03-19-01 PCI
Seiit By: LOUCKS ASSOCIATES , INC.; 112 424 5822;
March 14, 2001
Mr, D. Daniel Licht
Planner
City of Otsego
8899 Nashua Avenue NE
Elk River, MN 55330
Mar -14-01 2:50PM;
inn { Irr„It,�:k L.a
$vire .3Un,
hlinnr,�pulis, 1,1D
S6,
lrl%G 3.4-14.5.50'
htx %63. rz•r.582.
h.,mra' h»t.:kxn,rla�, n.� pn
%iAk-W Inurkfn,r 410ft n
Dear Mr. Licht:
Loucks Associates, on behalf of Qwest WirelessLL , is requesting a 60 day
extension to the review period on its application for UP and Variance for a
telecommunication tower at the Otsego Elementary chopl in light of recent
direction from the City Council. and staff to pursue I e Otsego water tower site.
Please pull us from the Planning Commission Agenda. I anticipate the lease
with the City will be finalized within the next coupl of weeks and we will send
a letter withdrawing our application at that time.
Sincerely,
LOUCKS ASSOCIATES
Fared D. Andrews, AICP
Senior Planner
CC: (VIA FAX) NAC, Inc., (952)595-9837
Otsego City Hall., (763)441-8823
i
PC
r
I*
tyf e
5t. Pmd
""INT"WtST AssackATto CONSULTANTS" %He%
5775 Wayzata Boulevard, Suite 555, St. Louis
Telephone: 952.595.9636 Facsimile: 952.595.9837
PLANNING REPORT
TO: Otsego Mayor and City Council
Otsego Planning Commission
FROM: Daniel Licht
DATE: 14 March 2001
Park, MN 55416
nac@winternet.com
RE: Otsego - Pheasant Ridge 5t' Add.; Rezoning/Preliminary Plat
NAC FILE: 176.02 - 01.03
BACKGROUND
Arcon Development, Inc. has submitted a proposal for development of 111 residential units
consisting of 26 single family and 86 townhome dwellings. The subject site is a parcel
located south-southwest of Page Avenue and 78"' Street. The parcel is within the Sanitary
Sewer Service District and is guided for low density residential use. The property is
currently zoned A-1, Agricultural Rural Service District.
The applicant has applied for a rezoning of the property to R-6, Residential - Townhome,
Quad and Low Density Multiple Family District, PUD -CUP fortownhouse development and
preliminary plat. A concept plan for development of similar density single family and
townhome uses was previously considered and approved for this parcel. Substantial
changes have been made to the concept plan primarily due to the need to provide a
through route for 78 h Street to allow for future extension of this collector street route to
Odean Avenue. These changes were directed by City Staff.
Exhibits:
A. Site Location
B. Concept Plan
C. Zero lot line concept
D. Site Plan/Preliminary Plat
E. Building Elevations
F. Landscaping Plan
G. Preliminary Grading Plan
H. Preliminary Utility Plan
ANALYSIS
Zoning. Thasub}e -site is curxantl}�zonedAI-District DevelopmeaLofthe-pro}e.ctwould
requires application for rezoning to R-6 District to allow for the mix of single family and
town house dwellings. Platting the townhouses- in- a unitlbase lot configuration, also
requires processing a PUD -CUP. The applicant is requesting some flexibility from the
performance-standards-ofpertaiaiag_tasingle-family-usesfor lotw4kside
yard setback and front yard setback. Sections 20-3-2.17 and 20-4-2. F of the Zoning
Ordinance, outline criteria- on-w*,h-thP_Plaaning Commission -and City Council are-tabase
their decision (in addition to other relevant factors) on for the rezoning and PUD -CUP
applications:
1. The proposed actiof'Scor}sistenE�tv4th-the specft' policies- and provisions- of the
official City Comprehensive Plan.
Comment The- C=PrehenSwe Plan. designates the property for low density
residential development. Low density development is defined for local purposes as
less than- five units per acre Although "low density" is typicalty-realized as single
family development, it is possible to develop other housing types within the context
of this land use classification. In this case, approximately 21 percent of the subject
parcel is undevelopable wetland areas or right-of-way. The concept plan proposes
111 units on approximately the gross 38.65 -acres, or 2.8 units per acre. As such,
the concept plan is consistent with the direction of the Comprehensive Plan in terms
of density. Even if density is calculated o4 a net. basis (excluding wetlands and
rights-of-way), the project has 3.6 units per acre density.
The Comprehensive Plan- also- encourages development of alternative housing
designs or different sizes and costs to supplement existing conventional single
family development in response to market forces. The proposed single family units
and may be distinct from other single family options within the City, which may make
them attractive to specifically to empty nest households. Therefore, within the
parameters of density and performance standards of the R-6 District, the proposed
uses may be considered to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area.
Comment. The areas surrounding the subject parcel is planned for low density
residential development. Only the area to the north and northwest has been
preliminaryor final platted with single family residential. Due consideration has been
given to this issue in the layout of the site plan for the townhouses with one story
structures arranged at the perimeter and two story units within the center of the this
area of the project. Further, the majority of the townhouse units on the east
perimeter are setback double the minimum requirement to increase separation from
planned low density uses to the east.
-2-
3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained in the
Zoning Ordinance (i.e., parking, loading, noise, etc.).
Comment: As a new subdivision, the project will be required to conform to all
applicable provisions of the Zoning Ordinance and terms of the PUD -CUP. These
issues are discussed in detail later in this report.
4. The proposed use's effect upon the area in which it is proposed.
Comment: This proposal is within the scope of development anticipated by the
Comprehensive Plan and therefore is not likely to have a negative impact to the
area.
5. The proposed use's impact upon property values of the area in which it is proposed.
Comment: Although no study has been completed, the proposed use is not
anticipated to negatively impact area property values.
6. Traffic generation by the proposed use in relation to the capabilities of streets
serving the property.
Comment: The proposed will be served by Page Avenue and 78' Street for primary
access. Secondary access will be provided for most of the units with a future
extension of Street A to the east when the adjacent parcel develops. These streets
will have adequate design capacity to accommodate the proposed development.
7. The proposed use's impact upon existing public services and facilities including
parks, schools, streets, and utilities and its potential to overburden the City's
service capacity.
Comment: The proposed use is not anticipated to have a negative impact to the
City's service capacity as it is anticipated by the Comprehensive Plan within a
designated service area.
