04-07-15 Planning Comm Mtg Agenda
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, 7 APRIL 2015 7:30 P.M.
A G E N D A
CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE
DAVIS (Feb) ______
GENG (TBD) ______
MADDY (Jan) ______
BEAN (TBD) ______
JOHNSON (TBD) ______
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
3 February 2015
1. 7:45 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. FOR TWO HOUSES TEMPORARILY ON
ONE LOT
Applicant: Todd Cebulla
Location: 5530 Vine Hill Road
2. 8:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING – C.U.P. FOR SEWER LIFT STATION
Applicant: Metropolitan Council Environmental Services
Location: 21445 State Highway 7
3. DISCUSS OPEN MEETING LAW
4. DETERMINE LIAISON TO COUNCIL SCHEDULE
5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
6. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
7. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
8. REPORTS
Liaison to Council
SLUC
Other
9. ADJOURNMENT
CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2015 7:00 P.M.
MINUTES
CALL TO ORDER
Chair Geng called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M.
ROLL CALL
Present: Chair Geng; Commissioners Davis, Maddy and Muehlberg; Planning Director Nielsen;
and Council Liaison Labadie
Absent: None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Maddy moved, Davis seconded, approving the agenda for February 3, 2015, as presented. Motion
passed 4/0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 20, 2015
Davis moved, Maddy seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of January
20, 2015, as presented. Motion passed 4/0.
1. PUBLIC HEARING – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY SPACE OVER
1200 SQUARE FEET
Applicant: Don and Loretta Mann
Location: 25880 Birch Bluff Road
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M., noting the procedures used in a Public Hearing. He
explained the Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as
volunteers on the Commission. They are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help
the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is
to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-
binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. He noted that if the
Planning Commission makes a recommendation this evening this item will go before the City Council on
February 23, 2015. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a conditional use
permit (C.U.P.) for accessory space over 1200 square feet for Don and Loretta Mann, 25880 Birch Bluff
Road.
Director Nielsen explained the Manns propose to build a new detached garage to the south of the existing
house. Because the area of the new garage when combined with an existing attached garage on the
property exceeds 1200 square feet (it will be 1399 square feet) a C.U.P. is required.
The property is zoned R-1C/S, Single-Family Residential/Shoreland and contains 30,649 square feet in
area. It is about one and one-half of what the R-1C District requires. The site is occupied by the owners’
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 3, 2015
Page 2 of 9
home and attached garage as well as a 14 foot by 16 foot shed. The applicants propose to remove the
existing shed. The new garage contains 882 square feet. The City Code requires the floor area be
calculated based on measurements on the inside of the exterior walls. The proposed garage will be 10 feet
from the east side lot line approximately 116 feet back from the right-of-way (ROW) of Birch Bluff Road.
A copy of the applicants’ request was included in the meeting packet. He displayed illustrative plans for
the new garage. The existing home contains 3172 square feet of floor area not including the basement
level.
Nielsen reviewed how the applicants’ request complies with the four criteria in Section 1201.03 Subd.
2.d.(4) of the City’s Zoning Code for granting this type of C.U.P.
a. The total area of accessory buildings (1399 square feet), which includes the attached garage, does
not exceed the floor area (3172 square feet – main floor) above grade of the existing home.
b. The total area of accessory buildings does not exceed 10 percent of the minimum lot size for the
R-1C/S zoning district (.10 x 20,000 = 2000 square feet).
c. The proposed garage complies with R-1C/S setback requirements. The proposed hardcover for
the site will be 31.27 percent, down from the existing 32.4 percent. While this is greater than the
maximum allowed in the “S”, Shoreland overlay district, the City’s policy in such cases is to
allow improvements/additions where hardcover is actually being reduced. The driveway has been
reconfigured to further reduce hardcover. This reduction, combined with the removal of the very
nonconforming existing shed, brings the property closer to compliance with the Zoning Code.
d. The architectural character of the new building will be the same as the existing house. Siding and
roofing will match the house.
Nielsen noted that based on the analysis of the case staff recommends that the applicant’s request for a
conditional use permit be granted, subject to the following. He noted the conditions are different from
those listed in the staff report.
1. The existing shed should be removed by August 31, 2015.
2. For the driveway reconfiguration the applicant wants to grade and put down class 5 rock for the
new driveway and let it settle for a year. That should be done by the middle of October 2015.
Commissioner Maddy asked Mr. Mann if he attempted to reduce the impervious surface to less than 25
percent. Mr. Mann explained he will remove about 1,000 square feet of black top driveway. Most of the
reconfigured driveway will be where the existing driveway is. The existing driveway is in relatively good
condition and his plan is to put a 2-inch overlay on it.
Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:16 P.M.
JR Campuzano, 25860 Birch Bluff Road, stated the Manns are great neighbors and Mr. Mann showed
him what he was proposing to do. He then stated Mr. Mann has done good things with the architectural
design of his house and proposed garage. He noted that he has asked Mr. Mann to soften the garage on
side of the lot next to his house with landscaping. Mr. Mann has indicated he would do that. He also noted
that he does not oppose the new garage.
Mr. Mann stated it has been his intent to have some landscaping around the garage.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 3, 2015
Page 3 of 9
Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:19 P.M.
Chair Geng noted that he appreciates the cooperation of the neighbors.
Director Nielsen stated if the landscaping requirement is a condition of approval that should be
documented and there should be some type of sketch of the landscaping provided. He noted that would
not have to come back before the Planning Commission.
Maddy moved, Muehlberg seconded, recommending approval of the conditional use permit for
accessory space over 1200 square feet for Don and Loretta Mann, 25880 Birch Bluff Road, subject
to the existing shed being removed by August 31, 2015; the reconfigured driveway being graded
and class 5 rock driveway put down by the middle of October 2015; and, the applicant providing a
sketch of the landscaping that will go next to the east side of the garage to the Planning Department
before this is considered by Council. Motion passed 4/0.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M.
2. PUBLIC HEARING – SETBACK VARIANCES
Applicant: Nick Bender
Location: 5765 Eureka Road
Chair Geng opened the Public Hearing at 7:25 P.M., noting the process will be the same as for the
previous item. He stated this evening the Planning Commission is going to consider a setback variances
for Nick Bender, 5765 Eureka Road.
Director Nielsen explained Mr. Bender has requested setback variances to replace the existing garage on
the south side of his house with a detached two-car garage on the north side of his house. The proposed
garage will measure 22 feet by 26 feet. He also proposes to replace his existing deck with a new one on
the south side of the house a little further back but it will still not be in compliance with the setback
requirement. The new garage will be about 10 feet from the rear property line; 50 feet is required. It will
be 60 feet from the front property line. Therefore, a 40-foot variance to the rear yard setback is required.
That is similar to the variance that was granted to the property to the south.
The property is zoned R-1A, Single-Family Residential and contains 12,020 square feet of area. That is
quite substandard for the R-1A District; the requirement is 40,000 square feet. Also, the lot is more than
53 feet shallower in depth than the R-1A District allows. In addition to the nonconformity of the existing
lot, the house does not currently meet setbacks on the east side of the lot.
The property survey shows that the building setbacks, even after taking advantage of an average front
setback established by adjacent properties, renders the lot unbuildable. Just about anything he would want
to do on his lot would require some type of variance.
Variances are evaluated on the basis of Section 1201.05 Subd. 2 of the City Code. He reviewed how the
applicant’s request appears justified, at least in part, based on the factors listed below.
1. The substandard area of the subject lot is aggravated by its shallow depth.
2. The need for the variance is not economic in nature.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 3, 2015
Page 4 of 9
3. A two-car garage is commonly enjoyed by most residential properties in Shorewood. Some cities
require at least a two-car garage.
4. In past cases the City has recognized that the inability to have at least a two-car garage in
Minnesota constitutes a hardship (now practical difficulty).
5. The applicants did not create their practical difficulty. Both the house and lot were created prior
to current requirements, and the property has never had a two-car garage. The existing garage is
grossly substandard from a Building Code perspective.
6. The proposed garage is a modestly sized for two cars; it is not considered to be oversized. While
the garage could technically be moved closer to the street, it would then interfere with the
windows and entry to the home on its north side. The proposed location minimizes an
overcrowded appearance along Eureka Road. The location of the new deck complies somewhat
better than the old and relates much better with the side entry to the home.
He noted that despite the very substandard lot size, the proposed improvements to the home will only
result in 23.3 percent hardcover on the site; 33 percent is allowed.
Nielsen also noted that based on the analysis of the case staff recommends that the applicant’s request be
granted as proposed.
Chair Geng opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:32 P.M.
Ken Dallman, 5780 Eureka Road, stated he is present to give support to his neighbor Mr. Bender for
doing an excellent job on his house. What he and the property owner to the south have done to their
houses is appreciated by the neighborhood. He noted that he believes the neighborhood residents will
appreciate what is being proposed.
Chair Geng closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:34 P.M.
Chair Geng stated he likes the location of the proposed garage. He then stated from his perspective
granting of the requested variances is warranted and necessary. He believes it meets the practical
difficulty criteria.
Geng moved, Maddy seconded, recommending approval of the setback variances for Nick Bender,
5765 Eureka Road. Motion passed 4/0.
Chair Geng noted this item will go before the City Council on February 23, 2015.
Chair Geng closed the Public Hearing at 7:37 P.M.
3. PREAPPLICATION – COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (continued from
January 20, 2015)
Applicant: Mattamy Homes
Location: 24575 Smithtown Road (Minnetonka Country Club Property)
Chair Geng noted that the Planning Commission discussed the pre-application for an amendment to the
City’s Comprehensive (Comp) Plan for the proposed residential development of the Minnetonka
Country Club (MCC) property located at 24575 Smithtown Road during its January 6, 2015, meeting.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 3, 2015
Page 5 of 9
The applicant is Mattamy Homes. The topic was continued to its January 20, 2015, meeting but was not
discussed. It was continued to this meeting.
Director Nielsen explained that during the January 29, 2015, Council and staff retreat Planning
Consultant John Shardlow with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc., raised five questions regarding the
MCC property and the property near there. The questions and Council’s responses are as follows.
1. Who should be the primary working group through the planning process for the MCC project?
Stantec’s proposal recommended establishing a Planning Advisory Committee (PAC) that would
augment (but include in total) the Planning Commission. A position could be taken that Council
wants and needs to be more hands on throughout the process and if so there could be joint City
Council and Planning Commission workshops throughout the process. Or, the Planning
Commission could be charged with the task.
After discussion Council agreed that the Planning Commission would be the core group. The
Committee would also include a to-be-determined number of residents and possibly business
owners. Council has been asked to submit a list of names for consideration of participation.
The first opportunity for the PAC to meet would be on February 17 with a fall back date of
February 24.
2. Is the Council interested in exploring the possibility of any housing types other than single-
family detached units, either on the golf course property or in the vicinity?
Council’s consensus was yes.
3. Does Council support the exploration of possible ways to leverage the value associated with the
golf course redevelopment to improve the quality and expedite the timing of redevelopment
surrounding the County Road 19 / Smithtown Road / Country Club Road Intersections?
Council’s consensus was yes.
Whether or not the golf course redevelopment and the adjacent redevelopment is combined into
one over-arching redevelopment financing strategy, does the Council view the planning for the
adjacent redevelopment strategy as something that should be carefully thought through before
signing off on the final plans for the golf course redevelopment?
Council’s consensus was yes.
4. Should the pros and cons of potential realignments of Country Club Road be explored?
Council’s consensus was yes.
5. Should the pluses and minuses of park dedication (in land) on the golf course be fully explored?
Should the potential sale and reuse of the existing park next to City Hall be explored?
Council’s consensus was yes.
He stated that based on Council having answered yes to all of those questions it may be premature to
make a recommendation on the pre-application until the Planning Consultant and PAC have completed
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 3, 2015
Page 6 of 9
the study and made its recommendation to Council. In a way, the study output becomes the pre-
application. The existing pre-application should be considered in the context of the larger picture. He
clarified that if there are specific concerns about the project they should be mentioned and captured in
the record.
He noted that the developer is concerned about the timing. Mr. Shardlow has indicated to the developer
that this process need not hold up the construction process which is intended to be started in 2016. The
developer does not intend to move any dirt in 2015.
Chair Geng asked Director Nielsen what he wants from the Planning Commission this evening. Director
Nielsen stated the Commission can pass a motion reiterating what he just said.
Director Nielsen explained the pre-application process does not render a vote. Issues are identified
through that process and it provides the developer with direction. Based on Council having agreed to the
Planning Consultant’s approach that basically becomes the pre-application for the project.
He stated if there is anything specific about the project he suggested they get into the record and that
they be conveyed to the Planning Consultant during PAC meetings.
Commissioner Muehlberg asked who is spearheading the traffic study. Director Nielsen responded the
Planning Consultant’s proposal includes a traffic study and that will be done early on in the process.
Muehlberg then asked if thought has been given to including Hennepin County representatives in that
study. Nielsen explained that if there are to be any improvements or changes made to the Smithtown
Road and County Road 19 intersection then Hennepin County has to be involved.
