The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03-20-2023 Planning Commission PacketAgenda Planning Commission Meeting Monday, March 20, 2023, 6:00 P.M. Orono Council Chambers, 2780 Kelley Parkway, Orono, MN 55356 952-249-4600 / www.ci.orono.mmus 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: Alisa Benson Pledge of Allegiance Approval of Agenda Approval of Minutes: February 21, 2023 Public Hearings: 1. LA23-000003 H & U Construction — Joseph Uhlorn, 200 Wayzata Boulevard West, requests a Conditional Use Permit for a parking lot expansion and other site improvements related to a golf course use. (Staff: Natalie Nye) Other Business: 2. Update on March 13, 2023 City Council meeting Adjourn Planning Commission Liaison to April 10, 2023 City Council meeting: Bob Erickson Sign up for email notifications at www.ci.orono.mn.us — follow links for Stay Connected & Email Notification Date Application Received: 2/21/2023 Date Application Considered as Complete: 3/1/2023 60 -Day Review Period Expires: 4/30/2023 To: Chair McCutcheon and Planning Commission Members Adam Edwards, City Administrator From: Natalie Nye, City Planner Date: March 20, 2023 Subject: #LA23-000003, Joseph Uhlhorn with H+U Construction, Wayzata Country Club, 200 Wayzata Blvd. W CUP - Public Hearing Application Summary: The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for a parking lot expansion and other site improvements for a golf course use. Staff Recommendation: Planning Department Staff recommends approval. Background The Wayzata Country Club is requesting approvals in order to replace and expand an existing parking lot on their site. The project will also include other site improvements including the replacement of sidewalks, retaining walls, patios, and landscaping. The Wayzata Country Club is partially located in Orono and partially in Wayzata with a total of 215 acres of land between the two cities. The City of Orono has approximately 150 acres of the country club including a portion of the clubhouse and parking lot. However, the scope of the proposed project is mostly within Wayzata. The City of Wayzata approved the project in February of 2023. The applicant has begun the process in Orono following that approval. Within the City of Orono, the Wayzata Country Club operates under a Conditional Use Permit for a golf course use. The proposed site improvements trigger the need for a new Conditional Use Permit. The golf course use is located within the RR -113, 2 -acre One -Family Residential District and is permitted through a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Improvements and changes to the site and use must be addressed through the CUP process. The original CUP on the property dates back to 1968 with club operations predating that as well. There have been numerous new conditional use permits issued since then, with the most recent CUP being approved for the property in 2010. Because of the numerous CUP's and amendments on the property related to the Wayzata Country Club, staff is suggesting issuing a new CUP for the proposed site improvements and expanded parking lot. Applicable Regulations: CUP: Golf Course (Code Section 78-418(1)) Golf courses are permitted within the RR -113 district by Conditional Use Permit. The Wayzata Country Club is currently operating under a CUP with the most recent CUP amendment for changes to the site approved in 2010. The conditional use for a golf course requires the principal building to meet a 100' setback from adjacent properties zoned residential and a 50' setback for all accessory buildings. The current proposal does not include any new structures or FILE #LA23-000003 March 20, 2023 Page 2 of 3 modifications to the existing buildings on the site. The proposal is primarily a parking lot expansion on the Orono parcel. The project adds approximately 7,500 square feet of new hardcover to the Orono portion of the site. Some other site improvements are also proposed related to landscaping. There are no hardcover limitations for the property and with the expansion the Orono parcels will be at about 6.5% hardcover. Conditional Use Permit Analysis Staff finds the Wayzata Country Club's request to expand an existing parking lot and update landscape and other hardscape on the property to be reasonable and appropriately scaled for the site. Applicable Regulation: Conditional Use Permit (Section 78-916) The Planning Commission may recommend and the Council may grant a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) as the use permit was applied for or in modified form. On the basis of the application and the evidence submitted, the city must find that the proposed use at the proposed location is or will be: 1) Consistent with the community management plan; A golf course is a conditional use in the RR -1B zoning district and is consistent with the community management plan. 2) Compliant with the zoning code, including any conditions imposed on specific uses as required by article V, division 3 of the City Code; This criterion is met. 3) Adequately served by police, fire, roads, and stormwater management; This criterion is met. The applicant has received all necessary approvals from the City of Wayzata where the majority of the work will be taking place. 4) Provided with an adequate water supply and sewage disposal system; There are no proposed changes to the buildings on the site and therefore this criterion is not applicable. 5) Not expected to generate excessive demand for public services at public cost; This criterion is met. 6) Compatible with the surrounding area as the area is used both presently and as it is planned to be used in the future; This criterion is met. 7) Consistent with the character of the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; The Wayzata Country Club is an established part of the community and character. The site updates will improve the country club and benefit the surrounding area. 8) Compatible with the character of buildings and site improvements in the surrounding area, unless a change of character is called for in the community management plan; The site is currently a golf course and the proposed improvements will maintain the surrounding character. 9) Not expected to substantially impair the use and enjoyment of the property in the area or have a materially adverse impact on the property values in the area when compared to the impairment or impact of generally permitted uses; The proposed improvements will not negatively impact the adjacent properties. 10) Provided with screening and buffering adequate to mitigate undesirable views and activities likely to disturb surrounding uses; This criterion is met. FILE #LA23-000003 March 20, 2023 Page 3 of 3 11) Not create a nuisance which generates smoke, noise, glare, vibration, odors, fumes, dust, electrical interference, general unsightliness, or other means; The proposed project will improve the function and look of the site. Construction will be regulated to minimize nuisance. 12) Not cause excessive non-residential traffic on residential streets, parking needs that cause a demonstrable inconvenience to adjoining properties, traffic congestion, or unsafe access; The proposal will expand the existing parking on the site to appropriately handle parking for the golf course use. The improvements to the site will not cause additional traffic or negative impacts to adjoining properties. 13) Designed to take into account the natural, scenic, and historic features of the area and to minimize environmental impact; The project has been designed to preserve and minimize impact. The improvements to the site will update the look of landscaped areas and increase functionality with the expanded parking lot. 14) All exterior lighting shall be so directed so as not to cast glare toward or onto the public right-of-way or neighboring residential uses or districts; This criterion is met; and 15) Not detrimental to the public health, public safety, or general welfare. This condition is met. A CUP may be granted subject to such conditions as the Council may prescribe. Additionally, a CUP shall remain in effect as long as the conditions imposed by the City Council are observed, but nothing in this section shall prevent the city from enacting or amending official controls to change the status of conditional uses. Public Comments No public comments have been received. Issues for Consideration 1. Does the Planning Commission find that the CUP, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood? 2. Does the Commission find it necessary to impose conditions in order to mitigate the impacts created by the granting of the requested CUP? 3. Are there any other issues or concerns with this application? Planning Staff Recommendation Planning Staff recommends approval of the Condition Use Permit (CUP). List of Exhibits Exhibit A. Application Exhibit B. Narrative Exhibit C. Plans Exhibit D. Hardcover Information Exhibit E. Photos Exhibit F. Mailing List & Map Land Use Application Summary Application Date: 02/18/2023 Address: 200 Wayzata Boulevard West Orono, MN 55391 Parcel Number: 3611823430001 Land Use Number: LA23-000003 Application Submitted By: Agent on behalf of property owner Owner: Name: WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB Address: Wayzata Country Club Applicant: Name: Joseph Uhlhorn Company: H+U Construction Address: 5555 W 78th Street Minneapolis, MN 55439 juhlhom@hu-construction.com Contact Information: Associated Contact: Chris Gerardi CJGerardi@wayzatacc.com Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Associated Contact: Project Description: Parking lot reconstruction and expansion 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: OL U4i4'— Wayzata Country Club Parking Lot Project Narrative City of Orono CUP Amendment In April 2022 Wayzata Country Club hired H+U Construction to replace aging and deterioration site features on the property. The project includes replacement of retaining walls, sidewalks, and the crumbling parking lot. The project's design is led by our Landscape Architect, Damon Farber and their Civil Engineer, Rehder & Associates. The goal of this project is to improve the safety and appearance of our property as well as provide increased parking on our property for events. During certain events, on- site parking capacity is not adequate and visitors to our property are forced to park off-site and be shuttled to the site. We have been in contact with the planning departments from the Cities of Orono and Wayzata regarding this project because the City's boundaries run through the property. In February the planning commission from the City of Wayzata approved the project. Also, in February the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District opted to hand permitting authority to the City of Wayzata because the majority of this project is located in the City of Wayzata and the work with the City of Orono's limits drains to the City of Wayzata. We understand that because this project is a Golf Course it is operating under a CUP within the City of Orono. The CUP requires an amendment to permit and approve this project. Please consider the attached information and contact me with any questions. Thank you, Joe Uhlhorn H+U Construction • MH (per ploy)\ CP - C• wal� 884 \ EXISTING BUILDING oncrete steps CITY OF ORONO CITY OF WAYZATA i 10 V / Boulders II wall i iO , 0 , B 6 '� a / Top 964.1 1 -Wood I Q a S Sj I � ( Inv. 961.8 S n I i Posts Q 0, C I e + lI 0 -Gard 0 d0 d..D°OC{' '0 Q V'ne- ems''' ' wood pas\ ,�o10_o00 °o0°o00o0°oo00o00o0°oZSoEXISTING � 00000000�0g0_�°yoc�o---- o4 005 0-0 0000000000°0BUILD1NG G�err°°°°°°0 0 0/- < , a' ''�-0_0000o00000�0 00' �o°o°o°0°0�0�0°4°--l0°0°0° 00 0, 0 000 00 . �. © 0000000-Q-9Q�/ n 0a0 0000 0 o -x,_ O°O 00 0°O O°O; - rde 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 010-0 0 0 0 0 0 G �-00000--a000��000000 Stonewall Boulder--' 00-00000<>_000000000/ 00000-0 0 o- 000C�00000d I wall 0-00 0 0 0 0-000000000' 00000000-0-Q 000-0.0' 1 --0-500000-o0'Qo 00000-Y \ 3" Fence MH © /00000000-00000000 Gro`- ct,\ \ �/ \ \ 3" -" =� I Top 68.8 Garden O 0 0 0 0 X> , 0- O - 0 0 0 0-50-1 _19- \ 9�e LP � Ce Spruce 990 S ruc Wood Fence , 0 -Q, 0 0 0 0 o-- 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 �/ ., 00000000 --0- 000000 2, \ \ X12"� ,} 12 �� 10" P 9sa 6 -O.50 0 0 0 0_0 000 a° 00000- C, t \ Ha kberry ackberrY ^Hackberry 3 sa'' and n 100000000--10— OOOOOC CBS m 9�8 \ \ Stone bird bath Spruce LP G 'v 0 0 0 0 0- Q 0 0 Q 0 0 0 O 0 O 0/ Tbp 957.5 \ \ 9 988 14 C Concrete 0 Q , a 86\12' Stone wall-,\\ steps - ° ° �_ �, �o°oao°o°o°0°0°0°�°0°�°0°0°0°o°o°a Inv. 952.3 SW \ ` \ 984 Ha berry 11 > �`� ,l, _ ,,,-2'1 O O C�'` 0�0 0010 00C /00 9°00000 -0-0 0000 Pto000000000°0 r� \„^ Y - \ WIL �er y 15 0°�0 00 0 00,10 o_aa00a- 'aa0000-X> \ �\ m0; ':`�2\ 98?\1 se�° OOO OOO 00000QO,t/ ,rJO-O00000000001 9j4 �:•Lan'o;-'P/'79 � 9g `��7 000 0000 00000 00000�000/a000000-�4 \ \ 4� op ny a , V- \ 11 L - 37" ak 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OHO �N,+ QV- 0- 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0" / 4"`a 15 .v, Iron Wrought ,p , / 5 5 �'�� -� 15 POOL Gam, 0 000 00000®O 000 ti0 \ Spruce ".Q�e) Tree -_�-�` O 0 Fences ,� O O 0 0 0 O, -0-0 0 0 0 0 -Q O/ 10 -= 8, 4' - 10 0 0 oQ �` �� s X00 foo oo°o°o°o°o°sa- �VOoo°Mo41 �000aoQoo 0 0 -Q o 0 0 0 0 - o S I - \ = Tre ' T �Q �5- } t_. _- 15"Crab 984 AR�i EX I STING o ,� 0 0 0 Q 0 0 Q Q 0 0 0 0 50 _' 1 O O O O O 06��°O°O°O°OHO°0°/a / �6 10" 18„ Locust, r, 1, 0 \^ti �s 0 0 0 0 0 O� 0 0 0 0 OO O O O O Q - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0"50 P ' must ?ar \ O j a°i✓d__ 4�1dsGa n:\ n4E`in0» , O % ! r' ;; ' G / 98 �''i, BUILDING M H er I n `" 000°0°0°0°�0°0°Q°0°0 °0°0��0°0°0°0°0°000�J °0°0°50°0°0� �� \ �O 0050°00000°a0 -0 � 9\Ti"�ber _� =` !;' ° s �:. P)`\;O 0 0 0 0' 0 0 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0'O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �0 0 0 0 0 0 Q \ wa//- ' z n! 15 960 S -- / '� 0 0 50 0 0a 0' 0SJ 0 0, 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 -0 ' i'"b 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 Q- /('� 8 �+ Londsca 'n '� O P '' ' .. '0 0 0 O O 'Oda 0 'O 50 0 0, 0 �0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0` \ 9j2 1 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 0 Q 0 Q _$ �r -- r LP, n 2 `:� I 00�0000000�-0-00=$$ '10"--�� 12 C°f,"� a0000�0_01o1o4ao'o o.00000000000000-Qa Q$s. -0 t L :a $� 15 21 "Locust �12 ^ 6.. GM , 3 � „'�- i SCS ,000 c�o�-OQ000aa 0000,0000000000000- at d 0 0- O-_0 0 0 0 0 0 Q�-010 �a< rob s ruc k, 1�1 Dy ruse " r 'O 0 0 �0 0,0 b CP 0' 0-* 0 0 0 Q O' 0 0 0 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 d 10 P 9� ". ce / ❑ / I 10 O O n O 0-0_00 0 0 0 0 0 ?-Q 8 0> '7 a F?r` AC �vsS 0 0 0 0 0 0 010 0 0 0' 0-0 01 O 10 O Q Q'Q Q a O, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-0 5� \ -t == LP �, Block wall �" „' 4 0 0 0 61 ,�_�J 0 0 0 -� 0 0 0 0 0 50-� 0 0__ .l,�a e�_ 5 od 6`-Bou►de Ah_ �- __�, -;� " Wa i /" G e 1000 00,000000b0 O-COOOo0000Q�1000000 \ ;O 0 0 8"® Q 0' d -E- O Q Q 0 0 0-9 O 11 k 5 �6 �, . s �� "/9$ / Tre 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 0 ,0 Q Q 0 I �J Q 01 a-10 0 0 50 10 b 0 Q O O 0 a_4 wall 1 1 0 LJSpruc _ 1 -`'-� ., O/ O -O --Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 '4- Q� 12 12 � -r� ,," 1� // 982 sso / 1 G O O �O 0 0 0 0 0 0° O; 0 '0 0 0' 1 O O 0; � 0 Q_ 0 O �O fe00 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q-- O'-----_- LPl,' 1 erwa// ruse 15 17" irch Tree Bor Q 0 0 0 0 O Q 0 0 O 0'� 0 01 O Q 50;0-10-_� 5010 0 50 0 01 \ 1 0 0 0 0 - _��, 1 d ,, Q 0-�-_O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-----_� y„ds >,>,; `spruce ,;k�pckberry / —g78 an 12" / O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 �O C5 O; O ;O C> O 1 O �J Q O, 0 O O O 4-�,' \ Q -Zi-- �4� 7 S _00,0�_9000� 0v _;�apn -,; _�- �97s� / H berry 00 0000000000QQQ001, OU010d�Q0 000/ � �� 9701 0Q�V/ 0 Q 1Tree ,�,``, _� - 00000�� _,,912 -,-� 1 , kwa►I/ / / 5,. %` 00000 00000000000000000 00000' O O�-Qt ss 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i3 = 1` 15 10'��„� - 0<�z�0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 / Z?::__: P,v,,=� 5 --� —_ / s 9�k H kberry 12" � .� � 0 0 - 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 d O; 010 0 0 0 0 �Q G r a 10 0 0 0 O < 0/ ' Tree Spruce 10',�n _0 0, 0-_a 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0- / a s / Hoc#berry ,- O �O� 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \ 00<y-00002\� ruc�� O0-000000 O`�,—_ ►d ence� G// J -Q 0000ObQ000 0000000000 00000-s ' - 4 1- um 16'Ash �afrdTcaping / \ Q O O O d 0-19 Q O, O j �Ce + 124" ,O O O-- 0 0 0 O O O O O G t 2 with ed 12" �� O O� 0 O O ©a O 10 < G O�O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 OTd� 9� \ 1001 j,0�O4000o-a '0 ` 01 U _ 4 i „�C>�'Q-O-50000 O b "S�_ i9� Hockbecr� J'000 O 00 010^O^0; 0„10^,,�g00000004rv�� 000Oa-4' '- O 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z�-01_01OO O OJ= -=12d 15-u� 0 �:-Q 0 0 0 O v, S�Birch "Birch �• 970--_Hackberry -�5 0 0 0/Q 0 O O Q-=a�� 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q 50 0 0 0 0 0 f \ '�J 4'' p p O O O O O O O ��Q; - Tre - _L: a I'ortd 13 ' - O O O O O i' ;�� , �9 O O' -4 O O C, , `[ ,,--.�-0 O O O O O 0 O' =a'===� _=---i 4 �'� 7"Tree O OO�OOO �OOa- 01010 01 ee'� �_ �osii�� -QOOO,000.9 _ _-_---�OOOOO O O'O_ urbaZ�0Qp000 0°O°Q°00�0� ` C�AIvl=Ri�FOST— sss — e �c Q 0 \ 1Spruce- 10 — 0 0, 0 0 0 0 �' �Boulder- 0 0 0 0 0 0 �O O O O O 0--0--v 01 O ,O-' pruc \ u, „' Q O Q- O O O v -v --v __ ____q__ �_----v-v-v-v-v-� z7- O -Z� O O O O O 6�0 O O O� Q Choinlinkx ' O T - 0 OX0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 _Q 50 1 O 0T 501 �Zi�--f _ ��AS' 1_ 4 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 b 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0� 0 O 0 0 O 0; Fence � a O; 0 0 0 '0 Q C� 0, 0 i wall o, ooh 0000000000oo0ao;d,or,_ 4" 00000000 00000000000000000000a'°ooQ�00000 x,3, aa000 �� ..._. EXISTING O` 16 1P� 0/ O <X 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q ,0 Q 01 �/ ' <1� -�; , Ash1 ,i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Od0 Q_ O _�-n- -��- - -�_a ,0�5 O O O O O 0 ,?�-,��4 / \ 10 e, 010 0,'0100-11_000%00000 0-�10 010'L°ns _$ 0000 O 0000__50- -�'-- 24" i`a000 00000 -L1 r BUILDING - J- / p� I \7-��`�-+• - '---(� � 17 Sll � •' '-'• G7 0\ 11 Q 000,'000 000000�000�0010� � 000-`��0 ,. me{"`� 5000000 OiIJ O' �CS O,' O 'O 4 0 000 -0- 4 0 0 0 00000-0_0 O; 12 < 0/ O ;O �O 0 0 0 0 -�- 14» (j <, / '0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '00- 10 00*-I900/00p00' -000 000000 0'O ti' 0101 0000000Q'' Plne� 12 ss `Q0 00 010 �00 y 0'ObOO,'-0,OQ0,'0'0�0BTO�000QQ00Q0-0�o0'00000QS%' rass \ Boxelder Gra `,0 0000�QR,a0 0 10 O Cg' 0' O 0 �'J' 0 0 '0' O /0 0' 0 10 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01- 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 G \ 24"Boxelder \ _ o;oogolo0-x_0/0000;0'0 -a-o 0000000000000000a � o0 ob \ 0000-QC�010>000101?-500'0'0 O'o/OQO,0000000000000of� X"® ` 000 0,- 0 \ 10000001oO JO 0, 0000,0-�_�50,0,000000-5000000 000000 00 00 \� 50000 00\0 %9000'0 0 50 010-0 0 0'010000p 000000 000000' 18"Boxelder 1000050 \ Q0000 0000a-Q'o0oo;o0gOa�o<�0,0p 0,'o -a -o0 0oo 0011 200 010 66'RO WAY EMENr 80000 00000-�_O'00001000-,-O,0pO;0000-0-,00000 0C ;1 ,� ' 00000\000000-6-00'00000/'0 00500/01oQ �QQ 00, 15050 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0-0 0 0 0 b O 010 O--0 Q, 0 ,0 0 0 0 0 4 -- 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 - Boxelder 1 , \ 10 000 000000000-�_bao/ooao'o-0- 0/00 0'0� 00c; ; oo Q _ 22 000 01(J0000000000`P-1O000'O4�>0010_�000 0001 1 ® - 00010 000140_ 0000000000000 f�'�bO �4 Q' - 050 0006 100 a • _MHop A4-.7\� g 1 0000000000O�0O- -O 'O 0O 0-4?