impervious Surface Calculations
(To be Submitted with Building Permit Application)
For All Properties Located in the Shoreland Distrlct (SD).
The Ma.ximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent.
Property Address \~"So'" t~~\~u-c-- p....'-S L~~(. N~.
Lot Area ~~ ot ~ e..~ qo~.o Sq. Feet x 300/0 = .............. -z. ~o-,
************************************************************************
HOUSE
~
,
A IT ACHED GARAGE
x
=
SQ. FEET
\\ '-\ '-\
LENGTH
WIDTH
x
=
x
=
\c::a() ~
TOT ALPRlNCIPLE STRUCTURE...................... "'2.\ S'2....
DETACHED BLDGS
(Garage/Shed)
x
X
TOTAL DETACHED BUILDfNGS......................~
e.o~~
DRlVEWAYIPAVED AREAS X
-c::::..
(Driveway-paved or not) ~~c.. 5k 06 X
(SidewalkIParking Areas). ~ X
=~
B~
=
=
TOT AL PAVED .~AS.........................................
a,~
CbN,.~~
P A TIOSIPORCHESIDECKS
-
(O'j)enOecks y," min. opening between
boards. with a pervious surface below,
are not considered to be impervious)
X
=
t;~q
x
=
x
=
T OT.~ DECKS ........................................................
'S'!.c;
X
X
=
OTHER
=
TOT AL OTFIER.... ......................................... ...... ...
\ '2..'-0 .
J
I
TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE
UNDER.COVEIU
Prepared B~"e.. ~'1l!>-~
company\h.\\~ ~"R"""\:J C ""') t?~.
~t..-(
"." "
.'p".
... Date
,/
Phone # '-\\l1-'ZS"'1t:>
_~~__."..,....,*.,,~,v. ~____. ",' ........, ..__.~ ~.~~..~,_._"_,,_.,.."'.,_~_a_'_.'..... ..". -^.-----..
-~_..""."..",.~.~_.~-~,,_..._'".,,-"_....~"'-_.,~-_._-..-,,,",,-,'~'..'-,-~--, .._".--,-_..__._.~,-~--~.._._._---."_.............-,.~--~..._._~._-~--.-..."-...-.--
PROF. ENGR. CONSULT.
49139265
203 LITTLe C"'N"DA !lOAD
SUIT2280
SAINT PAUL
MINNESOTA 55117
TEL: 651.490-9266
PAX: 651-490-92.65
Ji. r. ~,1 l; .:\~ '::' 1~ ~,
~()FESSIONAl.. ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS
INCORPORJ,TJ-:D
October 4, 2001
Mark Crouse
15507 Calmut Ave NE
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Subj: Grading Review
15507 Calmut Ave NE
Prior Lake, Minnesota - PEC #5091
Dear.' Mr. Crouse:
This letter concerns our review of the grading and patio
construction for the single fa~ily residential structure at the
above referenced address. We 'uriderstand the structure was built
wi th a basement floor elevation .lbwer than currently allowed for
residential structures on the,lake~hore. Therefore, the wood framed
portion of the structure wai rai.ed, four courses of block were
added to the perimeter foundation and fill was added inside of the
structure to support a lower level floor slab. Now the lower level
floor slab complies with current elevation requirements. These
alterations required changes to the exterior grading.
On the lake side of the structure the grading changes required the
following engineering considerations:
1. The exterior grade had to be raised to balance the lateral
soil loadings on the taised section of the rear foundation
wall.
2. The grade required a cap to prevent surface water infil tration
into the backfill region to reduce frost action and provide
erosion control. Erosion .control was required between the
shoreline and the building'.
In addition to the engineering considerations,where the function
and maintenance considerations for the construction. There was a
51 iding glass doorway in the lower level and a need to provide
maintenance access for the lake side face of the construction.
Th~s~ requirements and engineering requirements were accomplished
by constructing a near level grade with a retaining wall. The
r~taining wall also had a requirement to reduce lateral frost
action against the wall. Therefore, the top of the grade had to he
capped to minimi~e surface water 'runoff from percolating into the
subgrade soils.
P.131
~
:s
o
::I:
3:
m
z
-I
.
J>
."
."
r-
-
~
Z
-I
(J)
m
Z
C)
-
Z
m
m
:%J
(J)
r-
m
-I
-I
m
:D
PROF. ENGR. CONSULT.
49139265
p.a2
PaS" Two
The pa.ved patio a.rea fulfills the cap requirement over the
backfill. It minimizes the s~rface water infiltr~tion to reduce
frost action in the subgrade soils and it keeps water away from the
fO'l.lOdation. It also provides erosion protection for the subgrade.
During our observations on October 1, 2001, ",e observed a gap
between the foundation wall and the patio slab. This gap ~hould be
sealed wi tha flexible joint sealant to prevent dirt and water
migration into the gap. The saW joints in the patio also should
be sealed with joint sealant. The patio sla.b extends to the
outside edge of the reta.ini.ng wa.ll. This construction detail
mi.nimi zes water infi1 trat ion bp.hi.nd t.he bacl~ of the retaining wall.
11 ~oU have any questions regarding our review, please contact us
at ti51-490,:",9266.
Respectfully,
'PirOf~~ss~n~5 .E;ginle ing Consultants, Inc.
/' ~ I"\..t ./;/ ~~.tt-"l
~ hn F. Gislason, r., P.E.
Profe~aional Engineer
JFG/fm
cc: Allison Gonta.rek
952-447-5628, Fax
PROF. ENGR. CONSULT.
4909265
P.01
2U3 L.ITTI.J:; CANADA ROAD
SUITE 2R(J
SAINT PAUL
MINNllSOTA 55117
T'6I.: 6~1 ~90-9266
"AX: 6.:l1-49().9:1.6S
. ' . " ,.:
~Ol'jo;SSlONAL fo;NGlNY.ER.Ji"G CONSULTANTS
INCllRI'Ollo\Tl1l)
December 6, 2001
Allison Gontareck
Fax - 952-447-5628
Subj: Grading Revj.ew
15507 Calmut Ave NE
Prior Lake, MN
Dear Ms. Gontareck:
This letter concerns our review of the grading and patio
construction for the single family residential struct.ure at the
above referenced address. You furnished us a copy of a memo dated
December 4, 2001. from Lani Leichty, Water Resources Coordinator,
addressing our recommendations. The memo states no engine~ring
calculations had been provided to support our claim that a Gap was
required to prev~nt water infiltration. '
Our recommendations on the benefjt of the cap were not determined
by calculations. they were based on experience. WRter is
detrimental to construction I especially when it free~es. We
recommend reduci ng surface water inf:i.l tration adja~ent to
construction and in areas where there is an excess a.mO\Jnt of
surface water infiltration, we recommend installing a tile sy~tem
to drain away water from the construction. Water free~ing adjacent
to construction is very detrimenta.l to the construction. Expansive
forces from freezing water crack and lift foundations. Water
freezing in building materials degrades the desirable features of
the building material due to repeated cycles of free~in.g and
thawing. The first problem I was taught to address in buildinJ{
construction wa.s "Wha.t are YOll going to do with the wat.er", "How
are you going to drain it away", "How are you go ing t.o prevent it.
from damaging the construction". Experience has taught us to
provide a cap around the construction with sealed joints to
minimize surface ~ater infiltration around construction.
Respectfully,
Professionel Enginee~g Consultants,
J::~::~:., P.E.
Inc.
Memo
DATE: December 18, 2001
TO: Steve Horsman, Zoning Administrator
cc: Sue McDermott, City Engineer
FROM: Lani Leichty, Water Resources Coordinator
RE: Variance Request for 15507 Calmut Avenue NE
The engineering department has reviewed the variance request for the above
mentioned property and has the following comments:
1) One of the land use practice goals in the Comprehensive Lake Management
Plan for Upper and Lower Prior Lake (CLMP) is to: Minimize the transport of
nutrients, sediment and runoff from city streets and lands which impact the
Prior Lake watershed.
Action step 5-2a in the CLMP is to: Require a natural upland buffer strip
around delineated wetlands and waterbodies for new construction.
One way of achieving this is to provide buffer strips around waterbodies.
Allowing an impervious surface directly adjacent to the lake does not provide
any measure for improving the quality or quantity of stormwater runoff
leaving a site through filtering.
2) It is the policy of the Prior Lake-Spring Watershed District to reduce the
following actions that impact Prior Lake: 1) activities that degrade runoff
quality, 2) activities that increase rate of runoff, and 3) activities that
increase the volume of stormwater runoff.
Allowing these actions only exacerbates the underlying problems faced by
both the City and Watershed District, which are water quality, water volume
and public expenditures to improve these problems.
16200 EHgMIB~tlf\varM€mJ2"!€to~ke, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
~
~
(1
3:
m
z
-I
I
o
-
-I
-<
m
z
C)
-
z
m
m
:XI
-
Z
C)
c
m
~
.
~
m
~
o
3) The letter dated December 6, 2001, from Professional Engineering
Consultants, Inc. provided a solution to the problem of freezing water
adjacent to construction. City staff agrees with their recommendation of
"installing a tile system to drain away water from the construction."
Another option, along with drain tile, is to remove expansive soils in the
backfill region and replace them with granular soils. This will reduce the
potential of frost action around the building. Installation of gutters, routed
away from the building, will also help reduce water ponding adjacent to the
structure.
Several hundred homes a year are built in Prior Lake. Placing an
impervious cap around the perimeter of the structure is not a regular
practice by builders. A typical method of dealing with drainage is to install
footing drain tile, use granular backfill, install a clay cap over the backfill and
Slope the ground away from structure.
Summary:
Engineering does not support the variance as requested.
2
Al"TACHMENT - DRAFT 12/10/01 PC MINUTES
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10.2001
Criego:
. No matter what this development is, the issue of traffic is going to come up. We have
to believe the traffic study as it will not change the seasonal traffic.
. If the developer comes back with less townhomes, the same traffic issues are going to
come up.
. The main issue is that this project does not conform to the Pun criteria. It does not
give the community enough for what it is requesting.
Atwood:
. In reading over the traffic study - there is no way Duluth Avenue can handle that
traffic.
. One of the concerns of the neighbors is the times of the study do not reflect the true
traffic of the neighborhood. Because of the school, there are more buses and parents
in the area.
. Regarding the street lighting narrative by the developer - The developer said he
would mount the lights on the building but did not see it on the plans.
. Another question is the additional 11 parking spaces. Blocks 6 and 7 will not
conveniently be able to access those spaces.
. Kansier said the City requires decorative and adequate lighting.
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF
THE REQUEST FOR THE APPROVAL OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
KNOWN AS EAGLEWOOD EAST.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
DRAFT
MOTION BY ATWOOD, SECOND BY CRIEGO, TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF
THE PRELIMINARY PLAT TO BE KNOWN AS EAGLEWOOD EAST.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
This will go before the City Council on January 7, 2001.
A break was called at 8:23 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:28 p.m.
B. Case #01-093 D. Mark Crouse of 15507 Calmut Avenue, is requesting a variance
to exceed the allowable impervious surface coverage area.
Zoning Administrator Steve Horsman presented the Planning Report dated December 10,
2001, on file in the office of the City Planner.
The Planning Department received a variance application from Ms. Allison Gontarek,
Huemoeller & Bates Attorneys At Law, representing Mr. D. Mark Crouse the owner of
the property at 15507 Calmut Avenue. The applicant is requesting a 1,260 square foot
variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of3,567 square feet (46.4%)
rather than the permitted maximum area of 2,307 square feet (30%).
L:\O 1 files\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN 12100 J.doc 11
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10,2001
On October 8, 2001, the Planning Commission granted a variance for an impervious
surface coverage area of38% (Resolution Ol-OllPC). This variance allowed the
applicant to keep a portion of an existing driveway to access his 3-stall garage, while
removing the additional parking and rear yard patio areas to accomplish the 38%
coverage area. The applicant has since received an engineer's report on the need for the
lakeside patio area to provide soil stabilization around the structure foundation.
The City Engineering Department reviewed this request, including the engineer's letter of
recommendation to allow the applicant to keep the existing patio (cap) for soil stability.
The Department noted the absence of calculations in the letter to support their
recommendation for the cap. However, without conducting an analysis of the subject
site, the Engineering Department does not support nor dispute the applicants engineer of
record. The Department does suggest there are alternative methods to stabilize the soils
and retaining wall thereby eliminating the patio cap and the impervious surface coverage
area.
