The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-07_9641 MEADOWLARK LANE0 0 The contents of this file have been scanned. Do not add anything to it unless it has been scanned. � CAMPBELL KIQUTSON May 24, 2016 Ms. Kim Meuwissen City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Miscellaneous Recorded Document Dear Ms. Meuwissen: RECEIVED MAY 2 7 2016 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Please find enclosed, for the City's files, the following documents recorded with Carver County: 1. Encroachment Agreement with Ralph and Jubeth Gensoli recorded April 25, 2016 as document 4T198854; 2. Encroachment Agreement with Patrick and Katie Bornbach recorded April 25, 2016 as document #T198855; 3. Encroachment Agreement with Michael and Jennifer Hidding recorded March 28, 2016 as document #A624842; 4. Variance 2016-06 for Part of Government Lot 2 of Section 24, Township 116, Range 23, recorded April 4, 2016 as document #A625144; and 5. Variance 2016-07 for Lot 7, Block 1, Riley Lake Meadows, recorded April 4, 2016 as document #A625143. Thank you. Very truly yours, CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Assistant /jmo Enclosures cr*WD 183816v7 Document No. A625143 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA Certified Recorded on -April 04, 2016 130 PM Fee:$46.00 IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII CountyLuke C Kranz Recorder 625143 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, NIINNESOTA VARIANCE 2016-07 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves a shoreland setback variance from a tributary for the construction of a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway, as shown in Attachment #3 of the memorandum dated March 15, 2016. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 7, Block 1, Riley Lake Meadows. 3. Condition. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: Planning and Building Department a. The applicant shall apply for and receive a building permit and/or zoning permit for all structures. b. The applicant shall erect temporary fencing around the proposed septic locations prior to any operation of equipment on the site. Water Resources Coordinator c. The plan must clearly indicate the shoreland impact zone and encroachment therein. d. The applicant is responsible for any other agency approvals that may be required. e. No site disturbance may occur until the city has received confirmation from the Board of Soil and Water Resources that the wetland bank account has been debited thereby satisfying the approved wetland replacement plan. £ All erosion prevention and sediment control practices must be properly installed prior to any earth disturbing activities. g. Type II sediment control best management practices are required for all areas up gradient of the wetland, the stream and the lake. This shall be machine sliced silt fence with metal tee posts or other as approved by the City Engineer. h. All other pertinent aspects of City Code Section 19-145 must be included with the site plan including, but not limited to the placement of six (6) inches of topsoil to all disturbed areas. i. The city or their representative shall inspect the erosion prevention and sediment control best management practices prior to any earth disturbing activities. Forestry Official j. Clearing and construction limits shall be located outside of shore impact zone and will be no closer than 100 feet to the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). k. Clearing of vegetation along the shore shall be limited to a strip of 30 feet, parallel to the shoreline and extending inward within the shore impact zone. The applicant shall use this clearing for views and access to the lake. No additional clearing is allowed by ordinance. 1. Per city ordinance, all trees 10 inches and larger within the construction limits shall be shown on the building permit survey. Fire Marshall m. Address numbers shall be posted at the driveway entrance prior to any building construction. Numbers shall be minimum 12 inches in height, located at the driveway entrance, contrasting color to the surface they are applied to. Builder shall contact Fire Marshal for review and approval of numbers. n. No burning permits will be issued for tree or brush removal. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. ated!"Ma?th,15, 2016 •.. ^� CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Denny LLfenburger, Mayor * r AND: " �-- Todd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thia�eday of M QYGk 2016 by Denny Laufenburger, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the c rporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. : l• NOT Y P LIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen KIM T. MEUyVISSEN 7700 Market Boulevards Notary Public Minnesota P.O. Box 147 "' Comrta.awn p spires Jan 31, 2020 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 2 CITY OF CHANASEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110 TO: Campbell Knutson, PA Grand Oak Office Center 1 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, MN 55121 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter LETTER 04PTRANSMITTAL DATE JOB NO. 3/29/16 2016-07 ATTENTION Jean Olson RE: Document Recording E Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Pay Request ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 3/15/16 16-07 Variance 2016-07 9641 Meadowlark Lane Shoreland Setback THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FORBIDS DUE REMARKS ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return E For Recording ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO: Drew ingvalson,Planner Jenny Potter, Planning Secretary copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints uwisse , (952) 227-11U SCANNED /f enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2016-07 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves a shoreland setback variance from a tributary for the construction of a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway, as shown in Attachment #3 of the memorandum dated March 15, 2016. 2. Pro e . The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 7, Block 1, Riley Lake Meadows. 3. Condition. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: Planning and Building Department a. The applicant shall apply for and receive a building permit and/or zoning permit for all structures. b. The applicant shall erect temporary fencing around the proposed septic locations prior to any operation of equipment on the site. Water Resources Coordinator c. The plan must clearly indicate the shoreland impact zone and encroachment therein. d. The applicant is responsible for any other agency approvals that may be required. e. No site disturbance may occur until the city has received confirmation from the Board of Soil and Water Resources that the wetland bank account has been debited thereby satisfying the approved wetland replacement plan. f. All erosion prevention and sediment control practices must be properly installed prior to any earth disturbing activities. g. Type II sediment control best management practices are required for all areas up gradient of the wetland, the stream and the lake. This shall be machine sliced silt fence with metal tee posts or other as approved by the City Engineer. h. All other pertinent aspects of City Code Section 19-145 must be included with the site plan including, but not limited to the placement of six (6) inches of topsoil to all disturbed areas. i. The city or their representative shall inspect the erosion prevention and sediment control best management practices prior to any earth disturbing activities. Forestry Official j. Clearing and construction limits shall be located outside of shore impact zone and will be no closer than 100 feet to the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). k. Clearing of vegetation along the shore shall be limited to a strip of 30 feet, parallel to the shoreline and extending inward within the shore impact zone. The applicant shall use this clearing for views and access to the lake. No additional clearing is allowed by ordinance. 1. Per city ordinance, all trees 10 inches and larger within the construction limits shall be shown on the building permit survey. Fire Marshall m. Address numbers shall be posted at the driveway entrance prior to any building construction. Numbers shall be minimum 12 inches in height, located at the driveway entrance, contrasting color to the surface they are applied to. Builder shall contact Fire Marshal for review and approval of numbers. n. No burning permits will be issued for tree or brush removal. 4. Laose. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: March 15, 2016 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: w..t (SEAL) envy ufenburger, Mayor AND: �'Ze STATE OF MIlVNESOTA Todd Gerhardt, City Manager ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) 1 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thi day of M QttCk 2016 by Denny Laufenburger, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the c rporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. T. NOTKZIPUPLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen I#KIM7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 my Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 K Chanhassen Planning CoVission — March 15, 2016 ' • Aanenson: Would you say based on comments that were given at the meeting tonight. Tietz: That's fine, yeah. That wording would be fine to be that way. I think it's just valuable in this situation. Aanenson: It was the aesthetic. That's what we understand. Tietz: It's an aesthetic issue. It's not a technical issue where it should be located. Aanenson: Yes. Aller: Okay great. So having a motion as amended. Undestad: Yes. Aller: Commissioner Undestad accepts the amendment. What about the second Commissioner Yusuf, do you also accept the amendment? Yusuf: Also accepted. Aller: So we have a motion as amended and seconded. Any further discussion? Undestad moved, Yusuf seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a three foot fence height variance for a six foot, six inch tan,175 foot long fence in the shoreland setback as shown in Attachment 6 of the staff report, subject to the following conditions and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision: A gate, at least 14 feet in width, is included with the fence and placed so that the City will have convenient access to the outfall should maintenance be required. 2. The applicant applies for and receives a zoning permit. 3. The applicant applies for and receives an encroachment agreement from the City. 4. The applicant submit design details for the proposed fence for staff to review the aesthetics of the fence. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: 9641 MEADOWLARK LANE, PLANNING CASE 2016-07: REOUEST FOR SHORELAND AND WETLAND SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION 25 Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 15, 2016 • OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON 2A0 ACRES OF PROPERTY ZONED RURAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT MR). APPLICANT: WAUSAU HOMES. OWNER: DAVID VOGEL. Ingvalson: Okay here is our last item for the night. There was another document that was submitted actually after the staff report was completed. I'll talk about it a little bit more in our, in my presentation but I'd like to just note that everyone received this. If we could you can also take a moment right now to look through it. Aller: Yes we have received the document which was dated March 15, 2016 regarding this matter. It will be attached and reviewed for purposes of this hearing and further action is necessary by the City Council on March 281. Ingvalson: Alright so with that I'll start with the presentation. The case before us is for a shoreland setback variance from a tributary. Here is the location of the subject property. It is located north of Pioneer Trail on Meadowlark Lane and it is also south of Lake Riley. Here you're looking over to the right hand image. Oh I'm sorry, should have started looking at the left hand image. This is also on the far eastern portion of the city. This sort of shaded in area is Eden Prairie for those of you looking for where this is located. Looking over to the image on the right, you can see there is a tributary that comes across the property and empties into Lake Riley. There is also an existing path on the property. This is not an improved path. It's currently just a dirt path that goes on the property. Actually gets access on the neighbor's property and then comes in from the west and continues north. The lot is currently used as a recreational lot. There isn't a primary structure on the property. So here is an image of that path that I spoke about earlier. This is taken from the south side of the property looking north. As you can see it's fairly wooded on both sides and then this path is definitely not improved. It's definitely made of dirt. And the request the applicant is making today is they're requesting a variance from the 100 foot shoreland setback from a tributary to construct a single family home, accessory structures and driveway. Here is another location, image of the property. In blue is the tributary location. Like I said it flows north taking water from across the property. There's drainage that comes across the property and flows into the tributary. Continues north. Dumps into Lake Riley as it picks up water from both the subject property and the property to the west. To the right is an image of that tributary and a little bit of the neighboring property. Neighboring structure. Little background about the property. hi January, 2016 the property owner applied for a wetland alteration permit and a shoreland setback variance for a driveway. At this time the applicant did not have any, submit any plans for any structures or accessory structures. It was only for the driveway. February, 2016 the Planning Commission approved a shoreland setback variance for a portion of the driveway with conditions. The image to the right was a document submitted. The portion that was approved is that green area of this driveway. The black area was not approved as a part of this variance request. After that City Council approved the wetland alteration permit with conditions. Just last month February, 2016 the applicant applied for a shoreland setback variance for the rest of the driveway. So the black area seen here and then also for a single family home and accessory structures. Some things to note on this property. First we did, we ibol Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 15, 2016 • just take a look and see what is the buildable area for the property. Something to note is this property is not sewered which means it has different, which gives it different setback requirements from tributaries and from the lakeshore. If this was a sewered property it would have a 75 foot setback requirement. Because it is not sewered it has a 100 foot setback requirement from tributaries and Lake Riley to the north. Looking at this, the widest portion of the buildable area is 45 feet. Or 44 feet and at the, closest to the lakeshore which is 100 feet from Lake Riley it is 39 feet. Another exercise that we completed, that the applicant actually completed for this one was to show what this property would look like if it met all setback requirements. The image to the right shows what was completed. There is a S curve driveway. So there's a pretty sharp curve right here and then the driveway would go to a garage which would load from the south. The house would be very long. Elongated being the long side being north to south. Would have limited access to views of the Lake Riley being this is the shorter portion of the home and a lot of the home would be facing directly to the neighbor's property and to the tributary to the west. They also would have the primary and alternative septic locations located closer to the tributary as the septic per building code is required to be setback 75 feet from tributaries and from the lakeshore. While structures for this property, since it is not sewered are required to have 100 foot setback. The applicant completed a proposal for the property. This is the proposal as you see to the right. It has a driveway that follows the same path as the existing dirt path. It comes up to the north. It has a side loading to the garage so loading from the west. The septic as you can see here are outside of the dotted line which represents the 100 foot setback. However they will be meeting the 75 foot setback from the tributary. The home is oriented with the long side to Lake Riley to take advantage of the views which a lot of properties do in this area and there also will be a deck with concrete patio directly underneath it. So a large portion of the home is outside of the, what would be the buildable envelope due to it being the, so narrow in nature. There's also an existing shed on the northwest comer of the property. That is by city code they are allowed to have one water oriented structure which this structure meets. If they were to have any additional structures this one would need to be removed as they are only permitted one water oriented structure. A little bit of character about the neighborhood. The structure really in the proposal as done by the applicant really is fairly consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. Looking here the red is the subject site. A lot of these properties are oriented facing towards the lake. A lot of them have very long driveways. Large front yard setbacks which is similar to the proposal by the applicant. The size of the, we also looked at the size of, the