Commissioner Davis stated she thought the Planning Consultant indicated the traffic study would be
done after there is some idea of what is going to be in that area. Director Nielsen stated the land uses
have to be known before the traffic study is done.
Director Nielsen clarified that the Planning Consultant is looking at his charge as primarily a land use
study/question. But, that has to be supported by transportation solutions. He explained there are two
collector streets – Smithtown Road on the north side of the MCC property and Country Club Road,
Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden Drive on the west. Smithtown Road is designed and operated as a
collector street. Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail and Lake Linden Drive are a substandard
collector route.
When the Smithtown Road and County Road 19 intersection was reconstructed one goal was to try and
minimize shortcutting traffic from County Road 19 down Country Club Road, Yellowstone Trail and
Lake Linden Drive to Highway 41. As part of this study an effort should be made to reduce shortcutting
traffic to accommodate the new traffic that will be generated from the MCC redevelopment project. The
new traffic could be as much as 1,000 trips a day. For the most part, that new traffic needs to be directed
to the County Road 19 intersection. He has asked traffic engineers how far people have to go out of there
way before a traffic route is no longer a shortcut.
In response to a comment by Chair Geng, Director Nielsen explained that what the developer is
proposing will require a planned unit development (PUD) which is a flexible zoning tool. The current R-
1A zoning allows the developer to build one single-family dwelling unit on a 40,000 square foot lot.
There are some undesirable soils in spots on the MCC property and some spots that the developer would
like to protect. He would like to take the number of units allowed and cluster them on the better ground.
That would result in the houses being on lots smaller than 40,000 square feet but the density would
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 3, 2015
Page 7 of 9
remain the same. The developer wants to build $800,000 to $1 million houses. The question is how the
houses fit on the small lots and how will what property owners want (e.g., decks, patios and swimming
pools) fit on those lots as well. What will the setbacks have to be to accommodate that?
Commissioner Davis noted that the developer had expressed reservations about allowing the open space
to be available to the public. Director Nielsen stated that is an issue. Commissioner Maddy stated the
developer also indicated that it could possibly be made public land. Nielsen stated he thought the
developer was uncertain if the open space should be public or private. Under a PUD it can go either way.
He then stated the developer seems to be willing to have a trail loop around the property. But, if it is
going to be a public trail the developer does not want the future property owners to be responsible for the
maintenance and upkeep of that trail.
Commissioner Maddy stated that based on how Council wants to move forward with having a broader
assessment of the area rather than just the MCC property he thought the Comp Plan amendment should
be considered more broadly for the area.
Director Nielsen stated he will pass along to Council and the Planning Consultant that the Planning
Commission has concern about whether the open space should be public or private, concern about lot
sizes and how the houses will fit on them, and that the Commission agrees with taking a more global
approach to the project. There was Planning Commission consensus that would be the appropriate
message to convey to Council.
4. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR
Patrick Johnson, 26350 Alexander Lane, suggested there also be people on the Planning Advisory
Committee (PAC) who are not stakeholders in the surrounding the area (i.e., they do not own property in
the area surrounding the Minnetonka Country Club property) to provide outside expertise. They could be
planners who do not live in Shorewood, urban planners or possibly a retired developer.
Director Nielsen clarified that PAC members from outside of the MCC area will also be considered.
Planning Consultant John Shardlow with Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. was commissioned to do the
study.
Mr. Johnson noted he reviewed some of the information Stantec provided. He stated that based on having
gone through something similar in the New York City/New Jersey area when one person is hired to drive
a project/study they are often looked upon with some amount of skepticism. When other outside people
with expertise who are removed from the project are included with volunteers it brings another level of
credibility to the project.
Council Liaison Labadie stated the intent is to have a broad group of residents from different age brackets
and educational backgrounds; not just those who live or work in close proximity to the project. She then
stated people can submit their names for consideration on the PAC. She noted that all residents have
something to offer independent of the education and where they live. She clarified that a decision has not
been made on how many people will be on the PAC or when the PAC will meet. Having the PAC meet
immediately before the Planning Commission meetings has been proposed. She stated those individuals
selected to be on the PAC need to be committed to participating; they cannot just come and go.
Mr. Johnson asked someone to expound upon Council’s desire to look at uses other than single-family
residential. Council Liaison Labadie stated that has not been discussed in great detail. At this time
Council wants to keep all of its options open during the study stage.
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 3, 2015
Page 8 of 9
5. OLD BUSINESS / NEW BUSINESS
6. DRAFT NEXT MEETING AGENDA
Director Nielsen noted that Council will interview four applicants for the two Planning Commission seats
that will be open as of March 1, 2015.
Nielsen stated optimistically the kickoff meeting for the to-be-determined Planning Advisory Committee
(PAC) will be on February 17, 2015. If that does not work because of the short notice the fall back date
would be February 24.
Council Liaison Labadie noted that members of the Council will not attend the PAC meetings per the
Planning Consultant’s recommendation.
Director Nielsen noted that at a minimum the PAC meetings will be audio recorded so members of
Council can listen to them if they would like.
Chair Geng asked when the results of the detailed demographics analysis for the City by the Urban Land
Institute (ULI) Minnesota Program Navigating the New Normal and paid for by the Housing Fund will be
presented to Council and the Planning Commission. Director Nielsen stated he is not sure that analysis is
going to be done. Geng stated he thought that would be a good thing to have done. Commissioner Davis
concurred.
7. REPORTS
• Liaison to Council
Planning Commissioner Maddy reported on Council’s January 26, 2015, meeting (as detailed in the
minutes of that meeting).
In response to a question from Commissioner Maddy, Director Nielsen stated remodeling of the structure
on the 5680 County Road 19 property has been started for the Plumbing / Heating business.
• SLUC
Director Nielsen stated he had heard that the most recent Sensible Land Use Coalition session was not
very good. He noted he will get the Commissioners information on the upcoming session.
• Other
Council Liaison Labadie stated she attended a two-day session for newly elected city officials’ on January
30 and 31. She thought about 500 people from all over the State attended. The first day she found to be
“light and fluffy”. On day two there was a lot of discussion about open meeting laws. She is going to see
if there is a way to get a clean copy of the material because she thought it would be valuable for the
Planning Commissioners to have.
She explained that anytime there is a quorum of members of a commission, council or any such body the
meeting has to be noticed to the public. Although people can get together at social functions without it
being noticed, if there is any discussion about city business it is technically an open meeting and the city
and attendees can be looking at sanctions. A neighboring city has gotten into a lot of trouble because of
CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
February 3, 2015
Page 9 of 9
that. Shorewood is on the radar of a lot of cities because of the potential Minnetonka Country Club
(MCC) redevelopment project. She learned that all emails should come through City Clerk Panchyshyn,
Planning Director Nielsen or Administrator Joynes. People should not “cc” back to the entire group.
When the Commission does trail walks the walks are noticed. But, that can be a tricky situation when four
Commissioners are riding in the same vehicle and talking about the trail.
Commissioner Davis suggested the Commission review it in a meeting so the discussion becomes part of
the public record.
Director Nielsen stated that when residents ask a Commissioner or member of Council to come to a
project site and talk about a project people should tell them that if they have something to say it should be
said to all of the members of Council and the Commissions. That was the advice of the City Attorney
during the Summit Woods planned unit development project.
Council Liaison Labadie stated if there is a serial chain of communication that is also a violation of the
open meeting law. If a developer wants to walk the site with members of Council or the Commission and
if the developer shows up with coffee and donuts the refreshments should be declined because that is
technically a gift.
Labadie then stated that when the public meeting is closed the discussion about city business has to close.
Director Nielsen stated there are Government Training Sessions available for Planning Commissioners to
attend.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Maddy moved, Davis seconded, Adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of February 3, 2015,
at 8:23 P.M. Motion passed 4/0.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Christine Freeman, Recorder
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD ® SHOREWOOD, MINNESOTA 55331 -8927. (952) 960 -7900
FAX (952) 474 -0128 • www.ci.shorewood.mmus • cityhaII @d.shorewood.mn.us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Brad Nielsen
DATE:
1 April 2015
RE:
Cebulla - C.U.P. for Two Houses on One Lot
FILE NO.
405(15.05)
BACKGROUND
Todd Cebulla owns the property at 5530 Vine Hill Road (see Site Location map Exhibit A,
attached). He wishes to keep the existing home on the property while his new home is being
constructed. At staff s direction Mr. Cebulla has applied for a conditional use permit that is
scheduled for review by the Planning Commission on 7 April 2015.
Even though the subject property is not part of the Waterford P.U.D., located to the south and
west, it was included in the P.U.D. district. In this case the underlying zoning is R -1 C, Single-
family Residential. The property contains 29,338 square feet of area. The site is currently
occupied by the applicant's existing home and a detached garage (see Exhibit B). He intends for
his family to live in the existing house while a new home is being built. Once the new house is
completed, the old one will be demolished. The proposed site plan is shown on Exhibit C.
Proposed building elevations for the new home are shown on Exhibit D. Mr. Cebulla explains
his request in his letter, attached as Exhibit E.
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
Shorewood's Zoning Code, like most contemporary zoning ordinances, limits the number of
single- family dwellings on'a site to one. In the past, the City had granted variances allowing
property owners to keep an existing house on the property while a new home is under
construction. The Code was amended in 2000 to allow for such requests by conditional use
®�
q 0 PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
permit. Following is how the Cebulla request complies with Section 1201.03 Subd. 2.c.(4) of the
Code:
1. The proposed home complies with R -1C district setback requirements, i.e. 35 foot front
and side abutting the street, 40 foot rear and 10 foot side.
2. Keeping an existing house should not result in a less desirable location for the new house.
The applicant's point is well taken regarding the location of the new home. The desire to
be farther from Vine Hill Road with the house is understandable and eliminating the
driveway to and from Vine Hill Road is positive from a safety perspective.
3. A detailed tree inventory and tree preservation/reforestation plan will be required as part
of the building permit. It appears that the applicant will be faced with the maximum
replacement — six trees (8 trees x .75). At least three of those trees should be located on
the south side of the property in the general location of trees to be removed.
4. There must be some assurance that the existing home will be removed upon completion
of the new one. This is resolved by the requirement of an escrow, sufficient in amount to
guarantee that the house will be removed. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the
applicant must provide bids for the demolition of the older house. The applicant will then
be required to provide the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of 150
percent of the bid to guarantee removal of the older house and restoration of the site.
5. The approval must have a time limit. The Code allows the builder six months to
complete the new home. On some larger or more complicated homes, this limit has been
found to be a bit restrictive. It is recommended that if it is necessary for the owner to
request an extension, it should be made prior to the end of the six months.
Staff recommends approval of Mr. Cebulla's request subject to the following:
A. The applicant must provide a copy of their contractor's bid for demolishing the older
house.
B. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant must provide the City with a cash
escrow or letter of credit, for 150 percent of the bid amount, to guarantee that the house
will be removed and the site restored.
C. The existing house and outbuilding must be removed within six months of the applicant
receiving a building permit for the new house. If the applicant requires an extension, he
should make the request prior to the six -month deadline.
Cc: Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
Joe Pazandak
Todd Cebulla
-2-
yin
C 5NO
�rn
y �
rr:
n
y
z
dy
N
A
0 300 600
CHRISTMAS LAKE
/ \gray �
1,200
Feet
1 Sprin Cir
2 St AI ans
Ba it
C::�
a�
Scale, In Feet
0 20
C
C
EXISTING HOUSE — —15.0
19320 LATERFOR�
PLACE
/ tf:
C
I U
\
952.5
\952 � ys
3
ry�
0h
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
EXISTING CONDITIONS WITH PROPOSED HOUSE LOCATION
953.
950
TREE LI
Lo
SNMH 6 -7
W A T E_ f: ;' 0 R D P L A C E, RIM: 952,00
INV- 940.00
/
/
/
/
EXISTING HOUSE
5520 VINEHILL
00
v unnnn: .
