The URL can be used to link to this page

03-04-14 Planning Comm Agenda CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, 4 MARCH 2014 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE LABADIE (Apr) ______ MADDY (Mar) ______ MUEHLBERG (Feb) ______ DAVIS (TBD) ______ GENG (Jan) ______ APPROVAL OF AGENDA APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5 February 2014  1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER 1200 SQ. FT. Applicant: Henrik Nielsen Location: 4755 West Lane 2. MINOR SUBDIVISION AND COMBINATION Applicant: Keenen Dammen Location: 20435 Radisson Road, Outlots C & D, and 5590 Shore Road 3. 7:15 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – SUMMIT WOODS P.U.D. – DEVELOPMENT STAGE Applicant: Homestead Partners Location: 23040 Summit Avenue 4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS 6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA 7. REPORTS Liaison to Council  SLUC  Other  8. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2014 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; Labadie, and Maddy; Council Liaison Sundberg; and Planning Director Nielsen Absent: Commissioner Muehlberg APPROVAL OF AGENDA Davis moved, Maddy seconded, approving the agenda for February 5, 2014, as presented. Motion passed 6/0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  Deferred 1. 7:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – SETBACK VARIANCE/VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS Applicant: Dan and Trina Volbrecht Location: 5770 Smithtown Circle Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:01 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a request for variances for Dan and Trina Volbrecht, 5770 Smithtown Circle. He explained the Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. They are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. He noted that if the Planning Commission makes a recommendation this evening this item will go before the City Council on February 24, 2014. Director Nielsen reviewed the City’s criteria for granting variances. All four of the following criteria have to be met. 1. The applicant has to prove that it would be a reasonable use of property. The first thing that is asked when considering a variance is if it can be done without one. If it can it is extremely difficult to warrant granting a variance. 2. The circumstances have to be unique to the property. That means that the owner faces problems that other property owners in the zoning district do not. The question comes up about whether or not the variance would create a precedent for other properties. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 5, 2014 Page 2 of 10 3. The circumstances cannot be caused by the property owner including actions of the previous owners of the property. 4. The variance cannot alter the essential character of the area. Presidence and compliance with zoning and other codes are taken into consideration. Nielsen explained Trina and Dan Volbrecht own the property located at 5770 Smithtown Circle and they have requested a couple of variances. The property is zoned R-1C, Single-Family Residential and it contains 24,713 square feet of area; the minimum size lot for this zoning district is 20,000 square feet. The property is a corner lot, located in the northwest quadrant of Smithtown Road and Smithtown Circle. The property is occupied by the Volbrechts’ home, which has an attached two-car garage facing Smithtown Circle, a small shed at the rear of the property, and the structure in question. The Volbrechts were issued a zoning violation notice late in 2013 for constructing a vinyl storage structure in their rear yard without a permit and in violation of Shorewood zoning regulations. The structure does not comply with requirements for the rear yard setback and side yard setback abutting the street, and it is constructed out of vinyl not out of materials similar to the principle dwelling. With regard to zoning requirements, in the R-1C district the rear yard setback is 40 feet, the front yard setback is 35 feet (which is the Smithtown Circle side) and everything complies with that. The setback for a side yard abutting the street is treated the same as the front (35 feet), and there is a typical 10 foot side yard setback on the northerly side of the property. The reason for having setbacks is to establish minimum open and/or green spaces on any given lot and to create a continuity of open space. The City went to great length to address building materials in its Zoning Ordinance. The intent is to ensure houses and their accessory structures meet a high standard of design and building material. The 14.5 foot by 32 foot structure is only 32.3 feet from the rear of the lot (40 feet is required) and 15.6 feet from the public right- of-way (ROW) for Smithtown Road (35 feet is required). With regard to variances, the State law changed a few years ago from a standard of “undue hardship” to “practical difficulties”. The City changed it zoning regulations to comply with that change. Nielsen reviewed how the request does or does not comply with the four criteria for granting variances. 1. Reasonable Use – A detached garage is considered to be a reasonable use provided it is located on the property as it is supposed to be. The alternative structure locations exhibit in the staff report shows that an accessory structure similar in size to what they are proposing could easily be situated in at least three different locations on the property that would not require a setback variance. 2. Circumstances Unique to the Property – There is nothing unique about the property in question with respect to this situation. Corner lots in all zoning districts are subject to the “side yard abutting the street” setback requirement. The size of the lot is greater than the minimum lot area for the R-1C District (24,713 square feet vs. 20,000). The house complies with the setback requirements. There is ample room on the property within the buildable area to locate a detached accessory structure. 3. Circumstances Not Caused by Owner – The Volbrechts did not build the existing house on the lot. But, they did inherit the actions of the owner that did. In this case, a different house design CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 5, 2014 Page 3 of 10 could easily have accommodated a three-car or larger garage. The previous owner brought this “practical difficulty” on him or herself. 4. The Variance Will Not Alter the Essential Character of the Area – If this were approved it would be very difficult to deny similar requests, both with respect to open space and construction quality. That would have an adverse effect on the Zoning Code and the residential character of Shorewood. Although the structure is good quality as far as vinyl structures go, it is far from the quality of a building that can comply with Building Code requirements. In order to obtain a building permit the manufacturer would have to demonstrate that the structure can comply with snow and wind loads required by the State Building Code and there is good reason to doubt that the structure would comply. He noted that based on analysis of the case staff does not recommended the variances be granted. Approval would set an extremely undesirable precedent. Assuming the Planning Commission and Council agree, the applicants should be given 15 days to remove the violating structure. Nielsen stated the applicants are present to state their case. Dan Volbrecht, 5770 Smithtown Circle, stated he and his wife Trina first want to provide a little background on their property. He distributed four handouts to the Planning Commission to provide a visual perspective of the property. He explained they bought the property in 2000. One of the things they liked about the property is the wooded privacy it afforded in the back of the lot. He noted they have lost many trees to Dutch elm disease. He explained after purchasing the property they quickly discovered that during the snow melt in the spring there was a stormwater runoff problem on the southwest corner of their property. They added about 75 feet of extension near the culvert on the southern portion of the property to the corner of the property so the runoff would drain through the property properly. He noted they have invested in making improvements to the property both financially and emotionally. He stated they have a berm and a fence along the south end of the property for privacy purposes. Mr. Volbrecht stated this has been a learning experience for them. They had not known that a permit was required for what they consider to be a non-permanent detached structure or that there was a size restriction on it. He displayed one of the handouts showing the approximate location of their vinyl accessory structure and the setbacks as well as other possible locations for that rectangular structure or a 24 foot by 24 foot square structure. They do not think it would be reasonable to have to put the structure in the middle of their yard because of setbacks and openness. And, it would create more clutter in the center their yard. To make something like that happen they would have to take down some trees. He then stated with regard to the uniqueness of their property he explained the side yard abutting the street setback of 35 feet does confine the buildable space on the property. It creates the situation where they would have to put the structure directly in their back yard. He displayed a map of sorts showing properties within 500 feet of their property. There are only a couple others that have the same setbacks because of a corner lot situation. There is an acute angle in the back southwest corner of their property and that would force the structure further into the buildable space. He explained there is a 35 foot setback on the side abutting the street and a 40 foot setback along the rear of the property. There is also a 20 foot easement on the north property line. He is not sure why that is there. That basically confines the buildable space to the walls of their house through the western portion of their property. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 5, 2014 Page 4 of 10 Mr. Volbrecht stated they would like to have their variance requests approved and noted they have invested a lot in trying to make the current location of the structure work. They believe there are some unique aspects about their property. Seeing no one present to comment on the case, Chair Geng opened and closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M. Commissioner Garelick stated he spent five years on the City of St. Louis Park Planning Commission. During that time he spent a lot of time driving in alleys to see what back yards were like. He saw lots of blue colored tarp in the yards. He thought that aesthetically affected the neighborhoods. He noted he appreciates the work the Volbrechts have done to their yard. He expressed concern that their structure will change the character of the area and that it would establish a precedent. He noted that he does not want to see a lot of blue tarps in Shorewood. That would not fit. He stated he will vote to recommend the application be denied. Commissioner Davis asked the Volbrechts how big their boat. Mr. Volbrecht stated it is 21 feet long. Davis then asked if the structure comes down in the summer. Mr. Volbrecht explained it was just put in the fall of 2013. Ms. Volbrecht explained their original intent was to build another garage until they learned what the setback requirements were. They would have had a permanent structure basically in the middle of their back yard and that would not have looked good. They thought they were being compliant by having a non-permanent structure because they have seen them in their neighborhood. Where she walks their dog though Freeman Park she sees non-permanent structures all over the place. Although they may not be nice they are better than tarps draped over boats which can be seen all over their neighborhood. Chair Geng stated he appreciates the time and effort the Volbrechts have spent to keep up their property. Unfortunately that has no bearing on this application or on the variances. He then stated the City has adopted a Code for the orderly maintenance of properties and the setback requirements are in place to provide some continuity of open space. He expressed concern that granting these variance requests would set a precedent for future similar requests. The City Code then becomes subject to exceptions rather than uniformity. He stated he appreciates why the applicants don’t want to place the structure inside of the setbacks but that is what the Code requires. He then stated he does not think the request meets any of the criteria for “practical difficulty”. He noted that he will vote to recommend denying the application. Commissioner Davis asked if the City is doing anything to try and pursue those types of structures throughout the City. Director Nielsen stated the City has not made any attempt to go looking for them. Nielsen explained the City goes after them on a complaint basis. Davis asked if someone complained about the Volbrechts’ structure. Nielsen stated he would have to check the inspection slip. It is possible the Building Inspector just saw the structure when he was driving. Davis indicated the property kitty- corner the Volbrechts’ property could use some inspection. Davis noted she had a boat as well and had a structure that had to come down as well. She stated her boat is now stored in a secure wooded area on her property and that she had to remove trees to be able to store it there. She noted that State law states that if something can be done from a practical perspective a variance is not warranted. She stated she will also vote to deny the request but she would recommend they take it down after winter is over so their boat remains covered and so that they have time to think about what they are going to do. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 5, 2014 Page 5 of 10 Ms. Volbrecht stated because the ground is frozen it would not be possible to take it down now. Commissioner Davis stated from her perspective the structure seems like an awfully big structure for a 21 foot boat. It is about 10 feet longer than they need. Mr. Volbrecht stated there is a snowmobile trailer in there as well. Davis indicated they need another solid structure for their stuff. Davis asked the Volbrechts what their neighbors think about the structure. Ms. Volbrecht stated they are still open to building a real garage. She then stated with the berm and fence there she does not understand the green space continuation. It looks less organized than if it were butting up next to a fence. Commissioner Davis stated the Volbrechts have a storage canopy for a boat and snowmobile and they have a 100 square foot shed. It’s clear they need more storage space. A solid structure could be built on the back of the property and integrated with the landscaping. From her vantage point it is not an insurmountable design problem. Commissioner Charbonnet stated he supports Commissioner Davis’s recommendation that they be given until the end of winter to take the structure down. He then stated he will vote to recommend denial of the application mainly because it would set a precedent. Director Nielsen stated the violation has been suspended for the moment and the Planning Commission can recommend suspending it longer. Commissioner Labadie suggested setting a specific date by which it has to be removed. There was Planning Commission consensus to recommend that the structure be taken down by May 15, 2014. Maddy moved, Labadie seconded, recommending denial of the two variance requests for Dan and Trina Volbrecht, 5570 Smithtown Circle, and that the vinyl structure be removed by May 15, 2014. Motion passed 6/0. The Volbrechts noted they are not sure they can make the February 24, 2014, Council meeting when their application will be considered. Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:37 P.M. 2. DISCUSS MILL STREET AND GALPIN LAKE ROAD TRAILS OPEN HOUSE Director Nielsen explained the Planning Commission held an open house on January 21, 2014, for the Mill Street and Galpin Lake Road trail segments. He thought the turnout was relatively good on a very cold night. The response to information from the feasibility studies was very positive. One individual was concerned about the side of the road the Galpin Lake Road trail segment will be on because his house is located closer to the road than most of his neighbors. Very few comment sheets were filled out that evening. A number of emails were sent to the City following the open house. The Planning Commission was provided a copy of them this evening. He clarified he is not looking for action on them this evening. He stated there are some ideas that were conveyed that he thought the Commission should discuss. For example, one resident brought up the idea CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 5, 2014 Page 6 of 10 of planting some screening along the section of trail along Highway 7. Staff will look into that but it is a very, very tight space. He noted the comments will be posted on the City’s website and if there were questions asked staff will answer them. He stated one person asked why the Mill Street trail segment was even being considered when it would not connect to a trail in the City of Excelsior. They did not understand that it would connect to the trail in the City of Chanhassen. He noted that the Mill Street segment has no funding at this time. Nielsen stated that during the February 8, 2014, Council and staff retreat there will be discussion regarding what to do about the unfunded trails. Only two more trail segments are funded in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) – the Smithtown Road east sidewalk/trail segment from the LRT to County Road 19 is funded in 2015 and the Galpin Lake Road trail segment is funded in 2014. Commissioner Garelick asked how the trails are funded. Director Nielsen explained the City has used a number of funding sources so far. The City received a grant from Hennepin County for approximately 25 percent of the cost of the County Road 19 trail segment. The rest of the funding for that came out of the Trail Fund. The proceeds from the operation of and sale of the City’s liquor operations were used for trails. The City will use some Minnesota State Aid (MSA) funds to help fund the trails because that funding can be used for trails along MSA routes. When a person buys gasoline about a certain portion of the tax on that goes into the MSA fund and it is distributed to cities with populations of 5,000 or more for improvements to MSA routes or trails near MSA routes. Assessing for trails is not being considered. Some of the stormwater improvements made as part of trails projects will be paid for out of the Stormwater Management Fund. Commissioner Garelick asked what Excelsior’s position is about connecting to abutting communities trail systems. Director Nielsen stated he thought Excelsior wants to do that. Nielsen explained that Shorewood and Excelsior jointly applied for a grant from Hennepin County to do the Mill Street trail segment feasibility study. Excelsior chose not to do the study at that time for a variety of reasons. He indicated the County was disappointed Excelsior did not move forward with the study because it would like to have that segment next to the County road done. Director Nielsen stated there is a gap on the Chanhassen side of both proposed trail segments. Chanhassen’s trail ends just short of its border with Shorewood. Chair Geng stated a couple of the residents along Galpin Lake Road had expressed concerns about traffic where the trail would end near Excelsior. He asked Director Nielsen if they are real concerns. Nielsen responded they are. Nielsen stated in one of the comments the City received the person asked if there could be an overpass at County Road 19. Nielsen noted that is a Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and Hennepin County item because it is a State highway going over to a County road. There is no reason the City cannot support that. He then noted there is a signaled crosswalk at that intersection. Nielsen stated when people walk up Galpin Lake Road some of them cross the Highway there albeit very dangerous. Geng asked if an overpass could possibly be funded out of the Legacy Amendment funds. Nielsen stated that funding seems to be used for a lot of things. Nielsen noted MnDOT built tunnels under Highway 7 further west of the intersection. Commissioner Davis stated when there are trails on both sides of a MnDOT roadway reconstruction project a tunnel is constructed. Commissioner Davis commented residents seem to be more supportive of constructing trails in the City. There is not resistance like there had been in the past. She asked if the Smithtown Road east segment will be a nice sidewalk as well. Director Nielsen stated he assumes it will be a sidewalk as well and that the outstanding question is which side of the roadway it will be located on. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 5, 2014 Page 7 of 10 Chair Geng asked what the timeframe is for doing the Galpin Lake Road trail segment. Director Nielsen stated currently the hope is to seek Council approval for the design during April, and noted that he thought more easements will be needed for that. 3. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 4. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS Commissioner Davis stated she would like to revisit the vinyl structures all over town and clarified that she is not suggesting the City go after them. She sees junk all over town with tarps and Fleet Farm tents. She cited the example of the little house that is in the railroad right-of-way (ROW) with the fish house, tents and extra garage on it. Then there is the one with the permanent tent over a boat in the driveway. Commissioner Maddy stated it almost seems unfair that the couple who had requested the variances and have invested in their property probably won’t have their variances granted for the reasons the Planning Commission discussed. Director Nielsen suggested publishing an article in the City’s newsletter and on its website informing residents that canopies over things like boats are not allowed. That might get residents to call in and file a complaint. Commissioner Maddy stated maybe the article could say that Council directed staff to do a sweep of the City on, for example, June 1, 2014. That could possibly incent residents to remove those things in violation. Commissioner Davis stated they would have until the end of the 2014 boating season to figure out what they want to do with their boats. Director Nielsen stated there are a lot of boats stored on residential properties and most of them do not have a canopy over them. He noted that residents can have their boats on their driveway. Commissioner Davis asked if the Volbrechts’ fence pole height is in compliance. Director Nielsen stated part of addressing the violation that they will have to shorten the poles. Commissioner Davis stated the City should publish an article on accessory structures. Chair Geng suggested dovetailing that with information about the zoning permits. 5. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA Director Nielsen stated the developer for the proposed Summit Woods planned unit development (PUD) submitted an application for the Development Stage approval of that project on the first Tuesday in January. It was rejected because it was not complete. The City had ten days to review the application. Commissioner Davis asked what was missing from the application. Director Nielsen stated the City had asked for more information about soils and the architecture. He clarified that the City does not dictate the architecture. He stated the City knows they will have architectural covenants as part of the project and the City wants to see them. Their proposed drainage CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 5, 2014 Page 8 of 10 solution was not adequate so they provided more information and changed the drainage solution to be behind the houses. The City prefers the runoff flow towards Galpin Lake Road rather than Summit Avenue. The City asked them to add more detail to the grading plan. He explained that he met with one of residents in that neighborhood earlier in the day. The resident seemed pleased that the City was pushing for those things. Because someone has a reason to believe there is an issue of perched water tables so the City is having them do a soil test for that. Director Nielsen stated if the application for the Summit Woods Planned Unit Development (PUD) Development Stage is complete the public hearing for it will be on the Planning Commission’s March 4, 2014, meeting agenda. A minor subdivision and a public hearing for a conditional use permit (C.U.P.) for accessory space over 1,200 square feet are also slated for that agenda. Those two items will be placed before the Summit Woods PUD. Commissioner Davis stated when she went through the packet of materials for the February 8, 2014, Council and staff retreat there is agenda item regarding Summit Avenue roadway improvement alternatives. She then stated she does not believe four new gigantic houses can be built at the top of Summit Avenue and not have a road. Director Nielsen noted that the project would widen the roadway in front of the project area. He stated during meetings on the Summit Woods PUD Concept Plan residents have stated Summit Avenue is hazardous today. If that project went away tomorrow the City would still need to do something to that roadway. He then stated he thinks the residents like the roadway the way it is; they do not want it changed. Chair Geng stated the residents play up the hazard of Summit Avenue yet oppose any changes to it. Director Nielsen stated Summit Avenue is quaint; it is picturesque. Commissioner Davis stated those people who are at the bottom of Summit Avenue are not happy because of all of the runoff that runs down that roadway and onto their properties. Commissioner Maddy noted a typical urban block in a city like Minneapolis has one single-lane alley to serve 26 properties. And, there are way less than 26 properties along Summit Avenue. Director Nielsen stated if some of the issues that were raised during discussions about the Summit Wood PUD concept plan are addressed, if some decent landscaping is put in and if the additional runoff does not affect any residential properties adversely then he thinks in time people will end up thinking the project is not too bad. Commissioner Davis stated when the foliage is off the trees she marvels how steep that hill is when she is driving by on Galpin Lake Road. She commented she would not ski down a hill that steep. Director Nielsen stated the majority of the residents in that neighborhood do not go up or down Summit Avenue in the winter. He then stated that the City had not heard complaints about Summit Avenue for many years until this project came about and the residents complained about roadway. There had been a time when the City of Chanhassen took care of that roadway when it plowed Hummingbird Road. After hearing the complaints about Summit Avenue the Shorewood Public Works Department has made a concerted effort to make sure it is clear and that sand is put down. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 5, 2014 Page 9 of 10 6. REPORTS • Liaison to Council Council Liaison Sundberg reported on the February 3, 2014, City Council special meeting (as detailed in the minutes of that meeting). She stated that during the February 8, 2014, Council and staff retreat there will be discussion about the Southshore Community Center. She noted that she cannot attend the retreat because she has to go to a funeral. She went on to state that Director Nielsen told her the Planning Commission is going to be discussing potential renewable energy issues. She noted that she was pleased to hear that. She stated a lot of communities have various residential solar energy issues. She asked the Commission to talk about what uses the community has for solar energy. The results of the resident survey the City conducted a few years ago indicated the residents have a lot of concern about environmental issues. She stated there are many incentives available and financing options available for alternative energy (some would be very risky for the community and some would have limited risk). She commented there are consultants that deal with just solar and wind energy and they know the technology and the financing options that are available. Also, there are consultants and vendors that it would be best to avoid. She asked the Commission to discuss if there are some modest things that could be considered. She stated she thought there are other members of Council who also would like the Commission to look into alternative energy. Commissioner Davis stated the City of Duluth has a fantastic composting site. She is not sure there is room for one in the City. She then stated Carver County has a program where residents can get a $70 dollar Smith and Hawken yard composter for $25. The composter looks nice and it was large enough to generate enough compost for a year from a family of four. Chair Geng stated he does not think any of the neighboring communities have room for a composting site either. Maybe the City could partner with other communities. Council Liaison Sundberg stated solar gardens are popular. She has heard pros and cons about them and is not sure it would be a good idea. Maybe the City could partner on such an initiative. She stated she would like to build more cooperation with the neighboring communities. Chair Geng stated it is about economics and that Shorewood is the largest South Lake community. Geng suggested revisiting the GreenStep initiative. Director Nielsen stated that is on the Planning Commission’s 2014 work program. Director Nielsen stated he and Mayor Zerby met with some solar people and they had an interesting proposal that might work in Badger Park and that could possibly pick up two steps in that initiative. Geng asked if there have been any inquiries about the Smithtown Crossing redevelopment possibility. Director Nielsen stated he and Mayor Zerby met in late December 2013 with representatives from a company that could pull the entire project together – a senior housing component and a commercial element. He had given them a copy of the study and highlighted it for them. They seemed excited about it at that time. He has not heard back from them recently. The City has received some inquiries about the American Legion’s extra lot. That would be a tough piece to do by itself. Because it is up against the residential boundary and therefore has a 50 foot setback on a 100-foot-wide lot. There have been a few inquiries about the Legion’s corner lot. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING February 5, 2014 Page 10 of 10 • SLUC None. • Other None. 7. ADJOURNMENT Davis moved, Maddy seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of February 5, 2014, at 8:20 P.M. Motion passed 6/0. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Christine Freeman, Recorder MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen RE: Nielsen, Henrik - C .U.P for Accessory Space in Excess of 1200 Square Feet DATE: 27 February 2014 FILE NO.: 405 (14.05), BACKGROUND Mr. Henrik Nielsen is in the process of constructing a new home on the property located at 4755 West Lane (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). The proposed attached garage will be greater than 1200 square feet in area, and Mr. Nielsen has requested a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 1201.03 Subd: 2.d.(4) of the Shorewood Zoning Code. The property is zonedR -WS, Single - Family Residential /Shoreland and contains approximately 56,650 square feet of area. The proposed garage is located on the north end of the home (see. Exhibit B) and contains 1268 square feet of area. The proposed home contains 2474square feet on the main level alone, with additional space in a lower level. As can be seen on the attached Exhibits, the proposed garage is turned approximately 45 degrees to the house and faces a northwesterly direction. ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.d.(4) of the Zoning Code sets forth criteria for granting conditional use permits for accessory space over 1200 square feet. Following is how the applicant's plans comply with the Code: f. W4 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Nielsen Conditional Use Permit 27 February 2014 a. The total area of the garage (1268 square feet) does not exceed the floor area (2474 square feet main level) above grade of the proposed home. Note: as of this writing it is not known if a small utility shed, measuring 10'x14', located to the south of the existing home on the site, will remain. Even if it is to remain, the ! total amount of accessory space is well within the allowable maximum. - b. The total area of accessory building(s) does not exceed 10 percent of the - minimum lot size for;the R -lA /S zoning district (.10 x 40,000 = 4000 square feet). j C. The proposed house and garage comply with R -lA/S setback requirements. Hardcover on the site will be 13.8 percent, well within the 25 percent maximum requirement. The site is heavily wooded and the structure is well screened from the street and adjoining properties. d. Since the new garage is an integral part of the proposed house, architectural compatibility is not considered to be an issue. The proposed angle, of the garage actually diminishes the size of the garage. The relocation of the driveway from the south side of the lot to the north, moving it farther from the street corner, is also considered an improvement. Based upon the preceding analysis, it is recommended that the applicant's request for a conditional use permit be granted as proposed. Cc: Bill Joyner Tim Keane Henrik Nielsen -2- — cv �L �M CL W \ r N i � AEI 0 Ja1 Auo IIIiJlll�i -� aim vl- a a a a a a a a a a %(958.5)- I� X(959.0) X�B59\.5) `- (960.0) o ,A6`� \ '- SOUTHWEST CORNER I \ 1 OF LOT J on. 1 \ \ — u��0 .. V M \R FE ENE \ V !1 - �f - / 6 I B 1 a ' (n 6 /Jl� `\ - CENTLRUNE OF LAKE W'ILLiPM ROAD PER _ i - -I- -v„r� `HOLTMERE, LAKE MINNJTONKA, MINN." X(6 Wo 'AU warox<A 'Y l ®� w °^� XR � / N Y -' \ DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SURVEYED .. LE �j 4 ♦ °z rl ( p 9 \ Lot 13, "Holtmere, Lake Minnetonka, Minn." '.'.Iy I 6 And / °R\ r� 7 '.J' I \` I `(✓'fir, yip _) / (� -- conclusive restrictions site. That part of Sunset Lane dedicated in "Holtmere, Lake Minnetonka, Minn" as Lake William Road, tying east of a line drawn V A This survey does not purport to show all underground utilitles. The source of information from plans and markings Will be /� rP 'n perpendicular to the centerline of said Sunset Lane from the southwest corner of Lot 13, "Holtmere, Lake Minnetonka, Minn" I i / L1,'j combined with observed evidence of utilities to develop a view of those underground utilities. However, lacking excavation, the exact location of underground features be depicted. Where / to the south line of said Sunset Lane as dedicated In Minnetonka Manor. 9 w\ cannot accurately, completely and reliably additional or more detailed information is required, the client is that be Contact I / _ r I r �zz' °•< Ic advised excavation may necessary. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL at 65IA54 -0002 for precise ansite location of utilities to any excavation. Verity the r I Y 1 �o „ ' r� 'u' �F � ('�� NOTES - prior s itary service vlw to an ecncrete vnrk. m Site Address: 4755 West Lane, Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 House plans were obtained electronically from Mike Behr per Behr Design Inc., on 0112012014. Building dimensions are to I the foundation plan and do not Include brick ledges. (" \ This property Is contalned in Zone X (Areas outside the 1- percent annual chance floodplain, areas of 1% annual chance House has not been staked at the time o(fhis certification. ro r\ J sheet flow flooding wvhere average depths are less than 1 foot, areas of 1% annual chance stream flooding where the `(Y,' .`I\" I VrrMjM N I (p �O Iy L_J contributing drainage area is less than 1 square mile, or areas protected from the 1% annual chance flood by levees. No /V r�- Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tree Sum mary - _ _ 7 M4 \ `\ / Base Flood Elevations or depths are shown within this zone. Insurance purchase Is not required In these zones.) per 72 7 / ` _ erO O� r II N ' Flood Insurance Rate Map, Community Panel No. 27053CO316E, effective date of September 2, 2004. _ , t\ Lot Area= 56,650 s.f. Lot Area= 56,650 s. Trees to be removed for construction: House /Shed Area= 2,836 s.f. Houselftep, Area= 4,054 s.f. v - v`) ` ° • I / The Gross land trr iz.o Driveway Area= 1,672 s.f. Driveway Area= 2,981 s.f. Maple: 15" Concrete Area= 366 s.f. Concrete Area= 254 s.f, Oak: 14 ", 15 ", 8 ", 15 ", 10 ", 23 ", 23 ", 22 ", 28 ", 19 ", 10" Y.' A U area is 56,650 + /- square feet or 1.301 +/- acres. 1 m Decks Area=739 s.f. Decks Are.= 516 J. Elevations are based on Minnesota Department Geodetic Benchmark: Alban's MNDT e495 / feet( AVD8ortatlon Elevation = 964.06 feet (NAVD88) R Total Impervious Area= 5,613 s.f. Total Impervious Area= 7,805 s.f. N89 °55'31 "W 239.07 I a mx 96 o ` o The current Zoning for the subject property Is R -1A ( Single Family Residential District) per the City of Shorew ood's zoning M.P. The setback, height, a nd fl oor space area restrictions f o r said zoning designation were obtained fr om the Ci ty o f _ / I I \ 15.0 PRIMARY ST rr ti 15: ° < �A Shorewooda web sits. ----------- Coverage= 9.9% Coverage= 13.8% 1p � ' 601 9116:0 t 962.5) SETBACKS. Front 50 feet 5) a \ O �-- 2t Side 10 feet %(958.5)- I� X(959.0) X�B59\.5) `- (960.0) o ,A6`� \ '- SOUTHWEST CORNER I \ 1 OF LOT J on. 1 \ \ — u��0 .. V M \R FE ENE \ V !1 - �f - / 6 I B 1 a ' (n 6 /Jl� `\ - CENTLRUNE OF LAKE W'ILLiPM ROAD PER _ i - -I- -v„r� `HOLTMERE, LAKE MINNJTONKA, MINN." X(6 Wo 'AU warox<A 'Y l ®� w °^� XR � / N Y -' D Rear 50 at HEIGHT -two and one-half (2- 1 /2)stories (35 feet) T Y LE �j 4 ♦ °z rl ( p 9 6 Please note that the general restrictions for the subject property may have been amended through a city process. We be they / °R\ r� 7 '.J' I could unaware of such amendments if are not in a recorded document provided to us. We recommend that a zoning letter be obtained from the Zoning Administrator for the for this Q °,x `(✓'fir, yip _) / (� -- conclusive restrictions site. This survey does not purport to show all underground utilitles. The source of information from plans and markings Will be S° i / L1,'j combined with observed evidence of utilities to develop a view of those underground utilities. However, lacking excavation, the exact location of underground features be depicted. Where - -- -- \ 9 w\ cannot accurately, completely and reliably additional or more detailed information is required, the client is that be Contact I 793 r E. r r < g -- -O : I� _ r I r �zz' °•< advised excavation may necessary. GOPHER STATE ONE CALL at 65IA54 -0002 for precise ansite location of utilities to any excavation. Verity the r I Y 1 �o „ ' r� 'u' �F � ('�� - prior s itary service vlw to an ecncrete vnrk. m House plans were obtained electronically from Mike Behr per Behr Design Inc., on 0112012014. Building dimensions are to I the foundation plan and do not Include brick ledges. \ House has not been staked at the time o(fhis certification. ro r\ J _ `(Y,' .`I\" I VrrMjM N I (p �O Iy L_J r�- Existing Hardcover Proposed Hardcover Tree Sum mary 7 M4 ( IJ 72 7 / ` _ erO O� r II N ' I _ , t\ Lot Area= 56,650 s.f. Lot Area= 56,650 s. Trees to be removed for construction: House /Shed Area= 2,836 s.f. Houselftep, Area= 4,054 s.f. v - v`) ` ° • I UII . . � I II m trr iz.o Driveway Area= 1,672 s.f. Driveway Area= 2,981 s.f. Maple: 15" Concrete Area= 366 s.f. Concrete Area= 254 s.f, Oak: 14 ", 15 ", 8 ", 15 ", 10 ", 23 ", 23 ", 22 ", 28 ", 19 ", 10" Y.' A U 1 m Decks Area=739 s.f. Decks Are.