The Department Of Natural Resources submitted comments for this report. In short, the
DNR is not convinced by the engineer's letter of recommendation, and suggested the City
Engineer provide an independent review. However, should it be determined the patio cap
is necessary for structural reasons, perhaps other non-essential hard su:faces can ~ T
eliminated in their place. DR At
The staff recommended the Planning Commission deny the applicant's variance request
for 46.4% impervious surface area as the request does not meet all ofthe hardship criteria
due to existing conditions on the nonconforming lot of record, the approval for a building
permit to construct the existing structure with a 30% impervious surface coverage area,
and the recently approved 38% impervious variance. In addition, the City Engineering
Department suggested another option for shoring up the retaining wall and stabilizing the
soils that would not result in additional impervious surface.
Stamson questioned the assumption is going from 30% to 38% to finish the driveway.
Horsman said the 38% granted was to allow the applicant to have the driveway. What
came up after the fact was the letter to allow the patio. Stamson clarified that if the
Commission denies this request, the applicant can still have the 3-car driveway but has to
remove the patio.
Criego questioned if the City Engineer came up with any recommendations. Horsman
responded the City Water Resource Coordinator looked at it but did not submit a
response in writing but in discussions did recommend improving the existing retaining
wall or replace it to stabilize it to do the job it was intended to do and then by p1antings,
sod or other vegetation allowing an impervious area should not dis-stabi1ize the soils in
that area.
L:\O 1 fi1es\O 1 plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN 121 00 l.doc 12
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10.2001
Comments from the public:
Allison Gontarek, representative for D. Mark Crouse, distributed a response generated by
the engineer based on the staff report. One of the points in the staff report is that there
were no calculations done. According to their engineer it is a water problem in this
situation and not a calculation issue, it is more of keeping the structure safe from erosion.
Mr. Crouse did go ahead and create the impervious surface without a variance relying on
wrong information, however he did not create the hardship or the practical difficulties of
this lot. He was permitted and did expand and raise the existing footprint to comply with
the elevations requirements. Gontarek spoke to Lani Leichty (Water Resource
Coordinator for the City of Prior Lake), who did not have a specific alternative but to
possibly use drain tile and correcting the retaining wall. Both ofthe suggestions also
have problems. The applicant suggested using alternative management runoff methods.
The amount of impervious surface that is going to increase on the patio is not much.
Gontarek is not disputing the variance should have been applied for but felt this was a
reasonable use. They could not get the patio information for the first variance request.
Mr. Crouse will correct the problems but does not want to jeopardize his home. He
would like to work with the Planning Commission and come to a reasonable decision.
Gontarek also said Lani Leichty felt the Watershed District requirements are becoming
more of an issue.
The public hearing was closed at 8:43 p.m.
Comments from the Commissioners: .
DRAfT
Atwood:
. Not in favor of the request. The request is a gross number to be dealing with.
. Supported staffs recommendation to deny.
Criego:
. Agreed with staffs recommendation.
Stamson:
. Agreed with staff s recommendation. The intent of the impervious surface
regulations is to prevent water runoff from the lake.
. This patio was built specifically to run water to the lake. It is direct conflict with the
intent of the Ordinance.
. There also seems a resistance to remove the concrete and a retaining wall that was not
built appropriately, which is another lake water issue.
. Other agencies familiar with the property feel there are alternatives to protect the
building structure yet not defy the Ordinance or its intent.
. It is an economic issue is not a hardship.
. Supported rejecting this variance.
L:\01fi1es\0Iplancomm\01pcminutes\MNI2100l.doc 13
Planning Commission Minutes
December 10,2001
MOTION BY CRIEGO, SECOND BY ATWOOD, TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 01-
025PC DENYING THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO PERMIT A 46.4%
IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AREA.
Vote taken indicated ayes by all. MOTION CARRIED.
Horsman stated the applicant has 5 business days to appeal.
6.
Old Business:
None
7.
New Business:
None
r;.',..~~_..
r y,:,' !AFT
l~ <<"Yf:f-'
!L;di"w\ .... '." .
8. Announcements and Correspondence:
Criego requested a workshop for the Planning Commission. Rye said that was the intent
with the new commissioner on board.
Stamson stated the City was looking for applications for a new commissioner.
Applications are available from Administration before December 18, 2001.
9. Adjournment:
The meeting adjourned at 8:46 p.m.
Donald Rye
Director of Planning
Connie Carlson
Recording Secretary
L:\Ol files\O I plancomm\O 1 pcminutes\MN121 001 ,doc
14
ATTACHMENT
- CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
~ \0
of ~o'
....-r'" \,.\" E.
~O""
r:.o~.-...
"", Oif \0
~'"
. ..,\(\~ '0'
~.,.~ \0
...~'. .~\..~ ~Q
~O\ 06' ~.
ooe ~ ..0.'
\7.*'
\.
~l
.'. ....
t\t:.~ *,~'-J
~ ~O.~ \.
~O ~.<fP
~O
~
~
-a,
~
o
~
,-- - --
\
\
'\
, \
- \6.50 -'14 '~
S -ri/ 24' \ ~
~ 1.0.
'0 ~.\O~. to .
..J . ~
'5 e~
~ \0 4L.
% -u
_--=::L _ ~ "-
c~e\~
."
,l
.
-a
.~
."
o
en
m
'0
;'0
:D
<:
m
~
=-<
c
i
m
z
en
6
z
en
L
t "
'\
1
") ~.
\........
· '1
Memo
a
DATE: December 18, 2001
TO: Steve Horsman, Zoning Administrator
cc: Sue McDermott, City Engineer
FROM: Lani Leichty, Water Resources Coordinator
RE: Variance Request for 15507 Calmut Avenue NE
The engineering department has reviewed the variance request for the above
mentioned property and has the following comments:
1) One of the land use practice goals in the Comprehensive Lake Management
Plan for Upper and Lower Prior Lake (CLMP) is to: Minimize the transport of
nutrients, sediment and runoff from city streets and lands which impact the
Prior Lake watershed.
Action step 5-2a in the CLMP is to: Require a natural upland buffer strip
around delineated wetlands and waterbodies for new construction.
One way of achieving this is to provide buffer strips around waterbodies.
Allowing an impervious surface directly adjacent to the lake does not provide
any measure for improving the quality or quantity of stormwater runoff
leaving a site through filtering.
2) It is the policy of the Prior Lake-Spring Watershed District to reduce the
following actions that impact Prior Lake: 1) activities that degrade runoff
quality, 2) activities that increase rate of runoff, and 3) activities that
increase the volume of stormwater runoff.
Allowing these actions only exacerbates the underlying problems faced by
both the City and Watershed District, which are water quality, water volume
and public expenditures to improve these problems.
~gMISm!!Jt\Wtr~~o~e, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-424!
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
3) The letter dated December 6, 2001, from Professional Engineering
Consultants, Inc. provided a solution to the problem of. freezing water
adjacent to construction. City staff agrees with their recommendation of
"installing a tile system to drain away water from the construction."
Another option, along with drain tile, is to remove expansive soils in the
backfill region and replace them with granular soils. This will reduce the
potential of frost action around the building. Installation of gutters, routed
away from the building, will also help reduce water ponding adjacent to the
structure.
Several hundred homes a year are built in Prior Lake. Placing an
impervious cap around the perimeter of the structure is not a regular
practice by builders. A typical method of dealing with drainage is to install
footing drain tile, use granular backfill, install a clay cap over the backfill and
slope the ground away from structure.
Summary:
Engineering does not support the variance as requested.
.ATTACHMENT \- IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA.
. '..~CITY OF PRlORLAKE .
,Impervious ~urface Calculations
(To be Submitted with Building Permit Application)
For All Properties Located in the Shore land Distrl"ct (SD).
The Maximum Impervious Surface Coverage Permitted in 30 Percent
PropertyAddress \~~"'1-t'~o..\"""\I~ --" €.~~~ ~~'
Lot Area ~~ ct . ~ ~\.u C\~ Sq. Feet x '3.0% = .............. -z. ~o,
'****.*******************************************************************
HOUSE
, ~
ATTACHED GARAGE
x
..
SQ. FEET
\ \ \.\\t
, LENGTH
WIDTH
x
..
x
.'
\CI~ ~
TOTAL 'PRINCIPLE STRUCTURE-.---._-- ~ \';'2..
DETACHED BLDGS ' '
. . '
(OarqelShed)
x
x
. ". .
TOTAL DETACBJtD BUILDINGS-~-.~....~
e..N..~ .,. .
D~AYfPAVEDAREAS. iX
(Driveway-paved or not) ~~ ~ 6 X
(SidewalkIParlcing Areas) .' " x
-~,
-~
. TOTAL P A ~D ~AS......_............................._..
81<'
c...~ &.\~ .
, P A TIOSIPORCHES/DECKS
(Open Decks 'A" min. opening be~cen
'boards. with a pervioUs surface: below.
arc: ROt c:onsidUed to be impervious)
x
..
';~q
x
=
x
=
TOT..U DE (:::KS......-................................................
'S~~
." "
x
X
=
OTHER
=
TOT AL O~R.-............................_......................
TOTAL I1"VIPERVlOUS SURFACE
UNDafOVER)
PreparedB;ll~~ ~ ~...\ ~..
COlnpany~\'4 ~..S~ (' -Q') p.~.
'\ ~~(
I
\'2-'-0'
J
J
-;. ~ .
:;0.... "~., Date
J
Phone # ,",\11-'Z.~it)
".,_.~___...--...-_.,__,____._,N..~."._.,.._.~_.""__.._.-'---~-_._~.---~.._-
D. MARK CROUSE
VARIANCE APPLICATION
FACTS:
1. The work is done
2. Owner is willing to work with City
3. Excellent site to do alternate infiltration demonstration/design
ARGUMENTS:
1. Hardship criteria
2. Reasonable use
3. Due Process Violations
SOLUTIONS:
1. Brave - set conditions on variance to require alternate infiltration to bring
actual impervious surface runoff to <t 30%
2. So-So -leave variance at 38% and lose opportunity to benefit from
knowledge to be gained by the use and monitoring of new infiltration
technologies
___~_"_"'_"A_"'_'_'.""_"';'___'_'__".'~''''__'''''~..".._~~_~,.."",..._."",,..,,.."..."."."_,~~"_______~"___.__.----------.........'""'~~-_..-
PROPOSAL BY D. MARK CROUSE
15507 CALMUT AVENUE NE
TO
PRIOR LAKE PLANNING COMMISSION
September 10, 2001
Based on the application for an increase in impervious surface on the above referenced
property, the following is proposed:
1. That approximately 1,000 square feet of concrete be removed at owner's expense;
2. That an infiltration system be designed using alternative infiltration devices or a
drainage easement be acquired for drainage rights onto the outlot immediately adjacent to
the property or some combination of infiltration system combined with drainage easement
be formulated by the owner to meet or exceed the runoff management intent of the
impervious surface limitation;
3. That the engineered design be approved by this Commission upon engineering
analysis demonstrating that the runoff management plan meets the 30% impervious
surface calculation for the above referenced property.
City Farmer:Rain Barrels
Page 1 of 8
Published by City Farmer, Canada's Office of Urban Agriculture
Rain Barrels
Michael Levenston
Executive Director City Farmer
(C) Copyright: City Farmer
Food gardens need water and what better way to give plants a drink than with
soft, warm, oxygen-fined rainwater straight from the rain barrel. Even just a wee
bit saved in a barrel after a storm, then transferred to a watering can, win slake
the thirst of a balcony of plants. And you, the recycler, will feel especially good
knowing that you are diverting water that would otherwise flow out into the
storm sewers.
City Farmer has been chosen by Vancouver's City Hall to display and help
promote a rain barrel distribution program.
City Makes Rain Barrels Available to Save Water
City of Vancouver Rain Barrel
The City of Vancouver is providing
subsidized rain barrels for up to 1,000
residents under a pilot program to
conserve water.
The Green Barrel pilot program will offer
Vancouver residents (City of Vancouver
- only) a 7S-gallon plastic rain barrel for
$S8.06 including taxes. This is half the
regular cost.
.Cllr of Vancouver rain barrel now
available to people outside Vancouver (not subsidized). (February 2001).
