The URL can be used to link to this page

02-04-25 Planning Comm Mtg Agenda PacketCITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 4, 2026 5755 COUNTRY CLUB RD 7:00 PM AGENDA CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL COMMISSIONER HUSKINS _____ COMMISSIONER HOLKER _____ COMMISSIONER LONGO _____ COMMISSIONER MAGISTAD _____ 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A) January 6, 2026 Planning Commission Minutes 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR This is an opportunity for members of the public to bring an item, that is not on tonight's agenda to the attention of the Planning Commission. Anyone wishing to address the Commission should raise their hand. Please identify yourself by your first and last name and your address for the record. Please limit your comments to five minutes. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5. OTHER BUSINESS A) Watten Ponds 2nd Addition Preliminary & Final Plat B) Planning Commission Bylaws 6. REPORTS A) City Council B) Staff C) Commission 7. ADJOURN Page 1 of 249 Planning Commission Item 2.A. Title/Subject: January 6, 2026 Planning Commission Minutes Meeting Date: February 4, 2026 Prepared By: Jake Griffiths, Planning Director Attachments 1. January 6, 2026 Planning Commission Minutes Background NA Action Requested The Planning Commission is requested to approve the January 6, 2026, Planning Commission meeting minutes. Page 2 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2026 7:00 P.M. DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Huskins called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Huskins; Commissioners Longo and Magistad; Planning Director Griffiths; and Planner Osowski Absent: Commissioner Holker 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Longo moved, Commissioner Magistad seconded, approving the agenda for January 6, 2026, as presented. Motion passed 3/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • November 18, 2025 Chair Huskins noted that he had passed along some minor edits to Planning Director Griffiths before the meeting. Commissioner Longo moved, Commissioner Magistad seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 18, 2025, as presented. Motion passed 3/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DETACHED GARAGE Applicant: Nathan Mendiola, Gonyea Custom Homes Location: 5035 St. Alban’s Bay Road City Planner Osowski reviewed a Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage at 5035 St. Alban’s Bay Road. He noted that the Conditional Use Permit is required because the square footage of accessory buildings exceeds 1200 square feet, so City Code caps the amount of accessory shelters. He shared a picture of the property and noted that there is already an open building permit for a single-family home on the property, which would be separate from this. He explained that there would be a reduction in impervious surfaces. He shared that there was one comment that was received from the neighbor to the Southeast who had some concerns about grading towards her property, which the City Engineer has talked to her about, and requested that some changes be made to the grading plan to make sure that water drains to the back of Page 3 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 2 of 19 the property. He shared all the ways that the Applicant meets the existing City Code as found in the Staff Report and that Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Chair Huskins asked if there were any questions for Planner Osowski. Commissioner Magistad explained that he did not have questions as the grading seemed to be addressed. Planner Osowski pointed out the conditions that the City Engineer gave if the Planning Commission wanted to have any conditions put on the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Chair Huskins asked what the Staff’s position is on the recommendation given by the City Engineer about the grading. Planner Osowski noted that the recommendations are certainly able to be done, may be a little challenging with the winter conditions, but are possible. Commissioner Magistad asked if the 109 square foot reduction was recommended because it needs to fit within the ten percent. Planner Osowski noted that it was correct, and after the initial application was submitted, there was some discrepancy in the math, so it was asked to be reduced, and the total will be about 1,997 square feet in accessory buildings. Commissioner Magistad asked if the water drainage recommendations needed to be made prior to the building of the buildings or after, if something were to take place. Planner Osowski shared that it would need to take place during construction, not after the fact. Nathan Mendiola, 5035 St. Alban’s Bay Road, stated he is still decreasing the hard cover of what was there and that the garage will not be going in until after the winter, so water drainage recommendations will be able to be addressed in the spring. He shared that the driveway would not be going in until spring as well. Chair Huskins asked when the single-family home would be completed. Mr. Mendiola stated that it would be in October, because the ground was just broken in December. Chair Huskins opened the Public Hearing at 7:14 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. Robert Boyer, no address given, stated that his property is directly behind the property. He added that he has no problems with the development and what is being done. He stated that his only concern is that at the back of the property, there is a 500-gallon oil tank and freon tanks that are buried, as the back of the property was used as a garbage space by other neighbors in the past. He noted that he would like to see that removed in the course of the renovation. Chair Huskins asked if that was new information to the Staff or previously known. Planner Osowski stated that it is new information to him. Chair Huskins invited the Applicant back to comment on the new information. Mr. Mendiola shared that it was discovered about a month ago by the project manager, and the client is currently looking at ways to deal with it and going back to the realtor, as it was not disclosed when the property was purchased. He added that the logistics and costs are being figured out to get the items removed. Planning Director Griffiths shared that it sounded like the client and Property Manager are working to get the issue resolved. He recommended adding a condition to the Conditional Use Permit that the Applicant has indicated that it will be removed; therefore, it should be removed. Mr. Mendiola asked how the condition would pertain to the garage, so that when he takes it back to his team, he knows how to address it, since it would be a condition that would have to go along Page 4 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 3 of 19 with the garage, but it seems to be a separate issue. Planning Director Griffiths noted that, as part of the Conditional Use Permit, the site needs to be compliant with the City Code, and having the items is a violation of the City Code. He noted that construction can proceed, but before the project is completed, the items would need to be removed. Chair Huskins closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:18 P.M. Commissioner Longo stated that he does not have anything against the project, as long as the items are going to be removed. Commissioner Magistad stated that he is okay with the application, and with the new information, it seems that the Commission is making it so that the project will comply with the City Code now because of the Conditional Use Permit. Chair Huskins stated that he does not have any issues either. Planning Director Griffiths shared that if the Commission wants to include the conditions that were shared by City Engineer Budde, as well as the condition that was just discussed, that would need to be included in the motion, as well as the conditions that the Staff is recommending. Commissioner Magistad moved, Longo seconded, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage at 5035 St. Alban’s Bay Road with the added condition that the hazardous waste be removed before the project is completed, the conditions presented by City Engineer Budde, and the conditions from the City Staff. Motion passed 3/0. Chair Huskins stated that it would be taken up by the City Council on January 26, 2026. B. PUBLIC HEARING – WATTEN PONDS 2nd ADDITION PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT Applicant: Gravity Investment, LLC Location: Parcel ID 2911723440029 Planning Director Griffiths reviewed a request for a preliminary and final plat for Watten Ponds 2nd Addition on an unaddressed property on the Western end of Maple View Court. He explained that a preliminary and final plat are tools used to subdivide a property. He furthered to explain what each one meant. He shared and explained pictures of the property as found in the Staff Agenda Packet. He did note that there would be one shared driveway, due to the trees and wetland areas. He noted that there is a separate application being done to remove second street that was originally platted on the map and will not be used as such, which will go before the Council. Chair Huskins asked if that is not approved by the Council, does that have any indication of the application before the Commission. Planning Director Griffiths noted that it would not, as the project would meet City Code regardless of whether the right-of-way was vacated or not. Planning Director Griffiths continued to show the pictures from the project and described what was found in the Staff Agenda Packet. He explained that in an application for preliminary plats, there is a set of review criteria that is established and found in the City Code, which he went over for the project as found in the Analysis in the Staff Agenda Packet. He shared that public notice was given, and there have been three comments that were given since. He stated that the Page 5 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 4 of 19 concerns were setbacks, clear-cutting the land, impact on the surrounding neighborhood, and the accuracy of the plans in the public notice, to which the Staff responded. He noted that state law identifies preliminary plats as a quasi-judicial authority, which means that the Council and the Commission are tasked with applying law, not creating new rules, but verifying that the project meets all the rules that are currently in place. He noted that the Staff is recommending approval of the application and reviewed the conditions that the Applicant would need to meet. Commissioner Longo asked about the condition of adherence to the Tree Policy, is that refereeing to the 21 trees that need to be added. Planning Director Griffiths confirmed that to be the case. Commissioner Magistad asked about the conditions that states proof of submittal of an application to the Minnehaha Watershed District would imply approval. Planning Director Griffiths noted that the recommended approval is that the Applicant receive recommended approval from all other jurisdictions. Commissioner Magistad asked about the elevation of the adjacent properties, especially those to the East. Planning Director Griffiths shared a picture that showed that the contour lines generally show a slope towards the wetlands, with the highest point on the map being where lot two is, and the water draining down from there. He added that the review shows that it would not drain into adjacent sites and that a drainage map is included in the plans. Chair Huskins asked about any utilities that will need to be installed and if the utilities will be accessible to the City for anything that will need to be repaired. Planning Director Griffiths noted that any utilities would come from the end of Maple View Court, and would be in a location in which the City could reach if needed, or would be private utilities, which would be the responsibility of the property owner. Audrius Asakenas, Applicant, 5520 Tonka Bay, stated that he is a local builder, business owner, and owner of the property. He noted that he was looking for approval of the project and had two engineers who would be able to answer questions as needed as well. Chair Huskins asked when construction would begin and end on the two homes. Mr. Asakenas noted that construction would take about a year after approval, with the start in the spring. Chair Huskins opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:44 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. Dave Vierthaler, 25755 Maple View Court, explained the location of his property in relation to the proposed project by showing a picture that was viewed on the screen. He explained that there is an easement that was put in so that the City has access to Outlet C, which is not happening. He thanked the City Staff for meeting with many of the residents. He noted that the neighborhood is understanding that this property will be developed at some level, but they want it to be consistent with the Codes and responsibilities that the City has laid out for any builder. He feels that the cart is being put before the horse with the number of things that need to be done prior to approval. He shared that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed approval was one of those. He stated that in his line of work in Human Resources, something could not be moved forward until all of the work had been done. He stated that the Staff is saying to move forward with it, and then the City will make sure that everything is done, which is not the correct way to do it. He pointed out that he has issues with the City doing things in this manner, because recently, there were trees put in his backyard that he had to deal with from a different project. He shared that trusting the City to do the right thing with all 20 conditions that still need to be met does not feel right. He pointed out Page 6 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 5 of 19 that he was on a planning commission in a different city, and that he understood the rules of the Staff, but that the Commission also needs to adhere to what the Staff is saying and what the citizens want as well. He used the pictures that showed that the houses would be very close to some of the other properties, and he would not want a house that is that close to be there. He noted that the Commission needed to measure and balance with the existing neighbors who have been there for many years. He noted that it is not that they do not want it developed, but rather just done correctly for everybody who is there. He feels the City is not doing the right thing with the way they are using the easement, noting that it is gamesmanship. He pointed out that it should matter what the citizens want as well, and the Commission needs to consider that. Mary Benson, 25607 Maple View Court, stated her property is adjacent to the property being proposed for development. She brought a drawing of her property and the proposed property, and how the two would relate to each other. She stated that she and her husband are the original homeowners and have lived on Maple View Court for 26 years. She described the process that she and her husband had to go through to build their home, being denied their plans multiple times. She noted that their builder swore he would never build in Shorewood again. She added that all the other homes had to go through the same process, and there is no question of where the front, back, or side of each home is. She pointed out that it seemed impossible to have a house in that location and still comply with Shorewood’s property restrictions. She stated that the structure is ten feet from her property line. She pointed out that the front of the house does not align with what most would say to be the front of the house, because then 50 feet would be needed, but there is only ten feet there. She stated that calling the side of the house the front is being used to make the improbable site possible. She used the pictures to point out many of the issues she had with the property. She shared that she has not seen a drawing of the proposed building next to her own property. She stated that it would impact the value of her property, but not in a good way. She questioned why this spot was now developable when it had not been before. She noted that she would expect the same rules that she was obligated to follow 20 years ago would still be enforced today. She asked the Commission to vote no, and noted her curiosity for the developer to share what is envisioned for the spot. Jim Benson, 25607 Maple View Court, asked when in the history of the Planning Commission had over 100 mature, healthy trees been destroyed to allow two houses to be built on questionable buildable land. He pointed out that the property has been for sale for 25 years and no one has bought it. He stated that it is not just the trees but the entire ecosystem that matters with the project. He pointed out that building the two homes would be incongruent with the established neighborhood. He stated that allowing the project to move forward would be contrary to what he thought Shorewood stood for. He quoted the City Code 1102.01, “The Purpose of an Intent for the City of Shorewood. The name of this City denotes its character, a City of shoreland, water, and woods, natural assets hold its citizens in trust for future generations.” He noted that the City has many parks, but there is not much acreage that is left in natural native estate, and this would be a great opportunity. He stated this is arguably the healthiest ecosystem in Shorewood and compared it to Freeman Park. He noted that people are meant to be good stewards of things and to leave them better than the way they were found. He asked the Commission to deny approval of the project. Chris Joslin, 25630 Maple View Court, stated that when the notifications came out, there was not a lot of detail given. He stated that he has lived there for 21 years, and it has been a privilege to be a resident of Shorewood. He stated that the project lacks transparency and that, in working with the City in the past, it has been very transparent, and that is what he liked. He stated that he has been told by many people, realtors, and members of the City, that this property would not be developed. He noted his concern for the approval going through when the City Engineer has Page 7 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 6 of 19 20 conditions for approval to happen. He noted that the maps that were shown lack proper scale, which is an issue and paints a disingenuous picture. Kate Bix, 25545 Orchard Circle, stated that she has lived there for 34 years since it was first proposed for development after Watten lived there. She noted that the current development is beautiful and that the tree preservation was very well thought out. She described the wetlands and the importance of the ecosystem, and how the buildings would change that. Janene Murtha, 25650 Maple View Court, provides that she is a neighbor but also an attorney. She stated that it is a follow-up to an email about a public notice, which was written on January 3, 2026. She noted that she addressed the incomplete information provided in the public notice, with special note of incorrect scaling of the map, the incorrect second use of a Maple View cul- de-sac, residents were not included on the map, and many of the residents of the neighborhood got together to discuss and had to visit the County maps to determine where exactly they were in relation to the new project. She noted that there was no map legend or title, and the second page of the notice was a satellite map, which did not include the possible build areas. She stated that, given the unclear notices, there was no way for those who were given them to fully understand the true nature of the project. She explained that the same map is found on the City website, and there is a title, but the scale is still incorrect, and it is found on page 23 of the Staff Agenda Packet. She furthered that the City Engineer noted that the scale is incorrect and asked for a revision. She explained that the Staff stated that the notices are fine in the prior meeting, and were stating Minnesota Statute section 452.358 subsection 3b, which mandates notice of time and place in the official newspaper at least ten days before the hearing, however, she feels the City failed to read that statute in conjunction with the applicable Minnesota State Stature 505 which sets the technical rules for plats, including that plats be based on accurate surveys as they become permeant public land records once approved. She argued that because the City sent the incorrect document as part of the documents, the notice failed and made it impossible for affected residents to accurately assess the proposed development. She added that to participate effectively in the hearing, residents had to do their own research and ground work, which does not seem to be a normal part of the process. She asked the Commission not to approve the application until corrections have been made. She stated that several residents met with the Planning Director, and he argued that the City could not redo the notice since it had already been 90 days since the filing of the application for approval of the preliminary and final plat approval. She stated that there is 120 day requirement, during which if the City does not approve the action or do anything before this time period, then it will already be preapproved. She noted that no legal authority was presented for that. She furthered that the Planning Director was referring to Minnesota Statute 15.99, which is the time deadline for agency action, subdivision 3a, which states that the time limit begins upon the agency's receipt of a written request containing all information required by law or by previously adopted rule, ordinance, or policy. She added that if the survey scale is inaccurate, and the survey was part of the application and the public notice packet, then the application was not complete, and the notice clock never properly began, and it must be reset. She noted that she brings the legal and technical issues before the Commission, not only asking that the request be denied, but to get them on the record, exhaust administrative remedies in case of future litigation that could be foreseen. She added that based on the information, she is requesting that the application be denied at this time. Todd Murtha, 25650 Maple View Court, stated his house’s location and referred to a picture of it as well. He noted that there is a pond next to his property that will be affected by the run off lot two of the proposed development. He described the feel of the neighborhood with the trees, water areas, wildlife, and space that is available. He noted that the neighborhood would be changed into just another neighborhood, like many others, with houses on top of each other if this proposed Page 8 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 7 of 19 development were to go in. He added that adding homes is important, but two more large single- family homes will not help the housing crisis, the elderly, or the economically disadvantaged. He shared that this proposal brings nothing to the City, and it is important for the City to maintain residential diversity, value areas that are not densely packed neighborhoods. He added that if these houses are built, diversity will never come back. He stated that the City has told residents that their opinions do not matter, as the decision has already been made. He asked why the opinions of the neighbors do not matter, as the residents of Maple View Court have invested much time and money into the neighborhood. He stated that it is not the City or the new developer who made Maple View Court what it is, but rather the neighbors who are asking that the request be denied. He noted that the documents that were provided were inaccurate, but the City stated that the documents actually did not have to be provided at all. He asked that the Commission exercise its authority and give this application a fair analysis by denying the application until it is complete and accurate, and help the residents understand what the application will actually do to their houses. He stated that with additional time, the Commission can do a fair analysis rather than just making sure that the boxes are checked. He furthered that the Minnesota law of land use exists to protect current residents as much as for the developers. He stated that, contrary to the review of the City bureaucrats under Minnesota law, as enforced by Minnesota courts, the interest of the residents does matter. He stated that the City is entrusted with and legally obligated to use its regulatory powers to protect residents' interests, not just the interests of developers. He explained that a fair analysis means balancing the impact for, on the one hand, the neighborhood, the environment, and the existing residents, against a developer who wants two more large single- family houses regardless of the impact on the neighbors or the neighborhood. He asked that the application be denied. Greg Larson, 25535 Orchard Circle, stated that the parking and the staging that must be done on site is not included on the map. He asked about the extent of the tree removal and grading, and how the equipment would be able to be housed on the property. He pointed out that all the drawings had an inaccurate scale, which does not allow the residents to make an assessment of what is being seen. He stated that in speaking with a wetland engineer, it would be unusual to move ahead with anything final without hearing the final report from the Watershed District. He stated that residents were not given enough information to make educated comments or to ask educated comments. He noted that this hearing should be happening, and the City has pushed ahead even after hearing that there is erroneous information that was given to the residents. He stated that the City Attorney has decided that it is legal to move ahead with the process, but in his opinion, it is totally unethical. He asked that the Planning Commission deny anything until the residents have full and error-free information on which to base educated questions and comments. Dave Vierthaler, 25755 Maple View Court, stated that the City Engineer’s report reads that a future phase may include constructing homes North of Clara Avenue, which is one of the roads that is going to be vacated, so it is mapped but does not exist. He continued that the potential lot North of Clara Avenue does not have sanitary sewer or water service provided within Birch Bluff Road, so the plan is to service the lot from the proposed utilities, as he pointed out on the pictures on the screen, from Maple View Court. He pointed out that this lot is not part of this project, but that it will be needed in order to provide services to this future lot, and this will cause much more tree take-down to get to the Clara Avenue lot. He noted that it is mentioned in the information, but not part of the approval, so it seems that the developer has this plan going forward with the purchase of the lot. Mary Bension, 25670 Maple View Court, noted that her property is adjacent to the property and they intend to have their property surveyed independently, because she does not feel confident Page 9 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 8 of 19 that what is out there is accurate. She added that there is a tree or two that she believes are on her property and are slated for removal. Chair Huskins asked if she was suggesting that the ten feet is not accurate. Ms. Benson noted that she just wants it confirmed. She has a line that is on her property, and one of the trees appears to fall within her property that is slated for removal. Chair Huskins asked, as a point of order, of Planning Director Griffiths, if he would like to address anything first or if the developer should be allowed to address anything first. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the developer should be able to respond as part of the public hearing. Tom Goodrum, Independent Planning Consulting representing Audrius, 9841 Xerxes Curve, Bloomington, stated that the company knew that it would be a sensitive sight and that they would be code-compliant all the way through. He noted that all City requirements have been met. He stated that whether the City standards are correct is not for them to choose, but what the City has set is being followed. He noted that he has a lot of experience with planning. He stated that the property owner fell in love with the piece of property, just like all others in the neighborhood. He commented that the neighborhood is gorgeous. He pointed out that the role of the Planning Commission is to decide if the planning application meets the standards of the ordinance. He stated that they knew that they needed to be completely understanding of the ordinance, and the wetlands needed to be protected, code-compliant. He pointed out in a picture that the roads are built within right-of-ways, and to be compliant with City Code. He noted that as a condition of approval, the City is asking that it has access to its property, which extends the right-of-way so that the City has access out. He shared that the conditions are happy to be met and the developer is working through them with the City. He stated that the Staff heard from the Watershed and that what has been submitted will be compliant. He stated that there are always conditions of approval, and 18 is actually a small number, as the developer is obligated to meet the conditions, and they will be met. He explained that there are costs associated with not doing things correctly, and the City can have it done the way they feel it needs to be accurately done. He pointed out that having conditions on a preliminary plat is very typical. He stated that they want to be good neighbors, they are being code-compliant, and they feel they are being sensitive to the area. He noted that the scale was their fault, but that all of the measurements and lot lines are to scale. He stated that Lot One is 1.63 acres, and is well over the City requirement, with the building area being 5,500 square feet, the building pad is 40 feet wide, 135 feet long, which is plenty of room for a nice home to be placed on. He shared that Lot Two is a two-acre lot, and the building area is 12,000 square feet, with the building dimensions being 75 feet by 152 feet. He noted that the homes are 50 feet away from the wetlands. He feels the developer has looked at the history and has tried to do the right thing throughout the process. Commissioner Longo asked if two lots need to be built. He pointed out that all the concerns seem to be coming from the one lot. Mr. Goodrum noted that there is actually room for three lots that meet City Code. He noted that if there is the ability to do two lots and still meet all requirements, then the developer would like to do two lots. Commissioner Longo asked where the materials and the equipment would go that would build the houses. Mr. Goodrum stated that on lot two, there is a 12,000 square foot buildable area, and that is plenty of room to build and have materials on. He pointed out that the setback standards are being met by being ten feet off. He stated that having that large an area and that much acreage available gives them the ability to do what is needed. Page 10 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 9 of 19 Chair Huskins asked if the 90 trees that need to come down are inclusive of what is needed for staging as well. Mr. Goodrum noted that nothing is being suggested at this time, as the homes are custom-built homes, and the area that is available to work with will be worked with. Chair Huskins noted that it was not really an answer. Mr. Goodrum stated that he does not really know at this time because it is a custom-built home. Commissioner Longo clarified that the plan does not show what the homes will look like. Mr. Goodrum pointed out that the plans are showing what needs to be done on the sites to get them ready to be built on. He added that the building permit is a whole separate building application. Commissioner Longo asked how the question of the grading of Lot One with the water going to the pond on the East side. Brady Busselman, Civil Engineer with Hill Incorporated, 299 Highway 13, Burnsville, stated that there is a very clear break point in drainage along the East property line. He pointed out that the neighbor was correct that the water does drain to the pond from the East, but it is not from the site. He added that this site drains to the West or to the South into the wetlands, so no runoff from this property will be going to the East. Commissioner Longo asked if that would be the same once there is a building on the site, because right now there is a hill, but later it will be a flat area. Mr. Busselman noted that the drainage will be maintained, and that it is monitored by the City and the Watershed, and will be ensured by the property owners. He noted that the impervious area has to go to the onsite treatment, so everything will be captured and directed to the ponding onsite. Greg Larson, 25535 Orchid Circle, stated that the neighbors do not believe they have enough information to come into the meeting and make reasonable comments and questions. He pointed out that the space for the houses is just a conjecture and that what the houses will be is unknown. He pointed out that the scale of the maps is wrong, and the City was aware of this, which made it incredibly difficult for the neighbors to make any judgments. He asked if the scale on the maps is inaccurate. Planning Director Griffiths clarified that with respect to the plan scale, two sheets had issues with the scale bar, which were sheets two and three, but the remaining pages on the plans were accurate. He noted that the Staff did receive a revised version from the Applicant that day, which fixed the scale bar. He stated that the scale bar itself was inaccurate, but the actual dimensions on the plan were correct. He pointed out that the representation seen on the screen is correct, and the scale did not impact the representation of the lot. He stated that the scale bar is important on the two pages, but the actual dimensions are what matter, and those were correct. He noted that the scale bar being inaccurate did not result in a change to the overall representation of the project. Mr. Larson asked for a particular page that was sent with the hearing notice be shown on the screen. He noted that the residents were given information that shows that the driveway comes off of a new cul-de-sac, but are now being told it is an easement. He is asking that the City go back and provide adequate information that the residents can use to decide on how to go forward. Jim Benson, 25607 Maple View Court, asked if the 18 contingencies would all be completed before the trees are torn down. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the conditions are required to be met before any work can begin on the site. Mr. Benson asked about the equipment on the property and if it would be able to be done without infringing on the wetlands. He also asked if Page 11 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 10 of 19 two homes were being built at once. He asked about the impervious surface of the houses being unknown at this time, and how it could be known. Brady Busselman, Civil Engineer with Hill Incorporated, 299 Highway 13, Burnsville, clarified that the building pads are maximums, so the tree clearing is to max out the buildable area. He noted that they view the design as a conservative look at what the tree clearing would be required to build homes. He stated that likely if someone comes into build the home, the tree clearing would likely be less than that, which is not known, rather his opinion. He stated that the impervious area is designed to assume the worst-case scenario, so the maxed-out building areas, the 5,500 square feet plus the 12,000 square feet, and the driveways are what will be designed for stormwater management. Chair Huskins asked if the tree preservation plan, as it exists now, contemplates a pad size that is the maximum pad size, and the ultimate home builder could utilize the entire pad or something smaller, but nothing larger. Mr. Busselman stated that it is correct as it is meeting the setbacks from the property lines, the wetlands setbacks, the wetlands buffers, and is squared off to a reasonable dimension. Mr. Busselman also noted that, as far as construction staging goes, it goes hand in hand; if there is a larger area to clear, to build the house, then there is room to stage. He noted that this is something that has been done before, and that custom builders can work around trees. Commissioner Longo pointed out that the acreage includes the wetlands. Mr. Busselman stated that it is correct, but there is still a significant area to build the homes. Jim Benson, 25607 Maple View Court, asked where the equipment will be stored. Tom Goodrum, Independent Planning Consulting representing Audrius, 9841 Xerxes Curve, Bloomington, stated that it is unknown if the houses will be built at the same time, but if they are, he used a picture to point out where the equipment could be staged. He pointed out that the conditions of approval will be met throughout the process, and then again when the building permit is obtained, which will show the staging areas. He noted that typically barriers are put around the trees that are to be protected, and there is a plan with the City that needs to be followed as well. He added that the developer wants to market it as wooded areas and to be good neighbors who save the trees and work with the community. Alan Yelsey, 26335 Peach Circle, stated that he is a 40-year resident of Shorewood. He thanked the neighbors for a wonderful representation of how democracy should work. He pointed out that the property is gorgeous. He stated that right now he is dealing with the City having done a good job of maintaining the trees that were supposed to be a buffer in his backyard, but they were clear- cut, and the City did not enforce what they said they were going to enforce. He encouraged the residents to make sure that does not happen, and the Planning Commission should not let that happen as well. Jim Benson, 25607 Maple View Court, pointed out that the builder did not know if there would be one house or two houses being built at a time, which could lead to a longer construction time. He stated that placing barriers will not necessarily help when compaction is going to kill trees. He noted that tree replacement is not the same as having the trees that are currently there. Katherine Van De Ruijtenbeek, 25735 Maple View Court, stated that it is said that the trees will be saved because of the escrow, but once the trees have been cut down, the money in the bank will not save the trees that were. She asked how the escrow protects the trees. Page 12 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 11 of 19 Janene Murtha, 25650 Maple View Court, asked if there are plans or models of what is going to be built in each of the spots. She noted that many of her windows would look out on lot one. Audrius Asakenas, Applicant, 5520 Tonka Bay, stated that there are hundreds of plans, as they are working with other designers and engineers to decide what that will be. He noted that this is his job and is currently doing the same sort of thing in Tonka Bay. He stated that he is the builder and will be on the site every day. He shared that it is his goal to save as many trees as possible, because there will be two houses and families that will want to be in the house with the trees and have a safe place to be at the end of the cul-de-sac. He stated that he will be trying everything to save the trees. He shared that working within the means of the setbacks, he wants to create as much privacy as possible. He stated that he would love to build both houses at the same time if possible, which would save time and money for him. He noted that because he is a small builder, sometimes the bank will not let him do more than one home at a time. Chair Huskins clarified that the hope is to build two homes at the same time, but that is not a commitment. Mr. Asakenas stated that it is the hope to build two at the same time, but it is dependent on finances. Cheryl Vierthaler, 25755 Maple View Court, pointed out that being the builder and being there every day is different than actually living with people so close to your house. She asked where the front door would be. Planning Director Griffiths clarified that the front door does not have to face the street. He explained that City Code does not regulate the orientation of a home on a lot. Ms. Vierthaler noted that it does not matter in this case because the side of the house regulates how far the other homes can be in relation to their neighbors. Chair Huskins asked where the builder intended the front door of the house to be. Tom Goodrum, Independent Planning Consulting representing Audrius, 9841 Xerxes Curve, Bloomington, noted that because there are no specific building plans at this time, the assumption would be that the front door would be on the West side of the property. He stated that the designation of what a side yard is and what a side yard is does not designate where the house location is or the placement of doors on a house. Jim Benson, 25607 Maple View Court, stated that the definition of side, front, and back is totally relevant. He stated that a side yard is only ten feet, but the front yard and backyard need to have 50 feet. He explained that it means everything. Chair Huskins agreed that the definition does matter. He noted that the orientation that was presented is that the side facing the neighbor is the side yard. Mr. Benson noted that Mr. Goodrum stated that the front would be facing the West. Planning Director Griffiths stated that when the City establishes setbacks in its City Code, those setbacks are based on the configuration of the property lines, not the orientation of the home itself. He noted that the homeowner is free to configure a home on the lot however they wish. He shared that the City Code defines, based on the characteristics of the property, what the side, rear, and front property lines are. He explained that City Code 1201.02 defines the lot line front as the boundary having the least width of frontage on a public right of way or street, which in this case is Maple View Court. He furthered that even if the unplatted right-of-ways were factored in or the bump out on Maple View Court did not exist, the existing Maple View Court would be the shortest distance on a public street. He continued that if the proposal is taken away, and as the lot sits today, the front line is Maple View Court. He explained that the side lot lines are defined in the City Code as adjacent to that, and the rear yard is opposite the front. He reiterated that the City Code does not contemplate the orientation of the home; all that is looked at is the setbacks from adjacent property lines. Page 13 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 12 of 19 Mary Bension, 25670 Maple View Court, stated that in the prior meeting, she was told that the front of the house faces the street. She noted that the City is measuring from the circle to obtain the 50 feet. She shared that the City is calling the front something different than she would expect to see, so that the back and the front have the room that is needed. She stated that, as the builder said, the front door faced west, then the back would face east and not be in Code. Chair Huskins explained that, based on what Planning Director Griffiths has stated, two different things are being conflated. Planning Director Griffiths clarified that the orientation of the home does not impact the building setbacks. He noted that there is no game being played; rather City Code establishes where the side, rear, and front yards are. He stated that if there were no subdivision being proposed, this would still be the same orientation. He explained that the East property line will always be the side property line, and the North line will always be the rear property line. Chris Joslin, 25630 Maple View Court, pointed out that the Applicant will not be a part of the community. He noted that his concern is with the constant vagueness and the non-answers that the residents are getting. Audrius Asakenas, Applicant, 5520 Tonka Bay, explained where he lives and why he lives in different locations. He explained that he is a resident of Excelsior currently and will soon be a resident of Tonka Bay. Dave Vierthaler, 25755 Maple View Court, asked what the need or the reason was for the large easement. He noted on a picture that he owns a part of the property next to the lot that the City owns, and in those seven years of ownership, there has not been one City worker there. He stated that he has tried to buy parts of the property but has been denied, and, oddly, there is a need for the City to have access to the property. A resident asked a question, which Chair Huskins declared as not germane to the hearing at hand. Jim Benson, 25607 Maple View Court, asked about how the property can be ten feet off of his property line. Chair Huskins asked to look at the picture of the property line where the resident lives, and to define the front, side, and rear property lines using the picture, but it may not be the orientation of the home built. Planning Director Griffiths used a picture to describe where the front line, rear, and side lot lines are located. He explained that the wetlands are a little different when it comes to what is required. He explained that the residents' property was likely pushed a little bit into the site in order to meet the buffer for the wetlands. He stated that the ten-foot side yard setback is common in this zoning district. Kate Bix, 25545 Orchard Circle, pointed out that a developer bought a nearby lot and wanted to build four homes, but the Wetland Watershed District came back and told him that he could only build one, so he sold the land. Mary Bension, 25670 Maple View Court, asked where the front of the proposed structure is behind her property. Planning Director Griffiths clarified that the City Code does not contemplate the orientation of the house. He explained that the City looks strictly at the property line. He pointed out on the map where that would be. He pointed out that when someone dedicates right-of-way to the City, even if a street is not built on it, the setback is measured from that right-of-way. He noted that this does not benefit the developer in any way; it actually pushes the setback farther back into their lot. He stated that in this case, it renders the entire Southeast corner unbuildable. Ms. Benson stated that she is still confused as to what the front is. Chair Huskins pointed out that Page 14 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 13 of 19 Planning Director Griffiths had noted on the map and showed that it was consistent with the other properties as well. Planning Director Griffiths explained that the front door of the house, no matter which direction that is, as long as it is in the box that is buildable, that is what the City Code requires. He furthered that the designation of the front, the side, and the rear property line has nothing to do with the home itself; it only has to do with the configuration of the property. He noted that if you take away the proposed Maple View Court bulb, and just use the existing cul-de- sac, that 50-foot yard setback would always be measured from that corner of the property, the side yard would always be the East property line. He noted that many homes across the City of Shorewood are not perfectly centered on their lot. Chair Huskins asked if any questions were noted during the public hearings that Planning Director Griffiths wished to comment on. Planning Director Griffiths noted that at this point in the process of a development, it is not common for a builder to have exact construction plans. He stated that in this case, the builder has noted there are several models that are built for customers, but that is the extent of the City’s review at this point. He added that if a project is approved and the lots are created, the City reviews a building permit as part of a separate application. He pointed out that in the plans, there is a drainage area map which identifies the drainage threshold of the property, and the entirety of the site drains within the site. He sympathized that in the loss of the trees, it can be tough, and there is no way to replace the trees that are being taken, but the City does have a tree preservation policy, and in this case, the maximum replacement required is eight trees per acre, and the Applicant needs to improve their tree preservation plan. He described the process of the escrow and the preservation of the trees and the other conditions that are expected of the developer. He pointed out that it does not prevent a person from ignoring the rules; it does provide a very strong financial incentive to meet the rules because that money is forfeited if the plan is not followed. He noted that a separate tree preservation issue was brought up on an unrelated property, and City Staff is working through remediation with residents and the developer in that unfortunate situation. He pointed out that parking and staging are usually a part of the building permit process, and that City Staff ensures that the parking and staging are taking place in those areas; otherwise, there are consequences. He stated that when looking at impervious surface requirements, the site is partially located within a Shoreland protection zone, so within that area, impervious surface is limited to 25 percent of the total lot area; outside that area, it is 33 percent. He furthered that given the maximum building sites that are on the plan, it would be compliant with the impervious surface requirements. He stated that the comments about the character of the neighborhood is some what taken into consideration in a project like this, but at this point in the project, the Applicant is not asking for any exceptions or variances to the City Code, so the City Code is the benchmark that is used to review projects like this. He stated that the Staff would stand by its recommendation to approve the project, based on its meeting of the rules in the City Code. Commissioner Longo asked if the Watershed were to come back and stated the developer could only build one. Planning Director Griffiths stated that they would only be able to build one. Commissioner Long asked why the Planning Commission could not just vote on building one lot, and the Watershed came back with the option of having two, then it could be split. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Watershed District is a separate jurisdiction from the City. He noted that under the State Statute, the Applicant does have the right to have a decision made on their proposal, which involves two lots. He stated that the City does have a condition that the Watershed must also issue a permit. He noted that the Watershed does not typically come back and state that there can be one lot versus two lots, rather their review focuses on rather their own rules are being met or not. He stated that if the Watershed came back with the need to make changes to the plans, then that would be up to the Applicant if they wanted to do it or not. He Page 15 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 14 of 19 shared that there is an obligation to decide on the proposal, unless the Applicant wants to modify their plans and then resubmit. Commissioner Longo asked what the deadline is to make a decision. He furthered that if the Commission waited a month to get the decision from the Watershed District. Chair Huskins stated that the proposal would be de facto approved. Planning Director Griffiths stated that there is a requirement in Minnesota State Statute 15.99 that timely action needs to be taken on the applications, and the drop-dead timeline for this project is February 18. He noted that it could be pushed to the February 3 meeting, and push the City Council meeting around a little to just barely meet it, but at this point, this is a very common condition that is attached and does not typically derail a project. He noted that the Watershed District has indicated that there is a path forward for this project. He stated that the Commission could push back, but he would recommend sending a recommendation to the City Council, carrying with it an interest in hearing what the Watershed District will recommend. Commissioner Longo stated that the reason he is asking is that the residents are concerned about the lot lines, the information not being available, and the tree removal not being realistic. He stated that seeing a better plan on how things will be developed seems important. He noted his understanding of the lot being sold means that the City does not have control of some of the things. He stated that he wants to answer the concerns of the residents as much as possible. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it is unlikely that an answer will come from the Watershed District in the next four weeks. He noted that if that is the concern, then the recommendation from Staff would be to forward whatever the Commission’s thoughts are to the City Council, with more information needed from the Watershed District. Chair Huskins asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak for the public hearing portion of the application. Jim Benson, 25607 Maple View Court, proposed that the Commission consider limiting the project to just one house. Chair Huskins commented that the application in front of the Commission is for two homes, and the Commission is empowered to recommend a denial of the application. He added that it is not in the Commission's power or authority to modify the application substantially. He noted that conditions can be attached to it, but he is not comfortable attaching that, as it would be up to the discretion of the Applicant because they would have to resubmit or amend the one that has already been submitted. Todd Murtha, 25650 Maple View Court, noted that a lot of legal advice has been given to the Commission. He stated that there are a lot of open questions about the 120 days, and what basis the Commission can use to approve or deny these applications. He stated it would be a good idea to get legal advice from a lawyer. Planning Director Griffiths stated that before the meeting, he had a conversation with the City Attorney regarding the public notice that was provided and the 60-day rule that was referenced. He noted that legal counsel recommended that the City has been compliant with its process, and how the City has gone about establishing the date. Chair Huskins asked if Planning Director Griffiths has ever experienced a continuation beyond what the State Statute is in terms of responding to an application, what, if anything, might be grounds for doing so. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the City does not have any grounds for extending, unless the developer is willing to voluntarily extend that deadline. Chair Huskins pointed out that Planning Director Griffiths stated that if some new information came forward, the project would be stopped or would create a condition upon which the developer would not feel it feasible to continue the project. He stated that in reflecting upon some of the comments from some of the individuals, there was a need to have some of the complete information, and he would like to see that all of the recommended approvals are approved before Page 16 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 15 of 19 the project can go forward. He noted that even if the Commission recommends approval and the City Council approves it, the developer is taking risks that one of the conditions may not be able to be met and could prevent the project from moving forward. He shared that he is sensitive to the comments about the trust in the City not being there, but that at this point, there is nothing that the Staff or the Commissioners could say to ease the minds of those who do not feel the City deserves the trust. He noted that the Commission can deliberate on the merits of the application, the comprehensiveness of the attached conditions, the recommendation indicating strongly to the City Council that the Commission has thoroughly thought it through and taken into account all of the information that they can, and that the City complies with the Comprehensive Plan and the City Code. He stressed that there is nothing in the application that indicates that there is a violation of any existing City Code. Chair Huskins asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. Chris Joslin, 25630 Maple View Court, pointed out that trust is very important. He stated that his concern is with the terms that are used, such as risk, and who takes on the risk. He shared that the only people at risk in this project are not the builder and the developer, but rather the community members and neighbors of Shorewood, and potentially the City. Dave Vierthaler, 25755 Maple View Court, stated that it is the Staff’s responsibility to follow the Code, but he assumed that the role of the Commission was to help the citizenry within the review process, not just follow the policies of the City. He voiced that his thought as a Commission was to look at the benefit of the entire City. Chair Huskins closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 10:08 P.M. Commissioner Longo stated that he would like to make a proposal to the City Council to defer the decision as more information is gathered. He noted that there needs to be a better tree plan, the residents need to be clear on the property lines, and maybe an answer will come from the Watershed in the next four weeks. Commissioner Magistad noted that there were a lot of moving comments that were made, and he has a great deal of empathy for the situation that the neighbors face. He stated that if the application could be rejected based on public opposition and aesthetic objections, that may be something to contemplate. He stated that, as he understands the role, and having rejected something based on public opposition before, the Commission’s hands are tied. He shared that the City Council is going to struggle with some of the same things that the Commission is struggling with, but will ultimately be in the same position. He explained that if the developer adheres to their tree preservation plan, fixes it, there is escrow, setbacks are compliant, the Watershed District approves the plan, and the project follows the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan, then there is no ground to reject the application. Chair Huskins asked Planning Director Griffiths to review if the Commission were to take a pause and take it up at the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting, what the consequences might be. He stated that he understands it would need to be very specific as to why the Commission has made that decision. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Planning Commission could table until the next meeting. He added that it is not typical of something that the Planning Commission does, as it stops the process with respect to the 60-day rule. He noted that there is a City Council meeting scheduled for February 9, where it would be reviewed, which would give additional time to get some of the information pulled together. He shared that it would mean that the Commission does not get to look at it again, but the City Council would have the benefit of Page 17 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 16 of 19 more information. He recommended that if there are specific concerns about specific items that are needed, then as part of the recommendation to the City Council, that would be included. He gave an example of it, the Commission is looking for a better tree plan, then that would be something to note in the motion to the City Council. He stated that it would avoid issues with the 60-day rule and allow the City Council the opportunity to conduct its review of the application, but ultimately the decision rested with the Commission and staff will support its decision. Chair Huskins asked if there would be a Public Hearing at the City Council meeting. Planning Director Griffiths noted that, typically, the City Council does not hold a Public Hearing on recommendations from the Planning Commission. He stated that, in what he is hearing, the Commission’s concerns would not alter the boundaries of the property, or the proposed layout; rather, they are more technical requirements in order to meet City Code. He stated that the City Council will get the minutes from the meeting and receive all of the information from the Public Hearing side of things. Chair Huskins stated that there will not be a Public Hearing that does not preclude anyone from communicating with the City Council in advance of the meeting. Planning Director Griffiths added that comments can be made to Staff and will be shared with the Council. He expects that the Applicant will also be making revisions to their plans based on what has been heard. Chair Huskins stated that there was a resident who was looking into providing more information about a tree being on their property, and if that information comes to light, it can be shared with the Staff to be included. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the process does not stop with this meeting, and that he would share any resident feedback he receives after the public hearing is closed with the City Council. Chair Huskins noted that Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Applicant was in attendance and heard the testimony, which may lead to the Applicant altering the application. This does not mean that the Applicant is free and clear to change things, even if the Planning Commission has sent a recommendation based on the application before the Commission. He furthered that the Commission is there to not break trust, but rather help the City to operate under the rules and regulations that it states it will operate under. Chair Huskins asked if there were any other questions. Commissioner Magistad asked what the Commission was going to motion to do. Commissioner Longo moved, Magistad seconded, recommending to defer a decision on the approval for the Watten Ponds Second Addition Preliminary and Final Plat to the next February 3 Planning Commission meeting, pending more information concerning the land survey, the tree preservation plan, and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District review. Chair Huskins asked when the meeting would be deferred to. Commissioner Longo stated that the next meeting will be in February. Chair Huskins asked where the next meeting falls. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it could be done before the Council meeting, as the Planning Commission is meeting on February 3 and the City Council meeting falls on February 9. He stated that it is an option. Commissioner Magistad asked if that implies another public hearing. Planning Director Griffiths stated that typically it does not, as the Planning Commission has opened and closed the Public Hearing already. He stated that is why his recommendation was to make whatever recommendation the Commission is going to make and request that the City Council look at that information, because those are things that are already conditions from Staff and not things that would significantly alter the plans. He shared that based on the Commission’s motion there would Page 18 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 17 of 19 be no public hearing at that meeting, and it would be no different than just forwarding it to the City Council. Commissioner Magistad stated that the public could still speak during the Matters from the Floor portion of the City Council meeting. Chair Huskins asked if Commissioner Longo would like to restate his motion. Commissioner Longo stated that he is torn. Chair Huskins stated that he would make a motion. Planning Director Griffiths stated that procedurally a motion has already been made and seconded and will need to be voted on first. Motion passed 2/1 (Huskins). Planning Director Griffiths clarified that the motion that just passed was to table this item to the February 3, 2026, Planning Commission meeting for review. He confirmed that it will not be a public hearing. He asked what Commission Longo to clarify what he wanted better information on. Commissioner Longo asked for better information on the land survey, so that citizens are very comfortable with where the border is going to be, what trees will be cut, and, if received, the Watershed District recommendation. Planning Director Griffiths confirmed that the item has been tabled, with the information that is needed at the February 3 meeting being a better tree plan, the accurate lot lines to make sure it is up to date, and the decision of the Watershed District, if received. Chair Huskins recessed the meeting at 10:21 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 10:31 P.M. 5. OTHER BUSINESS – A. Discuss Planning Commission Bylaws and Code Updates Planning Director Griffiths presented that the City has been trying to get bylaws in place for those on the Commissions, Council, and residents as well, so what is expected of everyone is clear. He stated that late last year, the City Council adopted bylaws, and the Staff would be drafting something similar for the Commissions to get the procedures on paper. He asked that the Commission provide feedback on where more guidance is needed, which can be done via email as well. He noted that the Staff’s goal is to have the bylaws in place by February, before the new Commissioners are appointed. He stated that one thing that needs feedback on is the commissioner report process at the City Council meeting. Commissioner Longo pointed out that the Council Liaison was not present at the meeting and rarely has been. Planning Director Griffiths stated that there are options on how this process could be revised. He noted that other cities just have the minutes forwarded to the City Council, and that would be his recommendation. He added that the arrangement of a Planning Commissioner attending a Council meeting and giving a formal presentation to the City Council is not common in other cities. Commissioner Longo noted that he would be open to not going to the Council meeting if one of the Councilmembers attends the Planning Commission meeting. Chair Huskins stated that minutes are great, but not the same thing as providing context. He added that one time he was able to provide further context to his nay vote. Commissioner Magistad stated that usually, he feels that he is only adding value if he is editorializing a little bit or adding context. Chair Huskins recommended that the Commission should attend, but not do a presentation, the Planning Page 19 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 18 of 19 Director present, and then state that a Commissioner is present if there is anything that they wish to add, which could be nothing if desired. Commissioners agreed with the idea of Chair Huskins. Planning Director Griffiths stated that staff can draft bylaws based on this direction. Chair Huskins pointed out that the definitions in the Packet about what the Planning Commission is going to stay the same because of State Statutes. He stated that the bylaws are how the meetings will be run, and there is no public hearing procedure written down, so in doing so, it provides the context to everyone. Chair Huskins stated that the City Council bylaws read like a Code of Conduct. He shared that it could be totally applicable to the bylaws for the Commission. Planning Director Griffiths agreed that a lot of time was spent by Council in putting it together, and the policies should be consistent, so most of it will be the same for the Planning Commission. Chair Huskins noted that for some meetings, it would be nice to have some of the other Staff present, such as the Engineer or Attorney to be an authoritative person in the matter. Commissioner Magistad stated that if there were matters where there could be a potential incendiary public hearing, it might be a good idea. Planning Director Griffiths stated that he hears what the Commissioners are saying and that it may be needed at times, or to get a memo as another option, because it may not be feasible to have them at the meeting. Chair Huskins asked what an appropriate mechanism would be to approach an applicant seeking an extension beyond the 60-day rule. Planning Director Griffiths noted that he would have to ask the applicant, and the applicant would have to agree to it. He stated that he has never had an applicant decide to do that in his experience as a planner, because there is no benefit to the applicant. Chair Huskins asked if would be appropriate to within a meeting, ask the applicant to extend beyond the 60 days, given the information that was presented tonight. Planning Director Griffiths noted that he did not feel it would be an appropriate setting for the Planning Commission to have that conversation with the developer. He pointed out that the courts have a very strict interpretation of that State law regarding the 60-day rule. Chair Huskins asked in the project that was presented to the Commission that night, if the time runs out, then all of the conditions and the public testimony are thrown out. Planning Director Griffiths stated that whatever has been submitted is approved. He stated that this is why he is so cognizant of that deadline, because if it is missed, the ability to deny a project is lost, but also approve the project with conditions. He explained that while not typical of this Commission, in this case, there is time for the City to complete its review and still meet the 60-day rule. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Commission has stated that they would still like to go to the Council meetings and be in attendance. He added that he will draft the bylaws and shift the language to represent it in such a way that the Commission has asked. Chair Huskins asked if the draft minutes would still be sent to whichever Commissioner is to attend ahead of time. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the same procedure would take place and the Commissioners would receive the draft minutes. 6. REPORTS A. Liaison to Council Planning Director Griffiths reported on matters considered and actions taken during the Council’s recent meetings. Page 20 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 19 of 19 B. Staff Planning Director Griffiths thanked Commissioners Longo and Magistad for doing the interviews for the Comprehensive Plan consultant. He noted that a consensus was reached as to who to hire as a contractor, and the staff will be working to get a contract together and will hopefully be approved by the Council in late January or early February. Chair Huskins asked what budget there is for the selected vendor. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the average Comprehensive Plan update costs about $200,000, and can confidently state the City will be under that amount. He noted that there is an approved budget for 2026 of $100,000. He noted that the Planning Department will tailor their 2027 budget based on what is needed for the project in future years. Planning Director Griffiths asked for a Council liaison for the January 26 meeting to talk about the Conditional Use Permit that was presented. Commissioner Magistad noted he could attend. C. Commission No additional comments were given by the Commission. 7. ADJOURNMENT Longo moved, Magistad seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of January 6, 2026, at 10:56 P.M. Motion passed 3/0. Page 21 of 249 Planning Commission Item 5.A. Title/Subject: Watten Ponds 2nd Addition Preliminary & Final Plat Meeting Date: February 4, 2026 Prepared By: Jake Griffiths, Planning Director Attachments 1. Application Narrative 2. Preliminary Civil Plans 3. Preliminary Plat 4. Final Plat 5. Shoreland Exhibit 6. Stormwater Management Report 7. Existing HydroCAD 8. Wetland Delineation Report 9. Existing Drainage Map 10. City of Shorewood Review #2 Comments 11. City Comment Responses_2026-01-16 12. MCWD Comment Responses_2026-01-16 13. Draft January 6, 2026 Planning Commission Minutes 14. January 12, 2026 City Council Meeting Minutes Excerpt 15. Written Public Comments Background • Applicant: Gravity Investment, LLC • Location: Parcel ID 2911723440029 • Review Deadline: February 18, 2026 • Comprehensive Plan: Minimum Density Residential (0.1-1.0 Units Per Acre) • Zoning: R-1A Single-Family Residential / Shoreland The applicant is requesting a preliminary plat and final plat to subdivide their 3.58 acre property into two single-family residential lots known as Watten Ponds 2nd Addition. The Planning Commission previously reviewed and held a public hearing regarding this application at their January 6, 2026, meeting. Draft minutes from that meeting are attached for reference. During the meeting, the Commission voted to continue its review of the application to tonight's meeting pending the receipt of more information from the applicant, including better information on the land survey of the property, the tree preservation plan and the recommendation of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, if received. The applicant has provided updated application materials which are attached for review. The subject property was originally created as part of Manns Addition to Birch Bluff Lake Minnetonka in 1883. There are no substantial structures or dwellings located on the site. A portion of the site is located within the shoreland overlay district due to the site's proximity to Page 22 of 249 Lake Minnetonka, and there are several wetlands on the site which have been identified on the plans. The surrounding neighborhoods to the east, south and west are all zoned R-1A Single- Family Residential which is identical to the subject property, The neighborhood to the north is zoned R-1C Single-Family Residential. Analysis Comprehensive Plan The Comprehensive Plan guides the site as Minimum Density Residential, with a density range of 0.1 to 1.0 units per acre. The proposed subdivision has a gross density of 0.55 units per acre. When factoring in the wetlands on the site, the proposed subdivision has a net density of 0.90 units per acre. These calculations are shown below: Gross Density: 2 units / 3.58 acres = 0.55 units per acre Net Density: 2 units / (3.58 acres - 1.352 acres delineated wetlands) = 0.90 units per acre Based on the density of the proposed subdivision falling within the density range of 0.1 to 1.0 units per acre, the proposed subdivision is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan does provide additional goals for development within the City in general, which are implemented through the City's adopted zoning and subdivision regulations. Whether the application complies with the City's zoning and subdivision regulations is analyzed below. Proposed Use The site is located within the R-1 Single-Family Residential zoning district, which is established by City Code 1201.10. Single-family detached dwellings are a permitted use within the R-1A zoning district pursuant to City Code 1201.10, Subd. 2. The applicant is proposing constructing single-family detached dwellings on the site, which would meet this requirement. Lot Size City Code 1201.10, Subd. 5. a. requires a minimum lot area within the R-1A district of 40,000 square feet (sqft). When calculating lot area, City Code 1102.07 requires that land designated within a wetland conservation area shall not be credited as part of the lot's area. Wetland conservation areas are defined by City Code 1102.03 and include the area within delineated wetlands which are identified on the City of Shorewood's 1971 wetlands map. Two of the wetlands on the site meet this criteria, the large wetland complex to the southwest and the smaller wetland on the eastern edge of the site. Based on the City Code, the lot size of each of the proposed lots would be calculated as follows: Lot 1: 58,164 sqft (gross area) - 9,583.20 sqft (wetland conservation areas) = 48,580.80 sqft Lot 2: 89,971 sqft (gross area) - 30,056.40 sqft (wetland conservation areas) = 59,914.60 sqft Based on this calculation, both of the proposed lots meet the minimum lot size required in the R-1A zoning district as they both exceed 40,000 sqft in size. Lot Width City Code 1201.11, Subd. 5. requires a minimum lot width of not less than 120 feet. Lot 1 has a lot width of 139 feet and lot 2 has a minimum lot width of 126 feet. Based on this, the proposed lots meet the minimum lot width requirements of the R-1A zoning district. Setbacks City Code 1201.10, Subd. 5. requires a minimum front yard setback of 50 feet, a minimum side yard setback of 10 feet, and a minimum rear yard setback of 50 feet within the R-1A zoning Page 23 of 249 district. These setbacks are determined based on the configuration of the lot, the orientation of a proposed home has no impact on the setback requirements. Front Yard Setback: City Code 1201.02 defines the front lot line as the boundary having the least width abutting a public right-of-way or private street. Based on this definition, the southeastern property line of each lot fronting Maple View Court is the front lot line. Both of the proposed lots meet this requirement, and have building pad locations which are much greater than 50 feet from the front lot line. Rear Yard Setback: City Code 1201.02 defines the rear lot line as the boundaries which are opposite the front lot line. Based on this, the rear lot lines are the northern property line of both parcels and the western lot line of Lot 2. Both of the proposed lots meet this requirement, and have building pad locations which are 50 feet or greater from the rear lot lines. Side Yard Setback: City Code 1201.02 defines the side lot line as the boundaries which are in between the front and rear lot lines. Based on this, the side lot lines are the eastern lot line of Lot 1, the proposed property line which divides the newly created lots, and the southern lot line of Lot 2. Both of the proposed lots meet this requirement, and have building pad locations which are 10 feet or greater from the side lot lines. Utilities Consistent with the requirements of City Code Chapter 801 Sewer Utility, Chapter 802 Water Utility, and Chapter 1202 Subdivision Regulations, the applicant is proposing to connect both of the proposed lots to the municipal water and sewer systems. Staging The applicant has indicated that the two proposed lots would be constructed in a single phase. While not a part of this application, it should be noted that the applicant also owns nearby property to the north of Clara Avenue at 25725 Birch Bluff Rd. The City has not received any planning or land use applications associated with these two properties, and no approval to build homes has been given or is being sought by the applicant as part of their request. The City has commented as part of its review that the applicant should consider how these areas would be served by utilities, which may needed to be built as part of this project due to infrastructure constraints in Birch Bluff Road. Shared Driveway Due to the presence of wetlands around the site, the applicant is proposing a shared driveway to serve the two lots. Staff has requested the applicant provide a shared driveway easement to set maintenance expectations and responsibilities for the driveway. Maple View Court Right-of-Way The applicant is proposing to dedicate additional right-of-way at the southeast corner of the property to the City. This right-of-way will provide access to a City-owned property which is currently landlocked, allow improved access to the site from Maple View Court, and allow the City additional flexibility in the future should Maple View Court need to be reconstructed. The current street in Maple View Court would not be extended as part of this proposal in order to limit impacts to the existing neighborhood that would otherwise occur through road construction if the additional right-of-way were to be improved. Wetlands Page 24 of 249 There are 3 wetlands on the site which will not be significantly disturbed as part of the project. Each wetland will be protected from erosion during construction, and a permanent 35-foot wetland buffer will be established as part of the subdivision. In addition to the 35-foot buffer, City Code 1102.06, Subd. 2. f. establishes a 15-foot building setback from the edge of the buffer. In reality, this means that no structures can be built within 50 feet of the edge of the wetland. The proposed building pads on both lots meet these requirements. In addition to the City's review, wetland impacts are also reviewed by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Staff is recommending a condition of approval that the applicant obtain their permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to any work taking place on the site. These wetland buffers are protected by the City through the establishment of a permanent wetland conservation easement. City Code 1102.06 states "No part of any land within the wetland conservation area shall be platted for residential use or any other use which will increase the danger to health, life, property or the public welfare. Whenever a portion of the conservation area is located within the area to be subdivided, an adequate easement in favor of the city over the lowlands shall be required for the purpose of improving and protecting the area from drainage and other purposes expressed in this chapter. Streets, driveways and culverts shall not be constructed or designed so as to restrict the flow of water and the same shall be approved by the City Council". Based on the requirements of City Code 1102.06, wetland conservation easements are shown on the plans buffering all 3 wetlands within the site. Stormwater & Drainage Stormwater management and drainage concerns are reviewed for consistency with the City of Shorewood's Stormwater Management Plan. Based on the site's topography, stormwater and drainage is handled entirely within the site and will not run off onto adjacent properties. A drainage map illustrating the drainage area is attached for reference. The applicant will be required to enter into a stormwater management agreement with the City as part of the project to establish long-term operation and maintenance responsibilities of stormwater features on the site. Shoreland Regulations Due to the site being within 1,000 feet of Lake Minnetonka, the majority of the property is located within a Shoreland Overlay District. An exhibit depicting the boundary of the shoreland district is attached for reference. Since the site does not have any frontage on Lake Minnetonka, the vast majority of the City's shoreland regulations do not apply to this project. The only shoreland regulation which directly applies to the application is that City Code 1201.26, Subd. 8. b. (1) establishes a maximum impervious surface coverage ratio of 25% for each lot. For areas outside the shoreland district, the maximum impervious surface coverage is 33%. At the time of building permit submittal, an impervious surface survey will be required to be submitted to the City for review, which will be utilized to verify that this requirement is being met. No building permits are issued until impervious surface requirements are met. Staff Comments Staff has attached memorandums with minor comments from its review. The remaining comments from staff are typical of any development project and a condition has been added that these comments must be addressed prior to release of the plat for recording. Public Testimony Prior to the public hearing at the January 6, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, the following public notice was provided regarding this application. Page 25 of 249 • October 24, 2025 - Sign posted on property including QR code and link to plans on the City's website. • December 9, 2025 - Postcard sent to all property owners within 750 feet of the property. Included QR code and link to plans on the City's website. • December 23, 2025 - o Public hearing notice sent by mail to all property owners within 750 feet of the property. o Public hearing notice published in the City's official newspaper. o Public hearing notice posted at City Hall. o Public hearing notice distributed through the City's website. Public testimony regarding this project is attached and was received in a variety of formats including: • Written comments which are attached for review. • Verbal testimony received during January 6, 2026, Planning Commission meeting. Draft minutes are attached for review. • Verbal testimony received during January 12, 2026, City Council meeting through matters from the floor. Minutes are attached for review. • Verbal testimony received during January 26, 2026, City Council meeting through matters from the floor. While draft minutes are not yet available for this meeting, public testimony can be reviewed through the Lake Minnetonka Cable Commission's website by clicking here or visiting https://reflect- lmcc.cablecast.tv/CablecastPublicSite/show/57642?site=1. Review Deadline Minnesota State Statute § 15.99 requires the City to make a decision on the application within 120 days of receipt of a complete application. The 120-day deadline for this application is February 18, 2026. In order to allow enough time for the City Council to review the application, the Planning Commission must make a recommendation regarding this application to the City Council at tonight's meeting. Additional Information Requested by Planning Commission Following public testimony received at the January 6, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, the following additional information was requested from the applicant. Tree Preservation At the January 6, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested the applicant provide an updated tree preservation plan. Since that time, the applicant has provided the attached tree preservation plan which would be consistent with the requirements of the Shorewood Tree Preservation Policy. As part of development of the site, 98 trees are proposed to be removed. Trees located within wetland buffers will be preserved, and 29 trees will be replanted. The Comprehensive Plan states "the City Code includes a tree preservation ordinance which is intended to preserve or replace trees in new developments or redevelopments" and Section IV. B. 10. b. (5) of the Shorewood Tree Preservation Policy states: "in no case will the total number Page 26 of 249 of replacement trees exceed eight (8) trees per acre." Based on this requirement, at 3.58 acres in size the maximum number of tree replacement for the site would be 29 trees. The 29 trees proposed to be planted are consistent with this requirement. Land Survey At the January 6, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested the applicant provide updated plans which are of proper scale and accurately reflect property boundaries. With the applicant's original plans, sheets two and three of the civil plans had a slightly inaccurate scale bar at the bottom of the page. While the scale bar reflected a scale of 1" = 30', when it should have been 1" = 50', the actual dimensions on the plans were accurate and the representation of the project was correct. Since that time, the applicant has provided the attached updated plan set which has rectified this issue. The plans were prepared by a licensed land surveyor and licensed engineer, who have attested that the property boundaries are accurate. Based on the information available to staff, the property boundaries appear to be accurate. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Review At the January 6, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission requested the applicant provide a decision from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District regarding the project if one were available. While the application is currently under review by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, as of the publication of this report they had not made a decision on the application. This is typical of most development applications, as the watershed district and the City are distinctly separate jurisdictions who share some overlap but have different responsibilities and timelines in reviewing development applications. A condition has been added by staff that the applicant must obtain a permit from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to release of the final plat for recording. If the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District does not issue a permit, then the project would not be able to move forward. Findings & Recommendation Minnesota State Statute § 462.358, Subd. 3b. states: "a municipality must approve a preliminary plat that meets the applicable standards and criteria contained in the municipality's zoning and subdivision regulations unless the municipality adopts written findings based on a record from the public proceedings why the application shall not be approved". Based on the requirements of Minnesota State Statute, the analysis in this report, and the public record regarding this request, City staff recommends approval of the preliminary and final plat applications for Watten Ponds 2nd Addition due to the application's consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and all applicable zoning and subdivision regulations. City staff's recommendation is contingent on the following conditions being satisfied: Prior to recording of the plat, the applicant shall complete the following: • Acquire all permits from other applicable jurisdictions having an interest in the site, including but not limited to the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. • Revise the plans to conform with the Engineer's Memo. • Pay required utility connection fees and park dedication fees for the two lots. • Enter into a development agreement and stormwater agreement for the development, and provide the appropriate financial surety. • Provide a copy of the shared driveway easement including information on ongoing maintenance responsibilities. Page 27 of 249 Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant shall complete the following: • Proof of recording of the final plat, City Council resolution, easements, agreements, and any other document needing to be recorded. • Provide a construction management plan to the City. • The applicant shall submit a soils/geotechnical report from a licensed professional engineer that indicates the soils present on the site and those brought in are adequate to support the construction of the buildings and other improvements. Action Requested The Planning Commission is requested to make a recommendation based on findings of fact to the City Council. Page 28 of 249 October 20, 2025 City of Shorewood Planning Department Address Line 1 Address Line 2 Email Address Watten Ponds 2nd Addition Preliminary & Final Plat Audrius Asakenas of Chestnut Business Park has purchased the 4.3 acre vacant property at the end of the Maple View Court cul-de-sac. An application for preliminary and and final plat has been submitted to subdivide the property into two single-family residential lots. Each lot will be approximately 2 acres in size and will be in conformance to city zoning standards. Although an extension of the Maple View Court cul-de-sac is shown for the subdivision it is proposed that both lots be served by a single shared driveway from Maple View Court to minimize grading and tree loss. The subdivision will not impact the wetlands or utilize the undeveloped right of ways surrounding the property. City wetland buffer setbacks and protection are incorporated in the development plans. The two lots will be served by city sewer and water connections from Maple View Court. All construction activity will be from Maple view Court and will not utilize the surrounding undeveloped ROW. It is intended to have initial grading and sewer/water services constructed this year with home construction to start Spring of 2026. Construction will be dependent on purchase of the lots, approvals and weather. The Minnehaha Creek Watershed has been notified of the request. They are in the process of reviewing the wetland delineation and development application. Page 29 of 249 WETLAND 1PNWL (EX & PROP) = 940.5 100 YEAR HWL (EX) =941.58 100 YEAR HWL (PROP) =941.57 WETLAND 2PNWL (EX & PROP)=947.0 100 YEAR HWL (EX)=947.50100 YEAR HWL (PROP) = 947.95 PROJECT NO. 24303 CAD FILE 10/20/2025 DATE DRAWN BY Da t e : Re g . N o . EN T E R N A M E H E R E XX X X X XX / X X / 2 0 2026-01-16 CITY & MCWD COMM. I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , sp e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d b y me o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n a n d th a t I a m a d u l y L i c e n s e d P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f Mi n n e s o t a . SH O R E W O O D , M N SH O R E W O O D R E S I D E N T I A L GR A V I T Y I N V E S T M E N T L L C FO R 2026-01-19 BASIN OUTLET REVS 2026-01-20 ROW VACATION REMOVAL 2026-01-22 LOT LINE SHIFT TI T L E S H E E T PRELIMINARY PHASE WATTEN POND 2ND ADDITION RESIDENTIAL SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA GRAVITY INVESTMENT LLC FOR TITLE SHEET C100 INDEX C300GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN C400SITE & UTILITY PLAN C600-C601TREE PRESERVATION PLAN EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 OF 1 C500-C501PHASE I EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN C501PHASE II EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN SCALE IN FEET 0 60 120 180 1 inch = 60 feet BENCHMARKS #1 TNH AT END OF CUL-DE-SAC OF MAPLE VIEW COURT, ON EAST SIDE OF SITE ELEV=956.35 DEVELOPER GRAVITY INVESTMENT LLC 1680 WEST FARM ROAD CHASKA, MN 55318 612-865-4100 PROJECT ENGINEER HILL INCORPORATED 2999 WEST COUNTY ROAD 42, SUITE 100 BURNSVILLE, MN 55306 952-890-6044 SURVEYOR HILL INCORPORATED 2999 WEST COUNTY ROAD 42, SUITE 100 BURNSVILLE, MN 55306 952-890-6044 N Know what's below. before you dig.Call R SITE LOCATION MAP PRELIMINARY PLAT 2.0 VUN 24303TS C100 C700-C701CONSTRUCTION DETAILS Page 30 of 249 1.Subject property's address is 25725 Birch Bluff Road, Shorewood, its property identification numbers are 29-117-23-44-0024, 29-117-23-44-0025, and 29-117-23-44-0029 . 2.The bearing system is based on the East line of Block 5, Mann's Addition To Birch Bluff which is assumed to bear South 00 degrees 14 minutes 30 seconds West. 3.Field work was completed 8/4/2025. 4.The building(s) and exterior dimensions of the outside wall at ground level are shown on the survey. It may not be the foundation wall. 5.No specific title search for existence or non-existence of recorded or un-recorded easements has been conducted by the surveyor as a part of this survey. Only easements per the recorded plat are shown. 6.The gross area of the subject property is 4.371 Acres or 190,417 square feet. NOTES That part of Lot 21 lying East of the extension of the West line of Lot 6 across said Lot 21, Block 3, and All of Block 5, Mann's Addition To Birch Bluff (Lake Minnetonka); AND The west 187.11 feet of the east 254.66 feet of Lot 21, Block 3, Mann's Addition to Birch Bluff (Lake Minnetonka) lying westerly of a southerly extension across said Lot 21, of the west line of Lot 6, Block 3, said Addition, described by metes and bounds as follows: Beginning at the point in the northerly line of Lot 21, Block 3, said Addition where the southerly extension across said Lot 21 of the west line of Lot 6, Block 3, said Addition, intersects the northerly line of said Lot 21; thence southwesterly along the northerly line of said Lot 21; a distance of 187.11 feet; thence southerly to a point in the southerly line of said Lot 21, 254.66 feet southwesterly of the southeast corner of said Lot 21; thence northeasterly along the southerly line of said Lot 21 to a point in said line where it intersects the southerly extension across said Lot 21 of the west line of Lot 6, Block 3, said Addition; thence northerly along said southerly extension of the West line of Lot 6, Block 3, said Addition to the northerly line of Lot 21, being the point of beginning, all according to the recorded plat thereof; PROPERTY DESCRIPTION I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. That this survey does not purport to show all improvements, easements or encroachments, to the property except as shown thereon. Signed this 11th day of August, 2025 Marcus F. Hampton MN L.S. No. 47481 SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE The vertical datum is NAVD88. Benchmark Top nut hydrant at end of cul-de-sac of Maple View Court. Elevation = 956.35 BENCHMARK 29 9 9 W E S T C . R . 4 2 , S U I T E 1 0 0 , B U R N S V I L L E , M N 5 5 3 0 6 PH O N E : 9 5 2 . 8 9 0 . 6 0 4 4 w w w . j r h i n c . c o m PL A N N E R S / E N G I N E E R S / S U R V E Y O R S SH O R E W O O D R E S I D E N T I A L SH O R E W O O D , M I N N E S O T A CE R T I F I C A T E O F S U R V E Y FO R CH E S T N U T B U S I N E S S P A R . L L P DRAWN BY DATE REVISIONS PLM 8/11/2025 CAD FILE 24303s.dwg PRO-ECT NO. 24303-00 FILE NO. 1-25-046 SHEET 1 OF 1 Ja m e s R . H i l l , I n c . LEGEND FOUND IRON PIPE SET IRON PIPE DECIDUOUS CONIFEROUS GRAVEL SURFACE TELEVISION BOX UNDERGROUND FIBER OPTIC UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE TRANSFORMER UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND GAS SANITARY MANHOLE GATE VALVE HYDRANT BITUMINOUS SURFACE CONCRETE SURFACE Page 31 of 249 Legal Description: All of Block 5, Mann's Addition To Birch Bluff (Lake Minnetonka) SURVEYED PROPERTY PROJECT NO. 24303-00 CAD FILE 10/17/2025 DATE REVISIONS DRAWN BY 29 9 9 W E S T C . R . 4 2 , S U I T E 1 0 0 BU R N S V I L L E , M N 5 5 3 0 6 PH O N E : 9 5 2 - 8 9 0 - 6 0 4 4 ma r c u s @m n h i l l . c o m ww w . m n h i l l . c o m SH O R E W O O D , M I N N E S O T A WA T T E N P O N D S 2 N D A D D I T I O N GR A V I T Y I N V E S T M E N T , L L C FO R PR E L I M I N A R Y P L A T 24303PP.dwg 2.0 A.2026-01-13: City comments F: \ _ C i v i l 3 D P r o j e c t s \ 2 4 3 0 3 \ 2 4 3 0 3 p p . d w g - 1 / 2 2 / 2 0 2 6 0 1 : 0 8 P M PLM Da t e : Re g . N o . I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s s u r v e y , p l a n or r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d b y m e o r un d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n a n d t h a t I am a d u l y L i c e n s e d L a n d S u r v e y o r un d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f Mi n n e s o t a . SCALE IN FEET 0 30 60 PRE L I M I N A R Y ZONING INFORMATION R-1A RESIDENTIALCURRENT ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING:R-1A RESIDENTIAL LOTS GROSS DENSITY (TOTAL UNITS/GROSS AREA) LOTS R.O.W. TOTAL 2 LOTS 0.55 D.U./ACRE 3.40 ACRES 0.21 ACRES 3.61 ACRES MINIMUM SETBACKS (SINGLE FAMILY) FRONT SIDE (HOUSE & GARAGE) SIDE (STREET) REAR 50 FEET 10 FEET 50 FEET 50 FEET SITE DATA GROSS AREA 3.61 ACRES MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS LOT SIZE LOT WIDTH LOT DEPTH 40,000 S.F. 120 FEET 150 FEET DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, ADJOINING LOT LINES, AND BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, ADJOINING RIGHT OF WAY LINES, AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: B. 2026-01-20: City comments C. 2026-01-21: City comments Page 32 of 249 WETLAND 1P NWL (EX & PROP) = 940.5 100 YEAR HWL (EX) =941.58 100 YEAR HWL (PROP) =941.57 WETLAND 2P NWL (EX & PROP)=947.0 100 YEAR HWL (EX)=947.50 100 YEAR HWL (PROP) = 947.95 G G TW=954.0 BW=946.0 TW=954.0 BW=952.0 TW=953.0 BW=948.0 TW=944.0 BW=942.0 EDGE OF DELINEATED WETLAND TW=954.0 BW=950.0 TW=954.0 BW=949.0 TW=954.0 BW=948.0 EDGE OF DELINEATED WETLAND EDGE OF DELINEATED WETLAND PROJECT NO. 24303 CAD FILE 10/20/2025 DATE REVISIONS DRAWN BY Da t e : Re g . N o . EN T E R N A M E H E R E XX X X X XX / X X / 2 0 2026-01-16 CITY & MCWD COMM. 29 9 9 W E S T C . R . 4 2 , S U I T E 1 0 0 BU R N S V I L L E , M N 5 5 3 0 6 PH O N E : 9 5 2 - 8 9 0 - 6 0 4 4 bb u s s e l m a n @m n h i l l . c o m ww w . m n h i l l . c o m I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , sp e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d b y me o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n a n d th a t I a m a d u l y L i c e n s e d P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f Mi n n e s o t a . PRE L I M I N A R Y SH O R E W O O D , M N SH O R E W O O D R E S I D E N T I A L GR A V I T Y I N V E S T M E N T L L C FO R 2026-01-19 BASIN OUTLET REVS 2026-01-20 ROW VACATION REMOVAL 2026-01-22 LOT LINE SHIFT PR E L I M I N A R Y G R A D I N G & D R A I N A G E P L A N VUN 24303G SCALE IN FEET 0 30 60 90 1 inch = 30 feet N Know what's below. before you dig.Call R C300 EXISTING TELEPHONE BOX EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER BOX EXISTING TREELINE/TREES EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING WATERMAIN EXISTING CURB & GUTTER EXISTING FENCE EXISTING ASPHALT EXISTING CONCRETE EXISTING GRAVEL EXISTING RETAINING WALL LEGEND PROPOSED CONTOUR923 PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED ASPHALT SURFACE PROPOSED FILTRATION BASIN SB-1 PROPOSED DRAINTILE PROPOSED WATERMAIN PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC EXISTING TELEVISION BOX EXISTING RAILROAD EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING WETLAND EDGE EXISTING SOIL BORING LOCATION PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED EMERGENCY OVERFLOW PROPOSED GRADING LIMITS EXISTING CLEANOUT EXISTING SIGN EXISTING DRAINTILE EXISTING GUARD RAIL WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK BUILDING SETBACK PROPOSED WETLAND 100-YEAR HWL WETLAND BUFFER WETLAND BUFFER BUFFER AREA =46,862 SF Page 33 of 249 WETLAND 1P NWL (EX & PROP) = 940.5 100 YEAR HWL (EX) =941.58 100 YEAR HWL (PROP) =941.57 WETLAND 2P NWL (EX & PROP)=947.0 100 YEAR HWL (EX)=947.50 100 YEAR HWL (PROP) = 947.95 22 0 F T 8 " P V C @ 1 . 9 6 % 95 F T 8 " P V C @ 1 . 0 % 3" W M 1.5" SE R V I C E REMOVE EX PLUG INSTALL 8"X3" REDUCER TO CONNECT TO EX 8" WM LOCATE EX UTILITIES AND PROTECT EX UFO, WATER MAIN AND GAS LINE. FFE 952 RLO 947.2 FFE 955.0 SEWO 951.5 3" W M 3"X1.5" REDUCER 1.5" PLUG 1.5" PLUG 3 4 F T 1 8 " H D P E @ 0 . 2 9 % RETAINING WALL. RETAINING WALL. 56 F T 4 " P V C @ 1 . 0 % 4 2 F T 1 2 " H D P E @ 2 . 4 % WETLAND BUFFER SIGN (TYP) WETLAND BUFFER SIGN (TYP) 87 FT 4" P V C @ 1 . 0 % CONSTRUCT SAN MANHOLE OVER EX SANITARY SERVICE INV.=930.30 EX SSMH RIM=953.50 EX INV.=929.68 (NE) EX INV.=929.80 (SW) PROP INV.=931.92 (NW) SSMH 10 RIM=954.30 INV.=934.62 (N&SE) 4" PLUG END INV.=937.0 4" PLUG INV.=942.0 OCS-B RIM=947.00 INV.(18")=94.10(N) FES-100 INV.(18")=944.00(S) SSMH 9 RIM=953.01 INV.=930.30 (NW&E) CO 12 RIM=949.0 INV.=936.13 (NE&SW) FILTRATION BASIN A HWL = 944.91 FES-200 INV.(12")=940.00(NW) OCS-A RIM=944.70 INV.(12")=941.00 (SE) BLD 3.70' 47 LF 6" PERFORATED UNDERDRAIN @0.25%CLEANOUT IE = 947.17 FILTRATION BASIN B HWL = 949.70 OUTLET 5' LONG WEIR ELEV = 949.50 INSTALL FLEX-A-MAT STANDARD REINFORCEMENT AT WEIR TO A DISTANCE OF 5' DOWNSLOPE (25 SF) FILTRATION BASIN D HWL = 953.00 OUTLET 10' LONG WEIR ELEV = 952.80 INSTALL FLEX-A-MAT STANDARD REINFORCEMENT AT WEIR TO A DISTANCE OF 5' DOWNSLOPE (50 SF) FILTRATION BASIN C HWL = 951.80 OUTLET 5' LONG WEIR ELEV = 951.50 INSTALL FLEX-A-MAT STANDARD REINFORCEMENT AT WEIR TO A DISTANCE OF 5' DOWNSLOPE (25 SF) REDUCE OUTLET WIDTH IE (EX & PROP) = 940.50 WIDTH (EX) = 5.8 WIDTH (PROP) = 4.0' SSMH 11 RIM=951.10 INV.