Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
02-21-2023 Planning Commission Packet
Agenda Planning Commission Meeting Tuesday, February 21, 2023, 6:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mn.us Audience Members: Memos regarding each of the Agenda items are available on the City website (www.ci.orono.mn.us) in Agendas Minutes & Videos and in the Public Packet — located in the lobby near the entrance. Applicants will be asked to move to the lectern to answer questions after staff presents the application. The Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council. If action is taken on any items on this agenda, they will be scheduled for an upcoming City Council meeting. A quorum of the City Council may be in attendance of a Planning Commission meeting to hear comments made, though no action or deliberation of the Council will occur. Council Representative: Richard Crosby Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes: January 17, 2023 Public Hearings: 1. LA22-000068 Valdes Lawn Care and Snow Removal, LLC, 2815 Casco Point Road, requests an after -the - fact 75 -foot lake setback variance for retaining walls. (Staff: Melanie Curtis) 2. LA22-000070 Stacy Kromenhoek, 4085 Watertown Road, requests an after -the -fact variance for a side yard setback for a deck. (Staff: Natalie Nye) 3. LA23-000001 Lecy Bros. Homes & Remodeling - Brenda Koehnen, 2617 Casco Point Road, requests a hardcover variance for the construction of a deck. (Staff: Natalie Nye) Other Business: 4. Update on February 13, 2023 City Council meeting Adjourn Planning Commission Liaison to March 13, 2023 City Council meeting: Scott Kirchner Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us — follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono Planning Commission met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Chair Mark McCutcheon, Commissioners Dennis Libby, Jon Ressler and Bob Erickson. Commissioners Matt Gettman, Scott Kirchner and Chris Bollis were absent. Representing Staff were Community Development Director Laura Oakden, City Planner Melanie Curtis, and City Planner Natalie Nye. Chair McCutcheon called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. 1:119 W:Z1]fl:11 WO WET" Ole 117.1 Libby moved, Ressler seconded, to approve the Agenda. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 21, 2022 Erickson moved, Libby seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of November 21, 2022 as corrected to show Commissioner Scott Kirchner was not present. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. LA22-000065 LESLIE DARE, 2967 CASCO POINT ROAD, REQUESTS VARIANCES FROM THE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS. City Planner Curtis gave a presentation on the item, stating the applicants, along with their neighbors the Abbotts at 2941 Casco Point Road recently purchased the property situated between their lots at 2965 Casco Point Road. This middle property is formerly the Swenson property. The applicants hope to split the property and combine each portion with their lots. They also plan on keeping the existing home and detached garage on their respective halves of the property. She said the administrative boundary line adjustment can be completed by staff and recorded by the owner to combine and move the lot lines. The City Council approved hardcover variances facilitating this split and combination in November. The Abbotts will acquire the Swenson detached garage. The Oares will acquire the Swenson home. They wish to maintain the full functionality of the existing Swenson home to serve as an accessory dwelling unit under the ordinance that was adopted by the council in November. A minimum lot area of one acre is required in order to qualify. Once their lot combination is complete, the Oares' property will be about three quarters of an acre. The ADU performance standards require the principle building and ADU to share utilities. Because the Swenson home was a separate and independent property it is served separately. The Oares are requesting variances from the performance standards for the utility connections and lot area to permit this home to be used as an ADU on their property. The applicants have identified the existing conditions and the elimination of a separate non -conforming lot as practical difficulties supporting the variances. Staff finds the elimination of a non -conforming lot is a positive improvement from the lot size and average lakeshore setback perspectives, as well as the overall reduction of hardcover proposed between the three properties. Although the Swenson home is an existing condition, staff does not find practical difficulties exist which support the requested variances from the newly adopted regulations to permit an ADU. The applicants are legally able to use the Swenson home as an accessory building with plumbing, but not for dwelling overnight use. No comments from the public had been Page 1 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. received for this application. Staff is able to support the variance addressing utility connections as an existing condition to minimize disturbance to the property and the existing utility connections. Staff recommends denial of the lot area variance for ADU use. Ressler asked if that accessory dwelling was not part of the request, would staff be supportive of the application? Curtis said the staff supports the application to combine the lots but not the accessory use. McCutcheon pointed out the City just changed the ordinances to include performance standards; for ADUs and one of our criteria was the lot has to be at least one acre. He said since it's an existing house, the Planning Commission could probably get past the requirement that the main residence and the ADU share utilities. The big conundrum for us to discuss is are we okay with the not meeting the one acre? Tim Oare 2967 Casco Point Rd. The Swenson property had a 20 -foot piece of Lakeshore. When we purchased our house, we had talked to the Swensons and Abbotts and Swensons happened to live in Florida. The Abbots share the driveway with the Swenson property. The guest house is almost touching our driveway. We thought it was a great opportunity to eliminate this lake shore piece. If you look it's a 20 -foot piece of lakeshore. You really can't have a dock there. We just thought getting rid of all of this and combining it in the two yards instead of three was going to be an easy solution. The house is existing the way it is. Tearing it down doesn't make sense. We are eliminating a whole bunch of hardcover to try and do this. The stairs of the lake are going away. There's a sidewalk from the house to the garage. That's all going away. So we're getting rid of all this hard cover to get down to our right size hardcover, and we didn't realize this was going to be such a big deal to make the split. When they sold their house and we built our house, we redid all the sewer lines, all the water lines to both houses. So it's all fresh, updated sewer, water lines and to combine them again would be a big, big deal. So all we're asking for is to just use the house as a house. It's not like we're renting it out. We just want to keep it as a house for guest. Right now it's a three-bedroom, three -bath house. To convert it to just a party room or storage facility just doesn't seem to make sense either. McCutcheon asked for clarification on the use of the old Swenson house as a guest house or dwelling. Curtis explained that the lot would not meet the one -acre requirement for an ADU and that the new ordinance removed guest houses and replaced them with the ADU regulations. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:12 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:12 p.m. The Commissioners discussed the item. McCutcheon noted this was the first variance request under the new ordinance. It doesn't seem like he's asking a lot but it doesn't conform so that is what we are here to discuss. Page 2 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Libby said the complication is that there is some precedent by the fact that the house had been used as a dwelling, so that does set somewhat of a standard. On the other hand, the lot is short a quarter acre to conform to the new ordinance. I don't see a remedy for that. He asked if there are other lots in close proximity that would give guidance on the situation. Curtis said prior to the ADU regulation being adopted the code requirement for a guesthouse use was the property had to meet twice the minimum acreage of the district. On Casco the minimum requirement is half an acre. So, anywhere on Casco where there was a property with one acre, they would have been eligible to have a guest house. Although we do have smaller lots throughout the city, a non -conforming lot won't meet that ADU standard. Libby said in the reordering of our comprehensive plan, because the City was seeing more frequency of accessory dwelling units, there had to be some changes made that made more sense. I have a difficult time supporting this because it still has a few too many elements of not being conforming. We're not here to redesign or replat. I just still have difficulty supporting this. Ressler said he thinks the staff has done a good job in laying out the issues. He said he would not support a variance for an ADU that doesn't conform to the new ordinance. But he said there is a second paragraph which may offer a solution and that is the Oares are permitted to maintain the Swenson house as an accessory building with full plumbing facilities. So as the building is currently a fully appointed home, perhaps that does point the way to some sort of pathway. I certainly do appreciate the fact that this was some time ago, this was three different owners, and now it's just two different owners, and that's certainly a step in the right direction. And so if there's something that can be done, to get them to the next step, that would be fine with me. Erickson said he is conflicted on this because he's all for cleaning up weird things on the lakeshore. The hard part is the application is for is there an accessory dwelling unit and that clearly does not meet what is needed to grant that. Even if we combined the Swenson and Oare lots together, we don't quite get to one acre. I can understand staff's recommendations, because it doesn't meet the requirements that have just been revisited and revised. McCutcheon said the hard part of the job is we have to draw a line. And when we have a line, we've got to stick the line in this one, I think, with this ordinance, since it's new. Maybe in a year's time our opinion changes as the public gives us their feedback. But since this is the first one out of the gate, I think we're going to have a hard line here. Ressler moved, Libby seconded, to deny LA22-000065 as applied. VOTE: Ayes: 4, Nays 0. 2. LA22-000066 STEVE ISCHE, 3365 CRYSTAL BAY ROAD, REQUESTS VARIANCES FOR AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK, HARDCOVER AND THE 75 -FOOT LAKE SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK. City Planner Nye gave a presentation on the item, stating the applicant is proposing to construct a new deck and stairs on the property which will replace the current deck awning and stairs that are in disrepair. Page 3 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. The existing lot is substandard in size and width and the existing deck structure is within the average lakeshore setback and 75 -foot lakeshore setback. The proposal is to expand the deck where the awning is currently which will create a new vertical encroachment into the required average lakeshore setback. The new deck will stay within the footprint of the existing deck and awning structure staying at its closest point 69 feet from the OHWL. The property is currently over the required hardcover limit of 25 percent so a variance is required. The applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding the applicable practical difficulties. Staff agrees with the applicant's assessment of practical difficulty being the substandard lot and configuration of the existing home on the property. The proposed deck will create a safe entryway to the home without increasing hardcover and staying within the existing footprint of the improvements. A neighbor acknowledgement form has been included in the packet but no other public comment has been received. Staff recommends approval of the requested variance as applied. Ressler asked if this proposal is building like kind. Nye said it is in the footprint but is not like kind. By expanding the deck, there are some new encroachments with these railings and new vertical encroachment. But the footprint doesn't change and staff doesn't believe it would be worsening the view for the neighbors. Brandon Bolduc, 3365 Crystal Bay Road said they have a deck that's there by the garage and the awning. Everything is in disrepair. The handrails are not to code. The wood is falling apart and rotting. We're just trying to make it safe and have a front door to the house and preserve without tearing down and like so many others do. We're just trying to preserve and make it practical. Ressler asked about the actual setback including the stairs. Nye said the existing staircase also protrudes a bit. In order to create a staircase that's up to code it needs to extend further. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:29 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:29 p.m. The Commissioners discussed the item. McCutcheon commented that the application does not seem like a big ask but rather an improvement. Ressler said he agrees there's not anything that can be done to make this conforming and yet it fits into what is already there. I'm in support as proposed. Commissioners asked additional questions about the design of the stairs in regard to code and how they it with the existing structure. Bolduc said the situation is just as the commissioners stated. The steps are not currently to code as the rise is too steep. Ressler pointed out even with redesigned stairs the design is still within the existing concrete area. Page 4 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ressler moved, Libby seconded, to approve LA22-000066, 3365 Crystal Bay Rd. Variances. VOTE: Ayes: 4, Nays 0. 3. LA22-000067 JON BYINGTON, 1270 WILDHURST TRAIL, REQUESTS A VARIANCE FROM THE AVERAGE LAKESHORE SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF DECK STAIRS ON AN EXISTING DECK. City Planner Nye gave a presentation on the application. The applicant is proposing to construct a new spiral staircase to serve an existing deck. The deck and rear addition on the house were recently approved in 2022 through an average Lakeshore setback variance. The location of the existing home on the property in relation to its northern neighbor creates an extreme average lakeshore setback line with a very limited building envelope. The staircase was not originally contemplated for this location and therefore the addition of the spiral staircase creates a new encroachment into the average lakeshore setback requiring a new variance. The applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding the practical difficulties. Staff agrees with the applicant's assessment of practical difficulty being the extreme average lake shore setback due to the placement of the existing home. Currently, the deck is 126 feet from the OH WL. The proposed location of the stairs stays within that setback and does not create any new encroachments into the side yard. No public comment has been received and staff recommends approval of the requested variance as proposed. Julie Dejong 1270 Wildhurst Trail said the staircase they are requesting is right next to an existing porch. A deck addition was approved last year and the location of that stairway was moved further away from the backyard. The reasoning behind the spiral staircase would to be to provide easier access to the backyard without having to encroach on any of our neighbors. It will not be past the existing setback that we have and neither of our neighbors would be able to see it. It's not a large, bulky structure. It would be within about five feet width and we are hoping that this would be approved to make the access to our backyard easier. McCutcheon asked if the deck previously had stairs. Dejong explained there were stairs but they had to be moved because of extending the deck to connect to the garage and now the stairs would be too far back. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:39 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:39 p.m. The Commissioners discussed the item. McCutcheon said hindsight is 20/20 so he would like to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt realizing that things can change during construction. He noted it is a little bit bigger footprint than they had before but a pretty subtle one. Ressler said he thinks the request is pretty similar to the last one. His feedback would be similar on this application. Page 5 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Erickson said while the commission would like to see applications in advance things happen and he doesn't see a reason to deny. Libby said spiral staircases can be very creative problem solvers and this is a good application of that. I think this is very unobtrusive, and a method of solving what could be a much more complicated problem. I agree with staff. Erickson moved, Ressler seconded, to approve LA22-000067, 1270 Wildhurst Trail, Variances as applied. VOTE: Ayes: 4, Nays 0. 4. LA22-000071 JIM HILLIER, 1224 BRIAR STREET AND 1245 ARBOR STREET, REQUESTS LOT WIDTH AND LOT AREA VARIANCES IN ORDER TO FACILITATE AN ADMINISTRATIVE BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENT (SUBDIVISION EXCEPTION). City Planner Curtis gave a presentation on the item, stating the Hilliers owned both properties at 1224 Briar and 1245 Arbor Street. The Arbor Street property is undeveloped. They're proposing to move the common lot outline between the two properties to enlarge the area with their home site on Briar and reduce the size of the Arbor property. Both properties are currently non -conforming with respect to area and width and will remain non -conforming. However, the area the Arbor Street lot is proposed to be approximately 3500 square feet larger than the existing Briar Street property. As proposed the Arbor Street property will have an approximate 2300 square foot building envelope which is reasonable for this neighborhood. On the Briar lot, the proposed change moves the defined front from Briar to Minnetonka. This results in a change to the setbacks on the Briar lot. Because the properties are non -conforming with respect to width, an area variance is required in order to complete the administrative boundary line adjustment. The applicant identified the character of the neighborhood and the non -conforming status of the lots as practical difficulties supporting their request. Regarding practical difficulty staff agrees that the proposed configuration results in a size and orientation which remain consistent with the neighborhood. There are very few properties which meet the RR1B district standards in this immediate neighborhood. Staff received a few calls from the public with questions on the application. However, no formal public comments have been submitted. Staff recommends approval of the lot with lot area variances to support an administrative boundary line adjustment. Libby asked if there are any helpful precedents for approving non -conforming lots in this area. Cutis answered she could not think of one in that neighborhood. The City has done others but they are not common. Jim Hillier 1224 Briar Street said he had no additional comments but would be happy to answer questions. McCutcheon asked about the motivation for moving the boundary line. Mr. Hillier said the motivation is to give them the ability to better utilize the Briar Street lot, because they will gain a little structural coverage and ground coverage. Page 6 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Libby said the commission has discussed this a couple times before and asked if there was something new, added or different from when this was discussed before. Curtis said the previous application was a subdivision request to create an additional lot. That is no longer the proposal. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 6:47 p.m. Ressler said he remembers the previous request that would have created three lots. This is just re -drawing lot lines to make them two buildable and usable lots. For that reason, I'd be supportive as staff recommends. Erickson said he likes this solution. The new arrangement is clean and rectangular, not a gerrymandered thing. And also, they're a little more balanced in size than the existing. It respects the character of the neighborhood. I'm very favorably impressed with this application. Libby pointed out that the city doesn't typically support new lots that are non -conforming. Ressler agreed with that but said we're not creating a new lot, we are doing a lot line rearrangement of two lots and making two lots. You're generally going to be creating two of the largest lots in that neighborhood where few of the lots are two acres so it meets the merits of what is proposed here. If it was a subdivision, I'd be opposed. If it was trying to create another lot that I would be opposed. But we're not doing a split here. It's a lot line rearrangements. So for that reason, I'm in support. Ressler confirmed the second vacant lot would be buildable. Libby suggested asking the applicant to comment on their future intent and what their plans might be. Hillier said they own the 1224 house and tore it down and built a new one in 2015. In 2018 they had the opportunity to buy the other lot next door. We don't know what we're going to do in the future yet. When we built the house in 2015 because of the structural coverage and hardcover we actually had to scale the house back from what we wanted to do. We wanted to have a first floor master. We want to have some other things like a patio on the south side of the property off the dining room. The planning group said no, so we shrunk it down, stacked it up put everything upstairs to meet the requirements. We're kind of restricted with the lot being as small as it is. We want to put a patio on the south side off the dining room and hardcover wouldn't meet it. We want to have a shed in the backyard because right now we store our lawnmower and stuff outside covered with a tarp. Ressler moved, Libby seconded, to approve LA22-000071, 1224 Briar Street and 1245 Arbor Street Variances as applied. VOTE: Ayes: 4, Nays 0. NEW BUSINESS Page 7 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. 5. LA22-000060 JOHN GRZYBEK (MOHRMAN, KAARDAL & ERICKSON P.A.) O/B/O WARD & DONNA EDWARDS, 2474 CARMAN STREET, SKETCH PLAN. Community Development Director Oakden said the applicants are requesting some informal feedback on a proposed sketch plan for 2474 Carmen Street. Staff recommends the commissioners discuss this proposed application and provide feedback. It is an informal process. It's not a public hearing. 2474 Carmen has street frontage on Shoreline Drive to the north. It is a long, relatively narrow piece of property and there is a lagoon or kind of water inlet that divides this parcel. The survey also identifies a wetlands on the northerly portion of the parcel. The parcel is roughly 1.6 acres of land. The lot is improved with a single-family home on the portion of the southern part of the inlet. The portion of the lot north of the inlet is unimproved. The property is unique in that the portion of the southern lot and the inlet is zoned LRIB which is one acre minimum. And the portion on the north side of that kind of lagoon inlet is LR1C1 which is half acre, so it is a split zoning on this parcel. The applicant is proposing to split the lot into two parcels to facilitate a new building site north of the inlet. The applicant has not identified how they're proposing to use that northern lot or how they would access it. It is a heavily wooded lot with that wetland and there is a relatively steep grade that drops off from Shoreline Drive. A similar application was made in 2020. That application was contemplating a lot split for both this parcel and the parcel to the east at 2480 Carmen Street. At that time, the Planning Commission and the Council were not in favor because that would create a non -conforming parcel. The existing parcel is non -conforming today. This proposed sketch would create a non -conforming substandard parcel to the south and then a conforming parcel on the northern side. Planning Commission and City Council would have to support variances for lot area and lot width. The City engineer did provide some comments regarding connectivity for utilities and then County permitting requirements. They also noted the wetland in the location on that northerly lot and the potential issues with a buildable envelope. I included comments from Hennepin County from their 2020 review. If a formal application was made we'd get updated comments from the County at that time. No public comment has been made The Planning Commission should discuss if you're comfortable with the proposed variances necessary to create a non -conforming parcel. Do you have concerns with the layout? And then you should discuss the buildable area and the intent with that northerly parcel. The next item on the agenda is a separate applicant but it is the lot right to the east of this one. McCutcheon asked if there is an effort with the two applications to have a combined driveway. Libby said he would like to have the opportunity to look at the illustrations. Oakden scrolled through additional images to show some contours and some slope and potential wetland in the middle, as well as the house to the south on this parcel. There's a shared driveway connecting this property as well as the property to the east, connected off Carmen Avenue. Greg Erickson, business address 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3100, Minneapolis and Scott W. Edwards, 2470 Carmen Street, spoke to the application. Page 8 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. Erickson said he had done a site visit with Mr. Edwards. The smaller southern parcel is completely disconnected with the northern parcel. There's absolutely no way to access or utilize the northern parcel in any way, shape or form. It's just two parcels and the smaller one is non -conforming, but it's been in use, so it's lawful, and the larger one is conforming consistent with the upcoming changes to the comprehensive plan. Mr. Edwards said the curb cut out exists on the northern portion on County Road 15. It straddles the two lots and when that was put in back in the 50s or 60s it was with the future use of splitting these lots off. Mr. Erickson said they've been in discussions with the adjacent landowner and have absolutely no objection to the adjacent landowner's plan, and to working with them to do something that's acceptable if that's what's necessary in order to move the potential subdivision forward. Mr. Edwards pointed out the wetlands area is not actually holding standing water. It's a peat bog. McCutcheon asked if given the wetland, the lot is buildable. Mr. Edwards said their plan would be if there was a single-family residence it would be between the wetlands and County Road 15. There is over a half -acre of buildable land that is not wetlands, according to our survey, McCutcheon also asked about a grading plan. Mr. Erickson said according to the staff recommendation, there would need to be some sort of grading to get a flatter view of the cross street for safety purposes. McCutcheon said there was no public hearing tonight and asked the commissioners for discussion. He pointed out there would be a non -conforming lot and as a commission, we just said we're not in favor of that. Libby said from a historical perspective these were considered and were platted as two lots a long time ago. It's a very pretty setting. I honestly think that the highest and best use of this would be the divisions that I've seen proposed by the two applicants, I would support that. I know that it doesn't really necessarily conform to the second lot size status that we would like to see. But again, that's that uniqueness. I think we need to look at this as a very unique and unusual circumstance and that we just need to be as open-minded as we statutorily can be to the applicant's desires for the highest and best use of the land. Erickson said the proposal fits the character of the neighborhood. As we have seen in other locations, like Forest Lake and other places, it makes sense to have the lot line even extended into the water, because there are those times when the lake will be low again. In `92, it was down about three feet from the ordinary high water, and then the 1930s, it was down about seven feet below the ordinary high water. Hennepin County's first choice for access to the northern part would be an easement going eastward to County 19, which does not have the huge traffic numbers that County 15 has. So that would be an ideal Page 9 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. solution from their standpoint. He said according to oral history there may have been a lot of debris or junk dumped in part of that north area at some time years ago, but we have not seen any soil tests that would either confirm or deny that. Commissioners discussed whether rezoning the property would be a good recommendation. Oakden said rezoning would require an application process to amend the zoning maps. Libby mentioned the significant changes in grade on the property. Ressler said he thinks the correct approach would be to change the zoning. He does not support creating new lots that are non -conforming. He also questioned whether the city would have jurisdiction because of the wetlands and LMCC's rules and regulations along with the Corps of Engineers and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Libby pointed out this property was discussed as part of the 2040 comprehensive plan but there was never any action. To find the highest and best use, again, it's purely subjective. I think that the highest and best use of this land is to have a lot division. So that there can be I guess, four lots to the north and to the south. But again, that is a subjective opinion, with some extra knowledge of history of the area. McCutcheon said he thinks everyone can agree that Shoreline Drive is very busy. I don't think the citizens would be too crazy about having another entry under that road. He also discussed protecting the wetland on the property. 6. LA22-000069 BRETT LARSON, 2480 CARMAN STREET, SKETCH PLAN. Oakden said this application is similar to the previous one. They're requesting to split their lot. Again, it fronts on Shoreline Drive and it's a long, narrow lot with that lagoon. This parcel is slightly larger; it's roughly 1.85 acres of land. The lot is improved with a single-family home on the portion that is currently under construction. In 2020, it was an older home. They have since applied for a new home permit, and that's under construction today. I believe on the survey it's calling out the footprint of the original house to be removed. The northern inlet on the north side of the lagoon is unimproved. The property is unique with, again, the split zoning LR 1B or a one -acre minimum to the south and LR 1C one half -acre minimum to the north. Again, it's heavily wooded with the grading drops but less impacts of wetland on this parcel. The applicant's goal is to facilitate a new building site on the north of the inlet. And similar to the 2022 application, they are proposing the north lot would be conforming. The southern lot would be non -conforming. The existing parcel is conforming to the zoning district. The proposed northern parcel is the half -acre minimum and would propose to meet all the zoning requirements. The proposed southern parcel in the LR 1B district would be substandard in area so there still is not enough land to meet the LR 1B zoning district. Planning Commission and Council would have to discuss if they are in support of a lot area variance to create a new non -conforming lot. This one has the same engineer comments as before including the discussion of connectivity and then County permitting requirements with access to Shoreline. Are you comfortable with a proposal that includes variances to create a new non -conforming Page 10 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. lot? And then do you have concerns about any layout regarding Hennepin County and the engineers comments for access? You are asked to discuss and provide feedback to the applicant. Brett Larsen, 2040 Carmine Street and Mark Gronberg, Gronberg and Associates, Long Lake, appeared as the applicants. Mr. Larsen said he and his wife are building a home on the southern portion. On the northern portion we've looked at a few different things. We've talked about a few different options, including putting commercial on the northernmost part, and residential on the southernmost part. It is all buildable; there are no wetland issues. After working through the options with Mark, it gets kind of tight when you're trying to create an easement or a roadway between the two. So the plan would be to have one single family home, one lot, one single family home on that lot. Mr. Gronberg said they looked at putting a shared cul-de-sac with both properties but it takes up too much area and the setbacks are onerous. We're certainly in favor of a shared access between the two properties so that there's only one there. And I think like Bob said, right in, right out. It makes a lot of sense on a busy road like that. A couple other things, looking at your 2030 land use plan, it shows that it's two to three units per acre. So we're certainly in favor of doing a rezoning here to get that maybe before the 2030. But another thing I wanted to bring up is back a couple years ago we had a neck going up to a 25 foot strip that went up to the north, just to make the dry land on that southerly lot over an acre. And then the northerly lot was still 100 feet wide. It seems stupid to have a 25 -foot strip up there that they could never use, but it did technically meet the requirements. McCutcheon said he appreciated that the applicants are willing to work with the landowner to the west because it really looks like it's going to be a compromise between both parcels. Libby asked if they have pursued looking at an egress from Kelly Ave. Mr. Gronberg said it sounds like a good idea but who knows if those owners would be willing to give up access there. And then Brett would then have to give up access across his property to the right property of the West. Mr. Larsen said they work through the City with building permits, and wanted to be can -do. We didn't ask for a variance. We tried to do everything outside of the setback. We had to scrap the existing house, fill in the foundation and do a new foundation in order to accomplish all that. We did have the same approach here. I've talked to Scott Edwards. We've talked about sharing that curb cut, if that makes this easier to do. Our strong preference would be to work with Mr. Edwards to find a way that we can access 15. And we have spoken with the LMCD, and they are telling us that a dock is doable. Erickson said as a point of information, reviewing the previous comments from Hennepin County a couple of years ago, the question was raised about the right-of-way for County 15. Hennepin County might want possibly another 12 feet of right-of-way, which then in discussing that, they also pointed out that they didn't want to see any retaining walls are along that stretch of 15 for sightline visibility. Page 11 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Oakden said the County had asked for a 45 -foot from centerline and now it's 33 foot so they'd ask for additional right -of -way, and that they wouldn't want any structural improvements in that right-of-way, like retaining wall. A new retaining wall would have to go within the parcel itself, not within the right-of- way space. Mr. Larsen said when they had the home design for the new home on the southern portion, they asked that the architect ensure that the hardcover minimums be met, even after the lots are separated. Oakden explained hard covers and structural coverage is commonly accounted by lot total. The applicant is saying that when they rebuilt their house, or when they put in for their application, they made sure that their hardcover and their structural coverage totals would be met with just the southern portion as a standalone parcel. So that if they were to divide off the north, they'd still be in compliance, and they wouldn't be creating new, additional non -conformities regarding hardcover and structural coverage. Libby asked having dealt with turnouts, turn lanes, and driveway aprons as much as you have, would you anticipate them? If there was a feasibility of an egress from County Road 15, that there would be a necessity for two? Mr. Gronberg said usually for two houses, they aren't that particular, but they'd have to work through it with them. They may want a short little deceleration lane and a short little acceleration lane. Ressler said he'd like to answer the applicant's question on the hardcover. We don't want to have three non -conforming lots if we're talking about the adjoining property. In terms of zoning right now are those northern lots even technically also zoned commercial? Oakden said they're zoned residential. LR 1 C one is a residential zone. Ressler said if it was for the higher density, then they would still be creating a problem because they'd be asking for one non -conforming lot. The whole idea would be, let's get the zoning corrected to the spirit of the neighborhood and then create conforming lots. And by doing so, then you would be able to do that. McCutcheon asked if we were to rezone the northern parcels as LR 1B, does that help instead of having lots of variances with this one to make it as is it? Oakden said LR 1B is a larger zoning district, one acre minimum. Right now, with the split the LR 1 C 1 is the half -acre lot minimum. With the split at the lagoon, the LR 1 C one meets the half -acre needed, but then that leaves the southern lots not being an acre in size. So that's the creation of a non -conforming lot on both applications. Libby said he thought the discussion had been very healthy, especially with applicants in-house. I think that bringing this back to us and talking is kind of what we're here for. We can't always do a vote. But we can always give our input. So I feel gratified that we had this time to spend. Page 12 of 13 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION January 17, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. McCutcheon said he felt if they're going to change something, let's do it the best fit that checks, the most boxes that we've talked about here, whether it's the access to Shoreline Drive, the buildable areas, wetland, easements, all these sorts of things that we talked about. I guess we'll end the discussion there. OTHER BUSINESS — Update on JANUARY 09, 2023 City Council Meeting Oakden updated the Commissioners noting there had been a few City Council meetings since the Planning Commission last met. She said the Council had approved all the applications the Planning Commission recommended for approval that have come to the council so far. In addition, the Council approved a variance for 3830 Cherry that the Planning Commission had recommended denying, but only after the applicants made changes in the proposal based on Planning Commission feedback. She said from an administrative standpoint she will be reaching out to commissioners whose terms are coming to an end to invite them to reapply if they are still interested. 1 9 7►Iu I OWN N Erickson moved, Libby seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting. VOTE: Ayes 4, Nays 0. The Orono Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:04 p.m. ATTEST: Mark McCutcheon, Chair Page 13 of 13 Date Application Received: 12/13/2022 Date Application Considered as Complete: 02/03/2023 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 04/04/2023 To: Chair McCutcheon and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Melanie Curtis, Planner MCC Date: 21 February 2023 Subject: #LA22-000068, Valdes Lawn Care and Snow Removal LLC o/b/o Mark and Lisa Thostenson 2815 Casco Point Road After -the -fact Setback Variances Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting approval of an after -the -fact bluff and 75 -foot lake setback variances for new retaining walls. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends partial approval. Background In July of 2022 the timber lake slope walls, deck, and stair to the lake were destroyed by fire. A building permit was issued (RAS22-000082) to reconstruct the walls in-kind. During the installation of the walls, staff observed that the construction expanded beyond the in-kind limitations in the wall lengths and some of the wall locations. As a result, on October 281h, a Stop Work order was issued. The contractor was directed to fill in, compact, and secure the open areas with appropriate stabilization measures. Because the work was halted prior to completion, on November 281h the owner requested and received permission from the City Council to install a final wall at the top of the slope which their engineer determined to be necessary to protect the integrity of the slope (Resolution No. 7315, attached as Exhibit K). Their engineer provided documentation showing the slope failure is imminent and needed an emergency correction. That final wall has been installed. Currently, the owner is requesting after -the -fact variances to address the wall footprint expansions in the bluff and lake yard. The lake stairs are an allowed improvement within the 75 -foot setback and can be constructed with an admirative building permit. According to City Code Section 78-71(c)(1) regarding reconstruction of legal nonconforming structures involuntarily damaged or destroyed, the deck and shed may also be rebuilt in-kind with an admirative permit. The change to the configuration of the retaining walls, if approved, will likely impact the ability to fully recapture the previous structural footprints and dimensions of the deck and shed. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the slope and existing conditions as practical difficulties supporting the requested variances. Additionally, they have provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Regarding practical difficulty, Staff finds there are difficulties in FILE # LA22-000068 19 September 2022 Page 2 of 5 the topography and challenges brought on by the fire on the slope which may support the variances for the expanded retaining walls. Staff supports the setback variances for the new wall footprint as long as the change does not adversely impact neighboring properties and slope stability. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-350 & 78-1279 — Setbacks: All of the improvements are within the 75 -foot setback from the ordinary high water level (OHWL), and are within the bluff. The newly constructed timber walls are situated generally where the previously existing walls were located within the 75 -foot setback and within the bluff. However, the new walls are not considered an in-kind replacement as the footprint of some of the walls extend closer to the neighboring properties, are in different configurations, and are in different locations than the previous walls. Variances are required. The plans do not specifically clarify whether or not the new walls were constructed entirely within the subject property boundaries; clarification is required. Section 78-350 — Lot Area/Width: LR -1C DISTRICT Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5acres) 100' Actual 14,926 s.f. (0.34 acre) 56'@ 75'/ 56' @ OHWL Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 — Hardcover Calculations: The applicant has provided hardcover calculations, attached as Exhibit E. The hardcover calculations include the walls as well as replacement stairs to the lake, landings, deck, and shed/boathouse. They are not requesting variances to exceed 25% hardcover. Stormwater Total Area in Allowed Proposed Overlay District Zone Hardcover Existing Hardcover Hardcover* Tier 3,731.5 s.f. 3,096 s.f. 3,651.7 s.f. Tier 1 14,926 s.f. (25 %) (21.1%) (24.9%) *Includes the improvements/changes shown as part of Building Permit RPS22-000126. Applicable Regulations: Bluff and 75 -foot Lake Setback Variance (Section 78-1279) The proposed walls replaced walls destroyed by a fire along with other lakeyard improvements such as lake access stairs, a deck, and a shed beneath the deck. Due to the bluff and steep nature of the slope on the subject property as well as the immediately adjacent neighboring properties the walls are necessary. Originally the applicant's intent was to replace the destroyed walls in-kind. According to the applicant, the process for the reconstruction involved removal of additional material from the slope. Once installed, the placement of the new walls was determined to exceed the in-kind allowance. All of the proposed improvements are within the bluff and lake setback. A lake stair is a permitted improvement within the bluff and 75 -foot setback. The deck/walkway and shed are not permitted, however are able to be reconstructed in-kind. The property owners can apply for a building permit to re -build their deck(s) and shed as long as the existing parameters are not exceeded. Because the new walls were installed in a slightly different placement, size, and configuration, variances are required. FILE # LA22-000068 19 September 2022 Page 3 of 5 Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. Preserving and protecting the lake yard slope is in harmony with the intent of the ordinance. Staff recommends the proposed retaining walls be screened with vegetation to maintain the rural nature of the lake wherever feasible. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The as -built retaining walls will continue to maintain the integrity of the slope and protect the slope from catastrophic failure which protects the lake as well as neighboring properties. The proposal is consistent with the comprehensive plan in this manner. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The owner has installed retaining wall improvements which are residential in nature and reasonable from a residential scope. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The owner has constructed retaining walls to protect against failure of the slope resulting from a catastrophic fire. The existing improvements within the slope of the lake yard were not originally constructed by the owner; and c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. There were previously existing retaining walls and improvements in the lake yard. The variance to permit the expanded retaining wall structure within the bluff and 75 -foot lake setback will help to maintain the existing slope and character of the area. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 17, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable. FILE # LA22-000068 19 September 2022 Page 4 of 5 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as residential improvements are an allowed use in the LR -1C District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two- family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The slope of the property combined with the pre-existing improvements are unique conditions affecting the subject property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The steep slope, existing timber wall configuration, and the existing improvements create conditions which do not apply to all of the adjacent properties. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Granting bluff and lake setback variances to allow the retaining walls within the 75 -foot lake setback to remain as constructed with an expanded footprint is reasonable, is a better solution long-term, and is necessary to preserve the rights of the owner. The variance is supported by the vulnerable slope on the property. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the lake yard setback variance allowing the retaining walls within the bluff and 75 -foot lake setback will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any way be contrary to the ordinances. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The proposed/as-constructed walls within the lake yard will continue to preserve the integrity of the slope and there is no conforming location to install the retaining walls which would protect the slope. Preserving the existing wall is necessary for the protection of the slope and the lake. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Engineer Review As part of the approval for the emergency slope repair, the City Council directed the applicant to provide an engineer's opinion regarding the stability of the slopes on the neighboring properties, the opinion letter is attached as Exhibit H. Public Comments Comments from the public have been received and are attached as Exhibit L. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? 2. Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 3. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? FILE # LA22-000068 19 September 2022 Page 5 of 5 Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the setback variances for the improvements as proposed. Staff does not recommend approval of any walls which encroach into neighboring properties. The applicant should be asked to confirm that the retaining wall work was not conducted beyond the property lines. If improvements were installed into neighboring properties, the application should be modified to include that work as well as confirm property owners' consent for the work. Staff further recommends vegetative screening of the walls be implemented to screen the new walls from the lake as much as feasible. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application & Narrative Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Previous "Existing Conditions" Survey Exhibit D. As -Built Survey Exhibit E. Hardcover Calculations Exhibit F. Plan Comparison —Staff Annotated Exhibit G. Photos Exhibit H. Engineer Opinion Exhibit 1. City Council Minutes 11/28/2022 Exhibit J. Council Memo 11/28/2022 Exhibit K. Resolution No. 7315 Exhibit L. Public Comment Exhibit M. Property Owners List Exhibit N. Plat Map 2/15/23, 8:59 AM Permit Details I Citizenserve Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 12/13/2022 Address: 2815 Casco Point RD Orono, MN 55391 Parcel Number: 2011723320011 Land Use Number: LA22-000068 Application Submitted By: Agent on behalf of property owner Owner: Name: Lisa & Mark Thostenson Address: 2640 Lakewood Lane, Mound MN Name: Josh Prust Applicant: Company: Valdes Lawn Care and Snow Removal, LLC Address: 9591 60th St N Lake Elmo, MN 55042 jprust@valdeslawn.com Contact Information: Associated Contact: Josh Prust jprust@valdeslawn.com Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description: After the fact variances for Replacement of Destroyed Retaining Walls Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application Appeal of Admin Decision Concept Application Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Application Subdivision Application Subdivision Exception Vacation Application Variance Application Applicant Signature: https://www5.citizenserve.com/Admin/PermltControIIer?Action=DisplayPermitDetaiI&SelectedTab=Permits&Permit_ID=11170951 &WorkOrder_ID=863... 1 /1 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA22-000068 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: The contractor wishes to keep the as built retaining wall improvements in place which are residential in nature and reasonable from a residential scope of protecting the bluff and the lake. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: The contractor has installed retaining wall improvements to protect against failure of the slope. The damage to the pre existing structures and resulting loss of bluff retention/ protection was not created by the landowner 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: There were pre existing retaining walls and other structures on the slope. The variance to permit the expanded retaining wall structure within the 75 -foot lake setback is necessary to maintain the integrity of the existing slope. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 116106, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. Response: This criteria is not applicable. 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Response: This criteria is not applicable. 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Response: This criteria is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response: The as -built retaining walls, steep bluff, pre as -built structures and the fire which destroyed them are uniquely specific to the property. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: The existing as -built retaining walls and steep bluff are unique conditions affecting this property and do not apply to land or structures in the district in which the land is located. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: Granting a variance to allow the retaining wall expanded footprint within the 75 -foot lake setback is reasonable and is a better solution long-term to provide stabilization to the bluff, and is also necessary to preserve the rights of the owner. The variance is supported by the vulnerable slope on the Property. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. Response: Granting the lake yard setback variance allowing the as built retaining walls to remain as - is within the 75 -foot lake setback will not adversely impact health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any way be contrary to the ordinances. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: To grant the variance will not merely serve a convenience tool to the contractor and/or landowner, but will continue to preserve the integrity of the bluff. By granting the variance for the as built walls to remain in place is necessary for the protection of the land and the lake. EXISTING HOUSE #2817 ) 00 V 964 �\ R�PR"A \ \ \ a,o ,9 0 � -8 `P, \ 93s 929.4 CONTOUR-- 511 \ \ \ \ \ \ LINE (O.H.W.) \ IPRAP� LAKE MINNETONKA 966` wN I CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY FOR LISA THOSTENSON IN LOT 120, SPRING PARK &VAC. LAKE SHORE � HENNEPIN COUNTY, MINNESOTA °23 00, SE LY LINE OF LOT 120 Aj ' LINE PARALLEL WITH -� THE SE LY LINE OF H LOT 120, AND IT' S SW' LY EXTENSION EXISTING (960.4) / •� Paz / (960., )� / (9S9Si \ 4� \ DOD (J) S9'l A) (957.7) \ \ \ 1NDSCAPE /�951' )RDER ; / O \ REMOVED W N Q �� �� 9X96 / (955.7) `! J s\ ...... I� 0 �119S9 HOUSE #2817 S C A L E LEGAL DESCRIPTION : (per Certificate of Title No. 1541552) ON F E E T All that part of Lot 120, Spring Park, and all the unplatted land and that portion of Lake Shore Avenue vacated, lying between Lot 120 of Spring Park and the side lines of said Lot projected to Lake Minnetonka, which lies northwesterly of a lilne running parallel with and five feet northwesterly from the southeasterly line of said Lot and the extension thereof. denotes iron marker denotes iron marker found (908.3) : denotes existing spot elevation, mean sea level datum -917--: denotes existing contour line, mean sea Level datum Bearings shown are based upon an assumed datum. This survey intends to show the boundaries of the above described property, and the location of an existing house, garage, to be removed, spot elevations, topography, large oak tree and the location of all visible "hardcover", and the proposed location of a proposed garage, stoop, walk and driveway thereon. It does not purport to show any other improvements or encroachments. DATE DESCRIPTION G R 0 N B E R G AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS, LAND SURVEYORS, & SITE PLANNERS 445 NORTH WILLOW DRIVE LONG LAKE, MN. 55356 952-473-4141 hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report 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. SCALE 1 "=20' 8-15-22 REVISED HARDCOVER DATE 5-18-22 JOB NO. 22-063A Mark S. Gronberg Minnesota Licen Number 12755 22-063A AS -BUILT SURVEY -for- VALDES LAWN CARE GRAPHIC SCALE -of- 2815 CASCO POINT ROAD, ORONO MN. 30 0 15 30 60 NOTES1 INCH = 30 FEET - Field survey was completed by - This survey boundary was E.G. Rud and Sons, Inc. on calculated using a survey by 01/10/22. Gronberg & Associates Land NORTH Surveying dated 5-18-22. EXISTING IMPERVIOUS - Bearings shown are on an SURFACE CALCULATIONS assumed datum. TOTAL LOT AREA ..................... 14,650± FT - Parcel ID Number: EXISTING HOUSE ........................ 1,343 FTz 2011723320011. EXISTING GARAGE ........................ 672 FTz EXISTING DRIVEWAY (ON LOT) ...... 834 FT LOCATION PER EXISTING CONC STAIRS .................. 23 FTz PREVIOUS SURVEY, O 2 C tiU EXISTING WOOD STAIRS ................. 29 FT DUE CONDITIONS �S \ EXISTING RET WALLS .................... 195 FV without the benefit of title work. , CO TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ...... 3,096 FV Additional easements, ^q 9�j �J % //66,0960 ��ltr �ti0 PERCENT IMPERVIOUS ..................... 21.1% restrictions and/or 1110 ) zr 4 I f V?' �— \ encumbrances may exist other �� �w 5.3 40 oy than those shown hereon. � A mm o 'IS EXIST. RE U\ �% A �0 ,WALL 23 SQFT Survey subject to revision upon ��_ Cn (TO BE Q .9 Tw I receipt of a current title REMOVED) � �Oz e'w,99s>o 1 0"' � commitment or an attorney's 9 3. ' ry� title opinion. 9 I 960.72 T EXIST.. QRIVE 961• FND 3/4 IP 834 FT - Due to field work being (O BE R OVED) EXISTING completed during the winter 6 z sQFr PROP. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE season there may be 100 0 TO BE REMOVED CALCULATIONS Z improvements in addition to _ �^' o •0 �O TOTAL LOT AREA ..................... 14,650± FT those shown that were not I 1F� 631 O�. EXISTING HOUSE ........................ 1,343 FTz visible due to snow and ice PROP DRIVE 9 } 2 966 933 SQFT / EX. RET WALL NEAR EX. GARAGE ..... 23 FT iso SQFr(IN R.oM o TIMBER BORDER (REMOVAL) .......... 32.5 Wconditions characteristic of i N 2 �—CANTILEVER � = e 30.0 �___ .9� �, .o PROPOSED WALK ............................ 74 FT PROPOSED GARAGE ....................... 710 FT Minnesota winters. , ° s? 2 � ' tiM EXISTING D4 PROPOSED STOOP ........................... 80 FTz \/ FOUNDATION 7 2 - Boundary work was not / WIND. 710 SQFT '` PROP. PATIO ................................. 108 FT completed as part of this / WELL sN a ���� PROP. DRIVEWAY ........................ 933 FVz C7 WIND. 961 ") ^ o 0Z PROP. RETAINING WALLS STEPS .... 122.4 FT as -built survey any ,; 4, WELL i 2. F` �64BAY C PROP. RET. WALL STEP LANDING ..... 12.3 FTz UJ $.6 A monuments and boundaries ti� � � ti WINDOW „" / �� PROP. DECK AND BOAT HOUSE ..... 118.8 FT2 1 3- O 65' s6 EXISTING CONC STAIRS .................. 23 FTz are for reference only. 4(; z 1 u' EXISTING RET WALLS ................. 139.5 FTz nQ x972,6 EXISTING 6 , o / EXCLUDED RET. WALL REMOVAL ..... 23 FTz HOUSE 9 EXISTING HOUSE EXCLUDED TIMBER BORDER ........ 32.5 FTz 1,343 SQFT n� w� �ti HOUSE EXCL. RET. WALLS UNDER STEPS ... 12.3 FTS I 0 PIN No. 2011723320012 , TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ... 3,651.7 FT Owner: C A & C D PRICE N „� PERCENT IMPERVIOUS ................... 24.93% Address: 2813 CASCO PT ROADq6 2 y° 9 �8 REPLACE S `�� legal Description of Record -CONC PATIO 108sQFT 961.4 °�' 963tio Per Certificate of Title No. 1541552 egSFMsTo ��� All that part of Lot 120, SPRING PARK, and sNr all the unplatted land and that portion of Qo BOUNDARY AR�RA Lake Shore Avenue Vacated, lying between 14,650± SQFT " PIN No. 2011723320010 Lot 120 of SPRING PARK and the side lines of m Owner: WESLEY & BRENDA BYRNE Address: 2817 CASCO PT ROAD said Lot projected to Lake Minnetonka, which gHilol_ T lies northwesterly of a line running parallel F with and five feet northwesterly from the southeasterly line of said Lot and the 9iFY '-QRIGINAL 60 / rn ' <INF WA'L^ __ /� extension thereof. 9S6 i/ gTI. DESIGN-_ LEGEND 963 53 $ �E t • gS S>Q 60 1 9 9, 94 � ' T /`r ' • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND AS LABELED 936 94 T e(y etp o9S -SEESHEET2 6 Q 9 s 9 3 s4 42>8 4882 „ ��, DETAIL OF WALLS AC DENOTES AIR CONDITIONING UNIT \ Q 93 '6e� m ",' ❑E DENOTES ELECTRICAL BOX \\ \ b+ 9se� �2s396 �' X 952.36 DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION � DENOTES MAILBOX DENOTES POWER POLE \�S>m' �Yy m s� DENOTES SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE loRO �O \ ' ❑T DENOTES TELEPHONE PEDESTAL Oh yNgRyft,�F�F� TOp OFs ylc `Y��`II` 23 �'\ —X—X— DENOTES FENCE T 929 ICF Ij°ROFagTFRF���,�r DENOTES RETAINING WALL 19'? 17. DENOTES ORIGINAL RETAINING WALL 9280 DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS oHU DENOTES OVERHEAD UTILITY s DENOTES SILT FENCE BENCHMARK —erose DENOTES BUILDING SETBACK LINE BENCHMARK: MNDOT GSID STATION #11452 — — DENOTES BITUMINOUS SURFACE MNDOT NAME: JOHNSON MN053 DENOTES CONCRETE SURFACE ELEVATION = 938.909 NGVD29 PIN No. 17-119-22-14-0008 DENOTES ADJACENT PARCEL OWNER INFORMATION Address: Unassigned Owner: City ofX (PER HENNEPIN COUNTY TAX INFORMATION) Part of Lot 120, SPRING PARK, Hennepin County, Minnesota. I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by DATUM: Assumed JOB NO. 221329AS me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed REVISIONS SCALE: 1" = 30' Land Surveyor under the laws of the St to of Minnesota. estlsn professional Land Surveyors 1 3FEB23 REVISE IMPER. TABLE CBS DATE: 2/3/2023 By: zm�/ z 990 5th Ave SE, Suite 2 Minnesota License No. 52705 3 DRAWN BY: CBS Hutchinson, MN 55350 Dated 31st day of January 2023. CREW : CBS BCK Tel. (320) 587-2025 NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY www.egrud.com PAGE 1 OF 3 City of Orono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet 'Ho Property Address: -)o 2 g15 Ca co F70 Prepared by: chn ? Y, ` �,� n.tf,Date: Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 1: EXISTING HARDCOVER In the following table identify all items of existing hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to site plan or survey (must accompany this form). Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict existing hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are within the 75 -foot setback or split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Hardcover Item (Describe) Survey Length x Width Total Square Feet) Example (Garage 24' x 30' 720 S.F. A Y. 7Z S.F. B S.F. C nO6 ve �,it,Y, 4 roil Zb X3 3 S. F. E r5 cc) NC 3' X S.F. E r'$ 1411 e t N"a'- X -7 2q S.F. F G 3 4-5 + ! -t- 2 Cr,6,' WAUS 61M IT,CK, S.F. H i h � -[- 2X. Afo L -f--2 : 23, S.F. 7, ar torvt G C C� = Z - S.F. i S.F. K S.F. L S.F. M S.F. N S.F. Q S.F. P S.F. Q S.F. R S.F. S S.F. T S.F. U S.F. V S.F. W S.F. X S.F. Y S.F. Z S.F. (1) Total Existing Hardcover 7 S.F. Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78-1684): A11 pe nin W al)S art 171 rl El 6< S.F. Le-�C4-h ad S.F. S.F. S.F. S.F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover S.F. (3) Net Existing Hardcover [Subtract line (2) from line (1)] 3Q S.F. (4) Total Lot Area L-1 650 S.F. Existing Hardcover Percentage [ (3) - (4) ] 21,1 % " 0 ,\ City of Orono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: Z'1-6 C Onono AAS Prepared by: h6siaho- 54-crr I Date: 2 Z 2 12.3 Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) (T`ie�r Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 2: PROPOSED HARDCOVER In the following table, identify all items of proposed hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to site plan or survey (must accompany this form). Include all existing hardcover items that are intended to remain, as well as all proposed hardcover items that will be added. Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict proposed hardcover status of the property. For Tier 1 properties, identify any features by letter which are within the 75 - font sethack or snlit at the 75' sethack line and calculate harricnver -.mare fontanP sPnarately for Path nnrtinn Key to Survey Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Total Square Feet) Example (Garage) (24'x 30' 720 S.F. A 3 "13 S.F. B C C E'i 1-1 jC -7/0 S.F. C ro , CD/1 +-e 71-/ S.F. rt P, Y, S.F. E 2CGT GAO << X 16 S.F. FR,C, (.JG '-�3 (UN C.o1) S.F. G X/S� , rr-S4G% &;S Ver! + X 73 S. F. H X +� :r -r on 6 S.F. 4 -If 79-'4 '211 � c')O -) 6'�->l� c�c �►. S.F. J fc ^ 5 cuPPtJZ 3, . X 11.4V q6-7 S.F. K /`11A ) 00L - r' K I I , W!, S.F. L �� /t / / / / i�iL�� 1 11 r 66 �� S.F. Mi Fb Slake,.J3, Jif X S.F. N VCS At -+5 •S f XI2, r� g, S.F. ° e�}ry n',n I t t> ex. Glome 2 = � �3 s. F. Per -� L � 6S r �2 � 2 . �. S.F. Q VS.F. R S.F. S S.F. T S.F. U S.F. V S.F. W S.F. X S.F. Y S.F. Z S. F. (1) Total Proposed Hardcover S.F. Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78-1684): DC7 11!n ek lSt kinof {b '� YrlC�((� '� S.F. }c inin Wa��S v'*tJu�S ��C 2q.S &4w - '�, S.F. rderfe 5f - ✓2 32.5S.F. S.F. S.F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover % $ S.F. (3) Net Proposed Hardcover [Subtract line (2) from line (1)] S.F. (4) Total Lot Area rjp S.F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [ (3) _ (4) ] 2 % CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY - WALL DETAIL ORIGINAL DESIGN LoEs LAWN CARE of- 2815 CASCO POINT ROAD, OFONO MN. 1. �X �x 960 9S6 96353ia���P O 9S4 FNo 9S2 948 9S0 944 946 940 942 936 BENCHMARK 9� 8 il ORIGINAL _ WALL 9 DESIGN `9 0 n I 960 i i N s � 1P � ^ cn Q^• - `3G \ pbp O \ 46) �/'�9 928 / 930 FO BENCHMARK: MNDOT GSID STATION #11452 I�F1I�gN� MNDOT NAME: JOHNSON MN053 ELEVATION = 938.909 NGVD29 Part of Lot 120, SPRING PARK, Hennepin County, Minnesota. GRAPHIC ,SCALE 10 0 5 10 20 1 INCH = 10 FEET NORTH NOTES Wall information labeled as T.W. (Top of Wall) and B.W. (Bottom of Wall) are averages of shots taken along the top and bottom of the wall respectively. Walls were constructed of 6in by 5in timbers. LEGEND • DENOTES IRON MONUMENT FOUND AS LABELED X 952.36 DENOTES EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION DENOTES EXISTING RETAINING WALL DENOTES ORIGINAL RETAINING WALL DENOTES EXISTING CONTOURS I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was prepared by BEARING DATUM: Assumed SCALE: 1" = 10 ' * BUILDER TO VERIFY HOUSE DIMENSIONS, SEWER DEPTH AND FOUNDATION DEPTH. me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed REVISIONS JOB NO. 221329AS * DRIVEWAYS ARE SHOWN FOR GRAPHIC PURPOSES ONLY. FINAL DRIVEWAY DESIGN Land Surveyor under the laws of the St to of Minnesota. esrrsn professional Land Surveyors AND LOCATION TO BE DETERMINED BY CONTRACTOR. DATE: 2/3/2023 990 5th Ave SE, Suite 2 E, * FINISHED GRADE ADJACENT TO HOME SHALL BE 0.5 FEET BELOW TOP OF BLOCK By: y �� 2 DRAWN BY: CBS Hutchinson, 55350 EXCEPT AT DRIVEWAY AND PATIO. Minnesota License No. 52705 3 Dated 31St day of January 2023• NO. DATE DESCRIPTION BY CREW: CBS&BCK Tel. (320) 587-2025 www.egrud.com PAGE 2 OF 3 w' r� i�w�1�• � ��_1k�`�''1 ,';'} :A Y!J''iY•,:y°S;,rt,'�r •, � �, w „f i}� +f ��. � � M i hti#� 4.t ' r NO - 1 .,� _ •�.- �� y - �- - '� ,sof_ _ , Yr:a .-fes a -�... - "r�9� �•'. ,. D•4L -'+. .ri -� � �},r�µ. ~f t xF SII- • �'Y, - - y n n►1 =:r. -- 4 ! }>l'.. '..r.. s 'tri -y r�r• • �' -..- .�••_ �•a _ - ' +' • ;r' < 155: : ���� `, -' � . _ � + . . 00 ' 4,'r bs , }' � ��• 'ry: - nr�'r�. `r,.'.r CSI" 4� = yr,*� l f. • t „tJ, " � .� •rte. S.� rt i - -'` � -- 'ter • .� �~ M, 0-1 dh 7i 7L -15 AL _j 6�b % 17 KIWI 0-1 dh 7i 7L AL _j KIWI a ,r•' � ter., ,� r',. 7 ,: �(kY•'r .F.:�,v„ -��� yr -`ry _ r r - 'r r r1'rl,4:ja «�• -1 �. r 'Va Ac dd _. r'rrF .� r,y�..,. .��5 .�' r •1�r•,.` � Fl l '>�• `r f �f�� i rr. �` •'11 � ff, :,l� '.. � yl yrs} •-, r.,. *, r -1- ; �a�" ! ' ''J� r�-' {`'ti �'� LJ1�' 1 � � *• �.� 1. f •�• 'r•�r ,fir, ,a' � ! A,1} � .� ',� �;` t /H� I• � !' - �• ' ' lam* r.�r.'G' .f'rb'' "':F..J, .s{F ' �' Jl." 1 � ,, �, Y•1 �'. •rTr /{} • f. ,,R ' 1(' ! iri 1.f i I}r .�! ,'•���'•t { .l �J?•- XIS 1 �l� /1, � � '.�}� r r'. ;. lo All � ',y y� d � • ♦�"Ifll��y,F� r ". ✓,fir ¢ ���.'r .��� . ' '1 •^I J .�ir•r•Yr, _ y'+' yrJr jr ': '•�+1.]! I.. r u ! r. . ,ri•?•F. Ir �„ �i . �k i.4 R a . hfti 1�. •J, i' �nry' IT r:." �'r _ M h• ,r'-. ¢,- j,, �, ,i4 � rf, r. ��' r�4rj �� I'- f � ! .'r,. �. ,� �,�SL(�'r��5�"•' �` fir. . r ��'Y ��4d. ` ,�'11�� ■ .?� .1� - r!i��'�9 " In �,fs� : "�,R'`�� �,i%� � !� rY n•' ,. V � ] 1l '. •! j'l .{. � j•"�+ r ' �.' '.-. L�"��' f."pli4 +f.! �4•F'ylq r� ✓ !� ri r �' F'rF�,'.'+ �� :, �r j�•C�`+J}}'r . � +� � ; e` � � ' Yt� Y� 'f r �; �,� v'hh n�+• r'j� F �' �� Ij t , -Aoi. jw A 4p iy 7 i. r y' ` 5 1 , AO .r ti, �-p . � i r 1 r. r1i• �'r ri J F � �tlr'� r�v ��,�, � �4 � a. • .��{ LL _'m PP F 4r {1 7 3f .6 uL pwp Tf, J.P:, "r j 7 X(I 1 i " ILL I IN 'u; e Pe AIL Sil A 4w, OPP- %m U IB"0 AV -IT Z P4 1: N i ON ...a, Np AA AM 171; qF 4 's ----------- It 1p 'V 17 k 34r, INC - . I I . . L-2;m� 11 id -dkL it 0 7-fri1,y 1 Z,4, • I . �, X14 + .'•'._ JR, P6 x 1 �' • f `X L?l�'EM a Lr - .���+•f ry � Y• ;~"�'•' ar 1 i %' `f�,y ,'r . l��r �. 74 Ir a �rt'v :f � �P f�'�{,' ,r f�' i � +Ip' �, �'� ' �' M. 11 � 1"� � F � l� s f `'rya„' !� .,, .�, �.�. x r '`i;• r �r i�� � 'wc� • � i. '; w i ., � � �� S.J, �- +�,�i�+ �, r lad d }, • �;' i( } Ty1 � y v k .i l4rl 5• i •1'+'r�� . % h� r�-' ,I,I `• �SIN,'. - �:, i. : art �� •i, --i�9 -�...�-- y . V }� I .. A N ,i.,ci S lim ii-• 1�,ALl�ae.r t . �tr�p/-�-i r �`"�•��y'_=d �t�r°..•� "" __;5 �� 4'. - NO �i�Ih '��. •j` - w •Y,-A:�'�r� r• ^��� gyp: a'.. Y �fY. ..1. � Y ' ���y.C� .G A +•! its ,s� fp 4 .R9,��ryv�'�'��� �a� } � n _ - �. M. �fL'�l�klb.. � . ., �. r.Y "•.a�'i'.77• ��'� ��'l.';N•l� �': . - �'.�li,. - _�I. "aw'l Rory bad v I� dr�'Y �, c'.5`..tk s=,,�1 �trw''<•..,�+".�'�'Y. �.i i f � •' _ 1 r r, 'a 3 14. AVr Kik!•• �r -, � - 'v I/qt�} r s' `s5, Ox -;wee i \ .��; I .w Ali ^ 6 w��r "�rt�+` f"• Ile Ir Al I� �A�r��+,�." ': t� yr \', IY. �r � •� * Nrs !!�r�S,''.I/�,� I�"4 ^:(4r + �� ` �. �jYff kmsk.«. � L• '\ Y ;illi <,i� /, 'J, ,fn\ l 6"�I r/�.� �' A,7. �� "on . :�.. ��•� r -.4th• i•��L.-.• w � �•`ly .t / .�. Sr I, �� F AY�4 �.h �?��f1 �+K` r,4'f+ � a�,. y k7..'�'r y' ' � . !� 'p..—_. . • � y �`ff r - .�-' � - . y�' - ... I ,gyp•., r ., � . , aHV` Y T � 1 � r d•. key wsrt• : 1 4 lillllilllll}1} 14 .yam � �. • :. 1 I L� + �t• � � ti �1� � +' t �F • f + d ,� Yes r � FIM`ftC�7' t• y` ��•T� 'r ti�� p: 1A .r�� yry • i.�""1���^Ai�i' ''k. to p Aln V" r�wl 7 I%� I ' r r! ` �' :'. `f y ., ,1:, A... � , . � �' fi�T,•-; s*.. w,. - - r<'s�r�-'t,�.m� f .1 F•" , PO =6� �t�tr�rT'�'�'-1��Z;f ; ter► r _"�� -. yl'u�{". y,' �'.jl� f u, L�,11r •,R, yt.. 5 ri S s _ K �•'. _ l .�},,i 1' ,gyp, Mfr-''' �'' �'�; � J tr r'Y ' .� h � .,•�—?,.f,"�l-OM1- �1� .k '. r k 16. Erik ' Y ti y ka; •," r.•:.;r� - p + * ry 71 �• .t t�ir5{ ti '1�1'Jt4�• 4r' A # i . S• 4 Y. y� - �• ti �_ r � A '�yy�:i r _moi ,, � � , Ago .��- _ �� �, " Fi �... • ._-.��F�� � 'mea. - f e .. i •.� .� mss. H y � �• - - � �., -i� � • "'rte i fr'Sr33"J.� - f� .�� •1 R �i-r 4s k��r :�� .C+, �..�>�T +. fir_-�•-r� 7 •.f _ Y y� y` .. .,. ,. Fpr �`�, J •� � � , :+K �.1:.:;; , fee jw - r� •� � ���� •iF' fes'•' � P °� � s s.s � � ..�' ,.� �F. . �.-^'.: [•, 1.:�-ice- �.�- r a _.� I 'AN _ i �-.' w � �,. yy {-� ; ��` ice• ry hl' � ", ' `� ,' �� ,. - ;.,ice - t � � :r ,•�. '.i .'i.• � •.: 4 fix-, t�'w,s, 1 t.ilfS] .," �. r 'C. - !_ •4 .may: - _ - - y}.J1! - J Y y •� IpY - is �.1' ��. 4.w _ .']:/kms' L �� - '4"'tn"�i. ,•'�.r . � �- _ ,a-. ,Y �•ro�, ice, �l ry'Lti.. N �tir + % - -, �'.. I Syr �i y - �••I • 'Yw+R�1`L vA 11 I V1. Jt- V&I I AWAI Al Ilk, 1� 4F An , L for 71 q))N 11 L"M ill _il 7,1 ly Al� LT f OM F pro S f' I • { /_ i' Yi' moi•} ';1 ¢r�"�, r .I h 4 rl I L IL yi•k4,i `•'4.�. R=�'.`,• t`, dL 41 � +rt a � .4Y�Zt�^ .tl� �� � .��r•'7: �•,� ti0 � t�. `�0.„ 14 _ r J5 ,' _ .. ' J's i�tir',C4.. i ti s, k'�`;S � { � f4+, .'; r"{ ,rte 4_*'•4r, ,.r��7k `.• �+� � y',_ "A {,- ! r'4�,5�, '.. .'��.I,_, r. ` � *� Y' !• - •-fir., �,1 w 1 l ! �(.,�ii+ y� J 4 {��'�' 4 i„ y� r'(•, 4i -Yo-w - a• ';•fi 'y Y Q'"4Y L GArY ^k -`,z' •. •ti R.y{�,� � '�� � '. n,�, d 1T �> 4•' ,h,:r'}s4Y�'_ ..Sw4. 1 „ke.i; a l' �rJ'r ,r, �rW '} • ,• y J 'y,i�t:_',r •i11y,� r St r . �I�,�ti f•`h`a,,. ,�.,, � , }�a+b - `!. _,�, , •' - "`� r r,i;¢Y�y �'?„ � 't.�'' JI�,w, ';,�R - �',,.4� w .t ti.•. �? �aj.�ti ^.Lr_ti+� AL. } y�"' ,{ w{tri �5^. 3'••.. .y; i.. ryryryi � �t M,• r,l, ,L`.. "H,. - iXI "��r {,�'.r+ �:'�'y' +^ • •� 4 1 '�r � f.' �� '�y fir, i ('-'j •'. a mN � �'i � 't••.�� f. '.ir,, �� 1� r4 `�a .,..C�. � r ti. ;� , r, ' t l,+�yC� + 1t' 'i7� �1 'yI,`r�y.{ 1,':.,i �4'.��Y }\ f';'�� `F�1 , rn•"' ``' � � 1' -7, ,:14 1� Ak MW MW -,— - "Wr � M.1;w".. AW, 4 .14 Ah 1.7 4 os— . . . . . . . . ttit Ft �71; Ai N 4` L w '`- • 47i7,e avf lr..rt .'• ; `� :��t ` %tri: ^�• ■ 4i' ,. .Q 'e /�•'. 1 45� •. M' �� JIM, p_' psi a ti► } �- ,,4rf FA� `��.a'r•' ►.. P 444. Lh AV fW7 -Z Ak',�. C •,'r - .\ �. , r`�. -Fir.'... SYR 4'. - - - 9A- t S ' _ _gip ' � � ' � yr�a r � ..... i� ��. .F' � ;Q:; _ �,.._ �. rye'.:= • -_ - .. - - ys:- '� � ��•-� rj. :'�, 'fid{+' �� �h, ..�,:,�.'.. �.,:: •� '-ti::.,•�' 40 r� Y s „ •. �'..i � . � �:.r"" � A INN ' 'earar#I�' iI �f i ;rA;f i 51 G r/` `H�.}.�',"yhWL,+C„ y . +k� _fti'•"ry?i' �~!1y1\/�f a'm7'••1 F!!y VRP�. J�fn �f�I��OM�/ - Ar7�r k; .�i• .h:t, ` .,111, T. 1 A'. 11 � rt l fr 4i� Cr1iF �.���� _1 + y`. � ,;i} *r '•J�-i.j'7 am \ ! �� 1 ����I :C,F�rF r�f�i .r a r��A•i f 5 r y+ GS'l \.11J4+ ��. 1� +Ylj%•5,�4rr.4'' } '.P ^'_�' 4 w r 5� 4-_,x..:',��.����., v ! � ,7R ?'�'!��'417♦. per , 1�_ • / ' y� �J,'�F' ��rr".� �'+7 .q _ WOlpL1Y� d�, ',r F•!r 1 ,fir, r 4 I . i yr s d" ,� rx • _{ �r"5+r�', �ti�^� 1, _-"�y.-r` s ^ �yr r.Ov. 4"AI ,��3Y •; 4 4 R. ir� Y' -1`{J4 r 7'{',.Y'Fh�'.IF'�J�y�`}�.�{ �.�5+► r�.J�rJ� �[', OR i 4r {err d1I 7 iT_ I �, •s, �Yi:�.�Irr'Y yH'( �,{y*I�1fr=r•K d �J,4 �2-1� :} t�7 '�., `fP di.• eLJi i'V�Y :'�nYr �'Y ,.%f el dbr: g• Cyt I k • + �1�, qIP 5' y �� - wiOVA i 4! .i ��,;�' �• �:� �l 1 �• � W' y"� � { -a+, .:�.,, _-moi. :'i'r i�1.�-~� � L/�y h. r�.,i.; '.•fA - J �,, � � ..._- ��i'.�n'wc•' " : 'r' .n � "''g,v<:.. ;fir.. Y:+•- : �:�c w,. It ilk" r �'�`�.� ,.. ►mak,• •�;'�;;�+� 'k•;+�..��: �; ls•;-''��'`:� -- � . . - JE 4VV 7. r �,�_ _ �� y�T i� : ,may ry'r�:�;� 4 �, M1 �_• _ ��, . Via' i L••y ��y,.},r _ � ���.Y+{� ,�. liliq � is � *���� �,�� '�.-• h. �i• rt� t}'y #r is t. A y �.F:•a��,q�� b. r 4f IA� 4y7 r I.Ak Z ice` ;ys'+'..-.l.• _ ~. � .f � •�:j'� ; ., - . •�y 'f � ._� �- - r �. -moi a _� t� �- h ,�yfiY 4 . +, � �'� •: ..ram � •`'; •` ....-. `_ - . `n� ��. ��..�•'.. � a�»9 �� SF "�3 $ y^;-'� �' � � -�-. �'; �:: Y.i=���-`i ��'1-�-2�'�. _=-- rri�--'i-.. -a-v"'k'•�r+� ��'�.-�_� ►� s . ..: r:���:?Pf��.�aS},. _.i _ - _+i�'+ - - - - - -.. `y'.ti�'�- �^„+ _,t+:C:i`•�.L-= _Ca•����y. - 4"1 mArs i- �M1'e 1S r ':��1 _., .�i.',�.-fit t', . � �r •' � r ! N 4 4n,f n\, `•1 � is _ � � ..� - ti �- i y ' 3.. .. ♦ '' :lCn � zy{�. • '+;; {Wirt l 17 - x •� ,y- (-.r 1'Kµ:,• : \- °'1.,'. ,�-,Sa�. lk je IN . mad'" � .. r:Yh".� a.a ,�},�.' y • ... .� .. , . , . , � rte' .'�•4r .. -.��!�; ,: � �,.. . , ♦ : + j 4 ,� r F } � r J*h �; ' i+�, t r��rrCt~�'+ ' �.'•r•,'.. � .r - .' ry �t' �1'' n W: A F s L �T !: ..� � t,:� ;r�[Y"!r'•i?,,.t.� "' 11 x /y�( •T+rl h47, Y'/h M• 1 `. .-.i h, • .r � 2 r yk � i X r/�j"..',r w':' �..w, ,'. ., .., fu _."�.i�iY4�y ` .~•d,r._.n. ?79r�iQe�.::: ti''• 'Y.�C.''.'���..r.�*Y,,.ie _ebe':.•..-,. . ®r, ti -:m 9 I t A I ..r ., ,�+ ter• �.:� •'�,} ���-' r J�. � !. . I �, // 'v }`` .+ '4 �'I 11 {,� 'K.�l Ir, •�'7�;�i1'1 + �y} �`{ '�� y'. .? . '%r4yrp%'f �.r ,r; J' ��•�': Yis: Jp:�j�,J; '. 1 tYl: r. <. At � 7� Y � Y y� {t rr#�• rr j� � ��y ,5�� ��yl' }' :� 1 • � 4 ..y'=��y � '��, r ��"'� `t5 •A1 71. r'r •r ..;,�, �•.'^ , •5+ ".g,SW r %�1.1t ' , , It 44 L•+,yM r ,' Y• I J ra'' 'lrl~�'7 II , I. !.Y�.`►-`"w. ,`41k1. 1 i � ,.t, � i�. r.� !� '�: ,i ,r/, r` r' � � e!If,• `l=4�;4' 'R!;�r�ti � 1 „1}� ,S � ' L..g r s j.'. Yb •= 15i i .•�s. '��"� 1 ,,�.`,=i,I�'� (�y .x :r �1�,1, , t`,�Y�y.+� .: r'.' �'+*' - �'��►��.• ,.tl} " ,# � � {1 � k ' �,•�';,, , \ti?�Ff'�sr%14., �.i;, �5. ,.�fi�'t'`,�:�,. �'•'. 5�r'^.�?5..;'ti •�'i.' 1' i 774 Zo m I �11` is t= Arl;'s��•. '�.� �K,i-�.,� r'.:.b!''� �4�,. .,%�} �, � � ill � w• .. y.y �'„ 1 Y ?ifs' +A71.. +: r f ►�' `,a p. •��• : L.. �i .� � i. r tel' r ��•• + '}Q� H y �� ��.[�*; �� ��•�..4 Y r � •tii''�f.Y''�:'', l.Ai �,: �• .1 � � y T � iL /e. r� r!Y F its ,� •r / / 1 + •y � ^ "`gid � '� 4 Y9 f y l� ++�� ,•lam }r {L A'��J. I � *1 :+ 1 •i• .. A �r � �r tel, Taj, . �' • 'i , - � +�- wim{�,�• N,-.'1F `tin ��. I � .1 4 1,,. , „� I .'' - ��. . �.Y. It SCHIMNOWSKI CRITERIUM8 ENGINEERS January 31, 2023 Josh Prust Valdes Lawn Care & Snow Removal Submitted by email: jprust@valdeslawn.com RE: Timber Retaining Wall — Adjacent Property Review Project Location: 2815 Casco Point Road, Orono, Minnesota Project No. 22-6589 Dear Mr. Prust: At your request, this letter is being provided to discuss the impact of the recent and on-going timber retaining wall construction to the adjacent properties north and south of the subject property. From the information you have provided, the neighbors and City of Orono have concerns that the wall construction may negatively impact the adjacent properties in terms of erosion. In my professional opinion, the wall construction has not negatively impacted the grading and erosion on the adjacent properties to the north and south. As part of my evaluation, I reviewed the As -Built Survey prepared by E.G. Rud & Sons, Inc. dated January 13, 2023. The survey information confirms that the new walls do not substantially affect the grading on the adjacent properties. Based on photos you provided of conditions present prior to the construction of the new tiered timber wall system, there was already significant, on-going erosion and surface water control issues on the adjacent properties. Numerous trees had exposed roots and the slope had areas of exposed soil. Currently, and when the project is complete, the new walls provide improved surface water control and soil retention when compared to the previous walls. As planned, erosion control should be established. This evaluation has been prepared in strict confidence with you as our client. Reliance upon our design by other parties is strictly prohibited. If you choose to share our design, you agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Engineer from any third -party action. No reproduction or re -use is permitted without express written consent. Further, we will not release this design to anyone without your permission. All other previous terms and conditions apply. Thank you. Sincerely, Paul Schimnowski, P.E. MN #40126 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. Paul Schimnowski, P.E. Date: January 31, 2023 License #: 40126 (MN) Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 651.779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 28 2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. ROLL CALL The Orono City Council met on the above-mentioned date with the following members present: Mayor Dennis Walsh, City Council Members Matt Johnson, Aaron Printup, Richard Crosby III, and Victoria Seals. Representing Staff were City Attorney Leah Koch, City Administrator/Engineer Adam Edwards, Finance Director Ron Olson, Community Development Director Laura Oakden, and City Planner Melanie Curtis. Mayor Walsh called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CONSENT AGENDA 1. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14, 2022 2. CLAIMSBILLS 3. APPROVAL OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH LELS LOCAL 40 4. APPROVAL OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH LELS LOCAL 168 5. APPROVAL OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH OPEIU LOCAL 12 6. APPROVAL OF COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT WITH LOCAL 49 7. POSITION REVIEW AND RESCORING 8. APPROVAL OF ANNUAL RECORDING SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH TIMESAVER OFF SITE SECRETARIAL FOR MEETING MINUTES 9. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED COUNCIL LIAISON TO PLANNING COMMISSION IN 2023 10. APPROVAL OF PROPOSED 2023 OFFICIAL MEETINGS CALENDAR 11. APPROVAL OF DESIGNATED POLLING PLACES FOR 2023 — RESOLUTION NO. 7317 12. APPROVAL OF 2023 ANNUAL LIQUOR LICENSES 13. APPROVAL OF FIREWORKS DISPLAY PERMIT — TREE LIGHTING EVENT AT ORONO PUBLIC GOLF COURSE 14. APPROVAL OF DONATIONS AND APPROVAL OF EXPENDITURES FOR THE ANNUAL TREE LIGHTING EVENT — RESOLUTION NO. 7316 15. APPROVAL TO DISPOSE OF A FIREARM 16. LA22-000052 — DENALI CUSTOM HOMES, 1780 SHADYWOOD ROAD, VARIANCES — RESOLUTION NO. 7313 Page 1 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 28 2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. 17. LA22-000061— WILLIAM & KATHLEEN WANNER - 1095 FERNDALE ROAD WEST — 2ND EXTENSION OF RESOLUTION NO. 7150 — RESOLUTION NO. 7314 18. HENNEPIN COUNTY FIBER CONNECTION Crosby moved, Seals seconded, to approve the Consent Agenda as submitted. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. Mayor Walsh complimented the Staff, City Attorney, and Union Employees for getting the Union Contracts finalized. He thanked everyone for their work in finding common ground for the next three years. He also thanked everyone who donated towards the fireworks displays and holiday lighting including Orono Dental Care, Lunds and Byerlys, North Mallow, Orono Lion's, Holiday Circle K, Culvers, Orono Parks Legacy Fund, Paul Kovista, Kottemann Orthodontics, Otten Brothers, Pfeffer's Meats, Westonka Animal Hospital, Orono School District, Bob and Lisa Erickson, Denny and Amanda Walsh, and Ben and Heather Goodwin. The holiday event starts at 5:00 p.m. at the Orono Golf Course on Saturday, December 3, 2022. FINANCE DIRECTOR REPORT Finance Director Olson noted it is a busy time for the Finance Department in preparation for adopting the final budget and tax levy. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT REPORT 19. 