Residents can use the specially-designed barrels to collect rain water from
downspouts for lawn and garden irrigation.
http://www.cityfarmer .org/rainbarreI72.html
09/08/2001
City Farmer:Rain Barrels
Page 2 of 8
Lawn and garden watering make up almost 40 per cent of total household water
use during the summer. It's expected that each barrel will save about 1,300
gallons of water during the peak summer months when demand for water is high
and precipitation is low.
The barrels are easy to install. They come with outlets for both watering cans and
hoses, and are designed with child-proof openings.
Yan~.Q!!yer Rainbarrel
Vancouver residents can call the City's Water Conservation Hotline at 873-7350
for information on obtaining a barrel. Residents can also visit City Farmer, at the
City of Vancouver's Compost Demonstration Garden, at 2150 Maple Street to see
the rain barrels in use.
Further information:
Jeff Smyth
jeff smythCWcity.vancouver.bc.ca
Waterworks Design
(604) 871-6144
Rainbarrel Links on the Internet:
Thanks to Lisa Taylor of Seattle Tilth Association for many of these
links.
Rain Barr~l Information and Sources for the Pacific NOlthwest
The Water & Land Division of the King County Department of Natural Resources
Rainwater Harvesting information
City of Seattle Water Conservation information
Texas Rain Harvesting
Garden Waters aver
"The Garden Watersaver is an automatic rain water collection system that has
advantages over other rain water collecting systems. "
Spruce Creek Rainsaver
Rain Barrels m?de by Arbour
Coll~j~t Rainwater for Gardening, Aquariums. and Pets
Green Culhlre's Water Savers
. http://www.cityfarmer.org/rainbarrel72.html
09/08/2001
. City Farmer:Rain Barrels
Page 3 of8
Dan Borba's Rainbarrels
Approved Rainbarrel Suppliers
Great American ~tn Barrels
B!:!in Barrels
Rain Pail
ReaL Goods Rain Barrel (Type in "Rain")
Portland Rainbarrel
Rainwater to Drinking Water
"The biggest issue in collecting rainwater is keeping it free of muck such as
leaves, bird droppings and dead animals, and avoiding contamination with
pollutants like heavy metals and dust." From the Sustainable House "In 1996,
a Sydney family set out to renovate their 100 year old terrace house in the inner-
city suburb of Chippendale. With a bit of vision, some common sense, and a lot
of tenacity, they built what most of us would think impossible... a house in the
middle of Australia's biggest city that produces its own power and water, and
reuses its sewage on site."
CMHC's Healthy House in Toronto
Melbourne Water Autonomous House
The Cam:gus Center for.A:gpropriate Technology
Oasis Design Ecologi~ill Design. Consulting Water, W astewat~r & Solar Systems
Edible Landsca12ing. Greywater Books
City of Etobicoke
Utility Engineering
399 The West Mall
Etobicoke, Ontario, M9C 2Y2
Phone: (416) 394-8379
City of Toronto
. http:j jwww.cityfarmer.orgjrainbarreI72.html
09/08/2001
'City Farmer: Rain Barrels
Page 40f8
Public Works
100 Queen St. West, 14th Floor
Toronto, Ontario, M5H 2N2
Phone: (416) 392-7660
Fax: (416) 392-7874
Downspout Disconnection Program (Phone: (416) 392-1807
The Rain Saver
from Water Conservation Technology
P.O. Box 121, Sydenham, Ontario KoH 2To Canada
The 'International Rainwater Catchment Systems Association
(IRCSA)
The IRCSA is a new association aiming to link those with an interest
in the direct collection of rainwater and its storage for domestic and
agricultural supply. The seeds for the establishment of the
Association were first sown when the first International Rainwater
Cistern Systems Conference was convened in Hawaii in June 1982 by
Prof. Fok. Subsequent International Conferences have followed on a
two-yearly basis and were held in the US Virgin Islands (1984),
Thailand (1987), Philippines (1989), Taiwan (1991), Kenya (1993) and
China (1995).
. "Whilst rainwater catchment systems have long been utilised in some
parts of the Caribbean, Middle East and Australia, in other places its
potential has only recently been realised. During the last decade,
Thailand and Kenya, for example, have led their respective continents
. http:j jwww.cityfarmer.orgjrainbarrel72.html
09/08/2001
City Farmer: Rain Barrels
Page 5 of 8
in demonstrating the enormous potential of this technology. In
Thailand more than 10 million two thousand litre ferrocement roof
catchment tanks have been constructed since 1985 for domestic water
supply, while in Kenya the construction oflarge (10 to 100m3)
ferrocement tanks has gained popularity in many regions with
thousands being built at schools, clinics and private homes.
"Utilisation of rainwater catchment systems has also been spreading
in other parts of Asia (e.g. Nepal, Bangladesh, India and the
Philippines) as well as in Africa (e.g. Botswana, Mali and Tanzania).
In industrialised countries too interest in rainwater collection is
growing as demonstrated by recent developments in Australia,
Hawaii and Singapore. Japan has traditionally used rainwater
catchment systems and is currently making adjustments to meet the
requirements of urban environments."
IRCSA Membership Account:
cj 0 International Water Resources Association
1101 West Peabody Drive
Urbana IL 61801-4723 USA
More Information:
Mr. John E. Gould
Secretary-General (IRCSA)
University of Botswana
P jBag 0022
Gaborone, Botswana
Further Reading:
Raindrop (Newsletter of the IRCSA)
Tokyo International Rainwater Utilization Conference
Rainwater & You "100 Ways to Use
Rainwater" by Group Raindrops
Organizing Committee for the Tokyo
International Rainwater Utilization
Conference
Sumida City Office Building
1-23-20 Azumabashi, Sumida City Tokyo
130, Japan
1995, 176 pages
-. .if
- "L'r--.. ..J- :
) J
v'
,.,l~, r _\.-'" I
. ~ ,-
"It is.estimated that 60% of the world
population will concentrate into urban areas
by the middle of the 21st century. ... Population in Asia, Mrica and Latin America
will continue to concentrate into large cities and, as a result, those cities will
. http://www.cityfarmer.org/rainbarrel72.html
09j08j2001
. City Farmer:Rain Barrels
Page 6 of 8
confront the problem "Urban Droughts and Urban Floods". ... A new rainwater
culture is required in which cities can live more harmoniously with rain." (from
the forward by Makoto Murase, Conference Secretary-General)
Also available from the above office:
Excerpts of Questions & Answers
Tokyo International Rainwater Utilization Conference
March 1995, 41 pages
The rain falling on the roof of the Sumida City Office, an 18-storey
building completed in 1990, is collected in an underground 1000 m3
tank. The drainage from the bathrooms and restaurants in the
building as well as the rainwater, is sterilized and used for flushing
toilets.
According to data from 1993, the amount of water used for flushing
toilets for that year was about 13,600m3. 7000m3 of that was
rainwater, and recycled drainage accounted for 4000m3. This means
that within the City Office alone, 11,000m3 of water were saved
during that one year. This amount is equivalent to the amount of
water needed to fill approximately 55,000 family bathtubs (200
liters) .
Water-Saving Devices
Compiled by Lone Hansen, Andrew Giles
BSRIA (The Building Services Research and Information Assoc. Bracknell,
Berkshire, UK
One of six reports in a series on Environmentally Friendly Systems and Products
Published in October 1997, 49 pages
This series of reports was funded by the Department of Trade and Industry and a
group of industrial sponsors.
Market report now available from BSRIA, priced E.250.
Contact Rachel Slater or Peter Cooke Tel: +44 1344426511, Fax: +44 1344487575
f~tel'Co(W bsria.co. uk
The Water Saving Devices report reviews the market for these products
world-wide, assesses their market potential in the UK and examines what can be
done to increase the uptake of this technology. Those water saving devices
analysed in the report include:
. Rain water recycling products/systems
. Grey water recycling products/systems
. Waterless urinals
"There are two categories of waste water: grey and black water. Grey water is all
http://www.cityfarmer .org/rainbarreI72.html
09/08/2001
. City Farmer:Rain Barrels
Page 7 of 8
waste water from baths, showers and hand basins, domestic appliances and
fittings. Black water is fouled water from toilets and bidets. The grey water that
can be recycled is approximately 26% of the average consumption in a domestic
dwelling (or 47% if the washing machine is included). The water used for toilet
flushing is approximately 33% and outside use is approximately 3% of the
average consumption. Grey water for toilet flushing can be supplemented by
mains or rain water. The pay back time for grey water systems using waste water
for toilet flushing is between 7 and 15 years depending on capital costs (E500-
El,OOO) and based on an average price of E1.28 per M3. The pay back time is
reduced to 4-8 years in the South West where the price per M3 is E2.30. The
payback time for grey water systems is shorter than rainwater systems but the
manufacturers/installers need to consider the end users perception and attitude,
health and safety aspects and legislation and planning permission."
Envirosink
"Envirosink is an environmentally helpful additional, or secondary sink that
utilises all standard plumbing fittings. Envirosink allows you to conserve the
'light' gray water from your kitchen. Envirosink is the only system that allows
some catchment of water at the kitchen sink -- to help fill your rain barrel in the
dry season."
Bermuda
"Here in Bermuda all residential properties catch rainwater on the
roof. This is constructed oflapped limestone slate on a timber frame.
The water collected drains down into a water tank which is located
beneath the house. The general rule of thumb is that the tank must be
large enough to hold, in gallons, an amount calculated by multiplying
the roof area of the house by eight and a quarter. This water
collection system has been in use for many, many
years." (Department of Planning, Bermuda)
Department of Planning
Government Administration Building
30 Parliament Street, Hamilton HM12, Bermuda
Phone: (809) 295-5151
Fax: (809) 295-4100
Rainwater Collection Systems
Videotape and Booklet, revised 1995
Morris Media Associates, Inc.
4306 Wildridge Circle
Austin, Texas 78759 USA
http://www.cityfarmer.org/rainbarre172.html
09/08/2001
'City Farmer:Rain Barrels
Page 8 of8
"Rainwater Collection Systems is the story of three families from the
Texas Hill Country who collect rainwater for all their household
needs, including drinking. And they would say 'especially' drinking!
'When emergency room physician Dr. Mike McElveen and his wife
Kathy decided to collect enough rainwater for all their needs, their
system became the model for others in their area to follow. A 50 page
booklet accompanies each half-hour video.'
Emergency Water, Soft Water, Chemical Free Water from Plastmo
Non mechanical rain water diyerter used to collect water for chlorine sensitive
plants.
New Feature! Search Our Site ,~~~
~ Return to Contents' Page ~
Revised May 28, 2001
Published by City Farmer
Canada's Office of Urban Agriculture
ci tyfarm@interchan~_ubc~a
http://www.cityfarmer .org/rainbarrel72.html
09/08/2001
Rain Gardens
Page 1 of 9
Visit the 'Fdends of Bassett Creek' Website
----
Rain Gardens
----
- - - - This Raingarden Pamphlet in Adobe Acrobat PDF Format (1.2m) - - - -
Gardening with Water Quality in Mind
When you make a garden a "rain garden" you can improve local water
quality while creating a beautiful natural area that will attract birds and
butterflies. Rain gardens allow rain and snowmelt to seep naturally into
the ground. This helps recharge our groundwater supply, and prevents
a water quality problem called polluted runoff. Rain gardens are an
important way to make our cities more attractive places to live while
building urban ecological health.
What makes a garden a rain garden? All it takes is a few simple steps in
the following three areas:
Landscaping:
~ Rain gardens are designed with a dip at the center to collect rain and
- snow melt. Any degree of indentation is useful, from slight dips made
with your garden trowel to large swales created by professional
landscapers. Neatly trimmed shrubs, a crisp edge of lawn, stone
retaining walls and other devices can be used to keep garden edges neat
and visually appealing.
Location:
. http://www.mninter.net/~stack/rain/index.htm
09/08/2001
Rain Gardens
Page 2 of 9
Strategic placement next to hard surfaces such as alleys, sidewalks,
driveways and under gutters makes your rain garden effective.
Following you will find descriptions for how rain gardens can work in
the front, side and back sections of your property.
Plant choices:
Hardy native species that thrive in our ecosystem without chemical
fertilizers and pesticides are the best choices. Many rain gardens
feature shrubs as well as wild flowers and grasses. As a rule, the less
"turf' on lawns, the better it is from a water quality stand point -- turf-
style lawns create a harder surface which does not absorb water as
readily as garden areas. Also, turf-style lawns often require chemical
treatments and extra water to look uniform. Yards that feature native
plants, grasses and shrubs are much easier to maintain.