Access. The preliminary plat includes dedication of right-of-way for extension of 78th
Street to the south -south west of the Page Avenue/78th Street intersection. The 78th
Street extension goes to the west property line of the subject parcel for future extensions
through to Odean Avenue.
Street A is the only public street proposed as part of this project. It intersects 78,' Street
approximately 1,400 feet from the Page Avenue/78th Street intersection. Six single family
units are proposed to share a common driveway, which has direct access to 78"' Street.
This driveway enters 78' Street approximately 750 feet from Page Avenue and 700 feet
from the intersection with Street A.
-3-
The majority of the townhouse units will access from Private Street B. These private
streets must be at least 28 feet wide with concrete curb and gutter. The City has also
required private drives serving four or more units to be constructed with curb and,gutter
at a 28 foot width. Private Street B and the unlabeled private drive serving the single
family units on the west side of 78`h Street meet these requirements. Some of the
driveways off of private street B also have 28 foot width, but most are 18 feet. Staff
recommends that the 28 foot standard with curb should be maintained for all driveway
areas serving four or more units, except the pad area directly in front of a garage space.
Lot Requirements - Single Family. Single family lots within the R-6 District are subject
to a minimum lot size of 9,000 square feet with a 60 foot minimum width. Setbacks within
the R-6 District are 35 feet/65 feet front (local/collector or arterial), 10 feet side (interior)
or 20 feet rear.
The smallest single family lots has an area of 9,057 square feet, with an average for all of
the single family lots of 25,667 square feet. This number is misleading however, has the
lot size in most cases is caused by excessively deep lots that include wetland or ponding
areas. The single family lots are proposed to have a minimum 50 foot width measured at
a front setback line of 25 feet to a public or private street. The narrow 50 foot lot widths
proposed by the applicant dictate a reduction in the side yard setback requirements of five
feet on eaEkv side yard based upon• the proposed building designs.
The applicant suggests that the requested flexibility for the reduced lot width and side yard
setback standards is based upon the concept of zero lot line development. Zero lot line
development is typically done by shifting the dwelling unit to one side of the lot. This
increases the setback on the opposite side of the dwelling, maximizing the usable area
within the side yard, which can be used as additional outdoor living area. The proposed
single family dwelling units are centered on each lot, with the side yard setback reduced
by five feet on each side. An important distinction between the zero lot line concept and
what is being proposed is that the separation between units in a typical zero lot line
arrangement would be the same as if the standard setbacks were applied; Whereas, the
applicant's proposal would reduce the separation between units by ten feet. Please refer
to Exhibit C for an illustration of these points.
The applicant is also requesting that flexibility be granted to allow the front yard setback
to a local public street to be reduced from 35 feet to 25 feet for the single family uses
fronting on Public Street A. The traditional single family lots platted within Pheasant Ridge
1" through 4t' Additions were given five feet of flexibility on the front yard setback
requirement based upon the unique "coving" design concept. No such unique concept is
presented by this plat design.
Allowance of a reduced front setback to Street A is also problematic as the street will be
extended to the east for future low density residential development. Application of a 25
foot setback to these single family units when a 35 foot standard is likely to be required of
-4-
similar uses to the east would create an incongruous transition between the two projects.
Similarly, the townhouse units on the north side of Street A are setback 35 feet from the
right-of-way.
Combined, the requested flexibility for lot width,_side.yard setbacks and front yard setback
would reduce separation between structures, reduce visual open space along the street
and increase crowding to a negadve-effect. Wado-not believe that any compelling design
purpose has been presented by the site plan to suggest that flexibility on these
performance standards is warranted.. The design. of th_e. single family units themselves
contribute to the negative effect the proposed flexibility would create with their garage front
designs and side wall Wndows,_which would accentuate the narrow separation between
the buildings.
As such, our office recommends that the preliminary plat be revised such that the single
family lots conform to the minimum lot width standard of 60 feet within the R-6 District.
Based on the proposed house designs, we would be supportive of flexibility to establish
side yard setbacks of five feet on one side and 15 feet on the other, with not less than 20
feet between structures as a modified zero lot line arrangement shown on Exhibit B. Also,
to maintain a consistent appearance along the street corridor, a 35 foot front setback
should be required.
Lot Requirements - Townhouses. The R-6 District requires a minimum lot area of
20,000 square feet and 5,000 square feet per unit for townhouses. The lot area provided
for the townhouse units is approximately 630,000 square feet, with just over 7,400 square
feet per unit. Common open space between the townhouse units is proposed as Common
Lot 86. This space should be platted as Outlot C and have a drainage and utility
easement recorded over it, as previously recommended by the City Engineer.
In terms of setbacks, the R-6 District standards noted above apply at the perimeter of
common lot 86. The proposed townhouse units all meet or exceed these requirements.
Within the project, the structures have been setback 25, feet from Private Street B, which
is a standard the City has allowed in the past on such roadways. Setbacks between the
structures must be not less than one-half the sum of adjacent building heights. Based on
the submitted building elevations, the one-story units (1-29 and 62-85) have a height of
20 feet. The two story units (30-61) have a height. of 30 feet. All of the units are
adequately spaced internally within the applicable setback.
Therefore, the townhouse element of the project is consistent with the R-6 District
performance standards.
Building Plans. Plans for the proposed buildings indicate that the single family units are
to be a one story structure with approximate floor area of 1,400 square feet. Townhouse
units number 1-29 and 62-85 are one story structures with four units arranged in a square
or row configuration, each unit having approximately 1,380 square feet of floor area.
Townhouse units 30-61 are two story buildings with four units in a square configuration
-5-
with approximately 1,350 square feet of floor area each. All of the structures utilize
common building materials including vinyl lap siding as well as trim and accent details to
create a unified architectural character. The materials proposed for the building exterior
are consistent with the requirements of Section 20-17-4.A of the Zoning Ordinance. The
height of each of the structures is also within the 35 foot maximum allowed within the R-6
District.
Landscaping. A landscaping plan has been submitted which provides an excellent mix
of plant materials. The landscaping plan gives specific attention to screening along 78'
Street and creating focus points at the intersection of Street A/78th Street and the private
drive intersections. The landscaping plan also provides detail information for foundation
plantings adjacent to structures in addition to larger tree plantings. on site. Overall, the
landscape plan enhances the site design and is very appropriate.
