Loading...
08-07-12 Planning Comm Agenda packet CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 7 AUGUST 2012 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE MUEHLBERG (Jul) ______ DAVIS (Aug) ______ GENG (Sep) ______ HASEK (Jun/Nov) ______ HUTCHINS (Dec) ______ CHARBONNET (May) ______ GARELICK (Oct) ______ APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 3 July 2012  1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – PRELIMINARY PLAT – ASHLAND WOODS Applicants: Ashland Woods, LLC Location: 6045 Strawberry Lane 2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – ZONING CODE TEXT AMENDMENT – ACCESSORY APARTMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS 3. REVIEW COMMENTS REGARDING THE SMITHTOWN CROSSING STUDY 4. ZONING CODE DISCUSSION  General Provisions – Noise Ordinances 6. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 7. OLD BUSINESS 8. NEW BUSINESS 9. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Planning Commission Meeting Agenda 7 August 2012 Page 2 10. REPORTS Liaison to Council  SLUC  P.C. Training  11. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, JULY 3, 2012 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Charbonnet, Davis, Garelick and Hasek; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Commissioners Hutchins and Muehlberg APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Davis stated she would like to continue Item 3 Animal Control Ordinance (Dogs/Cats) to a future meeting. She noted that she thought the way the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department wrote the draft Uniform Animal Control Ordinance (draft Ordinance) is brutal. Director Nielsen stated he was going to suggest that anyway. He wanted time to compare the draft Ordinance for the SLMPD member cities to the City’s Animal Control Ordinance. Davis moved, Hasek seconded, continuing the discussion about the draft Uniform Animal Control Ordinance (draft Ordinance) to a future meeting pending further information. Motion passed 5/0. Davis moved, Garelick seconded, approving the agenda for July 3, 2012, as amended. Motion passed 5/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  June 5, 2012 Davis moved, Hasek seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of June 5, 2012, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. Commissioner Hasek stated he noticed the applicants for Item 2 on the agenda have young children with them. He suggested discussing Item 2 before Item 1 on the agenda. Director Nielsen noted that discussion of Item 2 is posted to start no earlier than 7:10 P.M. and it can’t start before that time. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ELECTRONIC DISPLAY SIGN Applicants: Our Savior’s Lutheran Church Location: 23290 State Highway 7 Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:07 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained that if this item is acted upon this evening it will be placed on a July 23, 2012, Regular City CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 3, 2012 Page 2 of 13 Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. He noted Our Savior’s Lutheran Church, 23290 State Highway 7, has requested a conditional use permit for an electronic display. Director Nielsen noted this is the first conditional use permit to be received since the City’s new dynamic sign ordinance went into effect. Nielsen explained that Our Savior’s Lutheran Church, 23290 State Highway 7, proposes to replace their existing freestanding sign at the front of their property with a dynamic display sign in the same location. The proposed sign requires a conditional use permit (C.U.P.), pursuant to Section 1201.03 Subd. 11.e. of the Shorewood Zoning Code. The proposed sign measures approximately 2.67 feet by 6.25 feet and contains 16.7 square feet of area. A sign is allowed to be up to 20 square feet. The sign will be located on the north side of the service drive in front of the Church. The illustration of the sign included in the meeting packet shows an angled, two-face sign. The applicants are proposing a back to back, double- faced instead. Doing so allows them to comply with the maximum sign area requirement whereby only one side of the sign is counted. Nielsen then explained the applicant has submitted a certification letter, a copy of which is included in the meeting packet, confirming that the various brightness levels and software controls required by the new ordinance are being complied with. The meeting packet also contains a copy of a photometric plan illustrating various light levels on the property. As indicated, the levels are well below the 0.4 foot-candle maximum provided by the City Code. Nielsen explained that the applicant’s plans are consistent with the City Code. The only item Staff could find that was not addressed was the duration of the message. In residential zoning districts, the message must remain static for at least 90 minutes at a time. Since the sign is within 500 feet of single-family residential dwellings, the message must be programmed to freeze between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. Nielsen noted that based on the analysis, Staff recommends approval of the applicant’s request for a C.U.P. subject to the time constraints just discussed. Once the sign is installed, Staff will inspect for compliance. Seeing no one present wishing to comment on the case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public hearing at 7:12 P.M. Commissioner Davis stated she has no issue with the request. She expressed concern on behalf of the residents that live close to the Church. John Zahrte, the pastor at Our Savior’s Lutheran Church, stated there are no residents other than those living directly across the street. Those living to the west of the Church are tucked behind trees. Those living behind the building would be shielded from the sign. Director Nielsen noted the City did notify everyone living within 500 feet of the Church’s property. Commissioner Garelick asked if the display would be just text, or if there would there will be pictures as well. Pastor Zahrte responded just text. Director Nielsen noted the City’s Ordinance only allows alpha numeric characters in a residential district. Commissioner Hasek asked who prepared the Site Plan the Planning Commission was provided a copy of. A member of the audience stated he thought the site plan was from when the new addition to the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 3, 2012 Page 3 of 13 church was constructed. Director Nielsen explained Staff took the site plan from a previous application submitted by the Church. Hasek asked Director Nielsen how far the sign is setback off of the 35-foot setback line. Nielsen responded it is in back of the required setback, while noting that is not required. Five feet from the front property line is the requirement. Hasek suggested asking future applicants for signs to provide some type of dimension so the Planning Commission knows where the sign would be located. Nielsen noted the applicant does show the 35-foot front setback. Commissioner Davis stated she would also like a dimension of the structure off of the setback line. Hasek stated the applicants have provided the dimensions of the face of the sign. He suggested applicants be asked to provide information about the height of the sign. Hasek moved, Davis seconded, recommending approval of a conditional use permit for Our Savior’s Lutheran Church, 23290 State Highway 7, for a dynamic display sign subject to the message remaining static for at least 90 minutes at a time and freezing the message between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. Motion passed 5/0. Commissioner Garelick asked what type of message is permitted on the sign. For example, could someone make a political statement? Pastor Zahrte stated the messages will not be political in nature. The Church does advertise its worship service times, maybe a sermon theme, something regarding the school there or the child care center, special events and so forth. It would be information that is pertinent to the community. Director Nielsen noted the City cannot regulate the content of the message. The applicant noted the sign will be approximately 6.5 feet tall. Chair Geng thanked the applicants for coming this evening. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:20 P.M. 2. 7:10 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SIX-FOOT HIGH FENCE IN THE REQUIRED FRONT YARD SETBACK Applicants: Heather and Jeff Johnson Location: 23625 Smithtown Road Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:20 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained that if this item is acted upon this evening it will be placed on a July 23, 2012, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. He stated Heather and Jeff Johnson, 23625, Country Road 19, have requested a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for a six-foot high fence to be located in their front yard. He noted the applicants are present this evening. Commissioner Garelick stated on television sometime in the last few days there was a story about a person living in a nearby local city who constructed a windmill without obtaining a permit or approval. He asked if having constructed a fence without obtaining a permit (which is the case here) is in anyway similar to that. Director Nielsen noted the City’s ordinance actually provides for this type of fence in a front yard, but it does require a C.U.P. He explained that Heather and Jeff Johnson, 23625 County Road 19, have requested a conditional use permit to construct a six-foot high, alternating board on board fence across the front of their property. The property is zoned R-2A, Single and Two-Family Residential and contains CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 3, 2012 Page 4 of 13 approximately 25,968 square feet of area. County Road 19 is designated in the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan as an arterial street which is what allows them to construct the type of fence they did in the location that they did. He noted that this is an after-the-fact application, and that a substantial portion of the fence has already been constructed. Yet, it must be considered as a new application. Nielsen noted the applicants knew what the City’s rules were regarding where it could be located on their property. He explained the City’s Ordinance allows construction of a six-foot high fence by C.U.P. along an arterial street as long as it is located eight feet back from the right-of-way (ROW) line. The eight foot setback is intended to be landscaped to soften the view of the fence from the roadway. The applicants’ fence is located about twenty feet back from the Country Road 19 ROW. It extends across the front of the applicant’s property and cuts back into the site to the proposed gate, allowing room for a car to stop while the gate is being opened. Nielsen explained the Site Plan shows the location of proposed landscaping, which is also illustrated on the applicants’ sketch. The applicants propose planting four oversized spruce trees along the front wall. Climbing hydrangea and clematis will be planted so they grow over the fence and screen it. He displayed a photograph of the fence that is already in place, a sketch of the landscaping and photographs of what the plants look like. Nielsen reviewed how the applicants’ request complies with the criteria: 1. The fence must be located at least eight feet from the property line. The applicants’ fence is set back 20 feet from the front property line, allowing ample room for landscaping. 2. The applicant must submit a landscape plan for the street side of the fence to show how the visual impact of the fence will be lessened. It is not the City’s intent to totally block out the fence. There is a short row of arborvitae located along the easterly fourth of the front of the lot. The applicant proposes to add four, fifteen-foot spruce trees across the easterly portion of the fence, filling in with climbing hydrangea and clematis plants. Landscaping is a key element to this type of C.U.P. It is recommended that the applicant be required to submit a bid from a landscaper, based on the proposed landscaping, for use in determining the amount of a letter of credit or cash escrow to guarantee that the work will be done. The security must be 1.5 times the amount of the bid and should extend through the growing season next year. It is strongly recommended that the landscaping be completed by mid- September of this year. 3. The location of the fence takes into effect traffic visibility. Between the right-of-way for County Road 19 and the fence, there is ample room for cars on the County Road to see cars exiting the site. It is recommended that the westerly-most of the spruce trees be located such that at least half a car length (10 feet) of a car in the driveway will be visible to traffic on Smithtown Road, taking into account the diameter of the tree at maturity. Nielsen noted that based on the analysis, Staff recommends the applicants’ request for a C.U.P. be approved subject to the applicants providing a letter of credit or cash escrow for 1.5 times the amount of the landscape bid and that the landscaping should be done by early fall of 2012. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 3, 2012 Page 5 of 13 Mr. Johnson asked the Planning Commission to recommend approval of their C.U.P. because of their two young children. He explained that his sense of urgency in putting up the fence was because one of his children was about 1.5 feet away from the roadway and he freaked out. He went to grab one child and the other child ran off. He then explained the setback is more than double the eight feet required. Their intent is to plant about $2,400 in spruce trees. Currently they are considering three fifteen-foot-tall spruce trees and maybe one smaller spruce tree or a different type of tree that won’t grow quite as large. He asked Director Nielsen what his thoughts are about doing that. Nielsen asked Commissioner Hasek to comment on that. Commissioner Hasek stated spruce trees can grow 40 to 50 feet high. Planting them closer than 20 feet to the street there would be a good chance that the tree branches could eventually reach the street. From his perspective they will certainly impact the fence. His opinion is that arborvitae would be better than spruce trees. Hasek stated that in relation to C.U.P.s in general he thought the landscaping plan should be done by someone who really knows and understands plantings. Mr. Johnson noted they did seek expertise in the landscaping field. Mrs. Johnson questioned what the concern is about being do it yourselfers. They do almost all of their own work. Mrs. Johnson asked why the Planning Commission would ask them to spend money to hire a landscaper if their intent is to maintain their landscaping and if they are abiding by the rules. Hasek stated because as part of the C.U.P. process the City asks that someone prepare a landscaping plan. Hasek noted he is only asking for what the City Ordinance asks for. Mr. Johnson asked Commissioner Hasek if he is saying he doesn’t like their landscaping plan. Hasek stated he is not saying that at all. Hasek then stated he is not sure he would be able to maintain the landscaping the applicants are proposing the way the City would like it to be maintained. Mrs. Johnson stated she doesn’t understand what Commissioner Hasek’s concern is. Commissioner Hasek stated there is concern about the size of the trees. And, that concern could have been resolved if someone had looked at the landscaping plan and recommended where spruce trees should be located near a six-foot-high fence while keeping in mind the roadway in front of the property and the need to maintain visibility. Mr. Johnson stated they showed the gentleman they plan to purchase the trees from the landscaping plan and the photographs. The gentleman is in his mid-sixties and has been in the business for a very long time. He told them they should not have a problem with the trees. Mrs. Johnson noted City Ordinance asks for a landscape plan but it doesn’t require that it be prepared by a professional landscaper. Commissioner Hasek stated Section 1201.04 Subd. 3.b(4) in the Ordinance states “Landscape plan, which shall include: (a) Location of all existing trees, type, diameter and which trees will be removed; (b) Location, type and diameter of all proposed plantings; (c) Location of and material used for all screening devices”. Hasek then stated his question is more directed toward Staff than the applicants. He went on to state that from his perspective the more information the City gets the less likely it will be to impose additional conditions as part of granting the C.U.P. He clarified he does not have a problem with the landscaping plan but he would like to see it cleaned up. Director Nielsen stated that typically Staff has recommended spacing of 20 feet for spruce trees. The trees will fill the space between the fence and the property line. There is additional space beyond that before reaching the roadway. He is not concerned about the trees that would be located to the east. He has some CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 3, 2012 Page 6 of 13 concern about the one that will be located closest to the driveway. That tree could either be eliminated or plant something else that will not grow to the same diameter as a spruce tree. Commissioner Hasek commented that the snowplows throw snow 30 feet off the street. The snow will have salt in it and the salt will kill the trees. He noted that arborvitae would be worse than spruce. He stated he thought that over-story trees should be planted instead of deciduous trees. Director Nielsen stated over-story trees don’t do anything to soften the fence. Mrs. Johnson stated they did do their research about trees because they will be an investment to them. The person who they will buy the trees from told them the trees should be fine because of how far back they will be located. They will also plant some arborvitae in front of the spruce trees that will act somewhat like a shield. Commissioner Hasek recommended the C.U.P. remain in effect for as long as the landscaping is in place, is in good shape and is maintained. He noted he does not think the landscaping is going to survive. Mrs. Johnson stated they are willing to entertain planting another type of tree based on the City’s recommendation. Commissioner Hasek stated he is quite sure that a professional landscaper would have suggested something different and provided the applicants with different answers. He commented that he as a professional landscaper would not put spruce trees in that location. Mrs. Johnson stated there are two other properties along Smithtown Road that have shrub roses and trees on the front of their property. They appear to be surviving well. Chair Geng stated Commissioner Hasek’s perspective about the spruce trees has been made abundantly clear, and he noted the city can’t dictate to the applicant what type of trees to plant. He then stated one of the conditions of the C.U.P. is to maintain the landscaping. Mrs. Johnson stated they will maintain the landscaping. Commissioner Hasek asked how long the fence has been in place. Mr. Johnson responded about four weeks. Hasek stated if there were to a trail segment constructed along County Road 19 in that area he asked where it would be located. Director Nielsen explained there has been some discussion about a potential trail along County Road 19, but there has not been any discussion about what side of the roadway it would be located on. Hasek asked if the roadway would have to be made wider to accommodate a trail on the roadway surface. Nielsen stated the trail would be built within the ROW and nothing the applicants are proposing is within the ROW. Even if the trees grow to 20 feet in diameter they will not go into the ROW. Hasek asked Nielsen if everything else is up to snuff being the applicants have lived there for three years. Nielsen stated he is not aware of there being any issues. Mrs. Johnson thanked the Planning Commission for its time. Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 7:42 P.M. John Leebens, 23825 Smithtown Road (Co. Rd. 19), stated he has lived in his house for eighteen years and he thought the Johnsons were being very conservative. If it were him he would build a higher wall and plant much more vegetation. He then stated 10,000 – 12,000 cars a day travel that segment of County Road 19 (Smithtown Road). And, the eight months of motorcycle noise is abominable. He commented CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 3, 2012 Page 7 of 13 that he has complained to the police about the noise and was told that the police do not have a device to test the noise decibels; the device costs $3,000. He noted that he can’t have enough green to block out the noise. He commented he considers County Road 19 a commercial street similar to Highway 7. He stated he thought the residents who live along Smithtown Road should be allowed to comply with different Code regulations than properties located two blocks off of County Road 19. He then stated he thought much more greenery would help condense the motorcycle noise. He encouraged the Planning Commission to approve the C.U.P. Kay Hoffman 5620 Wood Duck Circle, stated she has no objection to what the Johnson’s are proposing. She stated she and her sister, who lives next door to her, think the fence is great. Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony Portion of the Public Hearing at 7:45 P.M. Hasek moved, recommending approval of a conditional use permit for Heather and Jeff Johnson, 23625 County Road 19, subject to the applicant providing a letter of credit or cash escrow for 1.5 times the amount of the landscape bid, and having the resolution approving the conditional use permit state that the conditional use permit is valid as long as the proposed/required landscaping is maintained and replaced if it dies or is substantially close to dying. Chair Geng stated in the analysis of the case Staff recommended the westerly-most spruce tree be located such that at least one half a car length (10 feet) of a car in the driveway will be visible to traffic on County Road 19, taking into account the diameter of the tree at maturity. He asked what to do with that recommendation. Director Nielsen stated that is a matter of making sure that tree is located far enough east and back, even it if becomes almost edge like. Geng asked if it would be prudent to require the applicants to present a new landscaping plan. Nielsen stated he thought Staff could handle it in the field. Geng stated then the actual placement of the trees would be subject to Staff approval. Nielsen agreed. Without objection from the maker, the motion was amended to include the placement of the trees would be subject to City Staff approval. Geng seconded. Motion passed 5/0. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:49 P.M. Commissioner Hasek recommended the Planning Commissioners at least drive by sites prior to the meeting. And, he thought the Planning Commission needs to start tightening down on C.U.P.s. Director Nielsen stated the applicants knew they needed a C.U.P. but they felt they could not wait to go through the process. They applied for the C.U.P. when Staff noticed they had constructed a fence without applying for the C.U.P. Commissioner Davis commented that the applicants knew they bought property located along a busy street even though they had young children. Commissioner Hasek stated it is up to Staff and the Planning Commission to decide what additional conditions should be imposed when approving a C.U.P. He asked how to do that without having really good information. He then stated when people tell him that they are do-it-yourselfers that raises a red flag for him. He noted that he agrees they need a fence because of their children. Commissioner Davis stated the applicants built the type of fence the City likes. Director Nielsen stated that is the favored type mainly because it complies with Code and it does the job of a solid fence. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 3, 2012 Page 8 of 13 Director Nielsen stated he doesn’t want the trees along the roadway to be surrounded by burlap as is allowed in a neighboring city. There was ensuing discussion about tree types that may withstand the salt. Commissioner Davis stated some cities provide a list of trees and plants that grow well in this climate and survive the elements well. But, the list is not restrictive. Director Nielsen noted the list of acceptable plant materials is the same as what is identified in the City’s Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy. It identifies a large variety, but it does not speak to salt tolerance. He stated Staff will do research on trees that are salt tolerant. Commissioner Davis stated the gentlemen that spoke during the Public Testimony period noted the police don’t enforce the noise ordinance. It is an example of another thing they can’t or won’t do. Director Nielsen noted that is not specific to the police department. It is like that everywhere. It’s not enforced. The Highway Patrol doesn’t deal with it either. Nielsen explained it is difficult to get a read on a moving vehicle. Davis questioned how long it would take the police to show up if there was a crime. She stated when you call they take a message. She noted that is a concern to her. She stated the residents in Shorewood pay a lot of money for service they are not getting. She then stated there is speeding, guns are being fired, there are prowlers, and there are noise problems. That is an issue to her. She went on to state she had to take a picture of the car that the prowlers on her property came in to give to the police. She explained they turned their dogs on the prowlers because the police did not come. When they called her back the police asked her what they did and she explained they turned the dogs loose and took a picture of the car. The police encouraged her not to do that and recommended she call them. She told them she had. Director Nielsen stated the police will tell you they are understaffed. Commissioner Davis commented someone is going to get killed. 3. ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE (DOGS/CATS) This item was continued to a future meeting pending additional information. 4. ZONING CODE DISCUSSION  General Provisions Director Nielsen stated the meeting packet contains a copy of the Zoning Code General Provisions Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.g – 2.u. He noted he did not think there were many issues. The landscaping standards were reviewed a couple of years ago and therefore they are pretty up to date. He stated Commissioner Hasek’s earlier comments about professional landscaping plans may be worth talking about. He noted the City does have landscape requirements for income producing properties. The City hasn’t required that for single family homes. Nielsen then stated the standard relative to noise is probably worth talking about. He explained Subd. 2.m states “Noise. The emission of noise by any use shall be in compliance with and regulated by the State of Minnesota Pollution Control Standards, Minn. Rules Chapter 7030, as amended.” The PCA standard is intended for operations that are very noisy for some length of time; such as business a that generates noise. The City has a noise meter that the Planning Department will use for those types of things. The CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 3, 2012 Page 9 of 13 City does not have a noise ordinance aside from that standard. The City does occasionally receive complaints about noise. When someone applies for a construction permit they are informed that construction hours are 7:00 A.M. – 7:00 P.M. Monday – Friday, 8:00 A.M. – 6:00 P.M. on Saturday, and construction is not allowed on Sunday. That is generally intended for builders. It does not address what he terms “the weekend warrior”. The only time they can do something such as build a deck is Saturday and Sunday. The City will periodically receive a complaint about a neighbor starting up their chainsaw at 6:00 A.M. The City has made a conscious choice not to address things like that. Commissioner Davis stated she recollected a time when road crews were running their equipment until 9:00 P.M. or even 10:00 P.M. Director Nielsen stated they should not be. Commissioner Hasek questioned why people have to complain in order to get people to comply with the Ordinance. Commissioner Davis commented that residential turbines are coming. They are big and they make noise. She suggested regulations for them should be included in the Zoning Code. Chair Geng stated there is a particular property owner in the City of Orono who has the controversial residential turbine and that he has a long history of being controversial. Director Nielsen noted doing something without a permit is a different discussion. He explained that during the discussion of Item 2 there was no discussion about what the penalty should be for constructing the fence before obtaining a permit. From his perspective there are two choices. The policy has historically been that the applicant pays a double permit fee amount for an after-the-fact permit. The conditional use permit (C.U.P.) fee is $200. A more punishing way to approach it is to also give them an administrative penalty for a zoning violation and that is $300. Commissioner Davis stated she hated to penalize the Johnsons (the applicants for the C.U.P. in Item 2.A) because they clearly had their hands full with the two little girls. What she questions is that the Johnsons knew that before they decided to construct their six-foot-high fence without a C.U.P. Director Nielsen stated he doesn’t have much sympathy when someone says they did not know they needed to have a permit when the Planning Department has told people the rules before they did anything. Commissioner Hasek stated he thought it is important for Council to know the Johnsons had been told they needed to apply for a C.U.P. but did not do so before constructing their fence. Director Nielsen stated the concept of asking for forgiveness rather than permission should not be the rule. He then stated the idea of the penalty will be discussed when Council considers the Johnsons after- the-fact C.U.P. He noted he thought at a minimum the permit fee should be doubled. Director Nielsen brought the discussion back to the topic at hand. Nielsen asked the Planning Commission if it wants to pursue noise further than what the standard is in the General Provisions. Chair Geng asked what the volume of noise complaints is. Does the City receive a lot of complaints? Director Nielsen responded maybe 2 – 3 a year at maximum. But when the City does receive them the complainant is pretty upset. Nielsen noted the City’s Nuisance Ordinance is a fallback but that is a hard CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 3, 2012 Page 10 of 13 Ordinance to enforce. Geng asked if the Minnesota PCA standards are sufficient. Do they give the City authority? Nielsen stated they do not. Director Nielsen explained that for example the City is dealing with a situation where a property owner is using his chainsaw early in the day and is riding his 4 wheeler at all hours of the day to be somewhat spiteful to people for making complaints against him. He noted the police could not even hope to catch that person under the PCA standard. He also noted that he was not confident a noise ordinance would address some of what that individual is doing. It may address his operating his chainsaw at 6:00 A.M. or someone operating his bobcat early in the morning. The PCA standard is more for sustained noise where the sound can be monitored with a noise meter for a period of time. At lot of the noise levels the City receives complaints about cannot be monitored. He commented that no one should have to ask someone not to operate their chainsaw at 6:00 A.M. Commissioner Davis stated you can’t regulate common sense. Director Nielsen stated most of these types of ordinances have to do with a very small handful of people who don’t have common sense or practice common courtesy. Nielsen then stated there is a provision in the GreenStep Cities Program that talks about dark sky requirements. He thought that the City has essentially been doing that with the downcast lighting it recommends in most cases. He noted he will research that some more. Chair Geng clarified that he has no problem with homeowners planting their own plantings. He concurs with requiring them to submit a proper plan. Director Nielsen stated for income producing properties he has no problem requiring them to have a registered landscape architect prepare the landscape plan. For residential properties having a landscape designer do the plan is to him more than sufficient. Chair Geng stated he would like to be provided with some information about what other cities have done regarding noise ordinances. Noise is a nuisance and nuisance ordinances are generally hard to enforce. He then stated there maybe benefit to have one specifically targeting noise. Commissioner Davis stated she would like that information also. Commissioner Davis stated that for many years in the neighborhood near where she lives a resident used to work on motorcycles and all summer long there was a constant noise from motorcycle engines. Director Nielsen asked if there is anything else in this part of the General Provisions that warrants discussion. Commissioner Davis asked how things are going with the trash ordinance. Director Nielsen explained both the commercial and residential sides went quite well. Davis then asked how the chicken ordinance has been received. Nielsen stated two permits have been issued for chickens. Nielsen commented he thought raising chickens on small residential property is going to be a fad. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR There were no matters from the floor presented this evening. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 3, 2012 Page 11 of 13 6. OLD BUSINESS Chair Geng asked if there is any old business for discussion this evening. In response to a question from Commissioner Davis, Director Nielsen stated the government training session will be held this fall, likely in September, and it will be done jointly with the City of Deephaven. Davis suggested picking a date soon. Nielsen stated Deephaven is heading it up and that he assumes it will be held at the Southshore Community Center. All of the South Lake area communities can participate. Commissioner Hasek stated he has not been able to find any information about chemically treating a tree to put it into a state of dormancy to reduce stress on the tree during construction. He suggested monitoring that tree on private property. He clarified that he is not saying it won’t work but he can’t find much information saying it does work. Director Nielsen commented that the applicants for that conditional use permit for accessory space over 1,200 square feet have not pulled their permit yet. Commissioner Hasek then stated during the June 5, 2012, meeting Director Nielsen noted that there is an owner of a property that fronts Lake Minnetonka who is very upset because a neighbor planted arborvitae along the property line all the way down to the beach. The person was complaining because it was blocking their view. He questioned if the garage for which the C.U.P. was requested isn’t similar because the neighboring property owner did not want the new garage located in a different spot because it would block his view. Director Nielsen clarified they are not related and explained in the case of the garage the proposed location was something the two property owners had agreed upon. It was the Planning Commission who suggested moving the new garage to a different location. The adjacent property owner preferred it stay in the original proposed location. Commissioner Hasek stated there has been discussion at several levels that one of the reasons that Lymes disease is on the increase in Wisconsin is coyotes eat foxes and foxes eat the small rodents that carry the ticks that infect both deer and humans. Director Nielsen stated he heard that Wisconsin has an effort in place to try and go after coyotes. Commissioner Davis stated she has seen coyotes many times in Freeman Park. 7. NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Davis asked if there will be a deer management program this year. Director Nielsen stated he is encouraged that there will be. 8. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated there will be a public hearing on an Ordinance amendment on accessory apartments on the August 7, 2012, Planning Commission meeting agenda. There will be a review of the comments received from the public about the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. The third draft of the Report is on the City’s website. There will be a public hearing on a plat approved about four years ago called Wildwood. There will be continued discussion about noise ordinances and the Uniform Animal Control Ordinance. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 3, 2012 Page 12 of 13 Chair Geng stated he assumed the other three SLMPD member cities are considering the draft of the Uniform Animal Control Ordinance prepared by the South Lake Minnetonka Police Department (SLMPD). He asked how it is going to move forward procedurally. Director Nielsen stated he knows that there has been resistance in the past to a common ordinance. Each City has wanted to have its own ordinance. That is why he plans to prepare a comparison of that draft Ordinance to the City’s Animal Control Ordinance. There is one aspect that needs fairly urgent attention and it could be handled specifically in the City’s Ordinance. It is regarding dangerous and potentially dangerous dog cases. There was a recent incident related to that. There was ensuing discussion about the recent dangerous dog issue in the City. Chair Geng stated he would hate to have the Planning Commission spend a great deal of time on the draft ordinance unless he knew what the procedural process is going forward. He asked if the SLMPD was expecting comments on it, or is the SLMPD Coordinating Committee going to try to make revisions to it. Director Nielsen stated it is the SLMPD’s desire to have a common ordinance to enforce in the four member cities. Chair Geng asked what the SLMPD Coordinating Committee’s desire is. Commissioner Davis asked who is on the Coordinating Committee. Director Nielsen stated he thought the member City Mayors are the members of the Committee. Chair Geng stated it would helpful if the Mayor would provide clarification on that. Director Nielsen stated he thought there is merit to having one common animal control ordinance for the SLMPD member cities to enforce which is the intent of a Uniform Animal Control Ordinance. He commented he thought it appropriate for the four cities to have the same rules on barking dogs. But, he thought the number of dogs a person should have should be up to each member city. Chair Geng suggested concentrating on the dangerous and potentially dangerous dog aspect in the next meeting. Director Nielsen stated it is his understanding that the SLMPD used the City of Greenwood’s Ordinance as a starting point because Greenwood spent a great deal of time developing its ordinance in the last couple of years. 9. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Commissioner Hasek gave a brief report on the June 11, 2012, City Council and Planning Commission Joint meeting and the June 11, 2012, regular City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of those meetings). Director Nielsen reported on the June 25, 2012, City Council meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). Commissioner Davis commented on the organics pilot recycling program which she had the opportunity to participate in but chose not to. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING July 3, 2012 Page 13 of 13 • SLUC Director Nielsen stated the last Sensible Land Use Coalition meeting was more of a social gathering • Other Chair Geng asked if the Planning Commission should keep its copy of the draft Uniform Animal Control Ordinance. Director Nielsen encouraged them to do so. 10. ADJOURNMENT Hasek moved, Davis seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of July 3, 2012, at 8:46 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 31 July 2012 RE: Ashland Woods — Preliminary Plat (fka Wildwood) FILE NO. 405(12.09) BACKGROUND Ashland Woods LLC has submitted a preliminary plat for a seven -lot subdivision to be called Ashland Woods. The subject property is located on the east side of Strawberry Lane, just south of the LRT Trail (see Site Location map — Attachment I). With the exception of the proposed grading plan, this project is substantially the same as the Wildwood plat that was approved in 2009. You may recall that the preliminary plat approval for Wildwood was extended several times due to the soft housing market, before being dropped by the previous developer. The revised preliminary plat is attached as Attachment II. The Applicant's request letter is attached as Attachment 1I1. Staff reports for the Wildwood preliminary plat provide detailed background that still pertains to the current proposal. Attachment IV is the Planning Director's memorandum, dated 1 January 2009. Attachment V is the City Engineer's memorandum, dated 31 December 2008. A revised grading plan as referenced in the Applicant's request letter is attached as Attachments VI and VII. Finally, excerpts from the public hearing, dated 6 January 2009, are included for your review as Attachment VIII. ANALYSIS /RECOMMENDATION The single -most significant issue in the previous proposal was site drainage and the grading associated with controlling it. Staff spent considerable time meeting with neighbors, studying the surrounding area, and developing a solution for handling storm water runoff from the project. The result was a system of back yard rain gardens and a dry creek bed that conducts the subtle drainage to the northeast corner of the property into the drainage pattern in Freeman Park. The ®: �,�® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Ashland Woods Preliminary Plat 31 July 2012 drainage plan was to be supported by protective covenants and the establishment of a homeowner's association to maintain the drainage pattern and system. While the Ashland Woods plat proposes the same drainage solution, they have spent additional time on the proposed grading plan for the site. The result is considered to be an improvement over the original plan in that it requires less fill to be imported to the site. The estimated amount of fill required for the Wildwood plat was 23,000 cubic yards. The Ashland Woods plat proposes to bring in 10,000 cubic yards for the initial plat grading and 6000 yards for the individual site grading, for a total of 16,000 yards of material. The reduction is the result of a more detailed look at individual home sites. Rather than fill each site to accommodate whatever house plan may come along, the Applicant has examined each lot and proposed building types that fit the lots with as little fill as is necessary. The City Engineer cautions against "custom grading ", especially in an area as sensitive as the subject property. hi response, the Applicant has submitted a two -part grading plan. Attachment V illustrates the initial mass grading of the site. Attachment VI shows the grading for the individual lots, based on various building types. In the future, if a different building type is proposed for a lot it will require a revised grading plan that adheres to the low floor proposals in the preliminary plat and maintains the approved drainage pattern. Since the revised grading plan, albeit requiring less fill, still involves a substantial amount of material being brought into the site, a detailed plan for importing the fill should be submitted with the final plat for Ashland Woods. The plan should include truck routes, staging and protection of the city streets. In this regard, the condition of Strawberry Lane should be photographically documented, and any necessary repairs to the street should be the responsibility of the developer. The City Engineer has recommended the following with respect to the proposed plat: • The cross grade on the proposed street should not be less than 2.5 percent. • The comment on the Secondary Grading Plan (Attaclunent VI) regarding "custom grading" must be revised to reflect the understanding in paragraph 2, above. • There shall be no retaining walls in the street right -of -way (Lot 7) • The concrete curb and gutter should extend around the street radius to Strawberry Lane. • In the final plat, consider allowing some minor grading within Freeman Park to enhance the flow of drainage through the park Based on the preceding and the recommendations included in the Wildwood memoranda, approval of the preliminary plat for Ashland Woods is recommended. Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane James Landini Bruce DeJong Larry Brown Cory Lepper -2- 2 .- I to I um 0 cD LL "I In C) Lr) Q0 Lo CD K� P sie el pa r �r Jog Bend D cj N 0 C) v im a L (3) e c Attachment I 0 1 -0 r- - U) O � R P)4 OJL L eN��jn�] - 77 — — CU C'a 0 , /0! / AA �a4l V\ A A o m /V\O 0 IT 2 .- I to I um 0 cD LL "I In C) Lr) Q0 Lo CD K� P sie el pa r �r Jog Bend D cj N 0 C) v im a L (3) e c Attachment I 0 1 -0 r- - U) O � R P)4 OJL 215 P 140 ______________ e ai woods -- woods %o / B pd' g o• / - f / y 20,545 SF Exlst. 12' CMP' SW /r-972JIz HE 1nv- 971.60 Bench Mark: RR Spike !n f / \\ \ \� :o \ \'� J\ face of PP 25,326 SF Exist. San. MH 17 \ RI-975.28 ( \ \ \ \/ l \/� !n ✓=955.88 / \ \ \ \\ / / -J 1 / J1 LU \ ' 2: 2J, 924 SF JJ5 Exls sewer A I exist. m \ / / / garage 24,648 SF \ \ � l Rm,j � � ' ONALD JOHNSON 20,231 SF 6060 STRA IWERRY LAN \ OREWU00, MN 55331 1 j pA d lth j5- b-d-sd I / / A / woods w roc I / Exlst. 121 CM N. In -977.04 N 17 L- / -- - - - --- \@ G // 'tQ \\ woods l S Inv=9i2.89 - - - exist. house exist. ideckl �^ ^\ \ \\ INDER 0.0 / 6 \\ ' 1� �6� / / / \ ` 25,696 SF t7Nty asementl — edge woods et / XT - � I LWETE n T / —I- CURB d rvTTrR, T1P, gg exlsting lance N8932'f0'f 200.00 ` /7V`t /) . -Line parallel with the south `exist. Shed V c p` - line o/ Lot 105 of AUDITOR'S RYAN & KRISTEN JOHANNkM .8 \ / 6070 STRAWBERRY CANE I 4 SUBDIVISION NUMBER 1JJ 7 cP \ SHOREWD00, MN 55371 4 J exist. house \ n � I woods I 20,046 SF exlst. bit. drly way m �Ig - i r1 1 , exntm fence I $� J I' �.� N I I ��i9 1C 15 Q c�1 ROBERT HINNENKAMP _ I 6075 STRAWBERRY LANE Exist. 12' CUP SHOREWO00, MN 5537/ Ins =972.6C " - E Inv = 972.20 Line parallel with the west - - _j - woods DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: 0 / r ,. o -- -- �------------ t - - -- ERIC & CATHERINE PAUL 6060 MAPLE LEAF CIR SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE lNDlCA7ED, AND ADJOINING LOT LINES, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT. - \ u v TOTAL AREA = 4.36 ACRES ne of Lot 105 of AUDITOR S I SUBDIVISION NUMBER 137 i THOMAS &NANCY RID NUMBER 32 117 23 43 0004 .1 6040 MAPLE LEAF IX CIR SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 6045 STRAWBERRY LANE f l � \ L EXISTING ZONING = R1C LOT REQUIREMENTS: / \ �4) -'-no Doll MINIMUM 20,000 SF MINIMUM 100' LOT WIDTH z C, (AT SETBACK) S� \ \ ;/1 a \ \ \ / � ? 