2815 CASCO POINT ROAD, VALDES O/B/O LISA THOSTENSEN, EMERGENCY SLOPE REPAIR — RESOLUTION NO. 7315 Josh Prust, on behalf of Joe Valdes, Applicant, was present. Staff presented a summary packet of information. City Planner Curtis stated in July the property's walls, deck, and stairs to the lake were destroyed by fire. The owner submitted a building permit application to repair the walls in-kind; during installation of the walls, Staff noted the construction had extended beyond the in-kind footprint and work was stopped. The contractor was directed to stop and stabilize the area. The owner is requesting additional permission to install an additional wall at the top of the slope. The Applicant's engineer has determined this to be necessary to protect the integrity of the slope over winter. The Applicant will submit an after -the -fact variance application to address the wall footprint expansions in the lakeyard setback. Until that time, the engineer has provided documentation showing the slope failure is imminent and needs an emergency correction. Curtis noted the City's Engineer reviewed the documentation and recommends the City Council authorize the emergency repair to stabilize the slope. Staff recommends approval of the Resolution to allow the contractor to proceed with the emergency slope failure repair as designed. Mayor Walsh received a call from a neighbor and he was shocked when he went to the property at the amount of digging that took place on the hill. He noted they dug out the entire hillside on both sides and he is trying to understand how that happened. Page 2 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 28 2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. Josh Prust, Valdes Lawn Care and Snow Removal, is present on behalf of Joe Valdes who constructed the walls and removed the soil. Mr. Prust is new to the project as of a couple weeks ago when Mr. Valdes asked him to figure out how the project got to that point. Mr. Prust's understanding is that as permitted work to the walls was being done, Mr. Valdes realized the ends of the walls were not long enough to retain the hillside. Mr. Valdes was afraid if the walls were left in that state, the bluff would erode and eventually end up in the lake. Mr. Prust noted Mr. Valdes made some choices and understands his fault in expanding the walls beyond what was permitted; he was trying to do what was best in his mind to keep the hillside in place. Mayor Walsh stated they brought in a massive digging machine and dug out way beyond what would be necessary. He noted the decision now is whether to give forgiveness which is not a good precedent, or to figure out how to put the hill back together. Johnson noted it makes sense to stabilize it for the winter, but he also has some legal questions. The idea behind emergency slope repair is that one does not create the emergency. Paul Schimnowski, Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers, 161 Dunbar Way, Mahtomedi, was asked to provide a design for the replacement walls. He noted the City's concerns are valid in how much they saw being moved. When the original walls were built, that kind of dirt would have been moved at that time, as well due to the tiebacks needing to be dug out and reinstalled. He understands that the request right now is the emergency work and there is no guarantee that an after -the -fact variance may be approved. He wants to be sure what is there is stable and will get them to spring without any more erosion or slope failure. Mayor Walsh wants to be clear if this is approved, a stop -work order is on everything else on the slope. Mr. Prust agreed. Mayor Walsh noted there are legal issues needed down the road to solve this. It is a complicated problem that was not created by the City but by the Applicant. Johnson asked if the engineer's investigation includes the neighbor's properties and whether their slopes could now be impacted by the work. Mr. Schimnowski replied immediately following the emergency work a full topographic survey will be performed beyond the property line to the adjacent properties to make sure any impacts on adjacent properties are mitigated. Johnson clarified the emergency repair includes neighboring properties as it relates to the work done on the Applicant property. Mr. Schimnowski replied in the affirmative. They will be shoring up their land. Johnson wants it on the record that they are also responsible for assessing impacted areas because the project grew. He clarified the neighbors have done nothing wrong. Charles Price, 2813 Casco Point Road, noted it seems that they do need the emergency slope repair to keep the slope from failing over winter. He clarified that this does not approve the Applicant to leave it as -built. Page 3 of 8 MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING November 28 2022 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mayor Walsh replied in the affirmative. It would be approved with that they cannot do any other work besides the temporary fix and will need to apply for a variance for the additional work that has been done. Seals asked if the Prices have noticed any issues on their property. Mr. Price replied it is tough because they were on the bluff trying to put the fire out but it was too massive. They were trying to keep their oak trees alive, which hold up the bluff. When he had a survey done, the top of the bluff is 42 feet elevation higher than the lake. In looking at the work that has been done, Mr. Price noted a massive amount of dirt has gone away, much more than has gone back in. He thinks it is probably 25-30 feet further away from the lake than it was before. Carol Price noted it is worrisome that the bluff has been pushed back and their property is vulnerable now. They are worried, and while they think the work done has been good construction, Ms. Price does not think they did it in the correct way to preserve what was there. It was definitely not like -kind. Johnson moved, Crosby seconded, to approve Resolution 7315, 2815 Casco Point Road, Emergency Slope Repair with conditions that no additional work be done and the Applicant must come back to apply for appropriate variances. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. CITY ATTORNEY REPORT There was nothing to report. CITY ADMINISTRATOR/ENGINEER REPORT Edwards updated the City Council, noting with the freeze/thaw cycle the City had two water main breaks in the system near Casco Point and at the High School. Both should be fixed this evening. PUBLIC COMMENTS Brad Erickson, 2485 Independence Road, stated these are the events tying Mayor Walsh and Mr. Crosby to right-wing extremism, seditious conspiracy, conspirators, the Proud Boys, and ultimately the Capitol riots. On November 10, 2019, Mayor Walsh sent Mr. Erickson the first vulgar campaign video on Facebook talking about Dems having "one hand in your pocket and the other in your ass." It also said Dems are "f-ing crazy." On July 14, Mayor Walsh sent a second video on Facebook comparing the extermination of six million Jews to mask mandates and then threatening it can happen here in America. On November 21, 2020 Mr. Crosby, on video and in tactical gear, attended a protest outside Governor Walz's mansion which was also attended by the Minnesota Proud Boys. On November 28, Mr. Crosby, on video and in tactical gear, attended another protest outside the Governor's mansion, also attended by the Proud Boys and features Clay Nielson which is likely where they met for the first time. On December 5, 2020 Mr. Crosby, on video and in tactical gear, attended a protest outside the Governor's mansion where violence erupts, arrests are made, Mr. Crosby is interviewed spewing election conspiracy theory. On December 14, 2020 Mr. Crosby turns to crowdfunding for member Clay Nielson who was injured in Washington D.C. while assaulting a black man. On January 6, 2021 Mr. Crosby and a traveling companion went to Washington D.C. to take part in the protests on the Capitol steps and were said to have been bragging about it at the Long Lake Fire Station upon their return. On January 11, 2022 Mr. Page 4 of 8 Item No.: 19 Date: November 28, 2022 Item Description: 2815 Casco Point Road, Valdes olblo Lisa Thostensen, Emergency Slope Repair — Resolution No. 7315 Presenter: Melanie Curtis Agenda Community Development Planner Section:. Report 1. Purpose. To adopt resolution approving an emergency repair of a lake slope. 2. Background. In July of 2022 the lake slope walls, deck and stair to the lake were destroyed by fire. The property owner's representative submitted a building permit application to repair the walls in-kind. During the installation of the walls, staff observed that the construction expanded beyond the in-kind limitations in the wall lengths and some of the wall locations. As a result, on October 28'h a Stop Work Order was issued. The contractor was directed to fill in, compact, and secure the open areas with erosion control blankets staked into the ground or other appropriate stabilization measures. Because the work was halted prior to completion, the owner is requesting permission to install a final wall at the top of the slope which their engineer has determined to be necessary to protect the integrity of the slope. The owner will be submitting an after -the -fact variance application to address the wall footprint expansions in the lake yard. Until that time, their engineer has provided documentation showing the slope failure is imminent and needs an emergency corrections. City Code Section 78-1726 (6) states: Emergency repair exception. Slope failures have a direct impact on the health and welfare of Orono residents, and timely response to such events is important to the protection of natural resources and private property. Therefore, the city engineer may declare grading andlor exportlimport activities in the Lake yard exceeding the limits above as emergency repair and forward such application to the city council for immediate review. Emergency repair shall be defined for the purposes of this article as the activities necessary to stabilize a failing slope, or prevent the imminent failure of a slope, in the opinion of the city engineer. The recommended correction for this slope failure is to construct one additional new wall at the top of the slope (Exhibit B). The owner understands that, if approved, this correction may be temporary as the after - the -fact variance to permit the new expanded walls within the 75 -foot lake yard has not been approved. 3. Engineer Comments — Adam Edwards. a. The applicant has provided a letter from a licensed engineer, Paul Schimnowski, P.E., with the assessment that a slope failure is imminent. Further, the same engineer has provided a plan for stabilizing the upper slope using a retaining wall. I believe the proposed fix does address any potential slope failure. Therefore my recommendation is for council to authorize the emergency repair in order to stabilize the slope for the winter. b. I do not recommend the City forgo the normal requirements associated with improvements in the lake yard 175foot setback for a permanent solution. The unstable slope conditions appear to be the result of the construction methods employed and the deviations from the approved retaining wall design and site plan from permit RAS22-000082. Prepared By: MCC Reviewed By: LLQ Approved By �' c. Code Section 78-1726 (6). To my knowledge this is the second time this code section has been invoked since it was added several years ago. This application is a good test case for the ordinance and while T believe it meets the intent of the code section, it does identify a potential need for a code amendment to provide better clarity and links to other sections of code. The portion of code the emergency repairs exception is in deals with grade alterations but does not specifically include structures within the lake yard. Most of the best practices for providing emergency slope stabilization involve some sort of structure. 1 recommend the city review this section of code to specifically acknowledge the use of structures being for emergency slope repairs. 4. Staff Recommendation. Staff recommends approval of the resolution to allow the contractor to proceed with for the emergency slope failure as designed. COUNCIL ACTION REQUESTED Motion to approve Resolution No. 7315 Exhibits A. Draft Resolution 7315 B. Engineer Plan C City Code Section 78-1729 Prepared By: MCC Reviewed By: LLQ Approved By SCHIMNOWSKI CRITERIUM ENGINEERS November 22. 2022 Josh Prust Valdes Lawn Care & Snow Removal Submitted by email: jpeterson@valdeslawn.com RE: Supplemental Report - Timber Retaining Wall Upper Tier Project Location: 2815 Casco Point Road, Orono, Minnesota Project No. 22-6589 Dear Mr. Prust: This letter is being sent in response to the email we received from Melanie Curtis from the City of Orono. Based on her review of my previous letter to you dated November 18, 2022, she Is requesting additional information. It is my professional opinion that the work I recommended should qualify in regards to City Code Section 78-1726 (6): Emergency repair exception. The slopes at the top of the timber retaining walls constructed to -date are much steeper than originally designed. The construction of the final, planned retaining wall at the top of the tiered retaining wall system is required to stabilize these slopes. Failure to stabilize and reduce the steepness of these slopes with the construction of the planned wall will likely result in a slope failure, significant erosion, and damage to the retaining walls already constructed. Refer to my original design dated August 24, 2022, and my previous letter dated November 18, 2022, for further information. Please call me if you have any questions or need more information. Thank you. Sincerely, Paul Schimnowski, P.E. MN #40126 I hereby certify that this pian, 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. Paul Schimnowski, P.E. Date: November 22, 2022 License #: 40126 (MN) Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way/ Mohtomedi, MN 55115 O: 651.779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com L� SCHIMNOWSKI CRITERIUM ENGINEERS November 18, 2022 Josh Prust Valdes Lawn Care & Snow Removal Submitted by email: jpeterson@vaidesiawn.com RE: Timber Retaining Wall Upper Tier Project Location: 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota Project No. 22-6589 Dear Mr. Prust: This letter includes important details regarding the completion of planned work at the above location. These recommendations are based on my original design dated August 24, 2022, and my site observations and discussion with you on October 31 and November 17, 2022. This previously designed work is recommended to be completed at this time to improve the site grading by reducing the steepness of some slopes and will reduce the chances of erosion at the top of the newly built, tiered timber retaining wall system. I recommend that the final, planned timber retaining wall be constructed 4 to 6 feet behind the uppermost existing wall. The wall should extend from several feet inside both the east and west property lines. Most of the wall will have a maximum exposed height of about 2 -feet. The wall height will increase to about 4 - feet tall near each end where existing slopes increase. Fallowing completion of the final wall, erosion control should be established and maintained in all disturbed areas. Areas of concentrated runoff should be directed away from the top of the walls. As before, the attached typical section should be referenced for construction details. Special note should be made of the wall embedment depth and the tieback/header and deadmen lengths. Refer to local building codes, industry specifications, and American Wood Preservers Association for installation information and details. The design of the wall system assumes the following: • Wall location: 4 to 6 feet behind the top of the existing upper wall • Wall height(s): 4 -feet to 2 -feet as noted (maximum exposed heights) • Minimum embedment depth = 6" min., or as noted ■ Soil conditions: Silty/Clayey Sand, friction angle = 30.0 degrees, unit weight of 125.0 Ib1ft3 • Required minimum soil bearing capacity = 1500 psf • Surcharge load at top of wail: None • 5:1 maximum slope at top and bottom of wall • Wall Type: 6"x5" Treated Timber • Connections: 3/8" galvanized or treated spikes + Drainage pipe: Required As we discussed, you are planning to that the as -built conditions surveyed for city consideration. Please forward this to me when it is completed. Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way / Mohlomedi, MN 55115 ❑: 651,779,7700 / criterium-sch.imnowski.com 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota {November 18, 2022 Page 2 4 ti !r oil These walls have not been designed for ground water surcharge loads. Direct all surface and groundwater drainage away from the walls. Methods to do so include but are not limited to the following: Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way Mahtomedi, MN 55115 0: 651.779.7700 criterium-schimnowski.com 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota November 18, 2022 Page 13 drainage swale, site grading, retention ponds, etc. Details of water control are left to the wall contractor or the site civil engineer. Please contact Criterium-Schimnowski to provide additional site assessment services if desired. The wall design was performed using the design guidelines presented in timber retaining wall industry guidelines and recommendations. Additional information requested by Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers but not available includes: geotechnical site survey and soil data. If soil conditions, proposed wall layouts, or other design parameters vary from that assumed, a revised analysis may be needed. Please call me if you have any questions or need more information. This design has been prepared in strict confidence with you as our client. Reliance upon our design by other parties is strictly prohibited. If you choose to share our design, you agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Engineer from any third -party action. No reproduction or re -use is permitted without express written consent. Further, we will not release this design to anyone without your permission. Thank you. Sincerely, f Paul Schimnowski, P.E. MN #40126 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. Paul Schimnowski, P.E. Date: November 18, 2022 License #- 40126 (MN) Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 651.779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota November 18, 2022 Page 14 Retaining Wall Completion Reports and Construction Inspections To- Retaining wall contractors and/or all clients utilizing our services for retaining wall engineering. From: Paul Schimnowski, PE Retaining Wall Engineer Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers (CSE) Paul@CriteriumMN.com Date: April 1, 2022 To help contractors and other interested parties navigate the changes that many cities and jurisdictions are making regarding construction inspection requirements and final approval letters, we are making the following recommendations: 1. Request that the City Building Official complete the Required Inspections of Retaining Walls form, attached. z. Notify your client of the potential for added cost depending on city/building official requirements. Contact our office or refer to our service agreement for current fees. 3. Contact Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers to schedule any required inspections. Adequate lead time is required. Similar to typical City inspections, at least one week is recommended. We cannot guarantee immediate service. 4. Take daily construction progress photos for your records and for submittal to Criterium- Schimnowski Engineers upon request. 5. Complete the Statement of Conformance for your records and for submittal to Criterium- Schimnowski Engineers upon request. Form attached. If a Wall Completion Report (Post -built Conformance Letter), is requested of CSE, we will require that you provide construction photos and Statement of Conformance. In addition, CSE will need to perform a site visit once final grading is completed. Without these three items, we are unable to comment on the construction/conformance of the wall. We are here to help as much as possible. These inspection requirements are not coming from us. Contact us if you have any questions. Independently Owned and Operated 161 ❑unbar Way Malitomedi, MN 55115 0:651.779,7700 criterium-schimnowskk.com 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota November 18, 2022 Page 17 DESIGN PROVISIONS: 1. REFER TO WOOD RETAINING WALL INDUSTRY GUIDELINES. 2. SEE PRODUCT MANUFACTURER INSTALLATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE I'sI►IIIN,III r Iif-AyliLlilei 10 3. THE DESIGN OF THIS RETAINING WALL SYSTEM WAS BASED UPON THE EFFECTIVE STRENGTH PARAMETERS SHOWN ON THE "SOIL VALUES" TABLE. UNLESS OTHEWISE NOTED, ND FORMAL SOIL INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE_ IF SOIL CONDITIONS VARY AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, WALL ENGINEER MUST BE CONTACTED TO DETERMINE IF A REVISED DESIGN IS NEEDED. 4. THE WALL DESIGN WAS BASED ON THE INFORMATION NOTED IN THE LETTER ABOVE. 5. REFER TO WALL CALCULATIONS FOR BEARING CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS. 6. NO PRODUCT/MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ALLOWED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CRITERIUM-SCHIMNOWSKI ENGINEERS. 7. FINAL SITE GRADES AND ROOF DRAINS SHALL DIRECT RUNOFF AWAY FROM ANY RETAINING WALL(S). UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE WALL(S) HAS NOT BEEN DESIGNED FOR HYDROSTATIC SURCHARGE LOADING. 8. THE WALL DESIGN WAS PERFORMED USING DESIGN GUIDELINES PRESENTED IN THE THIRD EDITION OF THE "DESIGN MANUAL FOR SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLS" PUBLISHED BY NCMA. DESIGN LIMITATIONS: THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WITHIN THESE DOCUMENTS IS FOR THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL(S) ONLY. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AND/OR WORK RELATED TO HANDRAILS, GUARDRAILS, OR OTHER LIFE/SAFETY ISSUES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THESE DOCUMENTS AND ARE TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2.. SITE LAYOUT AND GRADING DESIGN ARE NOT INCLUDED IN WALL DESIGN SERVICES. THOSE SERVICE ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE CIVIL ENGINEER. INTERNAL COMPOUND STABILITY (ICS) HAS BEEN CALCULATED FOR TH15 PROJECT BY CRITERIUM. HOWEVER, ICS IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A GLOBAL STABILITY ANALYSIS WHICH SHOULD BE PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. ADDITIONAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION MAY BE REQUIRED. SUGGESTED QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: 1. A QUALIFIED ENGINEER OR TECHNICIAN SHALL SUPERVISE THE WALL CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY SITE SOIL CONDITIONS. IF THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DOES NOT PERFORM THIS WORK, A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER/TECHNICIAN SHALL BE HIRED TO ASSURE THE RETAINING WALL IS CONSTRUCTED WITH PROPER SOIL PARAMETERS. 2. A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL BE CONSULTED TO VERIFY THE 5UITABILITY OF DESIGN 1_w1yu[2Ylei ki1.1Alr I11111-'LKR11114.ILsiAII 3. WALL EXCAVATION AND SOILS SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS. THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE PROVISIONS TO BE W0 41611416W.1011l►1ram1,Iar, 1IIM1*3[4011 4. THE WALL DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL BE HIRED TO PERFORM A PRE -CONSTRUCTION SITE VISIT. 5. THE WALL DESIGN ENGINEER CAN BE HIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION SERVICES. 5. THE WALL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING QUALITY CONTROL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS. 7. SEE PROJECT CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR SPECIFIC DETAILS ON THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT WILL BE PROVIDED BY ALL PARTIES. Independently Owned and Operated 151 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 551.779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com = r 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota November 18, 2022 Page j 8 TERMS AND CONDITIONS-EfiectiveNov. 10.2020 This design is expressly made subject to the following terms and conditions to which all persons that receive and rely thereon agree: 1. STANDARD OF SERVICE: Services performed by ENGINEER under this agreement shall be performed in a manner consistent with the skill and care ordinarily used by members of the engineering profession practicing under similar conditions at the time and in the locality the services are performed. • CLIENT recognizes that interpretations and recommendations of ENGINEER are based solely on the information available to the company. • ENGINEER w I I I be responsible far those interpretations and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for the interpretation by others of the information developed, • Services provided reflect the professional judgment of ENGINEER, to the best of ENGINEER's knowledge, information, and belief as of the date hereof, • N other warranty or guarantee, express or implied, is made. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICE: Services performed by ENGINEER are expressly limited by the scope of services ENGINEER has been employed by CLIENT to perform. 3. TERMS OF PAYMENT: ENGINEER may require a retainer fee to be paid before commencing any project. Extended engagements may require interim invoicing on a weekly, monthly, or other basis. At the completion of the project, we will issue a final invoice. Payment of each invoice is due upon presentation. Failure to pay invoices within the allotted time period will constitute a breach of contract and may result in suspension of work until such time as all overdue payments are made in full. Should any suspension RCCur because of overdue payments, the time for contract completion, if any is stated, shall be extended by the period of the suspension. Invoiced balances remaining unpaid for thirty (30) days after the date of invoice may be charged a finance charge in the amount of'/ percent per month from the date of invoice. If an invoice remains unpaid and it becomes necessary, in the ENGINEERS' opinion to initiate collection procedures, the CLIENT hereby agrees to pay all collection costs including, but not limited to, reasonable fees for attorneys retained by ENGINEER and court costs at aur standard biffing rate for time necessitated in court appearances or presentation of claim to the appropriate court jurisdiction. Exceptions to payment terms must be specified in writing. 4. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS: All reports, field data, field notes, calculations, estimates and other documents ('reports') prepared by Engineer, as instruments of service, shall remain the property of Engineer. CLIENT agrees that all reports furnished to CLIENT or his agents, which are not paid for, will be returned upon demand and will not be used by CLIENT for any purpose whatever. ENGINEER will retain all pertinent records relating to the services performed for a period of five years following submission of the report, during which period the records will be made available to CLIENT at all reasonable times. S. COPIES OF DOCUMENTS: ENGINEER agrees to furnish CLIENT with an electronic copy of our report, drawings, or documents relating to the services performed. Hard copies, bound or unbound, may be provided upon request at charge of cost plus 10 percent, at ENGINEERS's sole discretion. ENGINEER shall retain an electronic copy of the final documents in its files for a period of five years, 6. INSURANCE: ENGINEER represents and warrants that it is protected by Workers Compensation insurance and has such coverage under Public Liability and Property Damage insurance policies which ENGINEER deems adequate. Certificate for all such policies of insurance shall be provided to the CLIENT upon request in writing. ENGINEER shall not be responsible for any loss, damage or liability arising from any acts by CLIENT, its agents, staff and other consultants employed by it. 7. TERMINATION: This agreement may be terminated by either party by written notice. In the event of termination, ENGINEER shall be paid for services performed and expenses incurred up to the termination notice date. Neither CLIENT not ENGINFER may delegate, assign, sublet or transfer his/her duties or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other parry. S. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: To the fullest extent permitted by law, CLIENT and ENGINEER (a) waive against each other, and the other's employees, officers, directors, agents, insurers, partners, and consultants, any and all claims for or entitlement to special, incidental, indirect, or consequential damages arising out of, resulting from, or in any way related to this report, (b) agree that ENGINEER's total IfabiIity to CLIENT shall be limited to the total amount of compensation received by ENGINEER, (c) agree that CLIENT will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless ENGINEER from and against any claims, liabilities, actions, demands, losses, damages, costs and expenses sustained by any third -party not granted reliance on ENGINEER's reports and services, tdj agree that any action arising aut of or related to the services provided must be brought to ENGINEER'S attention no later than two (2) years after the date of the services, and (e) if an action is brought against the ENGINEER and the ENGINEER prevails, ENGINEER shall be entitled to recover costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. g. FORCE MAJEURE: The engineer shall not be responsible or liable for any failure or delay in the performance of its obligations under this contract arising out of or resulting from any cause or event beyond our control, such as war, strike, crime, epidemiclpandemic, regulations and/or restriction imposed by any government agency, or other event. Independently Owned and Operated 151 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 0: 551.779.77 / criterium-schimnowski.com t i E -M 8—FT DEADMAN, TYP 8—FT DEADMAN, TYP. 2' —e0,r —13'-6" 2'-0" --+4,_0„ 8—FT DEADMAN, TYP. TIMBER TIEBACK, TYR. NOTES. 1. The timber in the wall must be treated in accordance with all applicable bui [ding codes and industry specifications, such as the American Wood Preservers Association (AWPA). 2. Dig a trench approximately 14" and 1-2" deeper than the height of the timber, usually 14" deep. Apply 1-2" of sand to level the base of the trench. 3_ Excavate for headers and deadmen into the hill. The size, length and location of headers and deadmen will be design specific. Headers should extend past the wall face 1'/, - 2" to add strength and prevent splitting. 4. Place and level the first course of timbers using the sand in the trench. Avoid gaps between timbers. 5. Lay the second course of timbers over the base course, staggering the seams. Each course should also be set back approximately 112" from the course below. 6. As each course is added, drive 318" galvanized or treated spikes, through to the course below. Spikes 12" IMPERVIOUS should be placed 6-12" from each end with 1-2 additional spikes in the center of the timber, 4P—O"FILL, TYP. 7. Soil should be backfilled behind each course and tamped thoroughly. PIace a clean 314" angular drainage aggregate 8-12" wide against the wall. A 4" perforated the should be placed at the bottom of the wall. 8. Some subsequent courses of timbers will require headers and deadmen. Headers and deadmen should be 6'-0 placed after each 8' timber in every third course of the wall face or as indicated in the design. ��i Mi 11 9. Headers should be secured to timbers with two spikes in the face of the wall and to deadmen in the soil behind the wall, $ —d 10. Backfill soil after each course is secured and tamp thoroughly. Compaction behind the wall shall be achieved by at least three passes of a lightweight mechanical tamper, plate, or roller. —� DESIGN SOILS: SAND, SNIT WEIGHT = 120 LBSIFT3. PHI ANGLE = 30 DEGREES NOTE: 8' MAXIMUM SPACING BETWEEN HEADERS, PROVIDE HEADERS AT CORNERS AND ENDS OF WALLS. iS TOP OF WALL GRADE AT TOP OF WALL GRADE AT FRONT OF WALL BOTTOM OF WALL TIMBER WALL TYPICAL ELEVATION VIEW SCALE, NONE 12" THICK, MIN. DRAINAGE 19—FF DEADMAN, TYP. AGGREGATE, TYP. Cross section based on information listed in cover letter. REINFORCED BACKFILL - -r —" - I COMPACTED 95% OF MAXIMUM 1XI 4'-0" STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY 8—FT DEADMAN, TYP. 4" DRAINTILE OUTLET AT 30' O.C. AND ENDS OF WALL 8—FT DEADMAN, TYP. 1100 FI � �1 / 1 /1 ®`1P —I O . �i 8—FT DEADMAN, TYP./ 6" X 18" GRANULAR LEVELING PAD, TYP. FINISHED GRADE 6" MIN. EMBEDMENT PLANS CREATED BY: CRITERIUM-SCHIMNOWSKI ENGINEERS ini OUNBAR WAY r'IION:resi.774.n1 41r11fPrrMl;l11, MN jSYI$ I'AK; 6in�779,7114ow8ki'vom ruhimnrxrrrrirn�rim, srhrmm�Haki.rnrn PREPARED FOR: VALDES LAWN CARE AND SNOW REMOVAL PHONE: 65I-239-9920 PROJECT NAME 2815 CASCO POINT ROAD WALL ELEVATION(S) S1 ` W1 OF I - herrov =.A'N t$4t r - :.1u". -F' -' 1:" «F•, a NMinn F ne,e Eng errvve Oe +r ,�P, G ,_ S'_[P' n74 +0,?i, Gane: ii,:. ""I` AS NOTED °R^ PC]S PROJECT LOCATION WAYZATA MINNESOTA S DATE: ? 8rz4i..oz_ P�f1F. NO 22-6589 07 rr[Yf.". iC1ti PL 4C'h 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota November 18, 2022 Page 14 Retaining Wall Completion Reports and Construction Inspections To- Retaining wall contractors and/or all clients utilizing our services for retaining wall engineering. From: Paul Schimnowski, PE Retaining Wall Engineer Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers (CSE) Paul@CriteriumMN.com Date: April 1, 2022 To help contractors and other interested parties navigate the changes that many cities and jurisdictions are making regarding construction inspection requirements and final approval letters, we are making the following recommendations: 1. Request that the City Building Official complete the Required Inspections of Retaining Walls form, attached. z. Notify your client of the potential for added cost depending on city/building official requirements. Contact our office or refer to our service agreement for current fees. 3. Contact Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers to schedule any required inspections. Adequate lead time is required. Similar to typical City inspections, at least one week is recommended. We cannot guarantee immediate service. 4. Take daily construction progress photos for your records and for submittal to Criterium- Schimnowski Engineers upon request. 5. Complete the Statement of Conformance for your records and for submittal to Criterium- Schimnowski Engineers upon request. Form attached. If a Wall Completion Report (Post -built Conformance Letter), is requested of CSE, we will require that you provide construction photos and Statement of Conformance. In addition, CSE will need to perform a site visit once final grading is completed. Without these three items, we are unable to comment on the construction/conformance of the wall. We are here to help as much as possible. These inspection requirements are not coming from us. Contact us if you have any questions. Independently Owned and Operated 161 ❑unbar Way Malitomedi, MN 55115 0:651.779,7700 criterium-schimnowskk.com 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota November 18, 2022 Page 17 DESIGN PROVISIONS: 1. REFER TO WOOD RETAINING WALL INDUSTRY GUIDELINES. 2. SEE PRODUCT MANUFACTURER INSTALLATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE I'sI►IIIN,III r Iii-AyliLlilei 10 3. THE DESIGN OF THIS RETAINING WALL SYSTEM WAS BASED UPON THE EFFECTIVE STRENGTH PARAMETERS SHOWN ON THE "SOIL VALUES" TABLE. UNLESS OTHEWISE NOTED, NO FORMAL SOIL INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE_ IF SOIL CONDITIONS VARY AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, WALL ENGINEER MUST BE CONTACTED TO DETERMINE IF A REVISED DESIGN IS NEEDED. 4. THE WALL DESIGN WAS BASED ON THE INFORMATION NOTED IN THE LETTER ABOVE. 5. REFER TO WALL CALCULATIONS FOR BEARING CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS. 6. NO PRODUCT/MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ALLOWED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CRITERIUM-SCHIMNOWSKI ENGINEERS. 7. FINAL SITE GRADES AND ROOF DRAINS SMALL DIRECT RUNOFF AWAY FROM ANY RETAINING WALL(S). UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE WALL(S) HAS NOT BEEN DESIGNED FOR HYDROSTATIC SURCHARGE LOADING. 8. THE WALL DESIGN WAS PERFORMED USING DESIGN GUIDELINES PRESENTED IN THE THIRD EDITION OF THE "DESIGN MANUAL FOR SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLS" PUBLISHED BY NCMA. DESIGN LIMITATIONS: THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WITHIN THESE DOCUMENTS 15 FOR THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL(S) ONLY. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AND/OR WORK RELATED TO HANDRAILS, GUARDRAILS, OR OTHER LIFE/SAFETY ISSUES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THESE DOCUMENTS AND ARE TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS. SITE LAYOUT AND GRADING DESIGN ARE NOT INCLUDED IN WALL DESIGN SERVICES. THOSE SERVICE ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE CIVIL ENGINEER. INTERNAL COMPOUND STABILITY (ICS) HAS BEEN CALCULATED FOR TH15 PROJECT BY CRITERIUM. HOWEVER, ICS IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A GLOBAL STABILITY ANALYSIS WHICH SHOULD BE PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. ADDITIONAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION MAY BE REQUIRED. SUGGESTED QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: 1. A QUALIFIED ENGINEER OR TECHNICIAN SHALL SUPERVISE THE WALL CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY SITE SOIL CONDITIONS. IF THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DOES NOT PERFORM THIS WORK, A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER/TECHNICIAN SHALL 13E HIRED TO ASSURE THE RETAINING WALL IS CONSTRUCTED WITH PROPER SOIL PARAMETERS. 2. A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL BE CONSULTED TO VERIFY THE 5UITABILITY OF DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS MADE BY CRITERIUM. 3. WALL EXCAVATION AND SOILS SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS. THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE PROVISIONS TO BE INCORORATED INTO THE WALL DESIGN. 4.. THE WALL DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL BE HIRED TO PERFORM A PRE -CONSTRUCTION SITE VISIT. 5. THE WALL DESIGN ENGINEER CAN BE HIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION SERVICES. 5. THE WALL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING QUALITY CONTROL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS. 7. SEE PROJECT CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR SPECIFIC DETAILS ON THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT WILL BE PROVIDED BY ALL PARTIES. Independently Owned and Operated 151 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 551.779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com = r 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota November 18, 2022 Page j 8 TERMS AND CONDITIONS-EfiectiveNov. 10.2020 This design is expressly made subject to the following terms and conditions to which all persons that receive and rely thereon agree: 1. STANDARD OF SERVICE: Services performed by ENGINEER under this agreement shall be performed in a manner consistent with the skill and care ordinarily used by members of the engineering profession practicing under similar conditions at the time and in the locality the services are performed. • CLIENT recognizes that interpretations and recommendations of ENGINEER are based solely on the information available to the company. • ENGINEER w I I I be responsible far those interpretations and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for the interpretation by others of the information developed, • Services provided reflect the professional judgment of ENGINEER, to the best of ENGINEER's knowledge, information, and belief as of the date hereof, • N other warranty or guarantee, express or implied, is made. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICE: Services performed by ENGINEER are expressly limited by the scope of services ENGINEER has been employed by CLIENT to perform. 3. TERMS OF PAYMENT: ENGINEER may require a retainer fee to be paid before commencing any project. Extended engagements may require interim invoicing on a weekly, monthly, or other basis. At the completion of the project, we will issue a final invoice. Payment of each invoice is due upon presentation. Failure to pay invoices within the allotted time period will constitute a breach of contract and may result in suspension of work until such time as all overdue payments are made in full. Should any suspension RCCur because of overdue payments, the time for contract completion, if any is stated, shall be extended by the period of the suspension. Invoiced balances remaining unpaid for thirty (30) days after the date of invoice may be charged a finance charge in the amount of'/ percent per month from the date of invoice. If an invoice remains unpaid and it becomes necessary, in the ENGINEERS' opinion to initiate collection procedures, the CLIENT hereby agrees to pay all collection costs including, but not limited to, reasonable fees for attorneys retained by ENGINEER and court costs at aur standard biffing rate for time necessitated in court appearances or presentation of claim to the appropriate court jurisdiction. Exceptions to payment terms must be specified in writing. 4. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS: All reports, field data, field notes, calculations, estimates and other documents ('reports') prepared by Engineer, as instruments of service, shall remain the property of Engineer. CLIENT agrees that all reports furnished to CLIENT or his agents, which are not paid for, will be returned upon demand and will not be used by CLIENT for any purpose whatever. ENGINEER will retain all pertinent records relating to the services performed for a period of five years following submission of the report, during which period the records will be made available to CLIENT at all reasonable times. 5. COPIES OF DOCUMENTS: ENGINEER agrees to furnish CLIENT with an electronic copy of our report, drawings, or documents relating to the services performed. Hard copies, bound or unbound, may be provided upon request at charge of cost plus 10 percent, at ENGINEERS's sole discretion. ENGINEER shall retain an electronic copy of the final documents in its files for a period of five years, 6. INSURANCE: ENGINEER represents and warrants that it is protected by Workers Compensation insurance and has such coverage under Public Liability and Property Damage insurance policies which ENGINEER deems adequate. Certificate for all such policies of insurance shall be provided to the CLIENT upon request in writing. ENGINEER shall not be responsible for any loss, damage or liability arising from any acts by CLIENT, its agents, staff and other consultants employed by it. 7. TERMINATION: This agreement may be terminated by either party by written notice. In the event of termination, ENGINEER shall be paid for services performed and expenses incurred up to the termination notice date. Neither CLIENT not ENGINFER may delegate, assign, sublet or transfer his/her duties or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other parry. S. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: To the fullest extent permitted by law, CLIENT and ENGINEER (a) waive against each other, and the other's employees, officers, directors, agents, insurers, partners, and consultants, any and all claims for or entitlement to special, incidental, indirect, or consequential damages arising out of, resulting from, or in any way related to this report, (b) agree that ENGINEER's total IfabiIity to CLIENT shall be limited to the total amount of compensation received by ENGINEER, (c) agree that CLIENT will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless ENGINEER from and against any claims, liabilities, actions, demands, losses, damages, costs and expenses sustained by any third -party not granted reliance on ENGINEER's reports and services, tdj agree that any action arising aut of or related to the services provided must be brought to ENGINEER'S attention no later than two (2) years after the date of the services, and (e) if an action is brought against the ENGINEER and the ENGINEER prevails, ENGINEER shall be entitled to recover costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. g. FORCE MAJEURE: The engineer shall not be responsible or liable for any failure or delay in the performance of its obligations under this contract arising out of or resulting from any cause or event beyond our control, such as war, strike, crime, epidemic/pandemic, regulations and/or restriction imposed by any government agency, or other event. Independently Owned and Operated 151 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 0: 551.779.77 / criterium-schimnowski.com t i SCHIMNOWSKI CRITERIUM ENGINEERS August 24, 2022 Josh Peterson Valdes Lawn Care & Snow Removal Submitted by email: jpeterson@valdestawn.com RE: Segmental Retaining Wali Typical Section Project Location: 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota Project No. 22-6589 Dear Mr. Peterson: This letter includes important details regarding the attached design typical engineered sections for the timber retaining walls at the above location. This design is based on wall layout information provided by you in an email on August 23, 2022, including: a Certificate of Survey prepared by Gronberg and Associates dated May 18, 2022: measurements of the wall heights and face to face distances, and photos of the existing conditions. The attached typical section should be referenced for construction details. Special note should be made of the wall embedment depth and the tieback/header and deadmen lengths. Refer to Iotas building codes, industry specifications, and American Wood Preservers Association for installation information and details. The design of the wall system assumes the following: • Wali location: Replacement of the existing tiered timber walls in the same configuration • Wall heights): 7 -feet to 2 -feet as noted on the attached sketch, with minimum face-to-face distance between the walls (maximum exposed heights) • Minimum embedment depth = 6" min., or as noted • Soil conditions: Silty/Clayey Sand, friction angle = 30.0 degrees, unit weight of 125.0 Ib/ft3 • Required minimum soil bearing capacity = 1500 psf • Surcharge load at top of walls: Decks as noted • 10:1 maximum slope at top and bottom of walls • Wall Type: 6" Treated Timber • Connections: 3/8" galvanized or treated spikes • Drainage pipe: Required These walls have not been designed for ground water surcharge loads. Direct all surface and groundwater drainage away from the walls. Methods to do so include but are not limited to the following: drainage swale, site grading, retention ponds, etc. Details of water control are left to the wall contractor or the site civil engineer. Please contact Criterium-Schimnowski to provide additional site assessment services if desired. The wall design was performed using the design guidelines presented in timber retaining wall industry guidelines and recommendations. Additional information requested by Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers but not available includes: geotechnical site survey and soil data. If soil conditions, proposed wall layouts, or other design parameters vary from that assumed, a revised analysis may be needed. Please call me if you have any questions or need more information. Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way / Mohtomedi, MN 55115 O: 651.779.7700 / criterium-sch.imnowski.com •� 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota August 24, 2022 Page 12 This design has been prepared in strict confidence with you as our client. Reliance upon our design by other parties is strictly prohibited. If you choose to share our design, you agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Engineer from any third -party action. No reproduction or re -use is permitted without express written consent. Further, we will not release this design to anyone without your permission. Thank you. Sincerely, Paul Schimnowski, P.E. MN #40128 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. Paul Schimnowski, P.E. Date: August 24, 2022 License #: 4012E (MN) Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 651.779,770 / criterium-schimnowski.com s� z N aaa z CD d o0 z r m7 tn> y_ i 24 r _ - � X �o c7 n a c r H z r z � m z � C6 a n CSS �U,' o o zril m o f 1= Q ❑rn �maa a z� IIIII ���� r C r ❑m � �`ti �n °° II I — Q11111 I a n n'r. n z ••_r f N � 11111 0 00 01> 101 c n n y U) C) F)= c U7 zI�C>) n� lzn �m Cc) r- �? Do 00 Ln I pox C� Q - M�oo Lp M I I 0 per© z I z o0W �mn �0 ern II ca I - Z r 3� vm m o o oz !-• F v ❑Lril 0 N m co � ay F� n ❑ t,-4g :o °°-4� � ll-� r v ¢ c o' `� °4 -z I I n rCD a a. c ¢ n n r�D m -❑n m -. III o � � CL - ps On -CD r� F CD O- v' cr c,CSD �ev � C � n � ~ ❑ r r CD 1 CS. v m n m K D 3 n a m 4 O f I{r I n t.� JJ I ❑ R, n Cep',I n gr a4 -- - �_ ft -+ cr I I O n R ❑ p O n cr r rl D fD r� fD CD 0 C; =s w _ _ ❑ cD m - _ - z f n n Y v. Ua rD CD ft CL = e n cr ❑ r.� ly VNI�iIII I r ❑ II ro z` y w r- _ p fJ T C.. n JJ CD m CD tr7' `I .',. ry � n 'ZS ry ro � � w q• � t C titr � � � W r o_ " o — N a. c. o � _ o. ID n o p, p rf n rDD �° ❑ mo d �• rl0 fe C) . ❑ Con ro � � i rD Iy p nay' a s EL m CL r CL ~ n C4 r9 . w N ry ¢' 6 [D n ^' O o ro a❑ zt. R �R n w N rm -+•ro z• lD nm 0 C7. 't,0- CD C CD o V V] a„ „�,� CDCD CD ¢ V� =rµ cl- - wv -f CL CDCD r A7 w CD CD G v a rC7* cu ti rD 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota August 24, 2022 Page 13 Retaining Wall Completion Reports and Construction Inspections To- Retaining wall contractors and/or all clients utilizing our services for retaining wall engineering. From: Paul Schimnowski, PE Retaining Wall Engineer Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers (CSE) Paul@CriteriumMN.com Date: April 1, 2022 To help contractors and other interested parties navigate the changes that many cities and jurisdictions are making regarding construction inspection requirements and final approval letters, we are making the following recommendations: 1. Request that the City Building Official complete the Required Inspections of Retaining Walls form, attached. 2. Notify your client of the potential for added cost depending on city/building official requirements. Contact our office or refer to our service agreement for current fees. 3. Contact Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers to schedule any required inspections. Adequate lead time is required. Similar to typical City inspections, at least one week is recommended. We cannot guarantee immediate service. A. Take daily construction progress photos for your records and for submittal to Criterium- Schimnowski Engineers upon request. 5. Complete the Statement of Conformance for your records and for submittal to Criterium- Schimnowski Engineers upon request. Form attached. If a Wall Completion Report (Post -built Conformance Letter), is requested of CSE, we will require that you provide construction photos and Statement of Conformance. In addition, CSE will need to perform a site visit once final grading is completed. Without these three items, we are unable to comment on the construction/conformance of the wall. We are here to help as much as possible. These inspection requirements are not coming from us. Contact us if you have any questions. Independently Owned and Operated 161 ❑unbar Way Malitomedi, MN 55115 0:651.779,7700 criterium-schimnowskk.com 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota August 24, 2022 Page 16 DESIGN PROVISIONS: 1. REFER TO WOOD RETAINING WALL INDUSTRY GUIDELINES. 2. SEE PRODUCT MANUFACTURER INSTALLATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE I.I►1011111;11rlvT-11 ffel 11111Eel .:W 3. THE DESIGN OF THIS RETAINING WALL SYSTEM WAS BASED UPON THE EFFECTIVE STRENGTH PARAMETERS SHOWN ON THE "SOIL VALUES" TABLE. UNLESS OTHEWISE NOTED, NO FORMAL SOIL INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE_ IF SOIL CONDITIONS VARY AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, WALL ENGINEER MUST BE CONTACTED TO DETERMINE IF A REVISED DESIGN IS NEEDED. 4. THE WALL DESIGN WAS BASED ON THE INFORMATION NOTED IN THE LETTER ABOVE. 5. REFER TO WALL CALCULATIONS FOR BEARING CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS. 6. NO PRODUCT/MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ALLOWED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CRfTERIUM-SCHIMNOWSKI ENGINEERS. 7. FINAL SITE GRADES AND ROOF DRAINS SHALL DIRECT RUNOFF AWAY FROM ANY RETAINING WALL(S). UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE WALL(5) HAS NOT BEEN DESIGNED FOR HYDROSTATIC SURCHARGE LOADING. 8. THE WALL ❑ESfGN WAS PERFORMED USING DESIGN GUIDELINES PRESENTED IN THE THIRD EDITION OF THE "DESIGN MANUAL FOR SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLS" PUBLISHED BY NCMA. DESIGN LIMITATIONS: THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WITHIN THESE DOCUMENTS IS FOR THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL(S) ONLY. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AND/OR WORK RELATED TO HANDRAILS, GUARDRAILS, OR OTHER LIFE/SAFETY ISSUES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THESE DOCUMENTS AND ARE TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS. SITE LAYOUT AND GRADING DESIGN ARE NOT INCLUDED IN WALL DESIGN SERVICES. THOSE SERVICE ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE CIVIL ENGINEER. INTERNAL COMPOUND STABILITY (ICS) HAS BEEN CALCULATED FOR TH15 PROJECT BY CRITERIUM. HOWEVER, ICS IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A GLOBAL STABILITY ANALYSIS WHICH SHOULD BE PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. ADDITIONAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION MAY BE REQUIRED. SUGGESTED QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: 1. A QUALIFIED ENGINEER OR TECHNICIAN SHALL SUPERVISE THE WALL CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY SITE SOIL CONDITIONS. IF THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DOES NOT PERFORM THIS WORK, A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER/TECHNICIAN SHALL 13 HIRED TO ASSURE THE RETAINING WALL IS CONSTRUCTED WITH PROPER SOIL PARAMETERS. 2. A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL BE CONSULTED TO VERIFY THE 5UITABILITY OF DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS MADE BY CRITERIUM. 3. WALL EXCAVATION AND SOILS SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS. THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE PROVISIONS TO BE INCO RORATE D INTO THE WALL DESIGN. 4.. THE WALL DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL BE HIRED TO PERFORM A PRE -CONSTRUCTION SITE VISIT. 5. THE WALL DESIGN ENGINEER CAN BE HIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION SERVICES. 6. THE WALL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING QUALITY CONTROL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS. 7. SEE PROJECT CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR SPECIFIC DETAILS ON THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT WILL BE PROVIDED BY ALL PARTIES. Independently Owned and Operated 151 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 551.779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com = r 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota August 24, 2022 Page 17 TERMS AND CONDITIONS-EfiectiveNov. 10.2020 This design is expressly made subject to the following terms and conditions to which all persons that receive and rely thereon agree: 1. STANDARD OF SERVICE: Services performed by ENGINEER under this agreement shall be performed in a manner consistent with the skill and care ordinarily used by members of the engineering profession practicing under similar conditions at the time and in the locality the services are performed. • CLIENT recognizes that interpretations and recommendations of ENGINEER are based solely on the information available to the company. • ENGINEER w I I I be responsible far those interpretations and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for the interpretation by others of the information developed, • Services provided reflect the professional judgment of ENGINEER, to the best of ENGINEER's knowledge, information, and belief as of the date hereof, • N other warranty or guarantee, express or implied, is made. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICE: Services performed by ENGINEER are expressly limited by the scope of services ENGINEER has been employed by CLIENT to perform. 3. TERMS OF PAYMENT: ENGINEER may require a retainer fee to be paid before commencing any project. Extended engagements may require interim invoicing on a weekly, monthly, or other basis. At the completion of the project, we will issue a final invoice. Payment of each invoice is due upon presentation. Failure to pay invoices within the allotted time period will constitute a breach of contract and may result in suspension of work until such time as all overdue payments are made in full. Should any suspension Occur because of overdue payments, the time for contract completion, if any is stated, shall be extended by the period of the suspension. Invoiced balances remaining unpaid for thirty (30) days after the date of invoice may be charged a finance charge in the amount of'/ percent per month from the date of invoice. If an invoice remains unpaid and it becomes necessary, in the ENGINEERS' opinion to initiate collection procedures, the CLIENT hereby agrees to pay all collection costs including, but not limited to, reasonable fees for attorneys retained by ENGINEER and court costs at aur standard bilfing rate for time necessitated in court appearances or presentation of claim to the appropriate court jurisdiction. Exceptions to payment terms must be specified in writing. 4. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS: All reports, field data, field notes, calculations, estimates and other documents ('reports') prepared by Engineer, as instruments of service, shall remain the property of Engineer. CLIENT agrees that all reports furnished to CLIENT or his agents, which are not paid for, will be returned upon demand and will not be used by CLIENT for any purpose whatever. ENGINEER will retain all pertinent records relating to the services performed for a period of five years following submission of the report, during which period the records will be made available to CLIENT at all reasonable times. S. COPIES OF DOCUMENTS: ENGINEER agrees to furnish CLIENT with an electronic copy of our report, drawings, or documents relating to the services performed. Hard copies, bound or unbound, may be provided upon request at charge of cost plus 10 percent, at ENGINEERS's sole discretion. ENGINEER shall retain an electronic copy of the final documents in its files for a period of five years, 6. INSURANCE: ENGINEER represents and warrants that it is protected by Workers Compensation insurance and has such coverage under Public Liability and Property Damage insurance policies which ENGINEER deems adequate. Certificate for all such policies of insurance shall be provided to the CLIENT upon request in writing. ENGINEER shall not be responsible for any loss, damage or liability arising from any acts by CLIENT, its agents, staff and other consultants employed by it. 7. TERMINATION: This agreement may be terminated by either party by written notice. In the event of termination, ENGINEER shall be paid for services performed and expenses incurred up to the termination notice date. Neither CLIENT not ENGINFER may delegate, assign, sublet or transfer his/her duties or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other parry. S. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: To the fullest extent permitted by law, CLIENT and ENGINEER (a) waive against each other, and the other's employees, officers, directors, agents, insurers, partners, and consultants, any and all claims for or entitlement to special, incidental, indirect, or consequential damages arising out of, resulting from, or in any way related to this report, (b) agree that ENGINEER's total IfabiIity to CLIENT shall be limited to the total amount of compensation received by ENGINEER, (c) agree that CLIENT will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless ENGINEER from and against any claims, liabilities, actions, demands, losses, damages, costs and expenses sustained by any third -party not granted reliance on ENGINEER's reports and services, tdj agree that any action arising aut of or related to the services provided must be brought to ENGINEER'S attention no later than two (2) years after the date of the services, and (e) if an action is brought against the ENGINEER and the ENGINEER prevails, ENGINEER shall be entitled to recover costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. g. FORCE MAJEURE: The engineer shall not be responsible or liable for any failure or delay in the performance of its obligations under this contract arising out of or resulting from any cause or event beyond our control, such as war, strike, crime, epidemiclpandemic, regulations and/or restriction imposed by any government agency, or other event. Independently Owned and Operated 151 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 0: 551.779.77 / criterium-schimnowski.com t i SCHIMNOWSKI CRITERIUM ENGINEERS November 22. 2022 Josh Prust Valdes Lawn Care & Snow Removal Submitted by email: jpeterson@valdeslawn.com RE: Supplemental Report - Timber Retaining Wall Upper Tier Project Location: 2815 Casco Point Road, Orono, Minnesota Project No. 22-6589 Dear Mr. Prust: This letter is being sent in response to the email we received from Melanie Curtis from the City of Orono. Based on her review of my previous letter to you dated November 18, 2022, she Is requesting additional information. It is my professional opinion that the work I recommended should qualify in regards to City Code Section 78-1726 (6): Emergency repair exception. The slopes at the top of the timber retaining walls constructed to -date are much steeper than originally designed. The construction of the final, planned retaining wall at the top of the tiered retaining wall system is required to stabilize these slopes. Failure to stabilize and reduce the steepness of these slopes with the construction of the planned wall will likely result in a slope failure, significant erosion, and damage to the retaining walls already constructed. Refer to my original design dated August 24, 2022, and my previous letter dated November 18, 2022, for further information. Please call me if you have any questions or need more information. Thank you. Sincerely, Paul Schimnowski, P.E. MN #40126 I hereby certify that this pian, 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. Paul Schimnowski, P.E. Date: November 22, 2022 License #: 40126 (MN) Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way/ Mohtomedi, MN 55115 O: 651.779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com L� SCHIMNOWSKI CRITERIUM ENGINEERS November 18, 2022 Josh Prust Valdes Lawn Care & Snow Removal Submitted by email: jpeterson@vaidesiawn.com RE: Timber Retaining Wall Upper Tier Project Location: 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota Project No. 22-6589 Dear Mr. Prust: This letter includes important details regarding the completion of planned work at the above location. These recommendations are based on my original design dated August 24, 2022, and my site observations and discussion with you on October 31 and November 17, 2022. This previously designed work is recommended to be completed at this time to improve the site grading by reducing the steepness of some slopes and will reduce the chances of erosion at the top of the newly built, tiered timber retaining wall system. I recommend that the final, planned timber retaining wall be constructed 4 to 6 feet behind the uppermost existing wall. The wall should extend from several feet inside both the east and west property lines. Most of the wall will have a maximum exposed height of about 2 -feet. The wall height will increase to about 4 - feet tall near each end where existing slopes increase. Fallowing completion of the final wall, erosion control should be established and maintained in all disturbed areas. Areas of concentrated runoff should be directed away from the top of the walls. As before, the attached typical section should be referenced for construction details. Special note should be made of the wall embedment depth and the tieback/header and deadmen lengths. Refer to local building codes, industry specifications, and American Wood Preservers Association for installation information and details. The design of the wall system assumes the following: • Wall location: 4 to 6 feet behind the top of the existing upper wall • Wall height(s): 4 -feet to 2 -feet as noted (maximum exposed heights) • Minimum embedment depth = 6" min., or as noted ■ Soil conditions: Silty/Clayey Sand, friction angle = 30.0 degrees, unit weight of 125.0 Ib1ft3 • Required minimum soil bearing capacity = 1500 psf • Surcharge load at top of wail: None • 5:1 maximum slope at top and bottom of wall • Wall Type: 6"x5" Treated Timber • Connections: 3/8" galvanized or treated spikes + Drainage pipe: Required As we discussed, you are planning to that the as -built conditions surveyed for city consideration. Please forward this to me when it is completed. Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way / Mohlomedi, MN 55115 ❑: 651,779,7700 / criterium-sch.imnowski.com 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota {November 18, 2022 Page 2 4 ti !r oil These walls have not been designed for ground water surcharge loads. Direct all surface and groundwater drainage away from the walls. Methods to do so include but are not limited to the following: Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way Mahtomedi, MN 55115 0: 651.779.7700 criterium-schimnowski.com 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota November 18, 2022 Page 13 drainage swale, site grading, retention ponds, etc. Details of water control are left to the wall contractor or the site civil engineer. Please contact Criterium-Schimnowski to provide additional site assessment services if desired. The wall design was performed using the design guidelines presented in timber retaining wall industry guidelines and recommendations. Additional information requested by Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers but not available includes: geotechnical site survey and soil data. If soil conditions, proposed wall layouts, or other design parameters vary from that assumed, a revised analysis may be needed. Please call me if you have any questions or need more information. This design has been prepared in strict confidence with you as our client. Reliance upon our design by other parties is strictly prohibited. If you choose to share our design, you agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Engineer from any third -party action. No reproduction or re -use is permitted without express written consent. Further, we will not release this design to anyone without your permission. Thank you. Sincerely, f Paul Schimnowski, P.E. MN #40126 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. Paul Schimnowski, P.E. Date: November 18, 2022 License #- 40126 (MN) Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 651.779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota November 18, 2022 Page 14 Retaining Wall Completion Reports and Construction Inspections To- Retaining wall contractors and/or all clients utilizing our services for retaining wall engineering. From: Paul Schimnowski, PE Retaining Wall Engineer Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers (CSE) Paul@CriteriumMN.com Date: April 1, 2022 To help contractors and other interested parties navigate the changes that many cities and jurisdictions are making regarding construction inspection requirements and final approval letters, we are making the following recommendations: 1. Request that the City Building Official complete the Required Inspections of Retaining Walls form, attached. z. Notify your client of the potential for added cost depending on city/building official requirements. Contact our office or refer to our service agreement for current fees. 3. Contact Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers to schedule any required inspections. Adequate lead time is required. Similar to typical City inspections, at least one week is recommended. We cannot guarantee immediate service. 4. Take daily construction progress photos for your records and for submittal to Criterium- Schimnowski Engineers upon request. 5. Complete the Statement of Conformance for your records and for submittal to Criterium- Schimnowski Engineers upon request. Form attached. If a Wall Completion Report (Post -built Conformance Letter), is requested of CSE, we will require that you provide construction photos and Statement of Conformance. In addition, CSE will need to perform a site visit once final grading is completed. Without these three items, we are unable to comment on the construction/conformance of the wall. We are here to help as much as possible. These inspection requirements are not coming from us. Contact us if you have any questions. Independently Owned and Operated 161 ❑unbar Way Malitomedi, MN 55115 0:651.779,7700 criterium-schimnowskk.com 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota November 18, 2022 Page 17 DESIGN PROVISIONS: 1. REFER TO WOOD RETAINING WALL INDUSTRY GUIDELINES. 2. SEE PRODUCT MANUFACTURER INSTALLATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE I'sI►IIIN,III r Iif-AyliLlilei 10 3. THE DESIGN OF THIS RETAINING WALL SYSTEM WAS BASED UPON THE EFFECTIVE STRENGTH PARAMETERS SHOWN ON THE "SOIL VALUES" TABLE. UNLESS OTHEWISE NOTED, ND FORMAL SOIL INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE_ IF SOIL CONDITIONS VARY AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, WALL ENGINEER MUST BE CONTACTED TO DETERMINE IF A REVISED DESIGN IS NEEDED. 4. THE WALL DESIGN WAS BASED ON THE INFORMATION NOTED IN THE LETTER ABOVE. 5. REFER TO WALL CALCULATIONS FOR BEARING CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS. 6. NO PRODUCT/MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ALLOWED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CRITERIUM-SCHIMNOWSKI ENGINEERS. 7. FINAL SITE GRADES AND ROOF DRAINS SHALL DIRECT RUNOFF AWAY FROM ANY RETAINING WALL(S). UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE WALL(S) HAS NOT BEEN DESIGNED FOR HYDROSTATIC SURCHARGE LOADING. 8. THE WALL DESIGN WAS PERFORMED USING DESIGN GUIDELINES PRESENTED IN THE THIRD EDITION OF THE "DESIGN MANUAL FOR SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLS" PUBLISHED BY NCMA. DESIGN LIMITATIONS: THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WITHIN THESE DOCUMENTS IS FOR THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL(S) ONLY. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AND/OR WORK RELATED TO HANDRAILS, GUARDRAILS, OR OTHER LIFE/SAFETY ISSUES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THESE DOCUMENTS AND ARE TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS. 2.. SITE LAYOUT AND GRADING DESIGN ARE NOT INCLUDED IN WALL DESIGN SERVICES. THOSE SERVICE ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE CIVIL ENGINEER. INTERNAL COMPOUND STABILITY (ICS) HAS BEEN CALCULATED FOR TH15 PROJECT BY CRITERIUM. HOWEVER, ICS IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A GLOBAL STABILITY ANALYSIS WHICH SHOULD BE PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. ADDITIONAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION MAY BE REQUIRED. SUGGESTED QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: 1. A QUALIFIED ENGINEER OR TECHNICIAN SHALL SUPERVISE THE WALL CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY SITE SOIL CONDITIONS. IF THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DOES NOT PERFORM THIS WORK, A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER/TECHNICIAN SHALL BE HIRED TO ASSURE THE RETAINING WALL IS CONSTRUCTED WITH PROPER SOIL PARAMETERS. 2. A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL BE CONSULTED TO VERIFY THE 5UITABILITY OF DESIGN 1_w1yu[2Ylei ki1.1Alr I11111-'LKR11114.ILsiAII 3. WALL EXCAVATION AND SOILS SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS. THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE PROVISIONS TO BE W0 41611416W.1011l►1ram1,Iar, 1IIM1*3[4011 4. THE WALL DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL BE HIRED TO PERFORM A PRE -CONSTRUCTION SITE VISIT. 5. THE WALL DESIGN ENGINEER CAN BE HIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION SERVICES. 5. THE WALL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING QUALITY CONTROL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS. 7. SEE PROJECT CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR SPECIFIC DETAILS ON THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT WILL BE PROVIDED BY ALL PARTIES. Independently Owned and Operated 151 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 551.779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com = r 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota November 18, 2022 Page j 8 TERMS AND CONDITIONS-EfiectiveNov. 10.2020 This design is expressly made subject to the following terms and conditions to which all persons that receive and rely thereon agree: 1. STANDARD OF SERVICE: Services performed by ENGINEER under this agreement shall be performed in a manner consistent with the skill and care ordinarily used by members of the engineering profession practicing under similar conditions at the time and in the locality the services are performed. • CLIENT recognizes that interpretations and recommendations of ENGINEER are based solely on the information available to the company. • ENGINEER w I I I be responsible far those interpretations and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for the interpretation by others of the information developed, • Services provided reflect the professional judgment of ENGINEER, to the best of ENGINEER's knowledge, information, and belief as of the date hereof, • N other warranty or guarantee, express or implied, is made. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICE: Services performed by ENGINEER are expressly limited by the scope of services ENGINEER has been employed by CLIENT to perform. 3. TERMS OF PAYMENT: ENGINEER may require a retainer fee to be paid before commencing any project. Extended engagements may require interim invoicing on a weekly, monthly, or other basis. At the completion of the project, we will issue a final invoice. Payment of each invoice is due upon presentation. Failure to pay invoices within the allotted time period will constitute a breach of contract and may result in suspension of work until such time as all overdue payments are made in full. Should any suspension RCCur because of overdue payments, the time for contract completion, if any is stated, shall be extended by the period of the suspension. Invoiced balances remaining unpaid for thirty (30) days after the date of invoice may be charged a finance charge in the amount of'/ percent per month from the date of invoice. If an invoice remains unpaid and it becomes necessary, in the ENGINEERS' opinion to initiate collection procedures, the CLIENT hereby agrees to pay all collection costs including, but not limited to, reasonable fees for attorneys retained by ENGINEER and court costs at aur standard biffing rate for time necessitated in court appearances or presentation of claim to the appropriate court jurisdiction. Exceptions to payment terms must be specified in writing. 4. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS: All reports, field data, field notes, calculations, estimates and other documents ('reports') prepared by Engineer, as instruments of service, shall remain the property of Engineer. CLIENT agrees that all reports furnished to CLIENT or his agents, which are not paid for, will be returned upon demand and will not be used by CLIENT for any purpose whatever. ENGINEER will retain all pertinent records relating to the services performed for a period of five years following submission of the report, during which period the records will be made available to CLIENT at all reasonable times. S. COPIES OF DOCUMENTS: ENGINEER agrees to furnish CLIENT with an electronic copy of our report, drawings, or documents relating to the services performed. Hard copies, bound or unbound, may be provided upon request at charge of cost plus 10 percent, at ENGINEERS's sole discretion. ENGINEER shall retain an electronic copy of the final documents in its files for a period of five years, 6. INSURANCE: ENGINEER represents and warrants that it is protected by Workers Compensation insurance and has such coverage under Public Liability and Property Damage insurance policies which ENGINEER deems adequate. Certificate for all such policies of insurance shall be provided to the CLIENT upon request in writing. ENGINEER shall not be responsible for any loss, damage or liability arising from any acts by CLIENT, its agents, staff and other consultants employed by it. 7. TERMINATION: This agreement may be terminated by either party by written notice. In the event of termination, ENGINEER shall be paid for services performed and expenses incurred up to the termination notice date. Neither CLIENT not ENGINFER may delegate, assign, sublet or transfer his/her duties or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other parry. S. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: To the fullest extent permitted by law, CLIENT and ENGINEER (a) waive against each other, and the other's employees, officers, directors, agents, insurers, partners, and consultants, any and all claims for or entitlement to special, incidental, indirect, or consequential damages arising out of, resulting from, or in any way related to this report, (b) agree that ENGINEER's total IfabiIity to CLIENT shall be limited to the total amount of compensation received by ENGINEER, (c) agree that CLIENT will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless ENGINEER from and against any claims, liabilities, actions, demands, losses, damages, costs and expenses sustained by any third -party not granted reliance on ENGINEER's reports and services, tdj agree that any action arising aut of or related to the services provided must be brought to ENGINEER'S attention no later than two (2) years after the date of the services, and (e) if an action is brought against the ENGINEER and the ENGINEER prevails, ENGINEER shall be entitled to recover costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. g. FORCE MAJEURE: The engineer shall not be responsible or liable for any failure or delay in the performance of its obligations under this contract arising out of or resulting from any cause or event beyond our control, such as war, strike, crime, epidemiclpandemic, regulations and/or restriction imposed by any government agency, or other event. Independently Owned and Operated 151 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 0: 551.779.77 / criterium-schimnowski.com t i E -M 8—FT DEADMAN, TYP 8—FT DEADMAN, TYP. 2' —e0,r —13'-6" 2'-0" --+4,_0„ 8—FT DEADMAN, TYP. TIMBER TIEBACK, TYR. NOTES. 1. The timber in the wall must be treated in accordance with all applicable bui [ding codes and industry specifications, such as the American Wood Preservers Association (AWPA). 2. Dig a trench approximately 14" and 1-2" deeper than the height of the timber, usually 14" deep. Apply 1-2" of sand to level the base of the trench. 3_ Excavate for headers and deadmen into the hill. The size, length and location of headers and deadmen will be design specific. Headers should extend past the wall face 1'/, - 2" to add strength and prevent splitting. 4. Place and level the first course of timbers using the sand in the trench. Avoid gaps between timbers. 5. Lay the second course of timbers over the base course, staggering the seams. Each course should also be set back approximately 112" from the course below. 6. As each course is added, drive 318" galvanized or treated spikes, through to the course below. Spikes 12" IMPERVIOUS should be placed 6-12" from each end with 1-2 additional spikes in the center of the timber, 4P—O"FILL, TYP. 7. Soil should be backfilled behind each course and tamped thoroughly. PIace a clean 314" angular drainage aggregate 8-12" wide against the wall. A 4" perforated the should be placed at the bottom of the wall. 8. Some subsequent courses of timbers will require headers and deadmen. Headers and deadmen should be 6'-0 placed after each 8' timber in every third course of the wall face or as indicated in the design. ��i Mi 11 9. Headers should be secured to timbers with two spikes in the face of the wall and to deadmen in the soil behind the wall, $ —d 10. Backfill soil after each course is secured and tamp thoroughly. Compaction behind the wall shall be achieved by at least three passes of a lightweight mechanical tamper, plate, or roller. —� DESIGN SOILS: SAND, SNIT WEIGHT = 120 LBSIFT3. PHI ANGLE = 30 DEGREES NOTE: 8' MAXIMUM SPACING BETWEEN HEADERS, PROVIDE HEADERS AT CORNERS AND ENDS OF WALLS. iS TOP OF WALL GRADE AT TOP OF WALL GRADE AT FRONT OF WALL BOTTOM OF WALL TIMBER WALL TYPICAL ELEVATION VIEW SCALE, NONE 12" THICK, MIN. DRAINAGE 19—FF DEADMAN, TYP. AGGREGATE, TYP. Cross section based on information listed in cover letter. REINFORCED BACKFILL - -r —" - I COMPACTED 95% OF MAXIMUM 1XI 4'-0" STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY 8—FT DEADMAN, TYP. 4" DRAINTILE OUTLET AT 30' O.C. AND ENDS OF WALL 8—FT DEADMAN, TYP. 1100 FI � �1 / 1 /1 ®`1P —I O . �i 8—FT DEADMAN, TYP./ 6" X 18" GRANULAR LEVELING PAD, TYP. FINISHED GRADE 6" MIN. EMBEDMENT PLANS CREATED BY: CRITERIUM-SCHIMNOWSKI ENGINEERS ini OUNBAR WAY r'IION:resi.774.n1 41r11fPrrMl;l11, MN jSYI$ I'AK; 6in�779,7114ow8ki'vom ruhimnrxrrrrirn�rim, srhrmm�Haki.rnrn PREPARED FOR: VALDES LAWN CARE AND SNOW REMOVAL PHONE: 65I-239-9920 PROJECT NAME 2815 CASCO POINT ROAD WALL ELEVATION(S) S1 ` W1 OF I - herrov =.A'N t$4t r - :.1u". -F' -' 1:" «F•, a NMinn F ne,e Eng errvve Oe +r ,�P, G ,_ S'_[P' n74 +0,?i, Gane: ii,:. ""I` AS NOTED °R^ PC]S PROJECT LOCATION WAYZATA MINNESOTA S DATE: ? 