HomeMy WebLinkAboutAll AttachmentsPage 1 of 2
Variance Application Written Statement for 8265 Hidden Bay Trail N, Lake Elmo
Prepared by: David Kranz
Updated: 10/17/2022
2 Written Statement
a. Current property owners
Thomas G & Vonda L Brown
192 Jade Trail N, Lake Elmo, MN 55042
Carmela S Kranz, Daughter has Power of Attorney
2401 34th Ave S, Minneapolis, MN 55406
b. Site data
Property Address: 8265 HIDDEN BAY TRL N LAKE ELMO MN 55042
Property Description: OACE ACRES 3RD ADD Lot 24
Property ID: 09.029.21.31.0025
Parcel Size: 1.1 acre
Zoning: Rural Single Family
c. Lake Elmo City Code
Wetland Code, 75 foot setback
d. Proposal
New septic system with mound corner located ~50’ from start of wetland. See Septic Design and Property
Survey
e. Narrative
A new septic system is required to sell the home owned by Tom and Vonda Brown. Present septic system
is original, dating from 1963 home build.
A new septic was designed and located by engineer Alex Pepin, Ten Thirty Environmental Solutions (TTES
on 7/21/22) at the best location on the property after evaluating alternatives for topographical gradient,
setback from property boundaries, the home and water well. The design location is considered the only
viable location.
Washington County rejected the Septic application (on 9/1/22) noting the designed mound measured 52’
from the start of the wetland identified in the National Wetland Inventory. Washington County proposed
we (1) identify the wetland using a trained professional and (2) get a variance from the City of Lake Elmo.
Andy Kranz performed a wetland delineation (on 9/10/22), identifying the actual wetland boundary which
substantially agrees with the National Wetland Inventory. See attached Wetland Delineation report.
Page 2 of 2
Valley Branch Watershed District engineer, John P Hanson, reviewed the design on 9/12/22 and
determined the septic mound is located at above the 100 year flood plain. No VBWD permit is required.
See copy of John P Hanson’s email
A property land survey was completed on 9/28/22 by EG Rud surveyor. Survey locates the home, wetland
markers, septic mount markers, and the property boundary.
f. Why the strict enforcement of this chapter would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to
the individual property
Design engineer Alex Pepin states (see Reason for Variance Alex Pipin email 2022-09-06.pdf )
Reviewing the design, Alex Pepin, stated in the email “this is the only location on the property that can
accept the soil treatment area, which then also forces the tanks to be in their location to achieve
drainback to the pump tank. The reason the soil treatment area needs to be where it is is that there is a
slope with over 30% slope just upslope from the area and a drainageway to the east. Both of these
constraints will impact the functionality of the septic system. The septic tanks are then placed as far away
from the wetland while also being able to get drainback to the pump tank to prevent freezing; which
again is a functionality of the system constraint. The setback variance is preferred as the septic is
designed to properly treat the wastewater prior to contact with a restriction, in this case the periodically
saturated zone in the soil profile. Putting the mound further east would put it in the stormwater flow
path and while berming can be constructed to divert the stormwater around the mound their is significant
infiltration of the stormwater into the soil which will continue along the path shown in the design causing
hydraulic loading issues into the soil (overloading the soil with water during rain events). The slope
similarly will cause hydraulic concerns with the functionality of the system. On slopes over 20% there is
concern the wastewater will flow horizontally along the native grade rather than infiltrating into the soil
causing a hydraulic failure along the toe of the mound where the not fully treated wastewater would
pool. For these reasons a variance to the wetland setback is proposed. All other areas on the property
were explored with inadequate area for a septic system and/or disturbed soils being encountered”
g. Unique circumstances not created by the landowner
Modern septic systems in Washington County have strict requirements. As described in statement 2f,
there is no other practical location that satisfies the slope and hydrological requirements.
h. Why this would not alter essential character of the neighborhood
While the mound location is less than the required setback, at 50’ from the wetland it will not be overly
prominent. The new mound will be located where the majority of the vegetation removed is buckthorn.
An effort will be made to preserve all adjacent mature oak and maple trees.
Re: 8265 HIDDEN BAY TRL N, CITY OF LAKE ELMO
Alex Pepin <alex.pepin@tenthirtyenvironmental.com>
Tue 9/6/2022 8:19 AM
To: David Kranz <davekranz@msn.com>
Cc: Michael Capra <Mike@capras.com>
Good morning Dave,
That is great Andy can do that for you. You will need to apply for a variance with the City here
(https://cms8.revize.com/revize/lakeelmomn/Document%20center/Applications/Variance.pdf) with zoning
contacts here (https://www.lakeelmo.org/departments/planning___zoning/index.php). I know we had
originally discussed the need for a variance and with the design I was hoping the County would be ok with
the 75' to cattails, but as the County indicated in reality the wetland probably starts 20 or so feet prior to the
cattails.