3 LEGEND N x c� ( f \ I J \ denotes fence 0 OT -- denotes storm sewer line : f Ss denotes sanitary sewer line L l J — I -- denotes watermoin —OH'E denotes overhead electric S M b- denotes gate valve Attachment II denotes hydrant KEITH & PAUU PA WE 6050 MAPLE LEAF CIR � denotes woods \ SHOREWOOD, MN 55771 � O denotes power pole E O denotes set iron .H. RAO 3.5 LJ. KAPUSTKA & M CLtFE LORILEE ANN VTRNIG SHORE ( CHARLES POSY ® denotes found iron SHOREWOOD, MN 553J1 Minnesota, EXCEPT that part described as follows: — — "— — denotes building setback line u front-35' SHOREWOOD OAKS DRIVE 26780 SHOREW AKS OR /4E SHOREWDOD, MN 5573/ SHOREWf")OD, MN N _1 553 26360 G ORE 5 OAKS DRIVE Wt777 SNORE00, MN N 55771 SHORE OOD, AIN 5 D OAKS AKS SHOREW W0O0 MN 55377 rear -40' Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 105, - side -10' DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: 0 / r ,. o -- -- �------------ t - - -- ERIC & CATHERINE PAUL 6060 MAPLE LEAF CIR SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE lNDlCA7ED, AND ADJOINING LOT LINES, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT. - \ ne of Lot 105 of AUDITOR S I SUBDIVISION NUMBER 137 i .1 f l � \ L 200 / \ 87 -'-no Doll in tree '- South "7 N89 286.62 / � ? line of Lot 105 of AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 1,U I had I ( f \ I J \ corner of Lot 1D5, _AUDITORS h t � h \ U AUDITORS ounty, /ON NUMBER 1 33, ^ / / /1 r I ^ //1 n n I Henne pin County, MN n A ^ I PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Attachment II V F ] L,/ I \ V V L/ L,/ L1 l./�I / \ \ JAMES & JACQUEUNf CWJD 6070 MAPLE LEAF CIR Lot 105, Auditor$ Subdivision Number One Hundred Mir, J �\ i y 2 .H. RAO 3.5 LJ. KAPUSTKA & M CLtFE LORILEE ANN VTRNIG SHORE ( CHARLES POSY JOHN &SHARON O I DAVID EISENMANN SHOREWOOD, MN 553J1 Minnesota, EXCEPT that part described as follows: ` SHOREWOOD OAKS DRIVE 26780 SHOREW AKS OR /4E SHOREWDOD, MN 5573/ SHOREWf")OD, MN N _1 553 26360 G ORE 5 OAKS DRIVE Wt777 SNORE00, MN N 55771 SHORE OOD, AIN 5 D OAKS AKS SHOREW W0O0 MN 55377 OAKS DRIVE \ DRIVE 26320 O 5 SHOREWOOD, MN AIN 553Jt Commencing at the Southwest corner of said Lot 105, - AARON & BETH SHAPLEY I Bald Lot 105, a distance of 100 feel; (hence Eosted SHOREWOOE, MN 55331E . of 200 feet; thence Southerly parallel with ti fine thereof, thence Westerly along the South line of so, DESIGNED DRAWN I hereby certify that this survey, plan, or report was Web Bite; C.S.O. C.S.O. prepared by me or under my direct supervision and wwwattoassoclates.com PROJECT NO: CHECKED that I am a duly Ucensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota. ��® 9WastDlvdlonSt. Buttalo, ASHLAND WOODS PRELIMINARY PLAT 2 -12 -0246 N0. DATE BY DESCRIPTION MN 55373 VINE HILL PARTNERS RE I1SIONS P.E.O. Paul E. Otto Dote: license 40062 990CIA7E8 Fax: 23522 En Meer and Land Burw n, Ina. SHOREWOOD, MN SHEET N0, 1 OF 8 SHEETS DATE 6129112 SSOCIATES Engineers Lead Surveyors, Inc. r City of Shorewood Attn: Brad Nielsen 5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, MN 55331 •- ASHLAND wit t • - ii! Otto Project No. 2-12-0246 Dear Mr. Nielsen: As you are aware, the preliminary plat of WILDWOOD was previously approved but never finalized. Vine Hill Partners is submitting for a new preliminary plat approval in order to move forward with the final plat and construction of the site. The lot and utility layout has not changed. They have proposed to change the development name to ASHLAND WOODS. Vine Hill is a custom home builder and therefore had some different ideas regarding the home types and grading of the site. They would like to build the main infrastructure and stormwater facilities as a first phase and then finish -grade the lots for the specific home locations and dimensions as they are built. This will allow for less initial grading /import and the ability to "fit" the homes on the lots instead of grading large, oversized building pads. A secondary grading plan was developed to show the complete build -out and provide the minimum low floor and low opening elevations to be adhered to. Stormwater management was a key component of the previously approved plan. Therefore, we have not proposed changes to the stormwater management plan. Enclosed is a copy of the previously approved stormwater management report and letter regarding minimum low opening elevations. Sincerely, Otto Associates, Engineers & Land Surveyors, Inc. C ejtu Cara Schwahn Otto, P.E. Senior Vice President Attachment III s s TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 1 January 2009 RE: Wildwood — Preliminary Plat FILE NO.: 405(08.16) BACKGROUND Synergy Land Company, LLC has arranged to purchase approximately 4.36 acres of land at 6045 Strawberry Lane (see Exhibit A). The developer proposes to remove the existing home on the property and plat it into seven single - family residential lots, as shown on Exhibit B. The subject property is extremely .flat and drains very gently from west to east. Existing vegetation on the site consists of a mix of young and mature, deciduous and coniferous trees. Exhibit C illustrates the locations of all trees on the site larger than eight inches DBA (diameter at breast height). Exhibit D shows only significant trees, as defined by Shorewood's Tree Preservation and Reforestation rules, which are at least fair or good condition. The property is zoned R -1C, Single - Family Residential. Surrounding land uses and zoning are as follows: West: Strawberry Lane, then single - family residential; zoned R -ID North: H.C.R.R.A. r.o.w. (LRT Trail), then single- family residential; zoned R -1 A East and South: single - family residential; zoned R -1C The proposed lots will be served by a cul -de -sac street, approximately 385 feet in length. The lots range in size from 20,046 to 25,696 square feet and average 22,917 square feet. *® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Attachment IV Memorandum. Re: Wildwood — Preliminary Plat 1 January 2009 In the evaluation of the preliminary plat, the following issues should be considered: A. Zoning Code. All lots meet or exceed the minimum size requirements for the R -1C zoning district — 20,000 square feet in area, 100 feet in width and 120 feet in depth. The building pads shown on the preliminary grading plan (Exhibit E) measure 80' x 60'. It should be noted that the 60 -foot depths of the pads are considered more than adequate to accommodate homes, patios and decks. In fact, some consideration should be given to reducing the depths of the pads. This could reduce the amount of fill that is required to make the lots buildable. It may also allow a few more significant trees to be preserved. B. Subdivision Code. Street Design. The proposed street is 385 feet long, with a proposed right -of -way width of 50 feet, terminating in a 120 -foot diameter cul -de -sac. The paved surface is 24 feet wide, exclusive of curb and gutter width, and the tuns- around is 91 feet in diameter. The street grade does not exceed five percent. These dimensions are all consistent with the Shorewood Subdivision Code. 2. Grading, Drainage, Erosion Control and Utilities. These items will be addressed under separate cover by the City Engineer. From a planning perspective the following comments are offered: a. Grading. In order for the street to meet grade requirements and to manage stoiln water runoff for the site, site alteration for this project will be considerable (see proposed grading plan on Exhibit E). The preliminary plans indicate that the site will be raised approximately five feet in order to get the lowest floor elevations of the homes above the high water elevations of the proposed pond and drainage features. This will necessitate trucking in large quantities of fill. The developer should be required to provide estimates of quantities of material to be brought onto the site. Also, the condition of Strawberry Lane should be monitored for any damage that may result from tuck traffic to the site. b. Drainage. Undoubtedly the most significant element of this proposal will be the management of stormwater runoff from the project. The grading plan proposes to conduct water to a drainage Swale at the rear of Lots 5, 6, and 7 which is then conveyed to a ponding area in the northeast coiner of the site. The pond ultimately drains to the northeast through Freeman Park. Because the land is so flat, water will move relatively slowly toward the pond. Consequently, the rear yards of Lots 5 -7 become a critical part of the drainage system for the project. While the initial design of the drainage system will accommodate drainage, staff has a couple of long -tens concerns: 1) future owners will not want to maintain the drainage features in favor of expanding -2- Memorandum Re: Wildwood — Preliminary Plat I January 2009 their individual lawns; and 2) future landscaping improvements and maintenance will adversely affect the subtle drainage pattern. For this reason, the staff is recommending that the rear yards of Lots 5 -7 be designed as rain gardens and the drainage swale be designed as a dry -rock river bed. This will serve to define the areas that must be maintained for drainage purposes. In addition, conservation easements should clearly state that buildings, decks, patios and other impervious surfaces be kept out of the drainageways. Staff also recommends that a homeowner's association be established, the main duty of which would be the maintenance of the drainage system. Arrangements for the HOA should be incorporated into the development agreement for the final plat. c. Sanitary Sewer. Sanitary sewer is available in Strawberry Lane. Prior to release of the final plat the developer must pay local sanitary sewer access charges in the amount of $7200 ($1200 per lot). Credit is allowed for the existing house on the property. d. Water. The developer's plans include a municipal water main to serve the lots. At staff's direction, and pursuant to Shorewood Code requirements, the developer shows water main being extended to the north boundary of his property as well as into the site. Water comlections charges will be $70,000, from which the cost of extending water main may be deducted. e. Park Dedication Fees. The Subdivision Code requires the developer to pay $5000 per lot for park dedication fees. Since credit is allowed for the existing house, the total park dedication requirement is $30,000. C. Wetlands. The developer has submitted documentation satisfactory to the Minnehaha Watershed District that no wetlands exist on the property. D. Tree Preservation /Reforestation. As mentioned above, the project involves substantial site alteration. As a result, the trees to be saved are concentrated at the very edges of the plat. Tree protection fencing is shown on Exhibit G, but no reference is made to reforestation. Nor are the plans signed by a licensed forester or registered landscape architect. The developer will be required to plant 35 trees (maximum replacement — eight trees per acre). It is recommended that the majority of these be placed along the south and east boundaries of the site where most of the trees will be removed. The plan should also include a landscape design for the rain gardens at the rear of Lots 5 -7. E. Street Lighting, The developer is not proposing street lights. Any such request would have to be made by future property owners. -3- Memorandum Re: Wildwood — Preliminary Plat 1 January 2009 The preliminary plat for Wildwood is considered to be consistent with Shorewood's development regulations. Approval is recommended subject to the following: 1. Plans for streets, utilities, grading, drainage and erosion control are subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer. 2. The final plat submission should include the documents establishing a homeowner's association and protective covenants providing for maintenance of the drainage facilities on the property. 3. Prior to final plat release, the developer must pay $7200 in local sanitary sewer access charges. 4. Prior to final plat release, the developer must $70,000 in water connection charges. Upon completion of the improvements, expenses for water main will be refunded. 5. Prior to release of the final plat, the developer must pay $30,000 in park dedication fees. 6. The developer must submit a final tree preservation and reforestation plan, prepared by a registered landscape architect or forester. Cc: Brian Heck Mary Tietgen James Landini Larry Brown Brent Hislop M o C:) LL C) . u O U) CL C3 Nby \ HSaVN • 0 tr) C\I \\, 0 Vl HO i2IVOH1VO O Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Wildwood Preliminary Plat P R 9 1 � R 9h R/ / ° / Ri- 74 n MH I �. / / Rim= 74.75 JEFFREY PIERCE Er AL 3107 HARMONY 5r SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 Exist. 12" C, SW In-972. NE 1nv=971.i Bench Mork: RR So* In E. face of PP El-97637 lb b Exist. Son. MH- RIm= 97526 Inv=955.86 / / Service er - E,rvt. Sew e exist. OREWO00, MN 55731 e+,sf dr/ tlri veway r orderetl with T5 rocks Exist. IZ" CMP 1 N. Inv=97.5.04 S Inv= 972.89 exist. house exist. deck I PP 6 1 X Xk x;sUn fence - - t k I exist. shed RYAN & KRSTEN JOYANNSEN = 6070 STRAWBERRY LANE SHOREWOOD, MN 55JJI exisl. bit. driveway 1 ex;sN; g fence i Exist. 12" CMP v7. Inv= 972.60 E Inv= 972.20 , a I V I ` � r t N J JJ i �✓ I w' 1 CURT & JENNIFER CAR PE N TER 6060 STRAWBERRY LA SHOREW0017, MN 55371 / / I , < p0 SF / \ 25,326 SF 17 \\ \ v 1 Uj I I � \ I \ � e exist. stoc Exist \/Ste w Uj n � ex st. noase r II I \ I\ �°+ N \\ v 124.648 SF e e / 75 _ a / a / woods Ci p I/ 17 j______ \ 71 __ - - - - -- . . _�w aMceR rE s ouoTABLE WRB & Wr1ER, nP. _ exist. house o I \ o P J exist. bit. drivelray i U V� -- RC&ERT MNNENKAMP 1 60]5 WOOOhey CANE S 5 HOR STRAWB MN 557_11 Corr OF SHCREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 /} 01 l L y �e ,odds 200 t. I shed , n A v7 - 1 l I CHRISTOPHER & CAMIE THOMPSON j 26360 SHOREWOOD OAKS DRIVE SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 .. I FTTD BNest Ott 36 Ph: (763)6824727 Load I= (763)602-3522 Lnld Serveyols, Ina 9 e � 30 0 30 60 90 Scale: 1 = 30' DEVELOPER: SYNERGY LAND COMPANY, LLC - ATTN: BRENT HISLOP P.O. BOX 470 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TOTAL AREA = 4.36 ACRES PID NUMBER 32 117 23 43 0004 THOMAS & NANCY RENDOS 6040 MAPLE LEAF CIR 6045 STRAWBERRY LANE SHOREWOOD. MN 55_131 EXISTING ZONING = RIC Line parallel with the west -_�' I- of Lot IDS of AUDITOR'S I SUBDIN90N NUMBER 733 ' _° MINIMUM 100' LOT WIDTH �i - south line of Lot 105 of AUDITOR'S \ ( SUBDIW90N NUMBER 133 - Southwest corner of Let 105, LEGEND AUDITOR'S SUBD1N9P1' NUMBER 133, I ^ l I n L) r ' I A //1 n /1 I Hennepin County, MN ,.: r7 L/ I\ L_ V V V V L I L.J. KAPUSIKA & M.H. RADCLIFFE I LORILEE ANN NRNIG 35 26400 SHOREWOCD OAKS DRIVE 26360 O OAKS DRIVE SHOREWOOD. MN 55371 O ( SHOREWOOD. AIN MN 5553t --- denotes woods DESIGNED DRAWN C.S.O. C.S.O. CHECKED P.E.O. I hereby certify that this survey. plan, o report w Prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the lows of the State of Minnesota. Paul E. Otto Date: License 111 40062 losers O denotes set iron L_ 6050 MAPLE LEAF CIR SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 (;) denotes found Iron Corr OF SHCREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 /} 01 l L y �e ,odds 200 t. I shed , n A v7 - 1 l I CHRISTOPHER & CAMIE THOMPSON j 26360 SHOREWOOD OAKS DRIVE SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 .. I FTTD BNest Ott 36 Ph: (763)6824727 Load I= (763)602-3522 Lnld Serveyols, Ina 9 e � 30 0 30 60 90 Scale: 1 = 30' DEVELOPER: SYNERGY LAND COMPANY, LLC - ATTN: BRENT HISLOP P.O. BOX 470 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TOTAL AREA = 4.36 ACRES PID NUMBER 32 117 23 43 0004 THOMAS & NANCY RENDOS 6040 MAPLE LEAF CIR 6045 STRAWBERRY LANE SHOREWOOD. MN 55_131 EXISTING ZONING = RIC TYPICAL BUILDING PAD 80 X60 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED y , ERIC & CATHERINE PAUL DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS.- 6060 MAPLE LEAF CIR o SHOREWOOD. MN 5533/ I I BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, -found no,T In tree AND ADJOINING LOT LINES, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT. \\ JAMES & JACOVELINE LUND PROPERTY OESCRIPHON: 6070 MAPLE LEAF CIR JOIN & SHARON HOE RNC I DAVID EISENMANN \ SHOREWOOD. MN 55331 Lot 1`05. Auditors y. Subdivision Number One Hundred Thirty -Three (133). Hennepin Count Minnesota, EXCEPT that port described as follows: 26340 SHOREWOOD OAKS DRIVE 26320 SHOREW000 OAKS DRIVE \ SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 5H0REWOOD, MN 55JJ/ Commencing of the Southwest corner of said Lot 105: thence Northerly along the West line of A said Lot 105, o distance of 100 feet: thence Easterly poro6el with the South line of said Lot 105. .-r o distance of 200 feet; thence Southerly parallel with the West line of said Lot 105 to the South line thereof, thence Westerly along the South line of said Lot /05 to the point of beginning. WILD WOOD PRELIMINAI SYNERGY LAND COMPANY, LLC Exhlblt B SHOREWOOD, MN SHEET N0. 1 01 P]? F1 TMTNARV PT.A"I 215 e _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - - - - is edge of wcads X X T \ 23,924 SF \ `/ k e \ \ 15A ^\ I / \\ xrsti r ce X- XT k I \ k A\ Ll R =60 I 20.231 � 92 15d / X 0 m4, 6 / \\ k 25,696 SF \ r7\ woods 99 G 1O / \ 7 \ r -Line parallel with the south \ / \. line of Lot 105 BI IJJ R'S SUBDINS'ON NUMBER R /33 i \ exlsHng ten � i' woods $ 20.046 SF X' X —j ye4 LOT REQUIREMENTS: ( !) MINIMUM 20,000 SF _° MINIMUM 100' LOT WIDTH �i (AT SETBACK) denotes sanitary sewer line LEGEND TYPICAL BUILDING PAD 80 X60 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED y , ERIC & CATHERINE PAUL DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS.- 6060 MAPLE LEAF CIR o SHOREWOOD. MN 5533/ I I BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, -found no,T In tree AND ADJOINING LOT LINES, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT. \\ JAMES & JACOVELINE LUND PROPERTY OESCRIPHON: 6070 MAPLE LEAF CIR JOIN & SHARON HOE RNC I DAVID EISENMANN \ SHOREWOOD. MN 55331 Lot 1`05. Auditors y. Subdivision Number One Hundred Thirty -Three (133). Hennepin Count Minnesota, EXCEPT that port described as follows: 26340 SHOREWOOD OAKS DRIVE 26320 SHOREW000 OAKS DRIVE \ SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 5H0REWOOD, MN 55JJ/ Commencing of the Southwest corner of said Lot 105: thence Northerly along the West line of A said Lot 105, o distance of 100 feet: thence Easterly poro6el with the South line of said Lot 105. .-r o distance of 200 feet; thence Southerly parallel with the West line of said Lot 105 to the South line thereof, thence Westerly along the South line of said Lot /05 to the point of beginning. WILD WOOD PRELIMINAI SYNERGY LAND COMPANY, LLC Exhlblt B SHOREWOOD, MN SHEET N0. 1 01 P]? F1 TMTNARV PT.A"I 215 e _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - - - - is edge of wcads X X T \ 23,924 SF \ `/ k e \ \ 15A ^\ I / \\ xrsti r ce X- XT k I \ k A\ Ll R =60 I 20.231 � 92 15d / X 0 m4, 6 / \\ k 25,696 SF \ r7\ woods 99 G 1O / \ 7 \ r -Line parallel with the south \ / \. line of Lot 105 BI IJJ R'S SUBDINS'ON NUMBER R /33 i \ exlsHng ten � i' woods $ 20.046 SF X' X —j ye4 -x h— denotes fence C _° denotes storm sewer line denotes sanitary sewer line denotes watermoin (.HL denotes overhead electric denotes gate valve b denotes hydrant 1 3; ;7 --- denotes woods O denotes power pole `r` KEITH & PAULIA PA WE O denotes set iron L_ 6050 MAPLE LEAF CIR SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 (;) denotes found Iron - - - - denotes building setback line front-35' rear -40' side -10' TYPICAL BUILDING PAD 80 X60 UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED y , ERIC & CATHERINE PAUL DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS.- 6060 MAPLE LEAF CIR o SHOREWOOD. MN 5533/ I I BEING 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, -found no,T In tree AND ADJOINING LOT LINES, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT. \\ JAMES & JACOVELINE LUND PROPERTY OESCRIPHON: 6070 MAPLE LEAF CIR JOIN & SHARON HOE RNC I DAVID EISENMANN \ SHOREWOOD. MN 55331 Lot 1`05. Auditors y. Subdivision Number One Hundred Thirty -Three (133). Hennepin Count Minnesota, EXCEPT that port described as follows: 26340 SHOREWOOD OAKS DRIVE 26320 SHOREW000 OAKS DRIVE \ SHOREWOOD, MN 55331 5H0REWOOD, MN 55JJ/ Commencing of the Southwest corner of said Lot 105: thence Northerly along the West line of A said Lot 105, o distance of 100 feet: thence Easterly poro6el with the South line of said Lot 105. .-r o distance of 200 feet; thence Southerly parallel with the West line of said Lot 105 to the South line thereof, thence Westerly along the South line of said Lot /05 to the point of beginning. WILD WOOD PRELIMINAI SYNERGY LAND COMPANY, LLC Exhlblt B SHOREWOOD, MN SHEET N0. 1 01 P]? F1 TMTNARV PT.A"I 215 e _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ - - - - is edge of wcads X X T \ 23,924 SF \ `/ k e \ \ 15A ^\ I / \\ xrsti r ce X- XT k I \ k A\ Ll R =60 I 20.231 � 92 15d / X 0 m4, 6 / \\ k 25,696 SF \ r7\ woods 99 G 1O / \ 7 \ r -Line parallel with the south \ / \. line of Lot 105 BI IJJ R'S SUBDINS'ON NUMBER R /33 i \ exlsHng ten � i' woods $ 20.046 SF X' X —j ye4 i x971.20 / x 971.40 0 19 x 971.35 x :371.36 / 970.7 '8 x 971.34 r x971.61 x971.32 x971.35 ' 41.5 74 �°� / / / / , / / x 971.50 x 971.44 U / k / ^� / z 977.47 ( x 971.28 /� xist7ng fence Xry1 x9 h x 970.61 2 x 971.29 -971.56 1 e x 971.39 -971.29 ra rs 8 A95 _ _ _ _ F6 P4 p 0 w 6 =970.7 r _ - - - `9Y0.14 0 5 2 20 93 f95 -.9 I \ 22 7 \ edge of woods 9j 971.30 I 189 x 977.65 �/� / � I -970. x 971.26 \9,� _ x 971.76 u 971.63 I6 I x 971.80 x 97222 (8,..�} {� woods V I 1 ®� / , f x 977.53 A I x 970.91 \ =91 / 7 K 72.18 6081 I ' x 977.33 1 \ 1 ' g 1 3 157 15 1841 `'9/� \ x971.2 l �� I r x 18 x1970.6 1 972- \ \ x 972. r 170 r_ � _ 175 971.74 x ( ,.^� 7Bf "'}}} ���jjj ( 3� 6., } 1 x 97142 ` / e4.4 / j,.'l, v i770 166 -972_ I I>v„J V 33 X P`D \ 4 V 7 __ - __ __ _ 20 \.1 7 2 16 (]6 1 71.74 19 _�. 20 / 971.5b 3 13 4 / • ��! Exist. 12 - J / &72- 2a x �99.03 x 1650 3 �4VV7 e Sw in-972.3f 45 37 NE inv 971.50 Bench Mork: 1 RA Spike In E. lace of PP � o 0-976.37 vl o �+ l x / 11 / 1 1 / f1 i.5 I ' ql o I w I I exist. bit. divew yl 11 i I I � I / X974 s "mom � 9j �?- \..7 I a 9 x"970; 8 F' - 971 ' x 971.7 \ / \ x 971.18 .�167(D 410 19 x1970.79 x 972.6 6 ` x 9 / 57 972.65 �T x 971.84 x 97332 '1 \ 1 x 972.36 j /'2'spruce 610 _97329 973 - \ ^ x 971.42 n30 v V 4z B r \ \ \ - x 973.40 1.70 I ' x 971 ti \ k 2'spneee � SJ x 972.09 x 972.61 --- -- � ,� x 972.6 1 I 1 I 034 ��. 972- - - - - � 9 I I x 971. *(Z 0 \ 13 12 -'� x 972.14 ` - x 971.54 + I I I X x -971122 F 9 x 973.67 �- 1 \ 7 2 i p �X - = -, x }.34 I I 9,.60 I 6 existing fence f X X 133 Xt' X I \ \ I S \ x 97278 x 1 I .972.2, m� < 349 0 Exist. kistern well kg / t. stoop 97 x 972.8x 972.80 -3DY7 08 71.98 x 9!.211 , N / x 971.79 �4¢,�J I4 x 971.77 1 1 �' / 12 7 \ 1 I 1 exist. house x 973.49 5 _ 973` - ' N 1 I 1 � 1 t I 4 V I \ 7- \ s 1\ x 971.64 t m \ 66 N x 97224 x 972.24 �\ x 971.651 1 x 9:'3531 1 11 1 's rtrce I / 1 55 \ ' I l 1 k 1 0 x 9 _/ 75 N 7.9. 1 x 973.28 x 97250 ^ �. 1 I Y x73.15 I 95 { e I \ 974 L I ((''''�� ��`,��, 73.79\ \`v /J x972.82 at / I < 1 1 i x91 741 \ k 0 7 ( 1 0 102 _ x972.65 ai 3 4'spr 9 xuce \� x 97350 / 1 \ �� 0 / h - � \- - x X � J , 1 1 V I I' I 1 126 1 1 112.5/ 1 10 210 x o\ // I x 972.58 / \6J(', • 1 gi x 97379 x / U I ' c�,1 I x �f7 1 0 � ° x 972.59 9✓ / b \P ' 6 f \ x.✓� . . ^ ll wow-- •••]]] O66 / I j 7322 rolL.'.l N 1.J \7 7 x 972.80 \ X X 1 9,74 - 0 O 1C ,IC� a, x 972.51 x 972.89 n x ) \\/ 1 S v..�J of 7 woods ` 7 x 97341 \ 1 x 97262 k �x 9,315 71.43 764 B 2 �/ x97235 0 / / ( 056 I k \\ � 1/ w�od 0 y / x 973.73 140 97 x353$( 1 / / 20 '�Z,�prucaf x 972.53 1 x 972.75 I x 972.64 1 1 V \ I \.✓ x 972.55 Q / \ *4°spruce \ B60 ' 1 , k N ` p O `1 0 I 1 / S , _x 97336_ / ' \ / 78 ' u 972. I z 972. + v � 1'1'4'2 ( l -�- - x 97362 �` edg / of wood. 9733 (\ -972.17 / Z \. 1 Y 44(�l I 1 1 ` k \ �\ °l..l7 .061 z 972.5 1 1�971.827Q3 C J / `�..J x 97372 j''� 9 f V l NB93$'f0�20R \ _ � I X_1261 I/ x9 %328 1 1 t.� / 71 \ 136 DEVELOPER: SYNERGY LAND COMPANY, LLC ATTN: BRENT HISLOP P.O. BOX 470 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TOTAL AREA = 4.36 ACRES PID NUMBER 32 117 23 43 0004 6045 STRAWBERRY LANE EXISTING ZONING = R1C O DENOTES EXISTING TREE NOTE: REFER TO SHEET 7 FOR TREE SIZE, SPECIES AND CONDITION. 70 x 9 306 \ x /� I i xs7z�17 1 4 \ I 47 ' 49 1 1 0 � 4 \ \ / 1 ' 1 / 1 0 , / 50 y ting fence 1�'� l �. J h , let. house e° I 920 f > l.,J 49 1 ' _1 ' wood: x s7�.47 / x 97 4 0) Lx . exist. bit. d K kC X X ,3a1�11 riveway g '\ ccty y l z 973.34 W 1 6 f'1 19 x 97330 x 97379 ` � 1 6z B / se0 �9)`j\ / \ loll x167. bit. drfvew �- �\ r, m w 1520 1 / 21 2g x 97340 16.5 1 16.5 1 e \ I / / / Oj / 470 x 97302 L J1 I 122 / 74 / / 60 X 973.48 -973.20 / x 1 72.11 x 973.08 -971.11 -. 67 woods 25 87 131 9 2.29 7 ____ __ _ -973_ _- x -_ I 7225 973 _ T _ _ 72 -- 9 14 72.06 B4 x 9 97358 ' I I - - -- I 0 I N8932'10E 288662 \\ ' 1 1 -973.28 shad l x 97318 \ X!973.41 \ 97A N x 973.6 \ I 25 I 335 973.46 I \ I ( l x x 97353 DESIGNED DRAWN C.S.O. C.S.O. W AS PREPARED CERTIFY THAT ME R TH UNDEER MY SUFIERVISION ORT D THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER Weh Site: www.oMaassociat -om , ^ /'�D, A ,OOD TREE INVENTORY Pi E xhibit C CHECKED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. 9 MN65373 TTo sweat Division sL V V V V SYNERGY LAND COMPANY, LLC (ALL TREES) TREE INVENTOF P.E.O. Martin P. Cam Pion ICENSE # 19901 DATE: LICENSE' SSOCIA7ES Fh: (763)6824727 Faw(763166 &?62z Engineers and Load Surveyors, Inc. SHOREWOOD, MN .