=935.57 (NE&S) CLEANOUT IE = 948.00 6" FES IE = 947.82 73 LF 6" PERFORATED UNDERDRAIN @0.25% 67 LF 6" PERFORATED UNDERDRAIN @0.25% 6" FES IE = 947.00 CLEANOUT IE = 945.00 6" FES IE = 944.88 CLEANOUT IE = 940.00 87 LF 6" PERFORATED UNDERDRAIN @0.25% 6" FES IE = 939.78 PROJECT NO. 24303 CAD FILE 10/20/2025 DATE DRAWN BY Da t e : Re g . N o . EN T E R N A M E H E R E XX X X X XX / X X / 2 0 2026-01-16 CITY & MCWD COMM. I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , sp e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d b y me o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n a n d th a t I a m a d u l y L i c e n s e d P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f Mi n n e s o t a . SH O R E W O O D , M N SH O R E W O O D R E S I D E N T I A L GR A V I T Y I N V E S T M E N T L L C FO R 2026-01-19 BASIN OUTLET REVS 2026-01-20 ROW VACATION REMOVAL 2026-01-22 LOT LINE SHIFT PR E L I M I N A R Y S I T E & U T I L I T Y P L A N VUN 24303U C400 Know what's below. before you dig.Call R 30 60 90 1 inch = 30 feet N EXISTING TELEPHONE BOX EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER BOX EXISTING TREELINE/TREES EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING WATERMAIN EXISTING CURB & GUTTER EXISTING FENCE EXISTING ASPHALT EXISTING CONCRETE EXISTING GRAVEL EXISTING RETAINING WALL LEGEND SB-1 PROPOSED DRAINTILE PROPOSED WATERMAIN PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC EXISTING TELEVISION BOX EXISTING RAILROAD EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING WETLAND EDGE EXISTING SOIL BORING LOCATION EXISTING CLEANOUT EXISTING SIGN EXISTING DRAINTILE EXISTING GUARD RAIL PROPOSED LIGHT POLE PROPOSED CONTOUR923 PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED ASPHALT SURFACE PROPOSED FILTRATION BASIN PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED EMERGENCY OVERFLOW PROPOSED GRADING LIMITS WETLAND BUFFER SETBACK BUILDING SETBACK PROPOSED WETLAND 100-YEAR HWL WETLAND BUFFER WETLAND BUFFER BUFFER AREA =46,862 SF Page 34 of 249 WETLAND 1P NWL (EX & PROP) = 940.5 100 YEAR HWL (EX) =941.58 100 YEAR HWL (PROP) =941.57 WETLAND 2P NWL (EX & PROP)=947.0 100 YEAR HWL (EX)=947.50 100 YEAR HWL (PROP) = 947.95 PROJECT NO. 24303 CAD FILE 10/20/2025 DATE DRAWN BY Da t e : Re g . N o . EN T E R N A M E H E R E XX X X X XX / X X / 2 0 2026-01-16 CITY & MCWD COMM. I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , sp e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d b y me o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n a n d th a t I a m a d u l y L i c e n s e d P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f Mi n n e s o t a . SH O R E W O O D , M N SH O R E W O O D R E S I D E N T I A L GR A V I T Y I N V E S T M E N T L L C FO R 2026-01-19 BASIN OUTLET REVS 2026-01-20 ROW VACATION REMOVAL 2026-01-22 LOT LINE SHIFT PH A S E I E R O S I O N C O N T R O L P L A N BDB 24303ERC 30 60 90 1 inch = 30 feet N Know what's below. before you dig.Call R C500 TP-1 EXISTING TELEPHONE BOX EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER BOX EXISTING TREELINE/TREES EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING WATERMAIN EXISTING CURB & GUTTER EXISTING FENCE EXISTING ASPHALT EXISTING CONCRETE EXISTING GRAVEL PROPOSED CONTOUR923 PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED ASPHALT SURFACE PROPOSED DITCH CHECK - POST GRADING/UTILITY CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED SILT FENCE PROPOSED SILT FENCE POST CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED WIMCO OR EQUAL POST STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED YARD CB INLET PROTECTION POST STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PROPOSED MNDOT "SOUTHERN BOULEVARD" SEED MIX SB-1 PROPOSED PERFORATED DRAINTILE PROPOSED WATERMAIN PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER PROPOSED SANITARY SERVICE PROPOSED WATER SERVICE EXISTING UNDERGROUND GAS EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC EXISTING TELEVISION BOX EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING WETLAND EDGE EXISTING WETLAND EXISTING SOIL BORING LOCATION PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL BLANKET PROPOSED MNDOT "WET DITCH" SEED MIX EOF PROPOSED EMERGENCY OVERFLOW PROPOSED GRADING LIMITS PROPOSED SILT FENCE HEAVY DUTYllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll EXISTING CURB STOP EXISTING GAS METER EXISTING LIGHT POLE EXISTING SIGN EXISTING VAULT EXISTING GUARD POST EXISTING TEST PIT LOCATION Page 35 of 249 G G WETLAND 1P NWL (EX & PROP) = 940.5 100 YEAR HWL (EX) =941.58 100 YEAR HWL (PROP) =941.57 WETLAND 2P NWL (EX & PROP)=947.0 100 YEAR HWL (EX)=947.50 100 YEAR HWL (PROP) = 947.95 PROJECT NO. 24303 CAD FILE 10/20/2025 DATE DRAWN BY Da t e : Re g . N o . EN T E R N A M E H E R E XX X X X XX / X X / 2 0 2026-01-16 CITY & MCWD COMM. I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , sp e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d b y me o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n a n d th a t I a m a d u l y L i c e n s e d P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f Mi n n e s o t a . SH O R E W O O D , M N SH O R E W O O D R E S I D E N T I A L GR A V I T Y I N V E S T M E N T L L C FO R 2026-01-19 BASIN OUTLET REVS 2026-01-20 ROW VACATION REMOVAL 2026-01-22 LOT LINE SHIFT PH A S E I I E R O S I O N C O N T R O L P L A N BDB 24303ERC C501 30 60 90 1 inch = 30 feet N Know what's below. before you dig.Call R TP-1 EXISTING TELEPHONE BOX EXISTING ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER BOX EXISTING TREELINE/TREES EXISTING STORM SEWER EXISTING SANITARY SEWER EXISTING WATERMAIN EXISTING CURB & GUTTER EXISTING FENCE EXISTING ASPHALT EXISTING CONCRETE EXISTING GRAVEL PROPOSED CONTOUR923 PROPOSED CONCRETE PROPOSED ASPHALT SURFACE PROPOSED DITCH CHECK - POST GRADING/UTILITY CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED SILT FENCE PROPOSED SILT FENCE POST CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED WIMCO OR EQUAL POST STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED YARD CB INLET PROTECTION POST STORM SEWER CONSTRUCTION PROPOSED TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PROPOSED MNDOT "SOUTHERN BOULEVARD" SEED MIX SB-1 PROPOSED PERFORATED DRAINTILE PROPOSED WATERMAIN PROPOSED SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED STORM SEWER PROPOSED CURB & GUTTER PROPOSED SANITARY SERVICE PROPOSED WATER SERVICE EXISTING UNDERGROUND GAS EXISTING UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC EXISTING TELEVISION BOX EXISTING CONTOUR EXISTING WETLAND EDGE EXISTING WETLAND EXISTING SOIL BORING LOCATION PROPOSED RETAINING WALL PROPOSED EROSION CONTROL BLANKET PROPOSED MNDOT "WET DITCH" SEED MIX EOF PROPOSED EMERGENCY OVERFLOW PROPOSED GRADING LIMITS PROPOSED SILT FENCE HEAVY DUTYllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll EXISTING CURB STOP EXISTING GAS METER EXISTING LIGHT POLE EXISTING SIGN EXISTING VAULT EXISTING GUARD POST EXISTING TEST PIT LOCATION Page 36 of 249 WETLAND 1P NWL (EX & PROP) = 940.5 100 YEAR HWL (EX) =941.58 100 YEAR HWL (PROP) =941.57 WETLAND 2P NWL (EX & PROP)=947.0 100 YEAR HWL (EX)=947.50 100 YEAR HWL (PROP) = 947.95 HWL HWL HWL HWL HWL HWL HWL HWL HW L HWL HW L HW L HW L HW L HW L H W L H W L H W LHW L HW L HW L HW L HW L HW L HW L HW L HWL HWL H W L HWL HWL HWL HW L HW L H W L HW L HWL HWL HWL HWL HW L HW L HW L H W L HWL HWL H W L H W L PROJECT NO. 24303 CAD FILE 10/20/2025 DATE DRAWN BY Da t e : Re g . N o . 2026-01-16 CITY & MCWD COMM. I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , sp e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d b y me o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n a n d th a t I a m a d u l y L i c e n s e d P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f Mi n n e s o t a . SH O R E W O O D , M N SH O R E W O O D R E S I D E N T I A L GR A V I T Y I N V E S T M E N T L L C FO R 2026-01-19 BASIN OUTLET REVS 2026-01-20 ROW VACATION REMOVAL 2026-01-22 LOT LINE SHIFT F: \ _ C i v i l 3 D P r o j e c t s \ 2 4 3 0 3 \ P R E - P L A T P L A N S \ 2 4 3 0 3 T P . d w g - 1 / 2 2 / 2 0 2 6 0 1 : 0 9 P M 24303TP TR E E P R E S E R V A T I O N P L A N VUN LEGEND Know what's below. before you dig.Call R EXISTING TREE GRADING/DISTURBANCE LIMITS NOTES REMOVE TREE EXISTING TREE (OFF-SITE) SCALE IN FEET 0 30 60 90 1 inch = 30 feet N C600 PROPOSED TREE Page 37 of 249 PROJECT NO. 24303 CAD FILE 10/20/2025 DATE DRAWN BY Da t e : Re g . N o . 2026-01-16 CITY & MCWD COMM. I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , sp e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d b y me o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n a n d th a t I a m a d u l y L i c e n s e d P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f Mi n n e s o t a . SH O R E W O O D , M N SH O R E W O O D R E S I D E N T I A L GR A V I T Y I N V E S T M E N T L L C FO R 2026-01-19 BASIN OUTLET REVS 2026-01-20 ROW VACATION REMOVAL 2026-01-22 LOT LINE SHIFT F: \ _ C i v i l 3 D P r o j e c t s \ 2 4 3 0 3 \ P R E - P L A T P L A N S \ 2 4 3 0 3 T P . d w g - 1 / 2 2 / 2 0 2 6 0 1 : 0 9 P M 24303TP TR E E P R E S E R V A T I O N P L A N VUN C601 TREE REMOVAL LIST PT. #NORTHING EASTING CALIBER (IN)NAME 10813 142117.3 442100.8 8 MAPLE 10814 142106.2 442083.8 8 MAPLE 10815 142092.6 442098 19 OAK 10816 142081.3 442115.8 18 OAK 10817 142074.3 442124.8 23 OAK 10827 142105 442052.1 8 MAPLE 10828 142104.2 442057.1 8 OAK 10829 142098.2 442062.3 9 MAPLE 10843 142133.3 441975.7 24 OAK 10844 142145.3 442003 14 OAK 10845 142155.2 442011.2 8 OAK 10846 142135.8 442019.3 10 HICKORY 10847 142127.8 442027 8 HICKORY 10848 142116.2 442021.3 10 MAPLE 10851 142124.1 442059.7 12 OAK 10852 142137.9 442050.1 9 OAK 10853 142137.5 442043.1 8 ELM 10854 142146.9 442047 13,9,8 BASSWOOD 10855 142163.1 442012.8 14 BASSWOOD 10859 142207.6 441977.7 8 ELM 10860 142184 441982.3 9 OAK 10861 142175.3 441981.6 12 BASSWOOD 10862 142207.2 441956.3 13,11 BASSWOOD 10863 142205.2 441948.4 14 OAK 10864 142203.5 441950.4 15 OAK 10865 142192.2 441949.5 15 BASSWOOD 10866 142189.3 441947.4 10 OAK 10867 142186 441946.6 10 OAK 10874 142193.2 441905.3 8 OAK 10877 142204.8 441897.8 8 OAK 10878 142220.4 441898.7 10 OAK 10879 142224 441900 12 OAK 10880 142224.8 441907.2 8 MAPLE 10881 142235 441903.4 10 BASSWOOD 10882 142240.7 441885.2 24 OAK 10883 142256.3 441883.6 11 ELM 10884 142282.2 441846.1 15 MAPLE 10885 142295.8 441835.6 16 OAK 10886 142299.8 441830.8 20 WALNUT 10887 142285.1 441823.8 21 WALNUT 10889 142277.9 441827.4 8 WALNUT 10890 142273.9 441824.6 8 WALNUT 10891 142249.3 441837.3 8 WALNUT 10892 142241.6 441824.5 13 OAK 10943 142322.8 441884.3 18 WALNUT 10944 142282.3 441884.5 7 CEDAR 10945 142302.8 441907 8 WALNUT 10946 142315.9 441913 15 ASH 10947 142315.8 441919.4 9 MAPLE 10948 142315.7 441936.7 8 WALNUT 10954 142323.9 441980.9 17 WALNUT 10955 142316.2 441976.3 16 WALNUT 10956 142285.2 441956.8 14 MAPLE 10957 142274.3 441941.4 13 WALNUT 10958 142278.9 441924.2 14 WALNUT 10959 142269.8 441925.2 8 MAPLE 10960 142264.1 441916.8 8 ASH 10961 142265.9 441906.1 8 WALNUT 10962 142257.8 441926.4 10 MAPLE 10963 142244.3 441938.6 13 WALNUT 10964 142226.3 441954.7 15 WALNUT 10965 142236.1 441967.2 9 MAPLE 10966 142256.8 441956 9,9 MAPLE 10967 142282.4 441981.8 9 MAPLE 10970 142299.7 442003.7 12 WALNUT 11000 142332.4 442043.4 13 ASH 11001 142338.5 442037.7 14 ASH 11002 142336.8 442032 9 ASH 11003 142337.7 442028.6 10 MAPLE 11004 142335.6 442027.3 9 MAPLE 11005 142326.8 442031 8 MAPLE 11006 142346.6 442041.3 9 MAPLE 11007 142348.7 442038.7 9 MAPLE 11010 142357.8 442047.3 8 MAPLE 11011 142342.5 442052.4 9 MAPLE 11012 142341.4 442060.3 8 MAPLE 11013 142342.4 442070.8 8 MAPLE 11014 142359.5 442084.4 17 BASSWOOD 11015 142354.4 442083.3 9 ELM 11016 142360.3 442091.2 9 ELM 11017 142358.2 442101.8 10 BASSWOOD 11018 142353.4 442103.8 21 OAK 11019 142347.6 442102.4 24 OAK 11020 142336.8 442095.3 9 ELM 11028 142333.1 442130.7 15 BASSWOOD 11029 142353.1 442131.4 8 ASH 11030 142380.3 442133 8 ELM 11031 142388.5 442131.2 8 HICKORY 11032 142391.4 442130.8 8 HICKORY 11033 142403 442129.5 15 BASSWOOD 11034 142414.2 442120.7 9 MAPLE 11035 142398.7 442121.8 10 HICKORY 11036 142406.1 442092.7 28 OAK 11037 142368.2 442081 9 MAPLE 11038 142369 442062.3 10 HICKORY 11039 142375.5 442059.7 22 ASH 11042 142439.6 442117.7 10,8 MAPLE 11043 142439 442113.6 8 MAPLE Page 38 of 249 PROJECT NO. 24303 CAD FILE 10/20/2025 DATE DRAWN BY Da t e : Re g . N o . 2026-01-16 CITY & MCWD COMM. I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , sp e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d b y me o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n a n d th a t I a m a d u l y L i c e n s e d P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f Mi n n e s o t a . SH O R E W O O D , M N SH O R E W O O D R E S I D E N T I A L GR A V I T Y I N V E S T M E N T L L C FO R 2026-01-19 BASIN OUTLET REVS 2026-01-20 ROW VACATION REMOVAL 2026-01-22 LOT LINE SHIFT F: \ _ C i v i l 3 D P r o j e c t s \ 2 4 3 0 3 \ P R E - P L A T P L A N S \ 2 4 3 0 3 D . d w g - 1 / 2 2 / 2 0 2 6 0 1 : 0 9 P M 24303D C700 CO N S T R U C T I O N D E T A I L S VUN Page 39 of 249 PROJECT NO. 24303 CAD FILE 10/20/2025 DATE DRAWN BY Da t e : Re g . N o . 2026-01-16 CITY & MCWD COMM. I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , sp e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d b y me o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n a n d th a t I a m a d u l y L i c e n s e d P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f Mi n n e s o t a . SH O R E W O O D , M N SH O R E W O O D R E S I D E N T I A L GR A V I T Y I N V E S T M E N T L L C FO R 2026-01-19 BASIN OUTLET REVS 2026-01-20 ROW VACATION REMOVAL 2026-01-22 LOT LINE SHIFT F: \ _ C i v i l 3 D P r o j e c t s \ 2 4 3 0 3 \ P R E - P L A T P L A N S \ 2 4 3 0 3 D . d w g - 1 / 2 2 / 2 0 2 6 0 1 : 0 9 P M 24303D C701 CO N S T R U C T I O N D E T A I L S VUN Page 40 of 249 Legal Description: All of Block 5, Mann's Addition To Birch Bluff (Lake Minnetonka) SURVEYED PROPERTY PROJECT NO. 24303-00 CAD FILE 10/17/2025 DATE REVISIONS DRAWN BY 29 9 9 W E S T C . R . 4 2 , S U I T E 1 0 0 BU R N S V I L L E , M N 5 5 3 0 6 PH O N E : 9 5 2 - 8 9 0 - 6 0 4 4 ma r c u s @m n h i l l . c o m ww w . m n h i l l . c o m SH O R E W O O D , M I N N E S O T A WA T T E N P O N D S 2 N D A D D I T I O N GR A V I T Y I N V E S T M E N T , L L C FO R PR E L I M I N A R Y P L A T 24303PP.dwg 2.0 A.2026-01-13: City comments F: \ _ C i v i l 3 D P r o j e c t s \ 2 4 3 0 3 \ 2 4 3 0 3 p p . d w g - 1 / 2 1 / 2 0 2 6 0 2 : 3 2 P M PLM Da t e : Re g . N o . I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s s u r v e y , p l a n or r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d b y m e o r un d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n a n d t h a t I am a d u l y L i c e n s e d L a n d S u r v e y o r un d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f Mi n n e s o t a . SCALE IN FEET 0 30 60 PRE L I M I N A R Y ZONING INFORMATION R-1A RESIDENTIALCURRENT ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING:R-1A RESIDENTIAL LOTS GROSS DENSITY (TOTAL UNITS/GROSS AREA) LOTS R.O.W. TOTAL 2 LOTS 0.55 D.U./ACRE 3.40 ACRES 0.21 ACRES 3.61 ACRES MINIMUM SETBACKS (SINGLE FAMILY) FRONT SIDE (HOUSE & GARAGE) SIDE (STREET) REAR 50 FEET 10 FEET 50 FEET 50 FEET SITE DATA GROSS AREA 3.61 ACRES MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENTS LOT SIZE LOT WIDTH LOT DEPTH 40,000 S.F. 120 FEET 150 FEET DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, ADJOINING LOT LINES, AND BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, ADJOINING RIGHT OF WAY LINES, AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: B. 2026-01-20: City comments C. 2026-01-21: City comments Page 41 of 249 WATTEN PONDS 2ND ADDITION BEARINGS ARE BASED ON THE EAST LINE OF BLOCK 5, MANN'S ADDITION TO BIRCH BLUFF (LAKE MINNETONKA) WHICH IS ASSUMED TO HAVE A BEARING OF S 00°14'30" W DENOTES FOUND 1/2 INCH IRON MONUMENT WITH CAP MARKED L.S. NO. 10938 DENOTES SET 1/2 INCH BY 14 INCH IRON MONUMENT WITH CAP MARKED L.S. NO. 47481 DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, ADJOINING LOT LINES, AND BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, ADJOINING RIGHT OF WAY LINES, AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAT. DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: R.T. DOC. NO. SCALE IN FEET 0 30 60 KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That Gravity Investment, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, owner of the following described property: All of Block 5, Mann's Addition To Birch Bluff (Lake Minnetonka) Has caused the same to be surveyed and platted as WATTEN PONDS 2ND ADDITION and does hereby dedicate to the public for public use the public way and the drainage and utility easements as created on this plat. In witness whereof said Gravity Investment, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, has caused these presents to be signed by its proper officer this day of , 20 . Signed: Gravity Investment, LLC By: its STATE OF COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 20 , by , the of Gravity Investment, LLC, a Minnesota limited liability company, on behalf of the company. County, Printed Name My commission expires I Marcus F. Hampton do hereby certify that this plat was prepared by me or under my direct supervision; that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor in the State of Minnesota; that this plat is a correct representation of the boundary survey; that all mathematical data and labels are correctly designated on this plat; that all monuments depicted on this plat have been, or will be correctly set within one year; that all water boundaries and wet lands, as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.01, Subd. 3, as of the date of this certificate are shown and labeled on this plat; and all public ways are shown and labeled on this plat. Dated this day of , 20 ______________________________________________________________ Marcus F. Hampton, Licensed Land Surveyor, Minnesota License No. 47481 STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF This instrument was acknowledged before me on this day of , 20 , by Marcus F. Hampton. County, Printed Name My commission expires January 31, CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA This plat of WATTEN PONDS 2ND ADDITION was approved and accepted by the City Council of the City of Shorewood, Minnesota at a regular meeting thereof held this day of , 20 , and said plat is in compliance with the provisions of Minnesota Statutes, Section 505.03, Subd. 2. By: Mayor Clerk COUNTY AUDITOR, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that taxes payable in 20___ and prior years have been paid for land described on this plat, dated this day of , 20 . Daniel Rogan, County Auditor By: _____________________________, Deputy SURVEY DIVISION, Hennepin County, Minnesota Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Section 383B.565 (1969), this plat has been approved this day of , 20 . Chris F. Mavis, County Surveyor By: ______________________________ REGISTRAR OF TITLES, Hennepin County, Minnesota I hereby certify that the within plat of WATTEN PONDS 2ND ADDITION was filed in this office this day of , 20 , at ______ o'clock ______. M. Amber Bougie, Registrar of Titles By: ______________________________, Deputy Page 42 of 249 930930 930 9 3 0 94 0 95 0 950 95 0 95 0 932 934 9 3 6 93 8 942 942 94 2 944 944 9 4 4 94 6 946 9 4 6 9 4 8 948 948 94 8 95 2 952952 95 2 95 4 9 5 4 9 5 6 9 5 6 95 6 9 5 6 95 0 9 4 8 9 5 2 9 5 4 950 948 952 95 4 956 95 096 097 0 98 0 94 294494 6 94 8952 95 4 95 6 95 8 96 2 96 4 96 6 96 8 97 2974 97 6 97 8 98 2 9 8 4 95 0 9 6 0 9 4 2 94 4 94 6 948 952 954 956 95 8 9 6 2 9 6 4 966 WBF WBF WB F WB F WB F WBF WBF WBF WBF WB F W B F W B F WBF WBF WBF WBF WBF WBF WB F WB F WSL WS L WS L W S L WBF WBF WBF WBF W B F W B F W B F W B F WSL WSL WSL WS L W S L WSL WS L WSL WS L W S L W S L WSL WSL WSL WSL WS L WS L W S L WSL WSL WSL WSL W S L W S L W S L W S L HWL HWL HWL HWL HWL H W L HW L H W L H W L HWLHWL HWL HW L HW L HW L HWL H W L HWL HW L H W L HWL HWL HW L H W L H W L H W L BSL BSL BSL BS L BS L BS L BS L BS L BS LBSL BSL BSL BS L BS L BS L BS L BS L BS L BS L BS L BS L BS L BSL BSL BSL BS L BS L BS L BS L BS L BS L BS L BS L BSL BSL BSL BSL BS L BS L BS L BS L S >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > >>> >> >>>>>> LAKE MINNETONKA OHW=930.0± (NAVD88) OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW OHW 1000' SHORELAND OVERLAY LINE CLARA AVEN U E 2N D S T R E E T LOT 2, BLOCK 1 SHORELAND AREA 74,076 SF / 1.68 AC LOT 1, BLOCK 1 SHORELAND AREA 57,224 SF / 1.33 AC PROJECT NO. 24303 CAD FILE 10/20/2025 DATE REVISIONS DRAWN BY Da t e : Re g . N o . 2026-01-16 CITY & MCWD COMM. 29 9 9 W E S T C . R . 4 2 , S U I T E 1 0 0 BU R N S V I L L E , M N 5 5 3 0 6 PH O N E : 9 5 2 - 8 9 0 - 6 0 4 4 bb u s s e l m a n @m n h i l l . c o m ww w . m n h i l l . c o m I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , sp e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d b y me o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n a n d th a t I a m a d u l y L i c e n s e d P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f Mi n n e s o t a . PRE L I M I N A R Y SH O R E W O O D , M N SH O R E W O O D R E S I D E N T I A L GR A V I T Y I N V E S T M E N T L L C FO R 2026-01-19 BASIN OUTLET REVS 2026-01-20 ROW VACATION REMOVAL F: \ _ C i v i l 3 D P r o j e c t s \ 2 4 3 0 3 \ P R E - P L A T P L A N S \ 2 4 3 0 3 S H O R E . d w g - 1 / 2 2 / 2 0 2 6 1 0 : 4 8 A M 24303SHORE SHEET 1 OF 1 JSO Know what's below. before you dig.Call R SCALE IN FEET 0 60 120 10 0 0 ' S H O R E L A N D O V E R L A Y E X H I B I T AREA WITHIN 1000' SHORELAND OVERLAY LEGEND Page 43 of 249 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT Date: January 19, 2026 To: Andrew Budde Abigaile Couture City Engineer Permitting Technician City of Shorewood Minnehaha Creek Watershed District From: Brady Busselman, P.E. Project: Watten Ponds 2nd Addition Shorewood, MN PROJECT SUMMARY The proposed project is located at the end of the Maple View Court cul-de-sac, south of Birch Bluff Road. The project and consists of construction of two single family homes. AREA SUMMARY (Acres) TOTAL SITE 3.61 TOTAL DISTURBED 0.96 EXISTING IMPERVIOUS 0.00 PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS 0.46 NET NEW IMPERVIOUS 0.46 EXISTING CONDITIONS SUMMARY The site is currently an undeveloped lot with woods and wetland (standing water) groundcover. Based on USGS soil maps, a HSG of C was selected. It is assumed that the groundwater elevation is high based on the standing water in the three wetlands on site. Soil borings will be completed prior to applying for building permits. Based on the available information, the site is restricted and abstraction cannot be provided. This is a conservative approach in that it requires sufficient vertical elevation to provide outlets for underdrains from proposed filtration basins. Page 44 of 249 Watten Ponds 2nd Addition Stormwater Management Report January 19, 2026 Page | 2 GOVERNING REGULATIONS The proposed project is subject to the City of Shorewood’s Surface Management Plan and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District’s (MCWD) Erosion Control, Floodplain Alteration, Waterbody Crossings and Wetland Protection Rules. The City of Shorewood requires the following stormwater management standards be met: Rate Control: No increase in discharge rates for the 1-, 10- and 100-year rainfall events. Volume Control: Infiltration or filtration of 1” of runoff over the net new impervious area. MCWD requires the following criteria be met: No net fill placed within the channel between Wetland 2P and Wetland 1P. Demonstrate the No-Rise Standard is met within the channel (no increase greater than 0.00 ft in the 100-year HWL of the channel The proposed project will not disturb over 1 acre and is not subject to the MPCA Construction Stormwater Permit. The stormwater management system has been designed to meet the most restrictive of the above requirements. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SUMMARY Text. 1. RATE CONTROL The City of Shorewood requires that proposed peak runoff rates not exceed existing peak runoff rates for the 1-, 10- and 100-year frequency storm events. Refer to Attachment A for existing drainage maps, and Attachment B for HydroCAD calculations. Rate Control 1-YEAR PEAK RUNOFF 10-YEAR PEAK RUNOFF 100-YEAR PEAK RUNOFF Existing Total Discharge 1.60 6.67 17.47 Proposed Total Discharge 1.37 6.30 17.20 Page 45 of 249 Watten Ponds 2nd Addition Stormwater Management Report January 19, 2026 Page | 3 2. VOLUME CONTROL The City of Shorewood requires an infiltration volume of 1.0” times the net new impervious surfaces. Infiltration is anticipated to be infeasibly due to high groundwater at this site, in which case the city requires filtration of the same volume. Required Infiltration Volume Area A = 5,200 SF impervious * 1.0” = 433 CF Provided Infiltration Volume Area A = 768 CF Required Infiltration Volume Area B = 2,870 SF impervious * 1.0” = 230 CF Provided Infiltration Volume Area B = 469 CF Required Infiltration Volume Area C = 5,580 impervious * 1.0” = 465 CF Provided Infiltration Volume Area C = 662 CF Required Infiltration Volume Area D = 6,220 SF impervious * 1.0” = 518 CF Provided Infiltration Volume Area D = 962 CF FLOODPLAIN SUMMARY MCWD Requires no net fill within the channel floodplain (between the OHWL and the 100-year HWL). The existing open channel and proposed pipe have been modeled in HydroCAD, and show that the proposed pipe provides over double the volume of storage below the 100-year HWL than the existing channel does. See summary below and refer to Attachment C for the channel and pipe models. Upstream invert Downstream invert 10-Year OHWL 100-Year HWL Storage Below 10- Year Elev0 Storage Below 100- Year Elev Existing Channel 947.00 944.00 947.14 (0.14’ depth) 947.22 (0.22’ depth) 13 CF 26 CF Proposed Pipe 944.10 944.00 NA NA NA 60 CF Page 46 of 249 Watten Ponds 2nd Addition Stormwater Management Report January 19, 2026 Page | 4 Sincerely, Brady Busselman, P.E. Vice President bbusselman@mnhill.com 952.426.4758 Page 47 of 249 Watten Ponds 2nd Addition Stormwater Management Report January 19, 2026 Page | 5 ATTACHMENT A DRAINAGE MAPS Page 48 of 249 X 2N D S T R E E T MA P L E VI E W CO U R T CLARA AVENUE E E E E UFO G G G T T T TV WBF WBF WBF WBF WB F WB F WBF WBF WBF WBF WBF WBF WBF WB F WBF WBF WBF WBF WBF WBF WBF WB F WB F WB F WSL WS L WSL WS L WBF WBF WBF WBF WBF WBF W B F WB F WB F WSL WSL WSL WSL WSL WS L WSL WSL WSL WSL WSL WSL WS L WSL WSL WSL WSL WSL WSL WS L WSL WS L WSL WSL WSL WSL WSL W S L WSL WS L WS L WS L WETLAND 1PNWL (EX & PROP) = 940.5100 YEAR HWL (EX) =941.58100 YEAR HWL (PROP) =941.57 WETLAND 2PNWL (EX & PROP)=947.0100 YEAR HWL (EX)=947.50100 YEAR HWL (PROP) = 947.95 HWL HWL HWL HWL HWL HWL HW L HW L HW L HW L HWL HWLHWL HWL HW L HW L HW L HWL HWL HW L HWL HW L HW L HWL HWL HWL HW L HW L HW L HWL HW L BS L BS L BS L BS L BSL BSL BSL BSL BSL BSL BSL BSL BS L BS L BS L BSL BSL BSL BS L BSL BSL BSL BSL BS L BS L BS L BS L BS L BS L BS L BSL BSL BSL BSL BSL BSL BSL BSL BSL BSL BSL BSL BS L BSL BS L BS L BS L BS LBSL BSL BSL BSL S >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> X 2N D S T R E E T MA P L E VIE W CO U R T CLARA AVENU E E E E E UFO G G G T T T TV WBF WBF WBF WBF WB F WB F WBF WBF WBF WBF WBF WB F WB F W B F WBF WBF WBF WBF WBF WBF WBF WBF WBF WB F WSL WSL WSL WS L WBF WBF WBF WBF WBF WB F WB F WB F WB F WSL WSL WSL WSL WSL WS L WSL WSL WSL WSL WS L WS L WS L WSL WSL WSL WSL WSL WSL WSL WSL WS L WSL WSL WSL WSL WSL WS L WS L WS L WS L WS L WETLAND 1PNWL (EX & PROP) = 940.5100 YEAR HWL (EX) =941.58100 YEAR HWL (PROP) =941.57 WETLAND 2PNWL (EX & PROP)=947.0100 YEAR HWL (EX)=947.50100 YEAR HWL (PROP) = 947.95 S >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >>>>>>>>>> >>>> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >>>>>>>>>> PROJECT NO. 24303 CAD FILE 10/20/2025 DATE DRAWN BY Da t e : Re g . N o . 2026-01-16 CITY & MCWD COMM. I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , sp e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d b y me o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n a n d th a t I a m a d u l y L i c e n s e d P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f Min n e s o t a . SH O R E W O O D , M N SH O R E W O O D R E S I D E N T I A L GR A V I T Y I N V E S T M E N T L L C FO R 2026-01-19 BASIN OUTLET REVS F:\ _ C i v i l 3 D P r o j e c t s \ 2 4 3 0 3 \ P R E - P L A T P L A N S \ 2 4 3 0 3 D R N . d w g - 1 / 1 9 / 2 0 2 6 0 9 : 0 6 A M 24303DRN COMBINED DR A I N A G E M A P S BDB Know what'sbelow. before you dig.Call R SCALE IN FEET050 100IMP 1S 1.234 AC0.123 AC 1P > POND AREA DRAINAGE AREATOTAL DRAINAGE AREAIMPERVIOUS AREA FLOW DIRECTION REACH LEGEND 1R ToC PATH EXISTING DRAINAGE MAP PROPOSED DRAINAGE MAP DRAINAGE BOUNDARY IMP 1X 4.86 AC0.43 AC IMP 2X 0.94 AC0.04 AC 1P 2P IMP 2P PROP 3P IMP IMP IMP IMP IMP 3P 4P 5P 5P IMP 3X 0.34 AC0.00 AC Page 49 of 249 Watten Ponds 2nd Addition Stormwater Management Report January 19, 2026 Page | 6 ATTACHMENT B HYDROCAD CALCULATIONS Page 50 of 249 1S Existing to Wetland 1P 1X Existing to Wetland 1P 2S Direct to Wetland 2P 2X Existing to Wetland 2P 3S Area A 3X Direct to Wetland 3 4S AREA B 5S Area C 6S Area D 4R Total Discharge 1P Wetland 1P 1P PROP Wetland 1P 2P Wetland 2P 2P-PROP Wetland 2P 3P Filtration Basin A 4P Filtration Basin B 5P Filtration Basin C 6P Filtration Basin D Routing Diagram for 24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Prepared by {enter your company name here}, Printed 1/19/2026 HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Page 51 of 249 24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Project Notes Rainfall events imported from "NRCS-Rain.txt" for 5327 MN Hennepin Page 52 of 249 24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 0.349 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C (3S, 4S, 5S, 6S) 0.107 96 Gravel surface, HSG C (1S, 1X) 0.597 98 Paved parking, HSG C (1S, 1X, 6S) 0.056 98 Unconnected pavement, HSG C (4S, 5S) 0.702 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C (1S, 1X, 2X, 3S, 4S, 5S) 1.285 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG C (1S, 1X, 2S, 2X) 9.184 72 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG C (1S, 1X, 2S, 2X, 3X) 12.280 78 TOTAL AREA Page 53 of 249 24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (selected nodes) Area (acres) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 0.000 HSG A 0.000 HSG B 12.280 HSG C 1S, 1X, 2S, 2X, 3S, 3X, 4S, 5S, 6S 0.000 HSG D 0.000 Other 12.280 TOTAL AREA Page 54 of 249 24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Ground Covers (selected nodes) HSG-A (acres) HSG-B (acres) HSG-C (acres) HSG-D (acres) Other (acres) Total (acres) Ground Cover Subcatchment Numbers 0.000 0.000 0.349 0.000 0.000 0.349 >75% Grass cover, Good 3S, 4S, 5S, 6S 0.000 0.000 0.107 0.000 0.000 0.107 Gravel surface 1S, 1X 0.000 0.000 0.597 0.000 0.000 0.597 Paved parking 1S, 1X, 6S 0.000 0.000 0.056 0.000 0.000 0.056 Unconnected pavement 4S, 5S 0.000 0.000 0.702 0.000 0.000 0.702 Unconnected roofs 1S, 1X, 2X, 3S, 4S, 5S 0.000 0.000 1.285 0.000 0.000 1.285 Water Surface, 0% imp 1S, 1X, 2S, 2X 0.000 0.000 9.184 0.000 0.000 9.184 Woods/grass comb., Good 1S, 1X, 2S, 2X, 3X 0.000 0.000 12.280 0.000 0.000 12.280 TOTAL AREA Page 55 of 249 24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pipe Listing (selected nodes) Line# Node Number In-Invert (feet) Out-Invert (feet) Length (feet) Slope (ft/ft) n Diam/Width (inches) Height (inches) Inside-Fill (inches) 1 2P-PROP 944.10 944.00 34.0 0.0029 0.013 18.0 0.0 0.0 2 3P 941.00 940.00 42.0 0.0238 0.013 12.0 0.0 0.0 Page 56 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7201 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Sim-Route method - Pond routing by Sim-Route method Runoff Area=193,772 sf 9.61% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.73"Subcatchment 1S: Existing to Wetland 1P Flow Length=325' Slope=0.1350 '/' Tc=18.3 min CN=77 Runoff=3.57 cfs 0.270 af Runoff Area=211,609 sf 8.80% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.68"Subcatchment 1X: Existing to Wetland 1P Flow Length=325' Slope=0.1350 '/' Tc=18.3 min UI Adjusted CN=76 Runoff=3.60 cfs 0.276 af Runoff Area=38,600 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.77"Subcatchment 2S: Direct to Wetland 2P Flow Length=100' Tc=12.3 min CN=78 Runoff=0.94 cfs 0.057 af Runoff Area=40,857 sf 4.62% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.77"Subcatchment 2X: Existing to Wetland 2P Flow Length=100' Tc=12.3 min UI Adjusted CN=78 Runoff=0.99 cfs 0.061 af Runoff Area=10,065 sf 51.66% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.23"Subcatchment 3S: Area A Tc=7.0 min CN=86 Runoff=0.51 cfs 0.024 af Runoff Area=0.344 ac 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=0.52"Subcatchment 3X: Direct to Wetland 3 Tc=7.0 min CN=72 Runoff=0.29 cfs 0.015 af Runoff Area=5,010 sf 57.29% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.36"Subcatchment 4S: AREA B Tc=7.0 min CN=88 Runoff=0.28 cfs 0.013 af Runoff Area=10,000 sf 55.80% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.29"Subcatchment 5S: Area C Tc=7.0 min CN=87 Runoff=0.53 cfs 0.025 af Runoff Area=10,000 sf 62.20% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.44"Subcatchment 6S: Area D Tc=7.0 min CN=89 Runoff=0.58 cfs 0.027 af Inflow=1.60 cfs 0.352 afReach 4R: Total Discharge Outflow=1.60 cfs 0.352 af Peak Elev=940.73' Storage=11,989 cf Inflow=3.90 cfs 0.337 afPond 1P: Wetland 1P Outflow=1.55 cfs 0.337 af Peak Elev=940.71' Storage=11,630 cf Inflow=3.61 cfs 0.350 afPond 1P PROP: Wetland 1P Outflow=1.37 cfs 0.349 af Peak Elev=947.10' Storage=7,131 cf Inflow=0.99 cfs 0.061 afPond 2P: Wetland 2P Outflow=0.39 cfs 0.061 af Peak Elev=947.16' Storage=7,621 cf Inflow=0.94 cfs 0.073 afPond 2P-PROP: Wetland 2P Outflow=0.14 cfs 0.071 af Peak Elev=944.71' Storage=768 cf Inflow=0.51 cfs 0.024 afPond 3P: Filtration Basin A Outflow=0.02 cfs 0.006 af Peak Elev=949.51' Storage=469 cf Inflow=0.28 cfs 0.013 afPond 4P: Filtration Basin B Outflow=0.01 cfs 0.002 af Page 57 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev=951.53' Storage=662 cf Inflow=0.53 cfs 0.025 afPond 5P: Filtration Basin C Outflow=0.06 cfs 0.010 af Peak Elev=952.81' Storage=962 cf Inflow=0.58 cfs 0.027 afPond 6P: Filtration Basin D Outflow=0.02 cfs 0.006 af Total Runoff Area = 12.280 ac Runoff Volume = 0.768 af Average Runoff Depth = 0.75" 88.97% Pervious = 10.925 ac 11.03% Impervious = 1.355 ac Page 58 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Existing to Wetland 1P Runoff = 3.57 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 0.270 af, Depth= 0.73" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48" Area (sf) CN Description 8,744 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C 9,885 98 Paved parking, HSG C 19,395 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG C 2,322 96 Gravel surface, HSG C 153,426 72 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG C 193,772 77 Weighted Average 175,143 90.39% Pervious Area 18,629 9.61% Impervious Area 8,744 46.94% Unconnected Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 17.0 180 0.1350 0.18 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.85" 1.3 145 0.1350 1.84 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 18.3 325 Total Subcatchment 1S: Existing to Wetland 1P Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 3 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48" Runoff Area=193,772 sf Runoff Volume=0.270 af Runoff Depth=0.73" Flow Length=325' Slope=0.1350 '/' Tc=18.3 min CN=77 3.57 cfs Page 59 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1X: Existing to Wetland 1P Runoff = 3.60 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 0.276 af, Depth= 0.68" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48" Area (sf) CN Adj Description 8,744 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C 9,885 98 Paved parking, HSG C 19,395 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG C 2,322 96 Gravel surface, HSG C 171,263 72 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG C 211,609 77 76 Weighted Average, UI Adjusted 192,980 91.20% Pervious Area 18,629 8.80% Impervious Area 8,744 46.94% Unconnected Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 17.0 180 0.1350 0.18 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.85" 1.3 145 0.1350 1.84 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 18.3 325 Total Subcatchment 1X: Existing to Wetland 1P Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 4 3 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48" Runoff Area=211,609 sf Runoff Volume=0.276 af Runoff Depth=0.68" Flow Length=325' Slope=0.1350 '/' Tc=18.3 min UI Adjusted CN=76 3.60 cfs Page 60 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Direct to Wetland 2P Runoff = 0.94 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.057 af, Depth= 0.77" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48" Area (sf) CN Description 8,590 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG C 30,010 72 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG C 38,600 78 Weighted Average 38,600 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.2 20 0.0830 1.66 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 2.85" 12.1 80 0.0625 0.11 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.85" 12.3 100 Total Subcatchment 2S: Direct to Wetland 2P Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48" Runoff Area=38,600 sf Runoff Volume=0.057 af Runoff Depth=0.77" Flow Length=100' Tc=12.3 min CN=78 0.94 cfs Page 61 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2X: Existing to Wetland 2P Runoff = 0.99 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.061 af, Depth= 0.77" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48" Area (sf) CN Adj Description 1,886 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C 8,586 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG C 30,385 72 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG C 40,857 79 78 Weighted Average, UI Adjusted 38,971 95.38% Pervious Area 1,886 4.62% Impervious Area 1,886 100.00% Unconnected Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.2 20 0.0830 1.66 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 2.85" 12.1 80 0.0625 0.11 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.85" 12.3 100 Total Subcatchment 2X: Existing to Wetland 2P Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48" Runoff Area=40,857 sf Runoff Volume=0.061 af Runoff Depth=0.77" Flow Length=100' Tc=12.3 min UI Adjusted CN=78 0.99 cfs Page 62 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 3S: Area A 5,200 SF impervious requires 434 CF filtration Runoff = 0.51 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.024 af, Depth= 1.23" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48" Area (sf) CN Description 5,200 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C 4,865 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 10,065 86 Weighted Average 4,865 48.34% Pervious Area 5,200 51.66% Impervious Area 5,200 100.00% Unconnected Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, MnDOT minimum Subcatchment 3S: Area A Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48" Runoff Area=10,065 sf Runoff Volume=0.024 af Runoff Depth=1.23" Tc=7.0 min CN=86 0.51 cfs Page 63 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 14HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 3X: Direct to Wetland 3 Runoff = 0.29 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.015 af, Depth= 0.52" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48" Area (ac) CN Description 0.344 72 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG C 0.344 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 3X: Direct to Wetland 3 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.32 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48" Runoff Area=0.344 ac Runoff Volume=0.015 af Runoff Depth=0.52" Tc=7.0 min CN=72 0.29 cfs Page 64 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 15HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 4S: AREA B Runoff = 0.28 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.013 af, Depth= 1.36" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48" Area (sf) CN Description 1,750 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C 1,120 98 Unconnected pavement, HSG C 2,140 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 5,010 88 Weighted Average 2,140 42.71% Pervious Area 2,870 57.29% Impervious Area 2,870 100.00% Unconnected Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, MnDOT minimum Subcatchment 4S: AREA B Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48" Runoff Area=5,010 sf Runoff Volume=0.013 af Runoff Depth=1.36" Tc=7.0 min CN=88 0.28 cfs Page 65 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 16HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 5S: Area C Runoff = 0.53 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.025 af, Depth= 1.29" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48" Area (sf) CN Description 4,240 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C 1,340 98 Unconnected pavement, HSG C 4,420 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 10,000 87 Weighted Average 4,420 44.20% Pervious Area 5,580 55.80% Impervious Area 5,580 100.00% Unconnected Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, MnDOT minimum Subcatchment 5S: Area C Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48" Runoff Area=10,000 sf Runoff Volume=0.025 af Runoff Depth=1.29" Tc=7.0 min CN=87 0.53 cfs Page 66 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 17HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 6S: Area D Runoff = 0.58 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.027 af, Depth= 1.44" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48" Area (sf) CN Description 6,220 98 Paved parking, HSG C 3,780 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 10,000 89 Weighted Average 3,780 37.80% Pervious Area 6,220 62.20% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, MnDOT minimum Subcatchment 6S: Area D Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48" Runoff Area=10,000 sf Runoff Volume=0.027 af Runoff Depth=1.44" Tc=7.0 min CN=89 0.58 cfs Page 67 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 18HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 4R: Total Discharge [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 6.140 ac, 7.67% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.69" for 1-Year event Inflow = 1.60 cfs @ 12.72 hrs, Volume= 0.352 af Outflow = 1.60 cfs @ 12.73 hrs, Volume= 0.352 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Reach 4R: Total Discharge Inflow Outflow Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1 0 Inflow Area=6.140 ac1.60 cfs 1.60 cfs Page 68 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 19HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P: Wetland 1P Inflow Area = 5.796 ac, 8.13% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.70" for 1-Year event Inflow = 3.90 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 0.337 af Outflow = 1.55 cfs @ 12.72 hrs, Volume= 0.337 af, Atten= 60%, Lag= 25.0 min Primary = 1.55 cfs @ 12.72 hrs, Volume= 0.337 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 940.50' Surf.Area= 18,044 sf Storage= 7,632 cf Peak Elev= 940.73' @ 12.72 hrs Surf.Area= 20,553 sf Storage= 11,989 cf (4,357 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 339.5 min calculated for 0.162 af (48% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 73.1 min ( 928.9 - 855.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 940.00' 92,346 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 940.00 12,486 0 0 941.00 23,601 18,044 18,044 942.00 38,749 31,175 49,219 943.00 47,506 43,128 92,346 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 940.50'5.8' long x 10.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=1.55 cfs @ 12.72 hrs HW=940.73' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 1.55 cfs @ 1.19 fps) Page 69 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 20HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: Wetland 1P Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=5.796 ac Peak Elev=940.73' Storage=11,989 cf 3.90 cfs 1.55 cfs Page 70 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 21HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P PROP: Wetland 1P Inflow Area = 6.140 ac, 14.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.68" for 1-Year event Inflow = 3.61 cfs @ 12.30 hrs, Volume= 0.350 af Outflow = 1.37 cfs @ 12.70 hrs, Volume= 0.349 af, Atten= 62%, Lag= 23.9 min Primary = 1.37 cfs @ 12.70 hrs, Volume= 0.349 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 940.50' Surf.Area= 18,044 sf Storage= 7,632 cf Peak Elev= 940.71' @ 12.70 hrs Surf.Area= 20,357 sf Storage= 11,630 cf (3,997 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 422.1 min calculated for 0.174 af (50% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 75.8 min ( 981.9 - 906.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 940.00' 92,346 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 940.00 12,486 0 0 941.00 23,601 18,044 18,044 942.00 38,749 31,175 49,219 943.00 47,506 43,128 92,346 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 940.50'5.8' long x 10.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=1.37 cfs @ 12.70 hrs HW=940.71' (Free Discharge) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 1.37 cfs @ 1.14 fps) Page 71 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 22HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P PROP: Wetland 1P Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=6.140 ac Peak Elev=940.71' Storage=11,630 cf 3.61 cfs 1.37 cfs Page 72 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 23HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 2P: Wetland 2P Inflow Area = 0.938 ac, 4.62% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.77" for 1-Year event Inflow = 0.99 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.061 af Outflow = 0.39 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 0.061 af, Atten= 61%, Lag= 16.3 min Primary = 0.39 cfs @ 12.48 hrs, Volume= 0.061 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 947.00' Surf.Area= 7,818 sf Storage= 6,322 cf Peak Elev= 947.10' @ 12.48 hrs Surf.Area= 8,190 sf Storage= 7,131 cf (810 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: initial storage exceeds outflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 59.3 min ( 895.2 - 835.9 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 946.00' 29,308 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 946.00 4,825 0 0 947.00 7,818 6,322 6,322 948.00 11,496 9,657 15,979 949.00 15,162 13,329 29,308 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 947.00'4.5' long x 15.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.68 2.70 2.70 2.64 2.63 2.64 2.64 2.63 Primary OutFlow Max=0.39 cfs @ 12.48 hrs HW=947.10' TW=940.70' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.39 cfs @ 0.85 fps) Page 73 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 24HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 2P: Wetland 2P Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1 0 Inflow Area=0.938 ac Peak Elev=947.10' Storage=7,131 cf 0.99 cfs 0.39 cfs Page 74 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 25HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 2P-PROP: Wetland 2P Inflow Area = 1.345 ac, 20.14% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 0.65" for 1-Year event Inflow = 0.94 cfs @ 12.21 hrs, Volume= 0.073 af Outflow = 0.14 cfs @ 13.33 hrs, Volume= 0.071 af, Atten= 85%, Lag= 67.3 min Primary = 0.14 cfs @ 13.33 hrs, Volume= 0.071 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 947.00' Surf.Area= 7,818 sf Storage= 6,322 cf Peak Elev= 947.16' @ 13.33 hrs Surf.Area= 8,407 sf Storage= 7,621 cf (1,300 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= (not calculated: initial storage exceeds outflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 256.3 min ( 1,123.3 - 867.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 946.00' 29,308 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 946.00 4,825 0 0 947.00 7,818 6,322 6,322 948.00 11,496 9,657 15,979 949.00 15,162 13,329 29,308 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Device 2 947.00'18.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Primary 944.10'18.0" Round Culvert L= 34.0' CPP, mitered to conform to fill, Ke= 0.700 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 944.10' / 944.00' S= 0.0029 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Primary OutFlow Max=0.14 cfs @ 13.33 hrs HW=947.16' TW=940.67' (Dynamic Tailwater) 2=Culvert (Passes 0.14 cfs of 11.41 cfs potential flow) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 0.14 cfs @ 1.36 fps) Page 75 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 26HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 2P-PROP: Wetland 2P Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1 0 Inflow Area=1.345 ac Peak Elev=947.16' Storage=7,621 cf 0.94 cfs 0.14 cfs Page 76 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 27HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 3P: Filtration Basin A Inflow Area = 0.231 ac, 51.66% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.23" for 1-Year event Inflow = 0.51 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.024 af Outflow = 0.02 cfs @ 13.68 hrs, Volume= 0.006 af, Atten= 96%, Lag= 92.1 min Primary = 0.02 cfs @ 13.68 hrs, Volume= 0.006 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 944.71' @ 13.68 hrs Surf.Area= 833 sf Storage= 768 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 312.9 min calculated for 0.006 af (26% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 216.4 min ( 1,025.5 - 809.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 943.00' 1,032 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 943.00 125 0 0 944.00 480 303 303 945.00 978 729 1,032 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 941.00'12.0" Round Culvert L= 42.0' CPP, mitered to conform to fill, Ke= 0.700 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 941.00' / 940.00' S= 0.0238 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 944.70'27.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=0.02 cfs @ 13.68 hrs HW=944.71' TW=940.65' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 0.02 cfs of 5.98 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 0.02 cfs @ 0.30 fps) Page 77 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 28HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 3P: Filtration Basin A Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Inflow Area=0.231 ac Peak Elev=944.71' Storage=768 cf 0.51 cfs 0.02 cfs Page 78 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 29HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 4P: Filtration Basin B Inflow Area = 0.115 ac, 57.29% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.36" for 1-Year event Inflow = 0.28 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.013 af Outflow = 0.01 cfs @ 15.03 hrs, Volume= 0.002 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 172.9 min Primary = 0.01 cfs @ 15.03 hrs, Volume= 0.002 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 949.51' @ 15.03 hrs Surf.Area= 507 sf Storage= 469 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 388.0 min calculated for 0.002 af (18% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 285.1 min ( 1,088.5 - 803.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.00' 758 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 948.00 138 0 0 949.00 360 249 249 949.50 505 216 465 950.00 665 293 758 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 949.50'5.0' long x 2.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Coef. (English) 2.54 2.61 2.61 2.60 2.66 2.70 2.77 2.89 2.88 2.85 3.07 3.20 3.32 Primary OutFlow Max=0.01 cfs @ 15.03 hrs HW=949.51' TW=940.60' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.01 cfs @ 0.22 fps) Page 79 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 30HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 4P: Filtration Basin B Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.3 0.28 0.26 0.24 0.22 0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 Inflow Area=0.115 ac Peak Elev=949.51' Storage=469 cf 0.28 cfs 0.01 cfs Page 80 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 31HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 5P: Filtration Basin C Inflow Area = 0.230 ac, 55.80% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.29" for 1-Year event Inflow = 0.53 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.025 af Outflow = 0.06 cfs @ 12.70 hrs, Volume= 0.010 af, Atten= 89%, Lag= 33.3 min Primary = 0.06 cfs @ 12.70 hrs, Volume= 0.010 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 951.53' @ 12.70 hrs Surf.Area= 705 sf Storage= 662 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 220.0 min calculated for 0.010 af (40% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 130.6 min ( 936.9 - 806.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 950.00' 1,040 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 950.00 190 0 0 951.00 500 345 345 952.00 890 695 1,040 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 951.50'5.0' long x 2.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Coef. (English) 2.54 2.61 2.61 2.60 2.66 2.70 2.77 2.89 2.88 2.85 3.07 3.20 3.32 Primary OutFlow Max=0.06 cfs @ 12.70 hrs HW=951.53' TW=947.15' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.06 cfs @ 0.42 fps) Page 81 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 32HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 5P: Filtration Basin C Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Inflow Area=0.230 ac Peak Elev=951.53' Storage=662 cf 0.53 cfs 0.06 cfs Page 82 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 33HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 6P: Filtration Basin D Inflow Area = 0.230 ac, 62.20% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.44" for 1-Year event Inflow = 0.58 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.027 af Outflow = 0.02 cfs @ 14.56 hrs, Volume= 0.006 af, Atten= 97%, Lag= 144.8 min Primary = 0.02 cfs @ 14.56 hrs, Volume= 0.006 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 952.81' @ 14.56 hrs Surf.Area= 952 sf Storage= 962 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 362.5 min calculated for 0.006 af (20% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 261.0 min ( 1,061.3 - 800.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 951.00' 1,155 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 951.00 180 0 0 952.00 540 360 360 953.00 1,050 795 1,155 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 952.80'10.0' long x 2.