= 516 J. e495 Total Impervious Area= 5,613 s.f. Total Impervious Area= 7,805 s.f. o • _ / I I \ 15.0 ti 15: ° < �A Coverage= 9.9% Coverage= 13.8% _ 6�3 ' 601 9116:0 t 962.5) 96_.5 X(961 5) a \ O .9o- �-- 2t 1,1 \ ' o (0�7(f / o Proposed Elevations Proposed Garage Floor Elevation = 963.5 y 50- x 17 111164.0) -rr'�-�l L_J h� 062 0) 962 ` i y� "� \ \ I o I FENCE TIES ARE SHOWN ON THE Proposed Flrst Floor Elevation 970.4 _X(g59.o) V t -r I'r-' /" t b \ Rar h %(9�10� \ \ 2 0 2W SIDE OF THE BOUNDARY LINE Proposed Top of Foundation Elevation =966.7 r �� 1 \ ��'` \ �'� I Propose = Basement Floor Elevation THAT THE FENCE IS LOCATED ON d 960.0 o / Proposed Lookout Elevation =963.0 I ` ,., � `v✓- 7 / � ` / y- j1 - / A V J at %(958.5)- I� X(959.0) X�B59\.5) `- (960.0) o ,A6`� \ '- SOUTHWEST CORNER I \ 1 OF LOT J on. 1 \ \ — u��0 .. V M \R FE ENE \ ,... Sunset Lan V !1 - �f - / 6 I B 1 a ' (n 6 /Jl� `\ - CENTLRUNE OF LAKE W'ILLiPM ROAD PER _ i - -I- -v„r� `HOLTMERE, LAKE MINNJTONKA, MINN." 1PE.R RESOLUTION NO.09 -099 ) wY B1� % 1 " N89 °46 59 W 239.48_ ! -- ). _ - - - - - I ---- - - Wo 'AU warox<A 'Y l ®� w °^� XR � ,. r C r N N Y -' D (Ifani\ /z T Y LE �j 4 ♦ °z rl ( p ,... Sunset Lan V !1 - �f - / 6 I B 1 a ' (n 6 /Jl� `\ - CENTLRUNE OF LAKE W'ILLiPM ROAD PER _ i - -I- -v„r� `HOLTMERE, LAKE MINNJTONKA, MINN." 1PE.R RESOLUTION NO.09 -099 ) wY B1� % 1 " N89 °46 59 W 239.48_ ! -- ). _ - - - - - I ---- - - , \ � I \ 5 \ 1 1 _ — — — -- — — —_ = _ — - ^ -_ j 1 CAST IRON MONUMENT CATCH BASIN 4 FLARED END SECTION W GATE VALVE cur w RE HYDRANT O IRON PIPE SET - ^FP S nii'ry P r'ty R''' U' -' i _ - _ an ' ' -SOUTH LINE OF SUNSET LANE ( • • , • • , `_ `• _ �_ • IRON PIPE FOUND LIGHT POLE '� POWER POLE OS SANITARY MANHOLE SIGN ,9r25 GROUND ELEVATION ® STORM DRAIN ® STORM MANHOLE !7 YARD LIGHT X(9715) PROPOSED ELEVATION -D CREW NO. BY DATE REVISIONS USE (INCLUDING COPYING, DISTRIBUTION, AND /OR CONVEYANCE OF Ihereby certify that this suncy, plan or report was prepared by me or wider TWPA 17 - RG E.23 - SEC.25 1URST 01 DBP 11/26/13 ORIGINAL SURVEY INFORMATION) OF THIS PRODUCT IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT my directs penision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the �gORs so 'y HENNEPIN COUNTY AWN BY 02 JML 02/14114 ADDED PROPOSED HOUSE SATHRE- BERGQUIST,INC.'s EXPRESS WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION. USEWITHOUT Incas of the tote ofMi sown, o Po CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY.DWG DBP SAID AUTHORIZATION CONSTITUTES AN ILLEGITIMATE USE AND SHALL THEREBY N SATHRE - BERGQUIST, INC. iCKED BY INDEMNIFY SATHRE- BERGQUIST, INC. OF ALL RESPONSIBILITY. Datcd..s� day ofF nq•, 2014. ISO SOUTH BROADWAY WAYZATA MN. 55391 (952)476E000 SHOREWOOD, SATHRE - BERGQUIST, INC. RESERVES THE RIGHT TO HOLD ANY ILLEGITIMATE DBP USER OR PARTY LEGALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGES OR LOSSES RESULTING Qom^' 7 �c W d�'� MINNESOTA DATE FROM ILLEGITIMATE USE. David B. Pemberton. Professional Land Surveyor NFRS P�P� 1121113 1 Minnesota License No. 40344 m� :v'm O Rw��es w4y 20 10 0 10 20 40 SCALE IN FEET SURVEYLEGEND [Al A/C UNIT 0 BITUMINOUS © CABLE TV PEDESTAL CABLE TV O ELECTRIC TRANSFORMER CONCRETE CURB 0 ELECTRIC MANHOLE = ^_� _ _ CONTOUR EXISTING 0 ELECTRIC METERS CONTOUR PROPOSED 0 GAS METER aT — DRAIN TILE © GAS VALVE ELECTRIC UNDERGROUND © HAND HOLE -X—X- FENCE 19 SOIL BORING a TREE PROTECTION FENCE TREE CONIFEROUS GRAVEL TREE DECIDUOUS cAS— GAS UNDERGROUND TREE TO BE REMOVED OVERHEAD UTILITY B TELEPHONE MANHOLE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL ITI TELEPHONE PEDESTAL SANITARY SEWER ® UTILITY MANHOLE > STORM SEWER 13 UTILITY PEDESTAL rI — TELEPHONE UNDERGROUND �— UTILITY UNDERGROUND WATERMAIN CERTIFICATE ^" Q11° "' FILE NO. Exhibit B PREP, - pR®pERTY SURVEY HENRII `IE�iW.T 7 xxx 1 iz L— �Z 11� \l�\l� \1� \lam \L iiiiriii: iiiininii ;iriiiYtiinliiii!inii!iil, I■n n■Inmmn■nnl■nulrmmmmm�lnnnnnnm. .mmulnnunmlmmmmnllmm�rnnl� vanlraml mmnnlnlmunnnmou, .ium unmulr :rle m m •lnnnummnnnnrn. amnnmlrlmnmlmmrminnnmm��nil annnml!minnuumnmmlolmme, nin mrinnrmnrlunrinil111itIt {�Irll :nrmnrinnrmmm. Illlr ,,n;.nlmnmmmnunlrnnmm�lnuulmin 5rlifllllnminlllllill n1111n1Illflnln. illll!111, ■ IIIIIrIlI11rI11nrI1111rii1111111111r11111r11111rI11 :Im1111r11111r11.L. 1L. miminnllmvN_; mlmnmmm mnnlmmm�rnuiillnmanulmm nmm�m.. iinminm�mmmmnrmnrulpmmrinnr w,aw,amgnm. nimrminnnn.la• .anlmmnun, oun1�11rinmm�nnnrmlmon;mnl, mnimmalol. - .- .._. ...._....._.... .... ._ ._ . mllIIn111In11111I1111nilllnll lln1111n1111r1111n:21n1ninL. Anil! nIt 111I1nIn111111fi101n11111i1n117. QII17111171IIn111G —� —�_� Imnlcimnnmmnnmlmmmmmmrmlmmnmmnun, �nnnnnnmm�lnlmnalnlmnnnnl,. n;mmnnmm�n■. �� m..�� —, ��— ,ilnrnnrlml!mlrmu!Imnnnmm�n nnlnurmmnuumnm, vnnnnnlnlnlanumlrlmmlmin �imumm�nnnminml. � i i � i I �'�� nrnnmmomrmimm�mnmmmnimmmrminny�mmn �Inmumll�mnnnmm�nnrnmrlu. nrnnnnu,lnumuamm - I ■ - /�� :...�,.. , � \ �/ i ■■■■� 1 I � I Inc nl!il mm�rmnnnu.lmmnlnnnll 111111. 1 1 11111. m M� 11� = n1u;1 nnlniunummnminnmm� Illrll� 1 1 11111 m M� 11� 1� = I��llll�lmn ur umm it 1 � m � 1. .. �Inun m nnim m �� _•�._� IIIIII 111111 III 111 11111,1111. .1. 1111 IIII IIII IIII mn : Inn�IIIN.In1;11�IN, "111811.1 �mnngmnnrmumamlc �- III III III III III III III "r —�'��— a —. IIII IIII IIII III lure Inul..al: ar: � ..nlr:llul �- s. s• � ■-. :�ar�3�'e °�:anu lmrlmnmmmrnnmm�n a_ �� IJ11n1111n11111 .111111111iri11111I1171 Illnlnllllrlllilallli!mIn11F - ;�� III III III III III III IIIII�": IIII IIII IIIIIII� �Pagynln mnnunmmmmnmm FF o, ��;�; IIIIIiII IIII .., � III III III 111 111.111 III 11��, -�_� G-- N Exhibit C PROPOSED FRONT BUILDING ELEVATION C d M cj LL- z kD W Q Q v, � ��= °-� 1 11111m111 X1111 Ir11111rllllf ►`III�Y��IIrI1111rI1111t1011 rllll rllll rllll rllll rllll rllll f �mnumnnrm '.k� = �1- ' - n■ :Ilmnulrnu nnrumminnnnminminrnlnml�lrmnm Maln Level Floor n;mnmm�gnmm�nnnnnlulnli�lnnm;, Exhibit C PROPOSED FRONT BUILDING ELEVATION C d M cj LL- z kD W Q Q v, rAMain Level GIg 'q7 mq' -s VS' — — e _M�aln Level Flo or - QJ �fIO'-4 8/4° / Basement Level Glg 96V -10" sement Level Fir BJ 960-0, (T) ) Rear Elev (West) `A2 1/4 °= 1' -0" ILeft Side Elev (South) �F— — — U 114" = T -0" — — — — — — — Garage �6arag Gellin trP b" Floo6 63' -b' Exhibit D LEFT SIDE AND REAR BUILDING ELEVATIONS 12 12 III HIM N.V.. 111 IIII 111 IIII IN ISO s Front of Oarme Elev IIII 1111111�,�;�.- ;1111111111 111111111 0 st¢:v�e Exhibit E FLOOR PLAN - MMAIN LEVEL AND GARAGE FRONT ELEVATI ®N CITY OF SHOREWOOD 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD • SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927 • (952) 960 -7900 FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhaII @ci.shorewood.mn.us I I ( MEMORANDUM TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council FROM: Brad Nielsen DATE: 27 February 2014 RE: Dammen, Keenan — Subdivision and Combination FILE NO. 405 (14.03) BACKGROUND I I Mr. Keenan Dammen owns the property at 20435 Radisson Road (see Site Location map Exhibit A, attached). The property, was part of the former Larson Estates plat and j includes two outlots on Shore Road, one of which abuts the shoreline of Christmas Lake, When Larson Estates was platted in 1997, the approval stipulated that the outlots would remain legally combined with the home at 20435 Radisson Road. The exception to that restriction was that the outlots could be conveyed to abutting property owners on either side of the outlots. Mr. Dammen now proposes to sell the property to Ian and Carol Friendly, who own the property at 5590 Shore Road (see attached exhibits). The Dammen homestead parcel contains 1.87 acres of land and is zoned R -IA/S, Single- Family Residential /Shoreland. The outlots and the Friendly property are zoned R -1C /S, Single- Family Residential /Shoreland. Outlot C is undeveloped and contains 4729 square feet' of area. Outlot D is occupied by a small deck and a dock and contains 5908 square feet of area. The Friendly property contains 20,819 square feet of area and is occupied by the Friendly's home. Assuming approval of the division/combination, the Friendly property will ultimately contain 31,456 square feet. i ANALYSIS /RECOMMENDATION The proposed division and combination was what was intended when the Larson Estates plat was approved in 1997. The outlots in question relate far better to the Friendly I ®�® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER Memorandum Re: Dammen Minor Subdivision/Combination 27 February 2014 property and actually greatly improve the zoning conformity of their lot. Given the large size of the Dammen property, there is no adverse zoning effect on that parcel. Based upon the preceding, it is recommended that the applicant's request be approved, subject to recording the Council resolution approving the division and combination within 30 days of their receipt of the resolution. j cc: Bill Joynes Tim Keane Keenan Dammen I j i I i El Ig s yv A Exhibit A SITE LOCATION Dammen Minor Subdivision u c :. Mo , We ( ,� b QO QO ol o N ;1 M Q V Ln I p d q O pvn�ZJn� 001 3.A5A g\ 0 y d6 �aa w g 793 10 8l G61 Ob 1 152.95 \ \q p3 ` .,;.� r �oA09.99 £S'Z19ca, 06 ' 16£11 \ \1 Zq Mo _N Q c 1 oo 59 I b'66 06 18'£IZ =a82 y6• .,N n n 6, Q \o �f z o I 80'011 r 9,> _ �N M ti cj ro clj O = �) MI U) g92 �p �O M N �7�v M MaSQ (a OU1J11, 1�JOIJV -� I ao rOF \ l _ L E A2 !M L'8bl I M °IN ��\ v 5 \A2, a o s1z is L IGb Q s9, °N 0hi £bl £1 \09h N � `/ . r ooh 1'p5 • .,.202 \\ O N M N LZr69 N VO \ i rt, •' c�3 \63 A p•, ° p ftil° . mc� a, iP '.. •i 'r� O \ N 6S. g \.p 66 X61 <o' a - ' a 6p. m (zi c�96o2E a� 4cZ Sir '•,8'£b n o SF2 MP o� o igso \ \0 P m N 1 n N °� so, p(c?�� 2/2 0 0Pi _ V ol lo OOOJ � v O%o? 2J m � �� •� �/lJ� N NN -� �O o0a�ii £ 1 LL I HI ON 88'Z9£ O 01 " 6 8 9 3.ZZ,bO°bLN1 ' o O � ^ 99'86 . m cn s 1 �- {cv ,•• P 4 0 �d o ° \ �` I �ss ••_.6'., y'' Q _ � PP / �= ° oil uNi cj \ 0 991 \ u N lI�m I\ \ 6 r e oo v O cyc G \ \ f).l M, Q U 6// n o Ln to Iwo 09 r-oo \ ` \i � �i �'h ��i Gam• j� 111.M . •r 9 S), v� . uv t 2 s�'s�g8•o�\ �s ` \ + _ \tiN mss, a• � °$ \ �Z\ � n \• 89 � s m �Mb :•68•/£ 56•/66 ca CD u> o or I'n o y O8S 6b'62b O 60 �� c1 66 r 3'561 eb.96 (n�a s r�, N� \4'297, r° oD LS ,b °ON 33r P°n Y Q N N19° 35'g0�Y1 ag N k 2£ 012v O ,-5S,'59 GA-5 Exhibit B PROPOSED DIVISION /COMBIN) I I , n Memorandum Re: Summit Woods P.U.D. — Development Stage /Preliminary Plat 26 February 2014 A. Property Survey. Questions were raised about a previous platting of the subject property. Once platted as three lots, the property was legally combined into the existing single parcel several years ago. The survey also illustrates the location of the existing street pavement relative to the property as well as site topography and the location of trees that are potentially affected by construction. B. Preliminary Site Plan. This exhibit addresses a number of items: 1. Building setbacks shown are as recommended in the Concept Plan review: a. Front Setbacks — Lot 1, 20 feet; Lot 2, 35 feet; and Lots 3 and 4, 40 feet. b. Side Setbacks — All lots have 10 -foot side yard setbacks, as opposed to the originally proposed 7.5 -foot side setbacks. c. Rear Setbacks —Rear setbacks in the R -1 C district are 40 feet. The proposed conservation easement far exceeds the setback requirement. 2. Lots are shown at 70 feet in width, with the exception of Lot 2, which is shown as 69 feet. That lot should be adjusted to the 70 -foot minimum. 3. Each lot has been shown with a driveway pullout per staff's previous recommendations. These driveway pullouts must be located at least five feet from the side lot lines. 4. The developer shows Summit Avenue being widened to 20 feet in front of the plat. City staff continues to explore alternative measures for addressing issues raised by neighboring residents relative to the substandard condition of the road. C. Preliminary 1. Drainage and utility easements are shown as being 10 feet wide, however the side yard easements appear to measure less. The easements shown on the final plat should show easements 10 feet on each side of each lot line. 2. It is recommended that the conservation easement should be staked and clearly identified as such. 3. As mentioned in B.2., above, all lots must be at least 70 feet wide at their respective building lines. 4. Prior to release of a final plat, the developer must pay $5000 per lot for park dedication fees. Credit is given for the existing house on the property. -2- Memorandum Re: Summit Woods P.U.D. — Development Stage /Preliminary Plat 26 February 2014 5. Prior to release of a final plat the developer must pay $1200 per lot for local sanitary sewer access charges. Credit is given for the existing house on the property. D. Grading and Erosion Control. The City Engineer addresses this item under separate cover. It is worth noting that, based on neighborhood concerns about a possible perched water table on the site, staff asked the developer to provide soil tests for the area where buildings are proposed. In a 22 -page Geotechnical Evaluation Report, prepared by Braun Intertec Corporation, the engineers found no evidence of a perched water table or reason to suspect that the lots were unbuildable. The Concept Plan for the project had shown rain gardens in the front yards of the proposed lots. These have been moved to the rear yards so as to direct site drainage to the east versus toward Summit Avenue. At minimum, the goal of the drainage plan is to not increase the rate or volume of runoff toward Summit Avenue. Ideally, the project will improve drainage toward the west. E. Tree Preservation and Reforestation. Exhibit E illustrates the construction area defined by tree protection fencing, while E -2 provides detail as to which trees within the construction area will be removed and which are to be saved. The vast majority of trees on the property are located in the proposed conservation easement and will remain untouched. Exhibit E -3 provides a planting plan for replacement trees. Consistent with Shorewood's Tree Preservation and Reforestation Policy, the developer must replace eight trees per acre — 26 trees in total. The plan, prepared by a registered landscape architect, provides a variety of deciduous and coniferous replacement trees. The plant schedule on Exhibit E -3 specifies 2.5 -inch deciduous replacement trees. This should be corrected to indicate 3 -inch caliper trees. F. Conservation Easement. The draft easement shown on Exhibit F, states "Tree Conservation Easement ". The final draft submitted with the final plans should simply state "Conservation Easement ". G. Architectural Control Guidelines. While the City does not dictate a certain size, price range or design for single - family residential projects, the developer has provided draft guidelines for the homes in order to show residents what type of homes are being proposed. H. Sample House Plans. See comment in G., above. I. Construction Management Plan. Based on neighborhood concerns, particularly with respect to the use of the street during construction, the developer has -3- Memorandum Re: Summit Woods P.U.D. — Development