�� C l SHEET NO. 4 O 7 All trees .Y / Exist. 72" c SW 1- NE 1-9 1. Bench Mork: ---' RR Spike in E. face of PP Erev=976.37 Exrst. San. A RI- 975.28 inv- 955.88 a>� -971.40 x 971.34 -971.35 .5 Exist Sewer Service I PP W i I exist. bit. drive v exist. bit. Exist. Hyd T 4I o Z h U m I w 1 x 971.80 ` 1 x �72.03 / / x 972.65 .. x 972.14 \ Jt0 I' x 97 x 973.32 \ - - _ \ I I 1 x 972.6,4 x 97236 /2'spmce 973- \' I I I x 971.2 773^ J f 9 ` x 99 73.29 x 973.40 -1 9 1.70 A ' I \ x 972.)f6 2 "spruce _ 53 x 972.09 x 972.61 - - ---- - i x x 972.6 I I I I ' (I )x9 45 9�ti x 972.24 / - - -972- _ _ X -� x 971.54 . oZ7, x 97f e 7 v I I I x --- ~ x� - x ' I \k x 971122 /e ' z / x 97361 �x 97 }.34 I I I X i� 97.60 � JO 39 \ �,/d �ryce �� x _ = x7stfng I X x�X \ .972.78 k � 1 x 972.2 I / 97349 Exist Listern well / I ❑ x 972.8 / �" / I 71.98 x 9.11.211 I N 1 � y ( exist . to � � s726o �74.a6 � � s 97328 971.7.9 7s r .� k x 97335 ✓ I x 971.77 1 1 ` °j / /R 972,05 exist. house -973.49 1 _ g73�' n 1 I f l I „(`� x 9,71.64 I 68 �(Vc \) l .., ' x 9722 x 971.651 1 x 99b.531 x 972.24 II .I I s 1 97.f�..�1 x x 972.50 � I I I I I I x � � 974 � / x 97282 15 70.98 I 0 l x 973.74 I I l 0 04 "9,p uce737B \ \\ x97350 �k--- TX-+ -x x 972.5 x 72a0 725 �0 27 1 0'� // , 8 x 973.79 � I y I I O7 \\ x 9726\ x `--X / x �Xk 9�0' (L (f"Z1�I1 i 2 _ - 1 \ � rn g 972.57 ' \ 71.43 15 / m B3 x 97341 \ x 9728E J k f �x 8,3 I x F / o y .972-35 x 973.73 / '" ` faa w d � I - / ,- -/ 7353 I x �' x 972.53 / -10 2" Pruce t t0 x 972.75 I / / / ' -972.64 r �4'sprvice � � ^ z 97255 ' -- I I 9fi \ �973 x I . x l � _ I mI xsT ` 7y_{ I \ 1 x 972.4 x 972. / x 973.62 1 edgy or wood% 9733 ' -972.17 ` I I \ / - 972.. 11971.82 a , I aI 1 ^ h exist. house o° I I �oods x 973.3 m 4 / _ xist. bit. driveWW"� / �\ X974/ 5 O I I I 35 I x 97372/ i/ � \ x .973.06 x 97328 f4 L 1 1 x 9, i.o6 ( x 972�7 x xrstfng fence 1 .9 9,73 1 k 7.47 I / � 4 0) X X x-- 4 1 ( 1 x / 580 efi0 0� 1 7e x x 97 9733 W 379 r^ � `ti..l y 7 lJ 9,z` 2t�^y' I 75 --"I / 21 x 973.02 L �•47 x 973.48 x 97320 / x � 2.29 72.11 x 973.08 x 9731 { woods 131 x 9 '- --973- - - 2. x 972.25 - - -� � 2 x 972.14_ �c9:'700 _ _ - N8932707 28662 x 97328 shed I . 97J.18 \ \ x 973136 x 973.41 I \ x 973.46 I C.S.O. 0.5.0. D THAT 1 AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAI 1-1- DER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CHECKED P.E.O. P. CENSE # 19901 DATE: I 1 \ I \�� I x 97353 30 0 30 60 90 Scale: DEVELOPER: SYNERGY LAND COMPANY, LLC ATTN: BRENT HISLOP P.O. BOX 470 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TOTAL AREA = 4.36 ACRES PID NUMBER 32 117 23 43 0004 6045 STRAWBERRY LANE EXISTING ZONING = R1C 0 DENOTES EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREE I SIGNIFICANT TREES w..., (Good and Fair Trees Only) Tag No. jr NN /" o` // - % / , / x 977.47 "�a`d / 1 � / 0 r• ( x 977.28 x 977.29 x 977.56 x lsting fence x 971.39 / / �e� / - "' 28 z 970.67 S8 ' 254 ° W JV' X- 3 9 x 971.29 / 18 \ 9 ._ f \ _ - --x 970.14 4 ash 10 22 7 0 edge of woods I 1171,80 \.9j� fair 8 9� x 972.221 11 ood -971.26 x 971.76 woods z 977.63 798 {fit 10 locust 12 x 970.91 \ I 1570 rn ash , 72.18 X60' x 971.3 3 ( x 971.2 / \ (D,, - 971.85 tea 0 gx 70.66 22 -971.7% not on prop 13 , x 9721 � fair .ye x972. x 972.42 \ \ 16 locust 170 `'1 felt v / � ¢ -972 10 20 � � 12 x 971.55 � 71.74 '�../ not on 13 ro Dertv 17 Lg74 24 fair z 9772.03 �s ,2 , C 18 ellvermaple � fair x 977.18 i ,67f,� -971. 1. IxJ97D.79 .5 Exist Sewer Service I PP W i I exist. bit. drive v exist. bit. Exist. Hyd T 4I o Z h U m I w 1 x 971.80 ` 1 x �72.03 / / x 972.65 .. x 972.14 \ Jt0 I' x 97 x 973.32 \ - - _ \ I I 1 x 972.6,4 x 97236 /2'spmce 973- \' I I I x 971.2 773^ J f 9 ` x 99 73.29 x 973.40 -1 9 1.70 A ' I \ x 972.)f6 2 "spruce _ 53 x 972.09 x 972.61 - - ---- - i x x 972.6 I I I I ' (I )x9 45 9�ti x 972.24 / - - -972- _ _ X -� x 971.54 . oZ7, x 97f e 7 v I I I x --- ~ x� - x ' I \k x 971122 /e ' z / x 97361 �x 97 }.34 I I I X i� 97.60 � JO 39 \ �,/d �ryce �� x _ = x7stfng I X x�X \ .972.78 k � 1 x 972.2 I / 97349 Exist Listern well / I ❑ x 972.8 / �" / I 71.98 x 9.11.211 I N 1 � y ( exist . to � � s726o �74.a6 � � s 97328 971.7.9 7s r .� k x 97335 ✓ I x 971.77 1 1 ` °j / /R 972,05 exist. house -973.49 1 _ g73�' n 1 I f l I „(`� x 9,71.64 I 68 �(Vc \) l .., ' x 9722 x 971.651 1 x 99b.531 x 972.24 II .I I s 1 97.f�..�1 x x 972.50 � I I I I I I x � � 974 � / x 97282 15 70.98 I 0 l x 973.74 I I l 0 04 "9,p uce737B \ \\ x97350 �k--- TX-+ -x x 972.5 x 72a0 725 �0 27 1 0'� // , 8 x 973.79 � I y I I O7 \\ x 9726\ x `--X / x �Xk 9�0' (L (f"Z1�I1 i 2 _ - 1 \ � rn g 972.57 ' \ 71.43 15 / m B3 x 97341 \ x 9728E J k f �x 8,3 I x F / o y .972-35 x 973.73 / '" ` faa w d � I - / ,- -/ 7353 I x �' x 972.53 / -10 2" Pruce t t0 x 972.75 I / / / ' -972.64 r �4'sprvice � � ^ z 97255 ' -- I I 9fi \ �973 x I . x l � _ I mI xsT ` 7y_{ I \ 1 x 972.4 x 972. / x 973.62 1 edgy or wood% 9733 ' -972.17 ` I I \ / - 972.. 11971.82 a , I aI 1 ^ h exist. house o° I I �oods x 973.3 m 4 / _ xist. bit. driveWW"� / �\ X974/ 5 O I I I 35 I x 97372/ i/ � \ x .973.06 x 97328 f4 L 1 1 x 9, i.o6 ( x 972�7 x xrstfng fence 1 .9 9,73 1 k 7.47 I / � 4 0) X X x-- 4 1 ( 1 x / 580 efi0 0� 1 7e x x 97 9733 W 379 r^ � `ti..l y 7 lJ 9,z` 2t�^y' I 75 --"I / 21 x 973.02 L �•47 x 973.48 x 97320 / x � 2.29 72.11 x 973.08 x 9731 { woods 131 x 9 '- --973- - - 2. x 972.25 - - -� � 2 x 972.14_ �c9:'700 _ _ - N8932707 28662 x 97328 shed I . 97J.18 \ \ x 973136 x 973.41 I \ x 973.46 I C.S.O. 0.5.0. D THAT 1 AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAI 1-1- DER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. CHECKED P.E.O. P. CENSE # 19901 DATE: I 1 \ I \�� I x 97353 30 0 30 60 90 Scale: DEVELOPER: SYNERGY LAND COMPANY, LLC ATTN: BRENT HISLOP P.O. BOX 470 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TOTAL AREA = 4.36 ACRES PID NUMBER 32 117 23 43 0004 6045 STRAWBERRY LANE EXISTING ZONING = R1C 0 DENOTES EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREE I SIGNIFICANT TREES w..., (Good and Fair Trees Only) Tag No. cies Size Condition Comments Comments 1 cottonwood 28 fall 125 ash 3 ash 18 fair aspen 11 4 ash 10 fair 14 fair 8 ash 11 ood fair not on e 10 locust 12 fair not on pro perty III ash 20 fair 12 ash 22 fair not on prop 13 ash 18 fair 16 locust 9 felt not on ro a 16 locust 10 fair not on 13 ro Dertv 17 silver maple 24 fair crowded 18 ellvermaple 14 fair 21 ash 22 fair 22 black walnut 9 good .28 ash 10 fair 30 ash 16;18 fair 31 1 silver maple 14 1 fair not on Prop 32 locust 11 fair not on Prooe 38 aspen 12 fair 39 ash 24 fait 40 ash 20 fair 43 ash 14 fair crowded 48 ash 16 fair over-topped 62 sugar maple 18 fair not on p ropert y 53 sugar ma a 15 fair not on pro perty 55 1 ash 14 1 lair not on propert 66 ash 26 fair not on propert 58 buckeye 8 good not on prope 69 silver maple 9 fair over-topped 62 elm 15 fair over-topped 66 bucks e 9 good over-topped 68 sugar maple 8 fair crawdad 70 ash 10 fair not on propert 71 silver maple 9 fair 74 sugar Maple 1 18 fair 53 silver maple 9 fair 91 ash 9;11 fair thin 94 cottonwood 26 fair 95 aspen 8 fair 96 ash 9 fair 97. locust 11 fair not on p 99 aspen 9 fair 110 basswood 9 fair crowded 111 I ash 9 fall 113 boxelder 11 fair 114 ash 22 fall 115 boxelder 11 fall 116 as en 12 fair 117 elm 16 fair 119 ash 9 fall Tag No. Species Size Condition Comments 121 bur oak 28 fair 125 ash 14;5 fair crowded 128 aspen 11 fair 130 aspen 14 fair 131 ash 9 fair 140 hack 14 good 143 aspen 12 fair 146 bur oak 30 fair not on prop 151 aspen 13 fair 162 basswood 20 od 157 aspen 14 fair 156 ash 12 fair 161 hackb i0 fair 162 ash 10 fair 167 ash .• 12 fair 170 elm 9 fair 172 aspen 11 1 fair 180 aspen 11 fair 184 aspen 14 good 186 ash 12 fair 188 aspen 12 fair 192 ash 12 fair 205 ash 9 fair 216 ash 10 fair over-topped 218 ash 10 fair not on p ropert y 219 elm 10;10 fair not on pro perty 221 elm 11 fair not on propert 222 ash 11 fair not on propert 223 ash 10 fair not on prope 226 ash 10 fair over-topped 227 ash 9 fair over-topped 228 ash 10 fair over-topped no tag spruce 4 good no tag spruce 4 good no spruce 4 good no tag spruce 2 no tag spruce 4 od no to Spruce 3 fair thin no tag s NCB 2 fair no tag spruce 4 1 good no tag sp ruce 2 1 fair Web 81re: www.oftoassaclafes.com W►L DWOOD TTO BWest Olviel BeNaIO, MN 55313 SYNERGY LAND COMPANY, LLC SSOCIATES Fax (783)882.3522 Land surveyors, Inc. SHOR M N TREE INVENTORY F Exhibit D (SIGNIFICANT TREE TREE INVENTOR SHEET NO. 5 OF 7 Significant trees V SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL NOTES SEQUENCE FOR CONSTRUCTION 1. CONTRACTOR SMALL BE FAMILIAR WITH AND FOLLOW ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE I. INSTALL ALL PERIMETER SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES AND CONSTRUCTION MPCA NPDES PHASE 11 PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ENTRANCES, CONDUCT WEEKLY EROSION CONTROL INSPECTIONS, INSPECTIONS AFTER 24 HOUR RAINFALL 2. CONSTRUCT STORMWATER POND. TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN EVENTS OF 05" OR MORE AND MAINTAIN INSPECTION LOGS THAT INCLUDE CORRECTIVE MEASURES AND INSTALL TEMPORARY WTLET CONTROL TO ACT AS A SEDIMENTATION TAKEN. BY BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR ACKNOWLEDGES THE TERMS BASIN WRING CONSTRUCTION. OF THIS PERMIT AND AGREES TO ABIDE BY THEM. 3. ROUGH GRACE SITE AND STABILIZE DISTURBED AREAS ACCORDING TO THE 2, ALL SILT FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY GRADING ACTIVITY NPDES PERMIT TIMELINE. UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. A. INSTALL UTILITIES. 3. PONDS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AT THE START OF ANY SITE GRADING AND SHALL 5. COMPLETE ROAD CONSTRUCTION. OUTLET CONTROL) UTILIZED AS TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASINS. THIS SHALL INCLUDE INSTALLATION 6. CONVERT POND TO PERMANENT ON POND (CLEAN OUT OF THE POND OUTLET STRUCTURE. SEDIMENT, REMOVE TEMPORARY OUTLET CTROL) 4. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE RESTORED WITH A MINIMUM OF 4 INCHES TOPSOIL, SEEDED 7. RESTORE SITE WITH PERMANENT RESTORATION. WITH MN /DOT SEED MIXTURE 250 (70 LBS /ACRE) AND MULCHED WITH MN/DOT TYPE I MULCH 8. ONCE ALL DISTURBED AREAS HAVE 70% VEGETATIVE DENSITY, REMOVE SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES. (2 TON /ACRE & DISC ANCHORED} UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. ALL EXPOSED SOIL AREAS MUST BE STABILIZED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE BUT IN NO CASE LATER THAN 74 DAYS AFTER THE CONSTRUCPQN ACTIVITY IN THAT PORTION OF THE SITE HAS TEMPORARILY OR PERMANENTLY SEED. 7. 141.5 97 74J t � Ij * q7l.25 5 3 /;) ,...�..�,ti. :`�A_ -:y.` SF SF i 9 4r h I f 1. 73 9738 s 9 g WO C,Dt. 12' SW tnv 37237 ' 962 NE 1nr 971670` I 'Lr' t? I 7�. ^ LL 9. 3 8rnch Mork:---- --'i"j 9 71.73 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR TEMPORARY DITCHES. PIPING. OR 8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING EXISTING PAVED OTHER MEANS REWIRED TO INSURE PROPER DRAINAGE DURING SURFACES CLEAN OF SEDIMENT AND MUD. SEDIMENT & MUD SHALL BE CONSTRUCTION. REMOVED WITHIN 24 HOURS OF DISCOVERY. 6. ANY DEWATERING SHALL BE DISCHARGED TO A TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN. 9. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE UTILITY CONTRACTOR TO INSTALL INLET PROTECTION 7, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSELE FOR MAINTENANCE OF ALL EROSION AROUND INLETS AFTER THEY ARE INSTALLED (REFER TO CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR DETAILS) CONTROL DEVICES UNTIL SITE HAS A UNIFORM VEGETATIVE COVER WITH A DENSITY 10. COLLECTED SEDIMENT, ASPHALT AND CONCRETE MILLINGS, FLOATING DEBRIS, PAPER, OF 70% OVER THE ENTIRE PERVIOUS AREA, MAINTENANCE SHALL INCLUDE BUT NOT PLASTIC, FABRIC, CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS AND OTHER WASTES MUST BE LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING: BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND MUST COMPLY WITH MPCA DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS, 0. REMOVE SEDIMENT FROM PONDS AND DITCHES WHEN HALF FULL AND UPON 11. STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF OIL, GASOLINE, PAINT AND ANY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION, (Vn TMM 72 HOURS) MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH MPCA REGULATIONS. b. REMOVE WHEN ACCUMULATION REACHES ONE -THIRD THE 12, EXTERNAL WASHING OF MUCKS AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES MUST BE LIMITED HEIGHT OF F T THE SILT FENCE. THIN HOURS) TR TO A DEFINED AREA OF THE SITE & CLEARLY LABELED AS SUCH, RUNOFF MUST BE CONTAINED AND c MAINTAIN ROCK CONSTRUCTION N ENTRANCE. REPLACEMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION MAY BE NECESSARY. WASTE PROPERLY DISPOSED OF. NO ENGINE DEGREASING IS ALLOWED OT SITE. d. ANY DEPOSITING OF SILT OR MUD ON NEW OR EXISTING STORM SEWERS 13. ALL UQOD AND SOLID WASTES GENERATED BY CONCRETE WASHOUT OPERATIONS MUST BE OR $WALES SHALL BE REMOVED AFTER EACH RAIN AND AFFECTED AREAS CONTAINED IN A LEAK -PROOF CONTAINMENT FACILITY OR IMPERMEABLE LINER, A COMPACTED CLEANED. CLAY LINER THAT DOES NOT ALLOW WASHOUT LIQUIDS TO ENTER GROUND WATER IS CONSIDERED . AN ,3MPERMEASES LINER. LIQUID AND SOLID WASTES MUST BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY AND IN "i COMPLIANCE WITH MPCA REGULATIONS. A SIGN MUST BE INSTALLED ADJACENT TO EACH WASHOUT FACUTY TO INFORM CONCRETE EQUIPMENT OPERATORS TO UTILIZE THE PROPER FACILITIES. 14, THE LOCATIONS OF EXISTING UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ARE SHOWN IN AN 07;,=r, __c. APPROXIMATE WAY ONLY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. HE AGREES r per. TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMANGES WHICH MIGHT BE Q?f x RIP RAP SPILLWAY OCCASIONED BY HIS FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL =7l 3 _UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. NSF' SF SP' - -- 9 -t 65 7! R/W 71 1 \\e c7r.&'0 I \ ` � 0 35 60 2 ' \ �+ Jt 9� � ..SI �f p 1 PIT ` I � � >• 3J M /7 ( S �q 1 L `. � /G. 0 , FINISHED SURFACE ELEV. AT HOUSE �? 7k/ l , \'' E C 2' HOLD DOWN FROM GARAGE GRAgNO GRADE 0.5 TOPSOL CO D FILL (PER FHA /MUD 79C) 1 .P" TOP OF STABLE SUBSOIL (PER SSou. ENGR.) .71 4 L, C 9 s ✓� TYPICAL FULL WALKOUT (WO) RR Sp ike E in ° / t T� 97' �7 10 X1 x n 9rt, 1 4 - _ 9 1 ' rr x a,l;_ OR SPLIT ENTRY WALKOU ( W 1.-. _ _" __ 4 9YO T SE ) O a7, 32 � � 980 , , v� I ! TF _ 7 973. _ - H7 - -- { ? a7'. 3 .9 3 4. R w { :r ✓ - ' - 1 ,,.. _ - 975 _ y79 � y J 113 EI -I r.. 5 'T, xJ 971.E 35' 60 20' 20 " LO : i > 97 "E r G = 9783 - -- s- 7� Uazs FF 971. Z 9 b3 9 5a X i / 1� 3 /1-- 97 r . yl. 5 3. S b.s L , _ -s7 7` l SF I I Z \ J '1' r ` �± FNISHED SURFACE ELEV AT HOUSE F,,, 1 1 2' HOLD DOWN FROM GARAGE sfoOP _J �_X x I t. l41 GRADING GRADE _ t ) 0.5' TOPSOIL _ [d7'_d0 - StJ7a O- ..t I t; i v , J t r I .5 6. k l x 4r .7' I ` CONTROLLED FILL PER FHA HUD 79G J J 0P O STAB E SUBSOL (PER Sol. ENQ .) l � 1. 977. ,� '/ N -e q S t - - _ m 7 % �z° TYPICAL FULL BASEMENT x 97� . , ::e�i 1 1 97a V r ,� i 3 E c ; ot3 : *� �� W /LOOKOUT WINDOWS (LO) tr , t . �.5 t am ' ILO J �\ 3.£ G =98 3 x /3 x "' C =978.7 (_ 1/F= 983.3. IP=9B0/7 �j76 :F7 r rl^C" k`, ( t,, 2 l i +� ( j ✓> - '73.50 /' 7 j r �- A. .,�' .407 _ _ 9. LSF ry 4 I h „ 7z.. 314? r . r2' ( cx'rY 1 II ' �-'c - �L - �' >f '�.. 9• �y `A, 'I'i g t v� 973.02 00 ✓ G0� / °` D ^d / n slz G ? I , x f ffi P WO I BOD WITH Mw. g78 u 1.01, ( _ G -981 3 TF =983 3 ; I LL =97a 3' (TYPICAL) r /r' I I / ( �I 1 /s.3� 7 s7 / S. j A - - - - :' xt, g 73'� I :7' %��. ;, ' 9732 w / C S 11 ) I C 7 INSTALL 12 x12" YARD DRAIN / �73tl &CONNECT 4 DRAINTILE ROCK TO EXI TING DRAINTILE x C 979 3: ' - NCE CONSTRUC770N f J v. it 4 I I> iF-91 n n.1 JENTRA ! h <g7�s L� -974.3 7.t/ r INV,= 5 / , r.ex ` J t a 73. C .� } 3G sza 7,� I: ( � � 4 PERF, PE DRAINTILE I - A'hW119 WL 971.5 r - L _l , - _ i 7206 �t 3 � c 7 X727,, k `:,"r., v..�: S -..-. v . ¢>3 r, �., Wr 97250 ( a ¢ "H /4, ..., 25 /t 771. 'r z.r,S , 3� 4 ... __. _ , E Inv= 3722'0 z - - - - - .✓ r ° 9715 ?2 J 1 _ 7 /rE I n I 12/9/08 GS.O. RAISE PAD ELEVATIONS DESIGNED DRAWN I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT Way BHa: AS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER R DIRECT SUPERVISION W►LDWOOD 2 12/23/08 C.5.0. REVISED POND. ADD YARD DRAIN, ADOL OFF -SITE TORO WWW.DMaafaDLldfBI.GOM C.5.0. C.S.O. ND THAT 1 AMA DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE lAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. SWasf Olriafon 9t. CHECKED TT 1*11D,NH55313 SYNERGY LAND COMPANY, LLC N0, DATE BY DESCRIPTION M p C Martin P. Campton SS061ATE3 Ph: (763)6324727 REVISIONS LICENSE )/ 19901 DATE: En InaarsamlLaml3um fne.Fax,(7E3)6823522 SHOREWOOD, MN 30 O 30 60 90 Sc01e: t" - 30' p0 P�e�IG Rp o 00o Q Oo Oo O _LqL_ � FILTER FABRIC O O O O�O�OdJ 0 0 6' MINIMUM DEPTH 0000000 �S Q O�OV O�O O� 2„N,M Od'oo°a�0 1" - 1 ?" WASHED ROC L,y OO F Hp vPptN M NTM OM 18" MINIMUM CUT OFF BERM Z p TO MINIMIZE RUNOFF FROM SITE NOTE: FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED UNDER ROCK TO STOP MUD MIGRATION THROUGH ROCK. ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE 2" WORD STAKE ON CENTER NGINEERING FABRIC AS p \REC OF RUNOFF SUPPOR POS ANCHORAGE N SITU SO.L SILT FENCE DETAIL q t4 33 14 33' (C /L TO BACK OF CURB) (C /L TO BACK OF CURB) SURMOUNTABL_ "S" SURMOUNTABLE CURB & GUTR R CURB & CUTTER 28 "wide (see detO l) � 12.00' S 2.00' 6 nn% 4" RIGID PERFORATED PVC DRAIN TILE ENCASED WITH GEOTEXTILE FABRIC L 2 - TYPE 41 BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 2" TYPE 31 BITUMINOUS NON -WEAR COURSE 8" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE (100% CRUSHED ROCK) %4" SELEC GRANULAR MATERIAL GEOTEXTILE FABRIC (TYPE V) TYPI CAL URBAN SECTION PRELII Exhibit E S HEET PRIP11MTNA V r' A7lTNC v7 F11,a mP V P C"A V -Y 0 0- 7 11N - - ------------------------- - NJ AW 11 Ij I z 4 CL Lu r r% uj O CL O CL . .. . .. ..... W = '�� � � i � � FT Exhibit F t. PROPOSED DRAINAGE ry Exist. Sewer _ I 1I ,o_x 97349 ., g73' ' n ' I h I I J e ce I I I71.W1 I 6 1 x 972.24 I 1 974 971.651 { x 9'3. 3 PP I J x 97A� l 972 55 ..� 73 '.9� x I 1 \ / /LO G= V981.0 70.9 0 Ja�e \ 74 -9807 x �x 73.15 I =983.0 „5_ 1 ° x 972.82 i R¢ -972.65 J _ �\ w ° u I J hf 737 \\ x 7 53 0 LL -97 7\ Q s I - � \� 976 { 4 1 126 I 1 z 7.+.22 I Y x 972.59 ° x 972.8 Ge ^ n X X 97 - 1 n ddx 972.51 exist. bit. drive 342 _ °ice �. \ �,, °� x,972.89 y x 9 0� 77 J x 972.35 01 6 k / J v wT4 M x 97353 976 ggg��q m Zo 2' prvice x 972 x 9 .55 CK J ( (R x 9727 z 264 NSTRUCAON 86 g98 TRANCE o° I L 03,E . g73� �e k / G �j 0 I �' �' I x 97,1. jq exist. bit. driveway I Exist. Hyd. x � I 4I O x ml U yl w 976 972 f4 x 972. 33,(1 x 97 7 7 \ 972. `/ 674 f E 200. 11 \ 7. ;.0s Ne 0 / ` \ 7a I ' n x 9T3� x 97328 J k 14 / x97 7 A ' / exist. house ° I T,F=982• , I / / J woods Ld =974. ( `\ M/ x s7 .4g x 973]27 4 X -�x 6 / i �'N X � 1• A / j x 97334 1N /- - 9 .s �� Y i 9� 7 T/ x 97430 X 9 79 I ° ui 73 _ SST 3 ` ��� 4" PERF. PE DRAIN77LE xist. bit. drivewdx o / / / ( ` - 1 f `� 2 , / i I A N 30 0 30 60 90 Scale: 1 - 30' DEVELOPER: SYNERGY LAND COMPANY, LLC ATTN: BRENT HISLOP P.O. BOX 470 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TOTAL AREA = 4.36 ACRES PID NUMBER 32 117 23 43 0004 6045 STRAWBERRY LANE EXISTING ZONING = R1C 0 DENOTES EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREE DENOTES SIGNIFICANT TREE TO BE REMOVED " " -'�'� - • DENOTES TREE PROTECTION FENCE (INSTALL FENCE PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION KIM BB��iL't•.»� ©� O��p R7R171'dr."^17 �p ©= 0m i No �0 ®mom ©lM mmHm OO�dlM �O� �G• •.,�T••=, lam© ® iii♦ O i� . 1 Room 0� 'R41Tf7^Tvl dl� ©r ® �i TuIII� o��lO - 'tiwL 977.6 � 1sz �ey It / It 2 x 97340 x97302_ -:�?"^ H -97203 a 3.48 0 97320 t. / / / 72.1 3.0 x 97410 "971.6 -_- 92.2.} 1797 - - _ - - _ _ 8 I 72.06 1172 .2r' 7171- " 2--- �'9-7L�d2 - x 873.58 I N89'3290 E 28"2 x 97328 shed I x 973.78 \ \ x 9736 x 97341 \ \ 974 s x 97346 x 97353 I \ ✓ / DESIGNED DRAWN HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT Weh Site: AS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION viww.ottoaasociates�com WILDWOOD CHECKED C.S.O. C.S.O. ND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LOWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. O 9 west Blvlslon St. iION Buffalo, MN 55313 SYNERGY LAND COMPANY, LLC P.E.O. Martin P. Co. pi Ph: /763)681 4727 Zen S90CIATE3 Fax: /763J6814522 LICENSE 111 79901 DATE: En losers and Land Surveyors, Inc. SfiOREWOOD, MN TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT TREES ON PROPERTY = 77 TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT TREES SAVED = 25 TOTAL CALIPER INCHES OF SIGNIFICANT TREES ON PROPERTY = 997" TOTAL CALIPER INCHES OF SIGNIFICANT TREES SAVED = 351" TREE P ( siGNiFi Exhibit G SHEET N0. TREE PRESERVATION PLA N 971.53 9 967 1 1 72.18 X 60' . ` / .971.3J 7 73.0 / x x 971.85 966 �g72"J 10 \ ` x 971.74 x 2 97 75 y ,p { { �y 2.03 "" 972 - w w o � 2a g g77 x x 971.5 � \ � 7 . Exist. 12" SW , . " L / / i Bench Mork: / / x x 97332 / 0 x 97. 5 x LL= 973.5 \ x 972 6 ° \ x x 971.18 N N { - -971.8 face o1 PP x x 972.36 � I � � � � [7 \ �O j j / /� "spruce 9 - x x971.42�F . 1 v X YYI { \ Exist. Son. MH I 9 97 x 5 e 5J x 973. - - _ ` � -- - -- s s x _9 ;4.0 1 M \ / 3 32 _ 2" / e \ It x 972 O 1 8 \ 1 \ L T F = 7 { { X X x x 97 2 1 1 { d d °b - z 97 .611 \ a 1 , ,(I\{ S S toop9 3'49 9 E Exist. llste 1 1 x 972.8.97 . .98 7 7 5 ' ' x 97 9 I ' I� 72.2 E r / f exist. house k . 0 I � x 71.77 1 1 / / 9 9 1.79 I e ce I I I71.W1 I 6 1 x 972.24 I 1 974 971.651 { x 9'3. 3 PP I J x 97A� l 972 55 ..� 73 '.9� x I 1 \ / /LO G= V981.0 70.9 0 Ja�e \ 74 -9807 x �x 73.15 I =983.0 „5_ 1 ° x 972.82 i R¢ -972.65 J _ �\ w ° u I J hf 737 \\ x 7 53 0 LL -97 7\ Q s I - � \� 976 { 4 1 126 I 1 z 7.+.22 I Y x 972.59 ° x 972.8 Ge ^ n X X 97 - 1 n ddx 972.51 exist. bit. drive 342 _ °ice �. \ �,, °� x,972.89 y x 9 0� 77 J x 972.35 01 6 k / J v wT4 M x 97353 976 ggg��q m Zo 2' prvice x 972 x 9 .55 CK J ( (R x 9727 z 264 NSTRUCAON 86 g98 TRANCE o° I L 03,E . g73� �e k / G �j 0 I �' �' I x 97,1. jq exist. bit. driveway I Exist. Hyd. x � I 4I O x ml U yl w 976 972 f4 x 972. 33,(1 x 97 7 7 \ 972. `/ 674 f E 200. 11 \ 7. ;.0s Ne 0 / ` \ 7a I ' n x 9T3� x 97328 J k 14 / x97 7 A ' / exist. house ° I T,F=982• , I / / J woods Ld =974. ( `\ M/ x s7 .4g x 973]27 4 X -�x 6 / i �'N X � 1• A / j x 97334 1N /- - 9 .s �� Y i 9� 7 T/ x 97430 X 9 79 I ° ui 73 _ SST 3 ` ��� 4" PERF. PE DRAIN77LE xist. bit. drivewdx o / / / ( ` - 1 f `� 2 , / i I A N 30 0 30 60 90 Scale: 1 - 30' DEVELOPER: SYNERGY LAND COMPANY, LLC ATTN: BRENT HISLOP P.O. BOX 470 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 TOTAL AREA = 4.36 ACRES PID NUMBER 32 117 23 43 0004 6045 STRAWBERRY LANE EXISTING ZONING = R1C 0 DENOTES EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREE DENOTES SIGNIFICANT TREE TO BE REMOVED " " -'�'� - • DENOTES TREE PROTECTION FENCE (INSTALL FENCE PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION KIM BB��iL't•.»� ©� O��p R7R171'dr."^17 �p ©= 0m i No �0 ®mom ©lM mmHm OO�dlM �O� �G• •.,�T••=, lam© ® iii♦ O i� . 1 Room 0� 'R41Tf7^Tvl dl� ©r ® �i TuIII� o��lO - 'tiwL 977.6 � 1sz �ey It / It 2 x 97340 x97302_ -:�?"^ H -97203 a 3.48 0 97320 t. / / / 72.1 3.0 x 97410 "971.6 -_- 92.2.} 1797 - - _ - - _ _ 8 I 72.06 1172 .2r' 7171- " 2--- �'9-7L�d2 - x 873.58 I N89'3290 E 28"2 x 97328 shed I x 973.78 \ \ x 9736 x 97341 \ \ 974 s x 97346 x 97353 I \ ✓ / DESIGNED DRAWN HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT Weh Site: AS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION viww.ottoaasociates�com WILDWOOD CHECKED C.S.O. C.S.O. ND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LOWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. O 9 west Blvlslon St. iION Buffalo, MN 55313 SYNERGY LAND COMPANY, LLC P.E.O. Martin P. Co. pi Ph: /763)681 4727 Zen S90CIATE3 Fax: /763J6814522 LICENSE 111 79901 DATE: En losers and Land Surveyors, Inc. SfiOREWOOD, MN TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT TREES ON PROPERTY = 77 TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT TREES SAVED = 25 TOTAL CALIPER INCHES OF SIGNIFICANT TREES ON PROPERTY = 997" TOTAL CALIPER INCHES OF SIGNIFICANT TREES SAVED = 351" TREE P ( siGNiFi Exhibit G SHEET N0. TREE PRESERVATION PLA N KIM BB��iL't•.»� ©� O��p R7R171'dr."^17 �p ©= 0m i No �0 ®mom ©lM mmHm OO�dlM �O� �G• •.,�T••=, lam© ® iii♦ O i� . 