- Q 000' DO 00 O O O QQ 0,0 �' -0�-0 -Q 0 0 0 0 0 0� 0 0 0 0 0 -0- 0 0 %0 0 0 0 0 0 __I W ' 0 O0 ,0 Inv. 958.0�I(per ,mss 01 O0O�r0-000 <> <> 0O �0--0 12" 0OQG�- 1 1 1 ; Boxelder) 1 � •�nJ9�,Z8, perp)-_ oa00 0000000000QOa000°o°oas / 11°0Q0��0 Pp —E �' - O 0 d�O- 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - Q 0 0 0 �=--� X00-4-50000000 00Q000 / xh a? 2 16 _= 0� C; 1 s; O Z�- O 00000� O O O O C a) 00 O — 16 xaxx Lo�sca _, /n' 0;0 0000�Q00Q000' / <> <> =aza=aa�_pi/;Q _12 ==-,s n Q oQ 450 Q Q o Q Q W 17" 0 50 ' E� aax=s Ash" Q Q Q g o 0 o a e ekje� , Q a �- \ _ - - _ E ndsQpp/n9 Ti axer _ +-==x_=ax 16.x= - =�_ �_�i pp_ 0 0 ' Boxelder mb 2 - 4 ===xa G r a s s -E� 16 xaxax=$ Londsca in9 12 --�- - W �J 0 0 i 17"Spr ce E _ �_ _ _ h - - ; 0500Oi C ^ \ PP 16 00" RIGHT-OF-WAY J '0 0 0' Timber w 1 \ 96 ' _Y' �Q� 0 4' 14 Spruce g 962 E— {`� \ CB 962 EPP E_ — �.J 0O�O0 S _ Top 961.0E , MH - Inv. 954.3 N --k-% 0?'� ,To��959.3 \ _ Inv. 952.7 S _ E bn �O1 Inv.n2.77�:W _0_0,- -0� \ A PP E / \ Hyd. Bo (Per p CBO—ST (Per plan) IJJ Top 962.3 DD - •-T � / N \ � _-962— VV E Inv. 950.8 \ / —954— — - RIGHT-OF-WAY TENNIS COURTS L TENNIS COURTS 16' Crab ELEVATED COURT Esq COUP Fence MH (-) Top 962.0 — "�v(4.3 N,S 6'Spruce ' - \ "Pine 3"�3raee�� . —S_04) Inv. 956.1 MH(WM 24'ST _--------- - MH — - To 958.9 _ nv. 949.7 N,S — — MH Top 960.5 Inv. 955.2 N Inv. 952.7 S N .�o LEGEND • BOUNDARY/ROW/BLOCK LINE concrete curb & gutter EASEMENT Remove EXISTING WATERMAIN W Remove EXISTING SANITARY SEWER S Remove EXISTING STORM SEWER sr Remove EXISTING BURIED GAS LINE G Remove EXISTING BURIED ELECTRIC LINE E 980— EXISTING CONTOUR X 995.50 EXISTING ELEVATION wood post(s) BITUMINOUS TO BE REMOVED DEMOLITION NOTES ( - Remove concrete curb & gutter 2I) - Remove bituminous pavement M - Remove concrete pavement ®- Remove tree(s). 05 - Remove timber wall ©- Remove boulder wall 07 - Remove stone wall ®- Remove wood post(s) 0 - Remove light pole (By Others) 10 - Remove & salvage camera post 11 - Remove timber steps 12 - Remove landscaping 13 - Remove & salvage portable curb 14 - Remove & salvage bird bath 15 - Remove rock 16 - Remove landscaping timber 0 15 30 60 90 Scale in Feet PC Exhibit C O Ln �Ln -5 O N to y" N LA L N ,4 E. N LA V L 1n L a) z ci W G s s Iv M W H Qz V L_ L Z� m W "' Vi H W= H 00 im= Ca c-> L. n- 0 v � p 7 Qa o � c •� av rn c rncWa 0.2 coo Cc: c a C:,L cn :Z 00 0:-6� a IOU N :t--�E 2t 0 0 � U >,U .n=�3 L 000 (D9)E(D -Ev-- 0 r N d - N n C� z 3 0 N d - N N O z F- W 0 X Cl - to c0 N LO I 00 ca � d - I o z a� 0Or E Q IF. 04 C14 04 N C14 04 n 04 N Nnrn I n VJ 1� N ao 0' rn C-4 1 � wwQw� � j�00Q oQ z a a 3 U U NM M ¢oww�wN wrw ooV)a0:: ¢aix < z� gJ � U z�Q N �Z< O 0 LL :2i U 0 W 0 Q ~ �_ LLJ N U SHEET NUMBER C1 8,. Pine Stoi a wall 24� Pine \ O 24" ~ C� Spruce y c Q 30" Spruce c` N CN Ln iLn(p L d CD c s 04 CD 3 15 M W er ~ � Bould EXI STING wall o Z i 3 BUILDING I= aden ro ` W Viy 12 `� r P 9.5 CN a G Boxelder ° N NP y Hackberry T ass 52 22W ° EXISTING CottonW . d e = 12" Spruce Crab Overhang eerroJs b Hackberry Landscaping y . BUILDING G< Q _ 3" 8.00' '> Spruce ` 7YP ,,,_24.00, 06 e� z T Stone wall Concrete 3 tuber ste'"— wal! ��20.00 20 0p, U Spruce '. _;,;;� NP„ bib.. LLJ Spru Spruce 150 L Stone wall Ce 24 ` CITY OF WAYZATA Cl - Gorden X 0 p ��=0 00' 20. 0, 7"Pine 3 Spruce 3' C&G TAPER T ' — ---------- -- RIGHT–OF–WAY 3' C&G TAPER 07"Tree BUILDING LEGEND N ELEVA COW p --gyp N CO LO o I 00 VALET STALLS STANDARD STALLS ACCESSIBLE STALLS TOTAL N av rn EASEMENT z Uj 35 224 >- 0.2 O 3v�a� v 0 a� 0: c c •2.c _a �0 N� Q PROPOSED CONCRETE O N U 0_ EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN WAYZATA = 2.16 ACRES EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN ORONO = 0.16 ACRES Q PROPOSED LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS Q D PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN WAYZATA = 2.41 ACRES PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN ORONO = 0.33 ACRES yAE UL O VALET STALLS STANDARD STALLS ACCESSIBLE STALLS TOTAL � N -0:3 Z L 307 (D9)E(D _Ev- TOTAL INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS AREA = 0.42 ACRES v z 04 C14 04 C14 04 04 04 C-4 NN N I04 M N N N N n N 00 m �!"i � wwQw� �MM00200 z a ¢N U � O W W W W N W W D V) Q Q Q Q P7 z J LUQ BOUNDARY/ROW/BLOCK LINE VALET STALLS STANDARD STALLS ACCESSIBLE STALLS TOTAL N EASEMENT C) Cn 35 224 >- 259 � Z wow ::R0 Q Q PROPOSED CONCRETE N U Fes- EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN WAYZATA = 2.16 ACRES EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN ORONO = 0.16 ACRES EXISTING CONDITIONS PARKING STALLS PROVIDED SITE SUMMARY (WITHIN PROJECT AREA) BOUNDARY/ROW/BLOCK LINE VALET STALLS STANDARD STALLS ACCESSIBLE STALLS TOTAL EASEMENT 35 224 0 259 WITHIN CITY OF WAYZATA WITHIN CITY OF ORONO DISTURBED AREA WITHIN WAYZATA = 3.91 ACRES DISTURBED AREA WITHIN ORONO = 0.47 ACRES 0 PROPOSED CONCRETE POST CONSTRUCTION PARKING STALLS PROVIDED EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN WAYZATA = 2.16 ACRES EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN ORONO = 0.16 ACRES Q PROPOSED LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN WAYZATA = 2.41 ACRES PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN ORONO = 0.33 ACRES PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS SHEET NUMBER VALET STALLS STANDARD STALLS ACCESSIBLE STALLS TOTAL INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN WAYZATA = 0.25 ACRES INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN ORONO = 0.17 ACRES 33 272 2 307 TOTAL INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS AREA = 0.42 ACRES 0 15 30 60 90 C2 Scale in Feet MH (per ploy)\ N \ n Pp— E C Pine �Stohe wall 984 \� LEGEND \ N C0 LO 0 PROPOSED CLEANOUT N N i PROPOSED CATCH BASIN \ G �.y C CN N Lf) L L L PROPOSED FLAKED END I PROPOSED STORM SEWER ' 0 PROPOSED CONCRETE Q PROPOSED LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS -"" PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS �05o PROPOSED CONTOUR • 1023.54 PROP6SED ELEVATION •- SILT FENCE o Q � \ Q 04 O � I PROPO�ROTECTION ED EC BLANKET Wye Q = AT. MNDOT 7 35 (3885) O 06 ;3 z N >, 0 Q F– �j753 U Z W O 0000E Cl U \ o z \ MH (per ploy)\ N \ n Pp— E C Pine �Stohe wall 984 \� LEGEND \ N C0 LO 0 PROPOSED CLEANOUT N N i PROPOSED CATCH BASIN r- r- CN G �.y C CN N Lf) L L L PROPOSED FLAKED END I PROPOSED STORM SEWER ' 0 PROPOSED CONCRETE Q PROPOSED LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS -"" PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS �05o PROPOSED CONTOUR • 1023.54 PROP6SED ELEVATION •- SILT FENCE o Q � INLET DEVICE Q 04 O � I PROPO�ROTECTION ED EC BLANKET Wye Q = AT. MNDOT 7 35 (3885) 24" Spruce 30" Spruce 996 / 19g X CONNECT TO PROPOSED DOWNSPOUTS EXI STING \ _ TAB F 5 C.Y. OF CLASS II RIP -RAP ON GEOTEXTILE FABRIC ION 962.65 95' - 4" PERF. DT INV 959.65 (DT) INV 958.1 (12") TENNIS INV 952.0 (MATCH 36") INV 950.0 (SUMP) COURTS Cl) M BUILDING RY ■ 94 , ■ Z U ■ 2 ■ _ ■ LLJ (n ■ W ■ (n ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ o 963.5 ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE hoinlink ■ Fence ■ 963. ■ ' 7"Spruce M H Top 962.LN,S "ski 54. DAYLIGHT DRAINTILE� ■ INV 959.6 14'Spruce T' ber wG 6'Spruce ■ S-�_ ine � MH 3 _ Jo�� 9959.3 Inv.ZJ52.7 - yd.� \Q Inv. 956.1 , MH(WM 24 "ST M H —------- PP To 958.9 — nv. 949.7 N,S MH Top 960.5 Inv. 955.2 N RIGHT-OF-WAY Inv. 952.7 S B-6 ELEVA COUI — —958— BOUNDARY/ROW/BLOCK LINE — -956- EASEMENT Inv. 950.8 —954— - - - BUILDING/PARKING SETBACK LINE- -� DRAINAGE ARROW �✓ EXISTING WATERMAIN ) — — Is EXISTING SANITARY SEWER \ _� �9s4 —AT—EXISTING STORM SEWER G EXISTING BURIED GAS LINE— E EXISTING BURIED ELECTRIC LINE v. 94E 980— \EXISTING CONTOUR x 995.50 EXISTING ELEVATION I \ \ \ /956_ \ \ • \ N— 0� 15 30 \ \ \ \ \ \S7i ca O N C0 LO �p 7 I a0 N N i � N N r- r- CN G �.y C CN N Lf) L L L d c 7 CL) 3 o 0 M W H mc c 0 •2 .c z ,++ y _a V Z 0 W-� w = N1 H •- LAJ R o Q � CV Q 04 O � I Wye Q = N O 06 ;3 z N >, 0 Q F– �j753 U Z W O 0000E Cl L p --(p N C0 LO �p 7 I a0 C/)g� rn a0Uj z 0.2 0 o 0 a� Or mc c •2 .c � Z _a z 0 Q�o� �IL m Q -2 (DN QJQ yAE UL O L J r+ N >, 0 Q L U �j753 U Z L 0000E (D9)E(D U _Eo - o z 04 C14 04 N C14 04 04 N N M N I n 04 rn to I Cq to N N N 1 N i ,i i a, i ^ W H~12Q Z � j�00Q oQ z a a 3 ¢oww�wN LU rc w ooV) a ix a z ozm C/)g� o W U N LLJ Q � Z z � Q�o� m o QJQ z FZ N U ozQ o Q U SHEET NUMBER C3 12" ku" 3 H,Oberry 966.60 rry 966 ?r O N N N GRADING NOTES ° N�0 L`n1� aa) N / 1❑ - All elevations shown are to final surfaces.CD / 2❑ - Contractor is responsible for obtaining a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System o R 3 J (NPDES) General Storm Water Permit for Construction Activity before construction begins. M W H l EROSION CONTROL NOTES Z Contractor is responsible for all notifications and inspections required by General Storm Water Permit. vj H All erosion control measures shown shall be installed prior to grading operations and maintained Q o until all areas disturbed have been restored. Q Sweep paved public streets as necessary where construction sediment has been deposited. = v O � I Each area disturbed by construction shall be restored per the specifications within 14 days afterUj the construction activity in that portion of the site has temporarily or permanently ceased. Q W N 962 Temporary soil stockpiles must have silt fence around them and cannot be placed in surface waters, 0a '- Z including storm water conveyances such as curb and gutter systems, or conduits and ditches. 960.30 I / / ©- The normal wetted perimeter of any temporary or permanent drainage ditch or swale that drains water Uj from any portion of the construction site, or diverts water around the site, must be stabilized within o � 200 lineal feet from the property edge, or from the point of discharge into any surface water. CI_ 959.85 0" 1\1 / Stabilization of the last 200 lineal feet must be completed within 24 hours after connecting to a ss 105' - 4" PERF. DT surface water. 959.00 O7 -All pipe outlets must be provided with temporary or permanent energy dissipation within 24 hours c0 of connection to a surface water. -o oN LO ao 990.50 ®- Excess concrete/water from concrete trucks shall be disposed of in portable washout EOF concrete basin or disposed of in a contained area. a 4) ! o 959.0 CITY OF ORONO z . •/CITY OF WAYZATA `W INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE v•a r 0 0 o a� B-6 GROUND WATER LEV. 952.3 3 0 CO r - The site must be inspected once every seven (7) days during active construction and within 24 hours a Q.0 c 998.70 �6 �6 PRE-TREATMENT BASIN after a rainfall event greater than 0.5 inches in 24 hours. °- /� VOLT ME ® 957.0 = 1,588 C.F. o o E 958.75 j �� - All inspections and maintenance conducted must be recorded in writing and records retained with the SWPPP. t 0 0 �v 0 - Areas of the site that have undergone final stabilization, may have the inspection of these areas reduced o ` -0 a a 957.00 to once per month. t� ONCL 87 - 4" PERF. PVC �' c ® 0.0% - All silt fence must be repaired, replaced, or supplemented within 24 hours when they become nonfunctional E h o 57.5 or the sediment reaches 1/3 of the height of the fence. (-',� o s 52.3 SW,N 8 >, 0 0 C.O. - Temporary and permanent sedimentation basins must be drained and the sediment removed when the depth 3 z TO BIOFILTRATION BASIN of the sediment reaches 1/2 the storage volume. Removal must be completed within 72 hours of discovery. INCB o IV 955.0 FILTRATION VOLUME - Surface waters and conveyance systems must be inspected for evidence of sediment being deposited. Removal 0 o E PROVIDED = 9,976 C.F. y y p g p t 0 E 0 v 100 -YR HWL = 958.0 and stabilization must take place within seven (7) days of discovery unless precluded by legal, regulatory, or - E o - Z 45 physical access constraints. 4" VALTERRA VALVE OR APPROVED EQUAL TO BE - Construction site vehicle exit locations must have sediment removed from off-site paved surfaces within N 01 INSTALLED ON ENDS OF 4" DRAINTILE WITHIN 24 hours of discovery. N N N N N N INT CB 60 - 4" PERF. DT THE EXISTING CATCH BASIN N rn co Cq " to - Infiltration areas shall be graded to finished grade when all contributing drainage areas have been stabilized. N N N I N 953.5 Protect infiltration area from sediment and heavy equipment compaction during/after construction with silt fence. r olo °' 1 14 T 103' - 4" PERF. PVC 959.30 ® 0.0% I POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEMENT q58 5 958.40 - All solid waste must be disposed of off-site per the MPCA disposal requirements. 958.2 / C.O. A - All hazardous waste must be properly stored with restricted access to storage areas to prevent vandalism. 958.5 Storage and disposal of hazardous waste must be in compliance with MPCA Regulations. 195' - 4" PERF. DT ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE -Choiniink �'- f Fence TOP 962.65 INV 959.65 (DT) INV 958.1 (12") TENNIS INV 952.0 (MATCH 36") INV 950.0 (SUMP) COURTS ./ BUILDING .00 - 94 : ■ L, ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ : : M U W Z■ J W - _ � 2 W FV - W Zw - W- lzll�v v54.3 NIS 'AINTIL a ti�Spruce _ \ "Pine 3' -S I M Inv. 956.1 - 24'ST MH --------- - To 958.9 ELEVATED / COURT UTILITY NOTES 0 -Remove existing 8" drain tile between existing catch basin and CB 1. (:D- Construct CB 1 over the existing 8" drain tile. Notify Engineer of invert. CATCH BASIN/MANHOLE SCHEDULE STRUCTURE NO. BARREL SIZE NEENAH CASTING NO. CB 1 48" R -3067V CB 2 24" X 36" R -3067V CB 3 24" X 36" R -3067V RECONSTRUCTED CB 4 60" R -2573-1C AREA DRAIN SCHEDULE STRUCTURE NO. NYLOPLAST BASIN TYPE NYOPLAST GRATE AD 1 18" DRAIN BASIN (2818AG5) 18" DOME (1899CGD) LEGEND 'IP -RAPS nv. 949.7 NIS - - _ - - ® PROPOSED CLEANOUT FABRIC _ _ BUILDING/PARKING SETBACK LINE MH -' - - PROPOSED CATCH BASIN Top 960.5 S EXISTING SANITARY SEWER Inv. 955.2 N / PROPOSED FLARED END RIGHT-OF-WAY Inv. 952.7 S E EXISTING BURIED ELECTRIC LINE / N EXISTING CONTOUR PROPOSED STORM SEWER EXISTING ELEVATION 0 PROPOSED CONCRETE \ � PROPOSED LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS z PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS � ioso PROPOSED CONTOUR . 1023.54 PROPOSED ELEVATION o Q SILT FENCE Q INLET PROTECTION DEVICE ------i PROPOSED EC BLANKET MNDOT CAT. 35 (3885) - BOUNDARY/ROW/BLOCK LINE EASEMENT - - BUILDING/PARKING SETBACK LINE -► DRAINAGE ARROW W- EXISTING WATERMAIN S EXISTING SANITARY SEWER -ST- EXISTING STORM SEWER G EXISTING BURIED GAS LINE E EXISTING BURIED ELECTRIC LINE 980 EXISTING CONTOUR X 995.50 EXISTING ELEVATION 0 15 30 60 Scale in Feet � wwQw� z a ¢N U � O W W W W N Uj oaV)a0: cc cc Z ozm COg� omJ W U N LLJ J T V Q � 7~ Z z � Q�o� o Q J Q ozQ o Q N 0.L U SHEET NUMBER 90 I C4 99 \ \ 990 \ \ MH (PE co \ n vn 9 \ MATCH \ 976.: TW: 975.0 BW: 975.0 914 � EXISTING BUILDING MATCH 984.50 STYPE 2 RETAINING WALL -Iron Wrought Fence TYPE 1 RETAINING WALL TW: 984.0 BW: 984.0 C00c1_at(9 steps Iron Wrought Fence POOL AREA TW: 984.4 BW: 981.4 TYPE 3 RETAINING WALL r—TYPE 2 RETAINING WALL BTW: 984.7 BW: 979.2 — TW: 983.5 BW: 978.0 CITY OF ORONO CITY OF WAYZATA EXISTING BUILDING ecce / r e ❑ F , _ � food x 5 ' AC */k Tr 01980 / " irch g7S Tree, / Boulmer /wa )) — / 976 � � / Hae » 5 / 9�"� / H herr 12 S yy mo o4 -Fence r a �c herr 'ump 16 "Ash _ _ i / landscaping 9I2 with edging Hockberry / `�- F1� g70Hackberry / ss�.4o LEGEND BOUNDARY/ROW/BLOCK LINE 0 1 EASEMENT I PROPOSED CONCRETE \ PROPOSED LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS (J) PROPOSED CONTOUR • 1023.54 PROPOSED ELEVATION 980— EXISTING CONTOUR x 995.50 EXISTING ELEVATION U F�— 4) v .CiM e 3 J M W H � CD Q Z ,++ N 3 V Z >' Q +�+ 0 CL N W yH •- LAJ -0 o Q Q CV EXISTING BUILDING MATCH 984.50 STYPE 2 RETAINING WALL -Iron Wrought Fence TYPE 1 RETAINING WALL TW: 984.0 BW: 984.0 C00c1_at(9 steps Iron Wrought Fence POOL AREA TW: 984.4 BW: 981.4 TYPE 3 RETAINING WALL r—TYPE 2 RETAINING WALL BTW: 984.7 BW: 979.2 — TW: 983.5 BW: 978.0 CITY OF ORONO CITY OF WAYZATA EXISTING BUILDING ecce / r e ❑ F , _ � food x 5 ' AC */k Tr 01980 / " irch g7S Tree, / Boulmer /wa )) — / 976 � � / Hae » 5 / 9�"� / H herr 12 S yy mo o4 -Fence r a �c herr 'ump 16 "Ash _ _ i / landscaping 9I2 with edging Hockberry / `�- F1� g70Hackberry / ss�.4o LEGEND 966 0 10 20 40 60 Scale in Feet 0 BOUNDARY/ROW/BLOCK LINE cp LO EASEMENT I PROPOSED CONCRETE Q PROPOSED LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS goo PROPOSED CONTOUR • 1023.54 PROPOSED ELEVATION 980— EXISTING CONTOUR x 995.50 EXISTING ELEVATION 966 0 10 20 40 60 Scale in Feet 0 N cp LO C):3 I 00 M N � N N -0 o n Z N L N - L .Ny V US U F�— 4) v .CiM e 3 J M W H � CD Q Z ,++ N 3 V Z >' +�+ 0 CL N W yH •- LAJ -0 o Q Q CV �a � O I � a O 61 Q = N O N U "a p �CaZ z 3 Z n�a-vv L U p C),3 W t N E Na 0 _Ea -.1 Z L. ate— N cp LO C):3 I 00 M -m C) N -0 I Z •(DC as rn J US U F�— 0.2 p v a� Cc: a � z Q +�+ 0 CL N Z7 acv v Q Q Q C� �a � U E U t Q a O O N U "a p U 3 Z n�a-vv L p C),3 t N E Na _Ea -.1 Z N NN ^ N I ^ 0)N N N N I N rj N 0l0 p) N I 6CIn �¢ w co M M Z M OZ Ow 3 �O`UU�U� o LOL. (f) w w W w w CE GE CC 00 0 z -m C) � J U U F�— Q J � z Q _ o z Q Q — � U � Q SHEET NUMBER C5 O N SPECIFICATIONS .5 0 o N HARD SURFACE GENERAL a; .L N 4 E. Q SUPPORT POST ®4' O.C. PUBLIC ROAD I. GENERAL R U L SD' A. Before construction begins, the Contractor will contact all utility companies, both public and private and hove them locate all y Z ci a� N APPROVED MnDOT SILT FENCE FABRIC a i c z n FASTEN TO STAKES 2' O.C. utilities within the construction limits. m o y OPENING FOR LARGE EVENTS I,+opo°O a B. The Contractor shall be responsible for arranging all required inspections with the governing authority that has jurisdiction over the R y 3J FILTER FABRIC �,�,e°; oo r� 00 o work that is to be performed. R a) 3 HDPE INSERT BASKETS oo M UJ ~ �' m°o° o°O SHOWN W/OUT FILTER BAGS oo°°o° C. The Contractor shall stay within the construction limits unless approved otherwise by the Owner and or Engineer. Construction limits Z PERFORATED WALL omoo moo° 400 MICRON FILTER BAGS 00000 oe$$oo are defined by the property boundary unless shown different on the plan. °0° °o ° REQUIRED INSIDE BASKETS o°o°oe °O 0000 D. The Contractor shall be responsible for protecting all existing structures, utilities, trees, etc. from damage Burin construction. m 3 T °° + 0 000 o P P 9 9 9 9 L COMPACTED BACKFILLa°000Oe oo°000 e o °oo° oo°o E. The Contractor shall be responsible for correcting an damage at Contractor's expense). a Q R\E Z SILT FABRIC TO BE °Ooo° 00000; 00000 a °oo° eo;eQo P 9 y 9( P )' Z y cr OVER FILTER FABRIC �1P WRAPPED AROUND °os00000so$o°oeooee°m > e 0°000e000°°oe000s°°o F. Any discrepancies found on the site that affect the proposed work shall be reported to the Owner and/or Engineer before the L co io SCB IF NEEDED a, HDPE INSERT BASKETS _ 0 °°°°os �020caeeaa�e°e completion of any additional work. LQ y y SHOWN W/OUT FILTER BAGS O0 G. Soils report and pavement recommendation provided by American Engineering Testing, Inc. Q W r_ 0 FLOW 400 MICRON FILTER BAGS H. Existing Topography and Boundary Survey provided by Rehder & Associates, Inc. 50' CATCH BASIN CN REQUIRED INSIDE BASKETS Q o1J dN /��/'/ g 1.5" CLEAR ROCK TOP VIEW F c Re O N h \// CROSS SECTION vlEw RgMF SITE CLEARING = I. GENERAL t/1 . N F 2X3 HDPE FRAME INSERT Vi r_ RA. Remove trees, shrubs, grass, and other vegetation or obstructions, as required, to permit installation of improvements shown on W CV MERGENCY the Plans. Q - \�/��/��/i r 2X3 HDPE FRAME INSERT OVERFLOW PORTS EMERGENCY OVERFLOW PORTS If. EXECUTION 06 / NOTE: USE THIS TYPE OF INLET PROTECTION � Z BEFORE THE CASTING IS INSTALLED. A. Trees and stumps shall be hauled from the site. Burial on-site or burning of trees and stumps will not be allowed. B. Where existing trees are indicated to remain, leave existing topsoil in place within drip lines to prevent damage to root system. W 1=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=III=1 I=III= NOTE: USE THIS TYPE OF INLET PROTECTION AFTER THE CASTING IS INSTALLED. C. Topsoil shall be stripped from disturbed areas and stockpiled in piles not exceeding 8-feet in depth. 