Loading...
11-20-18 Planning Commission Agenda CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY NOVEMBER 20, 2018 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE MADDY (Sep) ______ GORHAM (Aug) ______ EGGENBERGER (Dec) ______ DAVIS (Nov) ______ RIEDEL (Oct) ______ 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 30, 2018  3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A) None 4. OTHER BUSINESS A) VARIANCES FOR SETBACKS AND HARDCOVER Applicant: Douglas Thesingh Location: 28015 Woodside Road B) SETBACK VARIANCE FOR AN INGROUND SWIMMING POOL Applicant: Tim and Sally Butler Location: 6035 Spruce Hill Court C) REVISED SETBACK VARIANCE (originally from August 28, 2018) Applicant: Richard Denman Location: 5865 Glencoe Road 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 6. REPORTS Council Meeting Report  Draft next meeting agenda  Commissioner’s Terms Expiring  Update Liaison Schedule  7. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, OCTOBER 30, 2018 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:03 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Davis, Eggenberger, Gorham, and Riedel; Planning Director Darling, Bob Kirmis, Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc., Chuck Rickart, WSB and Associates, and John Christianson, WSB and Associates Absent: Council Liaison Johnson 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Davis moved, Riedel seconded, approving the agenda for October 30, 2018, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  October 2, 2018 Riedel moved, Davis seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 2, 2018, as presented. Motion passed 5/0. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS Chair Maddy explained the Planning Commission is comprised of residents of the City of Shorewood who are serving as volunteers on the Commission. The Commissioners are appointed by the City Council. The Commission’s role is to help the City Council in determining zoning and planning issues. One of the Commission’s responsibilities is to hold public hearings and to help develop the factual record for an application and to make a non-binding recommendation to the City Council. The recommendation is advisory only. A. PUBLIC HEARING – TO REVIEW THE DRAFT 2040 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Chair Maddy opened the Public Hearing at 7:04 P.M. and noted that this is his first time holding a Public Hearing regarding the Comprehensive Plan and wasn’t sure how to proceed. Planning Director Darling explained that she would share a little information and then ask the consultants to share more detailed information and then it can be opened up for public comment. She noted that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan will set the tone for planning for the next 22 years. She noted that because the City is mostly built out, there are not any huge changes from the prior Comprehensive Plan. She introduced Bob Kirmis from Northwest Associated Consultants, Inc. who will present the draft of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 30, 2018 Page 2 of 6 Mr. Kirmis stated that the 2040 Comprehensive Plan is basically a refinement of the current 2030 Comprehensive Plan. He stated that majority of the changes are mandated changes and some tweaks to update it and make it more accurately reflect the City. He gave an overview and stated that in the effort to update the Comprehensive Plan, input was solicited from residents, staff and City officials. He noted that there were 3 open houses in October of 2017, an on-line survey, as well as an issues ranking survey. He stated that there were four priorities that were revealed as part of the input process: protecting and improving the natural environment, including tree preservation and new parks; promoting high quality redevelopment projects that fit the community; creating a bikeable and walkable community through the introduction of new trails and connectivity throughout the community and key locations; ensuring a livable community through stormwater management, proactive code enforcement, and building relationships with nearby communities. He gave an overview of the components included in the updated Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the low to medium density has been changed from 2-3 units per acre to 3-6 units per acre, the medium density has changed from 3-6 units per acre to 6-8 units per acre, and a high density has been added of 8-30 units per acre. He reviewed the two changes to the land use plan of changing the Minnetonka Country Club site to low density residential and the County Road 19/Smithtown Road intersection that reflects the transitional land use between the lower residential uses and the commercial uses. He reviewed the Affordable Housing requirements but noted that difficulty of the City being able to realistically reach the Met Council’s objectives. He stated that once there is an approved draft of Comprehensive Plan it will be submitted to surrounding communities and school districts for comment and then in 6 months it will be brought back to the Planning Commission for review once again. He stated that the deadline from the Met Council is July 31, 2018. Commissioner Riedel noted that Mr. Kirmis had stated that the City is supposed to have more high-density development and he explained why it may not happen and asked what the likely outcome would be. He asked if the Met Council could reject the plan on that basis or force the City to have more concrete steps in place to increase the density. Mr. Kirmis stated that this has come up in other communities. He noted that one thing he hadn’t mentioned is that the Xcel Energy site has been highlighted as a potential for high density, multi-family residential uses with 20-30 units being possible. He stated that in conversations with the Met Council Housing department he was told that they recognize that cities are unique. He stated that in the past what he has seen if cities do not respond to Met Council’s requirements is that they can be less likely to receive grant money, but they cannot force the City to do anything. He stated that he believes the City needs to do what they think is appropriate. Chuck Rickart, WSB and Associates, explained that he had worked on the Transportation chapter in the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that the transportation section deals with four components: roadway system, non-motorized vehicles, freight, and aviation. He gave a brief overview and highlighted a few of the revisions and things included in the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Riedel stated that it appears as though there will be a tremendous amount of change in transportation by 2040, such as self-driving and non-polluting cars. He asked what would be changed with the Comprehensive Plan if this was a certain future. Mr. Rickart agreed that transportation technology is ever expanding and it is hard to keep up. He reminded the Commission that the Comprehensive Plan is updated every 10 years, so it can be changed as technology advances. He stated that the Comprehensive Plan is basically the City’s best guess, at this point of what they expect to happen. He stated that it is also a “living document” and the City does not have to wait the 10 required years before updating it. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 30, 2018 Page 3 of 6 Commissioner Davis stated that she thinks the City focuses too much on the fact that there is only Met Transit 670 and 671 coming through the City, when in reality, most people get in their cars and drive to Chanhassen or Eden Prairie and take the coach. Pat Arnst, 5480 Teal Circle, asked what the updated status of Eureka Road would mean physically. Mr. Rickart stated that it is simply updating the designation of the roadway from a local street to a collector street because of the traffic volume. He noted that there are no current plans to upgrade Eureka Road or any of the roads mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan it is just getting them into their correct designation. Chair Maddy confirmed that this is just calling it what it already is. Commissioner Eggenberger asked Planning Director Darling what happens when the City re-designates the roads and whether it changes the way City staff looks at projects. Planning Director Darling stated that she does not expect there to be any significant change to how Eureka Road is used. She answered that there may be some things done differently if a road is re-designated, such as asking for more right-of-way if there are subdivisions along the roadway. Commissioner Eggenberger noted that he was really talking about overlays and gave the example of Old Market Road which in some areas does not have curb and gutter or even look like a City street. Mr. Rickart stated that those types of issues will be addressed in the City’s pavement management plan and isn’t affected by the designation. John Christianson, from WSB and Associates stated that he worked on the Water Supply and Sanitary Sewer portion of the Comprehensive Plan. He