Loading...
12-04-18 Planning Commission Agenda CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY DECEMBER 4, 2018 7:00 P.M. A G E N D A CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL / (LIAISON) SCHEDULE GORHAM (Mar) ______ EGGENBERGER (Dec&Feb) ______ DAVIS (Jan) ______ RIEDEL (Apr) ______ MADDY (May) ______ 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES November 20, 2018  3. PUBLIC HEARINGS A) 7:00 P.M. – PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND MINOR SUBDIVISION Applicant: GreenWood Design Build, LLC (Doug Cutting) Location: 23825 Lawtonka Drive 4. OTHER BUSINESS None 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR 6. REPORTS Council Meeting Report  Draft next meeting agenda  7. ADJOURNMENT CITY OF SHOREWOOD COUNCIL CHAMBERS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 5755 COUNTRY CLUB ROAD TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 2018 7:00 P.M. MINUTES CALL TO ORDER Chair Maddy called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. ROLL CALL Present: Chair Maddy; Commissioners Davis, Eggenberger, and Riedel; Planning Director Darling; and, Council Liaison Johnson Absent: Commissioner Gorham 1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Eggenberger moved, Davis seconded, approving the agenda for November 20, 2018, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES  October 30, 2018 Davis moved, Reidel seconded, approving the Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of October 30, 2018, as presented. Motion passed 4/0. 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS – None 4. OTHER BUSINESS A. VARIANCES FOR SETBACKS AND HARDCOVER Applicant: Douglas Thesingh Location: 28015 Woodside Road Commissioner Eggenberger noted that there was a memorandum distributed just prior to the meeting regarding this application. Director Darling explained that this application for setbacks and hardcover is for the applicants to add a front and side porch to their home. She explained the variances that had been granted to previous owners and reviewed the current variance requests. She stated staff has reviewed the request according to the zoning regulations criteria and found that the setback requests meet the requirements however, the hardcover request does not. She noted that the City has received one letter of support from the property owner to the east. Commissioner Reidel confirmed that the plans as presented are to increase the non-conformity of all three requests. He asked for more information about why staff was recommending approval of the setbacks and not the impervious surface. CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2018 Page 2 of 5 Director Darling noted that the house and the gazebo were approved to be exactly where they are, so they are conforming. She stated that the City has been looking at considering some code amendments to allow covered porches or porticos within a front yard or a side abutting a street. She stated that this variance request is very similar to others the City has approved. She stated that the variance request does not appear to be impactful either to the neighbor to the east or to the public street. Amie Thesingh, 28015 Woodside Road, stated that their request is to continue an existing deck and create a wrap-around porch. She stated that they are pleased that staff is recommending approval of the setback request, but questions the problem with the impervious surface variance. She noted that she had typed up a memo for the Commission to consider prior to the meeting. She gave a brief summary of what information she included in the memo surrounding the efforts they made to decrease the impervious surface amounts on their lot. She stated that they had also spent a lot of time improving the water run off situation by including French drains, drain tile, and intensely planting the lot in order to hold the soil in place. She stated that she thinks the location and size of their lot creates a unique situation since they have wide setbacks on two sides of their property. She asked that staff reconsider the effort that was made to come up with the absolute minimum variance for impervious surface of 25.9 percent instead of 25 percent. Chair Maddy asked how much work had already been completed. Ms. Thesingh stated that the driveway, landscaping, the culvert, and all the water management pieces are already in place. She stated that they have holes for the footings of the porch and are hoping the variance will be granted in order to move forward before the ground freezes. Chair Maddy confirmed that the applicants had removed 216 square feet of bituminous material off of the public right of way. Commissioner Reidel stated that the applicants are missing the target by such a small amount and asked if there wasn’t a place where those extra few feet could be recovered. Ms. Thesingh stated that they narrowed the driveway and made the turn around as small as possible. She stated that the drawing is not as accurate as the aerial photograph and noted that the arc is not as pronounced as it appears, so there isn’t really room to cut it down anymore. She noted that their goal was not to apply for a variance at all and noted that they shaved everywhere they can. She explained that a standard porch is eight feet wide and theirs is proposed to be six feet on the side and seven feet on the other side. She noted that they had just purchased the home on November 1, 2017 and bought it with the plan to make these outdoor improvements and were not aware of the restrictions and feel that they have worked hard to get meet the standards. Director Darling asked whether the gravel sidewalk that was installed was compacted gravel. Mr. Thesingh stated that she isn’t sure of the name, but they had taken the concrete sidewalk out and tried to create something permeable with crushed rock. Commissioner Davis asked how much of the lot to the east had impervious surface because there is a tennis court on the lot. Director Darling noted that the neighboring property was originally subdivided as two parcels and were later combined. The tennis court was installed prior to the adoption of shoreland regulations. Douglas Thesingh stated that his understanding is that the concrete patio in the back is covering a former pool, however he doesn’t know what is underneath it. He stated that the patio height matches the height of CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2018 Page 3 of 5 the main floor of the house and in order to replace it with a deck they would have to excavate a pit right next to the home foundation. Commissioner Reidel asked what the real practical difficulty is in shaving a little bit off the driveway. Mr. Thesingh gave an overview of the ways the material could be shaved off and why they are not practical or workable. Commissioner Reidel reiterated that he didn’t think it would be that difficult to shave enough off to meet the impervious surface requirements. Mr. Thesingh stated that all of the other homes in their area have much larger lots, so it has been easier for them to meet the impervious surface requirements because they have much more room to work with. He stated that he thinks their lot size is unique and doesn’t think the accommodations they are seeking from the City are unreasonable and feels their plans will improve the aesthetics of the neighborhood. Commissioner Davis suggested making the side porch only 5 feet wide since it will primarily be used as a walkway. Ms. Thesingh stated that they were trying to match it up to the existing deck and use the existing footings and doesn’t think this change would get the needed 49 square feet. Commissioner Reidel suggested that perhaps they could demolish about six feet of the existing concrete patio and install plantings. Eggenberger moved, Davis seconded, to recommend approval for the variance request for setbacks at 28015 Woodside Road. Motion passed 4/0 . Commissioner Eggenberger stated that he believes the applicants have really done a lot of work to try to meet the impervious surface requirements. He stated that he likes that they made the drainage area to help with water runoff. He stated that he will vote to approve the variance request. Eggenberger moved, Davis seconded, to recommend approval for the variance request for impervious surface at 28015 Woodside Road . Chair Maddy noted that looking at the landscaping and the 216 square feet of impervious surface that was already removed they are moving towards being more conforming. Motion passed 3/1 (Reidel). Director Darling noted that this will come before the Council on December 10, 2018. B. SETBACK VARIANCE FOR AN INGROUND SWIMMING POOL Applicant: Tim and Sally Butler Location: 6035 Spruce Hill Court Director Darling explained that this request is for a fourteen-foot setback for a patio and a twenty-foot setback for a pool. She reviewed the zoning criteria for granting a variance and noted that staff finds they have not met the tests for practical difficulty and are recommending denial of the variance request. Tim Butler, 6035 Spruce Hill Court, noted that they had moved to the City about a year and a half ago and he did not think to read all the zoning rules and policies before they purchased the home. He stated that his CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2018 Page 4 of 5 family would really like to have a pool and the