7 -� � I-� � I O D. Remove all back dirt and unsuitable material from under drives and roadways within 3-feet of final pavement subgrade. 0� INLET PROTECTIONINLET PROTECTION E. Remove all waste materials and unsuitable or excess topsoil from Owner's property. 1 SILT FENCE 2 ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE rT'�� INFRASAFE OR EQUAL rT'�� INFRASAFE OR EQUAL GRADING, EROSION CONTROL, AND TURF ESTABLISHMENT C6 NO SCALE 6 NO SCALE C6 NO SCALE C 6 NO SCALE V V V I. GENERAL co A. All grading, erosion control and turf establishment shall be according to the materials, workmanship, and other applicable n r- C N L0 requirements of the Minnesota Department of Transportation "Standard Specifications for Construction", latest edition, unless PAVEMENT otherwise specified. p �- 2" - BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE, (SPWEA330F*) 2" - BITUMINOUS WEAR COURSE, (SPWEA440F*) B. All erosion control measures shown on the plans must be installed prior to commencement of grading operations and maintained p BASE FACE OF CURB until all areas altered on the site have been restored. a p p� Z TACK COAT, 2357 TACK COAT, 2357 C. All areas disturbed by construction shall be restored with seed and disked mulch, sod, wood fiber blanket, or be hard surfaced O C W a N R=0.5"ri�� within two weeks of substantial completion of construction. 100 ,O O N 2" - BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE, (SPWE6340F*) 2.5" - BITUMINOUS BASE COURSE, (SPWE6330F*) R=3„ � 0 Or R=o.5" D. Provide approved borrow soil materials from off-site when sufficient approved soil materials are not available from excavations. 3 O (3 N 6" - CLASS 5 (MNDOT 3138) 9" - CLASS 5 (MNDOT 3138) R=3" 1 - _ _ = 1 Remove all excess and unsatisfactory material from the site. ,O C 3 ;. _ CONCRETE SEE LANDSCAPE a ( ) E. Protect structures, utilities, sidewalks, pavements, and other facilities from damage caused b settlement, lateral movement, V,: ' '. ' : , I I=1 I I=1 I I-III-_III � P 9 Y 12" SAND SUBBASE (MNDOT 3149.2.6.4) 12" SAND SUBBASE (MNDOT 3149.2.6.4) III-III-III i 1 I undermining, washout, and other hazards created by earthwork operations. O .� .� 0.75"/FT En 00 �� I - F. Compaction shat not be less than he following percentages of maximum dry density according to ASTM D 6 8:v APPROVED SUBGRADE APPROVED SUBGRADE - -- -- _ _ _ I h +� U EL v _- -__ _ _ _ +..: y' i _ _ Lq i. Under structures, building slabs, steps, and pavements, compact the top 12 inches below subgrade and each layer of backfill or fill 0 (D material oo percentm dry density. � .',•': �. •' r ., • _ _ _'r ". a .,' :b: ii. Under walkways, compact the top 6 inches below subgrade and each layer of backfill or fill material at 100 percent maximum dry +-+ II III III II '' • � • � p' III-III-III= ... r... ,.. �. ,• ,,e.;"...,,; �:::,, density. �, E � � o _III-_III-I I II I I 1 iii. Under lawn or unpaved areas, compact the top 6 inches below subgrade and each layer of backfill or fill material at 95 percent L J �- p _ III-III-� I 36" -III- maximum dry density. v -Op - 4 v G. Grades as shown on the plan are to finished grade. 5 Z I I=1 I I=1 I I=1 I I=1 I I III=1 I I=1 I I=1 I I III=1 I= III=1 I I-I :. •: s' I =1 11= ___= I = -a VJ =1 I I I I I I=1 I=1 I =1 I I=1 I I=1 I I=1 I =1 I I=1 11= I I=1 I �� I' '• ; !:• : '' > -- - - Backfill trenches involving utilities under building slabs to be designed by Others (per their requirements). o O 3 O i H O I III=111=1 I I=1 I I I 11.-1 11=1 I I III-1 I •• !• If. PRODUCTS �, v v - i- a..'.. 4" - CLASS 5 MNDOT 3138 I` \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ ( ) t 4) (D // //// // // // // // // // // \ A. Satisfactory soils include ASTM D 2487 soil classification groups GW, GP, GM, SW, SP, and SM; free of rock or gravel larger than p \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\�\\�\\�\\�\\�\\�\\�\\�\\�\\�\ 12„ 1 8„ COMPACTED SUBGRADE - o ► Z 2-inches in any dimension, debris waste, frozen materials, vegetation and other deleterious matter. NOTE: PAVEMENT SECTION RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED BY AMERICAN NOTE: PAVEMENT SECTION RECOMMENDATION PROVIDED BY AMERICAN 20" - B. Unsatisfactory soils include ASTM D 2487 soil classification groups GC, SC, ML, MH, CL, CH, OL, OH, and PT. ENGINEERING TESTING, AET PROJECT NO. P-0007551. ENGINEERING TESTING, AET PROJECT NO. P-0007551. Note: Curb type 8612 shown; similar for other curb types. C. All backfill and fill materials must be satisfactory soil materials. *NOTE: RECOMMENDED ASPHALT BINDER PER AET *NOTE: RECOMMENDED ASPHALT BINDER PER AET D. Topsoil shall be per ASTM D 5268, free of stones 1" or larger. N N N N N r7 Note: Where contours indicate, ignore 0.75"/ft slope indicated above P P 9 N N N N N N N PROJECT N0. P-0007551: PG 58V-34 PROJECT NO. P-0007551: PG 58V-34 E. Subbase and base material must be a naturally or artificial) graded mixture of natural or crushed ravel, crushed stone, and I I I N I I I and match adjoining pavement slope to prevent gutter from "ponding". Y Y 9 9 ^ I I I I natural or crushed sand meeting MNDOT Specifications for Class 5 gravel. N N N to N PAVEMENT SECTION PAVEMENT SECTION F. Spring/Summer temporary turf establishment: seed shall be MNDOT Mixture 110 0 100 lbs/acre and mulch shall be MNDOT Type 1. n rn N 5 LIGHT DUTY 6 HEAVY DUTY 7 B612 CONCRETE CURB &GUTTER 8 CURB &GUTTER BEAVERTAIL 9 CONCRETE SIDEWALK G. Winter temporary turf establishment: seed shall be MNDOT Mixture 100 ® 100 lbs/acre and mulch shall be MNDOT Type 1. III.EXECUTION C6NO SCALE 6 NO SCALE 6 NO SCALE C6 NO SCALE C6 NO SCALE A. Fill under buildings shall be compacted to meet Soil Engineer's recommendations. B. Place min. 4-inches of topsoil over all areas to be re-established with turf or as specified on the landscape plans. C. Provide erosion control measures to prevent erosion or displacement of soils and discharge of soil-bearing water runoff or airborne PLAN dust to adjacent properties and walkways. RIPRAP REQUIREMENTS 4 D. Place inlet protection devices in catch basins and maintain until all areas disturbed have been restored. � E. Wherever construction vehicle access routes intersect paved public roads, provisions must be made to minimize the transport of CURB OPENING [FT] RIPRAP [CY] 11 O sediment (mud) by runoff or vehicles tracking onto the paved road surface. Where sediment is transported onto a public road 1 2 PVC THREADED PLUG / surface, the roads shall be cleaned thoroughly at the end of each day. Sediment shall be removed by shoveling or sweeping and 2 5 0� 3" BELOW CASTING 3 8 \ be transported to a sediment controlled disposal area. Street washing shall be allowed only after sediment is removed in this 4 11 A i A manner. ^` N N N W I- I- I- Z 5 14 � � SCH 40 PVC RISER Z Z Q Z W 6 17 (MATCH HORIZONTAL PIPE SIZE) Qo (ONE CUBIC YARD IS o BITUMINOUS PAVEMENT w w w o 9" I. GENERAL ~0020 APPROXIMATELY 2,800 LBS. 12 RIPRAP \\j\ (n U U U V ) I� CLASS II .' /\//\ A. Provide hot-mix asphalt pavement according to the materials, workmanship, and other applicable requirements of the Minnesota 1 LONG GSDR-35 BEND, O O / //\�/�\�` Department of Transportation "Standard Specifications for Construction", latest edition, unless otherwise specified W CUL, a V 4 ACCEPTED EQUAL 1 \ \\ \\ \/\/ B. Conform to a licable standards of authorities haven jurisdiction for as halt paving work on public property. ert PP 9 J P P 9 P P P Y• 0 N D � V) V) V) If. PRODUCTS Q cn cn cn N 5 *CURB OPENING WIDTH / SELECrt GRANULAR B0 LU p►i� ' \//\ A. Use coarse and fine aggregate materials and gradations that have performed satisfactorily in previous installations. LU /\//\� \\� B. Provide a base and wear course as indicated on the plan unless otherwise specified. CLASS If RIPRAP r,\\/\\/'' ':::::. .`....:: :...- :...::: '•..; r;':;;;:' j\/\\/\ /////// �.:/.../\ \/ Q Q ,�I Q o \\ \\ \ C. Provide a tack coat as indicated on the Ian unless otherwise specified. ,�-� I �. ' •..\//%///%//\//\//\/\/\/\/\/\//\//�/%/%\/////\/ �• �•/r�/i�/��//� III.EXECUTION P P 1 A. Verify that the subgrade is dry and in suitable condition to support paving and imposed loads. 12" �� ENCASE LONG SWEEP BEND OR B. The Contractor shall furnish a tandem truck loaded with a minimum of 14-tons to check the completed subgrade and/or COMBINATION WYE IN CONCRETE. _•::, J�J 4' SNOW FENCE WITH POST 8' ON CENTER aggregate base for soft spots nor to placement. •. . TO BE PLACED AROUND TREE AT THE DRIP OF 500X MIRAFI FABRIC OR EQUAL (SEE PLAN VIEW FOR CONNECTION TO CB) C. Machine place hot-mix asphalt on prepared surface, spread uniformly, and strike off. Place asphalt mix by hand to areas =m=m=m=m=m=m=m=m=u-m-m-m=u=u-m-ui-m-m-m-m-w=m=u=m LINE OF THE OUTER MOST BRANCHES. REQUIRED UNDER RIPRAP inaccessible to equipment in a manner that prevents segregation of mix. Place each course to required grade, cross section, and GEOTEXTILE FILTER TYPE III (3733) thickness, when compacted. SECTION A-A D. Begin compaction as soon as placed hot-mix paving will bear roller weight without excessive displacement. 17 DRAINTILE ®CURB &GUTTER E. Provide an average density of 96 percent of reference laboratory density according to ASTM D 1559, but not less than 94 percent nor greater than 100 percent 1 RIPRAP AT CURB OPENING DETAIL 1 1 STORM SEWER CLEANOUT 12 TREE PROTECTION 13 POND OVERFLOW C 6 NO SCALE F. Tolerances: Base course thickness shall be plus or minus 0.5-inches and surface course shall be plus or minus 0.25-inches. C 6 NO SCALE (� 6 NO SCALE (� 6 NO SCALE (� 6 NO SCALE PORTLAND CEMENT CONCRETE PAVEMENT v v v I. GENERAL A. Provide Portland cement concrete pavement for roads, curbs, walks and exterior slabs according to the materials, workmanship, and B CURB AND GUTTER 4' 0" MIN. other applicable requirements of the Minnesota Department of Transportation "Standard Specifications for Construction", latest edition, REQUIRED LANDING unless otherwise specified. If. PRODUCTS A. Portland cement concrete for curb and gutter and sidewalk shall be 4000 psi, 28-day compressive strength, 5.0% air entrainment, a o. o °. ., a o. a and 3-inch slump. Cn BACK OF CURB O �c1 _ ® O a; ° a o ° a: a o o. a : ° B. Provide Grade-60 reinforcing bars and tie bars where indicated. FLOW LINE - lJJ C. Curing compound shall be solvent-borne, liquid membrane-forming ASTM C309, Type I or approved equal. J 3 0.02 FT./FT. MAX. M. EXECUTION U Q 4" CONCRETE WALK A. The Contractor shall furnish a tandem truck loaded with a minimum of 14-tons to check the completed subgrade and/or 2 1 3 1 2 SECTION B-B aggregate base for soft spots prior to pavement placement. \ Q B� B. Comply with requirements and with ACI 304R for measuring, mixing, transporting, and placing concrete. N A C. Comply with the Concrete Reinforcing Steel Institute's recommended practice for "Placing Reinforcing Bars" for placing and / L supporting reinforcement. �/ J 7r ® VARIES PER DEPTH VARIES PER DEPTH D. Preformed expansion joints using 0.5-inch thickness shall be placed at each end of curb radius, at intersections, and J Z WIDTH VARIES approximately every 200-feet. E. Contraction joints shall be placed at minimum 10-foot intervals in the curb and gutter and at 5-foot for walks. L __ 24" OF FILTER MEDIA _ -_ I =I F. Provide a medium to fine broom finish perpendicular to traffic flow. (- BACK OF CURB S VAR. 4' 0" MIN. - � f U O ,-III-II 70% CLEAN CONSTRUCTION SAND �' I-III-III=III- G. Protect freshly placed concrete from premature drying and excessive cold or hot temperatures using moisture curing, CURB AND GUTTER RAMP REQUIRED LANDING -11 M I M I (AASHTO M-6/ASTM C-33) �P -I I M I 1=I I I Q O FLOW LINE 1;10 1 1:10 1 /4" R. �I I I=I I I=I 30% ORGANIC LEAF COMPOST moisture-retaining-cover curing, curing compound or a combination of these. FLARE FLARE 1=III=III= 9 =III=III- ° ° a ° I I1=III=III= (MNDOT GRADE 2) �' III=III=1 Q .02 FT./FT. MAX. 4 1=I I I=I -I I I=I I I- STORM SEWER i- ' 1- 18" CURB OPENING 8612 C&G > 0.05 Fr. Fr. AND .III-� � � .III=1 I I- _ 2 1 0:40 1 2 o / _ =III NEENAH CASTING R-4999-FX OR EQUAL I. GENERAL N U �' <_ 0.083 FT./FT PREFERRED -III i-1�1��956.0 B612 C&G::� WITH TYPE D SOLID LID A. Storm sewer shall comply with all local regulations pertaining to storm sewer systems including materials, installation, and testing. \ A 3 4" CONCRETE WALK III III -I III-1If no regulations exist, comply with "Standard Utilities Specifications" by the City Engineers Association of Minnesota, latest edition. -III 0 0" CURB HEIGHT. I III-I III- 18" SIDEWALK OPENING 20% If. PRODUCTS Q SECTION A-A ' I I-III I I- Q2 FULL CURB HEIGHT. III-I = 4r-954.0 A. Storm sewer pipe indicated on the plan as PVC shall be polyvinyl chloride pipe, ASTM D 3034, SDR 35, for solvent-cemented or -III=1 I I I I-III-1 I I=1 I I-1 I'" 1.5 gasket joints. Q 1/2" PREFORMED JOINT FILLER MATERIAL AASHTO M 213. JOINT FILLER SHALL BE PLACED 9 J FLUSH WITH THE BACK OF CURB AND ADJACENT SIDEWALK. JOINT SHALL BE FREE OF DEBRIS. + 4" o f o ` { . B. Storm sewer indicated on the plan as HDPE shall be dual wall corrugated polyethylene pipe with soil tight fittings per the RECTANGULAR DETECTABLE WARNINGS SHALL BE SETBACK 3" FROM THE BACK OF CURB. 8'0. RADIAL DETECTABLE WARNINGS SHALL BE SETBACK 3 MINIMUM TO 6" MAXIMUM FROM SEE LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR SEEDING o = r 4.5t' Corrugated Polyethylene Pipe Association (CPPA) standard specification 100-97. 4" PERFORATED PVC DRAINAGE BASIN BOTTOM AND SIDE SLOPES . C. Storm sewer catch basins and manholes shall be recast structures with at least two and at the most five adjusting rings. THE BACK of CURB. PIPE WITH KNIT SOCK ° ° 4'f ° 18 P j 9 9 ' ® 4' BY 4' MIN. LANDING WITH MAX. 2.0% SLOPE IN ALL DIRECTIONS. °3„ D. Storm sewer castings indicated on the plan shall be from the Neenah Foundry or approved equal. III.EXECUTION Q5 IF LONGITUDINAL SLOPE IS GREATER THAN 5.0%, 4' X 4' MIN. LANDING WITH MAX NEENAH SOLID CASTING } A. The plans indicate the general location and arrangement of underground storm sewer systems. Location and arrangement of piping 2.0% SLOPE IN ALL DIRECTIONS REQUIRED. INDICATES PEDESTRIAN RAMP -SLOPE SHALL BE BETWEEN 5.0% MINIMUM AND 8.3% MAXIMUM IN NOTE: SEE PLAN VIEW FOR LOCATION OF 4" DRAINTILE 8612 C&G PLAN VIEW SECTION VIEW take into account many design considerations. Install piping as indicated on the plans, to the extent practical. THE DIRECTION SHOWN AND THE CROSS SLOPE SHALL NOT EXCEED 2.0% B. PVC and HDPE sewer pipe shall be bedded in accordance with ASTM F 2306, "Standard Specification for 12 to 60 in. Annular 14 PEDESTRIAN RAMP rl5 BIOFILTRATION BASIN CROSS SECTION rl6 SIDEWALK OPENING WITH SOLID LID Corrugated Profile-Wall Polyethylene (PE) Pipe and Fittings for Gravity-Flow Storm Sewer and Subsurface Drainage Applications". SHEET NUMBER C G NO SCALE � � NO SCALE C 6 NO SCALE C6 • MH (per plod) N c� -O \ n Pp - E MATCH s�o.1 s - _MH Top CJ64-7-__ Inv. 958.0 N (per a ---Tnv. 9&Z8 ,E per p n) -E- E- _ 984 \� i 99 CONNECT TO PROPOSED DOWNSPOUT -EXISTING _ TOP -962.1 _ INV 959.6 (DT) -E VA INV 959.1 D � N LEGEND Inv. 950.8 • PROPOSED CLEANOUT BOUNDARY/ROW/BLOCK LINE PROPOSED CATCH BASIN EASEMENT / PROPOSED FLARED END - BUILDING/PARKING SETBACK LINE PROPOSED STORM SEWER DRAINAGE ARROW 0 PROPOSED CONCRETE w EXISTING WATERMAIN Q PROPOSED LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS S EXISTING SANITARY SEWER PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS Sr EXISTING STORM SEWER to5o PROPOSED CONTOUR EXISTING BURIED GAS LINE • 1023.54 PROPOSED ELEVATION E EXISTING BURIED ELECTRIC LINE SILT FENCE 980- EXISTING CONTOUR INLET PROTECTION DEVICE X 995.50 EXISTING ELEVATION PROPOSED EC BLANKET MNDOT CAT. 3P - 2S STRAW 0 N N ` ^ V N ao 00 N � :3 I N y N N N r - r- oar+ o N SO N N L L04 L C C O S m ci v o 0 � M m 3 3 J M W H 3 1z EQUAL 0 Or z v y 3 Z a � Q�o� W-� y y •- -60' aW 0aj� o �Co o CV V L04 %7 O I d Q_ L61 aW N v v O N Z ozQ ami oJy- 0 U \ W Z n� L O Q) E f A5a�6 ELEVATE/I�EUVA COURT Uf % Fenc% k� 964'9 ' o P aoo.00 964.50 964.9° IXIS7fNG 9 6"�964 6 96 964.15 96 50 BREAK INTO CB -® BUIL4ING INV 958.1 964.90 964.20 , 94.5 995.00 9632 - 6" RISERS.40 LP ' 964. 16„ 96 .30 - - Crab 64.9 963.05 ENTRY 963.40 964 e 964.80 K964.94 964.15 TENNIS 45' - 4" PERF. DT 964 5 964.9 , 964.50 COURTS BREAK INVINTO 96061 964.50 95' - 4" PERF. DT 96 964.30 TENNIS 993.40 COURTS d - ,,,,,,,,,,J' L,J U z J � 963.50 LL.I _ 2 962.80 ' ( 9635 ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE Ch Q W ainlink W 963.55 963.10 � � � � � ence in 963. � W 7"Spruce MH Top 962.0 963.9 "v 54.3 N,S DAYLIGHT DRAINTIL = INV 959.6 992.9514"Spruce T' ber w 1 6"Spruce { 2� 'Pine 3" p 961.90 �- IV 959.8 MH _ MATCH .To�959.3 - -sa ' 962.40 MATCH i H Inv. 2.7�-4Y - s-(FM)�� ^� ,,,- 962. _ PP E \ ��Hyd.g �0 Inv. 956.1 MH(W .-. W (per P/ 24"ST ---------- - _ ST (per plan) - - Top 962.3PP _ MH - - - - -------- --- - To 958.9 1 , - - - - 5 C.Y. OF CLASS II RIP -RAP _ nv. 949.7 N,S ON GEOTEXTILE FABRIC MH Top 960.5 Inv. 955.2 N Inv. 952.7 S C h ,i co / Inv. 946.9 0 15 30 60 90 Scale in Feet Z co per- -gyp N -0,6 ao 00 W :3 I N ;000,� o W o 4' VALTEI v o 0 w VALVE OF EQUAL 3 •v_� o o Or OC v � a � Q�o� -60' aW E o �Co o v �Q ai N Q_ �v >,E U L yl v O N U ozQ ami oJy- 0 s \ :3 3 Z n� L Q) E f A5a�6 - E v Z ELEVATE/I�EUVA COURT Uf % Fenc% k� 964'9 ' o P aoo.00 964.50 964.9° IXIS7fNG 9 6"�964 6 96 964.15 96 50 BREAK INTO CB -® BUIL4ING INV 958.1 964.90 964.20 , 94.5 995.00 9632 - 6" RISERS.40 LP ' 964. 16„ 96 .30 - - Crab 64.9 963.05 ENTRY 963.40 964 e 964.80 K964.94 964.15 TENNIS 45' - 4" PERF. DT 964 5 964.9 , 964.50 COURTS BREAK INVINTO 96061 964.50 95' - 4" PERF. DT 96 964.30 TENNIS 993.40 COURTS d - ,,,,,,,,,,J' L,J U z J � 963.50 LL.I _ 2 962.80 ' ( 9635 ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE Ch Q W ainlink W 963.55 963.10 � � � � � ence in 963. � W 7"Spruce MH Top 962.0 963.9 "v 54.3 N,S DAYLIGHT DRAINTIL = INV 959.6 992.9514"Spruce T' ber w 1 6"Spruce { 2� 'Pine 3" p 961.90 �- IV 959.8 MH _ MATCH .To�959.3 - -sa ' 962.40 MATCH i H Inv. 2.7�-4Y - s-(FM)�� ^� ,,,- 962. _ PP E \ ��Hyd.g �0 Inv. 956.1 MH(W .