gave a brief overview of the chapters pertaining to Sanitary Sewer. Commissioner Riedel asked about septic systems and if there was a means to get people off of septic and hook into the system. Planning Director Darling explained that Mr. Christianson referred to four existing septic systems, one on each of two inhabited islands with no options for hook-up in the future. Of the other two, one is near Smithtown and still connected to the original house but if it subdivides it would need to be connected to the City sewer system. She stated that the other parcel is closer to Christmas Lake, and has an elevation issue that is a substantial technical problem to overcome. Chair Maddy asked what the plans were for dealing with inflow and infiltration (I and I) and asked if there was a way to solve the problem of private pipes that are cracked. Mr. Christianson stated that the City plans to invest a regular amount every year for I and I reduction. He stated that a big part of solving it is being able to diagnose where a leak is occurring and to do flow monitoring both before and after public improvements. He stated that if the City is still seeing similar levels of I and I afterwards then the City will know it is from private sources. He noted that the bulk of the work the City has done over the last 5 years has been on the public side. Mr. Christianson gave a brief overview of the Water Supply chapter and noted that the DNR is also interested in this chapter and would review the needs of the system and the projected future demand. He noted that the City is split into eastern and western individual systems as well as three smaller areas near the center of the City that receive water supply from other communities. The eastern and western halves each have three wells and one tower. He noted that approximately half of the homes in the City are on the CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 30, 2018 Page 4 of 6 public system and the other half has private wells. He stated that they are not projecting any long-term additions to wells, towers, or equipment. Commissioner Riedel asked about long-term projections for the level of the aquifer. Mr. Christianson stated that the DNR is placing a greater emphasis on working to understand the impacts that ground water has on the aquifers as well as surface waters. He stated that he is not aware of any studies that show a strong interaction in the City between ground water and surface water. Commissioner Gorham stated that he has seen that the City is encouraging people to hook up to the City system and asked what the benefit would be. Planning Director Darling stated that where the watermains are already in place, it increases the customer base for the infrastructure, so more residents are sharing the cost. Chair Maddy indicated that there are other benefits as well. Chair Maddy opened the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 7:53 P.M. Pat Arnst, 5480 Teal Circle, stated that she was on the Park Commission for the 2000 Comprehensive Plan and the Planning Commission for the 2010 version of the Comprehensive Plan. She stated that they have lived in the City for 40 years and when they arrived it was basically pastures and berry fields and noted that the forests were all small at that time. She stated that one of their concerns is the lack of management of the trees on City property and rights-of-way. She stated that she feels there should be an equal amount of emphasis on managing the trees as there is on preserving them. She stated that as the City moves forward and becomes more urban, there should be plans for trees that are more suitable to an urban environment. She raised a concern about a large dead cottonwood tree in Freeman Park that is near the trail and shared her concern that someone may be hurt or killed from a piece of it falling. Commissioner Davis stated that they also have acreage and they spent last winter removing trees that were at a 45-degree angle and falling into the road. She stated that they were basically falling into the right-of- way and the City should have taken care of it. She stated that the entire street has similar trees that are leaning over the road just waiting to fall down and has noticed it all over the City. Ms. Arnst stated that they were watching the tree that came down on Smithtown Road that took out power and closed the road, for over a year before it fell. Commissioner Davis note that a piece of that tree had fallen onto her car three years ago. Ms. Arnst stated that they were reluctant to come in and talk to the City because in the past they have been blown off by the City Engineer. She stated that there was a tree that fell down on the west side of the City that fell on a house and destroyed it. Commissioner Davis stated that she agreed that the City needed to start spending time managing the natural resources. Chair Maddy noted that the City had hired an arborist last year to deal with this sort of thing. Planning Director Darling stated that the City hired S & S Tree Services and they are going through the trees in the parks and public right-of-way and evaluating them. She stated that she has also added a few trees here and there for them to look at. She asked that if there are trees that residents are concerned about CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 30, 2018 Page 5 of 6 to call them in to either herself or Public Works and staff would have S&S look at them when they are in the area. Commissioner Eggenberger suggested this information be included in the newsletter. Commissioner Riedel stated that many of the trees in the urban areas are reaching the end of their lifespan and agrees that the City should have a more active plan for tree management. Chair Maddy asked Mr. Kirmis if tree management is usually included as part of a Comprehensive Plan or if that is something the City government should be doing apart from the Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Kirmis stated that he thinks the Comprehensive Plan is the perfect starting point for it by establishing a policy so when the time comes to form an ordinance, it is based on a Comprehensive Plan directive. Planning Director Darling stated that a new policy can be added in or some of the language can be strengthened in some of the existing policies to address tree management as well as preservation. Commissioner Riedel stated that he believes this topic was number one in the public input. Ms. Arnst, stated that when the Minnetonka Country Club property was sold to Mattamy Homes, a tree inventory was conducted and the day of the closing, a storm happened and 9 of the maple trees came down. Chair Maddy closed the Public Testimony portion of the Public Hearing at 8:02 P.M. Chair Maddy suggested that the Commission draft a list of the recommended changes. He noted that there were some discrepancies in the density indicated on the land use map in two areas. Planning Director Darling explained that the area south of Smithtown Road was looked at the by Planning Advisory Committee when the plan for the Minnetonka Country Club was put together which suggested that the density was too low and was rezoned to R-1C zoning district and agreed there is a slight discrepancy. Commissioner Davis noted that there is also one lot on Valleywood that shows as undeveloped and it has been developed. She noted that there is also a large undeveloped portion of land behind The Ponds besides Smithtown Crossing that she didn’t think was included. Chair Maddy asked if the Commission would like to add tree management language to the Comprehensive Plan before it was released. Commissioner Davis stated that she would like to see it included. Commissioner Riedel stated that in order to keep the clock running, since there is a hard deadline, he suggested releasing it to the surrounding communities and take time to make these amendments. Chair Maddy stated that he thinks the Commission can request that the Council direct staff to begin work on language changes regarding tree management. Riedel moved, Davis seconded, recommending that the City Council release the draft 2040 Comprehensive Plan to adjacent communities for comment, change two sections on the land use map, as discussed, change the land use plan for the lot on Valleywood and to request the Council direct staff to work on language changes to add a tree management plan. Motion passed 5/0. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OCTOBER 30, 2018 Page 6 of 6 4. OTHER BUSINESS - None 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None 6. REPORTS • Liaison to Council In Council Liaison Johnson’s absence, Commissioner Riedel gave a report on matters considered and actions taken during Council’s last meeting (as detailed in the minutes for that meeting). He noted that the Council voted unanimously against the variance for signage for the Starbuck’s location. Planning Director Darling noted that the Council did approve the digital order confirmation sign for Starbuck’s. • Update on Projects Approved Planning Director Darling noted that the goats have finished all the buckthorn in the first area and have been moved to a second location. Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he had attended the most recent Sensible Land Use meeting. He stated that there was a lot of data given out but it was quite interesting. He noted that the Twin Cities area had the lowest level of unemployment for the nation in August at 2.6%. He stated that the experts are predicting a housing crash in the year 2020. He gave more examples of the information presented at the meeting. • Draft Next Meeting Agenda Planning Director Darling stated there are two variance applications slated for the next Planning Commission meeting. 7. ADJOURNMENT Riedel moved, Davis seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of October 30, 2018, at 8:25 P.M. Motion passed 5/0. Page 2 BACKGROUND Context: The lot was created in 1952 as part of Registered Land Survey No. 122. In 1983, a former property owner received a variance to add an addition to the home at just under 25 feet from the front (west) property line and another to construct a gazebo and deck at 24 feet from the rear (east) property line where 50 feet was required. In 2016, the previous home was demolished and the existing home was constructed at the same setbacks. As part of the demolition of the home, the previous owner removed a pool and reduced the impervious surface on the property to 25.7 percent. Section 1201.03 Subd. 1. F. states that “A lawful nonconforming use of a structure or parcel of land may be changed to lessen the nonconformity of use. Once a nonconforming structure or parcel of land has been changed, it shall not thereafter be so altered to increase the nonconformity.” Consequently, a variance would be required to increase impervious surface on the property. The applicant has proposed 49 square feet of additional impervious surface coverage over the amounts approved in 2016 with the house construction. ANALYSIS In their narrative, the applicants said that their request is to improve the look of the home and add a covered porch to the home that would wrap around the north and east sides of the home. Setbacks Required Existing Proposed Side abutting a public street (north) 50 ft. (min.) 56 ft. 49 ft. Rear (west) 50 ft. (min.) 38.4 ft. 32 ft. *Variance Requested Impervious Surface Coverage Required Existing Proposed Impervious Surface Coverage 25 % (max.) 25.7% 25.9% VARIANCE ANALYSIS The zoning regulations allow for variances upon showing that practical difficulties exist and that the request is consistent with the intent of the regulations. Section 1201.05 Subd. 3. a. of the zoning regulations sets forth criteria for the consideration of variance requests. Staff reviewed the request according to these criteria, as follows: 1.Intent of comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance: The property owner would continue to use the property for residential purposes and proposes no uses on the site that would be inconsistent with either the intent of the residential land use classification or the district’s allowed uses. Page 3 2.Practical difficulties: Practical difficulties include three factors, all three of which must be met. Staff finds that the practical difficulties for the property are related to the original construction of the home. a.Reasonable: Construction of a covered porch on the street side of a home is a reasonable use of the property. b.Self-Created: The owners did not create the existing situation, they bought the home after it was constructed based on the previously approved variances. The owners do not own any adjacent property and cannot enlarge the lot. However, between 2016 and 2018, the driveway was altered and increased in size from 1,470 to 1,547 square feet. Also, staff notes that the applicant has a concrete patio on the south side of the home. Either the patio could be removed or the driveway reduced in size to decrease impervious surface coverage. The proposed increase in impervious surface coverage from 2016 is 49 square feet. c.Essential Character: The porch addition is not likely to alter the essential character of the area. 3.Economic Considerations: The applicants have not proposed the variance based on economic considerations, but to create a home that meets their family’s needs. 4.Impact on Area: The property owners are not proposing anything that would impair an adequate supply of light and air to an adjacent property, increase the risk of fire or endanger public safety, or increase the impact on adjacent streets. 5.Impact to public welfare and other improvements. The applicants’ proposal is unlikely to impact or impair adjacent property values or the public welfare. 6.Minimum to alleviate difficulty. Staff finds that the variance request is not the minimum action necessary to alleviate the practical difficulty in regards to the impervious surface coverage, but find the applicant has proposed the minimum action to alleviate the practical difficulty for the setbacks variances. FINDINGS/RECOMMENDATION Staff finds the setback variance proposed meets the criteria above, but the variance for impervious surface coverage does not. Consequently, staff recommends approval of the setback variance with the condition that the applicant reduce the impervious surface on the property to no more than what was approved in 2016 when the home was constructed (25.7 %). Staff notes that the standards are open to interpretation and the Planning Commission could reasonably find otherwise. ATTACHMENTS Location map Correspondence Received Applicants’ narrative and plans S:\Planning\Planning Files\Applications\2018 Cases\Thesingh VAR Woodside\PC memo 11 20 18.docx Thesingh Variance Request Application for Variance 1. Description of Request: We, the Thesinghs of 28015 Woodside Rd, request a variance'to the setback and impermeable cover ordinances. We request relief from the setback ordinance to allow the extension of an existing deck to a new porch on the front of the house, which will create visual continuity to the style. We request relief from the impermeable cover ordinance to allow an increase of 0.2% (from the prior existing coverage of 25.7 %) to add a roof to the proposed porch. The new design incorporates removal of 260 sq ft of asphalt driveway in the easement; this area is not within our property line so the impermeable surface improvement does not factor into the coverage percentage. If the asphalt removal is considered, the resulting impermeable coverage would drop to 25.1% - an improvement over as built. 2. Practical Difficulties to Compliance: a. The proposed changes are reasonable property improvements, done for the use and appearance of the house as a residence. These changes would greatly improve the aesthetic character of the facade and allow residents to enjoy the outside of the house in sunny or inclement weather. b. The house was bought as -is by us from the builder on November 1, 2017 and all existing conditions were inherited with the house. L The proposed addition of a covered front porch and connection to the existing side deck are relatively minor extensions to the house footprint, however, the site of the existing structures as purchased (including house, gazebo, patio and driveway) already encroach into the setback area on two sides - and are very close to the setback area on another. ii. The 0.5 acre lot is quite small relative to the 1+ acre surrounding properties on Woodside Road. The useable area of the lot is further reduced by deep road easements on two sides. This particularly impairs the property with respect to impermeable surface requirements due to the resulting small lot area and the inability to consider the uncovered easements into the overall area. iii. The proposed porch addition does not alter the essential character of the locality, being architecturally complementary to the theme of the house, remaining consistent with prior existing elements such as the deck, gazebo and small overhanging roofs on the house, and being similar to other properties in the neighborhood having front sitting areas. 3. Economic and Other Considerations: the proposed porch and landscaping additions were made to add functionality and beauty to the house and lot. The design keeps with the wooded nature of the locality, minimizes incremental impermeable area, and enables the safe navigation of a descending road corner. The submitted design was not developed using economic considerations; in fact additional expense has been incorporated to enhance the water drainage system, limiting the run -off that underpins the spirit of the impermeable surface ordinance. '•, i i r ^' c F� {'r: i w, Thesingh Variance Request N ; In addition to the cost of drainage, keeping the porch to a minimum size comes with another economic burden to us (the owners). The cost of the submitted design will be the same as that for a slightly larger porch, as lumber comes in gft boards while our design call for 7ft depth. 