You will want to fill out the variance once the wetland delineation is completed. When the wetland
delineation is completed if you could get Andy or even do it yourself you will need to measure the distances
to the stakes I have onsite for B5, B4, B1 and pump tank outlet those will then be the required setback
distances to the soil treatment area (B1, B4 and B5) and the setback distance to the tanks (Pump tank
outlet).
The reason for the variance is this is the only location on the property that can accept the soil treatment area,
which then also forces the tanks to be in their location to achieve drainback to the pump tank. The reason
the soil treatment area needs to be where it is is that there is a slope with over 30% slope just upslope from
the area and a drainageway to the east. Both of these constraints will impact the functionality of the septic
system. The septic tanks are then placed as far away from the wetland while also being able to get drainback
to the pump tank to prevent freezing; which again is a functionality of the system constraint. The setback
variance is preferred as the septic is designed to properly treat the wastewater prior to contact with a
restriction, in this case the periodically saturated zone in the soil profile. Putting the mound further east
would put it in the stormwater flow path and while berming can be constructed to divert the stormwater
around the mound their is significant infiltration of the stormwater into the soil which will continue along the
path shown in the design causing hydraulic loading issues into the soil (overloading the soil with water
during rain events). The slope similarly will cause hydraulic concerns with the functionality of the system. On
slopes over 20% there is concern the wastewater will flow horizontally along the native grade rather than
infiltrating into the soil causing a hydraulic failure along the toe of the mound where the not fully treated
wastewater would pool. For these reasons a variance to the wetland setback is proposed. All other areas on
the property were explored with inadequate area for a septic system and/or disturbed soils being
encountered.
Let me know if you have any additional questions.
Alex Pepin
612-248-4281
Ten Thirty Environmental Solutions
www.tenthirtyenvironmental.com
On Mon, Sep 5, 2022 at 10:47 AM David Kranz <davekranz@msn.com> wrote:
Mike and Alex,
I have made an appointment with Andy Kranz (he is my son who does this for a living) and he will do a
detailed wetland delinea�on survey later this week. Knowing that every foot ma�ers, he will take the
necessary soil samples.
Alex - We would like to get this underway immediately, so I would really like your help with understanding
the process of comple�ng the variance. Please respond to this email and feel free to call me on my mobile.
Thanks,
Dave Kranz
mobile: 612-239-3712
From: Michael Capra <Mike@capras.com>
Sent: Saturday, September 3, 2022 12:51 PM
To: David Kranz <davekranz@msn.com>
Cc: Alex Pepin <alex.pepin@tenthirtyenvironmental.com>
Subject: Fwd: 8265 HIDDEN BAY TRL N, CITY OF LAKE ELMO
Hello David-
I wanted to let you know that the County is going to require you to get a wetland delineation and variance
to install the new system as designed. You may want to reach out to Alex Pepin and the City of Lake Elmo
to figure out what is needed to complete the variance request. Unfortunately, the property owner is the
one responsible for getting the necessary delineation and variance. Alex Pepin may be able to refer you to
someone for the wetland delineation.
Thank you,
Mike Capra
Get Outlook for iOS
From: Tyler Dale <Tyler.Dale@co.washington.mn.us>
Sent: Thursday, September 1, 2022 10:30 AM
To: Michael Capra <Mike@capras.com>
Subject: 8265 HIDDEN BAY TRL N, CITY OF LAKE ELMO
Hi Mike,
I am contac�ng you as you are listed as the applica�on contact. I conducted a site and soil review for the
system at the address above, report a�ached. On the site map the designer states that B1 and B5 are 75 feet
from Wetland/Start of ca�ails. I believe that the wetland begins before the start of ca�ails. There is a change
in vegeta�on from broad leaf plants to grasses approximately 54’ from borings B5 and B1. This corresponded
to the loca�on of the start of the Freshwater Emergent Wetland as iden�fied by the Na�on Wetland
Inventory. The map below shows the designers boring loca�ons, yellow dots, and the wetland boundary,
solid pink.
To address this discrepancy I would propose that the wetland boundary is iden�fied and located on the
ground by a trained professional. This would allow for an accurate place to measure the setback from. If the
proposed system is closer than 75’ a variance from the City will be required
Please let me know if you have any ques�ons.
