Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-02-11 PC PacketI (water. THE BIRTHPLACE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF STILLWATER PLANNING COMMISSION NOTICE OF MEETING MONDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2008 The City of Stillwater Planning Commission will meet on Monday, February 11, 2008, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers of Stillwater City Hall, 216 North Fourth Street. AGENDA 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. APPROVAL OF December 10, 2007 and January 14, 2008 MINUTES 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS 3.01. Case No, 07-51. A preliminary plat that subdivides one lot into four lots, a rezoning from AP, Agricultural Preservation, to LR, Lakeshore Residential, and a variance to the lot width requirements located at 1133 Nightengale Blvd. Damon Francis, Advent Builders, representing Bryan and Joni Heller, applicant. Continued from the January 14, 2008 Planning Commission Meeting. 3.02 Case No. 08-05. A variance request for a handicap accessible ramp located at 1007 South 2nd Street in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Alan Karoff, applicant. 3.03 Case No. 08-06. A variance request for the replace of a roof with design modifications, replace siding and the construction of a garage located at 2310 Boom Road in the RA, Single Family Residential District and the St Croix Riverway Overlay District. Marlys Gould and Todd Olson, applicants. 4. OTHER BUSINESS CITY HALL: 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET ° STILLWATER, MINNESOTA 55082 PHONE: 651-430-8800 e WEBSITE: www.ci.stillwater.mn.us City of Stillwater Planning Commission January 14, 2008 Present: Dave Middleton, chairperson, Suzanne Block, Mike Dahlquist, Dan Kalmon, Taylor Luke, Wally Milbrandt, David Peroceschi and Charles Wolden Mr. Middleton called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 07-29 A request to remove a Condition of Approval from a previously approved variance for an addition at 105 Lakeside Drive in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark Smith, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request. He noted that this matter first came before the Planning Commission on June 11, 2007. The Planning Commission approved the requested variances to allow construction of an addition to the residence at 105 Lakeside Drive with eight conditions of approval. The applicant, who was in attendance, is now asking that Condition No. 3, the requirement to paint the addition earth tones if the DNR should so require, be removed as a condition. Mr. Pogge explained that initially the DNR exercised that right to require the use of earth/vegetation tone paint. Now, the DNR has indicated that should the City remove that condition of approval, it will not take any action and simply allow the variances to go into effect after 30 days. During discussion, it was noted that Mr. Smith's residence is a second -tier house and the addition will be minimally visible from the St. Croix River. It also was noted the condition regarding the paint color would apply only to the addition, not the primary structure as the house was built in 1970 and predates the City's bluffland/shoreland overlay regulations and the requirement to paint structures in the overlay district earth/vegetation colors. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Milbrandt moved approval of the request to remove Condition of approval No. 3, noting that neither neighbors nor the DNR appear to be concerned about the color. Mr. Dahlquist seconded the motion. Mr. Kalmon pointed out that the DNR initially was going to require the earth tone color so the agency must believe the addition will be visible enough from the river to have some impact and said he thought the Commission should support that position. Mr. Kalmon pointed out that requests such as this are the only mechanism the DNR has for bringing non -conforming structures into conformance. Motion passed 6-2, with Mr. Kalmon and Ms. Block voting no. Case No. 07-51 A preliminary plat that subdivides one lot into four lots, a rezoning from AP, Agricultural Preservation, to LR, Lakeshore Residential, and variance to the lot width requirements at 1133 Nightingale Blvd. Damon Francis, Advent Builders, representing Bryan and Joni Heller, applicant. Representing the applicants were Damon Francis, builder, and Brian Bourassa, with MFRA, the builder's engineering firm. Mr. Pogge reviewed the preliminary plat, requested variance and highlighted some of the storm water management improvements proposed by the developer. Mr. Pogge said the DNR has reviewed plans and found there is good reason for the requested lot width variance, and it appears that agency will certify plans when submitted. Ms. Block asked about impact to a wetland on the site. Mr. Pogge explained that according to DNR regulations up to 400 square feet of the wetland can be impacted, the remainder of the 1 City of Stillwater Planning Commission January 14, 2008 wetland will be unimpacted and protected by a drainage utility easement. Assistant City Engineer Torry Kraftson reviewed the plans for a storm water pond and emergency outlet pipe that would discharge water to Bruer's Pond in 100-year, 10-day snowmelt events. On a question by Mr. Milbrandt, it was explained that the storm water holding pond is designed as a wet detention pond. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Dan Whalen, 1180 Nightingale Blvd., asked about the location of the sanitary sewer line, noting there are three houses currently on septic systems that might like to connect to sanitary in the future. Mr. Pogge reviewed the proposed location of the sewer line, noting that future connections would have to go under the roadway, but the line is sized for future connections and extended to the south property line of this proposed development. Karen Richtman, 2854 Nightingale, questioned whether the width of the proposed lots is consistent with the neighborhood. Her primary concerns centered on environmental issues, and she encouraged the developer to be respectful of the natural environment. She suggested trees on the lowest lot will be destroyed unless there is a protection plan. She noted that there are a lot of drainage issues that were not addressed when Nightingale Court was developed, and she expressed concern about potential impact on the wetland and runoff into Bruer's Pond. Ed Lowell, 1165 Nightingale, asked that the Commission approve only three of the requested four lots, eliminating the southern -most lot. His concern centered on the existing, mature red oaks on the property line of his lot and the southern lot of the proposed development. He referenced a document prepared by the University of Minnesota which dealt with the damage to trees caused by silt and soil compaction. The document provided numbers (in square feet) needed to provide a protected root zone to ensure the life of trees. He provided a diagram of the trees in question and the needed root protection zone, a zone which extends into the southern lot. He asked that the trees on his property also be considered when the City Forester reviews the development plans. Larry Thompson, 1116 Nightingale, expressed a concern about the possibility of twin homes. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Bourassa addressed comments made during the hearing. Regarding future sewer connections, he said it seems to be good planning to consider that at this point, and said they would be willing to talk with the City engineers regarding providing for future connections. Regarding the concern about twin homes, he stated twin homes are not proposed, and they would be willing to make that a condition of approval. Mr. Pogge pointed out that the proposed zoning would not allow twin holes. Regarding Ms. Richtman's question about lot sizes, Mr. Bourassa noted that their proposed lots are double the square footage of the Croixwood lots. Mr. Bourassa also reviewed their plans for drainage improvements, which he suggested will enhance the existing drainage in the area. He noted that in addition to the storm water pond and emergency outlet pipe, the City Engineer is suggesting a swale along lot 4 as a drainage improvement. 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission January 14, 2008 Mr. Bourassa also addressed the comments/concerns about protecting the trees. He said they would be willing to have their forester meet with Mr. Lowell. He said during grading they will try to stay as far away from trees as possible. He also suggested they might be willing to look at a smaller building pad on lot 4, and said they would work with Assistant Engineer Kraftson regarding alternatives to the swale, due to a concern the swale also might impact trees. Mr. Kraftson said there are alternatives to the swale, alternatives such as drain tiles and other ways to manage drainage on site. Mr. Milbrandt asked when the City Forester's review/report might be completed, suggesting that if the forester raises issues, it would be easier to address those issues now, rather than during construction. Mr. Pogge indicated the report would be completed by Jan. 24. Mr. Dahlquist agreed that the forester's report was of greatest importance. Mr. Dahlquist moved to table this case pending the forester's report, with the report to also consider the impact on the trees on the adjacent property (1165 Nightingale). Mr. Wolden seconded the motion. Mr. Kalmon asked if the forester's report could be sent to interested neighbors; Mr. Pogge agreed to do so. Motion to table passed unanimously. Case No. 08-01 A special use permit for a Jeunesse Skin Rejuvenation skin care business out of a residence at 1047 Delano Way in the CR, Cottage Residential District. Kara Huelsmann, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and the requirements/conditions for a type II home occupation special use permit. He noted Ms. Huelsmann's request meets all of the conditions, and staff recommends approval as conditioned. He did note that the City had received some phone calls regarding restrictive covenants in the Legends development which states that no lots shall be used except for residential purposes. Mr. Pogge pointed out that the City is not party to restrictive covenants and has no power of enforcement. Ms. Block questioned why there are covenants if they are not enforceable. Mr. Pogge responded that the neighborhood can enforce covenants, the City can't. Ms. Huelsmann was present. She said she had talked with the Homeowners Association and sent a letter regarding their plans. Ms. Huelsmann's husband stated the Homeowners Association has indicated their plans should have no adverse affect on the neighborhood. He stated if a large number of residents do object, they would likely reconsider their plans. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Wolden noted that all conditions for the special use permit appear to have been met and moved for approval as conditioned. Ms. Dahlquist seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. Case No. 08-02 A special use permit and related variances for an accessory dwelling unit at 522 W. Oak St. in the RB, Two Family Residential District. Mark Balay, representing Karl Diekman, applicant. Mark Balay and Karl Diekman were present. Community Development Director Turnblad reviewed the request for the special use permit and five related variances. He stated that staff favors granting the special use permit for the accessory dwelling unit, with three conditions. He said the recommendation is that the existing 3-season porch on the secondary structure not be 3 City of Stillwater Planning Commission January 14, 2008 allowed to be converted to living space, which would exceed the allowable (800 square feet) maximum size for accessory dwelling units and thus set a possible precedent. He also stated that due to the number of outbuildings on the property, the recommendation is that there be a condition that a small shed on the property be removed. And, he said there is a recommended condition that the accessory unit be painted the same color as the primary structure by June 30. There was discussion as to the reason for the application and the intent of combining the two parcels. Mr. Balay pointed out the initial thought was to request a demolition permit for the secondary structure as Mr. Diekman wanted space for a garden/greenhouse. Mr. Balay said Mr. Diekman bought the adjacent property for the driveway/garage. He said the intent now is to use the three -season porch on the secondary structure as a greenhouse. No changes would be made to the exterior architecture of the building, other than some changes to window and door openings, he said. He stated that if the Commission approves the special use permit for the accessory dwelling unit, they would need approval from the Heritage Preservation Commission for any changes to the unit. Mr. Balay said the intent is to remove an existing sidewalk to the secondary structure and change door openings so it appears as an accessory dwelling unit, but said Mr. Diekman had a concern about a condition that he be required to paint the unit by June 30. He again noted that the HPC will have to review any changes to the unit. Mr. Balay also pointed out that the shed staff is recommending be removed is over 100 years old, and the applicant would like to be able to keep the shed. Mr. Balay said they are comfortable with the condition that the three -season porch not be used for living space, but want to be able to have a permanent heat source for the porch in order to utilize it as a greenhouse. Ms. Block expressed a concern about the appearance of a greenhouse that close to the street. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. No comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Middleton asked if the age of the shed recommended for removal would be of concern to the HPC. Mr. Turnblad said the age does make a difference. He said keeping the shed would require the granting of a variance due to the number of existing outbuildings, but said he would support that variance. He also noted that the Commission could stipulate that the 3-season porch be used as a greenhouse, not living space. Regarding the condition that the structure be painted by June 30, Mr. Turnblad suggested that staff could work with the applicant on ways to have the building function as a secondary structure on the site. Mr. Dahlquist said he was uncomfortable with the process, and expressed a concern about the number of variances involved. Mr. Milbrandt asked when the applicant might come back with concrete plans to make the structure look like an accessory dwelling unit. Mr. Balay reiterated that if the SUP is approved, they will make changes, such as removing the sidewalks and changing the doors, changes that will have to be approved by the HPC; he emphasized that they will not be changing the footprint or rooflines of the structure. Mr. Milbrandt moved approval removing condition No. 2 (removal of the shed); changing the wording of condition No. 3 to indicate that the three -season porch shall be used as a greenhouse only; and changing condition No. 1 to indicate that the applicant shall work with 4 City of Stillwater Planning Commission January 14, 2008 staff on measures to have the building function as a secondary structure on the site. Mr. Kalmon seconded the motion. Mr. Turnblad asked whether the Commission wanted items related to condition No. 1 brought back or whether staff approval was sufficient. It was consensus that staff approval was sufficient. Motion passed 7-1, with Mr. Dahlquist voting no. Case No. 08-03 A minor Planned Unit Development amendment and Developers Agreement amendment for Settlers Glen 8th addition. Tim Fohr, representing US Home Corporation, applicant. Mr. Turnblad reviewed the requested amendment which relates to the home styles on three lots at the end of Attwood Circle in Settlers Glen. In the original PUD, the styles were specified due to a concern about the impact on people using the trail that is directly behind the homes. One of the homes (lot 2) has already been constructed. It was noted that staff supports the requested change in house models for lot 3, which will enable a homeowner to have a conforming deck, without requiring a variance. Regarding lot 1, the original PUD called for a one-story model home on that lot; however, US Homes/Lennar no longer offers a one-story model, necessitating the requested change to a two-story model, it was noted. Mr. Milbrandt questioned whether it is physically impossible to construct a single -story home anymore. Mr. Fohr and a representative of Lennar spoke to the economics of single -level home construction and the lack of buyers in that market. Mr. Fohr pointed out that the new model sits farther back on the lot and fits the configuration of the lot better than the originally proposed model. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. A resident of 1234 Attwood Lane said he wanted to be sure the change in models would provide enough diversity in streetscape and was consistent with the neighborhood. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. The representatives of the applicant addressed the comment regarding diversity of streetscape, enumerating the various models in the nearby area. Ms. Block said her original concern was the potential impact on neighbors across the Brown's Creek reserve area. However, she said the view has changed so much that she did not think going to a two-story model home on lot 1 would be of concern, noting there is already a row of houses viewed by trail users. Mr. Dahlquist agreed that the change in house models would not change the experience of trail users, but suggested that it would be important to keep the hip roof on the lot 1 house to reduce the massing. Ms. Block, seconded by Mr. Dahlquist, moved to recommend approval of the requested PUD and Developer's Agreement amendments. Motion passed 7-1, with Mr. Milbrandt voting no. Case No. 08-04 A special use permit request to replace an existing transmission structure with a new building and to allow installation of a small studio in a residential district for continued use of a business at 114 Brick St. in the RA, Single Family Residential District. Cameron Kelly, representing Daniel and Gretchen Smith, applicant. Cameron Kelly and Dan Smith were present representing the applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the proposal and site. Mr. Kalmon asked if the request would have any impact on the adjacent 5 City of Stillwater Planning Commission January 14, 2008 church day care facility or outdoor services. Mr. Pogge stated the church has offered no objection to the plans. Mr. Kelly reviewed the purpose for the request, noting that the request is to provide an emergency location for broadcasting and to house an upgraded transmitter. Mr. Kelly said the applicant is fine with the condition that there be a 30-day limit placed on use of the studio for broadcasting. He noted that the proposal will result in no additional traffic except during any emergency situation, and even then staffing is minimal, with no more than 6-12 staff. There was a question about the color of the building. Mr. Kelly responded that a color has not been determined at this time. Mr. Middleton suggested use of earth -tones to protect the neighborhood. Mr. Smith indicated he would be OK with that condition. Mr. Dahlquist asked about the architecture of the building, noting that metal structure such as this can be made to look attractive. Mr. Kelly noted that Mr. Smith had gone with an upgraded commercial trim package for the building. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Vic Miller, 801 Autumn Way, representing Our Savior's Lutheran Church, asked if there was adequate parking if the studio was used during an emergency. The applicant noted there is adequate parking. Mr. Miller asked if the transmitter would be more powerful. Mr. Smith noted the station will be going to high definition, but that should have no impact on the neighbors. John Pack, 113 Brick St., expressed a concern about the appearance of a metal cube building and questioned the proposal for a steel pole barn construction. He asked why the request is being made at this time, and he asked for confirmation that no trees would be removed. He reiterated a concern that the plan would degrade the residential experience for nearby residents. Mr. Smith responded that the request is being at this time because they do not want to wait until there is an emergency that would shut the station down if there was no emergency location. Mr. Smith noted that the station is licensed by the FCC, and it is important to have the ability to provide emergency announcements at all times. Mr. Kelly stated there is no intent to remove any trees during construction, and he noted Mr. Smith had selected an upgraded package for the building. No other comments were made, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Dahlquist said he thought metal buildings were not permitted in the City. Mr. Pogge said pole buildings are not allowed, a foundation is required or the structure is not permitted. Ms. Block suggested that the applicant be a good neighbor to the church and residents and consider providing added features in order to disguise the structure as much as possible. Mr. Dahlquist said he would like to add some condition regarding appearance. Mr. Milbrandt suggested having the Community Development Director review and approve the building plans based on comments at the Commission regarding earth -tone color and aesthetic features. If the Community Development Director has an issue with the plans, plans would be brought back to the Commission. Mr. Milbrandt made that suggestion in the form of a motion. Mr. Peroceschi seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS • Mr. Middleton referred to the memo regarding the Council's new reappointment policy. There was a general discussion about the appointment/reappointment process. 6 City of Stillwater Planning Commission January 14, 2008 • Mr. Milbrandt moved to nominate Mr. Middleton to serve as chair for the coming year. Mr. Kalmon seconded the motion. Ms. Block said she would like to nominate Mr. Dahlquist; no second was made. Mr. Middleton was elected by unanimous vote. Meeting was adjourned at 10 p.m. on a motion by Ms. Block, seconded by Mr. Dahlquist. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 7 City of Stillwater Planning Commission December 10, 2007 Present: Dave Middleton, Chairperson, Suzanne Block, Gregg Carlsen, Dan Kalmon, Taylor Luke, Wally Milbrandt, David Peroceschi and Charles Wolden Staff present: Community Development Director Turnblad and Planner Pogge Absent: Mike Dahlquist Mr. Middleton called the meeting to order at 7 p.m. Approval of minutes: Ms. Block moved approval of the Nov. 14, 2007, minutes noting a correction to the spelling of her name. Mr. Carlsen seconded the motion to approve the minutes as corrected. Motion passed unanimously. PUBLIC HEARINGS Case No. 07-50 A Zoning Map Amendment and Zoning Text Amendment request to rezone the property at 927 Churchill St. W. and surrounding properties from RB, Two Family Residential, to PA, Public Administration. Curt Geissler, representing Lakeview Hospital, applicant. Mr. Turnblad introduced the request to rezone the hospital site from RA to Public Administration and to amend the ordinance to classify a hospital as a permitted use in a PA zone without requiring an SUP and public hearing process. Mr. Turnblad reviewed several of the pros and cons of the request and the staff findings. He said staff would recommend the rezoning as consistent with good zoning practices. The request to amend the ordinance to change hospitals to a permitted use, thus eliminating the need for a SUP and public hearing process, he said, was a question for the Commission to determine. The question, he suggested, is whether the existing performance standards regarding height, setbacks, etc. are sufficient. Mr. Luke asked if the request pertained only to property owned by the hospital, to which Mr. Turnblad responded in the affirmative. Ms. Block verified that any project that did not meet standards for height, setbacks, etc. would require a variance and public hearing process. Jeff Robertson, representing Lakeview Hospital, explained that the hospital does have expansion in mind and believes the current site can accommodate growth to allow the hospital to meet its needs for the next 20-25 years. He said in this request, the hospital is seeking a commitment from the City that a hospital is a permitted use. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Charles Hooley, 920 S. Greeley St., said the majority of the neighbors would encourage the hospital to merge administrative and EMS functions together and look for another location, such as at the Curve Crest property, for those functions. He spoke of the increasing traffic on Greeley Street and expressed a concern for the safety of children playing at the nearby parks. He said, however, that he would in no way wish to impede the progress of the hospital, in speaking of support of the hospital. Robert Whalen, 928 S. Greeley St., asked if the hospital owned a portion of Brick Pond. Mr. Robertson responded in the affirmative but said the hospital has no plans to expand beyond its current structure in that area. Mr. Whalen expressed a concern about the impact on Brick Pond and Lily Lake, which he called one of the most scenic areas in the City, and encouraged the 1 City of Stillwater Planning Commission December 10, 2007 hospital to find another way to grown. He stated he did not want to see any more growth on the current site. Stuart Glaser, 1103 S. Everett, asked about height limitations. Mr. Turnblad explained the zoning provides for a height limitation of two stories, not to exceed 35'; any proposed project over that height limit would require a variance and public hearing. Mr. Turnblad pointed out that height limitation also applies to the PA district. Mr. Glaser spoke of the importance of public input and suggested that in the future, it might get to the point that the roadways cannot support the hospital use at the current site. Jim Qualey, 1014 S. Greeley St., stated he lives directly across from the ambulance entrance and has seen many close accidents. He agreed with Mr. Hooley's suggestion about possibly looking for a new site for the ambulance service. He asked whether the hospital is interested in acquiring other parcels near the current site. Mr. Robertson stated that the hospital has no intention of obtaining additional parcels beyond the two immediately adjacent to the hospital site on Churchill Street. Mr. Qualey also spoke of the hospital's benefit to the community. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Ms. Block spoke is favor of providing all reasonable accommodations for an asset to the community at large, such as the hospital, to succeed and thrive. She also stated she thought the current location in the heart of the community is a good location for the hospital. Mr. Wolden said he thought it made sense to rezone the property and stated he thought the performance standards in the ordinance are sufficient to protect the public's interest. Mr. Carlsen said he would be in favor of rezoning but stated he was least comfortable with the setbacks in the PA District and would be more comfortable retaining the public hearing process, especially in regards to setbacks. Mr. Milbrandt said there is no question that the hospital is an asset to the community but said he would not want to leave the public out of the process and he questioned the need to rezone the property if the decision is to continue to require an SUP for hospital use. Mr. Peroceschi noted that public input was instrumental in designing the hospital's parking ramp. Mr. Kalmon asked if there had been consideration given to moving the hospital campus and still remain in Stillwater. Mr. Robertson said the current location if the only affordable site in the City, and he said the hospital is looking for some type of insurance that the community recognizes this is the right location for the next 20-30 years. He said the hospital would continue to work with neighbors in any expansion projects. Mr. Kalmon said he thought the hospital use was an appropriate use and that the zoning standards provide for sufficient protections for the neighborhood, noting that if a request exceeds those performance standards, a variance is required. Mr. Middleton said he thought the hospital has shown in the past that it is willing to do whatever is required to ensure that any expansion works for everyone, and he said he thought there are sufficient performance standards in place to protect the public. Mr. Luke agreed that the hospital has shown good faith effort in working with the neighbors in the past — the only problem appears to be the ambulance use, and that is not affected by this request. 2 City of Stillwater Planning Commission December 10, 2007 Ms. Block moved to approve the rezoning to PA and to amend the ordinance to reflect that hospitals are a permitted use, rather than use requiring an SUP. Mr. Wolden seconded the motion. Motion passed 6-2, with Mr. Milbrandt and Mr. Carlsen voting no. Case No. 07-52 A special use permit request for a wireless communications tower at 400 W. Poplar St., behind Stillwater Country Club maintenance building. Steve Carlson, T-Mobile, applicant. Steve Carlson was present. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff findings. He noted that communication towers are permitted special use in an RA District with eight conditions of approval, seven of which are applicable to this request. He noted that the proposal is to install a stealth style tower with all antennas concealed inside the monopole. He said the applicant has indicated there will be no advertising on the tower. He concluded that the request meets all requirements and staff is recommending approval with four conditions. Mr. Kalmon asked whether multiple providers can be accommodated on the same tower. Mr. Pogge pointed out that stealth style towers limit the number of potential users. Ms. Block asked whether a taller tower might eliminate the need for another tower in this location, and she spoke of the City of Afton's recent condition that a stealth communications tower resemble a tree. Mr. Pogge noted that to T-Mobile's credit it recognized the present of historic homes in the area and went from external to internal antennas. Mr. Carlson provided photographs of similar poles and statistics regarding coverage and use. He noted that the proposal is to screen the on -ground equipment with a cedar fence. Mr. Kalmon asked whether T-Mobile had plans for any additional poles in the City. Mr. Carlson said there may be one additional pole installed, perhaps in the area south of the hospital or junior high school. Mr. Middleton opened the public hearing. Robert Whalen, 928 S. Greeley, questioned the need for more towers. No other comments were received, and the hearing was closed. Mr. Carlson noted that T-Mobile's subscriber base is growing requiring an expansion of its infrastructure, much as new developments require new land lines. Mr. Kalmon asked whether a higher tower would provide for more coverage. A T-Mobile engineer responded. Mr. Carlson spoke of the need to go above the existing tree lines in the area and said the height was not conducive to a second carrier. Mr. Milbrandt asked if the applicant was comfortable with the conditions of approval. Mr. Carlson said they would be OK with screening the on -ground equipment with a cedar fence, but noted that the equipment cabinets come with a baked -on enamel exterior, gray in color, that would be difficult to paint as recommended by staff. It was suggested that the screening fence be 8' rather than 6'. Mr. Pogge noted that 6' is the maximum height allowable for a fence, but suggested that the Commission could grant a height variance in this instance. Mr. Milbrandt moved approval as conditioned, changing condition of approval No. 4 to indicate that the equipment platform and cabinets shall be screened by an 8' high cedar fence that shall 3 City of Stillwater Planning Commission December 10, 2007 be painted and maintained by the applicant as determined by the Community Development Director. Mr. Middleton seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. Case No. 07-53 An amendment to a conditional use permit for a 24-hour pay -at -the -pump service at 1101 N. Owens St. in the CA, General Commercial District. Kevin Amundson, applicant. Mr. Pogge reviewed the request and staff recommendations that the requested SUP be granted with the condition that the applicant meet all requirements of the Minnesota State Fire Code related to unattended fueling on site and that the special use permit is subject to review upon written complaint. Mr. Milbrandt asked whether there would be any change in lighting. Mr. Amundson responded that more canopy lights will be on, but he noted that the business was open 24 hours a day. No one was in the audience. Mr. Middleton opened and closed the public hearing. Mr. Peroceschi moved to approve the request as conditioned. Mr. Milbrandt seconded the motion; motion passed unanimously. The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon Baker Recording Secretary 4 Planning Report DATE: February 6, 2008 APPLICANT: Marlys Gould CASE NO.: 08-6 REQUEST: 1) Expansion of non -conforming structure 2) Front setback variance 3) Impervious coverage variance ZONING: Base District: RA, Single -Family Residential Overlay District: St. Croix River District LOCATION: 2310 Boom Rd PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING: February 11, 2008 REVIEWERS: City Planner, Public Works Director, Building Official PREPARED BY: Bill Turnblad, Community Development Director Tr - BACKGROUND Marlys Gould would like to remodel the house at 2310 Boom Road. She plans to remove and rebuild the second floor (currently a half story), put new siding on the house, and build a garage. Currently the residence has no garage. SPECIFIC REQUEST Ms. Gould would like to build a two car garage attached to the front of the house. The 18' by 24' garage would be built in place of, but larger than, the current deck. The top of the garage would then serve as the deck. The property is located in the RA, Single Family Residential Zoning District. It is also located in the St. Croix River Overlay District. The critical standards from each district are presented in the table below, together with the current and proposed measurements. Gould Variances February 6, 2008 Page 2 of 5 RA Minimum Current Proposed' side setback (house) 10' 1.2' 1.2' side setback (attached garage) 5' NA > 5' front setback 24.5'2 28.3' 10.3' Building separation 6' Sewer line setback 10' River Overlay Lot area 1 acre 7,500 sf Lot width 150' 50' Impervious, max. 1,500 sf3 3,307 sf4 3,687 se I Applicant's preferred alternative 2 Average of setback for homes on each side. 3 20% of lot size 4 Including decks, stairs, ramps per DNR As can be seen from the tablet, the existing house and lot are non -conforming and the proposed garage would increase the magnitude of some of those non -conformities. In order for Ms. Gould to proceed with her project, the following specific actions would be needed: 1. Expansion of non -conforming structure: The lot size and width, as well as the side setback of the house and the amount of impervious cover are currently non- conforming. City Code Section 31-216 states that a nonconformity can not be expanded. Consequently, neither the second story expansion nor the garage (attached or detached) could be built. Therefore, variances are requested for these existing conditions to remove the non -conforming status of the property. 2. Front setback variance for attached garage: Approval of a variance from City Code Section 31-305(3)i which establishes the front lot line setback for this property at 24.5 feet. The front setback line in this case is the average setback of the houses on each side. The proposed garage would have a setback of 10.3 feet. Therefore, a variance of 14.2 feet is requested. 3. Impervious cover variance: Approval of a variance from City Code Section 31- 401, Subd. 6(b)(1) which states that a maximum of 20% of the lot (20% of 7,500 square feet = 1,500 square feet) may be covered with impervious surface. The proposed impervious surface would increase from its current non -conforming 3,307 square feet to 3,687 square feet. Therefore, a variance of an additional 380 square feet of impervious cover is being requested. The measurements are based upon a survey submitted by the applicant as well as Washington County air photos. To verify all measurements and impervious coverages, a detailed topographic survey would have to be commissioned by the applicant. Gould Variances February 6, 2008 Page 3 of 5 COMMENTS ON REQUEST The property currently has no garage. As mentioned above, no location exists on the lot that would allow a garage to be built without a number of variances. But given the climate of Minnesota, a garage is a reasonable property improvement. So, city staff comments are aimed at finding a location and garage size that are compatible with improvements in the immediate neighborhood and the proximity to the river. • Ms. Gould would prefer to have the garage attached to the front of the home. Though she has stated that if that is not possible, she could build a detached garage in the back yard. The two garage locations are shown in the attached site plan. • Since impervious surface within the St. Croix River Overlay District is a concern, whatever solution is reached should add no additional impervious surface to the property. • Ms. Gould's preferred two car garage would require paving a large portion of the front yard for the driveway. This is a concern to the city and the Department of Natural Resources. The additional impervious can be avoided by accessing the garage from the side instead of the front. No additional driveway would have to be constructed for this. • If a garage is built 18 feet outward from the front of the house as requested, the garage would have a front setback of only 10.3 feet. This is 5 feet closer to the street than the neighbor to the north2. Not only does this crowd the street even more than already occurs, but it would also add impervious surface to the lot. Consequently, staff recommends that only.a 14 foot wide garage should be built. This would result in a setback of 14.3 feet, or only 1 foot closer to the street than the neighbor. • The alternate garage location is not acceptable unless the sewer pipe leaving the house is relocated to provide a 10 foot separation between the pipe and the garage. This would be rather expensive since retrenching alone would not be sufficient to avoid angles in the sewer pipe. It would have to be moved in the basement to provide for a straight run to the septic tanks. This would require replumbing. The situation can be seen in the attached site plan. • If the relatively expensive replumbing and retrenching alternative is chosen, and a detached garage is built, the garage may be no more than one story tall. No loft is permitted. • If the alternate location is chosen, additional impervious surface should be avoided if possible. 2 The neighbor to the north was granted a variance to build to the setback of the pre-existing tuck under garage, which was 15.3 feet. Gould Variances February 6, 2008 Page 4 of 5 • All variances in the St. Croix River Overlay District have to be certified by the Department of Natural Resources before the city can issue grading or building permits. STAFF RECOMMENDATION In order not to exceed the current impervious coverage on the property, and to reduce the number and magnitude of variances required for this case, staff recommends either: A. A side loaded 14 foot by 24 foot garage attached to the front of the house. No additional driveway surface is needed for this and the garage would be only one foot closer to the road than the neighbor to the north. This alternative requires the following: a. Variances for the lot size, the lot width, the current side yard setback and the current amount of impervious cover to remove the non -conforming status of the property; and a b. Variance from the lot's 24.5 foot required front yard setback to allow the attached garage to have a setback of 14.3 feet. B. A detached garage set 5 feet from the side property line, 10 feet from the sewer pipe and 6 feet from the house. This would require relocating the sewer pipe, and replumbing part of the basement. This alternative requires only variances for the existing non -conforming standards. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has several alternatives. A. Approve Preferred Location. If the property owner's preferred request is found acceptable to the Planning Commission, it could approve it subject to the following conditions: 1. The new siding and roofing colors shall be earth tone. 2. No net increase in impervious surface shall be added to the property. For any additional impervious surface added, driveway leading to the back of the house shall be removed. B. Approve Alternate Location. If the alternate request is approved by the Planning Commission in place of the preferred request, the following conditions should be required: 1. The new siding and roofing colors shall be earth tone. 2. Any net increase in impervious cover shall require a stormwater management plan to be submitted by the applicant and approved by both the city's Public Gould Variances February 6, 2008 Page 5 of 5 Works Director and the Department of Natural Resources. This plan could include such features as roof water infiltration, raingardens, etc. 3. A grading plan shall be submitted with building permit application materials to document that runoff will not adversely impact neighboring properties. The grading plan will have to be found acceptable by the Public Works Director, or revised to his satisfaction. B. Deny If the Planning Commission finds that the variances are not advisable, it could deny them. With a denial, the basis of the action should be given. C. Table If the Planning Commission needs more information to make a decision, the requests could be tabled. cc: Marlys Gould, applicant Molly Shodeen, DNR Regional Hydrologist attachments: Land Use & Location Map Site Plan Neighborhood Air Photo Application materials direction of the trusses so very little of the roof covering will be visible from Hwy 95 and/or the river. Instead, the area will be replaced with earth -tone painted Hardi-board siding and windows (which Hardi- board siding is even less reflective than vinyl siding). 4. The existing roof design fails to make best use of the property's natural asset and attributes such as its view of the St. Croix River from the second level. a. There are no existing windows on the second level of the house facing the River. b. The existing windows on the second level peer almost directly into neighboring houses on these 50 foot lots. The distance between this house and its neighboring house to the South is only few feet. C. Siding. We propose to replace the existing vinyl siding with durable Hardi-board siding and paint the house a new color (with a combination of earth -tones and summer seasonal color). Support: 1. The existing siding is almost 10 years old, faded, of very poor quality, not environmentally friendly (as vinyl requires a great amount of energy and resources to even attempt to recycle and, as a result, takes up a lot of space in landfills), and is failing off the house now. 2. Hardi-board siding is durable, long lasting, looks more like real wood, made of composite materials, can be easily painted as opposed to replaced. D. Garage. We propose to install a new garage EITHER: (A) a 1 car DETACHED garage located at the rear of the house at the end of the current, existing driveway (on the last approx. 24 feet of the driveway); or (B) a 1 or 2 car ATTACHED garage attached to the front of the house. Support: 1. Without a garage on the property it limits the property's use especially for residential purposes as most persons have at least 1 car and often have 2 or more cars. 2. A garage will likely increase the value of the property, increase the likelihood of year round occupancy, increase the marketability, etc. 3. Neighboring property (same lot dimensions) have a detached 2 car garage approx. 4 feet from the property line. E. Other reasons to grant variance and/or approval: 1. When the house was re -built in approximately 1995 the foundation was rebuilt to support and provide for expansion and additional weight so no risk to the foundation and no material additional structural support should be required. 2. The proposed redesign of the roof with the inclusion of new interior walls will provide increased structural support and integrity of the roof. 3. We utilize "green" construction, materials, and landscaping such as: a. removal of the existing damaged, toxic, non -recyclable, poor quality vinyl siding and replacement with durable, long-lasting, Hardi-board siding; b. installation of quality metal roof covering (as opposed to environment damaging, land fill hog asphalt shingles); c. improve heat efficiency of the house by installing formaldehyde -free insulation with high R factor rating; and d. designed to utilize the existing asphalt driveway less, which existing driveway is on the steepest slope of the property and most likely to run off to the river. 4. All is in keeping with the purpose and intent of existing regulation for the zoned area and district, which exceeds current building code requirements for environmental preservation. 5. There would be no impairment of the view of the river or any material adverse affect on adjacent properties or the natural surroundings. 2 Page 1 of 3 Bill Turnblad From: Michel Pogge Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 10:01 AM To: Bill Turnblad Cc: Cindy Shifts Subject: FW: 2310 Boom Road, Stillwater, MN Attachments: Roof and Garage 1 (front view).JPG; Roof and Garage 2 (side view).JPG; Roof and Garage 4 (side view).JPG; Upstairs.jpg; Harbor view.jpg; Back of House 1.jpg Michel J. Pogge, AICP City Planner City of Stillwater, MN 216 North Fourth Street Stillwater, MN 55082 651-430-8822 Fax 651-430-8810 Website: httpJ/www_ci.stillwater.mn,us/ e-mail: mpo.gge@ci.stillwater.mn.us From: Gould, Marlys D. [mailto:MGould@parlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 11:00 AM To: Michel Pogge Subject: 2310 Boom Road, Stillwater, MN Hi Mike, I attended the city meeting yesterday and met with 2 planners (a man and woman). I can't recall their names unfortunately - yes, from yesterday! I must be getting very old - so sorry. Will you please pass this info on to them. Follow regarding location of the Septic line — the line enters the house at the East wall and North wall corner. My estimate of the closest point from the septic line to the existing driveway/any new garage structure appears to be 6 or 7 feet (unless the new garage structure is moved closer to the North property line). Additional Information regarding Hardship — This is in addition to the information stated in my Memo sent with variance application. Enforcement of the code (30 foot front set back) would cause undue hardship because of conditions unique to the property and that if a variance is granted it will be in keeping with the intent of the ordinance. 