4. Impact to Adjacent Properties: The proposed variance would not impact the supply of air and light to adjacent properties. The additions to the exterior of the house are minimal, open sided and limited to a short side and part of a long side of the existing house within the wooded portion of the lot. Street congestion would not be impacted by this change as it remains well away from the road. Fire danger and access by public safety functions are not affected by this change. 5. Impact to Public Welfare: The increase of impermeable surface from 25.7% to 25.9% would be a negligible change to the ability of the property to absorb and retain precipitation, particularly in light of the adjacent road easement area which naturally receives any runoff not absorbed by the ground within the property lines. The lot has several features to impede and control run -off, including a well- draining sand and loam soil mixture. The proposed landscape design also includes new features such as a drainage and culvert system that channels excess run -off under the driveway to an existing low -spot on the property where it can be contained and absorbed. Further, the new driveway design reduces the overall impermeable area by approximately 500 sq. ft, of which 260 sq ft are located in the easement. 6. Efforts to Minimize Variance: The increase of impermeable surface area is primarily a function of adding the covered porch. Several efforts were made to minimize this impact to only 0.2% of the allowable lot. In addition to the aforementioned reshaping of the driveway to increase uncovered surface, the design of the porch was made to minimize the square footage under cover and thus additional impermeable area. The design is now at the minimum amount of space required to be functional, allowing for sitting chairs with just enough room to pass in front of them. The side decking is even narrower as it is intended as a walkway with design continuity, and not for seating. The submitted design for the porch thus represents the minimum additional area required to add a functional porch. Minimizing the size of the porch also aids with limiting the encroachment of the structure into setback areas. The minimal functional porch extends not more than 3 feet into the setback area, and then only for a limited portion of the house rather than its entire length. No further encroachment beyond existing and grandfathered structures is needed for the side facing our nearest neighbor, and they have provided a signed letter indicating they find the proposed changes acceptable to them. September • 1 a Woodside Rd Shorewood, To whom it may concern: We have discussed the proposed extension of the existing side deck with our neighbors Doug and Arnie Thesingh at 28015 Woodside Rd, Shorewood, MN 55331. We are comfortable with them extending the existing deck to a new porch on the front of the house and the addition of screening plants and trees nearby. Cordially, 3 rT„ ,gym E I I� I � � I IZEI- b5E-Zl9 I WOJINVOO-0OMUCI IEESS NW'OOOM3NOHS OVOB 3O15O0OM S 108Z 1D3f ®8d HN91SNI r I trj 3 � rd E o u i a� w S g�° � ,S S C# R �'� t'�p s I I� I � � I IZEI- b5E-Zl9 I WOJINVOO-0OMUCI IEESS NW'OOOM3NOHS OVOB 3O15O0OM S 108Z 1D3f ®8d HN91SNI r I ffrf`;� -3 I o s Qd I I 1y a �n� ffrf`;� -3 I o s Qd I I 1y y B.M. ® Top .; 982.0 t/I Q 1� °P \e \0 .,, 1�oP \e I V i I n ~ x248 O9 819,1 189 h N sting = 9 79. 7 � 6 980.0 h g1� —Conc. Pad N e \deb ti 9 0�� qb (� x Bituminous Driveway Conc. Walk 979. Built Woodside RDciC� - - - -x9? Prepared for 6� Matt Wagoner 96, l?9 N 87'18'37" W 140.27 (meas.) 140.5 (plat) I f,> 2.f{ k 9 — 1 6`?9 \e I LO 0 oP e i Trc Conc. Patio 9> Porch the -979.9 TOF= 979.8 GFE =979.1 FE= 974.4• RW -- \e l�,04 l�oP \e �x x \ g 9� x 984. N 87 22'43" W 161.60 (meas,) 0 162.3 (plat) ICI Well gx 9$� !A °Q \e 12 M N0 CO 0 r3 / - - - - - -- 38.4 --- "--- rr--- ---"' "' Qj a / TRW j� �` g1g• `3 °t / 0\h V \o9 q) cn l�oP 1 Q 02� ebo -- 24.1 -- 011, - �7 ix -90 rjL/, �,,f g82...1 b \oP d 50 I N I I I I 1 I gad. i Fence - ---- 20 °µ � Legend Found Iron Monument x 000.0 Existing Elevation 0 Tree Hardcover Located 7125116 (so. ft.). House 6 Porch 58 gate 1,470 x 266 Concrete Pad 11 Gazebo 223 Ret. Wall Steps 31 Deck & Steps 225 Concrete Patio g�k$x N I N 9$� Bituminous Driveway Conc. Walk 979. Built Woodside RDciC� - - - -x9? Prepared for 6� Matt Wagoner 96, l?9 N 87'18'37" W 140.27 (meas.) 140.5 (plat) I f,> 2.f{ k 9 — 1 6`?9 \e I LO 0 oP e i Trc Conc. Patio 9> Porch the -979.9 TOF= 979.8 GFE =979.1 FE= 974.4• RW -- \e l�,04 l�oP \e �x x \ g 9� x 984. N 87 22'43" W 161.60 (meas,) 0 162.3 (plat) ICI Well gx 9$� !A °Q \e 12 M N0 CO 0 r3 / - - - - - -- 38.4 --- "--- rr--- ---"' "' Qj a / TRW j� �` g1g• `3 °t / 0\h V \o9 q) cn l�oP 1 Q 02� ebo -- 24.1 -- 011, - �7 ix -90 rjL/, �,,f g82...1 b \oP d 50 I N I I I I 1 I gad. i Fence - ---- 20 °µ � Legend Found Iron Monument x 000.0 Existing Elevation 0 Tree Hardcover Located 7125116 (so. ft.). House 2,777 Porch 58 Bituminous Driveway 1,470 Concrete Walk 266 Concrete Pad 11 Gazebo 223 Ret. Wall Steps 31 Deck & Steps 225 Concrete Patio 308 5,369 Lot Area 20,920 Percent Hardcover 25.79 Description (supplied by client] Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 0122, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Property Address: 28015 Woodside Road Shorewood, MN 55331 PID No: 31-117-2J-13-000,3 N aw O O l m o� J Q O O � j b U '0 U .'; C �=abd m •co�Q � b a gCLb V O c ,o 0 N m T 1 b Q LO U O I� b rn O � r� U N a I � rn � U 3 3 3 N N � G N .91 3 o A N \ 'a c• W N D � m D O C o S � N I N aw O O l m o� J Q O O � j b U '0 U .'; C �=abd m •co�Q � b a gCLb V O c ,o 0 N m T 1 b Q LO U O I� b rn O � r� U N a I � rn � U 3 3 3 Thesingh Residence Shoreview, MN 55331 IMPORTANT GENERAL NOTES: THESE PLANS ARE PROVIDED FOR GENERAL DESIGN& CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES ONLY. THE ARCHITECT DOES NOT WARRANT ANY MATERIAL, DESIGN DETAILS, COSTS, CONSTRUCTION METHODS, EQUIPMENT, HARDWARE, ETC. WHETHER IMPLIED OR EXPLICITLY NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS PLAN IS INTENDED TO SHOW DESIGN INTENT ONLY, AND BASIC FRAMING. IT IS THE GENERAL CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO USE STANDARD INDUSTRY APPROVED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES THAT WILL INSURE A SAFE, STRUCTURALLY SOUND AND WATERPROOF HOME. THIS HOME WILL BE BUILT TO COMPLY WITH OR EXCEED THE LATEST EDITION OF THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE(IBC)AND/OR THE LOCALLY APPROVED BUILDING CODE. ALL CODES SHALL HAVE PREFERENCE OVER ANYTHING SHOWN, DESCRIBED, OR IMPLIED ON THIS PLAN WHERE SAME ARE AT VARIANCE. 1. OWNERS RESPONSIBILITY: PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION THE OWNER WILL DETERMINE THAT THIS PLAN MEETS THE OWNERS NEEDS AND DESIGN EXPECTATIONS -ANY DESIGN QUESTIONS SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO THE ARCHITECT/ DESIGNER FOR CLARIFICATION OR CORRECTION. 2. DIMENSIONS & ERRORS: THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND OWNER WILL BECOME FAMILIAR WITH ALL DESIGN ASPECTS OF THESE PLANS, ANY QUESTIONS WILL BE CLARIFIED BY THE ARCHITECT/ DESIGNER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ERRORS NOT REPORTED. DO NOT SCALE DRAWINGS. J. MODIFICATIONS: ANY CHANGES TO THE PLAN ARE TO BE MADE BY A QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECT, ENGINEER, OR RESIDENTIAL DESIGNER. THE ORIGINAL DESIGNER WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MODIFICATIONS MADE TO THIS PLAN. 4. CHANGE ORDERS: ALL CHANGES TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND DESIGN OF THIS PLAN WILL BE DONE WITH WRITTEN CHANGE ORDERS SIGNED BY THE OWNER AND GENERAL CONTRACTOR. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY COSTS TO ADJUST CHANGES MADE TO THE CONSTRUCTION THAT ARE NOT APPROVED BY A WRITTEN CHANGE ORDER. S. DETAILS: ALL IMPORTANT DESIGN DETAILS SUCH AS CORNICE, DORMERS AND PORCHES, ETC. SHALL BE FOLLOWED AS ON THE PLANS. ANY DESIGN CHANGES WILL BE ACCOMPANIED WITH SUBSTITUTE DRAWINGS PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR THE OWNERS APPROVAL. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL EXPENSES TO ADJUST UNAUTHORIZED C HANGES TO THE ORIGINAL DESIGN DETAILS. 6. FLOOR ELEVATIONS: PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR WILL STAKE OUT ON THE LOT -THE HOUSE, DRIVEWAY, AND FIRST FLOOR AND GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATIONS FOR THE OWNERS APPROVAL. THIS WILL BE ACCOMPANIED WITH SITE PLAN APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE OWNER. T. OWNERS APPROVAL: ALL MATERIAL FINISH AND COLOR SELECTIONS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE OWNER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. ROOFING, EXTERIOR FINISHES; (BRICK SIDING, STUCCO, STONE, ETC.), AND WINDOW SAMPLES WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE OWNER FOR APPROVAL BEFORE ORDERING. VERIFY FIREPLACE SIZE(S) AND SPECIAL ITEMS SUCH AS SPA TUBS, ETC. BEFORE CONSTRUCTION. C SQUARE FOOTAGE CALCULATIONS: THE ACTUAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IS CALCULATED AS THE HEATED, FINISHED INTERIOR SPACE. THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE, PORCHES, UNFINISHED BASEMENTS, OR UNFINISHED BONUS ROOMS. VAULTED OR TWO -STORY SPACES SUCH AS GREAT ROOMS, FOYERS, AND STAIRS ARE CALCULATED ONCE- ON THE FIRST FLOOR ONLY- SHEET INDEX AO.00 COVER SHEET A1.01 FOUNDATION PLAN A1.02 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN A1.04 ROOF PLAN A2.01 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS SQUARE FOOTAGE FRONT PORCH 1 545 SF P '/,!'