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Coef. (English) 2.54 2.61 2.61 2.60 2.66 2.70 2.77 2.89 2.88 2.85 3.07 3.20 3.32 Primary OutFlow Max=0.02 cfs @ 14.56 hrs HW=952.81' TW=947.14' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.02 cfs @ 0.22 fps) Page 83 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 1-Year Rainfall=2.48"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 34HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 6P: Filtration Basin D Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Inflow Area=0.230 ac Peak Elev=952.81' Storage=962 cf 0.58 cfs 0.02 cfs Page 84 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 35HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7201 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Sim-Route method - Pond routing by Sim-Route method Runoff Area=193,772 sf 9.61% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.02"Subcatchment 1S: Existing to Wetland 1P Flow Length=325' Slope=0.1350 '/' Tc=18.3 min CN=77 Runoff=10.48 cfs 0.748 af Runoff Area=211,609 sf 8.80% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.94"Subcatchment 1X: Existing to Wetland 1P Flow Length=325' Slope=0.1350 '/' Tc=18.3 min UI Adjusted CN=76 Runoff=10.99 cfs 0.785 af Runoff Area=38,600 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.10"Subcatchment 2S: Direct to Wetland 2P Flow Length=100' Tc=12.3 min CN=78 Runoff=2.65 cfs 0.155 af Runoff Area=40,857 sf 4.62% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.10"Subcatchment 2X: Existing to Wetland 2P Flow Length=100' Tc=12.3 min UI Adjusted CN=78 Runoff=2.80 cfs 0.164 af Runoff Area=10,065 sf 51.66% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.78"Subcatchment 3S: Area A Tc=7.0 min CN=86 Runoff=1.12 cfs 0.054 af Runoff Area=0.344 ac 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=1.65"Subcatchment 3X: Direct to Wetland 3 Tc=7.0 min CN=72 Runoff=1.01 cfs 0.047 af Runoff Area=5,010 sf 57.29% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.97"Subcatchment 4S: AREA B Tc=7.0 min CN=88 Runoff=0.59 cfs 0.028 af Runoff Area=10,000 sf 55.80% Impervious Runoff Depth=2.88"Subcatchment 5S: Area C Tc=7.0 min CN=87 Runoff=1.14 cfs 0.055 af Runoff Area=10,000 sf 62.20% Impervious Runoff Depth=3.07"Subcatchment 6S: Area D Tc=7.0 min CN=89 Runoff=1.20 cfs 0.059 af Inflow=6.67 cfs 0.996 afReach 4R: Total Discharge Outflow=6.67 cfs 0.996 af Peak Elev=941.06' Storage=19,495 cf Inflow=12.33 cfs 0.949 afPond 1P: Wetland 1P Outflow=6.50 cfs 0.949 af Peak Elev=941.05' Storage=19,238 cf Inflow=12.02 cfs 1.032 afPond 1P PROP: Wetland 1P Outflow=6.30 cfs 1.032 af Peak Elev=947.25' Storage=8,357 cf Inflow=2.80 cfs 0.164 afPond 2P: Wetland 2P Outflow=1.48 cfs 0.164 af Peak Elev=947.47' Storage=10,437 cf Inflow=4.68 cfs 0.232 afPond 2P-PROP: Wetland 2P Outflow=1.12 cfs 0.230 af Peak Elev=944.83' Storage=868 cf Inflow=1.12 cfs 0.054 afPond 3P: Filtration Basin A Outflow=1.02 cfs 0.036 af Peak Elev=949.61' Storage=524 cf Inflow=0.59 cfs 0.028 afPond 4P: Filtration Basin B Outflow=0.48 cfs 0.018 af Page 85 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 36HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev=951.69' Storage=786 cf Inflow=1.14 cfs 0.055 afPond 5P: Filtration Basin C Outflow=1.09 cfs 0.040 af Peak Elev=952.92' Storage=1,071 cf Inflow=1.20 cfs 0.059 afPond 6P: Filtration Basin D Outflow=1.04 cfs 0.037 af Total Runoff Area = 12.280 ac Runoff Volume = 2.095 af Average Runoff Depth = 2.05" 88.97% Pervious = 10.925 ac 11.03% Impervious = 1.355 ac Page 86 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 37HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Existing to Wetland 1P Runoff = 10.48 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.748 af, Depth= 2.02" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 8,744 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C 9,885 98 Paved parking, HSG C 19,395 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG C 2,322 96 Gravel surface, HSG C 153,426 72 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG C 193,772 77 Weighted Average 175,143 90.39% Pervious Area 18,629 9.61% Impervious Area 8,744 46.94% Unconnected Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 17.0 180 0.1350 0.18 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.85" 1.3 145 0.1350 1.84 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 18.3 325 Total Subcatchment 1S: Existing to Wetland 1P Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Runoff Area=193,772 sf Runoff Volume=0.748 af Runoff Depth=2.02" Flow Length=325' Slope=0.1350 '/' Tc=18.3 min CN=77 10.48 cfs Page 87 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 38HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1X: Existing to Wetland 1P Runoff = 10.99 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 0.785 af, Depth= 1.94" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Adj Description 8,744 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C 9,885 98 Paved parking, HSG C 19,395 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG C 2,322 96 Gravel surface, HSG C 171,263 72 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG C 211,609 77 76 Weighted Average, UI Adjusted 192,980 91.20% Pervious Area 18,629 8.80% Impervious Area 8,744 46.94% Unconnected Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 17.0 180 0.1350 0.18 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.85" 1.3 145 0.1350 1.84 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 18.3 325 Total Subcatchment 1X: Existing to Wetland 1P Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Runoff Area=211,609 sf Runoff Volume=0.785 af Runoff Depth=1.94" Flow Length=325' Slope=0.1350 '/' Tc=18.3 min UI Adjusted CN=76 10.99 cfs Page 88 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 39HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Direct to Wetland 2P Runoff = 2.65 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.155 af, Depth= 2.10" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 8,590 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG C 30,010 72 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG C 38,600 78 Weighted Average 38,600 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.2 20 0.0830 1.66 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 2.85" 12.1 80 0.0625 0.11 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.85" 12.3 100 Total Subcatchment 2S: Direct to Wetland 2P Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Runoff Area=38,600 sf Runoff Volume=0.155 af Runoff Depth=2.10" Flow Length=100' Tc=12.3 min CN=78 2.65 cfs Page 89 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 40HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2X: Existing to Wetland 2P Runoff = 2.80 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.164 af, Depth= 2.10" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Adj Description 1,886 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C 8,586 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG C 30,385 72 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG C 40,857 79 78 Weighted Average, UI Adjusted 38,971 95.38% Pervious Area 1,886 4.62% Impervious Area 1,886 100.00% Unconnected Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.2 20 0.0830 1.66 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 2.85" 12.1 80 0.0625 0.11 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.85" 12.3 100 Total Subcatchment 2X: Existing to Wetland 2P Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 3 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Runoff Area=40,857 sf Runoff Volume=0.164 af Runoff Depth=2.10" Flow Length=100' Tc=12.3 min UI Adjusted CN=78 2.80 cfs Page 90 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 41HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 3S: Area A 5,200 SF impervious requires 434 CF filtration Runoff = 1.12 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.054 af, Depth= 2.78" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 5,200 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C 4,865 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 10,065 86 Weighted Average 4,865 48.34% Pervious Area 5,200 51.66% Impervious Area 5,200 100.00% Unconnected Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, MnDOT minimum Subcatchment 3S: Area A Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Runoff Area=10,065 sf Runoff Volume=0.054 af Runoff Depth=2.78" Tc=7.0 min CN=86 1.12 cfs Page 91 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 42HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 3X: Direct to Wetland 3 Runoff = 1.01 cfs @ 12.15 hrs, Volume= 0.047 af, Depth= 1.65" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (ac) CN Description 0.344 72 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG C 0.344 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 3X: Direct to Wetland 3 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Runoff Area=0.344 ac Runoff Volume=0.047 af Runoff Depth=1.65" Tc=7.0 min CN=72 1.01 cfs Page 92 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 43HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 4S: AREA B Runoff = 0.59 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.028 af, Depth= 2.97" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 1,750 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C 1,120 98 Unconnected pavement, HSG C 2,140 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 5,010 88 Weighted Average 2,140 42.71% Pervious Area 2,870 57.29% Impervious Area 2,870 100.00% Unconnected Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, MnDOT minimum Subcatchment 4S: AREA B Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Runoff Area=5,010 sf Runoff Volume=0.028 af Runoff Depth=2.97" Tc=7.0 min CN=88 0.59 cfs Page 93 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 44HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 5S: Area C Runoff = 1.14 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.055 af, Depth= 2.88" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 4,240 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C 1,340 98 Unconnected pavement, HSG C 4,420 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 10,000 87 Weighted Average 4,420 44.20% Pervious Area 5,580 55.80% Impervious Area 5,580 100.00% Unconnected Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, MnDOT minimum Subcatchment 5S: Area C Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Runoff Area=10,000 sf Runoff Volume=0.055 af Runoff Depth=2.88" Tc=7.0 min CN=87 1.14 cfs Page 94 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 45HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 6S: Area D Runoff = 1.20 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.059 af, Depth= 3.07" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Area (sf) CN Description 6,220 98 Paved parking, HSG C 3,780 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 10,000 89 Weighted Average 3,780 37.80% Pervious Area 6,220 62.20% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, MnDOT minimum Subcatchment 6S: Area D Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26" Runoff Area=10,000 sf Runoff Volume=0.059 af Runoff Depth=3.07" Tc=7.0 min CN=89 1.20 cfs Page 95 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 46HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 4R: Total Discharge [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 6.140 ac, 7.67% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.95" for 10-Year event Inflow = 6.67 cfs @ 12.55 hrs, Volume= 0.996 af Outflow = 6.67 cfs @ 12.56 hrs, Volume= 0.996 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Reach 4R: Total Discharge Inflow Outflow Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=6.140 ac6.67 cfs 6.67 cfs Page 96 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 47HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P: Wetland 1P Inflow Area = 5.796 ac, 8.13% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 1.97" for 10-Year event Inflow = 12.33 cfs @ 12.29 hrs, Volume= 0.949 af Outflow = 6.50 cfs @ 12.56 hrs, Volume= 0.949 af, Atten= 47%, Lag= 15.9 min Primary = 6.50 cfs @ 12.56 hrs, Volume= 0.949 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 940.50' Surf.Area= 18,044 sf Storage= 7,632 cf Peak Elev= 941.06' @ 12.56 hrs Surf.Area= 24,515 sf Storage= 19,495 cf (11,863 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 147.0 min calculated for 0.774 af (82% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 49.9 min ( 879.2 - 829.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 940.00' 92,346 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 940.00 12,486 0 0 941.00 23,601 18,044 18,044 942.00 38,749 31,175 49,219 943.00 47,506 43,128 92,346 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 940.50'5.8' long x 10.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=6.50 cfs @ 12.56 hrs HW=941.06' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 6.50 cfs @ 2.00 fps) Page 97 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 48HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: Wetland 1P Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=5.796 ac Peak Elev=941.06' Storage=19,495 cf 12.33 cfs 6.50 cfs Page 98 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 49HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P PROP: Wetland 1P Inflow Area = 6.140 ac, 14.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.02" for 10-Year event Inflow = 12.02 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 1.032 af Outflow = 6.30 cfs @ 12.56 hrs, Volume= 1.032 af, Atten= 48%, Lag= 16.9 min Primary = 6.30 cfs @ 12.56 hrs, Volume= 1.032 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 940.50' Surf.Area= 18,044 sf Storage= 7,632 cf Peak Elev= 941.05' @ 12.56 hrs Surf.Area= 24,355 sf Storage= 19,238 cf (11,605 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 158.3 min calculated for 0.857 af (83% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 50.3 min ( 902.4 - 852.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 940.00' 92,346 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 940.00 12,486 0 0 941.00 23,601 18,044 18,044 942.00 38,749 31,175 49,219 943.00 47,506 43,128 92,346 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 940.50'5.8' long x 10.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=6.30 cfs @ 12.56 hrs HW=941.05' (Free Discharge) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 6.30 cfs @ 1.98 fps) Page 99 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 50HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P PROP: Wetland 1P Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=6.140 ac Peak Elev=941.05' Storage=19,238 cf 12.02 cfs 6.30 cfs Page 100 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 51HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 2P: Wetland 2P Inflow Area = 0.938 ac, 4.62% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.10" for 10-Year event Inflow = 2.80 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.164 af Outflow = 1.48 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 0.164 af, Atten= 47%, Lag= 10.2 min Primary = 1.48 cfs @ 12.38 hrs, Volume= 0.164 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 947.00' Surf.Area= 7,818 sf Storage= 6,322 cf Peak Elev= 947.25' @ 12.38 hrs Surf.Area= 8,723 sf Storage= 8,357 cf (2,036 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 575.7 min calculated for 0.019 af (11% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 41.0 min ( 855.3 - 814.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 946.00' 29,308 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 946.00 4,825 0 0 947.00 7,818 6,322 6,322 948.00 11,496 9,657 15,979 949.00 15,162 13,329 29,308 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 947.00'4.5' long x 15.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.68 2.70 2.70 2.64 2.63 2.64 2.64 2.63 Primary OutFlow Max=1.47 cfs @ 12.38 hrs HW=947.25' TW=940.99' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 1.47 cfs @ 1.33 fps) Page 101 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 52HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 2P: Wetland 2P Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=0.938 ac Peak Elev=947.25' Storage=8,357 cf 2.80 cfs 1.48 cfs Page 102 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 53HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 2P-PROP: Wetland 2P Inflow Area = 1.345 ac, 20.14% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.07" for 10-Year event Inflow = 4.68 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.232 af Outflow = 1.12 cfs @ 12.55 hrs, Volume= 0.230 af, Atten= 76%, Lag= 21.6 min Primary = 1.12 cfs @ 12.55 hrs, Volume= 0.230 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 947.00' Surf.Area= 7,818 sf Storage= 6,322 cf Peak Elev= 947.47' @ 12.55 hrs Surf.Area= 9,560 sf Storage= 10,437 cf (4,116 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 496.7 min calculated for 0.085 af (37% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 131.0 min ( 952.7 - 821.7 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 946.00' 29,308 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 946.00 4,825 0 0 947.00 7,818 6,322 6,322 948.00 11,496 9,657 15,979 949.00 15,162 13,329 29,308 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Device 2 947.00'18.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Primary 944.10'18.0" Round Culvert L= 34.0' CPP, mitered to conform to fill, Ke= 0.700 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 944.10' / 944.00' S= 0.0029 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Primary OutFlow Max=1.12 cfs @ 12.55 hrs HW=947.47' TW=941.05' (Dynamic Tailwater) 2=Culvert (Passes 1.12 cfs of 12.16 cfs potential flow) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 1.12 cfs @ 2.34 fps) Page 103 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 54HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 2P-PROP: Wetland 2P Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=1.345 ac Peak Elev=947.47' Storage=10,437 cf 4.68 cfs 1.12 cfs Page 104 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 55HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 3P: Filtration Basin A Inflow Area = 0.231 ac, 51.66% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.78" for 10-Year event Inflow = 1.12 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.054 af Outflow = 1.02 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.036 af, Atten= 8%, Lag= 2.0 min Primary = 1.02 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.036 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 944.83' @ 12.18 hrs Surf.Area= 891 sf Storage= 868 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 121.2 min calculated for 0.036 af (67% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 48.4 min ( 841.0 - 792.6 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 943.00' 1,032 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 943.00 125 0 0 944.00 480 303 303 945.00 978 729 1,032 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 941.00'12.0" Round Culvert L= 42.0' CPP, mitered to conform to fill, Ke= 0.700 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 941.00' / 940.00' S= 0.0238 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 944.70'27.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=1.02 cfs @ 12.18 hrs HW=944.82' TW=940.72' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 1.02 cfs of 6.08 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 1.02 cfs @ 1.16 fps) Page 105 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 56HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 3P: Filtration Basin A Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1 0 Inflow Area=0.231 ac Peak Elev=944.83' Storage=868 cf 1.12 cfs 1.02 cfs Page 106 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 57HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 4P: Filtration Basin B Inflow Area = 0.115 ac, 57.29% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.97" for 10-Year event Inflow = 0.59 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.028 af Outflow = 0.48 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.018 af, Atten= 19%, Lag= 3.1 min Primary = 0.48 cfs @ 12.19 hrs, Volume= 0.018 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 949.61' @ 12.19 hrs Surf.Area= 541 sf Storage= 524 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 132.2 min calculated for 0.018 af (62% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 57.9 min ( 845.7 - 787.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.00' 758 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 948.00 138 0 0 949.00 360 249 249 949.50 505 216 465 950.00 665 293 758 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 949.50'5.0' long x 2.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Coef. (English) 2.54 2.61 2.61 2.60 2.66 2.70 2.77 2.89 2.88 2.85 3.07 3.20 3.32 Primary OutFlow Max=0.47 cfs @ 12.19 hrs HW=949.61' TW=940.75' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 0.47 cfs @ 0.85 fps) Page 107 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 58HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 4P: Filtration Basin B Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 0.65 0.6 0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 Inflow Area=0.115 ac Peak Elev=949.61' Storage=524 cf 0.59 cfs 0.48 cfs Page 108 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 59HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 5P: Filtration Basin C Inflow Area = 0.230 ac, 55.80% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 2.88" for 10-Year event Inflow = 1.14 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.055 af Outflow = 1.09 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 0.040 af, Atten= 5%, Lag= 1.6 min Primary = 1.09 cfs @ 12.17 hrs, Volume= 0.040 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 951.69' @ 12.17 hrs Surf.Area= 771 sf Storage= 786 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 109.1 min calculated for 0.040 af (73% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 40.8 min ( 831.0 - 790.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 950.00' 1,040 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 950.00 190 0 0 951.00 500 345 345 952.00 890 695 1,040 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 951.50'5.0' long x 2.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Coef. (English) 2.54 2.61 2.61 2.60 2.66 2.70 2.77 2.89 2.88 2.85 3.07 3.20 3.32 Primary OutFlow Max=1.09 cfs @ 12.17 hrs HW=951.69' TW=947.21' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 1.09 cfs @ 1.12 fps) Page 109 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 60HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 5P: Filtration Basin C Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1 0 Inflow Area=0.230 ac Peak Elev=951.69' Storage=786 cf 1.14 cfs 1.09 cfs Page 110 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 61HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 6P: Filtration Basin D Inflow Area = 0.230 ac, 62.20% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 3.07" for 10-Year event Inflow = 1.20 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.059 af Outflow = 1.04 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.037 af, Atten= 14%, Lag= 2.6 min Primary = 1.04 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.037 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 952.92' @ 12.18 hrs Surf.Area= 1,009 sf Storage= 1,071 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 131.3 min calculated for 0.037 af (63% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 57.5 min ( 842.7 - 785.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 951.00' 1,155 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 951.00 180 0 0 952.00 540 360 360 953.00 1,050 795 1,155 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 952.80'10.0' long x 2.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Coef. (English) 2.54 2.61 2.61 2.60 2.66 2.70 2.77 2.89 2.88 2.85 3.07 3.20 3.32 Primary OutFlow Max=1.03 cfs @ 12.18 hrs HW=952.92' TW=947.24' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 1.03 cfs @ 0.87 fps) Page 111 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 10-Year Rainfall=4.26"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 62HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 6P: Filtration Basin D Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1 0 Inflow Area=0.230 ac Peak Elev=952.92' Storage=1,071 cf 1.20 cfs 1.04 cfs Page 112 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 63HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Time span=0.00-72.00 hrs, dt=0.01 hrs, 7201 points Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN Reach routing by Sim-Route method - Pond routing by Sim-Route method Runoff Area=193,772 sf 9.61% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.65"Subcatchment 1S: Existing to Wetland 1P Flow Length=325' Slope=0.1350 '/' Tc=18.3 min CN=77 Runoff=24.14 cfs 1.725 af Runoff Area=211,609 sf 8.80% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.54"Subcatchment 1X: Existing to Wetland 1P Flow Length=325' Slope=0.1350 '/' Tc=18.3 min UI Adjusted CN=76 Runoff=25.77 cfs 1.839 af Runoff Area=38,600 sf 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.77"Subcatchment 2S: Direct to Wetland 2P Flow Length=100' Tc=12.3 min CN=78 Runoff=5.94 cfs 0.352 af Runoff Area=40,857 sf 4.62% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.77"Subcatchment 2X: Existing to Wetland 2P Flow Length=100' Tc=12.3 min UI Adjusted CN=78 Runoff=6.29 cfs 0.373 af Runoff Area=10,065 sf 51.66% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.67"Subcatchment 3S: Area A Tc=7.0 min CN=86 Runoff=2.19 cfs 0.109 af Runoff Area=0.344 ac 0.00% Impervious Runoff Depth=4.10"Subcatchment 3X: Direct to Wetland 3 Tc=7.0 min CN=72 Runoff=2.50 cfs 0.118 af Runoff Area=5,010 sf 57.29% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.90"Subcatchment 4S: AREA B Tc=7.0 min CN=88 Runoff=1.12 cfs 0.057 af Runoff Area=10,000 sf 55.80% Impervious Runoff Depth=5.79"Subcatchment 5S: Area C Tc=7.0 min CN=87 Runoff=2.21 cfs 0.111 af Runoff Area=10,000 sf 62.20% Impervious Runoff Depth=6.02"Subcatchment 6S: Area D Tc=7.0 min CN=89 Runoff=2.26 cfs 0.115 af Inflow=17.47 cfs 2.329 afReach 4R: Total Discharge Outflow=17.47 cfs 2.329 af Peak Elev=941.56' Storage=33,687 cf Inflow=29.49 cfs 2.212 afPond 1P: Wetland 1P Outflow=17.02 cfs 2.212 af Peak Elev=941.57' Storage=33,920 cf Inflow=29.18 cfs 2.403 afPond 1P PROP: Wetland 1P Outflow=17.20 cfs 2.402 af Peak Elev=947.47' Storage=10,390 cf Inflow=6.29 cfs 0.373 afPond 2P: Wetland 2P Outflow=3.90 cfs 0.373 af Peak Elev=947.95' Storage=15,369 cf Inflow=10.02 cfs 0.541 afPond 2P-PROP: Wetland 2P Outflow=3.89 cfs 0.540 af Peak Elev=944.91' Storage=942 cf Inflow=2.19 cfs 0.109 afPond 3P: Filtration Basin A Outflow=2.17 cfs 0.092 af Peak Elev=949.70' Storage=570 cf Inflow=1.12 cfs 0.057 afPond 4P: Filtration Basin B Outflow=1.10 cfs 0.046 af Page 113 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 64HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Peak Elev=951.80' Storage=873 cf Inflow=2.21 cfs 0.111 afPond 5P: Filtration Basin C Outflow=2.16 cfs 0.096 af Peak Elev=953.00' Storage=1,153 cf Inflow=2.26 cfs 0.115 afPond 6P: Filtration Basin D Outflow=2.24 cfs 0.093 af Total Runoff Area = 12.280 ac Runoff Volume = 4.799 af Average Runoff Depth = 4.69" 88.97% Pervious = 10.925 ac 11.03% Impervious = 1.355 ac Page 114 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 65HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1S: Existing to Wetland 1P Runoff = 24.14 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 1.725 af, Depth= 4.65" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (sf) CN Description 8,744 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C 9,885 98 Paved parking, HSG C 19,395 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG C 2,322 96 Gravel surface, HSG C 153,426 72 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG C 193,772 77 Weighted Average 175,143 90.39% Pervious Area 18,629 9.61% Impervious Area 8,744 46.94% Unconnected Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 17.0 180 0.1350 0.18 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.85" 1.3 145 0.1350 1.84 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 18.3 325 Total Subcatchment 1S: Existing to Wetland 1P Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Runoff Area=193,772 sf Runoff Volume=1.725 af Runoff Depth=4.65" Flow Length=325' Slope=0.1350 '/' Tc=18.3 min CN=77 24.14 cfs Page 115 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 66HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1X: Existing to Wetland 1P Runoff = 25.77 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 1.839 af, Depth= 4.54" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (sf) CN Adj Description 8,744 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C 9,885 98 Paved parking, HSG C 19,395 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG C 2,322 96 Gravel surface, HSG C 171,263 72 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG C 211,609 77 76 Weighted Average, UI Adjusted 192,980 91.20% Pervious Area 18,629 8.80% Impervious Area 8,744 46.94% Unconnected Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 17.0 180 0.1350 0.18 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.85" 1.3 145 0.1350 1.84 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 18.3 325 Total Subcatchment 1X: Existing to Wetland 1P Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Runoff Area=211,609 sf Runoff Volume=1.839 af Runoff Depth=4.54" Flow Length=325' Slope=0.1350 '/' Tc=18.3 min UI Adjusted CN=76 25.77 cfs Page 116 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 67HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2S: Direct to Wetland 2P Runoff = 5.94 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.352 af, Depth= 4.77" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (sf) CN Description 8,590 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG C 30,010 72 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG C 38,600 78 Weighted Average 38,600 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.2 20 0.0830 1.66 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 2.85" 12.1 80 0.0625 0.11 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.85" 12.3 100 Total Subcatchment 2S: Direct to Wetland 2P Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Runoff Area=38,600 sf Runoff Volume=0.352 af Runoff Depth=4.77" Flow Length=100' Tc=12.3 min CN=78 5.94 cfs Page 117 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 68HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2X: Existing to Wetland 2P Runoff = 6.29 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.373 af, Depth= 4.77" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (sf) CN Adj Description 1,886 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C 8,586 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG C 30,385 72 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG C 40,857 79 78 Weighted Average, UI Adjusted 38,971 95.38% Pervious Area 1,886 4.62% Impervious Area 1,886 100.00% Unconnected Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.2 20 0.0830 1.66 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 2.85" 12.1 80 0.0625 0.11 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.85" 12.3 100 Total Subcatchment 2X: Existing to Wetland 2P Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Runoff Area=40,857 sf Runoff Volume=0.373 af Runoff Depth=4.77" Flow Length=100' Tc=12.3 min UI Adjusted CN=78 6.29 cfs Page 118 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 69HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 3S: Area A 5,200 SF impervious requires 434 CF filtration Runoff = 2.19 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.109 af, Depth= 5.67" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (sf) CN Description 5,200 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C 4,865 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 10,065 86 Weighted Average 4,865 48.34% Pervious Area 5,200 51.66% Impervious Area 5,200 100.00% Unconnected Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, MnDOT minimum Subcatchment 3S: Area A Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Runoff Area=10,065 sf Runoff Volume=0.109 af Runoff Depth=5.67" Tc=7.0 min CN=86 2.19 cfs Page 119 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 70HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 3X: Direct to Wetland 3 Runoff = 2.50 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.118 af, Depth= 4.10" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (ac) CN Description 0.344 72 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG C 0.344 100.00% Pervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, Subcatchment 3X: Direct to Wetland 3 Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Runoff Area=0.344 ac Runoff Volume=0.118 af Runoff Depth=4.10" Tc=7.0 min CN=72 2.50 cfs Page 120 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 71HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 4S: AREA B Runoff = 1.12 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.057 af, Depth= 5.90" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (sf) CN Description 1,750 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C 1,120 98 Unconnected pavement, HSG C 2,140 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 5,010 88 Weighted Average 2,140 42.71% Pervious Area 2,870 57.29% Impervious Area 2,870 100.00% Unconnected Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, MnDOT minimum Subcatchment 4S: AREA B Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Runoff Area=5,010 sf Runoff Volume=0.057 af Runoff Depth=5.90" Tc=7.0 min CN=88 1.12 cfs Page 121 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 72HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 5S: Area C Runoff = 2.21 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.111 af, Depth= 5.79" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (sf) CN Description 4,240 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C 1,340 98 Unconnected pavement, HSG C 4,420 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 10,000 87 Weighted Average 4,420 44.20% Pervious Area 5,580 55.80% Impervious Area 5,580 100.00% Unconnected Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, MnDOT minimum Subcatchment 5S: Area C Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Runoff Area=10,000 sf Runoff Volume=0.111 af Runoff Depth=5.79" Tc=7.0 min CN=87 2.21 cfs Page 122 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 73HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 6S: Area D Runoff = 2.26 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.115 af, Depth= 6.02" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Area (sf) CN Description 6,220 98 Paved parking, HSG C 3,780 74 >75% Grass cover, Good, HSG C 10,000 89 Weighted Average 3,780 37.80% Pervious Area 6,220 62.20% Impervious Area Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 7.0 Direct Entry, MnDOT minimum Subcatchment 6S: Area D Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32" Runoff Area=10,000 sf Runoff Volume=0.115 af Runoff Depth=6.02" Tc=7.0 min CN=89 2.26 cfs Page 123 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 74HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Reach 4R: Total Discharge [40] Hint: Not Described (Outflow=Inflow) Inflow Area = 6.140 ac, 7.67% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.55" for 100-Year event Inflow = 17.47 cfs @ 12.49 hrs, Volume= 2.329 af Outflow = 17.47 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 2.329 af, Atten= 0%, Lag= 0.6 min Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Reach 4R: Total Discharge Inflow Outflow Hydrograph Time (hours) 727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=6.140 ac17.47 cfs 17.47 cfs Page 124 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 75HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P: Wetland 1P Inflow Area = 5.796 ac, 8.13% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.58" for 100-Year event Inflow = 29.49 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 2.212 af Outflow = 17.02 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 2.212 af, Atten= 42%, Lag= 13.4 min Primary = 17.02 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 2.212 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 940.50' Surf.Area= 18,044 sf Storage= 7,632 cf Peak Elev= 941.56' @ 12.50 hrs Surf.Area= 32,108 sf Storage= 33,687 cf (26,055 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 87.5 min calculated for 2.036 af (92% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 38.8 min ( 849.2 - 810.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 940.00' 92,346 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 940.00 12,486 0 0 941.00 23,601 18,044 18,044 942.00 38,749 31,175 49,219 943.00 47,506 43,128 92,346 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 940.50'5.8' long x 10.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=17.02 cfs @ 12.50 hrs HW=941.56' TW=0.00' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 17.02 cfs @ 2.76 fps) Page 125 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 76HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: Wetland 1P Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Inflow Area=5.796 ac Peak Elev=941.56' Storage=33,687 cf 29.49 cfs 17.02 cfs Page 126 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 77HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P PROP: Wetland 1P Inflow Area = 6.140 ac, 14.40% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.70" for 100-Year event Inflow = 29.18 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 2.403 af Outflow = 17.20 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 2.402 af, Atten= 41%, Lag= 14.2 min Primary = 17.20 cfs @ 12.50 hrs, Volume= 2.402 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 940.50' Surf.Area= 18,044 sf Storage= 7,632 cf Peak Elev= 941.57' @ 12.50 hrs Surf.Area= 32,218 sf Storage= 33,920 cf (26,288 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 89.6 min calculated for 2.227 af (93% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 38.6 min ( 861.6 - 823.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 940.00' 92,346 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 940.00 12,486 0 0 941.00 23,601 18,044 18,044 942.00 38,749 31,175 49,219 943.00 47,506 43,128 92,346 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 940.50'5.8' long x 10.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=17.20 cfs @ 12.50 hrs HW=941.57' (Free Discharge) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 17.20 cfs @ 2.77 fps) Page 127 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 78HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P PROP: Wetland 1P Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Inflow Area=6.140 ac Peak Elev=941.57' Storage=33,920 cf 29.18 cfs 17.20 cfs Page 128 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 79HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 2P: Wetland 2P Inflow Area = 0.938 ac, 4.62% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.77" for 100-Year event Inflow = 6.29 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.373 af Outflow = 3.90 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 0.373 af, Atten= 38%, Lag= 7.8 min Primary = 3.90 cfs @ 12.33 hrs, Volume= 0.373 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 947.00' Surf.Area= 7,818 sf Storage= 6,322 cf Peak Elev= 947.47' @ 12.33 hrs Surf.Area= 9,542 sf Storage= 10,390 cf (4,068 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 172.4 min calculated for 0.227 af (61% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 31.4 min ( 829.2 - 797.8 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 946.00' 29,308 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 946.00 4,825 0 0 947.00 7,818 6,322 6,322 948.00 11,496 9,657 15,979 949.00 15,162 13,329 29,308 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 947.00'4.5' long x 15.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.68 2.70 2.70 2.64 2.63 2.64 2.64 2.63 Primary OutFlow Max=3.90 cfs @ 12.33 hrs HW=947.47' TW=941.43' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 3.90 cfs @ 1.85 fps) Page 129 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 80HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 2P: Wetland 2P Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=0.938 ac Peak Elev=947.47' Storage=10,390 cf 6.29 cfs 3.90 cfs Page 130 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 81HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 2P-PROP: Wetland 2P Inflow Area = 1.345 ac, 20.14% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 4.83" for 100-Year event Inflow = 10.02 cfs @ 12.18 hrs, Volume= 0.541 af Outflow = 3.89 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.540 af, Atten= 61%, Lag= 13.2 min Primary = 3.89 cfs @ 12.39 hrs, Volume= 0.540 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Starting Elev= 947.00' Surf.Area= 7,818 sf Storage= 6,322 cf Peak Elev= 947.95' @ 12.39 hrs Surf.Area= 11,299 sf Storage= 15,369 cf (9,048 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 207.0 min calculated for 0.395 af (73% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 84.4 min ( 884.8 - 800.3 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 946.00' 29,308 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 946.00 4,825 0 0 947.00 7,818 6,322 6,322 948.00 11,496 9,657 15,979 949.00 15,162 13,329 29,308 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Device 2 947.00'18.0" Vert. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 #2 Primary 944.10'18.0" Round Culvert L= 34.0' CPP, mitered to conform to fill, Ke= 0.700 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 944.10' / 944.00' S= 0.0029 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 1.77 sf Primary OutFlow Max=3.89 cfs @ 12.39 hrs HW=947.95' TW=941.53' (Dynamic Tailwater) 2=Culvert (Passes 3.89 cfs of 13.21 cfs potential flow) 1=Orifice/Grate (Orifice Controls 3.89 cfs @ 3.31 fps) Page 131 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 82HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 2P-PROP: Wetland 2P Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=1.345 ac Peak Elev=947.95' Storage=15,369 cf 10.02 cfs 3.89 cfs Page 132 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 83HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 3P: Filtration Basin A Inflow Area = 0.231 ac, 51.66% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.67" for 100-Year event Inflow = 2.19 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.109 af Outflow = 2.17 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.092 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 1.0 min Primary = 2.17 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.092 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 944.91' @ 12.16 hrs Surf.Area= 931 sf Storage= 942 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 82.4 min calculated for 0.092 af (84% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 28.5 min ( 807.0 - 778.5 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 943.00' 1,032 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 943.00 125 0 0 944.00 480 303 303 945.00 978 729 1,032 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 941.00'12.0" Round Culvert L= 42.0' CPP, mitered to conform to fill, Ke= 0.700 Inlet / Outlet Invert= 941.00' / 940.00' S= 0.0238 '/' Cc= 0.900 n= 0.013 Corrugated PE, smooth interior, Flow Area= 0.79 sf #2 Device 1 944.70'27.0" Horiz. Orifice/Grate C= 0.600 Limited to weir flow at low heads Primary OutFlow Max=2.17 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=944.91' TW=941.06' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Culvert (Passes 2.17 cfs of 6.16 cfs potential flow) 2=Orifice/Grate (Weir Controls 2.17 cfs @ 1.49 fps) Page 133 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 84HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 3P: Filtration Basin A Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 2 1 0 Inflow Area=0.231 ac Peak Elev=944.91' Storage=942 cf 2.19 cfs 2.17 cfs Page 134 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 85HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 4P: Filtration Basin B Inflow Area = 0.115 ac, 57.29% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.90" for 100-Year event Inflow = 1.12 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.057 af Outflow = 1.10 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.046 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 1.1 min Primary = 1.10 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.046 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 949.70' @ 12.16 hrs Surf.Area= 568 sf Storage= 570 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 91.5 min calculated for 0.046 af (81% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 33.9 min ( 808.2 - 774.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 948.00' 758 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 948.00 138 0 0 949.00 360 249 249 949.50 505 216 465 950.00 665 293 758 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 949.50'5.0' long x 2.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Coef. (English) 2.54 2.61 2.61 2.60 2.66 2.70 2.77 2.89 2.88 2.85 3.07 3.20 3.32 Primary OutFlow Max=1.10 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=949.70' TW=941.07' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 1.10 cfs @ 1.12 fps) Page 135 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 86HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 4P: Filtration Basin B Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 1 0 Inflow Area=0.115 ac Peak Elev=949.70' Storage=570 cf 1.12 cfs 1.10 cfs Page 136 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 87HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 5P: Filtration Basin C Inflow Area = 0.230 ac, 55.80% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 5.79" for 100-Year event Inflow = 2.21 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.111 af Outflow = 2.16 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.096 af, Atten= 2%, Lag= 1.2 min Primary = 2.16 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.096 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 951.80' @ 12.16 hrs Surf.Area= 814 sf Storage= 873 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 76.2 min calculated for 0.096 af (87% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 26.9 min ( 803.3 - 776.4 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 950.00' 1,040 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 950.00 190 0 0 951.00 500 345 345 952.00 890 695 1,040 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 951.50'5.0' long x 2.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Coef. (English) 2.54 2.61 2.61 2.60 2.66 2.70 2.77 2.89 2.88 2.85 3.07 3.20 3.32 Primary OutFlow Max=2.16 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=951.80' TW=947.65' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 2.16 cfs @ 1.42 fps) Page 137 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 88HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 5P: Filtration Basin C Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 2 1 0 Inflow Area=0.230 ac Peak Elev=951.80' Storage=873 cf 2.21 cfs 2.16 cfs Page 138 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 89HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 6P: Filtration Basin D Inflow Area = 0.230 ac, 62.20% Impervious, Inflow Depth = 6.02" for 100-Year event Inflow = 2.26 cfs @ 12.14 hrs, Volume= 0.115 af Outflow = 2.24 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.093 af, Atten= 1%, Lag= 1.0 min Primary = 2.24 cfs @ 12.16 hrs, Volume= 0.093 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 0.00-72.00 hrs, dt= 0.01 hrs Peak Elev= 953.00' @ 12.16 hrs Surf.Area= 1,049 sf Storage= 1,153 cf Plug-Flow detention time= 92.4 min calculated for 0.093 af (81% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 34.8 min ( 806.8 - 772.0 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 951.00' 1,155 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 951.00 180 0 0 952.00 540 360 360 953.00 1,050 795 1,155 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 952.80'10.0' long x 2.