location they are proposing makes it not visible to anyone from the street because it is directly behind the house and noted that there is also a lot of tree cover. He noted that he didn’t think that the pool would have a negative impact on the aesthetics or the property value of the nearby properties and thinks having a pool in his backyard is a reasonable request. Commissioner Reidel clarified that Mr. Butler was asking for a 20 x 44-foot swimming pool and asked whether he had considered a smaller pool. Mr. Butler stated that he had briefly considered a small swim spa type pool but they have a lot of kids and ultimately decided a pool that size would not be the best fit. Aaron Lutz, stated that he is a resident but also a pool contractor and noted that the well is in the side yard, so that location would also not be possible. Commissioner Davis asked if the green space buffer Mr. Butler referred to as part of the Minnetonka Country Club was secure and no one would ever develop in that area. Director Darling noted that it is not secure, there is a drainage and utility easement in place. She showed lots that could have homes built on them as part of the Minnetonka Country Club development. Commissioner Reidel stated that there is nothing unreasonable about wanting a pool, he just is not sure it fits on this lot and this variance request is significant. Reidel moved, Davis seconded to recommend denial of the setback variance request for a pool at 6035 Spruce Hill Court. Motion passed 4/0. Director Darling noted that this will be on the Council agenda for December 10, 2018. Mr. Lutz asked for clarification that the denial was because of the size of the pool. Commissioner Reidel clarified that it was not necessarily the size, just that a pool doesn’t fit this lot. Ms. Butler stated that their lot is almost an acre and doesn’t have a home in site and the setback requirements in the City are much more than surrounding cities. Commissioner Reidel suggested they consider moving their well and locating the pool in the side yard. Ms. Butler stated that their original proposal has the pool behind the house so nobody driving by can see it and putting in the side yard allows everyone to see it. Chair Maddy noted that the Planning Commission has to treat everyone the same and noted that they are just a recommending body and the Council will make the ultimate decision. Applicant: Richard Denman Location: 5865 Glencoe Road Director Darling noted that in August, the Planning Commission had recommended approval of a lot division and setback variances to allow a new home to be constructed on the south half of the property. She explained that some of the plans indicated a rectangular screened porch and some indicated a square screened porch. She stated that the staff report showed a 10x13 porch and the applicant requested a 12 x 12 porch and at the time of the meeting, she didn’t realize that the Planning Commission and the applicant were referencing two different sized layouts. She explained that the staff recommendation would not have CITY OF SHOREWOOD PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOVEMBER 20, 2018 Page 5 of 5 changed based on the different sizes and noted that before sending the final resolution to the Council, she wanted to make sure that the Planning Commission recommendation also would not have changed. She reminded the Commission that their original vote on this variance from August 28, 2018 was three in favor, one opposed. Chair Maddy stated that he was not present at the meeting and asked for a brief overview of the discussion about why this was not considered self-created. Director Darling gave an overview of the discussion and the setback requirements in the area. Eggenberger moved, Davis seconded, to recommend approval of the revised setback variance request for the property located at 5865 Glencoe Road. Motion passed 4/0. 5. MATTERS FROM THE FLOOR - None 6. REPORTS • Council Meeting Council Liaison Johnson reported on matters considered and actions taken during Council’s November 13, 2018, meeting (as detailed in the minutes for that meeting). • Draft Next Meeting Agenda Director Darling stated at the next meeting there is a minor subdivision and a PUD application. • Commissioner’s Terms Expiring Director Darling stated that there are two commissioners (Maddy and Davis) whose term is expiring and noted that she had included an application in the packet with the hopes that they will resubmit to serve on the Commission. She stated that the City will be advertising the openings and the Council will consider all applications. • Update Liaison Schedule Director Darling asked for volunteers to serve as liaison for the next few months at the Council meetings. December – Eggenberger January – Davis February – Eggenberger March – Gorham April – Reidel May - Maddy 7. ADJOURNMENT Reidel moved, Davis seconded, adjourning the Planning Commission Meeting of November 20, 2018, at 8:36 P.M. Motion passed 4/0. 2a� OOZ' 009 OOE 0 CL pu,eiSI 'u ,4aaaoad) }aafgns! II y7 ro Pu,piJI "Iona fi fi fi fi pu,eiSI 'u ,4aaaoad) }aafgns! II y7 ro Pu,piJI "Iona Greenwood DeaC"I Fe4ied, ..4e To: City of Shorewood Re: Narrative for Minor Subdivision and PUD for 23825 Lawtonka Date: 10/29/2018 Proposed development to be named Lawtonka Villas, Greenwood Design Build, LLC 5555 West 78th St, Suite L, Edina, MN 55439 Phone: (952) 217 -4156 www.greenwooddesignbuild.com MN Lic# BC629846 RECEIVED Nov 2 6 2018 CITY OF SHOREWOOD GreenWood is proposing to take the single lot with an address of 23825 Lawtonka that is shown on the comprehensive plan, and zoning map as a PUD, and convert it to 2 separate conforming villa lots to stay in line to the existing ones that are currently in the neighborhood. GreenWood's proposed villa homes will be designed in order to be sensitive to the existing architecture of the twin homes within this development. The new villa homes will be one story, and will use similar materials and level of finish as the existing twin homes. We do not propose or intent to record any restrictive covenants with the new villa homes. Our intent would be to begin construction as soon as reasonably possible before end of 2018, and would be under construction for approximately 6 months. Thank you for your consideration of our application. Sincerely, Dou g a� 9. Vice President GreenWood Design Build , LLC ADDRESS: 23825 LAWTONKA DRIVE 0 0 ti r W 0 0 10 M O O U) /I0 DENOTES MAILBOX O DENOTES IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET I I %FEN If 1'0' I -- FrP I � � P LI JE � I I I I I � I 9 II fj�J tn tn SF1E \ l E, J 1 -- FE 15 2.0 W P LINE � _ Bohlen Surveying & Associates 31432 Foliage Avenue 1682 Cliff Road E. Northfield, MN 55057 Burnsville, MN 55337 Phone: (507) 645 -7768 Phone: (952) 895 -9212 tomeara @bohlensurveying.com Fax: (952) 895 -9259 CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR GREENWOOD DESIGN BUILD, LLC II I EXISTING HOUSE 3� 1 �N I I G., B I L6Tj 6 ,OICY" I _ -_� p ,2lk �K P� IJPO�ED \ 1 AIfC I%S Bl- � I\c JFENC 15 ON r -- -°" DRAINAGE 8 UTILITY _— - =EA5EMENT S890 13'31 "W .150.00 / — — — — BENCH—MARK. �qy R \ FIRE HYDRANT, TNH ELEV. = 958.51 01Vkq 1 " =30' PARCEL A AREA = 14,544 SO. FT. fOHOUSE AREA = 2,295 SQ. fT. p PORCH AREA = 168 SO. FT SIDEWALK = 101 SQ. FT. SCREEN PORCH = 180 SO. FT. DRIVEWAY = 888 SQ. FT. r 1' IMPERVIOUS = 3,632 SQ. FT. 9� = 24.979' / PROPOSED PARCEL A W 7 LOT 6, BLOCK 1, LAWTONKA, CITY OF SHOREWOOD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LYING s =1 NORTHWESTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED �0.5 LINES; COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER ion OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 35 CD MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE Zi OF SAID LOT 6, A DISTANCE OF 179.00 FEET TO THE I SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 6 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINES TO BE DESCRIBED; THENCE NORTH 38 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 04 SECONDS I EAST, A DISTANCE OF 113.49 FEET; THENCE NORTH 51 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 27 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 112.86 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6 AND THERE TERMINATING. �o 0 PROPOSED PARCEL B PARCEL B AREA = 14,183 SQ. FT. REC l NOV 2 5 2018 CITY OF SHOREWOOD © DENOTES MAILBOX O DENOTES IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET 0 DENOTES FOUND IRON PIPE MONUMENT �- DENOTES PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION FT DENOTES SERVICE LOCATION E DENOTES WOOD HUB 000.0 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION 000.0 DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION i OOp— DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR IMPERVIOUS = DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOUR a n DENOTES DECIDUOUS TREE = 24.94% s DENOTES EVERGREEN TREE DENOTES BITUMINOUS SURFACE !v DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE DENOTES GRAVEL SURFACE DUPLEX SETBACK INFORMATION: FRONT - 20' SIDE YARD - 10' SIDE YARD - 20' BETWEEN BLDGS REAR YARD - 40' PROPOSED TOP OF WALL ELEV. = 960.3 PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. = 960.0 PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR ELEV. = 951.6 HOUSE AREA = 2,295 SQ. FT. PORCH AREA = 168 SQ. FT. SIDEWALK = 101 SO. FT SCREEN PORCH = 180 SO. FT. EXISTING PROPERTY DESCRIPTION DRIVEWAY = 794 SQ. FT. LOT 6, BLOCK 1, LAWTONKA, CITY OF SHOREWOOD, IMPERVIOUS = 3,538 SO. FT. HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. = 24.94% LOT 6, BLOCK 1, LAWTONKA, CITY OF SHOREWOOD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA LYING SOUTHEASTERLY OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINES; COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 6; THENCE SOUTH 00 DEGREES 35 MINUTES 00 SECONDS EAST, ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID LOT 6, A DISTANCE OF 179.00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 6 AND THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LINES TO BE DESCRIBED; THENCE NORTH 38 DEGREES 31 MINUTES 04 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 113.49 FEET; THENCE NORTH 51 DEGREES 16 MINUTES 27 SECONDS EAST, A DISTANCE OF 112.86 FEET TO THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 6 AND THERE TERMINATING. NOTE.