Stage /Preliminary Plat 26 February 2014 provided a proposed construction management plan. Item number 2. near the top of page 3, should be changed to reflect Shorewood construction hours policy: 1) 7:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. weekdays; 2) 8:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M.; and 3) no work on Sundays except with authorization from the City. The development agreement for the project will include reference to televising the streets so as to ascertain any damage done to the pavement by construction activity. As stated in 7. on page 4, the developer will be responsible for repairing any damage done to public streets or adjacent properties. RECOMMENDATION The development stage plans are substantially consistent with the approved concept stage plans. The items enumerated herein should be incorporated into the final plans for the project and into the development agreement between the developer and the City. Cc: Bill Joynes Paul Hornby Larry Brown Tim Keane Tom Strohm Steve Bona H O U Z O U (6 Q C O N N w O U N lL a Q �ibit A E SURVEY #6085 #23130 O n N A n� ^ SUMMIT AVE. SHREW❑ ❑D (HENN, CO.) HASSEN (CARVER CO.) 6200 HUMMINGBIRD ZUPNIK 255450030 6240 HUMMINGBIRD HASSE 252680010 #6075 #6070 W MAYF WE 3 #6090 LO R 4v ROAD 37j v 252.4 93 Qti� 1�s- Pfn �Qy 80' I Row A C✓_ 0 O L7 E 2 1 166 7 AC. ,F 16' 41 ^3.69 6231 HUMMINGBIRD LIED \ LIEDTKE \/ \ 252850010 STORM #22885 #6140 70 / 6160 MURRAY CT. / 66' R V REAGAN / 3411723430029 WETLAND o n,\ IPOND 6180 MURRAY CT, BATESON ° 341172 430030 D ti CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC & PARKING: - -1056- - C, o CONSTRUCTI ❑N TRAFFIC WILL BE ALLOWED TO USE 0 v ti EITHER SUMMIT AVE, (SHOREW ❑OD) OR HUMMINGBIRD H z m ROAD (CHANHASSEN) FOR PROJECT ACCESS, THIS USE IS o ° N� 141,493 SF � RESTRICTIONS OF THE TWO CITIES' ENGINEERING 3.248 AC, ,D•a DEPARTMENTS, 3 1 TREE CON N Cl) RVA IT M EASE, ]Block 1 O 6261 GALPIN BLVD. 1 EITHER SUMMIT AVE, OR HUMMINGBIRD RD, PAVEMENT OR o O'CDNNER RIGHT OF WAY, CONSTRUCTION PARKING IS ONLY •'d 12 20 51,738 SF N 0S / I gs DAILY AS NECESSARY, ALL OTHER CONSTRUCTION w c ' ROW ,4 umE1 °N6 CITIES WILL APPLY, _ . • I + 1I BUILDING DATA 2V N IA m L ESTIMATED FINISHED SF /HOME 4000 SF /HOME �• 36,622 SF ESTIMATED TOTAL FINISHED SF 16,000 SF IZ ESTIMATED BEDROOMS /HOME 4 BEDROOMS /HOME ESTIMATED TOTAL BEDROOMS 16 BEDROOMS m � m IA ti 16' !(] n Y m 3 w j N n' ILI 26,227 SF > _.._.._.10_SSB_.._. < - - - '.80 =— -�---- - - - -- PROJECT DATA TOTAL SITE 3,248 AC, (141,493 SF) 80 RO 15' n vl ^ I 26,906 SF 225 10' SSB .3 1 64.00 389.34 80' I Row A C✓_ 0 O L7 E 2 1 166 7 AC. ,F 16' 41 ^3.69 6231 HUMMINGBIRD LIED \ LIEDTKE \/ \ 252850010 STORM #22885 #6140 70 / 6160 MURRAY CT. / 66' R V REAGAN / 3411723430029 WETLAND o n,\ IPOND 6180 MURRAY CT, BATESON ° 341172 430030 o D ti CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC & PARKING: - -1056- - C, o CONSTRUCTI ❑N TRAFFIC WILL BE ALLOWED TO USE DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS v ti EITHER SUMMIT AVE, (SHOREW ❑OD) OR HUMMINGBIRD H z m ROAD (CHANHASSEN) FOR PROJECT ACCESS, THIS USE IS o ° SUBJECT TO THE STREET LOAD LIMITS AND ANY OTHER � RESTRICTIONS OF THE TWO CITIES' ENGINEERING ,D•a DEPARTMENTS, 3 N N Cl) NO CONSTRUCTI ❑N PARKING WILL NOT BE ALLOWED ON O 6261 GALPIN BLVD. 1 EITHER SUMMIT AVE, OR HUMMINGBIRD RD, PAVEMENT OR o O'CDNNER RIGHT OF WAY, CONSTRUCTION PARKING IS ONLY 250031500 ALLOWED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. 20 d \ PUBLIC STREETS SHALL BE KEPT CLEAN AND SWEPT gs DAILY AS NECESSARY, ALL OTHER CONSTRUCTION c ' ROW TRAFFIC AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS OF THE TW❑ 7a CITIES WILL APPLY, BUILDING DATA TOTAL NUMBER OF SF HOMES 4 HOMES ESTIMATED FINISHED SF /HOME 4000 SF /HOME ESTIMATED TOTAL FINISHED SF 16,000 SF ESTIMATED BEDROOMS /HOME 4 BEDROOMS /HOME ESTIMATED TOTAL BEDROOMS 16 BEDROOMS ESTIMATED PEOPLE /HOME 4 PEOPLE /HOME 11 ESTIMATED TOTAL PEOPLE 16 PEOPLE PROJECT DATA TOTAL SITE 3,248 AC, (141,493 SF) NO, OF LOTS 4 LOTS W DENSITY 1,23 UNITS /AC, MIN, LOT SIZE 26,227 SF AVG. LOT SIZE 35,373 SF CONSERV, EASE. 1,85 AC, (57% OF SITE) ,rte P.r DISTURBED AREA 0,9 AC, W4VN HA+• TREE LOSS 9 TREES (5% TREE LOSS) °END P-X o D \ DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT - -1056- - z -1056- DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS – "— "- � H z X \ � N ,D•a xd 1x N O 6261 GALPIN BLVD. 1 O'CDNNER 250031500 � 0 20 d \ c ' ROW SHOREW ❑OD ZONED R -1C 20,000 SF MIN. LOT SIZE ; �g t 100' MIN. LOT WIDTH (AT 35' FSB) o ° ° • 120' MIN, LOT DEPTH °E 35' FRONT SETBACK 40' REAR SETBACK o o 10' SIDE SETBACK (35' CORNER) v ° v °°TELf Yn e, °3 PROPOSED PUD STANDARDS; a s 20,000 SF MIN, LOT SIZE L e ` = =wm a° 0° 70' MIN, LOT WIDTH (AT FSB) 120' MIN, LOT DEPTH VARIABLE FRONT SETBACK (SEE PLAN) 40' REAR SETBACK % 10' SIDE SETBACK / Z a N a V) 0 W E 0O Ifl Z 33 H S 40 0 40 80 W = _ SCALE IN FEET a 0 0 LEGMD* B -5 - DENOTES SOIL BORING - - - - - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT - -1056- - DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS -1056- DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS – "— "- Exhibit B – 81056.231— PRELIMINARY X 1056.0 EOF401059.0 1 1/7/14 1 >IT'E PLAIN #6085 #23130 O t\ �t N #6075 A 72p'0S VIDE' ea z \ o SUMMIT AVE. _,>I 61 16' SHREW❑ ❑D (HENN. CO,) CHA HASSEN (CARVER CO.) 6200 HUMMINGBIRD ZUPNIK 255450030 6240 HUMMINGBIRD HASSE 252680010 Li Q F- s= 80' la �l [e L7 m E 16' 15' #6070 MAYFLDWE R A� D 377 93 252 4 #6090 Ft —125_5 _ m '0 STORM Nab 1248 AC, , TREE C❑NSERVATI ❑N EAS�, /3,248 _ 80,532 SF (1,85 AC,) reef CQN 'JON EASE. 57% OF SITE Block 1 \� / / I 51,738 SF C I � F- 2 I Im l0 36,622 SF .o z Ir1 L -- _ - - -_— -- I SO' DB,U EASE, _ _ _ 0 — — — — — — — -- ----- - - - - -- - 01 I z l9 I° �I 3 I N y l n I 26,227 SF I w1_ --- — — _ — — �, — =10= D6U EASE_ — — — — 0 'r----- - - - - -- - -_ - -_- R �I I 4 Z3 I I 26,906 SF " � I TAPER _ j 225.34 1 64.00 389.34 6231 HUMMINGBIRD LIEDTKE 252850010 413.69 72,609 SF 1,667 AC, P VPv #22885 #6140 6180 MURRAY CT. BATESON 3411723430030 o 3> � d D / F 6160 MURRAY CT, X 6' R W REAGAN 0 a y 3411723430029 / W WETLAND r 6180 MURRAY CT. BATESON 3411723430030 o 3> D Z F Q IL X 9 Z 0 a y r \ a W DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT r 1/7/14 � DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS T—E F N z 6261 GALPIN BLVD. 1 s m O'CONNER CD W 250031500 OD — 5 -�5Y� = SCALE IN FEET d \ J 0 C,4 N 4 c o ti d W aC C � IA o N N (n 0 a 10 A &a d e o �? DRAW HAL ❑ECXED P..UG 0, 5 6 0 o °pEn ° C z Snz�# 1 ¢ T� n Ca'v °� °o E�� Yn os°Ec �a9e�o �m N Q IL 9 IL 0 A4TE W DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT 0 � 1/7/14 � DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS T—E 300 DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS z �3 s m 40 0 40 80 W m 0 — 5 -�5Y� = SCALE IN FEET d 0 En X 1056.0 DENOTES PRI EOF4010M.0 DENOTES EMI 9 13-5 DENOTES SOIL BORING A4TE - - -- - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT 1/7/14 - -1056- - DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS —1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS Azn.Frr M — » — »- DENOTES SIC —� >— DENOTES SAI Exhibit C — 5 -�5Y� DENOTES WA PRELIMINARY PLAT xloss.2a DENOTES EXI X 1056.0 DENOTES PRI EOF4010M.0 DENOTES EMI m lm 5 SUMMIT AVE, 2 430015 . L- -f V mil—, O 05 ELE O R.G. WT BE-tOW 10 ST1 ❑U i BS 10 S T ' 10 8 SUBCU 4' T \ y ROCK , WT 03 8 d ��,,WEL 2 n ❑ ❑K ❑UT FROM r 16' TAN EA NAL INGARDEN G ADES, ❑CATI ❑N, PL NTING AN BY BUI DER <TY .), z `<OD� � O a I I cy o E , OK❑UT W Qm �\1 Qp Y I / AR 1066,0 f' Z F- s 057, P -- i<3,5% LtJ z. � Vi (1) _ - - -- --- ' CPU �LEV, 1061.6 � B - _r 5 DENOTES SOIL BORING - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT 3 ' SUBCUT 2 -7' Q i ' STrb TO 1059.5 -1 .2 (� WT BELOW 1a4 .6 GRADING AND EROSI ®N CONTR ®L, '57 I i (016 ` c R G, 2: I ,p LOOKOUT I ( GAR 1067,0 801I ROW BSM 1058,0 15' 11 TAPER - �i- P�.---- - - - - -- - 16' TAN EA NAL INGARDEN G ADES, ❑CATI ❑N, PL NTING AN BY BUI DER <TY .), w 'Claw O N C ALL LOTS TO BE CUSTOM GRADED BY BUILDER. THIS PROJECT IS IN THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT AND SHALL CONFORM TO ALL DESIGN AND PERMIT STANDARDS OF THE DISTRICT. NO CONSTRUCTION IS ALLOWED UNTIL THE MCWD PERMIT IS APPROVED. ti ti 0 ol m � � � o r c m W X C � a � � o _ N N m O = (m0 as Ali U r 'SIG'ED P..GC 'AVN HA!_ Ea'ED p1jr a z° E oao C °° rc �i Yn 3Eoo C 5 :5 a o° z `<OD� N a I I cy o E , Z� W Qm �\1 Qp Y E U �V �p w 'Claw O N C ALL LOTS TO BE CUSTOM GRADED BY BUILDER. THIS PROJECT IS IN THE MINNEHAHA CREEK WATERSHED DISTRICT AND SHALL CONFORM TO ALL DESIGN AND PERMIT STANDARDS OF THE DISTRICT. NO CONSTRUCTION IS ALLOWED UNTIL THE MCWD PERMIT IS APPROVED. ti ti 0 ol m � � � o r c m W X C � a � � o _ N N m O = (m0 as Ali U r 'SIG'ED P..GC 'AVN HA!_ Ea'ED p1jr a z° E oao C °° rc �i Yn 3Eoo C 5 :5 a o° z a N a J Z� W Qm E Qp Op �V �p Z F- s 20 0 20 40 :3N UJ O M O SCALE IN FEET a W Vi (1) Lll i � B - _r 5 DENOTES SOIL BORING - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT PAM 1/7/14 - -M56- - DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS -7056- DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS�.r ra Exhibit D GRADING AND EROSI ®N CONTR ®L, 0 lop- S_ 23115 SUMMIT AVE. EE 411723430015 SHOREWOOD (HENN. CO,) HASSEN CARVER CO,) 6200 HUMMINGBIRD ZUPNIK 255450030 ALL LOTS TO BE CUSTOM GRADED BY BUILDER. PROJECT DATA: TOTAL SITE 3.248 AC. (141,493 SF) CONSERV, EASE. 1.85 AC. (57% OF SITE) EXISTING TREES ON -SITE 185 TREES TREE LOSS 13 TREES (7% TREE LOSS) TREES WITHIN C❑NSERV. AREA 140 TREES (76% OF ON -SITE TREES) TREE PRESERVATION NOTES: TREE PRESERVATION PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SHOREW❑OD'S 'TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT POLICY,' PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED AND INSPECTED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO ANY WORK STARTING, TREE FENCING SHALL BE PLACED AT THE GRADING LIMITS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND CONSIST OF 4' HIGH ORANGE POLYETHYLENE LAMINAR SAFETY NETTING, THE TREE FENCING SHALL BE SECURELY ANCHORED BY STEEL FENCE POSTS INSTALLED 6' ON CENTER, WITH CITY APPROVED SIGNS, ALL EXISTING TREES SHOWN WITHIN THE GRADING LIMITS ARE ASSUMED TO BE REMOVED, FINAL HOME DESIGN AND CUSTOM LOT GRADING MAY SAVE SOME OF THESE TREES. �-Q� B�-5 DENOTES SOIL BORING - - - - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS —1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS O O p 0 0 O —>—>— DENO — B•—I,— ° o 0 DENO X 1056.0 g� g�� DE�NO ORIESTAT EOF 40 1089.0 i` ° ° 0 ° 0 0 0 O o O ° O 0 p o O ° O o O O p p 141,493 SF p O p O 0 ° p ° 00 3.248 AC, o 0 ° 0 0 ° p125' TREE � S�SERVq o O p0 0 ° ° 0 o °IT N BASE ° Q i� O 1 O O 0 O O O ° ° O O o0 O p I ELEV. 10 SUBCUT 1055.0 \ fo I Q 0 WT6C15W � 10 .9 / �S TI Rp V p 3 � (:'V4 ° O :� `, W DENINGET ° 00 _ O I 17 Zg0 n' p118 O h5 O 0 O o O ° 1 ELEV. 1q609 'p SUBCUT��K' T 6.T 9 I WT BEJ 39, 6 \-A O O p p I T2 p2� \705, V006 ° 185 TREES Ia Vr, o IN ON -SITE O 20' i %� S O de 0 3 < 8 0 00 Tn 10 rT o X12 ` o 010 n 0 N O o 1- 21 - 1- 1019 ° i z 'o y z 16�I O 22 I N !� 0 OO W > w 3 I I I ELEV. 1061.6 I „ SUBCUT 2 -7' �a$23 ° ( 0 I 0 p 0 C ° ° — TO 1059.5- 1054.2 p T3 WT BELOW 1040.6 I O ° of I 95 p ° I p O 40 0 0 80 RO I 260P 0 O 0 ° O O O 15' 2° 0 p ° 0 0 1 TAP X20 P °27 ° 0 0 0 p -- ----- - - - - - --- O O Q3o0 ,o�� 16 I ROWi ptia� p tiAp do X80' I p�c�o2o�G, p 001, � "�- c0l $ 0 �p �� W3 P � i a� 2+ ST4� O $ TO 1068 k�� W�LOW 1049.3 0,, O ' ^� \Yl 72,609 SF _ R �$�o \OO 1.667 AC. ,po '� 0�,0�k 04 �N O 2�� ALL LOTS TO BE CUSTOM GRADED BY BUILDER. PROJECT DATA: TOTAL SITE 3.248 AC. (141,493 SF) CONSERV, EASE. 1.85 AC. (57% OF SITE) EXISTING TREES ON -SITE 185 TREES TREE LOSS 13 TREES (7% TREE LOSS) TREES WITHIN C❑NSERV. AREA 140 TREES (76% OF ON -SITE TREES) TREE PRESERVATION NOTES: TREE PRESERVATION PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SHOREW❑OD'S 'TREE PRESERVATION AND REPLACEMENT POLICY,' PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED AND INSPECTED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO ANY WORK STARTING, TREE FENCING SHALL BE PLACED AT THE GRADING LIMITS SHOWN ON THE PLANS AND CONSIST OF 4' HIGH ORANGE POLYETHYLENE LAMINAR SAFETY NETTING, THE TREE FENCING SHALL BE SECURELY ANCHORED BY STEEL FENCE POSTS INSTALLED 6' ON CENTER, WITH CITY APPROVED SIGNS, ALL EXISTING TREES SHOWN WITHIN THE GRADING LIMITS ARE ASSUMED TO BE REMOVED, FINAL HOME DESIGN AND CUSTOM LOT GRADING MAY SAVE SOME OF THESE TREES. �-Q� B�-5 DENOTES SOIL BORING - - - - - - DENOTES SILT FENCE /GRADING LIMIT DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS —1056— DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOURS — »� »- DENO' Exhibit E —>—>— DENO — B•—I,— DENO TREE PRESEP X1056.23 DENO X 1056.0 g� g�� DE�NO ORIESTAT EOF 40 1089.0 i` u n o(D 0 z�� cn z O U Of W D_ d O dU) P..m PUX `o Coo 3 Z aEom� Sazmo 0 Sou�,'E ao<� 0 o E a.3 000 Y Duo —A U `o_oco °co tiS _e�i3m a o° Z J z O V) om a O O0 3 w �3 � Ir fi J N N W a 1/ TE 7/14 VATION/ [ON PLAN ._ /'.__� _ --- - - - -Q_ _ _ _ _ �. \�\ \ ,` , `•; EXTEND FENCE 25 )--._/ _ _ _ \ \ ` •` \ \ BEYOND DRIPLI —_O _ �,Q. __ ` `\ \ \ \ ,\ \, \� YdHERE POSSIBLE -- - __--- ._-- ------ -- - - - -`` - -- -_ __ _ -� ``O` TREE DRIPLNE, OR CONSTRUCTION LIWTS - _-- _-- --------- ___-- - , ` , \ \ \ , .` , TREEPROTECTIDN SIGN.TYP. -- - -_ - - -.rte -i J- `1�- --_-- - -'- -- -_�� _ _ - -____ _ `-,�\ \\ ` `\ \ `\ I I I POSTS AND FENCING --- - --- -- -- - - - - -- - -_ - _-a - -- ----- - - - - -- - _ - -- - -- - -- __ - 17;43 -F_ -- _.'g.:Q �T - - - -- - - -- -- - - - -'- - -- - - - -- -- 3,48 -A _ DL ^I \J' \ . , \ \ \ \ v., \ ` ` \`\ `• \\ DRNUNE WIDTH -_ _�- \3,--- -- -- /- _ -_ - -- _ - 'Q -__ ' `' ' \' '\ \\ \ ��,\ \ \\ \ `, \ \ \\ +� FURNISH AAND INSTALL TEMPORARY FENCE ATTHETREE'S DRIP UNE OR CONSTRUCTION LIMITS AS - - %'' -•\Z tiZ / \ ` \ \ \• \ \ \ ` ` \ \ \\ \ \''• \ \_ \� \ SHOWN ON PLAN, PRIORTO ANY CONSTRUCTION. YMERE POSSIBLE PLACE FENCE 25 BEYOND DRIP -' /'� , ` LINE PLACE-ME PROTECTIGNSIGN ON POST S, ONE PER NOMDUAL TREE (FACLYG CONSTRUCTION ,1X11---------- __.