1 Room 0� 'R41Tf7^Tvl dl� ©r ® �i TuIII� o��lO - 'tiwL 977.6 � 1sz �ey It / It 2 x 97340 x97302_ -:�?"^ H -97203 a 3.48 0 97320 t. / / / 72.1 3.0 x 97410 "971.6 -_- 92.2.} 1797 - - _ - - _ _ 8 I 72.06 1172 .2r' 7171- " 2--- �'9-7L�d2 - x 873.58 I N89'3290 E 28"2 x 97328 shed I x 973.78 \ \ x 9736 x 97341 \ \ 974 s x 97346 x 97353 I \ ✓ / DESIGNED DRAWN HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT Weh Site: AS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION viww.ottoaasociates�com WILDWOOD CHECKED C.S.O. C.S.O. ND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LOWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. O 9 west Blvlslon St. iION Buffalo, MN 55313 SYNERGY LAND COMPANY, LLC P.E.O. Martin P. Co. pi Ph: /763)681 4727 Zen S90CIATE3 Fax: /763J6814522 LICENSE 111 79901 DATE: En losers and Land Surveyors, Inc. SfiOREWOOD, MN TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT TREES ON PROPERTY = 77 TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT TREES SAVED = 25 TOTAL CALIPER INCHES OF SIGNIFICANT TREES ON PROPERTY = 997" TOTAL CALIPER INCHES OF SIGNIFICANT TREES SAVED = 351" TREE P ( siGNiFi Exhibit G SHEET N0. TREE PRESERVATION PLA N 0� 'R41Tf7^Tvl dl� ©r ® �i TuIII� o��lO - 'tiwL 977.6 � 1sz �ey It / It 2 x 97340 x97302_ -:�?"^ H -97203 a 3.48 0 97320 t. / / / 72.1 3.0 x 97410 "971.6 -_- 92.2.} 1797 - - _ - - _ _ 8 I 72.06 1172 .2r' 7171- " 2--- �'9-7L�d2 - x 873.58 I N89'3290 E 28"2 x 97328 shed I x 973.78 \ \ x 9736 x 97341 \ \ 974 s x 97346 x 97353 I \ ✓ / DESIGNED DRAWN HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT Weh Site: AS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION viww.ottoaasociates�com WILDWOOD CHECKED C.S.O. C.S.O. ND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LOWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. O 9 west Blvlslon St. iION Buffalo, MN 55313 SYNERGY LAND COMPANY, LLC P.E.O. Martin P. Co. pi Ph: /763)681 4727 Zen S90CIATE3 Fax: /763J6814522 LICENSE 111 79901 DATE: En losers and Land Surveyors, Inc. SfiOREWOOD, MN TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT TREES ON PROPERTY = 77 TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT TREES SAVED = 25 TOTAL CALIPER INCHES OF SIGNIFICANT TREES ON PROPERTY = 997" TOTAL CALIPER INCHES OF SIGNIFICANT TREES SAVED = 351" TREE P ( siGNiFi Exhibit G SHEET N0. TREE PRESERVATION PLA N 79901 DATE: En losers and Land Surveyors, Inc. SfiOREWOOD, MN TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT TREES ON PROPERTY = 77 TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT TREES SAVED = 25 TOTAL CALIPER INCHES OF SIGNIFICANT TREES ON PROPERTY = 997" TOTAL CALIPER INCHES OF SIGNIFICANT TREES SAVED = 351" TREE P ( siGNiFi Exhibit G SHEET N0. TREE PRESERVATION PLA N TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT TREES ON PROPERTY = 77 TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANT TREES SAVED = 25 TOTAL CALIPER INCHES OF SIGNIFICANT TREES ON PROPERTY = 997" TOTAL CALIPER INCHES OF SIGNIFICANT TREES SAVED = 351" TREE P ( siGNiFi Exhibit G SHEET N0. TREE PRESERVATION PLA N CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD - SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 W (952) 474 -3236 FAX (952) 474 -0128 - www.ci.shorewood.mn.us - cityhail @ci.shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor, and City Council Brian Heck City Administrator Brad Nielsen, Plaimling Director FROM: James Landini, P.E., City Engineer Y4 DATE: December 31, 2008 RE: Grading, Drainage, Utilities Wildwood Development I have reviewed plans for the Wildwood Development, prepared by Otto Associates, Inc. dated 12/2/08 and a letter dated 12/11/08. I offer comments on the information presented. Statement: • The developer will need to be aware that staff will inspect the site for conformance with the approved grading plan. New plans will need to be submitted for approval if the grading deviates from those approved plans. • The development meets Shorewood's Stormwater rate control ordinance. • The proposed homes meet the low floor opening policy. • The existing surrounding homes meet the low floor opening policy. • The buried draintile in the swale will be full of water all of the time and will not convey water. For the Proposed seven lot subdivision I offer the following conditions for approval: • Lot 1 should get a sanitary stub or a notification to use the existing service on Strawberry Lane. • The yard drain located near 6075 Strawberry Lane can not connect to the draintile located along Strawberry Lane. The existing draintile is for groundwater management only (household sump pumps are only allowed to connect to this line). • A majority of the Stormwater solution hinges on Lot 5, precautions need to be taken to educate homeowners in perpetuity that any alteration of the swale will impact at least a dozen homeowners. A conservation easement over the Attachment V ff* ®� PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Stormwater solution, a requirement for a dry rock riverbed or approved alternate and a Stormwater maintenance plan to include a minimum of annual topography verification reports are some methods to assure the Stormwater solution works in perpetuity. approval Staff recommends conditional , n to seven lots. above. conditions are listed n 1 0 71 4 17135, 71 0 Z 30 o 30 60 go 7 �18 7 971 37L 77 Seals! 1' 30' 977 - 32 x 971.35 7,1 �971 f- DEVELOPER: 97 VINE HILL PARTNERS 97 ' - 1? /1 . 16 977,39 R -917 ATTN: CORY LEPPER 20445 PARK PLACE DEEPHAVEN, MN 55331 2 2 2 7 � _d, 93 97 q2z� -971.5 - el 9. 6l 1 9 1 970� 71 x 977.80 11F, -17121 L s7l. 76 TOTAL AREA = 4.36 ACRES ✓ , 92.22 A I 971.53 370.91 SF RID NUMBER 32 117 23 43 0004 - 6045 STRAWBERRY LANE 971 EXISTING ZONING R1C 1 1, 061 t 972 S� 7 97171 972. 1.7 x 11,9 -,�7�7OJ A 62971,7 5C t372 ffh?� o 9/ 51i'M _972.0 'It 4 NE 1­971 1 1 1 Bench Mark: 71 :1 o f 972 _11� � ,6o 19 J7 o. 971.84 RR Spik. 1, E. 972.65 ff I /ace of PP G sB 97. Rip Rap ",p Hop V-976 -J7 913 J2 9 72 36 L 2 97� 61 0 4-- — 1171 x 9721 400 LF-4 Perf. PE Drartile ®0.307 - 71 lea 97 09 ­97 1 IT J S. Invert=970.2, N. Invert=969,0 50% Sand, 20% Organic, q -972 le _ X09 12-2 � �, 20% Topsoil MnDOT 3149,21 Coarse 971_54 Filter Aggregate @ X RAIN GARDEN (wrap Trench with Geotextile Fabric) "Bo 15 2' wide trench, depth 72,2 � NOTE: varies. 9�7, 3 x 972.83 9 72� 80 4. 1 141 REFER TO LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR PLANTING MATERIALS. b SF 9 97 77 123 97 _3 973. (_ I - N I . ' i 75 978 -n 972.24 Jo 4 97L55I 9 31 r 1 97:�75 A I 5 -n I 97A a.2 q 974 97� 14-33' 14.33' 974' SOD WITH MIN. E 'S "972.82 1 TOPSOIL (CA TO BACKCFCURB) (c IU BAC UI­ UUNU) .74 810 TYPICAL) SURMOUNTABLE SURMOUNTABLE "S" CURB & GUTTER C URB 1, GUTTER 72.58\ 109 VA 12.00' 28", I . exi 42 2.OD% 7 91 o 972.5t rd-d I -k, 15 7 0 0 (850 RIGID PERFOR E,izt. 121 976 5 4' RIGID PERFORATE D4 72 3,5 PVC DRAIN TILE ENC SED N 1 = 9 2:89 7,3 NTH GEOTEXnLE FABRIC j 54 -972.7.5 I / / J- 1, 2,54e, 2" MNDOT 2360 LV BITUMINOUS WEARING COURSE 2357 BITUMINOUS TACK COAT 7 16 _1,173-' —2" MNDDT 2360 LV BITUMINOUS 101-WEAR COURSE drarna9e x 97", 1 2 & UtIlIfy 's 513-4 x 9 7. 6;,� ... 973 76 q C11 =8" CLASS 5 AGGREGATE BASE (1007 CRUSHED ROCK) _x_ RETA ING WALL 97J 4 112k� �1171 2 Im t.. _ . 24' SELECT GRANULAR MATERIAI '51 rr I \, , ( C 97 44n 4106 lj.�/ s 975.72 GEDTEXILI FABRIC (TYPE V) - t o6 C 972/7 7,`9 1 0 C1 4) TYPICAL URBAN SECTION 4- 9�2 4-j ­d 0 0) 144 e o 973 30 973-54 6 1 ,/� � l x 97379 ` l 58 I ♦ j � �� / xistrnq rence–f -- -� �� !�� 974.50 I �,. I � I � � � 5 !l }8 bit. dri jj �2 m 5, 112C) w . N 1 11 9 2. 06 97". 76 SF - I 97J. 10 — 7,1— ;72 11 97j oa 9 1 .48 10) W. 1­972.Z F51 57 87 29 E. 1­972.20 7232 972 o � 979.12 72.06 9_ x 97225 1 7 — 973— _ __ — - —C . s Yo b — — — — — — — — - - - -- - 0- 973.28 x 973.47 x Attachment V1 2� .5 I 9'! - 973. 97353 DESIGNED DRAYM HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION OR REPORT INb Sfiet PRO CT NO: WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER My DIRECT SUPERVISION wwwAftaswlafft"m C.S.O. C.S.O. AND THAT I AM DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER PRELIMINARY PRIMARY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. ASHLAND WOODS TTO 9 West Dlw.kn St. GRADING PLAN 2-12-0246 CHECKED $5313 NO. _LATE BY DESCRIPTION 11SOCIAMS in. r-f"114 VINE HILL PARTNERS REVISION LI 92-4727 DATE: Cora M. CENSE Schwohn 40433 F (763IS92-3522 SHOREWOOD, MN SHEET NO. 3 OF 8 SHEETS 6/29/12 # - Otto DATE: =n". and land Summ I � 9 � < 97r 211 I � i IAH / / iT' / • . 37G.'87 * 97 77.22 7t 50 -17 477 F ''I.` 1.29 =e 47 9,. 16 RIP RAP SPlL o i / y 971.29 -- ` �q s) 6 -/ � 1_ - ��dye °r w ° °d� ' ,93 � x 97 - / 977.20 97153 �,? � •- v72<" 1 t �" � �ds 470 977.33 q 2' J� V '.9 > X72 x sn 2b�. /r .x 971.74 i x97242 fxlsf. 72" C�AP�� -�`� S", mv=972.71r �- 7 WO a 977 AV -mil 4� NE I - 97760 �I `9, e ) - 79 x 9/7.- �167 _ G =983.0 Bench M-k. e�` - - 9 1 - - s - We' TFs9 791 cg_ 7 f ,997265 `...) RR Sp E \ 9 4 ' x 97['.6 \ - °7`.83 f- 972.3E f PP S8 - _ 6,4 9 72 E1-- -97637 �. / j � 7 x 9 %3. j' wo $ gibs I TF�'983z 6ro ✓A2 . 91� - - - 9 3 ' t t� x 973. . 7 . \ x 9 '0 �` I LL =97 3 x 972. Y75'µ'17 972.09 x 97 7 x 1 9 2 - / /" ( \ �� 977.24 9 91 971.26 8-0 �i ! 073.67 q 3 i x g 7 - b' 982 \ JSS W ,p` - 9p p y s7 .._ 97 ` �� J °.97349 r.-97 $D°S6 _ �7S's77.9e 979_ 2 74. r • • 71 / ` 5 1 x 9 ^ 3.6 _ 1 >: 97 .77 973, 49 N 1 f ` Ise . -e I i I 5 9 978 x 9715 I 1A - "s -,,I I � .� ! � 9�� � ./ 4 x 977 -65 3 PP � I {tea 474 ( 2 - sa 97 w \J ( 1 x "`• I \ ' ( 7 / I 15 �x 73.75 I' I O'\ 7 =983.3 �^\'-� ,�:9 3.79 \\ /CI 979.b LL =974.3 ' / lry#T980. LL* {� 971.7 63 91 7 / 0 9 7713. 7. $G 9 9j6 h 5b ! ,de,ed <- I ' / / A / woods i O -1 9 :rs Exst.!21. 7 n6a ��/ �� % 3 r \ 9 1 5 ^1 nv_97 .04 °'I 5 97 5 976 0 56 g ob x \ c -- s. m 97 N ')54 -75 i . z I _ `I 4= 96 x _ 4 4 ILZ _ 9 s { x L =974.3 dro & 1.�� , 9) 1 7 �. . 7 972. 4 Pa - y TOTAL AREA = 4.36 ACRES 7 967 4 ry RID NUMBER 32 117 23 43 0004 966 I es )7 6045 STRAWBERRY LANE 5 EXISTING ZONING = RIC 3 i 3 2,03 \ I j 971.84 - NOTE: 1. LOTS WILL BE CUSTOM GRADED FOR THE SPECIFIC HOME BEING BUILT ON THE LOT. THE PURPOSE OF THIS DRAWING IS TO 9 SHOW AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THE FINAL DEVELOPMENT COULD BE J DEVELOPED. MINIMUM LOW LEVEL AND LOWEST OPENING ELEVATIONS 92� I ARE AS FOLLOWS: 6z 1 LOT MIN. LL ELEV LOWEST OPENING ELEV r ' 72.2 1 971.7 975.2 (974.8 GROUND ELEV) 2 971.3 974.8 (974.3 GROUND ELEV) 3 974.3 974.3 (973.8 GROUND ELEV) � 4 974.3 974.3 (973.8 GROUND ELEV) 5 974.3 974.3 (973.8 GROUND ELEV) 111121 �t 6 974.3 974.3 (973.8 GROUND ELEV) 7r5 7 974.3 974.3 (973.8 GROUND ELEV) i t 102 )Ot l 7 ^ I 0 711 1p x 9 72.51 t q �3. 15 � x b77. I s ,I rtl I l x973.36 u [nny eosef entl 97 4 A 97x.62 woods 3 978 9,� -- X X-i -- .$�. , 0 .- .. -. ...- ..._..._.... -. 197x= / •a� q 71' '� ( '3 - - / I -... 44 9 4 9 I I `\ x 97 11. i 5 - f' 'l 9 97 7 x 3. - _ 250 --LF -8" NO P RF. PE ®0.3fi 1 s T _ x .973.7.4 70 �k 9/3.0 1a 4 q lSed _ - \ 7F -983.3 / 14 J7 i c I j I ' LL -974.3 % lsf` 5✓ D , � r DENOTES HOME TYPE (LO- LOOKOUT, WO- WALKOUT) DENOTES GARAGE ELEV DENOTES TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEV WO DENOTES LOW LEVEL ELEV G =983.0 DENOTES GROUND ELEV TF =983.3 LL =974.3 973.8 30 0 0 30 60 90 < 971.35 .'7.77 S Sc91e: i` a 30' DEVELOPER: LWAY stl9e, � e V VINE HILL PARTNERS ATTN: CORY LEPPER 20445 PARK PLACE �y D DEEPHAVEN, MN 55331 971.80 i t 102 )Ot l 7 ^ I 0 711 1p x 9 72.51 t q �3. 15 � x b77. I s ,I rtl I l x973.36 u [nny eosef entl 97 4 A 97x.62 woods 3 978 9,� -- X X-i -- .$�. , 0 .- .. -. ...- ..._..._.... -. 197x= / •a� q 71' '� ( '3 - - / I -... 44 9 4 9 I I `\ x 97 11. i 5 - f' 'l 9 97 7 x 3. - _ 250 --LF -8" NO P RF. PE ®0.3fi 1 s T _ x .973.7.4 70 �k 9/3.0 1a 4 q lSed _ - \ 7F -983.3 / 14 J7 i c I j I ' LL -974.3 % lsf` 5✓ D , � r DENOTES HOME TYPE (LO- LOOKOUT, WO- WALKOUT) DENOTES GARAGE ELEV DENOTES TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEV WO DENOTES LOW LEVEL ELEV G =983.0 DENOTES GROUND ELEV TF =983.3 LL =974.3 973.8 a s V: JANUARY TUESDAY, 6 2009 Chair Schmitt called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. r : _' 7:00 P.M. Present: Chair Schmitt; Commissioners Gagne, Geng, Gniffke, Hutchins, Ruoff and Vilett; Planning Director Nielsen; Engineer Landim; and Council Liaison Turgeon Absent: None APPROVAL OF MINUTES 18 November 2008 Gagne moved, Hutchins seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 18 December 2008 as presented. Motion passed 7/0. • 2 December 2008 Gagne moved, Geng seconded, Approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of 2 December 2008 as presented. Motion passed 6/0/1 with Schmitt abstaining due to his absence at the meeting. 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING — PRELIMINARY PLAT — WILDWOOD Applicant: Brent Hislop, Synergy Land Company Location: 6045 Strawberry Lane Chair Schmitt opened the Public Hearing at 7:05 P.M., noting the procedures utilized in a Public Hearing. He explained items recommended for approval that evening would be placed on a January 26, 2009, Regular City Council meeting agenda for further review and consideration. Director Nielsen stated Brent Hislop, Synergy Land Company, LLC, has arranged to purchase approximately 4.36 acres of land at 6045 Strawberry Lane. The property is currently occupied by a very old single- family house. The applicant proposes to remove the existing house and plat it into seven single - family residential lots. The proposed lots will range in size from 20,046 to 25,696 square feet. Nielsen explained the subject property is zoned R -1C, Single - Family Residential and that zoning is consistent with the zoning to the south and to the east. To the west of the property is Strawberry Lane then properties zoned Rl -D, Single- Family Residential which are a minimum of 10,000 square feet in area. To the north of the property is the Hennepin County Regional Rail Authority ( HCRRA) right -of- way (LRT Trail). The properties to the north of the HCRRA are zoned R -lA, Single - Family Residential and are a minimum of 40,000 square feet in area. Attachment VIII CI'T'Y OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 6 January 2009 Page 2 of 8 Nielsen then explained existing vegetation on the site consists of a mix of young and mature, deciduous and coniferous trees. The majority of the trees are at the perimeter of the property. He noted the applicant submitted a tree inventory illustrating the locations of all trees on the site larger than eight inches in diameter at breast height (DBA) which is 42 inches above the ground. A second tree inventory was also submitted illustrating the locations of only the significant trees (i.e., coniferous trees no less than six feet in height and deciduous trees larger than eight inches in DBA) which are at least in fair or good condition. City Code requires a developer to preserve as many trees as possible. Trees that cannot be preserved must be replaced. Any 8 — 12 inch diameter tree must be replaced with two three -inch caliber trees with that measurement being one foot off of the base of the nursery plant. Any tree greater than 12 inches in diameter must be replaced with three three -inch caliber trees. The maximum replacement number of trees is eight per acre. With regard to the analysis of the case, Nielsen stated all of the proposed lots meet or exceed the City Code minimum size requirements for the R -1C zoning district which are 20,000 square feet in area, 100 feet in width and 120 feet in depth. The preliminary grading plan indicates the building pads measure 80 feet by 60 feet. The 60 -foot depths of the pads are more than adequate to accommodate homes, patios and decks. Staff recommends the developer consider reducing the depths of the pads to possibly 55 feet; this would reduce the amount of fill that is required to make the lots buildable and it could also allow a few more significant trees to be preserved. Nielsen explained the new lots will be served by a by a 385 foot long cul -de -sac street (the maximum length allowed is 700 feet) with a proposed right -of -way width of 50 feet, terminating in a 120 -foot diameter cul -de -sac. The paved surface is 24 feet wide, exclusive of curb and gutter width, and the turn- around is 91 feet in diameter. The street grade does not exceed five percent. These dimensions are all consistent with the City's Code. With regard to grading, Nielsen stated the site alteration for this project will be considerable in order for the street to meet grade requirements and to manage storm water runoff for the site. The preliminary plans indicate the site will be raised approximately five feet in some areas in order to have the lowest floor elevations of the homes above the high water elevations of the proposed pond and drainage features. The developer should be required to provide estimates of quantities of material to be brought onto the site, and the condition of Strawberry Lane should be checked before and after the project is complete to assess for any damage that may result from truck traffic to the site. Nielsen explained the subject property is extremely flat and drains very gently from southwest to northeast, and the property is poorly drained today. He stated the residents of the Shorewood Oaks development want to be assured that, at a minimum, the current drainage will be maintained and stolen water will not backup onto the Shorewood Oaks properties. He explained the proposed draining system. The plan proposes to conduct water to a drainage swale at the rear of Lots 5 — 7 which is then conveyed to a proposed ponding area at the northeast corner of the site. He stated Staff recommends the rear yards of Lots 5 — 7 be designed as a rain garden and the drainage swale be designed as dry -rock river bottom to serve to define the areas that must be maintained for drainage purposes. Also, conservation easements should clearly state that buildings, decks, patios and other impervious surfaces be kept out of the drainageways. He explained the pond will drain into an existing drainage channel in Freeman Park and be conducted to the northeast. He noted drainage from Shorewood Oaks is also conducted through Freeman Park. He also noted there is an existing drainage swale on the property which runs along the south boundary of the property and extends to the north. This existing swale is entirely for the use of the property and that pattern will be maintained. He stated Staff also recommends a homeowner's association (HOA), or something similar, be established with its primary purpose being the maintenance of the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING C®MMISSION MEETING 6 January 2009 Page 3 of 8 drainage system. Arrangements for the HOA should be incorporated into the development agreement for the final plat. Nielsen stated sanitary sewer is available in Strawberry Lane. Prior to release of the final plat the developer trust pay local sanitary sewer access charges in the amount of $1,200 per lot. Credit is allowed for the existing house on the lot; therefore, the total charge for sanitary sewer access will be $7,200. The developer's plans include a municipal water main to serve the lots. At Staff s direction, and pursuant to the City's Code requirements, the developer shows water main being extended to the north boundary of his property as well as into the site. Water connections charges will be $70,000 ($10,000 per lot), from which the cost of extending water main may be deducted up to $70,000. The City's Subdivision Code requires the developer to pay $5,000 per lot for park dedication fees. Credit is allowed for the existing house; therefore, the total park dedication requirement is $30,000. Nielsen noted the developer has submitted documentation satisfactory to the Minnehaha Watershed District (MCWD) that no wetlands exist on the property. Nielsen explained the developer will be required to plant 35 trees (the maximum replacement is eight trees per acre). A final tree preservation and reforestation plan must be submitted with the final plat, and the final plat must be submitted within six moths of receiving approval of the preliminary plat. He noted the tree preservation plan submitted as part of the preliminary plan was prepared by a qualified individual. Nielsen noted the developer is not proposing street lights. If the developer chooses to reconsider street lighting the City Code has criteria for where street lighting can be located. Also, future property owners could request the installation of street lights if they so desired. Nielsen stated because the preliminary plat for Wildwood is consistent with the City's development regulations, Staff recommends approval of the plat subject to the following conditions. Plans for streets, utilities, grading, drainage and erosion control are subject to the recommendations of the City Engineer. 2. Drainage and erosion control are subject to the review and approval of the Minnehaha Street Watershed District. (This condition was added after the Staff report was written.) The final plat submission should include the documents establishing a homeowner's association, or some other mechanism, and protective covenants providing for maintenance of the drainage facilities on the property. Prior to final plat release, the developer must pay $7,200 in local sanitary sewer access charges. Prior to final plat release, the developer must pay $70,000 in water connection charges. Upon completion of the improvements, expenses for water main will be refunded not to exceed $70,000. . 6. Prior to release of the final plat, the developer must pay $30,000 in park dedication fees. 7. The developer must submit a final tree preservation and reforestation plan, prepared by a registered landscape architect or forester. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING b January 2009 Page 4 of 8 Engineer Landini stated the proposed houses comply with the low- floor - opening policy, as do the surrounding homes. He explained the water on the front of the seven lots will drain toward the street and the cul -de -sac and then into two catch basins. The runoff will be carried to the rain garden and the overflow will go into the drainage Swale and be conveyed into the proposed water - quality pond. The water in the pond will flow through an outlet into an existing drainage channel in Freeman Park and be conducted to the northeast. The runoff from the property should not overflow onto the properties in Shorewood Oaks. He noted the rain garden and pond system are at a lower elevation than the existing Swale; therefore, the drainage from the adjoining neighbors should flow into the system. Director Nielsen stated Staff has had experience with developments where drainage was planned to flow through backyards through a large drainage and utility easement, yet when there was a substantial rain those property owners became disturbed because water flowed through their back yards. They thought the development was poorly designed, when it was actually designed to work that way. The drainage system proposed is attempting to avoid that. Also, people make routine improvements to their properties that disturb the flow of drainage; the future property owners must be put on notice that that drainage system must remain in tact. Mr. Hislop, the applicant, stated he understood why there is a need for a maintenance agreement against all of the seven lots. Chair Schmitt opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M. John Hoeting, 26340 Shorewood Oaks thanked the City's representatives for meeting with the Shorewood Oaks residents to discuss the residents' concerns. He stated he and his wife wanted assurances there would be a legally binding document in perpetuity which requires the Wildwood Development property owners to maintain the drainage system. He expressed concern that the proposed drainage system may not be able to handle a major rain storm. If the system does not work now or in the future it will impact over a dozen homeowners in both the new development and the surrounding properties. He stated he did not understand the need to raise the ground height in Wildwood such that it will be higher than that in Shorewood Oaks, and then divert runoff off the new lots to the Shorewood Oaks properties. He commented he had not heard any discussion about the impact on existing trees located on Shorewood Oaks properties, about the ramifications of standing water with regard to the mosquito population, or the possible endangerment to young children because of the pond in the northeast. He stated he had been told the pond in the northeast should have water in it all year round and the pond in the southeast will likely have water in it through June of each year. Nancy Rendos 6040 Maple Leaf Circle stated she also has concerns about drainage. She questioned if an earth berm was considered for installation to buffer the abutting properties. She explained during the summer homes in her neighborhood receive reduced electrical power from Xcel Energy. She explained several of them have had the igniters replaced in their ovens because they were not getting enough electricity to start the ovens. Minnegasco had indicated the problem was because the transformer servicing the area did not have enough capacity to fulfill the demands of air conditioners as well as all of the other demands. Minnegasco also stated their air conditions would have a shortened useful life because they were operating on a lower electrical service level. She questioned if anyone had asked Xcel Energy what the impact of the increase in demand will be, and also if Xcel would be willing to install a larger transformer. In response to a question from Ms. Rendos, Engineer Landini stated her property's elevation is higher than the elevation of the ground the drainage will flow over. She expressed concern about the quality of fill that will be used. CITE' OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 6 January 2009 Page 5 of 8 Tom Rendos 6040 Maple Leaf Circle questioned if the proposed homes will be a walkout style, and if so could that design be modified to reduce the amount of fill required. Mr. Hoslip explained the pond and the drainage system necessitate a walkout style home, and if the homes were converted to a lookout style more fill would be required. Engineer Landini clarified two homes will be lookouts and five will be walkouts. Mr. Hoeting questioned if the Shorewood Oaks residents will be looking at the backs of homes in the proposed development that will have a basement, two stories and a roof. Director Nielsen stated they will look like three stories in the back. Bill Coffman , a member of the development team, stated rambler style homes could be built on any of the pads. In response to a comment from Mr. Rendos, Director Nielsen explained the reason Staff recommends the drainage swale have a dry -rock river bed was to ensure the swale was clearly defined. He then explained the City Engineer has requested that a condition of approval be that a minimum of annual topography verification reports be submitted to the City to insure the appropriate depth of the swale is being maintained. In response to another question from Mr. Rendos, Nielsen stated the proposed pond is called a Natural Urban Runoff Program (NURP) pond and it is required by the MCWD. The NURP pond is designed to handle the rate of runoff and to address water quality as it leaves the site (the water enters the pond and the sediment drops to the bottom before the water leaves the pond). In response to a third question from Mr. Rendos, Nielsen explained the development to the east of Shorewood Oaks (i.e., Shorewood Ponds) has a drainage system with underground piping and any above ground runoff flows through depressions in the yards. Nielsen noted the drainage system required for the Wildwood Development is significantly more than has been required for other similar developments. Cara Otto with Otto Associates (a firm doing work for Synergy Land Company) stated there is a slight elevation that separates the pond from the property on the east. If the berm was extended or increased it could prohibit water from flowing off of the Rendos' property to the swale and pond. She explained NURP ponds must have a ten -foot safety bench; that is, the first ten feet of the pond is only one foot deep. Rick Stempel 5975 Cathcart Drive stated from his vantage point in the Strawberry Lane and Cathcart Drive area there were two many homes on too little land. He thought the Wildwood Development is proposing to build two many homes on slightly more than four acres of land. He suggested the number of homes in that area be reduced to maintain the existing character. In response to a question from Ms. Rendos, Director Nielsen explained the maintenance agreement will require the sediment in the NURP pond be monitored and cleaned out when it reaches a certain depth. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:49 P.M. In response to a question from Commissioner Gagne, Director Nielsen explained the City will receive drainage and utility easements along all side -lot lines (ten feet per side) per the subdivision ordinance. Director Nielsen stated there are many people who purchase a property and don't take the time to read the protective covenant against the property. He explained a protective covenant is recorded against the property. In response to a question from Commissioner Gniffke, Director Nielsen explained one of the drainage issues Staff was dealing with involved a property that was graded to drain and had a grass swale on it. The property owner assumed it was their back yard and installed a fire pit and fire ring in that easement. The City has told the property owner that they have to remove those items from that easement. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 6 January 2009 Page 6 of S Mr. Stempel questioned what the price range will be for the new homes and what impact that will have on other homes in the area. Chair Schmitt explained the Planning Commission does not deal with economic concerns. Commissioner Ruoff commented that there are a number of foreclosed and vacant homes in the vicinity, and from a resident's perspective he would like to have the character of the area maintained. Mr. Hoslip stated the homes would probably be priced in the $700,000 - $900,000 range. He then stated he hoped to break ground in the fall of 2009 or early 2010. hl response to a question from Commissioner Ruoff, Engineer Landini stated the rain garden and the drainage swale are the same elevation and should be filling with water at the same time. Director Nielsen stated the swale and rain garden could almost be considered an extension of the pond. Nielsen explained the rain garden would dry up first, the swale would hold water a little longer and the pond would hold water the longest; they would all fill at the same time. A rain garden is designed to let water soak in and the landscape plan for the garden requires plans that have deep roots so they can absorb a lot of water. In response to a question from Commissioner Gen -, Director Nielsen explained stated the width for the drainage Swale has not been determined yet but the width and depth will be determined based on the amount of water it must hold. The size will be determined when the final grading plan is prepared. Geng then questioned how the Swale will affect the reforestation. Director Nielsen stated as many trees as possible will be preserved in that area, although a lot of vegetation will be removed. He commented there is a small swale (a combination of natural and manmade) that already exists on the property. hi response to another question from Geng, Director Nielsen stated it would be counterproductive to install a berm as it would prohibit water from flowing into the drainage system. In response to a comment from Commissioner Ruoff, Director Nielsen stated he had not heard about the transformer issue before. Staff will contact Xcel Energy about that problem. Chair Schmitt stated he would not be in favor of recommending approval of the preliminary plat if the means for enforcing drainage system maintenance was a self - policing HOA. Director Nielsen clarified the HOA would be responsible for paying the maintenance costs; it would not be self policing. Nielsen stated Staff is recommending the developer submit a maintenance plan which would include that annual verification of the elevation of the drainage swale and monitoring the sediment level in the NURP pond. It's the seven property owners' responsibility to restore the elevation and to maintain the rain garden and NURP pond. Schmitt recommended a maintenance fund be established as part of the project and the fund be adequately maintained to insure there are adequate funds when needed. Chair Schmitt stated he was confident the drainage system will work the way it is designed. He's concerned about the impact of natural changes that will occur to the swale and the pond. He questioned if the system was designed to handle other developments, not just this development. Ms. Otto explained it was designed to include the back yards of the adjacent properties. Chair Schmitt commented coramunities he works with do not allow drainage to go across properties. Director Nielsen explained the City's development regulations require natural drainage be maintained. The rate of runoff that leaves the site cannot exceed the rate that existed prior to development. The pond controls how fast the water leaves the site. The nature of the drainage cannot be changed. For example, if there is sheet drainage in a location that cannot be changed. Chair Schmitt cited another city that does not issue a building permit until the new homeowner and developer sign a document stating they have read everything. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 6 January 2009 Page 7 of 8 Gagne moved, Yilett seconded, recommending approval of the preliminary plat for Brent Hislop, Synergy Land Company, 6045 Strawberry Dane, subject to the conditions identified in the Staff report dated 1 January 2009 and in the City Engineer's report dated 31 December 2009 and subject to the drainage and erosion control plans being reviewed and approved of the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Chair Schmitt questioned if a HOA was the appropriate mechanism to insure the maintenance system will be maintained. He wanted to insure a maintenance fund will be established upfront. Ms. Hislop stated that although he has not spoken with his legal counsel yet he thought a permanent maintenance agreement could be drafted prior the submitting the final plat and that agreement could be reviewed by the Planning Commission and Staff to insure it was all inclusive. The property owners of the seven lots will be responsible to implement and adhere to the maintenance agreement. Mr. Hislop stated he was not sure if a HOA would be the appropriate place to assign responsibility managing a maintenance fund. Chair Schmitt stated he wanted the opportunity for the Planning Commission to review the maintenance agreement, including who will be responsible for insuring it is adhered to and a process for establishing a maintenance fund, prior to the final plat being approved. Without objection from the maker or seconder of the motion, the motion was amended to include a condition of approval requiring the applicant to provide the Planning Commission the opportunity to review and recommend approval of the maintenance agreement, including who will be responsible for insuring it is adhered to and a process is identified for establishing a maintenance fund, prior to the final plat being approved. Director Nielsen stated the agreement will specify the City has the authority to assess for maintenance costs should the property owners not adhere to the maintenance agreement. Motion passed 7/0. Chair Schmitt closed the Public Hearing at 8:28 P.M. STUDY SESSION 2. 2009 WORK PROGRAM Director Nielsen reviewed some of the items that should be included in the 2009 Planning Commission work program. The Commission has to hold a public hearing on the updated Comprehensive Plan and it has to review the revisions recommended by other agencies. Planning District Area Plans, of which there are twelve, will all be reviewed. The schedule will be to review one per month with more reviews being done in slower months for the Commission and maybe none during busier months. He will review the Chapter Summaries in the Comprehensive Plan and prepare a task list of items that were identified to be done (e.g., a study of the City's rights -of -way). A study will be done of the City's parking requirement. His goal is to have that done in February 2009. One meeting in 2009 will be dedicated to discussing variances and what variances were considered in 2008. He stated this list will likely grow. CITY OF SHOREWOOD  5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900  Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission,Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 2 August 2012 RE: Life-cycle Housing – Accessory Apartments FILE NO. 405 (Zoning 1201.03) Attached is a revised memo setting forth a draft of an ordinance related to accessory apartments. The revisions (shown underlined) address three concerns raised by the Planning Commission in its initial review of the proposed amendment: Subd. 22.c.(2) Alternative floor areas are provided – the original 850 square feet and 500 square feet, plus 700 square feet and 480. Both are consistent with the 40 percent requirement provided in c.(2). The alternative allows for smaller homes to have accessory apartments. Subd. 22.c.(6) Provision is added to include full-time care-provider. The language is consistent with the provisions for elderly housing. Subd. 22.c.(8) Clarifies that required parking must be in a building or on an approved driveway. This item is scheduled for a public hearing next Tuesday. If you have any questions relative to the amendment or the revisions, please do not hesitate to contact me prior to Tuesday night. Cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane CITY OF SHOREWOOD  5755 Country Club Road Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 952-960-7900  Fax: 952-474-0128 www.ci.shorewood.mn.us cityhall@ci.shorewood.mn.us MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 18 February 2012 (Revised 2 August 2012) RE: Life-cycle Housing – Accessory Apartments FILE NO. 405 (Zoning 1201.03) One of the topics identified in the Planning Commission’s study of life-cycle housing is that of “accessory apartments”. This housing option, which is not currently allowed in Shorewood’s Zoning Code, is viewed as addressing both ends of life-cycle housing spectrum – older parents moving in to single-family homes with their adult children, or younger adult children moving in with their older parents. Either situation provides for more affordable, better utilized housing stock, especially in an area that is somewhat dominated by relatively large single-family homes. Accessory apartments in single-family homes is by no means a new idea. Cities in the eastern part of the country have been addressing this for 20 or more years. Consequently, much of their experience can be drawn upon as we consider this housing option for Shorewood. Regulations vary among municipalities but usually are concerned with health and safety standards, as well as maintenance of the basic character of the neighborhood. In this regard, staff suggests that the City proceed cautiously, limiting accessory apartments to family use and establishing a transparent process providing for neighborhood awareness. Upon review of many accessory apartment codes, staff has put together a menu of provisions that should be considered for any amendment to Shorewood’s zoning regulations. I.Definition: ACCESSORY APARTMENT “. A small apartment that meets the standards of Section _______ of this Code and is located within and is subordinate to an owner occupied single family dwelling. An accessory apartment shall not be considered to be a dwelling unit even if it allows fully independent living.” Memorandum Re: Life-cycle Housing – Accessory Apartments 18 February 2012 It should be emphasized that the apartment, like other accessory uses, is subordinate to the principal use. II.Category of Use. With respect to a transparent public process, it is recommended that accessory apartments be categorized as conditional uses in the single-family residential (R-1 and R-2) zoning districts. This not only provides a public hearing process, it also provides uniform standards and a mechanism for formal recording of the City’s approval. III.Code Section. Since the proposed code amendment will have requirements common to more than one zoning district, it is recommended that the accessory apartment provisions be placed in the General Provisions section of the Zoning Code (Section 1201.03). It is recommended that a new subdivision (22) be added. IV.Suggested Standards. The following provisions are not considered to be exhaustive, but are intended to be a basis for discussion. “Subd. 22. Accessory Apartments. a.Purpose. b.Conditional Use. Accessory apartments shall be allowed by conditional use permit in the following zoning districts: R-1A, R-1B, R-1C, R-1D, R- 2A, R-2B, R-2C and in the P.U.D. that allow single-family residential dwellings. c.Standards. Accessory apartments are subject to the provisions of Section1201.04 of this Code. In addition, the following standards shall apply: (1)The accessory apartment shall be clearly a subordinate part of the single-family dwelling. In no case shall the accessory apartment be more than forty (40) percent of the building's total floor area nor have more than two (2) bedrooms. (2)The principal unit shall have at least 850/700 square feet of living space remaining after creation of the accessory apartment, exclusive of garage area. Accessory apartments shall have at least 500/480 square feet of living space. Living space square footage for the accessory apartment shall be exclusive of utility rooms, common hallways, entryways or garages. At minimum, living space for the accessory apartment shall include a kitchen or cooking facilities, a bathroom and a living room. -2- Memorandum Re: Life-cycle Housing – Accessory Apartments 18 February 2012 (3)No front entrances shall be added to the house as a result of the accessory apartment permit. (4)An addition to the original building is permitted provided that the addition does not increase the floor area or volume of the original building by more than twenty (20) percent, and the addition will not alter the character of the building. (5)The owner of the residence in which the accessory apartment is located shall occupy the dwelling unit itself or the accessory apartment. (6)Occupancy of the accessory apartment shall be limited to persons related by blood or marriage to the owner of the residence. In cases where the accessory apartment is occupied by the owner, occupancy of the dwelling unit itself shall be limited to persons related to the owner by blood or marriage. Exception: the occupancy limitations stated herein shall not apply to one adult live-in care-provider serving the needs of the primary occupant(s), provided that if the care-provider resides on the premises for more than 30 days, notice must be given to the Zoning Administrator. (7)The owner of the single-family residence shall enter into a Residential Use Agreement with the City stipulating that the home will not be used except for single-family residential purposes and that the accessory apartment shall not be rented out in the future to anyone not related by blood or marriage to the owner. Prior to occupancy of the accessory apartment the owner shall provide evidence to the City that the Residential Use Agreement has been recorded with Hennepin County. (8)A minimum of three off-street parking spaces must be provided, two of which must be enclosed. Any parking provided pursuant to this section shall be located in a garage or an approved driveway. (9)The accessory apartment and principal unit must meet the applicable standards and requirements of the Building Code, Fire Code and the Shorewood Rental Housing Code. (10)The building and property shall remain in single ownership and title and shall only have one mailing address. (11)Only one accessory apartment permit may be issued per detached single family home.” -3- Memorandum Re: Life-cycle Housing – Accessory Apartments 18 February 2012 Cc: Brian Heck Tim Keane Laura Hotvet -4- CITY OF SIIORFW001) 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD - SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 ® (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474-0128 ® www.d.shorewood.mn.us - cityha11@cLshorewood.mn,us TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: I August 2012 RE: Smithtown Crossing Third Draft — Resident Comments FILE NO. Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study The Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study — Third Draft has been available on the City's website and at City Hall for resident comment during the month of July. The results are attached as Exhibit A. These comments, and the feedback we received previously, will be discussed at our meeting next Tuesday. The Commission should decide what, if any, changes should be made to the document and schedule a public hearing to adopt an amendment to the Shorewood Comprehensive Plan. Cc: Bill Joynes 0% q. PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Overall I think the study is a good start. Everyone who has commented so far has some valid points, although the way a couple were worded makes you totally ignore any validity their statements might have. I do think the city needs to act like a business in this venture to make sure the project offers an economic advantage to the city. I do like the idea of planning the area--the Tonka Bay section of the city looks so nice and you look at Shorewood and it is really bad. As far as the study itself goes, I hope you will seriously encourage businesses that will take advantage of pedestrian (bike) traffic. We have an incredible resource right down the road with the LRT, plus many bike clubs use Smithtown Road as a main thoroughfare. The bus stops across the street, and, although not heavily used now, the demand of certain businesses to increase the use over the years. Eventually mass transit will improve in the suburbs--just not in my lifetime. I hope this project will utilize the construction to add a bike trail connection to the LRT. It was a waste of money that it was not done as part of the intersection project and I hope we do not overlook it. I am glad the building height has been scaled down. We really don't need buildings towering over our tree height in Shorewood. It defeats why we move to outer- ring suburbs. I will be interested to see the final draft and how financially you see it impacting the city. Thanks to you and City for your proactive efforts to get public review and comment on the Smithtown Crossing Redevelopment Study. I appreciate you alerting us in the City Newsletter and providing adequate time for online review and comment. As you know, most of us don’t follow City Council meetings. By using the newsletter you alerted all of us. Tying that to a one month online review and comment period provides just the sort of proactive outreach needed on a project of this significance. Overall, I’m glad to see the City is doing some advance, holistic thinking about this site which in many ways is a gateway to the City. I agree that a coordinated approach provides opportunities that piece-meal does not. I have a few specific comments for your consideration: 1. While a coordinated, unified approach has many benefits it raises questions about what will happen if not all landowners agree to participate. Although it appears the City is not planning on using eminent domain, that is not clear. Breaking the project into three chunks based on the existing road layout may reduce the risk that any given landowner that is not interested holds up other aspects of the project. It may also reduce the temptation for future City Councils to consider using eminent domain for the project. 