8rz4i..oz_ P�f1F. NO 22-6589 07 rr[Yf.". iC1ti PL 4C'h 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota November 18, 2022 Page 14 Retaining Wall Completion Reports and Construction Inspections To- Retaining wall contractors and/or all clients utilizing our services for retaining wall engineering. From: Paul Schimnowski, PE Retaining Wall Engineer Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers (CSE) Paul@CriteriumMN.com Date: April 1, 2022 To help contractors and other interested parties navigate the changes that many cities and jurisdictions are making regarding construction inspection requirements and final approval letters, we are making the following recommendations: 1. Request that the City Building Official complete the Required Inspections of Retaining Walls form, attached. z. Notify your client of the potential for added cost depending on city/building official requirements. Contact our office or refer to our service agreement for current fees. 3. Contact Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers to schedule any required inspections. Adequate lead time is required. Similar to typical City inspections, at least one week is recommended. We cannot guarantee immediate service. 4. Take daily construction progress photos for your records and for submittal to Criterium- Schimnowski Engineers upon request. 5. Complete the Statement of Conformance for your records and for submittal to Criterium- Schimnowski Engineers upon request. Form attached. If a Wall Completion Report (Post -built Conformance Letter), is requested of CSE, we will require that you provide construction photos and Statement of Conformance. In addition, CSE will need to perform a site visit once final grading is completed. Without these three items, we are unable to comment on the construction/conformance of the wall. We are here to help as much as possible. These inspection requirements are not coming from us. Contact us if you have any questions. Independently Owned and Operated 161 ❑unbar Way Malitomedi, MN 55115 0:651.779,7700 criterium-schimnowskk.com 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota November 18, 2022 Page 17 DESIGN PROVISIONS: 1. REFER TO WOOD RETAINING WALL INDUSTRY GUIDELINES. 2. SEE PRODUCT MANUFACTURER INSTALLATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE I'sI►IIIN,III r Iii-AyliLlilei 10 3. THE DESIGN OF THIS RETAINING WALL SYSTEM WAS BASED UPON THE EFFECTIVE STRENGTH PARAMETERS SHOWN ON THE "SOIL VALUES" TABLE. UNLESS OTHEWISE NOTED, NO FORMAL SOIL INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE_ IF SOIL CONDITIONS VARY AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, WALL ENGINEER MUST BE CONTACTED TO DETERMINE IF A REVISED DESIGN IS NEEDED. 4. THE WALL DESIGN WAS BASED ON THE INFORMATION NOTED IN THE LETTER ABOVE. 5. REFER TO WALL CALCULATIONS FOR BEARING CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS. 6. NO PRODUCT/MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ALLOWED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CRITERIUM-SCHIMNOWSKI ENGINEERS. 7. FINAL SITE GRADES AND ROOF DRAINS SMALL DIRECT RUNOFF AWAY FROM ANY RETAINING WALL(S). UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE WALL(S) HAS NOT BEEN DESIGNED FOR HYDROSTATIC SURCHARGE LOADING. 8. THE WALL DESIGN WAS PERFORMED USING DESIGN GUIDELINES PRESENTED IN THE THIRD EDITION OF THE "DESIGN MANUAL FOR SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLS" PUBLISHED BY NCMA. DESIGN LIMITATIONS: THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WITHIN THESE DOCUMENTS 15 FOR THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL(S) ONLY. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AND/OR WORK RELATED TO HANDRAILS, GUARDRAILS, OR OTHER LIFE/SAFETY ISSUES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THESE DOCUMENTS AND ARE TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS. SITE LAYOUT AND GRADING DESIGN ARE NOT INCLUDED IN WALL DESIGN SERVICES. THOSE SERVICE ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE CIVIL ENGINEER. INTERNAL COMPOUND STABILITY (ICS) HAS BEEN CALCULATED FOR TH15 PROJECT BY CRITERIUM. HOWEVER, ICS IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A GLOBAL STABILITY ANALYSIS WHICH SHOULD BE PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. ADDITIONAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION MAY BE REQUIRED. SUGGESTED QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: 1. A QUALIFIED ENGINEER OR TECHNICIAN SHALL SUPERVISE THE WALL CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY SITE SOIL CONDITIONS. IF THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DOES NOT PERFORM THIS WORK, A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER/TECHNICIAN SHALL 13E HIRED TO ASSURE THE RETAINING WALL IS CONSTRUCTED WITH PROPER SOIL PARAMETERS. 2. A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL BE CONSULTED TO VERIFY THE 5UITABILITY OF DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS MADE BY CRITERIUM. 3. WALL EXCAVATION AND SOILS SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS. THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE PROVISIONS TO BE INCORORATED INTO THE WALL DESIGN. 4.. THE WALL DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL BE HIRED TO PERFORM A PRE -CONSTRUCTION SITE VISIT. 5. THE WALL DESIGN ENGINEER CAN BE HIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION SERVICES. 5. THE WALL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING QUALITY CONTROL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS. 7. SEE PROJECT CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR SPECIFIC DETAILS ON THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT WILL BE PROVIDED BY ALL PARTIES. Independently Owned and Operated 151 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 551.779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com = r 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota November 18, 2022 Page j 8 TERMS AND CONDITIONS-EfiectiveNov. 10.2020 This design is expressly made subject to the following terms and conditions to which all persons that receive and rely thereon agree: 1. STANDARD OF SERVICE: Services performed by ENGINEER under this agreement shall be performed in a manner consistent with the skill and care ordinarily used by members of the engineering profession practicing under similar conditions at the time and in the locality the services are performed. • CLIENT recognizes that interpretations and recommendations of ENGINEER are based solely on the information available to the company. • ENGINEER w I I I be responsible far those interpretations and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for the interpretation by others of the information developed, • Services provided reflect the professional judgment of ENGINEER, to the best of ENGINEER's knowledge, information, and belief as of the date hereof, • N other warranty or guarantee, express or implied, is made. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICE: Services performed by ENGINEER are expressly limited by the scope of services ENGINEER has been employed by CLIENT to perform. 3. TERMS OF PAYMENT: ENGINEER may require a retainer fee to be paid before commencing any project. Extended engagements may require interim invoicing on a weekly, monthly, or other basis. At the completion of the project, we will issue a final invoice. Payment of each invoice is due upon presentation. Failure to pay invoices within the allotted time period will constitute a breach of contract and may result in suspension of work until such time as all overdue payments are made in full. Should any suspension RCCur because of overdue payments, the time for contract completion, if any is stated, shall be extended by the period of the suspension. Invoiced balances remaining unpaid for thirty (30) days after the date of invoice may be charged a finance charge in the amount of'/ percent per month from the date of invoice. If an invoice remains unpaid and it becomes necessary, in the ENGINEERS' opinion to initiate collection procedures, the CLIENT hereby agrees to pay all collection costs including, but not limited to, reasonable fees for attorneys retained by ENGINEER and court costs at aur standard biffing rate for time necessitated in court appearances or presentation of claim to the appropriate court jurisdiction. Exceptions to payment terms must be specified in writing. 4. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS: All reports, field data, field notes, calculations, estimates and other documents ('reports') prepared by Engineer, as instruments of service, shall remain the property of Engineer. CLIENT agrees that all reports furnished to CLIENT or his agents, which are not paid for, will be returned upon demand and will not be used by CLIENT for any purpose whatever. ENGINEER will retain all pertinent records relating to the services performed for a period of five years following submission of the report, during which period the records will be made available to CLIENT at all reasonable times. 5. COPIES OF DOCUMENTS: ENGINEER agrees to furnish CLIENT with an electronic copy of our report, drawings, or documents relating to the services performed. Hard copies, bound or unbound, may be provided upon request at charge of cost plus 10 percent, at ENGINEERS's sole discretion. ENGINEER shall retain an electronic copy of the final documents in its files for a period of five years, 6. INSURANCE: ENGINEER represents and warrants that it is protected by Workers Compensation insurance and has such coverage under Public Liability and Property Damage insurance policies which ENGINEER deems adequate. Certificate for all such policies of insurance shall be provided to the CLIENT upon request in writing. ENGINEER shall not be responsible for any loss, damage or liability arising from any acts by CLIENT, its agents, staff and other consultants employed by it. 7. TERMINATION: This agreement may be terminated by either party by written notice. In the event of termination, ENGINEER shall be paid for services performed and expenses incurred up to the termination notice date. Neither CLIENT not ENGINFER may delegate, assign, sublet or transfer his/her duties or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other parry. S. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: To the fullest extent permitted by law, CLIENT and ENGINEER (a) waive against each other, and the other's employees, officers, directors, agents, insurers, partners, and consultants, any and all claims for or entitlement to special, incidental, indirect, or consequential damages arising out of, resulting from, or in any way related to this report, (b) agree that ENGINEER's total IfabiIity to CLIENT shall be limited to the total amount of compensation received by ENGINEER, (c) agree that CLIENT will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless ENGINEER from and against any claims, liabilities, actions, demands, losses, damages, costs and expenses sustained by any third -party not granted reliance on ENGINEER's reports and services, tdj agree that any action arising aut of or related to the services provided must be brought to ENGINEER'S attention no later than two (2) years after the date of the services, and (e) if an action is brought against the ENGINEER and the ENGINEER prevails, ENGINEER shall be entitled to recover costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. g. FORCE MAJEURE: The engineer shall not be responsible or liable for any failure or delay in the performance of its obligations under this contract arising out of or resulting from any cause or event beyond our control, such as war, strike, crime, epidemic/pandemic, regulations and/or restriction imposed by any government agency, or other event. Independently Owned and Operated 151 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 0: 551.779.77 / criterium-schimnowski.com t i SCHIMNOWSKI CRITERIUM ENGINEERS August 24, 2022 Josh Peterson Valdes Lawn Care & Snow Removal Submitted by email: jpeterson@valdestawn.com RE: Segmental Retaining Wali Typical Section Project Location: 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota Project No. 22-6589 Dear Mr. Peterson: This letter includes important details regarding the attached design typical engineered sections for the timber retaining walls at the above location. This design is based on wall layout information provided by you in an email on August 23, 2022, including: a Certificate of Survey prepared by Gronberg and Associates dated May 18, 2022: measurements of the wall heights and face to face distances, and photos of the existing conditions. The attached typical section should be referenced for construction details. Special note should be made of the wall embedment depth and the tieback/header and deadmen lengths. Refer to Iotas building codes, industry specifications, and American Wood Preservers Association for installation information and details. The design of the wall system assumes the following: • Wali location: Replacement of the existing tiered timber walls in the same configuration • Wall heights): 7 -feet to 2 -feet as noted on the attached sketch, with minimum face-to-face distance between the walls (maximum exposed heights) • Minimum embedment depth = 6" min., or as noted • Soil conditions: Silty/Clayey Sand, friction angle = 30.0 degrees, unit weight of 125.0 Ib/ft3 • Required minimum soil bearing capacity = 1500 psf • Surcharge load at top of walls: Decks as noted • 10:1 maximum slope at top and bottom of walls • Wall Type: 6" Treated Timber • Connections: 3/8" galvanized or treated spikes • Drainage pipe: Required These walls have not been designed for ground water surcharge loads. Direct all surface and groundwater drainage away from the walls. Methods to do so include but are not limited to the following: drainage swale, site grading, retention ponds, etc. Details of water control are left to the wall contractor or the site civil engineer. Please contact Criterium-Schimnowski to provide additional site assessment services if desired. The wall design was performed using the design guidelines presented in timber retaining wall industry guidelines and recommendations. Additional information requested by Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers but not available includes: geotechnical site survey and soil data. If soil conditions, proposed wall layouts, or other design parameters vary from that assumed, a revised analysis may be needed. Please call me if you have any questions or need more information. Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way / Mohtomedi, MN 55115 O: 651.779.7700 / criterium-sch.imnowski.com •� 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota August 24, 2022 Page 12 This design has been prepared in strict confidence with you as our client. Reliance upon our design by other parties is strictly prohibited. If you choose to share our design, you agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Engineer from any third -party action. No reproduction or re -use is permitted without express written consent. Further, we will not release this design to anyone without your permission. Thank you. Sincerely, Paul Schimnowski, P.E. MN #40128 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. Paul Schimnowski, P.E. Date: August 24, 2022 License #: 4012E (MN) Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 651.779,770 / criterium-schimnowski.com s� z N aaa z CD d o0 z r m7 tn> y_ i 24 r _ - � X �o c7 n a c r H z r z � m z � C6 a n CSS �U,' o o zril m o f 1= Q ❑rn �maa a z� IIIII ���� r C r ❑m � �`ti �n °° II I — Q11111 I a n n'r. n z ••_r f N � 11111 0 00 01> 101 c n n y U) C) F)= c U7 zI�C>) n� lzn �m Cc) r- �? Do 00 Ln I pox C� Q - M�oo Lp M I I 0 per© z I z o0W �mn �0 ern II ca I - Z r 3� vm m o o oz !-• F v ❑Lril 0 N m co � ay F� n ❑ t,-4g :o °°-4� � ll-� r v ¢ c o' `� °4 -z I I n rCD a a. c ¢ n n r�D m -❑n m -. III o � � CL - ps On -CD r� F CD O- v' cr c,CSD �ev � C � n � ~ ❑ r r CD 1 CS. v m n m K D 3 n a m 4 O f I{r I n t.� JJ I ❑ R, n Cep',I n gr a4 -- - �_ ft -+ cr I I O n R ❑ p O n cr r rl D fD r� fD CD 0 C; =s w _ _ ❑ cD m - _ - z f n n Y v. Ua rD CD ft CL = e n cr ❑ r.� ly VNI�iIII I r ❑ II ro z` y w r- _ p fJ T C.. n JJ CD m CD tr7' `I .',. ry � n 'ZS ry ro � � w q• � t C titr � � � W r o_ " o — N a. c. o � _ o. ID n o p, p rf n rDD �° ❑ mo d �• rl0 fe C) . ❑ Con ro � � i rD Iy p nay' a s EL m CL r CL ~ n C4 r9 . w N ry ¢' 6 [D n ^' O o ro a❑ zt. R �R n w N rm -+•ro z• lD nm 0 C7. 't,0- CD C CD o V V] a„ „�,� CDCD CD ¢ V� =rµ cl- - wv -f CL CDCD r A7 w CD CD G v a rC7* cu ti rD 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota August 24, 2022 Page 13 Retaining Wall Completion Reports and Construction Inspections To- Retaining wall contractors and/or all clients utilizing our services for retaining wall engineering. From: Paul Schimnowski, PE Retaining Wall Engineer Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers (CSE) Paul@CriteriumMN.com Date: April 1, 2022 To help contractors and other interested parties navigate the changes that many cities and jurisdictions are making regarding construction inspection requirements and final approval letters, we are making the following recommendations: 1. Request that the City Building Official complete the Required Inspections of Retaining Walls form, attached. 2. Notify your client of the potential for added cost depending on city/building official requirements. Contact our office or refer to our service agreement for current fees. 3. Contact Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers to schedule any required inspections. Adequate lead time is required. Similar to typical City inspections, at least one week is recommended. We cannot guarantee immediate service. A. Take daily construction progress photos for your records and for submittal to Criterium- Schimnowski Engineers upon request. 5. Complete the Statement of Conformance for your records and for submittal to Criterium- Schimnowski Engineers upon request. Form attached. If a Wall Completion Report (Post -built Conformance Letter), is requested of CSE, we will require that you provide construction photos and Statement of Conformance. In addition, CSE will need to perform a site visit once final grading is completed. Without these three items, we are unable to comment on the construction/conformance of the wall. We are here to help as much as possible. These inspection requirements are not coming from us. Contact us if you have any questions. Independently Owned and Operated 161 ❑unbar Way Malitomedi, MN 55115 0:651.779,7700 criterium-schimnowskk.com 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota August 24, 2022 Page 16 DESIGN PROVISIONS: 1. REFER TO WOOD RETAINING WALL INDUSTRY GUIDELINES. 2. SEE PRODUCT MANUFACTURER INSTALLATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE I.I►1011111;11rlvT-11 ffel 11111Eel .:W 3. THE DESIGN OF THIS RETAINING WALL SYSTEM WAS BASED UPON THE EFFECTIVE STRENGTH PARAMETERS SHOWN ON THE "SOIL VALUES" TABLE. UNLESS OTHEWISE NOTED, NO FORMAL SOIL INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE_ IF SOIL CONDITIONS VARY AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, WALL ENGINEER MUST BE CONTACTED TO DETERMINE IF A REVISED DESIGN IS NEEDED. 4. THE WALL DESIGN WAS BASED ON THE INFORMATION NOTED IN THE LETTER ABOVE. 5. REFER TO WALL CALCULATIONS FOR BEARING CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS. 6. NO PRODUCT/MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ALLOWED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CRfTERIUM-SCHIMNOWSKI ENGINEERS. 7. FINAL SITE GRADES AND ROOF DRAINS SHALL DIRECT RUNOFF AWAY FROM ANY RETAINING WALL(S). UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE WALL(5) HAS NOT BEEN DESIGNED FOR HYDROSTATIC SURCHARGE LOADING. 8. THE WALL ❑ESfGN WAS PERFORMED USING DESIGN GUIDELINES PRESENTED IN THE THIRD EDITION OF THE "DESIGN MANUAL FOR SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLS" PUBLISHED BY NCMA. DESIGN LIMITATIONS: THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WITHIN THESE DOCUMENTS IS FOR THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL(S) ONLY. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AND/OR WORK RELATED TO HANDRAILS, GUARDRAILS, OR OTHER LIFE/SAFETY ISSUES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THESE DOCUMENTS AND ARE TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS. SITE LAYOUT AND GRADING DESIGN ARE NOT INCLUDED IN WALL DESIGN SERVICES. THOSE SERVICE ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE CIVIL ENGINEER. INTERNAL COMPOUND STABILITY (ICS) HAS BEEN CALCULATED FOR TH15 PROJECT BY CRITERIUM. HOWEVER, ICS IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A GLOBAL STABILITY ANALYSIS WHICH SHOULD BE PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. ADDITIONAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION MAY BE REQUIRED. SUGGESTED QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: 1. A QUALIFIED ENGINEER OR TECHNICIAN SHALL SUPERVISE THE WALL CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY SITE SOIL CONDITIONS. IF THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DOES NOT PERFORM THIS WORK, A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER/TECHNICIAN SHALL 13 HIRED TO ASSURE THE RETAINING WALL IS CONSTRUCTED WITH PROPER SOIL PARAMETERS. 2. A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL BE CONSULTED TO VERIFY THE 5UITABILITY OF DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS MADE BY CRITERIUM. 3. WALL EXCAVATION AND SOILS SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS. THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE PROVISIONS TO BE INCO RORATE D INTO THE WALL DESIGN. 4.. THE WALL DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL BE HIRED TO PERFORM A PRE -CONSTRUCTION SITE VISIT. 5. THE WALL DESIGN ENGINEER CAN BE HIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION SERVICES. 6. THE WALL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING QUALITY CONTROL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS. 7. SEE PROJECT CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR SPECIFIC DETAILS ON THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT WILL BE PROVIDED BY ALL PARTIES. Independently Owned and Operated 151 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 551.779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com = r 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota August 24, 2022 Page 17 TERMS AND CONDITIONS-EfiectiveNov. 10.2020 This design is expressly made subject to the following terms and conditions to which all persons that receive and rely thereon agree: 1. STANDARD OF SERVICE: Services performed by ENGINEER under this agreement shall be performed in a manner consistent with the skill and care ordinarily used by members of the engineering profession practicing under similar conditions at the time and in the locality the services are performed. • CLIENT recognizes that interpretations and recommendations of ENGINEER are based solely on the information available to the company. • ENGINEER w I I I be responsible far those interpretations and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for the interpretation by others of the information developed, • Services provided reflect the professional judgment of ENGINEER, to the best of ENGINEER's knowledge, information, and belief as of the date hereof, • N other warranty or guarantee, express or implied, is made. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICE: Services performed by ENGINEER are expressly limited by the scope of services ENGINEER has been employed by CLIENT to perform. 3. TERMS OF PAYMENT: ENGINEER may require a retainer fee to be paid before commencing any project. Extended engagements may require interim invoicing on a weekly, monthly, or other basis. At the completion of the project, we will issue a final invoice. Payment of each invoice is due upon presentation. Failure to pay invoices within the allotted time period will constitute a breach of contract and may result in suspension of work until such time as all overdue payments are made in full. Should any suspension Occur because of overdue payments, the time for contract completion, if any is stated, shall be extended by the period of the suspension. Invoiced balances remaining unpaid for thirty (30) days after the date of invoice may be charged a finance charge in the amount of'/ percent per month from the date of invoice. If an invoice remains unpaid and it becomes necessary, in the ENGINEERS' opinion to initiate collection procedures, the CLIENT hereby agrees to pay all collection costs including, but not limited to, reasonable fees for attorneys retained by ENGINEER and court costs at aur standard bilfing rate for time necessitated in court appearances or presentation of claim to the appropriate court jurisdiction. Exceptions to payment terms must be specified in writing. 4. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS: All reports, field data, field notes, calculations, estimates and other documents ('reports') prepared by Engineer, as instruments of service, shall remain the property of Engineer. CLIENT agrees that all reports furnished to CLIENT or his agents, which are not paid for, will be returned upon demand and will not be used by CLIENT for any purpose whatever. ENGINEER will retain all pertinent records relating to the services performed for a period of five years following submission of the report, during which period the records will be made available to CLIENT at all reasonable times. S. COPIES OF DOCUMENTS: ENGINEER agrees to furnish CLIENT with an electronic copy of our report, drawings, or documents relating to the services performed. Hard copies, bound or unbound, may be provided upon request at charge of cost plus 10 percent, at ENGINEERS's sole discretion. ENGINEER shall retain an electronic copy of the final documents in its files for a period of five years, 6. INSURANCE: ENGINEER represents and warrants that it is protected by Workers Compensation insurance and has such coverage under Public Liability and Property Damage insurance policies which ENGINEER deems adequate. Certificate for all such policies of insurance shall be provided to the CLIENT upon request in writing. ENGINEER shall not be responsible for any loss, damage or liability arising from any acts by CLIENT, its agents, staff and other consultants employed by it. 7. TERMINATION: This agreement may be terminated by either party by written notice. In the event of termination, ENGINEER shall be paid for services performed and expenses incurred up to the termination notice date. Neither CLIENT not ENGINFER may delegate, assign, sublet or transfer his/her duties or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other parry. S. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: To the fullest extent permitted by law, CLIENT and ENGINEER (a) waive against each other, and the other's employees, officers, directors, agents, insurers, partners, and consultants, any and all claims for or entitlement to special, incidental, indirect, or consequential damages arising out of, resulting from, or in any way related to this report, (b) agree that ENGINEER's total IfabiIity to CLIENT shall be limited to the total amount of compensation received by ENGINEER, (c) agree that CLIENT will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless ENGINEER from and against any claims, liabilities, actions, demands, losses, damages, costs and expenses sustained by any third -party not granted reliance on ENGINEER's reports and services, tdj agree that any action arising aut of or related to the services provided must be brought to ENGINEER'S attention no later than two (2) years after the date of the services, and (e) if an action is brought against the ENGINEER and the ENGINEER prevails, ENGINEER shall be entitled to recover costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. g. FORCE MAJEURE: The engineer shall not be responsible or liable for any failure or delay in the performance of its obligations under this contract arising out of or resulting from any cause or event beyond our control, such as war, strike, crime, epidemiclpandemic, regulations and/or restriction imposed by any government agency, or other event. Independently Owned and Operated 151 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 0: 551.779.77 / criterium-schimnowski.com t i Title VI - LAND USE Chapter 78 - ZONING REGULATIONS ARTICLE XIV. - INTERIM USES DIVISION 1. - GENERALLY Subdivision I. Land Alterations Subdivision 1. Lond Alterations' Sec. 78-1725. Purpose and intent. The purpose of this section is to promote the health, safety, and welfare of the community and to establish reasonable uniform limitations, standards, and controls for land alterations, excavating, filling and grading within the city. The regulations will allow the city to better manage stormwater discharge, ensuring drainage does not negatively impact neighboring properties, manage hauling traffic and noise, and prevent erosion issues onto adjacent properties, wetlands, lakes, and roads. (Ord. No. 219 3rd series, § 6, 12-10-2018) Sec. 78-1726. Interim use permit required. An application for an interim use permit shall be accompanied by a certified site plan showing the location of the proposed excavation or storage and shall state the amount of material which is to be removed, excavated or stored, placed, or graded, and such other information as the council may require. Applications shall be filed with the city administrator and shall be accompanied by a deposit to be determined by the city, which will be used to offset the cost of processing the application. Any unused portion will be refunded to the applicant. (a) Except where otherwise provided in the article, it is unlawful for any person to perform or have performed the following land alteration activities without an interim use permit issued by the council: (1) Mining. The commercial extraction of sand, gravel or other material from the land and their removal from the site without processing shall be mining. In all districts, the conduct of mining shall be permitted only upon issuance of a interim use permit. Such permit shall include, as a condition, a plan for a finished grade which will not adversely affect the surrounding land or development of the site on which the mining is being conducted, and the route of trucks moving to and from the sites. A bond will be required for restoration (2) Soil processing. The operation of processing of sand, gravel or other material mined from the land shall be permitted only by interim use permit. Such permit shall include a site plan where the processing is to be done, showing the location of the plant, disposal of water, route of trucks moving to and from the site in removing processed material from the site, the condition in which the site is intended to be left upon completion, hour of operation; and such permit shall not be granted for a period of longer than 12 months (3) Creation of an engineered grade for the basis of building height determination outside of a subdivision. (4) Unless included as part of a permitted project or as exempted below, the following activities require a separate interim use permit. 'Cross reference(s)—Grading and land alterations, § 78-1590 et seq. Orono, Minnesota, Code of Ordinances (Supp. No. 20, Update 1) Page 1 of 2 Created! 2022-03-25 15:53:39 [EST] CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL No. 7315 A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN EMERGENCY SLOPE REPAIR PURSUANT TO MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-1726 WHEREAS, on November 11, 2022, Josh Prust with Valdes Lawn and Snow (hereinafter the "Applicant"), applied for authorization to proceed with an emergency repair of the lake slope pursuant to City Code 78-1726, on property addressed 2815 Casco Point Road and legally described as: All that part of Lot 120 Spring Park, and all the Unplatted land and that portion of Lake Shore Avenue vacated, lying between Lot 120 of Spring Park and the side lines of said Lot projected to Lake Minnetonka, which lies northwesterly of a line running parallel with and five feet northwesterly from the southeasterly line of said Lot and the extension thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota (hereinafter the "Property"); WHEREAS, the Applicant submitted documentation from a licensed professional engineer which indicates that failure of the current lake yard slope and the existing retaining walls on the Property is imminent; and WHEREAS, the Applicant has made a request to the City of Orono for an emergency slope repair pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1726; and WHEREAS, on November 22, 2022, a corrective restoration plan was provided by the Applicant's licensed professional engineer to reinforce the vulnerable slope; and WHEREAS, the engineered plans propose construction of an additional ± 2 foot tall wall at the top of the slope within the 75' setback from the ordinary high water level (hereinafter the "OHWL") of Lake Minnetonka where no walls are permitted and existing walls are at risk of failure; and WHEREAS, due to their design and proximity to the OHWL the new retaining walls will require a setback variance from City Code section 78-1279; and WHEREAS, on November 28, 2022, the City Council reviewed the request, the engineered plans, and the recommendations of the City staff; and CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL No. 7315 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested emergency slope repair including new engineered retaining walls as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the LR -1C One Family Lakeshore Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 0.34 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 56 feet. 4. The Property is within Tier 1 and hardcover is limited to 25% according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. The Property was subject to a fire on the lake slope in July 2022 which destroyed the previously existing timber retaining walls, stairs, deck, and storage shed leaving the slope vulnerable to failure. 6. The Applicant applied for an administrative building permit to rebuild the existing walls in- kind. 7. The construction of the replacement walls expanded beyond the in-kind reconstruction and the project was stopped and stabilized. The Applicant ascertains that without the top wall the slope remains at risk for failure over the winter and spring. 8. The Applicant has submitted an opinion from a licensed professional engineer which indicates that without the construction of the upper wall the slope is under imminent threat of failure. 9. The Applicant has requested consideration for an emergency slope repair pursuant to City Code Section 78-1726. Engineered plans were provided which demonstrate the proposed corrective action. 10. Retaining walls are not permitted within 75 -feet of the OHWL; installation of new walls require City Council approval of a lake setback variance. 11. In considering this application for emergency slope repair, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the City Staff and the effect of the proposed emergency CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL No. 7315 slope repair upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. CONCLUSIONS, ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants approval to proceed with an emergency slope repair pursuant to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-1726 to allow the repair of the existing retaining walls including installation of new retaining walls according to the approved plan, subject to the following conditions: 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The approved emergency slope repair shall conform to the submitted plans (hereinafter the "Plans") submitted by the Applicant and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. 3. Any amendments to the emergency slope repair which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 4. The Applicant shall apply for and receive an after -the -fact variance from City Code 78- 1279 prior to release of the Stop Work order for building permit RAS22-000082 to be resumed for finalization of construction of the walls. 5. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicant, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a variance and building permit for the Plans. After -the -fact variance approval for the expanded retaining walls must be obtained within 90 days of the date of Council approval, or the action will expire after February 26, 2023. 6. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result in the termination of any authority granted herein. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 28th day of November, 2022. Z : Anna Carlson, City Clerk CITY OF ORONO: Dennis Walsh, Mayor SCHIMNOWSKI CRITERIUM8 ENGINEERS November 22, 2022 Josh Prust Valdes Lawn Care & Snow Removal Submitted by email: jpeterson@valdeslawn.com RE: Supplemental Report - Timber Retaining Wall Upper Tier Project Location: 2815 Casco Point Road, Orono, Minnesota Project No. 22-6589 Dear Mr. Prust: This letter is being sent in response to the email we received from Melanie Curtis from the City of Orono. Based on her review of my previous letter to you dated November 18, 2022, she is requesting additional information. It is my professional opinion that the work I recommended should qualify in regards to City Code Section 78-1726 (6): Emergency repair exception. The slopes at the top of the timber retaining walls constructed to -date are much steeper than originally designed. The construction of the final, planned retaining wall at the top of the tiered retaining wall system is required to stabilize these slopes. Failure to stabilize and reduce the steepness of these slopes with the construction of the planned wall will likely result in a slope failure, significant erosion, and damage to the retaining walls already constructed. Refer to my original design dated August 24, 2022, and my previous letter dated November 18, 2022, for further information. Please call me if you have any questions or need more information. Thank you. Sincerely, Paul Schimnowski, P.E. MN #40126 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. Paul Schimnowski, P.E. Date: November 22, 2022 License #: 40126 (MN) Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 651.779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com SCHIMNOWSKI CRITERIUM} ENGINEERS November 18, 2022 Josh Prust Valdes Lawn Care & Snow Removal Submitted by email: jpeterson@valdeslawn.com RE: Timber Retaining Wall Upper Tier Project Location: 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota Project No. 22-6589 Dear Mr. Prust: This letter includes important details regarding the completion of planned work at the above location. These recommendations are based on my original design dated August 24, 2022, and my site observations and discussion with you on October 31 and November 17, 2022. This previously designed work is recommended to be completed at this time to improve the site grading by reducing the steepness of some slopes and will reduce the chances of erosion at the top of the newly built, tiered timber retaining wall system. I recommend that the final, planned timber retaining wall be constructed 4 to 6 feet behind the uppermost existing wall. The wall should extend from several feet inside both the east and west property lines. Most of the wall will have a maximum exposed height of about 2 -feet. The wall height will increase to about 4 - feet tall near each end where existing slopes increase. Following completion of the final wall, erosion control should be established and maintained in all disturbed areas. Areas of concentrated runoff should be directed away from the top of the walls. As before, the attached typical section should be referenced for construction details. Special note should be made of the wall embedment depth and the tieback/header and deadmen lengths. Refer to local building codes, industry specifications, and American Wood Preservers Association for installation information and details. The design of the wall system assumes the following: • Wall location: 4 to 6 feet behind the top of the existing upper wall • Wall height(s): 4 -feet to 2 -feet as noted (maximum exposed heights) • Minimum embedment depth = 6" min., or as noted • Soil conditions: Silty/Clayey Sand, friction angle = 30.0 degrees, unit weight of 125.0 Ib/ft3 Required minimum soil bearing capacity = 1500 psf • Surcharge load at top of wall: None • 5:1 maximum slope at top and bottom of wall • Wall Type: 6"x5" Treated Timber • Connections: 3/8" galvanized or treated spikes • Drainage pipe: Required As we discussed, you are planning to that the as -built conditions surveyed for city consideration. Please forward this to me when it is completed. Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 651.779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota November 18, 2022 Page 12 These walls have not been designed for ground water surcharge loads. Direct all surface and groundwater drainage away from the walls. Methods to do so include but are not limited to the following: Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 651.779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota November 18, 2022 Page 13 drainage swale, site grading, retention ponds, etc. Details of water control are left to the wall contractor or the site civil engineer. Please contact Criterium-Schimnowski to provide additional site assessment services if desired. The wall design was performed using the design guidelines presented in timber retaining wall industry guidelines and recommendations. Additional information requested by Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers but not available includes: geotechnical site survey and soil data. If soil conditions, proposed wall layouts, or other design parameters vary from that assumed, a revised analysis may be needed. Please call me if you have any questions or need more information. This design has been prepared in strict confidence with you as our client. Reliance upon our design by other parties is strictly prohibited. If you choose to share our design, you agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Engineer from any third -party action. No reproduction or re -use is permitted without express written consent. Further, we will not release this design to anyone without your permission. Thank you. Sincerely, Paul Schimnowski, P.E. MN #40126 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. Paul Schimnowski, P.E. Date: November 18, 2022 License #: 40126 (MN) Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 651.779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com :"_> 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota November 18, 2022 Page 14 Retaining Wall Completion Reports and Construction Inspections To: Retaining wall contractors and/or all clients utilizing our services for retaining wall engineering. From: Paul Schimnowski, PE Retaining Wall Engineer Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers (CSE) Paul@CriteriumMN.com Date: April 1, 2022 To help contractors and other interested parties navigate the changes that many cities and jurisdictions are making regarding construction inspection requirements and final approval letters, we are making the following recommendations: 1. Request that the City Building Official complete the Required Inspections of Retaining Walls form, attached. 2. Notify your client of the potential for added cost depending on city/building official requirements. Contact our office or refer to our service agreement for current fees. 3. Contact Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers to schedule any required inspections. Adequate lead time is required. Similar to typical City inspections, at least one week is recommended. We cannot guarantee immediate service. 4. Take daily construction progress photos for your records and for submittal to Criterium- Schimnowski Engineers upon request. 5. Complete the Statement of Conformance for your records and for submittal to Criterium- Schimnowski Engineers upon request. Form attached. If a Wall Completion Report (Post -built Conformance Letter), is requested of CSE, we will require that you provide construction photos and Statement of Conformance. In addition, CSE will need to perform a site visit once final grading is completed. Without these three items, we are unable to comment on the construction/conformance of the wall. We are here to help as much as possible. These inspection requirements are not coming from us. Contact us if you have any questions. Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 651.779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com :"_> 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota November 18, 2022 Page 17 DESIGN PROVISIONS: 1. REFER TO WOOD RETAINING WALL INDUSTRY GUIDELINES. 2. SEE PRODUCT MANUFACTURER INSTALLATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AND INSTALLATION NOTES. 3. THE DESIGN OF THIS RETAINING WALL SYSTEM WAS BASED UPON THE EFFECTIVE STRENGTH PARAMETERS SHOWN ON THE "SOIL VALUES" TABLE. UNLESS OTHEWISE NOTED, NO FORMAL SOIL INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. IF SOIL CONDITIONS VARY AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, WALL ENGINEER MUST BE CONTACTED TO DETERMINE IF A REVISED DESIGN IS NEEDED. 4. THE WALL DESIGN WAS BASED ON THE INFORMATION NOTED IN THE LETTER ABOVE. 5. REFER TO WALL CALCULATIONS FOR BEARING CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS. 6. NO PRODUCT/MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ALLOWED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CRITERIUM-SCHIMNOWSKI ENGINEERS. 7. FINAL SITE GRADES AND ROOF DRAINS SHALL DIRECT RUNOFF AWAY FROM ANY RETAINING WALL(S). UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE WALL(S) HAS NOT BEEN DESIGNED FOR HYDROSTATIC SURCHARGE LOADING. 8. THE WALL DESIGN WAS PERFORMED USING DESIGN GUIDELINES PRESENTED IN THE THIRD EDITION OF THE "DESIGN MANUAL FOR SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLS" PUBLISHED BY NCMA. DESIGN LIMITATIONS: THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WITHIN THESE DOCUMENTS IS FOR THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL(S) ONLY. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AND/OR WORK RELATED TO HANDRAILS, GUARDRAILS, OR OTHER LIFE/SAFETY ISSUES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THESE DOCUMENTS AND ARE TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS. SITE LAYOUT AND GRADING DESIGN ARE NOT INCLUDED IN WALL DESIGN SERVICES. THOSE SERVICE ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE CIVIL ENGINEER. INTERNAL COMPOUND STABILITY (ICS) HAS BEEN CALCULATED FOR THIS PROJECT BY CRITERIUM. HOWEVER, ICS IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A GLOBAL STABILITY ANALYSIS WHICH SHOULD BE PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. ADDITIONAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION MAY BE REQUIRED. SUGGESTED QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: 1. A QUALIFIED ENGINEER OR TECHNICIAN SHALL SUPERVISE THE WALL CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY SITE SOIL CONDITIONS. IF THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DOES NOT PERFORM THIS WORK, A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER/TECHNICIAN SHALL BE HIRED TO ASSURE THE RETAINING WALL IS CONSTRUCTED WITH PROPER SOIL PARAMETERS. 2. A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL BE CONSULTED TO VERIFY THE SUITABILITY OF DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS MADE BY CRITERIUM. 3. WALL EXCAVATION AND SOILS SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS. THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE PROVISIONS TO BE INCORORATED INTO THE WALL DESIGN. 4. THE WALL DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL BE HIRED TO PERFORM A PRE -CONSTRUCTION SITE VISIT. 5. THE WALL DESIGN ENGINEER CAN BE HIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION SERVICES. 6. THE WALL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING QUALITY CONTROL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS. 7. SEE PROJECT CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR SPECIFIC DETAILS ON THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT WILL BE PROVIDED BY ALL PARTIES. Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 651 .779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota November 18, 2022 Page 18 TERMS AND CONDITIONS -Effective Nov.10.2020 This design is expressly made subject to the following terms and conditions to which all persons that receive and rely thereon agree: 1. STANDARD OF SERVICE: Services performed by ENGINEER under this agreement shall be performed in a manner consistent with the skill and care ordinarily used by members of the engineering profession practicing under similar conditions at the time and in the locality the services are performed. • CLIENT recognizes that interpretations and recommendations of ENGINEER are based solely on the information available to the company. • ENGINEER will be responsible for those interpretations and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for the interpretation by others of the information developed. • Services provided reflect the professional judgment of ENGINEER, to the best of ENGINEER's knowledge, information, and belief as of the date hereof. • No other warranty or guarantee, express or implied, is made. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICE: Services performed by ENGINEER are expressly limited by the scope of services ENGINEER has been employed by CLIENT to perform. 3. TERMS OF PAYMENT: ENGINEER may require a retainer fee to be paid before commencing any project. Extended engagements may require interim invoicing on a weekly, monthly, or other basis. At the completion of the project, we will issue a final invoice. Payment of each invoice is due upon presentation. Failure to pay invoices within the allotted time period will constitute a breach of contract and may result in suspension of work until such time as all overdue payments are made in full. Should any suspension occur because of overdue payments, the time for contract completion, if any is stated, shall be extended by the period of the suspension. Invoiced balances remaining unpaid for thirty (30) days after the date of invoice may be charged a finance charge in the amount of 1/2 percent per month from the date of invoice. If an invoice remains unpaid and it becomes necessary, in the ENGINEERS' opinion to initiate collection procedures, the CLIENT hereby agrees to pay all collection costs including, but not limited to, reasonable fees for attorneys retained by ENGINEER and court costs at our standard billing rate for time necessitated in court appearances or presentation of claim to the appropriate court jurisdiction. Exceptions to payment terms must be specified in writing. 4. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS: All reports, field data, field notes, calculations, estimates and other documents ('reports') prepared by Engineer, as instruments of service, shall remain the property of Engineer. CLIENT agrees that all reports furnished to CLIENT or his agents, which are not paid for, will be returned upon demand and will not be used by CLIENT for any purpose whatever. ENGINEER will retain all pertinent records relating to the services performed for a period of five years following submission of the report, during which period the records will be made available to CLIENT at all reasonable times. 5. COPIES OF DOCUMENTS: ENGINEER agrees to furnish CLIENT with an electronic copy of our report, drawings, or documents relating to the services performed. Hard copies, bound or unbound, may be provided upon request at charge of cost plus 10 percent, at ENGINEERS's sole discretion. ENGINEER shall retain an electronic copy of the final documents in its files for a period of five years. 6. INSURANCE: ENGINEER represents and warrants that it is protected by Workers Compensation insurance and has such coverage under Public Liability and Property Damage insurance policies which ENGINEER deems adequate. Certificate for all such policies of insurance shall be provided to the CLIENT upon request in writing. ENGINEER shall not be responsible for any loss, damage or liability arising from any acts by CLIENT, its agents, staff and other consultants employed by it. 7. TERMINATION: This agreement may be terminated by either party by written notice. In the event of termination, ENGINEER shall be paid for services performed and expenses incurred up to the termination notice date. Neither CLIENT not ENGINEER may delegate, assign, sublet or transfer his/her duties or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other party. 8. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: To the fullest extent permitted by law, CLIENT and ENGINEER (a) waive against each other, and the other's employees, officers, directors, agents, insurers, partners, and consultants, any and all claims for or entitlement to special, incidental, indirect, or consequential damages arising out of, resulting from, or in any way related to this report, (b) agree that ENGINEER's total liability to CLIENT shall be limited to the total amount of compensation received by ENGINEER, (c) agree that CLIENT will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless ENGINEER from and against any claims, liabilities, actions, demands, losses, damages, costs and expenses sustained by any third -party not granted reliance on ENGINEER's reports and services, (d) agree that any action arising out of or related to the services provided must be brought to ENGINEER'S attention no later than two (2) years after the date of the services, and (e) if an action is brought against the ENGINEER and the ENGINEER prevails, ENGINEER shall be entitled to recover costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. 9. FORCE MAJEURE: The engineer shall not be responsible or liable for any failure or delay in the performance of its obligations under this contract arising out of or resulting from any cause or event beyond our control, such as war, strike, crime, epidemic/pandemic, regulations and/or restriction imposed by any government agency, or other event. Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 651.779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com 8 -FT DEADMAN, TYP. 8 -FT DEADMAN, TYP. 2'-0„ ---43'— 6" 2'-0" �-4'-0" 8 -FT DEADMAN, TYP. TIMBER TIEBACK, TYP. NOTE: 8' MAXIMUM SPACING BETWEEN HEADERS. PROVIDE HEADERS AT CORNERS AND ENDS OF WALLS. TOP OF WALL GRADE AT TOP OF WALL 12" IMPERVIOUS 4'-O" FILL, TYP. ..,, ,� 8 —0 8'— 0 7'-0„ 8'— 0 NOTES: 1. The timber in the wall must be treated in accordance with all applicable building codes and industry specifications, such as the American Wood Preservers Association (AWPA). 2. Dig a trench approximately 14" and 1-2" deeper than the height of the timber, usually 14" deep. Apply 1-2" of sand to level the base of the trench. 3. Excavate for headers and deadmen into the hill. The size, length and location of headers and deadmen will be design specific. Headers should extend past the wall face 1 % - 2" to add strength and prevent splitting. 4. Place and level the first course of timbers using the sand in the trench. Avoid gaps between timbers. 5. Lay the second course of timbers over the base course, staggering the seams. Each course should also be set back approximately 1/2" from the course below. 6. As each course is added, drive 3/8" galvanized or treated spikes, through to the course below. Spikes should be placed 6-12" from each end with 1-2 additional spikes in the center of the timber. 7. Soil should be backfilled behind each course and tamped thoroughly. Place a clean 3/4" angular drainage aggregate 8-12" wide against the wall. A 4" perforated tile should be placed at the bottom of the wall. 8. Some subsequent courses of timbers will require headers and deadmen. Headers and deadmen should be placed after each 8' timber in every third course of the wall face or as indicated in the design. 9. Headers should be secured to timbers with two spikes in the face of the wall and to deadmen in the soil behind the wall. 10. Backfill soil after each course is secured and tamp thoroughly. Compaction behind the wall shall be achieved by at least three passes of a lightweight mechanical tamper, plate, or roller. DESIGN SOILS: SAND, UNIT WEIGHT = 120 LBS/FT3, PHI ANGLE = 30 DEGREES Cross section based on information listed in cover letter. :.::0� 6'-0" 12" THICK, MIN. DRAINAGE -III=I 8 -FT DEADMAN, TYP. AGGREGATE, TYP. - - REINFORCED BACKFILL 4'— 0 COMPACTED 95% OF MAXIMUM IN 4'-0" STANDARD PROCTOR DENSITY 4 —0 4'-6" 8 -FT DEADMAN, TYP. ,.. _ -I I I= 4" DRAINTILE OUTLET AT 30'// O.C. AND ENDS OF WALL 3'-O" 4'-- O GRADE AT FR NT OF WALL BOTTOM OF WALL 3'-0" — 8 -FT DEADMAN, TYP. =III TIMBER WALL TYPICAL ELEVATION VIEW SCALE: NONE " -0 4 —0 31 FINISHED GRADE 6" MIN. EMBEDMENT 8 -FT DEADMAN, TYP. 6" X 18" GRANULAR LEVELING PAD, TYP. PLANS CREATED BY: : CRITERIUM—SCHIMNOWSKI ENGINEERS 161 DUNEAR WAY PHONE: 651.779.7700 MAHTOMEDI, MN 55115 FAX: 651.779.7114 pschimno@criterium-schimnowski.com PREPARED FOR: VALDES LAWN CARE AND SNOW REMOVAL PHONE: 651-239-9920 PROJECT NAME 2815 CASCO POINT ROAD WALL ELEVATION(S) SHEET: �z 711 OF 1 YY 1 I hereby —Hy that this plan, sp—featon, or report was prepared by me. or under my direct supervision, and that I a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of �eso�. � the SCALE: As NOTED DRAwNBY: PDS PROJECT LOCATION WAYZATA MINNESOTA DATE: 8/24/2022 5"J-tnre - Paul D. Schimnowski Typed or Printed Name: Date 824/2022 Reg. No. 40126 PROD. NO. 22-6589 REVISION BLOCK 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota November 18, 2022 Page 14 Retaining Wall Completion Reports and Construction Inspections To: Retaining wall contractors and/or all clients utilizing our services for retaining wall engineering. From: Paul Schimnowski, PE Retaining Wall Engineer Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers (CSE) Paul@CriteriumMN.com Date: April 1, 2022 To help contractors and other interested parties navigate the changes that many cities and jurisdictions are making regarding construction inspection requirements and final approval letters, we are making the following recommendations: 1. Request that the City Building Official complete the Required Inspections of Retaining Walls form, attached. 2. Notify your client of the potential for added cost depending on city/building official requirements. Contact our office or refer to our service agreement for current fees. 3. Contact Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers to schedule any required inspections. Adequate lead time is required. Similar to typical City inspections, at least one week is recommended. We cannot guarantee immediate service. 4. Take daily construction progress photos for your records and for submittal to Criterium- Schimnowski Engineers upon request. 5. Complete the Statement of Conformance for your records and for submittal to Criterium- Schimnowski Engineers upon request. Form attached. If a Wall Completion Report (Post -built Conformance Letter), is requested of CSE, we will require that you provide construction photos and Statement of Conformance. In addition, CSE will need to perform a site visit once final grading is completed. Without these three items, we are unable to comment on the construction/conformance of the wall. We are here to help as much as possible. These inspection requirements are not coming from us. Contact us if you have any questions. Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 651.779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com :"_> 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota November 18, 2022 Page 17 DESIGN PROVISIONS: 1. REFER TO WOOD RETAINING WALL INDUSTRY GUIDELINES. 2. SEE PRODUCT MANUFACTURER INSTALLATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AND INSTALLATION NOTES. 3. THE DESIGN OF THIS RETAINING WALL SYSTEM WAS BASED UPON THE EFFECTIVE STRENGTH PARAMETERS SHOWN ON THE "SOIL VALUES" TABLE. UNLESS OTHEWISE NOTED, NO FORMAL SOIL INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. IF SOIL CONDITIONS VARY AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, WALL ENGINEER MUST BE CONTACTED TO DETERMINE IF A REVISED DESIGN IS NEEDED. 4. THE WALL DESIGN WAS BASED ON THE INFORMATION NOTED IN THE LETTER ABOVE. 5. REFER TO WALL CALCULATIONS FOR BEARING CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS. 6. NO PRODUCT/MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ALLOWED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CRITERIUM-SCHIMNOWSKI ENGINEERS. 7. FINAL SITE GRADES AND ROOF DRAINS SHALL DIRECT RUNOFF AWAY FROM ANY RETAINING WALL(S). UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE WALL(S) HAS NOT BEEN DESIGNED FOR HYDROSTATIC SURCHARGE LOADING. 8. THE WALL DESIGN WAS PERFORMED USING DESIGN GUIDELINES PRESENTED IN THE THIRD EDITION OF THE "DESIGN MANUAL FOR SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLS" PUBLISHED BY NCMA. DESIGN LIMITATIONS: THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WITHIN THESE DOCUMENTS IS FOR THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL(S) ONLY. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AND/OR WORK RELATED TO HANDRAILS, GUARDRAILS, OR OTHER LIFE/SAFETY ISSUES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THESE DOCUMENTS AND ARE TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS. SITE LAYOUT AND GRADING DESIGN ARE NOT INCLUDED IN WALL DESIGN SERVICES. THOSE SERVICE ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE CIVIL ENGINEER. INTERNAL COMPOUND STABILITY (ICS) HAS BEEN CALCULATED FOR THIS PROJECT BY CRITERIUM. HOWEVER, ICS IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A GLOBAL STABILITY ANALYSIS WHICH SHOULD BE PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. ADDITIONAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION MAY BE REQUIRED. SUGGESTED QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: 1. A QUALIFIED ENGINEER OR TECHNICIAN SHALL SUPERVISE THE WALL CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY SITE SOIL CONDITIONS. IF THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DOES NOT PERFORM THIS WORK, A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER/TECHNICIAN SHALL BE HIRED TO ASSURE THE RETAINING WALL IS CONSTRUCTED WITH PROPER SOIL PARAMETERS. 2. A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL BE CONSULTED TO VERIFY THE SUITABILITY OF DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS MADE BY CRITERIUM. 3. WALL EXCAVATION AND SOILS SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS. THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE PROVISIONS TO BE INCORORATED INTO THE WALL DESIGN. 4. THE WALL DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL BE HIRED TO PERFORM A PRE -CONSTRUCTION SITE VISIT. 5. THE WALL DESIGN ENGINEER CAN BE HIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION SERVICES. 6. THE WALL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING QUALITY CONTROL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS. 7. SEE PROJECT CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR SPECIFIC DETAILS ON THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT WILL BE PROVIDED BY ALL PARTIES. Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 651 .779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota November 18, 2022 Page 18 TERMS AND CONDITIONS -Effective Nov.10.2020 This design is expressly made subject to the following terms and conditions to which all persons that receive and rely thereon agree: 1. STANDARD OF SERVICE: Services performed by ENGINEER under this agreement shall be performed in a manner consistent with the skill and care ordinarily used by members of the engineering profession practicing under similar conditions at the time and in the locality the services are performed. • CLIENT recognizes that interpretations and recommendations of ENGINEER are based solely on the information available to the company. • ENGINEER will be responsible for those interpretations and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for the interpretation by others of the information developed. • Services provided reflect the professional judgment of ENGINEER, to the best of ENGINEER's knowledge, information, and belief as of the date hereof. • No other warranty or guarantee, express or implied, is made. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICE: Services performed by ENGINEER are expressly limited by the scope of services ENGINEER has been employed by CLIENT to perform. 3. TERMS OF PAYMENT: ENGINEER may require a retainer fee to be paid before commencing any project. Extended engagements may require interim invoicing on a weekly, monthly, or other basis. At the completion of the project, we will issue a final invoice. Payment of each invoice is due upon presentation. Failure to pay invoices within the allotted time period will constitute a breach of contract and may result in suspension of work until such time as all overdue payments are made in full. Should any suspension occur because of overdue payments, the time for contract completion, if any is stated, shall be extended by the period of the suspension. Invoiced balances remaining unpaid for thirty (30) days after the date of invoice may be charged a finance charge in the amount of 1/2 percent per month from the date of invoice. If an invoice remains unpaid and it becomes necessary, in the ENGINEERS' opinion to initiate collection procedures, the CLIENT hereby agrees to pay all collection costs including, but not limited to, reasonable fees for attorneys retained by ENGINEER and court costs at our standard billing rate for time necessitated in court appearances or presentation of claim to the appropriate court jurisdiction. Exceptions to payment terms must be specified in writing. 4. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS: All reports, field data, field notes, calculations, estimates and other documents ('reports') prepared by Engineer, as instruments of service, shall remain the property of Engineer. CLIENT agrees that all reports furnished to CLIENT or his agents, which are not paid for, will be returned upon demand and will not be used by CLIENT for any purpose whatever. ENGINEER will retain all pertinent records relating to the services performed for a period of five years following submission of the report, during which period the records will be made available to CLIENT at all reasonable times. 5. COPIES OF DOCUMENTS: ENGINEER agrees to furnish CLIENT with an electronic copy of our report, drawings, or documents relating to the services performed. Hard copies, bound or unbound, may be provided upon request at charge of cost plus 10 percent, at ENGINEERS's sole discretion. ENGINEER shall retain an electronic copy of the final documents in its files for a period of five years. 6. INSURANCE: ENGINEER represents and warrants that it is protected by Workers Compensation insurance and has such coverage under Public Liability and Property Damage insurance policies which ENGINEER deems adequate. Certificate for all such policies of insurance shall be provided to the CLIENT upon request in writing. ENGINEER shall not be responsible for any loss, damage or liability arising from any acts by CLIENT, its agents, staff and other consultants employed by it. 7. TERMINATION: This agreement may be terminated by either party by written notice. In the event of termination, ENGINEER shall be paid for services performed and expenses incurred up to the termination notice date. Neither CLIENT not ENGINEER may delegate, assign, sublet or transfer his/her duties or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other party. 8. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: To the fullest extent permitted by law, CLIENT and ENGINEER (a) waive against each other, and the other's employees, officers, directors, agents, insurers, partners, and consultants, any and all claims for or entitlement to special, incidental, indirect, or consequential damages arising out of, resulting from, or in any way related to this report, (b) agree that ENGINEER's total liability to CLIENT shall be limited to the total amount of compensation received by ENGINEER, (c) agree that CLIENT will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless ENGINEER from and against any claims, liabilities, actions, demands, losses, damages, costs and expenses sustained by any third -party not granted reliance on ENGINEER's reports and services, (d) agree that any action arising out of or related to the services provided must be brought to ENGINEER'S attention no later than two (2) years after the date of the services, and (e) if an action is brought against the ENGINEER and the ENGINEER prevails, ENGINEER shall be entitled to recover costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. 9. FORCE MAJEURE: The engineer shall not be responsible or liable for any failure or delay in the performance of its obligations under this contract arising out of or resulting from any cause or event beyond our control, such as war, strike, crime, epidemic/pandemic, regulations and/or restriction imposed by any government agency, or other event. Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 651.779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com SCHIMNOWSKI CRITERIUM} ENGINEERS August 24, 2022 Josh Peterson Valdes Lawn Care & Snow Removal Submitted by email: jpeterson@valdeslawn.com RE: Segmental Retaining Wall Typical Section Project Location: 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota Project No. 22-6589 Dear Mr. Peterson: This letter includes important details regarding the attached design typical engineered sections for the timber retaining walls at the above location. This design is based on wall layout information provided by you in an email on August 23, 2022, including: a Certificate of Survey prepared by Gronberg and Associates dated May 18, 2022; measurements of the wall heights and face to face distances; and photos of the existing conditions. The attached typical section should be referenced for construction details. Special note should be made of the wall embedment depth and the tieback/header and deadmen lengths. Refer to local building codes, industry specifications, and American Wood Preservers Association for installation information and details. The design of the wall system assumes the following: • Wall location: Replacement of the existing tiered timber walls in the same configuration • Wall height(s): 7 -feet to 2 -feet as noted on the attached sketch, with minimum face-to-face distance between the walls (maximum exposed heights) Minimum embedment depth = 6" min., or as noted • Soil conditions: Silty/Clayey Sand, friction angle = 30.0 degrees, unit weight of 125.0 Ib/ft3 • Required minimum soil bearing capacity = 1500 psf • Surcharge load at top of walls: Decks as noted • 10:1 maximum slope at top and bottom of walls • Wall Type: 6" Treated Timber • Connections: 3/8" galvanized or treated spikes • Drainage pipe: Required These walls have not been designed for ground water surcharge loads. Direct all surface and groundwater drainage away from the walls. Methods to do so include but are not limited to the following: drainage swale, site grading, retention ponds, etc. Details of water control are left to the wall contractor or the site civil engineer. Please contact Criterium-Schimnowski to provide additional site assessment services if desired. The wall design was performed using the design guidelines presented in timber retaining wall industry guidelines and recommendations. Additional information requested by Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers but not available includes: geotechnical site survey and soil data. If soil conditions, proposed wall layouts, or other design parameters vary from that assumed, a revised analysis may be needed. Please call me if you have any questions or need more information. Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 651.779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota August 24, 2022 Page 12 This design has been prepared in strict confidence with you as our client. Reliance upon our design by other parties is strictly prohibited. If you choose to share our design, you agree to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the Engineer from any third -party action. No reproduction or re -use is permitted without express written consent. Further, we will not release this design to anyone without your permission. Thank you. Sincerely, Paul Schimnowski, P.E. MN #40126 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. Paul Schimnowski, P.E. Date: August 24, 2022 License #: 40126 (MN) Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 651.779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com :"_> t-, o zea � Ll l,-1 lid � � �O lLFTI Z �Vy �J C� x OD D y �C n - C o y yb z ydo n a 00 m a Hr t�� m D ti r Ozrr < y O yy Z II olllll �'ao a r zx °°Xx i F9 O 0 D 00 m D z 01 II a zm �y V D W D tr _ -pod �o HE 0 00 0 0 C� y tA y N M'' y o DDm2 Gm)co 00 00 lV O ,01 omZ o mO OcnmDO m I O O I O O) �4 o Z --100m m 00 C7 m �' I o K: 7 Z r II O 0 00 D X r N � ... � 11= m N Z r m z M O ``'F J A �o„� O m I o N m m a r -O I_ n d CgD O "p t3 0o Q4 J �� O� C!� p w N z aCr d C�7NC�(CDS �.�.CD CD CCD . . �- z III 11= �• Q CDD CD o `D .� °c d d 000 o �'n-1 cn O >O �� CD z .`: ~ �, �• OCD N On CD.0 >C p D C `Y =gyp �' CD Q. 0 r.:F r� pp r:, �• C 01 T CD CD Y P Cl. r-. Co, � ,..r o CD N oA N z CDCD �. O p p, .ty , t p �o NCD cn d X �� I I I—_ O III rn cn¢ o r* CD •+, �. cD �' cD ' ... CD Q.CD cD ¢, o `C C �. CD fj O. A o '` :D z rOr� .: Co �N -u� I GJ W y c* n {� p c _ CD O k O 3 N O _c O III I n _ CD co W, � � Q' b o� =1 N cD p. ClO `� CD C O N CD _ CD .� m cD .`.s" '.�' "�" CSDCD ' y CD n £ ' �•t W CD �+ CD rn C/i CD CD CD CD CD CD¢ CD P n I. N v O W n O_ O {Z, Q' i CD CD p Zam O a C✓ �t CD CD .� UQ CD m O O Q. CD `� ty p M 00 r A� � r :sCD ty n O CD =71 N CD C �. CD COD d ° � P D ��� C r� (D CL .-. CD 0 n � NCD r. � Y '3 CD O CD CD ID (D P CD o �- . CD CD oma. �� ��� >✓ IDI CD CD 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota August 24, 2022 Page 13 Retaining Wall Completion Reports and Construction Inspections To: Retaining wall contractors and/or all clients utilizing our services for retaining wall engineering. From: Paul Schimnowski, PE Retaining Wall Engineer Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers (CSE) Paul@CriteriumMN.com Date: April 1, 2022 To help contractors and other interested parties navigate the changes that many cities and jurisdictions are making regarding construction inspection requirements and final approval letters, we are making the following recommendations: 1. Request that the City Building Official complete the Required Inspections of Retaining Walls form, attached. 2. Notify your client of the potential for added cost depending on city/building official requirements. Contact our office or refer to our service agreement for current fees. 3. Contact Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers to schedule any required inspections. Adequate lead time is required. Similar to typical City inspections, at least one week is recommended. We cannot guarantee immediate service. 4. Take daily construction progress photos for your records and for submittal to Criterium- Schimnowski Engineers upon request. 5. Complete the Statement of Conformance for your records and for submittal to Criterium- Schimnowski Engineers upon request. Form attached. If a Wall Completion Report (Post -built Conformance Letter), is requested of CSE, we will require that you provide construction photos and Statement of Conformance. In addition, CSE will need to perform a site visit once final grading is completed. Without these three items, we are unable to comment on the construction/conformance of the wall. We are here to help as much as possible. These inspection requirements are not coming from us. Contact us if you have any questions. Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 651.779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com :"_> 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota August 24, 2022 Page 16 DESIGN PROVISIONS: 1. REFER TO WOOD RETAINING WALL INDUSTRY GUIDELINES. 2. SEE PRODUCT MANUFACTURER INSTALLATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE AND INSTALLATION NOTES. 3. THE DESIGN OF THIS RETAINING WALL SYSTEM WAS BASED UPON THE EFFECTIVE STRENGTH PARAMETERS SHOWN ON THE "SOIL VALUES" TABLE. UNLESS OTHEWISE NOTED, NO FORMAL SOIL INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY THE OWNER OR OWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE. IF SOIL CONDITIONS VARY AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION, WALL ENGINEER MUST BE CONTACTED TO DETERMINE IF A REVISED DESIGN IS NEEDED. 4. THE WALL DESIGN WAS BASED ON THE INFORMATION NOTED IN THE LETTER ABOVE. 5. REFER TO WALL CALCULATIONS FOR BEARING CAPACITY REQUIREMENTS. 6. NO PRODUCT/MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE ALLOWED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CRITERIUM-SCHIMNOWSKI ENGINEERS. 7. FINAL SITE GRADES AND ROOF DRAINS SHALL DIRECT RUNOFF AWAY FROM ANY RETAINING WALL(S). UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED, THE WALL(S) HAS NOT BEEN DESIGNED FOR HYDROSTATIC SURCHARGE LOADING. 8. THE WALL DESIGN WAS PERFORMED USING DESIGN GUIDELINES PRESENTED IN THE THIRD EDITION OF THE "DESIGN MANUAL FOR SEGMENTAL RETAINING WALLS" PUBLISHED BY NCMA. DESIGN LIMITATIONS: THE INFORMATION PROVIDED WITHIN THESE DOCUMENTS IS FOR THE STRUCTURAL DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL(S) ONLY. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR AND/OR WORK RELATED TO HANDRAILS, GUARDRAILS, OR OTHER LIFE/SAFETY ISSUES ARE EXCLUDED FROM THESE DOCUMENTS AND ARE TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS. SITE LAYOUT AND GRADING DESIGN ARE NOT INCLUDED IN WALL DESIGN SERVICES. THOSE SERVICE ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SITE CIVIL ENGINEER. INTERNAL COMPOUND STABILITY (ICS) HAS BEEN CALCULATED FOR THIS PROJECT BY CRITERIUM. HOWEVER, ICS IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR A GLOBAL STABILITY ANALYSIS WHICH SHOULD BE PERFORMED BY A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. ADDITIONAL SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION MAY BE REQUIRED. SUGGESTED QUALITY ASSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: 1. A QUALIFIED ENGINEER OR TECHNICIAN SHALL SUPERVISE THE WALL CONSTRUCTION TO VERIFY SITE SOIL CONDITIONS. IF THE PROJECT GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER DOES NOT PERFORM THIS WORK, A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER/TECHNICIAN SHALL BE HIRED TO ASSURE THE RETAINING WALL IS CONSTRUCTED WITH PROPER SOIL PARAMETERS. 2. A QUALIFIED GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL BE CONSULTED TO VERIFY THE SUITABILITY OF DESIGN ASSUMPTIONS MADE BY CRITERIUM. 3. WALL EXCAVATION AND SOILS SHALL BE INSPECTED FOR GROUNDWATER CONDITIONS. THE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE PROVISIONS TO BE INCORORATED INTO THE WALL DESIGN. 4. THE WALL DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL BE HIRED TO PERFORM A PRE -CONSTRUCTION SITE VISIT. 5. THE WALL DESIGN ENGINEER CAN BE HIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION SERVICES. 6. THE WALL CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING QUALITY CONTROL FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE WALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS. 7. SEE PROJECT CONTRACT DOCUMENTS FOR SPECIFIC DETAILS ON THE SCOPE OF WORK THAT WILL BE PROVIDED BY ALL PARTIES. Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 651 .779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com 2815 Casco Point Road, Wayzata, Minnesota August 24, 2022 Page 17 TERMS AND CONDITIONS -Effective Nov.10.2020 This design is expressly made subject to the following terms and conditions to which all persons that receive and rely thereon agree: 1. STANDARD OF SERVICE: Services performed by ENGINEER under this agreement shall be performed in a manner consistent with the skill and care ordinarily used by members of the engineering profession practicing under similar conditions at the time and in the locality the services are performed. • CLIENT recognizes that interpretations and recommendations of ENGINEER are based solely on the information available to the company. • ENGINEER will be responsible for those interpretations and recommendations, but shall not be responsible for the interpretation by others of the information developed. • Services provided reflect the professional judgment of ENGINEER, to the best of ENGINEER's knowledge, information, and belief as of the date hereof. • No other warranty or guarantee, express or implied, is made. 2. SCOPE OF SERVICE: Services performed by ENGINEER are expressly limited by the scope of services ENGINEER has been employed by CLIENT to perform. 3. TERMS OF PAYMENT: ENGINEER may require a retainer fee to be paid before commencing any project. Extended engagements may require interim invoicing on a weekly, monthly, or other basis. At the completion of the project, we will issue a final invoice. Payment of each invoice is due upon presentation. Failure to pay invoices within the allotted time period will constitute a breach of contract and may result in suspension of work until such time as all overdue payments are made in full. Should any suspension occur because of overdue payments, the time for contract completion, if any is stated, shall be extended by the period of the suspension. Invoiced balances remaining unpaid for thirty (30) days after the date of invoice may be charged a finance charge in the amount of 1/2 percent per month from the date of invoice. If an invoice remains unpaid and it becomes necessary, in the ENGINEERS' opinion to initiate collection procedures, the CLIENT hereby agrees to pay all collection costs including, but not limited to, reasonable fees for attorneys retained by ENGINEER and court costs at our standard billing rate for time necessitated in court appearances or presentation of claim to the appropriate court jurisdiction. Exceptions to payment terms must be specified in writing. 4. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS: All reports, field data, field notes, calculations, estimates and other documents ('reports') prepared by Engineer, as instruments of service, shall remain the property of Engineer. CLIENT agrees that all reports furnished to CLIENT or his agents, which are not paid for, will be returned upon demand and will not be used by CLIENT for any purpose whatever. ENGINEER will retain all pertinent records relating to the services performed for a period of five years following submission of the report, during which period the records will be made available to CLIENT at all reasonable times. 5. COPIES OF DOCUMENTS: ENGINEER agrees to furnish CLIENT with an electronic copy of our report, drawings, or documents relating to the services performed. Hard copies, bound or unbound, may be provided upon request at charge of cost plus 10 percent, at ENGINEERS's sole discretion. ENGINEER shall retain an electronic copy of the final documents in its files for a period of five years. 6. INSURANCE: ENGINEER represents and warrants that it is protected by Workers Compensation insurance and has such coverage under Public Liability and Property Damage insurance policies which ENGINEER deems adequate. Certificate for all such policies of insurance shall be provided to the CLIENT upon request in writing. ENGINEER shall not be responsible for any loss, damage or liability arising from any acts by CLIENT, its agents, staff and other consultants employed by it. 7. TERMINATION: This agreement may be terminated by either party by written notice. In the event of termination, ENGINEER shall be paid for services performed and expenses incurred up to the termination notice date. Neither CLIENT not ENGINEER may delegate, assign, sublet or transfer his/her duties or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the other party. 8. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY: To the fullest extent permitted by law, CLIENT and ENGINEER (a) waive against each other, and the other's employees, officers, directors, agents, insurers, partners, and consultants, any and all claims for or entitlement to special, incidental, indirect, or consequential damages arising out of, resulting from, or in any way related to this report, (b) agree that ENGINEER's total liability to CLIENT shall be limited to the total amount of compensation received by ENGINEER, (c) agree that CLIENT will defend, indemnify, and hold harmless ENGINEER from and against any claims, liabilities, actions, demands, losses, damages, costs and expenses sustained by any third -party not granted reliance on ENGINEER's reports and services, (d) agree that any action arising out of or related to the services provided must be brought to ENGINEER'S attention no later than two (2) years after the date of the services, and (e) if an action is brought against the ENGINEER and the ENGINEER prevails, ENGINEER shall be entitled to recover costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. 9. FORCE MAJEURE: The engineer shall not be responsible or liable for any failure or delay in the performance of its obligations under this contract arising out of or resulting from any cause or event beyond our control, such as war, strike, crime, epidemic/pandemic, regulations and/or restriction imposed by any government agency, or other event. Independently Owned and Operated 161 Dunbar Way / Mahtomedi, MN 55115 O: 651.779.7700 / criterium-schimnowski.com From: Penny Saiki To: Jim+Sherry White Cc: Melanie Curtis Subject: Minnehaha Water District Date: Friday, December 30, 2022 3:11:18 PM Hi, Sherry and Jim - The contractor who had a permit to replace stairs and a deck that burned plowed about a 12ft wide road from the backyard directly down to the lakeshore. He and the owner then decided to put in stepped log retaining walls the full width of the lot. They removed all the plants and trees and left each of the bordering properties with cliffs to the water. The inspector put on a stop order. Then the Council gave them permission to build another tier to stabilize their hill for the winter, but it was no guarantee that they would not have to replace the terrain to what it was with landscaping to stabilize the grade. Planning was in favor of hill restoration in the past. Now they are coming back for "variances after the fact" to keep the full hill retaining walls. They took out truckloads of earth to place the tiers, and the adjacent properties have cuts to their tree roots and the earth is disturbed. I was hoping that the watershed district could weigh in at the Planning Meeting on Jan 17 at 6. When I saw the road to the lake, I wrote the LMCD right away, and they immediately escalated it to Minnehaha Watershed. It is such an arrogant approach to correct their error to the detriment of the land and water quality. To "forgive" the error and arrogance weakens our (Orono's) ability to enforce the ordinances and more importantly the protection of the lake and other natural resources. The city offices are closed for the New Year, so I didn't get to find out from Melanie Curtis what the city Planning position is, but earlier they had recommended restoration of the hill. CITY OF ORONO 2750 Kelley Parkway, P.(). Box 66 Crystal Bay, MN 56323 Phone (952) 249-4600 Fax (952) 249-4616 PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC FEARING "CE IS HEREBY GIVEN lhal the Planning Comrnis!�ion of the City of Orono, Minre!SotO will hold a alar meeting on TLIesday, January 17, 2023 at 6 pm. The Planning Commission will hold a public ring on the matter of reviewing the following land use applications: 02-000065 Leslie Care, 2967 Casco Point Road. requests variances from Accessory Dwelling Unit peiformanre standards. (Taff: Melanie Curlis) Q2-000066 Steve Ische, 3365 Crystal Bay Road, requeSis variances for average lakeshore setback, hardcover and the 75 -foot lake setback for the construction of a deck. (Staff: Natalie Nye) X22-000067 Jon Byinglori, 1270 Wildhurst Trail, requests a variance from the average Iakeshore setback for the construction of deck stairs on an existing deck. (Staff: Natalie Nye) Q2-000068 Josh Prust, Valdes Lawn Care anti Snow Removal. LLC. 2815 Casco Point Road, requests an after -the -fact variance to permit an expansion of retaining walls within the 75 -foot lake setback- (Staff: Melanie Curtis) Q-QQQQ71 , im HiIIi0r, 9224 BrlAr $treat. 4kno 1245 Arbor $tlr"JI reegpests IQt width an4l IQt �pr(!a variances in order to facilitate an administrative boundary lime adjustment (Subdivision Exception). (Staff: Melanie Curtis) persons wishing to be heard are encouraged to attend these meetings. This is not a final agenda is subject to change prior to the hearings_ The applications and proposed ordinance Ianguage will wailable on the City vreb�;ito (vr4-�ry,Ci.oro[to,tT�[7,u5) the Friday before the meeting, or by Contacting City Hall at 062-249-46DO and speaking with the planner associated with that applicalion. Written invents are requested by January 10, 2023 but will be accepted until the Council meeting. Cily of Orono By: Planning Commission Laura Oakden Community Development DireCtor Penny Saiki psaiki@icloud.com 952-237-6753 LIVE WELL From: Penny Saiki To: Melanie Curtis Subject: Before and after visual aides Date: Monday, January 2, 2023 3:58:45 PM Hi, Melanie! Photos for 2815 Casco Point Road for the after the deed variance application. June 2022 Today, 1/2/23 Penny Saiki psaiki@icloud.com 952-237-6753 LIVE WELL 38 20-117-23 23 0007 38 20-117-23 24 0018 38 20-117-23 310058 MICHAEL G BASKFIELD DONNA L LILE D R WELTY & M M JIN SHARON J BASKFIELD 2765 ETHEL AVE 3721 CASCO AVE 2755 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 23 0009 38 20-117-23 24 0019 38 20-117-23 310066 CITY OF ORONO JUSTIN J HOLMERS DEAN V GREIMANN P O BOX 66 MICHELLE N HOFFMAN 3779 CASCO AVE CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 3800 CASCO AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 23 0010 38 20-117-23 310009 38 20-117-23 310067 CITY OF ORONO ALISA A MILLER DAVID B ADAMS P O BOX 66 3753 CASCO AVE 2868 CASCO POINT RD CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 23 0011 38 20-117-23 310010 38 20-117-23 310071 CITY OF ORONO PAUL J FUHRMAN MARTI LYNN P O BOX 66 COLLEEN FUHRMAN STEVEN ROBERT GOUDY CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 3759 CASCO AVE 3750 CASCO AVE ORONO MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 23 0012 38 20-117-23 310011 38 20-117-23 32 0006 STEVEN M HARTMAN DEAN V GREIMANN RYAN LONGHENRY HEIDI L HARTMAN 3779 CASCO AVE KRISTIN LONGHENRY 2776 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 2824 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 23 0016 38 20-117-23 310014 38 20-117-23 32 0007 JOY A GRUNDEEN CITY OF ORONO SPRAY ISLAND LLC 2797 CASCO PT RD P O BOX 66 2829 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 23 0017 38 20-117-23 310015 38 20-117-23 32 0008 MICHAEL MCANALLY CITY OF ORONO DAVID J YORKS STEFANIE MCANALLY P O BOX 66 2825 CASCO POINT ROAD 2795 CASCO PT RD CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 WAYZATA MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 38 20-117-23 23 0018 38 20-117-23 310016 38 20-117-23 32 0009 REED L LARSON CITY OF ORONO MARGARET L MARTIN 2773 CASCO POINT RD P O BOX 66 2821 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 CRYSTAL BAY MN 55323 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 23 0019 38 20-117-23 310056 38 20-117-23 32 0010 RICHARD A PUTNAM R E WOLFE WESLEY BYRNE JANET L PUTNAM 2871 CASCO POINT RD 2817 CASCO POINT RD 2765 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0017 38 20-117-23 310057 38 20-117-23 32 0011 KENNETH R SADDLER ROSEMARY IVERSEN LISA THOSTENSON SHERALYN K SADDLER 2835 CASCO POINT RD MARK THOSTENSON 2755 ETHEL AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 2815 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 32 0012 CHARLES PRICE 4703 FAIRHILLS RD E MINNETONKA MN 55345 38 20-117-23 32 0013 THERESA A NORSTED 2811 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 32 0014 JOHN M BAILEY PATRICIA L BAILEY 2807 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 32 0015 CAROLE L FROMMELT ROGER H FROMMELT 2805 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 32 0016 SHANE M WELTZIN ELIZABETH H HABERMAN 2800 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 32 0017 TAMMY L WOODIS MARC BRICKMAN 2818 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 32 0018 COLBY G HAWLEY JENNA M HAWLEY 2794 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 32 0019 GREGORY D/BETH S CZERWINSKI 2801 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 32 0020 TODD J THEILMANN 2799 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 32 0021 BRIAN SWANSON SAMANTHA ERIN SIMON 3799 CASCO AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF CARVER Rhonda Herberg being duly sworn on an oath, states or affirms that he/she is the Publisher's Designated Agent of the newspa- per(s) known as: Laker Pioneer with the known office of issue being located in the county of: CARVER with additional circulation in the counties of: HENNEPIN and has full knowledge of the facts stated below: (A) The newspaper has complied with all of the requirements constituting qualifica- tion as a qualified newspaper as provided by Minn. Stat. §331A.02. (B) This Public Notice was printed and pub- lished in said newspaper(s) once each week, for 1 successive week(s); the first insertion being on 02/11/2023 and the last insertion being on 02/11/2023. MORTGAGE FORECLOSURE NOTICES Pursuant to Minnesota Stat. §580.033 relating to the publication of mortgage foreclosure notices: The newspaper complies with the conditions described in §580.033, subd. 1, clause (1) or (2). If the newspaper's known office of issue is located in a county adjoining the county where the mortgaged premises or some part of the mortgaged premises described in the notice are located, a substantial portion of the newspaper's circulation is in the latter countv. By: Designated Subscribed and sworn to or affirmed me on 02/11/2023 by Rhonda Herberg. Notary Public DRr"3LEN� !Ul�Rf� MACPHERSON NOIA(iY PUBLIC - MINNESOTA My 0MMIs" B#m Jan 31, 2024 Rate Information: (1) Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space: $999.99 per column inch Ad ID 1292331 CITY OF ORONO 2750 KELLEY PARKWAY, P.O. BOX 66 CRYSTAL BAY, MN 55323 PHONE (952) 249-4600 FAX (952) 249-4616 PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Orono, Minnesota will hold a regular meeting on Tuesday, February 21, 2023 at 6 pm. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the matter of re- viewing the following land use ap- plications: LA22-000068 Valdes Lawn Care and Snow Removal, LLC 2815 Casco Point Road, requests an after -the -fact 75 -foot lake set- back variance for retaining walls. (Staff: Melanie Curtis) LA22-000070 Stacy Kromenhoek 4085 Watertown Road, requests an after -the -fact variance for a side yard setback for a deck. (Staff: Na- talie Nye) LA23-000001 Lecy Bros. Homes & Remodeling - Brenda Koehnen, 2617 Casco Point Road, requests a hardcover variance for the con- struction of a deck. (Staff: Natalie Nye) All persons wishing to be heard are encouraged to attend these meetings. This is not a final agen- da and is subject to change prior to the hearings. The applications and proposed ordinance language will be available on the City website (www.ci.orono.mn.usl the Friday before the meeting, or by contact- ing the City Hall at 952-249-4600 and speaking with the planner associated with that application. Written comments are requested by February 14, 2023 but will be accepted until the Council meeting. City of Orono By: Planning Commission Laura Oakden Community Development Director Published in the Laker Pioneer February 11, 2023 1292331 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Date: 12/13/2022 Buffer Size: 500 Map Comments: 2815 Casco Point Rd 0 50 100 200 Feet I�i�IIiII This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 /gis.info@hennepin.us 27x5 t �s 27. 2705 275o Q 2775re1 tikk.' 276 s � 2745 r 3844 � 2720 7 _ e u 7740 F- 3750 im cr�l 2618 asi 2824 y Buffer Size: 500 Map Comments: 2815 Casco Point Rd 0 50 100 200 Feet I�i�IIiII This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 /gis.info@hennepin.us From: Melanie Curtis To: Plannina Commission Cc: Laura Oakden; Natalie Nye; Alicia Johnson; Anna Carlson Subject: Additional Info for Item 1 - LA22-000068 / 2815 Casco Point Rd Date: Tuesday, February 21, 2023 11:30:00 AM Attachments: Price. df Price 21Feb2023.Ddf As -Built Wall Section View MC Notes.Ddf Commissioners Please see the attached public comment which was not included in your packets. Additionally, staff received clarification that the top emergency slope repair wall which was approved by the Council in November has not yet been installed. The applicant would request approval instead to install an additional 1.7 feet in height to the top wall as shown in the attached cross-section. This will accomplish the same goal while allowing for the stairs to be properly installed. I will print these items and any other received between now and the meeting start time. Printed items will be placed at your spots for tonight. Reach out with any questions, Melanie Melanie Curtis, Planner Direct 952.249.4627 Planning & Zoning Office 952.249.4620 2750 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 Email: mcurtise-ci.orono.mn.us Website: www.ci.orono.mn.us All permits and applications are handled through our online portal - LINK! K �tn r oz Z� Y d> z z> �ym b >o skM O C4 W W �z-JCOd`z W �O cn y C� o r > m z in � II II � cD c0 rl ( N OOCO m o EEL Na Z7 y m co D a F- F— o I --i I-� D N y I C O i C u n N 0P0 m i 00 �1 CC cnC y � � L~ Q r z G d a > n Z o z n W R) _ O W Y ��rD�v,tdC:m co co cn Oo C� •� 0 m70 � r'I m Zf'l O m<= po W � 0 l7 > D C fT'I N Z' 3 ;a Vl r td m � �` � 00 N Q O O M td h7 > C: —1 - (7) i— Cn 0 1. s N d CSA Z:o CMZ i —;u D D m V) M t7 o a_ OZ ;uMr mV) Vl <Z �£ Wt7D tdG-)0Z<, bdZ rn z �lry °v t :c mMo m I ��"ID t7 R) 0fr'IVi W Vom- - bd 70 m �2 m i \\. dM MD rtj x v �m dM Mtd o D td 9. � cn cn l v �Z �� 3 O i.:E W ZJ m00 ° 0 Vi Z M Vi C) O C J foo z ZOD z `n z 7 M 0 z m r x 4 WE, jet Now r r i � Y 99 1 } AV�,,, y - If= p. - see? mi epi �� _n .N Date: 21 February 2023 Subject: #LA22-000068, Valdes Lawn Care and Snow Removal LLC o/b/o Mark and Lisa Thostenson 2815 Casco Point Road After -the -fact Setback Variances Public Hearing Other Previous Documents • Certificate of Survey for Lisa Thostenson, dated 5/18/2022 • RPS22-0000126 Permit Plan Packet, PC Exhibit J: Hardcover Calculation Worksheet, dated 8/15/2022 Hello Melanie, After reviewing the packet of information regarding agenda item #LA22-000068, please note some significant items that caught my attention and may solicit further scrutiny by the Planning Commission Members and the City Council Members. Background (page 1) This statement highlighted in red below is in error. "Because the work was halted prior to completion, on November 28th the owner requested and received permission from the City Council to install a final wall at the top of the slope which their engineer determined to be necessary to protect the integrity of the slope. Their engineer provided documentation showing the slope failure is imminent and needed an emergency correction. That final wall has been installed. " • The final wall has not been installed. As a result, the integrity of the slope is not protected. • The "As -Built" drawings, Certificate of Survey - Wall Detail Original Design, dated 2/3/2013 by E.G. Rud & Sons, Inc. show six timber walls have been built to date. The original engineering drawing prepared by Criterium-Schimnowski Engineers, dated 8/24/2022 depicts seven timber retaining walls that were supposed to be built on the bluff. Hence, when the Stop Work order was issued on October 28, 2022, the final timber wall had not been built and the owner requested the emergency permission to build the final 7th timber retaining wall. • When the Stop Work order was issued, the crew from Valdes Lawn Care and Snow Removal did as much as they could to protect the bluff and stage the needed materials to build the last remaining timber wall. The exposed dirt at the top of the bluff was covered in erosion burlap; the timbers for the final wall build were staged at the top of the bluff and remain untouched to this day. The crew also left a large pile of dirt near the bluff with the assumed intent to use it to backfill for the final timber wall with dirt and stones. • The photos included in the letter from Schimnowski Criterium Engineers dated November 18, 2022 (regarding the "Timber Retaining Wall Upper Tier") most closely resemble the current condition of the bluff with the exception of snow on the ground. The outline for the placement of the 7th timber wall was shown the photos to depict the location of the final wall build. However, no timber wall was built in this location, and thus this final retaining wall was not included in the As -Built drawings. PC Exhibit D: As -Built Survey for Valdes Lawn Care Notes Listed on Survey: "The survey boundary was calculated using a survey by Gronberg & Associates Land Surveying dated 5-18-22. " "Boundary work was not completed as part of the as -built survey any monuments and boundaries are for reference only. " The property boundary line between 2013 Casco Point and 2815 Casco Point are not in agreement based on two separate surveys conducted by Gronberg & Associates in 2004 and 2022, respectively. Charles visited Gronberg's office once we discovered the discrepancy between the two surveys after a discussion with Scott Gates when Charles, Scott and I were at the bluff and discussing the location of the side property line at the top of the bluff. To date, Mr. Gronberg has not provided a reply to our request to reconcile the two surveys as his surveyor has been out on medical leave. Since the two surveys have not been reconciled, the determination of whether the timber walls are fully located on the 2815 property is not complete. However, I do not believe this is an issue that cannot be readily solved once the surveys are reconciled. I mention this to address a concern stated in the information packet. This is referenced by Section 78-350 & 78-1279- Setbacks, page 2 of 5: "The plans do not specifically clarify whether or not the new walls were constructed entirely within the subject property boundaries; clarification is required. " PC Exhibit D: As -Built Survey for Valdes Lawn Care & Hardcover Calculation Worksheet (Proposed), Exhibit E "The Prop. Impervious Surface Calculations and the Proposed Hardcover Calculation Worksheet, dated 2/2/23 in this current information packet do not match the RPS22-0000126 Permit Plan Packet containing the Gronberg Survey completed 5-18-22 and the Proposed Hardcover Calculation Worksheet, Exhibit J, dated 8-15-22. This Hardcover Calculation Worksheet dated 8-15-2022 (and I believe was approved by City Council on or prior to October 10, 2022) itemizes the home renovations, new attached garage, bluff retaining walls and stairs, etc that totaled to a 24.99% hardcover calculation. Interestingly, the updated Hardcover Calculations based on a new survey completed by R.G Rud & Sons total to less hardcover of 24.93% even though there are line items for the added girth and complexity of the new timber walls and the increase in stair length from the lake shore to the top of the bluff. I am concerned that the new survey was performed in January/February 2023 in which major exterior removal/changes have already been made to the house and property and with significant snow on the ground in which many items could be obscured or missing. Some of the discrepancies between the two Hardcover Calculation Worksheets include the following items (values given in square feet). Some of these are very minor changes. • The house footprint decreased from 1425 to 1343. How is it possible that the house footing is now smaller? There is no verbiage or drawings provided in the information packet that describe any changes to the house footprint. Is the house footprint discrepancy the result of the second survey that was completed in the Jan/early Feb months with at least a foot of the snow on the ground that obscured the house concrete footprint? If so, should the original survey and Hardcover Calculations dated 8/15/23 and approved by City Council take precedence? • The proposed garage is listed as 24' x 30' but the math changed from 720 to 710. • The proposed concrete walk increased from 72 to 74 • The proposed stoop increased from 66 to 80 • The proposed Rear Patio & Step was 124 and now changed to a Rear Patio only (no step) at 108, but mathematically the size of I F x 10' is 110. • The proposed driveway increased from 930 to 933 • The existing stairs to basement decreased from 3'x8'=23 (math error?) from 27. • The math calculation for item "I" on the new Worksheet is not correct: (65+64+60+43+51+47)/2 = 165, not 139.5. Based on the scaled drawing (Exhibit F) of the bluff timber walls, a calculated value of the linear walls totaled well over 165. Granted, these calculations came from a paper copy, but the differences should warrant a second review of this line item. • Line items J through N: proposed stairs by the lake (upper, middle and lower), proposed stair landing by lake, and proposed deck/boar house, and are not supported by any drawings in the information packet. The proposed dimensions are provided, but there is no indication on the how the steps would be built within the 75 foot lakeshore setback area. • There is no line item for the A/C pads in the new Hardcover Calculation Worksheet. Summary To reiterate, this new Hardcover Worksheet dated 2/2/23 does not include the final 7th timber wall that was supposed to be built under the emergency request and City Council authorization, or the additional stairs needed to traverse over the final wall. The emergency corrections identified by Paul Schimnowski, P.E., in his letter dated Nov. 18, 2022 regarding the stability of the bluff and the necessity for building the 7th tier have not been completed. I believe the Planning Commission members and the City Council members should reject the applicants request for approval of an after -the -fact bluff and 75 -foot lake setback variances since the "As - Built" retaining walls do not comply with the engineer's specifications. It appears that the overall question is whether the bluff retaining walls should be completed per the engineer's drawing of 7 tiers, or if the bluff should be restored more in line with "in-kind" with the original bluff retaining walls and the previous line of the bluff. My impression is that the new timber walls were constructed very well and the contractor made changes during construction to improve the bluff walls better than the original wall timbers. The contractor built solid retaining walls, but it was the method of removing the huge amount of dirt from the bluff that shocked us, the neighbors, and the city planners and inspectors. Since the contractor has built solid retaining walls, it may be prudent to let him finish building the final wall rather than trying to restore the bluff more in line with the original bluff line. This dilemma is the question for the Planning Commission members and the City Council members to fully evaluate and resolve. Date Application Received: 12/14/2022 Date Application Considered as Complete: 01/20/2023 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 03/21/2023 To: Chair McCutcheon and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Natalie Nye Planner Date: February 21, 2023 Subject: LA22-000070, Stacey Kromenhoek, 4085 Watertown Road Variance: After -the -fact Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting an after -the -fact variance for a side yard setback for a deck. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends denial. Background On April 12, 2021 variances were approved for the subject property, 4085 Watertown Road, for the construction of a new single-family home. Variances for lot size, lot width, front yard and side yard setbacks were granted by the City Council. The lot is a substandard in size and width with overlapping side yard setbacks. The lot is 0.64 acres in size and 73 feet in width where 5 acres and 300 feet in width is required for the RR -1A zoning district. There is no conforming building envelope. The practical difficulties of the substandard lot and lack of building envelope led to the approval of a 19 -foot side yard setback per the approved plans in Resolution 7186 A building permit for the erection of the new home on the subject property was issued on August 5, 2021 through building permit RPS21-000072. A final as -built survey was submitted on April 13, 2022. City staff reviewed the submitted as -built survey and identified that the deck stairs were 17.3 feet from the northern property line where a 19 -foot setback is permitted. This created a 1.7 foot (1 foot 8 inches) new encroachment closer to the side lot line. The applicant was notified of the issue and a final certificate of occupancy was not issued. Staff directed the applicant to correct the error by modifying the deck and/or deck stairs to conform to the 19 -foot side yard setback. The applicant has chosen to go through the variance process to request a modified north side yard setback to allow the constructed deck and deck stairs to be maintained. `;ti0�:. g5C f1`tiP iRE[.5 nN� 2•'?4�7ri o-¢ ��� � .o- �; �w ��µcC"� j - i i JEXISTJNG HQUSFI 1 ¢' 1 4J F - q •- � � rE= l F-99 - f' y_A ----- Id s fes. FILE # LA22-000070 Feb. 21, 2023 Page 2 of 5 Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the substandard lot size and lot width as practical difficulties. The applicant has also noted that if the deck stairs are moved to the rear (east) of the deck, the sunlight coming into the home will be impacted. The applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: The property was granted variances in 2021 to construct a new single-family home. The construction error that resulted in the deck stairs being constructed 1.7 feet beyond the side yard setback line does not constitute a practical difficult. The deck and deck stairs can be modified to conform to the required setbacks. Staff does not find practical difficulty supporting the after -the -fact side yard setback variance. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-395 — Setbacks: DISTRICT RR -1A Required 2021 Approved Constructed Front 100' 35.4' 35.4' Rear 100' Roughly 300' Roughly 300' Side (north) 50' 22' (House) 19' (Deck Stairs) 21.9' (House) 17.3' (Deck Stairs) Side (south) 50' 23' 22.8' Applicable Regulations: Front and Side Yard Setback (78-395 The required interior side yard setback for the RR -1A zoning district is 50 feet. The variance approved in 2021 allowed for a 19 -foot side yard setback for the north and a 23 -foot side yard setback for the south due to the substandard lot area and width of the existing lot. The deck stairs were constructed beyond the approved setback at 17.3 feet from the northern property line. An after -the -fact variance is now being requested to allow a modified setback of 17.3 feet from the northern property line. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. FILE # LA22-000070 Feb. 21, 2023 Page 3 of 5 According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The lot is substandard in size and in width with overlapping side yard setbacks when abiding by the regulations of the RR -1A zoning district. However, variances were already granted based on these practical difficulties. Staff does not believe there are new practical difficulties to allow for a reduced side yard setback. The construction error can be remedied through the modification of the deck and/or deck stairs. The requested variance to further reduce the northern side yard setback is not in harmony with the Ordinance. This criterion is not met. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variance to further reduce the northern side yard setback is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has not identified necessary practical difficulties inherent to the land supporting their requests. This criterion is not met. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; Reasonable use of the Property is established with the newly constructed single-family home. The deck constructed in error can be modified in order to comply with the approved resolution. This criterion is not met. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The new home on the property was built in 2021-2022 by the applicant. The unique circumstances on the property granted variances in 2021 to allow for the construction of the new home. The current homeowner was not involved with the previous variances, however must adhere to the approved setbacks and conditions placed on the property. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The constructed deck does not meet the required setbacks for the property. The requested reduced setback in order to maintain the existing deck is not supported by practical difficulty. The neighboring properties are rural in nature and allowing a further encroachment into a setback is inconsistent character of the area. This criterion is not met. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 17, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is FILE # LA22-000070 Feb. 21, 2023 Page 4 of 5 located. This condition is not applicable, as a single-family residence is an allowed use in the RR -1A District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The special conditions and uniqueness of the lot resulted in variances approved for lot area, width, front yard and side yard setbacks in 2021. A new home was built and through an error the constructed deck was built beyond the required setback. The request for a reduced side yard setback to accommodate the larger deck is not an identified special condition justifying a variance. This criterion is not met. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The Applicant has not identified conditions. This criteria is not met. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Substantial property right is provided by the newly constructed single-family home. Expansion of an existing improvement or structure is not a right. This criterion is not met. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the requested variances would be contrary to the intent of the zoning chapter. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The variance to reduce the side yard setback for a deck constructed larger than in the approved plans is a convenience not supported by demonstratable practical difficult. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Engineer Comments The City Engineer reviewed the as -built survey and did not have any comments. Public Comments No public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? Does the Planning Commission find that the variance(s), if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? FILE # LA22-000070 Feb. 21, 2023 Page 5 of 5 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends denial. The deck and/or deck stairs should be removed or modified in order to conform to the 19 -foot side yard setback. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. As -Built Survey 3/28/22 4 New Home Construction Exhibit D. Plans Exhibit E. 2021 Resolution Exhibit F. Property Photos Exhibit G. Property Owners List and Map Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 12/14/2022 Address: 4085 Watertown Road Orono, MN 55359 Parcel Number: 3111823410005 Land Use Number: LA22-000070 Application Submitted By: Agent on behalf of property owner Owner: Name: RINNOVARE LLC Address: 4085 Watertown Road, Orono, MN 55359 Name: Stacy Kromenhoek Applicant: Company: Address: 1025 West Cove Lane Minnetrista, MN 55364 stacylynnchain@yahoo.com Contact Information: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description: A deck was added to the home and the stairs were added on to the side, not according to the original plan, and encroaches beyond the approved variance. Land Use Application Type: Amendmend Application Appeal of Admin Decision Concept Application Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Application Subdivision Application Subdivision Exception Vacation Application Variance Application Applicant Signature: PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA22-000070 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: The property owner will utilize the property as intended in the Zoning Chapter for residential use, granting the variance request will not change the usage. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: The current homeowner was not the builder of the deck. The situation arose when the surveyor misread the house plans to have 3' stairs instead of 4' stairs in the original application requesting the 19' setback. The footings were poured and inspected by MSPECT (Sept 2021) which also deviated a few additional inches - the final build now requires a 17.3' setback. The landowner did not create the situation, only inherited it with the purchase of the home. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: The original builders went to great lengths to design and build a very narrow home while also matching the character of the rural homes in the area, both neighboring houses and those along Watertown Road. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: If the variance is not granted, the stairs on the house will have to be moved to the back of the deck. 5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 1167.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. Response: This very narrow, non -conforming lot (73 feet wide) was such that setbacks on the east and west side would've overlapped, allowing for no residence at all. The original builders put great effort into designing and building a narrow home (28 feet) that was both livable and matched the character of the area. 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Response: The variance request is not for usage that is not allowed for this zone/property. 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Response: NA 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response: The narrow non -conforming lot is unique to this property and creates challenges such as overlapping side yard setbacks. The lot is 73 feet wide. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: This variance application is only for the deck stairs. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: If the variance is not granted, the stairs on the house will have to be moved to the back of the deck which will impede sunlight and view for the new homeowner in the walk out windows and doors. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. Response: Granting of this variance will not have negative impacts to others. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: The granting of the variance is needed to provide the new homeowner the Certificate of Occupancy. / I / I u')z Q / I / -'THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 10 ACRES OF THAT PART OF � EAST 1/2 OF SE 1/4 SEC. 31, T 118, R23 AS MONUMENTED i 0 PER GRONBERG AND ASSOC SURVEY DATED 9/15/15 / / G � / I S 0 ) 009,'02 " E --- 396.00 --- WooD FENCE �� AND BR 2� �Z N\ O( Q�G c,P� w oo / 37.3 A-91 EDE AN B 6° 5 SCATTEIRED TREES (� O .......: O E S p USN �p / p9I Q p� ` / / i SCAT,,. �R. LL -i - Q7 <�� I N g2 O ( 3 N w two '\gyp 3 SQ ( 99� ���c� GPS .,•,.., \ 0 I GONC STEP _ 0 /o a z z �•, ,62 1 S v� XTF-994.8 49.0 TF -990.6X F15.6 i = w , I 9 Q<v o r cn 1 �G - f Oy- Z \ 8 Q/ �� ►�0 ���P 6� I : EXISTING HOUSE MCC'04 / z w fin,} I pp� z LFE=990.1 X G $�6 _ ��� ��� :..:.;. .8 ��' _ � o XTF-994 52 0 T990. X W w\ wpm XGFE=990.0— — F -- o �� — p.RG........,.._...- ` c NQ APRON 02 8 ,.. �'. gS - V o Q �"��' I ggp. ,. w /yam N T '� g9 N( co O ! v - � I .r I a , o�, N 0 299.60 :w z � � o.��. ,� / � R G� � 9a�.� _/_°50 , 58��rw7 Lo ipl� — / 0 °' _ - p� c�9 f CK pRIVE N / � Rp p I _ 0 DRIVE AY EASEMEN'1" PEI DOC " 5.75 i I — — �70 HOUSE ELEVATIONS 1ASBUILT1 t/ 1J2.15 -..-� / � MAIN FLOOR 1000.0 N 9009-'02" W / TOP FOUNDATION 1994.81 GARAGE FLOOR = 1990.01 / LOWEST FLOOR = 1990.1 ASBUILT HARDCOVER HOUSE = 1460 SF /I 0 20 40 60 DECKSTRS = 540 SF / I DRIVEAPRON= 120 SF f � GARAGE FWALKSTEP= 160 SF SCALE IN FEET / I ROCK DRIVE = 1025 SF (TO LOT LINE) / �99ti5 = EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION. STEPS = 12 SF X(998.0) = PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATION PATIO = 64 SF (N/C UNDER DECK) TOTAL = 3317 SF/11.6% { , • = DIRECTION SURFACE DRAINAGE COH = CANTILEVERED OVERHANG OHL = OVERHEAD UTILITY LINE { GFE = GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION \ TFE = TOP OF FOUNDATION ELEVATION { ��A LIFE = LOWEST FLOOR ELEVATION I I EXISTING HOUSE I I N DESCRIPTION: THAT PART OF SE 1/4 SEC. 31, T 118, R23, BEGINNING AT INTERSECTION OF CL OF WATERTOWN ROAD, WITH EAST LINE OF WEST 10 ACRES OF THAT PART OF EAST 1/2 OF SE1/4 LYING EAST OF WEST 35 RODS AND SOUTHERLY OF CL OF SAID ROAD AND NORTHERLY OF LUCE LINE TRAIL; THENCE SOUTH ALONG SAID EAST LINE 396 FT THENCE RIGHT AT RIGHT ANGLES 72.94 FEET; THENCE NORTH AT RIGHT ANGLES 299.6 FEET:THENCE WEST AT RIGHT ANGLES 9.56 FEET; THENCE NORTH AT RIGHT ANGLES TO CL OF SAID ROAD: THENCE SELY ALONG SAID CL TO POINT OF BEGINNING, EXCEPT ROAD, HENNEPIN COUNTY, MN ADDRESS 4085 WATERTOWN ROAD ORONO, MN. 55359 PID# 31-118-23-41-0005 LOT AREA = 28526 SF/ 0.64 AC I- 0 Q) oM o bJ U Z 'v z w � i u-a- 0) qo z I cu ¢ o Ln O J Q,- Z5 Z5 �C Up 0 0 Q m a �Qaw O pCo w N cy i - =,.W,� ~m 0 w a � Z U m LLJw LL J�aJ mat U O a w t o U7 x g M- W Z mtig Variance Application Site Plan Septic to be 4085 Watertown Road, Orono, MN 55359 c9 design certification 1.18.21 Proposed Site footprint with garage apron (solid) and pervious drive Existing house LAND TYPE Abstract (A) DOC NUM 10947858 Certified, filed and/or recorded on Apr 15, 2021 12:53 PM Office of the County Recorder Hennepin County, Minnesota Martin McCormick, County Recorder Mark Chapin, County Auditor and Treasurer Deputy 125 Pkg ID 2218807E Document Recording Fee $46.00 Document Total $46.00 This cover sheet is now a permanent part of the recorded document. CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7 1 6 A RESOLUTION APPROVING A VARIANCE FROM MUNICIPAL ZONING CODE SECTION 78-395 and 78-72 FILE NO. LA21-000020 WHEREAS, on March 2, 2021, Jacob Brown ("Applicant"), applied for a variance from the City Code for the property addressed 4085 Watertown Road and legally described as: That part of SE % Sec. 31,T 118, R23, beginning at intersection of CL of Watertown Road, with east line of west 10 acres of that part of east Y2 of SE Y4 lying east of west 35 rods and southerly of CL said road and northerly of luce line trail; thence south along said east line 396 ft thence right at right angles 72.94 feet; thence north at right angles 299.6 feet : thence west at right angles 9.56 feet; thence north at right angles to CL of said road: thence sely along said CL to point of beginning. Except road, Hennepin County, MN (hereinafter the "Property"); WHEREAS, the Applicant have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78-72 to allow lot area and lot width variance; and WHEREAS, the Applicants have made application to the City of Orono for a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Section 78- 395 to allow 35.4' front yard setback, 19' north side setback and 23' south side setback; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2021, after published and mailed notice in accordance with Minnesota Statutes and the City Code, the Planning Commission held a public hearing, at which time all persons desiring to be heard concerning this application were given the opportunity to speak thereon; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2021, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the variance; and WHEREAS, on April 12, 2021, the City Council reviewed the application and the recommendations of the Planning Commission and City staff; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of Orono, Minnesota hereby approves the requested variance as described above based on one or more of the following findings of fact concerning the Property: FINDINGS OF FACT: CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL j NO. 1 E '" 1. This application was reviewed as Zoning File #LA21-000020. The analysis contained within staff memos and the exhibits attached to the aforesaid memos, all minutes from the above mentioned meetings, and any and all other materials distributed at these meetings are hereby incorporated by reference. 