951.88
I
I
I
z
I
I
I
I
Exhibit 13
EXISTING CONDITIONS
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY PREPARED FOR:
PROPOSED HOUSE AND GRADING SHOWN TODD CEBULL y
5530 VINEHILL ROAD
SHOREWOOD, MN 55331
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
TRACT 8, R.L.S. NO. 847, HENNEPIN COUNTY, EXISTING HOUSE
MINNESOTA, EXCEPT VINEHILL ROAD 5520 VINEHILL
ROAD I
14 1 '_ / /
/ 6o C-4 3
Scale, In Feet -TREE LI / / / / / / / / /,)AN90*00'00 "W // 266.85/ I I � - - - - -' - I �
®O SILT FENC�E2 /�' \ � 4SPR
10 FOO
� T SE \TBI� ��i✓z�s 1MP r
/ /
q/ 8.00 j 38.00 0 32.00/
/ I / Io \ ~\ ®� �/ g 32.00 ®
g Ag �
�111 J.
o�
11 SPR I \ 10 SPR I
6VAD 1 ZOO ho GARAGE °o / \
O C, 0� GFE = 958.5 N 957.6
951- / / I �� // 0i
°o 14.00 954.30 Q
___ 7.00 �4 -- - - - - -- - F5.
QQ 37.00 04 o 1 N / /
WOODED AREA g5 3-m �'r // \ �� 95 a I EXISTING HOUSE 5530 0 / // / a3s 0
o o, Q VINEHILL ROAD
�. — TRI 12 MAP 0 I ro. _ - (TO BE REMOVED AFTER
_ -15.0 ' '' �95h o- N 5 _ ?� CONSTRUCTS 957.a M/
EXISTING HOUSE - I �' I y6rO� ® �� 956' , - LL ` i \
19320 WATERFORD o I \
PLACE `F 7.00 7.00' o / \/ / I I ,(93.3
I ter; r)I / O I ' i
- S m oo s.00 4.00 �.00� j QP� / ~ - - - - I / -952 - --
\ EE LINE f - - 35 FO SETBACK
I \ - - 11.00 g��3�P cFE: SILT FENCE MUST- - -L / I I
\\ QO I 957.57 CBE PLAC t� IN THIS 10 SP _j TO
\ \ \ II I / Q�C �� r- J 957. / HOUSE DEMO PRIOR ION
SPR ! 3
6 SPR II mI 195 ?'C / 5 10 SPR ----958- \ ( / / I -951- .
I I I 22 MAP 22 1AAPl
\ \ \ �� `r/ < T MI I I I I I I _ / _ _ `✓ _ p;' 12 SPR p4j6 /
D
0:�/19 MP 7
2P�R
— — — 957 - - 957 - -
�77.M6N. MMT'S1GN '
T 9 '— � SNMH 50 -3 I
16 / 1 ^ 9 SPR 9 SPR _. — 0 SPR 9y� I '':
•" - = 950 - '
( \ �9Sg— CCU - 955 - - ` - - - - - - - - - - -RIM: 950.48
s52.5 - - - - _ - ` / INV: 936.00 OSI
_ - _ _ ' FALLS WIVINP2 FOOTS
9s2\ 1 sue\ N90�00�00��W 14 =AP _ - M r -�'� 2 MAP �gy1 11 MAP '950 DIAMETER RACK I
949
--/ - •953. - .953.. _. -- --------'�-\- -- — \\ -- - -- 1. \
,r - ROCK CONSTRUCTION X953
m ENT— E �� 1 - - -� % /. BENCHMARK:
—- INV ®SERVICE WYE:. TNH 951:88
'
x:936.35 (CALCULATED FROM I
..
,° • AS- -BUILT PLANS) \
SNMH 6 -7 °m
W A T E f? F 0 R D f) L. r; C, E. RIM: 952.00
INV: 940.00 I
Exhibit C
PROPOSED SITE PLAN
REAR ELEVATION
LEFT ELEVATION
kmaillm
e \�
■■■■■
■■■■■
11 I�) I�I 11
11__11
u ll 11 11
RIGHT ELEVATION
1111911711 IEI IIII �I _ __ ICI Iii ICI ICI
®. ,.,; lil ICI �i ICI ICI ICI ICI lil +;�; _:al; [0� ICI mini ICI
ICI ICI s HE
Exhibit D
PROPOSED BUILDING ELEVATIONS
FRONT ELEVATION
1 /4°= P-9
5530 Vine Hill Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
To whom it may concern:
I am writing to request a conditional use permit that would allow my family and me to live in our current house
while building a new house on the same lot. Our current house is small and has several deficiencies including a
recurring mold smell as a result of a flooded basement the week we bought it. With two young kids, doing a
major addition /remodel to the existing house is not an option as there is really no 100% guarantee that the
mold can be completely mitigated. We certainly have tried many things and the mold smell is still present.
As we started to look into building new, the placement quickly came front and center. We looked at the lot
without bias of where the current house is. We concluded that rather than the house being placed in the front
1 /3rd of the lot, the more reasonable placement is the open and sloping middle to rear 2 /3rds. Waterford PI
was not present at the construction of the current house which made the placement more reasonable at the
time. However, if this lot was to be developed now, a house as we are proposing would be consistent with the
Waterford development and would look far more natural and appealing to the neighbors all around. The
proposed placement would also provide the beautiful sight lines that this lot as to offer if the home is correctly
placed while distancing itself from the busy and at times noisy Vine Hill Road. Furthermore, this placement
would allow the driveway for the home to come off of Waterford PI instead of Vine Hill Road eliminating the
often times dangerous exit out onto Vine Hill Road. The combination of the adjacent hill and the frequent cars
make it difficult to safely enter Vine Hill Road especially in the slippery winter months.
The impact of this conditional use would be minimal and mostly positive. The views and enjoyment of
neighboring properties would not be decreased as they are orientated towards some of the same views that we
are trying to achieve. That is, the neighboring properties don't have homes that back up to our lot, so for the
most part when inside of their homes they would rarely see the change. One change that they may see is an
uptick in property values as the small deficient house is replaced with a larger more cosmetically appealing and
energy efficient house. Obviously, we are going to benefit from not having to uproot our family for a temporary
move and we will save 4 -6 months of rent. However, as previously mentioned this placement is the reasonable
and nature location for this house and would be the chose even if the current house had never been built or is
destroyed first.
Please consider my request to build a quality house with the correct placement and safe access while allowing
us to live in the current house. Please also consider a provision that would allow an extension of the 6 month
building timeframe if it becomes unobtainable due to unforeseen circumstances. The current timeline has the
construction taking over 5 months, so it would not take many delays to push it to 6.
Thank you
I /Q
Todd oCeebbulla
Exhibit E
APPLICANT'S REQUEST LETTER
RON JOHNSON
April 3, 2015
Planning Commission
City of Shorewood
5755 Country Club Road
Shorewood, MN 55331
5355 Shady Hills Circle
Shorewood, MN 55331
952- 474 -8171 r
CEIAV-E-1.
fJ
Re: Cebulla Proposed Development, City Memo dated April 1, 2015.
Dear Planning Commission Members:
I have a copy of the City Planner, Mr. Nielsen's Memo dated April 1, 2015 regarding neighbor,
Mr. Cebulla's request for a conditional use permit to construct a new house with larger footprint
on the 5530 Vine Hill Rd. site but facing instead Waterford Place. Our position is: we have no
objection to what Mr. Cebulla wishes to do with his property and consider it none of our
business. However, the City has not yet resolved the municipal drainage issues which will
additionally adversely affect our property from the increased hard surfaced development.
As the City and our neighbors are aware, grandma Dee Johnson operates our family's 20+ acre
Shorewood market farm, 5400 Block Vine Hill Rd., along with 3 grandsons with assistance by
their parents who reside at the 5490 Vine Hill Rd. site on the farm.
As the City approved adjoining developments, private and City, 1984 to 2014 (and now in 2015),
the City never fixed the resultant municipal storm water flooding of our farm leaving us to the
tasks of coping with this problem and maintaining the numerous City open sewers the City
created or uses on our property including our farm drainage ditch the City dammed -up.
Instead of fixing these problems in reasonable compromise our engineer, MFRA, suggested, the
City preferred to litigate the issues. So far the City spent (wasted), all for naught, at least 10
times more than the $50,000 MFRA in 1995 told the City the fixes would cost.
Recently, Hennepin County District Court Chief Judge Cahill suggested to me in no uncertain
terms that I should appeal the City's lawsuit. This appeal to the Minnesota Court of Appeals is
currently pending. The papers were also served on the County as a party.
As I understand it, the Court of Appeals should examine its two prior opinions, law of the City's
case (which the district court cannot examine), in light of the City's actions and inactions since
those opinions issued. For example, on February 17, 2012 Mr. Nielsen candidly told federal,
state and local officials that the court jury ordered the City to fix the flooding (paraphrasing).
TEP Meeting Minutes. This occurred as follows:
In January 2012 then -City Engineer, Mr. Landini, caused the DNR to issue a cease & desist
(farming) order (CDO) basically claiming that we were disturbing soil without an earth alteration
permit. (Shortly thereafter, Mr. Landini was no longer employed by the City). City hall's
position in twisted logic, expressed or implied, was the municipal flooding created a regulated
incidental "wetland" on our property which precluded any economic use by us, so the City
adding flood waters would not cause any harm.
As a result of the 2012 CDO, a state Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Technical Evaluation
Panel (TEP) action was convened seeking to force my family's compliance with the Act.
Hennepin County's Environmentalist was a TEP participant as were the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' officials. Ultimately, the Minnesota Board of Water & Soil Resources (BWSR)
along with its University of Minnesota soils consultant, determined the site was a "non - wetland"
and "no WCA violation" occurred, recommending the CDO be rescinded and it was by the DNR
in November 2012. I'd guess the City spent (wasted) about $100,000 on this action all for
naught. (3 helicopter flyovers, survey crew, 2 dozen government employees, spanning about a
year). The City refused to remove the site from its "wetland" district zoning map, symbols
shown on Mr. Nielsen's Cebulla Memo, exhibit A.
Bottomline, in conjunction with this proposed 2014 project, the Planning Commission must
address the City's stormwater situation for the area including my family's farm.
Sincerely,
/s/
Ron Johnson
Cc: Mayor and City Council
Hennepin County Board of Commissioners
WSB Associates, Inc., City contract engineers
PS: As City contract engineers, WSB in late 2009 told the City it was okay to discharge pool
and sump pump waters from a west adjoining development onto our property.
In 2010 WSB assisted Mr. Landini prepare applications for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) and Minnehaha Creek Watershed District permits for the City to construct an entirely
new water level control structure (dam) in our farm drainage ditch.
In 1998 WSB prepared City concept plans to improve our ditch for City use, plans a newly
elected City Council declined to discuss or implement. WSB was aware of the 1996
authorization by the Corps that we had the right to maintain our farm drainage dich to its original
dimensions, depth and width; our right the City and WSB ignored.
2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Planning Commission, Mayor and City Council
FROM: Brad Nielsen
DATE: 2 April 2015
RE: MCES C.U.P. for Lift Station Facility
FILE NO.: 405 (15.04)
BACKGROUND
Metropolitan Council Environmental Services (MCES) currently operates a sanitary sewer lift
station at 21445 State Highway 7 (see Site Location map - Exhibit A, attached). The existing
facility is located on a permanent easement over property owned by the City of Shorewood: The ,
property was acquired through a tax forfeiture process for the purpose of making improvements
to the intersection of Christmas Lake Road and Highway 7 and for general drainage purposes.
MCES now proposes to replace its existing lift station, much of which is above - ground, with a
below - ground lift station and a small building for controls and a lavatory. The proposal is very
thoroughly described in Exhibit B, attached, and illustrated in Exhibit C. Since "governmental
and public regulated utility buildings and structures" in residential zoning districts are listed as
conditional uses in the Shorewood Zoning Code, MCES is requesting a conditional use permit,
pursuant to Section1201.10 Subd. 4.a. of the Code.
The subject property contains approximately 2.9 acres of land, much of which is occupied by
wetland. It is occupied by the MCES lift station, which includes the storage of a large portable
generator used by MCES. Once zoned for commercial use, the property in question was rezoned
to R -IA/S, Single- Family Residential /Shoreland when the City acquired it. Land uses and
zoning surrounding the site are as follows:
North: State Highway 7, then offices located in Excelsior and Greenwood; zoned
commercial
®�
I� ®�® PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
Memorandum
Re: MCES C.U.P.
2 April 2015
West: Church located in Excelsior; zoned residential
South: Single - family homes; zoned R -lA/S
East: Single - family homes and the Christmas Lake Public Access; zoned R -lA/S,
MCES has requested an additional easement for their new facility as shown on Exhibits C -2 and
C -4, which would take up approximately one -half of the total site. As an alternative, they would
offer to acquire ownership of the entire parcel.
As illustrated in Exhibit C, the existing above - ground structure, located in the very southeast
corner of the site, would be replaced with a below - ground wet well and a small brick building
housing control equipment and a bathroom. The facility would be served by a new driveway and
a small parking lot, best illustrated on Exhibit C -8. To satisfy Watershed District requirements, a
small drainage pond will be constructed on the north side of the proposed building. The building
measures 13.4' x 20', about the size of a single -car garage. Plans for the building are included in
Exhibits C -10 and C -11. A photo of the type of building proposed is shown on Exhibit B -6.
ANALYSIS/RECOMMENDATION
A. Zoning. The proposed site plan for the property complies in all respects with R -IA/S
zoning requirements. The new facility meets or'exceeds the 50 -foot front and side -yard-
abutting -a- street requirements. Impervious surface resulting from the project will be
approximately four percent of the total land area. The proposed use of the property is
regulated by Section 1201.10 Subd. 4.A., which contains two criteria for "governmental
and public regulated utility buildings and structures necessary for the health, safety and
general welfare of the community ":
1. When abutting a residential use in any residential use district, the property is
screened and landscaped in compliance A,ith § 1201.03, Subd. 2.g. of this chapter;
The applicant indicates that the proposed site plan will impact approximately 50 trees
on the site, most of which are cottonwood or ash trees. Exhibit C -8 shows the
applicant's plan for tree replacement and screening. It is worth noting that the trees
that are impacted are either undesirable trees or trees that will likely have to be
removed over the next 6 -8 years due to disease. In addition, what is currently a
somewhat unkempt facility very near the corner will be moved back from the street.