Tyler Dale | Senior Environmental Specialist
Washington County Department of Public Health and Environment
14949 62nd Street North, S�llwater, MN 55082
651-430-6741
A great place to live, work and play…today and tomorrow
Windbreak Trail N Hidden Bay Trail NProperty Boundary
Wetland_Delineation
Deep Marsh and Shallow Open Water
Fresh (Wet) Meadow
Wetland Data Points
Wetland Delineation Map
8265 Hidden Bay Trail N
Washington County, MNN
Andy Kranz
Wetland Delineation Memo
Date: September 22, 2022
To: Thomas and Vonda Brown c/o David Kranz
From: Andy Kranz
Subject: Wetland Delineation: Septic Update for 8265 Hidden Bay Trail N, Washington
County, MN
On September 10, 2022, I performed a delineation of wetlands and waterbodies on the
property located at 8265 Hidden Bay Trail North, Lake Elmo, Minnesota 55042 in Washington
County. This memo describes the findings of the wetland delineation and will be used to
support a project to update the septic system that is currently located on the Property.
Wetland delineation was conducted on the 1.11-acre Property on September 10, 2022. The
northern 0.76 acre is upland. It includes a house with driveways to the west and northeast and
a septic system to the south. A woodland separates the residence from wetland in the
southern 0.35 acre of the Property. The woodland is situated on a south-facing slope and is
dominated by white oak (Quercus alba) with abundant common buckthorn (Rhamnus
cathartica)
Upland-wetland boundary spatial data were collected and vertices (w1-w9) were flagged on
the ground. USACE determination data (dp1, dp2) were collected at representative upland
and wetland positions (enclosed map). Spatial data was captured with a GNSS receiver
capable of submeter accuracy. Representative photographs of the Property are enclosed.
Data point dp1 was collected in a fresh, wet meadow dominated by reed canary grass
(Phalaris arundinacea). Soil indicators observed include Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1).
Hydrologic indicators observed include Geomorphic Position (D2) and Fac-Neutral Test (D5).
Conditions were drier than normal (sum = 9) at the time of survey according to a WETS
analysis of a 30-year dataset (1992–2022) from a nearby weather station (St. Paul Downtown
Airport, MN).
Hybrid cat-tail (Typha × glauca) becomes dominant to the south of the wet meadow, and the
wetland transitions to deep marsh and shallow open water communities. A boundary
between the wet meadow and adjacent communities was delineated using desktop
resources including multi-year aerial photograph interpretation. See the enclosed Wetland
Delineation Map and Determination Data Sheets.
At the time of delineation numbered/labeled stakes were present that demarcated the limits
of the proposed septic project. Distances between these and the nearest wetland vertices
were measured on the ground:
w4 to pump tank outlet: 82.5 ft
w4 to B4: 69.5 ft
w5 to B4: 62.0 ft
w6 to B1: 52.0 ft
w7 to B5: 49 ft
Please contact me with any questions regarding the wetland delineation at the Property.
Respectfully submitted,
Andy Kranz
Botanist and Wetland Delineator
2220 30th Ave S
Minneapolis, MN 55406
andrew.r.kranz@gmail.com
507-459-3150
Enclosed: Wetland Delineation Map
USACE Wetland Determination Data Sheets
Site Photographs
Wetland Delineation Photographs
View north from the upland-wetland boundary.
View east from the upland-wetland boundary.
View south from the upland-wetland boundary.
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Slope (%): Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation N , Soil N , or Hydrology N Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation N , Soil N , or Hydrology N
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes X
Yes X Yes X
Yes X
)
1.
2. (A)
3.
4. (B)
5.
(A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
2.
3. x 1 =
4. x 2 =
5. x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
1.Column Totals:(A) (B)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. X
7. X
8.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
9.
10.
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Yes X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Midwest Region
See ERDC/EL TR-10-16; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp:11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Hidden Bay Trail North Septic Update
Fraxinus pennsylvanica
Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
No
No
No
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Acer negundo
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Toe slope
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
No
15
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0
1.95Prevalence Index = B/A =
FACW
OBL
OBL
10
Multiply by:
170
(Plot size:
10
10
85
=Total Cover
Percent of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
195
0
100
5
Wetland Hydrology Present?
)
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
=Total Cover
Yes
5
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
FACU species
(Plot size:
Typha X glauca
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
80
Herb Stratum 5'
(Plot size:
City/County:Lake Elmo / Washington County
90
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? No
100.0%
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Sampling Date:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.)
FAC
Total % Cover of:
)
Phalaris arundinacea
No
0
Prevalence Index worksheet:
3
3
9/10/2022
David Kranz MN dp1Sampling Point:
Fresh (wet) meadow in a residential neighborhood; separates a pond to the south from a wooded upland slope to the north. The wetland is partially
shaded by trees rooted near or beyond the upland boundary. Site conditions were drier than normal at the time of delineation according to WETS
analysis.