-. W (per P/ 24"ST ---------- - _ ST (per plan) - - Top 962.3PP _ MH - - - - -------- --- - To 958.9 1 , - - - - 5 C.Y. OF CLASS II RIP -RAP _ nv. 949.7 N,S ON GEOTEXTILE FABRIC MH Top 960.5 Inv. 955.2 N Inv. 952.7 S C h ,i co / Inv. 946.9 0 15 30 60 90 Scale in Feet Z o � W o W U w Q�z< z � Q�o� � o C) J �Q z N U ozQ Qom SHEET NUMBER C3 988 \ 986 VIH (per pl!rne C Pine � Vp 1 P\ C tone well \ A 2-4\ ne F oo^,SrRU�r�oN 9j4 O r MATCH \ 9jz BATCH °' SO OMATCH 9' 970 \ Top -\--_e Inv. 958.0 N (per p -n 8- E (per pl ) -E CONSTRUCTION PLAN - A 24" pruce 30" epruce ' / 9 992 \ 990 A \ \ VALET PARKING MAIN ENTRANCE MATCH A TCH U -V/ Iron Wrought Fer CURB MA CH DESCRIPTION CONNECT TO DOWNSPOUT CURB TYPE 1 - CONCRETE CURB INV 999.0 EDGING AT H MATCH I I, \ Top -\--_e Inv. 958.0 N (per p -n 8- E (per pl ) -E CONSTRUCTION PLAN - A 24" pruce 30" epruce ' / 9 992 \ 990 A \ \ VALET PARKING MAIN ENTRANCE MATCH A TCH U -V/ Iron Wrought Fer c J, '—Concrete -Ii CC, 45' - 4" PERF. DRAIN'h SWIMMING POOL f SVA - - - - - PEDESTRIAN RF EXIS TIN G BUI[IOING GM rCoo / / - AC �00 9Sk /Tre - / 9a2 989 B 0 dw / Ir _ 978 /Tree _ — 976 - , , - �. • 5 )) Ha el\I_Fen e _/ Hai Pu p� 6> sh _ — / — \a-ndtscaping per\ — — — 9�2 with edging • _ H kbe\ - — —t5 g70 Hackb r • / e - - -- -- • -_ _— 968 —_t--�-_ 611" � E4.SPACES �—PEDESTRIAN RAN - — E — _ —----------------------- _�_- TOP 9 6 2. P - INV 959.1 : 0 \ \ / = NOI1Jl,211SN0��''" - \ BREAK INTO CB ( •��D`, - - _'�i��p` Z 9,54.3 E - • 962 _ 24' - 18" HDPE WIA Top 961. Inv. 954.3 �� T _ X -0 � Inv. 952.E �� -- a62s - A E z 0jj ------------------------------- ----- ---- ---- --- --- E VA R - D z - ._ T M r -- -- _ - MATERIALS LEGEND CURB MA CH DESCRIPTION CONNECT TO DOWNSPOUT CURB TYPE 1 - CONCRETE CURB INV 999.0 EDGING AT H MATCH DESCRIPTION SPEC 057300 3/1-510 106' - 6" PVC ® 3.77% i o - SPEC 057300 - LIGHTING - verhang SYMBOL c J, '—Concrete -Ii CC, 45' - 4" PERF. DRAIN'h SWIMMING POOL f SVA - - - - - PEDESTRIAN RF EXIS TIN G BUI[IOING GM rCoo / / - AC �00 9Sk /Tre - / 9a2 989 B 0 dw / Ir _ 978 /Tree _ — 976 - , , - �. • 5 )) Ha el\I_Fen e _/ Hai Pu p� 6> sh _ — / — \a-ndtscaping per\ — — — 9�2 with edging • _ H kbe\ - — —t5 g70 Hackb r • / e - - -- -- • -_ _— 968 —_t--�-_ 611" � E4.SPACES �—PEDESTRIAN RAN - — E — _ —----------------------- _�_- TOP 9 6 2. P - INV 959.1 : 0 \ \ / = NOI1Jl,211SN0��''" - \ BREAK INTO CB ( •��D`, - - _'�i��p` Z 9,54.3 E - • 962 _ 24' - 18" HDPE WIA Top 961. Inv. 954.3 �� T _ X -0 � Inv. 952.E �� -- a62s - A E z 0jj ------------------------------- ----- ---- ---- --- --- E VA R - D z - ._ T M r -- -- _ - MATERIALS LEGEND ED -01 EDGING TYPE 01 - STEEL EDGING QTY DETAIL 50,330 LF / QTY DETAIL CURB SYMBOL DESCRIPTION CB -01 CURB TYPE 1 - CONCRETE CURB HR -01 EDGING SYMBOL DESCRIPTION ED -01 EDGING TYPE 01 - STEEL EDGING QTY DETAIL 50,330 LF / QTY DETAIL 5/1-500 DETAIL 1 /1-520 DETAIL DETAIL 2/1-500 DETAIL SYMBOL HANDRAIL QTY SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY HR -01 HANDRAIL TYPE 1 - STAIR RAILING WL -02 WALL TYPE 2 - BOULDER WALL SPEC 057300 3/1-510 HR -02 HANDRAIL TYPE 2 - PATIO RAILING 2,208 LF 1/1-510 SPEC 057300 SPEC 323223 LIGHTING SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY LT -01 LIGHT TYPE 1 - AA2 PEDESTRIAN LIGHT LT -02 LIGHT TYPE 2 - AA3 SINGLE PARKING LOT LIGHT LT -03 LIGHT TYPE 3 - AA52 - DOUBLE PARKING LOT LIGHT PAVING SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY P-01 PAVING TYPE 1 - PEDESTRIAN CONCRETE SPEC 044313.16 P-02 PAVING TYPE 2 - REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT 1,000 LF SPEC 044313.16 STAIRS SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY ST -01 STAIR TYPE 1 - CIP CONCRETE STAIR WALL 5/1-500 DETAIL 1 /1-520 DETAIL DETAIL 2/1-500 DETAIL SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY DETAIL WL -01 WALL TYPE 1 - STONE VENEER CIP CONCRETE WALL 7,471 LF 2/1-510 WL -02 WALL TYPE 2 - BOULDER WALL 10,860 LF 3/1-510 WL -03 WALL TYPE 3 - MODULAR BLOCK WALL 2,208 LF 1/1-510 N 168158.828 SPEC 323223 NORTH ING/EASTING POINT SCHEDULE POINT DESCRIPTION NORTHING EASTING 1 N 168156.998 E 461710.744 2 N 168075.453 E 461679.616 3 N 168072.214 E 461691.231 4 N 168065.908 E 461688.894 5 N 168158.828 E 461710.715 0 20' 40' 60' nmnM7�=� SCALE: V=20' O NORTH DAMON FARBER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 310 South 4th Avenue, Suite 7050 Minneapolis, MN 55415 p: 612.332.7522 SUBMITTAL BID SET 03/17/2022 WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB WAYZATA, MN I hereby certify that this document was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Name Chuck Evens Registration# Signature Date 03/17/2022 Date DF/ Project # 21-139 Scale VARIES Drawn/Checked AG/CE REVISION -- CONSTRUCTION PLAN - A Ll 10 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 13t - - - - - - - - - - - - - - — — — — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Stone wall - - - - - - MH de Top 68.8 Gar - AD 1 Wood enc - - TOP 969.0 INV 964.9 MAT L Concrete MATCI- - steps / - // A C) / MATCH / 3' C&G I ) / / DES IAP - PEDESTRIAN RAMP 37 Ha 3 EXPITING / ti 3' C&G/° . . �UIL:DING / / ° % TAPER ° � � � �� LT -03 / / MH (per ply Q �6 s,o, g6g 6 / �C / - M AC '9' / co 12' ER ,�/ • • • Ho berry, o • Ha / Hai erry / R01 • / / ' / 11 SQ. SP H kbeAMP ACES ° r -y / G � r • / / TA x - o 5eP/ X NOO a011WIT dE N i C) AE -WAV 0 W O Z Cn C-- - O Z �. r - E -- Z W (per p/— --ST (oer n/as M 17— CD CD M CONSTRUCTION PLAN- B — —LIMIT OF CONS=ON r[T7777.-e-'-7. � Boulder / wall ' / I I SYMBOL DESCRIPTION n CURB TYPE 1 - CONCRETE CURB HR -01 d e / d e nar r HANDRAIL TYPE 2 - PATIO RAILING 2,208 LF IG 1 SPEC 057300 SPEC 323223 LIGHTING I DESCRIPTION QTY � LIGHT TYPE 1 - AA2 PEDESTRIAN LIGHT VV/'1Lf\J LL/'1VIIVV I V COURT TO ALIGN WITH EXISTING GATES TENNIS COURTS I I SYMBOL DESCRIPTION n CURB TYPE 1 - CONCRETE CURB HR -01 d e DESCRIPTION SPEC 057300 a r HANDRAIL TYPE 2 - PATIO RAILING 2,208 LF G SPEC 057300 SPEC 323223 LIGHTING I DESCRIPTION QTY � VV/'1Lf\J LL/'1VIIVV I V COURT TO ALIGN WITH EXISTING GATES TENNIS COURTS _tel ree BUILDING / / / / ------------------- I'T"ORMWATER MANAGEMENT ZONE ` . 1 -4" VALTERR� A A E VAI APPROVED 7 Vi EVA TED COURT ELEVA TVD)7-�� COURT 1 _x_ Chainlink ED -01 _x�Fen cn x�x 71, � M H pruc s O Top 962.0 In v9 4.5 N, S I ace Timber w 6"Spruce s \ � "Pine --- - _—S — — S3 prtrce ED -01 959.3--------sa-- nv. 952 -7—E, -W — P -p _ _S—(FM)� — ------ — — — C&G TAPER Hyd — — — — — —----_—_—_--- — — — — — — — -- 9 Inv. 956.1 — —_— — — — MH(WM) 24"ST — — — — — — — ---- — — -- --- ---- _ M H — ---- o� Tom 958.9 — — — — — — — — —_--- --- —nv. 949.7N,S ---- MH — Top 960.5 1n„ oH5 n 87' — /I' BI MATERIALS LEGEND CURB SYMBOL DESCRIPTION CB -01 CURB TYPE 1 - CONCRETE CURB HR -01 EDGING SYMBOL DESCRIPTION SPEC 057300 3/1-510 HR -02 HANDRAIL TYPE 2 - PATIO RAILING 2,208 LF 1/1-510 SPEC 057300 SPEC 323223 LIGHTING SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY LT -01 LIGHT TYPE 1 - AA2 PEDESTRIAN LIGHT LT -02 LIGHT TYPE 2 - AA3 SINGLE PARKING LOT LIGHT LT -03 LIGHT TYPE 3 - AA52 - DOUBLE PARKING LOT LIGHT PAVING SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY P-01 PAVING TYPE 1 - PEDESTRIAN CONCRETE SPEC 044313.16 P-02 PAVING TYPE 2 - REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT 1,000 LF SPEC 044313.16 STAIRS SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY ST -01 STAIR TYPE 1 - CIP CONCRETE STAIR WALL / II / / / _tel ree BUILDING / / / / ------------------- I'T"ORMWATER MANAGEMENT ZONE ` . 1 -4" VALTERR� A A E VAI APPROVED 7 Vi EVA TED COURT ELEVA TVD)7-�� COURT 1 _x_ Chainlink ED -01 _x�Fen cn x�x 71, � M H pruc s O Top 962.0 In v9 4.5 N, S I ace Timber w 6"Spruce s \ � "Pine --- - _—S — — S3 prtrce ED -01 959.3--------sa-- nv. 952 -7—E, -W — P -p _ _S—(FM)� — ------ — — — C&G TAPER Hyd — — — — — —----_—_—_--- — — — — — — — -- 9 Inv. 956.1 — —_— — — — MH(WM) 24"ST — — — — — — — ---- — — -- --- ---- _ M H — ---- o� Tom 958.9 — — — — — — — — —_--- --- —nv. 949.7N,S ---- MH — Top 960.5 1n„ oH5 n 87' — /I' BI MATERIALS LEGEND ED -01 EDGING TYPE 01 - STEEL EDGING QTY DETAIL 50,330 LF / QTY DETAIL CURB SYMBOL DESCRIPTION CB -01 CURB TYPE 1 - CONCRETE CURB HR -01 EDGING SYMBOL DESCRIPTION ED -01 EDGING TYPE 01 - STEEL EDGING QTY DETAIL 50,330 LF / QTY DETAIL 5/1-500 DETAIL 1 /1-520 DETAIL DETAIL 2/1-500 DETAIL SYMBOL HANDRAIL QTY SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY HR -01 HANDRAIL TYPE 1 - STAIR RAILING WL -02 WALL TYPE 2 - BOULDER WALL SPEC 057300 3/1-510 HR -02 HANDRAIL TYPE 2 - PATIO RAILING 2,208 LF 1/1-510 SPEC 057300 SPEC 323223 LIGHTING SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY LT -01 LIGHT TYPE 1 - AA2 PEDESTRIAN LIGHT LT -02 LIGHT TYPE 2 - AA3 SINGLE PARKING LOT LIGHT LT -03 LIGHT TYPE 3 - AA52 - DOUBLE PARKING LOT LIGHT PAVING SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY P-01 PAVING TYPE 1 - PEDESTRIAN CONCRETE SPEC 044313.16 P-02 PAVING TYPE 2 - REINFORCED CONCRETE PAVEMENT 1,000 LF SPEC 044313.16 STAIRS SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY ST -01 STAIR TYPE 1 - CIP CONCRETE STAIR WALL 5/1-500 DETAIL 1 /1-520 DETAIL DETAIL 2/1-500 DETAIL SYMBOL DESCRIPTION QTY DETAIL WL -01 WALL TYPE 1 - STONE VENEER CIP CONCRETE WALL 7,471 LF 2/1-510 WL -02 WALL TYPE 2 - BOULDER WALL 10,860 LF 3/1-510 WL -03 WALL TYPE 3 - MODULAR BLOCK WALL 2,208 LF 1/1-510 REVISION SPEC 323223 0 20' 40' 60' nmnM7�=� SCALE: V=20' NORTH DAMON FARBER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 310 South 4th Avenue, Suite 7050 Minneapolis, MN 55415 p: 612.332.7522 SUBMITTAL BID SET 03/17/2022 WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB WAYZATA, MN I hereby certify that this document was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Name Chuck Evens Registration# Signature Date 03/17/2022 Date DF/ Project # 21-139 Scale VARIES Drawn/Checked AG/CE REVISION -- CONSTRUCTION PLAN — B L111 i 3 -RA 3 -RA IV I - QM j, I I 1 I I I I - II 1 - QM - 1 -QB 56 - RA 1 -CO 24" �\ pruce 30" pruce '906' 992 \ 990 \ \ \ 98 8 / LP 986 'a4 VALET PARKING 8 -RA 10 -RA MAIN ENTRANCE — o , WEST PARKING LOT �1 -QB - --- • o 0 _ _Inv. 958.0 N (per p 1 QB z HDP 2 607 / E — (-- - - _ � �nV.-95-7.�__ F oer pl � — �- -/ 166 - VH — O 0P 63.7 eIII,, _,60.2 i - A - �__� 19" _ _sh • — — Ash • --- — _ O - -� E � PLANTING PLAN — A MATCH /i }BATCH 1 -QB 3 -CI BR ROUND -LEAF COMMON BOXWOOD OCA ES ARTIC FIRE DOGWOOD i FALSE SUNFLOWER ISANTI RED TWIG DOGWOOD O RA GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC LC TB TECHNITO GLOBE ARBORVITAE 0 VH HAHS AMERICAN CRANBERRYBUSH 0 VW RED WING AMERICAN CRANBERRYBUSH GROUND COVERS CODE COMMON NAME i' i _ 3UILD TCH EN TR - MA H - — — — CONNECT TO DOWNSPOUT 1 -CO 24" �\ pruce 30" pruce '906' 992 \ 990 \ \ \ 98 8 / LP 986 'a4 VALET PARKING 8 -RA 10 -RA MAIN ENTRANCE — o , WEST PARKING LOT �1 -QB - --- • o 0 _ _Inv. 958.0 N (per p 1 QB z HDP 2 607 / E — (-- - - _ � �nV.-95-7.�__ F oer pl � — �- -/ 166 - VH — O 0P 63.7 eIII,, _,60.2 i - A - �__� 19" _ _sh • — — Ash • --- — _ O - -� E � PLANTING PLAN — A MATCH /i }BATCH 1 -QB 3 -CI 3 -RA Q_ DA 12 -RA 2 -AA `10 -RA 12 -RA 2 -AA 1 -QM 16 -RA - 130/dO NC /x ak T - x 9 Ire gg2 980 - go�d�r� Ir g78 - Tree — 976 i - � �—�ta-e�k w a I I� � — — � / • • / 5 )) / Vl a Ha Hai c —Fen e r sh 3 - BR? — — _ — — — 91z with edging o }` . i kberry / - — — —T -597o Hockbr o - _ -- — 968 — - ° I • • _ V� W W 9. 0' -- - 9 _ — IYP ° - 44 - RA - AN 1 -CO NOI10 • • . �alSN00 j0 llWll — _ • • . , ^z ° _ --1 z _ z Top 961,L Inv. 954.3 i',; -- r : 1 Inv. 952.7 _1' z E VARD M EsW r ------------------------- - PLANT SCHEDULE TREES CODE COMMON NAME • AA AUTUMN FLAME RED MAPLE 0"r CO COMMON HACKBERRY QB SWAMP WHITE OAK • QM BUR OAK EVERGREEN TREES CODE COMMON NAME 4j4ha,jji' PI -P PONDEROSA PINE SHRUBS CODE COMMON NAME BR ROUND -LEAF COMMON BOXWOOD OCA ES ARTIC FIRE DOGWOOD OCI FALSE SUNFLOWER ISANTI RED TWIG DOGWOOD O RA GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC LC TB TECHNITO GLOBE ARBORVITAE 0 VH HAHS AMERICAN CRANBERRYBUSH 0 VW RED WING AMERICAN CRANBERRYBUSH GROUND COVERS CODE COMMON NAME EXI G _ 3UILD TCH EN TR - MA H - — — — CONNECT TO DOWNSPOUT - ATC AT H INV 999.0 - D �o o ° MATCH - - ° o 106' — 6" PVC @ 3.77% - 2 o D D - o Overhang Concrete — wall Ice - J - x C01-2 - Cre- x/x/x f ,ns 45' — 4„ pFPF VRa!n!Ti! F - - Iron Wrought - Fence - SWIMMING POOL - PEDESTRIAN RF - VA - Eyi(iTINC 3 -RA Q_ DA 12 -RA 2 -AA `10 -RA 12 -RA 2 -AA 1 -QM 16 -RA - 130/dO NC /x ak T - x 9 Ire gg2 980 - go�d�r� Ir g78 - Tree — 976 i - � �—�ta-e�k w a I I� � — — � / • • / 5 )) / Vl a Ha Hai c —Fen e r sh 3 - BR? — — _ — — — 91z with edging o }` . i kberry / - — — —T -597o Hockbr o - _ -- — 968 — - ° I • • _ V� W W 9. 0' -- - 9 _ — IYP ° - 44 - RA - AN 1 -CO NOI10 • • . �alSN00 j0 llWll — _ • • . , ^z ° _ --1 z _ z Top 961,L Inv. 954.3 i',; -- r : 1 Inv. 952.7 _1' z E VARD M EsW r ------------------------- - PLANT SCHEDULE TREES CODE COMMON NAME • AA AUTUMN FLAME RED MAPLE 0"r CO COMMON HACKBERRY QB SWAMP WHITE OAK • QM BUR OAK EVERGREEN TREES CODE COMMON NAME 4j4ha,jji' PI -P PONDEROSA PINE SHRUBS CODE COMMON NAME PLANTING MIX PROVIDED BY OWNER w SOD PROVIDED BY OWNER STORMWATER INFILTRATION BASIN MIX EL BR ROUND -LEAF COMMON BOXWOOD OCA ES ARTIC FIRE DOGWOOD OCI FALSE SUNFLOWER ISANTI RED TWIG DOGWOOD O RA GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC LC TB TECHNITO GLOBE ARBORVITAE 0 VH HAHS AMERICAN CRANBERRYBUSH 0 VW RED WING AMERICAN CRANBERRYBUSH GROUND COVERS CODE COMMON NAME PLANTING MIX PROVIDED BY OWNER w SOD PROVIDED BY OWNER STORMWATER INFILTRATION BASIN MIX EL PALE PURPLE CONEFLOWER EB COMMON BONESET ES DWARF JOE PYE WEED HF FALSE SUNFLOWER IV BLUE FLAG LP GAYFEATHER LC CARDINAL FLOWER NOTES: 1. LEGEND SYMBOLS NOT SHOWN TO SCALE 2. REFER TO SHEET L550 FOR PLANTING DETAILS. 0 20' 40' 60' SCALE: V=20' O NORTH DAMON FARBER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 310 South 4th Avenue, Suite 7050 Minneapolis, MN 55415 p: 612.332.7522 SUBMITTAL BID SET 03/17/2022 WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB WAYZATA, MN I hereby certify that this document was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Name Chuck Evens Registration# Signature Date 03/17/2022 Date DF/ Project # 21-139 Scale VARIES Drawn/Checked AG/CE REVISION -- PLANTING PLAN - A L140 - - - - - EXI S TII` Bull—olp -------- — — — ------- ---- --- Stone wall Top E AD V'✓oOd Gen i TOP 969.0 ` - INV 964.9 ' - = / / ` _ �IMIT`STRUCTIpN Concrete • steps � n / MATCH 3' C&i, 12 - RA / • �SIDEWA*WING I J LID PEDESTRIAN RAMP 7 �ak EX11TING _ �� % 3' C&G 32 �� BUI [10 G TAPER le Maple � MH (per pl 7 -RAS°° ° . .° . ° GM / G �'p �� 64 � G 14 - RA Bodwr/ . 1 - AA / 12' ER \ 619 • i / i • • Ho berry, 1 N - 5" i C Ha Hai erry % 1 4 -BR CB W • i / 24-CAi ToJ 962/6- H kben- 3-BR I NOp a011WI1 CA 1 -QM 87 -RA 1 -CO n 1 = 1 EB COMMON BONESET Z Z = - G) FALSE SUNFLOWER M - ;H r ' • _'— - Z CARDINAL FLOWER M 17- o - PLANTING PLAN - B 2 -VW 3 -VW 3 -BR (-hainlink Fence Top 962.0 Inv9 4.5 N,S "Spruce VVP1L r\J LLP1V IIVV I V COURT TO ALIGN WITH EXISTING GATES TENNIS COURTS — —LIMIr OF corys=dory I � � /C B_ /Top/ 964.1 C)� � U i Inv. 961. I .. W2 "ETT 6 -VW 3 -BR ----_—____ — — — — 28 -RA 1 -QM I 2 -AA 12 -RA l ree BUILDING ENTRY 964.94 S� RPFAK INTO iV 95, LLL V/1 ® L" / / \��_�--�� \ COURT / / \ ELEVA TED � COURT \\ / I I / I i PLANT SCHEDULE TREES CODE COMMON NAME • AA AUTUMN FLAME RED MAPLE 0"r CO COMMON HACKBERRY QB SWAMP WHITE OAK • QM BUR OAK EVERGREEN TREES CODE COMMON NAME jNA' 1,jj �' PI -P PONDEROSA PINE SHRUBS CODE COMMON NAME BR ROUND -LEAF COMMON BOXWOOD OCA ARTIC FIRE DOGWOOD OCI ISANTI RED TWIG DOGWOOD O RA GRO-LOW FRAGRANT SUMAC TB TECHNITO GLOBE ARBORVITAE 0 VH HAHS AMERICAN CRANBERRYBUSH 0 VW RED WING AMERICAN CRANBERRYBUSH GROUND COVERS CODE COMMON NAME i PLANTING MIX PROVIDED BY OWNER SOD PROVIDED BY OWNER STORMWATER INFILTRATION BASIN MIX EL PALE PURPLE CONEFLOWER EB COMMON BONESET ES DWARF JOE PYE WEED HF FALSE SUNFLOWER IV BLUE FLAG LP GAYFEATHER LC CARDINAL FLOWER 0 20' 40' 60' SCALE: V=20' O NORTH DAMON FARBER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 310 South 4th Avenue, Suite 7050 Minneapolis, MN 55415 p: 612.332.7522 SUBMITTAL BID SET 03/17/2022 WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB WAYZATA, MN I hereby certify that this document was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Name Chuck Evens Registration# Signature Date 03/17/2022 Date DF/ Project # 21-139 Scale VARIES Drawn/Checked AG/CE REVISION -- PLANTING PLAN - B L 14 1 Lurgi rl afire Schedule Labell GalcType Units Avg Max Mh Symbol Qty LabcA Arran em a rlt LLF Ee8cri tion Arc. Watt8 Lu m. Lurlrlerls - I 4 AA2 singlo 0120 N LS NV -1 -T2 -16L -5-30K- U N V MOU NT ON 1 FT POLE N LS NV--T3-SOL-5-30K M O U NT ON 28 FT POL E W ITH 2FT EASE 36 168 1 336 3960 19218 1 19713 1 _ AA3 _Single 0.720 7 AA5 113ack-Back 0.720 1 N LS NV -2 -T5 -SOL -5-30K MOU GST ON 28 FT POL E W ITH 2FT EASE LLf i me1L dL l a � L• t = cdr_=ti-DM i M 1 i-ght 4DLtPLLt t a is t 1ficL a ' -U31a dei uc= . CMcu IatlOr7 Summary Labell GalcType Units Avg Max Mh AvAM i -n Max/min SITE GROUND 'NE PARKING Illuminance FC 0.76 8.8 0.0 N.A. N.A. Illuminance Fe 1..18 4.7 0.4 2.95 11.75 SOUTH PARKING Illuminance Fc 1.. 9 2.6 0.6 2,15 4.33 TYPE AA2 TYPE AA3 ec a3 ha ha a3 a3 a3 ha hr a• :�j :�j aA a, • ha a;- Li' t. ;ki k.' }t tj Im %I kt k;: an an a3 a3 3�L aj aA a3 �i �i �� i �i �� 7u 3t �r �� 7` � 5 y A kt kJ k • k.I ki r '.. 3. %. %. U 1 i d I. 4k %, I. td k, ti h.l 44 Y. t. L 111 - f ", +ti i 5+ 5r 5i 5* ' (�1L DING 1� A. 3. ti� �� . � 3r 3 � 3� 3� � -� - 5} 5 � �� + � M-' �I �+ Y� Y .� r:rrr tib 5. 3. 1. 3. 3. 3r I 3. 3L :-�_ �. +a }. y. 51 5, 5i �%.1 1%4 Ya ' ka Yi W LJ k �rxx � N.L• � i Ilk* 11'_ 1 �� . �. ti. �� . ti. 1, 3 3ti 3� -� 1 5: %.I3+ Yn Yn t, t, Yv Y t Yt Y IL ti� �� Sr �� 3r ti� Sr 3r S. 3ti 3 3. - r �ti �. }� %+ 5{ t. Y+ YA ti YL Yr h.,Y BVILIANG 1. 1. ti. tib 3. 3r 3L !4ti 3��{ :. lr '�t -�+� 5+ 5� kt 5+ 5 t+ �} is t k . F i �t. 3• 5• 3• 5• 1• 3• 3• 3.�..w."�tiLY /9%61a. 3L 3L 3r ,. , +} +� %, N. '. 5f 5i 54 #* td t- ti Y.3. F 1. 1• 1• 3r 1L 3ti 1t 1. ,. ,. ,s N1, Si 5I 54 5� 5� L��3r 3r 3r 3 . 3 . 3r 3ti 3{ 3r tis 3 . 3L• 53 � ti 3p � � • 5r 5. 5f k zi 5r 5r� 5 I , L 1 t. t 3• 3r 3r 3 . 3 . 3L 3_ 3. 3L 3L 1b %ti ti3L 3. _ 1. 1.1 ti. `11 IN �t IN -F � tit 5* k# k•! -� _ %, 4+ 5 %L . L, F . t f + i } �16u L. t_ L. 14 Lf td Ld tf L. r 3• 3{ 3. 3L )% 3ti 3L 311 3L 3ti 1- xy '&L 3■ W 1. 3. $. d. �1. ti.1 ti.r--}..- ti k* t'I k' k' M 5' 5 5r--iL AjU t,.,;.'M# k IrY. Y. til to to to k* k; ti L. L. F. L% LL I L 1A t. Y# 1 L I . L . � = d t. 11 3r 3. 3. '51 3a 5L 3L 14 Lti 1% • 3UL- 1}. • Sti - �b IN. 57 16- 4 bw 41 Yi Yi 44 Y# %J 5. i`-4 %. 1 Y,1 Y. �� Y. Y. Y. t� h. Y. Y. Y. t� Yf kr t. t. L� tr Y# t� Y. t• h. L• t� Y Y. _ L• I. Yt L. 3• aI 11 3ti ti. tir 3F 3. + 3. _ $0 S1N 3 3r 1t L. tib 3t IN % ti t� t� k* � Y kr 5t 5i 5i- 5. La t, t, Y i td k� Y. kq t, -Kr w L k' t. Y. Y. �� t* Yt Y# F. to t. �� Y. L.. Ls Y.• t. -.tir. G� 4 k4 3r 3L 3ti 3 1,, ,� , ,, ,} , ,. '1 (1 5 t k� �F 4� S� �� 1� �i� Y.-� 5. 51 5{ t. Y. k k i t. L. t, h ti i t. L. L1 14 t.1 Y. k1 k. k' Y. L. Yi YI t• ti Ir 5. % 'N _ t* Y- Yr t* 1'••3. 3L 3. 3. �L �, �. �tiI +LJ +� �. 5 3. 3 � %J 3. 3. 5. 5. ti I r ~tom r Y.' ha Y. t. . to k• t, w ti ti L, h.. Y+ t.. L, k1 k Ld L, t., h. Li Lt t. t. 5. i 'S� "k. t. h.. Yt k} t. Yi M 1 3L %. �, ,. I ,+ + IN 3, 3. 1. IN 3. 3, 3, +. 1, Y., t, ty Yi t. Yi t-. t.1 Y. ti t moma r f h+ Ir _ I kid hi Yi Yv • ti td td L; lm.• - � L. L . Lr ' • k.1 t� h. t i ' 'S� SY 1' La by t� Y. t� td tv t� tN, tN, tf " to L f I Ilii G� a '4. 3L 3. , . 1 , � }.� . !4� . � i I 3. 4� ti. ti� ti■ , . , . , s � s + � + . `1 Sr t-1 t: Yi Yi Yi t. Y., Yi t� t-. Yi• k1 Y. ti t hh--� RIM. DING � � I Y. Y. t� L. i L. L� Yi Yd L. "-kst k� Lk %1. r1' k. 5. trt1 k�[. Y. lfi ti Y# Yr tr Y* Y* �. �. �ti 3. 3, �. }. s rrr 1. , , , , , IL, %, 5j %t Yn L.1 k+ ki ti ki YNi L. t, kl %Lt k# i i ~�� 1. ' j .- �_ , I Yi Y. t t. t. t L, 5. _ Yi w1 t} irL t, t, Yi Y. Yi 5a y. t. Y. Y. Y� Y. t� t. t* Y# 1. 5. 3, ti. L'ti Sa 3, �. }. }� �} +a +1 !+� S } 5NI 3f Yn ti td t L ti Yy Yi kt 4, 1 Y. t, Yi t. t, 5. 