- ALL BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN TO OUTSIDE OF FOUNDATION WALL S:\Projects \shorewood\LAWTONKA- ADDITION \dwg \L6B I- SPLIT- 11- 8- 18.dwg I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE: 10 -23 -2018 I OI tr- � REVISED: 11 -12 -2018 THOMAS J. O'MEARA, LAND SURVEYOR MINNESOTA LICENSE NO. 46167 ADDRESS: 23825 LAWTONKA DRIVE O O ti 0 O LO M O O rA Bohlen CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR GREENWOOD DESIGN BUILD, LLC I I I I EX15TING HOUSE IF / I X� / t /N/§6') 3131,"' c/ �'1 `0.00 � � 1 /10 I I I (I OF F�ROP LIN I III I I� II U I _ I I I I SFiE CE IS /� pt'PRO,� LINT/ i Surveying & Associates 31432 Foliage Avenue 1682 Cliff Road E. Northfield, MN 55057 Burnsville, MN 55337 Phone: (507) 645 -7768 Phone: (952) 895 -9212 tomeara @bohlensurveying.com Fax: (952) 895 -9259 1� ,— rat` � l � 1 _ II V / I ILo I L ►La)C tr-13-7 Ulm / �. 1 7 vIfir� <; S89013'31 "W 150.00 3 ON /UP LINE_ -A a / — — — — BENCH — MARK.• \ FIRE HYDRANT, TNH ELEV. = 958.51 I ,off tq 0 ��� O 0R�llFpNkq 1� �! C x"►1 \ 1 I� I / I / .'00 d- LU 7 Z �1k 1 LOT AREA = 28,728 SO. FT. HOUSE AREA = SQ. FT. NOTE. ALL BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN TO OUTSIDE OF FOUNDATION WALL RECEDED NOV 26 2016 CITY OF SHOREWOOD Z: \S \Company Shared\Projects\ForestLake \chestnut- creek \dwg\L26BI.dwg ® DENOTES MAILBOX O DENOTES IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET 0 DENOTES FOUND IRON PIPE MONUMENT �- FENCE rJ/ C 15I N EI DENOTES WOOD HUB 000.0 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION 000.0 DRAINAGE t 1 ADO-- EA5EME S89013'31 "W 150.00 3 ON /UP LINE_ -A a / — — — — BENCH — MARK.• \ FIRE HYDRANT, TNH ELEV. = 958.51 I ,off tq 0 ��� O 0R�llFpNkq 1� �! C x"►1 \ 1 I� I / I / .'00 d- LU 7 Z �1k 1 LOT AREA = 28,728 SO. FT. HOUSE AREA = SQ. FT. NOTE. ALL BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE SHOWN TO OUTSIDE OF FOUNDATION WALL RECEDED NOV 26 2016 CITY OF SHOREWOOD Z: \S \Company Shared\Projects\ForestLake \chestnut- creek \dwg\L26BI.dwg ® DENOTES MAILBOX O DENOTES IRON PIPE MONUMENT SET 0 DENOTES FOUND IRON PIPE MONUMENT �- DENOTES PROPOSED DRAINAGE DIRECTION DENOTES SERVICE LOCATION EI DENOTES WOOD HUB 000.0 DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION 000.0 DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION 1 ADO-- DENOTES EXISTING CONTOUR DENOTES PROPOSED CONTOUR DENOTES DECIDUOUS TREE DENOTES EVERGREEN TREE DENOTES BITUMINOUS SURFACE DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE DENOTES GRAVEL SURFACE DUPLEX SETBACK INFORMATION: FRONT - 20' SIDE YARD - 10' SIDE YARD - 20' BETWEEN BLDGS REAR YARD - 40' PROPOSED TOP OF WALL ELEV. _ PROPOSED GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. _ PROPOSED BASEMENT FLOOR ELEV. _ PROPERTY DESCRIPTION LOT 6, BLOCK 1, LAWTONKA, CITY OF SHOREWOOD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA. I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS SURVEY WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA. DATE: 9 -17 -2018 THOMAS J. O'MEARA, LAND SURVEYOR MINNESOTA LICENSE NO. 46167 PERIMETER EROSION CONTROLAT CONSTRUCTION LIMITS, TYP. PERIMETER EROSION CONTROL AT TOP OF RAINGARDEN, AROUND PERIMETER CONSTRUCTION PERIMETER EROSION CONTROLAT CONSTRUCTION LIMITS, TYP. O.GDME — 4 A CONSTRUCTION LIMITS MjT CA-rq-djY,6 I - A980 -WMET (METER EROSION CONTROLAT CONSTRUCTION LIMITS, TYP. CONSTRUCTION LIMITS GENERAL GRADING NOTES: 1. SEE SITE PLAN FOR HORIZONTAL LAYOUT & GENERAL GRADING NOTES, 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SITE PREPARATION, SOIL CORRECTION, EXCAVATION, EMBANKMENT, ETC.) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REOIREMENTS OF THE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER. ALL SOIL TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOIL TESTS AND INSPECTIONS WITH THE SOILS ENGINEER, 3. GRADING AND EXCAVATION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE NATIONAL POLLUTION DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM (NPDES) PERMIT REQUIREMENTS & PERMIT REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. 4. PROPOSED SPOT GRADES ARE FLOW -LINE FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 5. GRADES OF WALKS SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH 6% MAX LONGITUDINAL SLOPE AND 1 %MIN. AND 2% MAX CROSS SLOPE, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 6. PROPOSED SLOPES SHALL NOT EXCEED 3:1 UNLESS INDICATED OTHERWISE ON THE DRAWINGS. MAXIMUM SLOPES IN MAINTAINED AREAS IS 4:1 7. PROPOSED RETAINING WALLS, FREESTANDING WALLS, OR COMBINATION OF WALL TYPES GREATER THAN 4' IN HEIGHT SHALL BE DESIGNED AND ENGINEERED BY A REGISTERED RETAINING WALL ENGINEER- DESIGN DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. B. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE OF GRADE STAKES THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION TO ESTABLISH PROPER GRADES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ALSO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR A FINAL FIELD CHECK OF FINISHED GRADES ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENGINEERILANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO TOPSOIL AND SODDING ACTIVITIES, 9. IF EXCESS OR SHORTAGE OF SOIL MATERIAL EXISTS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TRANSPORT ALL EXCESS SOIL MATERIAL OFF THE SITE TO AN AREA SELECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR, OR IMPORT SUITABLE MATERIAL TO THE SITE. 10. EXCAVATE TOPSOIL FROM AREAS TO BE FURTHER EXCAVATED OR REGRADED AND STOCKPILE IN AREAS DESIGNATED ON THE SITE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SALVAGE ENOUGH TOPSOIL FOR RESPREADING ON THE SITE AS SPECIFIED. EXCESS TOPSOIL SHALL BE PLACED IN EMBANKMENT AREAS, OUTSIDE OF BUILDING PADS, ROADWAYS AND PARKING AREAS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBCUT CUT AREAS, WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED, TO A DEPTH OF 6 INCHES. RESPREAD TOPSOIL IN AREAS WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 6INCHES. 11. FINISHED GRADING SHALL BE COMPLETED. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UNIFORMLY GRADE AREAS WITHIN LIMITS OF GRADING, INCLUDING ADJACENT TRANSITION AREAS. PROVIDE A SMOOTH FINISHED SURFACE WITHIN SPECIFIED TOLERANCES, WITH UNIFORM LEVELS OR SLOPES BETWEEN POINTS WHERE ELEVATIONS ARE SHOWN, OR BETWEEN SUCH POINTS AND EXISTING GRADES. AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN FINISH GRADED SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS, TRAFFIC AND EROSION. REPAIR ALL AREAS THAT HAVE BECOME RUTTED BY TRAFFIC OR ERODED BY WATER OR HAS SETTLED BELOW THE CORRECT GRADE. ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS SHALL BE RESTORED TO EQUAL OR BETTER THAN ORIGINAL CONDITION OR TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW WORK. 12. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE AGGREGATE BASE, ATEST ROLL WILL BE REQUIRED ON THE STREET ANDIOR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A LOADED TANDEM AXLE TRUCK WITH A GROSS WEIGHT OF 25 TONS. THE TEST ROLLING SHALL BE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHALL BE COMPLETED IN AREAS AS DIRECTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE WHICH SECTIONS OF THE STREET OR PARKING AREA ARE UNSTABLE. CORRECTION OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER NO TEST ROLL SHALL OCCUR WITHIN 10' OF ANY UNDERGROUND STORM RETENTION/DETENTION SYSTEMS. 13, TOLERANCES 13.1. THE BUILDING SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.30 FOOT ABOVE, OR 0.30 FOOT BELOW, THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION AT ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE. 13.2. THE STREET OR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.05 FOOT ABOVE, OR 0.10 FOOT BELOW, THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION OF ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE. 113. AREAS WHICH ARE TO RECEIVE TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO WITHIN 030 FOOT ABOVE OR BELOW THE REQUIRED ELEVATION, UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE ENGINEER. 13.4. TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADEDTO PLUS OR MINUS 112 INCH OFTHE SPECIFIED THICKNESS. 14. MAINTENANCE 14.1. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROTECT NEWLY GRADED AREAS FROM TRAFFIC AND EROSION, AND KEEP AREA FREE OF TRASH AND DEBRIS. 