( w P 0O P V 0 0 o 4F`. -.gh e.e'r rd•n Md F -., rai -.n d -::�.n CZ ^` L W � U �> a) (D 0 S L) N p M CO LL 0:� s a) 1_0 to (n 0 s 3 F Ln O OD N COVER SHEET cc>rm�er SAE rAr: 07- 242018 A0.00 C'�FCr r:Ut.LFV. 00000 ROOF PLAN 01- m Ad 66 _ O LL -- am r " 3 d I � N o �n � P Z O ~ V o 0 0 All.: �.,:d c� -= <a,:.�d �� r,�. d.�. -.'>• Gc 2d12 UC Z W a) N O S �N O c) w cn Ln s a) Lr) N N OO �- Ln !f 6�..1 p CO I CN rok a,s "VIO 0 ... I ROOF PLAN �fflmm"m FRONT ELEVA 114° =1' -0° , I � i 'T ELEVATION 1 -0° ARCHTEGTURAL SHINGLES N;ONG TRUSSES DRIP EDGE 1.20N 1x8 FASCIA VENTEDS0FFTTT0 tnATCRExKSnNc 5'4x TRIM RIPPED TO FIT BLOCKING AS REDD. 8'x r SQUARE COLUM / MAI LEVEL �J 5'4x 6 PT DECKIt 2x PTGIRDERS & JOISTS AS REC i x 12 BAND BOAT E I.f f '`1 i -6 S JO f,, 8" x 8" SQUARE GOLUN CONC. PIER C CONC. PADAS RED SECTION AT PORCH yr = V-x h Z K N ! d N >. N J P 0 z A, v -d len-._ :e!lrrcd _14I�k,=rl ^. -ll�J l�orz.TO SZ L W U A C m O s _ V) V) O m Uf cn Ln s a) Ln c N N 0 s � Lr) O 00 CN EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS sAE °x'! 2420,6 A2.01 �D� Si Vw-V'(A-oOoc'Nr cooiA�Cx.Yl��Vll u Top 981. 1 �i 982.0 Centerline- -r Woodside e 9��0 9 ?p3 .,• .ai •x •1+ 9 .9 974.3 to N 8718'.37" jW" ,3p t�qP 140.27 (mews.) j 9 140.5 (plat) � � t 976.7 g75.9 -- •- --...� ,I � 'oa d x`96,, 4d to �e .f a ��oPte b91 a � 9 "� • �• <.j!i 2� tbo4t t3a tlo4te a tO �a410 oPt Q • !� •i ; ,'�• ;.fir, ::' i � , ,e o41e ,• 0 I%Z Cb X24,8 v g�a1 Ling = 979.7 .Concrete Driveway';. %Cl t �a ''.. Porch J, _ ,fir tro4e P,e over _ :;-�• ;;f,�:. .:. .::r Oj jb� /es� Cove ed Pore rtre =979.9 TOF 979.8 GFE= 979.1. 980.0 I 61- -Conc. Pad j CIO N g�k�a 979. b x Conc: RW g Patio' X RW- <' a titaPte tdaPte X x x ti 9 x 984. N 87.22-4j" W a✓ 161.60 (meos.) A 162..3 (plat) 049 NO t2 1O �,oPta '4 ?E�• ��`� r tAoPtBrj � g,� 38.4 --- --- Concrete Driveway f - -RW 1- 0 ° *- N � 6.0 �t 9--"9,> }1�� Ret. Wall Steps 31 Concrete Patio 308 i 9�2�. Well VV 1 010 to X g�39 1 -- Portion of Deck 000p, ! 9�g'15 replaced) , 4O oPteS IQU o t1` 9��2 �,oPtg Tx I � �t- N I I -- 24.1 -- 0010 3O h° O °K Z Permit Prepared for: Doug Thesingh Legend Found Iron Monument x 000.0 Existing Elevation 0 Tree Hardcover fso. ft. ): House 2,777 Proposed Porch 521 Concrete Driveway 1,547 Concrete Pad 11 Gazebo 223 Ret. Wall Steps 31 Concrete Patio 308 5,418 Lot Area 20,920 Percent Hardcover 25.92 (Not included In calculations above ore retaining walls and deck) Descri t,rtiion (supplied by clien t Tract B, Registered Land Survey No. 0122, Hennepin County, Minnesota. Frp pert „v Address• 28015 Woodside Road Shorewood, MN 55331 P1D No.' 31- 117 -23 -13 -0003 SCALE 984.6 20 0 10 20 40 0 N a Z 0 `M1J I N � o th N N b s 3 Q) tZ a b y j v CO 4v U •i fi �� o ti• U�v .�vwr S . �.' v o v b f3a .c�a3 `Y W I O 1N: of � Z I O � q) cs ri- Z 0 pal �.l �i ,L t -A m C° "''30 U° o t°jr� q U N Zj th a Point 1 To Whom it May Concern, The variance we are requesting is in regards to the setback policy for the rear yard to the install an in ground pool. It has been a dream of ours to live in this community. I (Sally) was raised here as a child and my grandparents all lived on Lake Minnetonka. We moved to Shorewood in April of 2017. In the year and a half we have lived here we have fallen in love with the community, it has truly been a dream come true. Part of choosing the home we did was with the hope of creating our "forever home” to raise our four children. To us, that means having the space to live and an environment that provides entertainment and memories for us and our children. The first time we walked through this home we stood on the deck and thought what a beautiful space this would be for a pool, and we dreamed of creating our own oasis right in our back yard. When we purchased the home, we did not realize that a variance would be required to put in a pool. We understand that all ordinances are put in place for a reason, and we appreciate the intention of the city's policies and codes to help maintain the charm of this community. It is that very charm that is one of the reasons we have always wanted to live here. And our intention is not to detract from that charm, and we don't believe that putting a pool in our backyard would do so. If you view our property on Google maps, you will see that our home is surrounded in trees (my very favorite part of the property)! Our someday neighbors on the old Minnetonka Golf Course, will have no sight lines (as is now) to our property as there is a large area of mature trees dividing us. Our neighbors to the right and left also enjoy the same tree cover and any installation in our backyard would be practically unseen to them. It may be worth mentioning, we have their total support! And that brings me back to the initial point. We are asking for this variance so that we can create a great space for hosting neighborhood events, and provide a home that our kids friend's want to go to, and so that my family can build 20+ years of memories. For us, a pool would greatly fulfill that vision. As it stands right now, we are unable to put a pool in due to the set back policy. We ask that you examine our specific lot and consider allowing us an exception due to our particular lot and family wishes. We look forward to being lifelong members of this beautiful Shorewood community and it is our sincere belief that being able to put a pool in the backyard would actually enhance our experience in the community, and likely that of our neighbors as well. I am sure that it is not needed but we did go ahead and look at local set back policies and here are some of our findings below. The point of providing this information is not that we think Shorewood should consider changing it's policies, only that based on a comparison to other local cities' set back policies, we don't believe our request is outrageous or egregious. Thank you for your consideration. Chanhassen - Rear Yard= 10 Feet https::'!,,k v�,, ci.�li iii � sseiii sail.ri,,iDocu€ lient� etiter,'Vi �,X118(T6/R si(leiits. -(( Liide -to, _Acre>s€�i�StrLicttit- s ?buld Victoria - Rear Yard = 5 Feet t1 s.l! Mound - Rear Yard = 15 Feet f :/ /v_wws.c ifv�fi to €n .€ c��,t , ret�l'cal site, /4't,'7B E4C OC -5A79-4517-A""24- C&3 8 i f `:3 { °a'1 tools ..Hot Iu�bsxdf Wayzata - Rear Yard = 10 Feet lq >s• ;ky1�)Lw zat •� / a �� e t e� te�l�li�w, lr" air €tit -['coP Infa t�taii«t� F'[:) Tonka Bay - Rear Yard = 8 Feet ltttps:/'w,k 11 v.cijycj snl aFa .t�,'verticaElSites /f' %7B41 OBi 943 C✓4EE - 132 -gO 2- 7FQ9E61 OBC 0, 7Q /Upj_Q�1dss/5_W1 lMING POOLS HANDOUT 9.16 c t Deephaven - (If I understand correctly for a lot similar to our lot size) Rear Yard = 15 Feet I s:?1�v v .city_�sfc ec l t c� .c r � estic €,'site,s,° 7 3f i F41> 29-1~EA2.4'7'7B.-97C1- 91113C79 5501'4 °i�'7fD %u ic)a( s /,Setl)ack rorM p It Point 2 - A - We believe the our intended use of the property is very reasonable, and the only nonconformity of our proposed use is a variance on the rear setback distance. Approving the variance would not have any negative impact on neighbors or a significant impact to the amount of publicly visible green space on the property. B - We did not build the house, thus the circumstances were not created by us. Due to the location of the house being set deep on the lot, the deck and the location of the well, the proposed location of the pool is the only location that will work. C - The variance if approved would not negatively alter the essential character of the locality. Actually we believe if approved the variance would enhance the character of the property and due to the proposed location of the pool would do so while minimizing visibility of the structure from the street and to the neighboring homes. Point 3 — This is not based on economic considerations. Point 4 — This variance approval will not have any impact on sunlight to other properties, congestion on public streets, or increase the danger of fire or public safety. Point 5 — This variance approval and resulting construction will not have any impact on the public welfare or other lands in the neighborhood. Point 6 — This variance is the minimum necessary to alleviate the practical difficulties for the proposed pool /construction project in the proposed location on the property. I,0 P� Py' 06 � 0 � °TI� 0$Z. r '- -._. 05g ^46.8 ^ - ��.�q.� -�C-E• 0 0O \ $t ' � 1 �d. _ I WIT" v \ O•. i- pm� 46.2 -0111 LF =986.4 _ g6 % I ®f�RTE �mcl�c9r�S N' / \ P EXISTING HOUSE �' I ggoo \ FFE98. 14.3 II 2 g8- 71.0 o GF20.3 9X 70 ( 4.0 'CEP a Py�6 O I O N O 120 g O EXISTING ,\� \ kx HOUSE 990 I co \ \ g92• I . �6.\ \ 1p. O I O \�0 \ O I \ ` I BENCHMARK cPS9' \ \ I LQ !�u►1 g�0'i� ELEV = 993.6 �a9.