5 5 5 % �FLr, t. t. Lj} JL -t t� .41-1 t. L.i t.1 ti r. t. t. h. Y. t. Y. Y# 3. 3. 3. 3, L. ti. 1. 1r 3ti +. +r }. }a $s t. +a + 7 + -ti .,'; $.1 5NI 5; i 'r t, to Yi h ki t. ti to k.. t. tt _ _ N. Y. t� ti i t, 5 5i 5 r 5. t i •- t� ti 5� t, F. L� t� t� L. L. Y. Y. S• 3• 3• 5• 3• 1 3r 3. 3■ 6ti 3r 3. ti� titi +� ' -1. tia ti} ti� ti• 1. 5� 3� '1. � �ti• ti. :2. 5ti �. 4. 5d 5i 5i Y+ Yi tdt, t.i Yi ti t� L. L. tf i Y. Y1 h.. t. %. % 5a 5i 5i 5, 5d 54 51 '14 5. 5 t,r SIC 1tIN %% }% I . Ia t. L.. F1 k+ k.l k� 3 3 b. 1 5 tir 3. 3L 3ti 3r ��' ,. ,� ,� , til +} Zb 3. 3. 3. �. 1{ +. � } 5i 5NI 5i 5t w M L. L. ta t.. k. Y. k. Y. . t� ti tr ' 5d 5 d 5* y 5. 5t 5i 51 5a `1 '• •ia I L.� �L. F� Y. F. `� L�..*r 3� 3r I, 3r tir, tis 1, 1, 1• 5• 3• 3 3r 3r 3, 3� 3ti '3, ,. , ,. s s r IN 5� r5� 1 3. � �. tiF �r +� +. �r }r �. 7 %a t, 1A Yr Y. t. Y. t. �'1f'Ff� * { _ j i i . 54 t, '14 hi 5� y. 5r 5� 5d 5a 51 5a 5. 5. 5. 5. 5. 1. k�� t � Y. - �+_ . t_. I . � %. 3. 1, 1. 1% $1 $1 L} Mr �t 1, 1{ 3r 3. 3. 3L 3 �.t 5. %b �t � 1 ti %5 tia 1. �. �. 5. 5. YT Yi � t. to L. L - ht k� ' I �'% r• ' • F � � � j I GOP 1 ti f . t� pJ` 5, 5� 55 i5fi �5� ' S� 5� 5� 3r 5� 5� 5 i 5� }�. ri, i ti'• Lz 4,• Sa ..Say _ ti's - L. 5� 5� 3L 3. 3� 3� 3� ti 3� 5� 3r �a tir 3r 3r 3� 'S� F �• ti. z' �'� ti 5t t4 �+ k* t . ha t . k# k* Yt tf 1 Yi L . to. Yi t* 5� 4+ 5 5 . 5 54 5-1 5V 5 5 5 5� 5� %d 5 . 5.. 5 . 5 . +5+ f k# k' 101 Yi k' y. 1 t } y r� 3� 3. 1ti 3ti ti .. 3ti 3. 3� 3� 3 ti. 1� 3� ti.` 3� 3a i. 3. ' titi ti.' 3. " 4� ti. i ti. , 5 . k' �.{� t� Yom ' 1r C. Mh 1 jY; 1ta , L, hi tti 5 5 i X5 5 5� 5 . 5, 5r 5 i 5i kr L. tt t t L� 5 it T r 5. 3. 3a 3r Sa 3a 3� 3ti 3ti 3� 3� 5� 3. 3� 3� 5� 1. iy , 3� 3r 3. 3. 3, to t� tr. i OE I ka t, ha k+ '� t 5� 5i 5a 51 5 5jj 5. 5. 5. 5� S, 1 5 5t 'NaY. rt Y. Y, 5. 3. 5. 5� 5� by 96 ti- �}- 4.. 1. 3� } 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 5. 3. Sr 3� 5. 3ti 3� 5. 3ti 3. 3. 3ti 5, 3� 1. 3ti 1y 3� 1� 3� 1� 3r' t. Yi L■ : t, h t4 Y. t1 tf t* _ f - - _ it . t4t t i L, t, L . t, t, 5. •5t 54 %54 54 11 3 1 %. ' S ./ 5 . 5 y`1 '1 5 il * k* 5f ; 5f 3 . 5 i 5� 5a %ti ti� ti. tiI tia ti• ti• , . �. �." b. Sr 5 3ti 3 . 3b Ou f 1b $0 ti. ti. ti. ti. ti} --ti._ _ 3 . t 1 Y. ti.1 t� fir•-• Fj ti t . k.*+ .ti F I kq t1 FL Lki ki 1 ••54 Ni 1 ii i * 5. %* k* k+ 5* 5. r 54 Ni %4 %m L tia Lti %m Ls ti L4 tis k{ tir +ti 'La Lti 'I i, . 7s IL- 3. 3. 3r GOiNlS titi Sti 4o 1& %a k+ L.. L. Y.. I Yi t" L" L•. t�1' YJ. *_ Y. t, 1 Y" 5* 5 i 3� 3, 5r 5, 54 i 5* 3} 14 Nik'F _ 5 - t 5, 5r J 96.. � ti 1 `11 NN tis 4. `11 NN 1� ti� 10 tis k. 3 hti 3. 1, 3• �._ Y.i k� t . Y. k' L . L� t . k+ i Yi Yr Yr 5+ 5 . ' S i 5� 5� 5 i 5� 5 i 5� 5� 5 % i 5 . 5� }1 F ti 0 k} ti� r tib L. ti. ti. 4 3. 3. 3ti 3 . 3, 3 I j �� ji+ Y. 101 1h. --h7 -Yi _ L. Ll 1:. Y.. Y+ Y; Yi tJ Y,� 5W N. N. 5' 5'I 5' 5I "Na 5. 5d t� Y+ Xf �} 5i ti +b +. +A '14 9 r }; }, } ,. +t + 3. 3' 3% 3. I, I Y# k# k• 1h -61r.6 ' 6-6, k. Lr to i+ l --Y. _-L. t-' )0F. k+ t. a yi �5� �5. It 5+ t, Y., k., ki 5t %4 'Na %4 %, IN �{ � +� '1{ +s L4 L. U +* } 31 +11 +a 3F 3' 1% 3. 3' i t* W '1* 44 t* Y. L. L. t. t��,' �� }F N. YJ �` tv-h1� Yi Yr 1 r" Y, � 6t k+r W t�1' L9 k} 5* 5. 31 3� 5} 5} +. +� +n +} L� (L� ,� ,y , ,. ,� , } }. �� ,. ,, ,. 5, I. 3ti 3. 3r . PROGRESS PRINT , I . tf 4' k# 1* Y# Y# 4 N. Y. h. Y. Y. k~F W ..I�} h.Y; _t�. k* - L. L. *w Y' _ - L. t� i t% 5� 'N , % , % , . Ill, , i ,; , . , . , ,,% , 5 , o , }. }. , b , 3, 3r 1, 1. 3r _ - 2-17-22 Y+ t.1 k+ Yt Y+ Yq " Y. Y. Y. t - tt 4 Ya ki Yi Y.. Y.. to Lm L.-k� -� �L �LT h. - _ Yi • Y. kb i*. 5. 1 ,F� , , ,. ,. ,. ,. ,s +s +, � +. qL. -1. '.. #+�#� � :r - Yr Y* k# k# Y. Y. k' I k' ky Nt k,F W ` 6 ki L. k' 11 L] L, IN 17-1 4�Y-, Li ti Yi i _ - IN I I I ', , ,. ; s �. �, +s 1. 3. 3L 3L 3. t* k' 101 Yi ki Y. k' Y. 1i W Lj to to k} k' Yi 1A Y. h h- t, L... L-1` t.--kr}L j S. 3r 3. .- L. 3. 3. 'I IN t. '1.'+. 16 IL Y. Y. Y. Y. Y. Y. Y. Ya ti Yd L.1 W Y1 k, Yi L. L. kv L. k'F"-4�_ 3. 'fit -l1 �� - 4a 4a Ya -4. 3. 3. 5. 1 Sr 3. Ln 3. 3. 3r • _ - _ Y. L. t.. Y+ k~1 � � � Y+ -]� � k+ 4- 4•- s• 4• 4F 4� �� • �- s��_ '&L "IL �L "IL rAAg 016 4.t VFWA YZ04 401= St. _4P $1 4' ti� ti. }. 1. �. ti. 1. 3. 3 1. 3. 3. 3� 3� �, - Ut F VA R i :�j :�j 3 3D WE „ S T Plan View GENERAL NOTES:Si�aIe: 1 inch 4G Ft. A. PULSE PRODUCTS DOSS NOT ASSUMF= RESPONSIBILITY ADDITIONAL NOTES FO R TH E INT F=R PIRETATION OF TH IS CALCULATION O R CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE AND INSTALL AN EXTRA 1.5" CCMPLAINGE TO THE LOCAL, STATE. OR FEDERAL CONDUIT TO ALL (7) LIGHT TYPE 3 FIXTURES FOR OWNER LIGHTNG CODES OR ORDINANCES. PROVIDED AND INSTALLED SECURITY CAMERAS. D. L IG HT ING LAYOUT IS NOT I NTF=ND EO FOR -CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS BUT ONLY TO I LLL] STRATE TH E P F=R FORMANG E OF THE PRODUCT. D. ALL READINGS.? -CALCULATIONS SHOWN ARE SHOWN ON OBIECTS.rSUR FAC ES_ LIGHTING PLAN 0 40' 80' 160' SCALE: 1"=40' • 0 DAMON FARBER LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS 310 South 4th Avenue, Suite 7050 Minneapolis, MN 55415 p: 612.332.7522 SUBMITTAL BID SET 03/17/2022 WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB WAYZATA, MN I hereby certify that this document was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Name Registration# Signature Chuck Evens Date Date 03/17/2022 DF/ Project # 21-139 Scale VARIES Drawn/Checked AG/CE REVISION -- LIGHTING PLAN L030 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 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) Length x Width Survey Total (Square Feet) Example (Garage) 24' x 30' 720 S.F. A S. F. B S. F. C S. F. D S. F. E S. F. F S. F. G S. F. H S. F. I S. F. J S. F. K S. F. L S. F. M S. F. N S. F. O 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 S.F. Excludable Hardcover (See City Code Sec 78-1684): S. F. S. F. S.F. S.F. S. F. 2 Total Excludable Hardcover S. F. 3 Net Existing Hardcover Subtract line 2 from line 1 S. F. 4 Total Lot Area S. F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [ (3) _ (4) ] % (Proposed Hardcover next page) Last Updated: January 2023 Note: This is an information sheet only, every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information contained herein; however, if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code, the Code provisions will prevail. Page 8 of 9 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 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 -foot setback or split at the 75' setback line and calculate hardcover square footage separately for each portion. Key to Hardcover Item (Describe) Length x Width Survey Total (Square Feet) Example (Garage) (24'x 30' 720 S.F. A S. F. B S. F. c S. F. D S. F. E S. F. F S. F. G S. F. H S. F. I S.F. J S. F. K S. F. L S. F. M S. F. N S. F. O 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 Proposed Hardcover S.F. Excludable Hardcover See City Code Sec 78-1684): S. F. S. F. S. 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 S. F. Proposed Hardcover Percentage [ (3) _ (4) ] % Last Updated: January 2023 Note: This is an information sheet only, every effort has been made to insure the accuracy of the information contained herein; however, if any information is not consistent with provisions of the City Code, the Code provisions will prevail. Page 9 of 9 8,. Pine Stoi a wall 24� Pine \ O 24" ~ C� Spruce y c Q 30" Spruce c` N CN Ln iLn(p L d CD c s 04 CD 3 15 M W er ~ � Bould EXI STING wall o Z i 3 BUILDING I= aden ro ` W Viy 12 `� r P 9.5 CN a G Boxelder ° N NP y Hackberry T ass 52 22W ° EXISTING CottonW . d e = 12" Spruce Crab Overhang eerroJs b Hackberry Landscaping y . BUILDING G< Q _ 3" 8.00' '> Spruce ` 7YP ,,,_24.00, 06 e� z T Stone wall Concrete 3 tuber ste'"— wal! ��20.00 20 0p, U Spruce '. _;,;;� NP„ bib.. LLJ Spru Spruce 150 L Stone wall Ce 24 ` CITY OF WAYZATA Cl - Gorden X 0 p ��=0 00' 20. 0, 7"Pine 3 Spruce 3' C&G TAPER T ' — ---------- -- RIGHT–OF–WAY 3' C&G TAPER 07"Tree BUILDING LEGEND N ELEVA COW p --gyp N CO LO o I 00 VALET STALLS STANDARD STALLS ACCESSIBLE STALLS TOTAL N av rn EASEMENT z Uj 35 224 >- 0.2 O 3v�a� v 0 a� 0: c c •2.c _a �0 N� Q PROPOSED CONCRETE O N U 0_ EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN WAYZATA = 2.16 ACRES EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN ORONO = 0.16 ACRES Q PROPOSED LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS Q D PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN WAYZATA = 2.41 ACRES PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN ORONO = 0.33 ACRES yAE UL O VALET STALLS STANDARD STALLS ACCESSIBLE STALLS TOTAL � N -0:3 Z L 307 (D9)E(D _Ev- TOTAL INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS AREA = 0.42 ACRES v z 04 C14 04 C14 04 04 04 C-4 NN N I04 M N N N N n N 00 m �!"i � wwQw� �MM00200 z a ¢N U � O W W W W N W W D V) Q Q Q Q P7 z J LUQ BOUNDARY/ROW/BLOCK LINE VALET STALLS STANDARD STALLS ACCESSIBLE STALLS TOTAL N EASEMENT C) Cn 35 224 >- 259 � Z wow ::R0 Q Q PROPOSED CONCRETE N U Fes- EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN WAYZATA = 2.16 ACRES EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN ORONO = 0.16 ACRES EXISTING CONDITIONS PARKING STALLS PROVIDED SITE SUMMARY (WITHIN PROJECT AREA) BOUNDARY/ROW/BLOCK LINE VALET STALLS STANDARD STALLS ACCESSIBLE STALLS TOTAL EASEMENT 35 224 0 259 WITHIN CITY OF WAYZATA WITHIN CITY OF ORONO DISTURBED AREA WITHIN WAYZATA = 3.91 ACRES DISTURBED AREA WITHIN ORONO = 0.47 ACRES 0 PROPOSED CONCRETE POST CONSTRUCTION PARKING STALLS PROVIDED EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN WAYZATA = 2.16 ACRES EXISTING IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN ORONO = 0.16 ACRES Q PROPOSED LIGHT DUTY BITUMINOUS PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN WAYZATA = 2.41 ACRES PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN ORONO = 0.33 ACRES PROPOSED HEAVY DUTY BITUMINOUS SHEET NUMBER VALET STALLS STANDARD STALLS ACCESSIBLE STALLS TOTAL INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN WAYZATA = 0.25 ACRES INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS AREA WITHIN ORONO = 0.17 ACRES 33 272 2 307 TOTAL INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS AREA = 0.42 ACRES 0 15 30 60 90 C2 Scale in Feet I NN LJLJ Iii h I ul LJL1 end ) UUluu ,§ ION RUN DATE: 02/21/2023 HENNEPIN COUNTY PROPERTY INFORMATION SYSTEM (PROPERTY OWNERS LIST) PAGE: 1 38 36-118-23 310005 38 36-118-23 34 0011 38 36-118-23 410035 H NORMAN NAFSTAD ET AL M & C LEJEUNE C MCLEAN & E A MCLEAN 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 480 OLD LONG LAKE RD 114 CHEVY C14ASE DR ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 SUMMIT STATION HOMEOWNERS MICHAEL L LEJEUNE CHRISTOPHER/ELIZABETH MCLEAN ATTN CINDY AND MIKE LEJEUNE 480 OLD LONG LAKE RD 114 CHEVY CHASE DR 480 OLD LONG LAKE RD WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 310006 38 36-118-23 34 0012 38 36-118-23 42 0003 STATE OF MINN R E GLESSING & I J GLESSING WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 470 OLD LONG LAKE RD 430 OLD LONG LAKE RD ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 DNR REAL ESTATE MGMT ROLLAND E GLESSING WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB ATTN DEBBIE GURTIN I JEAN GLESSING 200 WAYZATA BLVD W 500 LAFAYETTE RD 470 OLD LONG LAKE RD WAYZATA MN 55391 ST PAUL MN 55155 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 310011 38 36-118-23 34 0013 38 36-118-23 43 0001 M A SANSONE JR & E M BAILEY H NORMAN NAFSTAD TRUST WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB 240 WAKEFIELD RD 460 OLD LONG LAKE RD 200 WAYZATA BLVD W ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 MICHAEL A SANSONE JR H NORMAN NAFSTAD WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB ERIN M BAILEY C/O GREGG NAFSTAD 200 WAYZATA BLVD W 240 WAKEFIELD RD 3435 N KILMER LA WAYZATA MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 PLYMOUTH MN 55441 38 36-118-23 310012 38 36-118-23 34 0014 38 36-118-23 44 0004 ERIN SCHUTZ & ERIK SCHUTZ C J POLICINSKI ET AL STATE OF MINN 250 WAKEFIELD RD 450 OLD LONG LAKE RD 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 ERIN SCHUTZ & ERIK SCHUTZ CHRISTOPHER POLICINSKI DNR REAL ESTATE MGMT 250 WAKEFIELD RD ANNE M POLICINSKI ATTN DEBBIE GURTIN WAYZATA MN 55391 29161 MARCELLO WAY 500 LAFAYETTE RD NAPLES FL 34110 ST PAUL MN 55155 38 36-118-23 310013 38 36-118-23 34 0015 38 36-118-23 44 0023 BATINA REVOCABLE TRUST T A LEONARD & T C HOREJSI WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB 280 WAKEFIELD RD 440 OLD LONG LAKE RD 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 00000 KATHERINE S BATINA THOMAS A LEONARD WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB 280 WAKEFIELD RD 440 OLD LONG LAKE RD 200 WAYZATA BLVD W WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 34 0001 38 36-118-23 410012 38 36-118-23 44 0026 WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB J D JAMSA & M N JAMSA JOSEPH/STACY CARTO LV TRUST 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 113 CHEVY CHASE DR 65 FERNDALE GREEN ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB JONATHAN & MARTHA JAMSA JOSEPH M CARTO JR TRUSTEE 200 WAYZATA BLVD W 113 CHEVY CHASE DR STACY B CARTO TRUSTEE WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 65 FERNDALE GREEN ORONO MN 55391 38 36-118-23 34 0002 38 36-118-23 410013 99 01-117-23 12 0001 WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB AMY SCHUETT WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 115 CHEVY CHASE DR 200 WAYZATA BLVD W ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB AMY SCHUETT WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB 200 WAYZATA BLVD W 115 CHEVY CHASE DR 200 WAYZATA BLVD W WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 38 36-118-23 34 0008 38 36-118-23 410014 99 01-117-23 210002 SUMMIT STATION HMOWNRS ASSOC ALAN J & CAROL K ARTHUR WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 117 CHEVY CHASE DR 211 WAYZATA BLVD W ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 SUMMIT STATION HMOWNRS ASSOC ALAN J & CAROL K ARTHUR WAYZATA COUNTRY CLUB ATTN TRACY HOREJSI 117 CHEVY CHASE DR 200 WAYZATA BLVD W 440 OLD LONG LAKE RD WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391-9681 38 36-118-23 34 0009 38 36-118-23 410015 SUMMIT STATION HMOWNRS ASSOC T W FORSTER & B J FORSTER 38 ADDRESS UNASSIGNED 119 CHEVY CHASE DR ORONO MN 00000 ORONO MN 55391 SUMMIT STATION HMOWNRS ASSOC THOMAS FORSTER ATTN TRACY HOREJSI 119 CHEVY CHASE DR 440 OLD LONG LAKE RD WAYZATA MN 55391 WAYZATA MN 55391-9681 38 36-118-23 34 0010 38 36-118-23 410016 C L LITSEY & C A LITSEY LOUIS B OBERHAUSER 490 OLD LONG LAKE RD 121 CHEVY CHASE DR ORONO MN 55391 ORONO MN 55391 CALVIN L LITSEY LOUIS B OBERHAUSER JR CHRISTINE A LITSEY 121 CHEVY CHASE DR 490 OLD LONG LAKE RD WAYZATA MN 55391 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 Hennepin County Locate & Notify Map k I a N N t I' I Buffer Size: 500 Map Comments: 200 Wayzata Blvd. W Date: 2/21/2023 r#] x-0 0 100 200 400 Feet I I I I I I I I I This data () is furnished 'AS IS' with no representation as to completeness or accuracy; (i) is furnished with no warranty of any kind; and (ii) 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 CountyGIS Office 300 6th Street South, Minneapolis, MN 55487 / gis.info@hennepin.us MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 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 Scott Kirchner, Chris Bollis, Dennis Libby, Bob Erickson. Commissioners Matt Gettman and Jon Ressler 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. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Kirschner moved, Bollis seconded, to approve the Agenda. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 17, 2023 Libby moved, Kirchner seconded, to approve the minutes of the Orono Planning Commission meeting of January 17, 2023. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. 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. City Planner Curtis reported that in July of 2022, the timber lake slope walls, deck and stairs to the lake at this address were destroyed by fire. A building permit was issued to reconstruct the walls in-kind. During the installation of the wall, staff observed that the construction had expanded beyond the "in-kind" limitations. As a result, a stop -work order was issued. The applicant's engineer provided documentation showing slope failure was imminent and needed an emergency correction. Because the work was halted prior to construction, on Nov. 28 the City Council granted approval to install a final wall at the top of the slope in order to protect the integrity of the slope upon spring thaw. That wall has not been installed. The applicant is requesting to add 1.7 feet to the top wall that's existing rather than constructing a new additional wall on the top of the slope, which would better accommodate the final grades and the lake access stair. All the improvements are within the 75 -foot setback from the lake and within the bluff. The newly -constructed timber walls are situated generally where the previously existing walls were located. 