14.2. CONTRACTOR SHALL REPAIR AND REESTABLISH GRADES IN SETTLED, ERODED AND RUTTED AREAS TO SPECIFIED TOLERANCES. DURING THE CONSTRUCTION, IF REQUIRED, AND DURING THE WARRANTY PERIOD, ERODED AREAS WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED SHALL BE RESEEDED AND MULCHED. 14.3. WHERE COMPLETED COMPACTED AREAS ARE DISTURBED BY SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS OR ADVERSE WEATHER, CONTRACTOR SHALL SCARIFY, SURFACE, RESHAPE, AND COMPACT TO REQUIRED DENSITY PRIOR TO FURTHER CONSTRUCTION. SWPPP NOTES: 1. THIS PROJECT IS LESS TRAN ONE ACRE AND WILL NOT REQUIRE AN I� ! �� MPCA NPD L6�. -.� ES PERMIT. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ii ANY EROSION CONTROL PERMITS REQUIRED BY THE CITY. 2. SEE GRADING PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL GRADING AND EROSION NOV r` F6CONTROL NOTES. 3. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SWPPP IMPLEMENTATION, I INSPECTIONS, AND COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT. LEGEND: - - -- - - ":: %-- - - - - -- EX. VCONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL 1137 10' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL — — DRAINAGEARROW •...- .- {-- `--- .•••..... SILT FENCE I BIOROLL- GRADING LIMIT RNMMSTABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EROSION CONTROL BLANKET 40 Know what's below. Call before you dig. CITY OF S 5'-0® n c. c G R O U P CW E,!— nne•— ,In,•LerMt A,Mnacwre 4931 W. 3511, Steel, Sue, 200 St. Louis PaM, MN 55416 cM'ISilegmup.com 612 - 6150060 W Z O a 'J^ X0/�/4I� W M N O tt a M M LO Z O W of O U J J rn Ls') N J_ Z m Q Z 'Z w V � LU H U) 0 _ o� n Z W L LO W NN U7) 'LL L0 V I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA MalThm R Pavek DATE 11121/18 LICENSE NO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY DRAWN BY:WB REVIEWED BY: PJS REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION GRADING PLAN & PROPOSED EROSION C2.0 11 3 r Q CONSTRUCTION LIMITS/ J / , " : % \ •• r }�` EXISTING POND. CORD'N WIT14 PROP. \ OI \I •, �, - \,, \: \\ 'OWNER AND ADJyrENT PROA: OWNER FOR\ III PRESER "ATION ANd /OR REMOVAL. J T i �I \I 1 I ' 7 / I ti�`J ' /i � ,,I \\ //III\ \\ _{ I ,(� 4/ r ' i' � /�'�1 1. 3 •1 ♦�i� - "Y: ', � \ 7� 111 \P \� Y;11��� \ \\ � .\ _ \� ,G' 1 t; S I r I E XI STING7REE TO 1 j EMAIN, PRO�IDE�_ t i \ 1 N I TEEPROTECTION/ I! I REMOVE EXBUILDING, STRUCTURE I' FENCING, TYP,I I , F r } -� 1 r FOUNDATIONS, FOOTINGS & SASE FFrNCE I ( �� 1 I MATERIALS, NDARDS. RE LOCAL STATE &FEDERAL r I 1 i 1 - -� I I I I STANDARDS. REMOVEIDISCONNECT ALL 1 ' RVICES & UTILITIES PER UTILITY COMPANY AND OR L.G.U. STANDARDS \�" v- I I I I I I GAF hROP !IfJ� I 1�, �Cb ,' v v r' I I PO 1 I I it I i 1111 I C�� v V /S: I II I 1VIII \q,�' _ X'of ,1 1�'v I tv 1 REMOVE EXISTING TREE L 1 J A - 1 i_- I AND BALL ROOT. TYP. S 1 _ _ �(1 XV � t 1 _ III ; I �. ' 1\\ : " I`, " ` —_ \\ _� �I If• JI \ \v I • _ 1111 r� I I � I I i � 1 �.. j .� \\ ., \_ \ .._v I .I_D �� �1 ;I� \gull 6„ _ - .... \ \\I {Ili �• .�" F ,r�,�� \•.. .. k C 1\ \ ! v 1 _j REMOVE EXISTING / \ i� %\--� 11 ,r ll;l \I�•, �f 11\D �-= I. \\\ \`III 1 AT MATE EMERIAL AND M AND BASE PARKNGSIGNS. TYP. j?y� WNW", I co I I / REMOVE EX BUILDING; STRUCTURES, \ \ `\ \ \ \ 1 1 1 FOUNDATIONS, FO TINGS�&BASE �\ :1 }1,. 1 II ; S \s I �1 r I ' MA ERIALS PER LOCAL STATE 8 FEDERAL \ � _ y " % �: /- \ \ V\ \J \__ I :�= 1 t \ ; A` 1 � S�.6AROS. REMOVEIDISCONNECT ALL \L UTILITY SERVICES AND(ORILITSTANDARDS �' ,�A V A A V A v I� 1 7 _ I � COMPANY AND/OR L.G.U. .II. STANDARDS RA E,M O EEXISTING TA R EE AND BALL RDOT, TYP. A \ TRREMOVE EXISTING AND .BALL ROOT, TYFZPE.— \° / i I I ° I fill I �71 \ I I I CONSTRUCTION LIMITS - — — — — �I TFM�_K LINE, 1 -- FENCE I5 2.0 W I 1 G)F FKQJ LINEi 1 I ' 11 = l i j I (v i FEN i5 ONRC�P LINE �, i { ;CONSTRUCTION LIMITS = OE PvCIF 1TNE - _ DRAINAGE UTILITY ' I' 1 -- ----------------------------- - - I CITY OF SHOREWOOD REMOVAL NOTES: 1. RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC REMOVAL NOTES. CITY OF SHOREWOOD EROSION CONTROL NOTES: 1. RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC EROSION CONTROL NOTES RECE SWPPP NOTES: EX. 1'CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL 1. THIS PROJECT IS LESS THAN ONE ACRE AND WILL NOT REQUIRE AN MPCA NPDES PERMIT. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING IY/ [q0V ^! C ANY EROSION CONTROL PERMITS REQUIRED BY THE CITY. IIV L/. 2. SEE GRADING PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL GRADING AND EROSION REMOVAL OF STRUCTURE INCLUDING ALL CONTROL NOTES. CITY OF 1_i -1i 3. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR SWPPP IMPLEMENTATION INSPECTIONS, AND COMPLIANCE WITH NPDES PERMIT. REMOVAL NOTES: I. SEE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2. REMOVAL OF MATERIALS NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MNDOT, STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS 3. REMOVAL OF PRIVATE UTILITIES SHALL BE COORDINATED WITH UTILITY OWNER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES 4. EXISTING PAVEMENTS SHALL BE SAWCUT IN LOCATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS OR THE NEAREST JOINT FOR PROPOSED PAVEMENT CONNECTIONS 5. REMOVED MATERIALS SHALL BE DISPOSED OF TO A LEGAL OFF -SITE LOCATION AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE AND LOCAL REGULATIONS. 6. ABANDON, REMOVAL, CONNECTION, AND PROTECTION NOTES SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS ARE APPROXIMATE. COORDINATE WITH PROPOSED PLANS 7. EXISTING ONSITE FEATURES NOT NOTED FOR REMOVAL SHALL BE PROTECTED THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT B. PROPERTY LINES SHALL BE CONSIDERED GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ON THE DRAWINGS. WORK WITHIN THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS SHALL INCLUDE STAGING, DEMOLITION AND CLEAN-UP OPERATIONS AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. 9. MINOR WORK OUTSIDE OF THE GENERAL CONSTRUCTION LIMITS SHALL BE ALLOWED AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN AND PER CITY REQUIREMENTS. 10. DAMAGE BEYOND THE PROPERTY LIMNS CAUSED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY SHALL BE REPAIRED IN A MANNER APPROVED BY THE ENGINEERAANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY. It PROPOSED WORK (BUILDING AND CIVIL) SHALL NOT DISTURB EXISTING UTILITIES UNLESS OTHERWISE SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND APPROVED BY THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. 12. SITE SECURITY MAY BE NECESSARY AND PROVIDED IN A MANNER TO PROHIBITVANDALISM, AND THEFT, DURING AND AFTER NORMAL WCRK HOURS, THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT. SECURITY MATERIALS SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY. 13. VEHICULAR ACCESS TO THE SITE SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR DELIVERY AND INSPECTION ACCESS DURING NORMAL OPERATING HOURS, AT NO POINT THROUGHOUT THE DURATION OF THE CONTRACT SHALL CIRCULATION OF ADJACENT STREETS BE BLOCKED WITHOUT APPROVAL BY THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 14. ALL TRAFFIC CONTROLS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND ESTABLISHED PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MINNESOTA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES (MMUTCO) AND THE CITY. THIS SHALL INCLUDE, BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO, SIGNAGE, BARRICADES, FLASHERS, AND FLAGGERS AS NEEDED. ALL PUBLIC STREETS SHALL REMAIN OPEN TO TRAFFIC AT ALL TIMES. NO ROAD CLOSURES SHALL BE PERMITTED WITHOUT APPROVAL BY THE CITY. 15. SHORING FOR BUILDING EXCAVATION MAY BE USED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CONTRACTOR AND AS APPROVED BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE AND THE CITY PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. 16. STAGING, DEMOLITION, AND CLEAN -UP AREAS SHALL BE WITHIN THE PROPERTY LIMITS AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND MAINTAINED IN A MANNER AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY. EROSION LEGEND: -- . ", 1 _ __ , EX. 1 CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL 137 1.D' CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL DRAINAGE ARROW }° °-- .•....•.•. -. - -• SILT FENCE I BIOROLL - GRADING LIMIT I;]MYy M STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE r— 7- I- :% :' I EROSION CONTROL BLANKET REMOVALS LEGEND: - - '� - - -- EX. 1'CONTOUR ELEVATION INTERVAL ROOTS AND STUMPS O REMOVAL OF ACONCN MATERIAL, Know. wbars below. Call before you dig, INCLUDING BIT., INCLUDING AND GRAVEL VMT3 J J REMOVAL OF STRUCTURE INCLUDING ALL FOOTINGS AND FOUNDATIONS. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I REMOVE CURB AND GUTTER. IF IN RIGHT -OF -WAY, I I I I TT�T COORDINATE WITH LOCAL GOVERNING UNIT. 0 TREE PROTECTION X TREEREMOVAL- INCLUDING 0 ROOTS AND STUMPS O A I Know. wbars below. Call before you dig, I• =10' -0' 5'-o® G R O U P 1 EngineeMg • Surveying • IaMS � ArMllacNre 4931 W 35th Slreel, S111 200 SI Lou1s Park MN 55416 612 - 615-0060 2018 I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 11 ev,• R. Pavek .TE11m/18 DcENSENO. 44263 ISSUEISUBMITTAL SUMMARY 2p REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION REMOVALS PLAN & EXISTING EROSION C1.0 J J ZM � Q Z Z O Z W J O W 0 � Q W O 00) J DO n L0 Z N wL0 LO u ILJ N � M II^ V F W N O a I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN SPECIFICATION OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 11 ev,• R. Pavek .TE11m/18 DcENSENO. 