2. I understand the rationale behind using Tax Increment Financing but am concerned about the potential fiscal impact on the City. While the City would forego increased tax revenues during the increment period, it would be paying out for additional service needs required by the development during the same period. Toward that end, I would encourage the City to require a Fiscal Impact Analysis as part of the project planning. Should the City decide to proceed with Tax Increment Financing, I would urge the City to consider basing any financing on the net fiscal impact of the project, not just gross increases in tax rd Public Comments from July 2012 - Smithtown Crossing 3 draft (City Website) Page 1 of 4 revenues. Further, I’d encourage the City to use a short window of time for the financing to limit medium-term impacts on the city. 3. As an alternative to investing future tax revenue in the project, I’d ask the City to consider working with the developer and local banks to explore Community Investment Financing. This would allow local citizens that were interested to invest into the project via the bank who would provide financing at attractive rates. This approach could reduce bank risks, lower developer financing costs, reduce or eliminate the need for City Tax Increment Financing, and provide interesting local investment options for area residents that were so inclined. Another alternative to this approach would be to use the City’s bonding authority to provide attractive financing via loans to the project as opposed to foregoing future tax revenue to help fund the project. 4. A project like this provides great opportunities to think about future goals and community needs. Towards that end, I’d encourage the City to consider requiring or incentivizing the development to provide most or all of its energy needs through a project sponsored energy cooperative or other model that takes advantage of the scale of the project to make solar energy a reality for the site. Partnerships between the City, the project sponsors, Excel Energy, and others could create a great opportunity here to showcase innovative approaches to locally sourced energy that is fiscally real. 5. On page 12, bullet 5, the plan references housing should “add to and enhance the variety of housing choices in the community.” Perhaps explicit reference should be provided to replacing the existing apartment stock that would be vacated by the proposed development. 6. Page 17 references “connections to existing and future sidewalk systems.” I strongly encourage the City to consider including access enhancements as part of the project to facilitate better pedestrian access. This should include better crossings across County Road 19 and extensions of sidewalks into the community such as down Smithtown Road. And yes, my property does front and Smithtown and we’d welcome a sidewalk. 7. Also on page 17 there is a reference to site planning and landscaping that would encourage “visitors to spend a little more time in the area . . . .” I suggest explicitly referencing the need to have design that encourages external access within the proposed development. 8. Page 18 references strategies for mitigating visual impact. I encourage the City to explicitly include strategies to reduce light pollution as part of the design requirements. 9. Page 23 references possible City land acquisition. I understand the rationale for that and the flexibility it provides. St. Louis Park’s award winning Excelsior and Grand project was made possible because the City proactively acquired the land and then sought developers that could implement the City’s vision for the site. Of course that’s a different scale project, but the process is worth noting. That said, the reference to selling to a developer “at cost” should be modified in the report to include carrying costs. Although, the City should probably sell “at market value.” Further, the City should thoroughly plan out interim uses and associated holding costs and risks before embarking on any land rd Public Comments from July 2012 - Smithtown Crossing 3 draft (City Website) Page 2 of 4 acquisition. Finally, I would urge the Cit not to buy any of the sites that have problem soils until they are corrected and cases are closed by the MN PCA. If the City comes into the chain of title prior to completing radiation, the City’s risk profile increases dramatically. Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this important project. I look forwarding to seeing the final redevelopment study. Obviously you have become busy-bodies again and you are just looking for something to do. Why is it that these changes are never driven by the people but from the top down? Why impose this type of development on a community that doesn't want it? Stop letting staff drive change that your residents do not want. You are just going to start another political war in Shorewood. This is not democracy; this is expertism. I strongly oppose the use of tax payers' money for speculative development projects. The rationale that the private investment in the area hasn't kept up with the public investment is highly suspect. You may also want to ask whether residents are interested in having a civic campus. Stop spending! How much will this cost the residents of Shorewood? How can residents give valuable feedback without knowing the cost to the city? As a resident of Shorewood, I feel the explanation should include the "all in" expenses associated with the project. Since you appear to be underwriting a business venture, I think you should provide residents an objective report showing the costs of the project and the expected benefits. An assessment and an itemization of the financial risks should be part of the disclosure. The only financial information in the report is the inventory in the appendix. Does the city plan to take the properties? Are there plans to buy out the businesses? I am happy to see bicycle/pedestrian connections included in the plan document, as well as emphasis on landscaping and other elements that would help new construction blend in with the residential character of most of our community. I am a bit concerned about references to allowing a taller building. I rather like the existing limit of about 2 - 1/2 stories. With regard to hardscape, I wonder if permeable paving could be included instead of solid pavement. It would be nice if development could be as green as possible - an example to be proud of. I like the mention of community gathering spaces - making the result people-friendly instead of just car friendly. And I am glad to see that a traffic study is included, since extra traffic at that intersection - which is an important route for folks trying to get from the neighborhoods to Highway 7 - could create problems for Shorewood residents. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. rd Public Comments from July 2012 - Smithtown Crossing 3 draft (City Website) Page 3 of 4 People no longer trust government, generally speaking. The reason is easy to understand. Government often positions itself “in the front of the line”; while their constituents “sit in the back.” In the case of the Smithtown Road redevelopment proposal, it would therefore be quite natural to be suspicious of one or more of the following: 1) A City Council which is blinded by the prospect of more tax revenues; 2) A developer with a “hit-and- run” mentality – all too often, from out of state; and 3) The Met Council. On this latter factor, I have a question: What is the precise involvement of the Met Council? Whenever I hear “multi-unit housing”, or “senior housing”, I suspect the presence of this powerful, unelected body. Their outreach and control is an abomination to those of us who cherish the concepts of individuality, private property rights and community autonomy and character. People live here for a reason. The character and beauty of the Shorewood/Excelsior community features a wonderful combination of quaintness, individuality and local color, serenity and seclusion. By contrast, most folks around here would consider Wayzata to be sometimes useful, but as a place to live? You would hear, “sterile, overdeveloped, and ridiculously upscale”. --How about the crowded circus that has become the new Chanhassen? Not a chance! Let’s be careful with this. After watching my former community of the Parker’s Lake area in Plymouth be wrecked by multi-unit housing and overdevelopment, I am not interested in: 1) several years of the all-day noise, dirt, and traffic detours of major construction; 2) potential lowering of property values because of the presence of multi-unit housing; 3) groups of buildings reaching 4 stories in height, large parking lots, herding people into phony little courtyards, and all of the other artificialities that the developers come up with. I have a suggestion. Let us take an approach which will attract the many entrepreneurs among us. Yes, the gas station and former Bayt Shop properties need action. These are good locations for many different types of quality retail oriented businesses. Scrap this outlandish proposal – one which will create great noise, congestion and upheaval – while damaging the intrinsic nature of Shorewood. In its place, create the right environment – and let the free market work. My husband used to rent an apartment from those "small not to code apartments" referred to in the report. For over 30 years we have owned a home on Smithtown Rd. and have utilized services at this very convenient business location. I do like the idea of making biking/pedestrian access to a public commons area as illustrated in the proposal. It would be very useful to have a safer means of crossing this intersection when not in a car. Businesses which have left this area and we sorely miss are: the hardware store, a gas station/convenience store, a blue collar priced descent food restaurant - perhaps with views of the Glen? (Oh, we miss you Pizza Platter). I saw notes in the proposal for more health/beauty stores - really? Do we really need more of these in the area? I also would lament the loss of those apartments. In the past the rent was cheep, just the ticket for single people struggling to make ends meet especially in this economy. We should have options for this population. rd Public Comments from July 2012 - Smithtown Crossing 3 draft (City Website) Page 4 of 4 �ti CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD - SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331-8927 ® (952) 960-7900 FAX (952) 474-0128 - www.d.shorewood.mn.us ® cityha1I@ci.shorewood.mn.us TO: Planning Commission FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 2 August 2012 RE: Code Discussion — Noise Ordinances FILE NO. City Code (Chapter 501) At the last Planning Commission meeting, during a discussion of general provisions in the Zoning Code, the topic of noise ordinances was brought up. The Commission asked staff to provide examples of other cities' codes relative to nuisance noise. The following examples are provided for your review: Exhibit A — Shorewood Code (current) and Deephaven Code Exhibit B — Excelsior Code Exhibit C — Tonka Bay Code Exhibit D — Chanhassen Code Exhibit E — Eden Prairie Code This item will be discussed on Tuesday night. Cc: Bill Joynes Scott Zerby PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Noise ® Shorewood Chapter 501 (Nuisances): Subd. 6. All annoying vibrations and obnoxious noises in violation of Minn. Rules 7030, as they may be amended from time to time and which are incorporated by reference into this code. Subd. 12. The discharging of exhaust or permitting the discharging of the exhaust of any stationary internal combustion engine, motor boat, motor vehicle, motorcycle, all - terrain vehicle, snowmobile, or any recreational equipment or device, except through a muffler or other device that effectively prevents loud or explosive noises therefrom and complies with all applicable state laws and regulations. Subd. 13. The participation in a party or gathering of people giving rise to noise that disturbs the peace, quiet or repose of the occupants of adjoining or other property. Noise — Deephaven (aa) Maintenance equipment noise at any time other than the hours of 7:00 a.m, to 9:30 p.m. on weekdays and 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. on weekends and Holidays. Maintenance equipment shall include, but not be limited to lawn movers, chains saws, leaf blowers and other similar types of equipment. However, equipment used during the removal of snow and generators used during power outages or other emergencies shall not be considered as maintenance equipment under this subsection. Exhibit A ;t, I � ICI Excelsior, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >> PART If - CODE OF ORDINANCES >> Chapter EN I t N ENT >> ARTICLE M. ,- NOISE >> Sec. 16 -101.4 Purpose of article. The purpose of this article is to protect the comfort, repose, health, peace, safety, or welfare of city residents, and the quiet enjoyment of property within the city, by imposing reasonable restrictions on the hours during which significant sources of noise may be used or operated. (Code 1932, § 1 :00) Sec. 16 -102. Dourly restrictions on certain ope (a) Recreational vehicles. No person shall, between the hours of 9:30 p.m. and 7:30 a.m. drive or operate any minibike, snowmobile, or other recreational vehicle not licensed for travel on public highways. (b) Domestic power equipment. No person shall operate a power lawn mower, power hedge clipper, chain saw, mulcher, garden tiller, edger, drill, or other similar domestic power maintenance equipment except between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. on any weekday or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on any weekend or holiday. Snow removal equipment is exempt from this subsection. (c) Refuse hauling. No person shall collect or remove garbage, refuse, or recycling in the city, except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. on any weekday or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on any weekend or holiday. (d) Construction activities. No person shall engage in or permit construction activities involving the use of any kind of electric, diesel, gas - powered machine, or other power equipment except between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 9:30 p.m. on any weekday or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on any weekend or holiday. (Code 1932, § 1107:0 Ord. No. 343, § 1, 3-18-2002 Sec. 16 -103.® Exceptions. (a) Emergency work exempt. Noise created exclusively in the performance of emergency work shall be exempt from the provisions of this article. Any person responsible for such emergency work shall take all reasonable actions to minimize the amount of noise generated by such work. (b) Exhibit B http: / /library. municode. com /print. aspx ?h= &clientID= 13367 &HTNMequest Mom we Emergency work defined. The term "emergency work" means activities that are necessary to protect or preserve lives or property from imminent danger of loss or harm, including work that is necessary to restore a public service or to eliminate a public hazard. (c) Emergency declaration. When conditions or circumstances within the boundaries of the city warrant, the city manager (or designee) in his discretion may declare that a city emergency exists. Without limitation, such emergencies may include or be the result of weather phenomena. The declaration that a city emergency exists shall have the effect of waiving application of this article to all activities reasonably related to the emergency. (:ode 1982, § 1107:10) (a) Authority. The city manager or his designee shall have the authority to grant variances from the requirements of any section of this article. (b) Application. Any person seeking a variance shall file an application with the city manager or his designee on a form prescribed by the city. Information to be supplied in the application shall include, but not be limited to, the following information: ( Statement of the dates and times during which the noise is proposed. ( The location of the noise source. ( The nature of the noise source. ( Reasons why the variance is sought and identified hardship. ( Steps taken to minimize the noise level. ( Other information as required by the city manager. (c) Criteria for granting. A variance shall be permitted only if it is established that: ( By reason of exceptional circumstances, strict conformity with any of the provisions of this article would cause the applicant undue hardship, or would be unreasonable, impractical, or not feasible under the circumstances. ( Owners and occupants of property within 350 feet of the location of the noise source will not suffer undue hardship or unreasonable disruption or annoyance if the variance is granted to the applicant. ( The applicant has notified the owners and occupants of all property within 350 feet of the location of the noise source about the applicant's request for a variance from this article. a. Notice complying with this section shall be in writing, shall describe the nature and proposed hours of operation of the activity that will generate the noise for which the variance is sought, and shall explain why the variance is needed. The notice shall specify that any person wishing to comment on the variance application should promptly contact the city manager at the city hall about the variance application. b. The failure to comply with this section shall be grounds for denial or revocation of the variance. The making of any false or misleading statements by the applicant or his agents in connection with providing the notice required under this section shall be grounds for denial or revocation of the variance, and shall also constitute a violation of this article. C. Any comments received by the city in response to notice provided under this section shall be considered by the city manager (or his designee) in http: / /library.municode. com /print. aspx ?h= &clientID= 13367 &HTNMequest= http %3a %2f%... 8/2/2012 Municode Page 3 of 3 determining whether to grant or deny the variance to which the comments pertain. (Code 1982, § 1107:1, (a) Enforcement duties. The city manager or his designees shall enforce the provisions of this article. The city manager or his designees may inspect private premises other than private residences and shall make all reasonable efforts to prevent violations of this article. (b) Nuisance violation. Any violation of this article shall constitute a public nuisance. (c) Civil remedies. This article may be enforced by injunction, action for abatement, or other appropriate civil remedy. (d) Criminal penalties. Any violation of this article involving the operation of a motor vehicle is a petty misdemeanor and, upon conviction, the violator shall be punished in accordance with section 1 -13. Every person who violates any other provision in this article is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall, upon conviction, be punished in accordance with section 1 -13. In all cases the city shall be entitled to collect the costs of prosecution to the extent outlined by law, Rules of Criminal Procedure, and the Rules of the Court. Each act of violation and each day a violation occurs or continues constitutes a separate offense. (Code 1982, § 1107:20) Secs.16- 106 -16 -140. Reserved. http: // library. inunicode. com/print. aspx ?h= &clientID =13 3 67 &HTMRequest =http %3 a %2f` /o... 8/2/2012 795.01 STATEMENT OF PURPOSE It is recognized that loud and unpleasant raucous or prolonged noise can and does have a harmful, debilitating and detrimental effect upon human beings, adversely affecting their mental and physical health, safety and sell being. Such loud, unpleasant and raucous or prolonged noise and resulting detrimental, debilitating and harmful effects upon human beings has become a major contemporary urban concern and is now considered to be a pollutant, not dissimilar to the pollution of the air and water by toxins or particulates. In an endeavor to provide for the mental and physical health, safety, and well being and peaceful repose of its citizens and their neighborhoods, it is hereby declared to be in the public interest that loud and unpleasant raucous and unnecessary or prolonged noise be abated. 795.02 ACTIVITY PROHIBITED No person shall, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. congregate because of, participate in, or be in any party or gathering of people from which noise emanates of such a volume as to be plainly audible at a distance of 50 feet from a residential dwelling unit wherein such party is taking place, or from which noise emanates of a sufficient volume so as to disturb the peace, quiet or repose of persons residing in any residential area. 795.03 ABATING DISTURBANCES No persons except the owner, renter, lessor or other occupants shall visit or remain within any residential dwelling unit wherein a party or gathering described in 795.02 hereinabove, is taking place except persons who have gone there for the sole purpose of abating the said disturbance. 795.04 ENFORCEMENT A police officer may order all persons present in any such group or gathering from which such noise emanates other than the owners or tenants of a dwelling unit, to immediately disperse from said party in lieu of being charged under this ordinance. 795.05 FAILURE TO ABATE Owners or tenants of a dwelling unit shall immediately abate such a party as described in 795.02 hereinabove and failing to do so shall be in violation of this ordinance. 795.06 PENALTY Any person violating any provision of this ordinance shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Exhibit C rt Chanhassen, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances >>,,- CITY CODE >> Chapter 13 - NUISANCES >> ARTICLE VI. - NOISE >> See. 13-50. m Definitions. General. When used in this article, words and phrases in this section have the meanings given in cha ter 1 of the City Code. Any other word or phrase used in this article, and defined in regulations of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Noise Pollution Control Rules Chapter 7030, has the meaning given in those regulations. (Ord. No. 373, 3 6,4-12-04) (a) General prohibition. No person shall make or cause to be made any distinctly and loudly audible noise that unreasonably disturbs, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace, safety, or welfare of any persons or precludes their enjoyment of property or affects their property's value. This general prohibition is not limited by the specific restrictions of the following subdivisions. (b) Motor vehicles. Minnesota Statutes §§ 169.69 and 169.693 (motor vehicle noise limits) and Minnesota Rules parts 7030.1000 through 7030.1050, as these statutes and rules may be amended from time to time, are hereby adopted by reference. No person shall operate a motor vehicle in the city in violation of the motor vehicle noise limits herein adopted. (c) Horns, audible signaling devices, etc. No person shall sound any signaling device on any vehicle except as a warning of danger, as required by M.S. § 169.68. (d) Exhaust. It shall be unlawful for any person to discharge the exhaust or permit the discharge of the exhaust from any motor vehicle except through a muffler that effectively prevents abnormal or excessive noise and complies with all applicable state laws and regulations. ( Engine retarding brakes. It shall be unlawful for the operator of any truck to intentionally use an engine retarding brake on any public highway, street, parking lot or alley within the city which causes abnormal or excessive noise from the engine, except in an emergency. ( Vehicle noise signage. Signs stating "VEHICLE NOISE LAWS ENFORCED" may be installed at locations deemed appropriate by the city council to advise motorists of the prohibitions contained in this section, except that no sign stating "VEHICLE NOISE LAWS ENFORCED" shall be installed on a state highway without a permit from the Exhibit D http: / /library. municode. coin/print. aspx ?h= &clientID= 14048 &HTU Request • . (g) Radios, tape player, compact disc player, paging system, etc. ( General prohibition. No person shall use or operate or permit the use or operation of any radio receiving set, musical instrument, tape player, compact disc player, paging system, machine, or other device for the production or reproduction of sound in a distinctly and loudly audible manner as to unreasonably disturb the peace, quiet, comfort, safety or welfare of any persons or precludes their enjoyment of property or affects their property value. ( Nighttime prohibition. Operation of any such set, instrument, machine, or other device between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to be plainly audible at the property line of the structure or building in which it is located, in the hallway or apartment adjacent, or at a distance of 50 feet if the source is located outside a structure or building shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section. (h) Participation in noisy parties or gatherings. No person shall participate in any party or other gathering of people giving rise to noise, unreasonably disturbing the peace, quiet, or repose of another person. When a police officer determines that a gathering is creating such a noise disturbance, the officer may order all persons present, other than the owner or tenant of the premises where the disturbance is occurring, to disperse immediately. No person shall refuse to leave after being ordered by a police officer to do so. Every owner or tenant of such premises who has knowledge of the disturbance shall make every reasonable effort to see that the disturbance is stopped. (i) Loudspeakers, amplifiers for advertising, etc. No person shall operate or permit the use or operation of any loudspeaker, sound amplifier, or other device for the production or reproduction of sound on a street or other public place for the purpose of commercial advertising or attracting the attention of the public to any commercial establishment or vehicle, without a written permit from the city. Application shall be made on forms provided by the city. The application shall require the hours and location of the proposed use. if the proposed use complies with this article and other ordinances, the permit shall be granted. Permit fees shall be established in chgpLer 4 of the Chanhassen City Code. U) Animals. No person owning, operating, having charge of, or occupying any building or premise shall keep or allow to be kept one or more animals that unreasonably disturbs the comfort or repose of any person by its frequent or continued noise. For purposes of this subsection, "disturbs the comfort or repose of any person by its frequent or continued noise" shall include, but is not limited to any one of the following: ( The noise from one or more animals occurs at a time between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and can be heard from a location outside the building or property where the animal or animals are being kept, and the animal or animals have made such noises intermittently for more than three minutes with one minute or less lapse of time without such noise during the three - minute period; or ( The noise from one or more animals can be heard 500 feet from the location of the building or property where the animal or animals are being kept, and the animal or http: / /library, municode. com/ print. aspx ?h= &clientID =1404 8 &HTNMequest= http %3 a %2f%... 