. -..- ..... . ..........----....... _n .......... .--.-.-.-.............-.--.......__....... ,..._._................_........_..._..... _____............_.____.._.............._..........n.__ .____........................._..__.....__._...._..___.............._....____.............".._____...._........._......... .._..__.. .. ..u..__m..........n ..............._ "..._...___..
What is polluted runoff?
Polluted runoff is a big problem in urban areas where much
of the ground is covered with hard surfaces such as roofs,
streets, parking lots and sidewalks. Before development, rain
and snow melt seeped slowly into the earth. Now water flows
quickly across hard surfaces, picking up pollutants -- from
organic particles, pesticides, fertilizers, gas, oil and other
types of residue -- before dumping into storm drains. Once in
the storm sewer system the water flows into local lakes and
streams. In most cases it is not treated or cleaned in any way.
Here in the Twin Cities almost all storm water eventually
ends up in the Mississippi River -- our precious, world-class
resource that is also the source of much of our drinking
water.
,..........-..........-.---......--......-...--.--.,.---.-...-..-.--..........--.......--.....-....-.--...-.......--.........----..---.-.-....-..-.....----.--.-.---'------..----...-.----.--..----.....---....---..--.--.-..-.........-..--......
Front yard gardens:
Gardens along the front of homes and businesses are particularly useful
from a water quality and aesthetic standpoint. Their proximity to the
street makes front yard gardens an effective place to collect water that
has run off of your roof, yard, driveway and sidewalk before it hits the
stormwater system. Because they are highly visible to people passing by
. http:j jwww.mninter.netj~stackjrainjindex.htm
09/08/2001
Rain Gardens
Page 3 of 9
on the street or sidewalk, front yard raingardens also add to the beauty
of the neighborhood. .
If the rainwater collection area is larger and the raingarden smaller,
. http://www.mninter.net/~stack/rain/index.htm
09/08/2001
Rain Gardens
Page 4 of 9
then in some cases overflow or excess standing water may become
a problem. Small culverts and/or swales may be useful in these
cases to move excess water from one raingarden to another that has
extra capacity. There may even be a community raingarden that
receives water from a number of adjacent properties.
Front yard gardens can be created:
· At the end of the roof gutter to capture run off from the roof.
. Along front walkway to keep runoff from traveling down the
sidewalk and into the storm sewer.
. Along the city sidewalk to act as a buffer between your lawn and
the street.
. · On the city-owned boulevard to stop runoff from entering the
street.
Property owners with front yards that slope to the sidewalk may choose
to incorporate stone walls. With the addition of wall features, collection
points can become deeper and more useful from a water filtration stand
point. If the wall is decorative and combined with neatly edged turf, the
area will be beautiful throughout the year.
Side yard gardens:
Gardens along the side of your home or business can catch runoff from
your roof, create a "living fence" between properties and channel runoff
to front or back yard gardens. Some homeowners create wide side yard
gardens that become wider still in the back yard. This style of garden
can minimize the amount of "turf' in your back yard that needs to be
mowed. Creating wild areas along the side of your house ensures that
you can look out your window and see beautiful plants, birds and
butterflies. Don't plant tall shrubs right next to your windows if you are
concerned about people hiding there. Also, make sure dips for
. capturing runoff channel water away from your house to avoid
basement flooding problems.
:Back yard gardens:
Back yard gardens can keep water from running down the alley and
into storm sewers. Like side yard gardens, back yard gardens can also
help minimize the amount of high-maintenance turf-style lawn on your
property. Most people place their largest gardens in the back yard. If
. http://www.mninter.net/....stack/rain/index.htm
09/08/2001
Rain Gardens
Page 5 of 9
you already have a large back yard garden, you can easily add a water
filtration component by creating dips that will hold and filter water.
. In any location, a rain garden's basic feature is a dip or swale.
Shrubs are often planted at the center and surrounded by wild
flowers.
Q: - How do I turn a section of my yard into a rain garden?
A: - Simply remove sod, dig a shallow depression and plant with native
plants.
Q: - Don't rain gardens attract a lot of mosquitoes?
A: - Not really. Mosquitoes thrive and breed in standing water. Most
mosquitoes breed in places like junk-piles where there are old tires or
tin cans. There is rarely standing water in a well-designed rain garden.
Q: - Can I create a rain garden that doesn't look too wild or
messy?
A: - The way to make a rain garden, or any garden, appear 'well kept' is
to keep the edges tidy. Tall plants and grasses tend to "flop-over" so if
you want a neat silhouette, you will want to stick with short species. To
keep native plants from growing too large, remember not to water
them!
Q: - What happens to water-tolerant plants when we have a dry
spell?
A: - Native plants can withstand a range of weather conditions. Native
plants that do well in poorly drained soil will be fine during dry
weather, >
Q: - How large must a rain garden be to be worthwhile?
http://www.mninter.net/-stack/rain/index.htm
09/08/2001
Rain Gardens
Page 6 of 9
A: - Any water that seeps into the ground instead of running into a
storm sewer helps water quality. A rain garden of any size has a positive
impact.
.---- - . ~_.
Neighborhood raingardens can provide recreation opportunities, re-
create wetlands and add aesthetic value to our urban communities.
Neighborhood Projects:
The overall landscape pattern of our cities includes easements and
small public properties. These areas are ideal for gardens that improve
the ecological functioning and the aesthetic value of our communities.
In the Twin Cities, our proximity to the Mississippi River and its
network of tributary creeks and streams provides many opportunities
for protecting this great waterway through restoration of former
natural areas.
Across the country, urban communities are realizing the economic,
social and environmental benefits of creating stormwater filtration
projects and restoring native vegetation. Twin City based efforts
include work in the neighborhoods surrounding St. Paul's Lower
Phalen Creek and Minneapolis' Bassett Creek -- Mississippi River
tributaries that have been degraded and partially buried as storm
sewers.
Residents, businesses, employees and government agencies are
working together to recreate natural areas and improve water quality in
Lower Phalen Creek and Bassett Creek. Efforts, which are spearheaded
by St. Paul's Friends of Swede Hollow and Minneapolis' Friends of
Bassett Creek, include promoting rain gardens as well as:
. Recreating wetlands and other natural areas.
. Improving and enhancing existing parks and natural
areas through removal of invasive trees, planting of
native species and increasing public access.
. Creating and extending public bicycle and pedestrian
trails to provide new recreation opportunities and
connections to the Mississippi River.
Rain gardens in action!
. http://www.mninter.net/--stack/rain/index.htm
09/08/2001
Rain Gardens
Page 7 of 9
There are a number of sites where rain gardens are being installed to
add beauty to our cities while capturing and filtering stormwater.
Friends of Swede Hollow and the City of St. Paul are installing a rain
garden demonstration site on Seventh Street near the Swede Hollow
Cafe.
The St. Paul Neighborhood Energy Consortium is building a rain
garden at their new site on Selby and Dale. Through this project, an
existing parking lot's impervious surfaces are being reduced by about 17
percent.
To see a residential rain garden, take a look at the yard on 118 Virginia
Street (one half block north of Summit Avenue, near Western in St.
Paul). The rain garden is visible from the sidewalk.
Native Plants for Rain Gardens
Below is a list of native plant and shrub options for wet soils in the
center of rain gardens:
Native Plants for Wet Soils --- Sunn}(
Areas:
· Sweet Flag - - - = - - - - (Acorus ~alamus)
· Giant Hyssop* - - - - - - (Agastache foeniculum)
· Canada Anemone - - - - (Anemone canadensis)
· Marsh Milkweed* - - - = (Asclepias incarnata)
. New England Aster* - - (Aster novae-angliae)
· Marsh Marigold - - - - (Caltha palustis)
. Tussock Sedge - - - - (Carex stricta)
. Turtlehead* - - = - = - (Chelone glabra)
· Joe JOre Weed* - - - - - (Eupatorium maculatum)
· Boneset - - = - = - : - (Eupatorium perfoliatum)
-. Queen Qf the Prairie* = (Filipendula rubra} =
· Sneezeweed - - - = - - (Helenium autumn ale )
· Blueflag lris - - - - - - (Iris versicolor)
· Soft Rush - - - - - - - GI uncus effusus)
· Great Blue .Lobelia = - (Lobelia siphilitica)
· Switchgrass* = = - = - = {Panicum yirgatum}
· Prairie Phlox = = - = - = (Phlox nilosa)
. http://www.mninter.net/-stack/rain/index.htm
09/08/2001
. Rain Gardens
. Mountain Mint - - - - - (Pycnanthemum virginianum)
. River Bulrush - - - - - (Scirpus fluviatilis)
. Softstem Bulrush - - - (Scirpus validus}
. Riddell's Goldenrod - - (Solidago riddellii)
. Tall Meadow Rue* - - - (Thalictrum dasycarpum)
. Culvers Root* - - - - - (Yeronicastrum virginicum)
. Golden Alexander - - - (Zizia aurea)
Native Plants for Wet Soils --- Shad}!
Areas:
. Caterpiller Sedge - - - (Carex crinita}
. Cardinal Flower*.:.:.: - (Lobelia~ardinalis)
. Ostrich Fern* - - - - - (Matteuccia struthiopteris)
. Virginia Bluebells - - - (Mertensia verginica)
. Sensitive Fern: - - - - (Qnoclea ~ensibilis)
*Likely to grow taller than three feet.
Shrubs --- Sunny or Shady Areas:
. Black Chokeberry - - - (Aronia melanocarpa)
. Red Osier Dogwood - - (Cornus serecia}
. Low Bush Honeysuckle - (Diervilla lonicera)
· Annabelle Hydrangea - - (Hydrangea arborescense 'Annabelle')
. Eussy Willow - - - - - (Salix caprea)
. Blue Arctic Willow - - - (Salix purpurea 'Nanna')
Shrubs --- Sunny Areas Onlle-
. Meadow Sweet - - - - (Spiraea alba)
· Steeplebush - - .: - - - (Spiraea 10mentosa)
. High Bush Cranberry - (Viburnum trilobum)
-
For purchasing native plants and seeds:
· -Prairie Restorations Inc: 888-389-4342
· Landscape Alternatives: 651-488-3142
· Prairie Moon Nursery (mail order only): 507-452-1362
- http://www.mninter.net/~stack/rain/index.htm
Page 8 of 9
09/08/2001
, Rain Gardens
Page 9 of9
For information on gardening with native plants, runoff pollution prevention
and workshop opportunities, call the St Paul Neighborhood Energy
Consortium: 651--644-7678
For information on native plant demonstration sites, classes, youth gardening
projects or starting a community garden, call the Sustainable Resources Center
Urban Lands Program: 612--872-3288
Read 12l1blished newspa12er article on a neighborhood rain gardens
retrofittil1g-I2mi~t along a city street~
Some Rain Garden Links:
=::- Environmental Protection Agency (EP A) urban runoff and rain gardens.
==-Rul1offtreatment and rain..gardens at Jordan Cove. Connecticut (EPA).
=--:- Rain.gardens q,t Port Towns, Maryland.
:--- Rain_gardens at the Virgi!lia Department of Forestry
Native plant information was supplied by Fred Rozumalski, Barr Engineerill9.
Rain garden text written primarily by Amy Middleton and Sarah Clark.
Funding for this rain garden pamphlet was provided by the McKnight .Foundation. Minn~gna Oellartmem of Natural Resources and
Minn~ta Office of Environmental Assistance. Illustrations reprinted courtesy University of Minnesota Department of Landscape
Architecture.
(Maintained by Dave Stack, Ed McRoberts ;Content@ Friends of Bassett Creek; (Created by Gabe Ormsby); Update 01feb13)
Please em ail usatstack@mninter.netif you notice any links or phone contacts on this website that have died.
. http://www.mninter.net/-stack/rain/index.htm
09/08/2001
Demostration Site, Driveway Dry Well
D. Driveway Dry Well
This drywell system serves the dual
purpose of retaining and cleansing
rainwater, giving it time to percolate
into the ground rather than carrying
motor oil and other pollutants into the
storm drain system and out to our
beaches and bays. Rainwater flowing
down the driveway runs through a grate
(see D) into a box containing sand and
crushed rock that captures pollutants.