-92.938476 UTM 15
concave
Andy Kranz S9 T29N R21WSection, Township, Range:
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
0-3 Long:45.013133 Datum:
Remarks:
Poskin silt loam PEM1ANWI classification:
Yes No
naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
UPL species
Yes
FACW
(Plot size:
5
Tree Stratum
Yes
30'
5
Absolute
% Cover
)
=Total Cover
No
5
Persicaria amphibia
ENG FORM 6116-7, JUL 2018 Midwest – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
% %Type1 Loc2
100
90 10 D M
85 15 C M
X
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes X No
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
X
X
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Surface Water Present? Yes X
Water Table Present? Yes X
Saturation Present? Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes X No
Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Dark Surface (S7)
15-24 10YR 2/1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)
10YR 2/2
10YR 2/2
Loamy/Clayey
Loamy/Clayey
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Matrix
Texture Remarks
5-15
Color (moist)
7.5YR 2.5/3
Histosol (A1)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils
3:
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
unless disturbed or problematic.
wetland hydrology must be present,
10YR 4/1
Distinct redox concentrations
0-5 Mucky Loam/Clay
5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
HYDROLOGY
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Gauge or Well Data (D9)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Remarks:
dp1SOIL
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
(includes capillary fringe)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
No
No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Field Observations:
ENG FORM 6116-7, JUL 2018 Midwest – Version 2.0
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:State:
Investigator(s):
Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.):
Slope (%): Lat:
Soil Map Unit Name:
X
Are Vegetation N , Soil N , or Hydrology N Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes X No
Are Vegetation N , Soil N , or Hydrology N
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Yes X
Yes X Yes X
Yes X
)
1.
2. (A)
3.
4. (B)
5.
(A/B)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum
1.
2.
3. x 1 =
4. x 2 =
5. x 3 =
x 4 =
x 5 =
1.Column Totals:(A) (B)
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.4 - Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting
9.
10.
Woody Vine Stratum
1.
2.
Yes X
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Midwest Region
See ERDC/EL TR-10-16; the proponent agency is CECW-CO-R
OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp:11/30/2024
Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT:
(Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a)
Hidden Bay Trail North Septic Update
Acer negundo
Fraxinus pennsylvanica FACW Total Number of Dominant Species
Across All Strata:
Dominance Test worksheet:
5
No
No
No
VEGETATION – Use scientific names of plants.
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Quercus alba
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Hydric Soil Present?
Back slope
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
Yes
75
=Total Cover
1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
320
3.68Prevalence Index = B/A =
FACU
FACU
FAC
0
Multiply by:
10
(Plot size:
40
0
5
=Total Cover
Percent of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain)
OBL species
FACW species
FAC species
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
0
405
0
110
10
Wetland Hydrology Present?
)
Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.)
=Total Cover
Yes
25
3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01
FACU species
(Plot size:
Ageratina altissima
Indicator
Status
Dominant
Species?
30
Herb Stratum 5'
(Plot size:
City/County:Lake Elmo / Washington County
70
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? No
25.0%
Number of Dominant Species That
Are OBL, FACW, or FAC:
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
Sampling Date:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? (If no, explain in Remarks.)
FACU
Total % Cover of:
)
Glechoma hederacea
No
80
Prevalence Index worksheet:
1
4
9/10/2022
David Kranz MN dp2Sampling Point:
Upland hardwood forest on a slope that separates a residence and septic drainage from a wet meadow. Site condition drier than normal at time of
delineation according to WETS analysis.
-92.938425 UTM 15
none
Andy Kranz S9 T29N R21WSection, Township, Range:
Local relief (concave, convex, none):
5-10 Long:45.013233 Datum:
Remarks:
Poskin silt loam PEM1ANWI classification:
Yes No
naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
significantly disturbed?
UPL species
Yes
FAC
(Plot size:
No
20
Tree Stratum
Yes
30'
15
Absolute
% Cover
)
=Total Cover
No
30
Rhamnus cathartica
ENG FORM 6116-7, JUL 2018 Midwest – Version 2.0
Sampling Point:
% %Type1 Loc2
100
95 5 D M
Type:
Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No X
Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Surface Water Present? Yes X
Water Table Present? Yes X
Saturation Present? Yes X Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No X
Black Histic (A3) Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)
Dark Surface (S7)
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.)
