Loading...
03-15-16 Planning Comm Agenda CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 15 MARCH 2016 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE RIEDEL (tbd) ______ MADDY (May) ______ BEAN (Jun) ______ JOHNSON (Apr) ______ DAVIS (Feb) ______ APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 16 February 2016  1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT, REZONING TO P.U.D., AND CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLAN OF A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT FOR SENIOR HOUSING FACILITY Applicant: Oppidan Investment Company Location: 23075 State Highway 7 and 6020 & 6050 Chaska Road 2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. – ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT. Applicant: Bradley Hauser Location: 5640 Covington Road 3. 7:20 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – REZONING, PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND VARIANCES FOR LOT AREA, LOT WIDTH, AND SETBACKS Applicant: Peter Lehman Location: 21265 and 21285 Radisson Road 4. MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB P.U.D. – DISCUSS REDUCED SETBACKS FOR AGE-TARGETED UNITS 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 6. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS 7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 15 March 2016 Page 2 8. REPORTS Liaison to Council  SLUC  Other  9. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 16, 2016 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Vice-Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Vice-Chair Davis; Commissioners Johnson and Maddy; and, Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Commissioner Bean APPROVAL OF AGENDA Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, approving the agenda for February 16, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 3/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  January 5, 2016 Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2016, as presented. Motion passed 3/0. 1. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT – FILL IN EXCESS OF 100 CUBIC YARDS Applicant: Gloria Aanenson Location: 19325 Waterford Place Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:02, noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. She explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. She stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for fill in excess of 100 yards for Gloria Aanenson, 19325 Waterford Place. Director Nielsen explained Ms. Aanenson proposes to raise the level of her back yard to create a level play area for her children. The project involves bringing in approximately 600 cubic yards of fill material on to the site and constructing a rather large retaining wall. Shorewood’s zoning regulations require a C.U.P. permit for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards and a public hearing be held. He displayed exhibits of plans for the proposed retaining wall. It would be made of boulders. The proposed retaining wall would be approximately 220 feet in total length. It would be located approximately 65 feet from the rear lot line and as close as five feet from the side lot lines. At its highest point it would be 11 feet tall. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 16, 2016 Page 2 of 11 The property is zoned planned unit development (PUD) and contains approximately 29,642 square feet of area. The lot slopes down from north to south with approximately 30 feet of grade change between the front and rear of the lot. The area where the fill will be placed is relatively open. Dense deciduous wooded area encompasses the rear yard of the site, south of the applicant’s fence. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen explained that issues associated with this type of request are typically engineering related. Grading, drainage and structural aspects of the proposed wall are addressed in the Engineer’s report. (A copy of the report was included in the meeting packet.) Nielsen reviewed the Engineer’s comments and recommendations. General 1. At a minimum, prior to the start of any construction a permit must be obtained from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) regarding erosion control. Erosion and Sediment Control 1. All areas disturbed by construction activities must be restored within 14 days of the completion of grading activities. 2. Erosion control such as silt fence must be installed and maintained through the construction period and the establishment of turf. 3. The owner is required to sweep the street(s) to remove material that is tracked off the project site. A street sweeper with a pick-up broom is required. Grading Plan 1. The landscaping plan must provide contours of the site in the area of construction. The proposed finished grades must ensure the stormwater runoff from the site does not flow onto an adjacent parcel from the side-yards, and does not adversely affect adjacent properties. It is recommended that a slight swale be constructed between the bottom of the wall and the side yard property lines. 2. The owner will be responsible for damage to the curb and street due to heavy equipment and trucks hauling material to the side and grading the site. 3. Storage of material on the roadway would not be allowed at any time. Retaining Wall Construction 1. The proposed retaining wall encroaches five feet into the existing drainage and utility easement. If approved, it is recommended that: a. The applicant be required to have a prepared recordable document for County records that indicates the owner will remove, replace, and restore the retaining wall and yard areas disturbed by utility construction in the easement permitted by the City, and any damage caused by the City for access of the easement. b. The owner would be responsible for the costs of any required removal, replacement and restoration required for the permitted use of the easement by the City or others as permitted by the City. c. The document requirements be recorded with the County and the affidavit of recording be submitted to the City. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 16, 2016 Page 3 of 11 2. After the wall is complete, the Engineer of Record must certify in writing to the City that the retaining wall has been constructed in accordance with the design drawings, details and calculations. At staff’s direction, the applicant’s consultants revised their original plans so that no portion of the wall within the 10-foot side yard setback area is higher than six feet tall, the height of a common fence. Any portion of the wall taller than six feet would have to be located at least 10 feet from the side lot lines. Nielsen noted staff recommends approval of the C.U.P. subject to the City Engineer’s recommendations. Nathan Anderson, a landscape architect who is working with Ground One Enterprises (the landscape contractor), stated he was present on behalf of the property owner. He thanked the Director Nielsen and Engineer Hornby for their efforts to date. In response to a comment from Vice-Chair Davis, Director Nielsen stated he does not anticipate that there would be a need to do any work in the easement area where the retaining wall would be located. Mr. Anderson explained the reason the encroachment is being requested is to maintain a relatively large River Birch tree. That tree is close to 18 inches in diameter. Vice-Chair Davis expressed concern about what would happen if there was a significant rain event after all of the fill is brought on to the site. She asked when the fill would be brought on to the site. Mr. Anderson responded in the spring. Mr. Anderson then stated they have worked on numerous projects such as the one proposed and that they would be fully prepared for a significant rain event. Commissioner Maddy asked Mr. Anderson who he has been working with. Mr. Anderson responded the property owner. Maddy asked if the property owner understands what her responsibilities would be if the utility easements need to be exercised. Mr. Anderson responded she does. Vice-Chair Davis asked if any draintile would be installed behind the retaining wall. Mr. Anderson explained that area would be back filled with “free draining soil” (a sand and gravel mix). Commissioner Maddy stated that he does not see on the drawings where the outlet for that reservoir is. Mr. Anderson stated that is actually percolating; it is not a draintile per se. That granular material would allow any water coming toward the back of the wall to go down rather than through the wall. Vice-Chair Davis noted that the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum recommends walls be built that way. Mr. Anderson stated that because it would be a gravitational boulder wall it would be a permeable structure. Commissioner Johnson stated it is his understanding that what is being proposed is to make the area safer for children. Mr. Anderson stated it would be a more usable space for children. Johnson stated an 11 foot drop doesn’t seem like it would be very safe. Mr. Anderson clarified it would be 11 feet of wall but the finished grade would be a maximum of 9 feet six inches. He explained that part of the landscape plan would include a barrier of planting material on top of the wall to prevent people from walking on top of it. The intent is to plant a hedge by code so it cannot be penetrated through at maturity. Johnson asked if there would be fencing. Mr. Anderson stated there would not be any new fencing and noted there is existing fencing around a swimming pool. Vice-Chair Davis asked how old Ms. Aanenson’s children are. Mr. Anderson stated they are teenagers. Commissioner Maddy stated the City requires swimming pools to be fenced in. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 16, 2016 Page 4 of 11 Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Vice-Chair Davis opened and closed the Pubic Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 7:17 P.M. Vice-Chair Davis stated she can understand why the applicant wants to do what is being proposed because the property is very steep. She reiterated her concern about erosion control should there be a significant rain event before the project is complete. Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, recommending approval of the conditional use permit for fill in excess of 100 cubic yards for Gloria Aanenson, 19325 Waterford Place, subject to the recommendations specified in the City Engineer’s report dated January 25, 2016. Motion passed 3/0. Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Hearing at 7:20 P.M. 2. PUBLIC HEARING – REVISED DEVELOPMENT STAGE PLANS – MINNETONKA COUNTRY CLUB PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT Applicant: Mattamy Homes Location: 24575 Smithtown Road Vice-Chair Davis opened the Public Hearing at 7:20 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the previous item. She stated this evening the Planning Commission is going consider revised Development Stage plans for the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) Planned Unit Development (PUD) located at 24575 Smithtown Road for Mattamy Homes. Director Nielsen explained that during its January 5, 2016, meeting the Planning Commission reviewed and unanimously recommended approval, with conditions, of the Development Stage plans and the preliminary plat for Mattamy Homes’ MCC PUD. This Public Hearing is to consider revisions to those items. He displayed a copy of the original preliminary plat that was recommended for approval. He then displayed a copy of the revised preliminary plat. The developer is proposing that the age-targeted units that were going to be developed on the northeast corner of the site be constructed along the Niblick Alcove cul-de-sac. The traditional lots originally planned for Niblick Alcove would be constructed along Featherie Bay on the northeast corner of the site. The total number of units to be constructed remains the same. The original plat had 17 age-targeted units on the northeast corner and 13 traditional lots on Niblick Alcove. The revised plat has 20 age-target units on Niblick Alcove and 10 traditional lots on Featherie Bay. The revision was made in response to the market which indicates the age-targeted units would be better if they were either look-out or walk-out styles. The revision allows that to happen. Nielsen noted it was necessary to hold another Public Hearing because there was a change to the preliminary plat. Rick Packer, with Mattamy Homes, reminded the Planning Commission that during its January 5 meeting he had told the Commissioners to expect things to change. He explained that Mattamy’s intent had been to sell the age-targeted lots originally proposed for the northeast corner to another builder for quite some time. About 12 custom builders requested to purchase those lots from Mattamy. Every one of them insisted on having either look-out or walk-out basements rather than basements with only access windows. For a number of engineering reasons that style could not be built on the northeast corner. The CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 16, 2016 Page 5 of 11 suggestion was to build traditional units on the northeast corner, which was Mattamy’s original proposal, and build the age-targeted units (i.e. single level living) along Niblick Alcove. The topography in the Niblick Alcove area allows look-out or walk-out styles to be built without any problems. It is a simple engineering thing that allows units to be built that Mattamy can be successful with. Mr. Packer explained Mattamy has chosen to go with Wooddale Builders for the age-targeted units along Niblick Alcove. That company has done a project in the City of Orono where it built the single level living product and it has done a project in the City of Bloomington along the river bluff. Yesterday that builder sent him its building plans and it wants to build all turned garages. That style would make the front of the houses look very nice. You would not see garage doors from the street. The side of the garages would be treated similar to the exterior of the front of the house. That builder puts a deck and four-season porch off the back on the top elevation. That builder builds a two and a half or three car garage. That adds more to the building footprint. He displayed a drawing showing what the two and one-half car units would look like. He explained the builder wants a modification to the PUD for the setback from the street. The streets in the drawing were private streets and the setback from the curb/sidewalk was 15 feet. One of the reasons Mattamy worries about distance from the street is it wants to ensure people have a place to park a vehicle in front of the garage without the vehicle overhanging the sidewalk or curb. With garages being turned that issue goes away. The MCC age-targeted units would be built along a public street with an 11 – 12 foot boulevard and then a 15 foot setback. Because of the turned garages, the builder has snugged up the house 5 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other side. The builder would not let any of the units to be closer than 15 from each other. He stated that this evening the Planning Commission is also being asked to consider revised setbacks. He noted Mattamy does not want the setback issue to hold up the progress of the preliminary plat process. If he needs to he can come back and talk about the setback separately and provide survey drawings. He displayed additional drawings of what things would look like. Mr. Packer reiterated he received the information about the revised setbacks the previous day. He thought it would be prudent to bring that up during this hearing and get some feedback from the Planning Commission. Vice-Chair Davis asked if Wooddale Builders is going to build all of the age-targeted units on the site or just those on Niblick Alcove. Mr. Packer clarified only on Niblick Alcove. Commissioner Johnson asked if the setback revision would only be for the units on Niblick Alcove. Mr. Packer confirmed that. Davis then asked if the changes would be consistent with Mattamy’s taste level. She stated communities are passing ordinances that do not allow garages that butt out of the house. Mr. Packer stated in all of Mattamy’s plans where the garage faces forward the garage never sticks out in front of a house. Davis stated when you look at the drawings all you see is garage after garage after garage. Mr. Packer stated it is impossible to hide the garages. Commissioner Maddy asked what the sidewalk plan is for Niblick Alcove. Mr. Packer clarified there are no sidewalks on the cul-de-sacs. Maddy asked if Mattamy will consider having one along Niblick Alcove now that age-targeted units will be built there. Mr. Packer responded no and noted there would not have been a sidewalk when the age-targeted units were going to be on the northeast corner. Director Nielsen stated there will be a sidewalk on the age-targeted units on the northwest corner. Maddy asked if the change in location affects the location of any of the other proposed trails. Mr. Packer responded no. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 16, 2016 Page 6 of 11 Vice-Chair Davis asked if there will be access to the trail along Country Club Road from the Niblick Alcove cul-de-sac. Mr. Packer responded no and stated the trail does go behind the lots. Commissioner Johnson asked Mr. Packer to speak about the height comparison; what was proposed and what is being proposed now. Mr. Packer stated he does not have the dimensions of what they were. The new builder’s plans are for an 10/12 slope roof; Mattamy uses an 8/12 slope roof. Therefore, the builder’s houses could be 4 – 5 feet higher. Johnson stated he was talking about a two-story traditional house with an egress basement as compared to a one-story house with a walk-out. Mr. Packer stated they would both be two-story behind the house. Commissioner Maddy asked if staff has developed an opinion on the requested change to the front yard setback for the age-targeted units along Niblick Alcove. Director Nielsen noted that staff just received that information that afternoon. Commissioner Johnson asked if Wooddale Builders is making the age-targeted units longer that what Mattamy had originally proposed. Mr. Packer stated when the garage is turned sideways the house ends up being longer. That results in a loss of some of the back yard or front yard. Commissioner Maddy asked if Wooddale Builders does double loaded streets of the type of house it is proposing. He stated what he visualizes with those age-targeted units is something that looks like a Minneapolis alley; it is going to be garages on both sides. Vice-Chair Davis stated it is very regimented. Maddy asked if that is what the market actually wants. Mr. Packer noted 55 feet is a very standard width for the product proposed. He stated none of the builders Mattamy spoke with had an issue with the width of the lots. Maddy stated his concern was not so much about the width; it was about the garages being way out in front of every house. Mr. Packer stated, for example, there would be a garage that is 22 feet wide that comes forward as opposed to the entire house which is 40 feet wide being forward. What had been proposed was 40 feet of face 25 feet back from the curb; the new proposal is 20 feet of face that would be 15 feet back. He thought the new proposal mixes things up more. However, there is no garage left or right option. All the garages have to be on the same side. Mr. Packer stated if there is any receptiveness to what is proposed then the Planning Commission would be provided with actual streetscapes. Vice-Chair Davis asked if the product or the lots came first. Did Wooddale Builders see the lots and realize they had a product for them? Or, was the property subdivided to accommodate the houses? Mr. Packer stated the lots are fine and noted that if Mattamy could not have found a builder who wanted to build on them then Mattamy would have built them. He reiterated Mattamy does not want to hold up the preliminary plat because of Wooddale Builders’ proposal. He clarified all that is being changed is the grading plan and the setbacks. The grading plan benches back another seven feet. Davis stated she does not think seeing all the garages along Niblick Alcove is consistent with the way Mr. Packer has described Mattamy’s taste or with the age-targeted units originally proposed for the northwest corner of the site. She clarified that she prefers the new proposed location for the age-targeted units on the east side of the site. Vice-Chair Davis opened the Pubic Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 7:42 P.M. Karen Couney, 5925 Seamans Drive, stated she would like to offer her perspective on Wooddale Builders’ proposed age-targeted units being she is around that age. She likes the little plaza being created between the garage and the front door. As a person ages it is closer from the front of the garage to the front door. A visitor can drive up closer to the front door of the house. When a car parks in front of a CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 16, 2016 Page 7 of 11 street facing garage a visitor’s car is parked further away from the front door. And, there is no personal plaza for interacting. Bev Meakins, 24715 Yellowstone Trail, stated she liked Commissioner Maddy’s analogy of the look of a Minneapolis alley. All a person will see is garage after garage after garage. She does not envision it would look very attractive. She does not think it would have a much of a single-family residential feeling. She then stated she thought the number of proposed houses has been increased. On the plat she was looking at there had been four houses total on 49 – 52 and another four houses total on 53 – 56. Now there are five houses on each. She asked when that happened. Mr. Packer stated that happened when Bentgrass Way was moved down to save trees. Ms. Meakins asked if Niblick Alcove was a golf term. Commissioner Johnson stated all the street names have some golf significance. George Greenfield, 24715 Yellowstone Trail, stated that during a conversation with Shorewood Director of Public Works Brown he indicated that the City had approved working hours of 7:00 A.M. – 7:00 P.M. Director Nielsen explained the construction hours are 7:00 A.M. – 7:00 P.M. weekdays, 8:00 A.M. – 6:00 P.M. Saturdays, and no work on Sundays. Mr. Greenfield stated he thought that was excessive for a number of reasons. He does not want to come home from work, sit down to eat dinner and have to listen to construction noise after 6:00 P.M. He thought a 10-hour day for people who are doing that type of physical work is more than long enough. Construction workers generally cannot live in a location convenient to the construction site. Having a 12-hour workday and then travel time ruins their personal lives. Mr. Greenfield stated he read in the local paper that the new price of the age-targeted units midway down the east side of the site is going to be higher than the price originally mentioned. Mr. Packer concurred. That is the third time the price has changed on the age-targeted units. He thought that is contrary to the spirit of what the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) recommended; it wanted some diversity in housing style and price. He thought a couple of members of Council made what now seems to be insincere protestations about wanting multiple prices of houses in the development. He viewed the price changes as a “bait and switch” type of thing. Vice-Chair Davis closed the Pubic Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 7:50 P.M. Vice-Chair Davis stated that she personally does not care for the new look of the proposed age-targeted units on the east. She agrees with the analogy that it would look like an alley. She does not think it would be at the taste level that Mattamy promised the City. She thought that area would look different than the rest of the development and from what has been promised for the age-targeted units on the northeast corner. She clarified that is her opinion. She noted that she appreciates the logistics and problems of the new age-targeted lots; they are very narrow and very deep. Commissioner Johnson stated he has seen it done where it can work with a significant amount of landscaping and that will drive the price even higher. He wants to see what the houses would look like on the lots before he completely weighs in on this; that information is not available. Commissioner Maddy asked Mr. Packer to speak to the new price of the various housing types. Mr. Packer stated he thought the starting prices would be around $600,000 and then go up from there based on how it is finished for the age-targeted units Wooddale Builders will build. The age-targeted units Mattamy will build will start around $450,000 and its traditional houses will start closer to $700,000 and range up to about $900,000. The custom houses east of Club Valley Road near the large wetland area will be $1 million plus units. He noted that by the time Mattamy starts to build its age-targeted units the starting price will likely go up to $600,000 because of an increase in construction costs. He also noted that CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 16, 2016 Page 8 of 11 there will not be any of what is termed “affordable” in that development. The ground is too expensive for that. He stated Mattamy’s very base house without the lot is around $275,000 and that well exceeds the median range for a family in the Twin Cities. Mr. Packer stated it would be rare to have one construction crew on the site working a 12-hour shift. Different trades come and go during the day. Some workers will be working inside into the early evening. Generally the heavy trades workers begin working early in the morning and are done by 5:00 P.M. Vice- Chair Davis asked if the most disruption would be during grading and installing the storm sewer. Mr. Packer stated that is when the heavy machinery will be moving around and generating beeping sounds. Mr. Maddy stated that framers make a lot of noise also. Mr. Packer noted that one of the conditions of approval is the construction traffic will come onto the site from the north. Commissioner Maddy asked if Mattamy has any standard job site requirements for subcontractors. Mr. Packer stated how they must act and behave is in Mattamy’s contract. Vice-Chair Davis re-opened the Pubic Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 7:55 P.M. Whitley Mott, 24890 Yellowstone Trail, asked Mr. Packer if moving the cul-de-sac would put extra traffic pressure on Yellowstone Trail. He expressed concern that the people living in the age-targeted units on the east will exit on to Yellowstone Trail. There will be 10 more age-targeted units than there would have been traditional units. He asked if the Traffic Committee has weighed in on this. Vice-Chair Davis stated it is likely they will exit and enter on to the site from Yellowstone Trail. She noted the Traffic Committee would not have seen the revised plat. Director Nielsen confirmed that and explained that the Committee was advised at the outset that it was not to deal with the design of the plat. For example, some of the Committee members wanted some streets to access Country Club Road. Commissioner Maddy asked when the Committee next meets. Nielsen noted the Committee is almost done with what it was asked to do. It is currently working on its report of final recommendations. Vice- Chair Davis recommended the Committee be provided with a copy of the revised preliminary plat. Mr. Packer explained that question had been asked and answered when the number of lots was increased from 121 to 140. The consensus of all of the traffic engineers was that the residents living in the age- targeted units would generate less traffic than those in the single-family traditional units. People who purchase the age-targeted units would likely be empty nesters; they would not have children in school. They may also be retired. He stated if he lived on the site and wanted to go south on Highway 41 he would exit the site on the south on to Yellowstone Trail. He then stated he does not think relocating the age-targeted units on the east to the south would impact traffic. Vice-Chair Davis asked what changes have to be made to the setbacks. Director Nielsen stated the developer is asking for a 15 foot front yard setback for the age-targeted units proposed for along Niblick Alcove. And, instead of the 7.5 foot side yard setbacks he is asking for a 5 foot and a 10 foot setback. The distance between two houses would still be 15 feet. Vice-Chair Davis again closed the Pubic Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 7:59 P.M. Vice-Chair Davis asked what the setbacks are for the age-targeted units on the northwest corner. Director Nielsen stated 35 feet. Davis stated the 15 foot front yard setback for the age-targeted units on the east would go to the garage and then another 20 feet back to the house. She reiterated she is not fond of the most recent proposal. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 16, 2016 Page 9 of 11 Commissioner Johnson stated he wants to see things on paper before he makes a recommendation on the setbacks. Vice-Chair Davis asked if the units could be staggered because of the depth of some of the lots. She stated because she does not have the grading plan she cannot determine what the terrain is. Commissioner Maddy stated he was somewhat sold on the idea; he does not mind it very much. Vice- Chair Davis stated that might be because he had lived in the city. Maddy stated there are many residential properties in Shorewood that have garages that reach out to one side or the other. This PUD would be an opportunity to diversify housing stock. He noted that he is not comfortable with stating an opinion on the setbacks this evening. Commissioner Johnson noted he is in agreement with the information the Planning Commission had been provided before this meeting. Director Nielsen noted the revised preliminary plat does not change regardless of the setbacks. The Planning Commission can recommend approval of the preliminary plat so that Council can consider taking action on it during its February 22 meeting. The Commission could then discuss the setbacks during its March 15, 2016, meeting. Commissioner Maddy stated if the Planning Commission recommends approval of the revised preliminary plat and eventually does not recommend approval of the change in setbacks he asked Mr. Packer if Mattamy would still want to change the location of the age-targeted units on the east side of the site. Mr. Packer responded yes. Davis moved, Johnson seconded, recommending approval of the revised Development Stage plans for the Minnetonka Country Club planned unit development located at 24575 Smithtown Road, as presented which shows the age-targeted units on the east have been moved to Niblick Alcove. Motion passed 3/0. Vice-Chair Davis closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:04 P.M. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. 4. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS Vice-Chair Davis stated she heard residents talking about hockey rinks. She had asked Director Nielsen what type of permit is needed for rinks and learned that a fence permit is required. She saw a property where there was a rink with blazing lights around it on the front of the property. She explained that during Council’s February 8, 2016, meeting it approved a nuisance ordinance amendment related to air pollution from an outdoor furnace. She stated there are a lot of things that are nuisances in the City that may or may not need permits and she suggested the Planning Commission revisit that as part of its work plan. Director Nielsen noted there is one whole Chapter in the City Code related to nuisances. He stated discussion of nuisances could be added to the Commission’s 2016 work plan. Director Nielsen stated he is going to suggest to Council that the 2017 budget include funding for a consultant to do the next update to the Comprehensive (Comp) Plan. He noted he will provide the Commissioners with a copy of the City’s System Statement from the Metropolitan (Met) Council. It talks CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 16, 2016 Page 10 of 11 about what the Met Council expects from Shorewood and other communities. That will basically start the discussion about the update to the Comp Plan. He asked the Commissioners to start to think about planning issues and he will ask the same of Council and the Park Commission. He commented that the Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) for the Minnetonka Country Club (MCC) development suggested that the area encompassed by it along Club Lane be considered for different housing as it redevelops. He stated he anticipates the City will receive proposals for developments in the Smithtown Crossing area. Nielsen noted that as of yet he has not drafted the 2016 work plan. There was ensuing discussion about elderly housing and various projects being considered in the community and nearby communities. There was discussion about other items that maybe should be included in the work plan. 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated the consideration of revised setbacks for the Minnetonka Country Club development project and the Oppidan elderly housing project are slated for the March 15, 2016, Planning Commission meeting. The Lehman’s want to rezone their property located over by Radisson Road and Mary Lane. That will be on the agenda as well. Vice-Chair Davis asked if the request for revised setbacks will require a public hearing. Director Nielsen stated he needed to research that. Davis asked if there has been any progress on giving some of the outlots away. Nielsen stated he did not know and the use of the outlots will be addressed in the Declaration of Covenants. Davis asked if the Planning Commission will see the Covenants. Nielsen stated the Commission asked to so it will and noted that is not required by the City Ordinance. 6. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Vice-Chair Davis reported on the items considered and actions taken during Council’s February 8, 2016, meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meetings). • SLUC Commissioner Maddy stated the next Sensible Land Use Coalition (SLUC) session is about the new real estate market. It is part two of a three session discussion. • Other Vice-Chair Davis asked if an artificial turf playfield is going to be put in Badger Park. Director Nielsen stated the City has solicited quotes to do that. Davis asked if that is a good idea. Nielsen stated he thought there are a lot of good reasons to do that. One of them is reduced maintenance costs. He had spoken to someone where an artificial turf playfield was installed and that individual indicated that their watering costs, fertilizing and maintenance was about $40,000 less than for a regular grass field. It is anticipated CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 16, 2016 Page 11 of 11 that the artificial turf playfield will add an extra month of play. He noted that the snow sculptures built as part of the Arctic Fever event will not be built on the artificial turf playfield. 7. ADJOURNMENT Maddy moved, Johnson seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of February 16, 2016, at 8:32 P.M. Motion passed 3/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 7 March 2016 RE: Oppidan — Shorewood Senior Living P.U.D. - Concept and Development Stage Plans — Proposed Zoning Text Amendments FILE NO. 405(16.01) BACKGROUND Oppidan Investment Company has arranged to purchase the three parcels of land located at 6020 and 6050 Chaska Road, and 23075 State Highway 7 (see Site Location map — Attachment I). As explained in their narrative (Attachment II), they propose to redevelop the three sites and build a senior housing project consisting of independent living, assisted living and memory care. The proposed mix of these units is 28 independent, 52 assisted, and 25 memory. Plans for the project are included herein as Attachment lII. The three parcels of land contain approximately 3.77 acres. The Highway 7 parcel is occupied by the Control House office building and is zoned R -C, Residential Commercial. The two southerly parcels on Chaska Road are occupied by single- family homes, zoned R -2A, Single and Two - Family Residential. Land use and zoning surrounding the site are as follows: Nortb/Northwest: State Highway 7 South/Southwest: Single- family and two - family residential; zoned R -2A East: Single- family residential; zoned R -1C; Single - Family Residential The property varies considerably with respect to topography, dropping approximately 25 feet from the southeast corner of the site to the northerly end near the ditch for Highway 7. The site has been significantly altered over the years and is characterized by rather low quality vegetation as shown on Sheet L24 (Attachment III). As can be seen on that exhibit, many of the trees on the property are cottonwood or box elder, which are not considered to be significant trees as defined in Shorewood's Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy. ®2, V ® ,J® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Oppidan — Shorewood Senior Living 7 March 2016' . To accomplish their project, Oppidan has requested a rezoning of the three parcels to P.U.D., Planned Unit Development District, for which they have submitted Concept and Development Stage Plans. They have also requested additional zoning text amendments related to allowable . density and parking requirements for senior housing. These will be addressed further on in this report. The project is explained in the applicant's narrative (Attachment II) and illustrated in the plans contained in Attachment III. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS A. Land Use /Density. Oppidan's application includes rezoning from R -2A and R -C to P.U.D., Planned Unit Development District (essentially using R -C standards). Senior housing is an allowable use (conditional) in the R -C District and a P.U.D. process is required. In December of last year, the applicant applied for and received a zoning text amendment changing the density allowance in the R -C District from 10 to 12 units per 40,000 square feet. They are now asking for the density to be increased to 15 units per 40,000 square feet. Although not stated in their narrative, the applicant has indicated that the reason for the increase in density and the number of units is to overcome the cost of extensive soil correction that is necessary to redevelop the site, as well as extraordinary costs in extending water to the south side of Highway 7. In addition to the increased density, the applicant will be seeking approval for tax increment financing (T.I.F.) to further offset development costs. It is worth noting that the City has considered allowing density up to 15 units per 40,000 square feet in the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Area. This was initially proposed to create some incentive for senior housing in that location. In addition to the increased number, the Code was revised to only count assisted living units as half units. It should'also be noted that the application calculates the density based on units per acre; whereas Shorewood's Code is based on units per 40,000 square feet. The result is that the project comes in at 13.1 units per 40,000 square feet. If, for example, the project was reduced by five units, the text amendment would not be necessary. It is, important to keep in mind that, if adopted, the amendment would apply to other R -C zoned properties. B. Site Plan. The proposed site plan is shown on Sheet C2 -1 (Att. III). Although the site plan is extremely tight, the plan complies with setback requirements for the building and parking, with one exception. The patio area on the northwesterly side of the building extends into the rear yard setback abutting Highway 7. As part of a P.U.D., this can be acceptable. In fact, as will be discussed under Landscaping, below, it would be worthwhile to consider moving the entire building farther back on the site to accommodate additional landscaping. The maximum amount of impervious surface in the R -C district is 66 percent of the total site area. With special drainage improvements that treat runoff, that amount can go to 75 percent. The site plan indicates a total of 52 percent impervious surface. The applicant should be required to provide a detailed breakdown of hardcover, including the area designated as proof of parking. -2- Memorandum Re: Oppidan — Shorewood Senior Living 7 March 2016 C. Parking /Circulation. Although the applicant's narrative indicates that there are four access points for the project, only three appear on the site plan. Two of the driveways serve the above- ground parking area and the northerly one serves as access to the underground parking garage. There has been some confusion as to the amount of parking required for the project, resulting in the applicant requesting a zoning text amendment that would match the amount of parking required to the number of spaces being provided on the site plan. Upon detailed review of the Zoning Code and the proposed plans, an amendment does not appear to be necessary. The required number of spaces, based on the recently amended ordinance, is 120 (including proof of parking). The site plan shows 122 spaces. The City, Engineer's report (Attachment IV) mentions a recommendation from the Fire Inspector that the Fire Department would not require a 20 -foot wide fire access around the property, but they will require a paved access around the building — the access to be maintained year round. D. Landscaping_ The applicant's narrative states that very little tree preservation is possible due to several factors: 1) accommodating the building and parking areas; 2) maintaining and improving existing drainage conditions; and, most notably 3) correcting significant soil issues on the site. Based on Oppidan's soil testing, a substantial portion. of the site has been filled over time with poor quality material (e.g. rock, concrete, etc.). As can be seen on Sheet L2 -1 (Att. III), a large number of the existing trees on the site are box elder and cottonwood. The plan indicates that trees off the site will remain. The preservation plan should indicate where tree protection fencing will be placed in order to preserve those trees. Also, some consideration should be given to trying to save the two large oak, trees at the north end of the site, unless they are determined to be in poor condition. This may necessitate some revision to the grading plan. The landscape plan for the project is shown on Sheet L1 -1 (Att. III). First, the plan should be signed by the landscape architect who prepared it. Secondly, the plan is considered extremely sparse, particularly for the size of the building. The applicant indicates that significant landscaping in front of the building is not possible due to the location of power lines along Chaska Road. It is further compounded by the ditch proposed on the northwesterly side of the street. While staff agrees that we do not want to end up with trees displaying the "Xcel Haircut ", much more needs to be done to screen the, parking areas from single- family homes across the street and to ,soften the effects of the three -story building. As mentioned earlier in this report, serious consideration should be given to shifting the building toward Highway 7, at least five feet or even more. This would start to make room for additional landscaping and possibly a small landscaped berm along the edge of the parking in front of the property. One small detail - the size of replacement trees is 3 -inch caliper instead of the 2.5 -inch shown on the landscape plan: , E. Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Utilities. These items are addressed in the City Engineer's report (Attachment IV). Perhaps the most significant issue with respect to utilities is the extraordinary expense in getting city water to the subject property. A line must be extended from Minnetonka Drive at Yellowstone Trail over to the highway, where it must be jacked -3- Memorandum Re: Oppidan — Shorewood Senior,Living 7 March 2016 under the highway. As mentioned previously, the applicant will be seeking T.I.F. to offset the cost of water main extension: The City Engineer has enumerated several items he still needs from the applicant, particularly relative to drainage. F. Building Plans. Floor plans and elevations for the proposed building are shown on Sheets A -1 through A -4 and A3.1 through A3.4. The proposed building complies with the height limitations for the R -C District — three stories /3 5 feet. The exception is the northerly elevation where the underground garage daylights. The P.U.D. approach to the project provides flexibility to accommodate the small area of the building that is taller than 35 feet. RECOMMENDATION The applicant has put substantial time and effort, into the plans thus far. Nevertheless, there are enough outstanding issues remaining that staff is reluctant to recommend approval at this time. It is recommended that the applicant be directed to resolve the issues raised herein and in the City Engineer's letter and return to the Planning Commission's 19 April meeting. Cc: Bill Joynes Paul Hornby Tim Keane Larry Brown Bruce DeJong Shannon Rusk H a) a� a� nr z< o 0 LO 0 N Murra 0 i ►e J ve 10 IA1je m r` 3. O LU a T� c� U) Q s z aoa a► Q U a) Al n p A = o u as a) a) = u pu.-I VII 0 0 Attachment I Oppidan Investment Company is applying for two requests for a redevelopment of 3 sites located in Shorewood, Hennepin County, Minnesota. The addresses are 6020 and 6050 Chaska Road and 23075 State Highway 7 just south of Highway 7 and west of Chaska Road. The parcels collectively represent approximately 3.7 acres. The PIDs are 34- 117 -23 -43 -0034, 34- 117 -23 -43 -0002 and 34- 117 -23 -43 -0033. The intent of the redevelopment is to build a Senior Assisted Living facility which will comprise 105 units on three levels for seniors living in and around the Shorewood community. The project will have Independent Living, Assisted Living and Memory Care units to facilitate the aging in place concept by our operator, Ebenezer. Ebenezer is wholly owned by Fairview Hospital and brings a wealth of experience and awareness to the aging population both from a caring living experience to necessary healthcare. The request is : Text amendment to City Code Section 1201.03 Subd. 20.b.(8)(c) to allow for "Fifteen units per acre ". Text amendment to City Code Section 1201.03 Subd.5.h(8) to allow for: Memory Care -1 per 3 beds + 4 spaces (The 4 can be waived if other parking is available) Assisted Living -1 %2 per 2 units + 1/2 space proof per 2 units Independent Living- 1 % spaces per unit + 1/2 space proof per unit Attachment II Required Proof of Total Stalls Parking (Minimum) Memory Care (25) 9 0 9 Assisted Living (52) 39 13 52 Independent Living 42 14 56 (30) Total 90 27 117 Total stalls " Total stalls + required Proof of Parking Required Shown on Plan 105 17 122 Total stalls Total stalls+ on plan Proof shown on plan Exceeds Exceeds minimum required minimum required Attachment II General Concept Stage (1) General Information Landowners Names: D C Stock and M R Stock GR Clapp and SD Clapp Control House Invest, LLC *does not include road easements Applicants Names: KTJ 285 LLC Consultants: 6020 Chaska Road 6050 Chaska Road 23075 State Hwy 7 Oppidan Investment Company, Developer Loucks, Civil Engineering Pope Architects, Architect Land Control: 34- 117 -23 -43 -0034 .79 acres* 34- 117 -23 -43 -0002 1.9 acres* 34- 117 -23 -43 -0033 1.08 acres* Oppidan Investment Company (KTJ 285, LLC) has all three properties under Purchase Agreement (attached) and title evidence is also (attached) (2) Present Status Address and Legal (attached above in title information) Existing Zoning: 6020 Chaska Road and 6050 Chaska Road current zoning R2A 23075 State Hwy 7 current zoning RC All other land within 1,000 feet is zoned R2A (3) Written Statement: The approximate 4.24 acres (3.77 acres excluding road easements) described in the application herein are proposed to be rezoned to a PUD with an underlying compliance to RC zoning in the City of Shorewood. The development is proposed to be a Senior Assisted Living facility which will be comprised of 105 living units on three levels for seniors living in and around the Shorewood community. Oppidan Investment Company contracted a Senior Living Consultant to perform a market study to determine the demand for Senior residential units for Independent, Assisted and Memory Care living. The study (attached) supports our proposed project. This project will be owned by Oppidan Investment Company and operated by Ebenezer and is designed to facilitate the aging in place concept for seniors. Ebenezer is wholly owned by Fairview Hospital and brings a wealth of experience and awareness to the aging population both from a caring living experience to necessary healthcare. Ebenezer operates quality independent living, assisted living and memory care communities located in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. Blending healthcare, customer service and residential property development assistance, Ebenezer has developed a solid reputation for quality senior living communities. Their projects provide high - quality care in a safe, home -like setting. Amenities include game rooms, chapels, beauty salons, fitness centers, movie theaters and libraries The PUD will allow for a thoughtful development for Senior's in the Shorewood and surrounding community. The staged, aging in place concept allows Senior's to relocate into the development at various stages of life. It will be a vital community with many amenities inclusive of fitness center, theatre, beauty salon, bistro, community gathering rooms and outdoor spaces. A Senior could enter at the peak of their senior years to eliminate the hassle of home ownership or one could enter at a time when acute healthcare is needed to monitor and manage physical and /or mental decline. The project has been designed by Pope Architects a renowned architect very familiar with Senior Housing Projects around the area. They incorporate state of the art design criteria to facilitate the needs of seniors as well as to allow for a pleasant experience for visiting family members. Site Plan The site has been designed to separate the vehicular traffic with four access points. The north access is for the underground garage for residents to park away from the elements. The middle two accesses provide for circulation to the front drop off area and through the visitor parking area. The south access is a loading access for deliveries to the kitchen. The community room and dining room have patios for outdoor seating as well as the front porch. This provides for a pleasant indoor /outdoor experience. There is also a memory garden tucked into the west side of the building. The site slopes from the southwest corner of the site to the northeast corner with a drop of 20 feet. In the southwest corner of the site the adjacent residential property is 10 feet above the building finished floor. The stormwater management design incorporates underground perforated pipes as well as an above ground pond in the low part of the site. The density allowed per the proposed text amendment is 15 / acre or 3.77 x 15 = 56.6. Our project has a density calculation as follows: 28 IL x 1 unit= 28 52AL x.5 unit= 26 25 MC x 0 unit= 0 Total Density calculation of our proposed project is 54 (below the allowed calculation above) The Parking required per city (inclusive of proof of parking) is calculated as follows: Memory Care - 1 per 3 beds + 4 spaces (The 4 can be waived if other parking is available) Assisted Living -1 % per 2 units + 1/2 space proof pert units Independent Living - 1 %2 spaces per unit + 1/2 space proof per unit Landscaping We have prepared a Tree Preservation Plan as required by code. Since there is so much grade change we are disturbing the entire site. The Tree Preservation ordinance requires that we replace 8 trees per acre for a total of 34 trees. We are providing 34 trees. It is important to note that along the south property line, there is an overhead electric line. This line prohibits us from installing trees in this area. Therefore we have provided shrubs along this entire length. Required Proof of Total Stalls Parking (Minimum) Memory Care (25) 9 0 9 Assisted Living (52) 39 13 52 Independent Living 42 14 56 (28) Tota 1 90 27 117 Total stalls Total stalls + required Proof of Parking Required Shown on Plan 105 17 122 Total stalls Total stalls + on plan Proof shown on plan Exceeds Exceeds minimum required minimum required Landscaping We have prepared a Tree Preservation Plan as required by code. Since there is so much grade change we are disturbing the entire site. The Tree Preservation ordinance requires that we replace 8 trees per acre for a total of 34 trees. We are providing 34 trees. It is important to note that along the south property line, there is an overhead electric line. This line prohibits us from installing trees in this area. Therefore we have provided shrubs along this entire length. Lighting Plan The Lighting Plan provides a mixture of shoebox type lights with full cutoff. The lights along the service drive are 20 feet tall and are placed along the interior of the access drive. This results in a low level of lighting 0.4 foot candles or less at the property line. The main parking lot provides an average of 2.2 foot candles. Oppidan has requested a Text Amendment to City Code Section 1201.03 Subd. 20.b.(8)(c) to allow for "Fifteen Units per acre ". Text Amendment to City Code Section 1201.03 Subd.5.h(8) to allow for parking per the table above. The PUD will be constructed in one Phase and will take approximately 14 months from groundbreaking to resident move in. We are currently planning on commencing construction June 2016 with residents moving in the fall of 2017. (4) Site Conditions (see attached from Loucks) (5) Schematic Drawing (see attached from Pope) (6) Estimated total number of dwelling units proposed for PUD A total of 105 senior housing units will be developed on this site. 52 of the units will be for Assisted Living and 28 units will be for Independent Living. 