Homeowners Association. The applicant indicates that the townhouses will be subject
to a homeowners association for maintenance of common opens space and architectural
control. As the single family units are being..marketed. as "detached townhomes" they may
also be subject to a homeowners association for similar issues. Homeowners association
documents should be provided prior to application for -final plat and are subject to review
and approval of the City Attorney. _
Guest Parking. The City requires that town ho.usRprojects. provide off-street guest parking
at a ratio of one-half stall per unit. The site plan provides 44 guest parking stalls in the
area of the townhouses and six stalls along -the private driveway serving the single family
units west of 78th Street. The number and location of the guest parking stalls are
consistent with the City's requirements.
Park and Trail Dedication. No parks -ace -guided to be. developed within the area of this
plat. Desired trail corridors are limited to a trail being provided along 78" Street, which
would be addressed as part of the street project. As such, park and trail dedication as
required by the subdivision ordinance is likely to be addressed as a cash fee per unit in
lieu of land. The City's present cash dedication in lieu of land for parks and trails is $1,075
per unit. This fee is to be paid at the time of final plat approval. Park and trail dedication
issues are subject to recommendation by the. Parks and Recreation Commission and
approval of the City Council.
Sanitary Sewer Service Capacity, Based upon the planned expansion of the waste water
treatment plant to 400,000 gpd and current capacity reserves for the City of Dayton and
commercial/industrial developmentrihe_Cityhasapproximately 1,200 RECs available for
residential development. Only those projects that have received final plat approval and
paid the applicable fees will be allocated -sanitary sewer service capacity. To date, the
City has approved final plats allocating approximately 628 RECs for residential
development.
IM
Grading, Drainage and Utility Plans. The applicant has provided preliminary grading
and utility plans. These plans are subject to review_and approval of the City Engineer for
consistency with the Subdivision Ordinance and Engineering Manual.
Development Contract. Upon approval of a final plat, the applicant must enter into a
development contract with the City and pay all applicable fees and securities.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
As a policy decision, we do not make any_ recommendations regarding the requested
rezoning of the subject property. City officials should rely on the provisions and policies
of the Comprehensive Plan in making this_detetmination as to whether the rezoning is
appropriate to allow single family and townhouse units on the subject property. Options
for Planning Commission and City Council actkm.on this application are outlined under
Decision 1, below.
From a technical standpoint, the proposed site plan has been designed with consideration
for transitioning between the proposed uses and those low density uses that may develop
to the east or south in the future. The main issue with the proposed site plan and
preliminary plat is that it must be revised such that the single family lots conform to the
performance standards of the R-6 District. The project does not present any unique
circumstance or benefit that warrants flexibility from these standards as part of the PUD -
CUP. Should the Planning Commission and City Council make a positive finding on the
rezoning application, our office would recommend approval of the PUD -CUP and
preliminary plat subject to the conditions outlined.below.
Decision 1 - Zoning Map Amendment
A. Motion to approve a zoning map amendment tarezone the subject site from A-1
District to R-6 District based upon a finding that the request is consistent with the
policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
B. Motion to deny the application based upon a finding that the request is inconsistent
with the policies of the Comprehensive- Plan (Specific policies should be cited).
C Motion to table the application (Specific direction should be provided to the
applicant and/or staff on additional information to be provided).
Decision 2 - PUD -CUP and Preliminary Plat
A. Motion to approve a PUD -CUP and Preliminary Plat for Pheasant Ridge 5' Addition
based upon the current plan and information received to date, subject to the
following conditions:
-7-
Preliminary plat approval does not guarantee access to sanitary sewer
service. The City shall only guarantee sanitary sewer service to approved
final plats with signed contracts or through financial commitment for, such
services to assure the City of timely development.
2. Private drives serving four or more units shall be designed to a width of 28
feet with concrete curb. The design and construction of all public or private
streets shall be subject to review and approval of the City Engineer.
3. The preliminary plat is revised such that all single family lots have a
minimum width of 60 feet measured at a minimum front yard setback of 35
feet.
4. Side yard setback requirements for single family uses shall be five feet one
side and fifteen feet on the opposite side of the structure with not less than
20 feet between structures.
5. The preliminary plat is revised to designate common lot 86 as an outlot with
an overlying drainage and utility easement.
6. A homeowners association shall be established, subject to review and
approval of the City Attorney.
7. Park and trail dedication shall be made by cash fee lieu of land at the time
of final plat approval, subject to recommendation of the Parks and
Recreation Commission.
8. All grading and utility issues are subject to review and approval of the City
Engineer.
9. The applicant shall enter into a development contract with the City and pay
all applicable fees and securities upon approval of a final plat, subject to
review and approval of the City Attorney.
10 Comments of other City Staff.
B. Motion to deny the application based upon a finding that the request is inconsistent
with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance (Specific
policies should be cited).
PC. Mike Robertson Judy Hudson
Andy MacArthur Larry Koshak
Ron Wagner Rick Packer
Fran Hagen
10
9
N/. C
ON THE GREAT RIVER ROAD
9 1191HX3
gosouu)M 089slp •'� "'
.<.1...6 Ina .....16 ....<..i . 6 10 p e 1 l t
IQ.... .. .
..... . .... .. .1•Y11 •Y1.,1
•Yld w .
f:.Ye p -p (wl l.r.l.p
'F..1) W.wroa ro wle w Y+.s Y..r
•. n. p•� ..... .aw. wM I...Itw to wl< uY ,..ev. r..r
_�
—I- W.
sa st = zw
........................
i.,.O.Y I.I 10 ...Wm IulY1
iY1.O y6'1
[1w.el .IW.f v.Yl�• ,IH< 1Y I .r
.. A[
............ YIMp .xal.. Y.Y..Y.n
Ll
p..I.f 1wN 1Y YIO.M. 1O1 YnY...�
-II•N 196•.1
1
........... ... ... —s 1.1 N.:..r
-11 '►f WOZI
................. aI IS Iwl ./Yu...11
091 ..............
<rlq/ [1 wIC� .11Y,5 IY .p✓Oi IY IYI)
:..>1. &WOZ1 ..............................
.115 10 Y.It 141011
I
1 N3hd h/,30 1NIJ
...r,.✓.cJ 9i
f R
..
_�
sa st = zw
_ SYS
Y= =L 3hz a E
...
BE
r .� .. •
E51, F
:.moi .-.� it L I
_
«�
I
S11S 100HOS
I
1 N3hd h/,30 1NIJ
...r,.✓.cJ 9i
`'1
Submitted Plan with lots that are 50 feet wide and side yards that are 5 feet wide.