The current corner location will be restored.
2. The provisions of § 1201.04, Subd. 1. d. (1) are considered and satisfactorily met;
This section of the Code is essentially a "catch all" related to compliance with the
Shorewood Comprehensive Plan and ensuring compatibility with the surrounding
area. In this regard, the proposal is considered to be a significant improvement over
the existing conditions.
-2-
Memorandum
Re: MCES C.U.P.
2 April 2015
The applicant has requested that the zoning provision requiring perimeter curbing around
the parking lot be waived. As noted in the City Engineer's memorandum — Exhibit D,
staff does not recommend such a "waiver ". This would require a variance, for which no
application has been submitted.
B. Easement vs Ownership. Staff recommends that the applicant acquire ownership of the
entire parcel, deeding back a drainage and utility easement over the wetland area and the
necessary piping for the Christmas Lake overflow mentioned in the City Engineer's
report. Transfer of the ownership should be subject to the City Attorney's direction.
It is recommended that the conditional use permit for MCES be granted subject to
recommendations herein and those of the City Engineer. The applicant has requested that
instead of requiring a cash escrow or letter of credit to ensure completion of necessary
improvements, an agreement to that effect be executed. We have asked the City Attorney to
comment on this issue and advise us whether conditions in the C.U.P. and on the sale of the
property are adequate to guarantee completion of improvements (parking and landscaping).
Cc: Bill Joynes
Tim Keane
Paul Hornby
Larry Brown
Bryce Pickart
-3-
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project consists of removing the existing underground MCES Sanitary Sewer Lift Station L18,
located at the intersection of Christmas Lake Road and Third Avenue, and replacing it with a new
facility on the city -owned parcel at 21445 State Hwy No 7, Shorewood, MN 55331 (PID
3511723130010).
Existing Lift Station
The original facility constructed in the early 1970s consists of a precast concrete wet well,
prefabricated steel lift station structure and above ground backup generator. The above - ground
equipment such as electrical boxes and lift station entrance will be removed. Un- needed piping
and structures will be removed or abandoned. Needed subsurface structures and piping will
remain in service. The generator will be relocated to the new site.
New Lift Station
The new lift station consist of a below ground wet well and valve vault with an above - ground
structure for controls and lavatory. A new asphalt driveway will be constructed from Third
Avenue to the west side of the lift station. The existing generator from the existing lift station will
be relocated for use with the new lift station. A storm water pond will be constructed north of the
lift station. All areas disturbed during construction will be restored, re- forested, and landscaped.
Forcemain for the New Lift Station
The existing 8 -inch forcemain, which runs along the west side of Christmas Lake Road to
Excelsior Blvd in Greenwood, will be realigned to serve the new lift station. A second 8 -inch
forcemain will be installed parallel to the existing 8 -inch forcemain in order to provide improved
system reliability.
Utility Services for the New Lift Station
The new lift station will require a 1.5 -inch water service from the City of Excelsior's 8 -inch
watermain located in Third Avenue approximately 70 feet west of the Shorewood City. The City
of Excelsior has been contacted regarding this service extension and has no objection to it.
ZONING
The lift station project is located in a Single - Family Residential (R -1A) zoning district. The lift station is a
government facility. Governmental and public regulated utility buildings and structures are allowed in
Single - Family Residential (R -1A) zoning district by a Conditional Use Permit (1201.10, Subd 4a).
PROPERTY OWNERSHIP (1201.03 Subd 2c)
The existing MCES lift station is located on a permanent easement on a city -owned parcel (PID
3511723130010). This city -owned parcel is a tax forfeiture property which has been conveyed to the
City of Shorewood by Hennepin County under a conditional use deed. The stated use on the deed is
"relocation of Christmas Lake Road and its interception with Highway 7 to improve the safety of the
intersection." MCES proposes to acquire additional permanent easement for the new lift station from
the City of Shorewood. The permanent easement area is approximately 166' by 250' (approximately 1.4
acres) as shown on the Easement Exhibit. Alternatively, MCES would be willing to acquire the entire
parcel from the city if the city prefers.
According to Hennepin County tax - forfeit property rights can be transferred in three ways:
Exhibit B
APPLICANT'S PROJECT NARRATIVE
Page - 3 1 February 27, 20151 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
• Through an administrative process, ownership can be transferred to another eligible entity or an
easement can be granted.
• Through the legal process, eminent domain can be employed to convey either easements or
ownership.
Whichever process is preferred by the city, MCES requests that this CUP application be processed
concurrently with the acquisition process.
BUILDING AND SITE (1201.03, Subd. 4, 1201.10 Subd 4)
• Building location
As shown on the Site and Utility Plan, the building and site layout meet the requirements of City Code
1201.03 Subd 5 for R -1A zoning and Subd 6c for number and location of buildings. The entrance has
been located in Third Avenue as requested by city staff. The building location meets the all setback
requirements.
Parking and Loading (1201.03, Subd. 5 and 6)
As shown on the Site and Utility Plan, the parking area will be wide enough for three 10 feet x 23 feet
perpendicular parking spaces. Since the proposed facility will not allow public parking MCES requests
that MCES requests that the requirements for perimeter curbing and striping be waived.
No on- street parking, off -site parking, or loading berths are proposed.
Lot Area and Setbacks (1201. 10, Subd 5)
As shown on the Easement Exhibit, the easement area is approximately 250 feet x 250 feet (61,668
square feet) which meets the minimum requirements below.
a. 40,000 square foot minimum;
b. 120 foot minimum width
c. 150 foot minimum depth
As shown on the Site and Utility Plan, the building setbacks meet the following requirements:
a. Front yard setback (from 3rd Avenue) is 50 feet
b. Rear yard (Highway 7) is greater than 50 feet;
c. Side yard setbacks exceed 10 feet on the west side (abuts city property) and 50 feet on the east
side (abuts Christmas Lake Road).
The Site and Utility Plan and Main Level Plan show the location and size of all existing and proposed
structures_ . In.addition, the Easement Plans shows the easements and encroachments crossing the
property.
Building height (1201.10, Subd 6)
Building height is shown on Exterior Elevations. The eave height is 10 feet from ground level to the
soffit and the roof height is 13 feet from ground level to the peak. The building height meets the
following requirements:
a. Less than two and one -half stories
b. Less than 35 feet high
Page - 4 1 February 27, 2015 1 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
Signage (1201.03, Subd. 11)
Signage consisting of an address sign and site identification sign, both conforming to 1201.03 Subd
11 e, are proposed. For the benefit of emergency services MCES requests the City of Shorewood
assign a Third Avenue address for the new Lift Station as part of the project development process.
• Drainage and Wetlands (1201.03, Subd. 2e and 11)
The Grading and Drainage Plan were submitted for review via email to the City Engineer on February
18, 2015. The on -site wetland (Manage 2 Classification) boundaries have been delineated and are
shown on the Grading and Drainage Plan. The site has been designed to avoid impacts to on -site
wetlands. MCES applied for a Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) storm water permit on
February 12, 2015 and will comply with the terms of the permit. The watershed requires a drainage
pond as shown on Grading and Drainage Plan. No portion of the site is in the 100 year floodplain.
The existing drainage pipe running through the property shown on the Grading and Drainage Plan will
remain in service and will be protected from damage during construction.
Fencing and screening (1201.03, Subd. 2f)
As shown on in the Landscaping Plan a row of four, six -foot tall spruce trees is proposed for screening
of the backup generator. This fence is approximately 75 feet (minimum of 8 feet) from the nearest
property line and is located in the rear yard area of the site.
In accordance with requirement (9)b(ii), fencing material will be 6 feet high and constructed of
alternating wood slats spaced less than 6 inches apart. Although the screening will not create a
complete enclosure, a gate will be furnished .
MCES requests that the construction permit for the fence be included in the overall building permit for
the project.
Screening and Landscaping (1201.03, Subd. 2g)
Since the project is in a residential district the screening and landscaping requirements of City Code
1201.03 Subd 2g will be met.
As shown on the Landscape Plans, the disturbed areas of the site will be restored and re- forested in
accordance with the tree preservation ordinance. A cluster of coniferous trees will be used to screen
the generator from Third Avenue. The trash dumpster will be screened with a 6' high wood fence in
accordance with city requirements.
No vegetation in excess of 30" in height will be placed in the intersection triangle per 1201.03, Subd.
2h.
• Tree preservation and Re- forestation (1201.03, Subd 2g)
Construction is anticipated to impact approximately 50 trees. These are all either cottonwood or green
ash. The site has been laid out to avoid impacts to significant trees. Removed trees will be replaced in
accordance with tree preservation ordinance. Since there are many trees on the site, reforestation will
occur at the maximum rate of 8 trees per acre. This equates to approximately 12 trees within the 1.4
acre site. See Landscape Plan for planting locations.
Page - 5 1 February 27, 2015 1 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
• City Services (1201.04, Subd 1 d(d))
The new lift station will require a 1.5" city water service. Since Shorewood does not serve this part of
the city with watermain, the service will be extended from the City of Excelsior's watermain in 3rd
Avenue (approximately 300 feet to the west). MCES has contacted the City of Excelsior regarding the
extension of water service to the site and they support the service extension (see Site and Utility Plan).
MCES is willing to include construction of city watermain as part of this project through a cooperative
construction agreement. Such an agreement would need to be executed prior to bidding. MCES would
also need Shorewood and Excelsior to provide specific designs and details for the work, including
service sizes and locations. MCES would accept responsibility for acquiring the MDH permit for the
watermain extension.
Architectural Design (1201.03, Subd 4, 7)
The Exterior Elevations and Example photograph illustrate the exterior wall colors and finishes for the
proposed building. The materials, colors, and roof line were selected to be complimentary to the
residential setting and nearby neighborhood.
The existing backup generator will be relocated for re -use to a new location approximately 50 feet from
the roadway. It will be screened as described in the Screening and Landscaping subsection above.
No roof -top equipment is proposed as part of the project.
MITIGATION MEASURES FOR POTENTIAL IMPACTS (1201.03, Subd 2, 1201.04, Subd 1d(1))
• Glare (1201.03, Subd. 2i)
Site lighting will consist of two security lights mounted on the south and west walls of the building.
These will be aimed to minimize glare beyond the property. A pole- mounted work light will also be
installed for use in case of emergency night work. It will be manually operated and only lit when
needed. As shown on the Site Photometric Plan the lighting glare leaving the site has been minimized.
• Dust, Smoke and Odor (1201.03, Subd. 2j, k, 1)
Upon completion of construction, the proposed facility will not generate dust or smoke. MCES has
received no odor complaints at the existing facility. Therefore, since the new facility will be set back
further from the street that the existing facility; no odor issues are anticipated.
Noise (1201.03, Subd. 2m)
MCES has received no noise complaints at the existing facility. Little or no additional noise emissions
are anticipated for the new facility. The pump motors will be underground and HVAC equipment will be
internal. The same backup generator will be used and its new location will be further back than its
existing location.
IM
Page - 6 1 February 27, 2015 1 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
• Trash (1201.03, Subd. 2n -s)
MCES has an existing contract for weekly trash pickup. The proposed facility will be serviced through
this contract.
• Hours of Operation (1201.03, Subd. 2t)
Except in the case of emergency, the proposed facility will be serviced between the hours of 7:00am
and 4:00pm.
• - Impervious Surface (1201.03, Subd. 2u )
The proposed facility will add approximately 4,800 sf of impervious surface to the site. All impervious
surfaces from the existing site will be removed and restored. Using the proposed easement area of
62,000 sf the ratio of impervious area to lot area is approximately 8 %.
MCES has applied for a Minnehaha Creek Watershed District (MCWD) storm water permit. See
Drainage and Wetlands subsection above.
• Traffic (1201.04)
The site will not generate any additional traffic. Vehicle parking areas will move from the unpaved
roadside currently used to a paved parking area about 50' from the street. The driveway has been
located on 3rd Avenue to avoid impacts to Christmas Lake Road.