25 units will be devoted to Memory Care. (Please see Table enclosed outlining development component calculations) (7) Development/ Construction schedule (see attached) (8) N/A (9) N/A (10) N/A (11) N/A MIAR 04 ?016 CITY OF SHOREWOOD 'Q__ 61 L,24 SHEET INDEX CO -1 COVER SHEET 1 -1 ALTA/ACSM LAND TITLE SURVEY C1 -2 DEMOLITION PLAN C2 -1 SITE PLAN C3 -1 GRADING PLAN C3 -2 SWPP PLAN C3 -3 SWPP PLAN C34 SWPP PLAN C4 -1 UTILITY PLAN C8 -1 CIVIL DETAILS C8 -2 CIVIL DETAILS L1 -1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L1 -2 LANDSCAPE DETAILS L2 -1 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN P1 -1 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN P1 -2 PHOTOMETRIC CUT - SHEETS A -0 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN A -1 LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A -2 FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A -3 SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A -4 THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A3.1 ELEVATIONS A3.2 ELEVATIONS A3.3 PERSPECTIVES A3.4 PERSPECTIVES GENERAL'NOTES 1. This Existing Conditions Plan was prepared by a field survey prepared by Loucks Associates and record utility drawings from the City of Shorewood. 2. We have shown buried structures and utilities on and /or serving the site to the best of our ability, subject to the following restrictions: a. Utility operators do not consistently respond to locate requests through the Gopher State One Call service for boundary purposes such as this. b. Those utility operators that do respond, often will not locate services from their main line to the customer's structure or facility - they consider those segments private installations that are outside their jurisdiction. If • private service to an adjoiner's site crosses this site or • service to this site crosses an adjoiner, it may not be located since most operators will not mark such "private" services. C. Snow and ice conditions during winter months may obscure otherwise visible evidence of a buried structure or utility. d. Maps provided by operators, either along with a field location or in lieu of such a location, are very often inaccurate or inconclusive. e. The surface features and elevations shown on this drawing were located by Loucks Associates. f. All of the underground utility information and location shown on this plan were prepared from record drawings obtained from the client and the City of Shorewood records. g. EXTREME CAUTION MUST BE EXERCISED BEFORE AN EXCAVATION TAKES PLACE ON OR NEAR THIS SITE. BEFORE DIGGING, YOU ARE REQUIRED BY LAW TO NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE AT 651/454 -0002. SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA PRELIMINARY PLANS VICINITY MAP La<ke ----- - - - - -- Po1nt 1 Echo Bay / Goie % aca nv[ Island r 19 Q 1\ // 'LW tfla.n\ 's� r \ -1 GREENWOOD o el sands. TONKA 3o IIAY eraeon B "y semare EXCELSIOR lI /^ Iv PLEe5s4T ntF. 1 POInt� - -✓ r / \ end Isla D W // ,f •I c,,.t,rcr / 5L A �S fb z Bay / Bay I I rAEn to EEPPa. 19l ✓ �OO�OOOO `.�/ � / „�,i: aL, r n0. : R.. Salix CpaNe 6Rat',Ea Pn y 4 / CHalla c' n.SHOREIVOOD e 2010 POP. 7.307 nF +tea.GT` :® tl �,ECEO•s} g l -',::C a �I _ Ern �7L vx°a e x cecPnr is nEris t .a A > ai�9 -• ; € itnden _ (Lf\ -�' W' �3 � "'� ,d�� =��'q � -• �`a3 sTe,iro� s [x. � 771- OMNDDT 41 R.R.R. - Dononcm cerc LOCATION WARNING: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651- 454 -0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. CALL BEFORE YOU DIG! Gopher State One Call II%TWIN CITY AREA: 651- 454 -0002 ►► TOLL FREE: 1- 800 - 252 -1166 Developer - Oppidan 400 Water Street Suite 200 Excelsion, MN 55331 Engineer 7200 Hemlock Lane Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 Surveyor 7200 Hemlock Lane Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 Landscape Architect 7200 Hemlock Lane Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 CONTACTS Pat Barrett TEL: 952- 294 -1253 EMAIL: patb @oppidan.com Vicki Van Dell P.E. TEL: 763- 496 -6720 EMAIL: vvandell @loucksinc.com Rick Licht L.S. TEL: 763 - 496 -6756 EMAIL: rlicht @loucksinc.com Tim Fedie L.A. TEL: 763- 496 -6726 EMAIL: tfedie @loucksinc.com Attachment III El mm LOUCKS PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinccom H��PM1. r°aMw`�r3� �• yH.., 01/05/16 PUD Submittal 03/04/16 Revised PUD Submittal du h by.n4thrtfAh P'a.tsyedP¢ae'aior ,e ,V 1 Pa d ay.,de av d:,eat:w:mso,w wt am a d4 c,ued P,olestlaui Eng'xu uMe. V,e lanz oltiw State onf eata. Vdd J. Vzn D-A -PE License No. 41352 Date Loucks Project No. 15631 Project Lead VJV Drawn By WES Checked By VN Review Date 3/04/16 00 -1 CIVIL LEGEND ct -1 EXISTING C, -2 PROPOSED O SANITARY MANHOLE • OO STORMMANHOLE Q ®� CATCH BASIN 11 -1 t CULVERT LANDSCAPE DETAILS '¢ HYDRANT 1 l D4 GATEVALVE H Div P05T INDICATOR VALVE ®Pry 0 LIGHT POLE >� 0 POWER POLE SIGN a y BENCHMARK SOILBORINGS_ ® WATER MANHOLE OT TELEPHONE MANHOLE 0 UTILITY MANHOLE © ELECTRIC MANHOLE WATER SERVICE —9S SANITARY SERVICE Cam. HANDICAP PARKING 4 lox DIRECTION OF FLOW SPOT ELEVATION CONTOURS /'atf✓ —> SANITARY SEWER —�-- -»— STORMSEWER —N--- - 1 — WATERMAIN —I- R-i FORCEMAIN —FY -- »—DT— DRAINTRE » —oT- SILTFENCE M 0 CURB & GUTTER RETAINING WALL TREELINEm"v - - - - -- EASEMENT LINE - - - - -- - - -— SETBACK LINE — . —. - -- -XX— FENCE LINE —X —X- -TEL— UNDERGROUND TELE eAS- UNDERGROUND GAS 0F1— OVERHEAD UTILITY Developer - Oppidan 400 Water Street Suite 200 Excelsion, MN 55331 Engineer 7200 Hemlock Lane Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 Surveyor 7200 Hemlock Lane Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 Landscape Architect 7200 Hemlock Lane Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 CONTACTS Pat Barrett TEL: 952- 294 -1253 EMAIL: patb @oppidan.com Vicki Van Dell P.E. TEL: 763- 496 -6720 EMAIL: vvandell @loucksinc.com Rick Licht L.S. TEL: 763 - 496 -6756 EMAIL: rlicht @loucksinc.com Tim Fedie L.A. TEL: 763- 496 -6726 EMAIL: tfedie @loucksinc.com Attachment III El mm LOUCKS PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 www.loucksinccom H��PM1. r°aMw`�r3� �• yH.., 01/05/16 PUD Submittal 03/04/16 Revised PUD Submittal du h by.n4thrtfAh P'a.tsyedP¢ae'aior ,e ,V 1 Pa d ay.,de av d:,eat:w:mso,w wt am a d4 c,ued P,olestlaui Eng'xu uMe. V,e lanz oltiw State onf eata. Vdd J. Vzn D-A -PE License No. 41352 Date Loucks Project No. 15631 Project Lead VJV Drawn By WES Checked By VN Review Date 3/04/16 00 -1 COVER SHEET ct -1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C, -2 DEMOLITION PLAN C2 -1 SITE PLAN C3 -1 GRADING PLAN C3.2 -C3.4 SWPP PLAN C4 -1 UTILITY PLAN C8 -1 - C8-2 CIVIL DETAILS 11 -1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L1 -2 LANDSCAPE DETAILS L2 -1 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN P7 -1 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN Pt -2 PHOTOMETRIC CUT- SHEETS 'i / t jr I , 01 p6 A/ / d-7% 58 44 %36. 'S2'E { I „ a . , , , A / / / / � 5�7� / �" o-.•�� A —fie lb i3 / y� / \`fed �d � i / / / / /// / , /1%''� I II z / •�^ \ <-l_�z \ / , —qw rome of me sw y4 of me orS Ja, r. In, R S1 me rl e _ II /4of S J4, F. 117, R 13 Aid SrD6ladIJSe Sire o/Lot l4$ / / /// /// ,f /^ \ \ y✓•oh' -.� / \ 14.94 — — — \ / %` — L= 1867 -�P� / - \ � 17696 s, _ - - --o' _.-- 95s--- y'�• �. �w9 c°�o /t•.l —`iy °PARCEL 2 -- J_______/ 54 Prov�ry) >,'� :re•�z,_�� �I "/ e� zk\� / °ti D0 E Po d ®°'" / /// r J/ // y/ A VA,� /,•' / \ \;,,' / \ \ `� ( s / ; l((, HOUSE I , • 1 T \ ( \ 5� 9 / y`' / '• •y yh / / / // ° \.\ `4 yS6B \ \ I v: /.\ � i \ 4" \ / (u�� 6A / / / /.� }��jj / / / /� /0 /i_ \\,— "EVvg \ °•rszF� \ 1. v , l �°'- h 1 % =1 / � \ y °,gip_ —�'/ Ism v v � as / Ro BOXELDER 1' / A/ / / /// x '.`!�J/ 1� \ \ � l / �� l l: � �•) CE CEDAR GO COTTONWOOD t\7/ FR MISC FRUIT 7 h/// �I r ' - , l MAPLE CA \ , Houma CA OAK PI PINE \\\\ \ \ \ \ / / z,p• / J / � r/ / / / / � _ / z .,.z i I / PO POPLAR \ \ \\ \\ \ \\ �\\ \ ✓ / / / / / / /g57i / / /$Y. j/ / / // /�/ / i / z'Fi >" °' ' /ry„ I ^� / l% I� �I JJ l SP SPRUCE /99' // / / / / /y 9v'/ ' _ / /� /�' � y / e`` TR TREE (GEN) X';g. \ \ \ • \ \ \ \ / �r,PARG� j ' - / - /{ // THSO ELEV ®THRESHOLD o CAS METER \\ \\ ROOF ORaN 4t �`/ a MAILBOX / / � \ \\ \\ \ \�\ \ / / / /�� / i /// / /, ° / ' caurr. I i I / l ���J //l i� p3 /➢ oP` / $ solL Boau(c \ / CAST IRON MONUMENT 4A° 1 /8'�° /!� :• / ax € / X' �\ \ \• \ \ \\ \ / / / r - -___ �,'�9, � / � � / �. o / / • FOUND IdONUMEt1T X14 • >• VA VAA VA V / /'- / 1� / / / I,ee' I" -.I- / / /'° ,� n�` 0 SEE A- IRON Mo1J 988" SET. MARKED 'LS 74968' I N 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET SURVEY LEGEND ® M CATCH BASIN ! —S— _ QO STORM MANHOLE —SANITARY SEWER O SANITARY 0.ANHOLE 1 WATERMAIN 0 WELL (CULVERT IN GATE VALVE —UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC �7.— N89?2'7LSW 345.93- ­11—UNDERGROUND GAS ~ \� h 'j '^ o —UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE 3W I/4 0 M SE l/4 of S J4, r. 117, R. 11 &S �e of Lnl 175, N 1 of Lot 176, Avd _ Ne IJS ,14� — l � �'` \ •'='1 / I l I.`b''� l zv�''/ / / xy1` /97Y .� ^ / l 0RIGHT OF ACCESS (SCa cuneV Report It- 6) -' —x—x —CHAIN LINK FENCE M A/C UNrr CONCRETE CURB TO TELEPHONE PEDESTAL OCONCRETE 0 ELECTRIC MANHOLE OGRAVEL © GAS VALVE \ g12� CONTOUR O TELEPHONE MANHOLE N 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET SURVEY LEGEND ® M CATCH BASIN STORM SEWER QO STORM MANHOLE —SANITARY SEWER O SANITARY 0.ANHOLE 1 WATERMAIN 0 WELL (CULVERT IN GATE VALVE —UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC 0 POWER POLE ­11—UNDERGROUND GAS [! LIGHT POLE —UNDERGROUND TELEPHONE F GUY WIRE aN— OVERHEAD UTILITY -a- SIGN 0RIGHT OF ACCESS .errs SPOT ELEVATION —x—x —CHAIN LINK FENCE M A/C UNrr CONCRETE CURB TO TELEPHONE PEDESTAL OCONCRETE 0 ELECTRIC MANHOLE OGRAVEL © GAS VALVE \ g12� CONTOUR O TELEPHONE MANHOLE 0 ELECTRIC METER CONIFEROUS TREE e MAILBOX DECIDUOUS TREE Note: See sheet 1 of 2 sheets for the Property Description, ALTA/ACSM land Title Notes, Sarvey Report, and Certification. LOUCKS PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 ,nn•�.loucksinccam 01/12115 DRAWING ISSUED I �..er �,ose wt nr,•� ,.aon .�, . a,y ' ­ s­ uy 0,,, m ttASmea A License No.a" 48988 Date 01/12/15 Loucks Project No. 15 -631 Project Lead HN Drawn By MS Checked By FIN Held Crew DP i REMOVE/CAP WELL PER MN DEPT. OF HEALTH L f cf" STANDARDS HOUX r f REMOVE IX./ BUILD114G REMOVE DRIVEWAY / REMOVE IX. ^4 /4 / CULVEdr REMOVE FENCE / SEEETAILS NTRE REMOVAL J / ' p FOR DETAILS ON TREE REMOVAL �S _ Q1 IX. OVERHEAD POWER IN ROW TO REMAIN Y COORDINATE REMOVAL OF GAS SERVICE WITH PROVIDER Ai V I• - � QISINC *e, .. / 6 °cvr ui ` REMOVE EX. � ` BUILDINGS r; % `/�.� %r,'v,i•,tivr_s <:= •�+Tsyn'•_i >•.�• x;r,. •tr. = ��:,:e? �s1 \`.` , t � C -:au� V r- <3,t'� Y.._^ `tiv �ii,;.i�Y �Y'~?t*'� kE-'*�t�i r•2+:•`;7C' �) /y � ., :i;: S ^cam; �5. .,.``•� }�dc- A,,t,. f r ! �`< r ALL DEBRIS TO BE REMOVED IOR TO GRADING ACTIVITY Damo hVSE �+ REMOVE/CAP WELL PER MN DEPT. OF HEALTH DEMOLITION NOTES 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION IS BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY BY LOUCKS ASSOCIATES AND RECORD UTILITY DRAWINGS FROM THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD. LOUCKS ASSOCIATES DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. 3. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGMEN AND LIGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. PLACHIENTOF THESE DEVICES SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIORTO PLACEMENT. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO THE APPROPRIATE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT 1 OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS. ✓ 4. IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY ;J RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING THE " PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL APPLY {3111(J? Itl 1.11 CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. 5. THE DUTY OF THE ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER TO CONDUCT LOUC V�` CONSTRUCTION REVIEW OF THE CONTRACTORS PERFORMANCE IS ® KS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE CONTRACTORS SAFETY MEASURES IN, OR NEAR THE PLANNING CONSTRUCTION SITE. CIVIL ENGINEERING 6. BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL LAND SURVEYING INSTALL A TEMPORARY ROCK ENTRANCE PAD AT ALL POINTS OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE VEHICLE EXIT FROM THE PROJECT SITE. SAID ROCK ENTRANCE PAD ENVIRONMENTAL SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE DURATION 7200 Hemlock Lane Su 300 OF THE PROJECT. SEE SHEET C3 -2 FOR DETAILS. to Maple Grove, MN 55369 7. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE 763.424.5505 ESTABLISHED AROUND THE SITE PERIMETER AS SHOWN AND IN �nnv.lo..ks'nc nn ACCORDANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, CITY REQUIREMENTS AND THE DETAILS SHOWN ON SHEET C3-2 & C8-1 OF THE PROJECT PLANS. B. ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY INCLUDING STOCKPILING, STAGING & PARKING MUST TAKE PLACE ON -SITE. 9. TEMPORARY STREET SIGNS, LIGHTING & ADDRESSES SHALL BE PROVIDED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A CITY & COUNTY PERMIT FOR OBSTRUCTIONS AND WORK WITHIN RIGHT -OF -WAY. PERMIT 15 REQUIRED PRIOR TO REMOVALS OR INSTALLATION. 11. PROTECT EXISTING SITE FEATURES THAT ARE NOT NOTED FOR REMOVAL, IF DISCREPANCIES ARISE, NOTIFY ENGINEER IMA EDIATELY FOR RESOLUTION. 12. WE HAVE SHOWN EXISTING SERVICES BASED ON CITY A5- BUILTS & A GOPHER ONE LOCATE. THERE MAY BE SERVICES THAT ARE NOT SHOWN. c.=...... .f -.e .,e _..., 13. NO WORK TO BE DONE OUTSIDE OF CONSTRUCTION /SILT FENCE WITHOUT PRIOR AUTHORIZATION FROM ENGINEER. 01/05/16 PUD Submittal 14. THE REMOVAL OF EXISTING SERVICES WITHIN THE 03/04/16 Revised PUD Submittal CONSTRUCTION LIMITS SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND UTILITY OWNER. ADDITIONAL SERVICES MAY EXIST THAT ARE NOT SHOWN. 15. SANITARY SEWER SERVICES ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATION & REMOVE. *SEE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN FOR DETAILS ON TREE REMOVAL \ STANDARDS Y' / �� IxE..cr� -r 'f nn =• )! ,COORDINATE REMOVAL sorr.m„e,c,- f PO OF GAS SERVICE WITH / \+ " REMOVE IX. ( j PROVIDER ' // License No. wdu�. v.�oei -rE 41352 Date + / BUILDINGS iomr /kY.Y / r • , • / ! Loucks Project No. 75631 Project Lead VJV / Dravm By WBS Checked By V3V / Review Date 3/04/16 REMOVE FENCE Co -1 COVER SHEET ' C1 -1 EXISTING CONDITIONS REMOVE OVERHEAD / POWER LINE SERVICE / C1 -2 DEMOLITION PLAN TO HOUSE &GARAGE % ,� - C2 -1 SITE PLAN SEE TREE PRESERVATION PLAN / G1y�1 t:i W REMOVE DRIVEWAY n/� C3- 2 -C3 -4 GR SW PP PLAN J "4i / WARNING ca -1 UTILITY PLAN FOR DETAILS ON TREE REMOVAL ts� /// / S"�72 CB -1 - C8 -2 CIVIL DETAILS E` ,�t:.,. �5: .iY °,p;�:`f> .°f l l l•' l 11 -1 LANDSCAPE PLAN 3 ;' / THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH 11-2 LANDSCAPE DETAILS REMOVE EX / / / L2 -1 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN " ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR t 1 CULVERT !! /// P1 -1 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN i < / RELOCATION OF LINES. "cF�{•�J 4l P1 -2 PHOTOMETRIC CUT- SHEETS ' REMOVE FENCE Ex OVERHEAD POWER TO u " ' e '? THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT I x � REMAIN �`'"ti "t ��'r�j, l l l 651-454-0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS `� < -. , mix riuxxo- "''' "`l '' }'S'� / OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, ' 1 5xE Inavrxrt uc :� y ru c r ° r VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE Y T'rn; / / CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED / - -- DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. ' %�` ��� //� • • CALL BEFORE YOU DIGI 0 30 80 Gopher State One Cal T I IN CITY TOLL FREE: ARE800 21525866002 SCALE IN FEET / / / / a d l { / / / / / / / / / / / / / / k E t° ,� a 5 Q� O v PAT 0000 DINING _ -- ---- co FRED ROOM Jy i DROP -0FF !' A COVERED PORCH 0 DROP -0FF ADA RODEE \ s� 17 d\ CURB TRANSIT ON DOw zoo Imp �o 10 RIO <-- __BLO' 10' 2 16.0 59 REGULARSTALLS 4 ADA STALLS I 63 TOTAL STALLS h • —_- -RIO 10 R3 ADA ROUES PSBL PSBL PSBL I / 0 30 60 - SCALE IN FEET SITE DATA ZONING CURRENT ZONING: R -2A & R -C PROPOSED ZONING: PUD (R -C UNDERLYING) OVERLAY DISTRICT: NA AREA Project Lead TOTAL SITE AREA = 164,053SF, 3.77 ACRES, 100% IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA = 85,600SF, 1.97 ACRES, 52.2% PERVIOUS SURFACE AREA = 78,453SF, 1.80 ACRES, 47.8% SETBACKS - PARKING SETBACKS - BUILDING FRONT YARD(CHASKA RD): 15 FT FRONT YARD: 35 FT SIDE SETBACK: 15 FT SIDE YARD: 15 FT REAR SETBACK: 40 FT REAR SETBACK: 40 FT PARKING SURFACE REGULAR STALLS: 59 STALLS SURFACE ACCESSIBLE STALLS: 4 STALLS UNDERGROUND PARKING: 42 STALLS TOTAL STALLS: 105 STALLS HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT ADA ROUTE SITE PLAN NOTES 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION IS BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY BY LOUCKS ASSOCIATES AND RECORD UTILITY DRAWINGS FROM THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD. LOUCKS ASSOCIATES DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2. MINNESOTA STATE STATUTE REQUIRES NOTIFICATION PER "GOPHER STATE ONE CALL" PRIOR TO COMMENCING ANY GRADING, EXCAVATION OR UNDERGROUND WORK. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY LOCATIONS AND ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES AND TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF ANY DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE PLANS. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A CITY & COUNTY PERMIT FOR OBSTRUCTIONS AND WORK WITHIN RIGHT -OF -WAY. PERMIT IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO REMOVALS OR INSTALLATION. 5. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN TO THE FACE OF CURB UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6. PROVIDE A 3 FOOT TAPER AT ALL CURB TERMINI 7. ALL PAVING, CONCRETE CURB, GUTTER AND SIDEWALK SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAILS SHOWN PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. SEE LANDSCAPE AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR ANY ADDITIONAL HARDSCAPE APPLICATIONS. 8. THE CITY DEPARTMENT OF ENGINEERING AND BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPT. AND THE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY WORK WITHIN THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY (SIDEWALK, STREET OR DRIVEWAYS) '` LOUCKS PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 v�nv.loucksinccom 01/05/16 PUD Submittal 03/04/16 Revised PUD Submittal 9. ANY SIGN OR FIXTURES REMOVED WITH IN THE RIGHT OF WAY OR AS PART OF THE SITE WORK SHALL BE REPLACED BY THE CONTRACTOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY REQUIREMENTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PRESERVE AND MAINTAIN ANY EXISTING STREET LIGHTS AND TRAFFIC SIGNS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. 10. A SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF SITE IMPROVEMENTS NOT SHOWN ON THIS SHEET ARE DESCRIBED AND PROVIDED IN FURTHER DETAIL ON THE ' ARCHITECTURAL AND LANDSCAPE PLANS, THIS INCLUDES LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING AND OTHER FIXTURES. 11. B612 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER SHALL BE INSTALLED AT THE EDGE OF ALL COMMON DRIVES AND PARKING LOTS WITHIN THE SITE, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 12. ALL PARKING LOT PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE 4" WIDE WHITE PAINTED STRIPING. 13. DISABLED PARKING SIGNAGE & PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ADA & MINNESOTA RULES 1341.0502. 14. CITY ENGINEERING STAFF MUST BE PRESENT TO INSPECT ALL CONCRETE FORMS IN PUBLIC RIGHT -OF -WAY PRIOR TO POUR. MINIMUM 24 HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED. 15. "NO PARKING FIRE LANE" SIGNS MUST BE INSTALLED AS INDICATED BY THE CITY FIRE CHIEF. VERIFY EXACT LOCATIONS AND NUMBER OF REQUIRED SIGNS WITH THE CITY FIRE CHIEF. SIGNAGE MUST BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE FINAL OCCUPANCY INSPECTION. WARNING THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651 -454 -0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. CALL BEFORE YOU DIGI Gopher State One Call RG'tf'I /+ TWIN CITY AREA: 651- 454 -0002 VTOLL FREE: 1- 800- 252 -1166 License No. 41352 Date Loucks Project No. 15631 Project Lead VJV Drawn By WBS Checked By VJV Review Date 3/04116 CO -1 COVER SHEET C1 -1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1-2 DEMOLITION PLAN C2 -1 SITE PLAN C3 -1 GRADING PLAN C3- 2 -C3 -4 SWPP PLAN C4 -1 UTILITY PLAN CB -1 - C8-2 CIVIL DETAILS 11 -1 LANDSCAPE PLAN 11 -2 LANDSCAPE DETAILS L2 -1 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN P1 -1 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN P1 -2 PHOTOMETRIC CUT- SHEETS I / / / / / / / / _'6 °44$2'Eo %76. Z/ /// v 52.27 53.4 :7C - 3��3% 55.6 5 6 S,5 / 04 54.3 WITH �fNCES' ' //o // i // �, // ,ir :o i ,pl.� v - - _ _ _ - - - - /// j/ S✓ sl / / /% // /'/ /// / /, / /� " / / / -- �/ 6 4 7.81 �,{ /9/ /. °- '63'.0 o cww� 60.44 1.47 3. 6 S : I / / 1 9/ / sB�� 0., PRO CT EX. PO ER \ \\ \\ \ \� \ I I -' •/ -J2 X62 19 6 961 u 61.25 1.09 -�s y.0 08�DULING GRADfNG VA A \ VA 61.6 2.e v - �\V / 1'62. 62.8/ // /�/ ;' j / 61.05' V "o l TW- g63:p \, \. \ \� \ 63.0.'/ /'/ �'i✓ // ✓/ / /\ , % // / u \ \ \c TVA_Rii�Z t5 GW -962.8 RETAININGWALL� HIGHSIDEW &S- TW -971.0 a GW- 962.3- 0 o TW -972.1 u GW- 962.3- J 3 TW -970.1 a GW -962.3 tt` 62.5 / 66968__J_ -- �J �1W -965.0 - J GW -962.3 RETAINING WALL HIGH SIDE W & S i I I.04 I 61.71 Y- N1912�32- 0 - J15 3 _ --TW -965.8 L AGN�62 -3 -/ GW -962.3 GW -967.8 / 2 / / P / 0 �30 60 %%mm� SCALE IN FEET GRADING PLAN NOTES 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION IS BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY BY LOUCKS ASSOCIATES AND RECORD UTILITY DRAWINGS FROM THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD. LOUCKS ASSOCIATES DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF BUILDINGS, VESTIBULES, SLOPED PAVING, EXIT PORCHES, RAMPS, TRUCK DOCKS, ENTRY LOCATIONS AND LOCATIONS OF DOWNSPOUTS. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. 4. IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. 5. BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL A TEMPORARY ROCK ENTRANCE PAD AT ALL POINTS OF VEHICLE EXIT FROM THE PROJECT SITE. SAID ROCK ENTRANCE PAD SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. 6. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AROUND THE ENTIRE SITE PERIMETER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, AND CITY REQUIREMENTS. 7. ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN REPRESENT FINISHED SURFACE OR GUTTER LINE ELEVATIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 8. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXISTING INFORMATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY ENGINEER OF ANY PLAN DISCREPANCIES. 9. EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS AS -PER CITY AS -BUILT PLANS AND FIELD SHOTS. 10. SEE SHEET C3 -2 FOR EROSION CONTROL INFORMATION. 11. GENERAL CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY ALL TIE IN GRADES. 12. REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR MORE INFORMATION. 13. ADA ACCESSIBLE ROUTE SHALL HAVE A 5.0% MAXIMUM SLOPE IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND A 2.0% MAXIMUM CROSS - SLOPE. 14. ACCESSIBLE STALLS, ACCESS AISLES AND 60" TURNING CIRCLES SHALL HAVE A 2.0% MAXIMUM SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION. ABBREVIATION LEGEND FFE= FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION TW =TOP OF RETAINING WALL GW= GROUND AT FACE OF RETAINING WALL HP =HIGH POINT LP =LOW POINT TC =TOP OF CURB GL= GUTTER LINE LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR '_BOO SPOT ELEVATION X800.0 DRAINAGE SLOPE X.XX% ST STORM SEWER O STORM MANHOLE O 8 (0) CATCH BASIN SS SANITARY SEWER -Y/I'o WATERMAIN BENCHMARK EMERGENCY OVERFLOW CONSTRUCTION LIMITS ADA ROUTE HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT NOTE: CATCH BASINS RIMS ARE 2 INCHES LOWER THAN FLOW LINE ELEVATION. NOTE: SPOT ELEVATIONS AT CURB LINES INDICATE BASE OF CURB AND GUTTER LINE (I.E. FLOW LINE) ELEVATIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. WARNING THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651 -454 -0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. CALL BEFORE YOU DIGI Gopher State One Call �y TWIN CITY AREA: 651- 454 -0002 VTOLL FREE: 1 -800- 252 -1166 mm LOUCKS PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 w-A.ucksi -com CADD. QUALIFICATION'I e SU MITTAL/REVISIONS' pa�edd tr, d MJ.3t rrs °i tr r :om a' .v Ucense No. 47352 Date Loucks Project No. 15631 Project Lead VJV Drawn ey WBS Checked By VJV Review Date 3/04/16 CO -1 COVER SHEET C1 -1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1 -2 DEMOUTION PLAN C2 -1 SITE PLAN C3 -1 GRADING PLAN C3- 2 -C3-4 SWPP PLAN C4 -1 UTILITY PLAN C8- 1 -C8 -2 CIVIL DETAILS 11 -1 LANDSCAPE PLAN 11 -2 LANDSCAPE DETAILS L2 -1 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN PI -1 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN P1 -2 PHOTOMETRIC CUT- SHEETS / / P / 0 �30 60 %%mm� SCALE IN FEET GRADING PLAN NOTES 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION IS BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY BY LOUCKS ASSOCIATES AND RECORD UTILITY DRAWINGS FROM THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD. LOUCKS ASSOCIATES DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS FOR EXACT LOCATIONS AND DIMENSIONS OF BUILDINGS, VESTIBULES, SLOPED PAVING, EXIT PORCHES, RAMPS, TRUCK DOCKS, ENTRY LOCATIONS AND LOCATIONS OF DOWNSPOUTS. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASE OF THIS PROJECT. 4. IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. 5. BEFORE BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL A TEMPORARY ROCK ENTRANCE PAD AT ALL POINTS OF VEHICLE EXIT FROM THE PROJECT SITE. SAID ROCK ENTRANCE PAD SHALL BE MAINTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE DURATION OF THE PROJECT. 6. EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE ESTABLISHED AROUND THE ENTIRE SITE PERIMETER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT REQUIREMENTS, BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES, AND CITY REQUIREMENTS. 7. ALL SPOT ELEVATIONS SHOWN REPRESENT FINISHED SURFACE OR GUTTER LINE ELEVATIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 8. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY EXISTING INFORMATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY ENGINEER OF ANY PLAN DISCREPANCIES. 9. EXISTING UTILITY LOCATIONS AS -PER CITY AS -BUILT PLANS AND FIELD SHOTS. 10. SEE SHEET C3 -2 FOR EROSION CONTROL INFORMATION. 