ReturnJo Demo!lstrati9n Site
. http://www.treepeople.org/trees/d.htm
Click here to view Actual Sit~ (Size 80kh)
.;I'~~.t~.
II' '!l~I!.. 4t... I
Page 1 of 1
09/08/2001
HARDSHIP CRITERIA
Hardship criteria
# l. The lot was developed before applicant purchased it and he upgraded the existing house,
under permit. The "calculations" desired by staff are not relevant as per the engineer's letter
dated December 6 and presented to the Commission prior to the December 10 meeting. No
alternatives have been offered by the engineering department, although I spoke with Lani
Leichty and requested what they were considering.
There are practical difficulties with this lot which the current owner did not create. He has
enhanced the property in line with the surrounding neighborhood and has the full support of his
neighbors in his efforts.
Hardship criteria #1 is met.
#2. The need for the rear patio was documented, at the request of the Planning Commission.
The chronology, attached, reflects the misrepresentation made by the Planning staff on the ability
-10 bring in the requested information. Not the fir~t mi<:repreSlent~ti()n they have made as is
indicated_ in my sh..grt list, developed d:.!!i~~olvement in this case. The setback variance
'granted from the 1akeshore required Mr. Crouse to stabilize his backfill when the house was
raised to meet current code.
Hardship criteria #2 is met.
#3. Reasonable use includes protecting the stability of structures and erosion control. Mr.
Crouse's property would be devalued and possibly compromised should the patio be removed.
While variance approval after the fact is not typical or encouraged, destruction can be construed
as a taking.
Hardship criteria #3 is met.
#4. Staff, Mr. Crouse and his neighbors are in full agreement that this is not a problem.
Hardship criteria #4 is met.
#5. The impervious surface of the patio creates minimal drainage impact, according to Pat Lynch
ofthe DNR. Removal of the stabilizing surface could create major erosion problems, not the
infiltration area Staff envisions. More effective is an alternate drainage system for which Mr.
Crouse's house is set up for now. Removal of the patio will impact property values and impair
establish~q__PIQI?~ill'"y'al~s.
---
Hardship criteria #5 is met, removal of the patio will diminish property value and impact the
neighborhood, creating hardship on the community.
#6. The intent of variances is to allow flexibility with Ordinances and to give municipalities the
ability to improve while maintaining standards. No one can dispute that Mr. Crouse has
improved his property. The entire neighborhood is behind his efforts. His lot is adjacent to an
open outlot which creates a large pervious infiltration area and is one of the reasons his lot is
small. The intent of the Ordinance and Comprehensive Plan is to create a standard and
encourage improvement of real property in concert with surrounding properties. Mr. Crouse has
brought his property in line with his neighborhood - the intent of the Plan!
Hardship criteria #6 is met.
#7. No other means have been identified by City Engineering to stabilize Mr. Crouse's patio
area. He raised the house to meet Code requirements that had changed from when the house was
originally built, creating the need for backfill. The close proximity to the lake (per granted
variance) requires the backfill be stabilized. This is not convenience for the property owner, it is
protection.
Hardship criteria #7 is met.
#8. The hardship results from:
- Ordinance changes requiring a driveway be calculated as impervious surface (see
attached November 22, 1996 letter documenting change)
- Code changes requiring a higher elevation for lower levels
- Platting which created an undersized and irregular lot prior to impervious surface
limitations
Hardship criteria #8 is met.
#9. Economic considerations alone are not sufficient to grant a variance. However, the expense
to create another cap, which functions at/or about the same level as the current cap, can and
should be considered when making a decision on Mr. Crouse's variance request.
However, Mr. Crouse is willing to expend resources to use alternative methods to mitigate the
runoff and monitor it. His house is ideally set up for this type of mitigation because all guttering
and downspouting is in place. The 28% could be captured easily and managed through
rainbarrels and other mechanisms. From a 46.4% unmanaged runoff, it would result in 18.4%
resiaual.
NOVENffiER 22, 1996
Dear Builder/Surveyor:
On November 18, 1996 the Prior Lake City Council adopted an ordinance modifying the
definition of impervious surface. The change adds gravel driveways to the defInition of
impervious surface. The effect of this on new construction will be irrelevant, as paved
driveways are required on new construction. The effect on existing parcels could be
signifIcant in some cases. The new detinition is as follows:
Iil-[PERVTOUS SURFACE: Tlteportion of the buildahleparcel which has a
covering which does not permit water to percolate into the natural soiL
Impervious surface shall include, but not be limited to, all driveways and
parking areas, whether paved or not, sidewalks greater tItan 3' in width, patios,
tennis and hasketball courts, swimming pools, covered decks and other
structures. Decks open to the sky and having open joints of at least one-fourth
inch (1/4") and sidewalks 3' in width or less shall be e.'Cemptedfrom the
calculation of impervious surface. TIle impervious surface of a lot shall be
documented by a certificate of survey unless e.'Cemptedfrqm this requirement by
tlte Zoning Administrator.
In order to better administer the impervious surface requirements, the City has created a
worksheet to be submitted with all building permit applications for property located. in the
Shoreland District (SD). The impervious surface requirement only applies to property
located in the Shoreland District. The Shoreland District includes all property located
within 1,000 feet of a significant body of water such as Prior Lake, Spring Lake, Mystic
Lake, Markley Lake, etc. and the tributaries leading to them. If you are unsure of the
zoning, please call us.
Please feel free to call us if you have questions regarding the worksheet. Thank. you for
your cooperation.
Sincerely,
(\ M AA.i J {/II~/U
~;~;~
Planner
IMPL TR.DOC/JKT
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E.. Prior Lake. Minnesota 55372-1714 I Ph. (612) 447-4230 I Fax (612) 447-4245
AN EQL'AL OPPORTI.':"lTY ~;.lPlOYER
2/23/01
6/25/01
7/23/01
9/10/01
9/14/01
9/24/01
9/25/01
10/5/01
10/8/01 '
CHRONOLOGY
Crouse Variance Request
Mr. Crouse files original variance application (57.5% impervious surface)
Hearing held
Hearing scheduled but applicant out of town, postponed
Hearing with representative appearing for Mr. Crouse (business trip)
45% discussed at June 25 meeting, 44% proposal presented, with alternative
measures to bring infiltration below 30%, motion made for 40%,36% passed with
need for additional information emphasized.
Letter of appeal of 36% variance fIled with Don Rye
Planning Commission meeting - Resolution modifIed from 36% to 38%
without public hearing _ ~ ck 3~"k'
Telephone call from Steve Horsman - ready to publish~ut nothing final
until Resolution signed at October 8 Commission meeting. Based on
Horsman's request, letter sent withdrawing appeal so that additional
engineering information could be introduced to Commissioners and the City
for this variance.
Based on Horsman's representations - engineers report sent to all
Commissioners and the City with request public hearing be reopened to
introduce this information.
Letter faxed from the City denying request to introduce additional
information and requiring a new variance.
Hearing held and Resolution signed for 38% variance.
Examples: Teilborg's surprise at having to remove garage (Sept. 10 Planning Commission mtg)
Norling's change to their variance without public hearing (post-approval)
Crouse's denial to reopen hearing and subsequent change in variance (post-approval)
HUEMORIJl'JRR & BATES
AITORNEYS AT LAW
16670 FRANKLIN TRAll.
P.O. BOX 67
PRIOR LAKE, MINNEsOTA 55372
JAMES D. BATES
BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER
September 14,-2001
Telephone (952) 447-2131
Fax (952) 447-5628
Mr. Donald R. Rye
Prior Lake Planning Director
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake MN 55372
Re: D. Mark Crouse - Application for Variance No. 01-017
Dear Mr. Rye:
This letter is a notice of appeal to the Prior Lake City Council from the September 10,
2001 action by the Planning Commission reducing Mr. Crouse's variance application for
increased impervious surface from 57.5% to 36%.
Please send me copies of the Planning Commission's minutes and the staff report for the
City Council meeting as they become available.
Vt~ ~y yours..\
\.....-1 ~ I-
I LL:""\I... ~ 1
.,. "rJ. 1)../..A.i~::- ,...
,,,,.' ....,~ ~-../ . -....-'
Allison J. Gontarek
Attorney at Law
~
I;' ., i
i' II /
:;.t..j:J...., h>~f( .
, I -- "-"'
cc: D. Mark CroUse
HUEMOELLER & BATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 67
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
Telephone: 952.447.2131
Facsimile: 952.447.5628
E-mail: huemoellerbates(q?aol.com
BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER
JAMES D. BATES
ALLISON J. GONTAREK
OF COUNSEL:
CHARLES C. HALBERG
September 25,2001
Mr. Steve Horsman
Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake N1N 55372
By Facsimile and
U.S. Mail
Re: D. Mark Crouse - Application for Variance No. 01-017
Dear Mr. Horsman:
Please consider this letter as a request for your department to disregard my
September 14 letter of appeal directed to Mr. Rye, Planning Director. We were under the
impression that a final decision had been reached at the September 10 Planning
Commis,sion meeting which required an appeal within 5 days. I apologize for the .
misunderstanding and appreciate you contacting me before publishing the notice.
Thanks!
Very truly yours,
i '.
I ',I
\..LL I ~
; ." i il-0'20t-
Allison J. Gontarek
HUEMOELLER & BATES
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
POST OFFICE BOX 67
PRIOR LAKE, MINNESOTA 55372
Telephone: 952.447.2131
Facsimile: 952.447.5628
E-mail: huemoellerbates@ao1.com
BRYCE D. HUEMOELLER
JAMES D. BATES
ALLISON J. GONTAREK
OF COUNSEL:
CHARLES C. HALBERG
October 5,2001
Mr. Steve Horsman
Prior Lake Planning Department
16200 Eagle Creek Avenue
Prior Lake :MN 55372
Hand Delivered
Re: D. Mark Crouse - Application for Variance No. 01-017
Dear Mr. Horsman:
Enclosed please find a report prepared by Professional Engineering Consultants regarding
. the requirement for a cap between Mr. Crouse's house and the lakeshore. We respectfully request
that the hearing on Mr. Crouse's variance request be reopened based on this new information,
obtained at the request of the Planning Commission.
This engineering analysis was obtained to satisfy the questions raised by the Planning
Commission at their September 10,2001 meeting. It is in draft form because the engineering
firm was unable to produce a final, more polished copy. I will forward you a final copy as soon
as it becomes available. I am forwarding the report to all the Planning Commissioners
individually in hopes to expedite a drawn out process.
Mr. Gislason states the need for a cap was created by the legally permitted raising of the
original structure to comply with current elevation requirements. We would appreciate the
Planning Commission taking this additional information into consideration in Mr. Crouse's
variance request.
.....
V. FY: 1ruly yours, M .
./.~-jj[.Lc;p~ /~v~-rJ-
Allison 1. Gontarek
cc: D. Mark Crouse
PLANNING REPORT
SITE:
PRESENTER:
REVIEWED BY:
PUBLIC HEARING:
DATE:
4A
CONSIDER A RESOLUTION APPROVING A
VARIANCE FOR AN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
COVERAGE AREA OF 38%, FOR D. MARK CROUSE,
Case File #01-017PC
15507 CALMUT AVENUE NE
STEVEN HORSMAN, ZONING ADMINISTRATOR
JANE KANSIER, PLANNING COORDINATOR
YES -L NO
OCTOBER 8, 2001
AGENDA ITEM:
SUBJECT:
- INTRODUCTION:
The Planning .Department received a variance application from property owner
- Mr. D. Mark Crouse for an impervious surface coverage area of 4,422 square
.feet or 57.5% of the total lot area on the property located at 15507 Catmut .
Avenue NE (Attachment 1 - Certificate of Survey).
The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on this item on June 25,
2001, on July 23, 2001, and on September 10, 2001. After review of the
applicant's request with respect to the variance hardship criteria, the Planning
Commission directed staff to draft a resolution approving a variance to allow an
. impervious surface of 36 %.
On September 24, 2001, the Planning Commission reconsidered their earlier
action. The Commission determined a 36% impervious surface would not allow
a driveway. The Commission therefore approved a 38% impervious surface and
directed staff to prepare a resolution.
1-. A variance to permit an impervious surface coverage area of 38% of the lot
area above the 904 foot elevation (OHWM), rather than the maximum
allowable coverage of 30%.