1. The property (a single family residence) presently does not have a garage and we are requesting the construction of a 1 1/2 or 2 car garage in front of the house in/under the area of the existing deck in the approx. size of 18 feet deep and 24 feet wide, which would leaves a 10.3 foot set back from the East (front) property line AND an additional 16.7 feet from the property line to the road curb. 2. There are no other options that would not require a variance. a. The lot is narrow (50 feet wide), on the side of a hill and apparently subject to a 30 foot front set back and 10 feet side set backs. Leaving 30 feet of lot width. b. Yet, there area only 4 houses on our block (along the East side of the road) and NO houses on the other side of the Boom Road (on the West side). c. Also, the lot has at least 2 jogs in the description as determined by its last Survey. The legal description of the property appears to have 2 (minor) encroachments by each of the 2 neighboring landowners. 1 encroachment in the existing driveway by the landowner to the North and 1 encroachment in the rear of the lot by the landowner to the South. 3. Behind the house there is a rock retaining wall at the end of the existing driveway (that was constructed by a previous land owner and if the garage were placed in the backyard or end of the existing driveway it would: a. hamper access to the back yard; 2/6/2008 Page 2 of 3 b. impair access to the repair, maintenance, and/or replacement of the septic system (of which the drain field is currently on City property due to the small size of the lot); c. still require a variance of the side setback; d. increase the risk of contamination or pump damage of/to the Well source, as the Well is located within 1 foot of the existing driveway; e. likely be more visible from the River (due to the elevation and no option to camouflage it) then the proposed location in front of the house; and f. create a hazardous condition due because there would be no place to turnaround and the drive is on a slope (a North - facing slope) 4. The strategic position of a garage in the front of the house ensures that it will: a. not be blocking anyone's view; b. not require a variance of side setbacks; c. reduce the chances of a neighboring landowner objection; d. not be visible from the river in summer months due to the elevation in the front of the house and existing shrubs and landscaping. We will also be willing to add additional shrubs along the front property line to conceal the garage; e. not alter the character of the neighborhood. The landowner to the north (with the same lot size) has a front car garage and other improvements that appear to be even closer to its property line and/or over the property line than what we propose. See 2318 Boom Road; f. be the safest option for a family with small children to avoid the slope of the existing driveway. We have 2 small children. Thank you in advance! Respectfully, Marlys D. Gould Parsinen Kaplan Rosberg & Gotlieb P.A. Mobile 612.310.2242 From: Gould, Marlys D. Sent: Monday, January 14, 2008 12:00 PM To: mpogge@ci.stillwater.mn.us Subject: 2310 Boom Road, Stillwater, MN Dear Mike, Thank you for taking time to meet with me on Friday. Per our conversation, attached are the pictures with drawings on them to show the proposed: 1. raise and replace roof on second level; 2. add 1 or 2 car garage (either in front of house or at top of existing driveway); and 3. install new siding with combo of earth tones and summer foliage color paint. All for consideration for variance and approval by the DNR and City of Stillwater. Please let me know if you need anything else. Thanks again. Respectfully, Marlys D. Gould Mobile 612.310.2242 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: E-mail may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. Do not read this e-mail if you are not the intended recipient. This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it may contain confidential information that is legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this transmission is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail, by forwarding this to postmaster@parlaw.com or by telephone at (612) 333-2111 and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading or saving in any manner. Thank you. 2/6/2008 i rD 3 � O U bp 0 I N- 0 0 al C ca Molly, I'll have to add that verbally as a condition Monday night. Bill Original Message From: Molly Shodeen [mailto:Molly.Shodeen@dnr.state.mn.us] Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 1:58 PM To: Bill Turnblad Subject: Re: Gould variances Hi Bill, thank you for the report. Did you decide against requiring mitigation for the imperv. surface? Even if the existing coverage is over, we typically require mitigating everything over 20%, regardless of whether it is new or existing. »> "Bill Turnblad" <bturnblad@ci.stillwater.mn.us> 2/8/2008 12:37 PM »> Molly, Attached is the final planning report and the site plan. It will go to the planning commission for their meeting next Monday night. Bill Memorandum To: Readers From: Marlys D. Gould — 612.310.2242 Date: January 15, 2008 Re: 2310 Boom Road, Stillwater, Minnesota — Variance and Approval Request for Property Improvements A. Request for Variance and Approvals for: 1. Roof. Replace roof with design modification. 2. Siding. Replace siding. 3. Garage. Add garage. B. Roof. We propose to raise the walls on the second level of the house to the highest existing walls on the second level; install all new trusses that reduce roof steep; and install insulation and new metal roof covering. Support: 1. The existing roof is old and in need of replacement. a. The initial construction date of the roof unknown. It is an old white metal roof that appears to be original to the structure (1888). b. The previous owner of the property performed some roof repairs after roof leaked (replacing the roof cap in a portion of the roof according to the real estate seller disclosure form). However, full replacement or major repairs are needed soon to avoid damage to the structure as visible rotten can been seen on the North side of the house where siding and facia has blown off. 2. The existing roof makes the second level of the house extremely inefficient as the low ceiling limit its use especially for residential purposes. The proposed new design will increase headroom. a. A redesign of the roof to increase headroom on the second level is the most cost and resource efficient way to improve the livable area and the entire property/house in general (without any "addition" to the house required). The headroom on the second level is extremely limited and current only allows for the use of 1 legal bedroom and a small extra area near the stairs. In fact, the entire house currently only has 1 legal bedroom (located on the second level) and 1 bath (located on the main level). There is no area on main house level for additional bedrooms without major interior and/or structural alteration or addition. b. The proposed redesign of the roof will permit 2 or 3 legal bedrooms and a full or half bath, which will increase the value of the property, increase the likelihood of year round occupancy, increase the marketability, etc. 3. The proposed new design should ultimately reduce the appearance of the house from the river and create consistency with neighboring properties such as the number of bedrooms, number of bathrooms, architecture, direction of roof trusses and overall design. a. The 2 adjacent homes each have at least 2 bedrooms (according to tax records), higher roof lines/house height, trusses that run East to West (ie. second level windows facing the River). The most comparable property is the lot with a 2-story house and 2-car garage immediately adjacent to the North, which has the exact same lot dimensions (50 x 150). b. Roof coverings, in general, are more reflective and visible from any distance than earth toned siding. The current roof of this house faces Hwy 95 and the River and is very visible. The old metal roof reflects the sun and is the most visible portion of the house. The proposed redesign of the roof will change the 1 N D•O p O p m � �] r C�J o N m m 3 73 M m 0 —X n 1V38°a7%-C ¢9.9/.r�Pcs O N drS[, Cl) I Do N C Ul trl O a e 73 C (o'O O Dg m (° . O N ll 0 23 -0 Y ,1,-,,, 4 kii ; i k!. 1 cz. . ,... . s h i1i Za.s , .. rb -,z, rk.'tii 41) s ya , mci ' �t NIN " A tN g t" Y _ y Z hN N N 114.: Sa d'r� �' \ sa , co �` a_ �, - - Y 9i,neas - 464. e f ', 2S70 �4, 2Ss 6 Pr 8410/77 /90001 77—uffil(#/y• Si 11war T 1+ E 9? M I N N E E P T A Planning Commission DATE: February 6, 2008 CASE NO.: 08-05 APPLICANT: Alan Karoff OWNER: Vern Hirdler REQUEST: A variance to allow up to a 10'7" encroachment into the required 20 foot front yard setback for a residential handicap accessibility ramp [31-308(b)1] LOCATION: 1007 2nd Street S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: SFSL - Single Family Small Lot ZONING: RB - Two Family Residential PC DATE: February 11, 2008 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting a variance to Chapter 31-308(b)1 of the Stillwater City Code to allow for a residential handicap accessibility ramp to encroach up to 10'7" into the required 20 foot rear yard setback. The proposed ramp will extend 13'8" out from front of the home. The ramp dimensions are generally the minimum size as required by the State Building Code. The ramp will encroach a total of 10'7" into the required setback leaving 9'5" from the front edge of the ramp to the front property line. Due to an immediate need for the ramp staff did allow the applicant to proceed with constructing the ramp without the variance. The applicant did agree in writing to remove the ramp if the Commission later denied the request. 1007 21ld Street S Page 2 EVALUATION OF REQUEST A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found: 1. A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists. Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. The property has both front and rear entry doors. The location of the garage blocks any ramp access between the driveway and the rear door. It would be possible to run the ramp from the rear door around the south side of the home to the driveway in the front. This solution does not seem reasonable for several reasons: 1) it would substantially increase the length of the ramp, 2) it would require the disruption and removal of mature trees, 3) a variance to the front yard setback would still be required. Staff believes that the design presented represents the only reasonable option to add an accessibility ramp to this property. 2. A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors. This property is zoned for a single-family home and is currently being used as a single-family home. It is an unreasonable burden to not allow suitable access for the home's occupants. This access is not simply necessary for normal access to the home but also for safe egress out of the home in case of a fire or other emergency situations. 3. The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan. The request is the minimum needed to meet state building standards for residential access ramp. This request will not adversely impact the adjoining property owners. The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. 1007 2nd Street S Page 3 FINDINGS 1. That the hardship is peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists. In this context, personal financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not. 2. That a variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed by other properties in the same district and in the same vicinity; and that a variance, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege of the recipient not enjoyed by his neighbors. 3. That the authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and not materially impair the purpose and intent of this title or the public interest nor adversely affect the Comprehensive Plan. ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has the following options: 1. Approve the requested variance to allow a 10'7" encroachment into the required 20 foot front yard setback for all structures in the RB district [31- 1.11.6(4)a.6]. Additionally, staff would suggest that the following conditions for approval: a. All revisions to the approved plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. b. The ramp be located no closer than 9'5" to the front property line. 2. Deny the requested variance to allow a 10'7" encroachment into the required 20 foot front yard setback for all structures in the RB district [31-308(b)1] since an affirmative finding on the required conditions for a variance could not be made by staff. If the Commission chooses to deny the variance the commission needs to make a negative finding of fact on the required that supports the denial. 3. Continue the public hearing until the March 10, 2008 Planning Commission meeting. The 60 day decision deadline for the request is March 18, 2008. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the requested variance. PLANNING ADMINISTRATION APPLICATION FORM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY OF STILLWATER 216 NORTH FOURTH STREET STILLWATER MN 55082 Case No: Date Filed: �� S Fee Paid: Receipt No.: G2669 08� ACTION REQUESTED Special/Conditional Use Permit X Variance Resubdivision Subdivision* Comprehensive Plan Amendment* Zoning Amendment* Planning Unit Development * Certificate of Compliance *An escrow fee is also required to offset the costs of attorney and engineering fees. The fees for requested action are attached to this application. The applicant is responsible for the completeness and accuracy of all forms and supporting material submitted in connection with anyapplication. All supportingmaterial (i e., photos, sketches, etc.) submitted with application becomes the propertyofthe CityofStillwater. Sixteen (16) copies of supporting material is required. If application is submitted to the City Council, twelve (12) copies of supporting material is required. A site plan showing drainage and setbacks is required with applications. Any incomplete application or supporting material will delay the application process. After Planning Commission approvals, there is a 10-day appeal period. Once the 10-day appeal period has ended, the applicant will receive a zoning use permit which must be signed and submitted to the City to obtain the required building permits. PROPERTY IDENTIFICATION Address of Project /c0b7 S 1,3Q S t . Assessor's Parcel No. 33 o3o. fib. iI (GEO Code) Zoning District 9g 15 Description of Project 1Ze5 0 4✓aL- H040 icAp 12Klrnp "I hereby state the foregoing statements and all data, information and evidence submitted herewith in all respects, to the best of my knowledge and belief, to be true and correct. I further certify I will comply with the permit if it is granted and used." Property Owner Ve lei 1-11zOLl R. Mailing Address 1 0o7 5 �n)Q S7• City - State - Zip S i i LLLun7ek.. t ►'n/,) . 5 Sofia Telephone No. /,cI - 1-43o-13 ILI Signature (Signature is required) Representative 141,ri4A) kr4r2pFF Mailing Address /v/, go . aA)0 S. City - State - Zip ST, LL(..A./O7cvz 1 r'r),J , s c ova. Telephone No. 6SI-L/39-o,2SI Si n� re ' qFe equired) g q ) SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Signature Lot Size (dimensions) x Total Building floor area square feet Land Area Existing square feet Height of Buildings: Stories Feet Proposed square feet Principal Paved Impervious Area square feet Accessory No. of off-street parking spaces H:\mrnamara\Sheila\PI ANAPP.FRM June 9, 2006 Check list for Planning Applications Incomplete or unclear applications/plans will be returned to the applicant and may result in delay of application processing. Check and attach to application. ® The application form completed and signed by the property owner or owners authorized representative. 1 Building plans clearly dimensioned and scaled (16 copies). The site plan showing exterior property lines, easements, lot width and depth and lot area building(s) location. (See attached site plan example, a parcel boundary survey may be required). ❑ All adjacent streets or right of ways labeled. El Location, elevation, size, height of building or addition, dimensions, Materials and proposed use of all buildings and structures (including walls, fences, signs, lighting and hooding devices) existing and proposed for the site (if the site is in a Historic District, additional design detail maybe required). El Distances between all structures and between all property lines or easements and structures. X Show Adjacent buildings to this application site and dimension from property line. ® All major existing trees on the site (4 inch caliber or greater), giving type, location, size and other site coverage conditions. El Show existing significant natural features such as rock outcroppings or water courses (existing and proposed marked accordingly). ❑ Locate all off-street parking spaces, driveways, loading docks and maneuvering areas with dimensions for driveway widths and parking space sizes. ❑ Pedestrian, vehicular and service points of ingress and egress; distances between driveways and street corners. ❑ Landscape plan showing number of plants, location, varieties and container sizes (landscape plan). El Existing and proposed grading plan showing direction and grade of drainage through and off the site; indicate any proposed drainage channels or containment facilities. El Required and existing street dedications and improvements such as sidewalks, curbing and pavement (may not be required). ® Letter to the Planning Commission describing the proposed use in detail and indicating how this use will effect and compatibility with adjacent uses or areas. ❑ Applications for new structures on slopes of 12 percent or greater must include an accurate topographic map. The map must contain contours of two -foot intervals for slopes of 12 percent or greater. Slopes over 24 percent shall be clearly marked. ❑ Other such data as may be required to permit the planning commission to make the required findings for approval of the specific type of application. < � ly ,boo Applican er signature / Date City of Stillwater Planning Commision RE: Request for Variance to 20' Setback from Street Side Sidewalk 1007 South 2nd Street, Stillwater Mn Members of the Planning Commission, My name is Alan Karoff and as a family member I am representing the needs of Vern and Monica Hirdler. The purpose of this letter is to request a Variance to the 20' Residential Setback in order to construct an ADA Handicap Entrance Ramp. The residence is located at 1007 S. 2nd St. in the City of Stillwater. The existing House setback is 23'-3" from the Street Side Sidewalk . The proposed ADA ramp will have a depth measuring 13'-8" from the front door of the house out towards the street, these dimensions place the finished ramp 9'-7" from the Street Side Sidewalk. This ramp is necessary to accommodate our elderly parents unassisted accessibility to their home. Vern and Monica Hirdler are in their mid-80's and face health issues as well as physical limitations. Vern has had two heart attacks and quadruple bypass surgery. He has endocarditis and suffers frequent occurrences of cellulites, a life threatening condition. Monica suffers from osteoporosis, arthritis and curvature of the spine caused by bearing 10 children. She relies on a walker around the home and a wheelchair for longer excursions. She requires assistance in order to traverse steps and is now scheduled for knee replacement surgery on Feb. 8th. Without ramp assistance she will not have reasonable accommodation into her home. We reviewed three options for locating the ramp; North side, South side and West Side (front of the house) for locating the ramp. The homes garage and driveway do not permit a ramp structure on the North Side. Locating it on the South side would require the removal of trees, one is a 100+ year old maple, and other landscaping and remodeling considerations (for safety and aesthetics). The West Side, front location, meets all of the needs and requirements necessary for the proposed ramp. For the proposed ramp we have chosen a unique ADA approved, modular - pressure plated design, accepted by the State of Minnesota and reviewed by the City of Stillwater Building Inspector, As such, it does not require sunken footings. The modular design not only increases its structural integrity but also means it is a temporary structure will be easily disassembled and removed from the site. We have incorporated Architecturally pleasing elements in the overall design so that it does not detract from the neighborhood. These elements increased the material cost but we felt it appropriate to maintain an acceptable visual presence. Although no one can predict the future, when the inevitable time arrives, my intent is to remove the ramp prior to selling the house. Under these circumstances, I'm respectfully requesting a setback variance to construct an ADA Handicap Entrance Ramp for Vern and Monica Hirdler. Hopefully this will extend their independence and address the hardships they would face without it. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Alan K R8N R21W R20W RI9W yr YOUAREH rz9N IEt T2RN R7tJ T27N R22W R21W R2OW Vicinity Map 30 Scale in Feet inn dn.,. me ruse end nd.ccenetace d, .wWm odurne of redo�a. u e.y Wee n venous Washington county Wr itn Weeyq ehWd Se used far raa.m4• wone. Weeremon County .b moms. tor any nercueulee. Sacs Wun=pwn rely Surveyor. Office Ph.Ie5yitl0d8y5 Pre. den Meal on AS.00 nleenaoe mint Waopn Norse.. b. 2001 Wee rnrm. January 11. 2008 E. o G -31II N 4 F4 5' J1 �� o -Ng Mir 41_51 41_541 4 8l-lol 2 0 THE B i P T H P t ACE CIF M N N f S 0 I A DATE: February 7, 2008 CASE NO.: 07-51 APPLICANT: Damon Francis, Advent Builders PROPERTY OWNERS: Brian and Joni Heller REQUESTS: Preliminary Plat, Zoning Map Amendment, and Subdivision Variance LOCATION: 1133 Nightingale Boulevard COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: SFLL - Single Family Large Lot CURRENT ZONING: AP - Agricultural Preserve PROPOSED ZONING: LR - Lakeshore Residential PC DATE: February 11, 2008 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director, Assistant City Engineer PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting review and approval of a Preliminary Plat, Zoning Map Amendment and a Variance to the lot width requirements. The subdivision is called Nightingale Estates. JANUARY 14, 2008 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING The Planning Commission held a public hearing and reviewed this request at its January 14, 2008 meeting. At that meeting the Commission elected to table the item pending the forester's report. Specifically the Commission asked that the report consider the impact on the trees on the adjacent property (1165 Nightingale). A copy of the staff report from the January 14, 2008 meeting as been attached to this report. Nightingale Estates February 7, 2008 Page 2 • DISCUSSION Since the last meeting, City Forester Kathy Widin has completed her initial review of the Nightingale Estates plans. A copy of her report is attached. In addition to her standard protection and replacement comments she noted the following: 1. The plans were missing the calculation of existing canopy cover and acreage or percentage of canopy cover to be removed in process of development (itemized both for construction of improvements and also building pads on private lots (estimate)). Since the first foresters report the developer has completed these plans and submitted them for review. The plans will require the addition of 9 trees which brings the total number of replacement trees for this site to 18. 