- �gg21 II 1.,LH1i EXISD HOVER I (s.0 -3ic� HOUSE — 31590 50 SF DRIVE = 1740 SF FPATIOSTP = 450 SF \ 9gk Tom_ TOTAL = 5930 SF / 14.8% E ravv►a "so 14^111 ` e0> A \\ llp I \ I ,OA' q) -h%f-k -tb Fwm 0 20 . Pew klpr� q-�t- tra�.ttTOa�e�w -tom .hcc..tj oIr- = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE COH 'ftv -Lgft , T'"eF OHL X00 yh1nL �cah t� 1210It¢ GFE = GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION -4A• 4 c-�r+tyj�nt = TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION LFE N 9052'30" W 203.82 9�p Xt \ It \nl Q I Oa r ti�� S \i.�T 0 NS a 1 p �OC1S t I,0 P� Py' 06 � 0 � °TI� 0$Z. r '- -._. 05g ^46.8 ^ - ��.�q.� -�C-E• 0 0O \ $t ' � 1 �d. _ I WIT" v \ O•. i- pm� 46.2 -0111 LF =986.4 _ g6 % I ®f�RTE �mcl�c9r�S N' / \ P EXISTING HOUSE �' I ggoo \ FFE98. 14.3 II 2 g8- 71.0 o GF20.3 9X 70 ( 4.0 'CEP a Py�6 O I O N O 120 g O EXISTING ,\� \ kx HOUSE 990 I co \ \ g92• I . �6.\ \ 1p. O I O \�0 \ O I \ ` I BENCHMARK cPS9' \ \ I LQ !�u►1 g�0'i� ELEV = 993.6 �a9.- �gg21 II 1.,LH1i EXISD HOVER I (s.0 -3ic� HOUSE — 31590 50 SF DRIVE = 1740 SF FPATIOSTP = 450 SF \ 9gk Tom_ TOTAL = 5930 SF / 14.8% E ravv►a "so 14^111 ` e0> A \\ llp I \ I SCALE IN FEET ,OA' = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. 0 20 . 40 60 SCALE IN FEET ,OA' = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION ...... = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE COH = CANTILEVERED OVERHANG OHL = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE GFE = GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION TFE = TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION LFE = LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT 6, BLOCK 1, SPRUCE HILL, HENNEPIN CO., MN. ADDRESS. 6035 SPRUCE HILL COURT SHOREWOOD, MN PID# 33- 117 -23 -34 -0025 LOT AREA = 40065 SF/ 0.92 AC SURVEY IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PER TITLE OR EASEMENT INFORMATION 00 RECEIVED SEP 2 8 2018 CITY OF SHOREWOOD LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lots 6 and 7 and that part of Lot 5 which lies southerly of a line described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Lot 5; thence easterly to a point on the easterly line of said Lot 5, distant 7.00 feet northeast of the southeast comer of said Lot 5 and there terminating, all in BALL'S ADDITION TO EXCELSIOR, Hennepin County, Minnesota. PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SOUTHERLY PARCEL: Lots 6 and 7 and that part of Lot 5 which lies southerly of a line described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Lot 5; thence easterly to a point on the easterly, line of said Lot 5, distant 7.00 feet northeast of the southeast comer of said Lot 5 and there terminating, all in BALL'S ADDITION TO EXCELSIOR, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying South of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Lot 7; thence northeasterly along the westerly lines of said Lots 6 and 7, a distance of 82.83 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described, thence southeasterly to a point on the East line of said Lot 6 distant 60.08 northeast of the southeast comer of said Lot 7 and there terminating. Contains 12,885 Sq, Ft, or 0.3 Acres PROPOSED LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF NORTHERLY PARCEL: Lots 6 and 7 and that part of Lot 5 which lies southerly of a line described as follows: Beginning at the southwest comer of said Lot 5; thence easterly to a point on the easterly line of said Lot 5, distant 7.00 feet northeast of the southeast comer of said Lot 5 and there terminating, all in BALL'S ADDITION TO EXCELSIOR, Hennepin County, Minnesota, lying North of the following described line: Commencing at the southwest comer of said Lot 7; thence northeasterly, along the westerly lines of said Lots 6 and 7, a distance of 82.83 feet to the point of beginning of the line to be described; thence southeasterly to a point on the East line of said Lot 6 distant 60.08 northeast of the southeast comer of said Lot 7 and there terminating, Contains 13,127 Sq. Ft or 0.3 Acres SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS: 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the legal description listed above. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish to be included on the survey ave been shown. y v 2. Showing the location of observed existing improvements we deem necessary lfor the survey. 3. Setting survey markets or verifying existing survey markers to establish the comers of the property. 4. Shorting and tabulating imperious surface coverage of the lot for your review and for the review of such governmental agencies that may have jurisdiction over these requirements to verify they are correctly shown before proceeding with construction. 5. Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of die site. We have also provided a benchmark for your use in determining elevations for construction on this site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one oilier feature shown on the survey when determining other elevations for use on this site or before beginning construction. 6. W X ales e show a proposed division of the property. Please review the proposal to see that it is what you intend and submit to those x 9706 9j0.q 'Se x 971.e 1 governmental agencies that have jurisdiction to obtain their approvals, if you can, before making any decisions regarding the /� IV" X 9]x2 property. s) ' 7. This survey has been completed without the benefit of a current title commitment There may be existing easements or other -' --taste - o °9 encumbrances that would be revealed by a current fide commitment Therefore, this survey does not purport to show any easements or encumbrances other than the ones shown hereon. - 8. Note that all building dimensions and building tie dimensions to the property lines, are taken from the siding and or stucco of the building. / 9. While we show a proposed location for this home or addition, we are not as familiar with your proposed plans as you, your x 9n s / architect, or the builder are. Review our ro sed location of the ire rovements and ro osed aril Fades careful! to ve' r P Lp P P P Y g y nf}''` 974) r that they match your plans before construction begins. Also, we are not as familiar with local codes and minimum requirements �T // / fza as the local building and zoning officials in this community are. Be sure to show this survey to said officials, or any other \ZL6� I officials that may havejurisdiction over the proposed improvements and obtain their approvals before beginning construction or O / planning improvements to the property. 1k x 10. While we show, the building setback lines per the City f Shorewood o tveb site we suggest you show this survey to the P t}' .erg Y Y INSTALL ROLL -y / i X9)17 appropriate city officials to be sure that the setback lines are shown correctly. Do this BEFORE you use dhis survey to design FE7/cE/a70 ROLL � •'j i� anything for this site. \ Z / l v'X9) \ STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: I X 9726 ]a� / \ \ X 9762 �( \ Denotes iron survey marker, set, unless otherwise noted. X pn z` h I Fge,O = iYUgys•<a\ I LE'GLWD x97 EXISTING COAIT06R - - -975- - - Ed7S7771'C SPOT FLFAZFfON x 975.5 PROPOSED C0JVT00Br 975 PROPOSED FF0T ELEVATION 975.5 - ,OB"V4CE "BOX - FLO/P ===> SILT FENCE ,1610 ROLL - SF TREE REfOV" X DATE REVISION DESCRIPTION 7/18/18 SHOW LOT SPLIT 7/24/18 SHOW ADDITIONAL TOPO 8/9/18 SHOW PROPOSALS FOR THE NORTH PARCEL 8/21/18 ADJUST LOT LINE AND MOVE GARAGE 8/29/18 SHOW SETBACK DIMENSION 8/29/18 ADDED PROPOSED HOUSE /GRADING TO SOUTH PARCEL X' -- 97.5 Y 9772 2 k /k s k ¢ o K 97 'b4 a \ wa 7 I�� \9716 9) r� �i ^` X9- 973 X9]45 4.7 ]♦ ^ 3_X9]5 V/ O 1 N '�-/O 0 / ORI AY INSTALL ROCK cnvsTRUCAON -- EN7RANCE PER NOW DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE N SCALE - V = 20' 0 20 40 Benchmark: Lop of monho7e-97S2 CLIENT NAME / JOB ADDRESSn TCTl x97 is., rr \ ' /k ou / dog 969 \ o f X99 '1 d Ti i TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER I y\ x AREA of LOT 969.7 t J7( Q 969.9 •V Concrete Surfaces 30 Sq. Ft. 9695 9.9 - ca 9.71 ^'X 97sa X J39 96'99 J Brick Patio 51 Sq. Ft. Crowe/ P.W g / oreo A, the 171 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS Proposed walk 124 Sq. Ft. ldn FIRST FLOOR (SUB - FLOOR) = 981.67 fP AREA OF LOT 13,127 Sq. Ft. TOP OF FOUNDATION = 979.67 PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 23.84 e \\- LOW OPENING = 974.17 BASEMENT FLOOR = 971.00 GARAGE FLOOR = 979.30 (ELEVATIONS PROVIDED BY CLIENT) DRAWING ORIENTATION & SCALE N SCALE - V = 20' 0 20 40 Benchmark: Lop of monho7e-97S2 CLIENT NAME / JOB ADDRESSn TCTl *tar✓ FXis(jn �tve / /in9 , -� - -- IV 8j J63f„ / NSTALL 5/LT W FENCE/E10 ROLL X998 -_ �e.o o 979. °\Caro 9e 794 )a6p 24.0 /X �a ,1 yb I W 92 O/ k 9 b X 9 3 z"10,,, ^�Ir1 � I 0 rTe7r N� a / _ _ l 9 X 9 / / i� h X 97ae � g� �� c� J] ��, T]_ �l 1 aTCO X 97L7.4, Ip• ] \ \ 9- 971 / ' '4/,'// \\ _ ° ^♦ 976 )< 7n21 I 9. ( /j1 � REE WALL- - -9 �s .L /, X 979.1 7� / 777 -78ACK UNE-'-' y4 )JOITthei,1 rei f:�.� /pro L/NE WORKJ \ Y i� T � Z 6\ \ kv9]).1 9 5 INSTALL SYL_. 2.5503-" } FENCE 1810 ROLL \ C SF El 9164 X 9766 X 976. X 976.9 Academy Avenue DENMAN 5865 GLENCOE ROAD SHOREWOOD, MN X9]0.9 / 350 ' Ux X 9SL3 t / `CC vrt7/ I 9716 �, X 9527 X 9543 1 \ \ X 9553 \ \ X 152b `'ss4 x se- x 15a \ \ \ \\ X952.7 \ x`9556 �\ \ \\ X954.