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 previously existing walls. The owner is requesting an after -the -fact variance to address the wall footprint expansions in the bluff and lake yard. A lake stair is permitted within the 75 -foot setback and within the bluff. The deck walkway and shed are not permitted but are able to be reconstructed in-kind. The property owners can apply for a building permit to rebuild their decks and shed and the stairs 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. The applicant identified the slope and existing conditions as practical difficulty supporting the requested variances. They have provided the documentation with the practical difficulty worksheet in your packets. They are here tonight as well. Staff finds there are difficulties in the topography and challenges brought on by the fire which may support the Page 1 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. variances for the expanded retaining walls. Staff supports setback variances for the new wall footprint as long as the change does not adversely impact neighboring properties and the slope stability on those properties. The applicant provided a letter from their engineer with an opinion regarding the stability of the slope on the neighboring properties and it was included in your packet as Exhibit H along with comments from the public. Staff recommends approval of the setback variances for the wall improvements as proposed and as they are constructed. Staff does not recommended approval of any walls which encroach into the neighboring properties, and the applicant should be asked to confirm that the work was not conducted beyond the property lines. If the applicant needs to construct improvements on the neighboring properties, they should be providing consent for that work, and we should include that in the permit. Staff further recommends the vegetative screening of the walls be implemented to screen the new walls from the lake as much as feasible. Libby asked if the destroyed walls that had to be removed had been permitted. Curtis responded there is no record of a permit, but they have existed for quite some time. McCutcheon asked to clarify if the last retaining wall is yet to be built on the very top. Curtis explained the upper wall is constructed, but the applicant has decided they don't need to construct an additional wall. They would like to make that wall 1.7 feet taller to accommodate the grade. Josh Prust who works for Valdes Lawn Care and Snow and resides at 16016 Hidden Valley Road in Minnetonka and Joe Valdes of Hastings, MN represented the applicant. Mr. Valdes explained his company was hired to replace the burned -out retaining walls and stairs. His recommendation would have been for a boulder wall because of the difficulty with constructing a timber wall but that would have exceeded the allowed hard cover. Some of the problems included reduced vegetation because of trees that were burned in the fire and the discovery of rotting timbers behind the front timber walls. He said they tried to minimize the damage to the bluff and achieve good drainage behind every single wall so there would not be any erosion going into the lake. He said all this required more excavation than typical. The slope is too big and there is no way to control the bank as there is no vegetation. The snow this year will cause the soil to wash out in the spring more than usual. There's nothing holding the bank anymore. He said they were under a time crunch because it was November. His workers were digging by hand with pics to avoid damaging existing roots. We have to do anything in our power to protect the bluff and any vegetation. We had to work from the top to the bottom. We cannot work from the lake because there is no space to have any machine there. Work was halted in November and the Planning Commission did not have a December meeting. So I apologize that we did what we did. There is no way to be able to do this in the kind of winter we are having this year. McCutcheon asked about the neighbor's retaining walls. This is a big project, I can see that. And when I look at it, and I see all the neighbors, it's almost like you kind of work together? Because it seems like every has the same problem. Everybody has a need for this to be successful. He asked Valdes if what he has built and is proposing will hold. Page 2of19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. Valdes said he wouldn't want to say 100% but is 90% sure the project will hold the bank. Mr. Prust added one of the requested items that came from the last meeting they were at was that they have their engineer do an analysis of the neighboring properties as much as possible and get a survey with topographical to satisfy that those banks are stable, and they're not going to go anywhere. He said the neighboring walls in addition still have vegetation on them. So they still have their trees and all their plants and stuff that didn't get burned up. All that root structure is still helping to hold their slopes up. Libby asked if the engineering plans articulated that they needed to remove portions of the bluff to remedy the erosion. Mr. Valdes said the reason they had to remove soil was to backfill it with drain rock behind the timbers. The engineering plan called for 18 inches of drain rock behind the timber walls. Libby said he has worked in a couple of projects like this. So I'm just trying to get a scope of understanding how you approach this from an engineering and then a positive outcome. If you're removing portions of the bluff, wouldn't that naturally then increase the pitch of the bluff so that there's less soil to work with and then you have more of a grade down towards the lake shore? Mr. Valdes said they were not taking away from the height of the bluff but creating space to backfill with drain rock. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 6:20 p.m. Patty Yorks, 2825 Casco Point Road, said she had hoped to show photos of what was there previously, what is there now and what other neighbors have done to mitigate the bluff. I'm also on a bluff, and everybody else here, another 10 people, are also on this bluff. We all are expressing major, major concern. It wasn't necessary to do this digging. Everybody along the bluff has done work within your City ordinances and complied. They've done things by hand. They've been very careful and mindful of all the vegetation on the on the bluff. And these people just came in and bulldozed everything and removed the dirt. There was a big road down to the bottom of the bank. It was just an absolute travesty of how they approached this and little or no regard for the lake or the environment. And we have two engineers that live right in that notification area that you sent out. They're just amazed at what the City is allowing them to do, because they do not believe it's built structurally appropriately and engineered appropriately. And, to my knowledge, the engineer that they have has not signed off on this and standing behind the engineering. I just am concerned that this is not going to hold and the City is going to have some liability on this because they're approving something that is not accurate. McCutcheon said he doesn't pretend to know the history of this project, but obviously you do as a neighbor. But normally when these things are in construction it has to get ugly before it gets better. In hearing the applicant explain the process, it sounds like when they were removing the old wall with the rotted timber that the only solution was to dig it out and fix it. Page 3of19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Ms. Yorks responded it's a problem that they caused themselves. There were things that had to be corrected, probably, but not to this extent. She said she had photos which Curtis did not have available. McCutcheon invited her to pass her phone around the table. Curtis clarified that the applicant's engineer has approved plans as designed. We don't approve their engineering, their civil engineer takes the responsibility by stamping the plans. Ms. Yorks said the work is too egregious. And then after -the -fact, I mean, come on, really? The whole thing is just egregious. I get that it was an emergency. McCutcheon said it's one of those things with the construction season, and I'm not trying to make excuses, but I'm just trying to be logical about it. If you start pulling back layers of the onion and you're holding that much earth back, you do have to act with a sense of urgency. Was it handled the best way? Obviously, we would like them to go to City first, which they did. They came in -- well, after -the -fact, of course, but they did try to make it right. Margaret Martin, 2821 Casco Point Road. I sent in this information earlier in an email and it is from a member of the family who is a civil engineer, a geotech. You have all that information and I won't go through all of the points, but I will just reiterate a couple of the things that he emphasized. He indicated that the wall does not appear to be replaced in-kind and therefore should fall under scrutiny of new construction. It increases impervious surfaces within the buffer, increases discharge to the lake and does not appear that anything has been done to naturalize the shoreline, and I understand timeframe with winter etc., that that can't be addressed immediately. Surface drainage pads have not been identified. Tree Removal completed prior to plan approval has been discussed. The damage caused by this disturbance may put neighboring properties at risk in the future and this has been addressed. So again, you have a printed version and this is from an engineer who is very knowledgeable. But moreover, we need to consider the fact that that allowing things to go through sets precedents that should not be given in our City so that people think they can get away with it and do things not according to how they're set up. These rules were set up by our City and should be complied with. Commissioners took some time to review the photos that Ms. Worth and Curtis had been able to access. Tyler Warnke, 2147 Valley View Place, St. Paul said he was the equipment operator on the shop. I just want to reiterate that I went off what the plans were. I've never seen a slope this steep. And in order to get to the bottom, I had to dig around that. They said it was a road. It did look like a road but I can't reach all the way down to the bottom to pull out the timbers. So we're pulling up timbers going down as we go. Some of them are eight feet back and I have to dig those out. I'm not going to leave those in the ground, because when I construct the new walls, I have to go back. I`ve got to do the tie back. So it's different than just digging a hole. I've got to put a six foot to eight foot chunk on the back to nail the tie back to, to hold the wall., so all that has to be dug out. There's different aspects that made that difficult. Up on the top there's a tree and the neighbors were adamant about leaving the tree. So we worked around that and did what we could to keep it. And that's why there's a little adjustment over on that side just to keep and not destroy the roots on that tree. But it's just it's a big job, no doubt about it. A lot of the stuff had to be dug Page 4 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. back to get those tie backs. The engineer plans came to that step. The neighbor on the west walked me over to his yard and showed me he had his redone and he had a huge washout. I stand by what we built and I believe it will hold back that hill. Kirchner asked if as the equipment operator, did he think this could have been done as handwork instead of equipment operation? Mr. Warnke said he thinks it would have been a year-long project. A lot of that stuff was hard back in there. With the pick axe they spent 10 hours on one little section trying to get the tie backs back so we didn't take that bluff out on the on the east side up on top. Everything I've seen it's done with heavy equipment. Libby asked if he was involved in any other excavations or moving soil there other than directly affecting the washout and in the wall? Mr. Warnke said the only removal was to put the walls in and take out the existing walls, because all the existing walls were burned and had to come out. Then I had to dig the soil back to get the old original tie backs. The old original tie backs had big concrete, like a pail of concrete, and that was chained. We did nothing around the house. Everything was on the lakeshore. Commissioners asked about the extent of the damage caused by the fire. Curtis showed photos taken right after the fire. Carol Price, 2813 Casco which is the west side property adjacent to this one. I will agree with everyone that this has been a mess. The fire is not responsible. It was unfortunate that happened to the owner. They're just trying to recoup the bluff. I agree that the contractor, once he got in there, did see the work involved and he did try to save the trees. But again, there was a mess of a mound of dirt that was excavated from the bluff. And all that excavated dirt had to come by our house because we gave them permission. And so it was very difficult for us. They took away multiple dump trucks of dirt and brought in the stones to backfill those walls. So I did put in written comments in the packet as I saw it as of Friday. What is different is I had no idea that the wall construction now has changed from seven walls to six walls. And now the sixth wall is going to be taller. This is the first I've heard of it. All of my comments were based on the original design of seven tiered walls. And in late October, a stop order was issued because they were building this not according to the in-kind plan. It was almost done. They were in the process of prepping for the seventh wall. So they went to the City Council to express an emergency request to put in that seventh wall and it was granted in early November. At the time of the stop order, the contractor very rightly put in erosion burlap, they secured the bluff as it was built, everything was rounded. They took away all the equipment because they didn't know if this was going to be approved. The emergency order was based on the engineering request that this wall was in imminent danger of collapse if they did not finish that seventh tier. And after the permission was given to build the seventh wall, no one came back. That is my concern now is that bluff, it has the seven tiers. And that seventh wall isn't there. The Bluff now makes a half bowl; it's not straight anymore. So that half bowl really requires that seventh wall. The contractor put in the side walls to compensate for the neighbors. Those sidewalls are needed for this place where the seventh tier is supposed to be. I agree it should be there. If they make Page 5 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. the claim that this is an imminent need for the bluff, it should have been built. Again, this is the first time I've heard about the sixth wall just coming up a little bit. I don't know if that's going to keep the neighbor's property from falling because they have built this round and curve tiering effect. I know there is a concern about hardcover. But that hardcover came in less than the previous old wall. So there needs to be some scrutiny here. I don't think we should tear down this wall. I am an engineer. I'm data driven. I'm detail -oriented. You guys need to see what this looked like. You need to see the photos of how this was constructed. I saw the construction. I'm there every day. The contractor did a good job. I think he really reacted to what he saw. And he's trying to do a good job. I just want to make sure that whatever is approved in the end, this bluff isn't going to fail, I'm not going to be affected. It's nobody's fault that the bluff burned, but we've got to deal with it. McCutcheon said seeing the pictures he would be concerned as well but he is also looking at the challenges that the contractor had. I appreciate all the feedback because it's a drastic change to what the neighborhood has had. He asked if we are seeing a lot of erosion because the disadvantages of this with the fire? So you have no root system to establish that integrity and so they're kind of in a bad spot? He noted people driving by in boats would see nice trees and then nothing but a huge retaining wall system that doesn't fit the character of the neighborhood. Yet the neighbors think it should be bigger because they are really concerned about it. Ms. Price reiterated that she does not have enough information to make a decision at this point. This is too much of a surprise to me. There is a bluff line there and the neighbors are on the bluff line. The sloping does vary as you're going from west to east. The actual slope of the whole land of that Peninsula is flowing downward. The slopes on this end, they're steep. And as you as that landmass gets lower, those slopes are more gentle. But this particular build did scoop out a hole in that natural line of the bluff. And part of that scoop out is it's affecting the neighbors. The contractor was stopped before the seventh wall was almost finished, so that dirt is loose, there's nothing to hold it. I don't think making the sixth wall a foot taller compensates for what's there now. I'd like to see some plans. Bollis said he thinks on the engineering report for that additional height on that wall, it shows that the grade's going to be improved to the top of that wall. So what we're looking at right there, that's the sixth wall. That would be 1.7 feet higher. And this bowl, I'm assuming would be cut and filled to the top of that. Ms. Price said she hasn't seen any of the new updates and would not be in favor of seeing it approved without the seventh wall. I have no data to make an evaluation. I would just like the board to look at the data. It looks massive. It's not in character for the rest of the neighbors or Casco Point or the bluffs. When you backfill those walls, it's back filled and compacted with dirt and stone. How do you get something to grow in there? You don't, you might get small plants and things, but there won't ever be a tree back there again, so you've changed it forever. Charles Price, 2813 Casco Point Road, noted all the pictures have been from the water. The engineer who designed the walls made it crystal clear, you can't let any water infiltrate these walls up on the top side. I've never heard a plan for how the water is going to get around this wall, the water that runs across the lot. That needs to be clarified somewhere. Price also said the exhibits don't correctly represent the old Page 6 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. bluff line top. He said the bluff has been moved back 22 feet. That's part of the reason why we're in a variance situation now, I guess, because it wasn't built in accordance with plans. There's a mistake there. I don't know exactly what the significance of that is. And I actually want to compliment Tyler, Joe, you guys did a good job on the walls. Good job. They worked hard. Tyler was up here explaining. He worked with us, he worked with the neighbors on the other side. So I don't necessarily want to have it torn down and start over. And that's up to you guys to figure out. The Commissioners, applicants and neighbors continued to review photos and drawings. Curtis pointed out that the applicant is not asking for approval on these issues. We're going back and forth about what was there and what what's there now but we know it's not what was there before. Mr. Valdes said to go eight feet high with the wall, you have to go eight feet back. We have property lines, we have neighbors. We had tie backs going from the first wall all the way to the second wall. So all the walls basically want to structure all the way from the bottom to the top of the wall. That way we know how to approach anybody's property, and we'd be able to save histories. We actually did more work to be able to make sure that we're stable enough. So if you have one wall, all the way to the top has got to tie and nail into each other and the whole thing is one structure all the way. This is why that is not right. He said some of the structure now in place is temporary because the wall is not finished. They addressed the drainage on the east end by putting in drain tiles in the corner that will drain the whole yard. We have the pipes ready behind the walls to hook up but the job is not complete. McCutcheon asked about drainage and the current opinion of the engineer for the project. Mr. Valdes said water would go to the corner where the fence used to be where there was an old catch basin and some tires. Those have been removed and everything is now buried. He said this winter there has been 70 inches of snow. When it melts, the water will go west to east where they have put in a berm. The water will not go to any neighbor's property. He said the retaining walls are being designed so it will not have to have a railing. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 7:02 p.m. McCutcheon opened commission discussion saying it's a pretty significant build. And he understands the challenges with burning down trees, the root system failing, and yet needing to hold all that soil back. He also said he can understand the concern from the neighbors as it's different in character from the rest of the area. But looking at it, if you tore it down and rebuilt it, I'm thinking you'd look pretty similar because of all the earth that was removed. I'd like to hear the comments of the commission here on what can be done next steps, because we can't change the past. So let's try to keep the conversation on what can be done going forward. Do we let them finish it with the proposed changes? Or does anybody have an opinion on some kind of other plan or approach towards this? Kirchner said his initial frustration is that in-kind walls were approved and we didn't land there. Due to the dirt that was removed. today we can't go back and do X, Y and Z. And therefore, by the applicant and the homeowner circumventing the process, they removed that ability for neighbors, City staff, and this Page 7of19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. commission as well as the City Council to have a review process of how this looks. We maybe can't go back based on the amount of dirt that was removed. I'm fairly certain that what we're looking at there from the original walls to what's new are not in-kind. They're a different footprint. They're different angles and different places on the hillside. So my initial thought is also the precedents that we set to then go back and approve and after -the -fact variance, because I worry does that say `go ahead and do what you wantT And then we're going to have to say, `Oh, well, we're stuck with it now'. I worry about the precedents and what that sets for our City. We've got a lot of bluff and hillside to protect around the lake and that might be a slippery slope, pardon the pun. Bollis said he definitely has the same concerns as Commissioner Kirschner. Typically, when you're doing a project like this, if you can't build in-kind for whatever reason, it's great to come back here. But looking at it as a situation where it's imminent that there's going to be a problem, I question whether it could have even been built in-kind. We don't know what those existing walls were. We don't know if they even met code as far as what the new walls have to meet and are engineered by. So all the information I have, I feel like the new system is definitely engineered, signed off on. We don't even know what the old system was. I feel like the contractor did a good job dealing with the problem that they had there. It's just unfortunate it didn't come up here. Or it wasn't able to come here because I wouldn't have wanted to stop and then get halfway through the winter and not be able to do anything. And then we'd have a huge problem this spring, if that were the case. So I think it's probably fortunate that it got built to the extent that that it did. I think either way, if the engineer says it works, if there's a seventh wall or just raising that sixth wall, I'm fine with the proposed raising the sixth wall and doing the appropriate grading. I guess the question for staff would be I don't know if that would require a railing. Curtis said the City's building official could be asked to comment on that and clarify with the applicant if a railing is required by state code before it goes to the City Council. Libby said he tends to favor several remarks that Commissioner Kirschner mentioned. One is that I think it was a poorly -conceived plan to start with; it did not get enough review. And I think that once you get a stop order, it's a flag. Not to defend the City Council, but when you have an approval, and then something different than what was approved is built or constructed with very little interaction with the City engineering, it's a formula for failure. Because for one thing, you created a slope that didn't exist before. And in the spirit of conservation and preservation, not only within the scope of our empirical bluffs ordinance, you have the protection of the lake itself. And I think that those were not centrally focused on how the engineer designed this with very little consulting or approval in that plan and design and engineering with the City. So trying to remove a little fault from the City, I defer to Mrs. Price's very sage wisdom as a credentialed individual looking at this kind of from the outside, that there was too little analysis to really look to not have the disaster that I think this really is. I think that what they really need to do is recreate the bluff wall at the top that they previously had. First of all, you could have a straight fence. It would be helpful, but no one knows that, not even the contractors, who know how to operate the machines and move the dirt in the soil and bring the portions of the wall out that needed to be removed. There really are not enough statistical solid metrics to really determine how this really should have been done and how to fix it. I'm not really in favor of approving any of this. Even with the staff suggestion, the two suggestions that I made, I think really should go back to a planning stage with the original engineer who should have done more due diligence with the City engineer, so they know that as they move Page 8 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. forward, they're operating within the structure and the constructs of our Orono City bluff ordinance, which is very focused on preservation and conservation. I don't see much of that here. The operators did what they were told. They worked from a plan, but I think was a very faulty plan to start with. Erickson said he felt Commissioner Libby's comments are well said. What stands out for me is that the staff does not recommend approval of any walls which encroach into neighboring properties. He quoted the staff recommendation. The issue here is was there encroachment? And if there was then I concur that the neighboring property owners should be involved in the process with their consent. I would add that to the concerns that Commissioner Kirschner and Commissioner Libby have raised. McCutcheon said what we have now is holding back earth. What would we give them for guidance if we did have them go back to planning stage. Do you have any thoughts on that? Libby said his only suggestion would be to put that top bluff wall back. I'm not an engineer, but I have probably eight years of working with the bluff ordinance. I also have some on-site experience on Tanager Lake, in green trees, were in almost identical circumstances existed, except for the fire. And that wall had to be replaced four times in the course of seven years because we had a number of 100 -year rain events. A very reputable, well-known designer of that sort of construction, and reputable veteran construction operators, maybe like yourself, came in and thought it would work. But the engineering lacked what it needed to stabilize it. Like Mrs. Price mentioned -- numbers, metrics, calculations, design and engineering. I don't think that there was enough of it here. One solution would be to not have created a new slope, if that could be corrected. And once again, I think that top left wall needs to be there. Kirchner asked had this come before us as a blank slate, what would some of the feedback have been? The contractor stated that he initially had proposed a boulder wall. I don't know if that would have allowed for less intrusion from east to west across the front of the bluff. I believe that the issue was hardcover. Curtis clarified the issue was it wasn't in-kind, and they couldn't do it with a building permit at that time. I think it was a time issue. Retaining walls are listed as hardcover but they don't count against your property's hardcover total. She added that the engineers spent a great deal of time on the design. Bollis said he had been concerned that there wasn't enough engineering, but looking through there (the packet information), there's quite a bit. Curtis said the City stopped the work on the project, then we asked that the engineer give us his opinion on what was constructed. And did they follow the engineering of his initial design. With the extended wall now, adding 10 more feet to a length of wall isn't going to necessarily change his metrics to use the same word. But he did confirm that and has done considerable amount of work. He's not here tonight, but I've spoken with him and he was at the council meeting. So he has thoroughly reviewed the project. McCutchen said he felt he was looking at a situation where it's structurally sound. It's engineering approved, except for the one last modification with the staff's recommendation of adding vegetation and making sure that the wall doesn't encroach on neighbor's properties. We definitely would need to verify Page 9 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. that. I don't want to re-engineer it here. But I'm just still not clear on next steps. I don't know how you make it structurally sound without making it be as intrusive as it is, because you have to hold back that earth. I do see the challenges of trying to build a retaining wall with no structure and burned timbers and trying to excavate and finding more dead, rotted timbers. Did they approach it the right way? My guess, even if they did it the right way, they would have started digging into it and found they had to come back. It's a very challenging project. And so I'm trying to figure out, is this a workable solution now where we're pretty close? Could they add some vegetation? Making sure that that doesn't encroach? Is this something that we can move forwards with? Or is it something that we need to start over with? Kirchner asked if it was necessary to have gone as wide with the wall from east to west. Bollis said you had a bluff previously, and a combination of a wall system, but there was also vegetation holding that. That vegetation is gone. There has to be something that's going to hold that up, which I think is the reason why this wall expanded in the spots that it did. I know they're supposed to build in-kind, and you look at that overlay, at first, it does not look like it's in-kind, but realistically, it's actually less hardcover than it was. And it's essentially doing the same thing. It's off by a couple feet here and there, but I don't know how you would do it any differently with the constraints of working on a steep slope like that, with not touching any vegetation on the sides on the neighbor lots. To tear it down I think would be worse. That'd be a giant step backwards and you'd end up with something very similar. Essentially, the new wall is very similar to what was there. It's just you couldn't see it because you had a storage shed, walls and stairs and bushes. I doubt there was any drainage behind the old wall. I don't see any outlets for any drain tile (in the photos), like the new wall has. Kirchner said as much as I do have frustration with how this was approached and how we landed here today, I also would firmly agree that are we going to do more damage by denying this and saying start over and the impact that would have on the bluff to try this again. I don't like this one all day long. But I'm concerned that we could potentially do more harm than good by saying go back to the drawing board. McCutcheon agreed it's a no-win situation for everybody involved. This slope is ridiculous. It's one of the steeper ones I've seen. The newer construction retaining walls are pretty obvious because they're built to code. Maybe there could have been a subtle change to make it less obvious but I think at the end it would still look like it does today. I tend to say move forward with it with making sure that those items staff mentioned are addressed. Libby it's very rare that he disagrees with the staff. But I think that this is an ill-fated project that actually was constructed and built different enough from what the council approved that it deserved the stop order. And except for the couple suggestions that I made that would actually bring it back to some of the original construction, I don't think it's redeemable. The original wall burned which is unfortunate. The way it was constructed is very different than what the City approved. The Council did not approve the design that got built. Curtis said I just want to clarify, they applied for a building permit. She explained the plan review was part of the building permit process. The Council saw an emergency slope repair to finish the top. That's basically all the council saw. Page 10 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Bollis said I think it comes back to what was here previously was a seven -tiered timber wall that we don't know how it was engineered, and it was replaced with what is currently a six -tiered timber wall that we know how its engineered. That's essentially in-kind. It's a tiered wall that was built to the engineering specs which are pretty detailed, which I have to believe are much better than what was existing. I agree with everybody up here. I don't think the process is right at all. But I think we're going major steps backwards if this has to be removed, I'm saying functionally this is what was there and if they wanted something different, obviously, they would have had to go through a different process. The other piece is that seventh wall. If they built that, then it would be more in-kind to what was there. But that's not in front of us right now. So that we have to vote on is what's here. Erickson asked if the commission was headed towards a tabling motion. McCutcheon said he'd take any motion at this point to get going. I think we have two of us that have spoken out in favor that we've got enough here where I think the existing this retaining system is workable. Bollis said we're no longer approving in-kind, we're approving the variance that's in front of us Curtis said yes, setback variances for the new walls. Bollis said he was ready to move to approve the variance but he thinks the seventh wall should be built that was already approved by the City Council. Ms. Curtis said she would prefer we not design the wall. The Council approved the emergency repair as an emergency repair, not as a `you have to build the seventh wall'. Their alternate to the seventh wall is to increase the height of that sixth wall. She clarified the design had been approved by the applicant's engineer. We don't approve engineering. McCutcheon said a licensed structural engineer in the state of Minnesota put forth a design that's going to work in his eyes. And that's pretty good for me. He said the commission might be splitting hairs to require the seventh wall. Bollis said his thought is that we've got a split commission right now. And maybe that seventh wall gets it more to what was in-kind previously. In my mind that gets it closer to what it was supposed to be. And it makes essentially the top of that slope what it used to be. But I'm not going to redesign the project, so we've got to vote with what's in front of us. So would you rather us move to deny? Because it's missing that seventh wall? Kirchner said he felt the commission didn't have enough answers because the engineer was not present. He suggested making a motion with the recommendation that the engineer provide additional feedback on the width of the wall. Page 11 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Bollis clarified his motion to approve the variance as applied with the addition of the suggestion from Kirchner that a licensed civil engineer provide additional feedback specifically to the east to west span of the walls. Erickson asked to add the staff recommendations that it be ensured the wall is not encroaching on the neighbors or is doing so with their permission. Bollis accepted that amendment to the motion. Libby said he would like to see additional scrutiny on completion. Curtis verified the City will inspect it when it's completed. Bollis moved, Kirschner seconded, to approve LA22-000068, 2815 Casco Point Road Variance including staff recommendations, additional engineering review of the width of the wall and final inspection. VOTE: Ayes: 4, Nays 1 (Libby). 2. LA22-000070 STACY KROMENHOEK, 4085 WATERTOWN ROAD, REQUESTS AN AFTER -THE -FACT VARIANCE FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR A DECK. City Planner Nye gave a presentation on the item, stating the applicant is requesting an -after -the fact variance for a side yard setback for a deck and more specifically deck stairs. In April of 2021 variances were approved for the subject property for the construction of a single-family home. Variances were approved for lot size, lot width, front yard and side yard setbacks. This property is very small and narrow for the RR -1A zoning district. This district requires a minimum of a five -acre lot and 300 -foot width. The subject property is less than an acre and only 73 feet in width. The district's 50 -foot side yard setback requirements overlap, taking away any compliant building envelope. Based on these practical difficulties variances was granted back in 2021. The building permit for the construction of the home was issued in August of 2021. And construction began after that. As construction drew to a close staff discovered the deck and deck stairs were built 17.3 feet from the northern property line where 19 feet was required. The applicant has chosen to move forward with an after -the -fact variance. They're here today requesting the variance to keep the deck and deck stairs where they are now to allow a modified side yard setback of 17.3 feet. The applicant has identified the substandard lot size and width as practical difficulties, also noting that the current owner of the property was not responsible for this and would like to keep the stairs in place. Moving the stairs to the rear of the deck instead would impact the view and sunlight entering the home. Staff agrees the lot is substandard in size and width and doesn't have a compliant building envelope. These practical difficulties led to the approval of a variance in 2021. Staff does not believe there are any new practical difficulties that will lead to a modified setback today. The construction error that resulted in the deck stairs being constructed 1.7 feet beyond the side yard setback does not constitute a practical difficulty. Therefore, Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. The applicant is here tonight and has provided supporting documentation and can be asked for additional testimony. No public comment has been received. Commissioners asked where the steps were supposed to have been. Page 12 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. The applicant, Stacy Kromenhoek said she submitted the original permit for the home. I'm not the homeowner nor am I the home builder. However, I'm here to kind of make things right for the current homeowner, Mr. Bard, who's here. Originally, they (the steps) were supposed to stick out from the side of the house. There's two root causes for the 1.7 foot issue. Of the 20 inches, 12 inches of it is attributed to the surveyor misreading the building prints that called for three-foot stairs instead of four -foot stairs. So that's 12 inches. And then eight inches because the general contractor mis-dug the footings. So they are exactly where they were going to be. But they should have been shifted approximately eight inches. And then the 12 inches comes from him misreading the prints. I'm here to help make things right for Mr. Bard. So I agreed that I would submit the application and I would do what I needed to do to make it right. The general contractor is not available to make anything right. He actually has lost his license and there's a warrant out for his arrest. I have a lawsuit pending where he took approximately $400,000. I have also filed a complaint with the City of Orono Police to ask them to file criminal charges. So he's not coming back to fix this. Any fix I probably will just do it to do the right thing. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. There were no public comments. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 7:54 p.m. McCutcheon said this one's pretty cut and dry. Looks like a contractor screwed up. We had 19 feet and looks like they're encroaching one foot seven inches. The question is, where do we go from here? Is this an acceptable variance? Not to be cold, but it's a situation that we can improve. But it's not the most cost- effective solution. If you could just narrow the deck or move and make the stairs skinnier, to abide by the 19 -foot setback that we did approve -- it is kind of harsh, but that's where I'm standing with it. But I'd like to hear the feedback of the commission. Kirchner said he would agree with McCutcheon's remarks. You know, it sounds like we had a surveyor error of 12 inches. And then as well as the width of the staircase was also messed up and footings were in the wrong spot. I think looking at this one, if it were here in front of us as an application for a variance, I think I would be questioning do we need a four -foot stairwell? Or can we go to three-foot and not take as much and so I would be in favor of denial. Bollis said he feels like there are a couple reasons for this. And I think the piece I could get behind would be the surveyor misreading that and putting the stuff in the wrong spot. That's not the homeowner's fault. It doesn't really change what's there very much as far as the look and feel of the property. But then there's the other, what is it, seven feet that it's off? So I guess in my mind, I'd be okay with this. If they could modify the stairs to fit they get a 12 inch allowance for the mistake that was made by the surveyor that put it in the wrong spot. So I would say if it's possible to modify it, you get 12 inches of grace, so you'd have like an 18 -foot setback there, if that helps to keep that wide enough stairway that you can have adequate access. Ms. Kromenhoek said I know it sounds simple, just move stairs. But you're talking about digging out footings, you're talking about digging up the concrete landing. And this is a homeowner who had no fault in this whatsoever and neighbors who have been putting up with construction for a long time. And they're Page 13 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. very pleased with the outcome. I had a great conversation with one of the neighbors this weekend. You're talking about a big burden to the homeowner who is a victim and all of this, and you're talking about more of a burden to the neighbors, more construction. If there was a practical difficulty for ignorance and incompetence, I can point to where that would be, but that's not in there. And so I would ask you look at the harm and the good. Tell me what is the harm? You know, if I would have come to you guys, originally asking for a 17.3 foot setback versus 19, I made a pretty good case for the 19 foot setback, I built a beautiful home in a 70 -foot wide space, so I think you probably would have approved that too. And so what is the harm of 20 inches, especially when the culprits aren't going to be the people that pay the price for this? So the harm versus the good. The good is if you can approve it, the homeowners are happy, the neighbors are happy, you don't have another innocent party bearing the cost of somebody else's mistakes. And the harm if we yank this all out, everybody's going to not feel great about this. What's the benefit of those 20 inches? That's the hard thing for me. So I'm asking for like a super common sense approach to this, because ultimately the choice to deny it is a whole lot of harm, and I can't find the good. McCutcheon asked when the problem was caught? Was it during the framing inspection? Ms. Kromenhoek said the mistake was not noticed at the framing inspection but later. The stairs were always supposed to be in that location, it just would have been 20 inches to the left. And if you turn the stairs and make them go across the back, there's a beautiful window there and a big glass sliding doors (below the deck) that the view is now of stairs. If you try to just move it eight inches or the 20 inches, you're going to be digging up all of those footings, all of the concrete landings, you're going to have to re - support it while you're doing that. It's not just a move, it's actually pretty complicated. Mr. Bard is ultimately the person who lives in the home and he had nothing to do with this. I want to make this as easy as possible for him, and of course, for myself, so that's why I asked, what would be the harm in giving that 20 inches? She added the neighbors are very happy with the new construction. If you're familiar with what was there before, the neighbors are thrilled with having a beautiful home in their view. Of course, they didn't love the construction period, no one ever does. I think they'd be pretty heartbroken to know that we will be back and tearing up his yard, which we've hydro seeded, just to do this. Libby asked when there was a certain state of completion and a certificate of occupancy. Ms. Kromenhoek said the home was completed in April, and a temporary certificate of occupancy was granted. It's complicated. Obviously, we have a builder that disappeared from the entire situation at the end, and my partner disappeared at the end. And so I didn't find out until November or December. And huge kudos to the staff for helping catch me up on what the problem was and what I could do to try to get through it. So I just became aware in December, and actually, Mr. Barr just became aware in November. And we've been working together to try to figure out how to get through this. Libby said he has been involved in building processes and this is not the first time I've heard of something like this happening. Rather than the rudely inconvenient reconstruction and demolition of something like this, it would be a material fact knowledge issue that must be made evident in perpetuity. He said future residents would need to be made aware of this material fact so there would be transparency. Page 14 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Erickson noted the mistake didn't get caught in the frame inspection. Ideally would have been caught during framing. And so it's after -the -fact after everything's all done, we come up and say, well, it needs to seven inches to the left. I guess knowing that and understanding there's a survey error is that enough practical difficulty to let us to allow this this variance to go through? As the applicant pointed out if the application would have been for 17.3 instead of 19 when we approved it, hindsight is 20/20. But it's not that big of a distance. I was originally pretty harsh on this one, but as I think about it a little bit more, is there some wiggle room here that we can understand this? Bollis said it's not like they applied with the stairs in a different configuration. This happened. It wasn't their fault it ended up being like this. It's not like they had a different configuration and decided to change it. It wasn't intentionally done. I guess I would be in favor of leaving them. I don't see that it's harming anyone. But I do agree with Mr. Libby. Libby stated again the variance would need to be a material fact disclosed and fully transparent. I don't favor remediation. Erickson stated his belief that if it had been proposed that way the first time around it would have been approved. Bollis said he would move to approve LA 22-70 as applied. Libby asked again that the non -conforming aspects of the stairway be fully disclosed in perpetuity, because they'll never be corrected. Nye said if the variance were to be approved, the resolution noting this action would be recorded against the property. It would be able to be found and noted for any title or historical purposes associated with the property. Bollis moved, Kirchner seconded, to approve LA22-000070, 4085 Watertown Road after -the -fact Variances. VOTE: Ayes: 5, Nays 0. 3. LA23-000001 LECY BROS. HOMES & REMODELING - BRENDA KOEHNEN, 2617 CASCO POINT ROAD, REQUESTS A HARDCOVER VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK. City Planner Nye gave a presentation on the item, stating at 2617 Casco Point Road, the applicant is proposing to construct a new deck on the west side of the home, serving the first floor and overlooking the lake. The lot as it exists today is over on hardcover. This lot is tier one, which limits its hardcover to 25 percent of the lot. Currently, the lot is at 28.4 percent. The proposal is to construct a 288 square foot deck partially over an existing patio. The proposal also includes the removal of a portion of the patio and the removal of a flagstone walk. Through the removal of 104 square feet of hardcover and taking advantage of the City's 100 square foot hardcover credit for the new deck, the site will go from 28.4 percent hardcover, to 27.9. The hardcover credit offered by the City is a maximum of 100 square feet and can be applied to permeable pavers, decks and other improvements where water can seep through. The proposed deck meets the required setbacks. The applicant is requesting the hardcover variance because Page 15 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. the proposal will still be over that 25 percent hardcover limitation. Although the deck meets all the required setbacks, and the overall hardcover on the site will be reduced, staff is recommending denial based on practical difficulties not being met. The request for the additional deck is more out of convenience and not necessary for the use of the property. The property currently has a lakeside patio and an at -grade patio next to the home as well as a rooftop terrace or second story deck. The property currently has a non -conforming boathouse and lakeside patio that are within the 75 -foot setback. If these were removed, the lot would be within five square feet of compliance with hardcover. Staff believes there are practical ways to bring the lot into conformance with the required hardcover regulations. The applicant has provided supporting documentation regarding the applicable practical difficulties and is here today. A Neighbor Acknowledgement Form has been included, but no other public comment has been received. The applicant has reached out to staff and informally discussed possibly the removal of the lakeside patio to further bring this into conformance That would be an additional reduction of 76 square feet, but I'm not sure if that's going to be proposed tonight or not. McCutcheon asked if removing the lakeside patio would bring the site to 25 percent hardcover. Nye said it would bring them to 27.4 versus 27.9, so it just slightly reduces it. Andy Johnsrud, Lecy Brothers Homes Remodeling, 3250 County Road 10 N, Watertown, MN, explained. the buyers of the property just purchase it in the last few months and his company is remodeling the home including a main level bedroom and a deck. He said they were aware of the set -back regulations but not the hardcover calculations. Our initial deck design actually was 18 feet by 19 feet with a deck stairs that we removed when we met with Melanie (Curtis, City Planner), back a few months ago. So the deck that we're seeing right now, as Natalie (Nye, City Planner) mentioned, we are removing the patio that's out in front of it. We're also moving the flagstone steps. We'd love to keep the patio along the lake. Natalie mentioned in our staff report (the possibility of removing the lake patio). I discussed it with my clients. They're open to the idea of it. But that's the big thing that we're looking at as you know. The dwellings on both the north and south side and the lakeside setback, all was great. I thought when we removed hardcover, I didn't realize we needed a variance. Natalie informed us of that, so that's why we're here. And that's also why we reduced that deck four feet along with a four -foot stair that would go down to be parallel with the lake. Currently the property does not have a deck on the lake side, and I would say most of the homes along there would have a deck on the lake side. We are going to choose to leave some steps that are going to be left, instead of putting steps on the deck, which we initially wanted to do. Kirchner asked if the footprint of the home changed at all as part of the remodel and if the excess of hardcover that exists today is not a result of your client, it would be from prior homeowner or homeowners? Mr. Johnsrud said the footprint of the house would not change and the excess hardcover did go back to a previous owner. McCutcheon asked if the applicant had looked at all the design possibilities to get to 25 percent hardcover like tearing down the boathouse or making the deck smaller. Page 16 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. Mr. Johnsrud said there's a patio below that existing deck right now. We reduced the deck already by four feet, along with removing the staircase. And right now, it's just a matter of the existing structures that were there. He said they had had conversations about the driveway and a walkway to the front door. There's a set of little wood steps there. So there's not a lot to remove. The only thing that we mentioned when Natalie brought it up in our staff report was that lakeside patio. We can remove that 76 square feet. The existing home is 28.4, I believe. And we're bringing it down to 27.9. With the calculations we're doing, that lakeside patio would bring it down to 27.4. Bollis noted the deck off the second floor which the applicant said was at a bedroom. In, in your practical difficulty analysis, I think one of the reasons you mentioned is the poor interior layout from a 1920s built house, and there's no main level deck. Now this solves that issue. Libby asked if a main floor bay window would be removed to add the new deck. Applicant, right, the bay windows coming out and the door's getting put in there? The portico or entrance is existing. Only the deck is being added. Libby said, but I'm just looking for hard surface. Mr. Johnsrud said we did, too. And we've removed everything that we can remove. And like I said, we already reduced the size of the deck. McCutcheon asked if they can make smaller deck. I don't know if the math works out. But is there a dimension to hit the 25 percent hardcover and have a usable deck in your opinion? Mr. Johnsrud said no, because they removed 152 square feet of the deck, and we're adding a deck that is netting 188 square feet (by removing the patio below the deck), so it's not okay. Chair McCutcheon opened the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. Patti Kubalak, 2623 Casco Point Rd. said she is right next door. I think it's a great idea. You're just trading one for another, and it'll just make the house even better. Chair McCutcheon closed the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. Kirchner said he believes the applicant has established practical difficulties in two regards -- that the existing hardcover overage is not a result of the current homeowner and the remodel project. It was from prior homeowners. And there's no main level deck, I guess maybe that's not a practical difficulty, but I can understand where they're coming from on a lakeside of the home. I don't think it's egregious. We've been here before; we've talked about improving the position. We're going down from 28 percent (hardcover). And so based on all those factors, I think practical difficulty has been established. We're improving our position, and I'd be in favor of supporting this. McCutcheon said he would tend to agree with Kirschner. You're right. We do see this a lot. And I think it is an improvement on the hardcover. And as already mentioned, the homeowner already did reduce the deck size, we do appreciate that, to make the hardcover formula better. You could probably save a few Page 17 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. feet here, but it still doesn't get that magic number. It's a trade-off on the patio below it. We're putting a little bigger structure above it. He said he thinks it would look better and the neighbors would appreciate it. We've already got one neighbor confirming that. So I'd be in favor of approving this one. He added it wasn't part of the application but should the commission add removing the lakeside patio? Kirchner said I personally wouldn't. I'd take the application as approved. We're still bettering our position. Bollis said I would point out too, that we're actually not just bettering in hardcover, but we're bettering in distance from the lake. The patio does extend farther than this proposed deck would. So it checks the boxes, I think. Erickson said if they took that lakeshore patio out then that would help as far as the hardcover percentage. It would still require a variance but a smaller area. McCutcheon said it is almost even steven. I wouldn't want to take anything away from them, just give them the deck the way it's applied. That's my opinion. Erickson clarified if the patio is existing and not proposing an additional patio. It does reduce the hard cover. They're going in the right direction. Libby asked if there was access from the house to the lower patio. He noted it looks like a slider. Erickson moved, Libby seconded, to approve LA23-000001, 2617 Casco Point Rd. Hardcover Variance for a deck as applied. VOTE: Ayes: 5, Nays 0. OTHER BUSINESS — Update on FEBRUARY 13, 2023 City Council Meeting Community Development Director Oakden updated the Commissioners noting the City Council reviewed several planning requests at the Feb. 13, 2023 City council meeting that had first come before the planning commission. They included the variances to move a lot line over on Briar and Arbor Street, variances approval for 3365 Crystal Bay Road that was changing the awning to the deck or on Crystal Bay Road. And then the spiral staircase on 1270 Wildhurst. Council also moved forward with 3600 Ivy Place and requiring them to remove those hardcover improvements within the 75 -foot setback. That was the larger driveway and some patio spaces that were after -the -fact permits. Additionally, Council decided to give direction to give an approval for 2967 Casco Point that was the ADU variance. So that was the first time we've seen variances for that brand new ordinance. And then they gave some direction on those Carman Street sketch plans. On one they gave direction to not support the center one that was 2474 that had the non -conforming lot area and non -conforming lot width and then they went back and forth with some new potential designs on 2804 Carman Street. With that, you have been managing a lot of projects. and the council has been working through them as we process all of that. The other thing to note is March is our meeting that we reappointed chair and commissioners. New alternates might come on, that type of thing. So I'm currently working through that administrative process of new appointees potentially and stuff. So you might get an email from me asking about your inputs. She said Scot Kirchner has indicted interest in extending, Gary Kramer may be interested in moving up from alternate and Matt Gettman no longer plans to be on the commission. Page 18 of 19 MINUTES OF THE ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION February 21, 2023 6:00 o'clock p.m. ADJOURNMENT Bollis moved, Libby seconded, to adjourn the Planning Commission Meeting. VOTE: Ayes 5, Nays 0. The Orono Planning Commission meeting adjourned at 8:28 p.m. ATTEST: Mark McCutcheon, Chair Page 19 of 19