44263 ISSUEISUBMITTAL SUMMARY 2p REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION REMOVALS PLAN & EXISTING EROSION C1.0 CONSTRUCTION LIMBS \ BI A pL PROPERTY LINE v --- __---- __- -- --- 1� 1 0 1 `I` 1 O DRAINAGE& UTILITY) II EASEMENT LINE "� l 1,1 I II I e i l I 1> BUILDING COLUMNS 1 1 31 II "—PROPERTYUNE II� CONSTRUCTION LIMITS II 1 II 11 II 1 1 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD UTILITY NOTES: 1. RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC UTILITY NOTES. CITY OF SHOREWOOD SITE SPECIFIC NOTES: 1, RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC NOTES, SITE LAYOUT NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS AND LAYOUT OF ALL SITE ELEMENTS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOCATIONS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROPERTY LINES, EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, UTILITIES, BUILDINGS AND PAVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL LOCATIONS OF ALL ELEMENTS FOR THE SITE. ANY REVISIONS REQUIRED AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION, DUE TO LOCATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE CORRECTED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO OWNER. ADJUST M_ TO THELAYOUTSHALL BEAPPROVEDBYTHE ENGINEERLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF MATERIALS. STAKE LAYOUT FOR APPROVAL. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING A RIGHT -OF -WAY AND STREET OPENING PERMIT. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THE GEO TECHNICAL REPORT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY COORDINATES AND LOCATION DIMENSIONS OF THE BUILDING AND STAKE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF FOOTING MATERIALS. 5. LOCATIONS OF STRUCTURES, ROADWAY PAVEMENTS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, BOLLARDS, AND WALKS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEERAANOSCAPE ARCHITECT. 6. CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FACE OF CURB. BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CONCRETE FOUNDATION. LOCATION OF BUILDING IS TO BUILDING FOUNDATION AND SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OR SAMPLES AS SPECIFIED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER' LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO FABRICATION FOR ALL PREFABRICATED SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING, FURNISHINGS, PAVEMENTS, WALLS, RAILINGS, BENCHES, FLAGPOLES, LANDING PADS FOR CURB RAMPS, AND LIGHT AND POLES. THE OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT INSTALLED MATERIALS NOT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. 6. PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH TRUNCATED DOME LANDING AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ADA REQUIREMENTS -SEE DETAIL. 9. CROSSWALK STRIPING SHALL BE 24'WIDE WHITE PAINTED LINE, SPACED 48' ON CENTER PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. WIDTH OF CROSSWALK SHALL BE V WIDE. ALL OTHER PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE WHITE IN COLOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR REQUIRED BY ADA OR LOCAL GOVERNING BODIES. 10, SEE SITE PLAN FOR CURB AND GUTTER TYPE. TAPER BETWEEN CURB TYPES-SEE DETAIL. 11. ALL CURB RADII ARE MINIMUM YUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 12. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO FINAL PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, NUMBERS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO SITE IMPROVEMENTS. 13. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS. 14. PARKING IS TO BE SET PARALLEL OR PERPENDICULAR TO EXISTING BUILDING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 15. ALL PARKING LOT PAINT STRIPPING TO BE WHITE, 4' WIDE TYP. 16. BITUMINOUS PAVING TO BE'LIGHT DUTY' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SEE DETAIL SHEETS FOR PAVEMENT SECTIONS. 17. ALL TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN ARE TO BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE WITH A CONSTRUCTION FENCE AT THE DRIP LINE. SEE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTS. NOV 26 2010 CITY OF SHOREWOOD SITE PLAN LEGEND SEE GEOTECHNICA R PORTF SPECIFIED AGGREGATE SE SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE & CONCRETE DEPTHS, SEE DETAIL. LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT. SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE 8 WEAR COURSE DEPTH, SEE DEATIL. PROPERTY LINE M M M N CONSTRUCTION LIMITS Us Know what's below. Call before you dig. 51-01 0 101-01 G R O U P wv4 Engineerlrg • Surveying • LaMSrape Arch4ecwre 4931 W. 35th Street, Sidle 200 SL Louts Parts, MN 55,116 crnlsilegroup.com 612 - 615.0060 Z O a J N M W N 0 a tlJ L0 Z O W O V J J M 0 L0 _J Z m Q Z_ Z ❑ '^ LU _ LU 111 0 � O O� W Z LU Ln L�J/ Li N V I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MI NESOTA Ma ew R. Pavek 297E 11/21/18 OCENSENO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY PJS REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION SITE PLAN C2.0 POST FOR SCREEN III PORCH ABOVE, SEE O \ ARCHITECTURE FOR I DETAILS. �•J / CONCRETE SIDEWALK II 1 I R10.o. / BUILDING OVERHANG 111 EOF= 943.60N/ ? 6, LI � PROPOSED LOT SPLIT / o. I �� / M' I 1 ! 1 1 /� PROPERTY LINE / \ BUILDING COLUMNS CD \- CONCRETE PATIO I I I I I \ y/ 11 I I I 1 POST FOR SCREEN PORCH ABOVE, SEE 11 I I\ ARCHITECTURE FOR I DETAILS. fl /V•/ I PROPERTY LINE 1 I 1 I I I CONSTRUCTION LIMITS \. \ L L---------- - - - - -- --- --- - - - - -- _ — —_-- __------------- 1 it I / DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT LINE �1 11 I I I / 1 II i I it 10 I// 10 II UNaINAGE UTILITY 1 O EASIF[vlf NT SI89013'31"W 150.00 II "—PROPERTYUNE II� CONSTRUCTION LIMITS II 1 II 11 II 1 1 1 CITY OF SHOREWOOD UTILITY NOTES: 1. RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC UTILITY NOTES. CITY OF SHOREWOOD SITE SPECIFIC NOTES: 1, RESERVED FOR CITY SPECIFIC NOTES, SITE LAYOUT NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY LOCATIONS AND LAYOUT OF ALL SITE ELEMENTS PRIOR TO BEGINNING CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOCATIONS OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED PROPERTY LINES, EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, UTILITIES, BUILDINGS AND PAVEMENTS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR FINAL LOCATIONS OF ALL ELEMENTS FOR THE SITE. ANY REVISIONS REQUIRED AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION, DUE TO LOCATIONAL ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE CORRECTED AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO OWNER. ADJUST M_ TO THELAYOUTSHALL BEAPPROVEDBYTHE ENGINEERLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF MATERIALS. STAKE LAYOUT FOR APPROVAL. 2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING A RIGHT -OF -WAY AND STREET OPENING PERMIT. 3. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY RECOMMENDATIONS NOTED IN THE GEO TECHNICAL REPORT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS. 4. CONTRACTOR SHALL FIELD VERIFY COORDINATES AND LOCATION DIMENSIONS OF THE BUILDING AND STAKE FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF FOOTING MATERIALS. 5. LOCATIONS OF STRUCTURES, ROADWAY PAVEMENTS, CURBS AND GUTTERS, BOLLARDS, AND WALKS ARE APPROXIMATE AND SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD, PRIOR TO INSTALLATION, FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEERAANOSCAPE ARCHITECT. 6. CURB DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE TO FACE OF CURB. BUILDING DIMENSIONS ARE TO FACE OF CONCRETE FOUNDATION. LOCATION OF BUILDING IS TO BUILDING FOUNDATION AND SHALL BE AS SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS. 7. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBMIT SHOP DRAWINGS OR SAMPLES AS SPECIFIED FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE ENGINEER' LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO FABRICATION FOR ALL PREFABRICATED SITE IMPROVEMENT MATERIALS SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE FOLLOWING, FURNISHINGS, PAVEMENTS, WALLS, RAILINGS, BENCHES, FLAGPOLES, LANDING PADS FOR CURB RAMPS, AND LIGHT AND POLES. THE OWNER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT INSTALLED MATERIALS NOT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. 6. PEDESTRIAN CURB RAMPS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED WITH TRUNCATED DOME LANDING AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ADA REQUIREMENTS -SEE DETAIL. 9. CROSSWALK STRIPING SHALL BE 24'WIDE WHITE PAINTED LINE, SPACED 48' ON CENTER PERPENDICULAR TO THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC. WIDTH OF CROSSWALK SHALL BE V WIDE. ALL OTHER PAVEMENT MARKINGS SHALL BE WHITE IN COLOR UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED OR REQUIRED BY ADA OR LOCAL GOVERNING BODIES. 10, SEE SITE PLAN FOR CURB AND GUTTER TYPE. TAPER BETWEEN CURB TYPES-SEE DETAIL. 11. ALL CURB RADII ARE MINIMUM YUNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. 12. CONTRACTOR SHALL REFER TO FINAL PLAT FOR LOT BOUNDARIES, NUMBERS, AREAS AND DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO SITE IMPROVEMENTS. 13. FIELD VERIFY ALL EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS, DIMENSIONS. 