The following conditions must be adhered to as part of the Variance Resolution:
1. The applicant shall submit to the City of Prior Lake a revised certificate of
survey identifying the impervious surface to remain on the lot and the
16200 Eagle Creek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
,__,_,~,,_,_'_~__""'_'~'_,~ "__~h__",_,_,,_,,___~,.,w"_"_'4. .._._,____."._..__~.,._.._..._....~"...,__._,._.._~~_~.~,___,___~_..,~_~__~...__..._. ........"_.............."'-'"---.......-,-~-_.~
October 8, 2001
Ms. Allison Gontarek
Huemoeller & Bates
16670 Franklin Trail
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Dear Ms. Gontarek:
The City of Prior Lake received a letter from you dated October 5, 2001, requesting that
the public hearing be reopened for Variance File 01-017PC. You included additional
information from a Professional Engineering Consultant regarding the need for a cap
(patio) between the home and lakeshore retaining wall on the. property at 15507 Calmut
Avenue.
As you are aware the Planning Commission made a final decision on this matter, and
allowed the applicant to maintain a 38% impervious surface area on the subject
property, at the scheduled hearing on September 24, 2001. This provides for a driveway
to the 3-stall garage, but requires the additional impervious surface area to be removed,
including the patio area in question. The public hearing for this request has been closed
and any additional variance requests and supporting documentation shall be processed
in the form of a new variance application.
If you should have any questions regarding this matter, call my direct phone number at
447-9854 between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, and I will assist
you.
Sincerely,
Au~~
even Horsman
Zoning Administrator/Inspector
Enclosed: Variance Application
16200 ~~"l!reek Ave. S.E., Prior Lake, Minnesota 55372-1714 / Ph. (952) 447-4230 / Fax (952) 447-4245
AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
JAN.22'2002 15:25 651 770 2552
EMMONS << OLIVER RESOURCES
#1704 P.002/010
January 22, 2002
ErR EMMONS
& OLIVIER
RESOU RCES
~ .........
~- ~
-"_::~
Ms. Allison Gontarek, Esq.
HlJemoelJer & Bates
16670 Franklin Trail
Prior Lake, MN 55372
Re: Crouse Impervious MWgation
Rain Barrel & Rain Garden Project
Dear Ms. Gontarek:
Thj,s submittal is a follow up to OUT recent telephone conversation. Enclosed you will
find general infonnatio,n rel,ared to cont.ro1ling stonn water runoff volumes. Also we have
quickly reviewed. the small-scale survey of the Crouse property and have included some
brief recommendations.
General Infonnation
The fust item you will find is a 4-page draft fact sheet EOR has generated for a
watershed district client. This fact sheet provides specific design cnten.a used for
constructing infjJtration trenches, infiltration tubes and rain gardens. The second item
enclosed is a general information sheet on infiltration. The third it.em is some generaJ
information on rain barrels and ci,st.ems photocopied from a m.anual, called "Low-Impact
Development Design st.rategies" prepared by Prince George's County, Maryland.
Recommendations
With the specific intent to mitigate the amount of stonn, water runoff generated by the
impervious surfaces on the property we have developed the following conceptual ideas:
1. Rain barrels should be installed at roof downspouts. TIle rain barrels should be
si1..ed toO collect and store at least the volume of water generated by any additional
proposed impervious area for a two-year storm (2.5" in 24 hrs). For each 100 sq-
ft of im ious surfac 56 aJJoos of stora e is required to retam a Z-year. -
event. Typical rain barrels have a capacity of 42 g ons. ger storage umts are
typicatly called cisterns and range from hundreds to thousands of gallons. St.ored
water Call be retained for long periods of time and used for Jand.oqcap;n.g watering,
car washing or with proper treatment, drinking.
2. Small-scale infilrration tren.ches and tubes may be incorporated in the landscaping
plan without taking up a lot of space. Storm water nJ.noff should be directed to
the designed strucrures allowing runoff to be infiltrated.. J..,Qcalion of designed
infiltration structures must be considered carefully. Many factors such as soil
type, proximity to stmctures and storage volume need to be considered. In many
Making A Difference Through Integrated Resource Management
EOR, INC. · 3825 Lal(r:! Elmo Avenue North · Lake Elmo, MN · 55042 · Tel: (651) 770-8448 · Fax: (651) 770-2552
JAN.22'2002 15:25 651 770 2552
EMMONS & OLIVER RESOURCES
#1704 P.003/010
ca..o;es infiltration trenches blend in to site landscapin.g and in some cases can be
const.ructed under im.pervious surfaces such as parking lots and driveways. This
site wi.lI have t.o be further analyzed to d.etenni.ne the appropriateness of these
types of infiltration practices.
3. Rain gardens should be incorporated into the landscaping plan. Rai.n gardens are
planted with native flowers, grasses and shrubs tbat can tolerate period.s of
saturation and drou.ght. Storm water roured to rajn gardens is stored, infiltra,ted
and utilized. by tbe plants.
4. Native Jandscapi,ng should be incorporated into the landscaping design. Turf
grasses on the property should be minimized as much as possible. Manicured turf
grasses generate nearly as much stonn water runoff as im.pervious surfaces.
Considerations should be gi.ven t.o replace conventional turf grass with native
grasses and flowers. Including areas of native plantings in a site landscaping plan
can considerably reduce the amount of storm water generated during a rain event
and requires a lot Jess maintenance that traditional turf. Also, being that the site is
on Prior Lakel native landscaping alon.g the shoreHne could provide pretreatment
of storm water before it enters the lake.
Next Steps
We appreciar.e your interest in protecting our water resources through the use of
;nnovati,ve storrn water management practices. Please let us know if you would like
additional information on these types of stonn water management practices or jf you
require additional assistance in the future.
Sincerely,
~C4
Camilla Correll
Water Resource Engjneer
ason R. Naber
Natural Resource Specialist
JAN.22'2002 15:26 651 770 2552 EMMONS
DRAFT
Infiltration
Trench, Tube
& Rain Garden
INTRODUCTION TO PRACTICE
An infiltration trench is an excavated depression
that is ba.ckfilled with washed grovel providing
underground storagE: for runoff allowing it to
infiltrate into the underlying soil. Infiltration
tubes are a variation of the trel'lch design. Rain
gardens CO" be designed to include subsurface
improvements like those of 0 trench.
Due to their small slze, infiltration trencl1es, tubes
Clnd rain gardens are appropriate for confined
areas such as pa.rking rat islands, roadSide swales
or residential sites. Infi Itrat;o" trenches and
tubes can also be used as er1hancements in regional
infiltration practices by allowing storm water to by-
pass impermeable layers, such as clay lenses,
thereby increasing the overall infiltratian capacity
of tl1e facility.
SITE SUITABILITY
Infiltration trenches and tubes sholJld only be used
in areas where 1'he following physical site
characteristics are suitable: sail type and depth to
the seasonally high water table, depth to bedrock
or on impeding layer, contributing drainage area
and topography. The following steps should be
taken in the evaluation of site suitability:
· Perform ane to three soil borings in the
location of the infiltration practice(s) to
confirm naturally occurring permeable soils,
depth to the seasonally high water table,
bedrock Or' an impeding layer. A minimum 3-
foot distance should be provided below the
bottom of the practice and the water table or
bedrock (Protecting Water Quality in Urban
Areas: A Manual, Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency, March I, 2000).
& OLIVER RESOURCES
MAIN.:O$.!,ec1;lvES , ... .
'I' . ,.
. :To::r;~~!;',s:~ ".p.e~~...fl~~.' rates ,a":g.,,
r.u,noff volumes from dev~loped sites .
t().:m~i,,+a,n' predevelapment
'i~Y9r?I~9Y~ . .
8301 VCllley Creek Road
Woodbury, MN 55125
(651) 714.37Z~
· Determine haw suitable the topagraphy ;s for
an infiltratian trench. These practices should
not be constructed on sites with a slope
greater tl1an 20 percent,
· According to the literature, the contributing
drainage area to an infiltration trench or tube
typically should not exceed five acres.
~ Evaluate the impact of constructing an
infiltration practice on existing hydrologic
featlJreS (e.g. wetlands) and try to maintain
pre-existing conditions (e.g. do not breach a
perched water table. which is supporting a
wetland).
Figure 1, Excavo.tion of o.n infiltration tre.nch with a
backhoe.
Note: Based on past experience with current
regulations, infiltration tubes may be classified as
Class V Injection Wells and must be registered
with the MPCA. As long as hazardous substances
are not anticipated in the runoff and the tube is
not withi" three feet of the water table, the
registration process is fairly simple.
JAN,22'2002 15:26 651 770 2552
--..... .
EMMONS & OLIVER RESOURCES
#1704 E'.005/010
r-""-:." "
J
: ~ ,"""",
,. . -: ;:- ,II " ~ ; ..
~ :~~1~
",
"J
,"
Figure 2. Post construction photo of infiltration
trench with observation well.
RECOMMENDA TrONS FROM LOCAL
CONTRACTORS I DEVELOPERS AND CITY
STAFF
"Would like to see more. infiltration practices being
IJsed upstream in the system (e.g. creating islands or
green spar.es adJClcent to parking areas) rather than
diverting 011 of the runoff to (J regIonal facility."
"Detoils should reflect the soil conditions found on
site."
"Engineer approved alternate" is an important thing
to include in the detai Is because the supplier might
know of another source or alternative the
contractor could IJSe.
"Recommend plClcing the filter fabric a foot below
the surface to avoid future disturbance to tl1e
fabric."
"Dry wells require pretreatment otnerwise they silt
up and the only way to clean them is to dig them up
and replace. them."
"The observation well is a good ideo because you con
see if the infiltration practice is working and you
can install it inexpellsively."
SITE SELECTION
· Permeable Soils - Naturally occurring permeable
soils should be confirmed by performing soil
borings in the location of the infiltration
practice(s). Sources of i"formation include: the
Soil Survey of Washington and Ramsey Counties
(1977), the Geolog;c Atlas (1990) and the South
.
Wl'Jshi"9t()n WClter~h~ Di~,.ict Infiltrl'Jtion
Monagem~t Map.
Depth to Seasonally High Wcrter Table and
Bedroek - Verify that a sufficient depth from
the bottom of the infiltration tret'lch, tube or
rain garden to the seasonally high water table
;s maintained. According to the M;n",~soto
Pollution Control Agency Protecting Water
Quality in Urban Areos: A MtJnua! Q minimum
three-foot distance should be provided from
the bottom of the infiltration practice to the
seasonally high water table bedrock or on
impeding layer.
DESIGN CONSIDERA TIONS
· Proximity to Wells and Foundations - Maintain
Q 100-foot distance from drInking water wells
and situate at least 10 feet down-gradient and
100-feet up gradient from building foundations.
· Topography and Slope - Infiltration tret1ches
should not be constructed on sites with a slope
greater than 20 percent.
· Contributing Oralnage Area. the contributing
drainage area to an infiltration trench or a
tube typically should not exceed five acres.
· Maintain Pre.Developrnent Hydrology
Infiltration trenches, tubes and rain gardens
can be designed to provide the vollJme control
required to offset the introduction of
Imperviousness on a site thus maintoining pre~
development conditions.
· Pretreatment of Runoff - Provide for the
pretreatment of stormwater to prevent the
infiltration trenel'l, tube or rai" garden from
clogging prematurely. Vegetated buffers 0.101'19
the trench perimeter, pretreatment cells or
small depressions to allow for the settling of
sediment upstream of the infiltration practices
are common pretreatmen1' tech"iqlJe5.
· Maximum Oraining Time Infiltration
trenches should be designed to droin within 72
hours after the design event to maintoin
aerobic conditions in the underlying soils,
otherwise biological clogging can become a
problem.
· Aggregate Maferial - Use 1-3 inch clean
washed stone aggregate that is open-graded
JAN.22'2002 15:26 651 770 2552
unA,.,
and of a narrow si%~ range so 'l1ot the voidll
betweetl aggregates are not filled by slT1CIller
particles thus co"tributing' to lower
efficiencies or dogging of the practice.
EMMONS & OLIVER RESOURCES
w
Filter Fabric - Filter fobric, wne.n necessary,
should be permeable and should have a
transmissivity of no less thon 100 gallons per
minute.
.