2. The Forester report noted the following related to the trees on 1165 Nightingale Blvd: Concerns of Neighboring Property Owners: The owners of the adjoining property to the south of this proposed development have expressed concerns re: construction damage to mature oaks in the NW corner of their property. They are also concerned re: the effect of construction on potential oak wilt infection in these trees (see section on "Oak Wilt"). These oaks are in fair -poor condition, with the one nearest the proposed development being in the worst condition (poor), with storm damage, and extensive trunk decay and defects. The other two oaks also have some evidence of internal decay and trunk and branch defects, but are in better condition. These three oaks are all of importance to the property owners and should be protected as much as possible from construction damage. There appears to be a drainage and utility easement at the property Iine. Care should be taken to avoid root systems of oaks during excavation for any utility or drainage work needed. Positive drainage of water away from the root systems of these oaks is desirable to avoid oversaturation of soils around their roots. The root systems of these trees should be protected with orange snow - fencing set at least 20 ft. away from the trunks. To address these concerns the developer has revised the plans to show that no grading or other activities will occur within 10 feet of the southern property line. This change will keep construction activity a minimum of 20 feet away from the trees as recommended by the City Forester. Additionally, a swale is proposed to be placed starting 10 feet north of the south property line that will direct water east and into the storm water system that is being created for this development. Nightingale Estates February 7, 2008 Page 3 ALTERNATIVES • • The Planning Commission has several alternatives. The review deadline for this application has been extended to April 14, 2008. Due to the approaching deadline the Commission should take an action on this application at your February 11, 2008 in order to allow the City Council to have adequate time to review and take final action on the application. A. Approve. If the Commission finds the proposal acceptable then the Commission should approve the requested variance and recommend City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat and Rezoning. If the Commission recommends approval, staff would recommend, the following conditions of approval: recommended con Sorts 1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the preliminary site development plans on file with the Planning Department dated Nov ember 7, 2007 wilt:the i?evvs+ c `:p,a 2. The rezoning will not become effective until the applicants receive Final Plat approval from the City Council. 3. Final engineering plans shall be reviewed and found satisfactory to the City Engineer prior to any grading or utility installation. The final engineering plans shall contain the engineering changes suggested by Torry Kraftson in the memo dated December 31, 2007 and on file in the Community Development Department. 4. Development plans shall be reviewed and found satisfactory to the City Planner prior to any grading or utility installation. The development plans shall contain the planning changes suggested by Michel Pogge in the memo dated December 31, 2007 and on file in the Community Development Department. 5. A swale shall be installed along the southern edge of the development to prevent water from flowing on to the property to the south. 6. A development agreement covering the installation of public utilities and the payment of applicable development fees shall be executed and approved by the City Council prior to the release of the final plat for recording or the start of grading and utility construction, which ever occurs first. 7. The Parks & Recreation Board shall make a recommendation to the City Council on the park dedication and trail dedication for this development prior to City Council consideration of the proposal. 8. All utilities, including electrical and communication utilities, shall be buried. 9. The variance to the minimum lot width requirement shall be reviewed by the DNR prior to the release of the final plat for recording. Nightingale Estates February 7, 2008 Page 4 • 10. The developer shall submit the preliminary plans to the Browns Creek Watershed District for review and comment. Any such comments that the City Engineer finds necessary to include in the final plan set shall be included in the final plat application package. 11. The ifinial landscaping and reforestation shall be revised according to comments from the City Forester's prior to the release of the final plat for recording or the start of grading and utility construction, which ever occurs first. B. Approve in part. C. Denial. If the Planning Commission finds that the development proposal is not advisable, it could recommend; denial. With a denial, the basis of the action should be given. D. Make no recommendation If the Planning Commission is unable to make a finding they could forward it to the Council without making a recommendation. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the requested variance and recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat and Rezoning as conditioned. Stillwater H E B I R" Fd P i A r a or M i N N E S O F A DATE: January 9, 2008 CASE NO.: 07-51 APPLICANT: Damon Francis, Advent Builders PROPERTY OWNERS: Brian and Toni Heller REQUESTS: Preliminary Plat, Zoning Map Amendment, and Subdivision Variance LOCATION: 1133 Nightingale Boulevard COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISTRICT: SFLL - Single Family Large Lot CURRENT ZONING: AP - Agricultural Preserve PROPOSED ZONING: LR - Lakeshore Residential PC DATE: January 14, 2008 REVIEWERS: Community Dev. Director, Assistant City Engineer PREPARED BY: Michel Pogge, City Planner 0/49 DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting review and approval of a Preliminary Plat, Zoning Map Amendment and a Variance to the lot width requirements. The subdivision is called Nightingale Estates. The project is located on the east side of Nightingale Blvd, west of Bruer's Pond, and south of the Croixwood Development. The total project site is 5.23 acre (2.51 acres of which are above the water level of Bruer's Pond). The site is proposed to be developed into 4 single family lots, 1 lot that will include the existing home and three new lots along Nightingale Blvd. Nightingale Estates January 10, 2008 Page 2 SPECIFIC REQUEST In order to develop the property as proposed, Advent Builders has requested the following: 1. Approval of a rezoning of the property from AP, Agricultural Preservation to LR, Lakeshore Residential; 2. Approval of a Preliminary Plat for a 4 lot single family residential development; 3. Approval of a variance request to minimum lot width for lot 1. EVALUATION OF REQUEST I. REZONING Neighborhood Land Use Existing and planned land uses in the neighborhood are as follows: North Croixwood Development zoned RA with single-family lots in the range of 11,400 square foot. South Single-family home zoned AP. Property is 5.31 acres in area. Property is guided for Single Family Large Lot by the Comprehensive Plan. East Bruer's Pond West Nightingale Boulevard Land Use Compatibility One of the principle issues to be considered for a rezoning is whether the proposed change would be compatible with existing and planned uses within the surrounding neighborhood. This area was developed as rural single-family lots prior to its annexation into the City of Stillwater. As mentioned above the site is adjacent to Croixwood development to the north. The applicant has requested the LR, Lakeshore Residential zoning district to meet the requirements of the Shoreland Overlay District requirements since this property is within 1000 feet of Long Lake. Existing lots in this area have been redeveloped into smaller lots over time and have also been rezoned to the LR zoning classification to meet the requirements of the Shoreland Overlay District. The proposed rezoning to LR would be compatible with the surrounding uses. Since the proposed LR zoning for the bulk of the site represents a logical continuation of the redevelopment that has been occurring in the area and since it meets the requirements of the guided density of the comprehensive plan and meets the Shoreland Overlay District requirements, staff finds the proposed LR rezoning to be acceptable. Nightingale Estates January 10, 2008 Page 3 II. PRELIMINARY PLAT A. Minimum Dimensional Standards Lot size and width In the LR Zoning District must be at least 20,000 square feet. The lots range between 20,029 and 44,902 square feet1 and meet the required minimum lot size. The minimum lot width in the LR district is 80 feet, measured at the midway point between the front and rear lot lines. All of the lots meet this requirement except for Lot 1. The applicant has required a variance from the minimum lot width standard for Lot 1 in order that more regular shaped lots can be created for lots 2-4. This variance request is discussed later in the report. Lakeshore Standards The majority of the subdivision lies within the Shoreland Management Overlay District for Long Lake. This triggers an entire body of separate regulations. The LR zoning classification meets or exceeds the requirements of the Shoreland Overlay District. Since the Lot 1 does not meet the minimum lot width requirement the City has forward the plans to the DNR for review and comments. Staff would recommend that as a condition of approval that the developer address any concerns of the DNR before the final plan be release for recording. B. Civil Engineering The City Engineer has reviewed the preliminary plans and offers the comments in the attached memo dated December 31, 2007. These comments should be made a condition of approval prior to the construction of the utilities or the release of the final plat for recording. Storm Water Currently there is an isolated wetland on the property that has no defined outlet. Today, when the level of the wetland rises due to a seasonal period of wet weather, the wetland overflows to the south onto the property at 1165 Nightingale Boulevard. The proposed development includes a storm water pond that meets the City standard requirements. Based on the recommendations of City This only includes the area of the lots that will not normally be underwater from Bruer's Pond. Nightingale Estates January 10, 2008 Page 4 Engineering staff the developer is proposing an emergency outlet pipe to Bruer's Pond to alleviate flooding concerns for the proposed home sites and the adjacent property. The pipe would convey water to Bruer's Pond only in an extreme hydrologic event (greater than both the 1% probability rainfall and 10-day snowmelt events). The drainage calculations demonstrate that the water levels after the proposed site is constructed will be less than the existing water levels for the required storm events (2.8-inch, 4.1-inch, 5.9-inch, 10.8-inch snowfall). This new pond and drainage pipe will not eliminate the possibility of water backing up on to the property at 1165 Nightingale Boulevard; however, it should decrease the frequency and the overall impact when it does occur. The attached sketch shows the emergency overflow direction for the existing wetland and for the proposed storm water pond. C. Tree Preservation The developer has submitted a canopy removal plan which is being reviewed by the City Forester. Staff would recommend that the plan be approved by the City Forester prior to the construction of the utilities or the release of the final plat for recording. D. Park and Trail Dedication The area, including Nightingale Boulevard in the Croixwood development, has been developed without sidewalks. Since trails have not been developed in the area and the size of this site is small staff would recommend that the developer pay cash -in -lieu of parkland dedication and trail dedication. This plan will go to the Park and Recreation Commission on January 28, 2008 for their consideration. For this development the total required cash -in -lieu of land dedication and trail dedication and constriction is $7,500 ($2,500 per single-family lot * 3 new lots). Nightingale Estates January 10, 2008 Page 5 III. VARIANCE TO THE CITY'S MINIMUM LOT WIDTH REQUIREMENT FOR LOT 1 A variance may be granted only when all of the following conditions are found: 1. A hardship peculiar to the property, not created by any act of the owner, exists. Personal, family or financial difficulties, loss of prospective profits and neighboring violations are not hardships justifying a variance. When considering the hardship criteria there are three questions that need to be asked; is the request reasonable, has unique circumstances, and are the code provision essential to the character of the locality. In this case the developer's engineer prepared a plan that shows they could configure the lot to meet the minimum lot width requirements along with all other code requirements. The resulting lot configuration would result in irregular lots and the preference of the developer was to create the most rectangular lots possible. Staff agrees that regular shaped lots are preferable and benefits the future property owners in the long run. The request for this variance is reasonable, the situation is unique and the proposal keeps in spirit with the intent of the zoning ordinance. 2. A variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights; and, if granted, would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by neighbors. The request would not result in any additional density to the development. It simply allows the developer to create more regular lots. This variance would not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by the neighbors. 3. The authorizing of the variance will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent property and will not materially impair the purpose and intent of this section or the public interest nor adversely affect the comprehensive plan. The request would not result in any additional density to the development that would otherwise be allowed. No other regulations are proposed to be varied and the normal protections afforded in the code remain. Therefore, the proposal as submitted will not be a detriment to property owners in the area and will not impair the purpose and intent of the zoning code. Since a positive finding on the variance request was made Staff would recommend that the Planning Commission approve the variance request. Nightingale Estates January 10, 2008 Page 6 ALTERNATIVES The Planning Commission has several alternatives. A. Table. If the Commission needs additional information then the Planning Commission could choose to table the request until your February 11, 2008 meeting. The 60 day decision deadline for the request is February 17, 2008. B. Approve. If the Commission finds the proposal acceptable then the Commission should approve the requested variance and recommend City Council approval of the Preliminary Plat and Rezoning. If the Commission recommends approval, staff would recommend, the following conditions of approval: 1. The site shall be developed in substantial conformance with the preliminary site development plans on file with the Planning Department dated November 7, 2007. 2. The rezoning will not become effective until the applicants receive Final Plat approval from the City Council. 3. Final engineering plans shall be reviewed and found satisfactory to the City Engineer prior to any grading or utility installation. The final engineering plans shall contain the engineering changes suggested by Torry Kraftson in the memo dated December 31, 2007 and on file in the Community Development Department. 4. Development plans shall be reviewed and found satisfactory to the City Planner prior to any grading or utility installation. The development plans shall contain the planning changes suggested by Michel Pogge in the memo dated December 31, 2007 and on file in the Community Development Department. 5. A swale shall be installed along the southern edge of the development to prevent water from flowing on to the property to the south. 6. A development agreement covering the installation of public utilities and the payment of applicable development fees shall be executed and approved by the City Council prior to the release of the final plat for recording or the start of grading and utility construction, which ever occurs first. 7. The Parks & Recreation Board shall make a recommendation to the City Council on the park dedication and trail dedication for this development prior to City Council consideration of the proposal. 8. All utilities, including electrical and communication utilities, shall be buried. 9. The variance to the minimum lot width requirement shall be reviewed by the DNR prior to the release of the final plat for recording. 10. The developer shall submit the preliminary plans to the Browns Creek Watershed District for review and comment. Any such comments that the Nightingale Estates January 10, 2008 Page 7 City Engineer finds necessary to include in the final plan set shall be included in the final plat application package. 11. The landscaping and reforestation shall be revised according to comments from the City Forester's prior to the release of the final plat for recording or the start of grading and utility construction, which ever occurs first. C. Approve in part. D. Denial. If the Planning Commission finds that the development proposal is not advisable, it could recommend denial. With a denial, the basis of the action should be given. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the requested variance and recommend that the City Council approve the Preliminary Plat and Rezoning as conditioned. Nightingale Estates Forestry Report To: Mike Pogge Planner Bill Turnblad Community Devel. Dir. Planning Comm. City Council City of Stillwater From: Katharine D. Widin, Ph.D, Forestry Consultant City of Stillwater (651)430-8765 (vm) (651)436-8811 Re: Nightingale Estates 1/29/08 I have reviewed the preliminary development plans and tree inventory table (dated 9/11/07), for the proposed development of Nightingale Estates. I have also visited the site to look at the trees and spoken with the property owner on the south side of the parcel. I have the following comments/recommendations regarding this plan and submittals for the proposed development: Tree Protection Ordinance (#891 3/21/00) — This ordinance requires that the maximum number of trees be preserved during development. Included in plans are: a. A tree protection plan which also lists measures to be taken to protect significant trees during development Needed (to be provided by the developer): b. A calculation of existing canopy cover and acreage or percentage of canopy cover to be removed in process of development (itemized both for construction of improvements and also building pads on private lots (estimate)) Nightingale Estates 1/29/08 — 2 Discussion I have calculated a total tree (significant and non -significant trees only, not canopy cover) removal amount of: 33 %. Of these, only 20 % (26) of the trees being removed would be considered significant trees (see City of Stillwater tree protection ordinance for definition of a significant tree). Most of the trees being removed are silver maples and most of those are considered non -significant (< 20 in. diameter (standard for silver maple, cottonwood, boxelder). A planting plan was provided. The developer should be aware of the following and that trees are being planted to provide adequate tree replacement for the trees being removed, per the Stillwater ordinance: 1. Tree removal for subdivision improvements requires a replacement of 10 trees/acre of removal of canopy cover. 2. Private development on building lots which removes canopy cover more than 35% will require tree replacement on a one -for -one basis. 