footprint of the proposed structure. House and garage and it is just under 3,000 square feet. Fairly consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. A little bit even maybe on the small side. 2,500 is the smallest one in the area with the largest being over 6,000 square feet for a footprint. Also the setbacks from the lake is today 100 feet. Some of these are less than 100 feet which I believe the assumption that these were pre -dated ordinance. One of the structures also, the direct neighbor is within 100 feet of the tributary which I will talk about later in the report. So when staff looked over this there was a few questions that came up specifically about the plan that was submitted. Some of these questions, first of all related with the driveway and the location of the driveway and things that can be done to reduce the setback from the tributary. One of them was rotating or relocating the primary and secondary septic systems. Rotating the garage so maybe there wasn't such a need for a wide turn. Loading the 27 Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 15, 2016 • garage from the south and altering the driveway without moving the septic systems. Also looked at the structure to see how that could be reduced. Moving the house to the east was one of those things and where the house can be located was something staff brought up as potential ways to reduce the variance request. Then also narrowing the driveway. The applicant has proposed a 12 foot wide driveway which was approved with the previous driveway for the entrance which is what the City require would be a 10 foot wide driveway. But 12 foot wide would be keeping consistent with what was approved with the previous variance and with the previous variance. So the staff after receiving all this information and looking over it we sent all of it to the applicant to let them know ahead of time what we were, what the issues were. After sending those there was no changes made by the applicant. They believe in the plan that they submitted. Kept with that plan. After that staff took it upon ourselves to make a couple alterations to show some different options for this proposed variance. First one that you see here is what was within the staff report. This one shows moving the house to the east so keeping the same footprint but just shifting it to the east. And then also rotating the garage so it'd be loading from the south. Here another change that would be, the driveway instead of continuing up and loading to the garage this way it would be loading from the south. Another alternative we had was then creating a sidewalk so you'd have access to the house from outside and also moving the septic systems south. Due to weather conditions staff was not able to look at the septic site locations due to weather conditions. Frozen ground. When spring conditions occurred a little bit earlier this year we were able to go out and look at them this last week. Upon looking at them our staff found that the site could not accommodate sites further south than where they are proposed on this image and originally proposed by the applicant. That took away the option to have these two green septic sites and also this driveway rotating over the top of this primary septic location. After that staff came up with new alternatives for you. Those were the alternatives that were provided in the memo that was left in front of you. There's really 4 options that we'll have that I'm going to talk about just now. The first one was an option to have the structure located south of the primary septic so here are the two septics in the original location. This is just the bottom of the garage so having the house be located away from the lake which would reduce the long driveway, reducing the setback and reducing the variance that would be required. Looking at this there are two primary issues with this. Number one, there's a 20 foot setback from septic locations so there'd be a 20 foot setback from the septic site and then also a 50 foot setback from the wetland. That left a distance from north to south of about 86 feet. However the structure that was submitted by the applicant is closer to 96 feet in length approximately so it would not fit in that area. To accommodate this sort of plan the applicant would either need to alter the structure and either reducing the deck or the garage or altering it in some way. Or would need to move the septic sites further to the north which may be possible but have not been inspected by city staff as we just were able to inspect these two locations. So those would be the two options for Option 1. So as it is would not be able to approve the building plan that was submitted with this one. However staff does believe this would be the smallest variance. Would minimize it to the greatest extent possible. However there are negatives that go along with that specifically losing the views of the lake as you'd be much farther away from the lakeshore than what it was proposed by the applicant. Option 2 is a lot less of a variation from what was submitted by the applicant. The septic sites would stay in the same location and then also the driveway would 28 Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 15, 2016 • stay in the same location as proposed by the applicant and also the garage would be in the same location. The only change with option 2 would be moving the building over to the east so the east wall of the house would line up with the east wall of the garage. This move is about 9 feet from this location to this location on here. There were a few concerns that were stated by the applicant specifically with windows on the property. There are 2 windows that would be covered if you move the garage. The bottom one completely covered and then the top one would be partially covered at least because the roof pitches up where the window would be. The bottom room is as I believe it was either an office or a den area which does not require an egress window as I spoke with our building department. The upper window however is for a bedroom which by building code requires an egress window. The image to the left shows that the window, the X is the approximate location of the window that will be lost. Also a garage door out the back of the garage would be lost also if the house was moved over to the east. However there will be an opportunity to put an egress window out of the side location or there are also other architectural designs that can be changed in the house to accommodate an egress window. How that's done staff does not really have any comments on. Just that there are opportunities that could be completed. Option 3 would be the option that was submitted by the applicant so this is it again zoomed up closer. This is exactly how it looks as they were submitted. There is this jog from the garage and here's the septic locations but this would be our third option that we have tonight and the final option, option 4 which I don't have a slide for would be denial of the application and completion which is the last option you'd have. There was a couple concerns in the narrative, or not concerns. A couple comments regarding other properties that are sort of similar in nature that the applicant saw. I'd like to address a couple of those right now. The first one was the variance we just had here at 9001 Lake Riley Boulevard stating the setback from the house to the shoreland. Their setback is less than 100 feet. However it is allowed to have a setback less than 100 feet. It is a 75 foot setback because it is a sewered property. It has city sewer so it is in compliance with city code. 9441 Great Plains Boulevard was another property. There's a tributary that goes across this property and the property adjacent and then empties into Lake Riley. This property is also is very close to a tributary. Definitely within 100 feet within probably 70 feet and this property however was built in 1960. The structure was built and at that time there was no ordinance restricting how close it was for the tributary as I was informed by our Water Resources Coordinator. And then another property we had was 9611 Meadowlark Lane which is the property directly adjacent to the subject site and that property is within 100 feet of the tributary on the adjacent property. That was by looking through our building files for that property that was approved by an error by staff. The assumption by looking at it was that the, when they sent in their application on the survey it did not show that structure on the adjacent property so it was probably not noticed and then was approved where, in the location that the current structure is in. The last one was a property that the applicant brought up, 9536 Lakeland Terrace. This property is in Eden Prairie and staff does not have any comments regarding that property. So after going through all this staff noted that the first option I that I showed you that would be the most minimal variance. However with what we have for where the structure is located, how it's oriented and everything with the applicant what they submitted for the structure wouldn't fit for option 1. However that would be the minimal variance allowed. The motion that staff has put forward, the recommended motion would be that option 2 would be 29 Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 15, 2016 • the option to go with so the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance from the 100 foot shoreland setback from a tributary to construction a single family home, accessory structures and driveway as shown in Attachment 2 in the memorandum dated March 15, 2015 which should be 2016. Subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. There are also multiple conditions that went with this report. Something you can see them in the staff report, specifically some from building and planning conditions. Also Water Resources Coordinator added multiple conditions to protect the shoreland and then also our forestry specialist added conditions and our fire marshal. At this point I'm open for any questions that you might have regarding the variance application. Aller: Thank you Drew. It's a lot to take in when you have so many choices. Ingvalson: Yes. Yes, there are multiple. Aller: Any questions of staff at this point? Madsen: I have a question. Aller: Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: Are there specific measurements of the size of an egress window and by proposing to move the window to this new spot is there enough space for the size that might be required? Ingvalson: Yes. There are specific size requirements. However they do give flexibility on what the size would be. I don't have those numbers in front of me. I did bring this to our building department. They said there's a lot of flexibility. There are minimum requirements. I know it needs to be 24, I believe 24 inches wide. Go to our building department to talk more about that but they are very flexible. There are minimums but they can vary from how tall they are. How wide they are but they would be able to be accommodated on that location. Madsen: Okay thank you. Tietz: Mr. Chairman. Alley: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Drew it looks like it would take some pretty dramatic design direction changes on the city staffs part and it looks like the functionality of the proposed plan would be affected significantly and I'm not sure that the 9 feet of moving it to the east property line is going to benefit the neighbor. What really went into your thinking? Is it all just trying to squeeze down into conformity with minimizing the impact on the setbacks? 30 Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 15, 2016 • Ingvalson: Absolutely our charge is to when we are bringing a variance forward is to have the minimum variance required to have a reasonable use of the property so. Tietz: But yet we haven't taken into consideration, we're not architects. This is a pretty dramatic proposal. Ingvalson: Absolutely and like I said we are, I'm not an architect as you know. What I am charged with is to minimize that variance. We looked at what that would be to keeping within city code. City code states the closest it could be from that property line to the east is 10 feet so I stayed within our city code. Aanenson: I'd just like to point out one other thing. I think from the beginning there's been one plan and that plan's in for building permit review. There's never been any drawings from the applicant which we would have preferred rather than having staff try to draw something to give you some alternatives but that plan has never varied from the applicant so we just tried to give you some other options of what... Tietz: I understand. Aanenson: Yep. Aller: And this property that's being requested, the actual physical home is not the smallest in the area. Ingvalson: No the smallest one was I believe slightly over 2,500 square feet and that is only showing the footprint of the home. These are not livable space. These are just the footprints of the home using aerial image and approximately... Hokkanen: I have a question. So if we went with option 3 which the applicant submitted, that's the 100, how much of a variance is that one? I'm confused. Ingvalson: Sure absolutely. Hokkanen: Sorry. Ingvalson: The setback for the driveway really varies. We didn't put a solid number for that. We did say the closest location for the driveway if I'm not mistaken I believe it was 32 feet is the closest or yep, this is not the option but the closest that the driveway would be is 32 feet. It meanders as does the tributary so the distance varies. It's 45 feet at this location. However the home is 70 feet from the tributary at it's closest location. The option 2 which would push it to the east would make it a 79 foot setback which would be hypothetically if this was a sewered property would meet that requirement because it's 75 feet. As it is right now with the option 3 which was submitted by the applicant is a 70 foot setback from the tributary. 31 Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 15, 2016 is Tietz: It appears that the deck could be shifted to the east somewhat to eliminate some of that non-compliance of the edge of the hard surfaces. Is that something that was discussed with the applicant? Ingvalson: There are multiple different ways that this variance could be minimized. Tietz: Okay. Ingvalson: We didn't want to come here with 20 different variations. That's as you said before I'm not an architect so that's not within my realm of even close to understanding in what I do but we did want to come here with a couple different options that we would allow or be open to any different sort of discussions we'd have with how this could be minimized. Aller: The conditions that were placed on it by Mr. Jeffery or by our building those would apply to each and every one of these across the board? Ingvalson: Correct. Correct. Aller: Any additional questions of staff? Hokkanen: Do we have adequate information from the applicant or are we missing something? Ingvalson: For their option which they have requested we have adequate information. They have provided everything for one option. Hokkanen: For that one option. Ingvalson: Everything else was just to have a discussion here of what would be possible to minimize this variance. We've never given any other alternatives and we haven't, since we haven't been given any of those we can't fully view a lot of the other locations. Aanenson: I would just add too what's different now than when the packet went out is we were able to determine where the septic sites could be because that's really the driver so within that, once we know where the septic was acceptable and where it could and couldn't be moved. Could it potentially move to the north? That has major impacts for the visibility of the lot on the lake so then at that point we still said well is there another way to minimize and that's where Drew spent some time trying to see if there's, can we get more conformance adheres to the city code or less variance request. Yeah. Tietz: Mr. Chairman? Aller: Yes Commissioner Tietz. 32 Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 15, 2016 Tietz: One more question for Drew. We don't have, obviously we don't have a grading plan for the entry drive but would we consider trying to sheet drain that to the east so that it doesn't fall off the slope to the tributary? Maybe I missed that in the comments from the water folks and then drain it down towards that, I'll call it a holding pond but it's a wetland right adjacent to Meadowlark. Is that, I mean obviously that's, I have a greater, well a very, a concern for what drains into the tributary because it eventually gets into the lake. Is there a detailed, probably that's the next step from the applicant. Aanenson: There is something in there. A grading plan for that but I think that certainly can be a condition. Tietz: Because I think you could, you could drain that and without a curb to sheet drain it to the east side so that it always runs off as opposed to down. Ingvalson: So the grading plan that they have submitted is ... numbers on it but is of the longer sheets. 