- -_ - - -_ - ' LJ - -- _ - -_ -_ \ `\ •` • v, ..'\ \'.0 •.� \ \ , \`. \ I ACTMTY!, OR ONE EVERY 100'LF ALONG A GROVE OR MULTFTREE PROTECTION AREk _— - - - -- - -- _ �� --- -'�1C7 "— Q�� —Lt °= \ ` \ \`,, Q , O \ ` \ ``\``.' \ \\ } \ \\ ,5 'I` tt %1 TREE PROTECTION — _ Q - - -BOO_ _ \ `\ `Q I NTS ' 9 3 \ \ '� ^r�. ,t \ \\ \ , } 1 ? ? ? ! ! l I I SUMMITWOODS, SHOREWOOD, MN 112312014. Q TIxEEPRESERVanoltus _. _... _... .... T O ... ` SIiORE5Y000 TREE POLICY' � . .. _. _.. _... _- Cam. Q I \ , ', i 1 - 0 , _ R�4/ \ \ 0__ 4 1 4 _ _... Herdxoad Oemduous 8" and xr ' • . / i' - - - `\ ?Q } tl ?! s i�Tl( ^ Sartwod Deciduous 12' and ow - `- - O O Coniferous 8' high and taller \ I ?I 1 ! cant Tree ! _. .. .. I, i j? 1 ! 1 i I i �? Q ! � ! I , ? 1 Sh> (Box Elder Cattomvoadand Wilow are not •slgnllcanClrees ' ) / \ J Q i' -Tree �t \i - -� - / �? -. -- �J,%" \ \ \\ `I \ / !• t` ' I I 1 ! I lul t ! I ! ! 1 1 I I ?, `. 1I Replacement ntdeciduous free(B- •12')rema,:d teptace With two T deeldums -6 Ikmustree , Q_. -... - -- -- \ — — S: _ \ \ Y t 1 ce xilh n5o6c us toes. t� ! � I ! �t !! (;O!• ! ! tl I I I I I I 1 I ! ! I ! ! ! III I?'!+ 111 SMakaceetreplk� �,hlele` ��eal.ai !I I QA' :' \ !I i tts t I j I }� \•})? !! }i�! rep Th Nre 3 old s N replace wdh one B' canikmus trea repla cndem •� } \ ' ! ! �� I ! 1 I If ! I i i 7}) ! i�V! } ? l\ NUMBER OF TYPE OF - \ 0\3-, 'Q i • I I I ! ! ! I j } I ! J I I ', {"'? ? .' ?� ` ? j(- �rT -.! i TREE REPLACEMEN EPLACEIAEN ? , i j � ' O ECI DIA ( I OND REi10 E TREES YE D7 1 \ Q `• _ 11 O I I I I ! ! 0 ! j } Q i 1 \ \ i ,,y(! ! i ! N7. SPOak ES 44 Chir SAVE.., R m . .....�3ES 3'd cdu usa8'c Ik s ?\ I : I I i � , \\ , } ' 2 oak 36 fair Remoe 3 9''d c:ducus of 6' cmikmus , : ,', 3 hackberry.. 10 _ good Sate _ ....., _ t , \ ? , I •I I I 1 ! iy '+ ` \ 1 ,, \ \ + \ \ t ,' ! 1 : 4 oak 24 hl, Sate . O I 1 i I I ! ! \ � , ; t ., \ i ' \ ? 6. oak _ 34 _yo- sate , -.lI �, 8 elm 10 good Sam L» I �Y I i ?I�� 4 `{ t ' ' } I i.'; I i ! 7, .maple ID good Sate T ` _ I` E 1 ,I I, I i '. ' 1 e dm tt cod saw ! ! I I O ! I I I I ' 1 I 'i II I 1 ! ! 1 Vl II i' i 9 oak 30 good Remove 3 3' tleclduaus or 6' canikras ` r 7 ,1 — 1' :, iU apla _.. ,2 Poor gate _.... .__ _._. lY T ' N ' t 1 i 1 I I f I I •1 ! it. k _ 26 and Sate \ !! 12 cedar _..- 12 9Fair .. Remove 2 8'c 11 u _.. 13- oak 40 good - Remme 3 3' d dpaus or 6',omkims fair R- - O d / 7, ;'O' i /III It it /r if 1 'I II 1 � i5 elm -- ID good Remrne 2 �3'daciduoua or 6'conikrms� 1 t / I '' i6 oak 20 hir Remo. 3 3' ec!duaus or 6'conikras ft ! I i 17 oaK 28 hlr Remo. 3 3'deciduaus or 6'<onikrms jQ' I ( / t 1 I [ 18 oak 30 good Remote 3 o deaiduaus or 6' conikrma Q ` O i' ! ' !' ' I ! ! ! t I I I ig maple 40 Pal, Remo. 3 3' deeiduoua or fi'conikrms \ ; 4 I I ' `t \ I ! I I r �; �• 1 ! ' ! j i ! I 1 7 ! ? 20 epmce 20 poor Remora 2 6'conikmus /,I, p t I •% (�iry C.I -L \\ \ j I ! tr] ! I �( ! t ! Ire iI 7 I ! I 1 ! I ( I? 1 i Ilj : _.__ 21� smuce _.. a2 good .._ Remaw .. 2 6' canikmua..... _ _ ..... _ \ > I ` } \ \ i zz em, z0 fair saw i,, t I ! 23 h sstwod 18 \`�? ice` 1 r ? \ \ ` \\ glad Saw r t p4, F % 0 ? I . I, ' I t \ }\ \ \ ,, \ `, } ,, ; \ \ }\ ,, \ ? -z3 cassxeoa 7B hQ sore 1 ( t \ \\ •, r N4? 26 ash 20 hid 5� _ a �� f 4 \1 / 27 10 ;i ,t - ` \\ -\ ,; -\ - }:�—i `= -i i ! TOTAL. 35 I' I 19 21 2 - - - - -- r }\ ? \ ='' 1•Qj2'�, ,1 }, . +, } •t t\ \ \ \` \\ } ?! !, l \ Taut II -bero( acres 3.25 acres 11 I ��' `%� `'� '; ' \ \ �\ L'20 �\ ,\ •'} ? �' �`\ `\ '� \i 1 ,! 1 t � ?! I II? Max. replacemmtlreeslacre reed. Btreesracra .._ ._.. _ ._. _.,._.._ Lit O`' I O� " `sl rn© \; t \ I'• ? , I i Max. rapfacementtreas re9d. 26 roes i O�.J 1 :\ 1� �;} i ? I , '} It\ \ , , i t I i + I I ! ; 'i _. .... ..... __.., ... ...._... __._ ....._. _.__ .. ... ._,. .,.... = I b 1! ?; i +�2� ? 1't Q i TREE REMOVAL NOTES: } !,.� rT TREES NOT SHOWN TO BE REMOVED SHALL BE PROTECTED AND ARE TO REMAIN UNTOUCHED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. W -I _`7 ! ?i ', 1 '`J ? 1 i .,Er U "�F' �'? O\ i QI 11 CONDITION CATEGORIES ! I I 1 TREES AS LISTED IN THE ABOVETABLE WERE EXAMINED AND THEIR CONDITION RATED ON A GENERAL HEALTH SCALE. THIS } I I ` I ,j ! ! i ! ! O I I INFORMATIONISDEEMEDRELIABLE, BUT NOT GUARANTEED. OBSERVATION DATE: 02!03/14 'Q' Q' !jl • GOOD -PLANT MATERIAL FGUNDTOBE N PROPERFORM FORAGE AND SPECIES, MINORNATURAL BRANCH BREAKAGE MAYBE !jl 1 1 V ! ,\ '\ `\ \ \ } \ ., \ \ \ PRESENT. FORM IS BALANCED AND HEALTHY. 1! ^� - - - - -1 ' .- c--- 1:;L��1_ 1= _.. _ 4 ' �_ ,`' 'lit` `", } \ \ ' } ` , \ • FAIR - PLANT MATERIAL FOUND TO BE GENERAL IN PROPER FORM FOR THEAGE AND SPECIES, BREAKAGE AND SOME TRUNK I I, 'I r.� ti V 1� �` \ - \I \, ' } SCARRING MAYBE BE PRESENT BEYOND NOR0.W, NATURAL OCCURRENCES, FORM IS GENERALLY BALANCED TO MODERATELY I w, I It11 i , I Y ? ? 1! `? •`'t Q i r '`! l 1 1 ? 1 I '? '? 1 ! 1? ! UNBALANCED. t? ? ,IIQ1 i L t V ? ' i ? C ,' 1! Q ! I j-, tl O 5 ! 1 ? ! 1 1 ! ? 1 ?� • POOR -PLANT MATERIAL FOUND TO BE NOT IN PROPER FORM FOR THE AGE AND SPECIES, MAJOR TRUNK AND/OR BRANCH f I ! tl O 1 •j 11 ? '"?' j I I ! I I i ! I ! Y� BREAKAGE IS PRESENT, MAIOR SCARRING MAY BE PRESENT. FORM IS UNf1AU+NCED ANO MAY CONSTITUTE A SAFETY HAZARD. - \ 2 Ov�P? O� ?i ti I 1 ! I I I f I i I fiI 1 I{ L LEGEND: r)� (¢ 1 \ \ \• 'Q P `' G 1, 1; , i; Q: 0 i �: I R LJ ip! �.\ . J r / 1 - \ \\ ,� _ ) 26(, i ,� i 11 ' ','; t,l 'O ,i '1 1 I i I i<T ! fr�.` I I I ! / ' PROTECT EXISTING TREE TO REP,9AIN I II' f-t l /" - _ - \ TiJ�) \ ! QL�. ti I? I ,j ' I. (� ;C I ! i �' t �!�` ,) ;. n� :� \ `? rL 1 ZQO'`? !II'? t OIL\ } Q ti ,1i? OI `�- - - - -- r J I X51 APER I I O ` ! '• O• RER40VEEXISTING REE, INCLUDING ALSNMPBANDROOTS t-� ,,\ Q W2 0 2 , Q'' '� O`�2 ,? ', 'I ;01! !! !1 1}` ? \ '1 tt t1 ? ' it '�Ii,\ OO': ,`\ \ \ \ , ♦ i —2 3• �\ GOPHER STATE ONE CALL ©-^ - - - % T L 4 - - -\ ` �� W+MN.C-0PHERSTATEONECPLLORG ` 2 \1\ t \ ii } }? 1 1 1 �j •? 1 , '•t `\ \ ` ,\ \ \ -� ..` (8 00) 252-1166 TOLL FREE Q ^' i ' O I +} 1 ,1 ? ? 't 7 t \ `+ \ ., . \ \' \ �' \ \ \ `\ (6 51) 454-0002 LOCAL 1 V I 3 i :I i \\ 4 ? 1�i V ,I �, ? t .:.? i 1 ?\ \ \, ' ` ` \\ 1 20rX ' , , - 1. ib ,1 G R O U P 4931 W. 3sTH ST, sunE2W ST. LOUIS PARK 0.W 55116 rJviSieG,.W_ Naa Pavek Pat Sarcer ]512134934 452- 250.20IXi Terra a 6901 G{annood Ave,ere Miv:eapo4s 55422 Pk ]6]5939]25 FA FA %7635I2 -071] u, w I IffREB1' CERTIFY THATTNS RAN, SPECIFIO T!Oty OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY —T SUPERVISIONAtm THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDLAhD EARCFeTECTIRVER TIg LAWS OF T1E STATE OF MINAESOTA, Patrick J. Server ..213114 uco 24904 ISSUEISUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY TREE REMOVAL E-2 M V u7 O GO w D o w Z z Z LU Z a Z 02 I" O O W Z: CG C WC O O0 '^�'^ O G W U) 0 Q F- tcNj u, w I IffREB1' CERTIFY THATTNS RAN, SPECIFIO T!Oty OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY —T SUPERVISIONAtm THAT I AM A DULY LICENSEDLAhD EARCFeTECTIRVER TIg LAWS OF T1E STATE OF MINAESOTA, Patrick J. Server ..213114 uco 24904 ISSUEISUBMITTAL SUMMARY REVISION SUMMARY TREE REMOVAL E-2 ------------------------ "_------ - - - - -- - - _'---------- /_ - - -_�- f- -Il.'- -- --- - - -- `O \' `\ \\ \i\'\ i \ \'\ \ \\ \ +i \O,, `0 G., \ d ' +\ `\• \� \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \d, it t 't-��- - --- -- % �_��___- ''(� ,\ •..\ \\ \ \ \� \ \ 1 ` \ \ t ! III I Eq O 2-B _I -ARM iL '•\ \ \\ \ \ \�J\ `\ \ ` \�\ } + \ „-!� \} }! I `1 i'1' it f I !,/'i O l 1 7 I i 1 '`f / _ O \\ t 1 rl LQO / _ _” + \ \ '' \ i r tr i i / f' i' ' ----- - - - - -- - -_ -_- c� - !- - - -- \ .�i \\ '\ \\ 4 li i %r ot 7• ! l 1 I f - - - - -Z -51,x- /• i ��. - j � -- - -- ,, \ \ `0.0 } � l 1 I i ! I ! i ! I ! ' iLl , `I 'r ! 1 ,� �. \ ? '1:� -'} 1 O _ I ! O ' ( i i I ! O ! ! ; 0\ WID 2 -88 ! } C i �i C ! \ •`Oi '\ ` {,r i.0 {5 ,O`, 185 THE `I��'! !'!' 10 \, \ \\ .� i ,.�j N II `i\ \ •`I ! f' \� ?(� : I 1 ''' \ i ! I � I I I 1 I I I I ' 1 i� ! 11 ( /' © 1r I i i' '• j! 7 1 I t '. ! 1. �1 LL!LLllJJ 1 -ARM - -- �- -- -- � I /! t / tr r' t j f /• j i ©/ , r ! ' ' ``\ \i 1 ! 1 l7 1 11 /r N I QJ'� 1 1 '•�1 i I - ARM ! i r,• +,-A L- 2 1 (i"i r ! r I t 1 i (� � \ ALA � � I r-� 11 I 1• N I j lI ! 1 1 ! I I I I I' 7 !! ! I ) y SH ! ! ! , 5 ! `} '•` i 1 , 1 1 I ! j CID i ?� 3' -BHS \ �\ \ �� t'} '! I + I C_;7 I } ; +• t\ ! '\ \, 1 , \\ .\ \\ \ , \i \ \ t, \ •�, I\ / ! •1 O! ��'i Q •! ', I 11,E r� �, \. m i ! ' i \ +! \ \ } \ \ 1 \\ \I ; li�i i i% I 't - ' \\ '\ •� i- } - -T -t! 'i 1L�',-`J• t t +- l \ `\ ' - ', \ \ ' 1 l 1 \ t I \! { 'i \ 1= 1 I } Y� ,`\ i'\ ', •} '-' i `,! ��`,, ';1 ' '`'} `\ ?\ �`} �`\� `,{ .•L �� ?' . t �'! i'\ 1 , \\\ ` •i t `� 1� L '', ?i ��lyr! I ; I '! � ' � � ! ,`! ``' (d}F. i \ `mss ,''; � Q '•i ,!+ 1 ! 't }t { �,! `i • \ \ , \I ii ; II I I ! I j i ! 1 I; , t 1 - sW0 `\ I ! ! 2"1} ,-i.' `!t ;: i l s'I' 1 ,1 `! `! '! t \, i ', +' \ ` ©, ,._'1 '! O .I �\ ` 1 •! !\ } \' } } `I /'\ r' LA I P }', `•', ,'Lt ii ,i 11 � ((��2 ,'' •}1 t`1 `! ? O1 // 2 -SH I ! ; �' :�� ',`} F`E %j U, 0 1(`Y i 1, } t'!O3 ! ( r ( i 1 17 , ,i ,l ;' 1 ; i 1 1 1 1 1 '`i 't 1 `4 �`-!, if 1 ! i Q! i 1 l \i }t ' ' 1 I f 7/ 1 ! I I t I W I -} BHS }' I ! } !\ \ \ _\ I lJ i 1 I t I 1 i I 1 01 BE �'', 1, i '',Q! 'i ! ! L,, ! i 1 ! ! i I ! J { \ \1 \\i tQt 0. •' '!L } it '•! '{ O r -� , \T -\ �.! } \I \, i !�--�� 0 1 I I — swo \ ,0�� , '! ' ; O i ! I 4l I ! ! i 1 p! \ f! I!. 1 1 ` -; r ;,� r1 —r' \ 2P'' 'O'1 i \' ------ - -=L +- z BE \ O It �0! i 1� �HS s``; •; 2 • 1`} �� ' 't 1` ' ', O` ' 1 ; k I �i L I ! I ' , I - ARM C, I 1 •' `'1 1 t ! ,.20� i } ', , I /511 TAPER I Q I , 1 ! SRO O `! O ``rL 1 ,` ';i O\ O =1V,,t -- - \rte - - -�' -- ,} �- -�. �' g ' �- ` --! ! ,`'-- `�S\ \'i ,`• + \ \ \ \`', \ \ \ \\ I I i `3t C>> I /�,oI -�Q�rl '! '! ,I '� � '. Lr I ,I `! .t. •'+ ', .\ \ \ \ \. \. \, . PLANT SCHEDULE SYM QUANT. COMMON NAME BOTANICAL NAME SIZE ROOT COMMENTS DECIDUOUS TREES ARM 4 AUTUMN RADIANCE REDMAPLE Acermbrum'AutumRRacna ' 25' 368 STRAT. LEADER FULL FORM SH 4 SUNBURST HONEY LOCUST G'SRMsia[&=L16s•SKmag& 25' • BAR STRAT. LEADER. FULL FORM SWO 3 SWAMP WHITE OAK Querns b'.c61ar 2.5" BAB STRAT. LEADER FULL FORM O EVERGREEN TREES W w o Z z BHS 7 BLACK HILLS SPRUCE Picea gloom De ter 6* HT. B&B SINGLE LEADER BE B BALSAM FIR Ab'es balsams 6ITT. S&B SINGLE LEADER PRUNE AS FIELD DIRECTED BY TIE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO IMPROVE APPEARANCE (RETAIN NORMAL TREE SHAPE) STAKING OPIIONALSEE SPECIFICATIONS THREE274W WWOEN STAKES, STAINED BROr,N WITH TWO STRANDS OF\YRETWISTED TOGETHER. STAKES SHALL BE PLACED AT 120'70 ONE ANOTHER WARE SHALL BE THREADED THROUGH BLACK RUBBER HOSE COLLARS TRUNK FLARE JUNCTION: PLANT TREE 1'-7 ABOVE EXISTING HARD'YMOD CYPRESS OR CEDAR (MULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER KEEP MULCH 2' FROM TRUNK COLOR TO BE DETERMINED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ORDERING. EXISTINGGRADE CUT AND REMOVE BURLAP FROM TOP 17J OF ROOT BALL. IF RONBIODEGRAMABLE, REMOVE COMPLETELY SLOPE SIDES OF HOLE I ! ! I I BACHFI LAS SPECIFIED THREE TIMES YAOTH OD NOT EXCAVATE OF ROOTBALL BELOW ROOTBALL DECIDUOUS TREE JUTS ARCHITECT W TO IMPROVE APPEARANCE (REFA NORMAL TREESHAPE) $TAKING OPTKI'MSEE SPECIFICATIONS THREE 2x47%$• WOODEN STAKES, STAINED BRONN WITH TWO STRANDS OF WRETYISTED TOGETHER STAKES SHALL BE PLACED AT 120' TO ONE ANOTHER WIRE SHALL BE THREADED THROUGH BLACK RUBBER HOSE COLLARS TRUNK FLARE JUNCTION: PLANT TREE V-Z ABOVE EXISTING GRADE HARDWOQO CYPRESS OR CEDAR MULCH TO OUTER EDGE OF SAUCER KEEP MULCH 7 FROM TRUNK COLOR TO BE DETERMINED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ORDERING. EXISTING GRADE CUT AND REMOVE BURLAP FROM TOP 1A OF ROOT BALL IF NONebOEGRAOABLE , REMOVE COMPLETELY I �— SLOPE BIDER OF HOLE ELOPE IDES F HO ED THREE O TH DO NW EXCAVATE BELOW RWTBALL OF TBALL ESALL OF ROO Z EVERGREEN TREE JUTS LANDSCAPE NOTES: 1. ALL SHRUB BEDS SHALL BE MULCHED WITH 4'DEPTH OF DOUBLE SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH OVER WEED BARRIER. OWNER'S REP SHALL APPROVE MULCH SAMPLE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. EDGING SHALL BE METAL EDGING OR APPROVED EQUAL 2. PLANT MATERIALS SHALL CONFORM WITH THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN STANDARDS AND SHALL BE OF HARDY STOCK, FREE FROM DISEASE, DAMAGE AND DISFIGURATION. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING PLUMBNESS OF PLANT MATERIAL FOR DURING OF ACCEPTANCE PERIOD. 3. UPON DISCOVERY OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE QUANTITY OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE SCHEDULE AND THE QUANTITY SHOWN ON THE PLAN, THE PLAN SHALL GOVERN. 4. CONDITION OF VEGETATION SHALL BE MONITORED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT. LANDSCAPE MATERIALS PART OF THE CONTRACT SHALL BE WARRANTED FOR ONE (I) FULL GROWING SEASONS FROM SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION DATE, S. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES SHAT RECEIVE 4' LAYER LOAM AND SOD AS SPECIFIED UNLESS OTHE AMSE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS. 6. COORDINATE LOCATION OF VEGETATION WITH UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD UTILITIES, LIGHTING FIXTURES, DOORS AND WINDOWS. CONTRACTOR SHALL STAKE IN THE FIELD FINAL LOCATION OF TREES AND SHRUBS FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 7. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE WATERED AND (MAINTAINED UNTIL ACCEPTANCE B. REPAIR AT NO COST TO OWNER ALL DAMAGE RESULTING FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIMES. 9. SWEEP AND6IANTAN ALL PAVED SURFACES FREE OF DEBRIS GENERATED FROM LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR'S ACTIVITIES. 