3. Replacement trees are in addition to any other trees required to be planted in accordance with any other City planning subdivision requirements (3 trees per lot x 3 lots = 9 trees) 4. Replacement trees should be planted on the development site according to an overall project tree replacement plan, or a fee, in lieu of planting, based on the retail costs of 2 in. diameter deciduous trees, may be paid to the City for re -planting elsewhere within the City of Stillwater. Existing Woodland Conditions: The majority of trees on the parcel, especially the front part, are silver maple, thus most of the trees being removed for development are also silver maple. The front half of the parcel is naturally low and has an existing delineated wetland area. Silver maple is well -suited to the soil conditions on this parcel. Other species represented on site are: elm, aspen, cottonwood, oak, boxelder, pine, cherry, spruce and birch and many representatives of these other species are being retained, mainly on the site of the existing home, which is a more upland site. The significant trees in the woodland are predominantly in the "fair" to "fair -poor" condition, meaning they have some flaws in form and structure, may have trunk or branch defects, storm damage, and /or evidence of internal decay. This condition rating is not unusual for trees in a natural woodland. There are several trees of special concern: Nightingale Estates 1/29/08 — 3 1. oak #1067, in the NW portion of the parcel, just south of the existing driveway, will have grading right next to the tree and it may not survive, 2. oak #1108, on the north side of the parcel, just south of the existing driveway, is in very poor condition, with extensive decay and trunk separation, is a risk, and should be removed, 3. there are 2 large silver maples in the wetland area which are indicated to be saved. These trees (#1082 and #1103) are in poor condition and a potential risk due to poor form, and weak trunk connections with associated decay. No structures, including outdoor equipment or play structures, outdoor seating areas or outbuildings, should be within 40 + ft. of the trees. Stand opening, due to removal of other trees around them, will expose these trees to more wind and increase the risk of failure. Trees to be Preserved and Tree Protection: Any trees to be preserved, which are within 30 ft. of any type of soil disturbance, should be protected by a barrier of 5 ft. orange snow -fencing, set out as far from the trunk as feasible. Setting protective fencing at the critical root radius, or a distance 1.5 ft. times the diameter of the tree in inches, is a good rule of thumb to avoid any construction injury to the roots of trees to be saved, but it is not always possible, due to construction constraints. The tree protection barrier should be erected before any construction equipment appears on the site, and should be maintained throughout the course of the construction period. Tree protection measures should include protecting trees on neighboring properties which are within 30 ft. of any soil disturbance areas. Permission should be requested of adjoining property owner before any tree protection fencing is placed outside the property boundaries of the parcel being developed. Other Issues Concerns of Neighboring Property Owners: The owners of the adjoining property to the south of this proposed development have expressed concerns re: construction damage to mature oaks in the NW corner of their property. They are also concerned re: the effect of construction on potential oak wilt infection in these trees (see section on "Oak Wilt"). These oaks are in fair -poor condition, with the one nearest the proposed development being in the worst condition (poor), with storm damage, and extensive trunk decay and defects. The other two oaks also have some evidence of internal decay and trunk and branch defects, but are in better condition. These three oaks are all of importance to the property owners and should be protected as much as possible from construction damage. There appears to be a drainage and utility easement at the property line. Care should be taken to avoid root systems of oaks during excavation for any utility or drainage work needed. Positive drainage of water away from the root systems of these oaks is desirable to avoid oversaturation of soils around their roots. The root systems of these trees should be protected with orange snow -fencing set at least 20 ft. away from the trunks. Nightingale Estates 1/29/08 — 4 Oak Wilt I saw 1 dead oak but no other evidence of current oak wilt infection centers on the property during my recent visit. Areas where oaks exist on the property should be re- inspected in August or September of this year to look for signs of infection. Care should be taken to not wound or prune oaks from April 1st to October 15th in order to prevent insect transmission of the oak wilt fungus to healthy trees. If any oaks are pruned or wounded during this susceptible period, the wounds should be painted immediately with spray paint, latex house paint or varnish. If oaks are felled between April and October, the cut stump surfaces should also be painted, if the stumps are to remain on site more than a couple hours. Tree Planting Plan I visited the site, and the plan and existing tree list reflect tree location, species and size on site. In most cases, construction, roadways and other improvements appear to be in areas of smaller, less valuable tree species. A conservation easement is proposed between the existing home and the new homes on the front of the parcel. Most replacement trees are proposed to be planted in this conservation easement area. The planting plan includes a list of tree species and sizes to be planted and also detail of planting method and planting notes. The tree species and sizes and the planting detail and notes are acceptable. The species should complement very well the native species on site. Twenty-six (26) trees are shown to be planted. There are 26 significant trees being removed from the site for all types of construction. This represents a "1 for 1" replacement of significant trees being removed on the parcel, which should satisfy the tree replacement requirements for both improvements and building lots. The subdivision ordinance of the City of Stillwater also requires three (3) trees planted per building lot. Two trees per lot are shown on the planting plan, and these are included in the 26 trees to be planted. Nine (9) additional trees should be planted. There is not room for more large shade trees in the front yards of the homes. I would suggest planting 4 additional shade trees between the rear yards of the northernmost 2 homes and the infiltration basin, and 5 small-statured trees such as mountain ash, serviceberry, ironwood, or pagoda dogwood, in the area of the conservation easement. The latter three species can be planted somewhat under the canopy of existing overstory trees. Please contact me if you have any questions regarding my review of the tree issues associated with this proposed development or recommendations for re -planting. Page 1 of 1 Michel Pogge From: Ed Lowell [Ed.Lowell@comcast.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2008 11:29 AM To: Michel Pogge Hi Mike, I do not have Kathy's e-mail address so ask that you please forward this note to her. Thanks, Ed Mike and Kathy, We have reviewed your report, Kathy, and appreciate the detail to which you reviewed the plans and site to develop your recommendations. However, we are concerned with your recommendation on tree preservation. Specifically in paragraph "Trees to be Preserved and Tree Protection:" after providing standard recommended guidelines for using the critical root radius you state "Tree protection measures should include protecting trees on neighboring properties which are within 30 ft. of any soil disturbance areas." In paragraph" Other Issues" regarding the trees on the property at 1165 Nightingale you state "The root systems of these trees should be protected with orange snow -fencing set at least 20 ft. away from the trunks." Given that the critical root radius of the best of these trees (42 inch diameter) is 63 feet, why is the protection zone only 20 feet? 20 feet does not even extend to the dripline and is clearly within the existing root system. Further, this seems at odds with your statement shown in paragraph "Trees to be Preserved and Tree Protection". Please help us better understand your thinking in these statements. Finally, the available literature (Protecting Trees from Construction Damage from the University of Minnesota) we have consulted, and our own experience, indicate that it is very probable these trees will not survive the construction with the recommended protection zone. If you have additional research materials that will help us better understand your thinking we would appreciate being directed to that material so we can read it as well. Thanks, Ed and Carol Lowell 2/7/2008 Page I of 1 Michel Pogge From: kdwidin@comcast.net Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 9:32 AM To: ed.lowell@comcast.net Cc: Michel Pogge Subject: Tree Protection Lowell Property - Nightingale Estates Ed - Thank you for contacting me regarding my recommendations for protection of trees on your property relative to the proposed Nightingale Estates development. My recommendations do take into account protection of the majority of the root systems of the oaks and they are based on years of experience dealing with trees and development. The Critical Root Zone (CRZ) calculation is a useful starting point as it would ensure complete protection of the root systems. In actual practice, however, there are few situations which merit, or can provide, that amount of distance from a tree, due to development constraints and requirements, which must also be considered. Tree condition is a major factor in decisions regarding the amount of protection which can be required. The oak on your property which is closest to the proposed construction is in poor condition with storm damage and extensive internal decay. A request for a protected distance equal to the CRZ is not warranted and would be difficult to defend in this case. Protecting trees which are within 30 ft. of soil disturbance areas (construction activity) is a standard recommendation in many ordinances and construction documents which deal with tree protection. It is based on observations of trees of many species and sizes after construction activity. Your trees fall within that 30 ft. distance. The recommendation to place snow fencing at least 20 ft. from the trunk is a standard which I have used often in construction situations, particularly when construction activity is occurring only on one side of the tree. Twenty feet is the minimum distance suggested and would be measured from the oak closest to the construction activity; consequently, the other oaks on your property, which are in slightly better condition, would be protected even more. A larger distance may be possible once the type of drainage/utility construction, at or near the property line, has been decided. Trees in the SW corner of the pa rcel for Nightingale Estates are also indicated to be protected with fencing, and this may extend the protective distance even more, depending also on where the drainage/utility construction will occur. I will talk with the city planner and the city engineer regarding the utility/drainage construction which is proposed for the south property boundary of the Nightingale Estates parcel, and can then make more specific recommendations regarding protection of the oaks on your property. I am currently out-of-town but would be happy to meet with you on site next week to discuss tree condition and protection recommendations. Kathy Widin Forestry Consultant City of Stillwater 2/7/2008 Page 1 of 1 Michel Pogge From: Ed Lowell [Ed.Lowell@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 10:54 AM To: kdwidin@comcast.net Cc: Michel Pogge Subject: RE: Tree Protection Lowell Property - Nightingale Estates Hi Kathy, Thanks for responding so promptly to our questions. Our concerns are based on previous experience where we lost red/pin oak trees as a result of soil compaction to a portion of their root systems. Our reference is that the CRZ calculation is the best way to protect sensitive trees. We understand your rationale on distance but it seems that a 20 foot protection zone does not even cover the dripline, especially for the larger oak which is in better condition and has a larger canopy. From what we read the dripline is usually considered the minimum protection distance for sensitive trees. Never the less, it is your field of expertise not ours. We only have the experience of loosing trees. We are leaving town next week (we postponed our trip for 4 weeks due to this situation) and will not return for a month or so and, therefore, we will be unable to meet with you to further discuss it. We appreciate your offer. I hope the builders adhere to your recommendations. Please continue to monitor this construction project and provide guidance to the builders so that we do not loose these trees which we have worked to protect over the past few years from the oak wilt problem that you first helped us with. Thanks again and best regards, Ed 2/7/2008 2/5/2008 Dear Michel, In preparation for the upcoming council meeting, we would like to submit the enclosed pictures that my husband photographed last Sunday (2/3/2008). The first 5 show the US Bank building (6001 Stillwater Blvd N) that is nestled in quite a few lovely Red Oak trees. You can tell which ones are the Red Oaks, because they retain their leaves in the winter. I am told the building is at least 23years old and has a full basement. The last picture, with the Nightingale Park sign, is our property, which also has a large Red Oak at the end of the driveway. The edge of our neighbor's house is visible in the picture and not that far away from the tree. Their house is — 40 years old. Best regards, RXi„, Tvm r 4gCoa -4 ' N6 -"A"IrtwA.4 - = , 11% - ' • • 4 ":•;!k•-,•1•IiiNT„ ' 1 LAKESH RESIDE1 2 )RE TI ALrS J • DasTow DOUSE ti(scv Z - s CHARLES & SHARON THOMPSON 1125 NIGHTINGALE BLVD I I ONE FAMILY CITY OF STILLWATER (OUTLOT) , co co II Al ERWIN & CAROL LOWELL 1165 NIGHTINGALE BLVD 09 AGRICULTURAL THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHORN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY OUAUTY LEVEL D. THIS QUAUTY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF CDASCE 38-02, TITI.EO "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF FASTING SUBSURFACE UTUTY DATA' THE CONTRACTOR AND/CR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF AU. EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK, BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA). THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO BE FULLY RESPORUD E FOR ANY AND AU. DAMAGES, NHIC11 MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UTIUTES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD). IF THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS ANY DRAIN TILE RAISIN THE STE, HE OR SHE SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER WITIN THE LOCATON, SIZE. INVERT AND IF THE TILE UNE IS ACTIVE NO ACTIVE DRAIN THE SHALL BE BACKALED NITHOUT APPROVAL FRCN THE PROJECT ENGINEER. Aim T.M3<vwr ,T YEA STMH RIM=909.0 .�NV=892.4 • 91 � 16 1 •69 v a s METAL POST ORANGE MESH FENCING S89°26'1O'W 851.23 FLARED END SECTION W/ RIPRAP INV =890.0 °3 N BLOC,< 2 N 51'W N N 673.67 PROPERTY UNE OR SIDEWALK NOTE: MAINTENANCE FENCE MINIMUM 3' FROM TREE TRUNK NOTE TREES TO BE SAVED SHALL BE FENCED OFF WITH BRIGHT ORANGE POLYETHYLENE SAFETY HERING AND STEEL STAKES AT THE DRIP LINE. OR AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER'S REP., TO INSURE AGAINST DAMAGE BY VEHICLES, COMPACTION OF SOILS AND/OR THE CHEMICAL ALTERATION OF SOILS DUE TO CONCRETE WASHOUT, PANTS AND LEAKAGE OR SPILLAGE OF ANY TOXIC MATERIALS. NOTE: City staff has ballooned changes on the plans for the Commission's ease. CANOPY COVERAGE PRE DEVELOPMENT: 2.06 AC POST DEVELOPMENT: 1.18 AC CANOPY REMOVAL SUMMARY CANOPY LOSS FROM BUILDING PADS= 0.31 AC CANOPY LOSS FROM PLAT IMPROVEMENTS= 0.57 AC TOTAL CANOPY LOSS= 0.88 AC NOTE' 1. THE REMOVAL OF CANOPY COVER RESULTS IN 42.7% LOSS (0.88AG/2.06). CURB & GUTTER STORM SEWER SANITARY S FORCE AN.) N EASEMENT GAS LINE ELECTRIC TELEPHONE DENOTES TREES TO BE REMOVED LEGEND PROPOSED EXISTING »-• o >---• O G E T 30 60 SCALE IN FEET uJ L.IJ w J F=- S V) TREE PRESERVATION PLAN PRELIMINARY 30 ES 3 U 30 0 SHEET NUMBER C-7.01 META Fie I 16395 1 LICKS RSIIQE TIAL ROCK ENTRANCE I(FVI . -II 1 / "DVS' SED CHARLES & SHARON THOMPSON 1125 NIGHTINGALE BLVD ONE FAMILY,' RIM=906.6 CITY OF STILLWA-TER m .1 u-n nT) INV.=897.3 SILT - WE 98 ``., `••b� 0.9 898 _ ��•'t•;,��:`4,� ohs; I ° rj . _... 'T.' '� •°QP. ::: 11\•r888 ,�I�..� ,44tei ��:�e 4WD RI' I NWLo892.0 4«��,e��4/���4ti HWLFE 0 �� `�►t :�: MIN. LIFE 97.8 4 4a�4, ��. 444V. kn.: f4:40414* VA@01i41"1,I,t4���9:+. , , ivy©4�';����i1i���'��q�: ^�r�o�®���►a��, t►HA$��, it14'�'� I 44 (; ' C���Q9SI�I��4.74� Sq. Ft. of 1 ���N1�4�1 40494,4 .4 `�"=`--•� oot: ti .4 \ ivP) \ \ • OPOSED DRAINAGE \\ D UTILITY EASEMENT \ \ RWIN & CAROL 1,0WELL`\ \ \ j 1165 NIGHTINGALE' BLVD ' '1 \\ AGRICULTURAL\ , iH / I ( 1 / / I 1 / ----- J--- • sI I I' II \ . 0,a 3L0(. FRO 2 L 51TF TRADING NOTES A. PROPOSED CONTOURS ARE TO FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION. SPOT ELEVATIONS ALONG PROPOSED CURB DENOTE GUTTER GRADE. B. THE CONTRACTOR IS CAUTIONED THAT "THE SUBSURFACE ROUTE INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY QUALITY LEVU. 0. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF a/ASCE 38-02 TITLED "STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA'. THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTUIIES BEFORE COMMENCING %DRN. BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA AT 1-803-252-1166). THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES WIHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UTUTIES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD). IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBIUTY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING MUTES VHICH CONFLICT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON HE PLANS. C. THE CONTRACTOR SOUL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR WALL BE HELD SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. D. SAFETY NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS: IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE. INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING PERFORMANCE OF THE WORN. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE UNITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. THE DUTY OF THE ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER TO CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION RENEW OF THE CONTRACTORS PERFORMANCE IS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE RENEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE CONTRACTOR'S SAFETY MEASURES IN, ON OR NEAR THE CONSTRUCTOR SITE E THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER ALL SOIL TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE OWNERS SOILS ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR STALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING AU. REQUIRED SOIL TESTS AND INSPECTIONS VAIN THE SOILS ENGINEER. A GEOIECHNICAL ENGINEERING SOILS REPORT HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY: COMPANY: INTERSTATE GEOTECHNCAL ENGINEERING, INC. ADDRESS 8167 TOOTH STREET SOUTH PHONE: 812-414-5770 DATED: JULY 13, 2007 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE SOILS REPORT. F. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE AGGREGATE BASE, A TEST ROLL TILL BE REQUIRED ON THE STREET AND PARKING AREA SUBGRADE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A LOADED TANDEM AXE TRUCK WITH A GROSS WEIGHT OF 25 TONS. THE TEST ROLLING SHALL BE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHALL BE COMPLETED IN AREAS AS DIRECTED BY ME SODS ENGINEER. THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE WINCH SECTIONS OF THE STREET OR PARKING AREA ARE UNSTABLE CORRECTION OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE VAIN THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. G. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING ABS MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES. WARNING SIGNS DIRECTIONAL SINS, FLAGMEN AND UGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEAIENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. TRAFFIC CONTROL DENIMS SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS. H. THE TREES AND OTHER NATURAL VEGETATION IITHIN THE PROJECT AND/OR ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT ARE OF PRIME CONCERN TO THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS. HE WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROTECT THE TREES WHICH ARE TO BE SAVED TO BE SURE THAT EQUIPMENT IS NOT NEEDLESSLY OPERATED UNDER NEARBY TREES AND SHALL EXERCISE EXTREME CAUTION N WLXRMNG ADJACENT TO TREES. SHOULD ANY PORTION OF THE TREE BRANCHES REQUIRE REMOVAL TO PERMIT OPERATION OF THE CONTRACTOR'S EQUIPMENT, HE SHALL OBTAIN THE SERVICES OF A PROFESSIONAL TREE TRIMMING SERVICE TO TRIM THE TREES PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF OPERATION. SHOULD THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS RESULT IN THE BREADING OF ANY LIMBS, THE BROKEN LIMBS SFIOUID BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY AND CUTS SHALL BE PROPERLY PROTECTED TO MINIMIZE ANY LASTING DAMAGE TO THE TREE NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION BY THE ENGINEER. COSTS FOR TRIMMING SERVICES SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO THE GRADING CONSTRUCTION AND NO SPECIAL PAYMENT WILL NE MADE. I. EXCAVATE TOPSOIL FROM AREAS TO BE FURTHER EXCAVATED OR REGRADED AND STOCKPILE IN AREAS DESIGNATED ON THE SITE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SAVAGE ENOUGH TOPSOIL FOR RESPREADING ON THE SITE AS SPECIFIED. EXCESS TOPSOIL SHALL BE PLACED IN EMBANKMENT AREAS, OUTSIDE OF BUILDING PASS ROADWAYS AND PARKING AREAS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBCUT CUT AREAS, WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABUSHED, TO A DEPTH OF 4 INCHES. RESPREAD TOPSOIL N AREAS WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABUSHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 4 INCHES. J. FINISHES GRADING SHALL BE COMPLETED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UNIFORMLY GRADE AREAS NATION EMITS OF GRADING. INCLUDING ADJACENT TRANSIRON AREAS. PROVIDE A SMOOTH FINISHED SURFACE WITHIN SPECIFIED TOLERANCES, WITH UNIFORM LEVELS OR SLOPES BETWEEN POINTS WHERE ELEVATIONS ARE SH0VR1, OR BETWEEN SUCH POINTS AND EXISTING GRADES. AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN FINISHED GRADED SHAD. BE PROTECTED FROM SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTION OPERATIONS, TRAFFIC AND EROSONL REPAIR AU. AREAS THAT HAVE BECOME RUTTED BY TRAFFIC OR ERODED BY WATER OR HAS SETTLED BELOW THE CORRECT GRADE. ALL AREAS OSTURDED BY THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS SHALL BE RESTORED TO EQUAL OR BETTER THAN ORIGINAL CONDITION OR TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW WORD. K. TOLERARCES 1. THE BUDDING SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 610 FOOT ABOVE, OR D.10 FOOT BELOW. THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION AT ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE 2. THE STREET OR PARKING AREA SIBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.05 FOOT ABOVE, OR 0.10 FOOT BELOW, THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION OF ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE 3. AREAS WHICH ARE TO RECEIVE TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO WITHIN 0.30 FOOT ABOVE OR BELOW THE REQUIRED ELEVATION, UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY THE ENGINEER. 4. TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO PLUS OR ANUS I/2 INCH CF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS M. AFTER THE STE GRADING IS COMPLETED, IF EXCESS OR SHORTAGE OF SOIL MATERIAL MIS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TRANSPORT ALL EXCESS SOIL MATERIAL OFF THE GTE TO AN AREA SELECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR. OR IMPORT SUITABLE MATERIAL TO THE STE. N. WHEN THE SHE TRADING CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SEED AND MULCH THOSE AREAS AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER THE SEEDING SHALL COMPLY WITH LIN/DOT SPECIFICATION NE 3876 OATH THE USE OF MN/DOT MIXTURE NO 506 OR 250 LR AND APPLIED AT A RATE OF 100 POUNDS PER ACRE THE SEEDED AREA SHALL BE MULCHED. THE MULCH SHALL COMPLY WITH MN/DOT SPECDCATION 3882, TYPE I. THE MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED AND ANCHORED N ACCORDANCE WITH MN/TOT SPECIFICATION NO. 2575.3, FT. MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED AT THE RATE OF 2 TONS PER ACRE. THE MULCH SHALL BE ANCHORED WITH A DISC, CLCOBUSTER OR OTHER APPROVE) EGWPMENT. AN EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SHALL BE FURNISHED AND PLACED IN AREAS WHERE THE SLOPE EXCEEDS 3:1. 0. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE LOCATION CF ANY HAUL ROADS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE STE GRADING CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL INDICATE HAUL ROADS ON EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL 'SITE MAP•. RE CONTRACTOR SHW.L COMPLY Y ON THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY OF EACH ROADWAY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL POST WHATEVER SECURITY. AND COMPLY LATH ALL CONDITIONS WHICH ARE REQUIRED BY EACH MERITING AUTHORITY OF EACH ROADWAY. NOTE: City staff has ballooned changes on the plans for the Commission's ease. LEGEND SPOT ELEVATION CONTOUR RIP RAP CURB & GUTTER PROPOSED X 962.5 EXISTING A9625 D2- S02 STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER FORCEMAIN (SAN.) WATERMAIN EASEMENT OVERFLOW ELEV. RETAINING WALL SOIL BORING LOCATION XXX.X Q „-® o ' o 0 ry -0 0 30 60 (I) LLI W J CD CD (Z L— V z Z J If) GRADING PLAN PRELIMINARY 65 c a O O 173 a • U c 0« S • ENTS, DATED 1/29/08 0, 8 fr 8 THE SUBSURFACE UTUTY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTUTY OUAUTY LEVEL D. THIS QUALITY LEVEL. WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF GIASCE 38-02, TITLED *STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EASING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA• DIE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTUTIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK, BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA). THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES. WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS OR HER SILT FENCE PA-10-+- SCALE IN FEET GO iA SHEET NUMBER C-4.01 REV. DEVELOPER ADVENT BUILDERS 1379 T1MBERWOLF TRAIL LINO LAKES, MN 55038 TEL: 612-889-8390 FAX: 651-653-5658 CONTACT: DAMON FRANCIS OWNER BRYAN Sc JONI HELLER 1133 NIGHINGALE BLVD STILLWATER, MN 55082 Preliminary Site Development Plans for Nightingale Estates Stillwater, Minnesota CIVIL ENGINEER MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES (MFRA) 14800 28TH AVENUE, SUITE 140 PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 TEL 763-476-6010 FAX 763-476-8532 CONTACT: MATTHEW R. DUENWALD, P.E. SURVEYOR MCCOMBS FRANK ROOS ASSOCIATES (MFRA) 14800 28TH AVENUE, SUITE 140 PLYMOUTH, MN 55447 TEL 763-476-6010 FAX 763-476-8532 CONTACT: HENRY NELSON, RLS Presented by: Advent Builders VICINITY MAP NO SCALE SHEET INDEX SHEET DESCRIPTION C-1.01 11TLE SHEET C-2.01 EXISTING CONDITIONS C-3.01 SITE PLAN C-3.02 PRELIMINARY PLAT C-4.01 GRADING PLAN C-5.01 PHASE I EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN C-5.02 PHASE II EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN C-5.03 EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES & DETAILS C-6.01 UTILITY PLAN L-1.01 LANDSCAPE PLAN C-7.01 TREE PRESERVATION PLAN C-7.02 TREE PRESERVATION TABLE PRINTED NOV 7 2007 Frank Roos Assoc., Inc. LL1 I-- CO ~ w w o J m Q CD Z j I c 1< C) z TITLE SHEET PRELIMINARY Date: 9/11/07 License # 45403 HEET NUMBER C-1.01 < REV. MFRA Flle / 16396 rc5 eF OT TV mom+ • aea Visa t fit C THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS OUAUTY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDEUNES OF CIIASCE 36-02. TITLED -STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA.' THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTNG UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA). THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES, WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UTILITIES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD). IF THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS ANY DRAIN TILE WITHIN THE SITE, HE OR. SHE SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER WITH THE LOCATION, SIZE. INVERT AND IF THE TILE UNE IS ACTIVE. NO ACTIVE DRAIN TILE SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE PROJECT ENGINEER. EDGE OF WATER 0 50 100 SCALE IN FEET BENCHMARKS: BM NO. 1 TOP NUT OF HYDRANT NW CORNER OF SITE ON NIGHTINGALE BLVD. ELEV.=909.32 BM NO. 2 TOP NUT OF HYDRANT SW OF SITE INTERSECTION OF NIGHTINGALE COURT AND NIGHTINGALE BLVD ELEV.=903.83 LEGEND • FOUND MONUMENT — s SANITARY SEWER O SET MONUMENT —NV—STORM SEWER e' FLAGPOLE — ' WATER MAIN m ELEC. BOX —mw—OVERHEAD WIRES GUY ANCHOR — e — UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC LIGHT — A —UNDERGROUND GAS • BUILDING UGHT ////// BUILDING UNE CI UTIUTY POLE — — BUILDING OVERHANG SIGN RIGHT OF ACCESS O MANHOLE CONCRETE CURB O CATCH BASIN = CHAIN UNK FENCE v9 AUTO SPRINKLER Fe POST INDICATOR VALVE N GATE VALVE ■ ROOF DRAIN (outlet) b HYDRANT © COMMUNICATION BOX ® SPRINKLER BOX j BITUMINOUS SURFACE • GUARD POST r '. CONCRETE SURFACE I. I LANDSCAPE SURFACE DESCRIPTION: Lot 1, Block 2 GENERAL NOTES: 1. Bearing system shown is based on the plat of Long Lake Estates. 2. The underground utility locations, shown hereon, ore based on plans and drawings; supplemental field surveys and other sources. The surveyor makes no guarantees that the underground utilities shown comprise all such utilities in the area, either in service or abandoned. The surveyor further does not warrant that the underground utilities shown are in the exact locution as indicated although he does certify that they ore located accurately os possible from information available. The surveyor has not physically located the underground utilities. Pursuant to MS 216D contact Gopher _tote One Call at (651-454-0002) prior to any excavation. 3. This property is in Zone C of the Flood Insurance Rate Map; Community Panel Number 2752490005, doted February. 1, 1984. 4. Property Zoning: AP Building Height: 2k stories and 35 feet Building Setbacks: Front yard = 50 feet, Side yard = 25 feet, Reor yard = 75 feet Lot width: 300 Ft. Lot Area: 10 Acres 5. Property Identification Number: 3103020410003 6 Address: 1133 NIGHTINGALE BLVD STILLWATER, MN 55082 7. Area: 227,815 sq. ft. 5.23 acres 8. Field Work was Completed MAY 21, 2007 L.L1 J CD z i— CD z STILLWATER, MN ( ) CC w J CO LLJ cs EXISTING CONDITIONS en PRELIMINARY CI CC S C) A SHEET NUMBER C-2.01 REV. MFRA Fde t 16396 , I-RIM=906.6 INV.=897.3 ONE F��t;1'IL A �i". - `I I 110Pi. I:I SrI; 1 I,; / I, M cc DRIVEWAY EASEMENT I PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT — REMOVE AND RECONSTRUCT STREET SECTION TO MATCH EXISTING STREET SECTION 49' 2 20.029 S.F. 0.46 ACRES 251' J r__ 21,162 S.F. 0.49 ACRES 3 QC < 1 253' WEILND ARCA-4299 LO.. F7 4 23.242 S.F 0.53 ACRE; WETLAND IMPACT \ 398 Sq. Ft. 236 THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS OUAUTY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF GIASCE 38-02. TITLED 'STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTIUTY DATA.' THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK. BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA). THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES, WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL URUTES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD). IF THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS ANY DRAIN TILE 'WITHIN THE SITE. HE OR SHE SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER WITH THE LOCATION, SIZE, INVERT AND 4 (TAP.) /DRAINAGE & UTIUTY EASEMENT :A?(_C,INCL_!I_ CONSERVATION\\ ASEMENT 851' 163,382 S.F. 3.75 ACRES DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY AREA GROSS SITE AREA 10T SUMMARY AVERAGE LOT SIZE MINIMUM LOT SIZE MAXIMUM LOT SIZE NUMBER OF LOTS OUTLOTS 227,814 SF 5.23 AC SETBACKS FRONT YARD —HOUSE FRONT GARAGE (FRONT FACING) FRONT GARAGE (SIDE LOADING) REAR YARD SIDE YARD GARAGE HOUSE MINIMUM LOT SIZE 7ONING EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING 56,954 SF 20,074 SF 166,390 SF 1.31 AC 0.46 AC 3.82 AC 4 0 25 FEET 32 FEET 20 FEET 85 FEET FROM OHW 5 FEET 10 FEET 20,000 SF AP LR BUILDING RFOUIRFMFNIR MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 2i Stories & 35 FEET DEVELOPMENT NOTES 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST FOOT. 2. ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT. 3. STREET NAMES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY. 4. DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED. DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS WALL BE PROVIDED OVER ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES AND UP TO THE HIGH WATER LEVEL OF ALL PONDS 5. WETLAND IMPACTS (1,941 SF) MEETS DE MINIMIS AREA. NO MITIGATION REQUIRED. BLOCK PROPERTY LINE \\\ A SUGGESTED FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION SUGGESTED GARAGE ELEVATION DRIVEWAY CENTERUNE G-01 05/06 NO SCALE LFE=904.1 R- FFE=913.5 GFE=907.5 LOT NUMBER RECOMMENDED HOUSE TYPE BUILDING SETBACK LIMIT (25') LEGEND TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY LOT DETAIL CURB & GUTTER STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER FORCEMAIN (SAN.) WATERMAIN EASEMENT GAS UNE ELECTRIC TELEPHONE PAVEMENT REMOVAL CONSERVATION EASEMENT PROPOSED EXISTING Q D-• PCXXX/V 0 RAMBLER (R) SPLIT ENTRY WALKOUT (SEWO) LOOKOUT (LO) WALKOUT (WO) RIGHT OF WAY 30 60 SCALE IN FEET L�J F F W LLJ J 0 z_ F— Z STILLWATER, MN d H to PRELIMINARY W U a SHEET NUMBER C-3.01 REV. MFRA Fie I 16396 CHARLES & SHARON THOMPSON 1125 NIGHTINGALE BLVD PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT CITY OF STILLWATER (OUTLOT) S89°26'10'W 851.23 DRIVEWAY EASEMENT 60' ROW 236 20.00 SF. 0..48 AQ ES IOU.) ERWIN & CAROL LOWELL 1165 NIGHTINGALE BLVD THE SUBSURFACE UDUTY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY DUAUTY LEVEL D. THIS DUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES CF CIIASCE 38-02, TITLED 'STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA.' THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTURES BEFORE COMMENCING WORE. BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA). THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES, WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND AU. URURES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD). IF THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS ANY DRAIN TILE WITHIN THE SITE, HE OR SHE SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER WITH THE LOCATION. SIZE, INVERT AND IF THE TIIF IINF IS ACTIVF NO AC.TIVF DRA:N TIIF SHAII RF RA0I01II FO •A11IIIA IT APPROVAl FROM THE RRV.erT FNCJNFFR S63'34'51' 673.67 6 DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE SHOWN THUS: (NOT TO SCALE) 5 --1 -10 -4 _L_--_J BEING 5 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED, AND ADJOINING LOT LINES, AND 10 FEET IN WIDTH, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. AND ADJOINING RIGHT—CF—WAY ONES, AS SHOWN ON THE PLAT. DEVELOPMENT SUMMARY AREA GROSS SITE AREA LOT SUMMARY AVERAGE LOT SIZE MINIMUM LOT SIZE MAXIMUM LOT SIZE NUMBER OF LOTS OUTLOTS 227,814 SF 5.23 AC SETBACKS FRONT YARD -HOUSE FRONT GARAGE (FRONT FACING) FRONT GARAGE (SIDE LOADING) REAR YARD SIDE YARD GARAGE HOUSE MINIMUM LOT SIZE ZONING EXISTING ZONING PROPOSED ZONING BUILDING REQUIREMENTS MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT 56,954 SF 20,074 SF 166,390 SF 1.31 AC 0.46 AC 3.82 AC 4 0 25 FEET 32 FEET 20 FEET 85 FEET FROM 0HW 5 FEET 10 FEET 20,000 SF AP LR 21 Stories & 35 FEET DEVELOPMENT NOTES 1. ALL DIMENSIONS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST FOOT. 2. ALL AREAS ARE ROUNDED TO THE NEAREST SQUARE FOOT. 3. STREET NAMES ARE SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE CITY. 4. DRAINAGE AND UTIUTY EASEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AS REQUIRED. DRAINAGE AND UTIUTY EASEMENTS WILL BE PROVIDED OVER ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES AND UP TO THE HIGH WATER LEVEL OF ALL PONDS LEGEND PROPOSED EXISTING CURB & GUTTER STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER FORCEMAIN (SAN.) 1T WATERMAIN ►4 I�' EASEMENT GAS LINE ELECTRIC —E E TELEPHONE —T 0 40 80 SCALE IN FEET PRELIMINARY PLAT PRELIMINARY a a 3 cAl m U ce a 0, SHEET NUMBER C-3.02 REV. MFRA Ole A 16396 ROC ( ENTRANCE z � z —3 rz 'v .--RIM=906.6 INV =897.3 Z IF— Z '60' 1ROW 902.1 mm II II CD CD 0 o DO 906� mm I CO CO Co O J1 CO 904 902 ,....-, L,,..AJ THE SUBSURFACE UTUTY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS QUALITY LEVEL. WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF CIIASCE 38-02. TITLED 'STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTOR OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA.' THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATOR OF ALL EXISTING UTIUTES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK, BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA). THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES, WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS OR HER �...rn,.,..,c ..,n ooccco..uw .ten eWW Wm, mc< n,unrnrnnWun .un rncourenl HCJ! 898 896 1: Fla POND NWL=892.0 HWL=897.8 MIN. LFE= 00.8 PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT • ER$ J ::AW-)L LOM7LL *CH S AAF CUL' SITE GRADING NOTES. A. PROPOSED CONTOURS ARE TO FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION. SPOT ELEVATIONS ALONG PROPOSED CURB DENOTE GUTTER GRADE B. THE CONTRACTOR IS CAUTIONED THAT THE SUBSURFACE UTIUTY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF G/ASCE 38-02 TITLED 'STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTOR AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA.. THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WERE. BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA AT 1-800-252-1166). THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREES TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UTIUTIES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD). IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBIUTY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFUCT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. C. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR MU_ BE HELD SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. D. SAFETY NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS: IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTOR PRACTICES, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE SOFT Y AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THIS REQUIREMENT WILL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE UNITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. THE DUTY OF THE ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER TO CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION RENEW OF THE CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE IS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE RENEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE CONTRACTOR'S SAFETY MEASURES IN, ON OR NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE E THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLETE THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER. ALL SOIL TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY THE OWNER'S SOILS ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOIL TESTS AND INSPECTORS WIN THE SOILS ENGINEER. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SOILS REPORT HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY: COMPANY: INTERSTATE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, INC. ADDRESS: 8167 100TH STREET SOUTH PHONE: 612-414-5770 DATED: DULY 13. 2007 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE SOILS REPORT. F. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF THE AGGREGATE BASE. A TEST ROLL WILL BE REQUIRED ON THE STREET AND PARKING AREA SUBGRADE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A LOADED TANDEM AXLE TRUCK WITH A GROSS WEIGHT OF 25 TONS. THE TEST ROLLING SHALL BE AT THE DIRECTOR OF THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHALL BE COMPLETED IN AREAS AS DIRECTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE WHICH SECTIONS OF THE STREET OR PARKING AREA ARE UNSTABLE. CORRECTION OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. G. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGMEN AND UGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS. H. THE TREES AND OTHER NATURAL VEGETATION WITHIN THE PROJECT AND/OR ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT ARE OF PRIME CONCERN TO THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS. HE WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROTECT THE TREES WHICH ARE TO BE SAVED TO BE SURE THAT EQUIPMENT IS NOT NEEDLESSLY OPERATED UNDER NEARBY TREES AND SHALL EXERCISE EXTREME CAUTION IN WORKING ADJACENT TO TREES. SHOULD ANY PORTION OF THE TREE BRANCHES REQUIRE REMOVAL TO PERMIT OPERATOR OF THE CONTRACTOR'S EQUIPMENT, HE SHALL OBTAIN THE SERVICES OF A PROFESSIONAL TREE TRIMMING SERVICE TO TRIM THE TREES PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF OPERATION. SHOULD THE CONTRACTORS OPERATORS RESULT IN THE BREAKING OF ANY LIMBS, THE BROKEN UMBS SHOULD BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY AND CUTS SHALL BE PROPERLY PROTECTED TO MINIMIZE ANY LASTING DAMAGE TO THE TREE. NO TREES SHALL BE REMOVED WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION BY THE ENGINEER. COSTS FOR TRIMMING SERVICES SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO THE GRADING CONSTRUCTOR AND NO SPECIAL PAYMENT WLL BE MADE. I. EXCAVATE TOPSOIL FROM AREAS TO BE FURTHER EXCAVATED OR REGRADED AND STOCKPILE IN AREAS DESIGNATED ON THE SITE THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SALVAGE ENOUGH TOPSOIL FOR RESPREADING ON THE SITE AS SPECIFIED. EXCESS TOPSOIL SHALL BE PLACED IN EMBANKMENT AREAS. OUTSIDE OF BUILDING PADS. ROADWAYS AND PARKING AREAS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SUBCUT CUT AREAS, WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABLISHED, TO A DEPTH OF 4 INCHES. RESPREAD TOPSOIL IN AREAS WHERE TURF IS TO BE ESTABUSHED TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 4 INCHES. J. FINISHED GRADING SHALL BE COMPLETED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL UNIFORMLY GRADE AREAS WITHIN UNITS OF GRADING, INCLUDING ADJACENT TRANSITION AREAS. PROVIDE A SMOOTH FINISHED SURFACE WITHIN SPECIFIED TOLERANCES, WITH UNIFORM LEVELS OR SLOPES BETWEEN POINTS WHERE ELEVATORS ARE SHOWN, OR BETWEEN SUCH POINTS AND EXISTING GRADES. AREAS THAT HAVE BEEN FINISHED GRADED SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM SUBSEQUENT CONSTRUCTOR OPERATIONS, TRAFFIC AND EROSION. REPAIR ALL AREAS THAT HAVE BECOME RUTTED BY TRAFFIC OR ERODED BY WATER OR HAS SETTLED BELOW THE CORRECT GRADE ALL AREAS DISTURBED BY THE CONTRACTORS OPERATIONS SHALL BE RESTORED TO EQUAL OR BIT TAN THAN ORIGINAL CONDITION OR TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW WORK. K. TOLERANCES 1. THE BUILDING SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.10 FOOT ABOVE. OR 0.10 FOOT BELOW. THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION AT ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE. 2. THE STREET OR PARKING AREA SUBGRADE FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATOR SHALL NOT VARY BY MORE THAN 0.05 FOOT ABOVE, OR 0.10 FOOT BELOW. THE PRESCRIBED ELEVATION OF ANY POINT WHERE MEASUREMENT IS MADE. 3. AREAS WHICH ARE TO RECEIVE TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO WITHIN 0.30 FOOT ABOVE OR BELOW THE REQUIRED ELEVATION, UNLESS DIRECTED OTHERWISE BY DIE ENGINEER. 4. TOPSOIL SHALL BE GRADED TO PLUS OR MINUS 1/2 INCH OF THE SPECIFIED THICKNESS. M AFTER THE SITE GRADING IS COMPLETED. IF EXCESS OR SHORTAGE OF SOIL MATERIAL EXISTS, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TRANSPORT ALL EXCESS SOIL MATERIAL OFF THE SITE TO AN AREA SELECTED BY THE CONTRACTOR. OR IMPORT SUITABLE MATERIAL TO THE SITE. N. WHEN THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTOR IS COMPLETED, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL SEED AND MULCH THOSE AREAS AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER. THE SEEDING SHALL COMPLY WITH MN/DOT SPECIFICATION NO. 3876 WITH THE USE OF MN/DOT MIXTURE NO. 50B OR 250 GR AND APPLIED AT A RATE OF 100 POUNDS PER ACRE. THE SEEDED AREA SHALL BE MULCHED. THE MULCH SHALL COMPLY WITH MN/DOT SPECIFICATION 3882. TYPE 1. THE MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED AND ANCHORED IN ACCORDANCE WITH MN/DOT SPECIFICATION NO. 2575.3, Fl. MULCH SHALL BE APPLIED AT THE RATE OF 2 TONS PER ACRE THE MULCH SHALL BE ANCHORED WITH A DISC, CLODBUSTER OR OTHER APPROVED EQUIPMENT. AN EROSION CONTROL BLANKET SHALL BE FURNISHED AND PLACED IN AREAS WHERE THE SLOPE EXCEEDS 3:1. O. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DETERMINE THE LOCATION OF ANY HAUL ROADS THAT MAY BE REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE SITE GRADING CONSTRUCTION AND SHALL INDICATE HAUL ROADS ON EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL 'SITE MAP'. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL_ COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE GOVERNING AUTHORITY OF EACH ROADWAY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL POST WHATEVER SECURITY, AND COMPLY WITH ALL CONDITIONS WHICH ARE REQUIRED BY EACH GOVERNING AUTHORITY OF EACH ROADWAY. LEGEND SPOT ELEVATION CONTOUR RIP RAP CURB & GUTTER STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER FORCEMAIN (SAN.) WATERMAIN EASEMENT OVERFLOW ELEV. RETAINING WALL SOIL BORING LOCATION SILT FENCE — mem PROPOSED X 962.5 —902 EXISTING x 962.5 XXX.X PA-10-* 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET GRADING PLAN PRELIMINARY .N o � 0 an ID U 38 Q Ln LO 0 01 0 SHEET NUMBER C-4.01 REV. MFRA Fie / 16396 =0 19 co RIM=906.6 INV =897 3 nHc TEMPORARY STONE CONSTRtSCT10N ENTIfs10E 81 / 5 / SOIL EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL OPERATION TIME SCHEDULE NOTE: CONTRACTOR OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO COMPLETE TABLE WITH THEIR SPECIFIC PROJECT SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN TEMPORARY CONTROL MEASURES STRIP & STOCKPILE TOPSOIL ROUGH GRADE / SEDIMENT CONTROL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ROADS FOUNDATION / BUILDING CONSTRUCTION SITE CONSTRUCTION PERMANENT CONTROL STRUCTURES FINISH GRADING LANDSCAPING/SEED/FINAL STABILIZATION STORM FACILITIES * REFER TO SHEET C.5.03 FOR GENERAL NOTES, MAINTENANCE NOTES, LOCATION MAPS, AND STANDARD DETAILS DEVELOPER: ADVENT BUILDERS 1379 TIMBERWOLF TRAIL LINO LAKES, MN 55038 612-889-8390 SITE OPERATOR/CONTRACTOR/GENERAL CONTRACTOR SUPERINTENDENT: LEGEND SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION PHASE I: 1. INSTALL STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES. 2. PREPARE TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE AREA. 3. CONSTRUCT THE SILT FENCES ON THE SITE. 4. CONSTRUCT THE SEDIMENTATION AND SEDIMENT TRAP BASINS. 5. HALT ALL ACTIVITIES AND CONTACT THE CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT TO PERFORM INSPECTION OF BMPs. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE AND CONDUCT STORM WATER PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH ENGINEER AND ALL GROUND DISTURBING CONTRACTORS BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION. 6. CLEAR AND GRUB THE SITE. 7 BEGIN GRADING THE SITE 8. START CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING PAD AND STRUCTURES. PHASE II: I. TEMPORARILY SEED DENUDED AREAS. 2. INSTALL UTILITIES. UNDERDRAINS. STORM SEWERS. CURBS AND GUTTERS. 3 INSTALL RIP RAP AROUND OUTLET STRUCTURES. a. INSTALL INLET PROTECTION AROUND ALL STORM SEWER STRUCTURES. 5. PREPARE 517E FOR PAVING. 6. PAVE SITE. 7. INSTALL INLET PROTECTION DEVICES. 8. COMPLETE GRADING AND INSTALL PERMANENT SEEDING AND PLANTING. 9 REMOVE ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES (ONLY IF SITE 15 STABILIZED), IF REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT SPOT ELEVATION CONTOUR RIP RAP CURB & GUTTER STORM SEWER SANITARY SEWER FORCEMAIN (SAN.) WATERMAIN EASEMENT OVERFLOW ELEV. RETAINING WALL PROPERTY LIMIT SILT FENCE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE SOIL BORINGS PROPOSED X 962.5 —902— �� XF XOX.X DIRECTION OF OVERLAND FLOW TEMPORARY DIVERSION DITCH CHECK DAM OMITS OF DRAINAGE SUB -BASIN GRAVEL & WIRE MESH • IP1 INLET SEDIMENT FILTER INLET PROTECTION DEVICE TEMPORARY STONE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN • IP2 TEMPORARY STORAGE AND PARKING AREA TEMPORARY STABILIZATION MEASURES (SEED, MULCH, MATS OR BLANKETS AS OUTLINED IN THE SWPPP) EXISTING ,962.5 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET PHASE I EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN PRELIMINARY 19 3 03 3 U 19 z �i SHEET NUMBER C-5.01 REV. INFRA 16396 RIM=906.6 INV.