The URL can be used to link to this page

2b 7525 Bent Bow TrailMEMORANDUM CITYOF 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.i 190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Re;reation Center 2310 c ,~. ,.,ou,t¢ Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 F~.×: 952.227.1t10 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.22L1310 Senior Center Phon~., "' 952.227.1125 Fax: 952~227.1110 Web Site v,va;,.ci.chanhassen.mn.us TO: FROM: DATE: SUB J: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Haak, Water Resources Coordinator~ir Loft Generous, Senior Planner Bob August 6, 2002 Cohoon Variance Appeal - 7525 Bent Bow Circle EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant has requested two variances for the construction of a swimming pool and retaining wall: a 20-foot variance from the 40-foot Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Comdor setback and a 20-foot variance from the 40- foot wetland buffer setback. Additionally, since the property is located within the Bluff Creek Corridor and portions of the property are in the primary and secondary zones, a Conditional Use Permit was requested. The application is before the City Council because a variance in conjunction with a conditional use permit is considered a recommendation from the Planning Com~nission. The City Council will also decide on the Conditional Use Permit for the placement of a swimming pool and retaining wall on a property within the Bluff Creek Corridor, which was recommended for approval by the Planning Commission, subject to a 40-foot setback. Staff recommendation is to deny both variances because there is no undue hardship and to approve the Conditional Use Permit subject to the conditions recommended below. BACKGROUND Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) Following the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the variances, a technical evaluation panel (TEP) met on-site on July 15, 2002 to review the wetland delineation that had been conducted by EnviroData, the applicant's delineator. The TEP isa construct of the Minnesota Wetland Conservation Act that involves participation by the Board of Water and Soil Resources, the local soil and water conservation district (Carver SWCD) and the local government unit (Chanhassen). The purpose of the TEP is to examine decisions made by the local government unit and either support or refute those decisions based on technical review. The on-site meeting included the members of the TEP as well as the applicant's delineator (Mr. John Anderson of EnviroData) and Mr. Greg Larson, Soil Scientist for the State of Minnesota. City of Ct~ant~assen · A growing community with dean takes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautilul parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Todd Gerhardt August 6, 2002 Page 2 of 2 The TEP, Mr. Larson and Mr. Anderson reviewed the delineation and concurred that the wetland boundary was located at the edge of the fill placed for the public trail (Attachment 1). This wetland boundary co~responds with the wetland boundary determined by City staff on May 29, 2002 (see attachments to Planning Commission staff report). Mr. Anderson staked the revised wetland boundary and it was surveyed by Mr. Frank Cardarelle (Attachment 2). Variances The survey shows that the variance requested is a 9-foot variance from each of the 40- foot setbacks. The discrepancy between the original variance request of 20 feet and the current 9-foot variance request is due to the resurveying of the wetland boundary following the TEP. The applicant has submitted a summary of issues he believes to be applicable to the proposed project (Attachment 3). The applicant has reduced the swimming pool size to 18 by 40 (from 20 by 40) to achieve a greater setback for the swimming pool. The applicant has also proposed plantings between the public trail and the wetland boundary. While staff recognizes these attempts to improve the proposal, the position of staff remains that no undue hardship exists to reduce the required wetland setback. The applicant states in his August 3, 2002 e-mail that the swimming pool apron meets a 33.5-foot setback and would require a 6.5-foot variance. Based on staff measurements of the survey, it appears that a 31-foot setback would be met and a 9-foot variance would be required. In order to accommodate this discrepancy, staff has based the alternative recommendation on the need for a 9-foot variance. Wetland Boundary Determination Appeal On June 7, 2002, the applicant appealed the City of Chanhassen's wetland boundary determination to the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. This is a separate process, independent of this decision. The City Council will have the opportunity to review this appeal at a later date if the applicant chooses to pursue the wetland boundary appeal process. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that City Council adopt the following motions: "The Chanhassen City Council approves Condition Use Permit #2002-3 to permit allow construction within the Secondary Zone of Bluff Creek Overlay District in a PUD-R District for a swimming pool and retaining wall, subject to the following conditions: o The swimming pool and retaining wall shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the wetland. Todd Gerhardt August 6, 2002 Page 3 of 3 , All disturbed areas shall be revegetated with a combination of the native vegetation listed in the Maple-Basswood Forest Community of Appendix C of the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan ("Bluff Creek Environmental Comdor Common Plant Species of Natural Communities")." and "The City Council denies Variance # 2002-7 for a 9-foot variance from the 40-foot Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone setback and a 9-foot variance from the 40-foot wetland setback for the construction of a swimming pool and retaining wall based on the findings of the staff report." PLANNING COMMISSION UPDATE On July 2, 2002, the property owner appeared before the Planning Commission requesting two variances for the construction of a swimming pool and retaining wall: a 20-foot variance from the 40-foot Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Corridor setback and a 20- foot variance from the 40-foot wetland buffer setback. Additionally, since the property is located within the Bluff Creek Corridor and portions of the property are in the primary and secondary zones, a Conditional Use Permit was requested. The Planning Commission, on a 5 to 1 vote, recommended approval of Conditional Use Perrnit #2002-2 to allow construction within the Secondary Zone of Bluff Creek Overlay District in a PUD-R District for a swimming pool and retaining wall, subject to the following conditions: 1. The swimming pool and retaining wall shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the wetland; and 2. All disturbed areas shall be revegetated with a combination of the native vegetation listed in the Maple-Basswood Forest community of Appendix C of the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan. The Planning Commission recommended denial of both variances with a vote of 5 to 1 on the basis of the extent of the variance and that undue hardship was not demonstrated. ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION If the City Council chooses to approve the variances and conditional use permit, staff recommends the following motions. (The conditional use permit motion below is modified so that the setback required by the CUP is consistent with the setback approved in conjunction with the variances.) "The Chanhassen City Council approves Condition Use Permit #2002-3 to permit allow construction within the Secondary Zone of Bluff Creek Overlay District in a PUD-R District for a swimming pool and retaining wall, subject to the following conditions: Todd Gerhardt August 6, 2002 Page 4 of 4 The swimming pool and retaining wall shall maintain a 9-foot setback from the wetland. . All disturbed areas shall be revegetated with a combination of the native vegetation listed in the Maple-Basswood Forest Community of Appendix C of the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan ("Bluff Creek Environmental Corridor Common Plant Species of Natural Communities")." and "The Chanhassen City Council approves Variance #2002-7 for a 9-foot variance from the 40-foot Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone setback and a 9-foot variance from the 40-foot wetland setback for the construction of a swimming pool and retaining wall, subject to the folloxving conditions: The swimming pool and retaining wall shall maintain a 9-foot setback fi'om the wetland. . The width of the swimming pool shall be limited to 18 feet and the width of the swimming pool apron shall be limited to 26 feet. . All disturbed areas shall be revegetated with a combination of the native vegetation listed in the Maple-Basswood Forest Community of Appendix C of the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan ("Bluff Creek Environmental Corridor Common Plant Species of Natural Communities")., . No vegetation shall be planted within the public trail easement. All plantings shall be installed north of the public trail." ATTACHMENTS . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Technical Evaluation Panel Report, dated July 16, 2002 Survey of Cohoon Property, revised July 31, 2002 E-mail from S. Cohoon to B. Generous, dated August 3, 2002 Minutes of Planning Commission Meeting on July 2, 2002 Supplementary Documents Provided by S. Cohoon Planning Commission Staff Report G:XENGXLoriL4DMINXPLANNhNG\Cohoon Executive Summary 081202 CC.doc WETLAND CONSER VA TION A CT TECHNICAL EVALUATION PANEL FINDINGS OF FACT Date: July 15, 2002 County: Carver Project Name/g: Cohoon Location of Project: NE Chanhassen City SE 9 LGU: City of Chanhassen LGU Contact: Lori Haak Phone #: 952.227.1135 116N 23W lA Section Township Range Carver County Lot/Block TEP Members (and others) who reviewed project: (Check if viewed project site) (X) SWCD: Chip Hentges (X) BWSR: Doug Snyder (X) LGU: Lori Haak ( ) COE: Other Wetland Experts present: Greg Larson (BWSR), Greg Graczyk (Carver SWCD) TEP requested by: City of Chanhassen in response to a 06/27/02 Remand of WCA Appeal, File 02-11 i. Type of TEP determination requested (check those that apply): [] Verification of Wetland Delineation [] Exemption Determination (WCA Exemption # .) [] No-Loss Determination [] Replacement Plan . Description of Wetland with proposed impact: N/A a. Wetland Type (Circular 39) (Cowardin) b. Size of Proposed Impact (tenths of acre). . . Have sequencing requirements been addressed?. N/A yes ~ no Is the project consistent with the intent of the comprehensive local water plan and/or the watershed district plan, the metropolitan surface water management plan and metropolitan groundwater management plan, and local comprehensive plan and zoning ordinance? Yes (N/A) No ( ) The project will affect the following wetland functions: N/A Functions Impact Floodwater Storage Nutrient Assimilation Sediment Entrapment Groundwater Recharge Low Flow Augmentation Aesthetics/Recreation Shoreland Anchoring Wildlife Habitat Fisheries Habitat Rare Plant/Animal Habitat Commercial Uses No Impact Improve For replacement plan or no-loss determinations, are wetland functions maintained at an equal or greater level? Yes (N/A) No ( ) 7. Does Technical Evaluation Panel recommend approval of the activity proposed in item 1.? Yes ( ) No (X) If no, why? TEP does not recommend the wetland boundary delineated by EnviroData on April 15~ 2002 be verified for the reasons included in the attached (Attachments 1 & 2). 