11. GENERAL CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY ALL TIE IN GRADES. 12. REFER TO GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR MORE INFORMATION. 13. ADA ACCESSIBLE ROUTE SHALL HAVE A 5.0% MAXIMUM SLOPE IN THE DIRECTION OF TRAVEL AND A 2.0% MAXIMUM CROSS - SLOPE. 14. ACCESSIBLE STALLS, ACCESS AISLES AND 60" TURNING CIRCLES SHALL HAVE A 2.0% MAXIMUM SLOPE IN ANY DIRECTION. ABBREVIATION LEGEND FFE= FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION TW =TOP OF RETAINING WALL GW= GROUND AT FACE OF RETAINING WALL HP =HIGH POINT LP =LOW POINT TC =TOP OF CURB GL= GUTTER LINE LEGEND EXISTING PROPOSED TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOUR '_BOO SPOT ELEVATION X800.0 DRAINAGE SLOPE X.XX% ST STORM SEWER O STORM MANHOLE O 8 (0) CATCH BASIN SS SANITARY SEWER -Y/I'o WATERMAIN BENCHMARK EMERGENCY OVERFLOW CONSTRUCTION LIMITS ADA ROUTE HEAVY DUTY PAVEMENT NOTE: CATCH BASINS RIMS ARE 2 INCHES LOWER THAN FLOW LINE ELEVATION. NOTE: SPOT ELEVATIONS AT CURB LINES INDICATE BASE OF CURB AND GUTTER LINE (I.E. FLOW LINE) ELEVATIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. WARNING THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651 -454 -0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. CALL BEFORE YOU DIGI Gopher State One Call �y TWIN CITY AREA: 651- 454 -0002 VTOLL FREE: 1 -800- 252 -1166 mm LOUCKS PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 w-A.ucksi -com CADD. QUALIFICATION'I e SU MITTAL/REVISIONS' pa�edd tr, d MJ.3t rrs °i tr r :om a' .v Ucense No. 47352 Date Loucks Project No. 15631 Project Lead VJV Drawn ey WBS Checked By VJV Review Date 3/04/16 CO -1 COVER SHEET C1 -1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1 -2 DEMOUTION PLAN C2 -1 SITE PLAN C3 -1 GRADING PLAN C3- 2 -C3-4 SWPP PLAN C4 -1 UTILITY PLAN C8- 1 -C8 -2 CIVIL DETAILS 11 -1 LANDSCAPE PLAN 11 -2 LANDSCAPE DETAILS L2 -1 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN PI -1 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN P1 -2 PHOTOMETRIC CUT- SHEETS NOTE: CATCH BASINS RIMS ARE 2 INCHES LOWER THAN FLOW LINE ELEVATION. NOTE: SPOT ELEVATIONS AT CURB LINES INDICATE BASE OF CURB AND GUTTER LINE (I.E. FLOW LINE) ELEVATIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. WARNING THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651 -454 -0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. CALL BEFORE YOU DIGI Gopher State One Call �y TWIN CITY AREA: 651- 454 -0002 VTOLL FREE: 1 -800- 252 -1166 mm LOUCKS PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 w-A.ucksi -com CADD. QUALIFICATION'I e SU MITTAL/REVISIONS' pa�edd tr, d MJ.3t rrs °i tr r :om a' .v Ucense No. 47352 Date Loucks Project No. 15631 Project Lead VJV Drawn ey WBS Checked By VJV Review Date 3/04/16 CO -1 COVER SHEET C1 -1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1 -2 DEMOUTION PLAN C2 -1 SITE PLAN C3 -1 GRADING PLAN C3- 2 -C3-4 SWPP PLAN C4 -1 UTILITY PLAN C8- 1 -C8 -2 CIVIL DETAILS 11 -1 LANDSCAPE PLAN 11 -2 LANDSCAPE DETAILS L2 -1 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN PI -1 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN P1 -2 PHOTOMETRIC CUT- SHEETS / j /,� /�N //� �/ ♦�l�J(f�� // / / r�``� j // / /jrr �ti.✓'t_ — / A /�/ pR gstalls 54.0 (/5349 \� A 3.3 51 4 / 55.6 '- •`6 / "- 's5 ., / / ; z.0 54 7 , 51.5 1' ,. /� // � //S / �// J— Q4 '5073 V Tc61.43 T. / / /// � // / o � i-��� � � •� / � Q . x� / /ff 2 1°d1' � /�; er, �/� >i7 � ' n. / / 3,j /!�(�0 2 59.22,\.... $�� N',� ���i��� Gbz Pr. �1i '.7 nad��l l•, r EXE / �` N az -a e o SAO` ��,.x % w /// ? 6R s 7 % AsHqu CONCR / d a 6- ,; /• I I y x° j�� � ✓ / /' y �y57' i �5 � - ,6\062.8, 630 -636 OFntl Spacial W tens TBD < > zz c � RuRar D'stance.� 4Nes cl ��„� _ / 1 T62.7/,r_ 62 54, `161 9/ 30" - 5 ' 6224 5210 79 7 k5 /r ' / / s;)'' 63.0 BAD 2 %— "L>aP1.09— to boa Yr 04 / "6E 1 4? x„1 THE CONTRACT R EXISTING OnJEES. nwlrrrawNCTH❑ THE C.HT O. LEAST 48 T— In X6016 ( / / / \ I � PROT TEX. POWER EU UTRE" ED DU ING GRADNG �116 / n ,12 / Constmtl'on Slormv;star Special Waters Search '= IAnnesota PaIIWan BULOAgency CALL BEFORE YOU DIGI Gopher State One Cal l _ �1YM1 CFFi'- kREA:fi5} --454 -0002 TOLL FREE: I -BDO- 252 -1166 OFntl Spacial W tens TBD < > 11— a) curosrstruden ads and fnd special —'era: c � RuRar D'stance.� 4Nes cl ��„� r LAND SURVEYING LF x.,,tAf LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE EA Endine YAtP L FO COIsr ©DUBlne caoc IIPI Ell ENVIRONMENTAL N 0.9 Select features fi rn ImpalleO Lake $ PHOTOMETRIC CUT- SHEETS Maple Grove MN 55369 763 424 5505 J K Search •� j op nI -0 FEATes Seledes 0 LAKE MINNETONKA SITE LOCATION 1 MILE RADIUS SEARCH IAapcoments _ FJ Special Waters M A I IPCAUsted Calcareous Fen M A DIER Uslea Calcareous Fen �— ynd—see Ate. �— IAeslsslppl Rifer - Scenic and Recreational Rhar Segments �— TreutsEeem 0 00 N tI .,I F H PROJECT LOCATION COUNTY I SECTION TOWNSHIP RANGE LATITUDE LONGITUDE HENNEPIN 34 117N 23W 44.8945 - 93.5729 PERMANENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT X INFILTRATION STORMWATER HARVEST AND REUSE FILTRATION 0 �30 80 %%miiiiiiiiiiil SCALE IN FEET BLE OR CALUN FOR L6GATIONS OF ALL IL, E .VEER �L Uill/TY CO \1PANIES IN v L To. OF E5. / 11-10`` HER STATE L' ?.Zli245J- 0002.0E LOCATIONS E ALL /.INDERGROUND WIRES, uvES OR OF ER BugIED STRUCTURES BEFORE a�u CALL BEFORE YOU DIGI Gopher State One Cal l _ �1YM1 CFFi'- kREA:fi5} --454 -0002 TOLL FREE: I -BDO- 252 -1166 MR OR REP .CE THE ABOVE IVHEN DAh1ACED -_ THE OWN /rq_ 1 TYPICAL SUBSURFACE SOIL STRATUM � STRATUM LOUCKS MATERIAL DESCRTION 1 TBD TED PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING TBD TBD 3 TBD TBD LAND SURVEYING LF x.,,tAf LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE EA 16 ENVIRONMENTAL N 0.9 7200 Hemlock Lane Su to 300 P1 -2 PHOTOMETRIC CUT- SHEETS Maple Grove MN 55369 763 424 5505 TYPICAL SUBSURFACE SOIL STRATUM � STRATUM DEPTH TO BASE OF STRATUM BELOW EXISTING GRADE MATERIAL DESCRTION 1 TBD TED 2 TBD TBD 3 TBD TBD X WET SEDIMENTATION BASIN *SEE GEOTHICAL REPORT AS PART OF SWPPP FOR REGIONAL PONDP ADDITIONAL SOILS INFORMATION RECEIVING WATERS NAME OF WATER BODY TYPE OF WATER BODY SPECIAL WATER IMAIRED WATER TYPE OF SPECIAL WATER GALPIN LAKE LAKE NO NO NA LF 1030 ROCK LOG LF 0 INLET PROTECTION EA 16 TURF RESTORATION AC 0.9 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN P1 -2 PHOTOMETRIC CUT- SHEETS ESTIMATED OUANTITIES DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY TEMPORARY ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EA 1 PREFABRICATED CONCRETE WASHOUT EA 1 SILT FENCE (STANDARD) LF 1030 ROCK LOG LF 0 INLET PROTECTION EA 16 TURF RESTORATION AC 0.9 SITE PLAN LEGEND —SF SILT FENCE e 41352 INLET PROTECTION DEMOUTION PLAN EXISTING DRAINAGE BOUNDARY SITE PLAN EXISTING DRAINAGE PATTERN GRADING PLAN PROPOSED DRAINAGE BOUNDARY PROPOSED DRAINAGE PATTERN - -- ROCKLOG BENCHMARK TOP NUT HYDRANT LOCATED ON THE NORTHERLY SIDE OF VETERANS DRIVE APPROX. 80 FEET WEST OF THE MOST WESTERLI' PROPERTY CORNER. ELEVATION= 870.23 FEET (NAVD 1988) SEE SITE SURVEY PROVIDED BY EFN INC., DATED 12- 30 -14. FOR GRAPHIC REFERENCE SUBMITTAUREVISIONS r r Ihweba f M1a th zpeof. nzs License No. e 41352 Date DEMOUTION PLAN Loucks Project No. 15631 Project Lead viv Drawn By WBS Checked By VJV Ravi —Date 3/04/16 C01 COVER SHEET Ci -1 EXISTING CONDITIONS Ct -2 DEMOUTION PLAN C2 -1 SITE PLAN C3 -1 GRADING PLAN C3- 2 -C3 -4 SWPP PLAN UTILITY PLAN CB- 1 -CS-2 CIVIL DETAILS 11 -1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L1 -2 LANDSCAPE DETAILS L2 -1 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN PIT PHOTOMETRIC PLAN P1 -2 PHOTOMETRIC CUT- SHEETS / 1 AM / / / / / I / I / / / I / < // -- -- -- n '7f CU 7 I / RIM -95094 ve/ INV- 951.29 3' SUM11P -949.8 / V 10' SANITARY STUB INV - 940.10 / / / / CB 1 RIM -960.6 INV -957.6 5'18'H PE 13.4% INLET -955.0 0% / IT / o h FES} D INV -9 0 0° PVC CLFANOUT RIM -953.0 INV- 947.70 TO. PVC SANITARY SERVICE ® 0.53% OCS 8 RIM -957.0 INV- 951.78 TOP WEIR -956.0 8° ORIFICE -954.0 24 - 60' CMP OUTLET -952.0 PERFORATED CHAMBERS BTM ROCK -952.0 PIPE INV -952.5 TOP PIPE -957.5 TOP ROCK -958.0 Vi "W "k, HYD W /6° GV L 6° DIP LEAD 115'18'R( 0.8 %61'' CBMH 4 RIM -960.8 I111954.66 - 95' 12° HDPE ®0.8% 68' 15 °HDPE J jn OCS 6 RIM -954.0 / .� INV -946.5 i TOP WEIR -953.0 A e8 °ORIFICE -951.0 o do L 0 - - / / 3 / / POND q' / 1.0 / HWL -9/4.0 STMH 9 RIM 957.23 i APPROXIMATE _ INV- 951.29 _ LOCATION OF 3'SUMP- 949.11- - - \ - - \- °�- - _ WATERMAIN y ;r} BOUGHTTO SITE BY CITY. \ / a 'CT 1__ SANITARY SERVICE 3' Nf _ / I 0 EXISTING MILL o- I�kEF -947.0 -0 8 132' F0" PVC ® HYD W /62 GV SANITARY DIP F G I V -954.0 / SERVICE @ 0.53% B10 / ^ RIM -959.6 / $4' 12° HOE / INV- 955.18 ®0.93% / - 2 -45 D / Sid BENDS 7' 18° CP/ 3 0.88% R / IF CONNECT TO CITY WATER CB 6 ,�NV -954.5 WITH 6' TEE, 6° GV & RIM- 957.23 /f ,7- !',NTINUE AS SHOWN. INV -952.8 /�� j .� / / 3' SUMP -949.8 / / / CC, TO CITY WATER C H INLTEE, I. GV G & Cp MINUETO BLDG SHOWN. `60' 15° HDPE / / / INLET ESE / 4 INV -959.0 RCP CONNECT / CO NECT TO CITY WATER ^.)jH 10° TEE, 10° GV & / NTINgE TO BLDG SHO-1,VN. FES D d' INV-95/.5 , / FES c INV- 9r/i.0 / 0 30 60 38 18 P FES B / / SCALE IN FEET INV163.93� NOTES 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION IS BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY 61' LOUCKS ASSOCIATES AND RECORD UTILITY DRAWINGS FROM THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD. LOUCKS ASSOCIATES DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2. ALL SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER AND WATERMAIN UTILITIES SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS, THE CITY AND THE STANDARD UTILITIES SPECIFICATION OF THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CLAM), 1999 EDITION. HDPE PIPE CONNECTIONS INTO ALL CONCRETE STRUCTURES SHALL BE MADE WITH WATER TIGHT MATERIALS, UTILIZING AN A -LOK OR WATERSTOP GASKET OR BOOT, CAST -IN -PLACE RUBBER BOOT, OR APPROVED EQUAL. WHERE THE ALIGNMENT PRECLUDES THE USE OF THE ABOVE APPROVED WATERTIGHT METHODS, CONSEAL 231 WATERSTOP SEALANT, OR APPROVED EQUAL WILL ONLY BE ALLOWED AS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. ALL SANITARY SEWER MAIN LINE SHALL BE SDR 35. ALL SANITARY SEWER SERVICES SHALL BE SDR 26. 3. SEE SHEETS C8 -1 AND THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS FOR SPECIFIC UTILITY DETAILS AND UTILITY SERVICE DETAILS. 4. ALL UTILITY PIPE BEDDING SHALL BE COMPACTED SAND OR FINE GRANULAR MATERIAL PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. ALL COMPACTION SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CEAM SPECIFICATION. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651 -454 -0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO PERFORMING ANY EXCAVATION OR UNDERGROUND WORK. 6. ADJUST ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE TO THE PROPOSED GRADES WHERE DISTURBED AND COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE UTILITY OWNERS. STRUCTURES BEING RESET TO PAVED AREAS MUST MEET OWNERS REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAFFIC LOADING. 7. PROPOSED PIPE MATERIALS: STORM SEWER N12 HDPE -%VT 12 "- IB "DIAhFER STORM SEWER RCPCLASSS 12 " -24 "DIAMETER ROOF DRAIN LEADS N12 HDPEAVT 12" DIAMETER WATER SERVICE 2" COPPER TYPE K, 8.0' BURY DEPTH WATER SERVICE 10" DIP CL52 B.D' BURY DEPTH SANITARY SEWER I PVC SDR 35 SERVICE 8. STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL MEET OF EXCEED AASHTO &1294 MINIMUM PIPE STIFFNESS PER ASTM D2412 60PSI FOR W -18 9. PROPOSED GAS, TELEPHONE & ELECTRIC SERVICES ARE APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS ONLY. COORDINATE EACH SERVICE WITH THE UTILITY OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR. IF ANY PROPOSED SERVICE LOCATION VARY SIGNIFICANTLY OR CONFLICT, THE ENGINEER MUST BE NOTIFIED PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE SERVICE. 10. THE REMOVAL OF EXISTING SERVICES WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND UTILITY OWNER. ADDITIONAL SERVICES MAY EXIST. 11. ALL WATER SERVICES MUST BE INSTALLED AT A 9.0 -FT BURY DEPTH. 11.1. INSULATE ALL CROSSINGS INVOLVING WATER AND SEWER. NOTES 1. PVC SANITARY SEWERS MUST MEET ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ASTM STANDARDS: D3034, F789, D2665, OR F891. ASTM D2241 PIPE MAY BE USED FOR SEWERS &INCH AND LARGER. THE INSTALLATION MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM D2321, WHICH REQUIRES INSTALLATION BY OPEN TRENCH ON A CONTINUOUS GRANULAR BED (SEE MINNESOTA RULES, PART 4715.0530). 2. RCP STORM SEWERS MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM C76 (SEE MINNESOTA RULES, PART 4715.0540). 3. HIGH - DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (HDPE) STORM DRAINS MUST COMPLY WITH MINNESOTA RULES, PART 4715.0540: 3.1. PIPES 4 -INCH TO 10 -INCH IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH AASHTO M252. 3.2. PIPES 12 -INCH TO 60 -INCH IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM F2306. 3.3. ALL FITTINGS MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM D3212. 3.4. WATER -TIGHT JOINTS MUST BE USED AT ALL CONNECTIONS INCLUDING STRUCTURES. 4. ALL JOINTS AND CONNECTIONS IN THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM SHALL BE GASTIGHT OR WATERTIGHT (SEE MINNESOTA RULES, PART 4715.0700). APPROVED RESILIENT RUBBER JOINTS MUST BE USED TO MAKE WATERTIGHT CONNECTIONS TO MANHOLES, CATCHBASINS, AND OTHER STRUCTURES. S. WATER SERVICE LINES MUST BE INSTALLED AT LEAST 10 -FEET HORIZONTALLY FROM ANY MANHOLE, CATCHBASIN, OR OTHER SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION, MEASURED FROM OUTER EDGE OF THE PIPE TO THE OUTER EDGE OF THE CONTAMINATION SOURCE (SEE MINNESOTA RULES, PART 4715.1710, SUBPART 3). 6. THE BOTTOM OF WATER SERVICE PIPES LOCATED WITHIN 10 -FEET OF THE SEWER CROSSING MUST BE AT LEAST 12- INCHES ABOVE THE TOP OF THE SEWER. WHEN THIS IS NOT FEASIBLE, THE SEWER PIPE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIALS LISTED IN MINNESOTA RULES, PART 4715.1710, SUBPART 2, E. THE WATER SERVICE SHOULD NOT CONTAIN ANY JOINTS OR CONNECTIONS WITHIN 1 OTEET OF A CROSSING. 7. ALL PORTIONS OF THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM LOCATED WITHIN 10 -FEET OF THE BUILDING OR WATER SERVICE LINE MUST BE TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA RULES, PART 4715.2820. WARNING THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651 -454 -0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. CALL BEFCRE YOU DIGI Gopher State One Call TWIN CITY AREA: 651- 454 -0002 V TOLL FREE: 1 -800- 252 -1166 1111"I"' m LOUCKS PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 vrnv.louckSi cam 01/05/16 PUD Submittal 03104/16 Revised PUD Submittal License Na. 41352 Data Loucks Project No. 15631 Project Lead VJV Drawn By WBS - -- VJV Review Date 3/04/16 STMHS - - - � C1 -1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1 -2 DEMOLITION PLAN `-I RIM -962.0 SITE PLAN C3 -1 GRADING PLAN L, SWPP PLAN INV- 953.74 UTILITY PLAN CB -1 - C8 -2 CIVIL DETAILS L1 -1 LANDSCAPE PLAN 3' SUMP- 950.74 LANDSCAPE DETAILS L2 -1 TREE L T- I PHOTOMETRIC PLAN I Ll { 0 I CBMH 2 c CBMH 3 RIM -960.6 RIM - 961.83 INV- 956.36 INV- 955.42 -L 155'12 °HDPE ®O.B % IITT2 °HDPE ®0.0 % I L - - -Z �- -_L f -- - - - _ -- -F_ - -J Vi "W "k, HYD W /6° GV L 6° DIP LEAD 115'18'R( 0.8 %61'' CBMH 4 RIM -960.8 I111954.66 - 95' 12° HDPE ®0.8% 68' 15 °HDPE J jn OCS 6 RIM -954.0 / .� INV -946.5 i TOP WEIR -953.0 A e8 °ORIFICE -951.0 o do L 0 - - / / 3 / / POND q' / 1.0 / HWL -9/4.0 STMH 9 RIM 957.23 i APPROXIMATE _ INV- 951.29 _ LOCATION OF 3'SUMP- 949.11- - - \ - - \- °�- - _ WATERMAIN y ;r} BOUGHTTO SITE BY CITY. \ / a 'CT 1__ SANITARY SERVICE 3' Nf _ / I 0 EXISTING MILL o- I�kEF -947.0 -0 8 132' F0" PVC ® HYD W /62 GV SANITARY DIP F G I V -954.0 / SERVICE @ 0.53% B10 / ^ RIM -959.6 / $4' 12° HOE / INV- 955.18 ®0.93% / - 2 -45 D / Sid BENDS 7' 18° CP/ 3 0.88% R / IF CONNECT TO CITY WATER CB 6 ,�NV -954.5 WITH 6' TEE, 6° GV & RIM- 957.23 /f ,7- !',NTINUE AS SHOWN. INV -952.8 /�� j .� / / 3' SUMP -949.8 / / / CC, TO CITY WATER C H INLTEE, I. GV G & Cp MINUETO BLDG SHOWN. `60' 15° HDPE / / / INLET ESE / 4 INV -959.0 RCP CONNECT / CO NECT TO CITY WATER ^.)jH 10° TEE, 10° GV & / NTINgE TO BLDG SHO-1,VN. FES D d' INV-95/.5 , / FES c INV- 9r/i.0 / 0 30 60 38 18 P FES B / / SCALE IN FEET INV163.93� NOTES 1. BACKGROUND INFORMATION IS BASED ON A FIELD SURVEY 61' LOUCKS ASSOCIATES AND RECORD UTILITY DRAWINGS FROM THE CITY OF SHOREWOOD. LOUCKS ASSOCIATES DOES NOT GUARANTEE THE ACCURACY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2. ALL SANITARY SEWER, STORM SEWER AND WATERMAIN UTILITIES SHALL BE FURNISHED AND INSTALLED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SPECIFICATIONS, THE CITY AND THE STANDARD UTILITIES SPECIFICATION OF THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CLAM), 1999 EDITION. HDPE PIPE CONNECTIONS INTO ALL CONCRETE STRUCTURES SHALL BE MADE WITH WATER TIGHT MATERIALS, UTILIZING AN A -LOK OR WATERSTOP GASKET OR BOOT, CAST -IN -PLACE RUBBER BOOT, OR APPROVED EQUAL. WHERE THE ALIGNMENT PRECLUDES THE USE OF THE ABOVE APPROVED WATERTIGHT METHODS, CONSEAL 231 WATERSTOP SEALANT, OR APPROVED EQUAL WILL ONLY BE ALLOWED AS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER. ALL SANITARY SEWER MAIN LINE SHALL BE SDR 35. ALL SANITARY SEWER SERVICES SHALL BE SDR 26. 3. SEE SHEETS C8 -1 AND THE CONTRACT SPECIFICATIONS FOR SPECIFIC UTILITY DETAILS AND UTILITY SERVICE DETAILS. 4. ALL UTILITY PIPE BEDDING SHALL BE COMPACTED SAND OR FINE GRANULAR MATERIAL PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. ALL COMPACTION SHALL BE PERFORMED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CEAM SPECIFICATION. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651 -454 -0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO PERFORMING ANY EXCAVATION OR UNDERGROUND WORK. 6. ADJUST ALL EXISTING STRUCTURES, BOTH PUBLIC AND PRIVATE TO THE PROPOSED GRADES WHERE DISTURBED AND COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE UTILITY OWNERS. STRUCTURES BEING RESET TO PAVED AREAS MUST MEET OWNERS REQUIREMENTS FOR TRAFFIC LOADING. 7. PROPOSED PIPE MATERIALS: STORM SEWER N12 HDPE -%VT 12 "- IB "DIAhFER STORM SEWER RCPCLASSS 12 " -24 "DIAMETER ROOF DRAIN LEADS N12 HDPEAVT 12" DIAMETER WATER SERVICE 2" COPPER TYPE K, 8.0' BURY DEPTH WATER SERVICE 10" DIP CL52 B.D' BURY DEPTH SANITARY SEWER I PVC SDR 35 SERVICE 8. STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL MEET OF EXCEED AASHTO &1294 MINIMUM PIPE STIFFNESS PER ASTM D2412 60PSI FOR W -18 9. PROPOSED GAS, TELEPHONE & ELECTRIC SERVICES ARE APPROXIMATE LOCATIONS ONLY. COORDINATE EACH SERVICE WITH THE UTILITY OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR. IF ANY PROPOSED SERVICE LOCATION VARY SIGNIFICANTLY OR CONFLICT, THE ENGINEER MUST BE NOTIFIED PRIOR TO THE INSTALLATION OF THE SERVICE. 10. THE REMOVAL OF EXISTING SERVICES WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION LIMITS SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND UTILITY OWNER. ADDITIONAL SERVICES MAY EXIST. 11. ALL WATER SERVICES MUST BE INSTALLED AT A 9.0 -FT BURY DEPTH. 11.1. INSULATE ALL CROSSINGS INVOLVING WATER AND SEWER. NOTES 1. PVC SANITARY SEWERS MUST MEET ONE OF THE FOLLOWING ASTM STANDARDS: D3034, F789, D2665, OR F891. ASTM D2241 PIPE MAY BE USED FOR SEWERS &INCH AND LARGER. THE INSTALLATION MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM D2321, WHICH REQUIRES INSTALLATION BY OPEN TRENCH ON A CONTINUOUS GRANULAR BED (SEE MINNESOTA RULES, PART 4715.0530). 2. RCP STORM SEWERS MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM C76 (SEE MINNESOTA RULES, PART 4715.0540). 3. HIGH - DENSITY POLYETHYLENE (HDPE) STORM DRAINS MUST COMPLY WITH MINNESOTA RULES, PART 4715.0540: 3.1. PIPES 4 -INCH TO 10 -INCH IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH AASHTO M252. 3.2. PIPES 12 -INCH TO 60 -INCH IN SIZE MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM F2306. 3.3. ALL FITTINGS MUST COMPLY WITH ASTM D3212. 3.4. WATER -TIGHT JOINTS MUST BE USED AT ALL CONNECTIONS INCLUDING STRUCTURES. 4. ALL JOINTS AND CONNECTIONS IN THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM SHALL BE GASTIGHT OR WATERTIGHT (SEE MINNESOTA RULES, PART 4715.0700). APPROVED RESILIENT RUBBER JOINTS MUST BE USED TO MAKE WATERTIGHT CONNECTIONS TO MANHOLES, CATCHBASINS, AND OTHER STRUCTURES. S. WATER SERVICE LINES MUST BE INSTALLED AT LEAST 10 -FEET HORIZONTALLY FROM ANY MANHOLE, CATCHBASIN, OR OTHER SOURCE OF CONTAMINATION, MEASURED FROM OUTER EDGE OF THE PIPE TO THE OUTER EDGE OF THE CONTAMINATION SOURCE (SEE MINNESOTA RULES, PART 4715.1710, SUBPART 3). 6. THE BOTTOM OF WATER SERVICE PIPES LOCATED WITHIN 10 -FEET OF THE SEWER CROSSING MUST BE AT LEAST 12- INCHES ABOVE THE TOP OF THE SEWER. WHEN THIS IS NOT FEASIBLE, THE SEWER PIPE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIALS LISTED IN MINNESOTA RULES, PART 4715.1710, SUBPART 2, E. THE WATER SERVICE SHOULD NOT CONTAIN ANY JOINTS OR CONNECTIONS WITHIN 1 OTEET OF A CROSSING. 7. ALL PORTIONS OF THE STORM SEWER SYSTEM LOCATED WITHIN 10 -FEET OF THE BUILDING OR WATER SERVICE LINE MUST BE TESTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MINNESOTA RULES, PART 4715.2820. WARNING THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN MAINTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND / OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 651 -454 -0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE DIGGING. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. CALL BEFCRE YOU DIGI Gopher State One Call TWIN CITY AREA: 651- 454 -0002 V TOLL FREE: 1 -800- 252 -1166 1111"I"' m LOUCKS PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 vrnv.louckSi cam 01/05/16 PUD Submittal 03104/16 Revised PUD Submittal License Na. 41352 Data Loucks Project No. 15631 Project Lead VJV Drawn By WBS Checked By VJV Review Date 3/04/16 CO -1 COVER SHEET C1 -1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1 -2 DEMOLITION PLAN C2 -1 SITE PLAN C3 -1 GRADING PLAN C3- 2 - C3-4 SWPP PLAN C4 -1 UTILITY PLAN CB -1 - C8 -2 CIVIL DETAILS L1 -1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L1 -2 LANDSCAPE DETAILS L2 -1 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN P1 -1 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN P1 -2 PHOTOMETRIC CUT- SHEETS PROTECT EXISTING TREE. i N yTK PLANT SCHEDULE GENERAL NOTES DECIDUOUS TREES QTY COMMONNAME BOTANICAL NAME CONT SIZE SIZE AE 5 ACCOLADE ELM Ulmus'Morton B &B 2.5 °Ca1 LAYOUT. BO 1 BURR OAK Quer ocarpe B&B 2.5 -Ca1 DEMOLITION PLAN RB 5 RIVER BIRCH CLUMP Betula oigrau B&B 8' HGT SKIT 3 SKYLINE HONEYLOCUST Gledits'a triacanthos'Skycole B &B 2.5 °Cal LANDSCAPE DETAILS QB 6 SWAMP WHITE OAK Quercus bicolor B&B 2.5 °Cal EXISTING ELEMENTS BASED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO WB 4 WHITESPIRE BIRCH CLUMP Betula popul'fol'a'Whitespire Sr: B&B 8' HGT THE ALIGNMENT AND GRADES OF THE PROPOSED WALKS, TRAILS AND /OR ROADWAYS ARE SUBJECT TO FIELD ADJUSTMENT REQUIRED TO CONFORM TO LOCALIZED TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS AND TO EVERGREEN TREES I QTY COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME CONT SIZE SIZE BS 10 BLACK HILLS SPRUCE FULL FORM Picea glauca'Deosata B & B 6' HGT �--� THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN 0 30 60 NWNTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/ OR RELOCATION OF LINES. GROUND COVERS CODE COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE SCALE IN FEET ,IN'l,r`' NS NAT SEED SOD TURFSOD TREE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS: TOTAL TREES REQUIRED = 34 TOTAL TREES PROVIDED = 34 REFER TO TREE PRESERVATION PLAN FOR TREE REPLACEMENT CALCULATIONS. i■ LOUCKS PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 �nnv.loucks nc.cam CADD QUALIFICATION SUBM ITTAUREVISIONS Iw. z y mzt pz,.d trr me �, GENERAL NOTES . d,.y u�med CONTRACTOR SHALL VISIT SITE PRIOR TO SUBMITTING BID. HE SHALL License No. INSPECT SITE AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH EXISTING CONDITIONS Date RELATING TO THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF WORK. Loucks Project No. 15631 VERIFY LAYOUT AND ANY DIMENSIONS SHOWN AND BRING TO THE VJV ATTENTION OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ANY DISCREPANCIES WHICH WBS MAY COMPROMISE THE DESIGN AND /OR INTENT OF THE PROJECT'S VJV LAYOUT. 3/04/16 ASSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND REGULATIONS COVER SHEET GOVERNING THE WORK OR MATERIALS SUPPLIED. EXISTING CONDITIONS CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT ALL EXISTING ROADS, CURBS /GUTTERS, DEMOLITION PLAN TRAILS, TREES, LAWNS AND SITE ELEMENTS DURING PLANTING SITE PLAN OPERATIONS. ANYDAMAGE TO SAME SHALL BE REPAIRED AT NO COST GRADING PLAN TO THE OW NER. SWPP PLAN CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALIGNMENT AND LOCATION OF ALL UTILITY PLAN UNDERGROUND AND ABOVE GRADE UTILITIES AND PROVIDE THE CIVIL DETAILS NECESSARY PROTECTION FOR SAME BEFORE CONSTRUCTION / MATERIAL LANDSCAPE PLAN INSTALLATION BEGINS (MINIMUM TO'- O' CLEARANCE). LANDSCAPE DETAILS ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES SHALL BE LAID SO THAT TRENCHES DO PRESERVATION PLAN NOT CUT THROUGH ROOT SYSTEMS OF ANY EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN. PHOTOMETRIC PLAN EXISTING CONTOURS, TRAILS, VEGETATION, CURB /GUTTER AND OTHER CUT - SHEETS EXISTING ELEMENTS BASED UPON INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY OTHERS. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ANY AND ALL DISCREPANCIES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF SAME. THE ALIGNMENT AND GRADES OF THE PROPOSED WALKS, TRAILS AND /OR ROADWAYS ARE SUBJECT TO FIELD ADJUSTMENT REQUIRED TO CONFORM TO LOCALIZED TOPOGRAPHIC CONDITIONS AND TO MINIMIZE TREE REMOVAL AND GRADING. ANY CHANGE IN ALIGNMENT MUST BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. CALL BEFORE YOU DIGI Gopher State One Call f�EIIy TWIN CITY AREA: 651- 454 -0002 HIV TOLL FREE: 1- 800- 252 -1166 WARNING: �--� THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CALLING FOR LOCATIONS OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES. THEY SHALL COOPERATE WITH ALL UTILITY COMPANIES IN 0 30 60 NWNTAINING THEIR SERVICE AND/ OR RELOCATION OF LINES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 111 -0002 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UNDERGROUND WIRES, CABLES, CONDUITS, PIPES, MANHOLES, VALVES OR OTHER BURIED STRUCTURES BEFORE SCALE IN FEET DIGGING, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR OR REPLACE THE ABOVE WHEN DAMAGED _ DURING CONSTRUCTION AT NO COST TO THE OWNER. i■ LOUCKS PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL 7200 Hemlock Lane, Suite 300 Maple Grove, MN 55369 763.424.5505 �nnv.loucks nc.cam CADD QUALIFICATION SUBM ITTAUREVISIONS Iw. z y mzt pz,.d trr me �, 6'sd •.zP�rvro�o „ea�•t raz a..1 . d,.y u�med d 1 r hzi us •�-, ` License No. via; i. vas rkv- PE 41352 Date Loucks Project No. 15631 Project Lead VJV Dravm By WBS Checked By VJV Review Date 3/04/16 03-1 COVER SHEET C1 -1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1-2 DEMOLITION PLAN C2 -1 SITE PLAN C3 -1 GRADING PLAN C3- 2 -C3 -4 SWPP PLAN C4 -1 UTILITY PLAN C8 -1 - C8 -2 CIVIL DETAILS 11 -1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L1 -2 LANDSCAPE DETAILS L2 -1 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN P1 -1 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN P1 -2 PHOTOMETRIC CUT - SHEETS TREE PROTECTION NOTE: INSTALL SNOW FENCE AROUND EACH TREE TO T PROTECTED PRIOR TO GRADING. FENCE SHALL BEOTCTEAT THE DRIP EDGE OR CRITICAL TREES BEING / ZONES CTE SHALL TREES . FENCING SHALL BE NO CLOSER THAN 6' THE TRUNK OF ANY TREE TO BE PROTEC TED. THE PERIMETERS FOR TREES BONG - PROTECTEDSHALL BE DESIGNATED AT ALL TIMES DMING CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND SIGNAGE SHALL BE INSTALLED AT ALL TREE PROTECTION i AREAS THAT INSTRUCTS IVORKERS TO STAY OUT. CONTRACTOR SHALL AVOAALL AREAS WITHIN TREE PROTECTION FENCE. SOIL SHOULD BE PROTECTED FROM EROSR)N AND CHANGES IN CHEMISTRY FROM CONCRETE OR TOXIC MATERIALS SUCH AS FUELS AND PAINTS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE `TREE PAINT" ON SITE AT ALL TIMES. IF AN OAK 15 WOUNDED DURING CONSTRUCRON, THE CONTRACTOR MUST XWEDIATELY APPLY PAINT TOTHE WOUND IN ORDER TO PREVENT OAK WJ. ALL DAMAGETO TREES TO BE PROTECTED SHALL BE BROUGHT TO THE / •p' — eo ALL TREES OFF PROPERTY ARE TO REMAIN �',77j k. T av w � i / D i / 4 IyAj a/ ol i a / i \ TX V r1i'l TREE PROTECTION L2 -1 Ml*l 1%2' =P -0^ T,,, -F,, r „,o:eG / / // POINT NUMBER SIZE (CALIN.) SPECIES ^ 5068 14 ASPEN EXEMPT / / // POINT NUMBER SIZE (CALIN.) SPECIES STATUS 5068 14 ASPEN EXEMPT 5069 8 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5071 16 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5107 14 MAPLE REMOVED 5109 12 BO XELDER EXEMPT 5110 8 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5112 8 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5167 8 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5168 10 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5169 12 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5170 8 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5171 8 MAPLE REMOVED 5172 24 OAK REMOVED 5173 16 OAK REMOVED 5174 16 OAK REMOVED 5175 12 OAK pEMOVED 5176 36 MAPLE REMOVED 5177 12 OAK REMOVED 5179 24 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 5180 16 MAPLE REMOVED 5181 28 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 5182 14 OAK REMOVED 5183 14 OAK REMOVED 5184 28 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 5185 24 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 5186 24 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 5187 16 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5188 12 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5189 24 OAK REMOVED 5280 8 ASPEN EXEMPT 5282 18 OAK REMOVED 5283 10 SPRUCE FOR REMOVED 5310 30 REMOVED 5334 12 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5335 8 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5336 8 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5341 8 MAPLE REMOVED 5358 18 MAPLE REMOVED 5359 16 SPRUCE REMOVED 5360 20 SPRUCE REMOVED 5362 10 FRUIT REMOVED 5364 26 SPRUCE REMOVED 5366 24 SPRUCE REMOVED 5367 18 SPRUCE REMOVED 5368 16 SPRUCE REMOVED 5389 12 SPRUCE REMOVED 5390 8 FRUIT REMOVED 5399 8 CEDAR REMOVED 5400 8 SPRUCE REMOVED 5401 18 PINE REMOVED 5402 16 PINE REMOVED 5404 8 MAPLE REMOVED 5405 10 MAPLE REMOVED 5406 12 OAK REMOVED 5408 36 OAK REMOVED 5410 28 OAK REMOVED 5411 30 OAK REMOVED 5412 8 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5413 8 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5458 8 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5459 8 PINE REMOVED 5460 8 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5461 10 BO XELDER EXEMPT 5462 14 PINE REMOVED 5463 12 BOXELDER OX DER EXEMPT 5464 8 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5465 12 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5475 20 MAPLE REMOVED 5488 22 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 5489 12 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5490 12 MAPLE REMOVED 5491 10 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5492 10 MAPLE REMOVED 5493 12 MAPLE REMOVED 5494 16 MAPLE REMOVED 5499 24 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 5500 18 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 5501 12 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5502 12 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5503 10 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5504 30 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5507 16 MAPLE REMOVED 5508 14 MAPLE REMOVED POINT NUMBER SIZE (CAL IN.) SPECIES STATUS 5509 12 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5510 18 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5511 12 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5517 22 ASPEN EXEMPT 5518 16 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5519 14 ASPEN EXEMPT 5521 16 ASPEN EXEMPT 5522 14 ASPEN EXEMPT 5523 8 ASPEN EXEMPT 5525 14 ASPEN EXEMPT 5526 10 ASPEN EXEMPT 5527 8 ASPEN EXEMPT 5528 14 ASPEN EXEMPT 5533 12 ASPEN EXEMPT 5534 12 ASPEN EXEMPT 5535 30 BO %ELDER EXEMPT 5536 8 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5537 10 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5538 30 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5544 18 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5545 8 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5550 8 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5551 8 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5552 8 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5553 8 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5554 8 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5555 18 ASPEN EXEMPT 5556 12 BOXELDER EXEMPT 5557 18 ASPEN EXEMPT 5559 14 ASPEN EXEMPT 5560 10 ASPEN EXEMPT 5564 14 ASPEN EXEMPT 10041 28 MAPLE REMOVED 10050 28 MAPLE REMOVED 10053 18 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10054 18 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10055 12 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10056 24 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10057 12 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10058 8 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10059 12 MAPLE REMOVED 10060 24 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10061 24 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10197 15 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10198 10 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10199 10 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10200 SS COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10201 1 18 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10202 12 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10203 15 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10204 10 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10205 10 COTTONWOOD EXE MPT 10206 15 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10207 10 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10208 30 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10209 8 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10210 8 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10211 18 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10212 18 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10213 15 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10214 8 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10215 12 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10216 10 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10217 12 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10218 12 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10220 8 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10221 12 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10222 18 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10225 15 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10226 15 COTTONWOOD EXEMPT 10239 10 MAPLE REMOVED 10307 24 SPRUCE REMOVED 10308 15 SPRUCE REMOVED 10309 20 SPRUCE REMOVED 30316 12 MAPLE REMOVED 10317 10 MALE REMOVED 10318 10 MAPLE REMOVED 10319 10 MAPLE REMOVED 10320 15 BOXELDER EXEMPT 10323 12 MAPLE REMOVED 10324 15 MAPLE REMOVED 10325 15 MAPLE REMOVED 10331 15 MAPLE REMOVED 10373 10 BOXELDER EXEMPT / COVER SHEET TREE REPLACEMENT CALCULATIONS: EXISTING CONDITIONS C1 -2 SIGNIFICANT DECIDUOUS TREES OVER 8" DBH SHALL BE REPLACED WITH 2 TREES. C2 -1 SITE PLAN TREES REMOVED:15 TREES REQUIRED:30 GRADING PLAN C3- 2 -C3 -4 SWPP PLAN SIGNIFICANT DECIDUOUS TREES OVER 12" DBH SHALL BE REPLACED WITH 3 TREES. TREES REMOVED:28 TREES REQUIRED:84 UTILITY PLAN C8 -1 -C8 SIGNIFICANT CONIFEROUS TREES OVER 6' HEIGHT SHALL BE REPLACED WITH 1 TREE. L1 -1 LANDSCAPE PLAN TREES REMOVED:O TREES REQUIRED:O LANDSCAPE DETAILS L2 -1 SIGNIFICANT CONIFEROUS TREES OVER 12' HEIGHT SHALL BE REPLACED WITH 2 TREES. TI PHOTOMETRIC PLAN TREES REMOVEDJ7 TREES REQUIRED:34 o/ s' TOTAL TREES REQUIRED PER CALCULATIONS: 148 0 30 80 THE TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT POLICY STATES THAT "IN NO CASE WILL THE TOTAL NUMBER OF REPLACEMENT TREES EXCEED EIGHT TREES PER ACRE ". 1 / SITE AREA = 4.24 ACRES j TOTAL TREES REQUIRED = 34 SCALE IN FEET / REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR LOCATION OF PROPOSED TREES. mrA LOUCKS PLANNING CIVIL ENGINEERING LAND SURVEYING LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ENVIRONMENTAL 7200 Hemlock Lane, Su to 300 Maple Cu.-, MN 55369 763.424.5505 tnm.loucks'nc com 01/05/16 PUD Submittal 03/04/16 Revised PUD Submittal License No 52050 Date Laucks Project No. 15631 Project Lead VJV D—u By TJF Checked By N Rev er✓ Date 03/04/15 CO -1 COVER SHEET C1 1 EXISTING CONDITIONS C1 -2 DEMOLITION PLAN C2 -1 SITE PLAN C3 -1 GRADING PLAN C3- 2 -C3 -4 SWPP PLAN C4 -1 UTILITY PLAN C8 -1 -C8 -2 CIVIL DETAILS L1 -1 LANDSCAPE PLAN L1 -2 LANDSCAPE DETAILS L2 -1 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN P1 -1 PHOTOMETRIC PLAN P1 -2 PHOTOMETRIC CUT- SHEETS UNIT MIX Oppidan Shorewood Senior Living General Concept Stage: (5) &(6) Development Stage: (2) &(3) Building occupancy: 1-1 Assisted Living /Memory Care Apartments) Independent Living/ Assisted Living Unit Type GSF 1st Floor 12nd Floor 3rd Floor TOTAL TOTAL S.F. A Studio 576 0 1 1 2 1,152 B1 1 Bedroom 681 0 6 6 12 8,172 B2 1 Bedroom 704 0 5 5 10 7,040 C 1 Bedroom 734 1 1 0 2 1,468 D 1Bedroom 815 4 8 8 20 16,300 D2 1 Bedroom 897 2 2 4 3,588 E 1 Bedroom & Den 909 0 1 1 2 1,818 E2 1 Bedroom & Den 934 0 4 4 8 1 7,472 F 1 Bedroom & Den 834 0 1 1 2 1,668 F2 1 Bedroom & Den 1 871 4 4 4 12 10,452 G 2 Bedroom 1,029 1 1 0 2 2,058 H 2Bedroom 1,296 0 2 2 4 5,184 TOTAL: 1 10 36 34 80 66,372 Memory Care Unit Type GSF 1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor TOTAL TOTALS.F. MC -3 Studio 440 25 0 0 25 11,000 TO�TyA��L 25 0 0 25 11,000 ,4 mom 0 x014 4.. f u 35, 77 ,, rr. »11371 Building S.F. Const. Use Parking 1st Floor 2nd Floor 3rd Floor TOTAL S.F. Parking(42) /Support 20,114 0 0 0 20,114 Unit S.F. perfloor Area Devoted to Residential Use 1 -1 Occupancy) 0 19,806 29,834 28,069 77,709 Public Space per floor, including circulation (I.1 Occupancy) 20,143 9,101 8,978 38,222 ,' 2biig, 5U ,� ., Area Summary TOTAL S.F. Total Parcel Area 184,803 Road Easement Area 20,750 Area Dedicated to Building Footprint 39,949 Area Oedicated to Par in Loading and Access 45,108 ,'r%v,✓F r.,, r,_ 1r}' ,A,rrra.ar�.�.,.,.c- `,n`r,.hr.. ,,, ,;. r f :. f ., fr., ..,,r ,.,: , . ..� f` t,.'�m:. -._ % of Project Area per Land Area s.r. 5.f. Building: 136,045 Site: 184,803 74% Building Height Summary The roof height of the building is 35' (three stories, plus underground parking) with aesthetic /architectural articulation extending 18" above the main roof to add visual Interest. In order to accommodate the underground parking/ the grade slopes down at the north side of the site, which Increases the the visible building height In that area only. FIRST FLOOR 1116" = 1' -0'r q TRUE PROJECT NORTH NORTH II 3 3 1- f I d 'I it I! ) 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SURE 200 ST. PAUL, MN 55108 -2735 (651) 642 -9200 1 FAX(651)642 -1101 - .popearch.com OPPIDAN SHOREWOOD SENIOR LIVING SHOREWOOD,MN PUD APPLICATION - GENERAL CONCEPT STAGE AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE REVISION: 3/4/2016 FIRST LEVEL FLOOR PLAN - 56632 -15234 AL CS SHEET A -2 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1/16" = V-0" TRUE PROJECT NORTH NORTH I; l 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SURE Si. PAUL, MN 55108-2735 (651) -9- 1 FM(651)6 2 -1101 -­pe-h-- OPPIDAN SHOREWOOD SENIOR LIVING SHOREWOOD, MN PUD APPLICATION - GENERAL CONCEPT STAGE AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE REVISION: 3/4/2016 SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 56632-15234 AL. LB Cs SHEET A-3 THIRD FLOOR PLAN 1/16" = 1'-0" TRUE PROJECT NORTH NORTH is 1295 BANDANA BLVD N, SURE 200 S . PAUL, MN 55108-2735 (651) 642-9200 1 FAX (—) — 101 —.p.pe ... h.,.. PUD APPLICATION - GENERAL CONCEPT STAGE AND DEVELOPMENT STAGE REVISION: 3/4/2016 THIRD LEVEL FLOOR PLAN 56632-15234 AL, LB Cs SHEET A-4 N m �D c)2 L/) u m It r W 1-� N 4D, N W W N N W N H �O ii 2 � om =r m 3gZ s =ms D~ 00 03 A mD .r 03 z sm o PTA O rm P O D P O �z H NS O � DA �D 2 Op Z A Om Om �j3 Om A2 A� Ny a m � °y a '9 O O m N O_ O 2 O �S Hp o� zz mx p2 Km O O mf � 33 m D n O z K a z O �n SIX A y W Q A O H O 2 O �H Ul 2 O DA v� z m x �x DA mD 2� O y A N N V) Cq O C u r N o m r m iD O Z n 3 O � Ri m ('' = O_ OT m C O °' o O 0 Vf D G1 D 0Z1 " w r^r> O (A en < W Z m —DI C ZD 0 r §§ �a W z SF 00 sl Cn r"m a =002 > N lV �o �c II =N - m D = N m r m D O z W 1� N D N ~ IN N ® N 0' W N N II � ICM C) n 3 O F i ° R1 O A C � N O (� . O rn O 0 N D 03 O .T� A WO • 1.41 cn ILA// D A om x m O i■ �■ �■ L*49 E MW M T wm�D Y wtT OCA $ • ACS N Z G1 G DA �D m r 2� ' CO a °D z o "s p a Op 2 m D ® fT1 CCOC 2 � 8 O O ° ■N ■� mm lZ 1� �ZOD swm o cn ■MM ■MO a. a� ilk T.� V O� n 3 O F i ° R1 O A C � N O (� . O rn O 0 N D 03 O .T� A WO 1.41 cn ILA// D A om x m O i■ �■ �■ L*49 E MW M T wm�D Y wtT OCA $ • ACS N Z G1 G DA �D m r 2� ' CO a °D z o "s p a Op 2 m D ® fT1 CCOC 2 � 8 O O ° ■N ■� n 3 O F i ° R1 O A C � N O (� . O rn O 0 N D 03 O .T� A WO 1.41 cn ILA// D A O O wm�D Y wtT OCA $ • ACS N Z G1 G DA �D m r 2� ' CO a °D z o "s p a Op 2 m D ® fT1 CCOC 2 � 8 O O ° n 3 O F i ° R1 O A C � N O (� . O rn O 0 N D 1.41 cn ILA// ARI O Z v wm�D Y wtT OCA $ • W m r 0 i -a z ' CO a °D z o "s p a m D Cl °'zoo CC c C c D a0 ® 3 O�m�Z< O ° mm lZ 1� �ZOD swm o cn Z f,) 0 Z 3 N 8 W N N � o D ~' D o r m r m D V i 4 > m O z D m WT->- a D u � � D o r = m r m D O z D D r v w p" V 00 D o 'r ='m r m 'D O Z D m Z om AH mb yS z� v Op m3m Z y G r m Z O A C 3 Z n 0 A sM om 5a sZ mS A2 Dm O p 3 ; D D D n n 9 8 z Gt � p v y� N S p O m O m M Iz em z A UI DS O A n 0 z G) n O D m C/) ni X N m o Ri O O 10 1 y nm nm 03 03 nm 03 nA 0. pm 03 Am A� Am OZ_ A A2 -1 mZ <m ND cs ND mO D m1�l1 3y h N ti N D o K 0 G=7 O (Z m O m M Iz em z A UI DS O A n 0 z G) n O D m C/) ni X N m o Ri O O 10 1 y D G7 m MZ o m m o cn Z m C tTJ �� a 0� N W wm�D o °Z�� mz= s�> m zM� Q � O r m W � � O m� mp ; o ate == 0 m < n < O _ m o < Tm 0 Z 27- G) 3 °�$ D m D r m T ,O 10 I� 'm D cn r I - ALI--- A D m z D r m T 0 Ln O c m RECEIVED MAR 04 2016 CITY OF SHOREWOOD zm n m , 0 m � o W o m n> r - - — O _ cn bz o > ° °W � m • s�o _ Z > O > < V Z --m N m 0 0 G) Z Lf) m m ���y �Z00D zN�m o �; /" wsB Building a legacy — your legacy. March 7, 2016 Mr. Brad Nielsen, Planning Director City of Shorewood 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Re: Oppidan — Shorewood Senior Living Facility Preliminary Plan Review City Project No. 16 -05 WSB Project No. 02925 -15 Dear Mr. Nielsen: 477 Temperance Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Tel: 651- 286 -8450 Fax: 651- 286 -8488 We have reviewed the development stage plan submittal that includes the site plan, grading plan, utility plan, storm water management plan, and landscape plans for the Oppidan —Shorewood Senior Living Development. Plans are prepared by Loucks, dated January 5, 2016. We have the following comments and recommendations for the preliminary plan review. General 1. Prior to the start of any construction, permits will need to be obtained at a minimum from the following agencies: a. MPCA Construction General Permit b. Minnehaha Creek Watershed District c. MNDOT (work in ROW/ regarding stormwater and minor grading) d. Minnesota Department of Health A maintenance plan will be required to ensure that the stormwater treatment facilities will be maintained long term. The conditional language must, at a minimum, include the following: a. Annual inspection b. Maintenance of all erosion control measures including, but not limited to: rip rap, storm sewer outlets, catch basin inlets, etc. c. Verification of system drawdowns with 48 hours for infiltration areas. d. Removal of trash and debris. Erosion and Sediment Control 1. The SWPPP shall provide the estimated quantities for all proposed erosion control measures. The quantities shall be sufficient to provide temporary erosion control throughout construction to meet the stabilization timeframes of the MPCA construction general permit. 2. Details shall be provided on the plans for the type of inlet protection that will be used for all phases of construction, including existing streets adjacent to the project where tracking may occur. 3. All pond side slopes and slopes 3:1 or greater are to be stabilized using erosion control blanket. Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com K: \02925- 150 \Admit Attachment IV Mr. Brad Nielsen March 7, 2016 Page 2 Grading Plan 1. Design certification for retaining wall systems will be required. Material types are to be identified with the construction plans. Walls supporting traffic loading, and constructed as single height or tiered height greater than 4 feet will need to be designed by a licensed professional in Minnesota. Walls supporting traffic loading will need to be designed by a licensed professional in Minnesota. 2. Planning and Zoning requirements may prohibit single retaining walls greater than 6 feet in height without screening or tiers. 3. Provide dimensions from the property line to retaining wall face on the grading and site plans. 4. The proposed stormwater pond HWL and NWL elevations need to be shown on the Grading Plan. 5. The culverts crossing the proposed access drives to the facility will need to be sized for the tributary areas draining to the site, and supported with storm water calculations. 6. The south access is to be modified to end the curb at the property line to reduce erosion potential along Chaska Road. 7. The south - center access is to be modified to create a low point at the storm drains and end the curb approximately 5 feet past the storm drains, toward Chaska Road. 8. The north- center driveway storm drains need to be located within the parcel, and supplemental storm drains may be needed to retain the run -off on -site. The curb is to be removed from the plan approximately 5 feet beyond the storm drains, towards Chaska Road. 9. The north access curb is to be removed in the right of way from the mid radius of each curb line 10. The grade adjacent to TH 7 rises from the right of way line to the building ground floor or top of retaining walls from about 10 feet to 18 feet. This height varies along the length of the building. 11. Show the pond HWL, NWL and pond emergency overflow spot elevation(s) on the grading plan. 12. The Excelsior Fire District commented on the need for a paved surface along the building. This may change the retaining wall configuration and wall height from the drawings submitted to date. 13. Additional comments on the grading plan may be forthcoming in future plan submittals. Streets, Sidewalks, and Trails 1. Pedestrian ramps will need to meet current ADA requirements. The City details and MnDOT Standard Plans are to be used for construction plans and the ramp layout will need to avoid conflict with storm drains. 8:102925- 150WdmInlDw \LTR PTH- BNielsen -030416- Pretimpl,nreriew- Subnilml l_PTHdwz Mr. Brad Nielsen March 7, 2016 Page 3 Additional detailed design comments and recommendations will be reserved for future plan submittals. Storm Water Management 1. The stormwater management plan indicates that volume control is not necessary due to being exempt by the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District; however this site should be classified as redevelopment and not new development, therefore triggering the redevelopment standard of their rule. This will require that their phosphorus control, rate control, and volume control standards be met. The City of Shorewood's Comprehensive Water Resources Management plan, as adopted by ordinance, requires the abstraction via infiltration, evapotranspiration, capture, and /or reuse of one inch of rainfall from the site. The applicant will need to demonstrate compliance with this requirement. Where site soils do not allow infiltration flexibility may be given, but at a minimum the applicant will need to demonstrate through modeling that the phosphorus loads are not increasing when comparing existing and proposed conditions. 3. The City of Shorewood's Comprehensive Water Resources Management plan, as adopted by ordinance, requires design calculations demonstrating that for the 1 %, 10 %, and 99% chance storm events that the runoff rates do not increase from pre - development conditions. The applicant has not provided modeling demonstrating compliance with this requirement. 4. The City of Shorewood's Comprehensive Water Resources Management plan, as adopted by ordinance, requires treatment to NURP standards prior to storm water discharges to a lake, stream, or wetland and prior to discharge from the site. 5. The City of Shorewood's Comprehensive Water Resources Management plan, as adopted by ordinance, requires that the minimum building elevation shall be at least 3 feet above the project 100 -year water elevation. The facility's lower GFE is 956.0. The Surface Water Plan does provide priorities for the lowest floor elevation freeboard to adjacent storm water facilities. A copy is enclosed for your reference. 6. Additional detailed information will need to be provided for the underground stormwater storage chambers. 7. Curb cuts for drainage discharge will be required to have spillways with geotextile fabric liner to reduce erosion potential. 8. Additional comments on the stormwater improvements will be forthcoming in future plan submittals. Sanitary Sewer and Watermain 1. There are two sanitary sewer lines in Chaska Road, one owned by the City and the other owned by the MCES. The proposed site sewer connection is to the MCES system and the connection permit will need to be coordinated with the MCES. The applicant should be aware that the sewer system downstream of the connection may need to be reconstructed to a larger diameter sewer. K:\02 92 5- 15 0Wdmin\Do,s\LTR PTH- BNielsen -030-016 -&elim plan rm%iew- SuLmittnl 1_PITLdx Mr. Brad Nielsen March 7, 2016 Page 4 2. The City water system will need to be extended to the site from the north side of TH 7. An easement across the parcel from TH 7 to Chaska Road will be necessary. The sanitary sewer and watermain will be reviewed in detail with the construction plan submittals. Work within the City right of way will need to be prepared with the City's updated 2016 standard specifications and detail plates. Please contact me if you have any questions or need any additional information from engineering staff. Sincerely, WSB & Associates, Inc. Paul Hornby, P.E. City Engineer (651) 286 -8453 Phornbv @wsbeng.com ph K: 02925- 150Wdmin\D— \LTR_PTH -BM,Il n 030416 -Pmlim plan—i-- SubmittalI_M.d- P'P P: c� h 49 4 5 MEMORANDUM TO Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 10 March 2016 RE: Hauser, Bradley — Conditional Use Permit Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet FILE NO.: 405 (16.03) BACKGROUND Mr. Bradley Hauser is building a new home at 5640 Covington Road (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). The floor area of the attached garage for the home, combined with an old pump house structure near the lake, exceeds 1200 square feet, necessitating a conditional use permit pursuant to Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) of the Shorewood Zoning Code. The subject property (see Exhibit B) contains 82,795 square feet of area and is zoned R- 1A/S, Single- Family Residential /Shoreland. The proposed home will have 3422 square feet of floor area above grade on the main level (see Exhibit C). Elevations of the new house are shown on Exhibits D and E. The new attached garage contains 1129 square feet of area. The existing pump house (Exhibit F) has 230 square feet of floor area. If approved, the total amount of accessory space on the site will be 1359 square feet. The total percentage of impervious surface on the site will be 15.71 percent. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS Following is how the applicant's request complies with Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4): I" 41®016 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Hauser C.U.P. 10 March 2016 1. The total area of accessory space (1359 square feet) does not exceed the floor area above grade of the new home (3422 square feet — main level). 2. The total area of accessory -space does not exceed ten percent of the minimum lot size for the R -IA/S zoning district (.10 x 40,000 = 4000 square feet). 3. The old pump house is nonconforming with respect to its setback from the lake. The location of the building is mitigated somewhat by the fact that the building is tucked into the hillside. The applicants have cited the provisions of Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d:(4)(e) as justification for retaining the old pump house. In 2007, the City adopted an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan setting forth its intention to recognize and preserve special structures in Shorewood. This was followed by an amendment to the zoning regulations, providing for the preservation of certain nonconforming structures that have historical, architectural, or cultural significance. Mr. Hauser believes the pump house is consistent with the criteria for keeping such structures. a. The applicant has submitted an aerial photo dating back to 1956 which shows the subject building (see Exhibit G). b. While the structure has not been inspected by the Building Official as of this writing, preliminary observation of the building in question suggests it is in good condition. As can be seen on Exhibit F, some cosmetic work on the building will be necessary. It is recommended that, as a condition of approval, the building be maintained in some sort of earth tone color. C. Mr. Hauser's application states: "The pump house is visible in historic pictures. Likely used to draw water from the lake to supply adjacent homes. Adds a historical character to the property. Removing the building could be more disruptive'through erosion or other as the pump house is built into the sloping hill ". 