Buildings are 10 feet apart. Six lots are possible.
R-6 Standards with lots that are 60 feet wide and side yards that are 10 feet wide.
Buildings are 20 feet apart. Five lots are possible.
Modified Zero Lot Line Alternative with lots that are 60 feet wide and side yards that are 5 feet wide on the garage side and 15 feet
wide on the other side. Buildings are 20 feet apart. Five lots are possible.
�r
OM
o..II.a.�..r» ion aa«
rwr Lta. nuw
H L.Y
V
vumac.
.a. sF La w.. ttaa ss.
♦....w r..w.. La .r.. azw as
JrV
Ld'at,.� SO F.N Lw
9y. FuM
rm.r sv.a a u F.«
�.. �.
9q.F 5!5 421.
k
Arcon
Development
Company
Pheasant Ridge
Fifth Addition
Otago, Minnesota
Preliminary
Site Plan
>_ vvim
I
CD . S" OM CALL
COMMUON LOT -68
a. A 83 7047 f,
71 72 ?1
.........
r --Tr7 as 62�, 2
. ....
3_ ass. .wiz 2 82 9 r E-70 r r174 9 12 .........
•w srTO,
46 49
e
COMMON LOT
34
x
as
S
Axffe6 . ...... . .......
26
3
0, N,
0
Qe80MEHr D1TA
Arcon
Development
A—
Company
271
D.•,eo..Y —A—
LOT
A—
Ll—
OUTLOtri
--A
T—
. ....... Pheasant Ridge
Fifth Addition
S I-* Sig 0 1..
otmgo, Mix,x,�L,
Pretimmary
pla
1a
.•fii
W
)t;s
IN
7J*�
W
1a
.•fii
W
1a
W
7J*�
W
1a
7J*�
1a
d
Plantine Notes
Evergreen Detail
Shrub Detail
Tree Detail
Detached Townhomes
scale 1"=20'
Townhome Unit "A"
Seale I'=ZO'
Plant List
p
Townhome Unit 'B"
Scale I"=20'
Arcon
Development
Company
Pheasant Ridge
Fifth Addition
Otsego, Minnema
F -Z
Pre imimq Unit
Planting PWu k
Details
COGRER Sl -r ORE C.,LL
fi _.
I �
I
1�
/Y•i�LY^moi-rT.- , i ,v �^/ti'W^ - - P`r !^ Y`.^Ml�l�.1^:^,^ice-!� -,-i , _
._ •- eoaaaM Lor es . -
—20
1 r' e3 •a; `S' : so 7a T Tse rs rx»�r1»r s• I s7 �'II I \ -. 11. f
'i as ;ax • ��{ -s1 (ra s� 73 a �o. •i sa a � —1, rw
'• �' a Ix4 �—=\ •,� ar a °°.sa x• '�.- y:/ ,l.' s � � .G,a �� .
i Ur aaoe mrarauer,aa
• a�L C•W011 T Mi '.
2
/ II ,
9;' \\ _. .16 :�\ Y . ,R : � � ae• �t v —� .., .G.G,. ,o,r: + r
1 0
ss
.
EHI
MCMD
m OUTLOT ♦ _
• _ WETLAND A
1 .
PhE
l
i
Arcon
Development
Company
asant Ridge
h Addition
Mir—ta
Preliminary
Grading Plan
22!"ER STAT SNE CRLLM1
��WOiads�K
Arcon
Development
Company
Pheasant Ridge
Fifth Addition
Otxgo, Minnesota
ii"
Preliminary
Utility plan
STORM WATER
RUNOFF CALCULATIONS
Pheasant Ridge
5'hAddition
Otsego, Minnesota
Prepared for:
Arcon Development Company
7625 Metro Boulevard, Suite 350
Edina, MN 55439
Prepared by:
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
7599 Anagram Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344
Phone 952-937-5150, Fax 952-937-5822
February 26, 2001
Project # 20001144
SUMMARY
The attached storm water runoff and ponding calculations are based on Nationwide Urban
Runoff Program (NURP), The Soil Conservation Service Synthetic Unit Hydrograph Method
incorporated into the software program Hydrographs for Windows; Hydraflow by Intellisolve,
and the rational method for storm sewer pipe design.
Following is a summary of the drainage analysis on Pheasant Ridge located at the intersection of
in Otsego, MN. The drainage analysis addresses rate control for the post -development condition,
water quality, and localized storm sewer pipe design.
BACKGROUND
Adjacent to the site is a regional storm water ponding area developed by the city.
RATE CONTROL
Rate control for the pond is achieved through an 10 foot wide riprap spillway placed at an
elevation of 971.3. It is our understanding that rate control is not required in the project's pond
due to it's proximity to the city's stormwater management area. Inflow to the pond in the post
development condition has a maximum rate of 45.2 cubic feet per second (CFS). The maximum
rate of outflow out of the pond is 39.7 for a 100 year event.
WATER QUALITY
The required dead storage per the city and NURP standards is equal to the runoff volume from a
2.5 inch rainfall event which was computed to be 3.41 acre-feet. The provided dead storage is
3.93 acre-feet. Average depth for the pond is 5.66 feet.
Following is a table summarizing the pond system:
Pond Drainage NWL Dead 100 -yr
Live
100 -yr
100 -yr
Overflow
Area(acre) (feet) Storage HWL
Storage
Inflow
Discharge
Elevation
(acre-feet) (feet)
(acre-feet)
(cfs)
(cfs)
(feet)
24.16
971.3
3.93
972.81
0.961
45.2
39.7
973.0
LOCALIZED STORM SEWER PIPE DESIGN
The storm sewer pipes that convey the water on site to the treatment pond will be designed using
a 10 -year rainfall event. The rational method and Manning's equation will be used in the
computations. The grading was designed in such a way that should catch basin inlets fail or
plug, the 100 -year storm will be conveyed over emergency overflows to the treatment pond.
2
* WESTWOOD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, INC. (952) 937-5150
Hydrograph Summary Report
Pape 1
Hyd.