8. SIGNATURES (if TEP decision is not a consensus, note with an asterisk and explain on the back of this page) SWCD Representative (Date) BWSR Representative (Date) LGU Representative (Date) TEP Findings of Fact (2000) ATTACHMENT 1: Technical Evaluation Panel Report PRESENT: *Chip Hentges, Conservation Technician, Carver Soil and Water Conservation District (CSWCD) *Doug Snyder, Board Conservationist, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) *Loft Haak, Water Resources Coordinator, City of Chanhassen John Anderson, EnviroData, Inc. Bob Generous, Senior Planner, City of Chanhassen Greg Graczyk, Carver Soil and Water Conservation District (CSWCD) Greg Larson, Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources (BWSR) * Indicates voting member of Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP). REPORT DATE: July 16, 2002 REGARDING: Wetland Boundary for the Cohoon Property (7525 Bent Bow Trail, Chanhassen, Minnesota) Background On July 15, 2002, the above parties convened on-site for a TEP regarding the April 15, 2002 EnviroData, Inc. wetland delineation for the above property. The TEP was in response to the June 27, 2002 Board of Water and Soil Resources remand of a Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) Appeal. The remand states "expanded technical review that includes an onsite investigation by the Technical Evaluation Panel is required." In addition, a TEP report that includes sufficient on-site investigation must be available for the public hearing. The following information is intended to provide a high level of detail regarding site conditions, as observed by the TEP. Soils Greg Larson used a backsaver soil probe to take soil samples at 4-6 locations south of the public trail and 2-4 locations north of the trail. Samples north of the trail were taken both east and west of the proposed pool. Larson then expanded soil test pit A.I.d. After examination of the soils from the test pit, Larson used a soil probe to compile a soil profile description for the wetland edge. A copy of that description is attached (Attachment 2). Vegetation The dominant vegetation in the basin is reed canary grass (Indicator status: FACW+). There is a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation. Hydrology No monitoftng well or piezometer data is available for this site. The area in question was not inundated at the time of this site visit. There was no free water in the pits dug by the July 16, 2002 Page 2 of 2 delineator on April 15, 2002. No additional pits were dug during the July 15 site visit; however, pit A.I.d was expanded. The absence of observed hydrology on these two occasions is not sufficient to determine that the site does not support wetland hydrology. Larson commented that it would be rare to see hydrology here except in the very early spring. In the absence of primary wetland hydrology indicators, the _TEP examined secondary indicators. The FAC-neutral test indicated that the area around soil test pit A.I.d was wetland. In addition, the local soil survey data was verified on-site to be hydric soils (Attachment 3). Oxidized root channels also existed in the upper 12 inches. Decision Based on the investigations conducted on-site on July 15, 2002, the TEP does not concur with the delineation of April 15, 2002 submitted by EnviroData, Inc. on behalf of the Cohoons. Upon review of secondary indicators of wetland hydrology (specifically, the FAC-neutral test, soil survey data and oxidized root channels) the wetland boundary is established at the toe of the fill placed for the construction of the public trail. John Anderson stated that he agreed with the wetland boundary established by the TEP based on secondary indicators of hydrology. The revised wetland boundary is approximately the same location as EnviroData soil test pit A.I.d. Soil test pit A.I.d should be used as a reference for flagging the remainder of the wetland boundary. The wetland boundary flags should be surveyed and the resulting survey submitted to the City. Appeals Process The findings of fact of the TEP and this memorandum wiil be supplied to the Chanhassen City Council to assist them in making a decision about the wetland appeal. If the decision of the City Council is appealed to BWSR, BWSR will receive the TEP Findings of Fact, this report, a transcript of the public hearing held by the Chanhassen City Council and any additional information submitted by the applicant or the City that may assist BWSR in making a final decision. DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual Project/Site: 7 5 Z ~ ~ ff' ~Dv,--J "'~[ L.-- Applicant/Owner: Investigator: Kc. L~¢-~;,-, b. Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No flf needed, ex~lain on reverse,/ Date: ~"-7//_~/0 ~- County: State' /'vt t,,/ Community ID: Transect ID: Plot D: VEGETATION Dominant P!ant Species Stratum Indicator 2. Dominant Plant Species 9 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. I6. Stratum Indicator Percent .si Oom:nant Species t.",at are DBL. FACW or FAC !excludinc FAC-). t00 ~'/o Remarks: -tYDROLOGY I Recoraed Data (Describe in Remarks): __ Stream, Lake, or Tide ~uge __ Aerial Photographs __ Other No Recorded Data Available Field Obseczations: · , Depth of Sudace Water: ,,x? .' :,. (in.) .~.. Depth to Free Water in Pit: ~x~j~ '¢~ ~.--~' (in.) Depth to Saturated Soil: .(in.) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: Pnman/~ndicators: ~n0ndated ~ Saturated in-Upper 12 inches Water Marks Drift Lines __ Sediment Deposits __ Drainage Patterns ~n Wetlands Secondary ~ndicators (2 or more required): ~ O:,ddized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches Water. Stained Leaves ~" Local Soil Survey Data _~ FAC-Neutral Test __ Other (Explain in Remarks) SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Taxonomy (Subgroup): _ Drainage Class: Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? Profile DescriPtion: Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors (inche~) Horiz~q ~P, IL~.~ (Munsell Moi~l) Mottle AJ:)undance/ Size/Contrast Yes No Texture, Concretions, S~ucture. eI~, ~_..0/~¢,-,\ Hydr~c Soil Indicators: ~ I'"istosol ~ I'-istic Epipedon ~ Sulfidic Odor ~ Acuic Moisture Regime __ Reducing Conditions ~ Gieyed or Low-Chroma Colors Concretions High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sancly Soils Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Listed on Local Hydric Soils List Listed on National Hydric Soils List Other (E,~:~lain in Remarks) Rem. arks: WETLAND DETERMINATION Remarks: Approved by HQUSACE 3/92 FRANK R. CARDARELLE (6'12) 941-3031 Eden Prarie, MN -- ~ Book______ Page : _ File SUlW(cy For S [[~vr~n ?, qt,~ Cnhnr, n - 7525 Bent Bow l'rai~ Chanhassen, FIN BENT BOW TRAIL // 1 ¥ .¢ / #7525 1.5 Denotes Iron Mon,Found page 1 of l '-- Generous, Bob From: SMCOHOON @ aol.com Sent: Saturday, August 03, 2002 12:05 PM To: bgenerous @ ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: Cohoon Project Review Hi Bob After we talked on Thursday, I realized that I had forgotten to mention a couple of additional points of information that may influence the staff recommendation. Some of this may be redundant, but I thought a written summary of all of the issues could be useful. First, as we discussed, the lot size and shape caused the home to be sited where it is. The home is a typical footprint for this neighborhood, and the side setbacks preclude siting it closer to the street. These conditions, along with the slope of the yard, resulted in only one practical location for the proposed pool. Once the pool was sited, the location of the path and the associated easement were a strong influence in our choice of a retaining wall. These conditions (lot size, shape and topography, as well as the location of the path) were not self created, so we believe that the issue of hardship is addressed. As I mentioned above, the path easement was a concern to us, so the retaining wall was chosen (even though more expensive than a berm) to preserve the easement. The pool needs to be raised to avoid any interference with ground water. The new delineation greatly reduces the requested variance to less than 7 feet (we can achieve a 33.5 feet setback against the requirement of 40 feet). We have reduced the pool size to 18' by 40' in order to achieve a 41.5 foot setback to the pool itself. We have also upgraded the pool cover in order to eliminate any possibility of overflow due to rain or snowfall. One point that we believe is key is the location of the pool at 7517 Bent Bow Trail causes several similar issues. The fence is sited at the same distance to the wetland delineation to the south. On the east side however, the fence is sited within 15 feet of wetland - including year round surface water and cattail vegetation. The berm intrudes into the path easement, which we are trying to avoid. All of these conditions were apparent at the staff review of the pool siting and were approved without a variance. I also consulted with John Anderson of EnviroData aboUt the impact of our project on the wetlands, as well as potential mitigation efforts. Mr. Anderson pointed out that the public path has a much greater impact on the wetland than the proposed project. There is over 3100 square feet of path within the 40 foot wetland setback on our property, compared to less than 185 square feet of covered surface for the proposed retaining wall, fence and pool apron. Therefore, the path has a more than 15 times impact as the proposed homeowner pool, and of course, it is significantly closer to the wetland boundary as well. The new buffer we have proposed would help mitigate the impact of the path, as well as create additional habitat for wildlife. We believe that this buffer would more than offset the impact of the retaining wall, fence and pool apron, thus resulting in an overall improvement over the current situation with the path alone. Bob, we believe that this proposal results in a win-win situation. The improvements to the buffer strip will help mitigate the impact of the path, will create wildlife habitat, and will improve the enjoyment of all who use the path. Of course, approval of the variance will also allow us to more fully utilize our property. As I have emphasized in our past discussions, we would appreciate any suggestions the staff could offer to further improve the buffer strip. Thank you for your time and consideration. Susan and Steven Cohoon Planning Commission Meeting - July 2, 2002 . . 10. Wetland buffer areas shall be preserved, surveyed and staked in accordance with the City's wetland ordinance. The applicant shall install wetland buffer edge signs, under the direction of city staff, before construction begins and shall pay the City $20 per sign. All proposed trails and trail easements shall be located outside of the wetland buffer area. The grading and erosion control plan shall show the actual wetland buffer widths proposed to meet the minimum average buffer width requirements as well as the 40 foot wetland buffer setback. Drainage and utility easements shall be provided over all existing wetlands, wetland mitigation areas, buffer areas used as PVC and storm water ponds. Type III silt fence shall be provided adjacent to all wetland fill areas, areas to be preserved as buffer or if no buffer is to be preserved, at the delineated wetland edge. Any disturbed wetland areas shall be reseeded with MnDot seed mix 25A, or a similar seed mix that is approved for wetland soil conditions. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. The silt fences shall be removed upon completion of construction. 11. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g. Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Watershed District, Army Corps of Engineers) and comply with their conditions of approval. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE BLUFF CREEK OVERLAY DISTRICT, A 20 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 40 FOOT SHORELAND PRIMARY ZONE SETBACK AND A 20 FOOT VARIANCE FROM THE 40 FOOT STANDARD WETLAND SETBACK FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SWIMMING POOL AND RETAINING WALL ON PROPERTY ZONED PUD-R AND LOCATED AT 7525 BENT BOW TRAIL, STEVEN M. COHOON. Sidney: Before we get started and have a staff report for this item, I'd like to make a few suggestions for those planning to speak and for the Planning Co~mnission. First, I want to keep the discussion, which includes, well the discussion focused on the contents of the application tonight. And secondly, I'd like to remove the discussion about the wetland delineation and subsequent appeal from our discussion because that isn't within our scope of responsibilities and currently this subject is before the Board of Water and Soil Resources so really it's what we have before us tonight that we should address. Staff report please. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Sidney: Any questions of staff?. I keep looking left. I'll look right this time. Lillehaug: I do have a question. If you could look at this drawing here that was included in the packet. 