4. The issue of architectural compatibility between the accessory and principal structures is somewhat of a moot point. The attached garage is obviously an integral part of the home. The pump house is discreetly tucked into the hillside and separated from the house by distance, grade and vegetation. RECOMMENDATION The applicant's plans are consistent with the Code requirements for accessory space and historic structures. Approval of the C.U.P. is recommended. Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Joe Pazandalc Bradley Hauser -2- m s � a � L Mull m . G �L � U) IL / o (D CD LL � n Y, A .� n z�0 0 0 M o a FA my \a1 Hauser CUP Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Hauser CUP De °� e113 i i i i \ SITE PLAN FOR: \ HENDEL HOMES \` - - - -- _ 15250 Wayzata Blvd., Suite 108 11 II It i ------ 1 \, II I 1� 1, I, 1,� ,1 I I I' 1 I \\\� Wayzata, MN 55391 I 1 I I \`\ \\\ \\ \'RGypt 1 ' N i / % I I \\ / I •' .�lr I 1 I I I I 1 \ �\ \ \\ $1, 9FROOF THE MISCELLANEOUS NOTES 9'7..6 ret _ Property located in Section 36, Township 117, Range 23, _. _._.T._._.t- ._._•1 , r 1 \ \\ `\ _ rN2.6 Hennepin County, Dfinaesotn. \`\ ` \\ 1\ 2JY,ee A r / ar.r ]i3.4 _. _.J ._._ ' ._. /.'._._. - - k' -'� \'- \ \ f "-r^3 _otr _V__I 1 S /Ic! , o `\ \`.. V e9362 9 v + �M-1 / ,� pro cr / i i 1 ` i Av v 1, i ' v ' �` v `v 1 _ Property Address: 5GW Covington Road, Shorewood, AiN \ \ / n 936 � I H •'a• / / I \ 1 I \ 1 1 1 ``\ t o Benchmark: To (manhole atsoutheastmmeroE n shown \ \\ Trm6erl •'P °4y6 Ly't / % / / I \ \ 1 1 1 1 I rB _ 1 I \it- , Top ro.4 , n \ Prope y as s \ \\ \ \ 1 I 1 I I ` hereon 93rI \ / / sal + \ 934.- I \I I_ \-. 3J•t I I / / 9566 i / / I ' / 1 \ \ \ 1 I I I 1 I I I I 1 r 1 I \ I Elevation = 984.36 feet I I I ; •\ 11/936.1 1 r'4e2 h s I 1 .'e" ' I 1 I I 2 \ ry' ( /= Per pa // / / � / / / 1 / /5 ' �F-- -) 1 I I / 1 I 1 IQ I 1 p \ \au.� n9as \\ \ \ \ t\ -`` Ordinary High \C'ater Elevation OH \C 932.77 Department of ;+ } =yt 94p.1' / i / / / 1 / /;a y / 1 T I I Natural Resumes. 1 I m \ \ I / V I I To Ee acc.ml -sc % / / ] / 1 / / 1 1 } II 1 / I I ° `•VA�iCKl9. 11 / 3'' I <�) Pro is wooded, perfy l °Cr / , \ 't,`• � - requirements per City Ordinance (main stmctu[e) Property Zoned R -L1 Residential Building Setback Fmnn 50 feet lOf t Side s3 /.9 \I\ 0 1 1 1 I 1 I I 1yy1 / / / o / / I i i ' i ILeel \• my 3" \\ ��' /�/ / \ OH\\' -75 feet I� °� i o It 1 1 i 1 i 1 2 \ \\ \ arnv= s3z.n ° ;' i i i l 6 /, N 4 I I 1 I 1 'v. 1 n I ry / / I I 1 1 \ I \ SCALE N FEET per O'fR m 1� P o / // r O W M N , 1 j1 I G 66 C 6! a PRO¢OSE� WALLSm d 1393.8 \\ // / 0 2) 40 60 1 n 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 I / // / u y I i� I I 1 I I 1 \•\ \ \ 1 , 1 /\ 1 999.2 /\ 0 Denotes FWnd 4on 0.lonument o 0 � 0, I , 1 \ Denotes Imn Monument / I ' o '`\' \\ h\ / ' , / i /°j / 1 11 \ _ 9. _t 14Y.o ti `t, \\ ogri % I N 6x \ \`\ 9 \ 3�6" I p � r I �" \ \ \ 1� \\ , ' -y0\ / \ .L'Lb.O Denotes Existing FJevation _``_ I 1 66" I \ 9934 99l F t, • / 9'4 11 \'\ ° / ' \ \ \ 3 � \ \ \ \ \ / � Denotes Ewsl6g Contour /j/r l 'i/ y/ / 10'0' \ f°r 000.0 o-�s Pmp ®9�.atan /` ' 6 i 83.5 1 , q 1 sl 1 1 I /150.8 1� �/ / 1 ey e\ i `.o \ '\c I ,♦3 2 / / \ e�inss is -uvnra sufue pmlcy° ml 1 1 1 1 I I/ 1 4e 1 1 I O/ 10'6` / / 1 1 , I I C I I I I I °9A.a ( � 1 1 .\ •� I I ; � `H I I 1 I I A I/ 1 n l m� /� � I � / I a \ ''' 1 1 ` \�, 1 1 �i l \Ice i' I '1 i } I 1 I�oPOSSO wIIILLS i i =i / i i �\ i % 4 I x i A� 'i i Al \ I l y e9.7/ 'JO / I \� / \ 978.85 Proposed MtF r P I \° ` \� \ I 1 \A l I i s 9 I I 1 \ / aJ/ /; 9., % �i.4 i \\ I 1 N- B Z \\ lr 978.70 5 r' =a o-.. 9 l 1 \ 1 4ero' / s �. % I e3. - ' / _ - - -- _ I /f` /('' / \ 1 / llivc- I� \ l Pmpnsed rap afabtic °�� j 978.0 proposed Gar,Ma,, I / 968.0 Pm"— Lbnest Flow i t 1 - / I I , I Y / I 1 I I 1 ri996 ] I / , % / / \ •? !� tIn.r.SED DRIVEWAY 1 I I I / / I I I 1 - `6 - / I 1 I 1 I 1 / / / l - / /•\ / /' ,)' 1(i\ 1 � ' \•\ 4epvv / No , / , l / \ / PROPOSED HARDCOVER O II N / 1 ', I / % I 1 1 I ll 1 I ' / I op�.p °,, / ly n ' fi95.4 I I / •\ s 3 / 1 / / \ Residence +4667 sq.ft \\ r ] 5't Driveway / \ Porch +3286 ft In 1, / 1 / / / I 1 1 R'•. /914.2 / s.� .5 \` I o4 - _ ; ��._. .L. . -._._. _._._.1.._._._._._ - _ _._._._ ._._._._._.IL._._._._ %L._._._.] ; j 1 J jtal / q. / / Driveway +4798 sq.ft Walks 6 Patios +2167 sq.ft pavement to lake +1051sq.ft S 89 °1 II I 16 / / / / i i ._l_.- 1._._. _.')�_._._._. ]µ•hr z y q � . '43?fSi •_ _•1_._.�r' __ o W 211,08 z2° / ___ 1 t 1 i 93l ' / / ' I / ex�: 90' / I •� 3' s,e 3 "�"� "` - , 3orr« 1'1 J" / /' / "s / \ \ 1 Total Hardcover= 13011 sq.ft 99x. e0r,re 1 1 ] 9slo \ 1 ; Area of Parcel = 82795 ±5 ft z6s 2 — — top= 9Baa2' L — Percentage of Hardcover 15.711% - -' -- t S8 .54 �t, orow.> �n / I �/ - -r- - - -- -1 rlA�'r —, 9 i 1 4"S Sr' / 1 ' rrrl %ry DP 0 1 \ 11 % % 0 T1 I I I O 10� / %O % orb, % ' 2 ia; q� e�/ 90' D 1 m �\..1, / 11 j ' j t 1 i %i %�G i�p %NID�i //, 91 i'� ,6'/ I e31d i/ Legal Description Certification 1 'prat pan of Govemment Lot 4, Section 36,'1'o—hip 117, Range 23, Hennepin County, Minor— described as follows: Commencing at a point on the north and south centerline of said i I rf / / / / / / / / / / / Section 36 a distance of 793 feet Nonh from the south line of said Government I -.t 4 as Prepared by. measured along said centerline; thence on an assumed hearing of \C'cst paralldwith the south line The Gregory Group, Inc. d.b.a. of said Govemment Lot 4 a distance .17265.25 feet to the point ofbegi -ni.9 of the land being Lot Surveys Company The only easementssbovm are from plats ofreeard or lnformnum described; thence Northerly 9 feet pandlel with the north and south centerline of said Section 36; 7601 73rd Avenue N. provided by dnL / / / / / / / / / / / ] / // thence F steely to the centerline of Covington Road along a line which if estended would Smoklyn Park MN 55428 imersect said north and south centerline of said Sectron 36 a distance of 805 feet North from the phone 763- 560 -3093 1—bry out Ws plan, speci5ralfon, or repot was prepared by me / / / fax 763 -560 -3522 r Mer my tlPeq supervision and that I em a duty Lkensee IarM /i /% %' ' ' ' ' ' / south Gne of said Government Lot 4; thence Northwesterly along the centerline of said Survayer under the laws ofthe State of P.Onnesola. Covington Road to a point 988.9 feet North from the south line of said Government Lot 4 as measured at right angles with said south line; thence North 83 degrees 34 minutes 30 seconds 5urosved this 3rd day of september 2015. West 160 feer, thence South 87 degrees 55 minutes 30 seconds West to the shore of Chrism— Rsv- Iake; thence Southerly along the shore of said Lake to a line bearing west from the point of 9 -15- 15 hardcover beginning; thence East to the point of beginning. Except Road. Signed: Grego P ch Reglamstion No. 24992 - -, x117- z1- + Exhibit B PROPERTY SURVEY IIP -0° 5' -6° 4' -0' 15 -0' 6' -0' 20' -0° 10' -0° 15,_0• 1� T -0° 4' -D° WE T -6" T -6° 3'-0" 3' -0' 10' -0" 10' -0° 5' -0° 5' -0' T -6" T 6' CL PERGOLA REMOVED I 1 RETRACTABLE SCREENS EA C OPUG � H All All A13 ------ ; GIR— DER•TR —USS i ��'• �`O. PATIO BELOW a I s I - V CARDLEVERABOVE I ° SCREEN PORCH �� G r -o° J r -o° I ," -r C14 A75 2- 1 I� 1\`J E - - -- D — — — — — H — — _O_ — C,/i:.%sI�rilC Sl��k'llfix r v 1, - I � elu 42�t1�Et3 - - -- - - - -- - - - - --' 0 TEMP. GLASS__ -- ______.TEMP. GLASS_ _ ___TEh9P. GLASS. NT`•� � ----- -i r -� � 11x9('`,. d_s... ?'.� %12:(f• -64 i�1 R kl� .[ 1).V-T, ..,}9Cd. OPE % -ENG ROOF TRUSSES g 11 I I I - B m..° 9kmx j-bm�T c 19 1 I tt' I BREAKFAST I ' O , 14 A72 -0x11 1 5 1' -0 °CAMILEVERABOVE ? � ` It UTATED Fft tCLI gIDR /COtLT.IIISULAT 011 I T_______ ; �I'��� i i ___ � _�I�: I h 1�1F ���•: \y�+''�i'' 1' ___ '� _ O /'- -� - - -� - '"�`' ° Al BUILT -IN CABS. W /COUNTER I BOXED BEAM GIG. -hi i i 1 _ --------------- L _ ---- - - - --1 a l i I i 1 A15 i i H L i 1 I r_ I a :ris j LASS v I II r r( G CABINETS 1 y it GREAT ROOM I dt 110- 0x4 -6 BUTCHER BLOCKISLAND I I I � � 1 a I I)+1 I I " 19- 0x21 -4 _ l I °o I SHELVES w.l - ' ��• - AL+tiYr`uTx]t }E_4^tl5fix tuY!., Y::e; '¢ i 1 C. I rT 1 I I I II I ° A75 13) dJ i 13 i I �l 4 r SHELVES ] I I I I I i I I I I Iw ,I F m g i I DW )I 1 1i dl I o $III , PO z ° i I I I F t,•r 9P '-&5N 314 6° LL 10-3 x 12-6 V/\BOEDBEN.CG. ISLAND F 33 REF I t ? CLOSET I AUE i ______ l -2 -11 -0° J /16'- 1114-312° Y 0 12 „ ; 1 I F IS . T -0"_ i p p Ii I i < 14'- 8114' -- , SERVICE oW , KITCHEN I P15 SHELVES ~�I , HALL GLASS I I I ; 1 23-11x10 -7 1 2 1 11 I - -' - -- -' MSTERBEDROO r I I I I 1 I! CABINETS �°-� 1 11 I (- r I t LL I I I I I I ,,, I 1 ° BUILT -IN CLOSET i I ss - II II I 14,- 011119 -2 &8x4.1 I i I 1 I ` I I L - -- --------------- - - - - -- - - -- -- - -' i — 7 J I { ^ I m BsA—S. K..E. - T_B- _ A LL - KEY - -50A6 FL C- .- O. - -- 1-_ srL -_n- _ - - - _. • ".,.- m. '..� Rt1:Y4=47- 11 / _ 4 'LVL ,.-, 0 .� `/ - - - 5- - - - - - —l�l - t_ - 1 —4k i.8'LrI - 1- 3t 4 :7.1lP LVL xi f ^)ifi}!H A�t)?1P t':`rV.ti1�TS��lYr"1A ' 11 I T7(1r rF + I -- F 3O AR 0 OPN 1' -312' U 4'•02 -° ------- _ Y-81 _ r LL �I ,Grip, c - SPORTS CLOS. � � - � I ,,1 U ;sf{J,. � lg i. °I }-�i1 U T t£ , I 1 �--- ,- - - - --) 1 '•` 4oeo c.o. _ ��; � .�. - - - -- -� lzNa4ksfrr LVL - - -- - UP 19R a B 1 r I ARCHEDOPNG GARAGE 11 fi d I I i 27- 0x47 -0 I I TALL HANG. I ; �F T ° - - -- I - - -- - -- -- `•-` 2 1 DN 17R -- - _ � I j 1 � r> .�•,�, -�i 7wwsoif aeovE �� 1 I F A01ANT IN -FLOOR HEAT 17 $ BENCH I 8 HOOKS II I I I SHORT HANG. ) I I I i" I 12 A15 17 FINISHED GARAGE FLOOR AREA= 1129 SF a - I I. '-r ji �-- i �H I I PIANO y N FOYER i 6 •'. 1 e P �� I m �' 3 WASH d I 9 xIO-1p CLOSET i M TER BATH - -L - -- UDROOM LINDR >..,. �; N L ,T rc I 1- I I '� I I I LINEN 14.0 12.8 LINEN 1 s- toxlz -s bwxlas �I � � I A s -zxto� 1 NNN 'I BENCH a — �i DINING ROOMl9 I I 1_{ _ _� ^' DRY 13-0x15.4 I I 2' -z° 4' -812° 2' -512, 4 I T 1° I h I I I _z -' — --- - - --- L L I ° I° i z s ° T 8° 3'•8 3' -51/4 A75 io> I I : I 9 A15 7 � '` ° i x }9 I I 15 STEAJA 'I t SLOPE FLOOR SLAB 4 °TO DRAINS o L 8 L I I I I i POWDER d l SHELVES >; - .jG1IIII I h 9HOWEi +l .. i�v�i�"ZJ. �- �se5i,�£., i- L 1' -3314 tiT '�3. -A .�r as=,x.' - CAB. BENCH CAB i' -41 y 9 1 72YJ6 °TUB y A 1'•0° 4 j r Iemu• �- :azrr:,�-� F• MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN /F= r -o' LIVING SPACE iL 2158 SF 3084 SF L 2008 S 7251 SF ADDITIONAL SPACE MECHANICALI STORAGE 499 SF LAKESTORAGE 230 SF GARAGE ' 11295F FRONTPORCH 2578 N N � ro N N a 5 aa d Q N N O 3 n N 0 0 N 0 FLOOR PLAN —MAIN LEVEL c 0 m p R tl ; Y_4" AS ROOF RAN AG FRONT ELEVATION A7 RIGHT ELEVATION AB LAKESIDE ELEVATION A5 LEFfEEVATON 3' -6' GEN. CONTRACTOR HENDELTIONIC5 Y_q^ V I) _ Hf RESIDENCE MEETING X X X X X PP PROGRZ55 X X X X TEMP.GLASS I I FR TP0 H - - GIRDERTR0.— - - - - - - - - - . WICAPB ROUND COLUMNS BASE TRIM .JN.i0 i.HEI3HT __ _ _ _ —_ — L OPENINGS A L- RMY, FIR: STOf 3i PO MOW I' — - - - - - - RAISED FDN. WALL (TO. WALL @$82.77 2 I OXR U 2K �(aame km, i -, = (3) INT. LOUVERED SHUTTERS A1P .Y I L rr IL f i L RETAINING WALL AS ER SURVEY RETAINING WALL AS PER SURVEY 1'•8' p_g° g'_4° _p° 1 3' -6° 6'•0' 3' -6" T -6' T -6' 32-0' 4'_0• oa _n 13' -0° 16'•0° 4p' 0° T -6' T v MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN /F= r -o' LIVING SPACE iL 2158 SF 3084 SF L 2008 S 7251 SF ADDITIONAL SPACE MECHANICALI STORAGE 499 SF LAKESTORAGE 230 SF GARAGE ' 11295F FRONTPORCH 2578 15 -0" 20' Exhibit C ��F..shunt 7I }� AI ERE PLAN AS MAIN LOWER LEVEL PLAN A3 MAIN LEVEL PLAN A4 UPPER LEVEL RAN AI4INTERIOR FIEVATION5 AI5 INTERIOR FLEVATIONS A I G INTERIOR ELEVATIONS A17 BUILDING DETAILS ARCHITECT 5HARRA7T DESIGN 4 CA, LLC. COMACT. JA50N LUCAS ISSUED FOR n o n o "� N N � ro N N a 5 aa d Q N N O 3 n N 0 0 N 0 FLOOR PLAN —MAIN LEVEL c 0 m p R tl ; �r AS ROOF RAN AG FRONT ELEVATION A7 RIGHT ELEVATION AB LAKESIDE ELEVATION A5 LEFfEEVATON AI 8 BUILDING DETAILS El LOWER LEVEL ELECTRICAL RAN E2 MAIN LEVEL ELECTRICAL RAN E3 UPPER LEVEL ELECTRICAL PLAN 51 5TRUCTURALNOTEE GEN. CONTRACTOR HENDELTIONIC5 CUEN _ Hf RESIDENCE MEETING X X X X X PROGRZ55 X X X X CONTINUOUS RIDGE VENTS -�-t 11/12 -. .. 12 \ _ 20 - -mot _ -' -, _,_ ,• -. ES I• 12 . l 48'TALLTIPABER BRACKETS -- ., I -_.- . -. . - -; .•= _ .'.: - ' _ -.: .. - j EDETAIL 4fA17 ARCHRECTURAL SHINGL �\ fY - .,,..- . - - - -._ _. :. - �...: : : it • : - - - d Gr —_ , '..:20 - DIAPAOND- E E -- .:\ ti.4 // QN GABLE ENDS 1z4TRUA OVER 2 - {,. ':X ' ) R6/4'•5!1 FASCIA T,:.r,•r - -= - 1 r� 1x4 TRIM OVER 514k12 FASCIA cf . PER PLATE - :. -_ 2x10 FRIEZE T � . J. r .:-2xe HEAD � -. �� •.��- _ - ::::� —__._. .. -. .' r. -- -, ._- -. ___ _ .a•.... - -: -::� J i tI -.:I -, - -f-1L �� .'r. - 4J, Ir �:'_._ .5 /4x6 SIDES, I -- � � ,x- _'. - - - III III J;. a . _1• 9tjt 1! T.f:: F jj, I FLARED OVERHANGS I. -- -� - -•• ' -- -.z_:, '.i .,...,...,, I ' . -. ,.: ..: _. -. , . t .l i . I I sz i ;; . . ; I � .. ,,( I G - - ' I'? i _ .. . --` - -- ,.,. . __ a. ': ... _ -.. _. ... -., : -, !zI ,II. 111 !I1r ,I I, •I �Oli, +- _._ r , PERLEVEL I� r- I. L.I .. I ll.l lr. 111. .1 ! .4'. -3 � 1-1..' C�U� 1 4/12 � � �I 1 !I l II'If I7:P L. ,p,- 17. I ,I f� - - �L 111- I( L I.I_ ) I 1 li'; I'ri _ - :___..___._.- _.. _. _ __ _•_ -- _ J.. I:I I PLY BEAD BO !IILiI "1 -'r. 1!� rLU- )z -L!�'' �I I SOFFITS i I i i 111 'I! 'h ,. ERROOFING Il ii, Ill! ', n..� : . IU.LI!. P�li -I II I i �'I I � � � - � � j I 1 COPP I II'I �:! . _ L� L!: II! i.! -1 LL .rlf�ll _'' .l, 'I JI.II AINP __ _. I 1: - II!f_:111.•,.1. .I 1. %_, � - - - - - ---_ __ -�- t"yf}i�_nII .. - PLATE - _., .! L.II:! ill/ 9 1 1 !t. I � __ �I II L.I.!�! t 1l I I ' I ;i 1. �l l_ FLARE WALLS TO COVER I _ I I ,. R.v _;_._.._:- ._,:::� r.: .,.:_ _,.- ....P__... ;: I:r Il l l:,�i - .. .;...- � , ., ,z e. - - - __ - , 1. I ! 1 ..1: , P_i,�(' T.O. STONEVENEER -•+71JL 7• .alatt; r'� a -, .,;,_ I :.,. _t 1 I•, 1 - - 1 _.. . _ Cl.v -Ll ,. , ,. ,;' - P 13� 1h r -irt< _' - - — OWOWHFAD til-- -...,- .. -i. ... _ ` ` - __ L. l l I :I II I'. I .:. !III ;3•`L4 I : .� z. - . � ..�_.... L I p f ..,..�::.a„ � 7,mu _.I -,, r � - ky-, -_u- I � T:..` I 5. ;r - .I �- . TIERS W/ DOWN TS 1-- I1 ,I n.„.. I -I r I -1rI 1 Irlr.r lh .11 . , L I _ I,r I.II I . I r : I. r ,. ! I :, : I . ,Ir , I .r:.l I 1 � rI 1 .. : . I - r _I � .- .,,_ . ._. t , - ,. _. . : .;. i- -., . : , , - -. . , -. _ .; ..,_'. . -._ . , - ..- r . I' . - �I ) - €I ': .r III I: I .,I _ I:. l_1 I .1Il 1. :• .I ;,r . . 1I, .. . 1 I . r 1 1r ._r ., , . . _ . . ,_ : I 1, .., , : r . I I e i ., .f f : - L. . 1 L '_ ll �, .. ! ,._ ..�, . , - _, - -,: -- > _� <, z:r... . , ,. , _ � 1 . t .-._ I , ., :. � ( :I 1 � , 1 .. , . y�,. -, - „ _ . _ . _ � ::.;- .. .. . -.1.. . :,. ,, I . I .- . .' — .. L - ._ .. _ •r . _ ..,..:,..� .7 : . '. ',, ,: : . ,_ -_ _,: :.r, - .: . �__, ..-_ -.. ... c - . , � }._.... .. rt . ' �:..,- ,_:. _ . ; � .. ., . : �. . > U it NTO PVC PIPE I _ ' I : ' . - - - � ._.: .- : . . _r . , yy 7 at n t} lr L ,,;�'•_ :t + . . � -s:{ 1+1 '= : .:7 z : � i r _ u „ . r_ _ A i t .L _c. F - ' : 7 . 7 - C t.f+ :' ' : c . . r., : , - i + 1 Pi _ _s .: . , �s : J � . r ( _ • :� 7 � - 1J Y- :; - _ - - VERTICAL W OOD PLANK i SHUTTERS - Y. 2ETAINING WALL r • , ; „ r. . ,1 ,. 17 iJ .� . � .:. :. . r r lll :- .. J .,L . _ ,L, \, __ :. _ RN . COLUPANS - I '.' � .. _ ' � ' : < f ' a f�- ' �:. r r. . - - .I i- .,, - ,,, . . 1. �! r.l,r,t.,..r.1rll_,......t!tlTi' I I,,d L..:,'.: I'r r L �t.:T. _..I ......• _ _ - AS PER SURVEY I I II f. I I .. .. ,: I, . 1 .. : , r ��, 2 r _ TRIP•1. 1 • f �- - - - •I I r I1911r :J• 011. i�il :.. :II,�• Ir I .t - ,. ,, :. ,.. _,r t <.- - Ir ILI. L+ =13i � -� - I F — ! : , �`�f •r� -.n,i :-i - - - r .. .; . -r. ! :- :! - - ._ __,� � : , - 7 :5 1 I I I' 4''UIII '; LL'; 1 r[ _ _ j'; r'!! - � I, A %c:'� - j - L N ,1 _ _ y. s �1 �r. -- AIN - _ - - - _ ❑ iiw - - �'�' �1f'- !” L - i ,r: _1:'� 1 I 1 i ,� -A la' c= I -:- I- 'i f' —� THINSTO �(."' r �--�'a -,•�,. � ��{g Ti f I t r, NE VENEER _ _ I r - - RETAININGWALLAS PER SURVEY STONE REPROVED - - - -- • -- lA'OOD S7rA10ES WHIGH DECORATIVE' RAIL TAPEREDSTONEBASESREMOVED - 48"TALL TIMBER BRACKETS 48* TALL TIMBER BRACKETS ra _ (SEEDETAIL4/A20) (SEE DETAIL 4 1A77) :O q - -- _ ARCHITECTURAL SHINGLES - DWAOND- PATTERNED BRAKES r � "�P L-�1- tCh - (N GABLE ENDS) \t 1z4 TRI79OVER514'k12FASC9A 12 8 •�,, � � � - -- -- __� � - � �4£ �_ \.. .1x4 TRU,I OVER 514'x12 FASCIA yY -Z k - -n ROOF RO0F8. - - UPPER PLATE - - _ 1 11` j — ,S: - - at L I L _ 1 I �III 2 Z L 1 x10 FRIE E — I! s, 'ae 77 r i - .!. PLY -BEAD SOFFITS • r I I ri. 2x70 FRIEZE UPPER LEVEL !' 1 J; ! ! i I . I. .; r - -:' - __.__— - u' ' IJI -a r .t 7' P,WNPLATE �;i -! }'� �,� h ,' -`, . t. ^< -..,V_ �_ .,� � <-,--� �.,�- -_ _ .I. - __ GUTTERS W /DONM' - rL ',: :.i � _ __ - i11 TODRAIN. =��T' L;a•L ;t- y - _ - ��314 "TRI79 - _ g B�WDWH All I: 1 INTO C Jo• PV PIPE S. •'i - S. - _ r - r -max .: .. y ..•,.. .:, � ,r� .r ' -, a i- �6 . . .,�., .EI. :: •�+*xsg -. . - _,..., ,r 4W. DOO BRAR C KH E TS l ,_•, t- _ „ {{ r :I:' F l . - ,- _• ,.,., 1, .;._ J - �� : ` 1' ' � , T?I I•� - 1 i r ::• SPOUTS S WI DOWi . GUTTER ( SEE DETAIL 3A ) TO DRAIN .k r, INTO PVC PIPE j TYP. VJWTRIA. �1MIA { f: 2xTAPEREDCAP OVER on a a ` t4Jtt�� T 2x8 HEAD 6 /4x6 SIDES, f u. 2x APEREDS LL T I OVER 6!4x5 - _ A411N LEVEL - _ D- 7.,�(,. :1- ,,� 1 , �• I • r , :I. �.. '1.:1.I. ,,,, ,I i. - r�. ;. .. �. � "' LJII':_II_IJ.I; r:7t. u� . --- .;`.t. r.l. -1UJ� I, -I t a :tt !; i I--. tt s- : ... ,. ,.;' -�:. 1s - ', .,- >.- ' BILL , : r.3 - W1RDS R7-f _ PTI BSP. E :I :..I : } - 7•: 1 _7. �� r 4/12 �, M 9T PLAT I _ .. ; I. y1�..... t - 4 ,y — �' .; r, I�'C}i,r, i -,1 �I _ i tlli{I x8 WOOD_BRACKETS' 1 F A ), � ��Q�y� i!.:1 MAX. 4; r -,a.. 0PEONGS Exhibit D i / 1 5 I L f l— vc 3n1 ORaP, V f RETAINING WALL � BUILDING ELEVATIONS EAST AND _ - _ 111�6L SASREO'D WEST 3SGIT LEVEL 1 .I! t L-i47 i LI + - -- __ I L:, k:: (4' -0 °P•9AX. DROP PER VIALL) hFzTffi}-.)LNC -Z •W lj-r -LS SEA B- IA iJl� I A d - 2 -TIER PORCH ROOF & PERGOLA REMOVED COPPER LEFT (SOUTH) ELEVATION 1/4 1W 1 7 t �L fij UPPER PLATE UPPERLEVEL M1WN PLATE 8-0 WDW HEAD GUTTERS VT/DOWN SPOUTS TO DRAIN INTO PVC PIPE RETAINING WALL AS PER SURVEY Exhibit E BUILDING ELEVATION - SOUTH sa AW Ir Nl- ul 06 QI IIW7� - r !JdPt,SS-fHH/9S6TA/AjunoD ui auu@H npa•uwn•q!l'oa llq E� C7 � W � MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission,, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 10 March 2016 RE: Lehman, Peter and Marie - Minor Subdivision, Lot Width and Area Variances, Side Yard Setback Variance and Rezoning from R -IA/S to R -1C /S FILE NO.: 405 (16.04) BACKGROUND Peter and Marie Lehman are the owners of two properties, located at 21265 and 21285 Radisson Road (see Site Location map — Exhibit A, attached). As explained in their request narrative (Attachment I), the Lehmans would life to rearrange the lot line between the two lots, demolish one of the old existing cabins on the site, live in one of the cabins and keep the third for storage. They also request a rezoning of the property that would allow them to build a new home in the future without having to come to the City for additional variances. The existing conditions and the proposed lot line rearrangement are shown on page 6 of Attachment L The properties in question are zoned R -lA/S, Single - Family Residential and contain 7500 and 38,758 square feet in area, respectively. In addition to the very substandard area and width of the existing lots, particularly the westerly lot, the use of the property — four dwellings on two lots - is inconsistent with the current single - family zoning. The applicants' intent is to equalize the width and area of the two parcels and, as mentioned, remove one of the existing small cabins, and eventually build a new home on the newly enlarged westerly lot. Their plans necessitate the following zoning actions: • Minor subdivision (lot line rearrangement) • Lot area variances - Traci A: 24,848 square feet (40,000 square feet required) - Tract B: 2.1,410 square feet (40,000 square feet required) ®• f ®,® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER . Memorandum Re: Lehman - Minor Subdivision/Variances and Rezoning 10 March 2016  Lot width variances -Tract A: 81 feet (120 feet required) -Tract B: 90 feet (120 feet required) Building setback variances  Setback variance -Existing garage: 12.8 feet from east side (20 feet required) -Proposed new home (see Exhibit F): 36 feet from Merry Lane (50 feet required) The Lehmans’ request is similar to one they made in 2014 (see staff report, dated 28 May 2014 – Attachment II). In that instance, they had proposed to remove all three of the existing cabins in order to build a new home on the enlarged westerly lot. At the public hearing (see 3 June 2014 Planning Commission minutes – Attachment III) they objected to conditions recommended by staff, the most significant of which was removal of two of the nonconforming structures within 60 days and the other within one year. Their request to keep and live in one of the cabins for up to three years was rejected by the Planning Commission. We find no record indicating that the applicant went on to present his request to the City Council. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS A. Rezoning vs. Variances. It is important to realize that the Planning Commission’s 2014 recommendation to the applicants’ request was considered to be very reasonable and even generous, allowing the applicants to rearrange their property, resulting in a buildable site for a new home. The public’s interest was served by the elimination of two nonconforming buildings. The current request is essentially the same as the previous one using a different approach – rezoning instead of variance. This approach was evaluated in the previous staff report (Att. II), which identified it as “spot zoning”. The applicants refer to the League of Minnesota Cities “Zoning Guide for Cities, citing a sentence from the description of spot zoning: “…a use classification inconsistent with surrounding uses…”. They neglect to mention, however, the part of the description that states: “Is unsupported by any rational basis relating to promoting public welfare.” The League, consistent with most planning resources, advises the avoidance of spot zoning. The League’s statements are an attempt to describe, not define, spot zoning. Perhaps a better description states that the term spot zoning has been developed to describe the application of a specific zoning district classification to a small area which is surrounded by a larger different (usually less intense) zoning district. In this case, the applicants propose to wedge one acre of R-1C (half-acre lots) zoning into an area zoned R-1A (one-acre lots). The applicants go on to suggest that their request is consistent with Shorewood’s Comprehensive Plan, which designates the area in question as “Low Density Residential (one to two units per acre). The current zoning pattern for the area in question is entirely consistent with that land use designation. Smaller lots (half-acre) to the east are zoned R-1C. Larger lots (one-acre) to the west of those are zoned R-1A. -2- Memorandum Re: Lehman - Minor Subdivision/Variances and Rezoning 10 March 2016 The applicants reference to the 70 percent area and width requirement for nonconforming lots of record is somewhat irrelevant. Once the property line is rearranged as proposed, the lots are no longer lots of record. The Planning Commission’s previous recommendation to grant various variances was reasonable and was made with the public interest in mind. The leverage afforded through the variance process resulted in the elimination of nonconforming uses and structures while allowing the applicants to make very reasonable use of their property. B. Minor Division. In light of the previous discussion, staff does not recommend approval of the subdivision. If the applicants wish to reapply for the variances and division proposed in 2014, the recommendations included in the 28 May 2014 staff report, as cited by the Planning Commission in its recommendation, still stand. RECOMMENDATION The rezoning of property is part of the City’s legislative function in which the City has its greatest latitude in considering policy issues. Spot zoning is viewed as contrary to good planning and zoning practice. The applicants have a very reasonable alternative for the redevelopment of their property. It was recommended by the Planning Commission in 2014. As such, staff recommends denial of the minor subdivision, variances and rezoning request. Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Peter and Marie Lehman Joe Pazandak -3- -a 1 1 J A C� m C/) C (u Q C) WAMM F&I kt .J N t� Al U a� o � 0 N S Q O M O a a a aI a a a�f � a a � a a a a 1 a Exhibit A SITE LOCATION MAP Lehman Rezoning — Minor Subdivision To: City of Shorewood Minnesota, City Planner, Planning Commission and City Council. From: Peter and Marie Lehman 21265 Radisson Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Subject: 1) Requestfor minors ubdivision /lot line rea rrangement a nd 2) Zoni ng change requestfrom R -1Ato R -1C Location: (PID:35- 117 -23 -13 -037 and PID:35- 117 -23 -13 -033) 1. 5625 Merry Lane 2. 5635 Merry Lane 3. 21265 Radisson Road and 4. 21285 Radisson Road Date: February 1, 2016 Summary: We (Peter and Marie Leh man) would I ike to make better use of two adjacent I ots we own and would I iketo make these lots compliant with the City of Shorewood's Comprehensive P Ian forth eCity, in pa rtnershipwiththe City. Tomeetthis goal werespectFullyrequest: 1) Minor subdivision (lot I ine rearrangement) 2) Lot area variances! • Tract A: 24,848 square feet (40,000 square feet req ui red) • Tract B: 20,941 square feet (40,000 square feet required) 3) Lot width variances: • Tra ct A: 81 feet (120 feet required) • Tract B: 90 feet (120 feet required) 4) Bui I ding set backva rianceTractA: • Existing garage: 12.8feetf rom east side (20 feet required) 5) Zoning change requestfrom R -1Ato R -IC for proposed lots Asa condition of our request, we wi 11: 1) remove an existing dwelling located at 5635 Merry Lane 2) removethe Merry Lane driveway located within 17ft of the Merry La ne /Radisson Road intersection to improve safety and bring into compliance with city code 3) deed to the city 10ft. drainage and utility easements for revised lots (as requested) Lehman's Addition Attachment I r S Q Q o' v OG CD N O (n r r.