PROJECT SCHEDULE
The following is MCES schedule for the project:
• Design — Plans & Specifications — 2015
• Start Construction — Spring 2016
• Complete Construction — Fall 2017
B -5
Page - 7 1 February 27, 20151 METROPOLITAN COUNCIL
-4
w
N
z
0
F
F
m
G
3
0
'o
a
N
O 6t
w
2 a
8
a �
G
N
I:
ov
EXCELSIOR AREA IMPROVEMENTS
LIFT STATION L18, METER M458A & M458B
MCES PROJECT 802854
METROPOLITAN COUNCIL CON-TRACT XXPXXX..I
— -1 I r 11
VICINITY MAP
NO SCALE
SHEETINDEX
SHEET DISCIPLINE SHEET NUMBER SHEET DESCRIPTION
GENERAL G1 TITLE SHEET \
G2 LOCATION PLAN
G3 LOCATION PLAN - AERIAL
CIVIL Cl EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN —
C2 DEMOLITION PLAN
C3 SITE & UTILITY PLAN X E ORB
C4 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN �� '' - -;`,
L1 LANDSCAPE PLAN
L2 PLANTING DETAILS
ARCHITECTURAL Al MAIN LEVEL PLAN
A2 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
ELECTRICAL E1 SITE PHOTOMETRIC HIGHWAY
REFERENCE - EASEMENT EXHIBIT
13 TOTAL SHEETS (�
LOCATION MAP
NO SCALE
LIFE ATIO
L18
CHRISTMAS
LAKE
A
oEamm Ire+ a<rw�mtror�wxs�uncx.aaneanws�xa� �°�T I I
ar�muoalwola�rarelaeouHOntali .u6dxruraa� 802854 1
TNm proF0600xrLdwlEEnllilfllTElAN9aF1NEHf�lEOFwtJ3orw LIFTSTAWNLl8 Exhibit C
CON111101U1 USEPER►IRSIR69�TAL ou ldfi ra�xvE ®(y., eT
2335 High" 36W PROJECT' PLANS
rawae ro atE ar nawam °�� 1PED6tq°"® 2854G00001 TIT SHEET
SL Pau4 MN 55713
REVISIDNS REVISIONS TGD an: rmw wv Manfe com
0
0
8
3
0
N ..
I 1 / I 7 V I I I I I I I 1 I/ ;;2 z
I II I I I I r' #21270 �
#21\1-30
// / // rn dl #21500 1 1 I I I 1 1 #21320 -
85 CEL I PARIWLIA CEL I #21350
185 I #1 87 88 #21500 _ 421470 I 1 1 II
`CEL I 215.J� CE -._� 1 #21350
F - -- `1 #2'1450 I I #21420 1
rm X14 I 21380 _
= - - #21000 ,'
OHP - -" OHP OHP� O P NP OH0. — ON_ _ - gOOO
i
#21380
#21500 - _ . / I/• '� /� / 5� I
.<� #21550 #21450
.` #19
z #21195 I
1 w
• �� �� O //' � #21235
I , • w / I
z ' #21265 I
/
#21285
' J / HIGNWAY 7 PPfvy \ \
I % \
�u w I I I O \
z I I I 1 na
u a 1 II 1 Z \
4 a III 11 "
M.
_M^. IFF -0
C T
JITIIU.Y�
#5560 I ` vEarzwEnT In.�lnrE S�
1 01 I
1111 \ � JS SEMI 8 ��ICYCI __
NEW 1.5" WATER SERVICE
CURB STOP l�y\r _ --
CONNECT TOCITY _ _�– ��I � � Fslsrer
OF EXCELSIOR 8" — – I IRD AVENUE EXISTING L18 LIFT
WM – STATION SEE \ E TIS RCP
#5690 OFBR ROAD 1 ETIIST SAV 0.W
I� G2 \
8" PLUG - p I \
r - o i / o So 100 \ 1 EXISTING L18 LIFT STATION
Ir HY-0 J o o CHRISTMAS LAKE / 0 SO 20
z
#148 w I = #149 #150 #5710 Y SCALE `
. u g SCALE
d
osalum IB3�f asR rrrnulwvxePanwlarwRRaartivsPRaum PM6f
H � m um1 w or+FCr mrratvvul Ho nur uu w our uraem
a T" 802854
w , LIFI' STATION 118
� �I1Wu olromol�LLa�eeuulasalrk � �,� "�""` C -2
z are M are RsltHa deu>9��I® 2335 Highway 36 W
St Paul, MN 55113 2854600002 LOCATION PLAN
REVISIONS REVISIONS 7GD are mw wwwsianfe '..
3
v
E
8
h
x
y
0
a
G
3
0
u
N
N �
�W
m
>a
3
E,
3
o_
%ra
w�
i
PAFCEL
85
#1
r PARCEL
I i e�
rl \ #21270
#21500 #21320
PARCELPARCEL #21350 " - OHp
87 81 #21500 - _ #21470
/ i
/521550 PARCEL�.9: - _ -� --- #21450 #21420 #2135Q
i.
# 1420 #21380
#21000
—
oHiP oHP
-- - - - -_ o oHP - DHP - - OHP. OFiP� - OHP _ ®sv _ �., , f 1 / "- ,/' �N�-
° /
#21380 �i' CP
-." #21500 I -
�/
#21550 #21450
#21195
i�
#21265
#21285 \
9p P
APO 4
� ry
1'
+Y1f ® � �I ( I✓ - i I PEFUL4NEPT
4F 11 �a�
... .,. .. �� y •� #5560
-? IRD AVENUE EXISTING L18 LIFT
STATION SEE 1 1 easnsacPl
»5690 \ \ eoce oFerr ROnnJ
g S / 0 50 100 \ 1 EXISTING L18 LIFT STATION
w 6O CHRISTMAS LAKE /
� SCAB Ci 0 10 20
#148 u I 0 4149 #150 #5710 = Y \
u g / SCALE
C -4
oa�a®
nmar r[ anYTnvme,wis�rnuiwx.oaxsanrwHaT�
�r
mll
ar�muoe (wu�e�re(ve�oxuonuriiu�ourtmwm
vwravonriewn +tauoFn,�ureaP,xeeareor�r+�ou
2335 HlghWay36 W
St. P-L MN 55113
wwwstantec.com
802854
LIFE STATION 1.18
LA EMSTING CONDITIONS PN
o r„
HI
flu
mwmmwtEiERSU &WIT,a
"EN9E
2854000001
w
wre
nexvam
w
MR
S
TW
rp®p(q� ®..•��
a>E now
REVISIONS
REVISIONS
C -4
TREE REMOVAL
NO
SURVEY POINT NO
DIAMETER I
DESCRIPTION
SIGNIFICANT TREE
TREE REPLACEMENT
1
1156
7
GREEN ASH
NO
NO
2
1155
9
GREEN ASH
NO
NO
3
1154
7
BOX -ELDER
NO
NO
4
1158
12
GREEN ASH
YES
YES
5
1159
8
GREEN ASH
NO
NO
6
1160
8
GREEN ASH
NO
NO
7
1161
7
GREEN ASH
NO
NO
8
1162
7
GREEN ASH
NO
NO
9
1166
10
GREEN ASH
NO
NO
10
1167
6
BOX -ELDER
NO
NO
11
1061
16
GREEN ASH
YES
YES
12
1062
8
GREEN ASH
NO
NO
13
1138
11
GREEN ASH
NO
NO
14
1137
14
GREENASH
YES
YES
15
1136
10
GREEN ASH
NO
NO
16
1139
13
GREEN ASH
YES
YES
17
1140
11
GREEN ASH
NO
NO
18
1141
9
GREEN ASH
NO
NO
19
1165
6
GREEN ASH
NO
NO
20
1164
12
BOX -ELDER
NO
NO
21
1163
16
GREEN ASH
YES
YES
22
1127
15
WILLOW
NO
NO
23
1 1142
9
BOX -ELDER
NO
NO
24
1143
12
BOX -ELDER
NO
NO
25
1145
8
GREEN ASH
NO
NO
26
1144
10
GREEN ASH
NO
NO
27
1070
8
GREEN ASH
NO
NO
28
1071
7
GREEN ASH
NO
NO
29
1081
9
COTTONWOOD
NO
NO
30
1080
20
COTTONWOOD
NO
NO
31
1079
9
COTTONWOOD
NO
NO
32
078
1 167-
8
COTTONWOOD
NO
NO
33
1083
14
BOX -ELDER
NO
NO
34
1084
11
BOX -ELDER
NO
NO
35
1085
12
ELM
YES
YES
36
1088
29
COTTONWOOD
NO
NO
37
1097
8
COTTONWOOD
NO
NO
38
1096
11
ELM
NO
NO
39
1100
7
ELM
NO
NO
40
1101
27
COTTONWOOD
NO
NO
41
1107
5
ELM
NO
NO
42
1106
15
COTTONWOOD
NO
NO
43
1104
28
OOTTCNWOOD
NO
NO
44
1105
23
COTTONWOOD
NO
NO
45
1109
10
ELM
NO
NO
46
1108
11
ELM
NO
NO
City of Shorewood Tree Replacement Policy
Tree Replacement
Significant IIees Rollo
Hardwood Ceciduous Two 3" Caliper
8" DBH OR GREATER Deciduous Trees or
Two 6 coniferous
Trees
Hardwood & Softwood Deciduous
Three 3" Calier
12" DBH or Greater p
Deciduous Trees or
Three Conlfwou; Trees
Conifero VS Tree 6' to Less than 17 One 6' Coniferous
Tree
Conifero us Tree 12' or Higher Two 6' Coniferous
Trees
`DBH - Diameter at breast height
'Box - cider, Cottonwood, and W Ilow Trees shall not be consdered to be signtficanf trees.
'Green Ah & Elm trees are considered to be softwood.
'In no case will the total number of replacement hoes exceed eight (8) trees per acre.
Easement Area= 61,66B.,-S .Ft. /1.41./- Acres = 112812 Re IammentTrees
I
I
I
I
1
�
I
I
j
I
TREE PROTECTION BARRIERS:
1. ACTIVE PROTECTIVE TREE (FENCING) SHALL BE INSTALLED ALONG THE OUTER EDGE OF AND COMPLETELY SURROUNDING THE
CRITICAL ROOT ZONES OF ALL SPECIMEN TREES OR STANDS OF TREES, OR OTHERWISE DESIGNATED TREE PROTECTIVE ZONES,
PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION.
2. FENCES SHALL BE A MINIMUM FOUR FEET (4� HIGH. ORANGE POLYETHYLENE LAMINAR SAFETY FENCING IS ACCEPTABLE.
ALL TREE PROTECTION ZONES SHALL BE DESIGNATED AS SUCH WITH "TREE SAVE AREA" SIGNS POSTED VISIBLY ON ALL SIDES OF
3. THE FENCED AREA. THESE SIGNS ARE INTENDED TO INFORM SUBCONTRACTORS OF THE TREE PROTECTION PROCESS. SIGNS
REQUESTING SUBCONTRACTOR COOPERATION AND COMPLIANCE WITH TREE PROTECTION STANDARDS ARE RECOMMENDED
FOR SITE ENTRANCES.
ALL TREE FENCING BARRIERS MUST BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO AND MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL NOT BE
4. REMOVED UNTIL COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION AND AFTER LANDSCAPING IS INSTALLED.
?�k
,,-
s 1 REVISIONS
REVISIONS
TREE PROTECTION NOTICE:
1. CONTACT THE CITY PLANNING DEPT. AT (952) 474-3236 TO ARRANGE A "____ '
__ _ CPT L -1891
PRECONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE WITH THE CITY ZONING - I - - N = 140423.91
ADMINISTRATOR PRIOR TO ANY LAND DISTURBANCE, _ F-- -`' F - "
E = 456496 99
2. ALLTREE PROTECTION MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIORTO
CONSTRUCTION. t •�\��
3. CONTACT THE CITY -5 11ds
Y OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING DEPT. FOR A SITE _ _ " " s - - ._
INSPECTION UPON COMPLETION OF LANDSCAPE INSTALLAT ION.
111.3`ELMA 46 -
LEGEND - _ __ - T \ 1111 /1110 11 443 �), 11074i. •�� �' ,
ati a / 20'GTV D W l7 ° °L%' A 1
X TREE TO BE REMOVED i - \I 20MlLLW 16'ASHG
11 4 f��ti
/ 14215' 0 _ \
10.57EL. // 9TD I \ 1 It _t o
10 ELMA 1 1101
1112 1114 ��'�
�ul� .. _.. il� \ 10T1) \\ \ € '� b
I n �6.7°ASWG \� 10039"\ �
1 ' \ /
� � � �.7°ELG�V �l, m � / � � . I(/ I • ��
i
12.2'CTWD aPs0 II A v I
7.A1`QSH�
ill �lll� �llc 0llc
WETLAND "yizt vV I 3g10��1�s�A�&v I/
BOUNDARY / 10.9'ASHG 5°C ;T,ty'ASHG \ I A. \ � \ -- /A
/ / 12$1 ?3 104\1 1p5,,,,VVV B La183 \ 3 II
/ s „�y��> 42'CTW6 ' {111
1149 i PJS1 II \ \ k \, 1 371097
/
15ASHG o � /I 1' 1 .5°CT/W ' i � I
114 \ I Y I
� 1a7 / / -IL � alL .6 °ASH6 a ,� /Q
I
E v�.s'BOXE 10 M
I
7124
1146
A ` V ( , 10' LW .