12 Planning Commission Meeting - July 2, 2002 Sidney: Which page is that? Lillehaug: I'm not too sure. Feik: This one? Lillehaug: That's the one. It shows previous to any construction i think the edge of the pre- existing wetland and the drainage and utility easement and the conservation easement. And my question is regarding the drainage and utility easement and conservation easement. First of all the drainage and utility easement. Is there any city utilities in that easement or proposed utilities in that easement where it would be required for the city to maintain that easement there? Generous: There are no utilities. It's just a drainage easement. Lillehaug: Okay. And then as far as the conservation easement goes, was this a conservation easement based on the old edge, the old delineation of the wetland? And this conservation easement, was it part of the development? Generous: It was part of the original planned unit development, yes. Lillehaug: Okay, thank you. Sidney: Any other questions? Claybaugh: Yeah Bob, I had a couple questions. On page 4, under proposal summary. Last paragraph in the staff report states that however the Meadows at Longacres 2nd and 3rd Additions received a blanket 10 foot variance from 30 foot front yard setbacks. What were th'ey trying to accomplish with that? Generous: Well the newest part of the Longacres development there were significant environmental features. Trees and wetlands in the rear yards of a lot of these properties and the way to relieve that would be to allow the houses closer to the fight-of-way so that they would have sufficient area to build in. Claybaugh: Okay. But this particular property is built, I believe they're deeper on their setback? Generous: Yes. Claybaugh: I think I saw some with 34 feet but there isn't any significant canopy coverage or tree coverage in that back of that? Generous: Not normally in the back yard, no. Claybaugh: Alright. Then on page 5 under the wetland's heading. It said on the paragraph, the construction of the public trail by Lundgren Brothers in the mid 1990's filled a portion of the wetland of this property and virtually eliminated the wetland buffer. So there was some, the wetlands behind the property were altered as I interpret that at this time? Generous: Yes. 13 Planning Commission Meeting - July 2, 2002 Claybaugh: Okay. And obviously there is no buffer in place. I was looking for something with respect to the elevation and the overall width of the proposed berm. Is there something you could point out for me? Generous: I don't know that they've come up with an elevation for that. They're looking at two, I believe it's two feet. So when that would be determined as long as we go forward we get all those details worked out. Claybaugh: Okay, but that was significant to me because of the proximity of the trail to the proposed pool. Based on the height of that berm, a required fence around that pool, those were areas of interest so if I understand you correctly, nothing's been set forth at this stage? Generous: Not yet. The pool I believe would be, the edge of it would be higher because it'd be within the wall area. They haven't got that elevation. Claybaugh: That's all the questions I have. Sidney: Okay. Feik: No questions for staff. Sacchet: One quick question. The property to the east has a swimming pool. That swinm-dng pool is alright with all the setbacks and the permits and easements and what have you? Generous: The wetland and the Bluff Creek corridor fall away from that property. It goes towards the southeast as it extends to the east. So yes, they've met the setback. Sacchet: Okay. So they inet all the requirements for that one, okay. That's my question. Sidney: Okay. And I don't have any questions for staff at this point. So would the applicant like to come forxvard and please state your name and address for the record. Steven Cohoon: Steven Cohoon, 7525 Bent Bow Trail. Thank you for the opportunity. Good evening. I wanted to first note that we do have a petition signed by 14 of our neighbors in support of the situation, and I know we don't want to get into specific discussions of the delineation but I do want to show a couple graphics because it's important to the issue of whether it's really a 20 foot variance or something less than that. The extent. I'd like you all to understand the extent of the issue. So first thing, kind of a background. This is overall lot survey. It shows the location of the adjacent properties. The houses and all of the, talk about that with regard to the setback because setback was determined somewhat by those properties. And of course as you've noted, the wetlands delineation of record actually goes north of the trail and we're in agreement with city staff that that's an error. The wetland's boundary is somewhere south of the trail. We've had a lot of good staff interaction. We really appreciate the support of staff. Bob in particular has been very, very helpful. We have gone through a process and as Madam Chairman indicated, there is a delineation issue. We're pursuing that recommendation of the staff as well. This variance was recommended to us by the staff as an interim action. So a little bit here, if we, yeah there we go. Just to say to look at the property. I know at least 4 of you were able to come see the property, and I. appreciate you taking the time to do that. So this is depiction. You have the path. It's actually about 7 feet between the path and the retaining wall. The path is approximately 9 feet at that stage and then the actual edge of the mowed portion is about 25 feet from the retaining wall. These indicate sites that we're monitoring for hydrology. 14 Planning Commission Meeting - July 2, 2002 In the report there was a reference to Chip Hentges of Carver County and his delineation. You see that is somewhere between these two points. Between 31 feet and 48 feet from the proposed retaining wall. There was a question about a neighboring pool and since some of you I think everybody who available or able to see, this is a picture of the site of the neighboring pool. You see the topography here. This is actually the rear of 7525 and you see the topography as it goes eastward to the property at 7517 where the neighbor's pool is. And it's very similar topography there. In terms of actual location, the neighboring pool here again is in similar proximity to the path, and in the judgment of the City Water Resources Coordinator, the wetlands borders the fill of the path. So it appears to us frankly that that pool is in the same proximity to the wetlands. One, there was a question about the retaining wall and the intent of fencing. The intent of fencing is around or at the top of the retaining wall so it won't, the berms will be independent of the fencing around the pool. The intent isn't to fence the whole yard just the raised portion... One thing I would like to point out though in choice here of our neighbors to use a berm instead of a retaining wall, it gives them a little more potentially distance from the wetlands for construction but it provides some intrusion into the path easement which we wanted to avoid. We didn't want to have a berm that intruded into the path easement itself. Now the question of the setback is an interesting one. I tried to depict the house at the minimum setback in this drawing here, so basically there's a, I just copied the house outline and moved it forward. You can actually see the original rear portion of the house so this is actually a duplication of that here, but when you move it forward to the minimum setback, we have violated the side setbacks. In fact the house is situated the forward most position it can be and maintain the 10 foot side setbacks on each side. That was one of the concerns that we had when we sited the house. The other concern we had was that the other two houses were already staked and under construction when this house was sited, and you can see as you move the house forward, you actually violate their line of sight significantly. This neighbor's dining and family room is on this side of their house, and same thing on this side of the house, so they would have a real nice viewpoint of our sides of our house which we didn't think they'd appreciate. Now in terms of actual size of the house, because that certainly can be raised as an issue of how big is the house relative to the lot. Three houses, comparison here the 3 houses. One at 7525, the one in question is kind of in the mid-range of width. The one actually to the west is about 6 feet wider. Depth is relatively comparable. We've got this house is a little bit deeper than the other two but they're all in about the 50 foot range. The other feature of the lot that influences the pool location is the slope of the back yard. And unfortunately with the house where it is, the slope really drives the pool to the position where we proposed it. It's, there's not enough pad at the back of the house, even if we were to push the house say 10 feet further forward, we wouldn't have sufficient pad and a safe access area around the pool. So that's what led us to the pool positioning and the house positioning where it is. So the key features that influenced the positioning of the house were one, the wedge shaped lot itself. And the slope of the back lot. Well...as part of the topography of the lot. There was one issue in the report about trees showing...back on trees. I know several of you viewed the lot so there's very little impact. There is actually one tree that we planted in the, within the original small retaining wall. Our intent is to move that if the tree is not saved. We want to and intend to replace that tree. In fact within the proposed buffer strip we want to plant more trees. So I think we answered the question about the fencing. Any other questions? Sidney: I guess, any other comments? I guess not. Questions of the applicant? Claybaugh: I'll address a question with respect to the berm. I'm assuming that you're going to match the height of the retaining wall. Grade that back towards the trail. My concern was, it was just approximately 5 to 7 feet and depending on evidently who's doing the measuring inbetween there. How far out that berm was going to go and the retaining wall that was in place. 15 Planning Commission Meeting - July 2, 2002 Steven Cohoon: What our intent is, I'm not sure I understand the question but maybe I can feel my way towards the answer. The intent of the, we're going to grade the apron around the pool so as to not to drain on the north side, that is the long side of the... So we want to grade the apron first so that any water on, from the pool or rain water would drain naturally into the lawn area. Then these actually would come fight up to the sides of the retaining wall so there'd be no gap, if that was the question. Claybaugh: Yeah, that does answer the question. And as far as the maintenance drainage of the pool, I understand for incidental rainfall and such that you've got the pool apron graded to go back into the yard for planting. Is there a place for maintenance drainage of the pool? What would that be? Steven Cohoon: Actually the buffer strips will improve the current drainage situation because there's a considerable amount of potentially everything from about this line back drains to the back of the property so it's going to help with a lot normal rainfall. Claybaugh: In terms of the maintenance drainage for the pool though, when you drain the entire pool seasonally. Steven Cohoon: Well there is not completely drained seasonally. Claybaugh: Okay, you don't drain it for late fall, winter? Steven Cohoon: No. Claybaugh: It's all heated, okay. Alright. That's all the questions. Steven Cohoon: If we even have to do that, we'll arrange to have it pumped. Sidney: Anyone else? Claybaugh: I do have one more question. You highlighted the fact, and it was pretty evident in viewing the site that there is quite a grade coming down there where you've got the buffer strip shown on here proposed say to the west side of the pool, I believe that's correct. How are you looking at handling that drainage if it's not following it's natural course at this stage? Steven Cohoon: You mean this side here? Claybaugh: Right, on the west side of the property. Steven Cohoon: There's a very, there's a steep hill. The intent here, and the discussion I've had xvith our neighbor is, to plan this buffer strip. They have a natural kind of area here. So blend this buffer strip and have the buffer strip be similar, natural plantings and the two of them together would filter and contain the runoff. Claybaugh: Maybe it's a question for engineering. Would that be interpapted with the buffer strip there Matt? Is there any need for any drainage calculations in there? Saam: i don't believe we'll be requiring drainage calculations but I think the point you're trying to make is, if you put this berm in and all the water. 16 Planning Commission Meeting - July 2, 2002 Claybaugh: Where you going to put the drainage? The existing drainage that's in place, you're changing that natural, the course of that drainage. Basically containing that. Is there any need for any drainage calculations for that? Saam: No, I don't see any. Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions I have. Sidney: Okay. Just one comment. I was wondering, you mentioned you have a petition from the neighbors. Has staff gotten a copy of that and, now they do. Very good. And that can be included in the packet for City Council. Okay, one last chance here? Okay, thank you very much. Steven Cohoon: Thank you. Sidney: Okay, this is a public hearing. Anyone wishing to address the Planning Commission on this issue? And I see nobody except the applicants out there in the audience, so I will close the public hearing. Commissioners. Who would like to tackle this one first please? Well we're looking left this time. Slagle' No comments. Sacchet: I don't have much comment to this one. I have to emphasize that we have to deal with the data in front of us and on that basis 20 foot variance out of a 40 foot is a huge variance. And I basically agree with the staff report in terms of the hardship and the self created part so I don't think we are in a position, I'm not in a position to approve this based on the data in front of us. But then on the other hand, if what the applicant showed us with the wetland delineation they may possibly, you may not possibly even need a variance once that goes through but based on the data in front of us, it's clear the other way around. That's my Comment. Sidney: Okay, Bruce. Feik: I would not be able to support the variance. The absence of a pool is not in my mind a hardship. The pool could have been located more northward had the retaining walls not been installed prior. The pool apron on the south side could be minimized reducing the variance as xvell. And the pool also could be made narrower. Given what is in front of us, to approve or not to approve so to speak, I'm not of the opinion that I can support the variance. Claybaugh: Like my fellow commissioners I'd like to reiterate we need to look at the petition in the context of the current delineation. I understand that that's in dispute and that needs to run it's course. With respect to the neighbor's pool and positioning, based on the information that I've been given, they have maintained the wetland and buffer setbacks which the current petition in front of us is not able to do. And with that I again have no compelling reason to approve the variances in their current form. Lillehaug: I agree with staff and fellow commissioners also. I think that approving this variance as the lines and boundaries fall, currently fall, that it definitely would set a precedence for the entire Bluff Creek Overlay District and I guess I'm not willing to support it. These wetland boundaries are set by the local governing unit which is the City of Chanhassen, and they are the determining entity of that wetland boundary and as they currently have it, it does require a large 17 Planning Commission Meeting - July 2, 2002 setback, too large. It's 20 foot out of 40 foot. That's just too much in my mind so I do not support it. Sidney: Okay, thank you. Yeah, I agree with the comments that have been made by my fellow commissioners. I do support staff's interpretation of the ordinances and agree that we, well I feel that I would support approval of the conditional use permit. However, the variance as stated, we're talking about a 20 foot variance from the 40 foot setback from, for the Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone and that is a significant variance. And as stated by other commissioners, I don't feel that we have really seen in this application a demonstration of hardship. The applicant does have reasonable use of the property without the need for a variance so I can see where if the delineation has changed as a result of their appeal to the Board of Water and Soil R,esources, we might see this back again and we could reconsider it but what's in front of us, I guess I can't really support the variances as stated. So, any other comments? Otherwise... Slagle: I'm going to have to take I think a different approach to this one. I think my fellow commissioners you were absolutely correct that a 20 foot variance is huge. My biggest issue on this one is the home to the east. And while it does fit technically to the requirements, I think as you look at both properties, they're basically in tine and when I look at the property to the south of the trail, which I was out there today, it is not much different. And so in respect I could see, I mean I could see exactly where you're all coming from and certainly honor that opinion but I think in this situation I'm going to have to say that I would approve the variance request just because of the next door neighbor's property. And I know it's a little deviation from what we're used to doing but I'rn going to have to do that I think. That's where I'm at. Sidney: Okay. I guess we're ready for a motion. This will be for the conditional use permit please. Lillehaug: Madam Chair, I make a motion the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit #2002-2 to allow construction within the secondary zone of Bluff Creek Overlay District in a PUD-R. District for a pool and retaining wall subject to the following conditions 1 through 2. Sidney: Okay, a second? Feik: I'll second. Lillehaug moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #2002-2 to allow construction within the Secondary Zone of Bluff Creek Overlay District in a PUD-R District for a pool and retaining wall, subject to the following conditions: 1. The pool and retaining wall shall maintain a 20 foot setback from the wetland. 2. All disturbed areas shat1 be revegetated with a combination of the native vegetation listed in the Maple-Basswood Forest community of Appendix C of the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan ("Bluff Creek Environmental Corridor Common Plant Species of Natural Communities"). All voted in favor, except Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. 18 Planning Commission Meeting - July 2, 2002 Sacchet: Point of clarification. We approved the version that asked to maintain a 40 foot setback, correct? Sidney: That's correct. Slagle: Mind ifI ask for clarification? So you're saying this approval for the conditional use pennit requires a 40 foot setback? And the variances are suggesting is a 20 foot. Sacchet: Right. Slagle' So I'm going to vote nay. Sidney: Okay, so we have a 5-1. Okay. So this will go forward to City Council. Well excuse me, yes. Slagle' We need to vote on the variance. Sidney: Oh I'm sorry. I'm getting all confused here. Okay. Claybaugh: Make a motion? Sidney: Make a motion. Claybaugh: Make a motion that the Planning Commission recommends denial of Variance #2002-7 for a 20 foot variance from the 40 foot Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone setback and a 20 foot variance from the 40 foot wetland setback for the construction of a swimming pool and retaining wall based on the findings of the staff report. Sidney: Okay, second? Feik: I'll second. Claybaugh moved, Feik seconded that the Planning Commission recommends denial of Variance #2002-7 for a 20 foot variance from the 40 foot Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Zone setback and a 20 foot variance from the 40 foot wetland setback for the construction of a swimming pool and retaining wall based on the findings of the staff report. All voted in favor, except for Slagle who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 1. Sidney: Okay, another 5-1 here. This will go forward to City Council at some point. Generous: July 22nd. Sidney: July 22nd, and just a comment to the applicants. Appreciate your working with staff and I think the whole thing is really hinging on the delineation issue at this point and certainly the question about the neighboring lot and how that fits in too, so good luck with City Council. Thanks. 19 CITY OF DATE: July 2, 2002 DATE: VIEW DEADLINE: 7/30~02 : SE #: 2002-2 CLIP & 2002-7 Var. LH, BG, ST, JS, MS, TH STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for a conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District (construction of a swimming pool and retaining wall on property within the Bluff Creek Overlay District), a 20 foot variance from the 40 foot Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone setback and a 20 foot variance from the 40 foot wetland setback for the construction of a swimming pool and retaining wall. LOCATION: 7525 Bent Bow Trail, Lot 13, Block 2, The Meadows at Longacres 2nd Addition APPLICANT: Steven M. Cohoon 7525 Bent Bow Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 474-8864 iii ' I i F II I I Ld PRESENT ZONING: PUD-R, Planned Unit Development - Residential 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density (Net Density range of 1.2 - 4.0 Units/Acre) ACREAGE: 1.82 acres DENSITY: NA SU~IN/IARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a conditional use pe~Tnit fox' the construction of a swimming pool and retaining wall on property within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Additionally, the applicant is requesting a 20-foot variance from the 40-foot Bluff Creek Overlay District primmay zone setback and a 20-foot variance fi'om the 40-foot wetland setback for the construction of a swimming pool and retaining wall. The primary zone boundary and wetland edge are the same line. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because of the burden of proof is on the applicant to show that they meet the standards in the ordinance. Cohoon Request July 2, 2002 Page 2 The City has limited discretion in approving or denying conditional use permits, based on whether or not the proposal meets the conditional use permit standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the City finds that all the applicable conditional use permit standards are met, the permit must be approved. This is a quasi-judicial decision. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sections 20-56 through 20-60, Variances Sections 20-231 through 20-237, Conditional Use Permits Sections 20-401 thorugh20-418, Wetland Protection Sections 20-1551 through 20-1564, Bluff Creek Overlay District BACKGROUND On June 12, 1995, the Chanhassen City Council approved the final plat of the Meadows at Longacres 2nd Addition. On July 26, 1996, Lundgren Bros. Construction applied for a building permit for a house at 7525 Bent Bow Trail. On November 27, 2001, Steven and Susan Cohoon submitted an application for an 18' by 40' in- ground pool. On December 4, 2001, City staff told Susan Cohoon that them were potential setback and encroachment issues with the proposed pool. Staff set up a meeting with Susan Cohoon for December 6, 2001. On December 6, 2001, City staff met with Susan Cohoon and inspected the site. A large (8' to 10' high) retaining wall was discovered approximately 24' from the back of the house. In addition, work had begun on a smaller (4' high or less) retaining wall for the pool. No erosion control had been installed and the City trail was being used for access to the property. On December 7, 2001, the City issued a stop work order. The stop work order stated that work is not permitted without a variance and an encroachment agreement, erosion control should be installed and the trail should be cleaned immediately. After reviewing the building file, City staff discovered that a permit had not been obtained for the large retaining wall even though the City requires retaining walls over 4' tall.to be designed by a registered engineer. On December 14, 2001, City staff inspected the site to ensure erosion control had been installed. Staff also took photographs of the site. Cohoon Request July 2, 2002 Page 3 On January 29, 2002, City staff met with Gregory Lang, the attorney for the Cohoons. Staff laid out the restrictions on the lot (e.g., easements, setbacks) and the options to pursue as far as variances and conditional use permits were concerned. On April 15, 2002, John Anderson of EnviroData, Inc. performed a wetland delineation. On May 1, 2002, City staff asked members of the Technical Evaluation Panel to visit the site and review the revised wetland delineation by EnviroData by May 10, 2002. On May 2, 2002, City staff visited the site and reviewed the revised wetland delineation. Staff determined that the wetland boundary was the southern edge of the fill done for the trail. On May 10, 2002, Chip Hentges of the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District visited the site and reviewed the revised wetland delineation. He determined that the wetland boundary was somewhere between points c and d on EnviroData's revised delineation. On May 29, 2002, the City of Chanhassen, as Local Government Unit for the Wetland Conservation Act, issued its decision on the revised wetland delineation by EnviroData, Inc. and mailed notice to all required parties, including the applicant. On May 31, 2002, Steven Cohoon submitted an application for 2 variances and a conditional use permit for the construction of a 16' by 48' in-ground swimming pool and retaining wall. On May 31, 2002, Steven Cohoon filed an appeal of the wetland delineation decision with the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources. Concurrent