=897.3 L: k EXITING Wg ONE r.A\.:ILLr; .... \ �- APZ.I.,#0, \.444::141 ?a 7:04:0 1:tf, ::,4: ;74- ' an 1:1111rir a'- i 4% OS .AV, 4100.0 pp , w^,� dy,N,�p 0 Ir."4,14V 01+ - ���'S►ppQpp�p�pppp�p4COP* Cpppt 4.4,►t,p10 9p pir** ,ppp0,..„...4► TP.14s�� . T C ,_ L T'L I F ,, 1 I 1 POND NWL=89 HWL=897.8 IN. LFE= 00. /I /I I 3 SOIL EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL OPERATION TIME SCHEDULE NOTE: CONTRACTOR OR GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO COMPLETE TABLE WITH THEIR SPECIFIC PROJECT SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN TEMPORARY CONTROL MEASURES STRIP & STOCKPILE TOPSOIL ROUGH GRADE / SEDIMENT CONTROL TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ROADS FOUNDATION / BUILDING CONSTRUCTION SITE CONSTRUCTION PERMANENT CONTROL STRUCTURES FINISH GRADING LANDSCAPING/SEED/FINAL STABILIZATION STORM FACILITIES * REFER TO SHEET C.5.03 FOR GENERAL NOTES, MAINTENANCE NOTES, LOCATION MAPS, AND STANDARD DETAILS DEVELOPER: ADVENT BUILDERS 1379 TiMBERWOLF TRAIL LINO LAKES, MN 55038 612-889-8390 SITE OPERATOR/CONTRACTOR/GENERAL CONTRACTOR SUPERINTENDENT: SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION PHASE I: 1 INSTALL STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES. 2. PREPARE TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE AREA. 3- CONSTRUCT THE SILT FENCES ON THE SITE. 4. CONSTRUCT THE SEDIMENTATION AND SEDIMENT TRAP BASINS. 5. HALT ALL ACTIVITIES AND CONTACT THE CAL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT TO PERFORM INSPECTION OF BMPs. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE AND CONDUCT STORM WATER PRE —CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH ENGINEER AND ALL GROUND DISTURBING CONTRACTORS BEFORE PROCEEDING IWTH CONSTRUCTION. 6. CLEAR AND GRUB THE SITE. 7. BEGIN GRADING THE SITE 8. START CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING PAD AND STRUCTURES PHASE II: TEMPORARILY SEED DENUDED AREAS. 2. INSTALL UTILITIES, UNDERDRAINS. STORM SEWERS, CURBS AND GUTTERS. 3. INSTALL RIP RAP AROUND OUTLET STRUCTURES. 4. INSTALL INLET PROTECTION AROUND ALL STORM SEWER STRUCTURES. 5. PREPARE SITE FOR PAVING. 6. PAVE SITE. 7. INSTALL INLET PROTECTION DEVICES. 8. COMPLETE GRADING AND INSTALL PERMANENT SEEDING AND PLANTING. 9. REMOVE ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES (ONLY IF SITE IS STABILIZED), IF REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT LEGEND PROPOSED EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION X 962.5 ,y9625 CONTOUR —902 RIP RAP CURB & GUTTER STORM SEWER �---->�� SANITARY SEWER FORCEMAIN (SAN.) WATERMAIN EASEMENT OVERFLOW ELEV. RETAINING WALL PROPERTY UNIT SILT FENCE �- — LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE SOIL BORINGS XXX.X DIRECTION OF OVERLAND FLOW TEMPORARY DIVERSION DITCH CHECK DAM LIMITS OF DRAINAGE SUB -BASIN GRAVEL & WIRE MESH INLET SEDIMENT FILTER INLET PROTECTION DEVICE TEMPORARY STONE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE TEMPORARY SEDIMENT BASIN • (PI • IP2 TEMPORARY STORAGE AND PARKING AREA TEMPORARY STABILIZATION MEASURES (SEED, MULCH, MATS OR BLANKETS AS OUTLINED IN THE SWPPP) 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET PHASE II EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN 03 CD r a C a E z SHEET NUMBER C-5.02 REV. MFRA IN / 16396 EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES & DETAILS / "SITE MAP" SITE LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCALE TRASH WARDS MU. BE REQUIRED ON 12' OR LARGER PIPES. IN PLACE OF TRASH GUARDS, ENERGY OSOPATORS (MN/DOT STANDARD PLATE NO. 5201 B) MAY BE USED. GEOFABRIC REQUIRED UNDER RIPRAP (MIRAJT 500 OR EQUAL). HAND -PLACED RIPRAP, I FOOT DEEP RIPRAP REQUIRED SIZE OF PIPE CO. YD. 54' & Over 20-24 36' to 4A' 10-13 27' to 33' 6-8 24' & Leas 4-6 NOTE: ONE CU. TO. IS APPROXIMATELY 1.4 TONS. NOTE: TIE LAST 3 JOINTS ON INLET AND OUTLET. IF NO APRON IS USED, TIE LAST ] SECTORS OF PIPE USE 2 TIE BOLT FASTENERS PER JOINT INSTALLED AT 60- FROM TOP OR BOTTOM OF PIPE USE 5/8' TIES FOR PIPE SIZES 12' TO 27'. USE 3/4' TIES FOR PIPE SIZES 30' TO 66'. USE 1' TIES FOR PIPE SIZES OVER 72'. NUTS MID WASHERS ARE NOT REQUIRED ON PIPE SIZES LESS THAN 21'. INDIVIDUAL STONES, EXCEPT THOSE USED FOR CHINKING, SHALL NOT WEIGHT LESS THAN 50 LBS. EACH. PLACE RIPRAP AROUND SIDES MID OVER TOP OF FLARED END SECTIONS. 2.7E OF PIPE 12' TO 16' 21' TO 42' 48' TO 72- eves I-Yx' PROVIDE 3 CUPS TO FASTEN TRASH WARD TO F.E.S. HOT DIP GALVANIZE AFTER FABRICATOR. FLARED END SECTION BG.TE. S_ iN' 4' 31' 6' 12' 1 '0' T GRAVEL USGS MAP NOT TO SCALE 2' 2' WOO) POSTS 4.0' O.C. CONSTRUCT 2' HIGH BERM WITH AXMUM SIDE SLOPE OF 4:1 NOTE: THE ROCK ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO THE START OF ANY SITE WORK THE ROCK ENTRANCES SHALL BE INSPECTED FOLLOMNG EACH RAINFALL MAINTENANCE OF THE ROCK ENTRANCES SHALL INCLUDE A TOP DRESSING OF NEW GRAVEL OR REMOVAL MID REPLACEMENT OF THE GRAVEL AS NEEDED, TO KEEP THE ENTRANCE FREE FROM COLLECTED MUD. DIRECTION OF DRAINAGE FILTER FABRIC (MIRAR-ENNRO FENCE OR APPROVED EQUAL) MN. 30' - MAX 36' ABOVE GRADE ACKFILL 6' x 6' TRENCH TUBBED SOIL SILT FENCE DETAIL GENERAL EROSION NOTES: 1. CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL APPUCABLE GOVERNING CODES AND BE CONSTRUCTED TO SAME. WHERE A CONFLICT EXISTS BETWEEN LOCAL JURISDICTIONAL STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND MFRA STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, THE MORE STRINGENT SPECIFICATION SHALL APPLY. 2. THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATIONS AND/OR ELEVATIONS OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTILITY COMPANIES AND, WHERE POSSIBLE. MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY OUAUTY LEVEL X. THIS OUAUTY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF Cl/ASCE 38-02, ENTITLED 'STANDARD WIDWNES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA.' THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CONTACT ALL THE APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES AT LEAST 48 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTILITIES. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBIUTY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFUCT WITH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. THE LOCATIONS OF SMALL UTILITIES SHALL BE OBTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR BY CALLING MINNESOTA GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 800-252-1166 OR 651-454-0002 3 THE DESIGN SHOWN IS BASED UPON THE ENGINEERS UNDERSTANDING OF THE EXISITNG CONDITIONS. THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN ARE BASED UPON AN ALTA OR TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PREPARED BY MFRA. IF CONTRACTOR DOES NOT ACCEPT EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS WITHOUT EXCEPTION, THEY SHALL HAVE MADE, AT THEIR EXPENSE. A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY BY A REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR AND SUBMIT IT TO THE OWNER FOR REVIEW. SEE ATTACHED SURVEY SHEETS, 4. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES OCCURRING TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. 5, THE STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN (SWPPP) IS COMPRISED OF THIS DRAWING (EROSION & SEDIMENTATION CONTROL PLAN-ESC PLAN), THE STANDARD DETAILS. THE PLAN NARRATIVE, ATTACHMENTS INCLUDED IN THE SITEWORK SPECIFICATIONS SECTION 02370 (SWPPP), PLUS THE PERMIT AND ALL SUBSEQUENT REPORTS AND RELATED DOCUMENTS. 6. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETING & SUBMITTING THE APPUCATION FOR THE MPCA GENERAL STORMWATER PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS INVOLVED VATH STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THE SWPPP AND THE STATE GE MINNESOTA NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE EUMINATION SYSTEM GENERAL PERMIT (NPDES PERMIT) AND BECOME FAMILIAR WITH THEIR CONTENTS. 11E SW, AM) ALL OTHER RELATED DOGIIENTS MUST BE ICEPT AT THE SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION. 7. CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) AS REQUIRED BY THE SWPPP & PERMITS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OVERSEE THE INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE OF THE BMP'S AND EROSION PREVENTION FROM BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION AND UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED, IS APPROVED BY ALL AUTHORITIES, THE NOTICE OF TERMINATION (NOT) HAS BEEN FILED TWTH THE MPCA BY EITHER THE OWNER OR OPERATOR AS APPROVED ON PERMIT. ADDITIONAL BMPS SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED AS DICTATED BY CONDITIONS AT NO ADDITIONAL COST TO OWNER THROUGHOUT ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION. 8. BMP'S AND CONTROLS SHALL CONFORM TO FEDERAL, STATE. OR LOCAL REQUIREMENTS OR MANUAL OF PRACTICE. AS APPLICABLE. CONTRACTOR SHALL IMPLEMENT ADDITIONAL CONTROLS AS DIRECTED BY PERMITTING AGENCY OR OWNER. 9. ESC PLAN MUST CLEARLY DEUNEATE ALL STATE WATERS. PERMITS FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IMPACTING STATE WATERS OR REGULATED WETLANDS MUST BE MAINTAINED ON SITE AT ALL TIMES. 10. CONTRACTOR SHALL MINIMIZE CLEARING TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PRACTICAL OR AS REQUIRED BY THE GENERAL PERMIT. THE BOUNDARIES OF TIE CLEARING LIMITS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN SHALL BE CLEARLY DELINEATED (E.G. WADI FLAGS. STAKES, SIGNS. SILT FENCE. ETC.) ON TIE DEVELOPMENT SITE. BEFORE WORK BEGINS. IT GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL DENOTE ON PLAN THE TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE AREA WHICH SHALL ALSO BE USED AS THE EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE AND CLEANING AREA. EMPLOYEE PARKING AREA, AND AREA FOR LOCATING PORTABLE FACIUTES. OFFICE TRAILERS. AND TOILET FACIUDES. 12. ALL WASH WATER (CONCRETE TRUCKS. VEHICLE CLEANING, EQUIPMENT CLEANING, ETC.) MUST BE LIMITED TO A DEFINED AREA OF THE SITE AND SHALL BE CONTAINED AND PROPERLY TREATED OR DISPOSED NO ENGINE DEGREASING IS ALLOWED ON SITE. 13. SUFFICIENT OIL AND CREASE ABSORBING MATERIALS AND FLOTATION BOOMS SHALL BE MAINTAINED ON SITE OR READLY AVAILABLE TO CONTAIN AND CLEAN-UP FUEL OR CHEMICAL SPILLS AND LEAKS. 14. DUST ON THE SITE SHALL BE CONTROLLED. THE USE OF MOTOR OILS AND OTHER PETROLEUM BASED OR TOXIC UOUIDS FOR DUST SUPPRESSION OPERATIONS IS PROHIBITED. 15, SOLID WASTE: COLLECTED SEDIMENT. ASPHALT & CONCRETE MIWNGS. FLOATING DEBRIS. PAPER, PLASTIC. FABRIC. CONSTRUCTION & DEMOLITION DEBRIS & OTHER WASTES MUST BE DISPOSED OF PROPERLY & MUSTCOMPLY MTH MPCA DISPOSAL REQUIREMENTS. I6, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. OIL GASOLINE. PAINT & ANY HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES MUST BE PROPERLY STORED. INCLUDING SECONDARY CONTAINMENT. TO PREVENT SPILLS. LEAKS OR OTHER DISCHARGE. RESTRICTED ACCESS TO STORAGE AREAS MUST BE PROVIDED TO PREVENT VANDAUSM. STORAGE & DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS WASTE MUST BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH MPCA REGULATIONS. 17. ALL STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES PRESENTED ON THIS PLAN, AND IN THE SWPPP, SHALL BE INITIATED AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE AND PRIOR TO ANY SITEWORK 18. DISTURBED PORTIONS OF THE SITE WHERE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY HAS STOPPED SHALL BE TEMPORARILY SEEDED. SEEDING SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH MN/DOT SPEC. 2575 0 100LBS/ACRE (OR APPROVED EQUAL) AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING GUIDELINES: TYPE OF SI RF TIM STEEPER THAN 3.1 7 DAYS 10:1 TO 3:1 14 DAYS (MAX THE AN AREA CAN REMAIN OPEN WHEN THE AREA IS NOT ACTIVELY BEING WORKED) FLATTER THAN 10:1 21 DAYS 19. DISTURBED PORTIONS OF THE SITE WHERE CONSTRUCTION ACTVITY HAS PERMANENTLY STOPPED SHALL BE PERMANENTLY SEEDED. THESE AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TIME TABLE DESCRIBED ABOVE. REFER TO THE GRADING PLAN AND/OR LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR VEGETATIVE COVER. 20. CONTRACTORS OR SUBCONTRACTORS MILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR REMOVING SEDIMENT FROM CONVEYANCES & FROM TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION BASINS THAT ARE TO BE USED AS PERMANENT WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT BASINS. SEDIMENT MUST BE STABILIZED TO PREVENT IT FROM BEING WASHED BACK INTO THE BASIN, CONVEYANCES, OR DRAINAGEWAYS DISCHARGING OFF -SITE OR TO SURFACE WATERS. THE CLEANOUT OF PERMANENT BASINS MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO RETURN THE BASIN TO DESIGN CAPACITY. 21. ON -SITE & OFF -SITE SOIL STOCKPILE AND BORROW AREAS SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION THROUGH IMPLEMENTATION OF BMP'S. STOCKPILE AND BORROW AREA LOCATIONS SHALL BE NOTED ON THE SITE MAP AND PERMITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS. 22. TEMPORARY SOIL STOCKPILES MUST HAVE SILT FENCE OR OTHER EFFECTIVE SEDIMENT CONTROLS & CANNOT BE PLACED IN SURFACE WATERS. INCLUDING STORMWATER CONVEYANCES SUCH AS CURB & GUTTER SYSTEMS OR CONDUITS & DITCHES. 23. SLOPES SHALL BE LEFT IN A ROUGHENED CONDITION DURING THE GRADING PHASE TO REDUCE RUNOFF VELOCITIES AND EROSION. 24. DUE TO THE GRADE CHANGES DURING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ADJUSTING THE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES (SILT FENCES. CHECK DAMS. INLET PROTECTION DEVICES. ETC.) TO PREVENT EROSION. 25. ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE STABILIZED AT THE END OF EACH WORKING DAY, THIS INCLUDES BACKFIWNG OF TRENCHES FOR GOOFS CONSTRUCTION AND PLACEMENT OF GRAVEL OR BITUMINOUS PAVING FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION. MAINTENANCE: ALL MEASURES STATED ON THIS EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN, AND IN THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN FULLY FUNCTIONAL CONDITION UNTIL NO LONGER REQUIRED FOR A COMPLETED PHASE OF WORK OR FINAL STABILIZATION OF THE SITE. THE DESIGNATED CONTACT PERSON NOTED ON THIS PLAN MUST ROUTINELY INSPECT THE CONSTRUCTION ON SITE ONCE EVERY SEVEN DAYS DURING ACTIVE CONTRUCTION AND WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER A RAINFALL EVENT GREATER THAN 0.5 INCHES IN 24 HOURS. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE CLEANED AND REPAIRED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING 1. ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS MADE OPERABLE DURING CONSTRUCTION MUST BE PROTECTED BY APPROPRIATE BLIPS UNTIL ALL SOURCES WITH POTENTIAL FOR DISCHARGING TO THE INLET HAVE BEEN STABIUZED. 2. ALL SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE CHECKED REGULARLY TO SEE THAT A GOOD STAND IS MAINTAINED. AREAS SHOULD BE FERTILIZED. WATERED. AND RESEEDED AS NEEDED. 3. SILT FENCES SHALL BE REPAIRED, REPLACED OR SUPPLEMENTED TO THEIR ORIGINAL CONDITIONS IF DAMAGED. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM THE SILT FENCES WHEN IT REACHES ONE-THIRD THE HEIGHT OF THE SILT FENCE. THESE REPAIRS MUST BE MADE WITHIN 24 HOURS OF DISCOVERY, OR AS SOON AS FIELD CONDITIONS ALLOW ACCESS. 4. VEHICLE TRACKING OF SEDIMENT FROM THE CONSTRUCTION SITE MUST BE MINIMIZED BY BMP'S SUCH AS STONE PADS, CONCRETE OR STEEL WASH RACKS, OR EQUIVALENT SYSTEMS. STREET SWEEPING MUST BE USED IF SUCH BMP'S ARE NOT ADEQUATE TO PREVENT SEDIMENT FROM BEING TRACKED ONTO THE STREET. TRACKED SEDIMENT MUST BE REMOVED FROM ALL OFF -SITE PAVED SURFACES WITHIN 24 HOURS OF DISCOVERY OR SOONER. 5. THE TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE AREA SHALL BE KEPT IN GOOD CONDITION (SUITABLE FOR PARKING AND STORAGE). THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING OF THE TEMPORARY PARKING AS CONDITIONS DEMAND. 6. OUTLET STRUCTURES IN THE TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SEDIMENTATION BASINS SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN OPERATIONAL CONDITIONS AT ALL TIMES. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM SEDIMENT BASINS OR TRAPS WHEN THE DESIGN CAPACITY REACHES ONE-HALF THE STORAGE VOLUME. DRAINAGE & REMOVAL MUST BE COMPLETED WITHIN 72 HOURS OF DISCOVERY OR AS SOON AS FIELD CONDITIONS ALLOW ACCESS. SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION PHASE I: 1. INSTALL STABIUZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES. 2. PREPARE TEMPORARY PARKING AND STORAGE AREA. 3. CONSTRUCT THE SILT FENCES ON THE SITE. 4. CONSTRUCT THE SEDIMENTATION AND SEDIMENT TRAP BASINS. 5. HALT ALL ACTIVITIES AND CONTACT THE CIVIL ENGINEERING CONSULTANT TO PERFORM INSPECTION OF BMPs. GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL SCHEDULE AND CONDUCT STORM WATER PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH ENGINEER AND ALL GROUND DISTURBING CONTRACTORS BEFORE PROCEEDING WTTH CONSTRUCTOR. 6. CLEAR AND GRUB THE SITE. 7. BEGIN GRADING THE SITE. 8. START CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING PAD AND STRUCTURES. PHASE II: I. TEMPORARILY SEED DENUDED AREAS. 2 INSTALL UTILITIES, UNDERDRAINS. STORM .SEWERS. CURBS AND GUTTERS. 3. INSTALL RIP RAP AROUND OUTLET STRUCTURES. 4. INSTALL INLET PROTECTION AROUND ALL STORM SEWER STRUCTURES. 5. PREPARE SITE FOR PAVING. 6. PAVE SITE. 7. INSTALL INLET PROTECTION DEVICES. 8. COMPLETE GRADING AND INSTALL PERMANENT SEEDING AND PLANTING. 9. REMOVE ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL DEVICES (ONLY IF SITE IS STABILIZED). IF REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT DEVELOPER: ADVENT BUILDERS 1379 11MBERWOLF TRAIL LINO LAKES, MN 55038 612-889-8390 SITE OPERATOR/CONTRACTOR/GENERAL CONTRACTOR SUPERINTENDENT: (/) L LJ F- ( L.<J cn I-U Cl J_ F'- Z ICl EROSION Sc SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES & DETAILS Engineering • Planning • Surveying PRELIMINARY 0 m 0 V SHEET NUMBER C-5.03 REV. ROCK ENTRANCE DRIVE RIM INV 6" WATERMAIN ITARY SEWER CORE INTO EXISTING MANHOLE RIM=906.6 INV .=897.3 r= ON E t' A M J L STMH RIM=909.0 INV=892.4 J 589°26'10"W 851.23 MH 2 904.60 898.58 MH 1 4-1811,1-=906:63- INV=897.59 -J J Z 1- 0 60' it la z CO INV=898.6 PROPOSED m AND UTILLEY m -rn m co co I'I cc) O CO J O CO DRAINAGE :ASEMENT-\I 2 INV=898.9 OW 1A ;1 4 OTE: ALL PROPOSED LOTS ARE TO BE SERVED WITH El SANITARY GRINDER PUMPS. INSTALLATION OF THE GRINDER PUMPS IS TO BE COMPLETED BY THE HOMEBUILDER WITH THE CONNECTION MADE AT THE END OF THE 4" PVC SERVICE. NOTES: 1. IF THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS ANY DRAIN TILE WITHIN THE SITE, HE 0R SHE SHALL NOTIFY THE ENGINEER 1W1H THE LOCATION, SIZE, INVERT AND IF THE TILE UNE IS ACTIVE. NO ACTIVE DRAIN 11LE SHALL BE BACKFILLED WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE PROJECT ENGINEER. 2. AU. WATERMAIN SHALL BE DUCTILE IRON CLASS 52, WITH 7.5 FOOT MINIMUM COVER UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATE). 3. ALL SANITARY SEWER PIPE SHALL BE PVC ASTM 3034 SDR 35 UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. 4. ALL SANITARY SERVICE PIPE SHALL BE 4' PVC SDR-26, UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED. 5. ALL WATERMAIN SERVICES SHALL BE 1' TYPE K COPPER. 6. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL BENDS AS NECESSARY. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT DEFLECT THE PIPE MORE THAN RECOMMENDED BY THE MANUFACTURER. 7. ALL WATERMAII: SERVICES WILL BE STATIONED BY CENIERUNE STATIONING. B. ALL SANITARY SERVICES AND RISERS WILL BE STATIONED BY DOWNSTREAM SANITARY MANHOLE STATIONING. 3 fo 3 /j {if FLA.ND l AREA=4299 SO.. 4 s 0 OU RI INV INV POND NWL=892.0 HWL=897.8 MIN. LFE=900.8 N DRIVEWAY EASEMENT FIT 1 i \o".5i�DRAINAGE & UTILITY EASEMENT 68 LF-21' HDPE 0 3.51% CONSERVATION`, 'EASEMENT 1 LEGEND PROPOSED EXISTING CURB & GUTTER STORM SEWER 19- --->> : SANITARY SEWER • WATERMAIN EASEMENT FORCEMAIN (SAN.).-"rw 40 GAS UNE ELECTRIC TELEPHONE -T 0 FLARED END SECTION W/ RIPRAP INV.=890.0 30 34'51"W 873.67 60 UTIUTY CONSTRUCTION NOTES A. THE UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS FOR THIS PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE VAIN THE "STANDARD UTIUTIES SPECIFICATIONS" AS PUBUSHED BY THE CITY ENGINEERS ASSOCIATION OF MINNESOTA (CEAM), EXCEPT AS MODIFIED HEREIN. CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THESE SPECIFICATIONS. 1. ALL UTILITIES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE TO CITY REQUIREMENTS. 2. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT OPEN, TURN OFF, INTERFERE WITH, OR ATTACH ANY PIPE OR HOSE TO OR TAP WATERMAIN BELONGING TO THE CITY UNLESS DULY AUTHORIZED TO DO SO BY THE CITY. ANY ADVERSE CONSEQUENCES OF ANY SCHEDULED OR UNSCHEDULED DISRUPTIONS OF SERVICE TO THE PUBUC ARE THE LIABILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR 3. A MINIMUM VERTICAL SEPARATION OF 18 INCHES IS REQUIRED AT ALL WATERMAIN AND SEWER MAIN (BUILDING, STORM AND SANITARY) CROSSINGS. B. ALL MATERIALS SHALL BE AS SPECIFIED IN CEAM SPECIFICATIONS EXCEPT AS MODIFIED HEREIN. 1. ALL MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY. 2. ALL SANITARY SEWER TO BE PVC SDR-35, UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. 3. ALL WATERMAIN TO BE DUCTILE IRON - CLASS 52, WITH 7.5 FEET MINIMUM COVER. 4. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE TO BE REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE WITH R-4 JOINTS, AND RUBBER GASKETS 5. RIP RAP SHALL BE Mn/DOT CLASS 3. C. THE CONTRACTOR IS SPECIFICALLY CAUTIONED THAT THE LOCATION AND/OR ELEVATION OF EXISTING UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS BASED ON RECORDS OF THE VARIOUS UTIUTY COMPANIES AND, WHERE POSSIBLE, MEASUREMENTS TAKEN IN THE FIELD. THE INFORMATION IS NOT TO BE RELIED ON AS BEING EXACT OR COMPLETE. THE CONTRACTOR MUST CALL THE APPROPRIATE UTIUTY COMPANY AT LEAST 48 HOURS BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION TO REQUEST EXACT FIELD LOCATION OF UTIUTIES. IT SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RELOCATE ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHICH CONFLICT NWMH THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS. THE LOCATIONS OF SMALL UTILITIES SHALL BE OBTAINED BY THE CONTRACTOR, BY CAWNG GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 454-0002. D. E. F. G. H. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAUTIONS NECESSARY TO AVOID PROPERTY DAMAGE TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE HELD SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY DAMAGES TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES OCCURRING DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THIS PROJECT. SAFETY NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS: IN ACCORDANCE WITH GENERALLY ACCEPTED CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONDITIONS ON THE JOB SITE, INCLUDING SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY DURING PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK. THIS REOIIREMENT WILL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE UMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS. THE DUTY OF THE ENGINEER OR THE DEVELOPER TO CONDUCT CONSTRUCTION REVIEW OF THE CONTRACTOR'S PERFORMANCE IS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE REVIEW OF THE ADEQUACY OF THE CONTRACTOR'S SAFETY MEASURES IN, ON OR NEAR THE CONSTRUCTION SITE. ALL AREAS OUTSIDE THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES THAT ARE DISTURBED BY UTIUTY CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE RESTORED IN KIND. SODDED AREAS SHALL BE RESTORED WITH 6 INCHES OF TOPSOIL PLACED BENEATH THE SOD. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING AND MAINTAINING TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SUCH AS BARRICADES, WARNING SIGNS, DIRECTIONAL SIGNS, FLAGMEN AND UGHTS TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF TRAFFIC WHERE NECESSARY. TRAFFIC CONTROL DEVICES SHALL CONFORM TO APPROPRIATE MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARDS. ALL SOILS TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETED BY AN INDEPENDENT SOILS ENGINEER. EXCAVATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF REMOVING UNSTABLE OR UNSUITABLE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED AS REQUIRED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE UTILITY BACKFlLL CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING ALL REQUIRED SOILS TESTS AND SOIL INSPECTIONS WITH THE SOILS ENGINEER. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT HAS BEEN COMPLETED BY: COMPANY: INTERSTATE GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING, INC ADDRESS: 8167 100TH STREET SOUTH PHONE: 612-414-5770 DATED: JULY 13, 2007 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL OBTAIN A COPY OF THIS SOILS REPORT. I. PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF AGGREGATE BASE, A TEST ROLL WILL BE REQUIRED ON THE STREET AND PARKING AREA SUBGRADE. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A LOADED TANDEM AXLE TRUCK WITH A GROSS WEIGHT OF 25 TONS. THE TEST ROWNG SHALL BE AT THE DIRECTION OF THE SOILS ENGINEER AND SHALL BE COMPLETED IN AREAS AS DIRECTED BY THE SOILS ENGINEER. THE SOILS ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE WHICH SECTIONS OF THE STREET OR PARKING AREA ARE UNSTABLE. CORRECTION OF THE SUBGRADE SOILS SHALL BE COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE VATH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SOILS ENGINEER. J. THE TREES AND OTHER NATURAL VEGETATION WITHIN THE PROJECT AND/OR ADJACENT TO THE PROJECT ARE OF PRIME CONCERN TO THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS. HE WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROTECT THE TREES WHICH ARE TO BE SAVED TO BE SURE THAT EQUIPMENT IS NOT NEEDLESSLY OPERATED UNDER NEARBY TREES AND SHALL EXERCISE EXTREME CAUTION IN WORKING ADJACENT TO TREES. SHOULD ANY PORTION OF THE TREE BRANCHES REQUIRE REMOVAL TO PERMIT OPERATION OF THE CONTRACTOR'S EOUIPMENT, HE SHALL OBTAIN THE SERVICES OF A PROFESSIONAL TREE TRIMMING SERVICE TO TRIM THE TREES PRIOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE OPERATION. SHOULD THE CONTRACTORS' OPERATIONS RESULT IN THE BREAKING OF ANY LIMBS, THE BROKEN LIMBS SHOULD BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY AND CUTS SHALL BE PROPERLY PROTECTED TO MINIMIZE ANY AUTHORIZATION BY THE ENGINEER. COSTS FOR TRIMMING SERVICES SHALL BE CONSIDERED INCIDENTAL TO THE GRADING CONSTRUCTION AND NO SPECIAL PAYMENT WILL BE MADE. UTILITY PLAN 38 PRELIMINARY 38 SHEET NUMBER C-6.01 REV. THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTILITY QUALITY LEVEL D. THIS OUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF CIIASCE 38-02, TITLED 'STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA.' THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL. DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK, BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA). THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES. WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND AU. UTILITIES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD). SCALE IN FEET META File # 16396 I. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TO PLANTING 2. TRIM OUT DEAD WOOD AND WEAK AND/OR DEFORMED TWIGS. M NOT CUT A LEADER. D0 NOT PANT CUTS. SEE SPECS REGARDING PRUNING OF ALL OAKS. 3. SET PLANT ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL OR THOROUGHLY COMPACTED BACKFILL SOIL INSTALL PUNT SO THE ROOT FLARE IS AT OR UP TO 2' ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE. 4. PLACE PLANT N PLANTING HOLE WITH BURLAP AND WIRE BASKET, OF USED), INTACT. BACKFILL WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 12' OF THE TOP OF ROOTBALL. WATER PLANT. REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF THE BASKET OR THE TOP TWO HORIZONTAL RINGS. WHICHEVER IS GREATER. REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND NAILS FROM TOP 1/3 OF THE BALL REMOVE ALL TWINE 5. PLUMB AND BACKFILL W11H BACKFILL SOIL. 6. WATER TO SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL VOIDS. 7. WATER WITHIN TWO HOURS OF INSTALLATION. WATERING MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO THOROUGHLY SATURATE ROOT BALL AND PLANTING HOLE B. PLACE MULCH WITHIN 48 HOURS OF THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE. NOTE GUY ASSEMBLY OPTIONAL BUT CONTRACTOR ASSUMES FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR MNNTNNING TREE N A PLUMB POSITION FOR THE DURATION OF THE GUARAMFE PERIOD GUY ASSEMBLY- Ir POLYPROPYLENE OR POLYETHYLENE (40 MIL) 1-1/2' WIDE STRAP (TIP) DOUBLE STRAND 10 GA. WIRE. 2-7" ROLLED STEELL POSTS (Mn00T 3401) O 180 O.C. (SEE STAKING DIAGRAM) COORDINATE STAKING TO INSURE UNIFORM ORIENTATION OF GUY UNES AND STAKES STAKING DIAGRAM TREE WRAP FROM BELOW MULCH UNE TO ROST BRANCH OPTION PERFORATED SOT PVC COLLAR 4'-6' SHREDDED DARK MULCH '4-1•IXISTNG GRADE PLANTING SOIL MIXTURE (SEE SPEC.) MINIMUM 1/2 WIDTH OF ROOT BALL UNDISTURBED OR SABILIZED SUBSOILS 898 �-8y6 0' 890 888 POND NWL=892 0 HWL=897.8 KIN. LFE=900. 1. SCARIFY BOTTOM AND SIDES OF HOLE PRIOR TO PLANING 2. TRIM OUT DEAD WOOD AND WEAK AND/OR DEFORMED TWIGS, DUO' CUT A LEADER. pQ HOT PLANT CUTS. 3. SET PLANE ON UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL OR THOROUGHLY COMPACTED BACKFILL SOIL INSTALL PLANT SO THE ROOT FLARE S AT OR UP TO 2' ABOVE THE FINISHED GRADE. 4. PLACE PLANT IN PLANTING HOLE WITH BURLAP AND WIRE BASKET, (IF USED). INTACT. BACKFILL WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 12' OF THE TOP OF ROOTBN.. WATER PLANE. REMOVE TOP 1/3 OF THE BASKET OR THE TOP TWO HORIZONTAL RINGS, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. REMOVE ALL BURLAP AND NAILS FROM TOP. 1/3 OF THE BALL REMOVE ALL TWINE. 5. PLUMB AND BACKFILL WITH BACKFILL SOIL 6. WATER TO SERIE PLANTS AND FILL VOIDS. 7. WATER WITHIN TWO HOURS OF INSTALLATION. WATERING MUST BE SUFFICIENT TO THOROUGHLY SATURATE ROOT BALL AND PUNTING HOLE NOTE GUY ASSEMBLY OPTIONAL BUT CONTRACTOR ASSUMES FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR MNNTNNING TREE IN A PLUMB POSITION FOR THE DURATION OF THE GUARANTEE PERIOD GIN ASSEMBLY- 16' POLYPROPYLENE OR POLYETHY/L�EN,�E (40 NIL) I-1/2' WIDE STRAP (TYP) DOUBLE STRAND 10 GA WIRE 2-7' ROLLED STEEL POSTS (MOOT 3401) 0 180' O.C. (SEE STAKING DIAGRAM) COORDINATE SWING TO INSURE UNIFORM ORIENTATION OF GUY UNES AND STAKES STAKING DIAGRAM GUY WIRE WITH WEBBING FLAGGING- ONE PER WIRE 4'-6' SHREDDED BARK MULCH I -EXISTING GRADE MINIMUM 1/2 WIDTH OF ROOT BALL 8. PLACE MULCH WITHIN N8 HOURS OF T P PLANTING SOIL MIXTURE (SEE SPEC.) THE SECOND WATERING UNLESS SOIL CV UNDISTURBED OR STABILIZED MOISTURES EXCESSIVE. SUBSOILS 1. ALL PLANTS LTX5 HEALTHY, VIGOROUS MATERIAL FREE OF PESTS AND DISEASE AND BE CONTAINER GROWN OR BALLED AND BURLAPPED AS INDICATED IN THE LANDSCAPE LEGEND. 2. ALL TREES MUST BE STRAIGHT TRUNKED AND FULL HEADED AND MEET ALL REQUIREMENTS SPECIFIED. 3. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT ANY PLANTS WHICH ARE DEEMED UNSATISFACTORY BEFORE. DURING, OR AFTER INSTALLATION. 4. NO SUBSTITUTIONS OF PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE ACCEPTED UNLESS APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 5. ALL PLANTING STOCK SHALL CONFORM TO THE "AMERICAN STANDARD FOR NURSERY STOCK,' ANSI-260. LATEST EDITION, OF THE AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF NURSERYMEN, INC. AND SHALL CONSTITUTE MINIMUM QUAUTY REQUIREMENTS FOR PLANT MATERIALS. 6. EXISTING TREES AND SHRUBS TO REMAIN SHALL BE PROTECTED TO THE DRIP LINE FROM ALL CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC. STORAGE OF MATERIALS ETC. WITH 4' HT. ORANGE PLASTIC SAFETY FENCING ADEQUATELY SUPPORTED BY STEEL FENCE POSTS 6' O.C. MAXIMUM SPACING. 7. ALL PLANT MATERIAL QUANTITIES, SHAPES OF BEDS AND LOCATIONS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLETE COVERAGE OF ALL PLANTING BEDS AT SPACING SHOWN AND ADJUSTED TO CONFORM TO THE EXACT CONDITIONS OF THE SITE. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL APPROVE THE STAKING LOCATION OF ALL PLANT MATERIALS PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. 8. ALL TREES MUST BE PLANTED. MULCHED, AND STAKED AS SHOWN IN THE DETAILS. 9. ALL PLANTING AREAS MUST BE COMPLETELY MULCHED AS 10. MULCH: SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH, CLEAN AND FREE OF NOXIOUS WEEDS OR OTHER DELETERIOUS MATERIAL IN ALL MASS PLANTING BEDS AND FOR TREES. UNLESS INDICATED AS ROCK MULCH ON DRAWINGS. SUBMIT SAMPLE TO LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO DELIVERY ON -SITE FOR APPROVAL DELIVER MULCH ON DAY OF INSTALLATION. USE 4' FOR TREES, SHRUB BEDS. AND 3" FOR PERENNIAL/GROUND COVER BEDS, UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED. 11. THE PLAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE LANDSCAPE LEGEND IF DISCREPANCIES EXIST. THE SPECIFICATIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE PLANTING NOTES AND GENERAL NOTES. 12. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL MULCHES AND PLANTING SOIL QUANTITIES TO COMPLETE THE WORK SHOWN ON THE PLAN. VERIFY ALL QUANTITIES SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE LEGEND. 13. LONG-TERM STORAGE OF MATERIALS OR SUPPLIES ON -SITE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED. 14. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL KEEP PAVEMENTS. PLANTERS AND BUILDINGS CLEAN AND UNSTAINED. ALL PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICLE ACCESS TO BE MAINTANED THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. ALL WASTES SHALL BE PROMPTLY REMOVED FROM THE SITE. ANY PLANT STOCK NOT PLANTED ON DAY OF DELIVERY SHALL BE HEELED IN AND WATERED UNTIL INSTALLATION. PLANTS NOT MAINTAINED IN THIS MANNER WILL BE REJECTED. ANY DAMAGE TO EXISTING FACILITIES SHALL BE REPAVED AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. 15. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES, REGULATIONS, AND PERMITS GOVERNING THE WORK. 16. LOCATE AND VERIFY ALL UTILITIES, INCLUDING IRRIGATION UNES, WITH THE OWNER FOR PROPRIETARY UTILITIES AND GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT 454-0002 (TWIN CITIES METRO AREA) OR 800-252-1166 (GREATER MINNESOTA) 48 HOURS BEFORE DIGGING. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE PROTECTION AND REPAIR OF ANY DAMAGES TO SAME. NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY CONFLICTS TO FACILITATE PLANT RELOCATION. 17. USE ANTI -DESICCANT (WILTPRUF OR APPROVED EQUAL) ON DECIDUOUS PLANTS MOVED IN LEAF AND FOR EVERGREENS MOVED ANYTIME. APPLY AS PER MANUFACTURERS INSTRUCTION. ALL EVERGREENS SHALL BE SPRAYED IN THE LATE FALL FOR WINTER PROTECTION DURING WARRANTY PERIOD. 18. PLANTING SOIL FOR TREES, SHRUBS AND GROUND COVERS: FERTILE FRIABLE LOAM CONTAINING A UBERAL AMOUNT OF HUMUS AND CAPABLE OF SUSTAINING VIGOROUS PLANT GROWTH. IT SHALL COMPLY WITH MN/DOT SPECIFICATION 3877 TYPE B SELECT TOPSOIL MIXTURE SHALL BE FREE FROM HARDPACK SUBSOIL STONES. CHEMICALS, NOXIOUS WEEDS, ETC. SOIL MIXTURE SHALL HAVE A PH BETWEEN 6.1 AND 7.5 AND 0-10-10 FERTIUZER AT THE RATE OF 3 POUNDS PER CUBIC YARD. IN PLANTING BEDS INCORPORATE THIS MIXTURE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE BED BY ROTOTIUJNG IT INTO THE TOP 12' OF SOIL 19. ALL PLANTS SHALL BE GUARANTEED FOR ONE COMPLETE GROWING SEASON (APRIL I - NOVEMBER 1), UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. THE GUARANTEE SHALL COVER THE FULL COST OF REPLACEMENT INCLUDING LABOR AND PLANTS. 20. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AT LEAST 3 DAYS PRIOR TO PLANNED DELIVERY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT AT LEAST 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF BEGINNING PLANT INSTALLATION. 21. SEASONS/T1ME OF PLANTING: NOTE: THE CONTRACTOR MAY ELECT TO PLANT IN OFF-SEASONS ENTIRELY AT HIS/HER RISK. DECIDUOUS POTTED PLANTS: APRIL 1-JUNE 1; AUG. 21-NOV. 1 DECIDUOUS B&B: APRIL 1-JUNE 1; AUG. 21-NOV. 1 EVERGREEN POTTED PLANTS: APRIL 1-JUNE 1; AUG. 21-OCT. 1 EVERGREEN B&B: APRIL 1-MAY 15; AUG. 21-SEPT. 15 22. MAINTENANCE SHALL BEGIN IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH PORTION OF THE WORK IS IN PLACE. PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE PROTECTED AND MAINTAINED UNTIL THE INSTALLATION OF THE PLANTS IS COMPLETE, INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE, AND PLANTINGS ARE ACCEPTED EXCLUSIVE OF THE GUARANTEE. MAINTENANCE SHALL INCLUDE WATERING, CULTIVATING. MULCHING, REMOVAL OF DEAD MATERIALS, RE -SETTING PLANTS TO PROPER GRADE AND KEEPING PLANTS IN A PLUMB POSITION. AFTER ACCEPTANCE, THE OWNER SHALL ASSUME MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBILITIES. HOWEVER. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTINUE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR KEEPING THE TREES PLUMB THOUGHOUT THE GUARANTEE PERIOD. 23. ANY PLANT MATERIAL WHICH DIES, TURNS BROWN, OR DEFOLIATES (PRIOR TO TOTAL ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK) SHALL BE PROMPTLY REMOVED FROM THE SITE. AND REPLACED WITH MATERIAL OF THE SAME SPECIES. QUANTITY, AND SIZE AND MEETING ALL LANDSCAPE LEGEND SPECIFICATIONS. 24. WATERING: MAINTAIN A WATERING SCHEDULE WHICH WILL THOROUGHLY WATER ALL PLANTS ONCE A WEEK. IN EXTREMELY HOT, DRY WEATHER. WATER MORE OFTEN AS REQUIRED BY INDICATIONS OF HEAT STRESS SUCH AS WILTING LEAVES. CHECK MOISTURE UNDER MULCH PRIOR TO WATERING TO DETERMINE NEED. CONTRACTOR SHALL MAKE THE NECESSARY ARRANGEMENTS FOR WATER. 25. CONTRACTOR SHALL REQUEST IN WRITING, A FINAL ACCEPTANCE INSPECTION. 26. ALL DISTURBED AREAS TO BE SEEDED, ARE TO RECEIVE 4" TOP SOIL SEED. MULCH. AND WATER UNTIL A HEALTHY STAND OF GRASS IS OBTAINED. LANDSCAPE LEGEND KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE ROOT CRY. REMARKS DECIDUOUS TREES ..- Acer ruburm 'Northwood NORTHWOOD RED MAPLE 2' BB 2 ." Ag/,,,,,, Ouercus cobra NORTHERN RED OAK 2` BB 2 0 Ulumus americona 'Volley Forge' VALLEY FORGE AMERICAN ELM 2" BB 2 CONIFEROUS TREES Abies concolar CONCOLOR AR 6' HT. 9 ® Pinus resinosA NORWAY (RED) PINE 6' HT. 11 NOTES: 1. SEED OR SOD ALL DISTURBED AREAS 2. SEED PONDING AREA PER MnDOT SEEDING SPECIFICATIONS SEEDING MANUAL 2003. ESTABLISH SEED MIXTURE 328 'ECONOMY POND/DITCH" MIX (88 LBS/ACRE) BELOW THE HWL. ABOVE THE HWL ESTABLISH SEED MIXTURE 260 "COMMERCIAL TURF" MIX (100 LBS/ACRE). 0 30 60 V I LLJ H- F- (- L1J STILLWATER, MN H- z LLJ C LANDSCAPE PLAN Engineering • Planning • Surveying PRELIMINARY U U Z h O 00 u CP O Y 'C A DECIDUOUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL NOT TO SC. ®COCONIFEROUS TREE PLANTING DETAIL ]CMA SCALE IN FEET SHEET NUMBER L-1.01 REV. MFRA File / 16396 CHARLES & SHARON THOMPSON 1125 NIGHTINGALE BLVD FuSRaG XWSE • :•E F.AIdIL CITY OF STILLWA1ER °q5 (0(ITLOT) PROPOS I I 1 I I I 1 I I BRYAN �01 THE SUBSURFACE UTILITY INFORMATION SHOWN ON THESE PLANS IS A UTIUTY DUALITY LEVEL D. THIS QUALITY LEVEL WAS DETERMINED ACCORDING TO THE GUIDELINES OF CIIASCE 38-02. TITLED 'STANDARD GUIDELINES FOR THE COLLECTION AND DEPICTION OF EXISTING SUBSURFACE UTILITY DATA.' THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTORS SHALL DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION OF ALL EXISTING UTIUTES BEFORE COMMENCING WORK, BY CONTACTING THE NOTIFICATION CENTER (GOPHER STATE ONE FOR MINNESOTA). THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR SUBCONTRACTOR AGREE TO BE FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AND ALL DAMAGES. 'WHICH MIGHT BE OCCASIONED BY HIS OR HER FAILURE TO EXACTLY LOCATE AND PRESERVE ANY AND ALL UTUTES (UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD). IF THE CONTRACTOR ENCOUNTERS ANY DRAIN TILE WITHIN THE SITE, HE OR SHE SHALL NOTFY THE ENGINEER WITH THE LOCATION. SIZE, INVERT AND ,r .ur nrr iruc rc ern/r un ern+F nDsiu TIF 04e0 ar aeru IIFn NITHn11T SPPRfVsi FRfu OAF PR()FYT FNIANFFR 3 696 ,010s 1 ER N & CAROL 40WELL 11§5 NIGHTINGALE( BLVD 209 int _ • I it 3.51% t —I 11 METAL POST ORANGE MESH FENCING S89R26'10'W 851.23 FLARED END SECTION W/ RIPRAP INV =890.0 BLOC 934'S1'W ,CONSERVAT) EASEMENT I \ \ I I \ \ l \ \ \ \ 873.67 < 2 \ \ 2 \\ \ \ \ NOTE MAINTENANCE FENCE MINIMUM 3' FROM TREE TRUNK DENOTES TREES TO BE OVED CURB & GUIIER STORM SEWER 0— SANITARY SEWER • FORCEMAIN (SAN.) WATERMAIN ►�— EASEMENT — — GAS LINE ELECTRIC TELEPHONE CTIVE ORANGE MESH PROPERTY LINE OR SIDEWALK NOTE: TREES TO BE SAVED SHALL BE FENCED OFF WITH BRIGHT ORANGE POLYETHYLENE SAFETY NETTING AND STEEL STAKES AT THE DRIP LINE. OR AS DIRECTED BY THE OWNER'S REP., TO INSURE AGAINST DAMAGE BY VEHICLES, COMPACTION OF SOILS AND/OR THE CHEMICAL ALTERATION OF SOILS DUE TO CONLHLIE WASHOUT, PAINTS AND LEAKAGE OR SPILLAGE OF ANY TOXIC MATERIALS. 0 30 60 SCALE IN FEET W J CD Z F- V Z STILLWATER, MN ADVENT BUILDERS TREE PRESERVATION PLAN PRELIMINARY C 0 0 U Ece Q SHEET NUMBER REV. C-7.01 MFRA Fie / 16396 Point No. Tree Type Diameter (in.) Point No. Tree Type Diameter (in.) Point No. Tree Type Diameter (in.) Point No. Tree Type Diameter (in.) Point No. Tree Type Diameter (in.) Point No. Tree Type Diameter (in.) 1000 Elm 15 1051 Silver Maple 10 1103 Silver Maple 14 1154 Pine 50 1206 Silver Maple 12 1257 Pine 60 1001 Silver Maple 1-7 1052 Silver Maple 8 1164 Silver -Maple 17 1155 Pine 50 1207 Cherry 7 1258 Pine 60 1002 Silver Maple 0 1053 Silver Maple 13 11695 Shoat Maple 0 1156 Pine 50 1208 Maple 6 1259 Birch 9 1003 Silver Maple 12 1054:Silver Maple 12 1106 Silver Maple 20 1157 Pine 50 1209 Oak 21 1260 Birch 9 1004 Silver Maple 15 1055 Elm 9 1107 Silver Maple 11 1158 Pine 50 1210 Oak 12 1261 Pine 10 1005 Silver Maple C 1056 Silver Maple 12 1108 Silver Maple 28 1159 Pine 50 1211 Cherry 9 1262 Birch 8 100G Silver Maple 10 1057,Silver Maple 14 1169 Silver Maple- 8 1160 Pine 50 1212 Maple 9 1263 Pine 6 1007 Silver Maple 12 1058 Silver Maple 19 ttt6 Silver Maple 12 1161 Pine 50 1213 Cottonwood 15 1264 Pine 8 1008 Silver Maple 10 1050.Silver Maple 7 1-1t1 Silver Maple 6 1162 Oak 21 1214 Oak 6 1265 Pine 10 1000 Silver Maple 10 10G0 Oak 30 1112 Silver Maple 18 1163 Oak 21 1215 Aspen 7 1266 Pine 8 1010 Silver Maple 11 10G1 Oak 1113 Silver Maple 14 1164 Pine 50 1216 Oak 7 1267 Oak 9 1013 Silver Maple 9 1064 Oak 221116 Silver Maple 10 1167 Pine 50 1219 Maple 6 1270 Pine 60 1014 Silver Maple 7 1065 Oak 8 1117 Silver Maple 7 1168 Pine 50 1220 Spruce 35 1271 Cherry 8 1015 Silver Maple 14 1066 Oak 6 1118 Silver Maple 6 1169 Birch 8 1221 Oak 31 1272 Pine 35 1016 Silver Maple 15 1067 Oak 23 1119 Silver Maple 18 1170 Oak 23 1222 Spruce 45 1273 Spruce 40 1017 Silver Maple 7 10G0 Silver Maple 9 1120 Silver Maple 9 1171 Oak 27 1223 Spruce 30 1274 Spruce 40 1018 Silver Maple 8 1069 Silver -Maple 17 1121 Silver Maple 22 1172 Oak 22 1224 Maple 16 1275 Spruce 40 1010 Elm 9 1070 Silver Maple 6 1122 Oak 22 1173 Pine 50 1225 Spruce 20 1276 Spruce 30 1020 Silver Maple 11 1071 Silver Maple 16 p p 1123 Pine 50 1174 Oak 21 122G Maple 13 1277 Maple 8 1021 Poplar 12 1072 Silver Maple 7 p 1124 Pine 50 1175 Pine 50 1227 Maple 18 1278 Birch 12 1022 Elm 7 1073 Silver Maple 21 1125 Pine 50 1176 Pine 50 1228 Maple 10 1279 Birch 12 1023 Silver Maple 7 1074 Silver Maple 6 1126 Pine 50 1177 Pine 50 1229 Maple 7 1280 Cherry 9 1021 Silver Maple 10 1075 Silver Maple 10 1076 Silver Maple 6 1127 Pine 50 1178 Pine 50 1230 Maple 10 1281 Oak 24 1025 Elm 12 1128 Pine 50 1179 Pine 50 1231 Maple 7 1282 Box Elder 8 1026 Silver Maple1077 Silver Maple 20 p 10 1129 Pine 50 1180 Pine 50 1232 Maple 10 1283 Elm 15 1027 Elm 12 1078 Silver Maple 8 1070 Silver Maple 8 1130 Pine 50 1181 Pine 50 1233 Silver Maple 16 1284 Spruce 30 1028 Silver Maple 6 1080 Silver Maple 9 1131 Pine 50 1182 Pine 50 1234 Silver Maple 6 1285 Cherry 9 1029 Silver Maple 6 1081 Silver Maple 17 1132 Pine 50 1183 Pine 50 12'5 Silver Maple 7 1030 Silver Maple 8 1082 Silver Maple 17 1133 Pine 50 1184 Pine 50 1236 Silver Maple 9 1031 Silver Maple 7 1003 Silver Maple 10 1134 Pine 50 1185 Pine 50 1237 Cherry 13 1032 Silver Maple 6 1084 Silver Maple g 1135 Pine 50 1186 Pine 50 1238 Silver Maple 7 1033 Silver Maple 6 1085 Silver Maple 10 1136 Pine 50 1187 Cottonwood 10 1239 Birch 9 1034 Silver Maple 6 1086 Silver Maple g 1137 Pine 50 1188 Cottonwood 20 1240 Birch 12 1035 Silver Maple 6 1087 Silver Maple 6 1138 Pine 50 1189 Box Elder 7 1241 Birch 10 1036 Silver Maple 6 1088 Silver Maple 6 1139 Pine 50 1190 Pine 50 1242 Birch 13 1037 Silver Maple 11 1089 Silver Maple 13 1140 Pine 50 1191 Oak 7 1243 Oak 15 1038 Silver Maple 10 1090 Silver Maple 12 1141 Pine 50 1192 Cottonwood 36 1244 Birch 13 1039 Silver Maple 8 1091 Silver Maple 11 1142 Pine 50 1193 Oak 34 1245 Spruce 40 1040 Silver Maple 7 1092 Silver Maple 14 1143 Pine 50 1194 Cherry 7 1246 Birch 12 1041 Silver Maple 10 1093 Silver Maple g 1144 Pine 50 1195 Silver Maple 8 1247 Oak 20 1042 Silver Maple 9 1094 Silver Maple 12 1145 Pine 50 1197 Oak 9 1248 Birch 12 1043 Silver Maple 8 1095 Silver Maple 10 1146 Pine 50 1198 Oak 41 1249 Spruce 20 1044 Oak 12 1096 Silver Maple 10 1147 Pine 50 1199 Oak 30 1250 Poplar 8 1045 Oak 13 1097 Silver Maple 8 1148 Pine 50 1200 Cottonwood 8 1251 Poplar 7 1046 Silver Maple 15.5CIRCUM 1098 Silver Maple 10 1149 Pine 50 1201 Cherry 9 1252 Pine 60 1047 Silver Maple 12 1099 Silver Maple 13 1150 Pine 50 1202 Oak 28 1253 Pine 60 1048 Silver Maple 21 1100 Silver Maple 8 1151 Pine 50 1203 Cherry 9 1254 Pine 25 1040 Silver Maple 16 1101 Silver Maple 12 1152 Pine 50 1204 Oak 9 1255 Birch 12 1050 Silver Maple 12 1102 Silver Maple 9 1153 Pine 50 1205 Silver Maple 8 1256 Pine 60 v r r s, 1114 Silver Maple 10 1165 Pine 50 1217 Cherry 6 1268 Pine 11 1012 Silver Maple g 1063 Oak 20 1115 silver Maple 14 1166 Pine 50 1218 Maple 7 1269 Oak 7 Lu < U) Lai wrn E_J J . co Q 3 I-- Z N W I= o = < C) Z TREE PRESERVATION TABLE Engineering • Planning • Surveying a PRELIMINARY a DENOTES TREES TO BE REMOVED 1977 9 Quaking- /1apen SHEET NUMBER C-7.02 REV. MFRA File / 16396 TI •,t •14,,,WA"'‘ .00°' (OON) 130.92 it 7,f i ww, 7 4 (001,9 140.613 (0021) 146.60 a fe4C" (0022) 146,,ea 4 (0006) (0023) anti. 4 (0073) 146 60 13 (0077) c•-2 2 3 1 ":-? (001 4) 0) 6 2 (0015) 1 51.513.1. ey, ft. 1.1a eves 3 (0016 4 (0017) 1,111erviesev,•• • Vererw.7.1%....9, • re1411W111. esSreerwl,t, ''"I'vfMrrer Kw, Engineering • Planning • Surveying cFRA McCombs Frank Roos Associates, Inc. 14800 28th Avenue North • Suite 140 Plymouth, Minnesota • 55447 phone 763/476-6010 • fox 763/476-8532 Client PdI VENT Dftisgammareaumnperworid 1379 limberwalf Trail Lino Lakes, MN 55038 • Omani Cononctors Dimon Prom's re.,111. PH 612440-8390 FAX 651,553-56511 • Roofing •New Ounstruchonfganodelcn • CkeksiAdditions adrentlxitildcW4y.noxnm Project Nightingale Property Stillwater, MN Sheet Title Concept Plan 1 I hereby certify that this plan was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer under the laws of the State of Minnesota. Signature Name Dale License # Designed Drawn Date JRG Checked JRG Approved 4/04/07 Revisions Na, Date By Remarks Sheet 1/2 Revision