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 1.80 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 Coef. (English) 2.54 2.61 2.61 2.60 2.66 2.70 2.77 2.89 2.88 2.85 3.07 3.20 3.32 Primary OutFlow Max=2.23 cfs @ 12.16 hrs HW=953.00' TW=947.64' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 2.23 cfs @ 1.13 fps) Page 139 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-18 Printed 1/19/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 90HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 6P: Filtration Basin D Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours)727068666462605856545250484644424038363432302826242220181614121086420 Fl o w ( c f s ) 2 1 0 Inflow Area=0.230 ac Peak Elev=953.00' Storage=1,153 cf 2.26 cfs 2.24 cfs Page 140 of 249 Watten Ponds 2nd Addition Stormwater Management Report January 19, 2026 Page | 7 ATTACHMENT C CHANNEL/PIPE MODELS Page 141 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-13 Printed 1/15/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Reach 5R: (new Reach) Elevation (feet) Velocity (ft/sec) Discharge (cfs) 947.00 0.00 0.00 947.01 0.70 0.01 947.02 1.12 0.02 947.03 1.48 0.06 947.04 1.79 0.11 947.05 2.08 0.17 947.06 2.34 0.26 947.07 2.60 0.36 947.08 2.84 0.48 947.09 3.07 0.62 947.10 3.29 0.78 947.11 3.51 0.96 947.12 3.72 1.15 947.13 3.92 1.37 947.14 4.12 1.61 947.15 4.31 1.87 947.16 4.50 2.15 947.17 4.69 2.45 947.18 4.87 2.77 947.19 5.05 3.12 947.20 5.22 3.48 947.21 5.39 3.87 947.22 5.56 4.28 947.23 5.73 4.71 947.24 5.89 5.16 947.25 6.05 5.64 947.26 6.21 6.14 947.27 6.37 6.66 947.28 6.53 7.21 947.29 6.68 7.78 947.30 6.83 8.37 947.31 6.98 8.98 947.32 7.13 9.62 947.33 7.28 10.29 947.34 7.42 10.97 947.35 7.57 11.68 947.36 7.71 12.41 947.37 7.85 13.17 947.38 7.99 13.95 947.39 8.13 14.76 947.40 8.27 15.59 947.41 8.40 16.44 947.42 8.54 17.32 947.43 8.67 18.22 947.44 8.80 19.15 947.45 8.93 20.10 947.46 9.07 21.08 947.47 9.20 22.09 947.48 9.32 23.11 947.49 9.45 24.17 947.50 9.58 25.24 947.51 9.70 26.35 Elevation (feet) Velocity (ft/sec) Discharge (cfs) 947.52 9.83 27.47 947.53 9.95 28.63 947.54 10.08 29.81 947.55 10.20 31.01 947.56 10.32 32.24 947.57 10.44 33.50 947.58 10.56 34.78 947.59 10.68 36.09 947.60 10.80 37.42 947.61 10.92 38.78 947.62 11.04 40.16 947.63 11.15 41.57 947.64 11.27 43.01 947.65 11.39 44.47 947.66 11.50 45.96 947.67 11.61 47.48 947.68 11.73 49.02 947.69 11.84 50.59 947.70 11.95 52.19 947.71 12.07 53.81 947.72 12.18 55.45 947.73 12.29 57.13 947.74 12.40 58.83 947.75 12.51 60.56 947.76 12.62 62.31 947.77 12.73 64.09 947.78 12.83 65.90 947.79 12.94 67.74 947.80 13.05 69.60 Page 142 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-13 Printed 1/15/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Reach 5R: (new Reach) Elevation (feet) End-Area (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 947.00 0.0 0 947.01 0.0 0 947.02 0.0 1 947.03 0.0 1 947.04 0.1 2 947.05 0.1 3 947.06 0.1 4 947.07 0.1 5 947.08 0.2 6 947.09 0.2 7 947.10 0.2 8 947.11 0.3 9 947.12 0.3 11 947.13 0.3 12 947.14 0.4 13 947.15 0.4 15 947.16 0.5 16 947.17 0.5 18 947.18 0.6 19 947.19 0.6 21 947.20 0.7 23 947.21 0.7 24 947.22 0.8 26 947.23 0.8 28 947.24 0.9 30 947.25 0.9 32 947.26 1.0 34 947.27 1.0 36 947.28 1.1 38 947.29 1.2 40 947.30 1.2 42 947.31 1.3 44 947.32 1.3 46 947.33 1.4 48 947.34 1.5 50 947.35 1.5 52 947.36 1.6 55 947.37 1.7 57 947.38 1.7 59 947.39 1.8 62 947.40 1.9 64 947.41 2.0 67 947.42 2.0 69 947.43 2.1 71 947.44 2.2 74 947.45 2.3 77 947.46 2.3 79 947.47 2.4 82 947.48 2.5 84 947.49 2.6 87 947.50 2.6 90 947.51 2.7 92 Elevation (feet) End-Area (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 947.52 2.8 95 947.53 2.9 98 947.54 3.0 101 947.55 3.0 103 947.56 3.1 106 947.57 3.2 109 947.58 3.3 112 947.59 3.4 115 947.60 3.5 118 947.61 3.6 121 947.62 3.6 124 947.63 3.7 127 947.64 3.8 130 947.65 3.9 133 947.66 4.0 136 947.67 4.1 139 947.68 4.2 142 947.69 4.3 145 947.70 4.4 148 947.71 4.5 152 947.72 4.6 155 947.73 4.6 158 947.74 4.7 161 947.75 4.8 165 947.76 4.9 168 947.77 5.0 171 947.78 5.1 175 947.79 5.2 178 947.80 5.3 181 Page 143 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-13 Printed 1/15/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Discharge for Reach 6R: (new Reach) Elevation (feet) Velocity (ft/sec) Discharge (cfs) 944.10 0.00 0.00 944.11 0.23 0.00 944.12 0.40 0.00 944.13 0.54 0.00 944.14 0.65 0.01 944.15 0.75 0.01 944.16 0.85 0.02 944.17 0.93 0.03 944.18 1.02 0.04 944.19 1.10 0.05 944.20 1.18 0.06 944.21 1.25 0.07 944.22 1.33 0.09 944.23 1.39 0.10 944.24 1.46 0.12 944.25 1.53 0.14 944.26 1.59 0.16 944.27 1.65 0.18 944.28 1.71 0.21 944.29 1.77 0.23 944.30 1.83 0.26 944.31 1.89 0.28 944.32 1.94 0.31 944.33 2.00 0.34 944.34 2.05 0.37 944.35 2.10 0.41 944.36 2.15 0.44 944.37 2.20 0.48 944.38 2.25 0.51 944.39 2.30 0.55 944.40 2.34 0.59 944.41 2.39 0.63 944.42 2.43 0.67 944.43 2.48 0.71 944.44 2.52 0.76 944.45 2.57 0.80 944.46 2.61 0.85 944.47 2.65 0.90 944.48 2.69 0.95 944.49 2.73 1.00 944.50 2.77 1.05 944.51 2.81 1.10 944.52 2.85 1.15 944.53 2.88 1.21 944.54 2.92 1.26 944.55 2.96 1.32 944.56 2.99 1.38 944.57 3.03 1.43 944.58 3.06 1.49 944.59 3.10 1.55 944.60 3.13 1.61 944.61 3.16 1.68 Elevation (feet) Velocity (ft/sec) Discharge (cfs) 944.62 3.20 1.74 944.63 3.23 1.80 944.64 3.26 1.87 944.65 3.29 1.93 944.66 3.32 2.00 944.67 3.35 2.06 944.68 3.38 2.13 944.69 3.41 2.20 944.70 3.44 2.27 944.71 3.47 2.34 944.72 3.49 2.41 944.73 3.52 2.48 944.74 3.55 2.55 944.75 3.57 2.62 944.76 3.60 2.69 944.77 3.62 2.77 944.78 3.65 2.84 944.79 3.67 2.91 944.80 3.70 2.99 944.81 3.72 3.06 944.82 3.74 3.14 944.83 3.77 3.21 944.84 3.79 3.29 944.85 3.81 3.37 944.86 3.83 3.44 944.87 3.85 3.52 944.88 3.87 3.60 944.89 3.89 3.67 944.90 3.91 3.75 944.91 3.93 3.83 944.92 3.95 3.90 944.93 3.97 3.98 944.94 3.99 4.06 944.95 4.00 4.14 944.96 4.02 4.21 944.97 4.04 4.29 944.98 4.05 4.37 944.99 4.07 4.45 945.00 4.09 4.52 945.01 4.10 4.60 945.02 4.12 4.68 945.03 4.13 4.75 945.04 4.14 4.83 945.05 4.16 4.90 945.06 4.17 4.98 945.07 4.18 5.06 945.08 4.19 5.13 945.09 4.21 5.20 945.10 4.22 5.28 945.11 4.23 5.35 945.12 4.24 5.42 945.13 4.25 5.49 Elevation (feet) Velocity (ft/sec) Discharge (cfs) 945.14 4.26 5.57 945.15 4.27 5.64 945.16 4.27 5.71 945.17 4.28 5.78 945.18 4.29 5.84 945.19 4.30 5.91 945.20 4.30 5.98 945.21 4.31 6.04 945.22 4.32 6.11 945.23 4.32 6.17 945.24 4.33 6.23 945.25 4.33 6.29 945.26 4.33 6.35 945.27 4.34 6.41 945.28 4.34 6.47 945.29 4.34 6.53 945.30 4.34 6.58 945.31 4.34 6.63 945.32 4.34 6.69 945.33 4.34 6.74 945.34 4.34 6.78 945.35 4.34 6.83 945.36 4.34 6.87 945.37 4.33 6.92 945.38 4.33 6.96 945.39 4.33 7.00 945.40 4.32 7.03 945.41 4.32 7.07 945.42 4.31 7.10 945.43 4.30 7.13 945.44 4.29 7.15 945.45 4.28 7.18 945.46 4.27 7.19 945.47 4.26 7.21 945.48 4.25 7.23 945.49 4.23 7.23 945.50 4.22 7.24 945.51 4.20 7.24 945.52 4.18 7.24 945.53 4.16 7.23 945.54 4.14 7.21 945.55 4.11 7.19 945.56 4.08 7.15 945.57 4.05 7.11 945.58 4.00 7.05 945.59 3.92 6.92 945.60 3.81 6.73 Page 144 of 249 MSE 24-hr 3 100-Year Rainfall=7.32"24303-Watten Ponds 2nd Stormwater_2026-01-13 Printed 1/15/2026Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Reach 6R: (new Reach) Elevation (feet) End-Area (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 944.10 0.0 0 944.12 0.0 0 944.14 0.0 0 944.16 0.0 1 944.18 0.0 1 944.20 0.1 2 944.22 0.1 2 944.24 0.1 3 944.26 0.1 3 944.28 0.1 4 944.30 0.1 5 944.32 0.2 5 944.34 0.2 6 944.36 0.2 7 944.38 0.2 8 944.40 0.3 9 944.42 0.3 9 944.44 0.3 10 944.46 0.3 11 944.48 0.4 12 944.50 0.4 13 944.52 0.4 14 944.54 0.4 15 944.56 0.5 16 944.58 0.5 17 944.60 0.5 18 944.62 0.5 18 944.64 0.6 19 944.66 0.6 20 944.68 0.6 21 944.70 0.7 22 944.72 0.7 23 944.74 0.7 24 944.76 0.7 25 944.78 0.8 26 944.80 0.8 27 944.82 0.8 29 944.84 0.9 30 944.86 0.9 31 944.88 0.9 32 944.90 1.0 33 944.92 1.0 34 944.94 1.0 35 944.96 1.0 36 944.98 1.1 37 945.00 1.1 38 945.02 1.1 39 945.04 1.2 40 945.06 1.2 41 945.08 1.2 42 945.10 1.3 43 945.12 1.3 44 Elevation (feet) End-Area (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 945.14 1.3 44 945.16 1.3 45 945.18 1.4 46 945.20 1.4 47 945.22 1.4 48 945.24 1.4 49 945.26 1.5 50 945.28 1.5 51 945.30 1.5 52 945.32 1.5 52 945.34 1.6 53 945.36 1.6 54 945.38 1.6 55 945.40 1.6 55 945.42 1.6 56 945.44 1.7 57 945.46 1.7 57 945.48 1.7 58 945.50 1.7 58 945.52 1.7 59 945.54 1.7 59 945.56 1.8 60 945.58 1.8 60 945.60 1.8 60 Page 145 of 249 1X Existing to Wetland 1P 2X Existing to Wetland 2P 1P Wetland 1P 4P Wetland 2P Routing Diagram for 24303-Wetlands Prepared by {enter your company name here}, Printed 10/17/2025 HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Subcat Reach Pond Link Page 146 of 249 Existing 24303-Wetlands Printed 10/17/2025Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 2HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Area Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) CN Description (subcatchment-numbers) 0.053 96 Gravel surface, HSG C (1X) 0.227 98 Paved parking, HSG C (1X) 0.244 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C (1X, 2X) 0.642 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG C (1X, 2X) 4.629 72 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG C (1X, 2X) 5.796 77 TOTAL AREA Page 147 of 249 Existing 24303-Wetlands Printed 10/17/2025Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 3HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Soil Listing (all nodes) Area (acres) Soil Group Subcatchment Numbers 0.000 HSG A 0.000 HSG B 5.796 HSG C 1X, 2X 0.000 HSG D 0.000 Other 5.796 TOTAL AREA Page 148 of 249 Existing MSE 24-hr 3 100 Year Rainfall=7.31"24303-Wetlands Printed 10/17/2025Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 4HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 1X: Existing to Wetland 1P Runoff = 25.64 cfs @ 12.27 hrs, Volume= 1.759 af, Depth> 4.35" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100 Year Rainfall=7.31" Area (sf) CN Adj Description 8,744 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C 9,885 98 Paved parking, HSG C 19,395 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG C 2,322 96 Gravel surface, HSG C 171,263 72 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG C 211,609 77 76 Weighted Average, UI Adjusted 192,980 91.20% Pervious Area 18,629 8.80% Impervious Area 8,744 46.94% Unconnected Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 17.0 180 0.1350 0.18 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.85" 1.3 145 0.1350 1.84 Shallow Concentrated Flow, Woodland Kv= 5.0 fps 18.3 325 Total Subcatchment 1X: Existing to Wetland 1P Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 201918171615141312111098765 Fl o w ( c f s ) 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 MSE 24-hr 3 100 Year Rainfall=7.31" Runoff Area=211,609 sf Runoff Volume=1.759 af Runoff Depth>4.35" Flow Length=325' Slope=0.1350 '/' Tc=18.3 min UI Adjusted CN=76 25.64 cfs Page 149 of 249 Existing MSE 24-hr 3 100 Year Rainfall=7.31"24303-Wetlands Printed 10/17/2025Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 5HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Subcatchment 2X: Existing to Wetland 2P Runoff = 6.21 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.357 af, Depth> 4.57" Runoff by SCS TR-20 method, UH=SCS, Weighted-CN, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs MSE 24-hr 3 100 Year Rainfall=7.31" Area (sf) CN Adj Description 1,886 98 Unconnected roofs, HSG C 8,586 98 Water Surface, 0% imp, HSG C 30,385 72 Woods/grass comb., Good, HSG C 40,857 79 78 Weighted Average, UI Adjusted 38,971 95.38% Pervious Area 1,886 4.62% Impervious Area 1,886 100.00% Unconnected Tc Length Slope Velocity Capacity Description (min) (feet) (ft/ft) (ft/sec) (cfs) 0.2 20 0.0830 1.66 Sheet Flow, Smooth surfaces n= 0.011 P2= 2.85" 12.1 80 0.0625 0.11 Sheet Flow, Woods: Light underbrush n= 0.400 P2= 2.85" 12.3 100 Total Subcatchment 2X: Existing to Wetland 2P Runoff Hydrograph Time (hours) 201918171615141312111098765 Fl o w ( c f s ) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 MSE 24-hr 3 100 Year Rainfall=7.31" Runoff Area=40,857 sf Runoff Volume=0.357 af Runoff Depth>4.57" Flow Length=100' Tc=12.3 min UI Adjusted CN=78 6.21 cfs Page 150 of 249 Existing MSE 24-hr 3 100 Year Rainfall=7.31"24303-Wetlands Printed 10/17/2025Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 6HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 1P: Wetland 1P Inflow Area = 5.796 ac, 8.13% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 4.36" for 100 Year event Inflow = 29.29 cfs @ 12.28 hrs, Volume= 2.105 af Outflow = 17.47 cfs @ 12.52 hrs, Volume= 2.062 af, Atten= 40%, Lag= 14.0 min Primary = 17.47 cfs @ 12.52 hrs, Volume= 2.062 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Starting Elev= 940.50' Surf.Area= 18,044 sf Storage= 7,632 cf Peak Elev= 941.58' @ 12.52 hrs Surf.Area= 32,385 sf Storage= 34,275 cf (26,643 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 67.0 min calculated for 1.881 af (89% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 26.8 min ( 814.0 - 787.2 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 940.00' 92,346 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 940.00 12,486 0 0 941.00 23,601 18,044 18,044 942.00 38,749 31,175 49,219 943.00 47,506 43,128 92,346 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 940.50'5.8' long x 10.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.49 2.56 2.70 2.69 2.68 2.69 2.67 2.64 Primary OutFlow Max=17.42 cfs @ 12.52 hrs HW=941.58' (Free Discharge) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 17.42 cfs @ 2.79 fps) Page 151 of 249 Existing MSE 24-hr 3 100 Year Rainfall=7.31"24303-Wetlands Printed 10/17/2025Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 7HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 1P: Wetland 1P Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 201918171615141312111098765 Fl o w ( c f s ) 32 30 28 26 24 22 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Inflow Area=5.796 ac Peak Elev=941.58' Storage=34,275 cf 29.29 cfs 17.47 cfs Page 152 of 249 Existing MSE 24-hr 3 100 Year Rainfall=7.31"24303-Wetlands Printed 10/17/2025Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 8HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 1P: Wetland 1P Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 940.00 12,486 0 940.01 12,597 125 940.02 12,708 252 940.03 12,819 380 940.04 12,931 508 940.05 13,042 638 940.06 13,153 769 940.07 13,264 901 940.08 13,375 1,034 940.09 13,486 1,169 940.10 13,598 1,304 940.11 13,709 1,441 940.12 13,820 1,578 940.13 13,931 1,717 940.14 14,042 1,857 940.15 14,153 1,998 940.16 14,264 2,140 940.17 14,376 2,283 940.18 14,487 2,428 940.19 14,598 2,573 940.20 14,709 2,720 940.21 14,820 2,867 940.22 14,931 3,016 940.23 15,042 3,166 940.24 15,154 3,317 940.25 15,265 3,469 940.26 15,376 3,622 940.27 15,487 3,776 940.28 15,598 3,932 940.29 15,709 4,088 940.30 15,820 4,246 940.31 15,932 4,405 940.32 16,043 4,565 940.33 16,154 4,726 940.34 16,265 4,888 940.35 16,376 5,051 940.36 16,487 5,215 940.37 16,599 5,381 940.38 16,710 5,547 940.39 16,821 5,715 940.40 16,932 5,884 940.41 17,043 6,053 940.42 17,154 6,224 940.43 17,265 6,397 940.44 17,377 6,570 940.45 17,488 6,744 940.46 17,599 6,920 940.47 17,710 7,096 940.48 17,821 7,274 940.49 17,932 7,452 940.50 18,044 7,632 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 940.51 18,155 7,813 940.52 18,266 7,995 940.53 18,377 8,179 940.54 18,488 8,363 940.55 18,599 8,548 940.56 18,710 8,735 940.57 18,822 8,923 940.58 18,933 9,111 940.59 19,044 9,301 940.60 19,155 9,492 940.61 19,266 9,684 940.62 19,377 9,878 940.63 19,488 10,072 940.64 19,600 10,267 940.65 19,711 10,464 940.66 19,822 10,662 940.67 19,933 10,860 940.68 20,044 11,060 940.69 20,155 11,261 940.70 20,267 11,463 940.71 20,378 11,667 940.72 20,489 11,871 940.73 20,600 12,076 940.74 20,711 12,283 940.75 20,822 12,491 940.76 20,933 12,699 940.77 21,045 12,909 940.78 21,156 13,120 940.79 21,267 13,332 940.80 21,378 13,546 940.81 21,489 13,760 940.82 21,600 13,975 940.83 21,711 14,192 940.84 21,823 14,410 940.85 21,934 14,628 940.86 22,045 14,848 940.87 22,156 15,069 940.88 22,267 15,291 940.89 22,378 15,515 940.90 22,489 15,739 940.91 22,601 15,964 940.92 22,712 16,191 940.93 22,823 16,419 940.94 22,934 16,647 940.95 23,045 16,877 940.96 23,156 17,108 940.97 23,268 17,340 940.98 23,379 17,574 940.99 23,490 17,808 941.00 23,601 18,044 941.01 23,752 18,280 Page 153 of 249 Existing MSE 24-hr 3 100 Year Rainfall=7.31"24303-Wetlands Printed 10/17/2025Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 9HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 1P: Wetland 1P (continued) Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 941.02 23,904 18,519 941.03 24,055 18,758 941.04 24,207 19,000 941.05 24,358 19,242 941.06 24,510 19,487 941.07 24,661 19,733 941.08 24,813 19,980 941.09 24,964 20,229 941.10 25,116 20,479 941.11 25,267 20,731 941.12 25,419 20,985 941.13 25,570 21,240 941.14 25,722 21,496 941.15 25,873 21,754 941.16 26,025 22,014 941.17 26,176 22,275 941.18 26,328 22,537 941.19 26,479 22,801 941.20 26,631 23,067 941.21 26,782 23,334 941.22 26,934 23,602 941.23 27,085 23,872 941.24 27,237 24,144 941.25 27,388 24,417 941.26 27,539 24,692 941.27 27,691 24,968 941.28 27,842 25,246 941.29 27,994 25,525 941.30 28,145 25,805 941.31 28,297 26,088 941.32 28,448 26,371 941.33 28,600 26,657 941.34 28,751 26,943 941.35 28,903 27,232 941.36 29,054 27,521 941.37 29,206 27,813 941.38 29,357 28,106 941.39 29,509 28,400 941.40 29,660 28,696 941.41 29,812 28,993 941.42 29,963 29,292 941.43 30,115 29,592 941.44 30,266 29,894 941.45 30,418 30,198 941.46 30,569 30,503 941.47 30,721 30,809 941.48 30,872 31,117 941.49 31,024 31,427 941.50 31,175 31,738 941.51 31,326 32,050 941.52 31,478 32,364 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 941.53 31,629 32,680 941.54 31,781 32,997 941.55 31,932 33,315 941.56 32,084 33,635 941.57 32,235 33,957 941.58 32,387 34,280 941.59 32,538 34,605 941.60 32,690 34,931 941.61 32,841 35,258 941.62 32,993 35,588 941.63 33,144 35,918 941.64 33,296 36,250 941.65 33,447 36,584 941.66 33,599 36,919 941.67 33,750 37,256 941.68 33,902 37,594 941.69 34,053 37,934 941.70 34,205 38,275 941.71 34,356 38,618 941.72 34,508 38,963 941.73 34,659 39,308 941.74 34,811 39,656 941.75 34,962 40,005 941.76 35,113 40,355 941.77 35,265 40,707 941.78 35,416 41,060 941.79 35,568 41,415 941.80 35,719 41,772 941.81 35,871 42,130 941.82 36,022 42,489 941.83 36,174 42,850 941.84 36,325 43,213 941.85 36,477 43,577 941.86 36,628 43,942 941.87 36,780 44,309 941.88 36,931 44,678 941.89 37,083 45,048 941.90 37,234 45,419 941.91 37,386 45,792 941.92 37,537 46,167 941.93 37,689 46,543 941.94 37,840 46,921 941.95 37,992 47,300 941.96 38,143 47,681 941.97 38,295 48,063 941.98 38,446 48,447 941.99 38,598 48,832 942.00 38,749 49,219 942.01 38,837 49,606 942.02 38,924 49,995 942.03 39,012 50,385 Page 154 of 249 Existing MSE 24-hr 3 100 Year Rainfall=7.31"24303-Wetlands Printed 10/17/2025Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 10HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 1P: Wetland 1P (continued) Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 942.04 39,099 50,775 942.05 39,187 51,167 942.06 39,274 51,559 942.07 39,362 51,952 942.08 39,450 52,346 942.09 39,537 52,741 942.10 39,625 53,137 942.11 39,712 53,534 942.12 39,800 53,931 942.13 39,887 54,330 942.14 39,975 54,729 942.15 40,063 55,129 942.16 40,150 55,530 942.17 40,238 55,932 942.18 40,325 56,335 942.19 40,413 56,739 942.20 40,500 57,143 942.21 40,588 57,549 942.22 40,676 57,955 942.23 40,763 58,362 942.24 40,851 58,770 942.25 40,938 59,179 942.26 41,026 59,589 942.27 41,113 60,000 942.28 41,201 60,411 942.29 41,289 60,824 942.30 41,376 61,237 942.31 41,464 61,651 942.32 41,551 62,067 942.33 41,639 62,482 942.34 41,726 62,899 942.35 41,814 63,317 942.36 41,902 63,736 942.37 41,989 64,155 942.38 42,077 64,575 942.39 42,164 64,997 942.40 42,252 65,419 942.41 42,339 65,842 942.42 42,427 66,265 942.43 42,515 66,690 942.44 42,602 67,116 942.45 42,690 67,542 942.46 42,777 67,970 942.47 42,865 68,398 942.48 42,952 68,827 942.49 43,040 69,257 942.50 43,128 69,688 942.51 43,215 70,119 942.52 43,303 70,552 942.53 43,390 70,985 942.54 43,478 71,420 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 942.55 43,565 71,855 942.56 43,653 72,291 942.57 43,740 72,728 942.58 43,828 73,166 942.59 43,916 73,605 942.60 44,003 74,044 942.61 44,091 74,485 942.62 44,178 74,926 942.63 44,266 75,368 942.64 44,353 75,811 942.65 44,441 76,255 942.66 44,529 76,700 942.67 44,616 77,146 942.68 44,704 77,592 942.69 44,791 78,040 942.70 44,879 78,488 942.71 44,966 78,937 942.72 45,054 79,388 942.73 45,142 79,839 942.74 45,229 80,290 942.75 45,317 80,743 942.76 45,404 81,197 942.77 45,492 81,651 942.78 45,579 82,107 942.79 45,667 82,563 942.80 45,755 83,020 942.81 45,842 83,478 942.82 45,930 83,937 942.83 46,017 84,397 942.84 46,105 84,857 942.85 46,192 85,319 942.86 46,280 85,781 942.87 46,368 86,244 942.88 46,455 86,708 942.89 46,543 87,173 942.90 46,630 87,639 942.91 46,718 88,106 942.92 46,805 88,574 942.93 46,893 89,042 942.94 46,981 89,511 942.95 47,068 89,982 942.96 47,156 90,453 942.97 47,243 90,925 942.98 47,331 91,398 942.99 47,418 91,871 943.00 47,506 92,346 Page 155 of 249 Existing MSE 24-hr 3 100 Year Rainfall=7.31"24303-Wetlands Printed 10/17/2025Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 11HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Summary for Pond 4P: Wetland 2P Inflow Area = 0.938 ac, 4.62% Impervious, Inflow Depth > 4.57" for 100 Year event Inflow = 6.21 cfs @ 12.20 hrs, Volume= 0.357 af Outflow = 4.04 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 0.348 af, Atten= 35%, Lag= 8.8 min Primary = 4.04 cfs @ 12.35 hrs, Volume= 0.348 af Routing by Sim-Route method, Time Span= 5.00-20.00 hrs, dt= 0.05 hrs Starting Elev= 947.00' Surf.Area= 7,818 sf Storage= 6,322 cf Peak Elev= 947.50' @ 12.35 hrs Surf.Area= 9,658 sf Storage= 10,693 cf (4,371 cf above start) Plug-Flow detention time= 131.9 min calculated for 0.202 af (57% of inflow) Center-of-Mass det. time= 23.4 min ( 800.5 - 777.1 ) Volume Invert Avail.Storage Storage Description #1 946.00' 29,308 cf Custom Stage Data (Prismatic) Listed below (Recalc) Elevation Surf.Area Inc.Store Cum.Store (feet) (sq-ft) (cubic-feet) (cubic-feet) 946.00 4,825 0 0 947.00 7,818 6,322 6,322 948.00 11,496 9,657 15,979 949.00 15,162 13,329 29,308 Device Routing Invert Outlet Devices #1 Primary 947.02'4.5' long x 15.0' breadth Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir Head (feet) 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 1.40 1.60 Coef. (English) 2.68 2.70 2.70 2.64 2.63 2.64 2.64 2.63 Primary OutFlow Max=4.04 cfs @ 12.35 hrs HW=947.50' TW=941.45' (Dynamic Tailwater) 1=Broad-Crested Rectangular Weir (Weir Controls 4.04 cfs @ 1.87 fps) Page 156 of 249 Existing MSE 24-hr 3 100 Year Rainfall=7.31"24303-Wetlands Printed 10/17/2025Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 12HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Pond 4P: Wetland 2P Inflow Primary Hydrograph Time (hours) 201918171615141312111098765 Fl o w ( c f s ) 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Inflow Area=0.938 ac Peak Elev=947.50' Storage=10,693 cf 6.21 cfs 4.04 cfs Page 157 of 249 Existing MSE 24-hr 3 100 Year Rainfall=7.31"24303-Wetlands Printed 10/17/2025Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 13HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 4P: Wetland 2P Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 946.00 4,825 0 946.01 4,855 48 946.02 4,885 97 946.03 4,915 146 946.04 4,945 195 946.05 4,975 245 946.06 5,005 295 946.07 5,035 345 946.08 5,064 396 946.09 5,094 446 946.10 5,124 497 946.11 5,154 549 946.12 5,184 601 946.13 5,214 653 946.14 5,244 705 946.15 5,274 757 946.16 5,304 810 946.17 5,334 863 946.18 5,364 917 946.19 5,394 971 946.20 5,424 1,025 946.21 5,454 1,079 946.22 5,483 1,134 946.23 5,513 1,189 946.24 5,543 1,244 946.25 5,573 1,300 946.26 5,603 1,356 946.27 5,633 1,412 946.28 5,663 1,468 946.29 5,693 1,525 946.30 5,723 1,582 946.31 5,753 1,640 946.32 5,783 1,697 946.33 5,813 1,755 946.34 5,843 1,813 946.35 5,873 1,872 946.36 5,902 1,931 946.37 5,932 1,990 946.38 5,962 2,050 946.39 5,992 2,109 946.40 6,022 2,169 946.41 6,052 2,230 946.42 6,082 2,290 946.43 6,112 2,351 946.44 6,142 2,413 946.45 6,172 2,474 946.46 6,202 2,536 946.47 6,232 2,598 946.48 6,262 2,661 946.49 6,292 2,724 946.50 6,322 2,787 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 946.51 6,351 2,850 946.52 6,381 2,914 946.53 6,411 2,978 946.54 6,441 3,042 946.55 6,471 3,106 946.56 6,501 3,171 946.57 6,531 3,236 946.58 6,561 3,302 946.59 6,591 3,368 946.60 6,621 3,434 946.61 6,651 3,500 946.62 6,681 3,567 946.63 6,711 3,634 946.64 6,741 3,701 946.65 6,770 3,769 946.66 6,800 3,836 946.67 6,830 3,905 946.68 6,860 3,973 946.69 6,890 4,042 946.70 6,920 4,111 946.71 6,950 4,180 946.72 6,980 4,250 946.73 7,010 4,320 946.74 7,040 4,390 946.75 7,070 4,461 946.76 7,100 4,531 946.77 7,130 4,603 946.78 7,160 4,674 946.79 7,189 4,746 946.80 7,219 4,818 946.81 7,249 4,890 946.82 7,279 4,963 946.83 7,309 5,036 946.84 7,339 5,109 946.85 7,369 5,182 946.86 7,399 5,256 946.87 7,429 5,330 946.88 7,459 5,405 946.89 7,489 5,480 946.90 7,519 5,555 946.91 7,549 5,630 946.92 7,579 5,706 946.93 7,608 5,782 946.94 7,638 5,858 946.95 7,668 5,934 946.96 7,698 6,011 946.97 7,728 6,088 946.98 7,758 6,166 946.99 7,788 6,243 947.00 7,818 6,322 947.01 7,855 6,400 Page 158 of 249 Existing MSE 24-hr 3 100 Year Rainfall=7.31"24303-Wetlands Printed 10/17/2025Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 14HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 4P: Wetland 2P (continued) Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 947.02 7,892 6,479 947.03 7,928 6,558 947.04 7,965 6,637 947.05 8,002 6,717 947.06 8,039 6,797 947.07 8,075 6,878 947.08 8,112 6,959 947.09 8,149 7,040 947.10 8,186 7,122 947.11 8,223 7,204 947.12 8,259 7,286 947.13 8,296 7,369 947.14 8,333 7,452 947.15 8,370 7,536 947.16 8,406 7,619 947.17 8,443 7,704 947.18 8,480 7,788 947.19 8,517 7,873 947.20 8,554 7,959 947.21 8,590 8,044 947.22 8,627 8,130 947.23 8,664 8,217 947.24 8,701 8,304 947.25 8,738 8,391 947.26 8,774 8,478 947.27 8,811 8,566 947.28 8,848 8,655 947.29 8,885 8,743 947.30 8,921 8,832 947.31 8,958 8,922 947.32 8,995 9,012 947.33 9,032 9,102 947.34 9,069 9,192 947.35 9,105 9,283 947.36 9,142 9,374 947.37 9,179 9,466 947.38 9,216 9,558 947.39 9,252 9,650 947.40 9,289 9,743 947.41 9,326 9,836 947.42 9,363 9,929 947.43 9,400 10,023 947.44 9,436 10,117 947.45 9,473 10,212 947.46 9,510 10,307 947.47 9,547 10,402 947.48 9,583 10,498 947.49 9,620 10,594 947.50 9,657 10,690 947.51 9,694 10,787 947.52 9,731 10,884 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 947.53 9,767 10,982 947.54 9,804 11,079 947.55 9,841 11,178 947.56 9,878 11,276 947.57 9,914 11,375 947.58 9,951 11,475 947.59 9,988 11,574 947.60 10,025 11,674 947.61 10,062 11,775 947.62 10,098 11,876 947.63 10,135 11,977 947.64 10,172 12,078 947.65 10,209 12,180 947.66 10,245 12,282 947.67 10,282 12,385 947.68 10,319 12,488 947.69 10,356 12,591 947.70 10,393 12,695 947.71 10,429 12,799 947.72 10,466 12,904 947.73 10,503 13,009 947.74 10,540 13,114 947.75 10,577 13,219 947.76 10,613 13,325 947.77 10,650 13,432 947.78 10,687 13,538 947.79 10,724 13,645 947.80 10,760 13,753 947.81 10,797 13,861 947.82 10,834 13,969 947.83 10,871 14,077 947.84 10,908 14,186 947.85 10,944 14,295 947.86 10,981 14,405 947.87 11,018 14,515 947.88 11,055 14,625 947.89 11,091 14,736 947.90 11,128 14,847 947.91 11,165 14,959 947.92 11,202 15,071 947.93 11,239 15,183 947.94 11,275 15,295 947.95 11,312 15,408 947.96 11,349 15,522 947.97 11,386 15,635 947.98 11,422 15,749 947.99 11,459 15,864 948.00 11,496 15,979 948.01 11,533 16,094 948.02 11,569 16,209 948.03 11,606 16,325 Page 159 of 249 Existing MSE 24-hr 3 100 Year Rainfall=7.31"24303-Wetlands Printed 10/17/2025Prepared by {enter your company name here} Page 15HydroCAD® 10.00-25 s/n 00744 © 2019 HydroCAD Software Solutions LLC Stage-Area-Storage for Pond 4P: Wetland 2P (continued) Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 948.04 11,643 16,441 948.05 11,679 16,558 948.06 11,716 16,675 948.07 11,753 16,792 948.08 11,789 16,910 948.09 11,826 17,028 948.10 11,863 17,146 948.11 11,899 17,265 948.12 11,936 17,384 948.13 11,973 17,504 948.14 12,009 17,624 948.15 12,046 17,744 948.16 12,083 17,865 948.17 12,119 17,986 948.18 12,156 18,107 948.19 12,193 18,229 948.20 12,229 18,351 948.21 12,266 18,473 948.22 12,303 18,596 948.23 12,339 18,720 948.24 12,376 18,843 948.25 12,413 18,967 948.26 12,449 19,091 948.27 12,486 19,216 948.28 12,522 19,341 948.29 12,559 19,466 948.30 12,596 19,592 948.31 12,632 19,718 948.32 12,669 19,845 948.33 12,706 19,972 948.34 12,742 20,099 948.35 12,779 20,227 948.36 12,816 20,355 948.37 12,852 20,483 948.38 12,889 20,612 948.39 12,926 20,741 948.40 12,962 20,870 948.41 12,999 21,000 948.42 13,036 21,130 948.43 13,072 21,261 948.44 13,109 21,392 948.45 13,146 21,523 948.46 13,182 21,655 948.47 13,219 21,787 948.48 13,256 21,919 948.49 13,292 22,052 948.50 13,329 22,185 948.51 13,366 22,318 948.52 13,402 22,452 948.53 13,439 22,586 948.54 13,476 22,721 Elevation (feet) Surface (sq-ft) Storage (cubic-feet) 948.55 13,512 22,856 948.56 13,549 22,991 948.57 13,586 23,127 948.58 13,622 23,263 948.59 13,659 23,399 948.60 13,696 23,536 948.61 13,732 23,673 948.62 13,769 23,811 948.63 13,806 23,948 948.64 13,842 24,087 948.65 13,879 24,225 948.66 13,916 24,364 948.67 13,952 24,504 948.68 13,989 24,643 948.69 14,026 24,783 948.70 14,062 24,924 948.71 14,099 25,065 948.72 14,136 25,206 948.73 14,172 25,347 948.74 14,209 25,489 948.75 14,246 25,632 948.76 14,282 25,774 948.77 14,319 25,917 948.78 14,355 26,061 948.79 14,392 26,204 948.80 14,429 26,348 948.81 14,465 26,493 948.82 14,502 26,638 948.83 14,539 26,783 948.84 14,575 26,929 948.85 14,612 27,074 948.86 14,649 27,221 948.87 14,685 27,367 948.88 14,722 27,514 948.89 14,759 27,662 948.90 14,795 27,810 948.91 14,832 27,958 948.92 14,869 28,106 948.93 14,905 28,255 948.94 14,942 28,404 948.95 14,979 28,554 948.96 15,015 28,704 948.97 15,052 28,854 948.98 15,089 29,005 948.99 15,125 29,156 949.00 15,162 29,308 Page 160 of 249 Shorewood Development Shorewood, MN Wetland Delineation Report Prepared for: Chestnut Business Park, LLP 3740 N. Chesnut St. Chaska, MN 55318 August 18, 2025 MIDWEST NATURAL RESOURCES, INC. 1032 West 7th Street, Suite 150 St. Paul, Minnesota 55102 Page 161 of 249 Midwest Natural Resources Table of Contents Introduction ............................................................................................................................................................... 1 Desktop Review ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Methods .................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Results and Discussion ............................................................................................................................................ 2 Wetlands ............................................................................................................................................................... 2 Other Aquatic Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 3 List of Tables Table 1. Soils mapped within the site ..................................................................................................................... 1 Table 2. Delineated wetland features ...................................................................................................................... 2 Appendices Appendix A Site Figures Appendix B Recent Climate Data Appendix C Wetland Determination Data Forms Page 162 of 249 Midwest Natural Resources 1 INTRODUCTION Midwest Natural Resources, Inc. (MNR) was contracted by Chestnut Business Park, LLP to provide wetland delineation services for the 4.7-acre Shorewood Development site in Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota (Appendix A, Figure 1). On August 1, 2025 MNR conducted a routine wetland delineation within the site to determine any wetland boundaries. In all, the boundaries of three wetlands were delineated and the center line of two ephemeral, linear waterbodies were located. No other areas within the site were needed to be reviewed for the presence of wetland. DESKTOP REVIEW Prior to conducting the field surveys, MNR staff conducted a desktop review to evaluate the following data within the project area. Background data are illustrated in the figures in Appendix A. • Minnesota’s Public Waters Inventory (PWI) • National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) • National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) • County Soil Surveys • Aerial Imagery • Precipitation Data Review of the PWI (Figure 2, Appendix A) indicates one mapped public waters within the survey area where Wetland 1 was delineated (Unnamed public waters wetland 27090300). The NWI (Figure 3, Appendix A) indicates four different wetland communities within the site including PEM1C, PEM1F, PUBH, and PSS3/EM1Dg. According to the Hennepin County soil survey, Klossner, Okoboji, and Glencoe soils and Glencoe loam soils make up the hydric soils within the survey area, and Lester loam make up the non-hydric soils (Figure 4, Appendix A) within the survey area. Below is Table 1 that lists all of the soils mapped within the survey area and includes their map unit symbol, map unit name, drainage class, and whether it is a hydric soil or not. Table 1. Soils Mapped Within the Site Map Unit Symbol Map Unit Name Drainage Class Hydric/Non-Hydric Soil L16A Klossner, Okoboji, and Glencoe soils, ponded, 0 to 1 percent slopes Very poorly drained Hydric L22F Lester loam, morainic, 25 to 35 percent slopes Well drained Non-Hydric L24A Glencoe loam, depressional, 0 to 1 percent slopes Very poorly drained Hydric According to precipitation data reviewed at the time of the survey in August 2025, the project area received no precipitation during the first day of August. The months of May, June, and July indicate likely normal, wet, and normal conditions, respectively, resulting in an overall likely north multi-month precipitation score. Recent climate data is included in Appendix B to provide context for the wetland survey effort. METHODS The survey area was evaluated via pedestrian surveys to determine and document the presence of wetlands. All potential wetlands were evaluated utilizing the Routine “Onsite” Determination Method contained in the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Midwest Region Version 2.0 Aug. 2010 for the 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual Technical Report Y-87-1. For each potential wetland within the survey area, the three wetland parameters (vegetation, hydrology, and soils) were examined to determine wetland status. If positive wetland status was determined, a sample transect was established along the wetland/upland transition. In each transect, the three parameters (vegetation, hydrology, and soils) were documented at a sample point within the wetland and in the adjacent upland. Page 163 of 249 Chestnut Business Park, LLP – Shorewood Development – Shorewood, MN Midwest Natural Resources 2 Vegetation was assessed at each sample point by identifying the dominant species present and noting wetland indicator status. Hydrologic indicators were evaluated for characteristics including, but not limited to, the presence or absence of inundated or saturated soils, high water table, drift deposits, drainage patterns, and landscape position. The final parameter, soils, was assessed by digging a soil pit to at least 20 inches, where feasible, and examining the soil profile for indicators of hydric soils. All data and information pertaining to each wetland and upland sample point were collected using the applicable Corps wetland determination forms, and representative photos of each sample point were collected. All spatial data was collected in WGS84 using ESRI ArcGIS online and ArcGIS Field Maps mobile application on mobile devices. Sub-meter satellite reception was achieved through the use of Trimble® DA2 receivers. The receivers are connected to the Trimble Catalyst service, using a real-time correction service. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The site was surveyed for the presence of wetland and field efforts resulted in the delineation of three wetland boundaries (Figure 5, Appendix A). Below is Table 2 that summarizes each of the delineated wetlands by feature number, feature ID, HGM Class, Cowardin/Type, Circular 39 type, Eggers and Reed Plant Community, and by size in acres. Wetland determination data forms for Wetland 1-3 are provided with representative photos in Appendix C. Table 2. Delineated Wetland Features Feature Name Feature ID HGM Class Cowardin/Type Circ. 39 Eggers & Reed Area (acre) Wetland 1 25256-w1 Depressional PEMC 3 shallow marsh 0.69 Wetland 2 25256-w2 Depressional PEMB/F 2/4 fresh wet meadow/deep marsh 0.70 Wetland 3 25256-w3 Depressional PEMC 3 shallow marsh 0.22 1The Feature ID corresponds to the sampling point name on the Wetland Determination Data Forms and in the spatial data. Wetlands Wetland 1 Within the survey area, Wetland 1 is a depressional, Type 3 (PEMC; Shallow Marsh) wetland located within the southwestern part of the site and is 0.69 acres in size within the survey area. This wetland extends off-site to the south and west as a shallow marsh and hardwood swamp. At the wetland sample point, this wetland was dominated by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) with a fair amount of open water right to the edge of the wetland. Soils investigated met the F8 (Redox Depressions) indicator and are considered hydric. Wetland hydrology was met with one primary indicator including A1 (Standing Water) as well as two secondary indicators D2 (Geomorphic Position) and D5 (FAC-Neutral Test). National Wetlands Inventory maps PUBH and PSS3/EM1Dg communities where Wetland 1 is located. Wetland 1 is mapped as an MNDNR unnamed public water wetland (27090300). Wetland 2 Wetland 2 is a depressional, Type 2/4 (PEMB/F; Fresh Wet Meadow/Deep Marsh) wetland located within the northern part of the survey area and is 0.70 acre in size within the site. This wetland extends off-site to the west as a similar type wetland. An excavated outlet channel drains this wetland at its southwestern extent to Wetland 1. At the time of the survey no water was observed within the outlet channel and no wetland fringe was present along its banks. The fresh wet meadow part of Wetland 2 is dominated primarily by reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) with a mix of other native forbs and sedges including jewelweed (Impatiens capensis) and stinging nettle (Urtica dioica). The deep marsh part of Wetland 2 was mainly covered in lesser duckweed (Lemna minor) with scattered clumps of bristly sedge (Carex comosa) and areas open water. Soils were investigated to a depth of 24” and were assumed to be hydric based on landscape position and having a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation present throughout the entire basin. Wetland hydrology was met with two primary indicators including A2 (High Water Table) and A3 (Saturation) as well as two secondary indicators Page 164 of 249 Chestnut Business Park, LLP – Shorewood Development – Shorewood, MN Midwest Natural Resources 3 D2 (Geomorphic Position) and D5 (FAC-Neutral Test). National Wetlands Inventory maps a PEM1F community where Wetland 2 is located. Wetland 2 is not mapped as a MNDNR public water. Wetland 3 Wetland 3 is a depressional, Type 3 (PEMC; Shallow Marsh) wetland located along the eastern property line and is 0.22 acre in size within the property. This wetland extends just off-site to the east as a similar type wetland. Along the northern edge of this wetland is an excavated drainage channel that allows overflow from Wetland 3 to drain downslope to Wetland 2. At the time of the survey, no water was observed within the channel’s banks. Vegetation recorded at the wetland sample point included mainly lesser duckweed (Lemna minor) with a minor amount of reed canary grass (Phalaris arundinacea) and mad-dog skullcap (Scutellaria lateriflora). Much of this wetland is open water covered in duckweed with scattered clumps of common hop sedge (Carex lupulina). Soils investigated met the A11 (Depleted Below Dark Surface) and A12 (Thick Dark Surface) indicators and are considered hydric. Wetland hydrology was met with one primary indicator including A1 (Standing Water) as well as two secondary indicators D2 (Geomorphic Position) and D5 (FAC-Neutral Test). National Wetlands Inventory maps a PEM1C community where Wetland 3 is located. Wetland 3 is not mapped as a MNDNR public water. Other Aquatic Resources Channel 1 Between Wetlands 1 and 2, an excavated drainage channel was located and is approximately 130 LF in length within the survey area. This channel extends off-site to the west where it eventually connects to Wetland 1. This created feature would have an ephemeral water flow with no wetland fringe along its banks. Channel 1 conveys overflow water from Wetland 2 downslope and into Wetland 1. Below is a photo of Channel 1 facing northeast within the channel itself. Page 165 of 249 Chestnut Business Park, LLP – Shorewood Development – Shorewood, MN Midwest Natural Resources 4 Channel 2 Between Wetlands 2 and 3, an excavated drainage channel was located and is approximately 105 LF in length. This channel’s bed and bank is well defined along nearly all of its length but becomes less defined at the bottom of the slope just before the edge of Wetland 2. This created feature would have an ephemeral water flow with no wetland fringe along its banks. Channel 2 conveys overflow water from Wetland 3 and into Wetland 2. Below is a photo of Channel 2 facing north within the channel itself. Page 166 of 249 Appendix A Site Figures Page 167 of 249 EXCELSIOR MINNETONKA BEACH MINNETRISTA MOUND ORONOORONO SHOREWOOD SPRING PARK TONKA BAY Site LocationChestnut Business Park, LLPShorewood DevelopmentShorewood, MN Figure 1 ´ Property Boundary (4.7 ac.) Municipal Boundary Sources: OpenStreetMap, US Census BureauUS Census Bureau, Date: 8/16/2025 0 0.25 0.5Miles Page 168 of 249 Valleywood Cir Strawberry Ln S m it h t o w n Cir Seamans Dr Lee Cir Orchard Cir Teal Cir Harding Ave Sylvan Ln Elm Ridge Cir M a lla r d L n Kelsey Dr Nelsine Dr Arbor Creek Ln O a k Ri d g e C ir 2nd St Smithtown Ln Maple View Ct Glen Rd Meadowview Rd Sunnyvale Ln Birch Bluff Rd Harding Ln Fairway Dr Eureka Way Smithtown Way Eureka Rd Edgewood Rd Noble Rd Pleasant Ave Valleywood Ln Birch Bluff Rd Wildrose Ln Bir c h B l u ff R d Wedgewood Dr Eureka Rd Grant Lorenz Rd Lake Minnetonka Lrt Regional Trl Smithtown Rd Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed Minnetonka-UpperLake Unnamed Unnamed Unnamed MN DNR Public Waters InventoryChestnut Business Park, LLPShorewood DevelopmentShorewood, MN Figure 2 ´ Property Boundary (4.7 ac.) PWI Waterbody PWI Stream Sources: USDA Farm Service Agency NAIP Imagery, 2023,MnGeo, MN Department of Natural Resources,US Census Bureau, Date: 8/16/2025 0 500 1,000Feet Page 169 of 249 Maple View Ct 2nd St B i r c h B l u f f R d PEM1C PABHx PSS3/EM1Dg PEM1F PUBH PEM1C US FWS National Wetlands InventoryChestnut Business Park, LLPShorewood DevelopmentShorewood, MN Figure 3 ´ Property Boundary (4.7 ac.) NWI Wetland - PAB NWI Wetland - PEM NWI Wetland - PSS NWI Wetland - PUB Sources: USDA Farm Service Agency NAIP Imagery, 2023,MnGeo, MN Department of Natural Resources,US Fish and Wildlife Service,US Census Bureau, Date: 8/16/2025 0 100 200Feet Page 170 of 249 Maple View Ct 2nd St B i r c h B l u f f R d L16A L22F L37B L24A L22E L22D2 County Soil Survey/SSurgo Soil Map UnitsChestnut Business Park, LLPShorewood DevelopmentShorewood, MN Figure 4 ´ Property Boundary (4.7 ac.) Hennepin_Hydric Hennepin_Soils Sources: USDA Farm Service Agency NAIP Imagery, 2023,MnGeo, MN Department of Natural Resources,USDA Natural Resources Conservation ServiceUS Census Bureau, Date: 8/16/2025 0 50 100Feet Page 171 of 249 Maple View Ct 2nd St 956 930 9 4 6 9 4 2 984 9 7 0 956 930 982 948 968 9 8 0 952 956 966 946 978 930 9 48 964 9 6 2 9 6 0958 956 976 970 948 968 974 966 940 972 932 964 934 962 960 9 5 0 936 958 956 938 940 9 5 2 954 942 9 4 2 9 4 8 944 954 94 6 952 950 940 9 3 0 932930 934 9 3 6 938940 948 9 5 2 950946 9 4 2 944 Delineated Aquatic ResourcesChestnut Business Park, LLPShorewood DevelopmentShorewood, MN Figure 5 ´ Survey Area (4.7 ac.) Wetland Boundary Linear Waterbody Transect Parcels_Hennepin LiDAR (2' contours) Sources: USDA Farm Service Agency NAIP Imagery, 2023,MnGeo, MN Department of Natural Resources,US Census Bureau, Date: 8/16/2025 0 75 150Feet Wetland 2(0.70 ac.) Wetland 3(0.22 ac.) Wetland 1(0.69 ac.) Channel 2(105 LF) Channel 1(130 LF) Page 172 of 249 Appendix B Recent Climate Data Page 173 of 249 Appendix B, Climate Data Past Year’s Precipitation Data from Gridded Database Source: Minnesota State Climatology Office website: https://climateapps.dnr.state.mn.us/gridded_data/precip/wetland/wetland.asp Since the delineation of the Shorewood Development site was conducted on August 1, 2025 daily precipitation data from the months of May, June, and July were reviewed. Precipitation data for the three months prior to August were obtained from the Minnesota Climatology Working Group for the area of Hennepin County where the nearest precipitation data was collected. Precipitation data was obtained using the following as the target location: County: Hennepin Township Number: 117N Township Name: Excelsior Range Number: 23W Nearest Community: Crescent Beach Section Number: 29 Aerial photograph or site visit date: Friday, August 1, 2025 Table 1. Precipitation Worksheet Using Gridded Database (Score Using 1991-2020 Normal Period) values are in inches first prior month: July 2025 second prior month: June 2025 third prior month: May 2025 estimated precipitation total for this location: missing missing 3.74R there is a 30% chance this location will have less than: 3.19 3.69 3.03 there is a 30% chance this location will have more than: 4.93 4.70 4.97 type of month: dry normal wet missing missing normal monthly score missing missing 1 * 2 = 2 multi-month score: 6 to 9 (dry) 10 to 14 (normal) 15 to 18 (wet) missing Table 2. Recent Precipitation from Wayzata 2.5 E Weather Station May June July 1st day of August Precipitation (in.) 2.44” 8.04” 3.97” 2.54” Average Temperature Climate Data Source: MN Department of Natural Resources Local Climatological Data: https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/historical/lcd.html?loc=msp Average monthly high temperature for the three months preceding the month of the site visits as well as the two days of the field survey are recorded in Table 3 below. Temperature data were obtained from the MN Department of Natural Resources Local Climatological Data website and is based on weather measurements collected by the National Weather Service and the Federal Aviation Administration. Table 3. Monthly Average High Temperature May June July August 1, 2025 Temperature (°F) 70.8° 78.8° 84.9° 78° Page 174 of 249 Appendix C Wetland Determination Data Forms Page 175 of 249 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Slope (%): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes Yes Yes Yes ) 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 ) =Total Cover naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) significantly disturbed? UPL species (Plot size:Tree Stratum Absolute % Cover Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: Local relief (concave, convex, none): Long:Datum: Remarks: NWI classification: Yes No No Prevalence Index worksheet: City/County: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No 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.) Total % Cover of: ) Indicator Status Dominant Species? Herb Stratum (Plot size: Wetland Hydrology Present? ) Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU species (Plot size: Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) OBL species FACW species FAC species Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 - Dominance Test is >50% =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Prevalence Index = B/A = Multiply by: (Plot size: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Midwest Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-16; the proponent agency is CECW-COR OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 09/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) 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? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? ENG FORM 6116-7, SEP 2024 Midwest – Version 2.0 Shorewood Development Shorewood/Hennepin 2025-08-01 Chestnut Business Park, LLP Minnesota 25256-w1-w Ken Arndt sec 29 T117N R023W Depression Concave 0-2 44.906364 -93.607334 WGS84 Lester loam, morainic, 25 to 35 percent slopes PSS3/EM1Dg 3 3 3 3 3 3 Wetland 1 is a Type 3 shallow marsh dominated by narrowleaf cattail with a narrow fringe around the edge with reed canary grass and open water. 30' radius 0 15' radius 0 5' radius Phalaris arundinacea 50 Y FACW Impatiens capensis 20 Y FACW 70.0 30' radius 0 Vegetation at the sample point is dominated by reed canary grass with jewel weed. A fair amount of open water is present. 2 2 100.00 0 0 70 140 00 0 0 0 0 70 140.00 2.0 3 3 3 3 Page 176 of 249 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Geomorphic Position (D2) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Field Observations: SOIL 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) 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: 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, 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Matrix Texture RemarksColor (moist) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 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) ENG FORM 6116-7, SEP 2024 Midwest – Version 2.0 25256-w1-w 0-2 10YR 2/1 95 7.5YR 4/6 5 C M SICL 2-18 10YR 4/2 100 CL 3 Soils meet the F8 indicator. 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 Water levels in the wetland appear higher than normal. 3 Page 177 of 249 Page 178 of 249 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Slope (%): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes Yes Yes Yes ) 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 ) =Total Cover naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) significantly disturbed? UPL species (Plot size:Tree Stratum Absolute % Cover Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: Local relief (concave, convex, none): Long:Datum: Remarks: NWI classification: Yes No No Prevalence Index worksheet: City/County: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No 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.) Total % Cover of: ) Indicator Status Dominant Species? Herb Stratum (Plot size: Wetland Hydrology Present? ) Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU species (Plot size: Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) OBL species FACW species FAC species Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 - Dominance Test is >50% =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Prevalence Index = B/A = Multiply by: (Plot size: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Midwest Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-16; the proponent agency is CECW-COR OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 09/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) 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? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? ENG FORM 6116-7, SEP 2024 Midwest – Version 2.0 Shorewood Development Shorewood/Hennepin 2025-08-01 Chestnut Business Park, LLP Minnesota 25256-w1-u Ken Arndt sec 29 T117N R023W Sideslope Concave 8-15 44.906368 -93.607254 WGS84 Lester loam, morainic, 25 to 35 percent slopes None 3 3 3 3 3 3 Sample point is within a deciduous forest dominated by sugar maple . 30' radius Quercus macrocarpa Acer saccharum 50 Y FAC 40 Y FACU 90.0 15' radius 0 5' radius Carex pennsylvanica 70 Y NI Rhamnus cathartica 10 N FAC Acer saccharum 10 N FACU 90.0 30' radius 0 1 3 33.33 0 0 0 0 18060 50 200 0 0 110 380.00 3.45 3 Page 179 of 249 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Geomorphic Position (D2) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Field Observations: SOIL 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) 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: 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, 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Matrix Texture RemarksColor (moist) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 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) ENG FORM 6116-7, SEP 2024 Midwest – Version 2.0 25256-w1-u 0-15 10YR 2/1 100 SICL 15-22 10YR 3/4 100 3 Soils are non-hydric. 3 3 3 3 No indicators of wetland hydrology present. Page 180 of 249 Page 181 of 249 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Slope (%): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes Yes Yes Yes ) 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 ) =Total Cover naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) significantly disturbed? UPL species (Plot size:Tree Stratum Absolute % Cover Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: Local relief (concave, convex, none): Long:Datum: Remarks: NWI classification: Yes No No Prevalence Index worksheet: City/County: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No 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.) Total % Cover of: ) Indicator Status Dominant Species? Herb Stratum (Plot size: Wetland Hydrology Present? ) Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU species (Plot size: Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) OBL species FACW species FAC species Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 - Dominance Test is >50% =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Prevalence Index = B/A = Multiply by: (Plot size: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Midwest Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-16; the proponent agency is CECW-COR OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 09/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) 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? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? ENG FORM 6116-7, SEP 2024 Midwest – Version 2.0 Shorewood Development Shorewood/Hennepin 2025-08-01 Chestnut Business Park, LLP Minnesota 25256-w2-w Ken Arndt sec 29 T117N R023W Depression Concave 0-2 44.907104 -93.607468 WGS84 Glencoe clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes None 3 3 3 3 3 3 Wetland 2 would be a type 2/4 fresh wet meadow/deep marsh wetland. The Type 4 part of the wetland is scattered Carex lupulina and the open water is covered in duck weed with occasional grouping of reed canary grass. 30' radius 0 15' radius Phalaris arundinacea 80 Y FACW Impatiens capensis 15 N FACW Urtica dioica 5 N FACW 100.0 5' radius 0 30' radius 0 The fringe of the wetland is dominated by reed canary grass with jewel weed and stinging nettle. 1 1 100.00 0 0 100 200 00 0 0 0 0 100 200.00 2.0 3 3 3 3 Page 182 of 249 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Geomorphic Position (D2) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Field Observations: SOIL 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) 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: 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, 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Matrix Texture RemarksColor (moist) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 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) ENG FORM 6116-7, SEP 2024 Midwest – Version 2.0 25256-w2-w 0-24 10YR 2/1 100 SICL 3 Soils are assumed hydric based on landscape position and the dominance of hydrophilic vegetation. 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 7 6 3 30% of Wetland 2 is covered in open water with lesser duckweed. 3 Page 183 of 249 Page 184 of 249 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Slope (%): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes Yes Yes Yes ) 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 ) =Total Cover naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) significantly disturbed? UPL species (Plot size:Tree Stratum Absolute % Cover Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: Local relief (concave, convex, none): Long:Datum: Remarks: NWI classification: Yes No No Prevalence Index worksheet: City/County: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No 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.) Total % Cover of: ) Indicator Status Dominant Species? Herb Stratum (Plot size: Wetland Hydrology Present? ) Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU species (Plot size: Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) OBL species FACW species FAC species Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 - Dominance Test is >50% =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Prevalence Index = B/A = Multiply by: (Plot size: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Midwest Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-16; the proponent agency is CECW-COR OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 09/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) 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? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? ENG FORM 6116-7, SEP 2024 Midwest – Version 2.0 Shorewood Development Shorewood/Hennepin 2025-08-01 Chestnut Business Park, LLP Minnesota 25256-w2-u Ken Arndt sec 29 T117N R023W Sideslope Concave 3-7 44.906992 -93.607416 WGS84 Glencoe clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes None 3 3 3 3 3 3 Sample point is within a deciduous forest area dominated by sugar maple with some black walnut and green ash. 30' radius Acer saccharum Juglans nigra Fraxinus pennsylvanica 40 Y FACU 40 Y FACU 10 N FACW 90.0 15' radius 0 5' radius Pilea pumila 50 Y FACW Ageratina altissima 20 Y FACU Leersia virginica 20 Y FACW Amphicarpaea bracteata N FAC Hackelia virginiana 10 5 N FACU 105.0 30' radius 0 2 5 40.00 0 0 80 160 3010 105 420 0 0 195 610.00 3.13 3 Page 185 of 249 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Geomorphic Position (D2) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Field Observations: SOIL 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) 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: 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, 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Matrix Texture RemarksColor (moist) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 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) ENG FORM 6116-7, SEP 2024 Midwest – Version 2.0 25256-w2-u 0-11 10YR 2/1 100 SIL 11-20 10YR 4/2 100 SIL 3 Soils are non-hydric. 