Application/Appeal This application is for 2 variances and a conditional use permit for the construction of a swimming pool and retaining wall. The concurrent appeal of the wetland delineation decision, while for the same property, is not applicable to the variance or CUP processes. The current application process does not allow for discussion of the wetland boundary. The variance/CUP processes assume that a boundary has been established. In this case, City staff established the revised wetland boundary on May 29, 2002. The applicant submitted this application on May 31, 2002 knowing the City's deterrnination of the wetland boundary. The applicant did submit information related to the wetland bounda-y determination with this application. Their position is that the wetland boundary is still in error. However, because the City has already made a decision regarding the wetland boundary, this information is not applicable at this time. The Planning Commission may, in the future, be asked to review the revised wetland boundary determination made by City staff. All information regarding the wetland boundary, whether submitted by the applicant or staff, will be made available at that time. Cohoon Request July 2, 2002 Page 4 The applicant concurrently submitted this application to the City and filed an appeal with the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources in an attempt to expedite the process. If the appeal changes the wetland line and variances are still needed, a new application would be necessary. PROPOSAL SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a conditional use permit for the construction of a retaining wall and 16' by 48' in-ground swimming pool on property within the Bluff Creek Overlay District and a 20 foot variance from the 40 foot setback requirement from both the primary zone boundary and wetland buffer edge. (Since no wetland buffer exists in this instance, the setback is from the wetland edge.) The applicant has also proposed approximately 10-foot wide buffer strips on either side of the proposed retaining wall. The applicant states that the buffer strips will be earth berms approximately 2 feet high, planted with vegetation, to provide cover for wildlife and afford wetland protection. The applicant has indicated that the pool area and buffer strip will reduce the current lawn area, resulting in less fertilizer inflow and reduced water usage. The homeowner has requested recommendations from staff regarding vegetation for the buffer areas. The applicant has proposed that the buffer strips, graded pool apron and retaining wall will manage water for minimum inflow into the wetland. Staff has reviewed the files for property within 500 feet of the project site. No applications for variances have been received from these properties. However, The Meadows at Longacres 2nd and 3rd Additions received a blanket 10-foot variance from the 30-foot front yard setback. BLUFF CREEK NATURAL RESOURCES MANAGEMENT PLAN This site falls within the Primary and Secondary Corridors of the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Area. The purpose of the Primary Corridor is to delineate a conservancy zone where undisturbed conditions are desired, since any type of human activity in this area may directly impact Bluff Creek. The Secondary Corridor is a management zone where development and/or urban activities directly affect Bluff Creek's ecosystem. The primary corridor boundary is at the edge of the wetland. The secondary COlTidor boundary follows the northern edge of the trail easement. This is consistent with the mapped boundaries for the primary and secondary corridors. The portion of the property in the wetland is entirely within the primary corridor. Native vegetation should be planted in the proposed buffer areas. This will provide an appropriate transition between the more manicured yard area and the wetland to create a more natural buffer adjacent to the Primary Corridor. Staff recommends that all species to be planted in the buffer strips shall be native and from the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan (Appendix C: Bluff Creek Environmental Corridor Common Plant Species of Natural Communities - Maple-Basswood Forest Natural Community Category). Cohoon Request July 2, 2002 Page 5 The Bluff Creek Overlay District ordinance requires the following: Sec. 20-1554. Conditional use permits. A conditional use permit shall be issued by the city for all subdivisions, site plans, and prior the erection or alteration of any building or land within the BCO. The site is located on Lot 13, Block 2, The Meadows at Longacres 2nd Addition - 7525 Bent Bow Trail. It is zoned Planned Unit Development-Residential (PUD-R). Access to the site is gained via Bent Bow Trail. The site has an area of 1.82 acres. Sec. 20-1564. Structure setbacks. All structures shall be setback a minimum of forty (40)feet from the Primary Zone. No disturbance of the site shall occur within the first (20)feet of such setback. The proposed retaining wall will maintain a distance of 20 feet from the primary zone with 20 feet of no disturbance from the edge of the primary zone. In summary, with the incorporation of staff recommendations, the proposed conditional use permit meets ordinance requirements, and staff is recommending approval with conditions outlined in the staff report. WETLANDS There is one a~urban wetland on-site, dominated by reed canary grass. The wetland is entirely within the Bluff Creek Overlay District Primary Corridor because it is part of a wetland complex that is the headwaters of Bluff Creek. The wetland was delineated by Ron Peterson in 1992 in conjunction with the Longacres subdivision. The construction of the public trail by Lundgren Bros. in the mid-1990s filled a portion of the wetland on this property and virtually eliminated the wetland buffer. The wetland was redelineated by John Anderson of EnviroData, Inc. on April 15, 2002. City staff, in cooperation with the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District, reviewed and subsequently revised the delineation on May 29, 2002. A notice of the City's delineation decision was provided to the applicant. (It is this decision that is currently being appealed to the Board of Water and Soil Resources.) GRADING Proposed site grading includes the removal of material and installation of a swimming pool and retaining xvall along the north side of the Bluff Creek Overlay District. All of the proposed grading is outside the Bluff Creek overlay primary corridor but is within the 40-foot setback from the primary comdor. All excavated material should be hauled off-site. .r Cohoon Request July 2, 2002 Page 6 Access to the site may be an issue due to the steep grade between the street and the proposed pool site. In the past, site access has been achieved through the use of the public trail; however, due to potential damage to the trail and public safety concerns, use of the public trail for access to the site is not allowed. The applicant should provide information regarding how the site will be accessed. DRAINAGE The proposed pool apron is proposed to be graded to drain behind buffer strips on either side of the proposed retaining wall. Water from the proposed swimming pool should not be discharged directly into the wetland. EASEMENTS The applicant is proposing to construct the swimming pool and a retaining wall within drainage and utility, tree preservation, and conservation easements. Construction of structures within easements is not permitted. The tree preservation easement begins approximately 20 feet from the rear of the home and covers the entire rear yard area. At the time the home was built, existing vegetation was located on the eastern half of the yard, north of the trail. Vegetation included an oak overstory and mixed species understory, as can be seen on the property directly to the east. According to the building pernqit survey for the home, grading did not occur anywhere within the easement. Restrictions within the easement include: no construction of any kind within the dripline of a tree that has the potential to harm the tree, no cutting or removing of trees except diseased trees, no excavation or filling if there is a potential for damage to or loss of trees. Any trees planted within the easement are covered by the same restrictions. In 1999, a building permit was approved after the fact for the construction of a playhouse within the easement. The location was not within the dripline of any trees and did not otherwise violate any of the easement restrictions. Within the easement, at that time, only one original tree existed and two others had been planted. There was no existing understory. For the proposed variances to be approved, it would have to be proven that no damage or loss of trees within the easement will occur due to the proposed construction. EROSION CONTROL Proposed erosion control should consist of silt fence along the north side of the public trail easement. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accordance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook. Cohoon Request July 2, 2002 Page 7 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT Buildings and site alteration are permitted within the Secondary Zone of the Bluff Creek Overlay District as a conditional use. The following constitutes staff's review of this proposal against conditional use permit standards. · CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FINDINGS le Will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or city. FINDING - The site is zoned Planned Unit Development - Residential. The proposed use will not create any significant or unexpected impacts with the incorporation of staff's conditions. 2o Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. FINDING - The proposed use is consistent with the City Comprehensive Plan. 3, Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. FINDING - The site is located in both the PUD-R and Bluff Creek Overlay Districts. A swimming pool is a use that is permitted within the districts. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. 0 6. FINDING - There will be no measurable impacts to the existing or planned neighboring uses. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. FINDING - The site is located inside the Municipal Urban Service Area. The subject site utilizes city water and stoI~ water systems. The site will be able to accommodate the proposed use. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Cohoon Request July 2, 2002 Page 8 . FINDING - Staff is not aware of any excessive requirements for public facilities. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. FINDING - This site will not create adverse impacts to persons, property or the general welfare of the area. The proposed use will comply with city ordinances. . Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. FINDING - The site is accessible from Bent Bow Trail. The pool will be used as a private pool. Therefore, staff does not anticipate any heavy traffic. . Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. FINDING - The development of this site will result in the loss of some features even with the incorporation of staff's conditions. 10. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. FINDING - The proposed pool will be compatible with the area. 11. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. FINDING - The use will not depreciate surrounding property values. 12. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. FINDING- Subject to compliance with the setback requirements, the proposal will meet standards prescribed for its use. Based upon the foregoing findings, staff is recommending that the conditional use permit be approved with appropriate conditions. VARIANCE FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: Cohoon Request July 2, 2002 Page 9 That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. bo Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause an undue hardship. The applicant has a reasonable use of the property without the need for a variance. The applicant could comply with the required setback. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. There are no unique physical constraints to the property that prohibit its reasonable use. Finding: The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. The pm?ose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. do The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship. As part of the Planned Unit Development, a blanket front yard setback variance was granted to permit homes 20 feet from the front property line. In this instance, the house is set back 34 feet. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase Cohoon Request July 2, 2002 Page 10 the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. RECOMMENDATION "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #2002- 2 to allow construction within the Secondary Zone of Bluff Creek Overlay District in a PUD-R District, for a pool and retaining wall, subject to the following conditions: . The pool and retaining wall shall maintain a 40-foot setback from the wetland. All disturbed areas shall be revegetated with a combination of the native vegetation listed in the Maple-Basswood Forest community of Appendix C of the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan ("Bluff Creek Environmental Corridor Common Plant Species of Natural Communities"). "The Planning Commission recommends denial of Variance 2002-7 for a 20 foot variance from the 40 foot Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone setback and a 20 foot variance from the 40 foot wetland setback for the construction of a swimming pool and retaining wall based on the findings of the staff report." ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATION If the Planning Commission wishes to approve Variance 200:~-7 for a 20-foot variance from the 40-foot Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone setback and a 20-foot variance from the 40-foot wetland setback for the construction of a swimming pool and retaining wall, staff recommends the following two motions: "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit #2002-2 to allow construction within the Secondary Zone of Bluff Creek Overlay District in a PUD-R District, for a pool and retaining wall, subject to the following conditions: I. The pool and retaining wall shall maintain a 20-foot setback from the wetland. o Ail disturbed areas shall be revegetated with a combination of the native vegetation listed in the Maple-Basswood Forest community of Appendix C of the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan ("Bluff Creek Environmental Corridor Common Plant Species of Natural Communities")." and "The Planning Commission recommends approval of Variance 2002-7 for a 20 foot variance from the 40 foot Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone setback and a 20 foot variance from the Cohoon Request July 2, 2002 Page 11 40 foot wetland setback for the construction of a swimming pool and retaining wall, subject to the following conditions: 1. No building shall be allowed over the utility and drainage easement. The applicant needs to vacate the existing utility easement north of the trail. Type I[[ silt fence as per City Detail Plate No. 5300 must be used along the north side of the trail easement. 3. Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a registered engineer. 4. No construction equipment shall be driven on or within 6 feet of the asphalt pedestrian trail adjacent to this site. No construction materials may be stored on or within 6 feet of the asphalt pedestrian trail. The trail shall be protected during construction with a 4-foot high temporary fence installed by the applicant at a location 6 feet north of the trail running parallel with the trail and extending to the east and west property lines of the lot. 5. Native vegetation shall be planted in the proposed buffer areas. All species to be pl'anted in the buffer strips shall be native and from the Bluff Creek Natural Resources Management Plan (Appendix C: Bluff Creek Environmental Corridor Common Plant Species of Natural Communities - Maple-Basswood Forest Natural Community Category). 6. The proposed retaining wall shall maintain a distance of 20 feet from the primary zone with 20 feet of no disturbance from the edge of the p~-imary zone. ?. All excavated material should be hauled off-site. Prior to hauling material, the applicant shall submit a haul route for review and approval by the City. 8. The applicant shall provide information regarding how the site will be accessed. 9. Water from the proposed swimming pool shall not be discharged directly into the wetland. 10. No damage or loss of trees within the easement shall occur due to the proposed construction. 11. All upland areas disturbed as a result of construction activities shall be immediately restored with seed and disc-mulched, covered with a wood-fiber blanket or sodded within two weeks of completion of each activity in accOrdance with the City's Best Management Practice Handbook." In addition, the Planning Commission would need to amend findings for the variance: a. The literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship; b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification due to the unique aspects of the site; and d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Cohoon Request July 2, 2002 Page 12 Attachments Se 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Findings of Fact and Recommendation Development Review Application June 10, 2002 Memorandum from T. Hoffman, Director of Parks and Recreation June 12, 2002 Memorandum from S. Torrell, Building Official June 13, 2002 Memorandum from M. Sweidan, Engineer Original Survey of 7525 Bent Bow Trail Illustration Showing Proposed Buffer Strips, Swimming Pool and Grading December 7, 2001 Letter from J. Grove to Susan Cohoon December 7, 2001 Inspection Report and Stop Work Order Illustration of Proposed Pool at 7525 Bent Bow Trail and Permitted Pool on Neighboring Property Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List December 14, 2001 Photographs of Cohoon Property Cohoon Request July 2, 2002 Page 13 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPLN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION Application of Steven M. Cohoon for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a pool and retaining wall within the Bluff Creek Overlay District and a 20 foot setback variance from the 40 foot Bluff Creek Overlay District primary zone setback and a 20 foot variance from the 40 foot wetland setback for the construction of a swimming pool and retaining wall. On July 2, 2002, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly schedule meeting to consider the application of Steven M. Cohoon for a conditional use permit and variances for the property located at 7525 Bent Bow Trail. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed conditional use was precede, d by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT , . . The property is cun'ently zoned Planned Unit Development - Residential (PUD - R). The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential - Low Density. The legal description of the property is: Lot 13, Block 2, The Meadows at Longacres 2nd Addition Section 20-232: Will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. Cohoon Request July 2, 2002 Page 14 go jo k. 1. 5. a. bo b. do eo ho Will be consistent with the objectives of the city's comprehensive plan and this chapter. Will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. Will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. Will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. Will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. Will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. Will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. Will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. Will be aesthetically compatible with the area. Will not depreciate surrounding property values. Will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in this article. Section 20 - 58 The literal enforcement of this chapter would not cause an undue hardship. The applicant has a reasonable use of the property without the need for a variance. The applicant could comply with the required setback. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. There are no unique physical constraints to the property that prohibit its reasonable use. Cohoon Request July 2, 2002 Page 15 c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship. As part of the Planned Unit Development, a blanket front yard setback variance was granted to permit homes 20 feet from the front property line. In this instance, the house was set back 34 feet. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 6. The planning report #2002-2 CUP and 2002-7 Variance dated July 2, 2002, prepared by Lori Haak, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the conditional use pe~xnit and deny the variance. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 2nd day of July, 2002. CHANHAS SEN PLANNING COMMIS SION BY' Its Chairman ATTEST: Secretary CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION E (Day time) TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Jnterim Use Permit Non-conforming Use Permit PJanned Unit Development* Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site PJan Review* Subdivision* Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/S P RNAC/VARANAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ ,A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. :Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. "Twenty-six full size .folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2" X 11" reduced copy of ~ransparency for each plan- sheet. '* Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract - WhEn multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. , PROJECT NAME LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING YES NO REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST This application must be completed in full and be typewri~en or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all informatio~ and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Plannin, Depa~ment to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submi~al. A write notice of application deficiencies shall be mGiled to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to ceAify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying wit all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the pa~y the City should contact regarding any ma~er peAaining to this application. '1 have a~ached a copy of proof of ownership copy of Owner's Duplicate CeAificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. 1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I fuAh( understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibili~ studies, etc. with an estimate prior to authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submi~ed are true and correct to the best my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless add~ional revie~ e~ensions are approved by the applicant. Signatur~ of Applicant Date Signature of Fee Owner Date Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meetin if not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address, lANK R. CARDARELLE 2) 941-3031 Land Surveyo, Eden Praide, MN 55344 · Certificate of Survey survey Fo~ Book Page.______ 7525 Bent Bow Trai! Chanhassen, MN File / / BENT BOW TRAIL · ii..... 7525 1.5 Scale- '% · Denotes Iron \ Retainina Walt / / TP.,,NL C~.JLV~RT · DRAI~ & UTILITY EASEMENT &ND CONS£1~ATiON F.,,AS[HCNT I t J / / / / / / / 1 "=50' Mon. Found -/'"',,</~ //__ T p~th TRJ~. F..,A$~ I,~ NT -Wetland delineation line Description of Variance requested: Permit building of a retaining wall and an in ground pool within 50 feet of current delineated wetland boundary (approximately 20 feet from the public path), and within related easements for drainage & utilities, and conservation. It is agreed by the Water resources coordinator of Chanhassen that the current wetland delineation is incorrect, but the correct delineation is in dispute. Justification for variance: A similar use is in place at the address next door, where an in ground pool is installed approximately 20 feet from the public path, and within 150 feet of the proposed site (see attached photographs.) Additionally, the correct delineation of the wetlands boundary is not clear with three different opinions on record. These range from 55 feet of the proposed site of the pool down to 30 feet of the proposed site. See enclosed reports. One complete report is attached from John Anderson, Professional Wetlands Scientist (SWS, #0001065), Certified Mapping Scientist. This report concludes that the wetland boundary (based on vegetation, Soils and hydrology data from 4 checksites) is a minimum of 55 feet from the proposed retaining wall. The other report is a memorandum which reflects two opinions, one from Lori Haak, Charthassen Water Resources Coordinator and one from Chip Hentges, Carve Soil and Water Conservation District. While there is no data recorded with this memorandum, Mr. Hentges concluded that the wetland broundary was approximately 40 feet from the proposed retaining wall, while Ms. Haak concluded that the boundary was at the edge of the fill for the path, or approximately 30 feet from the proposed retaining wall. While Ms. Haak and Mr Hentges did not