11 by 17. It is on the back side of that first sheet. Tietz: Oh sorry. I didn't notice that. I apologize. So it appears to, you know it looks like it could take the majority to the east but it also is dumping some to the tributary. Aanenson: So that could be modified. Tietz: Well I think it's just the way you install the driveway. Okay sorry, thanks. Aller: Based on those questions any additional? Alright we'll hear from the applicant, if they'd like to come forward. State your name and address for the record please sir and let us know about your property. Dan Hanson: Hi. My name is Dan Hanson. I'm with Wausau Homes. I'm the custom builder for this project working with the Vogel family. I'd like to start off by thanking the Planning Commission and the planning staff for all the work they've done. It's been a long road. We've been going through a lot of revisions. Lot of information passed back and forth to try to get to a viable answer, solution. I wanted to start by just saying that this is a bit of a challenging piece of land. This was part of a subdivision that was set up in 1988 and it is a, was a buildable lot back then. A lot has changed since then so as we started looking at it had no idea that we were dealing with this much restriction if you will. When we did our math on it this lot has about 5 percent that is not restricted when you take in all the variances so and it means it's not buildable as well because we can't get to the land that is buildable. So it did set off kind of the stage of coming to you for a variance to get first of all onto the land which we did and we thank you for that. At this point we have gone through all the different scenarios. I just wanted to address each of them if I could. If we can look at the, kind of one at a time. First. We did spend a fair amount of time with our engineers for the septic system to determine placement because of how tricky it was on 33 Chanhassen Planning Co•'ssion —March 15, 2016 • the lot. Where the house is and where the septic system is on our proposal is the high point of that lot so that drives a lot of that with regards to the quality of the soil for both the foundation of the home and the drainage system for the septic. So as we looked at the different options we kept coming back to that knowing that we had very little movement as far as, as those septic drainfields went. We actually started when we first had a meeting 3 months ago trying to understand the restrictions on the land that we were dealing with a 75 foot setback. We actually designed the home around that and the septic systems were designed around that as well. We quickly found that that was 100 setback and that we were dealing with 100 foot setback from the tributary as well. Originally we were thinking it was a 75 foot setback and a lot of that evolved over quite a bit of time with discussions and meetings and things like that so you know the comment about us not coming to the table with some changes to the home plan, we felt that we have. Not only did we completely rotate the house from the original plan. It was actually the garage on the left which put the garage more almost 100 percent if not 100 percent within the 100 foot setback. That was our first change that we made to the plan. Since that time we haven't really changed the layout of the structure itself just because there were so many restrictions that we were dealing with and they didn't come to us all at once. It was a step by step thing. Each time we looked at them we addressed them. We were sent information that we had to respond to in writing with regards to different restrictions and we were trying to kind of wrestle all those issues at once. A lot of it had to do to start with the driveway and the driveway location. We felt all along that that driveway should be placed right on top of that existing dirt road if you will and a lot of that was driven by the fact that we didn't have to disturb any other part of the lot. We could still get all the other things on the lot in the location that we needed them so that kind of set the stage for that and it seems like as we've evolved some of the initial ideas and thoughts about road place, driveway placement, house placement have supported that position just because of the septic systems. We knew all along that it was going to be tricky to move them. In fact by coming from 75 feet to 100 feet from that Lakeshore with the house it pushed the septics to the very max of where our engineer would accept them to be placed so that was another change as well and again maybe we didn't come to the table with ideas on how to rebuild that house or redesign that house but the reality was is it was a complete package for us. How we were looking at it to get all those moving pieces and parts in there and for us to start doing a major redesign on the house didn't seem logical because we hadn't even worked out where's the house going to go. Where's the driveway going to go? Where are the septic systems can go and obviously we didn't want to change the house. We designed it for the family. They wanted a main floor master bedroom. That was a big thing because they want to live in the house for their entire life. They want to retire in the house and they want to he on the main level so we chose not to go with a rambler which would have been a bigger footprint. We are two story which is a smaller footprint. I think somebody alluded to the question of how big this footprint is. Well this footprint, all hard surfaces all in is 9.6 percent of that lot. We are allowed to go up to 20 percent so we are less than half than what we're allowed to do. We understand we need it to be smaller because of all the restrictions but I think we've done a good job of selecting the right plan that fits the lot with all the pieces that we had to deal with. As far as the other issues with regards to the different plans. If I could have you pull up kind of each option. I'd just like to make a couple of quick notes. The first option I think we've all talked a little bit about it. 0 Chanhassen Planning Co•'ssion — March 15, 2016 • Maybe the least disruptive if you will to at least the one that doesn't impede on the restrictions as much. I haven't seen this one until this week so we had no chance to really look into it but I can tell you they've got issues with that septic system going down farther away closer to that wetland. Closer to the front. I'm going to have the same issues with the soil quality for a foundation setting on it so I don't think that's a viable option. We hope that we can kind of dismiss that one and move onto some others. Number 2. Aller: If just a quick question. If you were to do that what would be required to engineer it properly? Dan Hanson: To actually do that? Aller: Yeah. Not holding you to any plans. Dan Hanson: Well not knowing because we did soil bores but it was up high for the septics. We haven't done anything there because we typically wouldn't unless we were looking into it because that's expensive and it's time consuming. Aller: Sure. DanHanson: But it depends on what we find. If it's low laying ground and if it's got water in it, it might not even be an option at all. If it's just bad soil that's not compacted properly then it would be removable and there's many options you can go to but they're all pretty expensive. And depending on how bad that soil is you could be digging down, I've got a project I'm working now, they're going down 16 feet and removing all the soil and having to come back into good soil. That project was a house smaller than this and it was $80,000 worth of dirt work so it would be a major thing. Aanenson: I just want to clarify again. We kind of ruled it out too because it doesn't meet the setbacks from the wetland. I agree with you there's probably marginal soils there. We didn't have all that information when this packet went out so we too would probably say this probably is less than desirable. Aller: Sure, thank you. Dan Hanson: This second option, as staff had stated this one is pretty close to what we've been talking about from the very beginning and we were pleased that we came to I would say similar conclusions on a lot of the items we were dealing with. Septic system placement. The driveway location. All that. The setback from the lake has not been an issue. We agreed to that from day one and we've got the setback from the property line so the real issue here, we were asked to comment on this several weeks ago has to do with the placement of the house in relation to the garage and really our plan, the only difference is that we're taking the house and sliding it out 9 feet from the garage so there's a setback. The house is further away from the property line than Chanhassen Planning Co• ission — March 15, 2016 • the garage. In doing so there's 3 things that change as you've heard a little bit about. We lost a service door that would allow you to go out the back of the garage down to the lake for servicing. And then the other piece was, as we discussed the windows that we get taken away and I haven't had a chance to see the real impact to that as far as the egress window and we talked about there are options but there are also very restrictive language around the size of that window. The height of that window off the floor and the operation of that window. Obviously it has to function a certain way so I have not had an opportunity to even look at how we would redesign to do that but I'm sure there would be some issues just because now we've got a bedroom with a teeny little 2 foot window and it's not going to be desirable and there's going to be no windows in that office on the lower level. Or the main level so I guess my question would be what is the 9 feet represent? I mean what is the importance? We're in a variance situation regardless with their plan or the plan that the staff had recommended or our's. Either one is a variance for the house placement. The road placement is also so we're trying to understand why we should have to give up some really cool design things and functionality things for the house when we have not had any discussion around what's the real reason for doing it. Certainly we're trying to get closer to meeting setback but we're already in a variance as well and really when you talk about wetlands everything I've read on the code and requirement for wetland protection has to do with the entire piece of land that's being impacted and all of the wetland that's on that and how the hard surface interacts, it effects that wetland. We're not actually in the wetland. We're in the buffer for the wetland so we're not even impacting the wetlands so I heard a few comments about water and how water would move on the property. We think that we've got a nice balance to that as far as placement with regards to separation of the structure and the hard surface with the undisturbed pieces of the lot and the tributary for runoff. We are working with the watershed district to go through some of the same issues and they have their own set of rules and restrictions. Buffer zones are a big part of what they do which means all of the areas within, what they would call the wetland buffers will be unusable for the homeowner which means everything to the left of that driveway will be unusable. Untouchable. They can't touch it. Manicure it. Mow it. Anything and there'll be signs all along that driveway that state that so that if he ever sells somebody else can't come in and start mowing there and things like that so those signs will be up and down that driveway. They'll circle that entire wetland in the front of the property including the ditch area that we're going over so there's a lot of area on this piece of land for handling the water runoff from this. The engineers that we hired to do the surveys and you saw a copy of that survey. It's very detailed. That is probably the 8' or 9`s generation of that survey that we've had to go back with changes, additions and that came from some of the stuff that was happening here with the staff but also with the water district and also with the movement of the home and things like that. We had a discussion with our engineer. They spoke with the Barr Engineer person from the district that is hired for them by them and they had a discussion about retention pond. It was one of those things that we were right on the border that they were looking at thinking about and they thought that we did a really nice job of how we placed the hard surface material on the lot to allow the lot to handle and the wetlands to handle the water coming off the hard surface so not only did we I think because of how we designed things I think minimize the damage or if you will the effect on the wetlands. We actually kept it so that we didn't have to have a retention pond which in my mind is further kind of changes from 36 Chanhassen Planning Co•'ssion —March 15, 2016 • the natural habitat and the wetlands. I don't think that with what we're dealing with the size of this lot the idea that we had a tributary to help with the runoff. We have wetlands all over. It shouldn't have been necessary for a retention pond. We're glad to hear that it wasn't a requirement. Any questions from the council? Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: I have one. Just responding to Drew's presentation of option 2, did you explore separating the 3 car garage from the house and either having it free standing and kind of look at option 2 or create a breezeway connection between the house and the garage thus not impacting the windows. So now I'm playing designer okay. I just said Drew shouldn't do that but now I'm doing it because I, there's appears to be maybe some middle ground. Did you explore those 2 options? Dan Hanson: Well the trick is the amount of room we have to work with up there on that high ground. We can't move the septic system. We decided that so how do I get that garage you know manipulated? Tietz: Well I'm just saying slide the garage south and create the gap between and with either a breezeway. Now I should not be saying this or commenting but when the option is presented and I trust that you thoroughly explored that as an option and then how could you make something similar to option 2 work for the owners without disrupting the design character that your company has prepared. Dan Hanson: We did to a certain degree. We didn't go to the effective drawings and things like that but we did talk in terms of what would that do and could it even be done. To be honest we didn't know where this process was going to go. We were dealing to be honest with you with some of the previous, the previous options and they were so drastic from our plan that we spent a lot of time just addressing the issues related to those because without the septics where they were without the road. Where they were in our minds we were dead in the water so for us to go in and start coming up with 10 to 15 options on how to redesign the house to meet the restriction we spent more time trying to understand it and come up with our rationale, our argument for keeping the plan the way it was. Could we redesign it? Probably but I can tell you it's very difficult where that garage is to pull it away from the house because it's going to impede on the septic system location and that can't move. Tietz: Well from where the green splotches are it doesn't appear that that would have an impact SO. Dan Hanson: What's that? Tietz: Where the green patches are indicated doesn't look as though that would be an issue to pull it, pull it 10 feet off of the house. 37 Chanhassen Planning Co• ssion — March 15, 2016 • Dan Hanson: It's possible. I've got to have septic tanks. There are just the drainfields so I've got to have tanks. The tanks can't be covered by the garage. It doesn't look like we... Aller: Can't we reduce the size of the garage to a 2 car garage? Dan Hanson: Pardon me? Aller: Can't we change it to a 2 car garage? Or reduce the footprint of the house. Dan Hanson: Well I would say no just because you know you've got an acreage property. You've got a home that's a 3 stall. You know 3 plus that new home. We've got no place for any sort of a storage facility. You have no place to put a boat. The things that they need for the lake so that third stall becomes extremely important. Aller: Okay. Additional questions? Commissioner Undestad. Undestad: When you went through with Barr Engineering and the watershed and the wetland and stuff were there any concerns or comments from anybody in there about your footprint design and the location within the tributary wetland? Dan Hanson: From the neighbors? Undestad: No. When you went through with Barr Engineering. Dan Hanson: Oh you know we're still working through that with them. We have just now got the thumbs up that we've got everything to them to meet their next meeting. If we can get into that meeting which we were working very hard to do because the timing of everything. We weren't getting what they needed. The complexity of the information they needed. If you look at our survey, that 2 pages it is layer upon layer of detail of how they needed us, what they needed us to prepare to get ready for that meeting so all we know is that we have got everything that they need. We are now just providing some additional information and answering questions that they have. To be honest their focus right now is unrelated to the house or the septic system. It has to do with the driveway that we've already approved here. They don't think that we've met the requirement on the drainage component of that and the issue was their requirements would have us put two 15 inch culverts in that drive and there's not enough material to even cover two 15 so what we are arguing is that the 12 would be, or one 15 would be sufficient and that it would have no impact on the neighbors on the area. We can only move so much water from that ditch area because it goes into that tributary and if it doesn't move off, away from that area, through the tributary it's going to back up anyway. It doesn't matter if you have 1 or 10 culverts there so we're going through that issue. it Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 15, 2016 • Aller: So I guess the question I have then is, is the application a little bit premature because if what I'm hearing is if