N�
Hydrograph
type
(origin)
Peak
flow
(cfs)
Time
Interval
(min)
Time to
peak
(min)
Volume
(acft)
Return
period
(yrs)
Inflow
hyd(s)
Maximum
elevation
(ft)
Maximum
storage
(acft)
Hydrograph
description
1
SCS Runoff
45.2
6
750
6.742
2
—
Post Devo -
2
Reservoir
39.7
6
762
6.742
2
1
872.81
0.961
10' Spillway
Proi. file: 01144hyd022101.GP
OF file: SAMPLE.IDF
Run date: 02-23-2001
3
Hydrograph Report
Page 1
Time -- Outflow
(hrs cfs)
11.70
5.32
11.80
English
iyd. No. 1
12.86
12.00
19.87
Post Devo
27.10
12.20
34.19
Hydrograph type
= SCS Runoff
Peak discharge =
45.22 cfs
Storm frequency
= 2 yrs
Time interval =
6 min
Drainage area
= 24.16 ac
Curve number =
77
Basin Slope
= 0.8%
Hydraulic length =
1700 ft
Tc method
= LAG
Time of conc. (Tc) =
58.1 min
Total precip.
= 5.85 in
Distribution =
Type II
Storm duration
= 24 hrs
Shape factor =
484
Hydrograph Discharge
Table
Total Volume = 6.742 ach
Time -- Outflow
(hrs cfs)
11.70
5.32
11.80
7.79
11.90
12.86
12.00
19.87
12.10
27.10
12.20
34.19
12.30
40.48
12.40
44.93
12.50
45.22 <<
12.60
42.37
12.70
39.04
12.80
35.34
12.90
31.32
13.00
27.09
13.10
22.71
13.20
18.36
13.30
14.28
13.40
10.85
13.50
8.94
13.60
8.16
13.70
7.53
13.80
7.01
13.90
6.58
14.00
6.22
14.10
5.90
14.20
5.61
14.30
5.34
14.40
5.11
14.50
4.90
14.60
4.71
14.70
4.55
End
0
Hydrograph Report
Page 1
Storage Indication method used.
Total Volume = 6.742 acft
English
iyd. No. 2
Time
Inflow
10' Spillway
Clv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B
Wr C Wr D Outflow
(hrs)
Hydrograph type
= Reservoir
Peak discharge
= 39.73 cfs
Storm frequency
= 2 yrs
Time interval
= 6 min
Inflow hyd. No.
= 1
Reservoir name
= Pond
Max. Elevation
= 872.81 ft
Max. Storage
= 0.961 acft
Storage Indication method used.
Total Volume = 6.742 acft
Hydrograph Discharge Table
Time
Inflow
Elevation Clv A
Clv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B
Wr C Wr D Outflow
(hrs)
cfs
ft cfs
cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs
cfs cfs cfs
11.90
12.86
871.90 --
----- --- ----- 5.05 -----
----- ---- 5.05
12.00
19.87
872.01 ----
---- - --- 7.87 -----
--- - 7.87
12.10
27.10
872.15 -----
---- ----- -- 12.32 -
--- --- 12.32
12.20
34.19
872.31 ---
-_ -- ----- 18.14
18.14
12.30
40.48
872.48 -----
-- -_ - 24.88 _---
--- ----- 24.88
12.40
44.93
872.63 _-
- ----- - 31.47 -_--
----- - 31.47
12.50
45.22 <<
872.74 ---
--- -- ----- 36.39 ---
---- ---- 36.39
12.60
42.37
872.79 ---
----- ----- ---- 39.14
39.14
12.70
39.04
872.81 <<
39.73 ----
--- ----- 39.73 <<
12.80
35.34
872.79 -----
--- --- ----- 38.78 ----
- ---- 38.78
12.90
31.32
872.74 ----
-- ----- ---- 36.75 ----
----- --- 36.75
3.00
27.09
872.69 -----
_-_ ---- -- 33.99 ----
-_- ---- 33.99
3.10
22.71
872.62 __-
---- ---- ----- 30.75 -----
----- ---- 30.75
, 3.20
18.36
872.53
26.94 -----
----- --- 26.94
13.30
14.28
872.44 -----
---_ ----- ----- 23.06 -----
- --- 23.06
13.40
10.85
872.35 ----
----- ---- ----- 19.39 ----
----- ---- 19.39
13.50
8.94
872.26 ---_
---- --- --- 16.22 ----
----- ---- 16.22
13.60
8.16
872.19 ----
--- ----- --- 13.76 -----
__- ----- 13.76
13.70
7.53
872.14 ---
-- ----- ----- 11.99 -----
-- ----- 11.99
13.80
7.01
872.10 ----
-- ----- ---- 10.57 ---
- ----- 10.57
13.90
6.58
872.06
9.53 -_
---- ---- 9.53
14.00
6.22
872.04 ---
_-- ----- ----- 8.67 -_--
-- --_- 8.67
14.10
5.90
872.01 ---
- - ----_ 7.95 ---_
---- ---- 7.95
14.20
5.61
871.99 --
---_ --- ----- 7.37 --
-_ -__ 7.37
14.30
5.34
871.97 ----
---- - ----- 6.90 --
- -- 6.90
14.40
5.11
871.96 ----
--- ----- -- 6.49 ---
-- --- 6.49
14.50
4.90
871.94 -----
---- -- ---- 6.12 --_
----- -_ 6.12
14.60
4.71
871.93 ---
- --- -- 5.79 -----
-- ----- 5.80
14.70
4.55
871.92 -----
--- ----- ----- 5.51 -_-
-- ----- 5.51
14.80
4.41
871.91 --
-- --- ----- 5.25 -----
---_ _--- 5.25
14.90
4.28
871.90 ----
----- ---- ----- 5.03 -----
----- ----- 5.03
15.00
4.17
871.90 -__
--- ----- --- 4.84 _---
---_ _--- 4.84
15.10
4.06
871.89 --
----- ---- - 4.69 ---
-- ----- 4.69
15.20
3.97
871.88 -----
--- - -- 4.55 --
----- ----- 4.55
15.30
3.88
871.88 -----
----- --_ -_- 4.42 ----
----- ---- 4.41
15.40
3.80
871.87 -----
_--- ----- - 4.29 ---
----- -- 4.29
Continues on next page...