3 3 3 3 No indicators of wetland hydrology present. Page 186 of 249 Page 187 of 249 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Slope (%): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes Yes Yes Yes ) 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 ) =Total Cover naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) significantly disturbed? UPL species (Plot size:Tree Stratum Absolute % Cover Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: Local relief (concave, convex, none): Long:Datum: Remarks: NWI classification: Yes No No Prevalence Index worksheet: City/County: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No 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.) Total % Cover of: ) Indicator Status Dominant Species? Herb Stratum (Plot size: Wetland Hydrology Present? ) Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU species (Plot size: Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) OBL species FACW species FAC species Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 - Dominance Test is >50% =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Prevalence Index = B/A = Multiply by: (Plot size: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Midwest Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-16; the proponent agency is CECW-COR OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 09/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) 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? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? ENG FORM 6116-7, SEP 2024 Midwest – Version 2.0 Shorewood Development Shorewood/Hennepin 2025-08-01 Chestnut Business Park, LLP Minnesota 25256-w3-w Ken Arndt sec 29 T117N R023W Depression Concave 0-2 44.906713 -93.607111 WGS84 Lester loam, morainic, 25 to 35 percent slopes None 3 3 3 3 3 3 Wetland 3 would be a Type 3 shallow marsh dominated by scattered clumps of common hop sedge and lake sedge and groupings of reed canary grass, 60 to 70% of the surface area of the water is covered in lesser duckweed. 30' radius 0 15' radius 0 5' radius Lemna minor 60 Y OBL Scutellaria lateriflora 10 N OBL Phalaris arundinacea 10 N FACW 80.0 30' radius 0 At the sample point, lesser duckweed is the dominant vegetation with scattered reed canary grass that is submerged under 4 to 6 inches of water. 1 1 100.00 70 70 10 20 00 0 0 0 0 80 90.00 1.12 3 3 3 3 Page 188 of 249 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Geomorphic Position (D2) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Field Observations: SOIL 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) 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: 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, 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Matrix Texture RemarksColor (moist) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 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) ENG FORM 6116-7, SEP 2024 Midwest – Version 2.0 25256-w3-w 0-12 10YR 2/1 100 CL 12-23 10YR 4/2 95 2.5YR 4/6 5 C M CL 3 Soils meet the A11 and A12 indicators. 3 3 3 3 5 3 3 3 Water in the wetland appears higher than normal with standing water coming almost up to the edge of the wetland boundary within 2 to 3 feet. 3 3 Page 189 of 249 Page 190 of 249 Project/Site: Applicant/Owner:State: Investigator(s): Landform (hillside, terrace, etc.): Slope (%): Lat: Soil Map Unit Name: Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology Are “Normal Circumstances” present? Yes No Are Vegetation , Soil , or Hydrology SUMMARY OF FINDINGS – Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Yes Yes Yes Yes ) 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 ) =Total Cover naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.) significantly disturbed? UPL species (Plot size:Tree Stratum Absolute % Cover Sampling Point: Section, Township, Range: Local relief (concave, convex, none): Long:Datum: Remarks: NWI classification: Yes No No Prevalence Index worksheet: City/County: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?No 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.) Total % Cover of: ) Indicator Status Dominant Species? Herb Stratum (Plot size: Wetland Hydrology Present? ) Remarks: (Include photo numbers here or on a separate sheet.) =Total Cover 3 - Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 FACU species (Plot size: Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) OBL species FACW species FAC species Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: =Total Cover Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 2 - Dominance Test is >50% =Total Cover 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation Prevalence Index = B/A = Multiply by: (Plot size: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA SHEET – Midwest Region See ERDC/EL TR-10-16; the proponent agency is CECW-COR OMB Control #: 0710-0024, Exp: 09/30/2027 Requirement Control Symbol EXEMPT: (Authority: AR 335-15, paragraph 5-2a) 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? Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? ENG FORM 6116-7, SEP 2024 Midwest – Version 2.0 Shorewood Development Shorewood/Hennepin 2025-08-01 Chestnut Business Park, LLP Minnesota 25256-w3-u Ken Arndt sec 29 T117N R023W Sideslope Concave 3-7 44.906718 -93.607206 WGS84 Lester loam, morainic, 25 to 35 percent slopes None 3 3 3 3 3 3 Sample point is within a deciduous forested area dominated by sugar maple with some ironwood and basswood. 30' radius Acer saccharum Tilia americana Ostrya virginiana 50 Y FACU 20 Y FACU 10 N FACU 80.0 15' radius 0 5' radius Carex pennsyvanica 50 Y NI Rhamnus cathartica 10 N FAC 60.0 30' radius 0 0 3 0.00 0 0 0 0 3010 80 320 0 0 90 350.00 3.89 3 Page 191 of 249 Sampling Point: %%Type1 Loc2 Type: Depth (inches):Hydric Soil Present? Yes No Primary Indicators (minimum of one is required; check all that apply) Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8) Surface Water Present? Yes Water Table Present? Yes Saturation Present? Yes Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No Geomorphic Position (D2) No No No Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Field Observations: SOIL 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) 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: 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, 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, MS=Masked Sand Grains.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix. Hydric Soil Indicators:Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Iron-Manganese Masses (F12) Red Parent Material (F21) Very Shallow Dark Surface (F22) Other (Explain in Remarks) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Sandy Redox (S5) Depleted Matrix (F3) Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Redox Depressions (F8) 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Matrix Texture RemarksColor (moist) Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) Histosol (A1) Histic Epipedon (A2) Black Histic (A3) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) Stratified Layers (A5) 2 cm Muck (A10) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) Thick Dark Surface (A12) Iron Monosulfide (A18) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) 5 cm Mucky Peat or Peat (S3) 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) ENG FORM 6116-7, SEP 2024 Midwest – Version 2.0 25256-w3-u 0-2 10YR 2/2 100 SIL 2-18 10YR 4/3 100 SIL 3 Soils are non-hydric. 3 3 3 3 No indicators of wetland hydrology present. Page 192 of 249 Page 193 of 249 X 2N D S T R E E T MA P L E VI E W CO U R T CLARA AVEN U E WA T E R E L E V . = 9 4 7 . 0 WA T E R E L E V . = 9 4 0 . 5 WA T E R E L E V . = 9 3 0 . 8 ED G E O F W A T E R ED G E O F W A T E R ED G E O F W A T E R 2. 0 5. 5 3. 2 KENNEL EA S T L I N E O F B L O C K 5 , M A N N ' S A D D I T I O N T O B I R C H B L U F F WEST LINE OF LOT 6, BLOCK3, MANN'S ADDITION TOBIRCH BLUFF SOUTHERLY EXTENSIONWEST LINE OF LOT 6, BLOCK3, MANN'S ADDITION TOBIRCH BLUFF 254.66 187.11 BE N C H M A R K TN H = 9 5 6 . 3 5 #10 9 3 8 #1 0 9 3 8 #1 0 9 3 8 OP E N ME T A L OB J E C T #15 2 3 0 #15 2 3 0 (U N I M P R O V E D ) (UNIMPROVED ) NORTHERLY LI N E L I N E O F L O T 2 1 , B L O C K 3 , MANN'S ADDIT I O N T O B I R C H B L U F F ED G E O F W E T L A N D A S DE L I N E A T E D B Y M N R O N 8/ 1 / 2 0 2 5 ( T Y P . ) WE T L A N D C H A N N E L AS D E L I N E A T E D B Y MN R O N 8 / 1 / 2 0 2 5 E E E E UF O G G G T T T TV WBF WBF WBF WB F WB F WB F WB F WBF WBF WBF WBF WB F W B F W B F WBF WBF WBF WBF WBF WBF WBF WB F WB F WB F WB F W B F W B F WBF WBFWBF WSL WS L WS L WS L W S L W S L W S L W S L WSL WSLWSL WBF WBF WBF WBF WBF W B F W B F W B F W B F WBF WBF WBF WBF WBF W B F W B F W B F W B F WSL WSL WSL WS L WS L WS L WSL WS L WSL WSL WS L WS L W S L WSL WSL WSL WSL WSL WSL WS L WS L WS L W S L W S L W S L W S L WSL WSLWSL BS L BSLBSLBSLBSLBSLBSLBSLBSL BS L BS L BS L BS L BS L BS L BS L BS L BS L BSL BSL BSL BSL BSL BSL BSL BSL BSL BS L BS L BS L BS L BS L BS L BS L BS L BS L BSL WSL WSL WSL WSL WSL W S L W S L W S L W S L W S L WETLAND 1P NWL=940.5 100 YEAR HWL=941.58 WETLAND 2P NWL=947.0100 YEAR HWL=947.50 HWL HWL HWL HWL HWL HWL H W L HW L HW L H W L H W L HWLHWL HWL HW L HW L HW L HW L HWL H W L HWL HW L HW L H W L HWL HWL HW L HW L H W L HWL H W L >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>> WETLAND 1P NWL=940.5 100 YEAR HWL=941.58 WETLAND 2P NWL=947.0100 YEAR HWL=947.50 948 950 952 954 956 958 960 962 964 966 968 970 972 974 976 978 978 98 0 9 4 6 9 4 8 9 5 0 9 5 0 95 2 95 4 95 6 95 8 96 0 9 5 2 9 5 4 954 954 952 95 0 948 946 944 9 5 2 950 948 946 944 942 942 944 946 94 6 94 8 95 0 95 2 95 4 95 6 95 8 96 0 96 2 96 4 96 6 96 8 97 0 97 2 97 4 97 6 97 8 98 0 98 2 984 98 2 98 0 97 8 976 974 972 970 HWL HWL HWL HWL HWL HWL H W L HW L HW L H W L H W L HWLHWL HWL HW L HW L HW L HW L HWL H W L HWL HW L HW L H W L HWL HWL HW L HW L H W L HWL H W L PROJECT NO. 24303 CAD FILE 10/20/25 DATE REVISIONS DRAWN BY Da t e : Re g . N o . 29 9 9 W E S T C . R . 4 2 , S U I T E 1 0 0 BU R N S V I L L E , M N 5 5 3 0 6 PH O N E : 9 5 2 - 8 9 0 - 6 0 4 4 em a i l @m n h i l l . c o m ww w . m n h i l l . c o m I h e r e b y c e r t i f y t h a t t h i s p l a n , sp e c i f i c a t i o n o r r e p o r t w a s p r e p a r e d b y me o r u n d e r m y d i r e c t s u p e r v i s i o n a n d th a t I a m a d u l y L i c e n s e d P r o f e s s i o n a l En g i n e e r u n d e r t h e l a w s o f t h e S t a t e o f Mi n n e s o t a . PRE L I M I N A R Y SH O R E W O O D , M N SH O R E W O O D R E S I D E N T I A L CH E S T N U T B U S I N E S S P A R K L L P FO R F: \ _ C i v i l 3 D P r o j e c t s \ 2 4 3 0 3 \ P R E - P L A T P L A N S \ 2 4 3 0 3 D R N . d w g - 1 0 / 2 0 / 2 0 2 5 0 1 : 3 6 P M >>> POND AREA DRAINAGE AREATOTAL DRAINAGE AREAIMPERVIOUS AREA FLOW DIRECTION REACH LEGEND ToC PATH DRAINAGE BOUNDARY 1R IMP 1S 1.234 AC0.123 AC 1P 24303DRN EXISTING EX I S T I N G D R A I N A G E M A P EPF IMP 1X 4.86 AC0.43 AC IMP 2X 0.94 AC0.04 AC 1P 2P Page 194 of 249 H:\SHWD\25X141197000\1_Corres\C_To Others\2026-01-26 2nd Review\Watten Ponds 2nd Addition 2nd Comment Memo.docx MEMORANDUM Date: January 27, 2026 To: Jake Griffiths, Planning Director From: Andrew Budde, City Engineer Subject: Watten Ponds 2nd Addition, 2nd Review City of Shorewood BMI Project No.: 25X141197 The following documents were submitted for review of compliance with the City of Shorewood’s City Code/ Local Surface Water Management Plan and Engineering Standards all bearing the general title Watten Ponds 2nd Addition and prepared by Hill Incorporated: Civil Plan Set revised 1/22/2026, Preliminary Plat, Final Plat, Shorewland Exhibit, Stormwater Management Reports, and a response letter from the first review. This review only included the documents listed above, primarily dealing with utilities, grading, modeling and stormwater management. Grading: 1. Applicate plans to acquire soil borings if preliminary plat is approved and soil borings will help in establishing basement floor elevations and infiltration viability. Drainage: 2. Include drainage areas directly towards Wetland 3 Rate Control analysis 3. Revise drainage map labels: 3P, 5P, and 3S are all shown multiple times 4. Include detail in plans for 18” catch basin draining Wetland 2. 5. Include FES detail for 6” drain tile outlet, or connect drain tile into proposed outlet control structures. 6. Underdrain must be solid and not perforated outside of filtration media footprint. 7. Include detail or specifications for filtration basins, including filtration media thickness. STO-11 is not applicable to filtration basins. 8. Owners of private stormwater facilities shall enter a maintenance agreement with the City describing responsibility for the long-term operation and maintenance of the stormwater facilities and shall be executed prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. 9. Permits will be required with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Sanitary Sewer/Watermain: 10. Fire Marshall or their representative must review proposed water utilities for fire protection. 11. Add a 3” shut off valve where the watermain crosses the right of way. 12. Add 1.5 inch curb stops on each water service. 13. Sanitary manhole SSMH 9 is 23 feet deep and centered about 7 feet off the property line. Temporary easements, alternative construction methods, or adjustments to the design may be necessary for constructability. Adjust grading limits and silt fence accordingly. 14. Additional comments may be provided on future plan reviews. Page 195 of 249 January 16, 2016 City of Shorewood Aaron Osowski, City Planner 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 aosowski@ci.shorewood.mn.us Comment Responses Dear Mr. Osowski, Please find our responses to city comments below. Planning Review Comments, November 13, 2025 1. A shared driveway easement will be required which shall include ongoing maintenance responsibilities for the driveway such as repair, replacement, encroachments, snow removal, etc. Provide driveway easement agreement for review. Response: A driveway easement agreement will be provided with final submittal documents. 2. The City would likely desire to vacate the entirety of the unimproved 2nd Street right-of-way. Please provide the legal description of the entirety of 2nd Street. If possible, please communicate with the adjacent property owner to obtain their petition for the vacation of right-of-way. Provide the same for portions of Clara Ave adjacent to the subject property. Response: Requested vacation materials have been provided. 3. Identify boundary of shoreland management overlay on plans. Provide total square footage of land within shoreland overlay for each lot. Response: An exhibit has been included with the resubmittal documents. Page 196 of 249 Watten Pond 2nd Addition Comment Responses January 16, 2026 Page | 2 4. Provide proof of submittal to Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Response: Submittal to MCWD was made on October 20, 2025. 5. Address all comments from City’s consultants for other agencies having an interest in the site. Comments from the City of Shorewood City Engineer have been forwarded concurrently with this review. Response: See below for responses to City’s consultant’s comments. 6. Additional comments pending further review. Response: Acknowledged. Bolton & Menk Engineering Review Comments, November 10, 2025 Final & Preliminary Plat: 1. A drainage & utility easement shall extend from the wetland edge to cover the required 35 foot wetland buffer per city code 1102-Wetland Developments. Response: D&U easements have been updated accordingly. 2. A portion of the site is within the Shoreland District. Review section 1201.26 S, Shoreland District of the Shorewood Code of Ordinances for relevant regulations. Response: Acknowledged. 3. Square up or extend the right of way on the south property line to allow for access to city owned parcel. Response: Right-of-way has been modified as requested. 4. Increase the width of the drainage & utility easement between the north wetland and its route offsite to the west to cover the 100-yr inundation. Response: D&U easement width has been increased. 5. Provide a drainage & utility between the wetland fully on parcel 1 to its discharge into the wetland to the north. Response: D&U easement has been added to plat. Page 197 of 249 Watten Pond 2nd Addition Comment Responses January 16, 2026 Page | 3 6. Drainage & utility easements should be increased to encompass the 100-yr HWL of all wetlands, basins, and drainage channels. Response: The increase in easements to include the 35’ buffer exceeds the 100- year HWL. 7. Survey scale is inaccurate on Certificate of Survey and Preliminary Plat, please revise. Response: Scale has been corrected. Grading: 8. Include the building elevations on the proposed grading plan, including lowest floor elevations. Basements must provide for 2 feet of vertical separation from the high-water table or 4 feet from the normal water table. Response: Elevations are included on grading plan. Final configuration, including basement construction, will be determined once soil borings are completed and the groundwater elevation is known. 9. Provide a Soil Report for the site. Response: A soils report will be provided upon completion. Drainage: 10. Provide a Stormwater Report that discusses modeling results and demonstrates compliance with stormwater requirements. a. Revise drainage maps: i. Delineate all impervious areas used in calculations. ii. List impervious and pervious areas for drainage areas in consistent units. iii. Drainage area 1 shows a reduction in total impervious area, please verify. iv. Include delineation for the Southwest portion of the site tributary to the Southwest Wetland. v. Include an accurate scale. b. Revise HydroCAD Model: i. Apply UI Adjusted Curve Number consistently to all subwatersheds. ii. Verify the proposed impervious/net new impervious for subwatersheds. Page 198 of 249 Watten Pond 2nd Addition Comment Responses January 16, 2026 Page | 4 iii. Include detail in Civil Plans for 48” Horizontal Orifice/Grate outlet from Pond 2. iv. Evaluate the site discharge rates for each direction of drainage off the site for existing and proposed conditions, including towards the Southwest Wetland. Response: A stormwater management report has been included with the resubmittal. 11. The property must meet the City of Shorewood Surface Water Management Plan Regulations (Section 5.3) including, but not limited to: a. Rate Control requirements b. Flood Control requirements c. Water Quality Treatment requirements d. Infiltration/Volume Control requirements e. Wetland Requirements Response: Acknowledged. Refer to stormwater management report. 12. Owners of private stormwater facilities shall enter a maintenance agreement with the City describing responsibility for the long-term operation and maintenance of the stormwater facilities and shall be executed and recorded with the final plat/prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy. A template of Shorewood’s standard agreement is attached. Response: Acknowledged. 13. The ownership and maintenance responsibility for the proposed outlet control structure and pipe from the wetland fully on Lot 1 will be the responsibility of Lot 1. Response: Acknowledged. 14. Permits will be required with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Response: Acknowledged. An application was submitted to MCWD on 10/20/25. Page 199 of 249 Watten Pond 2nd Addition Comment Responses January 16, 2026 Page | 5 Sanitary Sewer/Watermain: 15. Fire Marshall or their representative must review proposed water utilities for fire protection. Response: Acknowledged. Please provide comments from the Fire Marshall. 16. The city would like to have a 3-inch water service extended to serve these two lots and the potential lot north of Clara Ave. A curb stop shall be located on each individual service after the 3 inch line and no the 3 inch line where it crosses the proposed right of way. Response: Service has been increased to 3”. 17. Record drawings show an existing 40-foot stub to the west of the sanitary sewer MH in the existing cul-de-sac. Public works confirmed it exists. Adjustment plans as needed to set a new manhole on the end of the stub. See attached. Response: Plans have been updated per record drawings. 18. A future phase may include constructing homes north of Clara Ave. The potential lot directly north of Clara Ave does not have a sanitary sewer or water service provided within Birch Bluff Road. Plan to serve that lot through these proposed utilities. The city will not allow new water and sanitary services to be cut into Birch Bluff Rd. Providing sanitary sewer to the south should also avoid an individual grinder lift station. This will likely result in extending the 8-inch sewer main and larger water service further north. Confirm that services from the potential lot north of Clara Ave will be permitable through the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Response: An easement to serve this lot from Birch Bluff Road will be provided. 19. Include relevant City Standard Plates. They are currently being updated and approved details will likely be available in mid-December. Response: Relevant city plates have been added to the detail sheets. 20. Additional comments will be provided on future plan reviews. Response: Acknowledged. Page 200 of 249 January 16, 2026 Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Abigail Couture 15320 Minnetonka Boulevard Minnetonka, MN 55345 ACouture@minnehahacreek.org Watten Ponds 2nd Addition Comment Responses Dear Ms. Couture, Please see below for our responses to MCWD review comments. MCWD Permit Application #25-522: Mapleview Court November 4, 2025 Comments Project Understanding Based on MCWD’s understanding of the project scope, Gravity Investment, LLC is proposing a one to two lot split with a new single family home on each new lot of record. An intermittent stream will have to be crossed by a new driveway. For MCWD regulatory purposes, the site is defined by PID 2911723440029. This site has three wetlands on-site. Response: According to the wetland delineation, the stream is considered ephemeral, not intermittent. Erosion Control Rule MCWD’s Erosion Control Rule is triggered by projects that propose to disturb more than 5,000 square feet or move 50 cubic yards of material. Current submittals meet these requirements. Response: Acknowledged Page 201 of 249 Watten Ponds 2nd Addition January 16, 2026 Page | 2 Floodplain Alteration Rule MCWD's Floodplain Alteration Rule is triggered when there is work below the 100- year flood elevation. To meet MCWD’ Floodplain Alteration rule requirements, please address the following items: • Channel o The channel between Wetland 2P and Wetland 1P is a defined watercourse. Therefore, the project must demonstrate no net fill within the channel floodplain (between the OHWL and 100-year HWL of the channel) and must demonstrate the No-Rise Standard is met (no increase greater than 0.00 ft in the 100-year HWL of the channel) Response: The stormwater report and attachments show a depth of 0.22 for the 100-year HWL of the channel, corresponding to a peak elevation of 947.22. o Update the HydroCAD model to include existing conditions (i.e. open stream channel) and proposed conditions (i.e. OCS/piped channel with driveway overflow) of the channel. These conditions should be modeled for the 2-year rainfall event (to serve as a proxy for the OHWL) and the 100-year rainfall event. Response: Elevations/dephths are summarized in the stormwater management report. o Provide cut and fill calculations for the floodplain of the watercourse, between the OHWL (i.e. 2-year HWL) and 100-year HWL, to demonstrate no net fill within the floodplain of the channel. Response: See stormwater management report for existing and proposed storage within the channel. o Provide a figure demonstrating the locations of proposed floodplain cut and fill within the channel. There cannot be any net fill within the floodplain of the stream channel. The figure should include the following: Page 202 of 249 Watten Ponds 2nd Addition January 16, 2026 Page | 3 ▪ Symbology (polygons, hatching, linework, etc.) showing the extends of the floodplain cut and floodplain fill. ▪ Callouts of the volume of floodplain cut and floodplain fill in each location. ▪ Existing and proposed contours (including the existing and proposed OHWL and 100-year HWL contours). Response: See stormwater management report for existing and proposed storage within the channel. o No impervious surface may be placed within the 10-year floodplain of the channel or within 25 feet of the channel centerline, whichever is greater, unless the surface is no more than 10% of the site 10-year floodplain area. Provide documentation to demonstrate this requirement is met. Response: The driveway crossing is proposed above the OHWL of the channel. • Freeboard o It appears the “RLO” elevation of the eastern home may be below the 100-year HWL of Wetland 2P. Clarify the type of opening and the location of the opening. Response: The western home shows a rear lookout (RLO) elevation of 947.2. This is hydraulically disconnected from Wetland 2P. It is adjacent to wetland 1P, which has an existing and proposed HWL of 941.58. ▪ If 2 feet of vertical separation is not provided between the low opening of the structure and the 100-year HWL of nearby waterbodies, adequate hydraulic disconnection must be provided. Response: More than 2’ of vertical separation is provided between the adjacent wetland HWL and the low floor openings for both proposed structures. • Drainage Map o Update the drainage map to include a scale Response: Updated map is included with the revised plans. Page 203 of 249 Watten Ponds 2nd Addition January 16, 2026 Page | 4 Waterbody Crossings and Structures: MCWD’s Waterbody Crossings and Structures Rule is triggered when work is proposed below the top of bank of a waterbody. To meet MCWD’s Waterbody Crossings & Structures rule requirements, please address the following items: • The channel between Wetland 2P and Wetland 1P is a defined watercourse. Therefore, the project must demonstrate no increase no increase in the upstream or downstream flood stage. Response: See responses in the floodplain section above. o This requirement should be satisfied by the No-Rise Standard requirement for the Floodplain Alternation Rule above. Response: See responses in the floodplain section above. • Provide two alternatives, in addition to the proposed solution. Provide justification for why the proposed solution represents the minimal impact solution. Response: The proposed solution crosses at nearly a 90-degree angle to the channel, minimizing the impact as much as possible. The proposed route also avoids impacts to wetlands, and wetland buffers. Since Clara Avenue and 2nd Street are unimproved ROW with no public street connections, the proposed route represents the only feasible access location to serve the buildable area on the east side of this proposed lot. Wetland Protection Rule MCWD's Wetland Protection Rule is triggered when work is proposed within a wetland, and/or when impervious surfaces are created upgradient of wetlands on site. To meet MCWD’s Wetland Protection rule requirements, please address the following items: • Clearly call out the wetland buffer line on the plans (define WBF or put an arrow toward the line outlining what the line is) Response: WBF and WSL have been added to relevant plan sheet legends. o On the southern wetland there are two WBF lines, so it is not clear which one is the wetland buffer that will be permanently added to the property Response: The 25’ WBF line has been removed from the plans. Page 204 of 249 Watten Ponds 2nd Addition January 16, 2026 Page | 5 • Clearly call out the wetland boundary on the plans Response: Wetland boundary callouts have been added to the plans. • Show the location of the required wetland buffer signs o They must be located on all lot lines and no more than 200 feet apart, and show the rough boundary of the buffer Response: Wetland buffer signs have been added to the plans. • Calculate the total area of buffer created (in square feet) Response: Total buffer area has been added to the plans. Sincerely, Brady Busselman, P.E. Vice President Page 205 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JANUARY 6, 2026 7:00 P.M. DRAFT MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Huskins called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Huskins; Commissioners Longo and Magistad; Planning Director Griffiths; and Planner Osowski Absent: Commissioner Holker 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Longo moved, Commissioner Magistad seconded, approving the agenda for January 6, 2026, as presented. Motion passed 3/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES • November 18, 2025 Chair Huskins noted that he had passed along some minor edits to Planning Director Griffiths before the meeting. Commissioner Longo moved, Commissioner Magistad seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 18, 2025, as presented. Motion passed 3/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DETACHED GARAGE Applicant: Nathan Mendiola, Gonyea Custom Homes Location: 5035 St. Alban’s Bay Road City Planner Osowski reviewed a Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage at 5035 St. Alban’s Bay Road. He noted that the Conditional Use Permit is required because the square footage of accessory buildings exceeds 1200 square feet, so City Code caps the amount of accessory shelters. He shared a picture of the property and noted that there is already an open building permit for a single-family home on the property, which would be separate from this. He explained that there would be a reduction in impervious surfaces. He shared that there was one comment that was received from the neighbor to the Southeast who had some concerns about grading towards her property, which the City Engineer has talked to her about, and requested that some changes be made to the grading plan to make sure that water drains to the back of Page 206 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 2 of 19 the property. He shared all the ways that the Applicant meets the existing City Code as found in the Staff Report and that Staff is recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Chair Huskins asked if there were any questions for Planner Osowski. Commissioner Magistad explained that he did not have questions as the grading seemed to be addressed. Planner Osowski pointed out the conditions that the City Engineer gave if the Planning Commission wanted to have any conditions put on the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. Chair Huskins asked what the Staff’s position is on the recommendation given by the City Engineer about the grading. Planner Osowski noted that the recommendations are certainly able to be done, may be a little challenging with the winter conditions, but are possible. Commissioner Magistad asked if the 109 square foot reduction was recommended because it needs to fit within the ten percent. Planner Osowski noted that it was correct, and after the initial application was submitted, there was some discrepancy in the math, so it was asked to be reduced, and the total will be about 1,997 square feet in accessory buildings. Commissioner Magistad asked if the water drainage recommendations needed to be made prior to the building of the buildings or after, if something were to take place. Planner Osowski shared that it would need to take place during construction, not after the fact. Nathan Mendiola, 5035 St. Alban’s Bay Road, stated he is still decreasing the hard cover of what was there and that the garage will not be going in until after the winter, so water drainage recommendations will be able to be addressed in the spring. He shared that the driveway would not be going in until spring as well. Chair Huskins asked when the single-family home would be completed. Mr. Mendiola stated that it would be in October, because the ground was just broken in December. Chair Huskins opened the Public Hearing at 7:14 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. Robert Boyer, no address given, stated that his property is directly behind the property. He added that he has no problems with the development and what is being done. He stated that his only concern is that at the back of the property, there is a 500-gallon oil tank and freon tanks that are buried, as the back of the property was used as a garbage space by other neighbors in the past. He noted that he would like to see that removed in the course of the renovation. Chair Huskins asked if that was new information to the Staff or previously known. Planner Osowski stated that it is new information to him. Chair Huskins invited the Applicant back to comment on the new information. Mr. Mendiola shared that it was discovered about a month ago by the project manager, and the client is currently looking at ways to deal with it and going back to the realtor, as it was not disclosed when the property was purchased. He added that the logistics and costs are being figured out to get the items removed. Planning Director Griffiths shared that it sounded like the client and Property Manager are working to get the issue resolved. He recommended adding a condition to the Conditional Use Permit that the Applicant has indicated that it will be removed; therefore, it should be removed. Mr. Mendiola asked how the condition would pertain to the garage, so that when he takes it back to his team, he knows how to address it, since it would be a condition that would have to go along Page 207 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 3 of 19 with the garage, but it seems to be a separate issue. Planning Director Griffiths noted that, as part of the Conditional Use Permit, the site needs to be compliant with the City Code, and having the items is a violation of the City Code. He noted that construction can proceed, but before the project is completed, the items would need to be removed. Chair Huskins closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:18 P.M. Commissioner Longo stated that he does not have anything against the project, as long as the items are going to be removed. Commissioner Magistad stated that he is okay with the application, and with the new information, it seems that the Commission is making it so that the project will comply with the City Code now because of the Conditional Use Permit. Chair Huskins stated that he does not have any issues either. Planning Director Griffiths shared that if the Commission wants to include the conditions that were shared by City Engineer Budde, as well as the condition that was just discussed, that would need to be included in the motion, as well as the conditions that the Staff is recommending. Commissioner Magistad moved, Longo seconded, recommending approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a detached garage at 5035 St. Alban’s Bay Road with the added condition that the hazardous waste be removed before the project is completed, the conditions presented by City Engineer Budde, and the conditions from the City Staff. Motion passed 3/0. Chair Huskins stated that it would be taken up by the City Council on January 26, 2026. B. PUBLIC HEARING – WATTEN PONDS 2nd ADDITION PRELIMINARY AND FINAL PLAT Applicant: Gravity Investment, LLC Location: Parcel ID 2911723440029 Planning Director Griffiths reviewed a request for a preliminary and final plat for Watten Ponds 2nd Addition on an unaddressed property on the Western end of Maple View Court. He explained that a preliminary and final plat are tools used to subdivide a property. He furthered to explain what each one meant. He shared and explained pictures of the property as found in the Staff Agenda Packet. He did note that there would be one shared driveway, due to the trees and wetland areas. He noted that there is a separate application being done to remove second street that was originally platted on the map and will not be used as such, which will go before the Council. Chair Huskins asked if that is not approved by the Council, does that have any indication of the application before the Commission. Planning Director Griffiths noted that it would not, as the project would meet City Code regardless of whether the right-of-way was vacated or not. Planning Director Griffiths continued to show the pictures from the project and described what was found in the Staff Agenda Packet. He explained that in an application for preliminary plats, there is a set of review criteria that is established and found in the City Code, which he went over for the project as found in the Analysis in the Staff Agenda Packet. He shared that public notice was given, and there have been three comments that were given since. He stated that the Page 208 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 4 of 19 concerns were setbacks, clear-cutting the land, impact on the surrounding neighborhood, and the accuracy of the plans in the public notice, to which the Staff responded. He noted that state law identifies preliminary plats as a quasi-judicial authority, which means that the Council and the Commission are tasked with applying law, not creating new rules, but verifying that the project meets all the rules that are currently in place. He noted that the Staff is recommending approval of the application and reviewed the conditions that the Applicant would need to meet. Commissioner Longo asked about the condition of adherence to the Tree Policy, is that refereeing to the 21 trees that need to be added. Planning Director Griffiths confirmed that to be the case. Commissioner Magistad asked about the conditions that states proof of submittal of an application to the Minnehaha Watershed District would imply approval. Planning Director Griffiths noted that the recommended approval is that the Applicant receive recommended approval from all other jurisdictions. Commissioner Magistad asked about the elevation of the adjacent properties, especially those to the East. Planning Director Griffiths shared a picture that showed that the contour lines generally show a slope towards the wetlands, with the highest point on the map being where lot two is, and the water draining down from there. He added that the review shows that it would not drain into adjacent sites and that a drainage map is included in the plans. Chair Huskins asked about any utilities that will need to be installed and if the utilities will be accessible to the City for anything that will need to be repaired. Planning Director Griffiths noted that any utilities would come from the end of Maple View Court, and would be in a location in which the City could reach if needed, or would be private utilities, which would be the responsibility of the property owner. Audrius Asakenas, Applicant, 5520 Tonka Bay, stated that he is a local builder, business owner, and owner of the property. He noted that he was looking for approval of the project and had two engineers who would be able to answer questions as needed as well. Chair Huskins asked when construction would begin and end on the two homes. Mr. Asakenas noted that construction would take about a year after approval, with the start in the spring. Chair Huskins opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:44 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. Dave Vierthaler, 25755 Maple View Court, explained the location of his property in relation to the proposed project by showing a picture that was viewed on the screen. He explained that there is an easement that was put in so that the City has access to Outlet C, which is not happening. He thanked the City Staff for meeting with many of the residents. He noted that the neighborhood is understanding that this property will be developed at some level, but they want it to be consistent with the Codes and responsibilities that the City has laid out for any builder. He feels that the cart is being put before the horse with the number of things that need to be done prior to approval. He shared that the Minnehaha Creek Watershed approval was one of those. He stated that in his line of work in Human Resources, something could not be moved forward until all of the work had been done. He stated that the Staff is saying to move forward with it, and then the City will make sure that everything is done, which is not the correct way to do it. He pointed out that he has issues with the City doing things in this manner, because recently, there were trees put in his backyard that he had to deal with from a different project. He shared that trusting the City to do the right thing with all 20 conditions that still need to be met does not feel right. He pointed out Page 209 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 5 of 19 that he was on a planning commission in a different city, and that he understood the rules of the Staff, but that the Commission also needs to adhere to what the Staff is saying and what the citizens want as well. He used the pictures that showed that the houses would be very close to some of the other properties, and he would not want a house that is that close to be there. He noted that the Commission needed to measure and balance with the existing neighbors who have been there for many years. He noted that it is not that they do not want it developed, but rather just done correctly for everybody who is there. He feels the City is not doing the right thing with the way they are using the easement, noting that it is gamesmanship. He pointed out that it should matter what the citizens want as well, and the Commission needs to consider that. Mary Benson, 25607 Maple View Court, stated her property is adjacent to the property being proposed for development. She brought a drawing of her property and the proposed property, and how the two would relate to each other. She stated that she and her husband are the original homeowners and have lived on Maple View Court for 26 years. She described the process that she and her husband had to go through to build their home, being denied their plans multiple times. She noted that their builder swore he would never build in Shorewood again. She added that all the other homes had to go through the same process, and there is no question of where the front, back, or side of each home is. She pointed out that it seemed impossible to have a house in that location and still comply with Shorewood’s property restrictions. She stated that the structure is ten feet from her property line. She pointed out that the front of the house does not align with what most would say to be the front of the house, because then 50 feet would be needed, but there is only ten feet there. She stated that calling the side of the house the front is being used to make the improbable site possible. She used the pictures to point out many of the issues she had with the property. She shared that she has not seen a drawing of the proposed building next to her own property. She stated that it would impact the value of her property, but not in a good way. She questioned why this spot was now developable when it had not been before. She noted that she would expect the same rules that she was obligated to follow 20 years ago would still be enforced today. She asked the Commission to vote no, and noted her curiosity for the developer to share what is envisioned for the spot. Jim Benson, 25607 Maple View Court, asked when in the history of the Planning Commission had over 100 mature, healthy trees been destroyed to allow two houses to be built on questionable buildable land. He pointed out that the property has been for sale for 25 years and no one has bought it. He stated that it is not just the trees but the entire ecosystem that matters with the project. He pointed out that building the two homes would be incongruent with the established neighborhood. He stated that allowing the project to move forward would be contrary to what he thought Shorewood stood for. He quoted the City Code 1102.01, “The Purpose of an Intent for the City of Shorewood. The name of this City denotes its character, a City of shoreland, water, and woods, natural assets hold its citizens in trust for future generations.” He noted that the City has many parks, but there is not much acreage that is left in natural native estate, and this would be a great opportunity. He stated this is arguably the healthiest ecosystem in Shorewood and compared it to Freeman Park. He noted that people are meant to be good stewards of things and to leave them better than the way they were found. He asked the Commission to deny approval of the project. Chris Joslin, 25630 Maple View Court, stated that when the notifications came out, there was not a lot of detail given. He stated that he has lived there for 21 years, and it has been a privilege to be a resident of Shorewood. He stated that the project lacks transparency and that, in working with the City in the past, it has been very transparent, and that is what he liked. He stated that he has been told by many people, realtors, and members of the City, that this property would not be developed. He noted his concern for the approval going through when the City Engineer has Page 210 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 6 of 19 20 conditions for approval to happen. He noted that the maps that were shown lack proper scale, which is an issue and paints a disingenuous picture. Kate Bix, 25545 Orchard Circle, stated that she has lived there for 34 years since it was first proposed for development after Watten lived there. She noted that the current development is beautiful and that the tree preservation was very well thought out. She described the wetlands and the importance of the ecosystem, and how the buildings would change that. Janene Murtha, 25650 Maple View Court, provides that she is a neighbor but also an attorney. She stated that it is a follow-up to an email about a public notice, which was written on January 3, 2026. She noted that she addressed the incomplete information provided in the public notice, with special note of incorrect scaling of the map, the incorrect second use of a Maple View cul- de-sac, residents were not included on the map, and many of the residents of the neighborhood got together to discuss and had to visit the County maps to determine where exactly they were in relation to the new project. She noted that there was no map legend or title, and the second page of the notice was a satellite map, which did not include the possible build areas. She stated that, given the unclear notices, there was no way for those who were given them to fully understand the true nature of the project. She explained that the same map is found on the City website, and there is a title, but the scale is still incorrect, and it is found on page 23 of the Staff Agenda Packet. She furthered that the City Engineer noted that the scale is incorrect and asked for a revision. She explained that the Staff stated that the notices are fine in the prior meeting, and were stating Minnesota Statute section 452.358 subsection 3b, which mandates notice of time and place in the official newspaper at least ten days before the hearing, however, she feels the City failed to read that statute in conjunction with the applicable Minnesota State Stature 505 which sets the technical rules for plats, including that plats be based on accurate surveys as they become permeant public land records once approved. She argued that because the City sent the incorrect document as part of the documents, the notice failed and made it impossible for affected residents to accurately assess the proposed development. She added that to participate effectively in the hearing, residents had to do their own research and ground work, which does not seem to be a normal part of the process. She asked the Commission not to approve the application until corrections have been made. She stated that several residents met with the Planning Director, and he argued that the City could not redo the notice since it had already been 90 days since the filing of the application for approval of the preliminary and final plat approval. She stated that there is 120 day requirement, during which if the City does not approve the action or do anything before this time period, then it will already be preapproved. She noted that no legal authority was presented for that. She furthered that the Planning Director was referring to Minnesota Statute 15.99, which is the time deadline for agency action, subdivision 3a, which states that the time limit begins upon the agency's receipt of a written request containing all information required by law or by previously adopted rule, ordinance, or policy. She added that if the survey scale is inaccurate, and the survey was part of the application and the public notice packet, then the application was not complete, and the notice clock never properly began, and it must be reset. She noted that she brings the legal and technical issues before the Commission, not only asking that the request be denied, but to get them on the record, exhaust administrative remedies in case of future litigation that could be foreseen. She added that based on the information, she is requesting that the application be denied at this time. Todd Murtha, 25650 Maple View Court, stated his house’s location and referred to a picture of it as well. He noted that there is a pond next to his property that will be affected by the run off lot two of the proposed development. He described the feel of the neighborhood with the trees, water areas, wildlife, and space that is available. He noted that the neighborhood would be changed into just another neighborhood, like many others, with houses on top of each other if this proposed Page 211 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 7 of 19 development were to go in. He added that adding homes is important, but two more large single- family homes will not help the housing crisis, the elderly, or the economically disadvantaged. He shared that this proposal brings nothing to the City, and it is important for the City to maintain residential diversity, value areas that are not densely packed neighborhoods. He added that if these houses are built, diversity will never come back. He stated that the City has told residents that their opinions do not matter, as the decision has already been made. He asked why the opinions of the neighbors do not matter, as the residents of Maple View Court have invested much time and money into the neighborhood. He stated that it is not the City or the new developer who made Maple View Court what it is, but rather the neighbors who are asking that the request be denied. He noted that the documents that were provided were inaccurate, but the City stated that the documents actually did not have to be provided at all. He asked that the Commission exercise its authority and give this application a fair analysis by denying the application until it is complete and accurate, and help the residents understand what the application will actually do to their houses. He stated that with additional time, the Commission can do a fair analysis rather than just making sure that the boxes are checked. He furthered that the Minnesota law of land use exists to protect current residents as much as for the developers. He stated that, contrary to the review of the City bureaucrats under Minnesota law, as enforced by Minnesota courts, the interest of the residents does matter. He stated that the City is entrusted with and legally obligated to use its regulatory powers to protect residents' interests, not just the interests of developers. He explained that a fair analysis means balancing the impact for, on the one hand, the neighborhood, the environment, and the existing residents, against a developer who wants two more large single- family houses regardless of the impact on the neighbors or the neighborhood. He asked that the application be denied. Greg Larson, 25535 Orchard Circle, stated that the parking and the staging that must be done on site is not included on the map. He asked about the extent of the tree removal and grading, and how the equipment would be able to be housed on the property. He pointed out that all the drawings had an inaccurate scale, which does not allow the residents to make an assessment of what is being seen. He stated that in speaking with a wetland engineer, it would be unusual to move ahead with anything final without hearing the final report from the Watershed District. He stated that residents were not given enough information to make educated comments or to ask educated comments. He noted that this hearing should be happening, and the City has pushed ahead even after hearing that there is erroneous information that was given to the residents. He stated that the City Attorney has decided that it is legal to move ahead with the process, but in his opinion, it is totally unethical. He asked that the Planning Commission deny anything until the residents have full and error-free information on which to base educated questions and comments. Dave Vierthaler, 25755 Maple View Court, stated that the City Engineer’s report reads that a future phase may include constructing homes North of Clara Avenue, which is one of the roads that is going to be vacated, so it is mapped but does not exist. He continued that the potential lot North of Clara Avenue does not have sanitary sewer or water service provided within Birch Bluff Road, so the plan is to service the lot from the proposed utilities, as he pointed out on the pictures on the screen, from Maple View Court. He pointed out that this lot is not part of this project, but that it will be needed in order to provide services to this future lot, and this will cause much more tree take-down to get to the Clara Avenue lot. He noted that it is mentioned in the information, but not part of the approval, so it seems that the developer has this plan going forward with the purchase of the lot. Mary Bension, 25670 Maple View Court, noted that her property is adjacent to the property and they intend to have their property surveyed independently, because she does not feel confident Page 212 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 8 of 19 that what is out there is accurate. She added that there is a tree or two that she believes are on her property and are slated for removal. Chair Huskins asked if she was suggesting that the ten feet is not accurate. Ms. Benson noted that she just wants it confirmed. She has a line that is on her property, and one of the trees appears to fall within her property that is slated for removal. Chair Huskins asked, as a point of order, of Planning Director Griffiths, if he would like to address anything first or if the developer should be allowed to address anything first. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the developer should be able to respond as part of the public hearing. Tom Goodrum, Independent Planning Consulting representing Audrius, 9841 Xerxes Curve, Bloomington, stated that the company knew that it would be a sensitive sight and that they would be code-compliant all the way through. He noted that all City requirements have been met. He stated that whether the City standards are correct is not for them to choose, but what the City has set is being followed. He noted that he has a lot of experience with planning. He stated that the property owner fell in love with the piece of property, just like all others in the neighborhood. He commented that the neighborhood is gorgeous. He pointed out that the role of the Planning Commission is to decide if the planning application meets the standards of the ordinance. He stated that they knew that they needed to be completely understanding of the ordinance, and the wetlands needed to be protected, code-compliant. He pointed out in a picture that the roads are built within right-of-ways, and to be compliant with City Code. He noted that as a condition of approval, the City is asking that it has access to its property, which extends the right-of-way so that the City has access out. He shared that the conditions are happy to be met and the developer is working through them with the City. He stated that the Staff heard from the Watershed and that what has been submitted will be compliant. He stated that there are always conditions of approval, and 18 is actually a small number, as the developer is obligated to meet the conditions, and they will be met. He explained that there are costs associated with not doing things correctly, and the City can have it done the way they feel it needs to be accurately done. He pointed out that having conditions on a preliminary plat is very typical. He stated that they want to be good neighbors, they are being code-compliant, and they feel they are being sensitive to the area. He noted that the scale was their fault, but that all of the measurements and lot lines are to scale. He stated that Lot One is 1.63 acres, and is well over the City requirement, with the building area being 5,500 square feet, the building pad is 40 feet wide, 135 feet long, which is plenty of room for a nice home to be placed on. He shared that Lot Two is a two-acre lot, and the building area is 12,000 square feet, with the building dimensions being 75 feet by 152 feet. He noted that the homes are 50 feet away from the wetlands. He feels the developer has looked at the history and has tried to do the right thing throughout the process. Commissioner Longo asked if two lots need to be built. He pointed out that all the concerns seem to be coming from the one lot. Mr. Goodrum noted that there is actually room for three lots that meet City Code. He noted that if there is the ability to do two lots and still meet all requirements, then the developer would like to do two lots. Commissioner Longo asked where the materials and the equipment would go that would build the houses. Mr. Goodrum stated that on lot two, there is a 12,000 square foot buildable area, and that is plenty of room to build and have materials on. He pointed out that the setback standards are being met by being ten feet off. He stated that having that large an area and that much acreage available gives them the ability to do what is needed. Page 213 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 9 of 19 Chair Huskins asked if the 90 trees that need to come down are inclusive of what is needed for staging as well. Mr. Goodrum noted that nothing is being suggested at this time, as the homes are custom-built homes, and the area that is available to work with will be worked with. Chair Huskins noted that it was not really an answer. Mr. Goodrum stated that he does not really know at this time because it is a custom-built home. Commissioner Longo clarified that the plan does not show what the homes will look like. Mr. Goodrum pointed out that the plans are showing what needs to be done on the sites to get them ready to be built on. He added that the building permit is a whole separate building application. Commissioner Longo asked how the question of the grading of Lot One with the water going to the pond on the East side. Brady Busselman, Civil Engineer with Hill Incorporated, 299 Highway 13, Burnsville, stated that there is a very clear break point in drainage along the East property line. He pointed out that the neighbor was correct that the water does drain to the pond from the East, but it is not from the site. He added that this site drains to the West or to the South into the wetlands, so no runoff from this property will be going to the East. Commissioner Longo asked if that would be the same once there is a building on the site, because right now there is a hill, but later it will be a flat area. Mr. Busselman noted that the drainage will be maintained, and that it is monitored by the City and the Watershed, and will be ensured by the property owners. He noted that the impervious area has to go to the onsite treatment, so everything will be captured and directed to the ponding onsite. Greg Larson, 25535 Orchid Circle, stated that the neighbors do not believe they have enough information to come into the meeting and make reasonable comments and questions. He pointed out that the space for the houses is just a conjecture and that what the houses will be is unknown. He pointed out that the scale of the maps is wrong, and the City was aware of this, which made it incredibly difficult for the neighbors to make any judgments. He asked if the scale on the maps is inaccurate. Planning Director Griffiths clarified that with respect to the plan scale, two sheets had issues with the scale bar, which were sheets two and three, but the remaining pages on the plans were accurate. He noted that the Staff did receive a revised version from the Applicant that day, which fixed the scale bar. He stated that the scale bar itself was inaccurate, but the actual dimensions on the plan were correct. He pointed out that the representation seen on the screen is correct, and the scale did not impact the representation of the lot. He stated that the scale bar is important on the two pages, but the actual dimensions are what matter, and those were correct. He noted that the scale bar being inaccurate did not result in a change to the overall representation of the project. Mr. Larson asked for a particular page that was sent with the hearing notice be shown on the screen. He noted that the residents were given information that shows that the driveway comes off of a new cul-de-sac, but are now being told it is an easement. He is asking that the City go back and provide adequate information that the residents can use to decide on how to go forward. Jim Benson, 25607 Maple View Court, asked if the 18 contingencies would all be completed before the trees are torn down. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the conditions are required to be met before any work can begin on the site. Mr. Benson asked about the equipment on the property and if it would be able to be done without infringing on the wetlands. He also asked if Page 214 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 10 of 19 two homes were being built at once. He asked about the impervious surface of the houses being unknown at this time, and how it could be known. Brady Busselman, Civil Engineer with Hill Incorporated, 299 Highway 13, Burnsville, clarified that the building pads are maximums, so the tree clearing is to max out the buildable area. He noted that they view the design as a conservative look at what the tree clearing would be required to build homes. He stated that likely if someone comes into build the home, the tree clearing would likely be less than that, which is not known, rather his opinion. He stated that the impervious area is designed to assume the worst-case scenario, so the maxed-out building areas, the 5,500 square feet plus the 12,000 square feet, and the driveways are what will be designed for stormwater management. Chair Huskins asked if the tree preservation plan, as it exists now, contemplates a pad size that is the maximum pad size, and the ultimate home builder could utilize the entire pad or something smaller, but nothing larger. Mr. Busselman stated that it is correct as it is meeting the setbacks from the property lines, the wetlands setbacks, the wetlands buffers, and is squared off to a reasonable dimension. Mr. Busselman also noted that, as far as construction staging goes, it goes hand in hand; if there is a larger area to clear, to build the house, then there is room to stage. He noted that this is something that has been done before, and that custom builders can work around trees. Commissioner Longo pointed out that the acreage includes the wetlands. Mr. Busselman stated that it is correct, but there is still a significant area to build the homes. Jim Benson, 25607 Maple View Court, asked where the equipment will be stored. Tom Goodrum, Independent Planning Consulting representing Audrius, 9841 Xerxes Curve, Bloomington, stated that it is unknown if the houses will be built at the same time, but if they are, he used a picture to point out where the equipment could be staged. He pointed out that the conditions of approval will be met throughout the process, and then again when the building permit is obtained, which will show the staging areas. He noted that typically barriers are put around the trees that are to be protected, and there is a plan with the City that needs to be followed as well. He added that the developer wants to market it as wooded areas and to be good neighbors who save the trees and work with the community. Alan Yelsey, 26335 Peach Circle, stated that he is a 40-year resident of Shorewood. He thanked the neighbors for a wonderful representation of how democracy should work. He pointed out that the property is gorgeous. He stated that right now he is dealing with the City having done a good job of maintaining the trees that were supposed to be a buffer in his backyard, but they were clear- cut, and the City did not enforce what they said they were going to enforce. He encouraged the residents to make sure that does not happen, and the Planning Commission should not let that happen as well. Jim Benson, 25607 Maple View Court, pointed out that the builder did not know if there would be one house or two houses being built at a time, which could lead to a longer construction time. He stated that placing barriers will not necessarily help when compaction is going to kill trees. He noted that tree replacement is not the same as having the trees that are currently there. Katherine Van De Ruijtenbeek, 25735 Maple View Court, stated that it is said that the trees will be saved because of the escrow, but once the trees have been cut down, the money in the bank will not save the trees that were. She asked how the escrow protects the trees. Page 215 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 11 of 19 Janene Murtha, 25650 Maple View Court, asked if there are plans or models of what is going to be built in each of the spots. She noted that many of her windows would look out on lot one. Audrius Asakenas, Applicant, 5520 Tonka Bay, stated that there are hundreds of plans, as they are working with other designers and engineers to decide what that will be. He noted that this is his job and is currently doing the same sort of thing in Tonka Bay. He stated that he is the builder and will be on the site every day. He shared that it is his goal to save as many trees as possible, because there will be two houses and families that will want to be in the house with the trees and have a safe place to be at the end of the cul-de-sac. He stated that he will be trying everything to save the trees. He shared that working within the means of the setbacks, he wants to create as much privacy as possible. He stated that he would love to build both houses at the same time if possible, which would save time and money for him. He noted that because he is a small builder, sometimes the bank will not let him do more than one home at a time. Chair Huskins clarified that the hope is to build two homes at the same time, but that is not a commitment. Mr. Asakenas stated that it is the hope to build two at the same time, but it is dependent on finances. Cheryl Vierthaler, 25755 Maple View Court, pointed out that being the builder and being there every day is different than actually living with people so close to your house. She asked where the front door would be. Planning Director Griffiths clarified that the front door does not have to face the street. He explained that City Code does not regulate the orientation of a home on a lot. Ms. Vierthaler noted that it does not matter in this case because the side of the house regulates how far the other homes can be in relation to their neighbors. Chair Huskins asked where the builder intended the front door of the house to be. Tom Goodrum, Independent Planning Consulting representing Audrius, 9841 Xerxes Curve, Bloomington, noted that because there are no specific building plans at this time, the assumption would be that the front door would be on the West side of the property. He stated that the designation of what a side yard is and what a side yard is does not designate where the house location is or the placement of doors on a house. Jim Benson, 25607 Maple View Court, stated that the definition of side, front, and back is totally relevant. He stated that a side yard is only ten feet, but the front yard and backyard need to have 50 feet. He explained that it means everything. Chair Huskins agreed that the definition does matter. He noted that the orientation that was presented is that the side facing the neighbor is the side yard. Mr. Benson noted that Mr. Goodrum stated that the front would be facing the West. Planning Director Griffiths stated that when the City establishes setbacks in its City Code, those setbacks are based on the configuration of the property lines, not the orientation of the home itself. He noted that the homeowner is free to configure a home on the lot however they wish. He shared that the City Code defines, based on the characteristics of the property, what the side, rear, and front property lines are. He explained that City Code 1201.02 defines the lot line front as the boundary having the least width of frontage on a public right of way or street, which in this case is Maple View Court. He furthered that even if the unplatted right-of-ways were factored in or the bump out on Maple View Court did not exist, the existing Maple View Court would be the shortest distance on a public street. He continued that if the proposal is taken away, and as the lot sits today, the front line is Maple View Court. He explained that the side lot lines are defined in the City Code as adjacent to that, and the rear yard is opposite the front. He reiterated that the City Code does not contemplate the orientation of the home; all that is looked at is the setbacks from adjacent property lines. Page 216 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 12 of 19 Mary Bension, 25670 Maple View Court, stated that in the prior meeting, she was told that the front of the house faces the street. She noted that the City is measuring from the circle to obtain the 50 feet. She shared that the City is calling the front something different than she would expect to see, so that the back and the front have the room that is needed. She stated that, as the builder said, the front door faced west, then the back would face east and not be in Code. Chair Huskins explained that, based on what Planning Director Griffiths has stated, two different things are being conflated. Planning Director Griffiths clarified that the orientation of the home does not impact the building setbacks. He noted that there is no game being played; rather City Code establishes where the side, rear, and front yards are. He stated that if there were no subdivision being proposed, this would still be the same orientation. He explained that the East property line will always be the side property line, and the North line will always be the rear property line. Chris Joslin, 25630 Maple View Court, pointed out that the Applicant will not be a part of the community. He noted that his concern is with the constant vagueness and the non-answers that the residents are getting. Audrius Asakenas, Applicant, 5520 Tonka Bay, explained where he lives and why he lives in different locations. He explained that he is a resident of Excelsior currently and will soon be a resident of Tonka Bay. Dave Vierthaler, 25755 Maple View Court, asked what the need or the reason was for the large easement. He noted on a picture that he owns a part of the property next to the lot that the City owns, and in those seven years of ownership, there has not been one City worker there. He stated that he has tried to buy parts of the property but has been denied, and, oddly, there is a need for the City to have access to the property. A resident asked a question, which Chair Huskins declared as not germane to the hearing at hand. Jim Benson, 25607 Maple View Court, asked about how the property can be ten feet off of his property line. Chair Huskins asked to look at the picture of the property line where the resident lives, and to define the front, side, and rear property lines using the picture, but it may not be the orientation of the home built. Planning Director Griffiths used a picture to describe where the front line, rear, and side lot lines are located. He explained that the wetlands are a little different when it comes to what is required. He explained that the residents' property was likely pushed a little bit into the site in order to meet the buffer for the wetlands. He stated that the ten-foot side yard setback is common in this zoning district. Kate Bix, 25545 Orchard Circle, pointed out that a developer bought a nearby lot and wanted to build four homes, but the Wetland Watershed District came back and told him that he could only build one, so he sold the land. Mary Bension, 25670 Maple View Court, asked where the front of the proposed structure is behind her property. Planning Director Griffiths clarified that the City Code does not contemplate the orientation of the house. He explained that the City looks strictly at the property line. He pointed out on the map where that would be. He pointed out that when someone dedicates right-of-way to the City, even if a street is not built on it, the setback is measured from that right-of-way. He noted that this does not benefit the developer in any way; it actually pushes the setback farther back into their lot. He stated that in this case, it renders the entire Southeast corner unbuildable. Ms. Benson stated that she is still confused as to what the front is. Chair Huskins pointed out that Page 217 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 13 of 19 Planning Director Griffiths had noted on the map and showed that it was consistent with the other properties as well. Planning Director Griffiths explained that the front door of the house, no matter which direction that is, as long as it is in the box that is buildable, that is what the City Code requires. He furthered that the designation of the front, the side, and the rear property line has nothing to do with the home itself; it only has to do with the configuration of the property. He noted that if you take away the proposed Maple View Court bulb, and just use the existing cul-de- sac, that 50-foot yard setback would always be measured from that corner of the property, the side yard would always be the East property line. He noted that many homes across the City of Shorewood are not perfectly centered on their lot. Chair Huskins asked if any questions were noted during the public hearings that Planning Director Griffiths wished to comment on. Planning Director Griffiths noted that at this point in the process of a development, it is not common for a builder to have exact construction plans. He stated that in this case, the builder has noted there are several models that are built for customers, but that is the extent of the City’s review at this point. He added that if a project is approved and the lots are created, the City reviews a building permit as part of a separate application. He pointed out that in the plans, there is a drainage area map which identifies the drainage threshold of the property, and the entirety of the site drains within the site. He sympathized that in the loss of the trees, it can be tough, and there is no way to replace the trees that are being taken, but the City does have a tree preservation policy, and in this case, the maximum replacement required is eight trees per acre, and the Applicant needs to improve their tree preservation plan. He described the process of the escrow and the preservation of the trees and the other conditions that are expected of the developer. He pointed out that it does not prevent a person from ignoring the rules; it does provide a very strong financial incentive to meet the rules because that money is forfeited if the plan is not followed. He noted that a separate tree preservation issue was brought up on an unrelated property, and City Staff is working through remediation with residents and the developer in that unfortunate situation. He pointed out that parking and staging are usually a part of the building permit process, and that City Staff ensures that the parking and staging are taking place in those areas; otherwise, there are consequences. He stated that when looking at impervious surface requirements, the site is partially located within a Shoreland protection zone, so within that area, impervious surface is limited to 25 percent of the total lot area; outside that area, it is 33 percent. He furthered that given the maximum building sites that are on the plan, it would be compliant with the impervious surface requirements. He stated that the comments about the character of the neighborhood is some what taken into consideration in a project like this, but at this point in the project, the Applicant is not asking for any exceptions or variances to the City Code, so the City Code is the benchmark that is used to review projects like this. He stated that the Staff would stand by its recommendation to approve the project, based on its meeting of the rules in the City Code. Commissioner Longo asked if the Watershed were to come back and stated the developer could only build one. Planning Director Griffiths stated that they would only be able to build one. Commissioner Long asked why the Planning Commission could not just vote on building one lot, and the Watershed came back with the option of having two, then it could be split. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Watershed District is a separate jurisdiction from the City. He noted that under the State Statute, the Applicant does have the right to have a decision made on their proposal, which involves two lots. He stated that the City does have a condition that the Watershed must also issue a permit. He noted that the Watershed does not typically come back and state that there can be one lot versus two lots, rather their review focuses on rather their own rules are being met or not. He stated that if the Watershed came back with the need to make changes to the plans, then that would be up to the Applicant if they wanted to do it or not. He Page 218 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 14 of 19 shared that there is an obligation to decide on the proposal, unless the Applicant wants to modify their plans and then resubmit. Commissioner Longo asked what the deadline is to make a decision. He furthered that if the Commission waited a month to get the decision from the Watershed District. Chair Huskins stated that the proposal would be de facto approved. Planning Director Griffiths stated that there is a requirement in Minnesota State Statute 15.99 that timely action needs to be taken on the applications, and the drop-dead timeline for this project is February 18. He noted that it could be pushed to the February 3 meeting, and push the City Council meeting around a little to just barely meet it, but at this point, this is a very common condition that is attached and does not typically derail a project. He noted that the Watershed District has indicated that there is a path forward for this project. He stated that the Commission could push back, but he would recommend sending a recommendation to the City Council, carrying with it an interest in hearing what the Watershed District will recommend. Commissioner Longo stated that the reason he is asking is that the residents are concerned about the lot lines, the information not being available, and the tree removal not being realistic. He stated that seeing a better plan on how things will be developed seems important. He noted his understanding of the lot being sold means that the City does not have control of some of the things. He stated that he wants to answer the concerns of the residents as much as possible. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it is unlikely that an answer will come from the Watershed District in the next four weeks. He noted that if that is the concern, then the recommendation from Staff would be to forward whatever the Commission’s thoughts are to the City Council, with more information needed from the Watershed District. Chair Huskins asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak for the public hearing portion of the application. Jim Benson, 25607 Maple View Court, proposed that the Commission consider limiting the project to just one house. Chair Huskins commented that the application in front of the Commission is for two homes, and the Commission is empowered to recommend a denial of the application. He added that it is not in the Commission's power or authority to modify the application substantially. He noted that conditions can be attached to it, but he is not comfortable attaching that, as it would be up to the discretion of the Applicant because they would have to resubmit or amend the one that has already been submitted. Todd Murtha, 25650 Maple View Court, noted that a lot of legal advice has been given to the Commission. He stated that there are a lot of open questions about the 120 days, and what basis the Commission can use to approve or deny these applications. He stated it would be a good idea to get legal advice from a lawyer. Planning Director Griffiths stated that before the meeting, he had a conversation with the City Attorney regarding the public notice that was provided and the 60-day rule that was referenced. He noted that legal counsel recommended that the City has been compliant with its process, and how the City has gone about establishing the date. Chair Huskins asked if Planning Director Griffiths has ever experienced a continuation beyond what the State Statute is in terms of responding to an application, what, if anything, might be grounds for doing so. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the City does not have any grounds for extending, unless the developer is willing to voluntarily extend that deadline. Chair Huskins pointed out that Planning Director Griffiths stated that if some new information came forward, the project would be stopped or would create a condition upon which the developer would not feel it feasible to continue the project. He stated that in reflecting upon some of the comments from some of the individuals, there was a need to have some of the complete information, and he would like to see that all of the recommended approvals are approved before Page 219 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 15 of 19 the project can go forward. He noted that even if the Commission recommends approval and the City Council approves it, the developer is taking risks that one of the conditions may not be able to be met and could prevent the project from moving forward. He shared that he is sensitive to the comments about the trust in the City not being there, but that at this point, there is nothing that the Staff or the Commissioners could say to ease the minds of those who do not feel the City deserves the trust. He noted that the Commission can deliberate on the merits of the application, the comprehensiveness of the attached conditions, the recommendation indicating strongly to the City Council that the Commission has thoroughly thought it through and taken into account all of the information that they can, and that the City complies with the Comprehensive Plan and the City Code. He stressed that there is nothing in the application that indicates that there is a violation of any existing City Code. Chair Huskins asked if there was anyone else who wished to speak. Chris Joslin, 25630 Maple View Court, pointed out that trust is very important. He stated that his concern is with the terms that are used, such as risk, and who takes on the risk. He shared that the only people at risk in this project are not the builder and the developer, but rather the community members and neighbors of Shorewood, and potentially the City. Dave Vierthaler, 25755 Maple View Court, stated that it is the Staff’s responsibility to follow the Code, but he assumed that the role of the Commission was to help the citizenry within the review process, not just follow the policies of the City. He voiced that his thought as a Commission was to look at the benefit of the entire City. Chair Huskins closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 10:08 P.M. Commissioner Longo stated that he would like to make a proposal to the City Council to defer the decision as more information is gathered. He noted that there needs to be a better tree plan, the residents need to be clear on the property lines, and maybe an answer will come from the Watershed in the next four weeks. Commissioner Magistad noted that there were a lot of moving comments that were made, and he has a great deal of empathy for the situation that the neighbors face. He stated that if the application could be rejected based on public opposition and aesthetic objections, that may be something to contemplate. He stated that, as he understands the role, and having rejected something based on public opposition before, the Commission’s hands are tied. He shared that the City Council is going to struggle with some of the same things that the Commission is struggling with, but will ultimately be in the same position. He explained that if the developer adheres to their tree preservation plan, fixes it, there is escrow, setbacks are compliant, the Watershed District approves the plan, and the project follows the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan, then there is no ground to reject the application. Chair Huskins asked Planning Director Griffiths to review if the Commission were to take a pause and take it up at the next scheduled Planning Commission meeting, what the consequences might be. He stated that he understands it would need to be very specific as to why the Commission has made that decision. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Planning Commission could table until the next meeting. He added that it is not typical of something that the Planning Commission does, as it stops the process with respect to the 60-day rule. He noted that there is a City Council meeting scheduled for February 9, where it would be reviewed, which would give additional time to get some of the information pulled together. He shared that it would mean that the Commission does not get to look at it again, but the City Council would have the benefit of Page 220 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 16 of 19 more information. He recommended that if there are specific concerns about specific items that are needed, then as part of the recommendation to the City Council, that would be included. He gave an example of it, the Commission is looking for a better tree plan, then that would be something to note in the motion to the City Council. He stated that it would avoid issues with the 60-day rule and allow the City Council the opportunity to conduct its review of the application, but ultimately the decision rested with the Commission and staff will support its decision. Chair Huskins asked if there would be a Public Hearing at the City Council meeting. Planning Director Griffiths noted that, typically, the City Council does not hold a Public Hearing on recommendations from the Planning Commission. He stated that, in what he is hearing, the Commission’s concerns would not alter the boundaries of the property, or the proposed layout; rather, they are more technical requirements in order to meet City Code. He stated that the City Council will get the minutes from the meeting and receive all of the information from the Public Hearing side of things. Chair Huskins stated that there will not be a Public Hearing that does not preclude anyone from communicating with the City Council in advance of the meeting. Planning Director Griffiths added that comments can be made to Staff and will be shared with the Council. He expects that the Applicant will also be making revisions to their plans based on what has been heard. Chair Huskins stated that there was a resident who was looking into providing more information about a tree being on their property, and if that information comes to light, it can be shared with the Staff to be included. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the process does not stop with this meeting, and that he would share any resident feedback he receives after the public hearing is closed with the City Council. Chair Huskins noted that Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Applicant was in attendance and heard the testimony, which may lead to the Applicant altering the application. This does not mean that the Applicant is free and clear to change things, even if the Planning Commission has sent a recommendation based on the application before the Commission. He furthered that the Commission is there to not break trust, but rather help the City to operate under the rules and regulations that it states it will operate under. Chair Huskins asked if there were any other questions. Commissioner Magistad asked what the Commission was going to motion to do. Commissioner Longo moved, Magistad seconded, recommending to defer a decision on the approval for the Watten Ponds Second Addition Preliminary and Final Plat to the next February 3 Planning Commission meeting, pending more information concerning the land survey, the tree preservation plan, and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District review. Chair Huskins asked when the meeting would be deferred to. Commissioner Longo stated that the next meeting will be in February. Chair Huskins asked where the next meeting falls. Planning Director Griffiths stated that it could be done before the Council meeting, as the Planning Commission is meeting on February 3 and the City Council meeting falls on February 9. He stated that it is an option. Commissioner Magistad asked if that implies another public hearing. Planning Director Griffiths stated that typically it does not, as the Planning Commission has opened and closed the Public Hearing already. He stated that is why his recommendation was to make whatever recommendation the Commission is going to make and request that the City Council look at that information, because those are things that are already conditions from Staff and not things that would significantly alter the plans. He shared that based on the Commission’s motion there would Page 221 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 17 of 19 be no public hearing at that meeting, and it would be no different than just forwarding it to the City Council. Commissioner Magistad stated that the public could still speak during the Matters from the Floor portion of the City Council meeting. Chair Huskins asked if Commissioner Longo would like to restate his motion. Commissioner Longo stated that he is torn. Chair Huskins stated that he would make a motion. Planning Director Griffiths stated that procedurally a motion has already been made and seconded and will need to be voted on first. Motion passed 2/1 (Huskins). Planning Director Griffiths clarified that the motion that just passed was to table this item to the February 3, 2026, Planning Commission meeting for review. He confirmed that it will not be a public hearing. He asked what Commission Longo to clarify what he wanted better information on. Commissioner Longo asked for better information on the land survey, so that citizens are very comfortable with where the border is going to be, what trees will be cut, and, if received, the Watershed District recommendation. Planning Director Griffiths confirmed that the item has been tabled, with the information that is needed at the February 3 meeting being a better tree plan, the accurate lot lines to make sure it is up to date, and the decision of the Watershed District, if received. Chair Huskins recessed the meeting at 10:21 P.M. The meeting reconvened at 10:31 P.M. 5. OTHER BUSINESS – A. Discuss Planning Commission Bylaws and Code Updates Planning Director Griffiths presented that the City has been trying to get bylaws in place for those on the Commissions, Council, and residents as well, so what is expected of everyone is clear. He stated that late last year, the City Council adopted bylaws, and the Staff would be drafting something similar for the Commissions to get the procedures on paper. He asked that the Commission provide feedback on where more guidance is needed, which can be done via email as well. He noted that the Staff’s goal is to have the bylaws in place by February, before the new Commissioners are appointed. He stated that one thing that needs feedback on is the commissioner report process at the City Council meeting. Commissioner Longo pointed out that the Council Liaison was not present at the meeting and rarely has been. Planning Director Griffiths stated that there are options on how this process could be revised. He noted that other cities just have the minutes forwarded to the City Council, and that would be his recommendation. He added that the arrangement of a Planning Commissioner attending a Council meeting and giving a formal presentation to the City Council is not common in other cities. Commissioner Longo noted that he would be open to not going to the Council meeting if one of the Councilmembers attends the Planning Commission meeting. Chair Huskins stated that minutes are great, but not the same thing as providing context. He added that one time he was able to provide further context to his nay vote. Commissioner Magistad stated that usually, he feels that he is only adding value if he is editorializing a little bit or adding context. Chair Huskins recommended that the Commission should attend, but not do a presentation, the Planning Page 222 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 18 of 19 Director present, and then state that a Commissioner is present if there is anything that they wish to add, which could be nothing if desired. Commissioners agreed with the idea of Chair Huskins. Planning Director Griffiths stated that staff can draft bylaws based on this direction. Chair Huskins pointed out that the definitions in the Packet about what the Planning Commission is going to stay the same because of State Statutes. He stated that the bylaws are how the meetings will be run, and there is no public hearing procedure written down, so in doing so, it provides the context to everyone. Chair Huskins stated that the City Council bylaws read like a Code of Conduct. He shared that it could be totally applicable to the bylaws for the Commission. Planning Director Griffiths agreed that a lot of time was spent by Council in putting it together, and the policies should be consistent, so most of it will be the same for the Planning Commission. Chair Huskins noted that for some meetings, it would be nice to have some of the other Staff present, such as the Engineer or Attorney to be an authoritative person in the matter. Commissioner Magistad stated that if there were matters where there could be a potential incendiary public hearing, it might be a good idea. Planning Director Griffiths stated that he hears what the Commissioners are saying and that it may be needed at times, or to get a memo as another option, because it may not be feasible to have them at the meeting. Chair Huskins asked what an appropriate mechanism would be to approach an applicant seeking an extension beyond the 60-day rule. Planning Director Griffiths noted that he would have to ask the applicant, and the applicant would have to agree to it. He stated that he has never had an applicant decide to do that in his experience as a planner, because there is no benefit to the applicant. Chair Huskins asked if would be appropriate to within a meeting, ask the applicant to extend beyond the 60 days, given the information that was presented tonight. Planning Director Griffiths noted that he did not feel it would be an appropriate setting for the Planning Commission to have that conversation with the developer. He pointed out that the courts have a very strict interpretation of that State law regarding the 60-day rule. Chair Huskins asked in the project that was presented to the Commission that night, if the time runs out, then all of the conditions and the public testimony are thrown out. Planning Director Griffiths stated that whatever has been submitted is approved. He stated that this is why he is so cognizant of that deadline, because if it is missed, the ability to deny a project is lost, but also approve the project with conditions. He explained that while not typical of this Commission, in this case, there is time for the City to complete its review and still meet the 60-day rule. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Commission has stated that they would still like to go to the Council meetings and be in attendance. He added that he will draft the bylaws and shift the language to represent it in such a way that the Commission has asked. Chair Huskins asked if the draft minutes would still be sent to whichever Commissioner is to attend ahead of time. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the same procedure would take place and the Commissioners would receive the draft minutes. 6. REPORTS A. Liaison to Council Planning Director Griffiths reported on matters considered and actions taken during the Council’s recent meetings. Page 223 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING JANUARY 6, 2026 Page 19 of 19 B. Staff Planning Director Griffiths thanked Commissioners Longo and Magistad for doing the interviews for the Comprehensive Plan consultant. He noted that a consensus was reached as to who to hire as a contractor, and the staff will be working to get a contract together and will hopefully be approved by the Council in late January or early February. Chair Huskins asked what budget there is for the selected vendor. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the average Comprehensive Plan update costs about $200,000, and can confidently state the City will be under that amount. He noted that there is an approved budget for 2026 of $100,000. He noted that the Planning Department will tailor their 2027 budget based on what is needed for the project in future years. Planning Director Griffiths asked for a Council liaison for the January 26 meeting to talk about the Conditional Use Permit that was presented. Commissioner Magistad noted he could attend. C. Commission No additional comments were given by the Commission. 7. ADJOURNMENT Longo moved, Magistad seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of January 6, 2026, at 10:56 P.M. Motion passed 3/0. Page 224 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 12, 2026 Page 2 of 12 D. LG220 Exempt Gambling Permit for Minnetonka Diamond Club, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 26-1, “A Resolution Approving an Exempt Gambling Permit to Minnetonka Diamond Club.” E. 2026-2028 Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Funding Policy, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 26-6, “A Resolution to Approve the 2026-2028 Residential Waste Reduction and Recycling Funding Policy.” F. Resolution to Revise the 2026 Adopted Budget for 2025 Encumbrances, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 26-4, “A Resolution Revising the 2026 Adopted Budget for Encumbrances.” G. 2024 Mill and Overlay Project Acceptance, Adopting RESOLUTION NO. 26- 05, “A Resolution to Accept Improvements and Authorize Final Payment for the 2024 Mill and Overlay and Smithtown Road Drainage Improvements Project; City Project 24-01.” H. Rescind Resolution 25-66 Water Assessment Agreement, Adopting RESOLUTION 26-2, “A Resolution Rescinding Resolution 25-66 Approving and Adopting a Special Assessment.” Motion passed 5/0. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR Mayor Labadie explained the process for the Matters from the Floor. Chris Moral, Shorewood Resident, thanked Councilmember Sanschagrin for meeting with him and Mayor Labadie for leaving messages. He stated that he is a legal constitutional observer, documenting what ICE is doing in and around the communities to increase awareness of their aggressive intimidation tactics and unlawful actions, with the hope that someday they will be held accountable. He continued that the Trump Administration would label them domestic terrorists for exercising their constitutional rights. He stated that Renee Good was shot and killed by an ICE agent on January 7. He noted that the President and his Administration claim that Renee ran the ICE agent over, the video accounts clearly show that she did not hit him; she was trying to escape. He added that this is no kind of justification for being murdered by a law enforcement officer. He stated that a case like this is customarily investigated by the Minnesota BCA, and initially, the Federal Government agreed to a joint investigation, but hours later, they reversed direction and denied the BCA evidence. He stated that ICE is an agency that racially profiles. He noted that on December 10, 2025, a Somali American citizen was taken by an ICE agent while telling the agents he was an American citizen. He declared that they took him away because his skin was black. He stated that before that, a 53-year-old woman was pinned to the ground because she refused to let ICE into her apartment building. He stated ICE did not have the required judicial warrant, and she was not let up until she said she would call the police. He noted that another 55-year-old woman was thrown to the ground because she asked some men if they were ICE agents and was detained by them after not moving. He stated she was not a threat. He noted that another 55-year-old woman was boxed in her vehicle by ICE while observing public ICE activities, and she was threatened to be arrested for impeding. He stated that following an ICE vehicle to document their actions in public is a constitutional right. He noted that ICE agents are now pulling over observers, breaking windows, and detaining them for several hours to Page 225 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 12, 2026 Page 3 of 12 intimidate. He stated on December 13, 2025, in Chanhassen, he witnessed an ICE agent forcefully shove a peaceful protester. He noted that on that date, he asked the Carver County Deputies to move closer to have an obstructed view between ICE, the immigrants, and the protesters. He noted the request was asked six times, until a deputy came close to see what was going on. He shared that he heard that Carver County was entering into an agreement with ICE to use the detention facilities. He stated that the community voiced their alarm, and the sheriff has decided not to enter into the contract. He shared that on December 15, WCCO caught on video an ICE agent holding a pregnant woman face down with his knee on her back and then dragging her while handcuffed. He noted this is about public safety, the constitution, and the basic rule of law, as should be applied to any law enforcement officer. He stated that Federal Officers are not immune to State prosecution for assaults or excessive force, as he has witnessed. He furthered that all officers in Minnesota have a duty to intercede if they witness any officer, including Federal Officers, using excessive force. He noted that he spoke with the City’s Police Chief last week, and stated he is very aware of the duty to intercede and how that can be applied to ICE agents, in the training that has been given. He stated that the Police Chief does have a mission to prevent violence, even if the mission comes from ICE. He noted that he wanted to make sure that the police were prepared in case of action needed. He asked the Council to create or pass a separation ordinance, to better ensure that the city will never support ICE. He furthered that Minneapolis recently updated its ordinance in December, which could be used as a starting point. He directed the community that it is the call to engage in democracy, exercise constitutional rights, peacefully protest, lawfully observe and document, engage with elected officials, and find ways to support the most vulnerable members of the community. Mayor Labadie stated that this is not an interactive session. She added that if there are concerns, reach out to local law enforcement or the ACLU Minnesota. She noted that if people decide to protest, please do so peacefully. Councilmember Sanschagrin noted that he and City Administrator Nevinski talked about understanding the SLMPD policy with a request to coordinate with other agencies and would like to include that in the discussion with the Chief at some future date. Mayor Labadie stated it was already on the Chief’s radar. Dave Vierthaler, 25755 Maple View Court, stated that he was there to talk about the addition to Watton Ponds Second addition. He noted that as a group, they attended the Planning Commission meeting, in what the Commission saw fit to delay a decision until further information came through from the Watershed District. He stated that on the Watton Ponds Second Addition, the City Engineer, Andrew Budde, wrote a letter dated November 10, 2025, that lists 20 points that need to be remedied or discussed. He noted that item 18, which the Planning Commission and City Council need to consider, reads that a future phase may include constructing homes North of Clara Avenue. He explained that Clara Avenue is a plotted street, but not an improved street. He furthered that item 18 reads that the potential lot just North of Clara Avenue does not have a sanitary sewer or water service provided within Birch Bluff Road. He stated that plans to service these lots are through these utilities: the city will not allow water and sanitary services to be cut into Birch Bluff Road. He added that providing sanitary sewer to the South should also avoid any grinder or lift stations, which would likely result in extending an eight-inch sewer main and larger sewer service further north, to clarify if this will be permissible through the Minnehaha Watershed District. He explained that it does not need to be considered for the division of this property, but if Watton Ponds Second Addition is subdivided, and the plan is to have two more plots to the North of that, he used a picture to explain, and noted that it was in the future. He furthered that it may be simple to look at all of the statutes and regulations to subdivide the lots, Page 226 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 12, 2026 Page 4 of 12 but it also extends past these two lots to two proposed lots in the future. He noted that he believes that once the approval comes for the current application, then it will come back before the Council for approval of variances to the next set of lots. He asked that when the Council gets involved in the application, they think about the future of the application. He noted that the Master Plan talks about the environment, continuing and maintaining green space, and doing the right thing for the community. He noted that subdividing the lot has a lot of environmental impact in the area but is concerned about the impact in the future. Mary Benson, 25670 Maple View Court, stated she attended to call attention to the Watton Ponds Second Addition Expansion and a decision the Council will be making in the upcoming weeks. She noted that there is approximately four-acre area land that is slated to be divided and developed into two lots. She noted that there are three wetlands on the property, and she referred to a diagram. She shared that after setbacks, the actual buildable land is drastically reduced, especially on lot one, and the setback is ten feet from her property, with no wiggle room. She noted that in her daily walks at Freeman Park, she has noticed the many dead or dying trees. She added that when compared to the woods on this lot, the comparison is striking, with this lot having very healthy, diverse woods. She noted that the proposed development includes removing 100 significant trees, with only five of the trees being ash. She stated that, via the City website, the definition of a significant tree is a tree having a diameter of eight inches or more, so when taking into consideration the number of trees under that, the number of trees being removed is much more than 100. He furthered that even with protective measures, there will be much collateral damage done to the other trees in the area. She stated that when her own house was built 26 years ago, many trees were impacted and had to be removed after the fact. She stated her concern for the trees on her property that border the ten-foot easement. She noted that tree removal, sewer installation, compaction, and root disturbance occurring during the construction process, the trees on her property may suffer collateral damage. She asked when this happens, who would be responsible for removal and replacement. She explained that in her information gathering, the front of a property must have a 50-foot setback, and it faces the street. She shared in the picture that the structure on lot one faces the street, but there is only the ten foot setback. She noted that the newly proposed cul-de-sac plan pushes the right-of-way easement into the property just so far as noted on her diagram. She stated that she asked a question that was not really addressed: Does this easement right-of-way extension beyond this property marker change a section of driveway into a street? She wondered if the lot would exist if this were being done to legitimize the front-facing setback, and without the bump-out. She noted that in her mind, this manipulation is done to force a structure onto an area with very little setback. She stated that just because the developer creates a way to legally do it does not make it the right thing to do. She stated that the Council should ask if the price of removing 100 trees is worth putting in two houses in a very tight space. Jim Benson, 25670 Maple View Court, asked when in the history of Shorewood had over 100 healthy, mature trees ever been destroyed to allow for two houses to be built on what was viewed as unbuildable land. He pointed out that many other trees will be destroyed in the process. He stated that the entire ecosystem will be severely impacted. He described many of the animals that live in the woods and wetlands. He stated that the city is fortunate to have many parks, which is wonderful, but the city does not have any protected acreage that can remain in its natural state. He encouraged the Council to visit the property, as it is arguably the healthiest ecosystem remaining in the City, and compare it to the other parks in the City. He noted that regarding the application, what has been alarming to him is the thought of what is legal without addressing other concerns, and the total disregard for the ecosystem and what it means for the neighborhood. He stated that there should be consideration if a new development would be congruent with a 26- Page 227 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 12, 2026 Page 5 of 12 year-established neighborhood. He noted that in research, many statements on the city website sound good, but seem hollow in what is being proposed. He stated that under the Planning Commission, one of the key purposes and responsibilities is to play a central role in shaping how Shorewood develops over time, balancing residential character, protection, and development is important, and helps to guide long-term planning by working with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. He added that in regards to the Comprehensive Plan, there is a Policy Plan, which states natural, wildlife habitats are to be protected to avoid loss wherever possible, Shorewood trees and vegetation are valuable assets and consideration and protection is to be given to the preservation of significant trees, development on or near shorelands, wetlands, wet plains, and other natural features which perform environmental functions important to environmental functions in their natural state should be restricted or prohibited. He added that new residential development shall maintain the natural environmental character of Shorewood. He noted that it also states in the Policy Plan to identify parcels of land with the potential to be set aside for permanent open space and explore means of conservation movements, with the possibility of financing movements with the acquisition of such parcels. He stated that his understanding of the role of the Planning Commission is to look out for the welfare of the city and taxpayers. He noted that if all that matters is the legality of a proposed development, then no Planning Commission or City Council is really needed to oversee the process; AI could be employed to provide a formula to figure out if it were legal or not. He stated that it is not all about what is legal, but what is best for the long run for a neighborhood and the City of Shorewood. He asked the Council to vote not to move the development forward. Chris Joslin, 25630 Maple View Court, stated that two years ago, a decision and a plan were developed with the Council, which had positive and mutually beneficial goals to be accomplished for Eureka Road North. He noted that he attended the January 6, 2026, Planning Commission meeting. He stated that the reason he stayed and talked during the Planning Commission meeting was that it raised significant concerns that he had. He stated that the information that came out for the Watton Ponds Second Addition was poor and confusing, and the maps do not paint the whole picture. He encouraged all who voted on the application to go to the area, as it is very beautiful. He stated that he felt the narrative was off, and that questions were not being fully answered by the Planning Commission, the Staff, or the Applicant, and some of the information had discrepancies. He stated that he was happy to see that the Planning Commission delayed the application for 30 days, and that many other questions have come up. He noted that he had not attended any other meetings with the residents before last week. He stated that there was no Council Liaison at the Planning Commission meeting, which would have been beneficial for what took place at the meeting. He explained that the Planning Director is highly knowledgeable, but he felt there was a lot of push to approve the plans despite the concerns. He stated that, with fraud being an issue, then taking time to answer all the questions is very important. He asked that the Council go to the property, engage with the residents, and think about all the decisions, as the only risk is not on the developer, but there is risk to the community, the neighbors, and the City, even. He stated that the decision will impact the community for over 100 years, and it is striking that it is for one developer. He noted that the property sold for much less than what one would think a property that size would sell for, and the developer is not a community member. He asked that the Council vote no to the plan and engage with the residents as has been done in the past. Kelly Carambula, 4868 Ferncroft Drive, stated that she is a mother and business owner in Shorewood, and moved to Minnesota from San Francisco two years ago, for what she would say is a better life. She noted that they sought out Minnetonka but landed in a neighborhood in Shorewood with wonderful neighbors and a better life. She explained that the recent influx of ICE Page 228 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 12, 2026 Page 6 of 12 in the communities is unsettling. She noted that an ICE event was very close to her youngest’s school, and she was worried that the school would be targeted because it is a Spanish immersion school. She worried that the teachers, students, friends, and her daughters would be safe there. She stated that some of the caretakers of her daughter with special needs are afraid to leave their homes. She stated that all the people are like family to them and are documented US citizens, but do not have freedom right now. She noted that her business has been built on bringing the community together, and she is shocked by what is happening in the community. She stated that the presence of ICE in the community is not okay; it is an open and accepting community. She declared that she is proud to live in Minnesota and that the Council is in a position to take it a step further. She asked that the Council use its resources to support each other, help all feel safe, and do whatever is possible to have ICE leave the communities. Don Dean, 25670 Maple View Court, stated that he was a consulting arborist on the site when it was built upon. He explained that in Minnesota, during the Pioneer Days, there was a reference to the area called the Big Woods Complex, which was an area of 5,000 square miles, and of that existing complex, only two to fifteen percent remains. He noted that of that percentage, there is invasive buckthorn in it. He stated that in the property of reference, a portion of maple to basswood to oak, and that there is a rare hickory. He explained that in his consultation with Minnetonka, there was one island where there was hickory. He noted that the hickory growing on this property is a gem and very rare. He stated that the aspect in the Sugar Maple forest is enforced through what is called a climax forest, which he went on to explain. He shared that the forest limits the amount of buckthorn, which is very rare to find, and opening it up will open up the area to buckthorn as well. He stated that the critical root zone that the tree needs to survive, but as that is cut into, the percentage loss leads to the likelihood of failure. He explained that the cutting is not always the problem of failure, but the compaction of the soil due to development is a death knell to the roots. He noted that the survey is not species-specific, so it is hard to determine exactly what is in the area. He stated that it is hard to propagate hickory trees in a nursery and explained how it works in nature. He stated that it is a property that is a gem, and looking at conserving what the community has, and due to circumstances, it is an ideal property to conserve. Greg Larson, 25525 Orchard Circle, stated that he is there with the Eureka Neighborhood Association, which covers the area that has been heard about at Watton Ponds. He noted that the information that was provided to residents, on which the residents were to base their comments and questions for the public hearing, was inaccurate and incomplete. He noted that it was not just the residents' opinion but that of the City Staff and the Engineer. He gave an example of the map that was given when the hearing notice was delivered, which is inaccurate. He noted that information from the Watershed District is not available. He stated that there is no shoreland delineated on the maps as required by the City Engineer. He shared that the scale on the maps is wrong, which has been admitted by City Staff. He stated that a scale makes a map usable, and what was given is incorrect. He explained that the inaccuracies and the incomplete information should have been enough to cancel or reject the proposal, which did not happen. He stated that last Tuesday’s meeting was the only opportunity for a public hearing, as there will not be another chance, and that is why many are in attendance. He stated that there is an internal email that states that the public hearing could continue because the time, the place, and reason were accurately stated, but the information provided was inaccurate and incomplete. He explained that the opinion from the residents' legal council is that the State requires the information from a public hearing to be accurate, complete, and understandable. He noted that what may be legally defensible is not automatically ethical. Page 229 of 249 CITY OF SHOREWOOD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES JANUARY 12, 2026 Page 7 of 12 David Kowalski, 25635 Maple View Court, stated that he would like to comment on the Watton Pond Development and urged the Council to vote against it. He asked the Council if, after the proposal is passed, the developer has any sort of rules to abide by for the trees. He noted that family members who live in Illinois had a similar situation, and brought up a term called scrapping, where the developer bulldozes many of the trees, and knew that he may not get certain permissions to build at a size that would be a return on his investment. He continued that by bulldozing all the trees, the developer was able to sell at a higher amount, because the new buyer would not have to apply for variances and such. He asked about the policy of scrapping, if the Council mistakenly, in his opinion, approves of development. 4. GENERAL BUSINESS A. Annual Appointments City Administrator Nevinski gave an overview of the annual decisions the Council makes related to appointments and designations. The Council discussed various appointments and designations and came to a consensus on the following: Acting Mayor: Councilmember Sanschagrin Planning Commission, January – June: Councilmember Maddy Planning Commission, July – December: Councilmember Gorham Park Commission Liaison, January – June: Councilmember Sanschagrin Park Commission Liaison, July – December: Councilmember DiGruttolo Mayor Labadie asked if the main Councilmember is unable to attend, whose responsibility is it to find someone else, or does anyone need to attend. City Administrator Nevinski stated that the practice has been to call the other designated Councilmember to see if they can cover. He noted it sometimes, it is done through the City Administrator, but other times, no one can attend, and the Staff will catch the Council up on what happens. He noted that there is no formal plan at this time. Mayor Labadie asked what days of the week the Commissions meet. Planning Director Griffiths stated that the Planning Commission meets on the first Tuesday of the month, at 7:00 P.M. Park and Recreation Director Czech noted that the Park Commission meetings are on the fourth Tuesday of the month at 7:00 P.M. The discussion and appointments continued: Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission: Councilmember Gorham Alternate Lake Minnetonka Communications Commission: Councilmember Maddy South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Coordinating Committee: Mayor Labadie Alternate South Lake Minnetonka Police Department Coordinating Committee: Councilmember Sanschagrin Excelsior Fire District Board Member: Councilmember Maddy Alternate Excelsior Fire District Board Member: Councilmember DiGruttolo Mound Fire Department Advisory Committee: Councilmember DiGruttolo Alternate Mound Fire Department Advisory Committee: Councilmember Maddy Weed Inspector: Mayor Labadie Assistant Weed Inspector: Public Works Director Morreim Page 230 of 249 From:Jennifer Labadie To:Marc Nevinski; Jake Griffiths Subject:Fwd: Watten Pond 2nd Addition Date:Monday, January 5, 2026 11:08:56 AM FYI Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Cheryl Vierthaler <cavierthaler@gmail.com>Date: January 5, 2026 at 8:25:59 AM CSTSubject: Watten Pond 2nd Addition The Watten Pond 2nd Addition development and any further discussion ordecision making should be postponed due to insufficient information andplanning. The drawings aren’t to scale, setbacks, easements, utilities & exacthouse locations aren’t overlayed on the map I’ve received. As a Shorewoodresident and Maple View Court neighbor - I can’t possibly voice my concernswithout an accurate proposal. Cheryl Vierthaler25755 Maple View CourtShorewood920-707-4614 Page 231 of 249 From:Janene Murtha To:Jake Griffiths Cc:Marc Nevinski; Aaron Osowski; Sandie Thone Subject:Re: Public Comment and Public Data Request -Proposed Residential Development Affecting Maple View Court Residents Date:Monday, January 5, 2026 5:22:41 PM Dear Mr. Griffiths, Thank you for your prompt attention to my January 3, 2026 request for documents. This confirms my in-person payment of $58.43for the receipt of an electronic version of the documents, which I understand will be forwarded to me via link this evening. I lookforward to their receipt. Per our conversation, I understand the document response contains all public data, documents, records, andcommunications in the City’s possession related to this project, including all documents in the City’s possession in view of items 1–14 in my document request. I also confirmed with you that the City’s response includes documents found in the bullet-pointed itemson page one of the November 1, 2025 memorandum to you from City Engineer Andrew Budde, and all documents received to datefor items numbered 1–20 in that same memorandum. I also confirmed with you that you have included all emails, correspondence,and other non-privileged communications related to this matter. I also want to thank you for providing the City’s position on notice in your email. Again, the residents of Maple View Courtrespectfully do not agree that the notice was proper. The notice and attachments, including the not-to-scale survey and conflicting orincomplete documents, do not provide sufficient information for affected residents to meaningfully assess or comment on theproposed development. As outlined in Minn. Stat. § 462.357, notice must allow residents to understand the nature, location, andpotential impact of a proposed project in order to participate effectively. Given these concerns, the residents of Maple View Court plan to attend the Planning Commission meeting tomorrow evening andprovide individual public comment regarding the application. We hope the Planning Commission will take our comments intoaccount as part of the public hearing process. From our conversation this evening, I understand there is no time limit for individualpublic comment at the meeting. You also informed me that the owner and applicant of the Watten Ponds 2nd Addition will be inattendance. We remain committed to engaging constructively and look forward to sharing our concerns at the meeting. Sincerely, Janene Murtha On Jan 5, 2026, at 3:34 PM, Jake Griffiths <jgriffiths@ci.shorewood.mn.us> wrote: Good afternoon Ms. Murtha, Thank you for taking the time to reach out and for sharing your concerns regarding this application. I appreciate your engagement in the process and your comments will be shared with the Planning Commission as part of the public hearing scheduled for tomorrow evening. Following up on our meeting earlier today, I consulted with the City Attorney and they confirmed that the not-to-scale survey does not invalidate the public hearing notice. The requirements for notice of public hearing are found in Minn. Stat. 462.358, subd. 3(b) and states that “the hearing shall be held following publication of notice of the time and place thereof in the official newspaper at least ten days before the day of the hearing. At the hearing, all persons interested shall be given an opportunity to make presentations.” The notice provides the appropriate time and place of the public hearing, and a general description of the proposal. The fact the City provided additional information not required by the State Statute, including a not-to-scale representation of the proposed development, does not invalidate the public hearing notice. The notice also directs interested individuals to the City’s website, where relevant project materials are available for review. Based on the recommendation of legal counsel, the public hearing will proceed as scheduled at tomorrow night’s Planning Commission meeting. Should you have any additional questions regarding this project please let me know and I would be happy to help answer them. The public information you requested is also available and can be viewed for free at City Hall by appointment. If you would like a paper or electronic copy of the data, the cost would be $58.43 based on the City’s Data Practices Policy. If you have any questions regarding the data request process please see the City of Shorewood Data Practices Policy at DP Policy for more information. Thank you again for your participation in the public hearing process, and I would encourage you to attend the public hearing tomorrow night if you are able. Thanks. <image001.png> JAKE GRIFFITHS Planning Director City Hall: 952.960.7900 Page 232 of 249 5755 Country Club Road Direct: 952.960.7909 Shorewood, MN 55331 jgriffiths@shorewoodmn.gov Available Monday – Thursday 7:00am – 5:30pm www.shorewoodmn.gov <image002.png><image003.png> <image004.png> <image005.png> From: Janene Murtha <janenemurtha@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, January 4, 2026 10:12 PM To: Cindy Holker <cholker@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Large Conference Room <LConferenceRoom@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Daniele Longo <dlongo@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; Eric Magistad <emagistad@ci.shorewood.mn.us>; wruoff@shorewoodmn.gov Cc: Jake Griffiths <jgriffiths@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Subject: Fwd: Public Comment and Public Data Request -Proposed Residential Development Affecting Maple View Court Residents Dear Shorewood Planning Commission, Please see my public comment regarding the residential development application submitted by Gravity Investment, LLC for preliminary plat andfinal plat approval for Watten Ponds 2nd Addition at Parcel ID 2911723440029. This hearing is scheduled to be held on Tuesday, January 6, 2026, at 7:00 pm. Residents of Maple View Court have been provided inaccurate and incomplete information, and neither the applicant nor the City has provided corrected or clarifying materials to date. As a result, affected residents lack sufficient information to properly review, analyze, and assess the proposed development and its potential impacts. Accordingly, I respectfully request that the Tuesday, January 6, 2026 meeting be postponed until interested parties receive accurate, clear, and complete notice regarding the Watten Ponds 2nd Addition at Parcel ID 2911723440029. Minnesota Statutes §§ 394.26 and 462.357 require that public notice of residential development hearings accurately describe the project, including its purpose, location, and timing. Providing incomplete or inaccurate information with the notice limits affected residents’ ability to meaningfully participate in the hearing and understand the proposed project. Best regards, Janene Murtha Shorewood Resident - 25650 Maple View Court Affected Resident Attorney at Law ___ This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. Begin forwarded message: From: Janene Murtha <janenemurtha@gmail.com>Subject: Public Comment and Public Data Request -Proposed Residential DevelopmentAffecting Maple View Court ResidentsDate: January 3, 2026 at 4:02:35 PM CSTTo: sthone@shorewoodmn.gov, jgriffiths@shorewoodmn.gov Public Comment: Mr. Jake Griffiths Planning Director City of Shorewood Shorewood, MN 55331 Public Data Request: Ms. Sandie Thone Page 233 of 249 City Clerk / Human Resources Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Public Comment and Public Data Request Under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 – Proposed ResidentialDevelopment Affecting Maple View Court Residents Dear Mr. Griffiths and Ms. Thone: I am a resident of the City of Shorewood and live in a neighborhood recently notified by Planning Director JakeGriffiths that a residential development application has been submitted by Gravity Investment, LLC for preliminary plat and final plat approval for Watten Ponds 2nd Addition at Parcel ID 2911723440029. I understand a publichearing will be held this upcoming Tuesday, January 6, 2026, at 7:00 pm to discuss and obtain public commentregarding final approval of this application. Accurate Information Requested: Upon review of the undated Public Hearing Notice letter and its two attached documents, and other publicdocuments available online, and after several discussions with neighbors, there appear to be multiple instances ofinconsistent survey mapping, incomplete information provided by the applicant and an overall lack of informationprovided to the affected residents. This lack of sufficient information includes the following: -The nature of the proposed new residential builds on Lots 1 and 2 (house design and building dimensions, including decks, garages and outbuildings, etc.).-The suggested changes or additions to the current cul-de-sac.-The impacts of the proposed builds to the watershed, wetlands and animal populations in our area.-Confirmation of resulting drainage flow and how it may affect the neighboring ponds and property. These inconsistences and the applicant’s failure to provide sufficient information for a complete application wasalso addressed in the memorandum written by Shorewood City Engineer Andrew Budde and dated November 10,2025 (BMI Project: 25X141197) confirming the survey scale was inaccurate on the Certificate of Survey andPreliminary Plat. Mr. Budde’s memorandum also included a numerical list of 19 other items, many of which requirethe applicant and owner, Audrius Asakenas to revise documents, obtain inspections or complete other tasks. *It is important to note that the incorrect survey scale was one of the two attachments sent to neighbors as part ofthe Public Hearing Notice. Further Discussion Requested: -Further discussion is warranted about the City’s allowance or waiver of right-of-way access to 2nd Street and the land that is designated as “Clara Avenue” on City-provided maps. Is there are precedence for waiver for similar projects?-Shorewood Planning Director Jake Griffiths states in the January 6, 2026 hearing packet that, “This project may be extended for a project not included in this plan…. A future phase may include constructing homes north of Clara Ave. The potential lot directly north of Clara Ave does not have a sanitary sewer or water service provided within Birch Bluff Road. Plan to serve that lot through these proposed utilities.”-I understand Applicant and Owner Audrius Asakenas also is the owner of the property located at 25725 Birch Bluff Road, Shorewood, MN. This property sits directly north of my home, and I would appreciate further information concerning how these two projects may affect my property as a whole. Request One: Because the residents of this neighborhood have been provided inaccurate information and havenot received further updates as to the status of requested items, I respectfully request that the Tuesday,January 6, 2026 meeting be postponed until interested parties receive accurate, clear and concise information. Minnesota Statutes §§ 394.26 and 462.357, require public notice of residential development hearings toaccurately describe the project, including its purpose, location, and timing. Providing incomplete or inaccurateinformation in the notice limits affected residents’ ability to meaningfully participate in the hearing. Request Two: Pursuant to the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act, Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13, I amformally requesting access to public data maintained by the City of Shorewood related to this proposeddevelopment and any associated building permit applications. This request is made as a result of the issues andquestions addressed above, including the material deficiencies and inconsistencies in the information provided toresidents to date, conflicting and inaccurate survey maps, and the absence of clear and complete informationregarding the location, scale, and type of residential structures proposed relative to existing neighboring homes.Based on the information provided thus far, there is insufficient detail for residents to meaningfully analyze, assess,and understand the potential impacts of the proposed development on our respective properties. Therefore, I request copies of any and all public data, documents, records, and communications in the City’spossession related to this project, including but not limited to the following: 1. The complete building permit application or applications submitted for the proposed residential development,including all attachments, exhibits, addenda, amendments, and revisions. Page 234 of 249 2. All site plans, surveys, and maps, including any Certificates of Survey, depicting the proposed roadway extension,lot boundaries, setbacks, grades, impervious surface calculations, and the relationship of the proposed homes toexisting residences. 3. All construction plans and drawings submitted in connection with the application, including foundation plans,floor plans, cross section drawings, building elevation drawings, and any stamped or approved plans. 4. Documentation identifying the type of residential construction proposed, including overall building dimensions,height, number of stories, garage locations, accessory structures, decks, porches, and driveways. 5. All Tree Preservation Plans, Tree Inventories, Landscaping Plans, and any documents identifying tree removal orpreservation, including any discrepancies or revisions. 6. Any Stormwater Management Plans, drainage calculations, drainage maps, modeling, and impervious surfaceanalyses submitted for this project. 7. Any Construction Management Plans, including material storage locations, construction parking plans, contractorlists, and approved construction hours. 8. Zoning compliance documentation, variances, conditional use permits, approvals, determinations, or staffanalyses related to this application. 9. Energy code compliance documentation, combustion and make-air submittals, and related materials. 10. Inspection records, inspection reports, inspection record cards, or related documentation, if any. 11. Records of all fees paid, invoices issued, or payments received in connection with this application. 12. Any neighbor notification records, including notices sent, mailing lists, dates of notification, and copies of allcorrespondence sent to residents. 13. Any and all written communications regarding this project, including emails, memoranda, letters, meetingagendas, and meeting minutes, whether internal or external, involving City staff, consultants, the applicant, orelected officials. 14. Any addenda, corrections, revisions, or supplemental materials submitted after the initial application. If any portion of this request is unclear, or if responsive data exists in electronic format, I request that the data beprovided electronically where possible. If any data is withheld or redacted, please identify the specific statutorybasis under Minnesota Statutes Chapter 13 for each denial or redaction. Please advise in advance of any copyingcosts associated with this request. Accordingly, I respectfully request either expedited access to the public data requested above in advance of thescheduled public hearing, or that the public hearing be continued to a later date to allow residents adequate timeto review the complete application materials and supporting documentation. Thank you for your attention to thismatter. I look forward to your timely response. Sincerely, Janene Murtha City of Shorewood Resident 25650 Maple View Court Shorewood, MN 55331 Page 235 of 249 (650) 200-5029 Page 236 of 249 From:Guy Sanschagrin To:Jake Griffiths Cc:Marc Nevinski Subject:Re: Watten Ponds 2nd Addition Public Notice Date:Tuesday, January 6, 2026 2:36:05 PMAttachments:image001.pngimage002.pngimage003.pngimage004.pngimage005.png Thanks, Jake. FYI I received the following feedback from one of the neighbors there. Over the weekend I spoke to another resident who expressed concerns about setbacks, clear, cutting land, etc. and negative impact on the neighborhood. —- The Watten Pond 2nd Addition development and any further discussion or decision making should be postponed due to insufficient information and planning. The drawings aren’t to scale, setbacks, easements, utilities & exact house locations aren’t overlayed on the map I’ve received. As a Shorewood resident and Maple View Court neighbor - I can’t possibly voice my concerns without an accurate proposal. —- Best, Guy Guy Sanschagrin | City Councilmember 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Mobile: +1 (952) 217-1289 gsanschagrin@ci.shorewood.mn.us Page 237 of 249 1 Jake Griffiths From:Jennifer Labadie Sent:Thursday, January 29, 2026 9:17 AM To:Jake Griffiths; Jared Shepherd; Marc Nevinski Subject:Fwd: Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: David McQuin <david.mcquin@oswego.edu> Date: January 29, 2026 at 6:49:44 AM CST To: Jennifer Labadie <JLabadie@ci.shorewood.mn.us> Dear Shorewood City Council, I have reviewed and learned about the proposed development in Watten Ponds in Shorewood. I believe that the impact of this development is much greater than the benefits and that the application for this development should be denied. Please do not approve the Watten Ponds development application. Sincerely, David McQuin Page 238 of 249 Planning Commission Item 5.B. Title/Subject: Planning Commission Bylaws Meeting Date: February 4, 2026 Prepared By: Aaron Osowski, Planner Attachments 1. Shorewood Planning Commission Draft Bylaws Background It is common for planning commissions to have bylaws or rules of procedures to document core principles, policies, or practices and processes to provide guidance and ensure consistency over time. Minn. Stat. § 412.191, Subd. 2 allow cities to establish such documents, although bylaws do not supersede any laws or ordinances. Bylaws may contain statements about values, roles and responsibilities, and meeting procedures, among other topics. Additionally, bylaws help to establish norms that influence the Council, the city organization, and even the community. At times, a lack of clear, documented procedures has created ambiguity for the commission, staff, and the public about how to appropriately proceed. Additionally, every city has its own unique set of priorities and operational preferences. By establishing bylaws, the commission creates and documents its own procedural policies to guide its members, staff, and residents, rather than relying on opaque past practices or developing solutions in the moment. While bylaws may not address every situation a commission may encounter, they articulate the core values and promote consistency. The City Council has recently updated its bylaws, and these bylaws are very similar, with slight modifications to reflect the commission's organizational structure, rules, and procedures. The draft bylaws also reflect the Commission's feedback from the January 6, 2026 Planning Commission meeting. The attached bylaws generally reflect the commission’s current policies and practices. If there is a desire to change the commission's practices, the bylaws discussion provides a timely opportunity to consider modifications or indicate an interest for a future discussion. As drafted, the bylaws also add clarity to practices and processes where some confusion or debate has existed. They are written to be succinct rather than prescriptive. They are intended to be reviewed annually and may be modified by the commission. Action Requested The Planning Commission is requested to hold a discussion about the attached bylaws, include any modifications as desired, and forward them to the City Council for approval. A simple majority vote in favor of approval will suffice. Page 239 of 249 1 Bylaws of the Shorewood Planning Commission March 3, 2026 Page 240 of 249 2 I. PURPOSE The Members of the Shorewood Planning Commission have determined that it is beneficial to adopt a set of bylaws to establish the policies and practices the commission will follow in conducting the business of the City. In adopting these bylaws, the commission intends to establish its procedures, outline member expectations, and promote good governance for the City of Shorewood. II. AUTHORITY The Shorewood Planning Commission is required to adopt rules of procedure and provide for order at their meetings pursuant to City Code Chapter 201.04, Subd. 5. The commission shall conduct its meetings consistent with Robert’s Rules of Order and other procedures consistent with the statutes of the State of Minnesota or with Chapter 201. III. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF COMMISSIONERS a. Duties Commissioners’ duties shall be performed by the commission as a whole. As individuals, commissioners have no administrative authority. The commission shall have the powers and duties given to city planning agencies generally by law, including the authority to conduct public hearings as directed by City Council or City of Shorewood policy. The Planning Commission shall also exercise the duties established by Chapter 462 of Minnesota State Statute and City Code Chapter 201. Staff1 direction shall be directed through the Planning Director to ensure consistency with commission and city council direction, compliance with city policies, and regard for organizational structure. b. City Staff The commission will rely on its professional staff and consultants to administer the ministerial affairs of the City in alignment with commission direction, provide options and recommendations in the formulation of policy, and to implement commission directives. c. Meetings Commissioners are expected to prepare for and participate in commission meetings and other board meetings. IV. STANDARDS OF CONDUCT 1 The term staff means personnel directly employed by the City, contracted personnel, and consultants. Page 241 of 249 3 a. Purpose This code of conduct outlines appropriate behaviors and interactions of commissioners with each other, staff, and residents that commissioners agree to abide by. It does not supersede any statutory or constitutional rights or obligations of commissioners. b. Public Interest The commission shall work for the common good of the residents of Shorewood and not for any private or personal interest. The commission will conduct business in a civil, efficient, and cooperative manner. Members will listen intentionally, weigh all viewpoints, and consider matters thoroughly. c. Respect Members will strive to work collaboratively with one another, staff, and residents to achieve the best outcome for Shorewood, recognizing that decisions will not always be unanimous. Members will treat all persons and matters appearing before the commission in a fair, respectful, and equitable manner. d. Preparation Members are expected to be prepared for commission meetings and work sessions. Questions or concerns should be provided to staff ahead of a meeting so that responses can be provided to assist the commission in its deliberations. Members will strive to learn and understand city processes, applicable laws, and community issues. e. Liaisons The commission shall designate one member of its body to attend meetings of the City Council, or other board or commission meeting, where an application or policy in which the commission has made a recommendation is being acted upon. When attending meetings as the liaison, the member shall be available to answer questions regarding the commission’s discussion. Presentation of the application or policy and the commission’s recommendation will be conducted by city staff. In the event no member can serve as a liaison, this role shall be filled by city staff. f. Ex Parte Communications and Due Process Because the commission may function in a quasi-judicial capacity, ex parte communications are prohibited to protect the city and the commission member personally from a legal challenge. Ex Parte communication means a private communication with a member of the public directed to the merits or outcome of an official city proceeding. To ensure due process, members will consider testimony and facts only at meetings open Page 242 of 249 4 to the public to ensure commission decisions are made consistent with the public interest and without improper influence. Procedural interactions with no bearing on the outcome of a proceeding are not considered ex parte communications. g. Conflict of Interest A member who has a conflict of interest shall inform the Planning Director of the conflict as soon as possible. A member prevented from voting because of a conflict of interest must refrain from debate and voting and shall leave the chambers during debate and voting on the issue. h. Gifts to Members Members may not receive gifts from a person or entity with an interest in a matter the commission may consider. i. Communication All commissioners shall receive the same information at the same time when deemed for distribution by staff. j. Coordination with City Staff City staff shall be involved when members meet with representatives from other entities regarding specific city interests to ensure support and provide guidance. k. Confidential Information Commissioners shall respect and preserve confidential information provided to them concerning matters of the city, such as legal information. They shall neither disclose confidential information without proper legal authorization nor use such information to advance their personal, financial, or private interests. l. Compliance It is the responsibility of the commission to apply and manage its Standards of Conduct in cooperation with the City Council. Enforcement of the standards may range from a member simply noting a concern and requesting its correction to a formal investigation and sanction of a member by a recommendation of the full commission with a majority vote of the City Council. m. Open Meeting Law The Minnesota Open Meeting Law, Minn. Stat. Chapter 13D, generally requires that all meetings of public bodies be open to the public. Members must be careful not to discuss in a quorum or through serial communications City Page 243 of 249 5 business outside of noticed meetings, including in person, or via phone, email, messaging, or social media. In keeping with the intent of the Minnesota Open Meeting Law, members shall not use any form of electronic communications technology to communicate with one another or third parties during a public meeting in a manner that is hidden from public view. V. COMMISSION MEETINGS a. Quorum A simple majority (three members) of the commission shall constitute a quorum for the valid transaction of any scheduled business to come before the commission. b. Seating Commissioners shall occupy the chairs assigned to them by the presiding officer. The chairperson will be seated in the middle of the dais. Generally, newer commissioners will be seated to the right-hand side of the dais. c. Meeting Location All meetings, including special, recessed, and continued meetings, shall be held in the Shorewood City Commission Chambers, unless otherwise designated, pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 13D.04, subd. 2. d. Organizational Meeting The commission will conduct its organizational meeting concurrently with the first regular commission meeting in March of each year to: i. Appoint a Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson pursuant to City Code 201.04, Subd. 1. ii. Review commission’s bylaws and make any needed changes. iii. Set the regular meeting schedule for the year. iv. Establish a workplan for the year. e. Meeting Schedule Regular meetings of the commission shall typically be held on the first Tuesday of the month at 7:00 PM. f. Agenda Order Regular meeting agendas will generally have the following structure: 1) Call to Order 2) Roll Call Page 244 of 249 6 3) Approval of the Agenda 4) Approval of the Minutes 5) Public Comment Period (Matters from the Floor) a. See Section V. i. 6) Public Hearings 7) Other Business 8) Staff, City Council and Commission Reports a. Brief updates or discussion on matters of interest to the city. Changes to the agenda structure may be made during the year but should be updated upon the annual review of the bylaws or at other such time as amended. g. Rules of Order The City Commission adopts Robert Rules of Order for Small Board as outlined in Appendix A. h. Public Comment Period (Matters from the Floor) A limited forum for residents of the City of Shorewood to speak with the commission is provided on the agenda for every regularly scheduled city commission meeting. Public comments during this period are subject to limitations, as outlined in Appendix B. i. Public Hearings When public hearings are required, notice shall be provided as required by state statute. The order of business for public hearings conducted by the commission shall be: i. The presiding officer announces the purpose of the public hearing. ii. Staff presents the item, followed by applicant comments, if any. iii. The presiding officer opens the public hearing and comments are received. iv. The presiding officer closes the public hearing and discussion is limited to commission. Both speakers and the commission must follow the same rules in Public Comment Period, although the presiding officer may allow speakers additional time. Speakers may also provide written material to the commission before or at the meeting. Public hearings may be continued to a date certain. j. Public Comment on Agenda Items Public comment is generally limited to the public comment portion of the meeting with the exception of noticed public hearings. The commission may receive public comment on agenda items which do not require a public hearing during the public comment period. Both speakers and the commission must follow the same rules in Public Comment Period. k. Chairperson & Vice-Chairperson The Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall be appointed annually by the Page 245 of 249 7 members of the commission. Terms for both positions shall be for one year. The Chairperson acts as the presiding officer during commission meetings. In the event of the Chairperson’s absence, the Vice-Chairperson shall act as the presiding officer. In the event that neither the Chairperson or Vice-Chairperson are able to attend the commission’s meeting, the ranking member shall act as the presiding officer. l. Maintenance of Order. The presiding officer is responsible for the maintenance of order and decorum at all times. No person is allowed to speak who has not first been recognized by the presiding officer. All questions and remarks must be addressed to or through the presiding officer to the appropriate commission member, staff, citizen or representative. m. Powers of the Presiding Officer i. To rule motions in or out of order, including any motion obviously offered for obstructive or dilatory purposes; ii. To determine whether a speaker has gone beyond reasonable standards of courtesy in his or her remarks and to entertain and rule on objections from other members on this ground; iii. To entertain and answer questions of parliamentary law or procedure; iv. To open and close a public hearing; v. To call a brief recess at any time; and vi. To adjourn in an emergency. A decision under (i)-(iv) may be appealed to the commission upon motion of any member by use of a point of order. This motion is in order only immediately after the challenged decision is announced. The member making the motion need not be recognized by the presiding officer and the motion may not be ruled out of order if it is made timely. n. Placing items on an Agenda The Planning Director shall place items on the agenda for each commission meeting. A commission member may at any point during a regular meeting or work session request a matter to be placed on a future agenda. If at least one other commission member agrees with the request, the matter will be placed on a future regular or work session meeting for further discussion by the commission. VI. ADMINISTRATION OF RULES These Bylaws may be amended at any regular meeting that includes amendment of the rules as one of the stated items to be considered. Adoption of an amendment Page 246 of 249 8 requires a recommendation to the City Council following a majority vote of the full commission, and approval by a majority vote of the City Council. VII. APPENDICIES a. Rules of Order b. Public Comment Policy Page 247 of 249 9 Appendix A Rules of Order Essential Rules for Discussion and Debate for Small Boards (Modified)2 All references are to Robert’s Rules of Order Newly Revised, 11th edition. The word “implicit” means the rule stated is assumed by Robert’s Rules or is a logical derivative of the principles on which Robert’s Rules is based. 1. All members have an equal right to speak and make motions. P.3 2. Nonmembers do not have the right to speak or to make motions. P. 648 3. One subject is discussed at a time. pp. xxxiii-xxxiv 4. One person speaks at a time. implicit 5. No interrupting. PP.43-44, 383-384 6. Courtesy and respect are required at all times. P. 43 and implicit 7. The presider may participate in debate and make motions P. 488 8. Informal discussion without a motion is allowed. P. 488 9. A second is needed. P. 488 10. Members may speak directly to each other. P. 488 11. The maker of the motion may speak first. P. 379 12. There is no need to alternate speakers “for” and “against”. Implicit 13. There is no limit to the number of speeches. P. 488 14. There is a limit of ten minutes per speech. P. 387 15. Members may “call the question” or move to limit debate. P. 488 16. Members may not speak about the motives of other members. PP. 43, 392 17. Courtesy and respect means: no personal attacks; no insults, epithets or profanity; no disrespectful body language; no innuendo; no booing, hissing or clapping. PP 43, 392, implicit 18. A member may not speak against their own motion. P. 393 19. A member may not explain their vote while voting. P 408 20. A member may not comment adversely on (criticize) a prior action of the group unless (a) the action is being considered for amendment or cancellation, or (b) they plan to introduce a motion to change the action at the end of their speech. P. 393 21. A member may not make statements that tend “to injure the good name of the organization, disturb its well-being, or hamper it in its work”. PP. 643-64 2 Macfarlane, A. G., & Estep, A. L. (2013). Mastering Commission Meetings. Createspace Independent Pub. Note: The Shorewood City Commission elected to remove or modify several rules from the list. Sept. 22, 2025 Page 248 of 249 10 Appendix B Public Comment / Matters from the Floor Policies A limited forum for residents of the City of Shorewood to speak with the commission is provided on the agenda for every regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting. Public comments during the public comment period are subject to these limitations: 1. Speakers must be recognized by the presiding officer before speaking and are limited to five minutes for comment. 2. Speakers may be required to sign up prior to speaking and provide a name, address, and brief summary of the subject matter they wish to address. The sign-up sheet will be available at the entrance to the city commission chambers. 3. Speakers must direct their remarks toward the presiding officer and commission members. 4. In providing this limited public forum, the City of Shorewood expects respectful participation. Speakers are encouraged to be courteous in their language and deportment, and to confine their remarks to those facts that are germane and relevant to the question or matter under discussion. Obscenities, and profane or indecent language will not be tolerated by the presiding officer. 5. Speakers are required to follow the direction of the presiding officer. 6. Speakers who do not follow the direction of the presiding officer will be warned that further disruptive conduct will result in removal from the meeting. After warning, if the conduct continues the presiding officer may ask the speaker to leave. 7. The commission will generally not respond at the same meeting where an issue is initially raised by a member of the public. Members may ask clarifying questions of the speaker but should generally not engage in debate or dialogue. The matter may be referred to staff for further research and possible report or action at a future commission meeting, or the commission may ask staff to follow up with the speaker directly. 8. A summary of these rules for public comment may be provided in the commission meeting room. ### Page 249 of 249