\\ 10912' LV \ PI DBL_r1112 � � D
/ I 9.2 °ASHG \ \�`_`_ A
1 261144 \ 24'C 7°ASHG `
2514698 , A SHG 1093
1 31 I -IZSASH0
C �7WLNT
"
I
/ 1143 1125 15 "Cj J .3')1
24
"t 112 �fI1G 1 °ASHL� I
11.5`80X82.3 CTWO I 1085'51
v 1126° X91.6 °E AA XLL V I
Ay 1135 AV 1 1084 34
j%TWD q�q 4AS1f G \ ' 111, BOXE�
23.1142 11:si 1 \ 1 I s
93`90 22 18.W.W411132 \li II 33�14`SEV \ I
127%1 i�1.4`W N \ l
/ 11631 1141 15.3` L W " - 129 HG 1( l\ ) \
.).1112 2101 �lll� / / __� - -___ - - �� e IWASHO �, °o w 713° .� '1\
SHG
19 0 11.41SHG 1130
139 15 `o AS HG II I 113.3 ASHG
.4 31154
72 °BOX 6ASH RELOCATED
\ I
l
GENERATOR \I I 1C/s31 Of- 328.3 c 17 D
__ 1137 i4 SHG , \ I,r TWO 17n
\\ - 2k9.5 "P3HG 411/58 - - -- _ 1 9 2 "ASHG TiSHG�BII\ 11 gp1000_7
\ 1156 %� 8 1162 FFi -- FM F�1 9 "C n 11
1 12.a °ASHG 5 X, VALVE r -1i-r \ ���i ,
\ 1 7"A HG 1160 6.9'ASHO \ -{' \ J s 1 -105 - \
�dL �1II�' / / 1159% 6 . VAULT �` L d1 1070 29913 °CTW 8� "To 4 24°
C / 1157 8.5 "ASHG i� 13' 27D 1 \
/ 7.D'ASHG 06"ASHG 1 30 18.3 "AS,G 1� fCTWD A / I
/. _ iQ 1161 WET 107V5 107311.TEOX
7 \ 11. "ASHG I /I O \ < / I
/i, - - 7°ASHG T.O.S. 936 I / 6.5 -XSNG ' v / I
1166 9 I 1 /, I I 0.7'BOXE
I A'ASHG
.1�A9v�2,/, 1°60 hh 100 IA /
10.4'CTWD 1171 �SHG
1
r 119x- T19t - - -- .4' CTWD
0 i ub�° 2 XC_n `�Jrl' - 40 \ _ 9 °A1S0H5G
.7 "CTWD '117A70 - 24'CTWD
wD 7 � a A1sr-i�I'\ 6Aa _ M 1- 0r6\ 91 14.3 °CTWD 1 169 66212 C . \ I l I , I ,
\ 1\ \,�," � / f /,� ....
WWI, / / // / /
46 10S -ASHG 8 °AS Gam SHE
l
/
<-
2L1• P 8:3 ASHr
/ 14 .8 "OTfiND
15.5°ASPNG� / SHG
/ 1194 9`ELF, D
'RELOCATE GENERATOR /
EXISTING y18 STATION / I
I TO BE- ABANDONED -
o
REMOVE GRAVEL
\ \ FURNISH & INSTALL
TOPSOIL- &SEED
THIRD AVENUE
3
M
ca
El
v
o�
m�
m�
a
LIFT STATION L18
R -1A ZONING, SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS
Description
Required
Permanent Easement (Provided)
Lot Area
Not Less than 40,000 SF
61,668 + / -SF
Lot Width
Not Less than 120 FT
215 FT
Lot Depth
Not Less than 150 FT
240 FT
Front Yard Setback
Not Less than 50 FT
50 FT
Rear Yard Setback
Not Less than 50 FT
195 FT
Side Yard Setback
Not Less than 10 FT 50 FT Abutting Street
85 FT
Building Height
Noo structure shall exceed rivo one -half
stries or 35 FT, whichever Is least
One Story, 15 to 20 FT in Height
i
�I t lk 0llt Alit
�Iltt
�Illt
All
�It
Alit
°i
�Illt
r�
it
r
.illit
.�Wt
�Wt
:�lllt
�Wt
AWL NIIIt
X&
At/
_uLt
Milt
0
CPT L -1841 _ ----- I - - - -- i
N = 140423.91
E = 456496.99
alt L
t}
\1I�
46
t�
�k
f'
AI, alt
WETLAND --
BOUNDARY
� 4
X - DETENTION
0 POND
zze!�N
c�
/ I 6' WOODED FENCE
DUMPSTER
Xll It \111/ — r 'llt __,rb
ti
60.6
15'
a Q, a >_y }� o
m \FAA.T ,
2X15 1 1 OOIDIIIO IJEEP8dUISLRUM
REVISIONS REVISIONS
0®R® Itv�f�tIFYM1Tn18RN�e�un
Bi IE QtLftlHi W0MEi0I8N90NM
To PNOf09CY'W. BI�®lUOa111E1A%8,
TM wre �nw
(I Stantec
mos:r
2335 HlghWay36 W
St. Paul MN 55113
W W WSt.ntCC.0
I
/
! 1 II\1 1
I I
! I ) 0
L 418 -3
b fTl I
I
P# L-118-2r �� ) 0 !I
Ay
-
.ve, I
�lllt
II' CATCH BASIN
RIM = 934.33 \�ya-
INV. = 930,03 ! I )
RELOCATED 5E{'BACK ) w II
GENERATOR LIGHT
VALVE FM FN r F r I
VAULT as h L�M
L " eY fs
f a +�7 xaa8 OUS ,� WEr
WELL CONDENSING I •Q ' l
T.O.S. 936 UNTI (COOLING)1
CONCRETE PAD I I 1 1
PROPOSED _ I MANHOLE A
POLE h°t `�,, CONTROL PANEL
EXISTING A ` \� %�r /
IlC s%ZF,P 9,PA D GENERATOR \
�L -18-1
11 R
EXISTING L18 STATION
NEW 1.5" WATER SERVICE 'P h EXISTING 36;EULVERT
° h
REMOVE GRAVEL
FURNISH & TOOIL- & SEED INSTALL _
PS
_____THIRD AVENUE
0 20 40
SCALE
802854
2854C00003
LIFT STATION L18
SITE & VIM PLAN
MH�Ilit
All
All
A14
AWL NIIIt
X&
At/
_uLt
Milt
0
CPT L -1841 _ ----- I - - - -- i
N = 140423.91
E = 456496.99
alt L
t}
\1I�
46
t�
�k
f'
AI, alt
WETLAND --
BOUNDARY
� 4
X - DETENTION
0 POND
zze!�N
c�
/ I 6' WOODED FENCE
DUMPSTER
Xll It \111/ — r 'llt __,rb
ti
60.6
15'
a Q, a >_y }� o
m \FAA.T ,
2X15 1 1 OOIDIIIO IJEEP8dUISLRUM
REVISIONS REVISIONS
0®R® Itv�f�tIFYM1Tn18RN�e�un
Bi IE QtLftlHi W0MEi0I8N90NM
To PNOf09CY'W. BI�®lUOa111E1A%8,
TM wre �nw
(I Stantec
mos:r
2335 HlghWay36 W
St. Paul MN 55113
W W WSt.ntCC.0
I
/
! 1 II\1 1
I I
! I ) 0
L 418 -3
b fTl I
I
P# L-118-2r �� ) 0 !I
Ay
-
.ve, I
�lllt
II' CATCH BASIN
RIM = 934.33 \�ya-
INV. = 930,03 ! I )
RELOCATED 5E{'BACK ) w II
GENERATOR LIGHT
VALVE FM FN r F r I
VAULT as h L�M
L " eY fs
f a +�7 xaa8 OUS ,� WEr
WELL CONDENSING I •Q ' l
T.O.S. 936 UNTI (COOLING)1
CONCRETE PAD I I 1 1
PROPOSED _ I MANHOLE A
POLE h°t `�,, CONTROL PANEL
EXISTING A ` \� %�r /
IlC s%ZF,P 9,PA D GENERATOR \
�L -18-1
11 R
EXISTING L18 STATION
NEW 1.5" WATER SERVICE 'P h EXISTING 36;EULVERT
° h
REMOVE GRAVEL
FURNISH & TOOIL- & SEED INSTALL _
PS
_____THIRD AVENUE
0 20 40
SCALE
802854
2854C00003
LIFT STATION L18
SITE & VIM PLAN
MH�Ilit
0
0
h
z
0
a
0
0
mq�e
>ao o
LIFT STATION L18
SURFACE
EXISTING IMPERVIOUS
AREA (SF)
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS
AREA (SF)
GRAVEL
763
-
GENERATOR CONC. PAD
336
336
BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT
-
3833
L18 STRUCTURE
50
600
TOTAL
1149
4769
- - -- - - - CRT L -1891
N = 140423.91
E = 456496 99
/ I
AIL
"
I
- -..
WETLAND
�Ill� BO UNDARY
_ m,
LAB-3
` / \ WETLAND HAS ��
/ i A 0 MANAGE 2 CLASSIFICATION
vvv v tit AIL
5' WIDEWEIR J I \ >-2 b V P#L -1 &2 ) I
_ I
INVi934:50
INV.932.00
TY'
V / V11 II �lllc �Illt �Illt �lh� �Illc AIL �Illc Alt
v S0 f
I 1 k )v
111 I A r
26'i v APPROX. LIMIT OF I \\ I I
- - - - 12" RCP EXCAVATION To I 1 I -
I I A I I V A I aycs - @ 7.69% I 931' -* j, CONSTRUCT
933 932 -- I` LIFT STATION
1 11 I AI \ INV. 934.00 - - �. CATCH BASIN
I , ..illlc RIM 934.33 1 I ?= v
INV 930.03
DETENTION
11 \pI 40. I POND #LN7t: ED" \ \ OR
I I
935- -
V A
fr 11
�'I
I �Illc �Illc .111It .illlc �1�. -AL T VAULT L
I �
' 11 i t I
936. _ WET
I
WELL
936 I T.O.S,936 35't
93j ��`_- -` G� .u41 i - `�` I A 93.3
_
--938
/
938
� N /
tir qt `i.
-' -
939
EXISTI N G 3 �C LV
E RT
REMOVE GRAV \
J/
- FURNISH & INSTALL_
------ - - THIRD AVENUE _ TOPSOI - SEEO
_ -
0 20 40
SCALE
omlQm ilL i✓�f�(IFYRNTTOM1WLe�t'AGYiION.Ofl HHtR+YABfABA10 RnET
BIIE Ut UIIH+W DISEt Bi@M1fJ(YINOTNTIAYAdAYUCB6®
TWm enu�aaw .e�luroe�'+ElAwetF'+EerAreffw®orw 802854
BUU
,K„ LET STATION u8 C -7
CUMOKUSEP WRMAL "L 1-1L
m—
St. P-1, MN 55113 2854C00004 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
REVISIONS _. REVISIONS Tm wn mow
3
0
8
y
z
3
a
iE
$ .`9
B�
g
PLANT SCHEDULE
r�r�mrm�r�wnutm�ar +unataanuartrrue�r�
ar rE w umr trc o�cr aasnsox uo nut i ui w our tra®
�
TREES
BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME
CONT
QTY =
WB
Betula populifolia ' Whitespire' / Whitespire Birch (Multi -Stem)
12' ht clump
2 --
TL
Gleditsia triacanthos inermis / Thornless Common Honeylocust
3" B&B
1 - -
AE
Ulmus'Morton' Accolade / Accolade Elm
3" B &B
1
ABM
Acer freemanii 'Autumn Blaze' / Autumn Blaze Maple
3" B &B
1
BHS
Picea glauca ' Densata' / Black Hills Spruce
6' ht
4 Ah,
PIN
Pinus ponderosa / Ponderosa Pine
6' ht
3
SHRUBS
BOTANICAL NAME / COMMON NAME
CONT
QTY
VL
Viburnum lentago / Nannyberry
#5
11
26 - 12" RCP @ 7.6945
INV. 932,0 �
DETENTION POND SECTION
NO SCALE
W BENCH
INVERT 934.5
-INV. 934.0
934.0
LEGEND:
® 34 -261 RIPARIAN EDGE SOUTH & WEST (SEED MIX)
MAINTENANCE STRIP, SEE DETAIL D /L2
GENERAL NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY THE EXACT LOCATION AND DEPTH OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO COMMENCING WORK.
CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL 1-800- 252 -1166 OR 651954 -0002.
2, COORDINATE TURNOVER OF MAINTENANCE AND WATERING RESPONSIBILITIES TO FACILITY STAFF AT PROJECT FINAL
ACCEPTANCE.
3. STEEL LANDSCAPE EDGE RESTRAINT IS REQUIRED TO DEFINE THE EDGES BETWEEN ROCK MULCH AND GRASS AREAS.
4. ALL PLANT MATERIALS SHALL BE INSTALLED TO AVOID CONFLICTS WITH DRAINAGE SWALES, POORLY DRAINED AREAS, ALL
UTILITIES STRUCTURES AND EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN.
S. PLACE MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12" SELECT TOP SOIL BORROW IN SHRUB AND PERENNIAL PLANTING AREAS.
6. VERIFY THAT GRADING AND CONSTRUCTION HAVE BEEN COMPLETED IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY PRIOR TO INSTALLING
PLANT MATERIAL.