5
10' SpilKvay
Hydrograph Discharge Table
Page 2
ime
Inflow
Elevation
Clv A Civ B Clv C Civ D Wr A Wr B Wr C
Wr D Outflow
(hrs)
cfs
ft
cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs
cfs cfs
15.50
3.72
871.87
---- ----- — ----- 4.18 ----- -----
---- 4.18
15.60
3.64
871.86
---- ---- ---- — 4.07 ----- ---
---- 4.07
... End
Reservoir Report
Page 1
English
eservoir No. 1 - Pond
Pond Data
Pond storage is based on known contour areas
Stage / Storage Table
Stage Elevation
ft ft
0.00
871.60
1.00
872.60
1.40
873.00
2.40
873.00
Contour area Incr. Storage
sqft acft
30,222
0.000
37,749
0.780
38,696
0.351
37,030
0.833
Total storage
acft
0.000
0.780
1.131
1.849
Culvert / Orifice Structures
acft
ft cfs
Weir Structures
cfs
0.00
0.000
871.60 -
[A]
[B]
[C]
[D]
871.70 -
[A]
[B]
[C]
[D]
Rise in
= 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Crest Len ft
= 10.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Span in
= 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Crest EI. ft
= 871.60
0.00
0.00
0.00
No. Barrels
= 0
0
0
0
Weir Coeff.
= 3.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Invert El. ft
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Eqn. Exp.
= 1.50
0.00
0.00
0.00
Length ft
= 0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Multi -Stage
= No
No
No
No
Slope %
= 0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
N -Value
= .013
.000
.000
.000
'Irif. Coeff.
= 0.73
0.00
0.00
0.00
ulti-Stage
= -----
No
No
No
Tailwater Elevation = 0.00 ft
Stage / Storage / Discharge Table
Note: AN outflows have been analyzed under inlet and outlet control.
Stage Storage Elevation Clv A Clv B Clv C Clv D Wr A Wr B Wr C Wr D Discharge
ft
acft
ft cfs
cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs cfs
cfs
0.00
0.000
871.60 -
--- -- --- 0.00 --- -- --
0.00
0.10
0.078
871.70 -
-- -- --- 0.95 -- - ---
0.95
0.20
0.156
871.80 -
--- -- --- 2.68 --- --- -
2.68
0.30
0.234
871.90 -
- -- -- 4.93 -- --- ---
4.93
0.40
0.312
872.00 -
-- -- - 7.59 -- - --
7.59
0.50
0.390
872.10 -
-- - --- 10.60 -_ --- -
10.60
0.60
0.468
872.20 -
-- - --- 13.94 -- -- --
13.94
0.70
0.546
872.30 -
-- - -- 17.56 -- --- --
17.56
0.80
0.624
872.40 -
-- -- -- 21.46 -- --- ---
21.46
0.90
0.702
872.50 -
- -- -- 25.61 -- -- --
25.61
1.00
0.780
872.60 -
--- --- --- 30.00 -- --- ---
30.00
Continues on next page...
Pond
Stage / Storage / Discharge Table
Page 2
stage
Storage
Elevation Civ A Clv B Clv C
Civ D Wr A Wr B Wr C
Wr D Discharge
.t
acft
ft cfs cfs cfs
cfs cfs cfs cfs
cfs cfs
1.04
0.815
872.64 -- -_ -
--- 31.82 - --
--- 31.82
1.08
0.850
872.68 - -- ---
-- 33.67 --- -
33.67
1.12
0.885
872.72 - -- -
--- 35.56 -- --
-- 35.56
1.16
0.920
872.76 - - -
-- 37.48 - -
--- 37.48
1.20
0.955
872.80 - - --
-_ 39.43 --- ---
-- 39.43
1.24
0.991
872.84 - -_ -
-- 41.42 - -
--- 41.42
1.28
1.026
872.88 - -- -
- 43.44 --- -
-- 43.44
1.32
1.061
872.92 - -- -
-- 45.49 --- --
-- 45.49
1.36
1.096
872.96 - - ---
-- 47.57 --- -
--- 47.57
1.40
1.131
873.00 - - -
--- 49.70 --- -
- 49.70
1.50
1.203
873.10 - - -
-- 55.11 --- -
- 55.11
1.60
1.275
873.20 - - --
- 60.71 -- -
-- 60.71
1.70
1.346
873.30 - -- -
- 66.49 -
66.49
1.80
1.418
873.40 - --- -
-- 72.44 - -
- 72.44
1.90
1.490
873.50 - - -
- 78.56 - -
--- 78.56
2.00
1.562
873.60 - - -
- 84.85 - -
- 84.85
2.10
1.634
873.70 - - -
- 91.29 - -
- 91.29
2.20
1.705
873.80 - - -
-- 97.88 - -
- 97.88
2.30
1.777
873.90 - - -
-- 104.63 - -
- 104.63
2.40
1.849
873.00 - - _-
- 49.70 - -
--- 49.70
... End
I
watershed area
acres
24.16
pervious curve number -
61
from SCS tables, for AMC=2
impervious fraction
-
0.65
design storm
inches
2.5
VLAWMO criterion = 2.5 inches
antecedent moisture cond.
2
(1,2,or 3), VLAWMO criterion = 2
pond maximum depth
feet
4
<= 10 ft
bench width be
feet
10
>= 10 ft
bench slope be
ft/ft
10
>= 10 ft horiz / ft vertical
side slope ab
ft/ft
3
>= 3 ft horiz / ft vertical
pond shape factor
1=triangle,2=rectangle,3=ellipse
length/width ratio
-
>= 3
top length c
feet
adjust to achieve target volume
OUTPUT VARIABLE
UNITS
VALUE
3.93 ACRE FEET AVAILABLE
target volume
acre-ft
3.41
= design storm runoff volume
design volume
acre-ft
#VALUE!
should be >= target volume
design mean depth
feet
#VALUE!
VLAWMO criterion >= 4 feet
design surface area
acres
#DIV/0!
pond /watershed area = #DIV/0!
d- '-n storm runoff
inches
1.69
runoff coefficient = 67.7%
1 ium retention
inches
6.39
for pervious portion of watershed
CONTOUR DIMENSIONS
Case =
0
Design Geometry =
#VALUE!
TOP
BENCH BOTTOM
contour
C
B A TOTAL
elevation
feet
0.0
-1.0 -4.0
depth
feet
0.0
1.0 4.0 4.0
maximum length
feet
0.0
#VALUE! #VALUE! 0.0
maximum width
feet
#DIV/01
#VALUE! #VALUE! #DIV/0!
surface area
feet^2
#DIV/0!
#VALUE! #VALUE! #DIV/0!
surface area
acres
#DIV/0!