Observation Well - An observation well (see
detail) should be installed in each infiltration
trench to monitor and evaluate the
performance of the practice (e.g. 4" PVC pipe
with t" slots, a screw on PVC cap and aluminum
foot plate).
Maintenance Access - Provide access for
futlJre maintenance of the infiltration tretlch,
tube or rain garden.
.
CONSTRUCTION METHODS
.
Grading Equipment - Infiltration trencl1es,
tubes and rain gardens should be excavated
using light earth moving ~ujpment 'to prevent
'the compaction of underlying soils (e.g. wide-
'tracked dozer, backhoe or other low-
compaction equipment). Construction traffic
should be routed away from these areas.
Before site grading begins. place orange
construction safety fence arolJnd the
infiltration area 'to eliminate compaction of the
soils similar to septic drain fields.
Timing of Construction - The infiltration
trench, tube or rein garden should not be
constructed until the contributing drainage
area has been constructed Clnd fully stabilized.
This may r~uire re-mobilizatlon of equipment.
Erosion Control - During construction of the
infiltration trench, tube or rain garden,
rigorous sediment and erosion controls (e.g.
diversion berms) snorJld be used to keep
sediment and runoff completely away from the
infiltration area.
Other Utilities - Avoid placing other utilities,
such as sewer and water, within or under the
infiltration practice. This avoids compactions
and the potential for cross contamina'tion.
.
.
.
#1704 P.006/010
TIPS FOR CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND
SPECIFICA TrONS
For clarity. provide detailed information regarding
the design end constrlJction of infiltration
trenches, tubes and rain gardens on both the
construction plans and specifications. This is
importC1l"lt in the event tJ,at the plan set or project
gets sp/i't up and the contractor ends up
constructing tJ,e project with the plans only. The
following type of lonsuage may be included in both
the plans and specifications:
1. "Prior to grading, place orange construction
safety fence. along the perimeter of the
infiltration area to prevent compaction of the
soils. "
2. "If preliminary grading of the infiltration area
is absolutely necessory, grade the infiltration
practice to within 3 to 5 feet of final grade to
prevent compaction or clogging of the
underlying soils,"
3. "DO NOT excavate infiltration areas for
borrow materiaL"
4. "Remove excavated soils and materials from
infiltration area(s) to prevent erosion 1:>0<:1<
into the infiltration practice and soil clogging."
5. .Protection of soils in infiltration areas refers
to no compaction and preventing siltation."
6. "Seeding/restoration/planting of infiltration
areas to be completed within 24 to 48 hours of
final grading."
MAINTENANCE NEEDS
The maintenance of infiltration practices is an
important factor in ensuring the long-'term
perforlTlClnc;e: of an infiltration practice.
Short-term maintenance requirements include
vegetation management. debris removal, and
sediment removal. Long-term maintenance
requirements con include removal and replacement
of overlying filter (see Figure 2) or rehabilitation
of the entire practice jf it is clogged wit"
sediment. The need to perform long-term
mClintenance may be indicated by conducting
rorJtine inspection using 1'he observation well.
JAN.22.2002 15:27 651 770 2552
UnA,..,
One of the main concerns with the maintenonce of
infiltration practices is determining the respotlsible
party or individual. InfiltratIon practices usually
require a legally binding operation and maintenance
agreement which would be included in the property
deed.
EMMONS & OLIVER RESOURCES
TYPICAL COSTS OF CONSTRUCTION
The followin9 construction costs for infiltration
trenches and tubes are based upon practices that
ha.ve been construded in the South Washin9ton
Watershed District (1998-1999). These costs
include the following: mobilization, excavation,
hauling excess material off-site, constrlJction,
observation well, and post-construction grading.
Table 1. Construction Costs for Trellcnes & Tubes.
Infi Itration Approximate Construction
Practice Dimensions Cost
Tube 2' diameter tube $4,100
Avg. Depth 12'
Trench 9' W x 36' L $ B, 700
(Regional Setti"g) Avg. Depth 13'
Trench 8' W x 15' 1_ x $4,900
(Local Setting) 10'D
EXAMPLE DETAILS
The following details were used in the construction
of the infiltration trenches and tubes located in the
SWWD. Site analysis ;s required for the design of
specific infiltration practices.
Figure 3. Infiltration Tube Design Detail
~~I~_1; 1:1'" '(110""" ~l......l
-"'I/II'U ...:.., 10 v.......flP'lo Nil
,..., "'WlMIl ..,,, ...r.~1.t_ ~.
'r.'I'"".I$..n
.."''''''''..'11..;...1''....,.01
Ll'" WIIIlIW:; ~~~~~ ., (..,. III IW.1f I....~
ril?;"'~ I /'1 .....,.:' ,w:~~~;:q
'. .&irWn_~~=:..IL ", '._~: l~~~
\ ' "
.~~... 11II'11:1Il
,.. j
'j' .,:/...".,.....,
"...".",._~.". .' .o.~}:>.:::.rt
."" ".. "~"""""'IlJ ,.' .. '"
~~t' fl'"
". .
111."11',1I Il'''l~
Figure 4. Infiltration Trenc" Design Detail
#1704 P.007/010
, A
.r"..v.lm
lIlIr.r1t't4'M<- . --...---.............::,..-.. .
.~' ,~...."....~J"I''''..,'I.JI
-. o,S'1..' L' .,,.
.l.._,..~:...J..._.~-,.l"."",.- C...~ J..... ./.._. .[:::'~:"
,.'':';., :'.;.:~ ~ .._:'1 ...:":'...P'";"'n,~.~. ...., ,", ,. ;";" . J
-.~'" '\>~ .',." 0." '. . . 0", ...,..,'_~_"
-i;... ..:~,,'~~,~~:~::~::...: :::.:::.<..t ",::,~;'</ >:~:.~'t'~~' ;>-'.
'\ "':.,: .....', '., \. . .,>'- J.........,
\, "'., :.,', ....:.:..C
~~_.) I \
"'\1'lV......,j I:."... I " '''CO''.loQiJlo ."'AIJl;I" ".I~~..."
\. -'.UtMtl'I....""'''"'' .. ....."61"rOOl'tC/'llO.l>ItltC, 1*'~,l{j1"'4wt)
w".tklllll
.' .. ~':~::::,l:.. ~.". ..- .,.....,.... ..,......,
( " .'. . . . 1M"'to..1I\....
I .."" ...... ~ ;.: -;::.:, .," " .
I r~ ~l>U ....._..... ".....:~~\..~:~~~\.~"j~\:-~ (,
II ( ._..-.-c-....::, l\';Jr.Jlf :rrll' ...:-'" ~J.:.~\}~:\;.':'\~\r~.~',~\,'~.I~Il-:.. r '.... ~....
.." ..... ~':'.l'.~.~X::: '.::~\~11:..~:f"i.f.'... ,." , "'':., . .
'" ".... ~ ....... ." ..r.I~...~\I.:~.:\\,~\\~\.L...' "
1.i';~.~.. .~.!: ~'l!;" :~1.\\~i~t>.:;\i,. '~'.\. .' " ..' ,J
~~~';I;.~..... ':;J;.'. :..' .."
1...~~,Ll );,:'.:;<.::': ,..~. .~: .-- .~..-" ,.
", , .~. ,\',1, ..... .....,.. 1"'!If........
" ....~.~
l . .... .- ...,...... .""",.,. '.'.'"
"Or.r.llfitU~~""lOAl."l.IlII
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
The following materials provide additional
information regarding the design and co"structio"
of infiltration trenches, dry wells or rain gardens.
1. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practicar Manual
for Planning and Designing Urban BMP's. T.R.
Schueler. Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, Department of Environmental
Programs. Washington, DC. 1987.
2. Low Impact Development Design Strategies: An
Integrated Design Approach. Prince George's
Cou"ty, Maryland Department of Environmental
Resources. JC1J1uory 2000. .
J. Rain Garden Reference to be added.
CONTACT INFORMATION
Camilla Correll
Emmons & Olivier Resources, Inc.
3825 Lake Elmo Avenue North
Lake Elmo, MN 55042
(651) 770.8448
ccorrell@eorinc.com
JAN.22'2002 15:27 651 770 2552
EMMONS & OLIVER RESOURCES
#1704 P.008/010
Mabing A Difference Through Integrated
Resource Management
EMMONS
& OLIVIER
RESOU RCES
.
EOR Is one of the leading firrm In Minnesota specializing In Water
Resources EngIneering, Naturr::rl Resource Management,
Hydrogeologic Services and Watershed Planning and Management
INFILTRATION: AN ALTERNATIVE STORMWATER
MANACEMENT TECHNIQUE
lIIe ... .. ....1........ In ...........,
............. ............ ... ..........." ......
......Ic. thai ...........n. tho ........-.k ""lanc. In
d...I..... .............
IIItR..aIt... IV..... ..... 1M .,........ .. . ........,
.. .... MIll. bv In...potal.... tho ..I......
.............
. 1II.....ln. M.......llnfllb...... B..In.
· Infiltration ',onch../Drp W.II.
· ...,et..t_ Ar...
· St........, Pr..,..........
· V......IOII/............... PI... ........c le
Inflltr......
In'IIb"I.n ".... .... 1M -aaral .... with .
hlg. Infl......n .......JI, .......... a. ..... _. .
............ ,......1.1t ..... In .ho ......n
laneI...... 1It'......lon ....... can .... ...
cOlldrllClotl.
.0. h ...." ............... In ..... .at....1 and
dnIChIral Wl.rat.... ............ ..........
.......ope.r . co....'.h.n.... ......It....... .f tho
l.fl...lo. pr...... Ih.... ....n.... 'loId lIIala
........... ..... IJr. ......., _ndrlldl.. and
....n....... "Infllbatlon p,actf...
..,;) -.;
. "'..",...~ ,.... I
. "~4"J
t. ~f ':~
.,~ ,!",' "~
I 'fl'~ ',. '.
,I ;'1' .',~ .,.~
.', ~ .-
'.~~" :" .. ,;;A
:'. .:. :;,. 'I~,~..: ~.~.I':.
. );' '. ....~.~
" . ...~
.. '." !-.\
:~ >~~4.~~ ~ ,~':\" ~
.....,1.. 11II billa""." "."." '" _"",.
1f.,....,.'".III .IM#/ "~.,.,,
.,
.M....~
...."j -:'1
. ..~
.,
i
,.,.--.",,.,,.,, "".,. ", 1"""",,/.,, ,NIIdI
In.,,,,,., ".., ,II.. ",.,.., ",., IH _.",.""", hi
. __ 11III1.,
'H ..... 11It"."'.n '.......InfI.....I... .... ........., ............... .........
CocfII. ON." P.L I....... II orlvlo, _..oane.
...8th col..,.....,lnc.-m sua ...... .1.0 A..n.. North
C....na C.n.n &.alt....., 11IM 11042.
....11. ccen...tIt..rlnc.co.. '.I...h.... ..1177.-....
JAN.22'2002 15:27 651 770 2552
/- ,'I c.!.... _ 1::1 f... le'I ;., I '.:1 c.iu:"_ L (_ _J (l L C'J.~/ J.I.'.r..
EMMONS & OLIVER RESOURCES
#1704 p.009/010
-
Design Storm
Table 4-7. Grassed Swa/e Design Considerations
Channel Capacity
Soils
Channel Shape
Bottom Width
Side Slopes
Channel LongiT.lJdinlll
Slope
Flow Dept.h
Manning's n value
Flow Velocity
length of channel
Water QUolllity
Maintenance
Determined by state or local agency. Refer to guidance
provided by the Prince George's County 1.10 Design Manual
and tl1e Maryland Stormwater Design Manual (MDE, 1998).
lr.Jeal condition may necessitate adjustment of the
rec:ommendations in the guidance documents.
Swale must be $lzed to convey the peak dischllrge of the
deSign storm
The permeabiJity (infiltrlltion rllte) of th'? soils will determine
whether a dry or wet swale can be IJsed. It is recommendEd
thllt soils used for dry swales have infiltration rates of 0.27-
0.50 inches per hOIJr.