2. The Property is located in the RR -1A Zoning District. 3. The Property contains 0.64 acres in area and has a defined lot width of 73' feet. 4. The Property is within the "exempt" tier according to the Stormwater Quality Overlay District. 5. Applicant has applied for the following variance[s]: a. Front yard setback b. Side yard setbacks c. Lot area d. Lot width 6. In considering this application for variance, the Council has considered the advice and recommendation of the Planning Commission and the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: 1. "The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The applicant is proposing to construct a new single family home on a residential lot which is consistent with the intent of the ordinance. The lot width and lot area variances are necessary to improve this existing substandard lot. The side yard and front yard setback variance request is reasonable considering buildable area of the property. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The variances resulting in a permit for a new single family residence in a residential zone are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The applicant is proposing to use the property in a reasonable CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL NO. 7 1 8 b manner with the construction of a single family home. There is limited space to construct a conforming building on the site. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The plight of the property owner is due to the existing substandard lot area and width, and The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The character of the neighborhood is not likely to be significantly altered by construction of the residence. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 2, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as a single family home is an allowed use in the RR -1A District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The size and width of the lot within the RR -1A zoning district is unique, and supports approval of the requested lot width, lot area and setback variances. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. The size of the lot is unique within the existing 5 -acre zoning district. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The applicant stated this is true. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in anyway impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting of the requested variances would not impair health, safety, comfort or morals and would be in keeping with the intent of the zoning code, 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The applicant has stated the narrow lot results in setback challenges for construction of a single family home. The property is unique in size for this zoning district. CONCLUSIONS ORDER AND CONDITIONS: Based upon one or more of the above findings, the Orono City Council hereby grants a variance to Orono Municipal Zoning Code Sections 78-395 and 78-72 to allow variance for a new home, subject to the following conditions: CITY OF ORONO RESOLUTION OF TIM CITY COUNCIL 1. Council approval is based on the entire record, above Findings. 2. The approved project shall conform to the survey dated February 9, 2021 and building plans submitted by the Applicants and annotated by City staff, attached to this Resolution as Exhibit A. 3. Any amendments to the plans which are not in conformity with City codes may require further Planning Commission and City Council review. 4. Authorities granted by this resolution run with the Property not with the Applicants, but are permissive only and must be exercised by obtaining a building permit for the new construction and commencing construction of said project within one year of the date of Council approval, or the variance will expire on that date (April 12, 2022). 5. Violation of or non-compliance with any of the terms and conditions of this resolution may result in the termination of any authority granted herein. ADOPTED by the Orono City Council on this 12 day of April 2021. ATT T: CITY OF ORONO: Anna Carlson, City, Clerk Dennis Walsh, Mayor 4 eecss (s vaa iii aoS m nin 3ON30/S3Z/ NMOYB � eecss (s vaa iii OVON NMO12/31VA4 990PA) m 3AM4 OftO,J AeAl3 0669 nFau,S attalvpse� y Nva J 3ON30/S3Z/ NMOYB � 077 38VAONN1Y iro ��, R ,(3AN17S 11HY3d ON10708 2 o� ry �HNN �oNry o�11B9g W1�11 xwxwvrat- 42�3� (q r .a�3tryh ly �b w m 3a, xte'a( 3u- � tZ51� 3„60,8£ 68 N R 1 \ J Wm \ Z (q r .a�3tryh ly �b w m 3a, xte'a( 3u- � tZ51� 3„60,8£ 68 N LOWER FLOOR PLAN ecNF. V4- ` 'LOOK PLAN NOTES: I DECK FN, I I c.ncn DINING ff-- — Al. Z PLAN NOTE5: FDR Da cwt— A� L 14-] MAIN FLOOR PLAN oG 906D 615E, D ANF. l. Aw. Z PLAN NOTE5: Da cwt— A� MAIN FLOOR PLAN AREA TOTAL ZOE 00 284' r 241 CA. I CAS 614 Fir, OBSCURE? 24' (ESRE555) In rAS Tl- SOrz TRi �T ILE, m5TR BEDRM CARPET -or Fn -c, psb A --A 1 A PKT. I MOLE HOUSE FAN w NJTO TIMER 4 RAMAL OVERRIDE 2*61 li PI -T. WIG i» LAUNDRY eNi 1-1 r CARPET 1630 G 2666 4-1. 51-6 w -o- L CAS t -MIN. 22.50- iY ATTIC ACCESS, INSULATE 4 c WEATHERSTRIP O FMA lZee E3r-DPM 2 A4 1630 BA 2 CC PES TYP. SILL O CAS �11- 71N—YL -,4,,. 5410 (E5RESS) 5'4' �4 SLPR 2'-6- 4'-0' 5--o' 5--o' B it SEE MAIN 51-op1w. OPEN FLR. FOR SIZE . . . TB �101 L B9 b1 amts 6,e lr24N 4 yqlc '4' NAtd7RAIL N05INS UARPET P [a CARPET R-45. 1'4' 5 1° Pic 2x6 WALL2.6 Pic j Ol 5-0. 0. 4'-0' "'I"S L FLASHIN6 L SE- F� BEDSM 5 ------- ----- '4' :1 4' (E-) (ERS) 24' C, C CAS 2*4' 55'�4# Pic, 21,�# PIC. F P to �17 , I LJW OF WALL 511,9H \�4"j LKET LINE or BELOW 5EWN q( WI PER DETAIL IAIO 12'-01 4'-0' UI FER FLOOR FLAN 4k -O' —r—j r -ALE, 1/4'- 1-,0' FLOOR PLAN NOTES: I. CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFY ALL NOTES, vitlemloss 4 CONDITIONS PRIOR TO - CONSTRL'TION :2. WINDOWS 4 &OOR5 ARE V40M & NOTED AS NOMINAL SIZES. 3. EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE 2.b STUD' , 0 Ib* O.C. U.N.O. 4.SOFFIT DOWN AREAS ARE SHADED. 5. E INDICATES POINT LOAD SUPPORTED BY (2) NP STUDS, U.N.O. 6. PROVIDE A VENTED KNVOYi IN EACH HABITABLE ROOM. THE FOLLOWING ARE NOT CONSIDERED HABITABLE ROOMS, BATHROOMS, TOILET ROOMS, CLOSETS, HALLS, 510RA6E OR UTILITY SPACES AND SIMILAR. _1. SEE SHEET Al FOR ADDITIONAL NOTES. 5. SEE SHEET A2 FOR VENTILATION AND ALARM 5CNEDULE5 . NOTE, SHOWER 4 SEAT INSTALLATION PER M, -Nr-. 5FEC5. mlo� 9 RNo i �aOD aS�-�lgao-n�z�fGt IGw NV 1r4 o J � " """ �r �ON�aIS ZI NMO*2�9 a g_ 1 3€ a3 Rx R� HERE � o �� 6 'ga gg m F _ b8 ujs8 smolt E oit HA n� 1NEI ; p R� IL .h9 .hY .%4.i _Z Q a iLU t I-1 ♦ / LH 'FI— ! 'L'LI'i HA ! —Ai 9 S N D I S 3 Q HNO.I.S2IFINWD .tau,6z,saQ aucog Fi7zucv,� .,rnoA Rot. s N 'J I S a H na�E a �' O �O ;^ �rorsxs H CI CISO-�19Q0-f1 Z'cfSt�I�W N'd-id utlw D�-)N�IOG� 1 NMo?i9 Miril 11 S_ i � V R � � i= A � 1. O i i; 9 19-mill II U I! f UA .%401 2 � _ < uHA s=x R& UA g`R UA o £ Rig 3 pur F- UA IU_,; is s N D I S H a .tau,6tisaQ aucog Fzp2ucv,1 .moA �i�,r STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ss COUNTY OF HENNEPIN ) The undersigned, being duly qualified and appointed City Clerk of the City of Orono, Minnesota, certifies that I compared the foregoing Declaration of Restrictive Covenant adopted at the meeting of the Orono City Council on April 12, 2021 with the original thereof on file in my office, and the same is a correct transcription thereof. WITNESS my hand officially as such City Clerk and the Corporate seal of the City this 13th day of April, 2021. Anna Carlson, City Clerk (seal) r �r r • ! L } ; •'1 r �r n --rte- �•-- � S�• 1 it F f RUN DATE: 12/14/2022 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) 38 31-118-23140010 38 31-118-23410015 JOHN S & KIMBERLY S PUCKETT MICHAEL R & MARY E PLANK 490 KOKESH FARM RD 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55359 ORONO MN 00000 JOHN S & KIMBERLY S PUCKETT MICHAEL R & MARY E PLANK 4100 WATERTOWN RD 327 NORTH CARRINGTON MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 BUFFALO NY 82834 38 31-118-23140011 JOHN S & KIMBERLY S PUCKETT 4100 WATERTOWN RD ORONO MN 55359 JOHN S & KIMBERLY S PUCKETT 4100 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23140012 J S PUCKETT & K S PUCKETT 505 ORCHARD PARK RD ORONO MN 55356 JOHN & KIMBERLY PUCKETT 4100 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAIN MN 55359 38 31-118-23 410001 ADAM WESTLING 4040 WATERTOWN RD ORONO MN 55359 ADAM WESTLING 4040 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAINMN 55359 38 31-118-23 410003 D S & G S KELLENBERGER TRUST 4045 WATERTOWN RD ORONO MN 55359 DANA & GREGORY KELLENBERGER 4045 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAINMN 55359 38 31-118-23 410004 PAMMALEE M SAWCHUK 4105 WATERTOWN RD ORONO MN 55359 PAMMALEE M SAWCHUK 4105 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAINMN 55359 38 31-118-23 410005 BENJAMIN A BARD 4085 WATERTOWN RD ORONO MN 55359 BENJAMIN A BARD 4085 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAINMN 55359 38 31-118-23 410012 BRIAN SWANSON & AMY SWANSON 4025 WATERTOWN RD ORONO MN 55359 BRIAN SWANSON & AMY SWANSON 4025 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAINMN 55359 38 31-118-23 410013 M R & M E PLANK TRUSTEES 4145 WATERTOWN RD ORONO MN 55359 MICHAEL R & MARY E PLANK 327 N CARRINGTON AVE BUFFALO WY 82834-1615 38 31-118-23 410014 S HOLZSCHUH & K HOLZSCHUH 4115 WATERTOWN RD ORONO MN 55359 SHAWN HOLZSCHUH KIMBERLY HOLZSCHUH 4115 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAINMN 55359 38 32-118-23 32 0003 DAWN M BECK 3965 WATERTOWN RD ORONO MN 55359 DAWN M BECK 3965 WATERTOWN RD MAPLE PLAINMN 55359 PAGE: 1 Hennepin County has developed electronic forms of certain property information databases. Hennepin County makes reasonable efforts to produce and publish the most current property information available. The viewer should understand, however, that Hennepin County makes no representation or warranties, either express or implied, or as to merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained herein. Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Date: 12/14/2022 I 470 n� 494 4140 27 .. tt' I 4145 k 1 4905 4045 519 5 3025 �3. Buffer Size: 500 0 50 100 200 Feet Map Comments: 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4085 Watertown Rd This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 /gis.info@hennepin.us Date Application Received: 1/6/2023 Date Application Considered as Complete: 1/13/2023 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 3/14/2023 To: Chair McCutcheon and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Natalie Nye, Planner Date: February 21, 2023 Subject: LA23-000001, Lecy Bros. Homes & Remodeling — Brenda Koehnen, 2617 Casco Point Road, Variance, Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant is requesting a hardcover variance for the construction of a deck. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends denial of the variance as applied. Background The applicant, who is an agent on behalf of the property owner, proposes to construct a new deck on the west side of the house. The property is currently over on hardcover with a total of 28.4% hardcover where 25% is permitted per the Stormwater Overlay District. The proposal includes an approximately 288 square foot deck serving the main floor of the house and overlooking the lake. The proposal also includes the removal of a flagstone walkway and a portion of an existing patio. With the removal of hardcover and utilizing the 100 square foot excludable hardcover deck allowance, the property is proposed to have the total hardcover reduced to 27.9%. With the total hardcover proposed to be over the limitation of 25%, a variance is required. The proposed deck is approximately 95' from the O.H.W.L meeting all required setbacks including the 75' lakeshore setback and the average lakeshore setback. The property currently has a boat house, lake yard patio, second story roof top deck/terrace and at grade patio abutting the home which allow for lakeview and full use of the property. The request for an additional lakeside deck seems to be out of convenience and not necessary for the use of the property. Staff recommends denial based on practical difficulties not being met. Practical Difficulties Analysis Applicant Submittal Information: The applicant has identified the substandard lot and existing hardcover conditions over 25% of the lot as practical difficulties supporting the requested variance. The new deck will meet all required setbacks and the overall hardcover will be reduced by approximately 104 square feet through the removal of flagstone steps and a portion of the existing patio. The new deck will also receive the 100 square foot hardcover credit bringing the total percentage of hardcover on the lot from 28.4% to 27.9%. The applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding Practical Difficulties attached as Exhibit B and detailed hardcover information as Exhibit E, and should be asked for additional testimony regarding the application. LA23-000001 February 21, 2023 Page 2 of 5 Planning Staff Practical Difficulty Analysis: Staff finds that there is a practical difficulty in the existing conditions of the lot. However, staff believes that it is possible to reach compliance through the removal of additional hardcover. There is an existing boathouse and lakeside patio that is nonconforming to current zoning regulations that are proposed to remain. If removed, the property will be within 5 square feet of compliance (25% hardcover). Additionally, the proposed deck is approximately 288 square feet and the existing patio is 194 square feet. A reduction in the size of the proposed deck could also bring the lot closer to conformance. While the proposed deck meets all required setbacks and the project is reducing hardcover, there are practical ways to bring the entire lot into conformance with current standards and therefore staff is recommending denial of the request as applied. LOT ANALYSIS WORKSHEET Section 78-350— Setbacks: DISTRICT LR -1C Required Existing Proposed Rear 30' 29.9' No Change Side (North) 7.5' 2.7' No Change Side (South) 7.5' 25' No Change Lakeshore 75' 99' 95' Average Lakeshore Met Section 78-350 — Lot Area/Width: DISTRICT LR -1C Lot Area Lot Width Required 21,780 s.f. (0.5 acres) 100' Actual 16,994.2 (0.39 acre) 64' @ 75'/ 51' @ OHWL Section 78-1680 and 78-1700 — Hardcover Calculations: Stormwater Total Area in Allowed Existing Overlay District Proposed Hardcover Zone Hardcover Hardcover Tier 4,248.5 s.f. 4,829 s.f. 4,732.9 s.f. Tier 1 16,994.2 s.f. (25 %) (28.4%) (27.9%) Applicable Regulations: Hardcover (Section 78-1680 & 78-1700 The property is substandard in size. The LR -1C District requires a minimum lot size of 0.5 acres. The subject property is smaller at 0.39 acres, but still must adhere to the 25% total hardcover limitation. The existing house and improvements on property total 28.4% hardcover. While the proposal reduces hardcover on the site to 27.9%, a variance is required when a property is over the allowed maximum. Additionally, a change in the nature of the hardcover when over the limitation also requires a variance. The nature of the hardcover is changing with the addition of a new deck. Governing Regulation: Variance (Section 78-123) In reviewing applications for variance, the Planning Commission shall consider the effect of the proposed variance upon the health, safety and welfare of the community, existing and anticipated traffic conditions, light and air, danger of fire, risk to the public safety, and the effect on values of property in the surrounding area. The Planning Commission shall consider LA23-000001 February 21, 2023 Page 3 of 5 recommending approval for variances from the literal provisions of the Zoning Code in instances where their strict enforcement would cause practical difficulties because of circumstances unique to the individual property under consideration, and shall recommend approval only when it is demonstrated that such actions will be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Orono Zoning Code. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minn. Stat. §216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. According to MN §462.357 Subd. 6(2) variances shall only be permitted when: 1. The variance is in harmony with the general intent and purpose of the Ordinance. The proposed variance is not in harmony with the purpose of the Ordinance. The proposed deck changes the nature of the hardcover on the lot and the total hardcover is over the maximum allowed (25%). There are practical ways to modify the proposed improvements and remove existing surplus hardcover that would bring the lot into conformance with City requirements. 2. The variance is consistent with the comprehensive plan. The proposed variance changes the nature of the hardcover on a site and continues to be over the maximum hardcover allowed per the Stormwater Overlay District. A variance to permit hardcover on a site over the allowed limit of 25% is not consistent with the comprehensive plan. 3. The applicant establishes that there are practical difficulties. a. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the official controls; The request to permit the construction of a deck for an existing home on the substandard lot, outside of the required lakeshore setbacks appears to be reasonable. However, the property is currently over the hardcover maximum and has two at grade patios on the property and a second story rooftop deck/terrace. There is reasonable use of the property as it exists today. A new improvement is not necessary for the enjoyment of the property. b. There are circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner; The size of the lot as well as the existing hardcover has not been created by the homeowner. c. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance is requested in order to permit construction of a new deck partially above an existing patio. The proposed improvement is designed to fit the character of the neighborhood and existing home. Additionally City Code 78-123 provides additional parameters within which a variance may be granted as follows: 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties. Economic considerations have not been a factor in the variance approval determination. 5. Practical difficulties also include but are not limited to inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as LA23-000001 February 21, 2023 Page 4 of 5 defined in Minn. Stat. § 216C.06, subd. 17, when in harmony with Orono City Code Chapter 78. This condition is not applicable. 6. The board or the council may not permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under Orono City Code Chapter 78 for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. This condition is not applicable, as a single-family residence is an allowed use in the LR -1C District. 7. The board or council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. This condition is not applicable. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. The property does not have any special conditions other than a substandard lot size and existing nonconforming hardcover. Many properties in the same neighborhood have similar conditions so this does not qualify as a unique situation. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which the land is located. There are no special conditions that are unique to the property. This criterion is not met. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. The existing home on the property has two at -grade patios and a second story rooftop deck/terrace. An additional deck is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort or morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of this chapter. Granting the requested variances would be contrary to the intent of the zoning chapter. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant, but is necessaryto alleviate demonstrable difficulty. The hardcover variance is not necessary as the property has current outdoor space that can be used. There are practical opportunities to reduce hardcover and bring the lot into conformance and allow for additional requested outdoor space without a variance. The requested variance seems to be a convenience to the applicant. The Commission may recommend or Council may impose conditions in granting of variances. Any conditions imposed must be directly related to and must bear a rough proportionality to the impact created by the variance. No variance shall be granted or changed beyond the use permitted in this chapter in the district where such land is located. Engineer Comments The City Engineer has not reviewed the proposed plan. A thorough review will be conducted at the time of building permit. The current plan does not propose any grading changes. Public Comments The applicant has provided the adjacent property owners' acknowledgment form (Exhibit F). Issues for Consideration Does the Planning Commission find that that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner which is not permitted by an official control? Does the Planning Commission find that the variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the LA23-000001 February 21, 2023 Page 5 of 5 impacts created by the granting of the requested variance(s)? 4. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning staff recommends denial of application for a hardcover variance as requested. List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Practical Difficulties Documentation Form Exhibit C. Survey Exhibit D. Plans Exhibit E. Hardcover Information Exhibit F. Neighbor Acknowledgment Form Exhibit G. Property Owners List and Map Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 01/06/2023 Address: 2617 Casco Point Road Orono, MN 55391 Parcel Number: 2011723240035 Land Use Number: LA23-000001 Application Submitted By: Agent on behalf of property owner Owner: Name: GARY L & JOAN M MARQUARDT Address: 2617 Casco Point Road Name: Brenda Koehnen Applicant: Company: Lecy Bros. Homes & Remodeling Address: 15012 Highway 7 Minnetonka, MN 55345 brenda@lecybros.com Contact Information: Project Description: Land Use Application Type: Applicant Signature: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: build new deck Amendmend Application Appeal of Admin Decision Concept Application Conditional Use Permit Site Plan Application Subdivision Application Subdivision Exception Vacation Application Variance Application PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES DOCUMENTATION FORM LA23-000001 1. The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. Response: The property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the Zoning Chapter. The current (new) owners of the property only wish to improve the livability of the home by adding a main level deck and not add any hardcover to what is existing. The amount of existing hardcover was there when they purchased the property. 2. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. Response: The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property not created by the landowner. As noted above, the property was (recently) purchased A?/f?A?ASA?AAa?�AiA? ASA?a?;A�a?-,A?as regarding the existing hardcover- the new landowner is not responsible for the amount of existing hardcover. 3. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Response: The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The new deck will be an attractive improvement to the home. 4. Economic considerations alone do not constitute practical difficulties if reasonable use for the property exists under the terms of the Zoning Chapter. Response: The purpose for the new deck is to increase the livability of the home, and by removing some existing hardcover there will be no net additional hardcover added. 5. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Variances shall be granted for earth -sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes, Section 1167.06, Subd. 2, when in harmony with this Chapter. Response: Does not apply. 6. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments or the Council may not permit as a variance any use that is not allowed under this Chapter for property in the zone where the affected person's land is located. Response: Does not apply. 7. The Board or Council may permit as a variance the temporary use of a one -family dwelling as a two-family dwelling. Response: Does not apply. 8. The special conditions applying to the structure or land in question are peculiar to such property or immediately adjoining property. Response: The special conditions unique to this property is the amount of hardcover that existed when the property was recently purchased. 9. The conditions do not apply generally to other land or structures in the district in which said land is located. Response: The specific amount and specific types of hardcover on this property do not apply generally to other land in the district. 10. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Response: This home, originally constructed in 1920 and likely remodeled many times since then had a very poor interior lay -out with no main level deck. The new main level deck (in combination with the remodeled main floor) is necessary to make the home livable now and into the future. 11. The granting of the proposed variance will not in any way impair health, safety, comfort, morals, or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code. Response: The granting of the variance will not in any way impair the health, safety, comfort, morals or in any other respect be contrary to the intent of the Zoning Code A?fE?A?ASA?A�A(a?-,AiA?A,A? A�A�V?A,A?a?? it will only allow construction of a suitable main level deck typically found on many lake -side homes. 12. The granting of such variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the applicant but is necessary to alleviate demonstrable difficulty. Response: The granting of this variance will not merely serve as a convenience to the homeowner but is necessary to alleviate the demonstratable difficulty. The specific difficulty is the size of the lot. This, in combination with the amount of existing hardcover, which was existing when the property was purchased, makes bringing the house up to current living standards, including adding a main level deck (outdoor grilling & gathering space) impossible without the granting of the variance. SITE ADDRESS: 2617 Casco Point Road ORONO, MN 55391 o Denotes iron monument • Denotes found monument Denotes to be removed LEGAL DESCRIPTION: That part of Block 1, and that part of Lot 16, Block 2, and that part of Orono Avenue, vacated by abandonment, all in "Winship's Subdivision of Lot 1, Spring Park 2nd Division", described as commencing at the northeasterly corner of Lot 141, Spring Park; thence northeasterly along the extension of the easterly line of said Lot 141, a distance of 94.5 feet to the point of beginning; thence northwesterly deflecting to the left 101 degrees 01 minutes, to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, said line hereafter referred to as Line "A"; thence southerly along said shore, 52 feet, more or less, to the northerly line of said Lot 141; thence southeasterly along said northerly line to the northeasterly corner of said Lot 141; thence northeasterly to a point on the extension of said Line "A", distant 12.8 feet southeasterly from the point of beginning; thence northeasterly along said last described extension to the point of beginning. DEMARS—GABRIEL LAND SURVEYORS, INC. 2317 W. 93rd St. Bloomington, MN 55431 Phone:(763) 559-0908 cell: (612) 751-6785 dec®gwestoffice.net Revised: WX2022 Revised: 023 No. N l hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under File ile N my direct supervision and that l am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. Book—Page As surveyed �byme this 15th day of December, 2022. DIXoce David E. Crook Minn. Reg. No. 22414 PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.r)dffactory.com Scale 1 "=30' Prepared for Lecy Bros. Homes & Remodeling / Lecy Bros. Homes & Remodeling i r City of Orono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: Prepared by: Date Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 1: EXISTING HARDCOVER In the following table identify all items of existing hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict existing hardcover status of the property. Key to Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Survey I (Example) (Garage) (24'x 30') Total , (Square Feet (720 S.F.) A B C D E S.F. S.F. S.F- S.F_ S.F. F S.F. G S.F. H S.F. I ST J S.F K S.F. L M S.F. S.F. N S.F. O S.F. P S.F. Q S.F_ R S T S.F. S.F, S.F, _ U S.F. V S.F. W S. F. X S.F, Y S.F. Z S.F. 1 Total Existing Hardcover S.F. Excludable Hardcover See City Code Sec 78-1684): S.F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover S.F. S.F._ S.F. S.F. S.F. 3 Net Existing Hardcover fSubtract line 2 from line 1 S.F.. (4) Total Lot Area S.F, Proposed Hardcover Percentage [ (3) _ (4) ] % (Proposed Hardcover next page) November 30, 2012 PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.r)dffactory.com N SITE ADDRESS: 2617 Casco Point Road ORONO, MN 55391 o Denotes iron monument • Denotes found monument W F F . EXIStll1g �j Boat House F Ret. Wall LEGAL DESCRIPTION - That part of Block 1, and that part of Lot 16, Block 2, and that part of Orono Avenue, vacated by abandonment, all In 'Winship's Subdivision of Lot 1, Spring Park 2nd Division", described as commencing at the northeasterly corner of Lot 141, Spring Park; thence northeasterly along the extension of the easterly line of said Lot 141, a distance of 94.5 feet to the point of beginning; thence northwesterly deflecting to the left 101 degrees 01 minutes, to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, sald line hereafter referred to as Line "A'; thence southerly along said shore, 52 feet, more or less, to the northerly line of said Lot 141; thence southeasterly along said northerly line to the northeasterly corner of said Lot 141; thence northeasterly to a point on the extension of said Line "A", distant 12.8 feet southeasterly from the point of beginning; thence northeasterly along said last described extension to the point of beginning. DEMARS—GABRIEL 1 hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that 1 am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the LAND SURVEYORS, INC. Laws of the State of Minnesota. 2317 W. 93rd St. Bloomington, MN 55431 As surveyed by me this 15th day of December, 2022. Phone:(763) 559-0908 i1/1t' cell: (612) 751-6785 dec®gwestoffice.net David E. Crook Minn. Reg. No. 22414 PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.r)dffactory.com Flagstone K�QQQ Q U U" 0AC 0 Patio Existing 2 Story House B A Ham- D Wood Steps brU /ru. F Ret.1 EXISTING HARDCOVER EXHIBIT File Na. 15081EXH I Prepared for: Book—Page Lecy Bros. Homes & Scale 1 ''=30' 5 Remodeling City of Orono Hardcover Calculation Worksheet Property Address: Prepared by: Date Stormwater Quality Overlay District Tier: (Circle one) Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier 5 Step 1: EXISTING HARDCOVER In the following table identify all items of existing hardcover on the property, keyed by letter to Certificate of Survey (survey must accompany this form). Use as many lines as necessary to accurately depict existing hardcover status of the property. Key to Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Survey I (Example) (Garage) (24'x 30') Total , (Square Feet (720 S.F.) A B C D E S.F. S.F. S.F- S.F_ S.F. F S.F. G S.F. H S.F. I ST J S.F K S.F. L M S.F. S.F. N S.F. O S.F. P S.F. Q S.F_ R S T S.F. S.F, S.F, _ U S.F. V S.F. W S. F. X S.F, Y S.F. Z S.F. 1 Total Existing Hardcover S.F. Excludable Hardcover See City Code Sec 78-1684): S.F. (2) Total Excludable Hardcover S.F. S.F._ S.F. S.F. S.F. 3 Net Existing Hardcover fSubtract line 2 from line 1 S.F.. (4) Total Lot Area S.F, Proposed Hardcover Percentage [ (3) _ (4) ] % (Proposed Hardcover next page) November 30, 2012 PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.r)dffactory.com N SITE ADDRESS: 2617 Casco Point Road ORONO, MN 55391 o Denotes iron monument • Denotes found monument LEGAL DESCRIPTION: O W e W rA That part of Block 1, and that part of Lot 16, Block 2, and that part of Orono Avenue, vacated by abandonment, all in "Winship's Subdivision of Lot 1, Spring Park 2nd Division", described as commencing at the northeasterly corner of Lot 141, Spring Park; thence northeasterly along the extenslon of the easterly line of said Lot 141, a distance of 94.5 feet to the point of beginning; thence northwesterly deflecting to the left 101 degrees 01 minutes, to the shore of Lake Minnetonka, said line hereafter referred to as Line "A"; thence southerly along said shore, 52 feet, more or less, to the northerly line of said Lot 141; thence southeasterly along said northerly line to the northeasterly corner of said Lot 141; thence northeasterly to a point on the extension of said Line "A", distant 12.8 feet southeasterly from the point of beginning; thence northeasterly along said last described extension to the point of beginning. DEMARS—GABRIEL LAND SURVEYORS, INC. 2317 W. 93rd St. Bloomington, MN 55431 Phone:(763) 559-0908 cell: (612) 751-6785 dec®gwestoffice.net Revised, 1,05,2023 PROPOSED HARDCOVER EXHIBIT 1 hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that l am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota. As surveyed �by�m' e this 15th day of December, 2022. `/VL. oce David E. Crook Minn. Rea. No. 22414 PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com File No.I Pre ared for.* 1508 In Book—Page Lecy Bos. Homes & Remodelin Scalle 1 "=30' ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM (we) h`o^�,A4 kvaiAz 4 of Z 4fC0 Al C� O�Oi✓l� [print name(s)] [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at Z 7 C PR Z U also referred to as Land Use Application No. (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. aazaazza+aa+aa++rrarraa+aa•aaaara•+aaaaaaaa+azazaaza+a+zaaa+a+aaza+aa+aaaazazzzzataa+++ar++aa++aazzzzzaa+azaaaazaaza++raaaa+zzzxa I (we) ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS' ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FORM [print name(s)] of [print address] have reviewed the plans for the proposed improvement or proposed use of the property located at also referred to as Land Use Application No. (we) understand that in executing this acknowledgement, I (we) am (are) not asked to declare approval or disapproval of the property or use but merely to confirm for the City Council that I (we) am (are) aware of the improvement plans and that the proposed neighbor's project or use requires Council approval. Property Owner Date Property Owner Date If you have any information that may assist the City in the review of this Land Use Application, please submit your comments to the Building & Zoning Office at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting date. Adjacent Property Owner Form — January 2021 RUN DATE: 01/10/2023 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE: 1 38 20-117-23 210021 38 20-117-23 23 0020 38 20-117-23 24 0036 MAXINE E DUNLAP ZHIHUA LIU & YING LIU JEREME TOM & STEPHANIE TOM 2540 DUNWOODY AVE 2677 CASCO POINT RD 2601 CASCO POINT RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 MAXINE E DUNLAP ZHIHUA LIU & YING LIU JEREME TOM & STEPHANIE TOM 2540 DUNWOODY AVE 2677 CASCO POINT RD 2601 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 38 20-117-23 210023 38 20-117-23 23 0021 38 20-117-23 24 0038 K K KROLL JR & A E KROLL D D GUTERMUTH/ L J GUTERMUTH J HARRIS & Q A HARRIS 2560 DUNWOODY AVE 2665 CASCO POINT RD 2618 CASCO POINT RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 KURT KENNAN KROLL JR DAVID D GUTERMUTH JENNIFER HARRIS AMY ELIZABETH KROLL LYNN J GUTERMUTH QUINTIN ANDREW HARRIS 2560 DUNWOODY AVE 2665 CASCO POINT RD 2618 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 210024 38 20-117-23 23 0022 38 20-117-23 24 0039 CHARLES D PRICE ATRION FAIOLA & LISA FAIOLA JEANNE KOBS & MICHAEL KOBS 2580 DUNWOODY AVE 2659 CASCO POINT RD 2648 CASCO POINT RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 CHARLES D PRICE ATRION FAIOLA & LISA FAIOLA JEANNE KOBS & MICHAEL KOBS 4703 FAIRHILL RD E 2659 CASCO POINT RD 2648 CASCO PT RD MINNETONKA MN 55345 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 210030 38 20-117-23 24 0002 38 20-117-23 24 0042 S M HENTGES & J M HENTGES TODD M KIMMES PAUL J & MARY E KASTER 2545 DUNWOODY AVE 2660 CASCO POINT RD 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 STEVEN M HENTGES TODD M KIMMES PAUL J KASTER JEANETTE MARIE HENTGES 2660 CASCO PT RD 2600 CASCO POINT RD 13780 OLD BRICKYARD ROAD WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 SHAKOPEE MN 55379 38 20-117-23 210031 38 20-117-23 24 0003 38 20-117-23 24 0043 M J RUSINKO & MARY L RUSINKO D L RUNKLE & L F RUNKLE PAUL J & MARY E KASTER 2565 DUNWOODY AVE 2684 CASCO POINT RD 2600 CASCO POINT RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 MICHAEL J RUSINKO DAVID L RUNKLE PAUL J & MARY E KASTER MARY L RUSINKO 2684 CASCO POINT RD 2600 CASCO POINT RD 2565 DUNWOODY AVE WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 210032 38 20-117-23 24 0029 WENDY W DANKEY TRUSTEE DUSTIN KINDL & CASIE L KINDL 2599 CASCO POINT RD 2649 CASCO POINT RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 WENDY W DANKEY DUSTIN J KINDL 2599 CASCO POINT RD CASIE L KINDL WAYZATA MN 55391 2649 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 210034 38 20-117-23 24 0030 M W & S J DAVIS ETAL TIM HANSON 2590 CASCO POINT RD 2645 CASCO POINT RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 MATTHEW W & SARAH J DAVIS TIM HANSON BLAKE E & JULIA J LARSON 1270 ARBOR ST 2590 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 210035 38 20-117-23 24 0031 P D & P Z FITZGERALD PATRICIA REDMOND WEBBER 2598 CASCO POINT RD 2635 CASCO POINT RD ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 PATRICK FITZGERALD PATRICIA REDMOND WEBBER 2598 CASCO POINT RD 15159 TECHNOLOGY DR. WAYZATA MN 55391 EDEN PRAIRIE MN 55344 38 20-117-23 22 0018 PATRICIA M DILLON TRUST 2525 DUNWOODY AVE ORONO MN 55391 PATRICIA M DILLON ROBERT L DILLON 4702 SUNNYSIDE RD EDINA MN 55424 38 20-117-23 23 0001 G ERICKSON/S ERICKSON TRUSTS 2683 CASCO POINT RD ORONO MN 55391 GERALD ERICKSON SANDRA ERICKSON PO BOX 584 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0032 T P KUBALAK & P M KUBALAK 2623 CASCO POINT RD ORONO MN 55391 THOMAS & PATRICIA KUBALAK 2623 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 38 20-117-23 24 0035 SUMEDHA LLC 2617 CASCO POINT RD ORONO MN 55391 SUMEDHA LLC 2617 CASCO POINT RD WAYZATA MN 55391 Hennepin County has developed electronic forms of certain property information databases. Hennepin County makes reasonable efforts to produce and publish the most current property information available. The viewer should understand, however, that Hennepin County makes no representation or warranties, either express or implied, or as to merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose regarding the accuracy and/or completeness of the information contained herein. Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map Date: 1/10/2023 A 7 141 J495 A 2545 0�1 2325 2545 [moi z�ay N. � zsss � cn 2091 p 26951 NI ~kms 2715 � 2T45 �i Buffer Size: 500 Map Comments: 2617 Casco Point Road 256D q -t P.. x6dp 2664 2684 Wj W 1+1 2691 a4sl k2GE6 2697 �' •del 2590 W rM . F Ril'ik 2600 0 50 100 200 Feet I I I I I I I I I This data (i) is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (ii) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (iii) is notsuitable for legal, engineering or surveying purposes. Hennepin County shall not be liable for any damage, injury or loss resulting from this data. For more information, contact Hennepin County GIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 /gis.info@hennepin.us