7. IF THE NUMBER OF PLANTS SHOWN ON THE PLAN DIFFERS WITH THE NUMBER SHOWN ON THE PLANT SCHEDULE, THE PLAN
WILL TAKE PRECEDENCE. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING ALL QUANTITIES.
8. DAMAGE TO PROPERTY OR OTHER WORK RESULTING FROM THE LANDSCAPE WORK MUST BE REPAIRED AT NO COST TO THE
OWNER.
9. PLACE MINIMUM DEPTH OF 4" SALVAGE TOP SOIL IN ALL SEED AREAS.
10. NATIVE SEED MIX TO BE INSTALLED PER METHOD 1 (DROP SEEDING ONTO TILLED SITES) OF THE 2014 MN/DOT SEEDING
MANUAL AND THE PROJECT SPECIFICATIONS,
11. PATCH AND REPAIR NATURALIZED VEGETATION AREAS DISTURBED 8Y CONSTRUCTION WITH 34-211 WOODLAND EDGE
SOUTH & WEST SEED MIX.
tnromot�L � eeaur slBarrN.
�rcm w wre ar swam
REVISIONS REVISIONS
POND NWL 934.0
933.0
�Illt �
WETLAND
BOUNDARY ,—,
uv 0
3
VL
2 /
r,+
AIL �dL
VL
3
3
i
/AFT
B
IV
'0 - P
1tT
orsu®
r�r�mrm�r�wnutm�ar +unataanuartrrue�r�
ar rE w umr trc o�cr aasnsox uo nut i ui w our tra®
�
wosweammar u�>�uwnac�srnreaFa•aamorw
6,
-_
ry
mmatFlen ®w.� STUART M. PAM
)DR
GEOID
2tfiXiS 40OD2
Sw
wre mw
vxoea
Stantec
2335 Highway 36 W
St. Pouf, MN 55113
802854
2854L00001
4"
AIL
k ki
RELOCATED
GENERATOR
[— 30.5' —
I -
�
1 I
WB x 1
11 n 1
IPA
1 �
cP
I
; 11 ��
I� I
cC,l I
PIN l•, `;�. II
� 3 •
r'
3 /
Qf H
a. VAULT i" L 4� �
WET �
WELL I
T.O.S. 936
ROCK MF�I
STRIP W /'STEEI
EDGER, SE�P/l
2,5
SIy6r
?1
c
� • C
ew
RELOCATE GENERATOR J _
-- -� ELI
� \ETO
0o C
REMOVE GRAVEL _ - -`
FURNISH & INSTALL__ -
TOPSOIL -&SEED
THIRD AVENUE
LIF STATION US
LANDSCAPE PLAN
1 I
I
& I
) I
1 I
4 I
� w I
/1 I
I
I
0 STATION
tB AND ANDONED �
0 20 40
SCALE
—8
w �,I
-
-_
ry
4"
AIL
k ki
RELOCATED
GENERATOR
[— 30.5' —
I -
�
1 I
WB x 1
11 n 1
IPA
1 �
cP
I
; 11 ��
I� I
cC,l I
PIN l•, `;�. II
� 3 •
r'
3 /
Qf H
a. VAULT i" L 4� �
WET �
WELL I
T.O.S. 936
ROCK MF�I
STRIP W /'STEEI
EDGER, SE�P/l
2,5
SIy6r
?1
c
� • C
ew
RELOCATE GENERATOR J _
-- -� ELI
� \ETO
0o C
REMOVE GRAVEL _ - -`
FURNISH & INSTALL__ -
TOPSOIL -&SEED
THIRD AVENUE
LIF STATION US
LANDSCAPE PLAN
1 I
I
& I
) I
1 I
4 I
� w I
/1 I
I
I
0 STATION
tB AND ANDONED �
0 20 40
SCALE
—8
w �,I
DO NOT HEAVILY PRUNE THE TREEAT PLANTING. PRUNE ONLY CRO55OVER LIMBS,
CO- DOMINANT LEADERS AND BROKEN OR DEAD BRANCHES, SOME INTERIOR TWIGS
AND LATERAL BRANCHES MAY BE PRUNED; HOWEVER 00 NOT REMOVE THE TERMINAL
BUDS OF BRANCHES THAT EXTEND TO THE EDGE OF THE CROWN.
STAKE TREES ONLY AS SPECIFIED AT THE DIRECTION OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
WRAP TREE TRUNKS AS SPECIFIED. MARKTHE NORTH SIDE OF THE TREE IN THE
NURSERY, AND ROTATE TREE TO FACE NORTH IN THE FIELD.
SET TOP OF ROOT BALL FLUSH TO GRADE OR 1 -2 N. HIGHER IN SLOWLY DRAINING
SOILS.
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FORTESTNG PERCOLATION RATES PRDRTO
PLANTING. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OFANY POTENTIAL DRAINAGE ISSUES
PRIOR TO FINAL PLANTING. INSTALL APPROVED DRAINAGE MATERIALS AS DIRECTED.
ADD MYCORRIZAL TRANSPLANT INOCULANT AT PLANTING TIME PER MANUFACTURER'S
DIRECTIONS.
IF PLANT IS SHIPPED WITH A CONTAINER AROUND THE ROOTBAI^ SLICE SIDES OF
CONTAINER AND REMOVE COMPLETELY. USE FINGERS OR SMALL HAND TOOLS TO
PULL ROOTS OUT OF THE OUTER LAYER OF POTTING SOL, THEN OUT OR PULL APART
ANY CIRCLING ROOTS.
TO IMPROVE TRANSPLANTING SUCCESS THE FOLLOWING VARIETIES SHOULD BE
SPRING PLANTED ONLY: PINE, OAK, MAPLE, HONEYLOCUST AND CRABAPPLE.
PRUNE BRANCHES TO A MINIMUM OF V TO ALLOW FOR A CLEAR SIGHT
DISTANCE..
PROVIDE GRAVEL FILLED DRY WELL FOR POORLY DRAINED SOILS AS DIRECTED
BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
ice•.
BALLED AND BURLAPPED TREE
DURING THE SPRING PLANTING SEASON, ANY
EVERGREEN PLANT DELIVERED WITH NEW GROWTH
IN ADVANCE STAGE OF CANDLING OUT WILL BE
REJECTED. EVERGREEN TREES NOT FULLY
a
BRANCHED FROM BOTTOM TO TOP WILL BE
REJECTED AND THOSE WITH TERMINAL LEADERS
EXCEEDING 300 MM (120 IN LENGTH WILL ALSO BE
r% c
REJECTED
STAID: TRIES ONLY AS SPECIFIED AT THE
6:79
DIRECTION OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Q
MARK THE NORTH SIDE OFTHETREE IN THE
NURSERY, AND ROTATEi
TREE TD FACE NORTH IN THE FIND
SETTOP OF ROOT BALL FLUSH TO GRADE OR 1 -21N.
HIGHER IN SLOWLY DRAINING SOILS.
MYCORRHIZAL. TRANSPLANT INOCULANT TO BE
ADDED AT PLANTING TIME PER MANUFACTURER'S
7
DIRECTIONS.
OTYPICAL EVERGREEN TREE PLANTING
NO SCALE
2/t(Lf15 cumoRB.LSEmmmTTAL
REVISIONS REVISIONS
SET TREE PLUMS AND MAINTAIN THROUGHOUT WARRANTY PERIOD
REMOVE ALL FLAGGING AND LABELS.
EACH TREE MUST BE PLANTED SUCH THAT THE ROOT FLARE IS
VISIBLE AT THE TOP OF THE ROOT BALL. TREES WHERE THE ROOT
FLARE IS NOT VISIBLE SHALL BE REJECTED. DO NOT COVER THE
TOP OF THE ROOT BALL WITH $OIL. ROOT BALLS DELIVERED WITH
THE ROOT FLARE MORE THAN 4' BELOW THE TOP OF THE BALL WILL
BE REJECTED.
MULCH AS SPECIFIED, DO NOT PLACE MULCH IN CONTACT WITH
TREE TRUNK, MAINTAIN THE MULCH WEEDfREE FOR THE DURATION
OF THE WARRANTY PERIOD. PLACE MULCH WITHIN 4B HOURS OF
SECOND WATERING. MULCH SHALL BE INCIDENTAL TO PROJECT.
DIG HOLE 3x ROOT RALL DIA. OR AS SPECIFIED FOR SOIL CONDITION
ENCOUNTERED WITH TAPERED SIDES. SCARIFY THE SIDES AND
BOTTOM OF THE HOLE BEFORE PLAGNG THE TREE IN THE PLANTING
HOLE. 9ACKFILL 213 WITH MODIFIED PLANTING SOIL AS SPECIFIED
FOR THE SPECIFIC SOIL CONDITION ENCOUNTERED AND WATER
THOROUGHLY WITHIN 2 HOURS. BACKFILL REMAINING 113 WITHIN 48
HOURS AND CONSTRUCT 4' HIGH EARTH SAUCER BEYOND EDGE OF
ROOT BALL AND WATER THOROUGHLY.
REMOVE ALL TWINE, ROPE AND WIREBASKET AND BURLAP FROM
TOP 113 OF ROOT BALL OR TO 2ND RING OF WIRE BASKET,
WHICHEVER IS GREATER. REMOVE ALL PLASTIC WRAP OR ROPE
FROM ENTIRE SALL
PLACE ROOT BALL ON FIRM UNEXCAVATED OR TAMPED SOIL.
TAMP SOIL AROUND BASE OF ROOT BALL FIRMLY WITH FOOT
PRESSURE SO THAT ROOT SALL DOES NOT SHIFT.
SPACE TREES ACCORDING TO PLANS.
SET TREE PLUMB AND MAINTAIN THROUGHOUT WARRANTY PERIOD
EACH TREE MUST BE PLANTED SUCH THAT THE ROOT FLARE IS
VISIBLEATTHE TOP OF THE ROOT BALL. TREES WHERE THE ROOT
FLARE IS NOT VISIBLE $HALL SE REJECTED. DO NOT COVER THE
TOP OF THE ROOT BALL WITH SOIL. ROOT BALLS DELIVERED WITH
THE ROOT FLARE MORE THAN 4' BELOW THE TOP OF THE BALL WILL
BE REJECTED.
MULCH AS SPECIFIED, DO NOT PLACE MULCH IN CONTACT WITH
TREE TRUNK, MAINTAIN THE MULCH WEED -FREE FORTHE DURATION
OF THE WARRANTY PERIOD. PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF
SECOND WATERING.
DIG HOLE 2x ROOT BALL DIA SCARIFY THE SIDES AND BOTTOM OF
THE HOLE BEFORE PLACING THE TREE IN THE PLANTING HOLE.
RACKFILL WITH MODIFIED PLANTING SOILAS SPECIFIED AND
CONSTRUCT 4' HIGH EARTH SAUCER BEYOND EDGE OF ROOT BALL
WATER THOROUGHLY WITHIN 2 HOURS.
REMOVE ALL TWINE, ROPE AND WIRLEAWU AND SAW FROM TOP L/3
OF ROOT SAW. OR TO 2ND RING OF WIRE BASKET WHICHEVER IS
GREATER REMOVE ALL PLASTIC WRAP OR ROPE FROM ENTIRE B .ALL.
PLACE ROOT BALL ON UNEXCAVATED OR TAMPED SOIL
TAMP $OILAROUND ROOT BALL BASE FIRMLY WNH FOOT PRESSURE
SO THAT ROOT BALL DOES NOT SHIFT.
PROVIDE GRAVEL FILLED DRY WELL FOR POORLY DRAINED SOILS AS
DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
o im
sac
sac
I IaaOlCSifcIM1TM8 KAR&�W WGR wxe'ORIYUBR✓�.V®
er�mu�I wwx�rarerveu+woTl+6nwnourur�m
v+a6r/aEina¢�sT U'�ntleuwaaFllE 6fI,re0Fw�orA
pagyn ®,yy� SRWD M. Im" I 2335 HIgh —Y36W
St. P-L MN 55113
ol>E I/26i10U mm ROOPI wrrv+st -f—com
IF PLANT IS SHIPPED WITH A
CONTAINER AROUND THE FOOTBALL,
SLICE SIDES OF CONTAINER AND
REMOVE COMPLETELY. USE FINGERS
OR SMALL HAND TOOLS TO PULL
ROOTS OUT OF THE OUTER LAYER OF
POTTING SOIL, THEN CUT OR PULL
APARTANY CIRCLING ROOTS.
REMOVE ALL ROPE, TWINE AND
BURLAP FROM TOP HALF OF ROOT
SALL FROM BBB SHRUBS.
DO NOT HEAVILY PRUNE AT
PLANTING. PRUNE ONLY BROKEN OR
DEAD BRANCHES, RETAINING
NATURAL FORM.
DURING THE SPRING PLANTING
SEASON, ANY EVERGREEN SHRUB
DELIVERED WITH NEW GROWTH IN
ADVANCE STAGE OF CANDLING OUT
WILL BE REJECTED.
SET TOP OF ROOT BALL FLUSH TO
GRADE OR 1-21N. HIGHER IN SLOWLY
DRAINING SOILS. ADD MYCORRHIZAL.