14. PARKING IS TO BE SET PARALLEL OR PERPENDICULAR TO EXISTING BUILDING UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 15. ALL PARKING LOT PAINT STRIPPING TO BE WHITE, 4' WIDE TYP. 16. BITUMINOUS PAVING TO BE'LIGHT DUTY' UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. SEE DETAIL SHEETS FOR PAVEMENT SECTIONS. 17. ALL TREES THAT ARE TO REMAIN ARE TO BE PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE WITH A CONSTRUCTION FENCE AT THE DRIP LINE. SEE LANDSCAPE DOCUMENTS. NOV 26 2010 CITY OF SHOREWOOD SITE PLAN LEGEND SEE GEOTECHNICA R PORTF SPECIFIED AGGREGATE SE SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE & CONCRETE DEPTHS, SEE DETAIL. LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT. SEE GEOTECHNICAL REPORT FOR AGGREGATE BASE 8 WEAR COURSE DEPTH, SEE DEATIL. PROPERTY LINE M M M N CONSTRUCTION LIMITS Us Know what's below. Call before you dig. 51-01 0 101-01 G R O U P wv4 Engineerlrg • Surveying • LaMSrape Arch4ecwre 4931 W. 35th Street, Sidle 200 SL Louts Parts, MN 55,116 crnlsilegroup.com 612 - 615.0060 Z O a J N M W N 0 a tlJ L0 Z O W O V J J M 0 L0 _J Z m Q Z_ Z ❑ '^ LU _ LU 111 0 � O O� W Z LU Ln L�J/ Li N V I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, OR REPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF MI NESOTA Ma ew R. Pavek 297E 11/21/18 OCENSENO. 44263 ISSUE/SUBMITTAL SUMMARY PJS REVISION SUMMARY DATE DESCRIPTION SITE PLAN C2.0 cr m RAL- v/W -TAL 5PLALES Ii a� & LP ARCH TRAM ARcN FROM 3-6 DLLO\V Rv, L To 4' -a- ec!_o \V RzgL LP FLAT PALL DLT\VLLN LP FRGZE 6oA D6 a ;AbLLS - F"q 6t Ly IFRONT -MY 6' cozNLk TRM eoaROs llR.OfIT o c sTOIG VuLgR To ae-uN- V- 240 COR?Y,R3 WE B • IZ PITCH LP t IVE..__. NOV 2 6 2018 CITY OF SHOREWOOD LET ELEVATION SCALE: V4- - i -o a -12 12 0 6TaN VLWER TO 46 u< - VRAP 24 COR]tR5 IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII � =Iwo L t E Al immil 1• t 1 �_� � iMMIM _ IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII �_ �� __ .� C[al � �� IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIVI -� _. � 'a fig; m � ti Lti 6 `m R Nw 6. 2018 OBpYM BY: — N J > a�c Wzo Vp0 � w �3 Z a z n 0 H N aD N J 00 W W W JCALL AS NOTED SHEET I� I I REAR ELEVATION xALE: V4'- io .TRM ZLnR RE6E-IVED NOV 2 6 2010 CITY OF SHOREWOOD O �g' O #s J. o � ,�ao m C ffi �e c d R Nw 6 206 J aZ o� > arc WZo Q Z a3o O = L N Vl r M N J Ix z 00 N W W W xa� AS NOTED SHEET ,41.2 PRESCRIPTIVE BRACED WALL LINE CALCULATION FOR: LOWERLEVEL FLOOR PLAN (161 LEVEL) ve lel. Prwm �kw 14,,6• B 16-0° 9 cl9 LIIR9 = 2 I� �ru MASTER BATHRM SHWR AREA 1 CSW3P 511 - Y -: TRTP 242 LE04CR PAARD TA? lk - PERTABLE R602.10.4 $ CSWSP 14'4T 4.T 1.0 1 I .3 .95 1.0 16 1' - PER TABLE R602.10.4 PRESCRIPTIVE BRACED WALL LINE CALCULATION FOR: LOWER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN (1st LEVEL) y_ PLSIL .I N 1 V �i ___ __ ___ _____ - 6 dg Lin 2 ® I CPT L 1 A CSWSP/ PF 45-0' 13.25' 1.0 1.3 .95 1.0 18.36' 27 -10° PERTABLER602.10.4 SEE DETAIL ON SHT 5 FOR CS PF* B CSWSP 4547 17.25' 1.0 1.3 .95 1.0 16.36 2(r PER TABLE R602.10A * CS PF PANELS CONTR18UTE AS ACTUAL PER TBL R602.10.5 Note: 2P-0" matimum sDaceq be"ea Braced Wa1 PaTrels MAIN FLR DIt TAKEN FROM EXT. BVffATHING PLANE I I wn J018i SPRAY FOAM W.E. wn TJ(fER10R N150­. TO BE PROTECTED AREAS TO R-20 W rt FROM TOP OF FND. WALL TO 6° BELOW GRADE WAN APPROVED PROTECTIVE TRTD 2X8 681 PLATE COYER OR COATING FHS44 TO PROTECT WSLL SEALER iV1E INSW- FROM DETERIORATING WE TO fiUNLIGHT 1 PHY &CAL DAMAGE. 6 WI. POLY ANCHOR BOLTS PER CODE SLIP SHEET OVER TYP. • TOP 6 FND WALL - ENnRE EXTERIOR SURFACE OF NONDRAININ FONDATNW NSULATION FRO. INSULATION PER MN ENERGY CODE R4011AI B6MM DIMe R -10 Mrt IN6W.An ON TAKEN FROH EM. EXTERIOR BIDE OF rwRDe a FOUNDATION WALL HOUNPATION DP-TAIL_ 5-ALL NTI 45' -0" B A 1 I 51' -0" WALKOUT I T -0" LOOKOUT 6 x6'P06T ON 0— COIL^. POST FT4- (Or" 3) - - (2] 2w2 fJ 1�nDCU_' T-6" 7' 6" 6' -0' 14' -0" 14' -6" o 16' -6" SCTLLEN P6Rc11 �o A6oVL REGENED NOV 2 0 2018 CITY OF SHOREWOOD A 6' 4" 7' -0° T-0' -HEIGHT AND WIDTH AS NOTED 14,,6• I Lo\y� LEVEL FL PLAN WALKOUTBASEMENT ICB • REDUCE FLR JOIST DEPTH TO 16 UNDER Ap MASTER BATHRM SHWR AREA (2)36,60 511 - Y -: TRTP 242 LE04CR PAARD TA? lk - RI.( 51111 DLTA0.. 511T Ad kl 'o x eL61iATE I (2) FLOOR To 2-60 a/ BLOW -N S s V 2>'D 1bR I - 7' -3° 7' -3 F - r �e ypp .ralrrrl .r.r.rl ti) II l /B' SL GRP LOR W - O F74Sl�D r L _ y_ PLSIL .I N 1 V �i ___ __ ___ _____ - 36 n EO SIl 60 Fx 36 60 SU arr u m ® I CPT L 1 NDR I L - -T 1 __ _______ ____ ___ __ 14'7" v-w ON FFISLIED 1 - 2nd NT. BCn° e!1 6' 26 x 26 . IZ DLEP CON-. RLC %VALL ON C1R6 PAD FO TIN4 (5 P-,) T FINAL Fhb n NEO b oN cork. FT4 UIVER ORDER I TIT Tom FROM ABOVE. CPT L fl \'/ALL lkJ4lIF ON yDLy + I \V .11... 26 A p�.I T 2,6 NT BL4904 OF L PLR 4RADE _ CPT WALL 016' 1 - 240 - 4 IS MB ON FT,; 2'-8" 31' -2- q' -p^ 5'.p^ JC� CYT y� (y 3ox424LT -3" a DLEP FL2 TV USS11S ub62 iO rr�T 24 VAR 1 I- --p� (21 2d0117R M46TQZ 1 BA- T11LM FOR _ ':: ?'2:_9 : :- J -0" 13' -6" p 8'_4, 9 T -2" 11' 11'• I RGCLSSLD:':'. 5110\VER ABOVE y - ---------------- FLR D -4j '^ I I ON 6' B bLmM #5 • •....... - (z) TR.R a M•F ON c6l FT4 I CPT B LCL1 D4 If�3L6l�D m XX 7FODf. L I ID-. rry 14 - V2' LSE. 1bR _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ • /ALL 6. CLRB - �' B' x D8' P cONC ON coL T4 I- -- - - - - - - — - 1 (2) 9 V2' LSL LW - - -- 25 ro i I FoI+bATa1 W COFIT. CONC. FT y arl 0 S. - - - - _ _ _ _ _ - — - - - W TRM EA. Erb _ r ti -I- r 1 R + - l�D Y1 \�lC. pT v - ° SLAB LL:D4L 4' -11" _ _ FLOOR LI`I11 • •• •• • • 1 1 ° i ABWL , 1 I.I IP I QK I I I 1 1 I 1 UR- XCAVATLD r - - - - -J .. .. L ----------- J - ' 1 1- I o ry LNLXCA TLV I I I I A I I I 9 1 I I 1 1 I I I I 26'-0" I I I I I I I I LLLI' S MO Fes'( _______ _______ -- -<i - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I 1 I I I I I I _______1- -__- 1- 6 " REGENED NOV 2 0 2018 CITY OF SHOREWOOD A 23' -0" 37' -0• GENERAL NOTES: • 9'-0° NIGH POURED CONC. FOUNDATION -HEIGHT AND WIDTH AS NOTED A - REINFORCED AS REQUIRED Lo\y� LEVEL FL PLAN WALKOUTBASEMENT ICB • REDUCE FLR JOIST DEPTH TO 16 UNDER SCALE. : v4' I-0' 23' -0" 37' -0• GENERAL NOTES: �g9 lap cmW6� R NPi 6 206 DIU1WNaY: VJH J � O Z, QW 1Q Z Y VO H- 3 0 0 aSo s N N N J J W Z W J J d r W W O 4n :O O LL J SCALE A.s NOTED SHEET A2 • 9'-0° NIGH POURED CONC. FOUNDATION -HEIGHT AND WIDTH AS NOTED A - REINFORCED AS REQUIRED Lo\y� LEVEL FL PLAN WALKOUTBASEMENT oOR • REDUCE FLR JOIST DEPTH TO 16 UNDER SCALE. : v4' I-0' MASTER BATHRM SHWR AREA • VONDOW R.O. HEIGHT TO BE 6' -10° (UNO) • ALL HEADERS TO BE (2) 2x10 TYP. (UNO) �g9 lap cmW6� R NPi 6 206 DIU1WNaY: VJH J � O Z, QW 1Q Z Y VO H- 3 0 0 aSo s N N N J J W Z W J J d r W W O 4n :O O LL J SCALE A.s NOTED SHEET A2 PRESCRIPTIVE BRACED WALL LINE CALCULATION FOR: MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN (2nd LEVEL) uiuc® �sr: reir�ixn ac w.m -io sacxc N :., awnr row a nov< 15-0' awe . 9811'cl9 �°t Linos =4 16._6. I eG r rr� ' 1 CSWSP 21'6 3.65 1.0 1.3 1.05 1.45 7.27 174T 3, 5 ** PER TABLE ROD2.10.4 SEE NOTE ** j CSYRP 254' 8.33' 1.0 1.3 1.05 1.45 16.46 24'6 3 PER TABLE 8602.10.4 3 GB & P 254" 8.33' 1.0 1.3 .95 1.45 14.91' 23-r 3 PER TABLE R602.10.4 4 CSWSP 11'6 2.25 1.0 1.3 .95 1.45 4.07 66 3 PER TABLE R602.10.4 PRESCRIPTIVE BRACED WALL LINE CALCULATION FOR: MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN (2nd LEVEL) •� d N _B rcw 156 981r1'c4 Una® 4 A CS PF 34'4Y SA' 1.0 1.3 .95 1545 9.67 176 1'5 ** PERTBL R602.10.4 & PER FIG, R602.10.6.4 -SEE DETAIL ON SHT 5 FOR CS PF* -SEE NOTE** B GB8 CSWSP 164- 5.71' 1.0 1.3 .95 1.45 10.27x.7 =7.15 96 1 PER TABLE R602.10.4 4"O.C. FASTENING PER TBL R602.10.3(2) C CSWSP 34'-0 5.4' 1.0 1.3 1.05 1.45 10.66 176 3,4 PE R TABLE R602.1 OA D CSWSP 2116 3.65 1.0 1.3 1.05 1.45 727 106 1 PER TABLE R602.10A SEE PFG DETAILON SHEET AS * ** *CS PF PANELS CONTRIBUTE AS ACTUAL PER TBL R602 .10.5 ** PER END CONDTION 95, PROVIDE 8001h HOLD DOWN * ** PFG PANELS CONTRIBUTE X 1.5 PER N.W 201-V -i.- spnkV b.t-.n Braced Wal Panels PER FIGURE RW2.10.7, END CONDITION 95 TBL R602.10.5- SEE DETAIL ON SHEET AS 21' -0" 25'4' 11' -8" 7 -10 L 1 8 -2 0 541- a/12 JO LP 4ARAIL I I I COLII.}I ABOVG FRECoD6 bLp..LTRqcv ON CLn rtY 9' -10" 8' -2" (ONTY. 3) _ I E WALLS a LLD TAP[ E 1622 • B°- HEAD DR D.r (2) 2� 1>� r.a 11' -6" 23'.0" I 5 2Y -0' 1 2 Q _J m OQz Ify � WZO a Z 30 O Ny N J 26' -0" 11' -0° J Z � J W d J z O 37' -0" 25'4" GENERAL NOTES: 9 3 • -1 11W PLATE HEIGHT TYP. (UNO) • WINDOW ROUGH OPENING HEIGHT TO BE B'6 TYP. (UNO) `,P- PLAN • ALL HEADERS TO BE (2) 2x10 TYP. (UNO) MAIN V F1 �LOOfZ f Lµl`3 SCALE vd - i -a' 5CALF AS NOTED SHEET 43 5 d' 1V 11 iv - - w � v t 13'4" I 2'- 4' -0° 5' -0" 16._6. I F 60' -0" o +ali) 3 N 2 cm 48._4.. 30x32 (2) ANN LIM Lk 1b R 9 Cut I CEDAR RAL A 12 6 2018 is o d - "' s } - 1VD -1 I BDRavm er: v2x 7 -10 L 1 8 -2 0 541- a/12 JO LP 4ARAIL I I I COLII.