Barr says you don't meet those requirements, that the project is dead? Dan Hanson: They're not saying that at all. They're basically saying that we need to address them and that we need to put in the application for a variance is what we have done for that particular area and it really just has to do with providing enough information for them just like we have for you so that they can basically speak... as a variance. Undestad: So the culverts. Dan Hanson: There is no, we don't see any way that they cannot approve it. It's a ditch. It's not even a wetland to be honest. It's been designated a wetland but that material came from the wetland across the street. I mean we understand why we are where we are but it's still difficult and we're trying to get through it all with all the different parties and we understand that they're just going through the steps that they have to go through and we think with the two engineers talking it will get the verbiage that they need to get that. That's the only thing that we've heard that's even an issue with regards, that would stop or slow the project down. Undestad: So what, just to clarify that. What you're talking about with Barr Engineering is the culverts that we've, just to get through that ditch. Initial ditch right from Meadowlark Lane. Alley: Right. DanHanson: They've seen the same design that you guys have seen with regards to width. The material that's being used. The volume of material being used. They just, there's a requirement and that requirement is under what we can produce or prepare for them based on the material we're using and the volume of material. I mean some of it had to do with the width of the road or the driveway and we're, you know we squeeze it down and now we can't get... Hokkanen: Does that approval need to be a condition of our approval? Aller: I think it's in the original variance. Hokkanen: Okay. Oh it is? Aller: That's why I'm saying it seems as though it's been presented as a two part process and the first part hasn't fully been approved yet so. Aanenson: But for the house meets all the requirements. It's kind of more technicality of what size piping he can use so. This is the conundrum we don't like to have is bouncing back between two jurisdictions so we're trying to work together on this. It is complicated when we did the first application because we didn't, we weren't able to see the whole application and so here we are today because we didn't have that in the first place. We didn't see the whole house and CEO Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 15, 2016 • everything so now we're trying to get to that point. Have we done our best to try to minimize that. Aller: So with the septic are we using force field? Are we pumping it up and out? What do we? Dan Hanson: For what? Aller: For your septic. Dan Hanson: Septic is a drainfields but it'd be pumped like any other every 2 years required by that. Aller: Okay. Any additional questions at this point? Okay thank you. Dan Hanson: Thank you very much. Aller: I'll open up the public hearing portion for any individual wishing to speak either for or against the project as presented. Welcome sir. If you could come state your name and address for the record that'd be great. Michael Wistrand: Hello. Michael Wistrand, 9670 Meadowlark. Aller: Welcome. Michael Wistrand: We're the neighbors. We've been there going on 26 years. This land that we bought and that David is planning on building on, the Vogel's have been there. They're founding members of the city. They've been there forever. When we bought the lot in 187, before that it was a farm field. This creek goes through my yard. It's this wide. I can step across it. It's not this, I mean it looks huge on that but it's really just a little creek. In the 26 years I've been there I haven't seen this thing more than a couple feet wide at any point. When the culvert gets flooded on Meadowlark it flows across and it rolls right out to the lake. It's very little flowage out there but there is flowage always. There are several springs on my property that feed that and also up along Pioneer Trail. As far as the neighbors go I've talked to just about all the neighbors, nobody has a problem with this. We want a nice house. Putting a 2 car garage is ridiculous on a lake lot. I mean that's kind of like defeating the purpose. He's got a nice plan. It works well. I think if the vegetation is correct it's going to take care of any problem you're going to have. You can easily you know, if you look at the plot it really is fairly flat. It doesn't, there's not a lot of runoff there so I think if you put the right vegetation in. You treat it correctly it's going to handle any runoff. Even the driveway, if you look at the driveway. The way they have this laid out there's very little side end to it. I mean it's not dropping towards the creek. It's pretty flat and I think it will be easily, you could keep that running that way. You had mentioned running it off to the right or something. I suppose there's the possibility of doing something like that if you could put a little holding pond or run it down to the gutter, or to the 40 Chanhassen Planning CoRI fission — March 15, 2016 • gully down below and run it all the way across the property but you know I think it's, you've got to have the right house. You've got to have a house that looks going to look right. You've got to have a house that's going to work with the neighborhood and work with the lake. You want it to look good on the lake and this plan number 1 is kind of, that's ridiculous. There's no reason for that. Keeping the septics, you know I've got septic myself. It's very critical you've got to do it right. Pushing them towards the lake makes no sense at all. I think you want to get as much area to, for runoff as possible. Number one if you do it correctly there should be no runoff of bad things coming out of a septic and that's supposed to go into the system. I just wanted to let you know that of all the neighbors I've talked to, I think I've talked to all but 2 of them so far. Everybody's for it. Nobody has a problem with the plot. Anything else. They want it done right and I think everybody's pretty comfortable with, if it's done properly and you go through the water district and everything else it can easily be done so that's all I have. Aller: Thank you. Any additional comments? Here comes someone. If you could state your name and address for the record that would be great. Thank you. Gayle Vogel: Gayle Vogel, 105 Pioneer Trail and partly that property, I was married to Dick Vogel and that property has been in the Vogel family for over 100 years and as they said we developed it in 1988 and Dick and I talked about building down there but he was in love with his cows and didn't want to move across the road to that darn lake and so I kind of gave in to him so we stayed where we were but our dream was always to have our kids build so here we are and I'm looking at the on the plan number 3. I'm thinking if it was your 8 year old daughter and you were knocking off 9 foot off of her bedroom and no window for I think the question was, what does that 9 feet gain so I'd really put a strong vote in for option 3. And David and Amy have really worked hard to, that is a beautiful lot for those of you that have seen it and the trees and it isn't a trail that goes. It's a farm road that's been there for over 100 years so that road has been used and well compacted and you know pretty much stuck where it is so we'd love to have you and I think we started in September looking at all of this and I know there's been all sorts of contingencies and getting the right things together but we'd really like to get started so they could move in in the fall so thank you. Aller: Thank you. Any additional comments? Dave Vogel: Hello, Dave Vogel. One of two owners. My wife is here as well. I'd like to thank you again for meeting with us. I know this is the second time. I'm not going to rehash why it's the second time but just want to emphasize you know with this option number 3 it minimizes the trees that we cut down. We keep the driveway you know the other additional thing is when we're talking about house design and what's reasonable and reasonable can be a two way street. I mean there's give and the take and there's been so much give and take with all this so when we were asked to move you know the 9 feet farther the initial concern was well you know we've got to redesign the house again and again at that point why wouldn't we have to do it again. I mean you could take a foot. You could take 2 feet. It ended up at 9. I mean we just felt like we worked. We flipped the orientation of the house. We have a two story so that we went up 41 Chanhassen Planning Clission — March 15, 2016 • instead of out with a rambler. Allows us to expand into the basement if needed and also I know it was just mentioned but I did talk to all of the neighbors. I've met with them. I walked the whole neighborhood. Handed out our design. I had more concern that the, I forget if it's option 2 or whatever it was on here that they don't want a narrow house built. They want it to conform with the neighborhood so that the property values aren't affected and that was the biggest concern. And you know I talked to Mike Monk again today. The neighbor to the east. You know when we had option number, the latest option to show up at 3:00 today he didn't agree with that as well and I talked to Tim Erhart immediately to the west and we've got the neighborhood on board so I can't possibly believe you'd hear from any of the 12 people in this neighborhood so we feel that was part of our being reasonable and making sure that we got everyone on board with that so any additional questions for me I'd be happy to take. And again thank you for your time and consideration. Aller: Thank you. Any questions? Okay thank you. And we have another individual coming forward. Amy Vogel: I'll be fast. My name is Amy Vogel. I am the other owner of the property that we're trying to build. I just wanted to give you some perspective because it is kind of a conversation between option number 2 and option number 3. Our's being option number 3. We have 3 young children. We have a 3 year old, a 5 year old and an 8 year old so when we were choosing to want the master on the main so that we could live our lives out on this property it was, we did have to put some thought into thinking of putting our children all up when we were down but we did decide it was worth it to minimize some of the impact that this house could have on this property given the restrictions. So when you look at something as little as that 9 feet, which doesn't seem like a lot to push that house over to the property line those 9 feet, like my mother-in-law Gayle said it does impact that bedroom on that second floor and that bedroom was going to be my 8 year old daughter's and it's a nice big bedroom and to think of this tiny little window somewhere in that space on a side wall when it's a bedroom that won't get a lot of light in if you're really minimizing things to just take that nice double window because you're sliding the house over 9 feet and lose that and I do question the ability of a fireman to gain access to that room when those 9 feet are lost on that wall. I can't say for sure if they, if that would be an issue or not but just thinking of the aesthetic quality of a bedroom that a 8 year old girl is going to be hanging out in for quite a few years and how much light would actually also get into that space for 9 feet is a question that concerns me as well since a bedroom is a very important place for a child so thank you. Aller: Thank you. I think we've run out of audience members so at this point I'll close the public hearing portion and open it up for commissioner comments and discussion. Tietz: Chairman? Aller: Commissioner Tietz. 42 Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 15, 2016 • Tietz: First of all I want to compliment the staff on really a great job on this and all of our projects I think that come. I know this one's been really challenging and I think had we all been here 30 or 40 years ago we probably wouldn't be discussing the same topics that we're discussing today and that's, you know the land is encumbered by our current regulations and we have to try our best to work within them at all times and we've certainly gone through a number of iterations of plans and discussions over setback and how this is going to impact but personally I feel that option number 3 is within the design constraints that they've established and the floorplan and the work that's been done. I'd have to say that that, you know to go back and continue to redesign and look at options that are going to conform to a minimal extent beyond what they have done with a very, very difficult site. I think the comment by the contractor saying that we had essentially 5 percent of a site that's actually buildable. That places really severe restrictions on anything that's been done but I think given the design that you've selected and the approach that you've taken that option 3 in this instance is very appropriate. Aller: Any additional comments. Undestad: I would have to agree. Hokkanen: I agree as well. Aller: So when we look at this there's no question that this is the type of property that requires a variance if you want to have reasonable structure at all because of the complexity of the setbacks and the water structures that surround the property and we visited this the first time. We do want to minimize any impact and so I really appreciate staff coming forward and making the effort to try to look at options and I would also commend staff. This is the third hearing tonight and we always hear that the process has been a great process for people to work with staff and going through and that you are accommodating and that you do look at options so I think that the staff did a great job in making presentation that includes all the options and number 1 didn't pass mustard because of the property structure conditions but I appreciate the fact that you looked at it because it is another option that would minimize those, the impacts on the restrictions and that's one of our jobs in granting a variance is to make sure that it's minimized. Just as I asked the question about reduction of the property I wanted to see whether or not individuals had thought about to a degree the type of structure and the amount of the hard cover and the footprint that's being used by the property and I was pleased to hear that obviously it had been thought about in great detail including the safety factors and issues with regard to the bedroom and the windows and although we have requirements and laws and legal scenarios where we require an ingress and egress window to be a certain size it doesn't necessarily mean that we have to put our structures in such a position that we have to use them so I agree with the other comments that the presentation by staff was excellent. I think that option 3 in my mind is probably the best for the use of this property to make it a reasonable use under the circumstances which is what I think we're charged with so I would be voting to approve a motion for 3 and I would ask for someone to make that motion. 43 Chanhassen Planning Covission — March 15, 2016 • Tietz: Mark? Yeah I'll make that motion. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: First do we change? Undestad: Just go to 3. Tietz: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance from the 100 foot shoreland setback from a tributary to construction a single family, boy you made it a lot easier for me to read it. Home, accessory structures and driveway as shown in Attachment 3. Oh you changed it. Ingvalson: Correct. Hokkanen: Magic. Tietz: In the memorandum dated March 15, 2016 subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Madsen: Second. Aller: So I have a motion by Commissioner Tietz, a second by Commissioner Madsen. Any further discussion? Just again would applaud staff in being prepared for the motion. Obviously thinking of all the options presented so I'm happy to have staff present them all so a decision that is an informed one can be made and with that I'll entertain the vote. All those in favor. Tietz moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve a shoreland setback variance from a tributary for the construction of a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway, as shown in Attachment #15 of the staff report, subject to the following conditions: Planning and Building Department 1. The applicant shall apply for and receive a building permit and/or zoning permit for all structures. 2. The applicant shall erect temporary fencing around the proposed septic locations prior to any operation of equipment on the site. Water Resources Coordinator 3. The plan must clearly indicate the shoreland impact zone and encroachment therein. 44 Chanhassen Planning Commission — March 15, 2016 • 4. The applicant is responsible for any other agency approvals that may be required. 5. No site disturbance may occur until the city has received confirmation from the Board of Soil and Water Resources that the wetland bank account has been debited thereby satisfying the approved wetland replacement plan. 6. All erosion prevention and sediment control practices must be properly installed prior to any earth disturbing activities. 7. Type II sediment control best management practices are required for all areas up gradient of the wetland, the stream and the lake. This shall be machine sliced silt fence with metal tee posts or other as approved by the City Engineer. 8. All other pertinent aspects of City Code Section 19-145 must be included with the site plan including, but not limited to the placement of six (6) inches of topsoil to all disturbed areas. 