�.� �� \ �^ 959 \�� �� \=t 9519 \ I \ X'SSOZ _ \- - -_sAS \ P 9- _ \ \ \1 X 9538 s6 s60 `` \\ \\\ I 959. •sue• J \ a6 \ - �62 \ �_ 9600 x ze \ -• mss, 1 X963. X 9629 `Po2 _ _ _ ♦ X 9548\ \ \ \ \ X 956 \960 _ x96,1,4 y�9 X9639 GRADING& EROSION CONTROL NOTES: X 96 2 BEFORE DEMOLITION AND GRADING BEGIN I 905 Install siltfence/bio roll around the perimeter of the construction area. 1sss �' ,\sago • Sediment control measures most remain in place until final stabilindon has been established 966-\ and then shall be removed. Sediment controls may be removed to accommodate short tern x 9s- i construction activity but must be replaced before the nest mhl. ` -a.t, 64 s6s] • A temporary rock construction entrance shall be established at each access point to the site and 9X66.4 a 6 inch layer of I to 2 inch rock extending at least 30 feet from the street into the site and shall X 9665 be underlain rid i 1 i permeable geotestile fabric The entrance shall be maintained Burin / e 96]1/ GO(O9 Fl °or 96]9\ x , 96 9a X X967.1 %)5 7 X96].4 / \gb P] 96]3 96]J 969.5 O 95 75 967.] 9669 J: ^s 9691 ' oa' gave b ' /k ou / dog 969 965,0 o Walk /etoop 9695 p 2 i TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER I y\ x *tar✓ FXis(jn �tve / /in9 , -� - -- IV 8j J63f„ / NSTALL 5/LT W FENCE/E10 ROLL X998 -_ �e.o o 979. °\Caro 9e 794 )a6p 24.0 /X �a ,1 yb I W 92 O/ k 9 b X 9 3 z"10,,, ^�Ir1 � I 0 rTe7r N� a / _ _ l 9 X 9 / / i� h X 97ae � g� �� c� J] ��, T]_ �l 1 aTCO X 97L7.4, Ip• ] \ \ 9- 971 / ' '4/,'// \\ _ ° ^♦ 976 )< 7n21 I 9. ( /j1 � REE WALL- - -9 �s .L /, X 979.1 7� / 777 -78ACK UNE-'-' y4 )JOITthei,1 rei f:�.� /pro L/NE WORKJ \ Y i� T � Z 6\ \ kv9]).1 9 5 INSTALL SYL_. 2.5503-" } FENCE 1810 ROLL \ C SF El 9164 X 9766 X 976. X 976.9 Academy Avenue DENMAN 5865 GLENCOE ROAD SHOREWOOD, MN X9]0.9 / 350 ' Ux X 9SL3 t / `CC vrt7/ I 9716 �, X 9527 X 9543 1 \ \ X 9553 \ \ X 152b `'ss4 x se- x 15a \ \ \ \\ X952.7 \ x`9556 �\ \ \\ X954.�.� �� \ �^ 959 \�� �� \=t 9519 \ I \ X'SSOZ _ \- - -_sAS \ P 9- _ \ \ \1 X 9538 s6 s60 `` \\ \\\ I 959. •sue• J \ a6 \ - �62 \ �_ 9600 x ze \ -• mss, 1 X963. X 9629 `Po2 _ _ _ ♦ X 9548\ \ \ \ \ X 956 \960 _ x96,1,4 y�9 X9639 GRADING& EROSION CONTROL NOTES: X 96 2 BEFORE DEMOLITION AND GRADING BEGIN I 905 Install siltfence/bio roll around the perimeter of the construction area. 1sss �' ,\sago • Sediment control measures most remain in place until final stabilindon has been established 966-\ and then shall be removed. Sediment controls may be removed to accommodate short tern x 9s- i construction activity but must be replaced before the nest mhl. ` -a.t, 64 s6s] • A temporary rock construction entrance shall be established at each access point to the site and 9X66.4 a 6 inch layer of I to 2 inch rock extending at least 30 feet from the street into the site and shall X 9665 be underlain rid i 1 i permeable geotestile fabric The entrance shall be maintained Burin / e 96]1/ GO(O9 Fl °or 96]9\ x , 96 9a X X967.1 %)5 7 X96].4 / \gb P] 96]3 96]J 969.5 O 95 75 967.] 9669 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TMS PLAN, SURUtt( OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY UL OR UNDER lilt DIRECT SUPFRVS GN AND THAT AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER 1H LAMS OF ri� OF 61INNESOTA. ^s 9691 ' oa' gave b ' /k ou / dog 969 965,0 o Walk /etoop 9695 p Proposed Paver Drive 1,254 Sq. Ft. 5693 TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER I y\ x AREA of LOT 969.7 t J7( Q 969.9 •V Concrete Surfaces 30 Sq. Ft. 9695 9.9 - ca 9.71 ^'X 97sa 96'99 J Brick Patio 51 Sq. Ft. Crowe/ P.W g oreo A, the �i)Sq ghow' to Proposed walk 124 Sq. Ft. ._ -thee 910.5 A 9)0.7 t.._ ______IN57ALL ROLL AREA OF LOT 13,127 Sq. Ft. �e" FWCE/8I0 ROLL 9712 9)2.3 g construction by v to dressing p ar washing to prevent tracking or flow of sediments onto public streels,walks or alleys. Polemist entrances that me not so protected shall be closed by fencing to prevent unprotected exit from Ole site. • Contractor shall install Her protection on all existing storm sewer inlets in accordance with the city standard details. Inlet protection shall also be provided on all proposed storm sewer inlets immediately following construction of the inlet. Inlet protection must be installed in a manner that will not impound water for extended periods of time or in a manner that presents a hazard to vehicular or ian estr traffic, ed p affic. DURING CONSTRUCTION: • When dirt stockpiles have been created, a double raw of silt fence shall be placed to prevent escape of sediment laden runoff and if the piles or oilier disturbed areas are to remain in place for more than 14 days, s, they shall be seeded with Minnesota Department of Transportation Seed Mixture 22 -111 at 100Iblacre followed by covering with spray mulch. • A dumpster shall be placed on the site for prompt disposal of cons Wction debris. These dumpsters shall be serviced regularly to present overflowing and blowing onto adjacent properties. Disposal ofsolid wastes from die site shall in accordance with Minnesota Pollution Control Agency requirements. • A separate container shall be placed for disposal of haurdous waste. Hazardous wastes shall be disposed of in accordance with MPCArequlrements. • Concrete track washout shall be in the plastic lined ditch and dispose of washings as solid waste. • Sediment control devices shall be regularly inspected and after major rainfall events and shall be cleaned and repaired as necessary to provide downstream protection. • Streets and other public ways shall be inspected daily and iflitter or soils has been deposited it shall promptly be removed. • If necessary, veldcles, that have mud on their wheels, shall be cleaned before exiting the site In the rock entrance C.S. ar • Moisture shall be applied to disturbed areas to control dust as needed. • Portable toilet facilities shall be placed on site for use by workers and shall be properly maintained. • If it becomes necessary to pump file escavation during construction, pump discharge shall be into die stockpile areas so th at the double silt fence around these areas can filter die water before it leaves the site. • Temporary erosion control shall be installed no later than 14 days oiler die site is twat disturbed and shall consist of broadcast seeding with Minnesota Department of TranspormGon Seed Mixturo 22 -111 at 100lb /acre followed by covering with spiny mulch. • Erosion control measures showm on the erosion control plan are the absolute minimum. The contractor shall install temporary earth dikes, sediment trips or basins and additional silt fencing as deemed necessary to control erosion. SITE WORK COMPLETION: • When final grading has been completed but before placement of seed or sod an "as built" survey shall be done per City of Shorewood requirements to insure that grading was properly done. • When my remedial grading has been completed, sod or seeding shall be completed including any erosion control blankets for steep areas. • When turf is established, silt fence and inlet protection and other erosion control devices shall be disposed of and adjacent streets, alleys and walls shall be cleaned as needed to deliver a site that is erosion resistant and clean. • Contractor shall maintain positive drainage of a minimum 2% slope away from proposed building. - Advan e e SU/'VteyIn9 & Engil7eer%n , CO. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TMS PLAN, SURUtt( OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY UL OR UNDER lilt DIRECT SUPFRVS GN AND THAT AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER 1H LAMS OF ri� OF 61INNESOTA. DATE SURVEYED: MAY 10, 2018 SURVEYED BY ADVANCED SURVEYING. & ENG., CO. PROPOSED HARDCOVER NORTH PARCEL Thomas M. Bloom #42379 DATE DRAFTED: OCTOBER 23, 2018 House 801 Sq. Ft. Walk /etoop 311 Sq. Ft. Proposed Paver Drive 1,254 Sq. Ft. �3 973E 763 TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER Proposed Garage ' 576 Sq. Ft. AREA of LOT 12,654 Sq. Ft. Concrete Surfaces 30 Sq. Ft. \ - Brick walk 85 Sq. Ft. Brick Patio 51 Sq. Ft. X97" X976.7 Proposed Patio 201 Sq. Ft. �i)Sq Proposed walk 124 Sq. Ft. TOTAL EXISTING HARDCOVER 3,122 Sq. Ft. AREA OF LOT 13,127 Sq. Ft. X97)4 PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 23.84 - Advan e e SU/'VteyIn9 & Engil7eer%n , CO. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT TMS PLAN, SURUtt( OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY UL OR UNDER lilt DIRECT SUPFRVS GN AND THAT AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER 1H LAMS OF ri� OF 61INNESOTA. DATE SURVEYED: MAY 10, 2018 SURVEYED BY ADVANCED SURVEYING. & ENG., CO. 17917 Highway 7 Minnetonka, Minnesota 55345 Phone (952) 474 -7964 Web: vnvsv.advsur.com Thomas M. Bloom #42379 DATE DRAFTED: OCTOBER 23, 2018 LICENSE NO. OCTOBER 23, 2018 DATE Walk /etoop PROPOSED HARDCOVER SOUTH PARCEL House 2,470 Sq. Ft. Driveosy 645 Sq. Ft. Porch 199 Sq. Ft. Patio 219 Sq. Ft. Walk /etoop 311 Sq. Ft. Retaining Palle 20 Sq. Ft. TOTAL PROPOSED HARDCOVER 3,664 Sq. Ft. AREA of LOT 12,654 Sq. Ft. PERCENTAGE OF HARDCOVER TO LOT 30.0$ SHEET TITLE PROPOSED SURVEY DRAWING NUMBER 180910 JR SHEET SIZE 22 X 34 - SHEET N0, S1 SHEET 1 OF 1 aapaoq Ajunoo aanaeo/uasseyueyC) ;o Alin G) cu fi L C� G 0 `nom r CD CD Q m a e-j !dl b fi fi Jul /(}�adoad pefgnS aL a C 0 000' 4 005 05Z 0 N -V � X 970,5 X 9706 X 970,4 '�6 X 971,8 Ni 72,2 �i 72,3 3� 72, /� 973,0 ^ i X- 74,1 -� IV �- - _ _ 81 y6;3j» X GY I 972 / 4L] pOlie��i 8 - - - - - - 974= X 98-- X 9755- - 747 �� x3 X 974,2 ' _ 978, 9 .9 �980� 6 �"g$�/,� 7 / i X 971.9 9717 � � i � � �� � / g8g� 979, / / ��/ �f 976.0 16 "� 97 ,8 - -3C 977,0 / / 9 X I ! X 975,5' I ' 7 cOrO9e / C . O �[cs x 9776 aC97e,0 �K� ?4',Y24' �/ / 1I 70,0 X 977,2 ,10 , Co 976.X 976,'8 0 977.7. ?9, J k Y` 979. 