}I ABOVG FRECoD6 bLp..LTRqcv ON CLn rtY 9' -10" 8' -2" (ONTY. 3) _ I E WALLS a LLD TAP[ E 1622 • B°- HEAD DR D.r (2) 2� 1>� r.a 11' -6" 23'.0" I 5 2Y -0' 1 2 Q _J m OQz Ify � WZO a Z 30 O Ny N J 26' -0" 11' -0° J Z � J W d J z O 37' -0" 25'4" GENERAL NOTES: 9 3 • -1 11W PLATE HEIGHT TYP. (UNO) • WINDOW ROUGH OPENING HEIGHT TO BE B'6 TYP. (UNO) `,P- PLAN • ALL HEADERS TO BE (2) 2x10 TYP. (UNO) MAIN V F1 �LOOfZ f Lµl`3 SCALE vd - i -a' 5CALF AS NOTED SHEET 43 2' n d' 1V 11 iv - - w v t 13'4" I 2'- 4' -0° 5' -0" 16._6. I F PL,. TPICAL '� o +ali) 3 N 2 cm 30x32 (2) ANN LIM Lk 1b R 9 Cut A 12 6 2018 CITI' d - "' s } - 1VD -1 I BDRavm er: v2x - EAT 3 T -0" 4' -0" 14' -0" g C,AJ par.Pt.nc� (2) 9 v Lx Lblz b 412 SCLS TRLLSJ412 VAILT� �i - 1 ^�: }•£FL3 ° W1C. (R1 W 36 x 72 sN J •� d N 5 (2) B 178- LSL DPP LIM Y r�R4 g - - eTo - �./ E (z) TRM••6RS - - csDAPlv�cxak ar 24.8. s m4 t•dy. ,66 24- 36 x 72 JN 36 x 72 Fx 36 n 72 JN = 'LI'bTTY PB WALLS E CLq m I o I L�4 w 72 JN `• `r �. �,� .. , •° > I v "° e•F CT Y - - 3O -' CR 3= _T 10,'2° V2IL5L ltR crLS P9FPX n I STAY 26 vuu 5' -0" - -- ARcd a 9CLG � - CPT 7' -0° 7' -0" I 19'_0" 7' -6^ 10' -7" 7•_3^ 9'-3" �ATLI - - - - 41 �M \VD I = 3•- 6-1 3'- 9 CL. 3'- ° 5 0° p' TR ABOVC (21 II VB- LJL DRP IYXL 9 CL4 C } T 3'.7. = C 20 - - mA-5 m mmoom x a . Jw eur 1 S _ (R7 5 - o RS Box VAULT _� 2d0 ORP 11GR x 72 JN 6o , 72 IX %, 72 Jll I I 30 .14 JU FF..D CPT G72DGR J w75oLm 5a O a ab e m f} I 13' -8" XJf 14'-7" - 24' JO STOHL 1z° DOW o I Wrk, Room 8 \VD ® I b CLq BOx V4LIT - 6' -3" •-3 8' -2° 4' -0" 15'4" n - - � J s 7 -10 L 1 8 -2 0 541- a/12 JO LP 4ARAIL I I I COLII.}I ABOVG FRECoD6 bLp..LTRqcv ON CLn rtY 9' -10" 8' -2" (ONTY. 3) _ I E WALLS a LLD TAP[ E 1622 • B°- HEAD DR D.r (2) 2� 1>� r.a 11' -6" 23'.0" I 5 2Y -0' 1 2 Q _J m OQz Ify � WZO a Z 30 O Ny N J 26' -0" 11' -0° J Z � J W d J z O 37' -0" 25'4" GENERAL NOTES: 9 3 • -1 11W PLATE HEIGHT TYP. (UNO) • WINDOW ROUGH OPENING HEIGHT TO BE B'6 TYP. (UNO) `,P- PLAN • ALL HEADERS TO BE (2) 2x10 TYP. (UNO) MAIN V F1 �LOOfZ f Lµl`3 SCALE vd - i -a' 5CALF AS NOTED SHEET 43 2' n d' 1V 11 iv - - - �� 9-a as v t 13'4" I 2'- 4' -0° 5' -0" F PL,. TPICAL '� o +ali) ��r.� .✓IC N 2 cm 30x32 (2) ANN LIM Lk 1b R 9 Cut A 12 6 2018 CITI' 1= SHOREWOOD - "' s } - 1VD -1 I BDRavm er: v2x 4'.0, EAT 3 10 C,AJ par.Pt.nc� (2) 9 v Lx Lblz b - 1 ^�: }•£FL3 ° W1C. (R1 W 36 x 72 sN CT CPT +I 5 P Y r�R4 g - - eTo - �./ E 24.8. s m4 t•dy. ,66 24- I I I L�4 w 72 JN `• `r �. �,� .. , •° > I v "° v 24' -8" � 1 4'4" CT Y - - 3O -' CR 3= _T 10,'2° crLS P9FPX n I STAY 26 vuu 5' -0" - -- ARcd a 9CLG � - CPT 9 19'_0" _ II 4' -1" 2a 10' -7" R �ATLI - C 41 �M \VD 9 = 3•- 6-1 3'- 9 CL. 3'- ° 5 0° ey I 9 CL4 C } T 3'.7. = C 20 - ROOF TR 178 FOYER uwovlsnT _ - S \VR nl ® 1 S / ROOF TRU 02 &OC 9 LL4 c. r44 Wo 30 n d Sl i 7 -10 L 1 8 -2 0 541- a/12 JO LP 4ARAIL I I I COLII.}I ABOVG FRECoD6 bLp..LTRqcv ON CLn rtY 9' -10" 8' -2" (ONTY. 3) _ I E WALLS a LLD TAP[ E 1622 • B°- HEAD DR D.r (2) 2� 1>� r.a 11' -6" 23'.0" I 5 2Y -0' 1 2 Q _J m OQz Ify � WZO a Z 30 O Ny N J 26' -0" 11' -0° J Z � J W d J z O 37' -0" 25'4" GENERAL NOTES: 9 3 • -1 11W PLATE HEIGHT TYP. (UNO) • WINDOW ROUGH OPENING HEIGHT TO BE B'6 TYP. (UNO) `,P- PLAN • ALL HEADERS TO BE (2) 2x10 TYP. (UNO) MAIN V F1 �LOOfZ f Lµl`3 SCALE vd - i -a' 5CALF AS NOTED SHEET 43 CD 9 CD �Q all e cm 30x32 (2) ANN LIM Lk 1b R RRCEIVED A 12 6 2018 CITI' 1= SHOREWOOD - - - - 06, 6.2m 1 BDRavm er: v2x 7 -10 L 1 8 -2 0 541- a/12 JO LP 4ARAIL I I I COLII.}I ABOVG FRECoD6 bLp..LTRqcv ON CLn rtY 9' -10" 8' -2" (ONTY. 3) _ I E WALLS a LLD TAP[ E 1622 • B°- HEAD DR D.r (2) 2� 1>� r.a 11' -6" 23'.0" I 5 2Y -0' 1 2 Q _J m OQz Ify � WZO a Z 30 O Ny N J 26' -0" 11' -0° J Z � J W d J z O 37' -0" 25'4" GENERAL NOTES: 9 3 • -1 11W PLATE HEIGHT TYP. (UNO) • WINDOW ROUGH OPENING HEIGHT TO BE B'6 TYP. (UNO) `,P- PLAN • ALL HEADERS TO BE (2) 2x10 TYP. (UNO) MAIN V F1 �LOOfZ f Lµl`3 SCALE vd - i -a' 5CALF AS NOTED SHEET 43 _ 30x32 (2) ANN LIM Lk 1b R C - - - 4'.0, 10 tl I + 1 ^�: }•£FL3 ° (R1 P Y r�R4 g - - - - �./ = m4 t•dy. I I w 72 JN `• `r �. �,� .. , 3O -' CR 10,'2° 5' -10" 5' -0" 18' -0" 9 19'_0" ROOF TR J ® 1 S / ROOF TRU 02 &OC (2J 2d0 ORP 11GR - I FF..D XJf - 24' JO STOHL 7 -10 L 1 8 -2 0 541- a/12 JO LP 4ARAIL I I I COLII.}I ABOVG FRECoD6 bLp..LTRqcv ON CLn rtY 9' -10" 8' -2" (ONTY. 3) _ I E WALLS a LLD TAP[ E 1622 • B°- HEAD DR D.r (2) 2� 1>� r.a 11' -6" 23'.0" I 5 2Y -0' 1 2 Q _J m OQz Ify � WZO a Z 30 O Ny N J 26' -0" 11' -0° J Z � J W d J z O 37' -0" 25'4" GENERAL NOTES: 9 3 • -1 11W PLATE HEIGHT TYP. (UNO) • WINDOW ROUGH OPENING HEIGHT TO BE B'6 TYP. (UNO) `,P- PLAN • ALL HEADERS TO BE (2) 2x10 TYP. (UNO) MAIN V F1 �LOOfZ f Lµl`3 SCALE vd - i -a' 5CALF AS NOTED SHEET 43 LEVY CoNNEcTION .SCALE 1 r - r -D' DECpNG - INSTALL PER MNFGR SPECS 1� ]x TREATED JOIST'. � I6" O.C. TREATED POST POST BASE FA: TREATED FLUSH 14DR 11 L 11_I- III I I I- I I !I -III I!I _III "A -- 11 5000 ". COINC P T FOOTIN-47 .I',70` In. .... ° — BELOW GRADE =1 II -III -III: -1111 1!I -III - •° I:: BECK I3EARINCr �iETAIL �_� -III ° � ° 5C'ALL r . i -a PER PLAN GENERAL NOTES. � 11711111111 ' • 18" O.H. @ EAVES TYP. (UNO) _ • 12' O.H. GABLE ENDS TYP. (UNO) • VENTILATE ROOF IN — — — — l ACCORDANCE WCODES I -1111 60" IN EAVE I 6:12 8:12 ;III 50 %IN UPPER 13MATTIC 3 v2' COL`. SLAB ON d' CLEAN SASE L • 8"min. HEEL RHO NISILATN AT 14EPIOR OF \VAL✓_OUr \,/ALL BEVELED AT r 45 PE4FES3 TO Trt LEVEL OF AU- 0.LI�--�� ry r rn-� VuLVINCr JECTION 15 TLL-'IAFACE OF TILE CONCTLETE m 1 BOX VA LT 4RDER TRUSS F — — — -- I a I I Wn VAULT I B I as a e L T �p —1— r� 6 I 8.12 8,12 —� I I IZo0F P"N 5CALL: va - (-or .SCALE v4' - i -d 12 �8 "r TELL' 0 24 OC PGR Bu M�FACTIU�2�—� G4 - z4' -0" 29, -0' 14' -0' / +1 S PORCl SCLSS XS02d' 'C. qqS VJ TTYt\V 3ECL R -50 ROOF NSU AT17N lr .y. _ 42 V4ILTGD CLS L Fill 5 SUEETROCL' ON C \VALES AND e PAR COOS pNTRY ICrrci.k N / Dry P cra .`; 2O' zv "OR TRLl a 52' OL 15A NAT � TRTP 242 .ta.ST. 0.6 OC. RM A26A - R 20 MN l L6o4ce - SEE PETAL ON A4 - -- - _ I I � 11711111111 ' _ 29. -0" 24' -0' -1111 r I ;III 3 v2' COL`. SLAB ON d' CLEAN SASE L RHO NISILATN AT 14EPIOR OF \VAL✓_OUr \,/ALL BEVELED AT 45 PE4FES3 TO Trt LEVEL OF 0.LI�--�� ry r rn-� VuLVINCr JECTION 15 TLL-'IAFACE OF TILE CONCTLETE Z� \ ,/Oop LgAl \VR4PPED \\'Lm 2 \VebO\VS CEDAR VAL. rt.¢.TAL SF9bLGs (2) 212 FLUSH al 6'a 6'POST CONC. PT FTS 0 >.� - I.�N 42' 1 =1A -Ei D NOV 2 5 2018 CITY OF SHOREWOOD O �g9 H CID O cm w Nw 6.2M PMNM9Y: YJB N Q J > D Z U Lu WZO a° Q3 0 a3o F � N N J W Z Z J 00� m m N p --,CALF As NOTED SHEET 144 0 U 0 z W CO Q) CO 0 M ti z u� J 0 a w z z 0 0 M W F- Z) N W z W Q Q z W X 0 t` OUR A Memorandum To: Marie Darling, Shorewood City Planner From: Alyson Fauske, PE, City Engineer Date: November 28, 2018 Re: 23825 Lawtonka Drive Minor Subdivision Review WSB Project No. 013163 -000 This review is based on the following documents: - Certificates of Survey dated September 17, 2018 and November 12, 2018 - Grading Plan dated November 21, 2018 1. A five -foot wide drainage and utility easement should be dedicated on each side of the property line between Parcels A and B. 2. The applicant proposes to mass -grade the site to accommodate the building pads and the surface water management feature. 3. Extend the filtration basin outlet to the northwest corner of the property so that the point discharge is directed towards the off -site wetland. 4. The applicant must obtain permission for the off -site grading to the north. This grading will result in the removal of a "pond" which appears to be an amenity to the property to the north versus a storm water management feature. 5. Provide elevation data on the property to the north of Parcel A and ensure that the drainage from Parcel A will be conveyed along the common property line and not directed to the home to the north. 6. Provide a proposed spot elevation to the east of the porch on Parcel B to ensure drainage away from the building. 7. Sanitary sewer and watermain are within Lawtonka Drive adjacent to the property. Based on the utility as -built information available, one sanitary sewer service is available to the subdivision. Water services do not appear to be available. A work in right of way permit will be required for any necessary sanitary sewer and water service installation. The work must be done by a contractor that has registered with the city to perform work within the right of way. K: \013163- 000Admin0oc \23825 Lawtonka review 2018 11 28.docx 0 U 0 Z w CO U) 0 0 v r` v z U) J 0 a Q w Z Z_ 0 0 m w F- n <n W w Z) Z w Q Q Z w X 0 h r = To: Alyson Fauske, PE, City of Shorewood From: Laura Rescorla, EIT Date: November 27, 2018 Re: 23825 Lawtonka Drive Minor Subdivision Review WSB Project No. 013163 -000 The following documents were submitted for review of compliance with the City of Shorewood's Local Surface Water Management Plan: Storm Water Management Report dated November 21, 2018 Site Plans dated November 21, 2018 Certificates of Survey dated September 17, 2018 and November 12, 2018 This review only included the documents listed above, primarily dealing with grading, modeling and the stormwater narrative. 1. This property is within the Shoreland District. Per Section 1201.03 of the zoning code, the maximum impervious coverage is 25 %. The proposed impervious area differs between the Certificate of Survey and the Stormwater Report. Verify the correct impervious areas. Based on the areas in the Stormwater Report, the proposed impervious over the whole site is 27 %. 2. For single family homes, the City of Shorewood does not require treatment of storm water to NURP guidelines. Rather, the abstraction of one inch of rainfall from the net new impervious area of the site is required. Because the site soils are not conducive to infiltration, filtration of one inch of rainfall from the net new impervious area is acceptable. Note that the current design exceeds this requirement. 3. The proposed runoff rate in the 1 -year event exceeds existing. However, the proposed increase is 0.1 cfs and is considered negligible. Note that updates made related to comment 2 may change the proposed runoff rates. 