� c C) qq v y p r� l Ri N Ln rD CD CL orb CL Y 1MRQaj %� r C) r� l Ln rD CD CL 0 CL (gym u N O O O• ca A S �Q m m TLT m rr O N D O N P) NO 0 Q D O Ln O 0' W O m 0 rte* v 3 S rD —I a) rD r-1 O M rD —• Lnn fD N L Q Ln S O mm� ID V 3 M �* C) CD O �. CD O O (7 S n < r) C<D Q (/7 cn rp pq � O O_ rt Ln S S N w r* r* = < o N S O m O m = O Q 00 (7 n •A r+ O J CD 07 Ln O ~' Q- Onn L -'s CD O =' Q N N N n C > � rn D CL t„ �. O -0 CD C LA oN (D Q r• N o � N O rh cn �F N <• ,--''y. CD O < Q O.. CD O 00 Q 0 p) CD v C N fD O 't O P+ TTZ 1V _N• O• 0- CD CD C7 m SO e--r CD ..Q C rD o_ 3 a) X. C rT N W fD a) n S • • • Q �I < rD 70 CD v < Q O cn C O O Q 3 V rD O mm Q. = S � CSD < Q rD Q (D n n � � O O CD CD O * Q O Q n O �• Ln Q O a) =3 LU N• Q- G N rD CD o w Q o `D S w o X O w � N N Q � O O CD fD 2 N r* ' (� Q S rF- v 1► r* CD rD < O a) S a) rD fD r+ v L S CD Q O Q CD O 0 O -h r* S m X Ln Uq a) Q O O ^< ]TT.L l✓ S C 0 0 CD CD v Q 2 0'U S ni • • CT � z rD o rD � Q � n N rD O n BCD V4 Q `D Q S O rD —I O O Q � N r h UU v o c Ln h v � r+ < o h CD aq O 0 S n = Ln % LO In rD M rD lD O N v 00 r* --h c 9 �. L CD �. O CD N O N Oq v ti U') r-h � C � � Q f�D � N Q Q r-r 0 D r* (n S O CL a- CD O r* Q r+ S rt Asa component of our lot 1 ine rea rrangement, we request that the zoning be changedfrom R -1A (40,000 sq. ft. area) to R -1C (20,000 sq. ft. area) to meet the requirements of the City of Shorewood's General Provisions of the Zoning Regulations for pro p erty development (1201.03 Subdivision 2, s ub- section c), a s i t pertains to a I of of record. Specifically, the measurement of the a rea and width must be within 70% of the requirements of that chapter fora lotto be utilized fora single-family detached dwelling. If left unchanged, the new lots would be substandard and subjectto unreasonable constraints for the new I ot sizes s houldfuture improvements besought. Of pa rti cular concern is the setba ck constraint from Merry Lane of the proposeclTractBcorner lot. With a 50 ft. street setbackfrom Merry Lane and 10ft. si deya rd setback on the 90 ft. wide lot, only 30 ft. remain i n the buildable a rea. In general, homes in the neighborhood are quite large custom homes, esta blishingthe bui Idable area from 30 ft. to 45 ft. a I lowed by the R -1C zoning request would al Iowanynew hometo be designed and built away more consistentwith the neighborhood. Rationale for zoning change request: By changingthezoningto R -1C now in the contextof the lot Iine revision request(no new lots are being created), the city can establish lots of record that would meet or exceed the ml nimum I of area and lotdepth requirements (20,000 sq. ft. and 120 ft. respectfully) and exceed the 70% requirement for lotwidth (100 ft.) as defined intheZoning Regulations. Current and future owners of the subject properties will clearlyunderstand the property use constraints as defined by the existing code. In addition, they will be gra cited the freedom to obtain building permits without the need for conditional use permits a nd /orvariances. Creating conforming Iot sizes now, with wellunderstood legal constraints, wi II i ncrease the va I ue of the revised lots and relieve future owners, citycouncils, planning commissions and city staff from the burdensome and sometimes contentioustaskof considering deviations from the estabIished code. If the city agrees that the proposed lot I ine revision is reasonable use and an imp rovernenttothe subject properties, itfoIIows thatthe zoning s hould reflect the I of s izes being established concurrent with the IotIinerevision. Although a PUDcouldhave been requested, then ew I ots are I a rge I evel, relatively uniform Iots without any special conditions thatmightwarranta PUD. Theestablished rules for R -1C as they relate to building setbacks for the proposed I ots s hould be s ufflcientto maintain buffers adequatefor the neighborhood (i.e.35ft. setbackfrom Merry Lane) and would not impedethe useor enjoyrrientof any neighbors or the public using Merry Lane for access to Christmas Lake. The proposed R- 1Clotwouldbetheonly buildable loton this portionof Merry Lanesoany concern with regardto consistencywith other homes on Merry Laneshould be mi nimal. Legality of zoning change request (spot zoning ?): The League of Mi nnesota Cities i nformation memo "Zoni ng Guidefor Cities" defi nes 8 pot zoningas a 'use classification inconsistent with surrounding uses'. Thepermitted 'use classification'for the Lehman's Addition Page 3 of 5 subject properties is single family residential, rezoning from R -1Ato R -1C does not change the permitted use classification (single family residential) and only requires simple majority of the city council to a pp rove and would be.intheirIegaI authority to dos o. Furthermore, the R -1C zoning classification requested is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan Update of 2009 for the subject property allowing 2 homes per acre, further establishing the IOgaIityof the change request and con sistencywiththecity /sestabIished plan forward to the year 2030. Surrounding Property (see diagrams, next page): Although the subject property is currently zoned R -1A, Radisson Road and the North Shore of Christmas Lake are predominately zoned R -1Cwi th the exception of a multi - family PUD nea rby on Ti ffa ny Lane. East: Immediatelyeastis- a Iargeresidentialhomeona substandard 16,009sq. ft. I ot(seemap below). Further east on Christmas Lake is the neighboring Christmas Lake Addition (former Christmas Lake Motel property),1 homeinthatAdditionis zoned R- 1Candtheother4 areR -1A. Further ea st on the remaining North Bay of Christmas La ke s hared by the subject property are I ots zoned R -1C. North and West: North and West of the subject property are commercial zoningdi stricts for the Cities of Greenwood and Shorewood (accordingto the Comprehensive Plan). South: Immediately adjacentto the south is the parking Iotand pub Iic access for Christmas Lake which recently incorporated a gas and Diesel powered motorized public boat wash operational from 6AMto 10PM and staffed by paid employees ubcontractor (Commercial /Industrial Use ?). Further south past the access on the North Bay is zoned R- 1Awith 3 homes at49,852 sq. ft., 33,735 sq. ft. and 28,386 respectfully. Lehman's Addition Page 4 of 5 O Z Ul 2 (.n T- -k7l I�E-e r y 4jr A eo M C, —L Poo Ic m6d > < cj tza CD s n a) D CU rD (D CL rD 4N Gj O CD rD 0000 T- -k7l I�E-e r y 4jr A eo M C, —L Poo Ic m6d > < cj tza Gj OL Pmr:jnd Nlar[c LiAmin 21265 and 11285, RAW= Road, Tractpw anti Troct 8 Tree 5urvq%v (,A 0,(46', Shorewood, MN 5sni t CQMWeti By; Dan $14, Arb, Kr� IjA #nAo 43604 X i r) b,r� vi Tr ell ..... It, Wit. 1 co -NOW WAS, A V - lift," 139T 25 9 1 IWACCT A Quo p son AA I LIN FA TO' A CIO W ACT B 4, oil rams) -SIS ov 64'vevmb All Peter and Marie Lehman 21265 and 21285 Radisson Road, Tract A and Tract B Tree Survey Shorewood, MN 55331 Conducted By: Dan Bird, Arborist, ISA #MN -4360A X Rainbow Treecare y' Date: November 10, 2015 RLS Tree Recent Variety Evergreen Deciduous Health Comment< B 11 Aug -15 Arborvitae 5 B 21 Aug -15 Arborvitae , g 6 B 3 Aug -15 Arborvitae 5 l B 4 Aug -15 Arborvitae 6 ; B 5 Aug -15 Arborvitae ,/ 5 B 6 Aug -15 Colorado Blue Spruce_ `` 6 V1� B 7 Aug -15 Black Hills Spruce. 8 ' B 8 Aug -15 Colorado Blue Spruce 6 �J B 9 Aug -15 Black Hills Spruce 8 ; L, B 10 Aug -15 Colorado Blue Spruce 6 { ; B 11 Aug -15 Black Hills Spruce, 8 B 12 Aug -15 Colorado Blue Spruce 6 B 13 Aug -15 Black Hills Spruce, 8 V B 14 Aug -15 Colorado Blue Spruce it 6 'q C, B 15 Aug -15 Arborvitae 5 A 16 Aug -15 Colorado Blue Spruce 8 A 17 Aug -15 Colorado Blue Spruce 8�, B 18 Black Hills Spruce to 15 C, Topped for overhead power-. B 19 Colorado Blue Spruce 1.z_ 15 E Topped for overhead power B 20 Poplar ft , pU`(yO� _6, rte'; B 21 Colorado Blue Spruce 10( A 22 Colorado Blue Spruce ( "' 9 A 23 lMaple _jj�,4y* 2o� A 24 P OakZ �,, . �'t � -? �a '�. . W ,emu { L c_` ✓ 1/2 Top dead B 251 Oak B 26 Black Hills Spruce.{ q,, 20�� B 27 Maple B 28 Ash B 29 Austrian Pine .. 25 V'LJ B 30 Ash Lo C 'iLifEctfi � i a B 31 Black Walnut B 32 Black Hills Spruce B 33 Colorado Blue Spruce Gk A 34 Red Pine ( ?) 91 A 35 Fes? V�k6 "C ( t) ``> "f'J c. w F � A 36 Oak ' A 37 Oak [a� °� gip_ V ✓s: -•! n�r iF'�' (1i (�. A 38 Pinej {,L ",-i`_i 4 t (� A 39 Pie? ��_� ° � �� Cep ° f i�.�tr. -li )r {loaf, Gs �f� _ € �- �'r� ✓`(, A 40 Ash s �. ' i' '4 L < � f $0� a1� V-01 / 0 at\r\� Ee y a g,0� 'o 5,QnM �.� o o„ OS 0 C 0 �p NY T� Z N o �0 � N D N O O O 1 O O �r TRACT B o� O N GRAPHIC SCALE 0 20 40 80 (SCALE IN FEET) O i PROJECT NO. 5002 m tet \y 100, p {eel' r' p 0 I r (I O N O N o_ cu CD N TRACT A C� ai 10 �S 00 �O s� .Y o 7 01 O Lo , \O� 70 CHRISTMAS LAKE Drainage and Utility Easement for: RLS No. PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS: TRACT A: A 10.00 foot wide easement for drainage and utility purposes lying over, under and across part of Tract A, RLS No. . described as follows: The northwesterly 10.00 feet, the northeasterly 10.00 feet; the easterly 10.00 feet; the northeasterly 10.00 feet; the southeasterly 10.00 feet, and the southwesterly 10.00 feet. TRACT B: A 10.00 foot wide easement for drainage and utility purposes lying over, under and across part of Tract A, RLS No. . described as follows: The northwesterly 10.00 feet, the northeasterly 10.00 feet; the southeasterly 10.00 feet, and the southwesterly 10.00 feet. DENOTES PROPOSED EASEMENT CERTIFICATE I hereby certify that this map or plot correctly represents work performed by me or under my direct supervision and is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Dated: 4/16/15 Carlson Kurt M. Kisch, Professional Land Surveyor Minnesota License No. 23968 )McCain s ENVIRONMENTAL • ENGINEERING • SURVEYING 248 Apollo Dr, Suite 100, Lino Lakes, MN 55014 Phone: 763 -489 -7900 Fax: 763 - 489 -7959 Memorandum Re: Lehman - Minor SubdivisionNariance and C.U.P. 28 May 2014 Building setback variances - Existing garage: 12.8 feet from east side (20 feet required) - Proposed new home (see Exhibit F): 36 feet from Merry Lane (50 feet required) Conditional use permit (C.U.P.) to build a home on a substandard shoreland lot The Lehmans have assembled a substantial packet of material in support of their case. That material will be forwarded electronically for your review. Exhibits B -J, the most pertinent of the material, have been culled from that packet for the purpose of this report. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS A. Zoning Code Compliance. At first glance the variances necessary to accomplish the applicants' plans are viewed as substantial. What is worth noting, however, is the Zoning Code compliance that will result from the proposed plan: 1. Although Tract A is being reduced rather substantially in area (38,758 square feet down to 24,848 square feet), it is still considered to be buildable (except for its width, the lot is similar in size to an R -1C lot. At the same time, Tract B is being made substantially larger (7500 square feet up to 21,410 square feet). The result is that Tract B is significantly more buildable than the current tiny lot. 2. Similarly, Tract A is being reduced in width from 121 feet to 81 feet. However, Tract B is being increased from 50 feet to 90 feet — a substantial increase that again improves the buildable area of Tract B. 3. The new lot line location makes the existing garage noncompliant by 7.2 feet (20 feet is required). This is an existing condition though — the garage remains in its current location. 4. The new home requires a 14 -foot variance for the side yard abutting Merry Lane (36 feet instead of 50 feet). Similar to the area issue in 1., above, this setback is similar to what would be required in the R -1C zoning district. The offsetting factor is that the three old cabins are as close as 16 feet from the right -of -way of Merry Lane — again, a significant improvement in zoning compliance. 5. No doubt the most significant change that results from the applicants' plans has to do with the use of the property. Currently there are four dwellings on the two properties, three of which are questionable with respect to Building Code compliance. The applicants propose to reduce the number of dwellings to two, one for each lot, eliminating the nonconforming use. The new home, obviously, will comply with current Building Code requirements. -2- Memorandum Re: Lehman - Minor Subdivision/Variance and C.U.P. 28 May 2014 B. Alternative Remedies. Rezoning. As mentioned in the preceding, the subject property is located in the R -lA/S zoning district. In a couple of the issues raised above we mention R -1C zoning requirements. While properties farther to the east on Radisson Road are zoned R -1C, that zoning reflects the general lot sizes in that vicinity. Although the subject property and the neighboring lot to the east are smaller than what is required in the R -1A district, the vicinity in which they are located are predominantly larger lots. Consequently, changing the zoning classification in this case would constitute "spot zoning ", which is not legal or advisable. 2. Attrition. In the past, one way of dealing with nonconfoar7nities was to patiently wait for the offending use or structure to be removed by nature or by an owner wishing to do something where the City had some leverage to require conformity. The effectiveness of that method was unfortunately reduced by the State legislature in 2006, when laws were changed that not only protected nonconformities, but provided for their replacement. 3. Applicants' Case. The material submitted by the Applicants that is not included in this report cites various provisions in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code that they feel support their case. For example, they reference what we call the "70 percent rule" whereby if a lot meets or exceeds 70 percent of the minimum width and area requirements for the zoning district, it is considered buildable. This may be worth noting, but it is intended for existing lots of record where the owner does not own adjoining property. What we refer to as the "average setback rule" does not apply in this case either, since the averages the applicants refer to are their own buildings. Structures on adjoining lots comply with R -IA setbacks. 4. Variances. This remains the only viable zoning tool for addressing the applicants' request, and for making the kind of code improvements listed herein. In light of the preceding comments, the reduction of dwelling units from four to two, one on each lot, is considered to be a reasonable use of the property. The proposed zoning corrections included in the proposal may never be achieved without the grant of the variances. Further, the proposed redevelopment of the property is more in keeping with the character of the neighborhood than if the old cabins were allowed to remain. Removal of the cabins "de- clutters" the property and the street on which it is located. Finally, the variances will not convey on the applicants a right denied to others. Anyone else willing to make the type of drastic zoning corrections proposed here, should be treated the same. The applicants have submitted a landscape plan (Exhibit G) that, in addition to providing for their own privacy, also somewhat mitigates the setback variance along Merry Lane. This plan should be incorporated into the resolution approving the request. -3- Memorandum Re: Lehman - Minor SubdivisionNariance and C.U.P. 28 May 2014 RECOMMENDATION Based on the preceding, it is recommended that the applicants' request for a minor subdivision, variances and a conditional use permit be granted subject to the following: 1. The applicants' surveyor must revise the survey of the newly configured lots to include the following: a. The small strip of land along the north end of the current westerly lot should be dedicated as public right -of -way. This was apparently left out when Radisson Road was improved several years ago. The travelled surfaced of the road extends into this part of the property. b. The survey is somewhat confusing showing Parcels 1, 2 and 3 (presumably existing), and Tracts A and B (presumably proposed). This should be clarified and Tracts A and B must be legally described. C. The survey must show drainage and utility easements, 10 feet around the perimeter of each of the new lots. Legal descriptions for the easements must also be provided. d. The survey should show the existing hardcover calculations for Tract A. 2. The applicants' attorney must prepare deeds for the aforementioned strip of right -of -way and the drainage and utility easements. The applicants must submit an up -to -date (no more than 30 days) title opinion or title commitment for review by the City Attorney. 4. Items 1 - 3 must be submitted prior to this application being scheduled for City Council review, but not less than 30 days. 5. Once approved by the City Council, the applicants must record the rearrangement within 30 days. 6. Prior to release of the resolution approving the rearrangement, variances and conditional use permit, the applicants must provide a bid for the demolition of the small cabins and site restoration. From that bid, a letter of credit or cash escrow for one and one -half times the bid must be provided to guarantee the removal of the old cabins within 60 days. We have been advised by the applicants (too late for the upcoming public hearing) that they would like to live in one of the cabins while the new house is being built. This will require a separate conditional use permit that would allow them to keep one cabin until the new home is completed. 7. Since no additional lots are being created, there is no requirement for park, dedication or local sanitary sewer access charges. 0 Memorandum Re: Lehman - Minor SubdivisionNariance and C.U.P. 28 May 2014 8. Upon recording of the minor subdivision, the applicants have one year to make use of the setback variance and conditional use permit. 9. The proposed landscape plan (Exhibit G) should be revised to include an inventory of existing trees, prior to any alteration of the site. The plan itself should be prepared by a landscape architect, or certified forester. If the landscaping is not completed by the time the new home is ready for occupancy, the applicants must provide a letter of credit for one and a half times the amount of the estimated cost of the landscaping. The estimate need not include the foundation plantings around the new house. Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Peter and Marie Lehman Joe Pazandak -5- 1 V M� W Cn V J 0 J �L LIE U a a) m CD aD C) u- N r z< o 0 CO CD CD M O .p j a 1 -0 a \ is a Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Lehman — Proposed Division, Variances and C.U.P. To: City of Shorewood Minnesota, City Planner, Planning Commission and City Council. From: Peter and Marie Lehman 21265 Radisson Road Shorewood, MN 55331 Subject: 1) Requestfor mi nors ubdivision/lot I ine revision and 2) Requestfor Conditional Use Permitand Va riances for new si nglefa milt' home on revised I ot. Location: 1. 5625 Merry Lane 2. 5635 MerryLane 3. 21265 Radisson Road (PI D: 35-117-23-13-037)and 4. 21285 Radisson Road (PID: 35-117-23-13-033) Date: May 5, 2014 Summary: We (Peter and Marie Lehman) would I ike to make better use of two adjacent I ots we own and would like to make these lots compliant with the City of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan forth eCity, in partnership with the City. To meet this goa I, a minors ubdivision/lot I inerevisionisrequestedwith a related request for a Conditional Use Permit and Variances to build anew home. 1) Request for lot line revision. As 28 yea r residents of the City of Shorewood, we res pectfully request a lot I ine revision for 2 a dj a centTorrens Title I ots of record we have owned for over 25 yea rs on Ra disson Road and Merry Lane. Our properties are unique and have gross non - conformities in their current state a nd we would I iketo bring them into better compliance withthe City of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan Update of 2009 by ma king them more equally sized at 24,848 sq. ft. and 21,410 sq. ft. 2) Request Conditional Use Permit and Variances for new single family home on revised lot. Subject to the a pprovaI of our minor s ubdivision /lot I ine revision by the city council, we are requesting the followingconditional use permit and variances to build on the revised lot for 21285 Radisson Road: 1. Cond i tio nal Us e Permit a nd Lot Si ze Va ria nce to bu i Id on a 2 1,410 s q. ft. I ot, 54% of the requi red 40,000 sq. ft. I otfor R1A. 2. Lot Width Va rianceto bui Idon a 90ft. wide lot, 75% of the 120 ft. lotwidth required for R1A. Exhibit B Lehman's Addition APPLICANTS' REQUEST LETTER 3. Road SetbackVarianceof 35ft. from Merry Lanevs. the required 50ft. for RlA(3 existing homes currently only 20ft. from Merry Lane). Gross non - conformities of existing lots: Gross non - conformities currently include: • 4 homes on 2 I ots, • 3 homes 20ft. or less from Merry Lane (2 of whichare also withinfronta nd rearyard s etba cks), • 3 homes lessthanthe minimum required sizeof 30ft.x 22ft., and • a significantly substandard corner lot of record entirely within the50ft. Merry Lane road setback attheSE cornerof Merry Laneand Radisson Road (21285 Radisson Rd). Proposed Improvements: The proposed improvements forthe Merry Lane /Radisson Road properties would be: • a reduction in housing density from 4 homes to 2, • a reduction in structural setback violation from 2323 sq. ft. to 951 sq. ft. (60% reduction), • revision of a grossly substandard I of of record to a %acre I of (consistent wi th the City's comprehensive plan for I ow density housing), • the complete removal of the 3 substandard homes 20ft. or less from Merry Lane, • the construction of a single new home on the proposed I of 35ft. from Merry Lane, • removal of driveways and parkingfrom Merry Lane infavorofa single driveway off Radisson Roa d, a nd • remova I of 1 driveway currently within 20ft. from the Merry La ne/Radisson Road corner (40 ft. required by code) Itshouldbenoted thattheshortdrivefrom Radisson Roadto the Christmas Lake Publicaccess will be beautified with all driveway /parkingremoval a ndthe addition of trees and plantings on the east side (our revised lot). The new Iandscapingwill complement the aI ready natural Christmas Shores Outlot -Aon the west side creating natural corridorto the public access improving the sometimes congested trafficf I ow through the removal of the exi sting 3 driveways. In addition: • the shoreland district hardcover requirement of25 %willbemet, • City required utility and drainage easements will be added to the perimeter of both lots, and • The current house and detached garageat21265 Radisson Roadwill remain unchanged. Lehman's Addition Page 2 of 5 Q Section 1201.05 of Shorewood Zoning Ordinance Conditions Governing Consideration of Minor Subdivision and Variance Request Subsection b. (1) Spec i a I conditions and circumstances exist forth egros sly substandard I ot of record (Circa: 1940's) located at 2 1285 Ra disson Road. The corner lot i s currently situated at the SE corner of Merry La ne a nd Ra disson Road. Being 50ft. wi de a nd 150ft. long corner lot, the entirety of the parcel is within the designated RIA setback. The lotis 7,500 sq. ft., 18.8%of the required 40,000 sq. ft. In addition to bei ng within the setback, a nd grosslys u bstandard in size, the home located on this I of i s 20ft. wi de by 30ft. I ong which is I ess than the minimum required for Shorewood of 22ft. wi de by 30ft. I ong. (2) Literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance renderthi s lot unbuildable by nature of it being a cornerlotand grossly substandard in size. Other nearby lots of record are either larger, not s ituated on a corner or were revised into the R1C zoning district. (3) The special conditions and circumstances brought about by the grosslysubstandardIotcame into existence i n the 1940's and were not created through any action of ours. (4) Given the unique circumstances surroundingthe number of homes on our lots and the substandard nature of one of the lots, we do not bel ievethi s request provides special privilege. We believe our request is in I ine with otherva riances granted, wherein density of homes is reduced through combining of lots or removal of non - conforming dwellings that are consistent with the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan for housingdensity. Rationale for approval: Although variances are required for our proposed mi norsubdivision and subsequent new home construction, we have ma de a n effort to minimize the number of variances required and we believe the goa Is defined in the City's Comprehensive Plan Update of 2009 for Land Use in our neighborhood are being met i n at l east2 i mportant a reas: • A reduction from Medium Density Residential (3 -6 units per acre) to Low Density Residential (1 -2 units per acre) [(Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan Update of 2009; Proposed Land Use map, page LU -23] and • The preservation of existing taxable I ots [Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan Update of 2009; General Land Use Policy 13, page LU -8,]. In addition, even thoughthe new lots will not meetthe R1A mi ni mum required I ots ize of 40,OOOsq. ft. and Iotwidthof 120ft., they wi I I both bewider and largertha n the adjacent residential lot i mmedi atelyto the east of the proposed minorsubdivision. This adjacent lot (21235 Radisson Road) Lehman's Addition Page 3 of 5 of 17,184 sq. ft. and lot width of 65.5 ft. was granted a Conditional Use Permit and Variances to build a I a rge new home in 1999 (City of Shorewood Resolution No. 99 -037, Olson, 21235 Radisson Road). The number of requested variances required is 3: 1. Conditional Use Permitand LotSizeVarianceto buildon a 21,410sq.ft. lot, 54%of the required 40,000sq. ft. lotfor R1A. 2. Lot Width Varianceto bui Idon a 90ft. wide lot, 75% of the 120 ft. lotwidth required for RIA. 3. Road SetbackVa riance of 35 ft. from Merry Lane vs. the required 50ft. for RIA (3 existing homes currently only 20ft. from Merry Lane). Code does allow for legal setbacks less than the normal minimum required fora given zoning district: Ordinance Section: 1201.03 General Provisions: Subd. 3, Yard Requirements. Subsection d: Where adjacent residential structures within the same block havefrontyard setbacks differentfrom those required, the front yard minimum setback shall be the average of the adjacentstructures. If there is only one adjacentstructure, thefrontyard minimum setback shallbe the average of the required setback and the setback of the adjacentstructure. In no case shall the required front yard setback exceed that required minimum established within the districts of this chapter. Given that our 3 homes that comprisethe'same block' of Merry Lane from Radisson Road to the Public access are 20ft. from Merry Lane, we bel i eve this section of the Ordinance could reasonably defi nethe current setback as 20ft. from Merry Lane. The more restrictive interpretation (average of 1 home and the 50ft. RIA requirement) would put the setback at 35ft. (our request). We acknowledge the factthat having these buildings removed priorto constructing the new home complicate the interpretation of the setba ck requirement, however, we bel i eve that removing the 3 houses 20ft. from Merry Lane in favorof a single house 35ft. from Merry Lane (the more restrictive interpretation) is reasonable. Given thesefacts: • our currentlots havegross non-conformities and • we arewillingto makethis changeand • our proposal is consistentwith theCity of Shorewood's Comprehensive Plan and • our proposal is consistent with theapproved conditional use permitand variances of a similar immediatelyadjacentsubstandard lot, we bel i eve ou r request meets the s pirit of the Ci ty's Comprehensive Plan, a nd a s best as possible, meets the City's Ordinances. For thes e reasons, we respectfully request the Shorewood City Council to gra nt a 113 Variance Requests with the Conditional Use Permit. Lehman's Addition Page 4 of 5 M11 ro a a a Ul 9 Ln r cu V) ' V 0 0 LA rD r 0 V 0 -OP m a� 0 Z5 Q CU Q N n v cr n w 2 eb ng J 3 r t i r cu V) ' V 0 0 LA rD r 0 V 0 -OP m a� 0 Z5 Q CU Q N n v Ii . > i O •, _0 ^� Ca � � fa a-+ O N � Q d1 to Ln V 'Q S Q N N ryll U d' vi v N v O .E a� � ca 'i � N V > Ca ? fB fu • .