#VALUE! #VALUE! #DIV/0!
increm. volume
feet^3
#VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
increm. volume
yd^3
#VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
increm. volume
ac-ft
#VALUE! #VALUE! #VALUE!
centroid offset
ft
0.0
#VALUE! #VALUE!
outflow slope leng.
ft
10.0 9.0
inflow slope length
ft
#VALUE! #VALUE!
outflow slope be
ft-h/ft-v
10.0 3.0
inflow slope ab
ft-h/ft-v
#VALUE! #VALUE!
a
POND AREA CALCULATIONS
PROJECT: Pheasant Ridoe 5th Ailditinn
DATE: 2-20-01
POND DEAD STORAGE
_ NUMBER: 20001144
BY: Jason McCartv
NWL= 871.6
CONTOUR
SURFACE
INCREMENTAL
CUMULATIVE
ELEVATION
SURFACE
AREA
VOLUME
VOLUME
AREA
(FT2)
(ACRES)
(FT)
(FT) (AC -FT)
864
15,414
0.35
30,222 0.69
34,317
34,317 0.79
866
18,903
0.43
15,289
15,289 0.35
41,568
75,885 1.74
868
22,665
0.52
49,477
125,362 2.88
870
26,812
0.62
45,627
170,989 3.93
871.6 30,222 0.69
Average Depth = 5.66'
POND LIVE STORAGE
NWL =
871.6
CONTOUR
SURFACE
INCREMENTAL
CUMULATIVE
ELEVATION
AREA
VOLUME
VOLUME
(FTZ) (ACRES)
(FT)
(FT) (AC -FT)
871.6
30,222 0.69
33,986
33,986 0.78
872.6
37,749 0.87
15,289
15,289 0.35
873
38,696 0.89
Page 11 of 11
westwooe Yrotessional Services, Inc.
February 23, 2001
Pheasant Ridge Fifth Addition
Project Summary and Narrative
Otsego, Minnesota
PROJECT SUMMARY
PROJECT NAME
Pheasant Ridge Fifth Addition
LOCATION
South of the intersection of 78h Street and Page Avenue
OWNER/DEVELOPER/APPLICANT
Arcon Development Company
7625 Metro Blvd. #350
Edina, MN 55439
Contact: Rick Packer (952) 835-4981
SITE PLANNING, ENGINEERING
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
7599 Anagram Drive
Eden Prairie, MN 55344-7399
Contact: Fran Hagen
DEVELOPMENT DATA
Existing Zoning:
Existing Land Use:
Proposed Zoning:
Proposed Land Use:
A-1
Agricultural/Vacant
R-6
Low Density Residential
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY
Total Site Area:
38.65 Acres
Outlots A:
4.35 Acres
Outlots B:
0.45 Acres
Public R -O -W:
3.43 Acres
Developable Area:
30.42 Acres
Wetlands:
10.27+ Acres
Total Units
111 Lots
Single family:
26 Lots
Townhomes:
85 Units
Development Density:
3.7 Units/Acres
Ref. No. 20001144
PROJECT NARRATIVE
PHEASANT RIDGE FIFTH ADDITION 1
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Outlot B, Pheasant Ridge, according to the recorded plat there of, Wright County,
Minnesota
REGUESTED ACTION
This application is made in request of review and approval for Rezoning Preliminary Plat,
and eventual Final Plat. This request also includes a PUD - CUP
PROJECT NARRATIVE
EXISTING CONDITIONS
The site is open meadow and wetlands
SOILS
The site is predominantly rolling agricultural land with wetlands in the southwest. The
topography indicates the surface elevations range from about 898 to about 872. Soil
borings performed onsite indicate a general soil profile consisting of topsoil underlain by
alluvium. Complete soil report will follow
VEGETATION
The sites main vegetation consists of trees in fence rows along the perimeter. The main
vegetation in a fence row is along the west boundary with additional trees located along
the south and east boundary.
WETLANDS
Please see the attached wetland memo. In summary, proposed fill amounts to 23,742 S.F.
with compensation of 88,052 S.F. (64,644 S.F. created new wetland and 23,408 S.F.
ponding credit).
ABUTTING LAND USES
Single Family development to the north and undeveloped to the west, south and east.
ACCESS
Access to the development is via 781h Street and Page Avenue
PROJECT NARRATIVE
PHEASANT RIDGE FIFTH ADDITION 2
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT
As stated previously, Pheasant Ridge 5` Addition consists of 26 single family home sites
(Detached Townhomes) and 85 townhome units. There has been ongoing review of this
project with the City's Consulting Planner (Northwest Associated Consultants) and their
Consulting Engineer (Hakanson Anderson Assoc., Inc.). The majority of the issues have
been addressed and resolved that have developed to date. The following issues are those
that depart from the standard requirements.
Private Drives: The City's Engineering Standard for private drives is 28' when serving
more than 3 units. We believe this standard to be excessive when serving only 4 units. It
also promotes parking on the private drives, which is not a desired situation. We are
proposing a 28' wide private drive when serving more than 4 units, and an 18' wide drive
when serving 4 units or less.
Guest Parking: 44 guest parking spaces are provided. This number is in excess of the
required number of 43. There has been a comment on parking spaces accessing off of
Private Drive B. We feel that parking off of Private Drive B is more open to all units and
the general public, and will better serve it's intended purpose of 1/2 stall per unit, for the
multiple housing area.
LOTSTANDARDS
Lot Width
Single Family
Front Yard Setback
78`n Street
Public Street A
Single Family
Town Home
Private Street B
Side Yard Setback
Single Family
Min. Req'd Min. Prop.
60 Feet 50 Feet Min.
65 Feet 65 Feet
35 Feet 25 Feet
35 Feet 35 Feet
None 25 Feet Min.
10/10:20Feet Total 5/5:10 Feet Total
Lot Size: The minimum required single family lot square footage is 9000 S.F. The
minimum single family lot proposed is 9,057 S.F., with an average lot size of 25,667 S.F.
Single Family Lot Width Departure — A 60' lot width at the front yard setback is
required, the applicant is proposing a 50' width at the setback line. The applicant is
providing detailed house plans and elevations under separate cover. These units are part
of the zero lot line approach, but they have been adapted for Minnesota. These units have
PROJECT NARRATIVE
PHEASANT RIDGE FIFTH ADDITION
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
been built in Rogers and Brooklyn Park. They are designed with the empty nester in
mind or those who prefer minimum maintenance responsibilities.
There will be a Homeowners Association for the attached townhouse units. Because the
single family units are considered detached townhomes, they will also have their own
separate Homeowners Association. These agreements will stipulate the type of
construction allowed within the development.