4. Verify the minimum planting media depth. The dimension on detail 7, sheet C4.0, indicates 12 inches while the note indicates 24 inches. 5. The proposed low floor elevations differ between the Certificate of Survey and the Site Plan (sheet C2.0). KA013163- 000\WRIavAonka Lot SpIMInitial Submittal'23825 Lavvtonka Drainage Review Memo.docx RESEARCH YOU CAN USE �zoZO The earliest year an automaker projects it will have a fully autonomous car available for the public Estimated year when 50% of cars will be AVs SOURCE: VARIOUS SOURCES REFERENCED BY APA , s 1 1 shared AV or more: expected o' o' reduction *00 rate in vehicles �! o V, could replace � between 9 and 11 privately owned moo. ' vehicles. r 43% or more: expected reduction rate in vehicles privately owned Planning for Cars that Drive Themselves HAVE A $100 BET with one of my sons -in -law, Kevin Maier. Kevin studies societal trends and bet me that 40 percent or more of the cars on the road in 2027 will be autonomous or self - driving. I'm a skeptic: I think the technology will be much slower to develop and be accepted. It is not that we wont eventually have autonomous vehicles, but just not in the usual transportation planning horizon of 20 to 30 years. I am not too worried about the bet, since $100 will be worth a lot less by then. . My relatives and I aredt the only ones talking about AVs. APA is, too, and has a new PAS report out about it. More on that in a minute, but first: some context. Planners like me have tended to underestimate the impact of technolo- gy on urban development patterns and transportation choices. Who would have foreseen the urban sprawl induced by the auto - freeway system? Homer Hoyt, a renowned economist in the 1930s, was the first to point out that a region's urban form is largely a product of the dominant transportation system in place during its prevailing period of growth. Pre -1890, we had the compact walking city. Between 1890 and 1920, we devel- oped into the corridor - oriented streetcar city. Between 1920 and 1945, we filled 38 Planning November 2018 in the wedges between the corridors in the early auto city. And since 1945, we have sprawled outward to become the auto - freeway city. (My thanks to Peter Muller of the University of Miami for characterizing these stages in the evolu- tion of the American metropolis. See The Geography of Urban Transportation.) More recently, who would have an- ticipated the rapid rise of companies like Uber and Lyft, or predicted they could substitute for my drive to.the airport or replace a second car for the typical Amer- ican household? Ride - hailing services are already freeing up parking spaces at airports and downtowns — sometimes affecting important revenue streams —. but they also are increasing vehicle miles traveled in the short run. What will we become with the next transportation revolution, when cars that drive themselves reduce the disutility of driving? Will a 90- minute commute at higher speeds than today encourage us to live in the exurbs and work downtown, or even commute between cities, much as long- distant commuters do where high- speed rail allows them to minimize the value of lost time? While we cant yet answer these questions, its important we ask and start thinking about them. The most recent entrant to the literature about AVs and planning, APRs Planning Advisory Service Report, Planning for Autonomous Mobility, drives that effort along. Down the road Some startling AV forecasts from the PAS report: 2020 is the earliest year an automaker projects it will have a fully autonomous car available for the public, and 2040 is the estimated year when 50 percent of cars will be AVs. One shared AV could replace between nine and 11 privately owned vehicles. Forty -three percent or more is the expected reduction in the rate of privately owned vehicles, yet 95 percent of the 500 largest cities have no AV policy in place right now These factoids all come from Planning for Autonomous Mobility, coauthored by Jeremy Crute; William Riggs, AMP; Timo- thy S. Chapin; and Lindsay Stevens, AMP. The report provides a balanced treatment of the subject, acknowledging that AVs will allow us to use existing infrastructure more efficiently, which is a good'thing- but also raising the specter of greater auto dependence, congestion, and sprawl. The big "if" on the opportunity side is that AVs may or may not be shared. It's possible, even likely, that the advent of AVs will not change the current model of individual vehicle ownership. If AVs sim- ply replace existing cars with new technol- ogy that makes vehicle travel easier and safer, they could encourage more sprawl- ing development and send the number of vehicles on the road and total VMT skyrocketing. A worst -case scenario, this treats transportation technology as some- thing done to us, rather than something planners can manage and mitigate. This is consistent with Homer Hoyt, but not with positive trends in planning like new urbanism, transit - oriented development, road diets, and traffic calming. Cost is the most likely factor that will determine the ownership model for AVs. A reasonable assumption is that AVs will follow a similar development trajectory to the computer, with relatively expensive early generations giving way quickly to more sophisticated and cheaper versions of the technology. (In the 1970s, Gordon Moore famously posited "Moor&s Law," that computer processors would effective- ly double in power every two years. The prediction has largely held true.) The lesson here for planners is that, while we cannot control the development of the technology itself, the decisions we take now can influence the way people can and want to use new technology in the fu- ture— particularly when it comes to policy. The PAS report contains an entire chapter on the potential impacts of AVs on the built environment. Impacts are anticipated primarily in six areas: new designs of rights -of -way with narrower roadways, changes to access management practices, reconsideration of the form and function of signage and signaliza- tion, new models for pedestrian and bicycle networks, reductions in demand and changes to the location of parking, and new redevelopment opportunities in urban and suburban locales. Each of these is explored in detail to develop a potential vision of a future AV world. For instance, "the combination of automated and connected vehicle technology may completely revolutionize how intersec- tions function by removing the need for traffic to stop at intersections. Instead, AVs able to sense and communicate with other vehicles will be able to flow freely through intersections." Stuck in the slow lane Another piece on AVs suggests that planners are being slow to react to the technological challenges. Based on a review of regional transportation plans, a survey of metropolitan planning organi- zations, and interviews with MPO staffs, Erick Guerra of the University of Penn- sylvania recently published "Planning for Cars That Drive Themselves: Metropol- itan Planning Organizations, Regional Transportation Plans, and Autonomous Vehicles" in the Journal of Planning Education and Research. According to the report, only one of 25 large MPOs even mentions AVs in its RTP (and none plan for AVs), so Guerra most- ly deals with the reasons why not, based on his interviews with MPOs. To inform practice, the article calls for scenario plan- ning for AVs and the modeling of impacts of AVs. It anticipates that planning for AVs will eventually find its way into RTPs. But for now, to mix metaphors, transportation planners are standing on the railroad tracks, with the train fast approaching. If my son -in -law is correct, AVs will have substantially penetrated the automobile market within the time horizon of all RTPs, I still intend to be driving my old Suba- ru in 2027, but either way, I hope it will be under better and safer driving conditions than today, and in areas that are more livable, walkable, and bikeable thanks to the efforts of planners. ■ —Reid Ewing Ewing is a distinguished professor of city and metropolitan planning at the University of Utah, an associate editor of the Journal of the American Planning Association, and an editorial board member of the Journal of Planning Education and Research, Landscape and Urban Planning, and Cities. David Proffitt, a visiting assistant professor at the U of U, helped with the research for and writing of this column. More than 60 past Research You Can Use columns are available at mrc.cap.utah.edu /publications/ research -you- can -use. Planning (ISSN W91 -2610 N. Mials- by ibe AmeI't". PI.Wng Associetioa 106 N. gan Alx, SaIt bt ,,t bit 11 lasuea C6 IL 60601. ,,, p d— ng. Fmm memb:rsb(p duct, $JO b the Uy F .,.t .b-ptf. Nlfi, rvbzcaf plf on he for ­& Nng Nonmember svbzmbers pay 595 ayvr(w I I Iuvnaamuillyo(PWdng (SI30 fo"ign). xnwlea,. po.tage pya az al�.Ifwnv, ana al .dal. F SC b.tW m..g ,ffi . PW s Is a registered Irad —L Cnpytighl m by lbe Amezinn Pluming Avecialla. vN f cor9 ReprlN permlzsfon must be ,,t—d in writing hom APA.1. PO.wasler and subzWbersp send d,ang< MIX d( dd , t. PWNng. Subs pt Mpaztmenl. Amer 1¢n Planning Auotlasiom - N. Are, S.b, Paper from _% Chug, IL —It 311-131 -9100. Pl— supply balk aid and uw address All. C.a tua Postmasl" res onslble sources p hy-W H. Ift- FW C 132124 be add—e lot n A, P.1 B- (lntvya N9A6I6.