� C dJ N (1) N � N 0 0 ca .� '� O > .� N C: v _0 o o 'cn o U > :3 ca Ln .— v, C: C 0 0 0 0 0 v ca O oc U w w .N cC Ul N U c� ca o 0 - v to i U O J J N In i VO V) O � - N N W N N _ _ .O • � Q a) � c�a oC U 0 w c�a CC =3 N O O � L O ��d N .� N 0 N � ( U V N N m N a) cn 0 •� C0 Ln to Ln rl N rl N v cn O rl N rl N cn O Ln 0 E CL QL CL O a' N O 0 0 '� O a� O' X ri c�i m d- = L rl N L I �- a. J w (A a. a. O a. Ii . i U fa m f� i a� J N 1 T� V 1 U L •U N N ro O >' s Op -0 N C6 00 O � U 0 .N O � O 4A O _N _0 •X N N � co j > V) s O 1n +- U m •� E � v V 00 •� v � v N � Q C: O � Q � � O U - m v C6 N ne I I N O N _Ile O O m Q O QO c a., v1 4--J O — c6 0 o O = O bA O N m U U .N N U U a U v +.j J > a Ln LU U • U N C O Ln 'L s O cam/) }' L J V) +-1 V) s -'-� -�e O o U N E o LL • O U m 0 E • O O � N 4-j � O U — N � O U v � � i N N � � ' U U O O N N E O J a-j � 0 N E O O0 .O Ln D U > X Ul N '0 O O C- 0 cn N or- N 0 N N z cr- u I I .N E s N .J E O J O 4— O O W 75 cB d. 0 L- 0 z O L � N � v i N U U° 0- • B -7 N^, U O vi W ro -N .Q cn +- L cn O c6 . �= m O • L O i ca .�C E V O U m m u 0 -� ri V) 0 L , _ -0 L- a) N a) Ln si V) ° E v r-i L. M - 4-+ V 4A N a--+ - O V O _0 O O _ cn a) O (U V a) — a) cn a) a) o a) O U 0 L-- f� m O ate--+ 4- J �� ii C6 O � � � 4— U U -Y 4- -0 V) -r- -C 4- O cn 4-J u � O � 4-' +-� O >. ca N O� 4A CaA U 0 m +-) N — 4-J •gin 'gin O M C cn W a) L- V) U U� (> Q� 4- _0 u' v' .Q � °' w •Q O v' m C6 Ln� (U.- ow a a� o���L v M •>• -i-+ +� • �- Q) a) 4-- O N C: N O �n C) tZp c6 Q� O0-0 F O a- LZ I I I I • Existing ru O Existing Lots 7,500 sq. ft. 38,758 sq. ft. XX XXR XX= XXXX X X X X XXX X IU X c X � X XXXR-- RX X X % % %::X >W XXX #X::XX :XXX:: XX XXX XXXX X X. XXX — XXX WXx X N X X, X 1XI XX XX X X XX.X X XXX xxx Ru R ;;;^ ma X. XMH .?E..X?Sxx XXXX X X X X:: ::x34x:.x X u.9,XXXXXXXXXN X NXXXXXXXXXXXXXX v -munnumup S X Him . :,?. X ... X.... WK X, XXXXmXH-� Xw .... ji -x-xx.xx ... X... R XXXXXXX Fr I.I. XX X xxxxxx XXXXXXXXX X X XXXXX 1-11M. X ire. X %% 4 XXX XXX AVON XXXX xx,:x XXXXXX XX�XXXXXXXXXXXX XXX XXXXX XXXXXXXXXXXX XXX HXXXXX X �Xxxnxxxx XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXNXXxxx je 0 X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X.XX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX NX X Nux. N XX:: XX::XXX::XXX::XXX::XXX::XXX:: lb X X X .3, XXt.xxk:xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxNIIN I XX X"N"MUMM ...X MXXMXX X.. XXXXX X r..uxxxxxx5EXX.%xx'X'-X-XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXX.XX 999XXXX9XXX99XXXXXX !r .Kxx XX xxx*," XXX?S XX?!XXX?SXXXX: XX :w XX::XXX..XXX.. X..XXX= X.XXX: X 999999XXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXX: I XX X m ml XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXWE: wX:X: -X -X -X:X: -X -X -XX:: -X -X XN; -X X-:: X- X XX V.X XXXXuRg XX XXXXXXXXXXXHUNUX XX XXX X XXX::XXX::Xp:: -XXMINNIUM XXXXX X XXX .. XX FA lxl:: iffiffiffiN X X X X XXXX X-XX Xx m 9X XX X .. X fix 11 •X X XXXXXXXX . XXXXXXXX XXX X. X::X I - -x::xxx::xx - XXXXXXXX X9N XX X XX9NXXX X XXXX X - XX XXX :X,lXcXXXXXlXXX MXXXXNnX X .. :: Nq - sixxx Xv. XX.. XX X XXXX=XXXXXX X; X Xxv. ME X IFSHE - I I X. .-x .. X XXXXX ...... XXXXXXX XXXX XX X ?SXXX::XXX::XXXXX: XXXXXXXXX u VT, hman's Addition 11'y Y cr -*k > .".:XXXXXXXX XNINXXX XX X"XN . ::k ig-:� X ... X.... XXXXXXX XX X XH999XXXXXXXXXX XX xx XXXX X XXNX XX::XXX: NX XX X X. MW I .. "%k X:. 0 XX XX XXXXXXXXXXXX W-NIX 9X 9X XXX 9X NX N. .9 9. . X ....XXXX X X XX S HUME.H. ..�,p X.:XXX::XXX::XXXA XXXI:XXX XXXXXXXXXXX§" XXXXX xx=XNX::Nxx.. F- X��.V.Xxxx XX XXX XX X XXXXXXX XX XXXXX PCWXX XXXX X :-:XR XXXXXXX X XxnXY.1 X.I., X X X:. XXXX XX X X YX m I K X XXXXXX X X XXX X X X . :. X::XXX:*X C) X X SH X X XMUMAX X XXX XX.-X X X Mll XXX- X .. XX X XX XX I XXXX..x X *C -.2M. XXX M? mm: X::XX N X X:: XX:. ux X, XXWX X I.: XX XX Im, XX IN XX .. 5.5. X-X XXX x.X "X X %::%%%. %XX XXHXXX OXX X I X X X X X _X X NNE ONOn Nnxxxx X X X X.%-A xxx--I-xx-.-.XPN,x,x X X, XXXXX XXXX XX lux HUMUN9, X X?�Xmm XXnXXXnKgXNgXXN X XX *% XX XX::XXXXXX.11. XXXXX XXXXXXXX XXXXXXX XKXXXXXKXXXXXNXXXXX 0 XXXXXXXXXXNXX XXXXXXX X XX X XXXXXX x%%%% X XXXXn XXXXXXX xxx�xx X..XXX. XX..XXX.. X XMXXX,,X,,XX X I -19MR-H9 X::XXX XX::X X..Ixx::Xxx::x -.-XX.. XXXXXXXX rt XxXXX XnXXX xm?�Xxxx XXXXXXXXXXXXXXg—C X..XXX XX..Xxx:: XX::XXX::XXX::XX X XN XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX X 0 LSO N Lot (N eigh bor): 17,184 sq. ft. Proposed Lots —Lam-- rn 3:21, 410 sq. ft. xx I > xxx xx tip' a xxx xx x xx KM x x e. x • K x . . C . , X X XXXX xx xx x3x1 x,N x XX.NXxg NN XXx% I KXxNXX xNXXX vxY xx mm1xv. NXXIMxx mxm ... 5 - M.-M.g. X. x xx 1 N "Cc xMxx xx I x xx x x xx fl, xxxx CC. TACT ACT A:24, 848 sq. ft. xx xx xx XXX x XX xx XXXI. x x XXIXIMIXIXXNXXX x 1, xx USE r7 _3 "N �b. t7' Lehman's Addition O > xxx xx tip' a xxx xx x xx KM x x e. x • K x . . C . , X X XXXX xx xx x3x1 x,N x XX.NXxg NN XXx% I KXxNXX xNXXX vxY xx mm1xv. NXXIMxx mxm ... 5 - M.-M.g. X. x xx 1 N "Cc f Existing Homes 2 Homes on Radisson Road - 51111 2 Homes on Merry Lane X. 17 .......... XX XXXXX XXXXX X X::XkX;:XX X XX X, XXXXXX XX XX X,:N> XX XXr XXXXXXXX 1. EXXX X ry XX X A XN... XXX X =3 xx=x N ?!XX X 'EXXX XX,XXXX XXOXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XlXlXX X "X XXXXXXuXXXXX 44 - OXXXXXIC X .. X. X XXXXXXV. XXX XX XX -XXXX.XXXXXX AM' XXX XXX X XXXXX :XX ::xxx::x ::xxx::Xxx::Xxx::* XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXX X X XXX'* X XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXX� XX ME .. ... X �;: v . .. XXX XX X X XX X XXKNc.:" XX XXN:: �:�:XXNX N. XX ?�X XXXX X NOW Xxx:. X XXX X X XXX XX X.X :)rXXXXXXX MX X X S , Z.E X 011 K XX W XX �:il-.-.XPX EXXXX Nc - XX:: X . MW XX:: XXXXXXXX XX XX X XXXX-XXX-X-: *XX :XXXKXXXX XXX XXX9XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X X. X XXXXXX XX XX A, X X.�,� ��Ax XX nXXX XXXXOXXXXXOXX:�: X XXXXXXXXX XXX xxx X::XXX::XXX::NNX.. XXX?SX X XXXX X X X XXXX X X XX4XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.:l�:::** XXXXXINICX .X XX XX Xx X L-X X.:: . XX XX:: X XXXrX :xxx::xxx:- X, X X XX XX;X:X99nNXX::XXX::XXX::XXX:: �:�Axx XX .:X..::xxx: X XXXXXXX lb X XXXXXXXXXXXXXX:, Xx- xxx::Xxx::Xx: XXXXXXX X X X X i1xv Eux. XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX:,* XXXXX XX X X - X L X "XX XXX :�iXXXXKXHHXXX :Xxx::Xxx:* X .XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXXXX EXXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X XXXXXXX I XXX XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX X.. XX:: X::XXX::XXX::X9N99 XX XXX XX XX99XXXXXX 1111 XIXXXX,x X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXKX X\ XWXXXXXXK90KNUM X�Xx X.. ..X XX XX. X XXXuXXXuX XX X X N., I XX.XgXXg X XXX9XXXX X XXX OXXXXXXXXXXXXXX XXNNNX XX:: XXXXX X XXX XON *XXX. xxx:x:xmxxxx"x:xxxxxx:x:xxxx::x XXXXXOX Ix I XXXXXXXXXX X XXX XXXXXXXXXXX 9X I XXXXXXXXXXX X9 X X X�Xxxngxxn ":Y.xx::Xxx..:x ::XXX: . X..XXX.. X XXXXXX Xy. .9X.X XXXX9 XXIVXgx XXXXXXON XXXXXX XX, XX XXXXXXX XX I'll: I ..Xxx.vx*lgpx.. I XX XXXX XX NXXVINX.. XXXXXXw XM X- XX ::Xx- w FXX % XXXXPCHIM X X rw XX X XX XXXX XXX XX X III X HE I, Cl., UNINNINIXx XX Zz- XXXXXX9 X XX X NX XX Rehrnan's Addition S- Final Proposed Structure Z' W and Hardcover _T N- L '36ft N 95� New Tract B (21285 Radiss Road C, Proposed Hard Cover (sq.ft ......... .. ......... Ho use 3,7231---- Dri 1 veway ,2901 .1 .4 ............. :1 C ft Sidewalks 240 11ft .7- 0 , otal Hard Cover 5 253 Sift i � Lot Size 21,410 % Hard Cover 24. 5% ............ .............. .................. .................. k 2 New Tract A (21265 Radi sson Roa > Proposed Hard Cover (sq.ft.) 7_ 1. 7 '/.1 iJ m • Ho use 1,820, Driveway 1,250 Sidewalks 300 Total Hard Cover 3,370 Lot Size 24,848 N 9r:3 -7 % Hard Cover 13. 6% .................. . ................. V ,,j,('ehrnan's Addition :r OLSON Lot .(Neighbor): 17,184 sq. ft. N 9r:3 -7 V ,,j,('ehrnan's Addition :r OLSON Lot .(Neighbor): 17,184 sq. ft. Landscaping Plan 1(2) (Elevation lines, 1 ft.) J V1 1-j fn APPLIED INP4, R I- JE S E A R C Subject Property I WOrrr-T CIESCRIP'n14; `ATIONS11 PETER & MARIE LEHMAN SKEET TITLProposed Landscape (North <-+-) Landscaping Plan 2(2 (Elevation lines ft.), Hasta and Tiger Lily around house Proposed 21285 Radisson Road NO At Olt h������i�y�� m'uuvn �r�/o�- � ---~-------------------------~— /.'----` /� ---- 1285 Radisson Road ree Inventory Maple Before After Removed N et Ch ange rn APPLIED INNOVATIONS PETER & MARIE LEHMAN M U RESEARCH LLC 31 17 � LU Uj_ ^ Landscape Maple rn APPLIED INNOVATIONS PETER & MARIE LEHMAN M U RESEARCH LLC � LU Uj_ ^ Landscape O" be d O 1 FEIP VINES P-DOVION) -Ve Fv rIFCT A €- CRIRTL',', 5i -=E T TAT. -F: APPLIED iNNOVATIONS PETER & MARIE LEHMAN ° RESEARCH LLC PRELIMINARY SOUTHEAST 'VIEW x N LLB VIP � \k r 3 all - a► ii _ _ �• L - � � ':j�Y,•1"•TTTT1TT `��� T S G t J DA'A'G41 NG-ry pROyTCN[{:, Erf: �F:JErT 1FSr-PtP71ra•J: � ,T APPLIED I N N OVATT ICJ S PETER MARIE LE Cri N rn x N LLB A`Fn x W r-lp wlN6,s PPICIVIGE cl sy: APPLIED INNOVATIONS RESEARCH LLC r- O..B]E cTDF-S= PIPTION: PETER & MARIE LEHMAN SFI—Irt;T TITLE: PRELIMINARY NORTI—WEST VIDN .P I Y Ca DRAV.+ UCS :V.0VME0 INY: � i PR[57E�fi C)r,.S+_t:._; -: _+�a: rn �, rn APPLIED INNOVATIONS PETER & MARIE LEHf�i1�N ° RESEARCH LLC PR-,; ELI MCI NARY ` NORTHEAST VIEW .P - `' Cl- 0 Liu ry LU Liu Lu K ow Li ul ry LU fy ui ILI Liu ry LU Liu Lu K ow Exhibit I PROPOSED ROME - ELEVATIONS Li ul ry LLI fy Exhibit I PROPOSED ROME - ELEVATIONS L•, m O O N O N f6 L z m N n r-I ca N W E N O 4-- N I -2 �.� A ��s 1, I j% 5-, a I� i RNNIA 3 i f I I I f} R.S I h I I I I m i m 0 0 N m E 0_ s- 4— ATE I y SCALE, ft, I -3 ki .l (tl 0 ui J u' uj LU } 1l2 IJ iD I• � AZ f—� LU L I LU � I (1 UJ u liz ry {Ll�L �I T ATE I y SCALE, ft, I -3 ki .l 0 ui J u' uj a. 1l2 IJ iD I• � AZ L I LU � I (1 �1 u ATE I y SCALE, ft, I -3 ki .l 0 P u' 1l2 I• � L I LU �1 {Ll�L ATE I y SCALE, ft, I -3 I -4 IS J -2 k n' ' U LL W II a.;. Lj F—t i j r t q I= LU a; Ell i t� Li 0 , 4 1 i .y is„ H E E re 4-J xi is G W ce CL � O I.�l. AA l ^L \/ O O Q DATE. . -_ 4-J ` 5/4/2014 t 116" - 1 ft J -2 CITY OF SHORE WOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JUNE 3, 2014 MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:04 P.M. ROLL CALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD 7:00 P.M. Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Labadie, Maddy, and Muehlberg; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Commissioner Davis APPROVAL OF AGENDA Maddy moved, Muehlberg seconded, approving the agenda for June 3, 2014, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES May 6, 2014 Maddy moved, Muehlberg seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of May 6, 2014, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — MINOR SUBDIVISION /COMBINATION CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND VARIANCE Applicant: Peter and Marie Lehman Location: 21265/21285 Radisson Road Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:06 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a minor subdivision/combination, variances and conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for Peter and Marie Lehman for the properties located at 21265 and 21285 Radisson Road. He explained the Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. They are appointed by the City Council. The Commission's role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission's responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non - binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. Director Nielsen explained that Peter and Marie Lelunan own the properties located at 21265 and 21285 Radisson Road. The properties are zoned R -lA/S, Single - Family Residential and are subject to shoreland management regulations. The 21285 property contains 7500 square feet of area and the 21265 property contains 38,758 feet of area. For the R -lA zoning district 40,000 square feet is the minimum required. The applicants' home is located on the 21265 property as well as two small cabins. There is one small cabin on the 21285 property. In addition to the very substandard area and width of the existina lots. Attachment III CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANl._ AG COMMISSION MEETING June 3, 2014 Page 2 of 14 particularly the westerly lot, four dwellings on two lots is inconsistent with the current single - family zoning. The applicants' intent is to equalize the width and area of the two parcels, remove the existing very nonconforming small cabins, and build a new home on the newly enlarged westerly lot. He displayed an exhibit showing the size of the proposed lots. The applicants' plans necessitate the following zoning actions: ➢ Minor subdivision (a lot line rearrangement that would change the configuration of the two lots) ➢ Lot area variances - Reconfigured 21265 property (Tract A) — 24,848 square feet (40,000 square feet required) Reconfigured 21285 property (Tract B) — 21,410 square feet (40,000 square feet required) ➢ Lot width variances - Tract A — 81 feet (120 feet required) - Tract B — 90 feet (120 feet required) ➢ Building setback variances - Existing garage —12.8 feet from east side (20 feet required) - Proposed new home — 35 feet from Merry Lane (50 feet required) with required eave exception ➢ Conditional use permit (C.U.P.) to build a home on a substandard shoreland lot With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen stated the improvements over the current situation are quite drastic. They will bring things more towards conformity. He explained that prior to 2006 nonconforming structures and uses were treated differently than they are today. It used to be that if one of the nonconforming structures were demolished or destroyed to 50 percent or more of their value it could not be replaced. A lot of times cities including Shorewood would wait out the situations and eventually someone would want to do something with their property and they would have to remove the nonconformity. In 2006 the legislature passed laws that allowed them to be put back to their former extent if destroyed (even if they were intentionally taken down). He explained the new house will comply with the rear yard setback and front yard setback. It will not comply with the side yard setback against Merry Lane (35 feet instead of 50 feet). To mitigate that the applicants propose a landscape plan and staff recommends that initiating that plan be a condition of approval. Both properties will comply with hardcover requirements (25 percent for shoreland lots). He then explained since the staff report was distributed to the Planning Commission the Lehmans have asked for a couple of things. One was a 15 foot variance rather than a 14 foot setback variance for the side yard abutting Merry Lane. They are also asking to keep the middle of the three cabins. Peter Lehman, 21265 Radisson Road, stated they had forgotten to include in the proposal that they wanted to keep the middle of their three cabins and that removing two cabins will eliminate the nonconformity of four houses on two lots. He explained their intention is to sell their primary residence and they want to live in the middle cabin while they stage their 21265 property and try to sell it. Once that property is sold they it will determine their budget for building their new home on their 21285 property. He anticipates they will spend months with an architect refining the plan for their new home. They intend to live on the 21285 property during that process. They want to keep the middle cabin until their permit is pulled. They are trying to mitigate risk in the event there would be, for example, a tragedy or health issue. The staff recommendations include demolishing the three cabins within 60 days of the release of the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANN G COMMISSION MEETING June 3, 2014 Page 3 of 14 resolution approving the rearrangement, variances and C.U.P. They have submitted a letter dated June 1, 2014, in response to the staff recommendations asking to keep the middle cabin until the new home can be constructed, and to be given one to three years to construct their new home. Director Nielsen explained that he had told the Lehmans that three years was too long. He initially suggested that they could be given six months to take the third cabin down. He explained he reviewed other requests where someone was allowed to keep a dwelling while they built a new one and then take the other dwelling down within one year. That is consistent with what the City Code requires for both variances and C.U.P.s. A person has one year to use them. That same one year will apply to the middle cabin they want to use for a while. He clarified that the 60 -day demolition recommendation for two of the cabins stands. He noted that the staff report contains a list of recommended conditions of approval Mr. Lehman noted his lots have been around since the 1940s. They first moved into their home 28 years ago this month. They were married on the property and raised their three children there. Mr. Lehman provided some history about the area. He stated a public access was put in at Christmas Lake in 1987. That access is directly to the south of their property. The Brooks addition to the east of their property was developed in the 1980s. Seven new R -1A lots were created at that time. Immediately to the east of that there are historical homes that were rezoned to R -IA; they are all kind of small. Their home is in that category of homes on the north side of Christmas Lake. As part of the expansion of Highway 7 their property was reduced in size byl0 or 15 feet. Both properties were affected by that expansion. There was a Christmas Shores development to the west of their properties along Merry Lane to the west of the public access with R -lA lots. At that time Merry Lane was expanded. It was moved further to the east closer to their property. He stated that he and his wife are primarily concerned about mitigating their risk. Should something happen they do not want to be left with an empty lot. They do not think they should be forced to have a vacant lot should an event occur in their lives that is outside of their control. He highlighted changes he proposed for the staff report dated May 28, 2014 ➢ Zoning Code Compliance Item 4 — change the 14 -foor side yard variance to 15 -foot (35 feet instead of 50 feet) to accommodate a three -foot eave. ➢ Recommendation Item 6 — change the demolition of the small cabins to demolition of two of three small cabins. He thought getting rid of two of three small cabins within 60 days is reasonable. Also there is text in the Item about them potentially living in one of the cabins while their new home is built. They no longer intend to live on the 21285 property while the new home is being built. The middle cabin is where the new home would be built. When construction is to begin the cabin will be demolished. ➢ Recommendation Item 8 — it states that "Upon recording of the minor subdivision the applicants have one year to make use of the variance and conditional use permit." They asked that be changed to three years. Economic conditions can change quickly. Mr. Lehman asked the Planning Commission to accept the changes he proposed to the staff report and to recommend approval of their requests. Chair Geng thanked Mr. Lehman and noted his annotations on the staff report were helpful. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANI-- G COMMISSION MEETING June 3, 2014 Page 4 of 14 Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Gong opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:29 P.M. Commissioner Labadie stated approving the Lehmans request for three years is a bad precedent to set. She noted that she appreciates some of the concerns about risk (e.g., the economy, the housing market) conveyed. She stated Director Nielsen indicated that in the past the City has allowed one year. She thought that is reasonable. Director Nielsen noted the ordinance has a provision that allows the applicant to come back to the City before the one year is up for the C.U.P. and request a 6 -month extension. That gives the applicants 18 months to sell their 21265 property. Commissioner Labadic stated that additional 6 months addresses some of their concerns. She noted that she has no problems with the rest of the applicants' requests. She thought the proposal is fantastic. Removing the cabins and constructing another home would improve the neighborhood. Chair Gong stated he would echo Commissioner Labadie's comments with respect to the one year time limit on the C.U.P. especially since learning the applicants can ask for a 6 -month extension before the one year is up. He recommended two cabins be demolished within 60 days and the middle cabin be left standing for no more than one year. Director Nielsen stated Recommendation Item 6 talks about getting a bid for the demolition of the cabins. That bid should include all three. Chair Gong commended the applicants for coming forward with their plan. The improvements will reduce the nonconformity substantially. He stated he thought their plan is beautiful. He appreciates the work that has gone into it. The landscape plan is well thought out and appropriate to the area. Commissioner Maddy stated if for some reason the applicants do not make the year or possibly 18 -month deadline he asked if the City would take the middle cabin down. Director Nielsen responded the applicants would; the letter or credit or escrow would guarantee that. If they did not there would be an escrow agreement stating the City would then do that using their money. Maddy asked if the applicants would have to get building permits within 18 months if they did not build within that time. Director Nielsen explained that if they did not build within that time they would have to reapply for variances and the C.U.P. to build on the 21285 lot. Chair Gong stated the request to keep the middle cabin longer than 60 days was not part of the original application. Director Nielsen stated the timing of the demolition is not in the notice anyway. Commissioner Muehlberg noted that he agrees that it should be a one year time limit with the opportunity for another six months. He stated there is a lot of risk for anyone building a new home. He commented he had been in the position of owning two homes for 18 months and that was a difficult situation. Mr. Lehman stated if they had just applied for a lot line rearrangement without applying for variances and a C.U.P. for a new home and if he was willing to remove two of three cabins to get rid of that nonconforming use he asked the Planning Connnission if it would have recommended approval. The nonconforming use is the four house /cabins on two properties. That is one of the worst types of zoning nonconformities. He then stated he does not think it is unreasonable to keep one 600 - square -foot cabin on the second property they own. He noted the worst case is he has a 600 - square -foot cabin on that property and the best case is he has a 4000 - square -foot house with an attached garage on it. For the best case the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANT-,—iG COMMISSION MEETING June 3, 2014 Page 5 of 14 hardcover would be way up. He stated having the one cabin there is not going to cause anyone any harm. He noted he finds it unreasonable to ask him to remove a good house on a lot. He stated leaving it on the property helps him mitigate his risk. He asked that be taken into serious consideration. Commissioner Maddy stated he did travel down that path of consideration. If two cabins were removed and there was one small cabin on larger lot everyone would be better off. But, if that were the scenario then the applicant would not have any rights to the reduced setbacks to build a house on that lot. By the applicants guarantying the third cabin will be gone within the stated time the City is willing to relax its rules to allow the applicant a reasonable amount of time to build house on the lot. There is a trade. Chair Geng concurred there is a trade. It is not all take on the part of the City. He stated the Planning Commission and Council have to be mindful of when it does grant variances. It is not just a variance at a single point in time. He then stated that the applicants had pointed out that a similar variance was granted in the not too distant past. He noted he appreciates the applicants' concern about risk. But, that has to be balanced with public policy. Commissioner Labadie stated there is one proposal before the Planning Commission this evening. It can either recommend approval or denial. The possibility of hypotheticals is not before the Commission. Maddy moved, Labadie seconded, recommending approval of Peter and Marie Lehman's request for a minor subdivision /combination, variances and conditional use permit for their properties located at 21265 and 21285 Radisson Road subject to the conditions identified in the Staff report and allowing the middle cabin to stay standing for up to one year. Motion passed 4/0. Director Nielsen stated this item will go before the City Council on June 23, 2014. Mr. Lelunan clarified that the staff report recommendation has identified three items that must be submitted within 30 days before their applications will be scheduled to go before the City Council. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:44 P.M. 2. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Applicant: Northern State Power Company (Xcel Energy) Location: 5505 Country Road 19 Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:44 P.M., noting the same procedures followed for the previous public hearing will be followed again. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for additional accessory buildings for Northern States Power Company (aka Xcel Energy) for its property located at 5505 County Road 19. Director Nielsen explained that Xcel Energy proposes to add two equipment storage buildings to their site. Because "governmental and public regulated utility buildings and structures" are listed as conditional uses in the Shorewood Zoning Code, Xcel is requesting a C.U.P., pursuant to Section1201.22 Subd. 4.e. of the Code. He noted that Xcel has been a good neighbor. The property is zoned C -1, General Cormnercial. The property contains approximately 5.63 acres of land; 5.04 acres of it are in Shorewood and the remainder is in Tonka Bay. It is currently occupied by the Xcel Service Center, which includes the west metro offices, maintenance garage and storage building. Land use and zoning surrounding the site are as follows. North: LRT Trail, then a landscape business in Tonka Bay; zoned commercial