9. The city or their representative shall inspect the erosion prevention and sediment control best management practices prior to any earth disturbing activities. Forestry Official 10. Clearing and construction limits shall be located outside of shore impact zone and will be no closer than 100 feet to the Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). 11. Clearing of vegetation along the shore shall be limited to a strip of 30 feet, parallel to the shoreline and extending inward within the shore impact zone. The applicant shall use this clearing for views and access to the lake. No additional clearing is allowed by ordinance. 12. Per city ordinance, all trees 10 inches and larger within the construction limits shall be shown on the building permit survey. Fire Marshall 13. Address numbers shall be posted at the driveway entrance prior to any building construction. Numbers shall be minimum 12 inches in height, located at the driveway entrance, contrasting color to the surface they are applied to. Builder shall contact Fire Marshal for review and approval of numbers. 14. No burning permits will be issued for tree or brush removal. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Yusuf noted the verbatim and summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated February 16, 2016 as presented. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS. Aanenson: Before we get to the year end report if you don't mind adjusting the schedule there we'll take the, sorry. We'll just go through upcoming meetings real quick why we get set up. So we will not have a meeting April 5'. We did not have any additional applications. We have quite a few that are in process that we're working on. I also want to announce at the City M1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION VARIANCE IN RE: Application of Dan Hanson for a shoreland setback variance from a tributary for the construction of a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway on property zoned Rural Residential District (RR) — Planning Case 2016-07. On March 15, 2016, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Rural Residential District (RR). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Large Lot. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 7, Block 1, Riley Lake Meadows. 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The construction of a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway is a normal use of a property in a residential district and is permitted in the Rural Residential District. The subject proposal is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of Chapter 20, Article XI. "RR" Rural Residential District. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. 'Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The buildable area of the lot is significantly limited by the required shoreland setback from the tributary. The property owner proposes to construct a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway. The narrow buildable area on the property has created a practical difficulty for the property owner from using the site in a reasonable manner, which requires relief from city code. SCANNED c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variance is not based on economic considerations alone. The applicant would like to construct a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway on a lot of record in a residential zoning district. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The location of the tributary stream creates a unique circumstance for the property owner to work around when attempting to construct a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway on the lot. The required setback from the stream creates a narrow buildable area on the lot. The subject tributary was not created by, nor was its location altered by, the landowner. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The homes located on either side of the property are single-family residential homes, and both have a bituminous driveway access, as do all homes in the neighborhood. Granting the proposed variance request will not alter the essential character of the locality or Riley Lake Meadows neighborhood, located within the Rural Residential District. f Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2016-07, dated March 15, 2016, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves a shoreland setback variance from a tributary for the construction of a single-family home, accessory structures, and driveway, as shown in Attachment #3 of the memorandum dated March 15, 2016, subject to the conditions of approval. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 15a' day of March, 2016. CITY OF CHANHASSEN a A Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) CITY OF CHANHASSEN Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized CARVER & HENNEPIN agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 2016-07 (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331 A.07, and other applicable laws, as that the Chanhassen Planning amended. Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, March 15, (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. 2016, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Chambers in Chanhassen Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request fora inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition Shoreland and Wetland setback to and publication of the Notice: construct a single-family home on Property zoned Rural Residential abcdefghijkhnnopgrstu District (RR) and located at 9641 Meadowlark Lane (Lot 7, Block f, /, I I 1 , •, Riley Lake Meadows). Applicant (�(�'/ Wausau Homes. Owner: David By: Vogel. Laurie A. Hartmann A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen. Subscribed and sworn before me on mn.us/2016.07 or at City Hall during regular business re hours. I All interested persons ainvited 1 /� to attend this public hearing this day of 2016 and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Drew Ingvalson, Planner WJYMME Email: dirrgvanon.0 JEAN'NE7E BARK ci.chanhassen.mn.us NTARYPt UC-M:NNESOTA Phone: 952-227-1132(Published in the Chanhassen ublic �I,!MiSSfON EXPIRES O1jJ1r8 Villager on Thursday, March 3, 2016: No: 4245) "- RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................. $31.20 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter .............................................. $12.59 per column inch SCANNED MEMORANDUM TO: Drew Ingvalson, Planner FROM: Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: March 3, 2016 RE: Planning Case 2016-07 Request for shoreland setback variance — Lot 7, Block 1, Riley Lake Meadows I have reviewed the application materials submitted by Dan Hanson of Wausau Homes on behalf of the property owner. Based upon my review of these materials I offer the following comments. The City's shoreland ordinance was first adopted in 1989 as required by MN Statute 103F. The intended purpose is to; 1. Provide guidance for the wise development of shorelands of public waters and thus preserve and enhance the quality of surface waters; 2. Preserve the economic and natural environment values of shorelands and 3. Provide for the wise use of water and related land resources of the state.' This purpose should be considered when evaluating the proposal to determine if the applicant is minimizing the requested variance if not completely avoiding the need for a variance. It must also be considered that the unsewered nature of the lot, the location of the tributary stream more central on the lot and the wetlands contribute to the difficulty of meeting all requirements on the site. It is incumbent upon the applicant to demonstrate that they are in compliance with the existing regulations to the greatest practicable extent while still meeting their intended use of the parcel — a single family residence. It is apparent that the desire of the applicant is to place the home as close to Lake Riley as possible. This is understandable given the nature of the property as it relates to the aesthetics of the lake. However, this desire does not, of its own accord, provide adequate justification for being forgiven the requirements that all similar lots must meet. The applicant should, through various modifications, seek to minimize the variance from the setback as much as possible. Some questions that might be asked when viewing the site plan include; • Are the primary and secondary septic sites oriented in the only way possible or, could they be rotated some to allow for the driveway to be pulled further from the creek? • Even if the septic sites are oriented and placed in the only possible way, can the driveway still be pulled further away from the creek? ' 2015 Minnesota Statutes 103F.201 • Can the garage be oriented to the house at a more oblique angle than the proposed 90' orientation to allow for a different driveway radius? • Can the house be pulled east so that it is aligned with the eastern wall of the garage thereby increasing the setback from the channel? • Could the septic fields be moved more southerly on the property and the garage be designed to load from the south so that the driveway alignment could meander and meet the setback for at least the northern half of the driveway? • Could the driveway be narrowed? These are appropriate questions, and certainly not the only questions that should be addressed before granting any variance from the setback requirements. It is an undeveloped lot that it appears the applicant wants to fit to the chosen design rather than altering the design to fit the existing natural constraints of the lot. It is common for houses to be designed specific to the lot for which it will be constructed upon. If it is clear that these questions can be answered in the negative, then the variance request has merit and should be granted. If the answer to any of them is yes, then modifications should be made accordingly prior to approving the variance request. That is to say, minimize the necessary variance and then approve the modified variance request. In addition to the setback requirements, Section 20-482 subparagraph (b) states that "Intensive vegetation clearing within the shore and bluff impact zones and on steep slopes is not allowed." The only exception to this is a limited clearing of 30% of the lot width or 30 feet, whichever is less. This exception was intended to provide for a view of the lake as well as to accommodate access to the lake. Staff has spoken with the builder about this requirement and the builder is discussing with the property owner and engineer how to address this. Finally, the grading must have erosion prevention and sediment control practices consistent with Section 19-145 of city code. The most significant change is that biorolls are not an acceptable perimeter control up gradient of water resources including the lake, stream and wetland. Instead, machine sliced silt fence with metal tee -posts shall be used. RECOMMENDATION I recommend approval of the variance request and site plan if the following conditions can be met; 1. The application address all reasonable and practicable site plan modifications to minimize the variance request as discussed in the body of the report. 2. The plan must clearly indicate the shoreland impact zone and encroachment therein. 3. The applicant is responsible for any other agency approvals that maybe required. the site plan with tha following conditions; 1. No site disturbance may occur until the city has received confirmation from the Board of Soil and Water Resources that the wetland bank account has been debited thereby satisfying the approved wetland replacement plan. 2. All erosion prevention and sediment control practices must be properly installed prior to any earth disturbing activities. 3. Type II sediment control best management practices are required for all areas up gradient of the wetland, the stream and the lake. This shall be machine sliced silt fence with metal tee posts or other as approved by the City Engineer. 4. All other pertinent aspects of section 19-145 must be included with the site plan including, but not limited to the placement of six (6) inches of topsoil to all disturbed areas. 5. The city or their representative shall inspect the erosion prevention and sediment control best management practices prior to any earth disturbing activities. 6. The applicant is responsible for any other agency approvals that may be required. L In valson, Drew From: Littfin, Mark Sent: Monday, February 22, 2016 3:26 PM To: Ingvalson, Drew Cc: Mohn, Jerry; Johnson, Don Subject: Planning case 2016-07, setback of home located at 9641 Meadowlark Lane Drew I have reviewed the proposed setback for the above project. The only requirements I have are that address numbers shall be posted at the driveway entrance prior to any building construction. Numbers shall be minimum 12 inches in height, located at the driveway entrance, contrasting color to the surface they are applied to. Builder shall contact Fire Marshal for review and approval of numbers. Also no burning permits will be issued for tree or brush removal. 94arkGittfin Chanhassen Fire Marshal 7700 Market Blvd. PO box 147 Chanhassen MN. 55317 Direct 952.227.1151 Fax 952.227.1190 • Meadow Lark Area ff Home Square Footage 3428 Sq Ft 333= Sq Ft 2583 Sq Ft '`6638 Sq Ft 't �. `�'��✓ice ,,,,,, TA' 1-1 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division — 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1130 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 AGENCY REVIEW REQUEST LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL CITY OF CHANHASSEN Please review and respond no later than the review response deadline Agency Review Request Date: February 22, 2016 Agency Review Response Deadline: March 3, 2016 Date Application Filed: February 17, 2016 Contact: Contact Phone: Contact Email: Drew Ingvalson 952-227-1132 dingvalson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Assistant Planner Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: 60-Day Review Period Deadline: March 15, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. April 11, 2016 at 7:00 p.m. Aril 12, 2016 Application: Request for a Shoreland and Wetland setback to construct a single-family home on property zoned Rural Residential District (RR) and located at 9641 Meadowlark Lane (Lot 7, Block 1, Riley Lake Meadows). Applicant: Wausau Homes. Owner: David Vogel. Planning Case: 2016-07 Web Page: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2016-07 In order for staff to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Departments: LJ Attorney ® Building Official ® Engineer ® Fire Marshal ® Forester ❑ Park Director ® Water Resources ❑ Law Enforcement Federal Agencies: ® Army Corps of Engineers ❑ US Fish & Wildlife Watershed Districts: ❑ Carver County WMO ❑ Lower MN River ❑ Minnehaha Creek ® Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Carver County Agencies: Utilities: ❑ ❑ Community Development Engineer ❑ Cable TV — Mediacom El Environmental Services El Electric — Minnesota Valley El Historical Society ElElectric—Xcel Energy ❑ Parks ❑ Magellan Pipeline ® Soil & Water Conservation District ❑ Natural Gas — CenterPoint Energy ❑ Phone — CenturyLink State Agencies: ❑ Board of Water & Soil Resources ❑ Health ❑ Historical Society ❑ Natural Resources -Forestry ® Natural Resources -Hydrology ❑ Pollution Control ❑ Transportation Adjacent Cities: ❑ Chaska ❑ Eden Prairie ❑ Jackson Township ❑ Minnetonka ❑ Shorewood ❑ Victoria Adjacent Counties: ❑ Hennepin ❑ Scott School Districts: ❑ Eastern Carver County 112 ❑ Minnetonka 276 Other Agencies: ❑ Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority ❑ MN Landscape Arboretum ❑ SouthWest Transit ❑ TC&W Railroad SCrVNElC Property Card i Parcel ID Numbe• 257420070 Taxpayer Information Taxpayer Name GAYLE M & RICHARD P VOGEL TRUSTEES OF TRUST Mailing Address 105 PIONEER TRL CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-8660 Property Address _... Address 9641 MEADOWLARK LN City CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 Parcel Information Uses Res V Land GIS Acres 2.4 Net Acres 24 Deeded Acres 2.5 Plat RILEY LAKE MEADOWS Lot 007 Block 001 Tax Description Building Information Building Style Above Grade Bedrooms Finished S Ft Year Built Garage N Bathrooms Miscellaneous Information School District Watershed District Homestead Green Acres Ag Preserve 0112 WS 064 RILEY PURG BLUFF N I N N Assessor Information Estimated Market Value 2014 Values (Payable 2015) 2015 Values (Payable 2016) Last Sale Land $520,,700.00 $555,200.00 Date of Sale Building $0.00 $0.00 Sale Value Total $520, 700, 00 $ 555, 200, 00 The data provided herewith is for reference purposes only. This data is rot suitable for legal, engineering, surveying or other similar purposes. Carver County does not guarantee the accuracy of the i farmaticn contained herein. This data is furnished on an as is' bass and Carver County makes nor representnt representations or warranties. either expressedimplied, fo or r the merchantaeldy or fdness of the into" on provided for any purpose. This disclaimer is pmvded pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §4 03 and the user of the data provided herein acknowledges that Carver County shall not be liable for any damages, and by using the data in anyway expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend. indemnRy, and hold harmless Carver County, As officials, officers, agents, employees, etc. from any and all claims brought by an gone who uses the information provided for herein, its employees or agents, or CARVER dhird parties which arise out of user's access. By