Redox FeaturesDepth
(inches) Color (moist)
10YR 2/1
10YR 2/1
Loamy/Clayey
3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Matrix
Texture Remarks
18-24
Color (moist)
Histosol (A1)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils
3:
Coast Prairie Redox (A16)
Iron-Manganese Masses (F12)
Red Parent Material (F21)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Stratified Layers (A5)
2 cm Muck (A10)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8)
Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Secondary Indicators (minimum of two required)
unless disturbed or problematic.
wetland hydrology must be present,
10YR 3/1
0-18 Loamy/Clayey
5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
HYDROLOGY
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)
Aquatic Fauna (B13)
True Aquatic Plants (B14)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres on Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Thin Muck Surface (C7)
Gauge or Well Data (D9)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)
Remarks:
dp2SOIL
Restrictive Layer (if observed):
Remarks:
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Water Marks (B1)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
(includes capillary fringe)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
No
No
No
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Depth (inches):
Field Observations:
ENG FORM 6116-7, JUL 2018 Midwest – Version 2.0
RE: 8265 Hidden Bay Trail N, Lake Elmo Septic Design
John P. Hanson <JHanson@barr.com>
Mon 9/12/2022 1:06 PM
To: 'David Kranz' <davekranz@msn.com>
Hi David,
The proposed loca�on appears to be approximately 932 and higher, which is above the 100-year flood level of Deer
Pond. No Valley Branch Watershed District permit is required.
Thanks,
John
John P. Hanson, PE
Valley Branch Watershed District Engineer
Barr Engineering Co. | 4300 MarketPointe Drive | Bloomington, MN 55435
office: 952.832.2622 | cell: 612.590.1785
JHanson@barr.com | www.barr.com | www.vbwd.org
From: David Kranz <davekranz@msn.com>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 12:59 PM
To: John P. Hanson <JHanson@barr.com>
Subject: 8265 Hidden Bay Trail N, Lake Elmo Sep�c Design
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of your organization.
Hi John,
Per our conversa�on, a�ached is the Sep�c Design at 8265 Hidden Bay Trail N, in Lake Elmo. Please let me
know if you see that the design is in the 100 year flood level.
Thanks,
David Kranz
612-239-3712
From:Jack Griffin
To:Ben Hetzel
Cc:Molly Just; Chad Isakson
Subject:Septic System Variance 8265 Hidden Bay Trail
Date:Friday, October 21, 2022 10:46:51 AM
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
Ben,The proposed septic system must be installed a minimum of 10 feet from the property lines.This setback requirement should be shown on the site plan. Engineering has no othercomments.
Thanks ~Jack John (Jack) W. Griffin, P.E.Principal / Sr. Municipal Engineer FOCUS ENGINEERING, INC.
651.300.4264jack.griffin@focusengineeringinc.com
1
Ben Hetzel
From:Gordy Grundeen <gordyg@blueskysciences.com>
Sent:Friday, November 4, 2022 7:54 PM
To:Ben Hetzel
Subject:11-04-22 Variance for Brown's sewage system
Caution: This email originated outside our organization; please use caution.
November 4, 2022
To:
Ben Hetzel, City Planner
City of Lake Elmo
Subject: Variance request for Brown’s property = 8265 Hidden Bay Trail
Good morning:
We live across the street from Brown’s property - we have known them as neighbors for 52 years!
I am opposed to allowing any variance for the 75 foot setback from a wetland. There has been complete opposition to these
kind of variances on Hidden Bay Trail going back to the 1960s. My neighbor 3 houses down on the Lake Olson side a few years
ago installed a mound system that was acceptable to the City - it was less than 20 feet from Lake Olson. That was/is acceptable.
There is no need to allow any new sewage treatment system to be sub-standard.
Tom & Vonda had 1-2 years ago assumed they needed a mound system. I am guessing here, but ~2 weeks ago, a contractor
cleared and leveled the spot where the system was intended to be installed. The problem the contractor overlooked was: There is
no way to get fill/dirt down a wooded & steep grade to the spot with a truck. I am guessing the sub-contractor backed out of the
deal.
Here is my suggestion - it solves two issues at once: Remove the asphalt-surfaced driveway and put the drain field under the
driveway; replace the driveway surface with those “environmentally green” bricks with “holes” in them. Grass grows in those
holes. No runoff to pollute our lakes.
I believe the well on the North side of the house is about 50 feet from the driveway (which is on the West side of the house).
I think the driveway solution would be a cost reduction - no need to haul in fill. The current septic tank is next to the driveway
now, so putting the drain field under the driveway would be less than 5 feet away.
Hope this helps!
Sincerely,
Gordy Grundeen
8270 Hidden Bay Trail
Lake Elmo MN 55042
651-770-1056
text only = 651-347-4779
email = gordy.grundeen@gmail.com