979, x X 973,4 // // i `V Xt 6.k 976,9 i 5 O / � r 978,6 /' 9,2x8,8 ' X 74,2X 9 4,s 972.9 I/ o !� 977 j 978, � 978.6 ♦ 9,1- 979,3 / �I \ \ 978,0 V/0 O 3 0 \ / 1 / X 972,6 t X 975.6 \ I /l Ol J j � 4.3 X 972 t \ X�76f2 �y� h 1 j/l D I ` 977,9 j O 978,5, 0 X 978.8 L X97 ,8 / / �; / ° / / / X 971,7 / r I ,� REVISED L O T 977.6 22.4 20 978,7' / t / / /6 / , HOUSE - 801 X 973,8 X 97e,8 / 10" ��7 ^� i GARAGE - 576 l w ,O 1 X 97a 5� t . �2 (�/ �� 1 ?� PORCH - NA \ h ^ 1X9780\ } �� /000 " "" 97 . / „�07 I , I PA 770 - 227 / � 978.8 X S ,' E� j 74.3 / / /� I FRONT STOOP - 22 X 973,1 97 ,2 / / `Y' / / SIDEWALK - 250 O 973, X 974,5 4,7 X 978,4 \ X / / / / 16 / I / DRIVEWAY - 1222 975,s 970,2 `� TOTAL HARD COVER - 3098 8,6 I ( X 97716 975,3 / / \ - 23.6% H.C. / / i"ovel parking / �( LOT - 13127.4 0 /' 097 ,5 / rea 970,2 • \ X .35 Q9 ,a/ X 16 e/ghbo to - -____, \� X970,4 H. C. Allowed 4594.6 bock he e st. I o 'X,970.8 // I �^ J ,970,8 v 979,5 ) 097n3 I / / / /� 1 / X 970.4 97iY6 9 Lo / `'' z LOT 2 976.0 / � I x •� / "�, � � I � HOUSE - 1808 X 3,5 X 976,0 \ U X 97 , 1-41 j / \ x 9 -- GARAGE - 676 r'� \ 7 /sh_ _ �f 72, PORCH - 212 FA 770 - 244 30' Setback �� / / i VN FRONT STOOP - 53 � X 70,7 � SIDEWALK - 253 1 i - ��� l� - - \' I DRIVEWA Y - 611 _ 20' Setback l i X97 ,9 %�� -� - +_- X972,3 0976,5 12" ( / TOTAL HARD COVER - 3857 J 378,5 l X 979,4 / - 29.9% H. C. \ X 979,2 / ( \ e �x,2 _ LOT - 12884 / / \ x/7 / X .35 0979, �J�/ l H.C. Allowed 4509.4 X93,9 974,3 \) m \ \ \ 6„ /�� J ( XloC7\ 973.6x J - / � ) 976,6 \ \ �/ / � � 97,0_ Fou d Iron �dn ( \0977,a N 9 32 '5, ' X 976,7 l \ ��� 7/ TREES TO BE REMOVED ^�Or� 18 \ \ 977.9 �s� .�s.2 -'�� 1 - 8p Tree i a, \ _� 6•� i 1- 16 Tree G� \ \ X 77,2 ' ,3� _ \ X 977,6 _, -Edge of Bit. food i 97513 X 976,5 �- �' 976,7_ 976,7 976.6 ` X3/6 976,4 76.2 i ' 976,0 976,5 i RECEIVED i 976,0 X 976,8 X 976.7 ' X 976.6 X 976.8 X 976,9 ®976.4 � JK i I Benchmark: - - -Academy Avenue Top of manhole-975.2 - - _ C ' �% ®975,2 X 977.0 _ A iti W a" U N � iJ d •F�1 a' U E 26'•m' 6g' -m' e n�C Ep �eYSggg3.ki�� 3 UP i •. S AI ° -- -- - - - - -- - - -- - -- c �e.2° as -1 6&K DULL U4YFLPO qb' ;4, m EVER G91 1 I 2 -4X6 -8 7X6 1 --6 6 m I•�PrKT. PAN MASTER CLOSET nl _, — �q �' -I Ug'CLG. I `. I - -- -- - - -- euExuAUruaro I -- hhh 44'dEAR I d�a. g WY -I Vg'EIL6Y sE'+ I �_______T_ _ C bo kb 4 o ®Fn. ALUt Rae - ---- -- - --- $ - 1 �." m p'4ff�3 I �" �-E� I 3- -8 1-4X6'g —_ `_ - -___ -- -- — -- — — L� e GARAGE �i 2 -4x6 -g i 5D. r— -- —__ - -- I = W r 76 x Fn. -- i 6xe g ° IVRKiz I I ° ® m I vau r a a I M 1 a I _: m° m - - -- _ I X11 IN °I I rc_ I a � S SUI i o Y I I I 2 -DX6 -0 I FOYER I I e I e I a I e ° m W J� o x 40 2X6 I o a ^' � 191 � � I 1 i L--- -_ - -�— — I ��-- ,2.J__J I°al 3 -0k8 -m •SD. - - - -- J p N a°� DICE y r w o 0 z w z a I - _ ____ SCRE w o L_ PATIO I 9 __ _____ _ 201-0'X )' -2' CQJCRETE j m° z zG I oa >w W -3' m 26' -0' tm' 0 x X �� MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN a W `C- YALE: V4' • I'•m' SHEET INDEX Tl ARCt7tTTCiLT,lt. @ r 12 •Y A I r k}arklP�zp F A2I I I H7, 'di M7 t f A3 F3E1. P t A-4 E -iF 16 Ca F{ f F 018 Afi 1 A Y(alEi _ 1 ?- 2 5 x(L�LI❑ AR Ba.f {Y.v A9 BnF -fit, W �,....,,�I � f f I: Ir'rwa F1 .>kta Ia it—, Lk.v - E -U EL,mxlf fn E-2 H-1 Pi. fl ��tk, r�rPL� A -3 SHEET NO. 968'){/ > 0,6 X 97 970 c' r,5� \ 97:8 / 9r21 / ,,,1c �•1 (01 °' r .IC8_X NI 68.7 9 3 973.0 ^I A q,2 2, S�I- - - - - 68.4 7- SILT FENCE, 1 973.12 7 '3-7 tj__ -- - - .- f_ T1P. LOW f%OOr - -�` 9( bZ6 °?� - - - - - -_ ' J 969.9 Wa lk out door 965.0 974,E ' 969.�I / .0 _ __ � � / x`5.3 a n O �,.., -r " � � / � ' • r / � � X 971.9 ioPOSeD % 680.00 GVED ID •'(, 5 97c.8 -- RIVEWAY y.7°j / f o ci8�? �d979Z_ ? o ' I / X'976.0 P�oPo ed Ga r� �1X �7�. _ 970,0 I rc',i / Q) 1 I I )76 / ,i %9.-1 ( C ZL6 1 i, �y377,5 978.0 / j1C ;0 24 X 24, �,��DEMOLISH + I X 977.2 EXISTING i 976,° �� i -S,L� GARAGE _/ / / / / / •�J Qi / °77.0 977,7 29 J• •GK 979,1 FFE: 960 979. / ,� 976.8 '� X 97x.4 969,7 r � r X J � �; � �� -7-- X 976.7 976�� I 77 s / �/' /� 9786 ������ -C 5za.2X 9i 4�s / '7X 972.9 i 1 1 ` 969,5 E�0 J ' .�' /�� !� % ��� 978.6 79,1 97 � 977`! I a• i � ,� /43 � r X 9 X 975.6 y� > 7�Q3 "6 (b j<r - - X 97G,O X(972i7 976,2 1 O 978,5 X 978,8 / 7 / PROPOSED X 971.7 1 L \v'1 ' + h / /�� / / �• y� GARAGE l BIOROLL )77.6 /22 4 iCO O u //0" /`L0 9787'` SEDIMENT ROCK / 97E3.8 / % 1� r\� / X 9 X 7 970.2 X i CONTROL CONSTRUCTION _� _ i,; / •1`�' ENTRANCE �� [ X / \v L / nO / ()q7 iY 9.9 - /x 9791L, X , 11 / n, r + / i e 97'3.1` _ 'I 977 4,3 v. r �_ / REMOVE 16° 4 n I i ` �� � �l \ 3 FT RET. WALL / / / � TREE / � 970.2 C�� ,.I m ' 10 1 l� T>T977. 975.3 \ 8 ' /' , i 478.6 s75 .2o- s.2a% / CT.z7ve( por47y , 970.? ' e7 D € f / X 7 S.3 '978.50 \ / „ r 972.57 u r - 1 - - - 970.E ,� 7 4,9 n 8.0 r i s74.e5 y i hbn/ to Y, �� 7�La PROTECT / >,; r. ) v - - -- _ /10' Se ifrre�� •'mot-_ EXISTING - ( / 75. ' r �, i �� - 9X 7Nf 'y i C SH R diJ ` D JJ \TREED / J �.........n .. .as. / GFE -979.0 97250 I / 679.34 FFE =980.8 t 97 °3 / o / , 970.4 / s E =970.0 �/971 ,2 � REMOVE 8'• I .� 978.42 / TREE /1976.0 0 ,a, Do 2�N /� l �`: / 1 J f 76. rn `• 975.50) / / 53.5 r X 90/ - -- _� - I 972.50 a J71.b .'7 (7 \ \ o 4 _ `1796 r I I r� d7 2.E r z• `r - �� + 7 30' Setback L I I 4 f f - / IMPERVIOUS AREA SUMMARY I / 978.50 ', 1 PROTECT r x !' -1 / '7 978.60 / I EXISTING " r / ! LOT 1 AREA 13,127 SF I X 97/7'-s i� �/ / 20' Setbaci i _I UTILITY POLE " �� / •( g7a,-; 1 - % y / - - - _7L__ - / - - - i LOT 1 HARDCOVER 3,098 SF c - 678 -�-- �. rs 62LF 4" PERF. DT. f LOT 1 HARDCOVER % 23.6/0 l i97o,� 978.04 1 /.__. Lv / �. ° X 9794 978.43 rt�s978s 5 ( / / _7 I W/ SOCK, 4'X4' - LOT 2 AREA 12,884 7, �/ �- - 977 // �, 40% VOID ROCK, \ Xr�r9. i 111 J _s7s J t INV =96s.a LOT 2 HARDCOVER 3,745 TOP ROCK=972.0 I 3 FT RET. WALL ,t \ SILT FENCE, /� /' F BOT. ROCK 9680 ° ° LOT2 HARDCOVER /0 29.9/0 v `TYP. 4, S 77.: • I i 9 F" o,/ �r �7 hA�74,i j 9T.',,6� EXISTING HARDCOVER: 4,737 SF 974'3 ��� X � / i T X 97� 7 PROPOSED HARDCOVER: 3,098 +3,857 =6,955 SF 976'6 � / �' NET INCREASE: 2,218 SF --, � V -1 C)� E 977,0 \ / / X 976.7 EX. 100YR RUNOFF: 11,456 CF PROP. 109(R RUNOFF: 11,846 CF 01 � i 4" k 977,9 _ , /,X 975'2 NET INCREASE 100YR RUNOFF: 392 CF c 9 ^s., STORAGE PROVIDED: (62 *4 *4 *0.4) N 396 CF y.,6 X 977.6 -Edge of. Bit- -Road j - - - - - - - f 4 ~i 57`''' X 976 ; - -' - - / 97h 7 57 976. ( ? L _ eq 40 °/a VOID SPACE 976 T 476,6 \ - 976 ... �. �76�2 Academy Avenue r „ Y 0 05 10 20 DRAINTILE SECTION DETAIL SCALE IN FEET aZ a J O cc I-- Z O U Z O C0 O cc W = a Q C N W O QJ 0 cc O 0, Z 0 0 0 � a3i Q 00 S L0 w 0 I hereby cerlify that this plan, apecificallon, or report was Prepared an by me or m undo, y direct pervision d that I am a duly Uaensed Professional Engineer under Hie law, of the Stofe of MINNESOTA 7 oio,°i�,..n_ DAtB- 7-25-18 54821 Date Ucenee No. QUALITY ASSURANCE /CONTROL DAVE HASH, PE 7 -25 -18 BY DATE DATE ISSUE 7 -25 -18 CRY SUB4RTAL PROJECT TEAM DATA DESIGNED: D. SJOBLOM DRAWN: D. SJOBLOM PROJECT N0: 180128 C -1 SHEET 1 OF 2 SAWCUT' REMOVE AND REPLACE DISTURBED ROAD SECTION AS REQUIRED WET TAP WITH 1" CORP. EXISTING WATERMAIN, OWNED BY CITY OF EXCELSIOR, FIELD VERIFY LOCATION F� '1 O n 7, Iv a I F jl �I 1 i �f �` I %6 wrrcrc rvnlnrc ae.rcvwc CITY SHUT —OFF VALVE 73 LF 4" SCHEDULE 40 PVC ' SAN SERVICE ® 2.0% CONNECT TO EX. 9 PVC SAN. SEWER WITH WYE AND RISER EX. INV= 957.45 (PER ASBUILT) I i EX. INV= 957.85 (PER ASBUILT ADJUSTED TO BENCHMARK) _ RISER INV =963.5 T/ Iii' f SAN STUB INV =965 v GFE =979.0 1 i0 z L� 0 EX. 9" PVC SAN ® yA, 2.4% SHOWN PER zvj AS —BUILT l% I II f - f t FFE =980.8 1 ' I LFE =970,0 f (Lj 20' Setboc{: _e �i — — i f _ %0" %4 - (; iv - l�etbac! CSI11� S_) I X IE��� r�Cl /7Ci �rn 7 1 I " l3 - �\ `c u,, n ENE D Edge of _1 Wt. mood _ I , J"t I — ,ti N ' Ben chm ark: — — < -- (� Top of manhole -975.2 - -- 0 05 10 20 SCALE IN FEET Aft AL LIANT ENa1N EEBINa 733 Marquette Avenue Suite 700 Minneapolis, MN 55402 612.758.3080 www.alliant- inc.com V) 0 J V 0 M0 cc 0 Z a O �R O V o _ � d J OD 0 F- 0 = =11 777, ertify that this plan, specillcation, o report w Prepared by me or under my direct up"sion and that I am a duly Uceneed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of MINNESOTA M.8,J09.OI.1- 7-25-18 54821 Date Ucenee No. QUALITY ASSURANCE /CONTROL DAVE HASH, PE 7 -25 -18 BY DATE DATE ISSUE 7 -25 -18 CITY SUBYfiTAL PROJECT TEAM DATA DESIONED: D, SJOBLOM DRAWN: D. SJOBLOM PROJECT NO: 180128 C-2 SHEET 2 OF 2