record any ground water, they based their opinion on evidence of oxidized root channels within the top 12 inches of the ground, although Ms. Haak does document that she did not dig any holes during her inspection. On the other hand, during Mr. Anderson's two visits to the site, he specifically noted.the absence of oxidized root channels within the top 12 inches of soil as he dug the checksite holes. Both reports note the dominant presence of reed canary grass, which is prevalent in both wetland and dryland environments. Actual ground water conditions were only monitored at locations in excess of 30 feet from the proposed retaining wall. These sites were monitored by the homeowner for water presence for the 45 days from April 15 through May 30 and the data is enclosed. Per City of Chanhassen Publication attached, three criteria must be met to designate a wetland, including standing water within 12 inches of the surface for 8 consecutive days between April and October. The enclosed data indicates this condition ',vas not met at any site within 100 feet of the proposed pool and retaining wall. Approval of this variance allows similar usage as the property next door, and allows utilization by the homeowner of approximately 20% of the entire owned property. The remaining 80% would remain within the conservation easement. An alternative to a variance would be to appeal the wetland boundary. The negative points of appealing the wetland boundary are additional delays for the project, as well as potentially reducing the buffer for the wetlands. Moving the wetland boundary would allow mowing up to the revised wetland boundary which could be detrimental to the condition of the wetland proper. The homeowners do not wish to alter the current mowed areas, so they desire a variance as an alternative. The homeowners also contend that the pool structure within the upland will have negligible effect on the wetland compared to the existing petroleum based path which extends the width of the property. Petition signed by neighbors will be added once signatures are gathered. FRANK R. CARDARELLE (6'12) 941-3031 Land Surveyo~ Eden Praide, MN 55344 Certificate of SurVey Su~ey For c~ . 7525 Bent 8ow TraiJ Chanhassen, MN / / / / / / / Book Page File_ BENT BOW TRAIL '% · Denotes Retainin 'to,~o.~' - ~ Scale: 1"=50' Iron Mort. Found .~ r..AS£UCN f i I I i / / / / / / I / / / / / J / / ,B ) oath 'delineation 3~ne . acres Addition Ca r,/?r _ Frank Water data at 7525 Bent Bow Trail · I Distance from proposed retaining wall 30 feet 40 feet 50 feet 110 feet Water depth below surface. Requirement is standing water within 12 inches of surface for 8 consecutive days. Date Checksite A.I.d Checksite A.I.c Checksite A.I.b Checksite A.I.a 15-Apr below 20" below 20" below 20" 7" 16-Apr below 20" below 20" below 20" 8" 17-Apr below 20" below 20" below 20" 9" 18-Apr below 20" below 20" below 20" 9'" 19-Apr below 20" below 20" below 20" 9" 20-Apr below 20" below 20" below 20" 9" 21 -Apr below 20" 18" 18" 8" 22-Apr below 20" 20" 20" 8" 23-Apr below 20" below 20" below 20" 10" 24-Apr below 20" below 20" below 20" 10" 25-Apr below 20" below 20" below 20" 10" 26-Apr below 20" below 20" below 20" 12" 27-Apr 20" 18" 18" 8" 28-Apr 20" 18" 18" 8" 29-Apr 20" 20" 20" 8" 30-Apr below 20" 20" 20" 8" 1-May below 20" below 20" below 20" 10" 2-May below 20" below 20" below 20" 10" 3-May below 20" below 20" below 20" 12" 4-May below 20" below 20" below 20" 12" 5-May below 20" below 20" below 20" 12" 6-May below 20" below 20" below 20" 12" 7-May below 20" below 20" below 20" 12" 8-May 16" 16" 16" 8" 9-May 18" 18" 18" 8" 1 O-May below 20" 18" 18" 8" 11 -May below 20" below 20" below 20" 10" 12-May below 20" below 20" below 20" 12" 13-May below 20" below 20" below 20" below 12" 14-May below 20" below 20" below 20" below 12" 15-May below 20" below 20" below 20" below 12" 16-May below 20" below 20" below 20" below 12" 17-May below 20" below 20" below 20" below 12" 18-May below 20" below 20" below 20" below 12" 19-May below 20" below 20" below 20" below 12" 20-May below 20" below 20" below 20" below 12" 21-May below 20" below 20" below 20" below 12" 22-May below 20" below 20" below 20" below 12" 23-May below 20" below 20" below 20" below 12" 24-May below 20" below 20" below 20" below 12" 26-May below 20" below 20" below 20" below 12" 27-May below 20" below 20" below 20" below 12" 28-May below 20" below 20" below 20" below 12" 29-May below 20" below 20" below 20" below 12" 30-May below 20" below 20" below 20" below 12" consecutive days of water within 12 inches of surface , 0 0 0 28 total days of water within 12 inches of sudace 0 0 0 28 Page · · 4-, 0 O E o~0z~ o° ~=~ .... ~EE 0 CITYOF [ItANHgSEN --2G :,!a~',.'e; Bcc~e','ard E-zn-a~en. '.Ji.i 55317 Administration :-::'~: 952 227 i100 · 2:? ,"Or .~.~. ::~, ........ i0 Building Inspections ---:-e ;5,222:' ;!SO ::, _:_:2 2.;- ';9 Engineering Finance ~'5,1 22- ":.! Park & Recreation :-,:-_~ L:i._:" 7 :z, _:52 :'2- ::' 3 l': i:. :-::_.::~ :-:~.: :ii 12- '--:00 Planning& [4atural Resources 12 .... - - · -. Public Works -:, ::..:...=. !.~' Senior Center z.-:-_: :~' }5,1 il ..... Web Site v,,. - :::'~".'~sw: '~ MEMORANDUM: To: File From: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator~.,b' Date: May 29, 2002 Re: Revised Wetland Boundary for the Cohoon Property On May 2, 2002, Dan Remer and I were on-site for an inspection. At that time, I reviewed the revised wetland boundary delineated bv John Anderson of EnviroData, Inc. and submitted by Mr. and Mrs. Cohoon~ Soils Soil samples at each of the pit locations revealed very similar soils throughout the transect: soils with a Iow chroma matrix and redox concentrations (approximately 5%). Thus, the soil criterion for v, etlands is met. Vegetation The dominant vegetation in the basin is reed canary ~rass (Indicator status: '"" ,,,' FACW+). There is a predominance of hvdrophvtic vegetation. ltydrology No recorded hydrology data is available for this site. The area in question was not inundated at the time of the May 2 site visit. There was no free water in the pits that had been dug by the delineator on April tS. 2002. No pits were dug during the May 2 site visit. The absence of observed hydrology on these two occasions is not sufficient to determine that the site do~s not support wetland hydrology. More monitorin~ is necessary to make a determination about the presence or absence of hy~ology. Pro c es s On May 2, 2002, Mrs. Cohoon contacted me. I indicated that Dan and I had concerns as to whether the proposed structures met all the City's requirements. I told her that I had questions about the accuracy of the wetland delineation. I stated that I had contacted 2 wetland professionals (one from the Board of Water and Soil Resources and one from the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District) and that they would be taking a look at the new delineation to see whether they agreed with it or not. I stated that I had asked them to be done by May I0. She indicated that she wanted to see it done as soon as possible. I explained that they were busy, especially in the spring, so I could not guarantee they would be done by May 10. May 29, 2002 Pa~e ~ of ~ On May 10, 2002, I spoke with Chip Hentges at the Carver Soil and Water Conservation District. He indicated that he and Greg Graszyk had reviewed the delineation of the Cohoon property. Chip stated that there was not a marked difference between the soils or vegetation between the original wetland delineation and the most recent delineation. He said that, if he were to draw the line based on his field observations he would dra~v it between Checksites A.I.c and A.I.d per the drawing in the April 15, 2002 delineation by EnviroData, Inc. Later that day, I received a voicemail message from Chip. Chip stated that he was thinking more about his visit to the site. He stated that the site has secondary indicators of hydrology including oxidized root channels and the local soil survey data shows hydric soils for this area. Chip noted that two secondary indicators of hydrology are sufficient to satisfy the wetland hydrology criteria. (The FAC-neutral test can also be used as a secondary, indicator on this site.) In a May 28, 2002 phone conversation with Doug Snvder of the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources, Doug indicated that he ha~i reviewed the delineation, but had not been out to the site. He stated that one day of observation was not adequate to draw conclusions about hydrology. He indicated that the applicant could appeal the City's decision regarding the delineation using the appeal process set forth in MR 8420.0250, Subp. 3. Decision The Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) does not agree with the revised delineation submitted by Envi'roData, Inc. on behalf of the Cohoons. In lieu of more detailed data collection by the applicant or the TEP, the wetland boundary will be assumed at the edge of the fill placed for trail construction. Appeals Process The decision of the TEP may be appealed to the Board of Water and Soil Resources within 15 days after the date' on which the decision is mailed to those required to receive notice of the decision. Appeal is effective upon mailing of the petition and payment of a nonrefundable filino fee of 5200 to the Board with evidence that a copy of the petition has been mailed to the local oovernment unit. Other Options The applicant may also choose to accept the wetland boundary as determined by the City of Chanhassen and apply for variance(s) from the requirements of the City Code. c~ 0 c~ 4~ 0 c~ CITYOF 7?00 ,,',,~arkel Boulevard PO ~ex 14,-/ ~'~'-~'~ t.,11i 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1 i00 Fa:,:: 952.2271110 Building Inspections ?~ .,~: 952.22.7.1180 Fa',: 952227.1 Engineering ct',' 952 227.11;0 ~,, Finance ~3Z.~2z.l~4O 952.227.1~i0 Park & Recreation ?' 7e: 952.227 I~20 22i0 C:~::er Fa;,: 952.227.~404 Planning & Natural Resources p ...... .952.227.1-,,, Public Works 159i Fark Rcaa ?,?~,: 952.227.13:39 Fa',:: 952.227.13~0 Senior Center ?hon~: 952.227.1125 Fa:,:: ~52.227.1ii0 Web Site ' ,',.', 2; MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator Todd Hoffman, Director of Parks and Recreation June 10, 2002 SUB J: Planning Case 2002-2 CUP and 2002-7 Variance, Steven M. Cohoon I have reviewed a copy of the aforementioned application and request that the following condition of approval regarding parks and trails be included: No construction equipment shall be driven on or within 6feet of the asphalt pedestrian trail adjacent to this site. No construction materials may be stored on or within 6feet of the asphalt pedestrian trail. The trail shall be protected during construction with a 4-fi. high temporary fence installed by the applicant at a location 6feet north of the trail running parallel with the trail and exte~_zding to the east and west properO, lines of the lot. City of Chanhassen, ' ~:,:,,,.;q3 :_:7:nn',ur}J:, ,,'.;~h c:e.a'~ 7ak:es. ~.JalJt;~' q,~?.oi~ a ~,,¢,,,,,,,u ao..',¢ntovm, un.v h,xi~q~q windino frai.s, and beautifu! parks. A ore;~ dace to rye. work. and play. CITYOF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box i47 Ci~?:assea, l./,i,! 553! 7 Administration r;:u: ~ 952.227.!i00 Fax: 952,227.Ii10 Building Inspections Phc, ne: 952.227 il 80 Fa:,:: 95;2.2271190 Engineering 7~e: 9:52.227. I ~ 60 a~,,~ ,~,~,'7 1i70 Finance ?:,cae: 952.227.ii40 '-JO_/ LL/.! i d Park & Recreation ?':cn.~. 952.2271i20 Fa>' 952.227 ~110 2Si0 Oo2~.er B':c e'~ard Pope: 952.227.~ 400 Fa.(: 952.227.] 404 Planning & Natural Resources ...pi-;-cna: 952.227.; 130 Public Works 159i PAS,' Road P ~"r S :~e: 952.227.13,00 '-* -952.227.13!0 Senior Center P n o'-,e: 952.227. i i 25 952.227.i!i0 Web Site MEMORANDUM TO: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator FROM: Steven Torcll, Building Official DATE: June 12, 2002 SUBJ: Review of a request for a conditional use permit and a variance to construct a pool and retaining wall at 7525 Bent Bow Trail. Plmming Case: 2002-2 CUP and 2002-7 VAR I have reviewed the above request for a variance and have the following comments: , , The existing retaining wall which is 8 -10 feet high was constructed without - first obtaining the required permit from the city. Construction of the pool and the retainlng wall for the pool began before first obtaining the required permits from the city. An application and plans were received on October 27, 2001. On December 4, 2001, Julie Grove informed the applicant that there were setback issues as requested a response from the owner. A Stop Work order was posted at the site on December 7, 2001 for working without a permit. G/safeb,/st.memos/plan/7525 Bent Bow Trail variance , ..... '~, >. ........ ~ ',.