PROJECT NARRATIVE
PHEASANT RIDGE FIFTH ADDITION 4
Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
7599 Anagram Drive
Eden Prairie, Minnesota 55344
Phone: 952/937-5150
MEMORANDUM Fax: 952/937-5822
DATE: February 23, 2001 Ref: 20001144.00
TO: Mr. Fran Hagen, P.E., Westwood Professional Services, Inc.
FROM: Ms. Shannon Oslund, Associate Environmental Scientist
RE: Wetland Replacement Assessment for Pheasant Ridge Fifth Addition, City of Otsego,
Wright County, MN
I have reviewed the wetland replacement issues associated with the proposed Pheasant Ridge Fifth
Addition residential development in Otsego. This memo summarizes the results of my preliminary
investigation.
Wetland Impacts
Peterson Environmental Consulting, Inc. (Peterson) originally delineated the wetlands on April 13, 1999.
Peterson delineated a total of two wetlands on the 38.65 -acre site (see the attached Preliminary Grading
Plan). Wetland A is classified as a Type 3 shallow marsh and a Type 6 shrub swamp. Wetland B is
classified as a Type 1 seasonally flooded basin.
Welland impacts for the project are summarized in the following table.
Regulatory Framework
Wetlands on the Pheasant Ridge 5th Addition are regulated under:
• The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, as amended (WCA), administered in this area
by the City of Otsego.
• Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), administered by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps), and
• The City of Otsego Zoning Ordinance (1992) (Section 72: Wetlands Overlay District).
Wetland Impacts Summary Table
Basin ID
Area
Proposed Fill
Excavation
Sq. Ft. Acres
Sq. Ft. Acres
Sq. Ft. Acres
Wetland A
435,540 10.00
11,915 0.27
20,738 0.48
Wetland B
11,827 0.27
11,827 0.27
0.00 0.00
Totals
447,367 10.27 11
23,742 0.54
20,738 0.48
Regulatory Framework
Wetlands on the Pheasant Ridge 5th Addition are regulated under:
• The Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act of 1991, as amended (WCA), administered in this area
by the City of Otsego.
• Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), administered by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps), and
• The City of Otsego Zoning Ordinance (1992) (Section 72: Wetlands Overlay District).
Memorandum — Wetland Replacement Assessment —Pheasant Ridge 5th Addition
February 21, 2001
Page 2
Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water ,act
Because the project involves 0.54 acres of wetland fill and 0.48 acre of wetland excavation for
stormwater ponding, the project is eligible for authorization under the Corps GP/LOP-98-MN - Letter of
Permission (B). However, a decision signed by the United States Supreme Court on January 9, 2001
restricted the Corps of Engineers' authority to regulate isolated wetlands tinder the Federal Clean Water
Act. It appears that all wetlands on the property are isolated and therefore the Corps of Engineers may
issue a Letter of No Jurisdiction for this Project. If it is not possible to obtain a Letter of No Jurisdiction
from the Corps, the Corps will authorize the project under Letter of Permission B.
Wetland Replacement Required
Under the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act (WCA), 88,960 square feet (2.04 acres) of wetland
replacement credit is required, and 44,480 square feet (1.02 acres) is required to meet Corps
requirements.
Wetland replacement requirements for the project are summarized in the following table.
Wetland Replacement Required (Square Feet)
Proposed Wetland Replacement
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
23,742 Wetland fill
+ 20,738 Type 3/6 excavation
44.480 Total impact
x 1 1 to 1 replacement
44.480 minimum required
At least half of the replacement credit (44,480 square feet; 1.02 acres) needs to be in the form of New
Wetland Credit to satisfy WCA requirements. The Corps will require 44,480 square feet (1.02 acres) of
New Wetland Credit wetland replacement to compensate for 44,480 square feet of wetland fill.
Up to half of the wetland replacement may come from Pubic Value Credit (PVC), which may be applied
toward the second half of the 2 to 1 replacement. PVC is calculated by multiplying available stormwater
ponding acreage by 0.75. Since the project will provide approximately 31,211 square feet ofstormwater
ponding 75 percent may be applied towards PVC (0.75 x 31,211 square feet).
Minnesota WCA
23,742
Wetland fill
+ 20,7_ 8
Type 3/6 excavation
44,480
Total impact
x 2
2 to I replacement
88.960
minimum required
Proposed Wetland Replacement
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
23,742 Wetland fill
+ 20,738 Type 3/6 excavation
44.480 Total impact
x 1 1 to 1 replacement
44.480 minimum required
At least half of the replacement credit (44,480 square feet; 1.02 acres) needs to be in the form of New
Wetland Credit to satisfy WCA requirements. The Corps will require 44,480 square feet (1.02 acres) of
New Wetland Credit wetland replacement to compensate for 44,480 square feet of wetland fill.
Up to half of the wetland replacement may come from Pubic Value Credit (PVC), which may be applied
toward the second half of the 2 to 1 replacement. PVC is calculated by multiplying available stormwater
ponding acreage by 0.75. Since the project will provide approximately 31,211 square feet ofstormwater
ponding 75 percent may be applied towards PVC (0.75 x 31,211 square feet).
WWestwood Professional Services, Inc. (952) 937-5150
Proposed Wetland Replacement
Credit Type
Square Feet Acres Calculation
New Wetland Credit
64,644 148
Public Value Credit
(ponding)
23,408 O.S4 (31.211 X 75% = 23,408 sf)
Total Wetland Replacement 88,052 2.02
WWestwood Professional Services, Inc. (952) 937-5150
Memorandum — Wetland Replacement Assessment —Pheasant Ridge 51h Addition
February 21, 2001
Page 3
Proposed Upland Buffer Credit
In addition to stormwater ponding, the project will provide between 20 and 80 feet of upland buffer along
the southern edge of Wetland A for a total of 25,630 square feet (0.59 acre). This PVC upland buffer can
be applied towards wetland replacement (up to 75 percent of replacement wetland size).
Conclusion
The proposed project design will exceed the requirements of both the WCA and Corps minimum
requirements by providing 64,644 square feet (1.48 acres) of NtiVC, 23,408 square feet (0.54 acre) of
PVC derived from stormwater ponding, and 25,630 square feet (0.59 acre) of upland buffer for a total of
113,682 square feet (2.61 acres) of wetland replacement.
WWestwood Professional Services, Inc. (952) 937-5150