8/2/2012 Municode Page 3 of 4 (Ord. No, 37:x, § 6, 442 -014) See. 13-52. Hourly restriction on certain operations. (a) Recreational vehicles and snowmobiles. No person shall, between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m., drive or operate any snowmobile or other recreational vehicle not licensed for travel on public highways. (b) Domestic power equipment. No person shall operate a power lawn mower, power hedge clipper, chain saw, mulcher, garden tiller, edger, leaf blower /vacuum, drill or other similar domestic power maintenance equipment except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. (c) Construction, maintenance and repair activities. No person shall engage in or permit construction, maintenance or repair activities creating noise, including, but not limited to, the use of any kind of electric, diesel, pneumatic, or gas - powered machine or other power equipment except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on any weekday or between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. on Saturday, and no such activity is permitted on Sundays or on the following public holidays: New Years Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving Day and Christmas Day. Construction activities in conjunction with new developments and city improvement projects, including but not limited to grading, utility installation and street paving, requiring the use of heavy equipment shall be permitted between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on any weekday and 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays. No such activity is permitted on Sundays or public holidays. Residential construction, repairs or maintenance, including lawn maintenance, conducted by the homeowner or occupant shall be permitted between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Sundays and public holidays. The use of electronic insect deterrents (aka, "bug zappers ") is limited to use between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. during the seven days of the week. (d) Exceptions. The following uses and activities are exempt from this section as specified below: ( Snow removal motor vehicles, equipment and operations are exempt from subsection 1 - (b) and (c). ( Excavation /grading operations are exempt from subsection 13- 52 (c), but must comply with section 7 -45 ( Outdoor recreational uses are exempt from subsection 13 -52 (b) and (c). (t A/n, .37.3 R 4_12 -to4 C7m Al 407 u ; 12 -12 -05 Ord N r, 430 6 1, -9- 25 -06; Ord. No, 433, 6 1 10- 23 -O6) Noise created exclusively in the performance of emergency work to preserve the public health, safety, or welfare necessary to restore a public service or eliminate a public hazard shall be exempt from the provisions of this article for a period not to exceed 24 hours after the work is commenced. The city manager or his or her designee may grant an extension of the twenty -four- http: / /library. municode, com /print. aspx ?h= &clientID =1404 8 &HTMRequest =http %3 a %2 f%... 8/2/2012 �r ,- � man ager or or designee of --• to initiate such work or if the work is commenced during no hours beginning of the first business d., thereafter. A am ount person responsible for such emergency work shall take all reasonable actions to minimize the of • (Ord. No. 373, § 6,4-12-04) Sec. 13-54. - Enforcement. (a) Notice of certain violations. When the city determines that a noise exceeds the maximum sound level permitted under this article, written notice of the violation shall be given to the owner or occupant of the premises where the noise originates and such person shall be ordered to correct or remove each specified violation within such reasonable time as is prescribed in the notice. The failure to remove or correct any such violation within the time so prescribed constitutes a violation of this article. (b) Civil remedies. This article may be enforced by injunction, action for abatement, or other appropriate civil remedy. (c) Criminal penalties. Any violation of this article involving the operation of a motor vehicle, other than a violation of subsection 13- (c), which occurs in a motor vehicle, is a petty misdemeanor. Every person who violates any other provision of this article is guilty of a misdemeanor. In all cases the city shall be entitled to collect its costs of prosecution, including reasonable attorneys' fees, to the extent authorized by law. Each act of violation and each day a violation occurs or continues constitutes a separate offense. (Ord No. 373, § 6, 4- f> -Q4) http: / /library. municode. com/ print. aspx ?h= &clientID =14048 &HTMRequest =http %3 a %2P /o... 8/2/2012 f4�e, - ft'dsroQ."'r B. Application For Permit. A permit may be issued to individuals who comply with the following criteria: 1. Persons over eighteen (18) years of age may apply for an individual permit to discharge a firearm or dangerous weapon. Persons under eighteen (18) years of age may apply for a permit to discharge a firearm or dangerous weapon if at the time of such discharge or use, the youth is accompanied by an adult parent or legal guardian. 2. An application for a permit shall be filed in writing on forms provided by the City and accompanied by a fee determined by City Council resolution. No fee shall be required for a permit for a landowner, his immediate family, or his guests to discharge a firearm or dangerous weapon on property owned by himself. C. Limitations on Permits. Permits issued for the discharge of firearms or dangerous weapons shall be subject to the following limitations: 1. The property upon which the discharge will occur shall be at least forty (40) contiguous acres. 2. The holder of a permit shall not discharge a shotgun slug within fifteen hundred (1500) feet of a building or a roadway. 3. The holder of a permit shall not discharge a shotgun shotshell within one thousand (1000) feet of a building or a roadway. 4. Permits issued for the discharge of firearms or dangerous weapons shall be limited to the use of bows and arrows, B -B guns, shotgun shells and shotgun slugs. 5. An individual who is hunting pursuant to a guest permit must be accompanied by the landowner. 6. Permits issued for the discharge of shotgun slugs shall be limited to those times permitted for hunting deer by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. Permits issued for the discharge of other dangerous weapons shall be restricted to the calendar year during which the permit was issued. Subd. 4. Approved Archery Ranges. A permit is not required for the discharge of special target -tipped arrows at approved archery ranges. The use of crossbows are prohibited from approved archery ranges. Subd. 5. Cancellation of Permit. A violation of the provisions of this Section or any permit issued hereunder on any property for which the person has been issued may result in the cancellation of all permits for the discharge of weapons or firearms on such property and the denial of applications for permits on such property. Subd. 6. Lawful Defense of Person, Property or Family. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit any firing of a gun, pistol or other weapon when done in lawful defense of person, property or family or by law enforcement personnel executing their official duties. Source: Ordinance No. 27 -89 Effective Date: 10 -19 -89 SECTION 9.41. NOISE. Subd. 1. Definitions. For the purpose of this section the following terms shall have the meanings stated: A. "Air circulation device" - A mechanism designed and used for the controlled flow of air used in ventilation, cooling, or conditioning, including, but not limited to, central and window air conditioning units. B. "L 10" - means the sound level, expressed in decibels (dBA) which is exceeded 10% of the time for a one -hour period, as measured by a sound level meter having characteristics as specified in the latest standards, S 1.4 of the 9 -44 Exhibit E American National Standards Institute. And using test procedures approved by the City Manager or his/her designee. C. "L50" - means the sound level similarly expressed and measured as L10 which is exceeded 50 % ofthe time for a one hour period. D. "Noise" - Any erratic, intermittent, and /or statistically random oscillations which result in disturbing, harmful, or unwanted sound. E. "Person" - An individual, firm, partnership, corporation, trustee, association, the state and its agencies and subdivisions, or any body of persons whether incorporated or not and with respect to acts prohibited or required herein, person shall include employees and licensees. F. "Sound" - A temporal and spatial oscillation in pressure or other physical quantity in a medium with internal forces which causes compressions and rarefactions of that medium and which is propagable at finite speed to distant points. G. "Sound Level" (Noise Level) - The A- weighted sound pressure level, expressed in dBA, obtained by the use of a sound -level meter having characteristics as specified in the American National Standards Institutes (ANSI) standard S1 -4 -1961. Subd. 2. Noise. No person shall make or cause to be made any distinctly and loudly audible noise that unreasonably annoys, disturbs, injures, or endangers the comfort, repose, health, peace, safety, or welfare of any persons or precludes their enjoyment of property or affects their property's value. This general prohibition is not limited by the specific restrictions of the following subdivisions. A. Loading, unloading, unpacking. No person or equipment shall create loud and excessive noise in loading, unloading, or unpacking any vehicle. B. Paging systems and intercom systems. No person in the Commercial, Industrial or Office zoning district shall use or operate or permit use or operation of any paging system or intercom system in distinctly and loudly audible manner as to disturb the peace, quiet, and comfort of any person nearby. Operation of any such equipment in such a manner as to be plainly audible at the property line of the structure or building in which it is located, or at a distance 50 feet beyond the property line if the source is located outside a structure or building shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section. C. Loudspeakers, amplifiers for advertising, etc. No person in the Commercial, Industrial, or Office zoning district shall operate or permit the use or operation of any loudspeaker, sound amplifier, or other device for the production or reproduction of sound on a street or other public place for the purpose of commercial advertising or attracting the attention of the public to any commercial establishment or vehicle. Subd. 3. Hourly Restrictions on Certain Operations. A. Domestic power equipment. No person shall operate in the Rural, RI or RM zoning district a power lawn mower, power hedge clipper, chain saw, mulcher, garden tiller, edger, drill, or other similar domestic power maintenance equipment except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Sunday. Snow removal equipment is exempt. B. Construction activities. No person shall engage in or permit construction activities involving the use of any kind of electric, diesel, or gas - powered machine or other power equipment except between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. No construction activities may occur on Sundays or legal Holidays. The City Manager may, upon good cause being shown, vary these days and hours in writing. 0XIN Subd. 4. Receiving Land Use Standards. Maximum noise levels by receiving land use districts. No person shall operate or cause or permit to be operated any source of noise in such a manner as to create a noise level exceeding the limit set in table I for the land use category specified when measured at or within the property line of the receiving land use. rr hi. T 4n.,nd T Pole by RerPivino Land Use Districts The limits of the most restrictive district shall apply at the boundaries between different land use categories. The determination of land use shall be by its zoned designation. Subd. 5. Air Circulation Devices. No person shall permanently install or place any air circulation device, except a window air condition unit, in any outdoor location such that the device in that location does not comply with the noise level standards prescribed in Subdivision 4. Subd. 6. Exceptions. A. Emergency Work. Noise created exclusively in the performance of emergency work to preserve the public health, safety, or welfare, or in the performance of emergency work necessary to restore a public service or eliminate a public hazard shall be exempt from the provisions of this ordinance. Any person responsible for such emergency work shall take all reasonable actions to minimize the amount of noise. B. Government sponsored activities. Certain activities related to public entertainment including but not limited to Fourth of July Fireworks, City sponsored Concerts in public parks, licensed carnivals, and parades shall be exempt from the provisions of this ordinance. Subd. 7. Administration. A. Administering officer. The noise control program established by this ordinance shall be administered by the City Manager or his\her designee. B. Testing Procedures. The City Manager or his\her designee may enlist the services of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or the services of a private noise testing company when testing for noise levels is believed in excess of Subdivision 4 of this section. C. Studies, etc. The City Manager or his/her designee may conduct such research, monitoring, and other studies related to sound as are necessary or useful in enforcing this ordinance and reducing noise in the City. He /she 9 -46 Day 7:00 am - 10:00 pm Day 7:00 am - 10:00 pm Night 10:00 pm - 7:00 am Night 10:00 pm - 7:00 am Receiving Land Use Districts L10 L50 L10 L50 Residential 65 60 55 50 Commercial, Office, Public 70 65 70 65 Industrial 80 75 80 75 The limits of the most restrictive district shall apply at the boundaries between different land use categories. The determination of land use shall be by its zoned designation. Subd. 5. Air Circulation Devices. No person shall permanently install or place any air circulation device, except a window air condition unit, in any outdoor location such that the device in that location does not comply with the noise level standards prescribed in Subdivision 4. Subd. 6. Exceptions. A. Emergency Work. Noise created exclusively in the performance of emergency work to preserve the public health, safety, or welfare, or in the performance of emergency work necessary to restore a public service or eliminate a public hazard shall be exempt from the provisions of this ordinance. Any person responsible for such emergency work shall take all reasonable actions to minimize the amount of noise. B. Government sponsored activities. Certain activities related to public entertainment including but not limited to Fourth of July Fireworks, City sponsored Concerts in public parks, licensed carnivals, and parades shall be exempt from the provisions of this ordinance. Subd. 7. Administration. A. Administering officer. The noise control program established by this ordinance shall be administered by the City Manager or his\her designee. B. Testing Procedures. The City Manager or his\her designee may enlist the services of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency or the services of a private noise testing company when testing for noise levels is believed in excess of Subdivision 4 of this section. C. Studies, etc. The City Manager or his/her designee may conduct such research, monitoring, and other studies related to sound as are necessary or useful in enforcing this ordinance and reducing noise in the City. He /she 9 -46 shall make such investigations and inspections in accordance with law as required in applying ordinance requirements. D. Noise impact statements. The City Manager or his \her designee may require any person applying to the City for a change in zoning classification or a permit or license for any structure, operation, process, installation, or alteration, or product that may be considered a potential noise source to submit a noise impact statement on a form, supplied by the City of Eden Prairie. The City Manager or his/her designee shall evaluate each such statement and make appropriate recommendations to the Council or other agency or officer authorized to take the action or approve the license or permit applied for. E. Performance Standards - Test. By Owner. In order to assure compliance with the performance standards set forth above, the Council may require the owner or operator of any permitted use to have made such investigations and tests as may be required to show adherence to the performance standards. Such investigations and tests as are required to be made shall be carried out by an independent testing organization as may be selected by the Council after 30 days notice. The cost incurred in having such investigations an test conducted shall be shared equally by the owner or operator and the City, unless the investigation and test disclose noncompliance with the performance standards, in which event the entire investigation or testing cost shall be paid by the owner or operator. 2. By City. The procedure above stated shall not preclude the City from making any tests and investigations it finds appropriate to determine compliance with these performance standards. Subd. 8. Variances. A. Authority. The City Manager or his/her designee shall have the authority to grant variances from the requirements of any section of this ordinance. B. Application. Any person seeking a variance shall file an application with the City Manager or his/her designee on a form prescribed by the City. Information to be supplied in the application shall include but not be limited to the following information: 1. Statement of the dates and times during which the noise is proposed. 2. The location of the noise source. 3. The nature of the noise source. 4. Reasons why the variance is sought and identified hardship. 5. Steps taken to minimize the noise level. 6. Other information as required by the City Manager. Subd. 9. Enforcement. A. Notice of certain violation. When the City Manager or his/her designee determines that a noise exceeds the maximum sound level permitted under Receiving Land Use Standards in this section, he or she shall give written notice of the violation to the owner or occupant of the premises where the noise originates and order such person to correct or remove each specified violation within such reasonable time as is prescribed in the notice. The failure to remove or correct any such violation within the time so prescribed constitutes a violation of this ordinance. 9 -47 l3. Civil remedies. In addition to enforcement pursuant to Section 9.99 of Chapter 9 this Ordinance may be enforced by injunction, action for abatement, or other appropriate civil remedy. C. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application of any provision to a particular situation is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining portions of the ordinance and the application of the ordinance to any other situation shall not be invalidated. Source: Ordinance No. 35 -94 Effective Date: 9 -30 -94 Section 9.42. Eden Prairie Smokefree Air Ordinance of 2002. This Section shall be known as the Eden Prairie Smokefree Air Ordinance of 2002. Source: Ordinance No. 31 -2002 Effective Date: 11 -21 -2002 Subd. 1. General Provisions. A. Findings and Intent. The Eden Prairie City Council does hereby find that: 1. Numerous studies have found that tobacco smoke is a major contributor to indoor air pollution, and that breathing secondhand smoke (also known as environmental tobacco smoke) is a cause of disease in healthy nonsmokers, including heart disease, stroke, respiratory disease, and lung cancer. The U.S. Surgeon General has determined that secondhand smoke is responsible for the early deaths of 65,000 Americans annually. 2. The Public Health Service's National Toxicology Program has listed secondhand smoke as a known carcinogen (U.S. DHHS, 2000, citing Cal. EPA, 1997). 3. Secondhand smoke is particularly hazardous to elderly people, individuals with cardiovascular disease, and individuals with impaired respiratory function, including asthmatics and those with obstructive airway disease. Children exposed to secondhand smoke have an increased risk of asthma, respiratory infections, sudden infant death syndrome, developmental abnormalities, and cancer. 4. The Americans With Disabilities Act, which requires that disabled persons have access to public places and workplaces, deems impaired respiratory function to be a disability. 5. The U.S. Surgeon General has determined that the simple separation of smokers and nonsmokers within the same air space may reduce, but does not eliminate, the exposure of nonsmokers to secondhand smoke. The Environmental Protection Agency has determined that secondhand smoke cannot be reduced to safe levels in businesses by high rates of ventilation. Air cleaners, which are only capable of filtering the particulate matter and odors in smoke, do not eliminate the known toxins in secondhand smoke. 6. A significant amount of secondhand smoke exposure occurs in the workplace. Employees who work in smoke - filled businesses suffer a 25 -50% higher risk of heart attack and higher rates of death from cardiovascular disease and cancer, as well as increased acute respiratory disease and measurable decrease in lung function. 7. Smoke - filled workplaces result in higher worker absenteeism due to respiratory disease, lower productivity, higher cleaning and maintenance costs, increased health insurance rates, and increased liability claims for diseases related to exposure to secondhand smoke. 9 -48