TrapeZOidal or parabolic sha~recommended
:( foot minimum, 6 foot maximum
3: 1 or flatter
1.0 % minimlJm, 6.0 % maximlJm
4.0 inches for water qualitY t.reatment
0.15 for waT.er quality t.reatment. (depth < 4" ) 0.15 - O.
for depths betwl!l?n 4" and 12" 0.03 minimum for depth 12"
1.0 fps for w;:Jt.~r quality treatment. 5.0 fps for 2 year storm
fps for 10 year storm
length necessary for' 0 minute residence time
The pollutant removal effectiveness of grllssed swales is
summarized in Taple 4.3
Routine l'3ndsC3pe maintenance required.
Rain Barrels
Rain barrels are low;cost, effecTive, and easily main.tainable
r.r::r.enr.ion devices applicable to both residential. and com.mer.cial/
industrial LID sites. Rai.n baT.Tel.s operar.e by rer:aini.ng a predetermined
volume of rooftop runoff (i.e., r.hey prov1.de perrmment ~r.orage for a
design volume); an overflow pipe provid.es som.e detention beyond the
tetention capacity of the rain barrel. Figure 4-9 and Fi.gure 4-10 show
Figll.T'P. 4.9. Typical rain
borT'P.l
II
BBB
Em
.......sTIC R_ aAIlIu.I.S
~
I. RAIN BIIRftC. TO ec: KF.PT AT 11A1.F-FlLI.F.l)
D4.iR1NG WI1'(IF.A OolONTHS to ~ $ARRSL
r-R0l0I BRI;Al<INC ,r WATER .s ~ozr.1l
. 4-78
"
Low-Impact Developmenr Inregral'ed Management Practices
~~~,,_____~~__~""____"_~_'_'__"'~_~_~'_"""""_'_'__'_"'"_""""_~_~"'M'~'_'"_""~_"'~."""_"'_ .. .__>_.,..",.".,__~~__....."
#1704 P.010/010
RESOURCES
a typical rain. barrel. Ra.in
ba.rre1s also can be used to score
runoff for Iar.er reuse in. lawn and
garden wat.ering
De.ngn Con.~.5.
Ra1.nwa.r.er iTom. any type of roofing
ma.r.erial can be direcr.ed to rain
barrels. To be aesr.heti.cally
acceprJ.lbl.c, rain barrels can be
J.ncorporar.ed Into the lor.'s I.and~
scapfng plan or pat.io or decldng
design. Rain barrels pla.ced at each
comer of me front si.de of rhe
house should be J.andscaped for
visual screening. GutteT.S and. downspouts are used toO convey wat.er from
roofr.ops r.o rain barrels. Filcrati.on. screens should be used on gTJt.r.ers to
prevent. clogging of debris. Rain barrels should also be equipped with a
drain spigot that has garden hose threacllng, suitable for conn.ection to :3.
drip ir.riga.tion syst.em. An overflow ourler. musr. be provided /;0 bypass
runoff from large StomI. events. Rain banels must be designed with.
removable, chHd~res1stan.r. covers and lllosquito screening on water entry
boles. TIle size of the rain banel is a funcr:it.m. o( the rooftop surface area
r:h.a.r. drains roO rh.e barre~ as well as rl1.e in.ches of rainfa/J t.o be stored. For
example, one 4Z-gallon barrel provides 0.5 inch of runoff storage for a
rooftop area. of approximately 133 square feet.
Fi.g7l.re 4-10. Rain barrel
applicati.orL 1.0 LID
Cisterns
Stol:m~ter runoff. cisterns a('e roof water m;m.agemenr devices cbs.!:
provide retention sr.orage volume in underground storage ~(5. On~Ior.
st.orage with. J,3.ter reuse of BtormW3ter also provides an. opportUnity for
water c.onser.va.tion and dle posstbi1ir.y of reducing war.er u.dlir:y costs.
Design. Considera.titms. Cisterns are applicable to
resjdencia~ commercf.3l, and industri.al LID sites. Due to
the size of roofr.ops and the am.01Jnt of impervi.olJsness of
r.he drainage a,rea, increased runoff volum.e and peak
discharge T.a.r.es for comm.ercial or industrial sites may
require I.a.rger..capaci.ty cistems. Individual cistems can be
located ben.eath each downspout, or sr.orage volum.e can
be provided in one large, comm.on cj,~r.em.
Preman.IJfa.ct.Urcd resid.ential use d.sr.ern.s come in sizes
ranging from 100 t.o 1.,400 gaUons (Figure 4-11). Cisterns
should be J.ocar.ed f()t ea.~ mainr:en:mce or replacem.enr:.
Fig,-,T'P. -1,-11. Cistern. Imagl!
Cou.r1:e.:ry of Pow Plastics,
Ltd.., Devon, England
Low-Impact Development Integrated Management Practices
4-19
"." J f
. ~ .
.... d'l
Item. New Mail folder Page 1 of 2
Subject: Barr Engineering Q&E
CC: "Fred Rozumalski" <frozumalski@barr.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 200214:37:11-0600 Status: Normal
From: "Karen Kaul" <kkaul@barr.com>
Return-Path: <kkE..1lI@barr. cqm>
Received: from menin.isd.net (IDENT:root@menin.isd.net [208.153.200.22] (may be
forged) )
by testi.isd.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA18855
for <aqontare@testi.isd.net>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:38:28 -0600
Received: from gate.barr.com (gate.barr.com [209.98.63.2])
by menin.isd.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA02221
for <allison@isd.net>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:38:02 -0600
Received: from prometheus.barr.com (prometheus.barr.com [172.25.33.25])
by gate.barr.com (8.10.2/8.10.2) with SMTP id gOMKbVp81222
for <allison@isd.net>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:37:46 -0600 (CST)
Received: from Barr#032#Domain#032#1-Message Server by prometheus.barr.com
with Novell_GroupWise; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:37:19 -0600
Message-Id: <sc4d791f.020@prometheus.barr.com>
X-Mailer: Novell GroupWise 5.5.4
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 14:37:11 -0600
From: "Karen Kaul" <kkaul@barr.com>
To: .~~J,Li.!!Ql!~i.p.g.,.n~ t >.
Cc: "Fred Rozumalski" .<::.t.ro?1J!!lal~ki@b~J~:r. com>
Subject: Barr Engineering Q&E
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="=_BBE6C76F.B7D6BC44"
X-DPOP: DPOP Version 2.5g
X-UIDL: 1011737059.001
Status: RO
Fred Rozumalski asked me to send you the attached Q&E. I have provided it
in a PDF format. Please let me know if you have any problems with the
file.
Karen Kaul
Senior communications Specialist
Barr Engineering Company
h:.Js.?'1JL@ b~:rr .d:;.QI.!!
952-832-2931
g.e.,.~.di
RJ View headers, C Variable width font, ~ Inline Images, C View as HTML [" Execute
HTML
.../ dmailweb.cgi?cmd=item&utoken=agontare@pop.isd.net_3a323344507527250101/22/2002
Clients
Northland College
Upper Swede Hollow
Neighborhood Association
Services
Hydrologic analysis
Site design and engineering
Planting plans
Community education programs
Implementation supervision
Deep-rooted plants facilitate infiltration.
-
BARR
Rainwater Gardens
A leader in ecologically sound stormwater management techniques,
Barr has developed a unique expertise in rainwater gardens and other
stormwater treatment practices. In designs like those pictured here,
stormwater becomes a resource to be enjoyed rather than a nuisance to
dispose of
Constructed rainwater
gardens are strategically
placed to catch runoff from
roads, parking lots, driveways,
and roofs. Deep rooted plants
are used to facilitate
infiltration, absorb materials,
and create bird and butterfly First year after planting
habitat.
Rainwater gardens can be
used on small sites or as the
main technique in a larger
system, allowing a
neighborhood, say, to forego
expensive curb and gutter. The
gardens are excellent for use in
highly visible areas, where
they not only manage runoff
effectively, but add visual amenity.
A neat edge and pedestrian access
With a team of expert hydrologists, engineers, and landscape
ecologists, Barr is ideally suited to design rainwater gardens that are both
functional and beautiful.
This rainwater garden serves as a neighborhood amenity.
Client
City of Marshall, Minnesota
Funder
The Legislative Commission on
Minnesota Resources
Services
Site analysis
Guided public focus groups
Master planning
~~&'==-
'__-"l"'~"",
---..
':..__n~
Each lot is a sanctuary for birds and
butterflies and allows for stormwater
cleaning and infiltration.
-
BARR
Ecological Neighborhood
The city of Marshall has struggled with
repeated flooding from the Redwood
River. Funded by a research grant from the
Legislative Commission on Minnesota
Resources, Fred Rozumalski, with
Professor Joan Nassauer of the University
of Minnesota Department of Landscape
Architecture, designed a residential neighborhood that would help
ameliorate downstream flooding. Their approach was to take cues from
the regionallandscape-once dotted with prairie pothole wetlands. In lieu
of underground storm sewers, Rozumalski and Nassauer designed an
above-ground drainage system and stormwater wetlands, to be built
wherever possible on wetland soils. The design not only manages
stormwater, but recreates lost wildlife habitat and provides residents with
beautiful natural amenities.
Rainwater garden
Restored historic wetlands become an amenity within the ecological neighborhood.
O"It.....__~~"'.I*tIll'*lIl~~~~
"Lakescaping for Wildlife and Water
Quality" encourages property owners to
plant a natural buffer zone between the
lake and the lawn to reduce lakeshore
erosion and increase wildlife habitat.
Lakescaping Book
Fred Rozumalski, of Barr Engineering, recently co-authored a book
titled "Lakescaping for Wildlife and Water Quality," which promotes
establishing native vegetation along lakeshores
and reducing lawn size in order to protect water
quality and create wildlife habitat. This DNR-
sponsored book details the problems often faced
by lake-property owners and offers an
explanation of the lake ecosystem; how to solve
lakeshore problems by creating a buffer zone; and
detailed instructions on designing and planting
lakeshore landscapes.
Using his expertise in horticulture, landscape
architecture, and ecology, Fred wrote the chapters
on design, installation, maintenance, and exotic
species control, and compiled the extensive plant
lists.
Native plants, such as this
fireweed, are identified in
the book as substitutes
for invasive, non-native
plants.
This attractive and informative book can be purchased at Minnesota's
Bookstore, 117 University Avenue, 8t. Paul, MN, or ordered by calling
1-800-657-3757 or 651-297-3000.
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Typicallakeshore sites transformed by lakescaping. This 3-stage design shows how a typicallakeshore property can be transformed
from an open lawn to a site with an abundance of native vegetation that provides habitat in the form of a buffer zone between the lake and
the lawn. The book offers several design options for a variety of lakeshore settings.
-
BARR
Bibliographies
Barr Engineering Company. 2001. Minnesota Urban Small Sites BMP Manual;
Stormwater best management practices for cold climates. Metropolitan Council
Environmental Services. Available from the Metropolitan Council at 651-602-1000 or
www.metrocounci1.org.
Claytor, Richard A. and Thomas R. Schueler. 1996. Design of Stormwater Filtering
Systems. Chesapeake Research Consortium. Available from The Center for
Watershed Protection at 410-461-8323 or www.cwP.org.
Henderson, Carrol. 1999. Lakescaping for Wildlife and Water Quality. Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources. Available from the St. Paul Minnesota's Bookstore.
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. 2000. Protecting Water Quality in Urban
Areas; Best management practices for dealing with storm water runoff from
urban, suburban and developing areas in Minnesota. Minnesota Pollution Control
Agency. Available from the MPCA, contact Mary Osborn at 651-296-7523 or
www.pca.state.mn.us/water/pubs/sw-bmpmanual.pdf
Allison,
The bibliography above is a few references that I had put together for another project. All
of them have great information on how to develop and use alternative methods to
improve stormwater quality and decrease the quantity and flow rate. I hope that a list of
references will help you. Below is a diagram that I use in describing what actually
happens with development and urbanization. We promote the use of these alternatives to
mimic natural conditions and ecological development as much as possible. So, the use of
rain barrels to trap water and rainwater gardens to infiltrate water and to evapo-transpire
back to the atmosphere are ways to remediate for the excess stormwater. The final
thought on an argument is that new construction always creates more runoff problems
then can be mitigated for.
I hope this helps. If you need to call me, I will be here for another half hour or so (4:45
pm). Otherwise my home phone number is 952-854-2990 and will be home by 5:45 pm.
Rusty Schmidt
Landscape Ecologist
URS / BRW, Inc
700 Third Street South
Minneapolis, MN 55415
612-373-6828
FAX: 612-370-1378
rusty_schmidt@urscorp.com