acceptance of this data, the user agrees not to trarnmil this data or pmvitle access to it or any pad of It to another party .dl )mil Includes COUNTY with the data a copy of this disclaimer. Tuesday, January 05, 2016 Carver County, MN WET LAND SET BACK VARIANCE- 9641 Meadowlark LN., Chanhassen, MN 55317 VARIANCE FOR PLACEMENT OF: Driveway, House, Septic, Well, Deck, & Patio Narrative 03/02/2016 Argument to be granted a variance, 100' set back from the tributary (Creek). Request for variance for the driveway servicing the new home and the house placement on the lot. House placement to include septic system, well, deck and the patio under the deck as shown on the purposed survey. With the driveway entrance wetland setback variance granted, per the Chanhassen Planning Commission meeting on February 16, 2016. The following request for variance addressing the Conditions applied to our request for wetland variance on the entire proposed length of the driveway, approximately 350',as well as the placement of the new home, at the end of the proposed driveway. Both would fall within the 1 00'set back from the tributary (wetland) and both would require the same variance set back, per our proposed Land Survey. The septic system placement is the critical element to the drive way location and house placement. The house placement includes a deck and patio under the deck, which is identified on the land survey as well. We are showing placement of the deck and patio under the deck now, even though the home owner will be applying for building permit for these items at a later date. We want to avoid having to request another variance, at a later date, for the deck and patio to be added. Lake Set Back- The proposed House, deck and patio, septic system and driveway location meets the required 100' set back from the lake. In fact our current house foundation is located 120' from the lake. This allows 20' for building the deck, which will be a separate building permit from the house building permit. We are also meeting the 10' set back from the property line for the house and Septic System. Proposed Survey- Wet Land Set Back Variance for Road and House • A critical and essential element to our proposed survey has to do with the placement of the septic system drain fields. These are needed for the proposed home (or any home) to be built on this lot. With our current driveway position, we are able to keep the drain field away from the proposed road, fitting it between the road and the required property line set back. Two drain fields are required by the state, the one closest to the house is the primary, the other is a back- up location, used only if the primary field ever fails. Where we have the fields placed on our survey meets all the design specification provide by a licensed septic engineer, hired to design the system. We have provided a copy of his design specification to a representative for the City of Chanhassen, Community Development Department. The septic system engineering is currently under review. • Our septic contractor has informed us that the drain fields must be placed on ground that is not compacted. The area we have placed them on the survey is undisturbed ground that has not been changed or compacted, which makes it an acceptable location. • Our proposed septic drain field location is approximately 75' from the tributary. The system was placed to accommodate the house location on our proposed survey. • The orientation of the drain fields, is also critical. The fields were designed with the orientation on our current Land Survey to meet specific design requirements. Per our septic system engineer, the drain field must run parallel with the contours of the existing landscape. You can see on the current survey the system runs parallel with the elevation lines marked on the survey. • SEPTIC SYSTEM LOCATION, drain fields must be on undisturbed ground that is not modified or compacted. The only thing that can be added is sand, in order to level the system. There is a limit to how much sand can be added, so if the elevation change is too drastic, the drain field location can be deemed unacceptable. The current drain field location meets the engineer's specifications. �,-,� 0� 61A� • Move the septic system from the location identified on our proposed survey will be problematic. We believe this is the best location with the restrictions and conditions we are dealing with. We have the septic system placed as far away from both designated wet land areas and still able to service the home. The drain fields cannot be moved from our proposed location without putting one or both of the drain fields partially on the existing compacted trail or dirt road. • DRIVEWAY LOCATION- the location of the driveway is placed on top of the existing compacted dirt road that has been in place since before the land was developed as a Sub- division in the 80". The placement and orientation of the driveway allow for a straight alignment for large trucks and service vehicles to enter the property and access the home. This would include large equipment needed for construct as well as emergency vehicles like fire trucks. With the wet land set back driving the width of the driveway and limited area for large vehicles to turn around, large vehicles will need to back in or back out of the driveway. It would be very difficult, if not impossible for large vehicles to maneuver a driveway with turns or sharp curves. • If we were to try to angle the driveway in the direction of the East property line, to move further away from the creek (wet land) after crossing the ditch area at the entrance of the property. We would create an S-shaped drive that would make access to the home impossible for large vehicles. That is why we feel the straight driveway in the proposed location is the only option. • Driveway width- The width of the driveway is also critical to accessing the home. The driveway entrance- wetland setback variance was granted, per the Chanhassen Planning Commission meeting on February 16, 2016. This variance allows a wet land variance to enter the property with a 12' wide road over the ditch. We are asking for a 12' wide drive to continue the entire length of the driveway. The width of the drive way is critical for the same reasons we stated earlier regarding large vehicles accessing the property during construction, as well as emergency vehicles access. • Also, with the wet land set back, we are required by the Water Shed District to have wet land buffer zones identified along the driveway. Buffer areas are adjacent to the driveway for a good portion of the driveway. These zones will be posted with signs. The home owner will be unable to modify or even mow these areas. The 12' wide driveway is to ensure that cars or trucks have adequate room to access the property. • As stated above, the septic system drain field placement is also the primary factor in the road placement. IF the road were moved to the far East side of the lot, to keep out of the 1 00'wet land set back, the road would force the Septic system drain fields to be moved closer to the wet lands and on top of the existing trail/dirt road, which would not meet the Septic system design specifications. • HOUSE LOCATION- With our current house location, we meet the 1 00'requirement for set back from the lake. We are currently at 120', which gives the home owner an additional 20' for a future deck and patio. We have also met the set -back requirement of the property line of 10'. • The current design of the home was based off information that we were given, in our initial meeting with City of Chanhassen. We were told that the set -back requirement from the tributary was 50', the home placement does meet that requirement. We modified the plan at that time to reverse the garage placement and keep it further from the wet land set back. • We have be working with the Chanhassen Planning Department to make modification to our land survey related to driveway, septic system and house placement. We are attempting to come up with a reasonable compromise for placement of the house and driveway, with the 100' wet land set back requirement. • We think our house, driveway and Septic System locations are a reasonable compromise related to the 100' wet land set back. We have moved the home as far away from the wet land (creek) as possible and still meet the needs of the home owner. • The current house plans were designed to meet the needs of the home owner, but also to take advantage of views of the lake. In order to do this we need adequate area for windows and patio doors. If we push the home 100' away from the creek, we have approximately 25' of wall space to 0 place windows and a patio door. The bulk of the house would face the property line, facing the neighbor's property, approximately 60'. Comment from the builder- as a home builder I have 110 plans that I access on a regular basis, for my customer. Not one of those plans are design to NOT take advantage of the views out of the back of the house. Can we customize something to fit the small area that meets the 100' set back? Sure, but is it reasonable to ask the home owner to pay for a complete re -design of a house plan to meet very restrictive set -backs that result in a poor design for the home owner and a unacceptable house design for the neighborhood. The wet land set back restrictions have deemed this lot unbuildable, due to access to the property. With the wet land variance given by the Chanhassen Planning Commission at the meeting on February 16, 2016, the home owner can now access the property. Our calculation- with all the wet land set back restrictions, including lake and property set- backs, we calculate the portion of this 2.4 acre lot that is buildable is approximately 5%. That seems very restrictive. That is why we are asking for a variance to the 100' wet land set -back for the house, the driveway, septic system, deck and patio, as located on our proposed Land Survey. Home Owner's Comments: This property has been in our family for over 100 years, three generations, going on four. We have held the property in the family with the dream to someday build a lake home for our family. When the land became part of the Riley Lake Meadows Subdivision in the 80's we were given our Plat Sheet, showing the lot that we could someday build on. We are finally at a point where we can now build our family lake home. We realize that the people we are working with in the Chanhassen planning areas did not write the regulation related to wet land set- backs. We realize that there job is to get compliance to the regulation, as it is written. However, we also know that there is a variance process. It is our understanding the variance process is to be used when the regulation on home owner/tax payer is too restrictive. We believe this is without a doubt, one of those situations. In our case, the set -back restrictions are changing our ability the use the property the way we intended to be use. Our intent to build on the lot was a reasonable assumption, with the Developers Plat Sheet of the lot and a Tax ID, with a classification as a buildable lot. We believe that if we are held to the wet land set back of 100' this would change the classification of the land to an unbuildable lot. If we can't access the lot it is unbuildable. We realize by being granted the Variance to build a driveway over the ditch area, the lot is closer to being a buildable lot. However, we do not believe pressing the Driveway, Septic System and House to the far Eastern border of the lot, to meet the 100' set back from the Creek, is a viable option. We have explained in our response above, that the Septic System cannot be moved from where we have it placed. The Driveway must be placed where we have it, for truck and emergency vehicle access. This includes the direction of the driveway, no curves or turns. We are very concerned with the width of the driveway. It was designed to be narrow to reduce the impact to the wetland setback. It would be very difficult to maneuver if there were turns or curves in it. This leave the house placement, as the remaining critical variance for use to finally be able to build our lake home on our lot. The house was designed for us, based on how we would like to live and use it, for our family. The layout of the floor plan intentionally has the master bedroom on the main level. We intend E to grow old in this home, so it will become very important to have the master bed room on the main level. This did create a larger foot print for the house, which makes it more difficult to keep the house away from the 100' setback. We currently have three young children and might have more, requiring at least four bed rooms with space for more, if needed. We have been asked to create an alternate Survey, showing the house and garage pushed to the far eastern lot line. We do not feel this is a reasonable option. We are merely asking to build within the boundaries that were established when the lot was platted. The only thing we are requesting a variance for is the 100' set back from the wet lards. -7S If this were a lot that had city sewer, the setback would be *!not 100'. We don't understand why there is a difference. If it is because of the Septic System✓we have moved the system as far away from the wet land, as possible. If the difference in setback requirement is because they assume unsewered lots are bigger, which means they can more likely meet the 100' set back. Our response would be NOT all unsewered lots are big enough to reasonably meet the setback. That is why there is a variance process, to deal with lots that cannot meet the requirements. We think enforcing restriction that deems 95% of the lot unbuildable, should qualify us for a variance. Please grant the Variance for the Driveway, Septic System, Well, House, Deck and Patio, per the placement identified on our proposed Land Survey. Thank you. The number for the 95% unbuildable is calculated from the proposed impervious surface (hard surface) calculation provided on our proposed Survey. That hard surface number was 9.8%. The additional 4.8 % was our estimate of the percent of the House, deck, patio and driveway that falls within the wet land set back, on the lot. Keep in mind that the wet land set back includes all of the area on the entire front of the lot that meets Meadowlark LN, the wetland area just over the entrance drive and the 100' set back area the entire length of the lot, to the lake. It also includes Lake and property line setbacks. This leaves 5%, as buildable, out of 2.4 acres. The home owner has made every effort to meet lake and property line set back, as well as a good effort to minimize the impact to the wet lands and natural habitat. HOUSE PLAN CHANGES- We have been asked to address possible changes to the house plans. First, regarding the garage placement, we do not see a viable option for changing the orientation of the garage, because any way we shift the garage pushes the house or garage within property line set -backs, or pushes the house further into the 100' set back from the wet land. The garage depth cannot change, or we won't be able to park a car in it. We can't get closer to the septic drain field because we need room for the system tanks. As we stated earlier, we can't move the drain fields. Second, we can't move the garage so the back wall of the garage lines up with the back wall of the house. We realize this would allow the house to move closer to the Eastern lot line, and further way from the 100' wet land set back. However, by moving the garage in that manner we would cover the windows to the main floor office and cover the window to the bedroom above. This window is the only egress from that bedroom above. The bedroom would be unusable. • Also, any reductions to the driveway width or the area outside the garage doors will make turning a vehicle around very difficult. We can't expect the home owner or quests to back down a 350' driveway. We need ample space around the garages for cars to turn around. In our proposed Land Survey, we are trying to minimize the area that falls within the 100' wet land set back. This includes the amount of area for turning around in the driveway. • The home we are proposing is also consistent with the caliber of homes in this subdivision. The home owner has shared the house plans with neighbors. The consensus has been supportive of the home design and the location of the home, on the lot. • We feel the proposed driveway and house placement are the best location to minimize the impact to wet lands and undisturbed natural habitat. The driveway we are proposing, makes use of the dirt road that has been on the property of nearly 100 years. We are not changing the direction or placement of the dirt road. There will be no major excavating required. We will simply building up the existing road with a compactable material. • We are currently working with the Water Shed District on their requirements, regarding the driveway placement and entrance to the property over the ditch. Our understanding is that they have a 50' set back requirement. However, they allow averaging of the over- all property to meet the set- back requirement. We believe we are able to meet their requirements. • They also require a buffer between the tributary and our proposed drive way. Which makes these pars of the lot unusable by the home owner. • The ditch at the entrance of the property and the wet land area near the entrance are also identified as wet land, which means they are off limits to the home owner to modify or even mow. Survey- Driveway moved to meet 100' wetland setback We have been asked to comment on the placement of the Driveway, Septic System and House, if we were able to meet the 100' setback from the tributary. An alternate Survey has been prepared, showing the driveway, septic system and house placement. Here is our argument against this option. • If we were to meet the 1 00'wet land set -back requirement for the driveway, we would be changing the path from the current dirt road, after the designated wetlands at the entrance to the property. It would require major excavating and disturbing an area of the lot that would not need to be disturbed. • This would mean, pushing the driveway, septic system and house to the far Eastern property line. This area is currently not in the home owner's plans to disturb. • The septic system drain fields would now be pushed closer to the tributary wet land and would encroach on the 1Q0'�^t.land se back 7 area. It would also push them onto the current dirt road area. ' \ rul This placement will require the same variance for wetland setback as the driveway, in the other proposal, due to the septic drain fields. • Also, the septic drain fields will now be placed partially on the compacted dirt road, which will not meet the septic system design specification, regarded compacted soil. • We have also been asked to identify on the survey where the bank of the tributary is located. IF the 100' set back is measured from the bank of the tributary that would move the 100' set back an additional 15' closer to the lot line. That would leave approximately 25' of depth between the 100' set back and the Eastern property line, to put the home. This is not enough room to place the home and garage. It would als put the Septic drain fields even further into the wetland set back. The approximate�f, depth would only allow a rectangle box of a house and garage, about the size of ble wide trailer home. �1. • The following are properties in the Riley Lake Meadows Development. See the survey enclosed for comparison. lilb'V gJ� • 9441 Great Plains Blvd is located within 35 feet of stream on Lake Riley.