2 GOPHER STATE ONE CALL WAANGOPHERSTATEONECALLORG (800)252-1 166 TOLL FREE (651) 4540002 LOCAL Cti. • A, 1616 -0® G R O U P 4s]1 W.15TH ST. SURE 200 6T.LO1115P -KEW 55416 CNdSaeG,wp.mm Flan PaSek Pat saner Tfil- ztaasu ssz- 2sa2DG1 Terra 5a Lad �Ptrrig �g 6001 Gkexwd .1. aPafa, FA 55422 PFL ]c15939325 FAX ]61512 -0]t] I FEREBY CERnFY THATTFAS PLAIy sPECID BY MZ OR REPORT WAS PREPAREDICNEORKAT IADIRECT sNSERVISKON ANDTM A.1A MU LICENSED LAt95CAPE ARCWTECTIR,OER T/iE LAWS OFTFE STATE OF MNT•ESOTA Pamck J. saner —q 21X14 NCtI.•S<rw. 24904 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY GATE DE6CWPROV REVISION SUMMARY DATE OESCRIPRON LANDS E -3 A 10 uD F- O W w o Z z Z Ow z a Z 1C� Q Q O O W H- CG 0O O ^G W J//� = (n cc uj / V/ G uj Q 1n I FEREBY CERnFY THATTFAS PLAIy sPECID BY MZ OR REPORT WAS PREPAREDICNEORKAT IADIRECT sNSERVISKON ANDTM A.1A MU LICENSED LAt95CAPE ARCWTECTIR,OER T/iE LAWS OFTFE STATE OF MNT•ESOTA Pamck J. saner —q 21X14 NCtI.•S<rw. 24904 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY GATE DE6CWPROV REVISION SUMMARY DATE OESCRIPRON LANDS E -3 DRAFT 1/21114 SUMMIT WOODS, SHOREWOOD TREE CONSERVATION EASEMENT THIS INDENTURE, is made XXX, 2014 by XXX, a Minnesota Corporation ( "Grantor "), for the benefit of the CITY OF SHOREWOOD, a Minnesota municipal corporation ( "Grantee "). A. Grantor is the owner of certain real property located in the City of Shorewood, County of Hennepin, State of Minnesota, legally described as Lots 1, 2, 3 & 4, Block 1 Summit Woods (the "Property "). B. On XXX, the City Council of the Grantee granted Grantor's application for Subdivision for the Property. C. As a condition of the approval, the Grantee required Grantor to dedicate a tree conservation easement ( "Easement ") over a portion of the Property, legally described as XXX (the "Easement Property ") and depicted on attached Exhibit A. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the City's approval and in satisfaction of the condition imposed, Grantor hereby grants and conveys unto the Grantee a tree conservation easement over, under and across the Easement Property. The terms of this Easement are as follows: 1. Except as permitted by this paragraph, no action of any kind may be undertaken to change or disturb the landscaping, open spaces, wetlands, and vegetation existing as of this date. No structures may be built, no grading may be done, no improvements of any kind may be made, and no earthen material may be removed from or placed on the Easement Property. The Easement Property must remain in all respects undisturbed, except that Grantor may clear any debris including dead vegetation from the Easement Property, may remove invasive non - native vegetation such as European buckthorn, may mow existing Exhibit F CONSERVATION EASEMENT Conservation Easement Page 2 turf grass, and may engage in other environmental management practices approved by Grantee. 2. Grantee may enter upon the Easement Property for the purposes of inspection and enforcement of this Easement and may take whatever actions are necessary to restore the Easement Property to its undisturbed nature. Grantee may assess the reasonable costs of this restoration against the Property, and Grantor waives all rights to contest those costs. Further, Grantee may enforce the terms of this Easement by any proceeding in law or in equity to restrain violation, to compel compliance, or to recover damages, including attorneys' fees and costs of the enforcement actions. Grantor is not liable for the actions of any third party, other than its employees, agents or contractors, which may violate the terms of this Easement, unless Grantor, its employees, agents or contractors had actual knowledge of the violation and failed to take reasonable action to stop the violation. 3. Failure to enforce any provision of this Easement upon a violation of it cannot be deemed a waiver of the right to do so as to that or any subsequent violation. 4. Invalidation of any of the terms of this Easement will in no way affect any of the other terms, which will remain in full force and effect. 5. This Easement does not convey a right to the public use of the Easement Property nor does it convey any right of possession in the Easement Property to the public or the Grantee. Access by the Grantee to the Easement Property is limited to access necessary for purposes of inspection and enforcement as specified in paragraph 2 above. Grantee is not be entitled to share in any award or other compensation given in connection with a condemnation or negotiated acquisition of all or any part of the Easement Property by any authority having the power of eminent domain. Grantee hereby waives any right it may have to such an award or compensation. 6. Acceptance of this Easement by the Grantee and the recording of this document constitutes the Grantee's consent to be bound by its terms. 7. This Easement runs with the Easement Property and be binding on the Grantor, its successors and assigns, and inures to the benefit of the Grantee, its successors and assigns. Conservation Easement Page 3 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Grantor has executed this indenture on the date first written above. By: XXX Its: XXX STATE OF MINNESOTA SS COUNTY OF HENNEPIN The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of by , the of _ , a Minnesota , on behalf of the _ Notary Public DRAFTED BY: XXX XXX XXX The undersigned Mortgagee of the real estate described in the attached instrument pursuant to the Mortgage recorded as Document No. in the office of the Hennepin County - -- , hereby joins in and consents to all of the terms and provisions contained in the attached Easement. The undersigned Mortgagee further agrees that its interest in the property covered by the Mortgage is subject to this Easement and to all of the terms and provisions contained in it and agrees that if the Mortgagee forecloses its mortgage(s) on the property, or takes a deed in lieu of foreclosure, the Mortgagee will take title subject to the Easement. By Its STATE OF COUNTY OF SS The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this _ day of by , the of on behalf of the corporation . Notary Public VHOMESTEAD PARTNERS February 4, 2014 ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL GUIDELINES SUMMIT WOODS - SHOREWOOD 1. General Requirements — Minimum Size: • Two Story: Not less than 2,400 finished square feet, excluding basement • One Story Rambler: Ground floor area of not less than 1,650 finished square feet • Declarant at its sole discretion may provide area credit for two story space 2. Elevations: Stone, brick, primed wood product, stucco, LP board or similar are all permitted; steel and vinyl siding, or similar product, are prohibited, except that steel or aluminum soffit and fascia are permitted. 3. Required Design Features: - Accent Windows - Arches - Arched or Transom Windows - Balconies - Bay or bow window options - Columns - Copper accents - Cupolas - Decorative brackets - Designer garage doors - Dormer on front elevation - Dormer on rear elevation - Eave returns - Engraved address labels - Flower boxes 4. Garages: 5. Roofing Materials: All plans must have at least 8 of the following Design Features. The features included must be noted on the Architectural Review Application. All windows must be wrapped. - Masonry Accents - Multiple siding patterns, materials, colors - Multi- textured drive or walkway treatment - Multiple gables - Nostalgic Lamp Posts - Ornamental louvers or vents - Pediments - Ornamental shutters - Quoin corners - Solider coursing - Stone & Brick Mixed together - Variety of roof pitches or styles - Window grids 3 Car minimum. 30 year laminated architectural shingles or greater are all permitted Exhibit G ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL GUIDELINES PA TN �RS� 6. Roofs: Forward facing gables to be a minimum of 9/12. Front porch roofs and saddles are excluded. Lesser pitch is acceptable for certain designs (such as in prairie style home) with ACC approval. The main roof to be a minimum of 8/12. 7. Colors: Earth tone schemes and other current popular - home colors maybe used but must be based upon compatibility with the neighborhood. No florescent or pastel color schemes shall be allowed. 8. Trim Colors: Trim to be detailed in complimentary, accent colors. Monotone schemes are discouraged. 9. Retaining Walls: Side and rear walls over 4' -0" must be terraced. Front walls over 3' -0" must be terraced. 10. Driveways: Driveways must be constructed of concrete or pavers, or combination thereof, unless otherwise approved by the ACC. No asphalt driveways. Driveways must be installed within six months of the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy. INO NNI ��! ®rl�1111!I 11 HIM 1 sr� wdit twwitw - � .. ♦ A...• _ �� 4 r F �- f Exhibit H SAlVIIPLE HOUSE PLANS ;1 Neip 71-f NA N, ■ f A .2,-5 w /�: t iJ 2- / - DRAFT 1/21/14 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN: SUMMIT WOODS, SHOREWOOD, MN The following Construction Management Plan regulates all construction activities at Summit Woods, Shorewood, MN. In addition to this plan, construction activities are subject to all applicable city ordinances and the conditions of approval adopted by the City Council on , 20_. It is the General Contractor's responsibility to make subcontractors and other persons involved in the construction process aware of this plan, conditions of approval, and applicable regulations, as well as obtain any required permits from the city or outside agencies. On -site Contact Information Provide the contact information for the on -site Site Supervisor. Please note that this information may be used by the city or the public if questions or issues arise regarding the work being performed on the site. Name of Site Supervisor Company Name: Company Address: Cell Phone: Office Phone: E -mail: Date of Construction 1. The General Contractor will schedule a pre- construction meeting with engineering, planning and natural resources staff. 2. No site work or construction will begin until after completion of the pre - construction meeting and issuance of all required grading and /or building permits. 3. The exterior of structures will be completed with 180 days of issuance of the building permit associated with that structure. Erosion Control and Tree Protection 1. Erosion control measures, including silt fence and inlet protection, will be installed in the locations required by city staff. 2. A rock entrance pad, or similar surface, will be installed at each location where vehicles enter or exit the construction site. Exhibit I CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN 3. Tree protection fencing will be installed outside of the critical root zone of all trees to be saved, as reviewed and approved by the city. 4. All erosion control measures and tree protection fencing will be inspected by city staff prior to issuance of grading and /or building permits and periodically throughout the course of construction. .. -.._- ..._. . 5. The General Contractor will inspect and maintain all erosion control measures and tree protection fencing on a continual basis to contain sediment within the grading and construction limits and to protect on and off -site vegetation until permanent ground cover is established. Control measures and fencing will be adjusted as needed to respond to conditions during the construction process. 6. Where the amount of disturbance is % acre or greater, the contractor agrees to the following inspection requirements: • Perform routine inspections of the construction site once every seven days during active construction and within 24 hours after a rainfall event greater than 0.5 inches in 24 hours; • Record in writing all inspections and maintenance conducted during construction. These records must be made available at the city's request within 24 hours. Records should include the following information: (1) Date and time of inspections; (2) Name of person conducting the inspections; (3) Findings of inspections, including recommendations for corrective actions; (4) Corrective actions taken (including dates, times and party completing maintenance activities); and (5) Date and amount of all rainfall events greater than 0.5 inches in 24 hours. 7. Soil stockpiles and 3:1 slopes that will not be worked for over 14 days must be stabilized with vegetation, mulch, tarps or other means unless no run -off from them is directed toward a watercourse, tree protection area, or the site perimeter. Construction Activities Page 2 1. Construction will follow city- accepted construction methods and industry standards. 2. Construction activities, including "start -up" of vehicles and /or construction equipment, will be limited to the hours of to . No construction activity or noise will be permitted before 7:00 a.m. or after 10:00 p.m. 3.- All earthwork activities, including piling, will be monitored by on -site testing and soil engineers, hired by the General Contractor, to insure the work conforms to the project specifications. 4. Pile driving activities WILL /WILL NOT occur. (Indicate if piles will be screw - driven only). Construction Parking 1. Construction and contractor vehicles will only enter and exit the site from Summit Ave. (Shorewood) or Hummingbird Rd. (Chanhassen). 2. Contractor vehicles will not be parked on any public street or right of way. 3. All construction equipment will be located /parked on the site. 4. Prior to beginning any site work, the General Contractor shall notify all subcontractors and workers of the designated haul routes and parking areas. Overall Site Conditions 1. All discarded construction materials, debris, and other litter will be placed in an adequate waste container. The General Contractor will execute a service agreement with a licensed trash hauler for regularly - scheduled trash removal. 