TRANSPLANT INOCULANi AT
PLANTING TIME PER
MANUFACTURER'S DIRECTIONS.
SPACE PLANTS ACCORDING TO PLANS
OCONTAINER GROWN PLANT AND BED PREPARATION
NO SCALE
T -4'
VARIES / —FACE OF BUILDING
NATIVE GRASSES, TYP.
2%
STEEL EDGING:
12 GAUGE, 4" DEPTH,
TOP OF EDGING 1/2" ABOVE
FINISHED GRADE, COLOR BLACK
- ll 1 14,u 4 ,, `
STEEL ANCHORING STAKES:
12" LENGTH, 4 STAKES PER
EACH 10'
OROCK MULCH MAINTENANCE STRIP
D NO SCALE
802854
2854L00002
4" DEPTH LANDSCAPE ROCK:
1 -1/2" DRESSER TRAP ROCK
LANDSCAPE FABRIC,
AS SPECIFIED
COMPACTED OR
UNDISTURBED SOIL
LIFE STATION U8
PLANTING DETAILS
MULCH AS SPECIFIED.
DO NOT PLACE MULCH
IN CONTACT WITH THE
PLANT. MAINTAIN THE
MULCH WEED -FREE
FORTHE DURATION
OF THE WARRANTY
PERIOD. PLACE
MULCH WITHIN 48
HOURS OF SECOND
WATERING.
DIG HOLE 3x ROOT
BALL DA. SCARIFY
THE SIDES AND
BOTTOM OF THE HOLE
BEFORE PLACING THE
SHRUB IN THE
PLANTING HOLE,
BACKFILL WITH
MODIFIED PLANTING
SOIL AND ADD ANY
SOILAMENDMENTS
OR FERTLVERS AS
SPECIFIED AND
CONSTRUCT 3' HIGH
EARTHSAUCER
BEYOND EDGE OF
ROOT BALL WATER
THOROUGHLY WITHIN
2 HOURS,
C -9 j
L
3
0
.s
S
h
�i
x
z
0
a
6
3
0
o.
�pp
mo
WOMONYuSEPMUssmrx
REVISIONS
REVOONS
S
20' -0"
13'-4"
I
I
I
I
I
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
/ 1
� /
I
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
I
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
DASHED LINES INDICATE
PROPOSED SOLATUBE CONTROL
LLLLLLLLLL
I
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
SKYLIGHT LOCATIONS ROOM
101
-I -11111 -11-1 /
1- 1-1-1- 11-111
I
I
I
I
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
I
111- 111111
-- - -- -------------------
I
v I
I
I I
I I
I I
I I
B"
6'-B"
O
TOILET
102
------------------
---------- - - - - --
-------------------
I-- - - - -- - - --
I
I A
I
I �
I
I
LLLLLLL L
LLLLLLL
.LL LLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLL
I
I
I
I
I
I
LLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLL
FLLLLLLLLLLLLL
LLLLLLLLLLLLL
L-------------------- -- ------- - - - - -- LLLLLLLLLLLLL
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
[; B
az
I
I
I
I
I
I
I _
I �
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
T \\ I
DASHED LINE
INDICATES ROOF
EDGE ABOVE
m
0
N
g
a
h
x
uJ
N
Z
O
Q
6
3
0
0
a
N�
-"
v
in
LIGHT FIXTURE
SKYLIGHT
ASPHALT SHINGLES
SKYLIGHTS
ASPHALT SHINGLES
SKYLIGHT
���iii�
'I"IIIIIIII""IIII
12
14
PREFIN MET RAIN
�i
II""""""t1"'t
12
ASPHALT SHINGLES
PREFIN MET RAIN
PREFIN I _
•_i_i_i_i_iil
iiiiii
GUTTER W/
12
GUTTER W/ C
�
4
liiiiii•
00 iiiii,
iiii�
•ii=
liiii�_i•
�_i_i_i_iii
DOWNSPOUTS
41
DOWNSPOUTS '{
GUTTER W/
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi,
•iiiiiil
�iiiii�
r.
"m
DOWNSPOUTS
PREFIN MET
PREFIN MET
VENTED SOFFIT
b
VENTED SOFFIT
_
PREFIN MET
PANELS
_
PANELS
o
VENTED SOFFIT
/ \
FACE BRICK
- - - - - FACE BRICK
PANELS
/ \
\\
SOLDIER COURSES b
o
- -
SOLDIER COURSES
FACE BRICK
.o
//
SOLDIER COURSE
/ \
FACE BRICK
°
FACE BRICK
`r
o
FACE BRICK r'
\ /
HM DOORS AND
\\ /
FRAME - PAINTED
a
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
�e� SOUTH ELEVATION
~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
�r,1 EAST ELEVATION
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I 1
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
NORTH ELEVATION
^'
0 2' 4'
8'
0 2' 4 8'
0 2 4 8
1
ill.. ..
Illlllll�llllu..
j_, .It111�11111�11111111111�111.1. __
A11111�11111�11111�11111�11111�11111�11� .,_ • • • •
..1 II��II111�1111! �III�I�IIIII�IIIt1�111L�111���111�
•i■�iii�
�iii7ii
• . • •
, • • • _
`
—
���iii�
'I"IIIIIIII""IIII
�i
II""""""t1"'t
�
Vii•
•_i_i_i_i_iil
iiiiii
�_iiii
�
•_i_iiiii1
liiiiii•
00 iiiii,
iiii�
•ii=
liiii�_i•
�_i_i_i_iii
_i_iil
•iiiiiil
�iiii= i'
iiii�
11111111111111111111
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi,
•iiiiiil
�iiiii�
3
7�1s aanmaxelusEPBUarsltlurra
REVISIONS
F
WEST ELEVATION
4' B'
oestota �IH® YIBtIFYTNTINaNA4 .f4iiG11gLOPNEwRfYW Pf®/1® RAEf
•YAEg1U061 W Df£ Cf &>✓gN!]tliAla171NT1AYAd1LYUt8d®
mp
�A �u�� TA ��...•�
Stantec 802854
f FU�
aim ncmrnrtan®— MUCEP'PALM 2335HighwayUW 2854A00002
70910 St. P-L MN 55113
w Mante com
LIFE STATION L18
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS
C -11
��
a=
tS
lg
a
m
0
9
m_
Z
E
K
O
5
a
J^�
I
i
1 '
l
i
J '
J
REVISIONS
\GNP PY
H
1agp472
Doc'
ExoePtwn
e off'
o �
PUa s
REVISIONS
NE Cor, S. 35,
T.117, R. 3. f
M 1
N N�
#2079
:J
w � 0 I
�I
i
A" an , - --
1gg,00 S� ComerB14
MNDOT ROW - -� I
Plat No. 27 -66 -01 , I
T ?'0\'N o110I101 III I CD
glylmeP,i140.?j 6 3
a 1 �I
PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT
Legal Description of Property
(Abstract property)
Lot 145, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 120, accordingto the recorded plat thereof,
Hennepin County, Minnesota,
EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of the land condemned in favor of the State of
Minnesota as evidenced by Final Certificate filed May 14, 1998 as Document No. 687195
as described as Parcel 216B as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 27 -66 filed September 26, 1996 as
( Document No. 6639079,
Further EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of the premises condemned in favor of the
iMetropolitan Sewer Board as evidenced by Order filed April 6, 1973 as Document No.
4008351,
Further EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of the premisis condemned in favor of the
iState of Minnesota as evidenced by Judgment and Decree filed March 7, 1936 as
Document No. 1830472.
i
i Legal Description of Easement:
A permanent easement for construction and maintenance of an access driveway, sanitary
sewers, a lift station, a force main and other appurtenances over, under and across that part
of the hereinbefore described property which lies easterly of the following described Line A:
of I
v I
- I
71
a
1 5
aA1 I
w 0
w
o E-
- -- Exception Doc.
3 R D 4008351
`
n:�--;�1
�'
I
J
N
N �
rn Co I
ig
�
r
03
A
CD
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 27 -66 a
CD
minutes 00 seconds West 250.00 feet and said Line A there terminating.
0 40 811
SCALE IN FEET
Easement Area: 61,668± Sq.Ft. 1.41± Acres
ma® fmi® YwRCYM1rlFgwxss� +cVNM1UiReORINNBR�NdD
HYNE C/illU9i woR�resarvaanworRrl,wnaxru ®I®
IAlD pJlNEYDR UWH1TNe LAWe OFIIEHlAI£6 AWIE80fA
,FO�,
mAwy
,., -
SW. 100
RANI SW.10OwR/Lere
FASHL'IBVT D(HIBIT
1
fh �, MN 55AI8
C -13
L1ft Station 18
a-= —Mwart ®— _ WalferJ. Oreaary
engineer ng �R 2012 067 EASE EXHIBIT
kll\
C
i
PROPOSED UTILITY EASEMENT
Legal Description of Property
(Abstract property)
Lot 145, AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NUMBER 120, accordingto the recorded plat thereof,
Hennepin County, Minnesota,
EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of the land condemned in favor of the State of
Minnesota as evidenced by Final Certificate filed May 14, 1998 as Document No. 687195
as described as Parcel 216B as shown on MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 27 -66 filed September 26, 1996 as
( Document No. 6639079,
Further EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of the premises condemned in favor of the
iMetropolitan Sewer Board as evidenced by Order filed April 6, 1973 as Document No.
4008351,
Further EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of the premisis condemned in favor of the
iState of Minnesota as evidenced by Judgment and Decree filed March 7, 1936 as
Document No. 1830472.
i
i Legal Description of Easement:
A permanent easement for construction and maintenance of an access driveway, sanitary
sewers, a lift station, a force main and other appurtenances over, under and across that part
of the hereinbefore described property which lies easterly of the following described Line A:
LINE A:
Commencing at the northeast corner of Section 35, Township 117, Range 23, Hennepin
(
County Minnesota, (bearings are referenced to the Hennepin County Coordinate System
- -- Exception Doc.
3 R D 4008351
`
NAD831 1986 Adjustment and the east line of said Section 35 which bears South 01
A V E —N- J —E-
- -��
/
degrees 34 minutes 26 seconds West); thence South 52 degrees 24 minutes 01 seconds
/
West a distance of 2504.04 feet to a point designated as 814 on MINNESOTA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 27-66; thence South 74
degrees 46 minutes 16 seconds West along the southerly right of way line of said
MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION RIGHT OF WAY PLAT NO. 27 -66 a
distance of 166.00 feet to the point of beginning for Line A; thence South 00 degrees 00
minutes 00 seconds West 250.00 feet and said Line A there terminating.
0 40 811
SCALE IN FEET
Easement Area: 61,668± Sq.Ft. 1.41± Acres
ma® fmi® YwRCYM1rlFgwxss� +cVNM1UiReORINNBR�NdD
HYNE C/illU9i woR�resarvaanworRrl,wnaxru ®I®
IAlD pJlNEYDR UWH1TNe LAWe OFIIEHlAI£6 AWIE80fA
,FO�,
mAwy
,., -
SW. 100
RANI SW.10OwR/Lere
FASHL'IBVT D(HIBIT
�«n.z.
fh �, MN 55AI8
C -13
L1ft Station 18
a-= —Mwart ®— _ WalferJ. Oreaary
engineer ng �R 2012 067 EASE EXHIBIT
Ws Mn 11111114 R w f488e
CITY OF
SHOREWOOD
5755 Country Club Road • Shorewood, Minnesota 55331 • 952- 960 -7900
Fax: 952- 474 -0128 • www.dshorewood.nm.us • cityhall i dshorewood.mn.us
DATE: March 26, 2015
TO: Brad Nielsen
FROM: Paul Hornby
RE: MCES L18 Relocation Conditional Use Permit
I have completed a review of the preliminary plans prepared by Stantec, dated February 28, 2015, for the
referenced project and have the following comments:
1. The City Code does require curb for the parking lot. I suggest the lot be sized to accommodate
vehicle needs and include curb as required.
a. The parking lot should be striped even if it may not be used for parking within the stalls for
larger vehicles.
2. The dumpster should not be in a location directly upstream of the storm water pond.
3. The grading and drainage plan appears acceptable at this time. The MCES should consider some
type of filtration with a smaller pond or in conjunction with the proposed pond.
a. The plans will need to indicate protection of the Christmas Lake piped outfall that crosses
the property.
4. The long water service as shown become problematic for the City and other utility owners for
location, water quality, and future improvements. The plan is to include extension of an 8 -inch
watermain with a gate valve at the end of the existing watermain and ending with a hydrant at the
intersection of Third Avenue and Christmas Lake Road.
a. A water service
5. The MCES has proposed an easement for the facility instead of a purchase of the entire parcel. The
City should consider sale of the entire parcel, but retaining drainage & Utility easements over the
Christmas Lake storm sewer outfall crossing the parcel, and over the wetland area to allow for use
of storm water storage if needed some time in the future.
Please contact me if you have questions or want to discuss the items in this review.
Exhibit D
CITY ENGINEER'S MEMO