>~>-',~ trai',s, and beautiful parks. A great place to i; .... ,',,orb. and play. CITYOF 7700 Market Boulevard Oh.anhassen. Mtl 5,5317 Administration Phcne: 952.227.1i00 ~2'" Oza n~ .'....z.~zT.1110 Building Inspections Pno"e; 952.227.1i80 Fa',.; o:,2 ?77 Engineering Pli,.'i~: '"- ~,:2.~Z,'.! Fa:,:: 952.227.!i 70 Finance Fhls9: 952.22,7.! !40 95£.227.! 1!0 Park & Recreation ?:~e: _~2.22F 1!20 F~,': 952227.1~i:~ Planning & Natural Resources ~;-, '5~? ..... ..... 2271~fi Public Works i59i F~:;' Pn s~.<-352.227.i303 F¢',x 952.22.7.1310 Senior Center P2 c q.-3:952.227.1125 F?,:. 952227. i1!0 Web Site MEMORANDUM TO: Lori Haak, Water Resources Coordinator FROM: DATE: Mak Sxveidan, Enginee~ June 13, 2002 SUBJ: Review of Conditional Use Permit for Swimming Pool and Retaining Walls Within the Bluff Creek District 7525 Bent Bow Trail-Steven Cohoon, Applicant Land Use Review File No. 02-11 The Engineering Department has reviewed a land development proposal dated May 31, 2002 prepared by the owner, Steven Cohoon, which includes the property plat showing the location of the proposed swimming pool and retaining xvalls, h~ regards to the wetland delineation line dispute, I offer the following recomlnended conditions of approval: 1. No building shall be allowed over the utility and drainage easement. The applicant needs to vacate the existing utility easement north of the trail. 2. Type III silt fence as per City Detail Plate No. 5300 must be used along the south side adjacent to the trail. 3. Retaining walls over four feet high must be designed by a registered engineer. ktm c: Teresa Burgess, Director of Public Works/City Engineer Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer g:\eng\mahmoud\memos\cohoon swimming pool.doc he Cily of Chanhassen · A gr:,,, h:g c.,zr:~murdty ',',xh clean lakes, euaiit,: schools, a charming downtown, thrivino bu~.ine~,s~, windino trails, and beautiful ~arks. z, o,,=_.o? place tn live, worK. aha plav. 60120-236 SURVEY FOR: LUNDGREN BROS. CONST. WAIERMAIN j SANITARY SEWER )~AN~tOLEI i / / / 1 / / / / / /- / / / / / / / (75.10) DESCRIPIIC~I: L-ol t3, Block 2, TIlE MEADOWS AT LOHGACRES 2ND ADDITION-. BENCHMARK: Top o! iron monumenl os sho.n ElevoJlon : 978.99 (Chonhossen ODium) O £ NEiL/d_ NOTES: t. ge0 - Denotes iron monument. 2. x8 .0 Denotes existing spot elevotion. 3, ~(890,0) - Denoles proposed spol elevotion 4 ,,~.~-~- - Denotes d;rection o[ sur[oce dro~noge Proposed goroge lloor = 9111 7 Proposed bosemem[ Iloor = 974 0 Proposed lop o[ block = 9820 lhis dro,Mng hos been checked ond I hereby cerl;!y th~t Ih;s s,lr~rwoS proposed under n~y ~uperv,slnn qnd thai Theodore g. Kemno Oa~e 2J MAY 1996 License No. 17006 SCHOELL & MADSON, INC. ENGINE[RS · SURVEYORS o PLANNERS SOiL lES]lNG · EHVIRONMEN]AL SERVICES 10580 WAY,TAlA BOULEVARD, SLIII'E (612) [)46- ]60t [AX:546--gOG5 40 0 40 80 120 Feet = _ rO $,. a 5 ,'"' x -- "E ;5~ _ I,~ I--'- I 4..~ ,m-.. f~ ~ ~ "= :--:': ~ ~"= =- o ,=. CD ,~.1''"''~ /" ~ ~1 " - ,~,-:~~'.,,, .,:.~ ¥...._., x, ~ ! ," ,",,.,,., .- -._,-- , I I I-L. '" I I- / '" I 1 "" I1 · ~? ~t.¢,' , I/ - ,, ,, _'-, ~'~...-'. ~: I re. ~ -,,, .'~.,. ,.~¢ ' % oe, 690 CiO' Cemer Drive PO Box 147 Ch,mhasse~, ;Xli;mesot~z 55317 Pholle 952.93Z 1900 Ge,eral Fax 952.9325739 E~gi;;eeri~ig Dep,trtme~t Fax 952.93L9152 Buildi,g Dep~;'tme;~t Fax 952.934.2524 ~¥~'b Site December 7,2001 Susan Cohoon 7525 Bent Bow Trail Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Pool Permit at 7525 Bent Bow Trail, Lot 13, Block 2 Meadows Longacres 2nd Addition Dear Susan: This letter is a follow-up to our meeting that Lori Haak, Water Resource Coordinator, and myself had with you yesterday morning regarding your pool permit application. As discussed the proposed location of your pool is located within a Drainage & Utility Easement, a Conservation Easement, and within the wetland setback. Upon further research it appears that this portion of your property is also located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The following are sections of the City Code and recorded restriction relating to this matter. 1. Section 20-406 requires that a buffer strip and structural setback be maintained on all lots abutting wetlands. The required buffer strip for this wetland is 0-20 feet in width, with an average minimum width of 10 feet. For all lots of record as of December 14, 1992 the setback, which is measured from the outside edge of the buffer strip, must be 40 feet. A buffer strip is a tract of vegetation maintained around the edge of a wetland intended to reduce impacts from adjacent upland activities. A structure is defined as anything manufactured, constructed, or erected which is normally attached to or positioned on land, whether temporary or permanent. 2. A Conservation Easement was recorded on your site as shown on your survey. This easement restricts certain activities. The following activities are prohibited (A copy of the conservation easement is enclosed): A. Constructing, installing, or maintaining anything made by man, including but not limited to buildings, structures, walkways, clothesline poles, and playground equipment. B. Cutting, removing, or altering trees or other vegetation, except for noxious weed control by or directed by a governmental agency. C. Excavation or filling. D. Application of fertilizers, whether natural or chemical. E. Application of chemicals for the destruction or retardation of vegetation. Page 2 7525 Bent Bow Trail Pool Permit ge F. H. The deposit of waste, yard waste, or debris. The application of herbicides, pesticides and insecticides, except for noxious weed control by or as directed by a governmental agency. Outside storage of any kind. Activity detrimental to the preservation of scenic beauty, vegetation and wildlife. The Drainage and Utility Easement is located in the same area as the Conservation Easement as shown on your survey. Within a Drainage and Utility Easement, no structures are permitted without an encroachment agreement. . A Tree Preservation Easement was also recorded on your site as shown on your survey. Within this easement the following are prohibited (a copy is enclosed): 1. Constructing, installing, or maintaining anything made by man, including but not limited to buildings, structures, walkways, clothesline poles, and playground equipment within the drip line of a tree, that has the potential to damage the tree. 2. Cutting or removing trees. Removing dead trees, trimming trees to maintain health, removing diseased trees and removing selected trees approved by the City when required to allow sunlight to penetrate to limited areas on the property, may be undertaken. 3. Excavation or filling when these activities may contribute to damage or loss of protected trees. Se Sections 20-1551-1564 of the ordinance restricts development and construction within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. A structural setback of 40 feet is required from the Primary Zone with no disturbance of the site within the first 20 feet. A conditional use permit is required for development within the secondary zone of the Bluff Creek Overlay. For details please refer to the enclosed Bluff Creek Overlay ordinance. The proposed location of the pool, as submitted in your permit application, does not meet the restrictions regulating your property. Therefore your permit cannot be approved as submitted. It is entirely within the tree preservation easement, partially within the Drainage & Utility Easement and Conservation Easement, and is within the 40 foot wetland setback. IT also appears that the proposed structures are within the 40 foot setback of the primary zone. Based upon the foregoing findings, all construction of the retaining wall around the proposed pool must stop immediately. Silt fencing shall be installed between the work area and the trail. In addition, all mud and dirt must be cleaned off of the trail. At this point you have one of two options. o Withdraw the pool permit application, remove the retaining wall and return the area to its natural state when weather permits. For now, cover the area with straw mulch. Page 3 7525 Bent Bow Trail Pool Permit 2. Apply for a variance from the wetland setback. Provide proof that the construction of the pool and retaining wall will not damage trees within the tree preservation easement. Apply for a partial Vacation of the Drainage and Utility Easement and Conservation Easement. In addition, a variance from the primary zone structural setback, and possibly a Conditional Use permit for construction within the Secondary Overlay District. Variances are granted to alleviate "undue hardships". An "undue hardship" is when the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings shape, or topography. Please refer to Section 20-58 of the ordinance for the variance criteria. Conditional Use Permits shall be issued only if they meet the findings as outlined in Sec 20-232. This section of the ordinance has been enclosed. Enclosed please find an application for variances, conditional use permit, and vacations, and . A schedule of the instruction outlining what information is needed for each application Planning Commission and City Council meeting dates has been included. In addition, a copy of your survey has also been enclosed for your files. The Drainage and Utility Easement and Conservation Easement has been outlined in pink, the Tree Preservation line is outlined in green, and the approximate wetland boundary is outlined in blue. Should you have any questions please feel free to contact me at 952-227-1132, or contact Dan Remer at 952-227-1163 with questions on Encroachment Agreements. Sincerely, Julie Grove Planner I Enclosure INSPECTION REPORT CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 937-1900 _,' TIME & DATE INSPECTION DESIRED /~:~ I - TIME OONTRACTOR TAKEN BY: WATER METER NO, REMCTE NO. LOCATION if no corrections are listed above,' ~pproval is hereby given to proceed. You will be in violation of the ordinance if you do not call for the proper inspections and make correction : "" ~ ~' Date Time InSpeCtor NOT ~~~~~~ T~~$ TAG Dept. ~;-, \ V ---- \ / /N3KI3SV3 ]NI] NOISSliqSNVWI O~IO3-13 \ ~.~w NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 2, 2002 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Variances and Conditional Use APPLICANT: Steven M. Cohoon Permit for Construction of a Swimming Pool LOCATION' 7525 Bent Bow Trail NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Steven M. Cohoon, is requesting a conditional use permit for development within the Bluff Creek Overlay District, a 20 foot variance from the 40 foot shoreland primary zone setback and a 20 foot variance from the 40 foot standard wetland setback for the construction of a swimming pool and retaining wall on property zoned PUD-R and located at 7525 Bent Bow Trail. What Happens at the Meeting' The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Sharmeen at 227-1134. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on June 20, 2002. :Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160® ~MAS B & LAURA E PAPAS MOCCASIN TRL MN 55317 JOSEPH KELLY BAHR 7476 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 THEODORE F & MARLENE M BENTZ 7300 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 O ESCH & HAWKE MOCCASIN TRL MN 55317 RICHARD A GLOVER & GAY LOUISE PANKONIN GLOVER 2357 FAWN HILL CT CHANHASSEN MN 55317 LUNDGREN BROS CONSTRUCTION 935 WAYZATA BLVD E WAYZATA MN 55391 .LIAM L & SHARON K HAMEL MOCCASIN TRL MN 55317 JOSEPH W SILBERNAGEL & MARY BETH SILBERNAGEL 7492 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 City of Chanhassen Attn- Bob Generous P.O. Box 147 ChanhasSen, MN 55317 L & LISA R COLBERT BENT BOW TRL N MN 55317 STEVEN M & NANCY P HANOUSEK 7501 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 & HEATHER TRAN MOCCASIN TRL N MN 55317 ROBERT C & ELIZABETH J SPONSEL 7508 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 \tEN GEORGE LABATT & K LAB ATT BENT BOW TRL MN 55317 JOHN E & KRISTIN M NYSTUL 7509 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 riD G & STACY R HURRELL ) BENT BOW TRL G'4HAS SEN MN 55317 THEODORE F & MARLENE M BENTZ 7300 GALPIN BLVD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 )MAS S & KATItRYN J ELY ;BENT BOW TRL ~NHASSEN MN 55317 MICHAEL G & DIANN M TAYLOR 7516 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 ES P & MITRA L CALLAGIIAN FAWN HILL CT NHASSEN MN 55317 MARK A & SARAH L PLETTS 7517 BENT BOW TRL CItANHASSEN MN 55317 [K J & KRISTIN F E SPANGRUD BENT BOW TRL NHASSEN MN 55317 STEVEN M & SUSAN M COHOON 7525 BENT BOW TRL CHANHASSEN MN 55317 7525 Bent Bow Trail: Steven and Susan Cohoon Property Photos: 12/14/01 1 - Looking East from Trail 2 - Looking North from Trail 3 - Looking East from Trail 4 - Looking East from Trail 5 - Damage to Trail from Construction Activity 6 - Panoramic View of Site