2. Construction materials will be delivered to the site on an as- needed basis; large material stockpiles will be minimized. 3. The General Contractor will institute a program for on -site dust control. 4. All haul routes will be kept clean of dirt and debris. As required by city staff, the General Contractor will execute a service agreement with a street sweeping contractor for regularly - scheduled sweeping. 5. All construction materials will be removed from the site within 60 days of completion of construction or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, Page 3 whichever occurs first. 6. All property will be seeded, sodded, or otherwise planted with a ground cover within 240 days of issuance of the grading or building permit. If the 240 days expires between November 1 and May 15, ground cover must be established by the following July 15. Escrow may by city staff to ensure maintenance of erosion control measures until permanent groundcover is fully established. 7. The General Contractor is responsible for repairing any damage to public streets or adjacent properties. Non - Compliance 1. Non - compliance with any of provision of this construction management plan may result in: • issuance of a stop work order; • issuance of citations; and /or • the city's use of escrow dollars to bring the site into compliance. 2. Non - compliance with any provision of the Public Nuisance Ordinance is a misdemeanor and is subject to the penalties contained in the City Code. The undersigned hereby acknowledges that they are responsible for complying with the above conditions. Signature of Developer (if applicable) Date Signature of General Contractor Date Page 4 WSB Associates, /ire. engineering -planning • environmental • construction 477 Temperance Street St. Paul, MN 55101 Tel: 651 - 286 -8450 Fax: 651- 286 -8488 Memorandum To: Brad Nielsen, Planning Director, City of Shorewood From: Paul Hornby, P.E. Date: February 26, 2014 Re: Summit Woods Development Project — Development Stage Plan Review WSB Project No. 01459 -83 The following comments are with regard to engineering review for the Summit Woods PUD Development Stage Plan submitted by Homestead Partners. The project plans were prepared by Terra Engineering, Inc. , dated January 7, 2014 and February 3, 2014. The plans contain the existing conditions, existing topography and soil conditions, preliminary site plan, preliminary plat, preliminary utility plan, preliminary grading /erosion control plan, preliminary tree preservation plan, erosion control details and grading notes, details, tree removals, and preliminary landscape plan. General Items: The well for the existing home will need to be abandoned or utilized for one of the new homes if it is in a condition that meets current MnDOH requirements. 2. The extension of the Chanhassen water system is currently not proposed with the development. The new lots are proposed to be served by private wells. The preliminary site plans indicate that Summit Avenue varies in width from 15 to 20 feet. Widening of the roadway will need to be performed in a manner that provides a consistent bituminous seam outside of the vehicle wheel line. The center of the newly established northbound lane would accomplish this requirement. 4. The limit of the street pavement widening of the northbound lane is to extend south to the Shorewood corporate boundary with Chanhassen. This will result in a "boxed or squared" end of the pavement that should not create a traffic issue, and will reduce Shorewood impacts if Hummingbird Road is widened to the south. The alignment of the sanitary sewer services for lots 3 and 4 need to be spaced to provide sufficient width for future excavation and maintenance without crossing the common property line. St. Cloud • Minneapolis • St. Paul Equal Opportunity Employer wsbeng.com \\g,xifs0l\p,.j.tm \0( 459- 830\Admin\D-.\Dewlopment Smge Plan Rmicw %MWMO- PTH_BNielsen- 022614 -DR lopment Phase Plan Re�iew.do Brad Nielsen, City of Shorewood Summit Woods Development Plan Review February 26, 2014 Page 2 6. Existing utilities (public and private) need to be shown on the construction plans. 7. The location of the proposed wells is to be shown on the plans for reference to the sanitary sewer and sewer services. The sanitary sewer service wye saddle /sleeve is to be of the same pressure class as the service pipe. The "Tree Conservation Easement" should be indicated as "Conservation Easement" to restrict activities within the easement areas. 10. The lowest floor and lowest opening need to be identified on each building pad. 11. The street typical section needs to be modified to a rural section roadway with the existing and proposed conditions shown. The proposed width is 20 feet with about one - half of the northbound lane widened. The depth of the section is to be generally consistent with the geotechnical report. Since the roadway is to be widened to accommodate the width for emergency apparatus, and not reconstructed, the minimum recommended roadway section is 1.5- inches of MnDOT 2360 bituminous Wearing Course, 2.5- inches of MnDOT 2360 bituminous Non - wearing Course, 8- inches of aggregate base class 5 (100% crushed limestone) on approved subgrade. The street is to include a two foot wide aggregate base (class 2) shoulder. 12. The street grading /subgrade notes shall indicate that the work is subject to approval of the City Engineer, not only the Soils Engineer. 13. The general details of the filtration basins are not legible. The details are to be modified to direct the contractor to construct to the specified depth zones. The notes stating "suggested" will not be allowed. 14. Grading Plan Items: a. The grading plan does not provide sufficient grading information to illustrate the manner in which the storm water runoff pattern from the street, homes and driveways will get to the proposed rain garden areas. b. The grading plan should illustrate that the roadway is rural and will need a ditch to convey runoff into swales between the units and to the rain gardens. c. The rain gardens are shown as schematic areas on the grading plan. The grading plan needs to show the detailed grading of each rain garden, including bottom elevations and overflow elevations. d. Details of the rain garden overflow weir need to be provided. e. The developer may want to consider a rain garden that is a long swale located strategically across the rear yards of the lots to intercept runoff. A number of controlled overflows from the garden swale should be utilized to reduce potential for erosion on the steep slope in the conservation easement. Rg,cifs01\p,j,ct\ 01459.830Wdmin\Doc\Daralopment Stage Plan Reie WEMO -PYH ➢Nielsen- 022614 -Da 1.pm,ntPhasePlanRe,iewA- Brad Nielsen, City of Shorewood Summit Woods Development Plan Review February 26, 2014 Page 3 f. The filtration draintile outlet of the type of rain garden designed should include an outlet manifold with several 4 -ich outlets to reduce erosion potential spreading the flow over a wide area. Otherwise, a larger outlet and overflow as proposed may require rip rap and an erosion reinforcement mat to control erosion from the outlet and overflow. g. Rain garden plants are to be specified. h. Drainage and utility easements that provide access to and around the rain gardens is recommended to provide access for City inspection and observation to ensure they are managed, functioning, and maintained. i. The items identified in the attached storm water management review letter need to be addressed. 15. The rain garden features need to include a maintenance agreement with a home owners association or individual property owners, recorded with the property to ensure the basins are managed, maintained and function as intended. 16. The City Council may consider reviewing alternatives for improvements to Summit Avenue as part of this project and /or as a capital improvement project. 17. Additional comments may be necessary on subsequent development plan submittals. \lgwif 01\pr j.tsW 1454- 830\Admin\D.s\Dxwlop.,nt Swp Plan Rm, i —\MEMO -PLFi ➢Nielsen - 022614- Aselopment Phase Plop Re,ie�.d-. City of Shorewood Stormwater Management Review CITY OF SHOREWOOD Review Date: February 26, 2014 Reviewer: Jesse Carlson Signature: — �— JD- Z' Project Description: Single Family Homes Date Received: 2/3/14 -- Site Size (acres): 4.91 Area of Disturbance(acres): 4.91 Existing Impervious (acres): 0 Proposed Impervious (acres): 0.09 Cuhmitt.lc Rnrnivnrl Date Document Author 2/3/14 Site Plans Terra Engineering, Inc. 2/3/14 Stormwater Management Plan Civil Site Group Note: If a box is checked the criteria is satisfied. A comment is provided for each unchecked box. These comments are specific to the stormwater management requirements of the City of Shorewood. General Site Plan © Scale of Survey. Minimum scale 1 " =50'. Maximum size plan sheet 24 "X36" © Survey signed by a registered survey with elevations in NGVD -1929 datum for the following locations: © Each lot corner. • Grade elevation at the foundation and elevation of top of foundation of structures on adjacent lots. • Grade elevation at the foundation, elevation of top of foundation and garage floor of proposed new construction. • Lowest point of entry (i.e. doorsill or top of window well) of proposed and existing construction. • Lowest floor of proposed and existing construction. © Easements are clear of any encroachments? ❑ Proposed stormwater management BMPs meet City standards or design criteria of the Minnesota Stormwater Manual? Comments: 1. Filtration Basins: The proposed planting media for the filtration basin shall meet the specifications of the Minnesota Stormwater Manual for Mix A or Mix B Bioretention Mix. 2. Filtration Basins: Details shall be provided that are legible and project specific to match the proposed designs for the filtration basins as shown on the grading plan and include a planting plan. 3. Filtration Basins: Provide a detail for the EOF of each filtration basin, including how erosion will be prevented. Erosion Control Plan ❑ SWPPP notes provided on the plan. ❑ Temporary stabilization measures provided. ® Erosion control blankets provided on all slopes greater than 3:1. ❑X Perimeter Control i.e., Silt Fence, Filter Log, etc. © Phasing for sites that are >_ 1 acre. ❑X CB Inlet Protection ❑ Dewatering ® Sediment control ❑ Waste control ❑ Concrete washout ❑X Rock entrance © Street sweeping schedule ❑ Permanent restoration plan. ❑ SWPPP includes an erosion and sediment control inspection schedule and person responsible for maintenance. Comments: 1. SWPPP: Project disturbs 1 acre or greater therefore a SWPPP shall be provided. 2. Temporary Stabilization: Provide temporary stabilization measures on the plans. 3. SWPPP shall include a schedule for inspection of BMPs and identify the responsible party. 4. Measures for waste and control, concrete washout, and dewatering of sediment laden water need to be specified. 5. Provide a permanent restoration plan. 6. Provide methods for how the filtration systems are going to be protected until the vegetation is established and all constructed has completed. Stormwater Management Plan ® Delineation map ❑ Modeling calculations for existing and proposed conditions ® 1, 10, and 100 - yr 24 - hr storm events ® Modeled directly connected impervious separate ❑ Peak Discharge Rates < Existing ® Off -site drainage included ® Wetlands shown on plans and wetland permitting completed ® Pretreatment © Skimmer structures provided on the outlets of all ponds. Soil borings ® Design Infiltration Rate Determination ® Seasonal High Water Elevation Comments: 1. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed discharge rates will be less than existing; however, their grading plan does not show how the areas as delineated in their stormwater management plan will flow into the filtration basins. The applicant shall provide a grading plan that demonstrates how water will flow to the proposed filtration basins as proposed in the plans. 2. Revise the elevations used in the HvdrCAD model to reflect the elevations as shown in the proposed grading plans. Water Quality ❑ Volume control provided as per the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. ® Sequencing provided for alternatives where infiltration is infeasible. Required Water Quality Volume: 335 cubic feet per lot @ 4 lots = 1,350 cubic feet Provided Water Quality Volume: 335 cubic feet per lot but as per the MCWD filtration credit schedule only partial credit is given (Appendix A, MCWD Rules). Comments: MCWD Water Quality Volume: For the filtration volume calculation credit as given as per the schedule in their rules (Appendix A, MCWD Rules). Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Freeboard Building Opening: ® 3' above the critical 100 -yr HWL of local basins, wetlands, & infiltration basins ® 3' above EOF of local basins, wetlands, & infiltration basins ® 3' above the 100 -yr flow elevation of a swale or channel at the point where the swale channel is closest to the building Low Floor Elevation: © 2' above the critical 100 -yr HWL of major basins © 2' above EOF of major basins © For landlocked basins: 2' above the HWL from back to back 100 -yr rainfalls or 2' above the HWL from the 100 -yr 10 -day snowmelt, whichever is higher. Starting elevation of the basin /waterbody prior to runoff is one of the following: 1) Existing Ordinary High Water level established by the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 2) Annual water balance calculation approved by the City 3) Local observation well records, as approved by the City 4) Mottled soil Comments: Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text. Click here to enter text.