(picture attached) [.4/9001 Riley Lake Blvd is located within 85 feet of stream on Lake Riley (picture attached) kitt Built in 2015. GN536 Lakeland Ter is located with 43 feet of stream on Lake Riley (picture attached) � ,.-,/ • 9611 Meadowlark In. House and driveway set back 50 ft from creek // • Riley Lake Meadows Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions require ""community of compatible and complementary single family residential homes of the highest architectural Quality for the benefit of the residents of the community". "preserve beauty of Riley Lake Meadows and to enhance that beauty with distinguished residences of compatible and complementary architectural design" (covenant attached) If we were to be 100 feet from the creek and 10 feet from the property line, we would only have lefeet of lake facing house which would be totally out of place for the neighborhood and degrade the property value of neighbors. Would also look ridiculous for a 2.5 acre lot with 200 feet of lake shore. Ah M \t\ \\ m / / / / I I r / / / / / /' EX. 18'-12'C4P 1 I \ \ \ LETING 0`' / / / 1 / / / INV. 867.79 N I I 1 \ \ \\ \\ \\ \ \ SEINV. I r \ \\11\\\\ \ \ \7, 1 IIIII\\\\\ \ \\e9O� \\\`-�'� Bati/ / / // // /// // / /2 ��m &Engineering. \ / �B� ro 67 / a / Chaska, MN10775 155318 i �� / / / A / 612-418-6828 / 5V2.54/ S2°00Y12"E / / / L_ / t $ I30 qx I 4 ROPOSED/ \ I GARAGE gg4 1 / �' ,�✓ \�� I l < i 4� / i_ / / o m I / e ' �/ O_T APRONS O.6X b o W \ \ \ 1 \ i it �' \ .+ m m \ I /�. 5~�J /z I I' INV/866.6 E e�oL \ \t\ \ r-- PROPOSED\ A A p, / I V 866.4 W J I - ✓i PQ-/Oil`' / _ a e ti P f` o m \ \ \ �, - dr878- _ SEE pESNL(WO� saz� ' / Q�\�/ ' ' / I / I 1G�i�o-7 / ' ' (' ` / / 3, / /f 668 ' REQUIRED p$ o e ' `�FnA'O5' I I DECK \I • �� / i' / ---�� --�1- �0 0��'' `v J / �I n�- N rn \ \ � BB / f---- - --------------/ - Y> ill 1 > I 1023 pEG(t D PaFF 0. `8 ` s o m a EX STING TRAIL/ AND PR --- r �� 8 `o o -r-TO w - Hour 6_f--------'--------- ----- ; g \ ��•-- ----- a � \ I 6/ ,v�x '' I / Ili / � / I / p p I ' / � 1'at / 66 NLL PWI 10-2P I wos 7• ey\ \ \ �j �874-0 61 /09�' / 868- \........../..., .�......................y...:....... O INVENTORY p000020D CONSTRUCTION 6 ^� / .. / - �86 m OHW 865.3 I \ '�+. `c\ \ +f -87 JJYLTS_ _ / �- _ ` 86g .\ \ /�i�. .-._.-f.,-1..i/. 6� 0 I / POND y HWL 866.7 1 \ ,\ - - - �� 1 � 1� _ / �.J'• \ - ..,�•5693' - . �-� .:. - W E -866� +_ ICE ELEV. 666.5 a/ . Z 1 . \ \ f- - - - - - :.866-... �"' •�_...�" • ..,�''= ' _ �- AS OF 1/26/I6 U f a ICE ELEV. 865.3 � I / /- AS OF 1 28 16 I 1 B6B- L _ _ / ///J .e"�_868�d �...di N rj-r i _ \868�.-J q N I� O �gb, O m (�\868� _••... WETLAND 1 .f DRAINAGE 8&�U '� �' ' ��6T6� - = - - _ /-� f �'.-.: /I EX. 54'-18'X28.5' RCP -ARCH a 0 min m ' N--F870- - - a - �- {AStT i - ' \ r INV B55.28 N \ 8pS11NG /' _ / 1 - ♦ - - / / jBTa- \ \ I \ ,�� - _ \ 1 sd� IN 865.34 S \ a 30 ED \ \ I - 8 7 4 - - - - - - / \ 9 t l -- /' 460.74 \S4002 Q8'E 1 / _1 / EXISTNG RETA)NItIG WALL '! o m -Sitr, z HaG o SE 3 \ / / 196n v / o 0 SEE SHEET 2 FOR PROPOSED GRADING, EROSION CONTROL, AND WETLAND BUFFERS w U PROPOSED ELEVATIONS Garage Floor of drive = 886.0 0 50 HOUSE DETAIL li 0 4D.13 m Top of Found = 886.4 to Lowest Floor = 877.7 Scale in Feet a 1.0� 0 30 33.54 AREAS Scale in Feet o GARAGE FIFE 886.0 1.00^ m m Lot Area = 2.4 acres _ o 12.67 '� See Proposed Impervious Calculations on Sheet 2 I-16.00 2.00 26 79 ---- p o WETLANDS LEGEND SI w = o z a Wetlands as shown were delineated by Jacobson Environmental. See the XX.X Denotes Proposed Elevation _H 200 PROPOSED 3.21 3. 2 ':2 > w p Wetland Delineation Report for additional information. I HOUSE WO ) w p XXX.X Denotes Existing Elevation TF 886.4 n i I a rc < < 1p Denotes Surface Drainage BENCHMARK O Denotes Offset Hub or Spike I I '' � p5 DECK a o LF 877.7 .2 I a z1: "' 1.00 IN Top of SPIKE as shown. _ - - Denotes Drain. and Utility Ease. 32NI & Elev. 876.54 • Denotes Monument Found n a-IJ PROJECT NO: O Denotes Monument Set 813 --980-- Denotes Existing Contour f1 �� 1604 984 Denotes Proposed Contour L 18.0D 3D_DD SHEET - - Denotes Wetland io 1 • •••••••• Denotes Top Bank ED of OF 3 SHEETS 0 t IlM III, EX. / I / \ \ \ \ \\ \\\ \ Elausc D /�� / / / / ( / / / / iNt1v: Baia " I 1 \ \ \ \ i / I / / �. /967, , ■■■■■sa■ow V 1. 1 •r •■IIF■ Evil ■11■I I• e rY,/•� 1\■■N■ I!!►'►.',!■■■■!. ='/Gii■■L�■■■■■■■■■■■G■■■■■■■■■1J■■■■■■l■pl WE No ` ,aR1110E l\■ G■=■Cm■■!■■■■■■■■O■■■■■■■■!9 �JlC g131 . =,:./161�t■■■■�!!�■C■■�■■■1�J2�■CGii 6■s��5i®®®■�iL�®®i®■1 .. • 1EMENN`■\'■Ls e■■■■■■w IN C \I ' ... MEM"r P ENE 01111 • , 1JCCCii■■■ i■■I tan!■1�!■�ii■■■�;:JCIL°i rJ■■■■■11111 . PRIMEIiILllIA1 ' �■■■■■■■.�■�ewl��r��a�e��s��a�ee:��l��c=��Ic��a��■■■■■■�s■■■■rv��■■■�� n��_7iii�ii.�CC1:��l:i�i3��x31�i�el�■■�t�li��■"fi3�5Pii1■�Jvi�l.1L�■■■■■■■■■■■■■!!e!=9■■■■■■■Nit■1 1■,f�Fi�i■■■■■■91L�!■■■■■■■■I•■■■I■f�'�'q!e_■2�Ti■IJ■IN■■i■■■■fill■■■■■■�!■■�JL�I�■■■sul■rs�� 1■1ll�iii■■■■■■■■A■■■■■■■■■■■9G■■■;j■!Ir■s�ul■I■.�I.�.��,----- - 1 1 GRADING NOTES SEE SHEET 3 FOR WATERSHED EROSION CONTROL NOTES AND DETAILS 1. The estimated disturbed area is 0.65 acres and the estimated excavation is 1500 CY. 2. The driveway slopes adjacent to the culvert shall be seeded and stabilized within 24 hours after culvert installation. Stabilization shall be with a Cat. 3 or higher erosion control blanket. 3. Unless noted otherwise, all disturbed areas shall be sodded, or seeded and stabilized with a hydraulic mulch or erosion control blanket. Seed mixture shall be as per the owner. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS LOT AREA = 104,348 sq. ft. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS House = 1959 sq. ft. Garage (attached) = 1002 sq. ft. QC Front stoop = 177 sq. ft. QD Deck/Rear Patio = 781 sq. ft. Walks = 50 sq. ft. F Drive = 6002 sq. ft. TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS = 9971 sq. ft. = 9.6% EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Perimeter controls and rock construction entrance must be constructed prior to land disturbing activiites. ® ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE BR — SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG (8- COMPOST OR STRAW) —MS — SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED WETLAND BUFFERS Disturbed wetland buffer areas shall be seeded with MnDOT Seed Mixture 33-261. No fertilizer shall be used in the wetland buffer. In establishing the wetland buffer, the potential transfer of acquatic invasive species (e.g., zebra mussels, Eurasian watermilfol, etc.) must be minimimized to the maximum extent possible. PROPOSED WETLAND WETLAND BUFFER SIGNAGE BUFFER B Creek wetland buffer calculation East wetland buffer calculation: Wetland perimeter = 1199 ft. Wetland perimeter = 166 ft. Buffer Area = 39,296 sq. ft. Buffer Area = 2366 sq. ft. Average Buffer = 39,296/1199 = 32.8 ft. Average Buffer = 2366/166 = 14.3 ft. l Land Surveying / & Engineering 1 30,-1 /CULV. 0 0.6% RS � INV/ 866.6 E V 866.4 W PROTECTION m �a REQUIRED �m / POND 3 ICE EFE86 1 �B AS OF /26/1618 BB RCP —ARCH �B\ : V 865.2'X2&6� INV 865.28 N \ INV. 865.34 S .a \ a � a 1 I 1 I 1 1 \ 10775 Poppitz Ln. Chaska, MN 55318 612-418-6828 SOILS Existing soils are Hamel looms looms with a hydrologic soil group C. These soils are susceptiple to tracking. A rock construction entrance is required and street sweeping may be necessary. FLOODPLAIN The existing 600dplain is shown. No work is proposed in the existing 600dplain. o N LEGEND XX.X Denotes Proposed Elevation ,a XXX.X Denotes Existing Elevation k' —� Denotes Surface Drainage Q o N — — — Denotes Drain. and Utility Ease. N PROJECT NO: --980-- Denotes Existing Contour 984 Denotes Proposed Contour 1604 SHEET — — Denotes Wetland Denotes Construction Limits 2 OF 3 ......... Denotes Top Bank PROJECT NARRATIVE This project includes construction of a single family home and access drive. Proposed grades ore shown on Sheet 2 of the plans RESPONSIBLE PERSON The person responsible for compliance with the watershed Rule C — Erosion and Sediment Control is: Dan Hanson Wausau Homes 1463 White Oak Drive Chaska, MN 5531E 952-994-2184 hanswd@wausauhmes.com WATERSHED EROSION CONTROL NOTES a. Natural topography and soil conditions must be protected, including retention onsite of native topsoil to the greatest extent possible. b. Additional measures, such as hydraulic mulching and other practices as specified by the District must be used on slopes of 3:1 (H:V) or steeper to provide adequate stabilization. C. Final site stabilization measures must specify that at least six inches of topsoil or organic matter be spread and incorporated into the underlying soil during final site treatment wherever topsoi d. Construction site waste must be properly managed, such as discarded building materials, chemicals, litter and sanitary waste at the construction site. e. All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs must be maintained until completion of construction and vegetation is established sufficiently to ensure stability of the site, as determined by f. All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs must be removed upon final stabilization. g. Soil surfaces compacted during construction and remaining pervious upon completion of construction must be decompacted through soil amendment and/or ripping too depth of 18 inches while final revegetotion or other stabilization. h. All disturbed areas must be stabilized within 7 calendar days after land —disturbing work has temporarily or permanently ceased. i. The permittee must, at a minimum, inspect, maintain and repair all disturbed surfaces and all erosion and sediment control facilities and soil stabilization measures every day work is performed Thereafter, the permittee must perform these responsibilities at least weekly until vegetative cover is established. has been removed. the District. taking core to avoid utilities. tree roots, and other existing vegetation prior to on the site and at least weekly until land —disturbing activity has ceased. RTS HERE & Engineering 10775 Poppitz Ln. Chaska, MN 55318 612-418-6828 a8 s E� bggd 3 0 �oo Y .6 aM .Bo u a� $s`=e g Ens _ea9 F Q 0 PROJECT N0: 1604 SHEET WETLAND BUFFER SIGN EX 18'-12" CUP SG I I I / �6m�i.eafOUHE 0s7, 9ry/ / / - I / / / / / //. �m alb / &Engineering � // / / / / / / / / / / / 10775 Poppitz Ln. / / Chaska, MN 55318 612-418-6828 51t54/ S2°00/12"E a o 0 f ROPOSED/ / a E' i x / f I 36'-1 /CULV. 0 0.6% GARAGES `. I i i� �� // \�''1I/ /X m!v� �IyN�866.6RE gE-��o m e J ' _� \ \ I PROPOSED t'� g�/ �� •f /i O�y45 / C / ,c / ./ / /I��- I� i 6.4 W _-a? x I \ F�DtIS�E (WO) BSz\ / Y� JT- i' / c / I p J�� a /� i ` 'I i NLLEET PROTECTION e � E 0 64 rn S \ 1 \ - -878� SEE DESAIL I . � / i / 1' / �� l (` x m she REQUIRED - e _ ` 7 S- ,1 I \ \ t\ \ I DECK \ - - t `_ i'�/------ - / �v. 01ti vim. J m } _______ __ V knmCHQAI� PATIO I I ---'- i 00 JMCI n`EX STING TRAIL AND PR OSED DRIVEI / W C 1023 8 q USF------------ ------ �� 2 6% c Y E Q s� o< / �- J I / \�\ \ \ m o- IC _ I O n I ``� \ �- / / \ \ / 86H `v T x 1 m PW1 1D-2P �s' .6 \ \ 974r or =1 Imo=-' s/ ��' 68� \ �/ O INVENTOPOND RY nO0�200 4`\\ \ m of �GONSTR / /� / '�\ - / ' il.•.•••. •.•. r �'- O / HNLW 565.3 866.7 I '\@` - — �8)2y_i- S-C71 �/ -i-/ar ��\ - �•�/...�� _�—_..i(, _ \ �8666�` O ICE ELEV. 866.5 u� Z ICE ELEV. 865.3 `. �•.. �• = x _ ` t- - - - - - - f / /; r..866 ... 1�'...•.--...�^ ,.v'''�.-� ' �_. \.". k�W E T6 Ta AS OF 1/26/16 0 6 m m \ 'y, 1 L f /// -861i� �• '� - B6B�'•'J AN n �&,' z AS OF 1/26/161 I \`.... .�....�•. 868_ '0��0�\' O r 00 s\ 0 N m as III I \\� — W E-T�-...i_.. p-...=.:. .r^ - > 1, 2 C? I II r ` `868� - - - •�C�. �65.............r.._.._... y...._1. _ _7! ...:. _ // / 9a` - - / - - - - J \� . _ N w� `° m . / E) 54'-1a'%28.S' RCP -ARCH a � m W m ]VI N -DRAINAGE &�U�T� %� i /�6j6� - - ` ` _ - / _ /^ �'•.......r ,.j a INV 865.28 N \ w 66pp G - - - f870 - - -� -EA l / / /g78- - \ \ / / \ .1 - _ \ 1 K se INV. 865.34 5 \ z \ SgEDN / / 1 /r- - _ - - 4-- - - - _ -_ ;- i �. I - - / 30 m \ \ o. \ �I ---- -a7a- — — / 460.74 \S4002 Q8"E 1 _ _ y l —7' ' — 8 6, EwsnNc RETAJbRNG WALL EXISTINGHOUSE N- #9611 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS Garage Floor at drive = 886.0 Top of Garage Found.= 886.4 Top of House Found. = 886.9 Lowest Floor = 878.2 SEE SHEET 2 FOR PROPOSED GRADING, EROSION CONTROL, AND WETLAND BUFFERS fC85.7 01 NI 0 50 Scale in Feet AREAS Lot Area = 2.4 acres See Proposed Impervious Calculations on Sheet 2 WETLANDS Wetlands as shown were delineated by Jacobson Environmental. See the Wetland Delineation Report for additional information. BENCHMARK Top of SPIKE as shown. Elev. 876.54 LEGEND %%.% Denotes Proposed Elevation XXX.X Denotes Existing Elevation —� Denotes Surface Drainage El Denotes Offset Hub or Spike - — - Denotes Drain. and Utility Ease. • Denotes Monument Found O Denotes Monument Set --980-- Denotes Existing Contour 984 Denotes Proposed Contour — Denotes Wetland ......••• Denotes Top Bank HOUSE DETAIL I 40.13 0 30 33.5a GARAGE 0 Scale in Feet TF B6. 8 8 FFE 86.0 ' c- PROPOSED 3.213.92 HOUSE TF 8 6 9�) I LF 878.2 _ I� j25 DECK o t.00 I� PATIO al I BELOW e.t� m ml I� of � b CW 0 9z �f V 0 0 0 m c 4 o O U m m � V.� gm F 4 •n U w U I <1 10-101 b m Q N N 0 N N PROJECT NO- 1604 MEET / OF 3 EX18'-12•CMP I I 1 1\\\\ \ \ \ HOUSE / / I 1 / / / ,,9.� /mm I I � I Uj I W I Y I Q I -4 I PW 10-2P INVENTORY 1100�2 OHW 865.3 HVIL 866.7 ICE ELEV. 865.3 AS OF 1 26 16 / / I i I 1 0 50 Scale in Feet WNW ,. • ;�, I■■■■©Nowt ■■f�■N■■■■I MINE;, 07 MEMO it G■MQMO3oN■ii►, , : • ,. .;,:./161Rl�J■■■9ll�■c■■■■■ll�J2N■G■155NNi■ifoi:oL9:i®®�li■1 1HANN7`ill\'c!!S�eRw!■■.e�■.��ra��a■Nit1515��■i1�■N■'Iri■■2 �!■:oii'L°l•NLo■■e<I■■■■�Clfiem■� �f ■NL�r�lol:1\Ci■CL=9�J�Z�!!!■�1��■=N5GN�J■rill■■i.1lL�`'i■Flo!■000iilNll�f=l�iii�f:■,��o!oC■\h1IN@oNf �f■■■■\l�iooG`�NSeSo■000■o5■i»CGii■■w�■■��!■51:■■il�N■�NCNSN`I■�■■■■c�I�wl■%L��LA� • If■■■■■■`�oi��l�"�5■!}!�llii�7�iL`1,�1�55oa■CC=■■rJ.�i�l�r'Jr�:Ca=■i� NGIINiiN!!■■■■■■i�r■■■■■CAN■■■YI ia■■■■�■■c�■��Ir<.■■■r■�ce�■�..sr�nn■■�e-�c■s�■:5■se■�■■■■■■■■n■■■■■■■■■■■■■■la■■■� nac:■IiiG:NCCIL:i�1:5��3�3#�1�5�e�N55�l:�io�5'w"fiRl�9'r2�l,�i�i=L�■■■■■■■■0■■■1�!■!s9■■■■■■NNiI`�ol 11■!I■I�■■■■N!9■J!•!ollL■■J!'lN9�J''Chia■EIl�3�JCfi3J9i1!!!C!■o■■■■■!C■■N■N7�iN■■■■NG■■■■■■■■■■N 1■\0-mN■Do■��J!•!■!N■■■■■■■nn�lJN■=�leGwNN�JSii■■i■N■■N■■■■■11��■■�J!•!■■■■..rs��ll■--- 1■Il1�li�:i■■■■■■■NB■�■■Ni■■■■■�JG�No;jo■■■s�...11■II■II■...I��,----- a, SEE SHEET 3 FOR WATERSHED EROSION CONTROL NOTES AND DETAILS 1. The estimated disturbed area is 0.65 acres and the estimated excavation is 1500 CY. 2. The driveway slopes adjacent to the culvert shall be seeded and stabilized within 24 hours after culvert installation. Stabilization shall be with a Cat. 3 or higher erosion control blanket. 3. Unless noted otherwise, all disturbed areas shall be sodded, or seeded and stabilized with a hydraulic mulch or erosion control blanket Seed mixture shall be as per the owner. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS LOT AREA = 104,348 sq. ft. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS House = 1959 sq. ft. Garage (attached) = 1002 sq. ft. C Front sloop = 177 sq. ft. Q Deck/Rear Patio = 861 sq. ft. ® Drive = 6357 sq. ft. TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS = 10.327 sq. ft. = 9.9% EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL Perimeter controls and rock construction entrance must be constructed prior to land disturbing activiites. ® ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE — BR — SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG (8• COMPOST OR STRAW) — MS — SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED WETLAND BUFFERS Disturbed wetland buffer areas shall be seeded with MnDOT Seed Mixture 33-261. No fertilizer shall be used in the wetland buffer. In establishing the wetland buffer, the potential transfer of acquatic invasive species (e.g., zebra mussels, Eurasian watermilfoil, etc) must be minimimized to the maximum extent possible. PROPOSED WETLAND BUWETLAND BUFFER SIGNAGE FFER Creek wetland buffer calculation: East wetland buffer calculation: Wetland perimeter = 1199 ft. Wetlond perimeter = 166 ft. Buffer Area = 39,296 sq. ft. Buffer Area = 2366 sq. ft. Average Buffer = 39,296/1199 = 32.8 ft. Average Buffer = 2366/166 = 14.3 ft. r '2)' /CULV.PR0.6R (2AONS® INV/ 866.6 E I V 866.4 W i NL T PROTECTION a REWIRED / I / / / m/ ,m / POND ICE ELEV. 866.5 AS OF 1/25/16 6� EX 54'-18•X2&5• RCP —ARCH INV 865.28 IN\ INV. 865.34 S \ a \ 9 11 1\\ SOILS Existing soils are Hamel looms loams with a hydrologic soil group C. These soils are suseeptiple to tracking. A rock construction entrance is required and street sweeping may be necessary. FLOODPLAIN The existing floodplain is shown. No work is proposed in the existing floodplain. LEGEND XXX.X Denotes Proposed Elevation XXX.X Denotes Existing Elevation —� Denotes Surface Drainage — — — Denotes Drain. and Utility Ease. — — 980-- Denotes Existing Contour 984 Denotes Proposed Contour — Denotes Wetland Denotes Construction Limits ......••. I Denotes Top Bank & Engineering 10775 Poppitz Ln. Chaska, MN 55318 612-418-6828 2 � o O, Ec' H 0 N rc 30' VEGETATION 17 ALTERATION k' STRIP o 1604 °F/3 SHEETS PROJECT NARRATIVE This project includes construction of a single family home and access drive. Proposed grades are shown on Sheet 2 of the plans. RESPONSIBLE PERSON The person responsible for compliance with the watershed Rule C — Erosion and Sediment Control is: Dan Hanson Wausau Homes 1463 White Oak Drive Chaska, MN 55318 952-994-2184 hansmd@wausauhmes.com Land & En 10775 Poppitz Ln. Chaska, MN 55318 612-418-6828 WATERSHED EROSION CONTROL NOTES a. Natural topography and soil conditions must be protected, including retention onsite of native topsoil to the greatest extent possible. b. Additional measures, such as hydraulic mulching and other practices as specified by the District must be used on slopes of 3:1 (H:V) or steeper to provide adequate stabilization. C. Final site stabilization measures must specify that at least six inches of topsoil or organic matter be spread and incorporated into the underlying soil during final site treatment wherever topsoil has been removed. d. Construction site waste must be properly managed, such as discarded building materials, chemicals, litter and sanitary waste at the construction site. e. All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs must be maintained until completion of construction and vegetation is established sufficiently to ensure stability of the site, as determined by the District. f. All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs must be removed upon final stabilization. g. Soil surfaces compacted during construction and remaining pervious upon completion of construction must be decompacted through soil amendment and/or ripping to a depth of 18 inches while taking care to avoid utilities, tree roots, and other existing vegetation prior to final revegetation or other stabilization. h. All disturbed areas must be stabilized within 7 calendar days after land —disturbing work has temporarily or permonently ceased. i. The permittee must, at a minimum, inspect, maintain and repair all disturbed surfaces and all erosion and sediment control facilities and soil stabilization measures every day work is performed on the site and at least weekly until land —disturbing activity hos ceased. Thereafter, the permittee must perform these responsibilities at least weekly until vegetative cover is established. CLEAN WATER STARTS HERE 1604 WETLAND BUFFER SIGN \ \ 1\1101 ,'' \\\ - 0 0 1 - II 111\ \ \ \ \\ \\\ \ \ \ \ \ 111\\\\\ \\�U��SE EX 18•-12- CMP INV. 667.79 Nv.e61of 3 1 1 1 111 \ \ \ \ HOU bl / / I / / / m/ I I II II W I � I Q I J I PM 10-2P !!I INVENTORY #1l)OQ(120 OHW 865.3 H%L 866.7 ICE ELEV. 865.3 AS OF 1/26/161 I II I I 0 50 Scale in Feet iaOR�--� I■■Gil�B■I■of' PENN ■ ago r©■■tar IIIIIIIIINMENNo ■■�1■I mmom KINEEN /GGiii■OL� MEN am moss-0 M— aN■ liDl\■■I�g. �Gi1A!=.1L�■■ 0HIM01131g EM�. ■ �■■■■■■■■■Gi■■■■■■■■IJ■■■■■■ma141 ■■■■■■�Jf7■■■■■■MORE-J!■ ■iMii�■m■i■iCi�it�l9a■®EQ-11iAI1 mown `1\7LL■ eL �■■.�■■■.c �� ` 09 N"srM2 ram E.� r■i1■�`■OOCG:Z ��arr WERE ■M:1G ■■ »'G ipiia■ ■ N SZ3iliii ai■Q■ Ci■i■ iC■■13@•■1MR-■ � Jammu WERE ■■■a■on Mon lAliiiiiBALMIPM r"a"NEWN _an ICE rmiasma nand Ow raN-mons■■■i��■■■■rn�■■■ill i o- Rwi:1�■O�l��i+�'llsl�ii■■i �■■■J%■■■ll■■■■■■■■■■■■■\■i■■1 Ilr�!■■iiiii.ECG■ �ii I EFffN =ii e3�i iG3%5�%!r■9�i�i.1ONE ■■■■■■■■■r■■i==9■■■■■■■Niil Ilr�l■I�■■■■■■9■.J!•[.11MRININ 0■■OW■■■■■7pii■■■0i1■■■■■■■■mM1 r■■ Ga■■Gfr■■�JiL�!■■■■■■■i 1■1ll r■■i■■i■■N■!■i■i■■■■■�JG�■!;i■i■�s�..l■.I.�- a NOM■-■■a■■■■■11mo■■�J!•i■■■■ul■rs=o----• ------- 1■■�■■■■■ul■I■Pily-+r��:�=IT` --blb-_____ GRADING NOTES SEE SHEET 3 FOR WATERSHED EROSION CONTROL NOTES AND DETAILS 1. The estimated disturbed area is 0.65 acres and the estimated excavation is 1500 CY. 2. The driveway slopes adjacent to the culvert shall be seeded and stabilized within 24 hours after culvert installation. Stabilization shall be with a Cat. 3 a higher erosion control blanket. 3. Unless noted otherwise, all disturbed areas shall be sodded, or seeded and stabilized with a hydraulic mulch or erosion control blanket. Seed mixture shall be as per the owner. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL LOT AREA = 104.348 sq. ft. Perimeter controls and rock construction entrance PROPOSEIMPERMOUS must be constructed prior to land disturbing octiviites. D House = 1959 sq. ft. ® ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE Garage (attached) = 1002 sq. ft. © Front stoop = 177 sq. ft �.'� —BR — SEDIMENT CONTROL LOG Weck/Reor Patio oalks 50 sq.ft 781 sq. ft J (8- COMPOST OR STRAW) Drive = 6002 sq. ft. \ N —MS — SILT FENCE, TYPE MACHINE SLICED TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS = 9971 sq. ft = 9.6% WETLAND BUFFERS Disturbed wetland buffer areas shall be seeded with MnDOT Seed Mixture 33-261. No fertilizer shall be used in the wetland buffer. In establishing the wetland buffer, the potential transfer of acquatic invasive species (e.g., zebra mussels, Eurasian watennilfol, etc.) must be minimimized to the maximum extent possible. PROPOSED WETLANC B BUFFER B WETLAND BUFFER SIGNAGE QMCk wetland buffer al,• lat' m East wetlandEast wetland buff�calculatiom Wetland perimeter = 1199 ft. Wetland perimeter = 166 ft. Buffer Area = 39,296 sq. ft Buffer Area = 2366 sq. ft Average Buffer = 39,296/1199 = 32.8 ft. Average Buffer = 2366/166 = 14.3 ft. C S l / Land Surveying / & Engineering 10775 Poppitz Ln. Chaska, MN 55318 612-418-6828 36'-1 /CULV. ® 0.6% (2 A6 E INV/ 866.6 NV 866.4 W N PROTECTION REWIRED I / / / / / / i POND ICE ICE ELEV. 866.5 i�6AS OF 1/26/16 M as-10 ue5 RCP -ARCH \ INV 865.28 N IV 865.34 5 \ c I 61 O •a O m o_ r 0 t cGd iu � u F VJ � 1 w � r. \ W N m U SOILS Existing soils ore Hamel looms looms with a hydrologic soil group C. These soils are susceptiple to tracking. A rock construction entrance is required and street sweeping may be necessary. FLOODPLAIN The existing floodplain is shown. No work is proposed in the existing floodplain. 6 LEGEND m s rc XX.X Denotes Proposed Elevation XXX.X Denotes Existing Elevation —� Denotes Surface Drainage k' a 0 — — — Denotes Drain. and Utility Ease. --980-- Denotes Existing Contour 984 Denotes Proposed Contour F SHE — — Denotes Wetland w Denotes Construction Limits ........ Denotes Denotes Top Bonk 2 MECT NO: 1604 PROJECT NARRATIVE This project includes construction of a single fornly home and access drive. Proposed grades are shown on Sheet 2 of the plans. RESPONSIBLE PERSON The person responsible for compliance with the watershed Rule C — Erosion and Sediment Control is: Dan Hanson Wausau Homes 1463 White Oak Drive Chaska, MN 55318 952-994-2184 honson d®wousauhomes. corn WATERSHED EROSION CONTROL NOTES o. Natural topography and soil conditions must be protected, including retention onsite of native topsoil to the greatest extent possible. b. Additional measures, such as hydraulic mulching and other practices as specified by the District must be used on slopes of 3:1 (H: V) or steeper to provide adequate stabilization. C. Final site stabilization measures must specify that at least six inches of topsoil or organic matter be spread and incorporated into the underlying soil during final site treatment wherever topsol has been removed. d. Construction site waste must be properly managed, such as discarded building materials, chemicals, litter and sanitary waste at the construction site. e. All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs must be maintained until completion of construction and vegetation is established sufficiently to ensure stability of the site, as determined by the District f. All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs must be removed upon final stabilization. g. Sol surfaces compacted during construction and remaining pervious upon completion of construction must be decompacted through soil amendment and/or ripping to a depth of 18 inches while taking core to avoid utilities, tree roots, and other existing vegetation prior to final revegetation or other stabilization. h. All disturbed areas must be stabilized within 7 calendar days after land —disturbing work has temporarily or permanently ceased. I. The penmittee must, at a minimum, inspect, maintain and repair all disturbed surfaces and all erosion and sediment control facilities and soil stabilization measures every day work is performed on the site and at least weekly until lond—disturbing activity has ceased. Thereafter, the permittee must perform these responsibilities at least weekly until vegetative cover is established. TER RTS HE WETLAND BUFFER SIGN & Engineering 10775 Poppitz Ln. Chaska, MN 55318 612-418-6828 Kyyi 1! Q C1 PROJECT NO: 1604 SHEET 3/OF 3 Muog dol salowa .......... to of PuogaM salouaO — 133HS r moluoo posodad sayoua0 486 +_i -�+ 00-Of 0081 -1 era u 6uI si>< sa oua b09T ai 7 o'J 3. 3 3 0--096-- °i I!^ las luawnuoyl salouaO p -0N lO3n)ad F,g w in + Im punoj luawnuoVj sayoueo c I N SZF 'aaD A l l uo -uloT sa oua K 9L9 mall N c 3 ilin P 0 i 0--- -umo w� 00'L o M03O SZ'f 8 aMIdS w qnH ;as;;0 solou20 p 4s so 3NId5 ;o do a to N L-LL9 Al a60ulDjO aoolms soloua(l f_ N8VWHON39 a, D A w I uolyonal3 6wys,9 681ou20 X-X%X (OM) 35fgH I vo0ow";ul louoly,ppo Jo; ywdaa uo,l0au. puopaM o s I u014on013 Pasodad saloua0 yl es -lolwwualn uos oa ,( o � i Z 'f IZ'f 03SOd0ad OO'b > a a u3 q 0f q paloaulyp ajaM umoys so spuollaM %i O'989 g Io ON3931 \ / SONTUMA 8 ---- �, 00'Z 00'9l-J �+ L97I $ 6L'9Z �Q Z 7w45 uo suolyolroloO snowadwl pasodoud aas 0'I 0 39Y I o i�jl"'� ' ` \\ sano 4 Z - Sv3uv O1 aS ff iaaj w 00 'LLS L8 = "U IWAO-1 a llhTl3a 3SflOH /� ° !!!? o�� a'9a9 = P�-j;o dal x f109 I im ( � O'ggg = anup l0 wolj 060JDO w io •ggg 0l IN ✓ SNOIIVA31303SOdONd CD m El p Sa33-Ane ONVl13M ONV'1081.NOO NOISOa3 'ONIOVIdO 03SOdOUd HOd Z 133HS 339 w3 0 n oUN3 11 J a Vl ? ONLLiD(3 3.86 Z(k4S\ tiL'094 _ — os A \ S K-999 'ANI m d p IoaY-dsa�SaNX a��ssl^z3 g 4 � V J. �Nrva N x o W mo \ I /N ' �\ — — — — — — �VL / /i-""'-r.M...� J.............998-••�• �Y.. .� — — �g� �l I 1 mam \ N J :;\ i \ --/� _��— _�tlej/'�-.•_-�nm=--ONYl13M�_ �A. �\%I OD c .. 99 O v N Y ( •. ,9 — — _ _ i — — — — — \ 9ss — '* Isl/az/I 3o sv ?: 9l 9Z L !0 SY Ai )! -• .98� — T-:z898�. / 1 / / \ 3 X \ _. ^".. .�,_...r., . _g99•+- / �— — J �= \ f'S98 'A313 3OI _ \ 2 Tp 9'998 'A313 DI 999- 'N a.-,, �eq9. _ — — _ w ONOd C \89 — \-.�,..� -f -HO — V / Y o -•• 9 ... _..� '99§• '> — \ �ese / NOLLOnRLSN0� w ? — — W \` � \ �' �� o0z L/ E Sl"1N1 9e o�00 ..................... Ir lg:, --------- / -------------4--------� Iy g / / Z� �..'� I — 3nlaa a3so ONY / -IYdl ONu / — — i s� ,1j1O34 rzoi 1 1 a I R1 i 03a1003a I / / > J / ♦ ' I x s o s N01L03LOad 1��lllN�� w l i j- �' ti ' r J / �` '/> I/ i a't� /A / \z (OM) 3190�i I r1 1 0 m 9 M 4'9NI0350dObd a e'' 3 9'9 /nNl 111 OVaVO " 3 9 SNOadtl (Z) =8 cR Y9'0 O 'Alfq/ 1-.9C S I I / - X. 7 / / / 3.Z1 bNZS PK749 esq- 9T£SS NW'eMseYJ 'I / 23IddOd SLLOT / /a 6uu; aaul6uB/ m�O i /'// // 6UTAeAIns Puel / -i / / / 1/ N 6L*L99'nNI / / / I 1 / , USOH \ \ \\\ \ \ \ 1 I I N 6L'L99 'ANI / / / 1 / / / / ym ONLLSD(3 \ \ \ \ dRO.ZI-,81 73 AI,t� h-l2 -,5 b Zo 110 LAKE RILEY --- aF oaf—_—_"y— ---- �'---- — E, 1 C�iql / /'/ rol- a/M�1- m L I I I.j'�f / v l/ 11 m Z I 1 i� 17:jI rir'/ o I� II \ °v I I I\ \ "JI III I I g'g I \\ \\ \ \\• \ m o'/' tia� i / II I I'I�/}•/ II II 'i 9\\ 1 I r o �/ _ N 11 Ohl, 1 WH...�sss� �_ata_ co co \ in In 310.00 .12m $ lfim 805 _p \\ I /1^ / { [ I \fi °\ \ xD \ 2 S87 '00'W _ \. ��\ DOWIILARK n\\�_l SiF� ba� _ �'•AS ISm o i' Iyiy a a ¢¢ o F a4 D12 IEOHOi BY 9EE! 11nE l OWECP. Certificate of Sury & en Existing Conditions 9$4I MeadowlaM1 Lane Chanhassen. MN CIEVIIF➢ N! Dave Vogel "® a.. n�� SIVW®. MN 553i9 a1¢�1-DeaB I+b a.l bvl aY Pn rM. v ..afi... a v.... ar.....a° �..+ M.IY aY IYII a..M4wiW a �'• / Y -ice =o g 7 m s a a AMIC6I IIMLD . Map. ufi xn 1aYE ao Sane In Feet , O1up Mv. M).n. X RV.Mff e .. 1\9lrrrrg. ,Fv, I!►*MWrn�.. -' f - Nr.4NNIN's . .- L111 • 1�7A kin►11►NCL6�eellrrr.�L�r�rzsa�;>.« lrrerrurNEI rrrrr�rrrr I �rrr�rvrr ,'• .. i�rrrrrrrrrrrrrr■Kilt■rrrrrr�rrrrrrHl 1 i�LCiigi�l�rrrrr�lrrrr/Girt,,,,■M7■rrrr\Fll /Drsi�lLlrrl�rrrrrlrrnNrrrrrrrr■9 ir►i?IR!'"7C".'Sablf�rlGGir11��ailiYef■lNrrll■■rr@�Gc'"NI a III � ,. NEI �Jl�SIGrMCI Ii0 Rrr srl - 1! tttt\la rna_� xSgei■YtrrrGci77CGiirrJw?.lr!P.rti•.'>37iIrli�allLl�lS��yCY��JrJlrrrrrC2Pl@I11riIQl IHrrrrr� ri^wi".0 SS!*�w'..aL'1125iiP70lSs27O:lIEil�iSi i.7Cl6��G%'S GIIIl■rrrrriE7r■rrrCa�rr Yl owl !r ri@llrrrC�e!y1�1■iiigai[n7!nGili��z�/1�12r�W r■Gii7�AlR 7lrrrrrrrrrrrQrrrrrrESNrr1 ut e_tr(ctaGel�un_E9�'�eT`h��C�w� ��C�rigSCiC�.'SGStSGi�:af eoerttttrtrrerrte-r: srtttrttre!��II rnl�,rrrrrreeeeR+Beetst5eesaarrree=a�r��raluettrtrrtttt�artrorartrtrrmta rrryWar►.rrrAssetir■rrrrrrss�r-��iae�rrrrarrralrrime�lrreerl■■■.•s=�----; ItlPlrlrrrrllrrHtlllrrrtttrrr�Gr%lIi7G■■sr■■.■�------------ SEE SHEET 3 FOR WATERSHED EROSION CONTROL NOTES AND DETAILS GRADING NOTES I. We estimated dkturbea awe Is 0.65 pass and the wUnmea excawtkn M 15110 CY. WETLAND BUFFERS 2. 1he dnwray Means adpcenl to the cults Mall be wenchal and stabilized within 24 sure alter wlwrl Disturbed ntland I ortas droll be seeded rI1N MnCOi Send Mlvlun f]-261. Nadlpibn. smbBlsmlan esaA be witha W. d a blgser .,perm cmird blank.L No krill,., Mall be uwd In her wetland Wf*. In WablMhMq the wetland J. Unlwe noted otbewlse, oil de<urbetl areas wall be wedded, or heeded old etabdlzed with a by foulk mulch, W"ar, the potanlld transfer e1 m.U. Mwesw epedw (e.9., No mueeeks. a rwbn cmtrd blanket. Seed mMlae wall be as per the owner. Eurwlcn ratennllipll, etc.) owned be minFn"l,ed to the matlmum wtwl pwRNe. PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL ® PROPOSED XETAND ®WEMND BUTTER SGXA(£ LOT AREA - IDA,W w. R. Pwdp.ler centrals and rock crostrualion wkanss must be aonetructw or to Imd disturber, s.tIviter. BIIsfER PROP OS➢ br w",,a lulls edm of an nt end euler ca cualm Hues - w. le 64&RIX% IL CCRSIRULPLN ENWAXLE wellmd temples - 1199 R. wetland paineler - 166 II. (olladied) = M. lbsc Buffer Ares - 09,29a .4. Il. Roller Ares - 2366 sq Il. . It. Frail ek ©- li) w. X. S.pMENT LOXTRIX LOG I —BR — Assra9e Salter - J9,2M/I199 - 32.9 X. A.saye Sutler - 2366/166 - I4.3 11. Dedr/FwI Patio - )91 w. R. (a LOLIPoST M STRAN) Mike - SD q. R. — MS — SLT R1 M TYPE MACHINE SUM TOTAL PROPOSED IMPMMw - 9971 Ind. R. - 9,6% 1 1 1 1 1 / Lo))s PapPNa➢. Chess, Me 55310 / yyu-uaee2n i� POSED// �Liaaa 1 /anv. a max gg AARd15 1, q aE C Mew w T MgiCwoX'18 j ARED I , / ILS FIN. eM.5 `� As a I/xd/le I \ \ SOILS E.Ding Adds Are Ngmsl learn sperms with a hydrdagk soy grwp C. leave pNs an wwwllpM to badlMg. A rock cpnlWctkn entrance Is real and street AwewMg may tree neaweary. FLOODPLAIN The welding hoadploM Is ,haw. No ,ark N pmaw d In Me aMetln9 Rowtheldn LWEND % Dwdtw proposed Demotion Me Denote. E.Ieth, EIAwtIan , Swept. Surioa. Owlnaw — Orestes Drain. and Utility Ewe. --9a0-- D nnok. E.IMln9 Cwt,wr —� Denotes. RdpaAAtl Canlaa — Donates wYtland we we we- Dwotw C O Nrtlm Lend. ......... Desoto Top Do. PROJECT NARRATIVE Into pro}ct Includes coneWclkn of p W114 bmly krone and ozone Erin, PI paEee are Mmen an Awl 2 of the plans. RESPONSIBLE PERSON The anon nodal M Mralan. him the rolereked Rule C - Eroebm and Ssdlmkt Cnbul M: Don Hanson Wal Homes 143 Rite Oak Drhm Ckaam NN 55318 952-994-21U kaneandseaJewnamee.cdm WATERSHED EROSI0I4 CDNTROL NOTES Natural typography and sal condition must be protected, Indudhg rebnnan -Of. aI native taysoll to lee grealesl Intent Panels. Addllland measures, suM as h mwlc mulching and Other practises as pxlMd or Ne 0lsltict must pt used on elopes of 3.1 (H:V) a nespw to poNM adeauMe etaElfcoPim. r find Me stabilization measures must speclfy, that at least sin Inches of tnkl or aWlO trailer be e,.ad and Incorpaalsd into me underlying sal during final hire trial whenever tanks has bean nnoted. Construction hit. east. must be properly managed, such as diskarded hushing materials, chemkJe, litter and hurl east* at percanstrudien site. All temporary smion and sediment coned MP. must be mdralned unla completion Of construction and wgstailn Is ktabadded sRlkiktly to noun stability of fine site. Or delemlbetl by the 0lstrict. I All temporary ernlan and moment control Eli must be nemove4 upan ImOl stapHiclin. g. Sol surfaces compacted durdg construction and remaining perNous upon completion of censWctin must he Ncanpactsd mmugh kll anndment and/or Hitting to a depth of IS inched and teling care to a ad utiltNe, tree mots and arms avleling wgstallan pia to and rfrm, om Or Omer elklliroHyn. n. All dkturhad areas must he notarial within 7 calendar don der lame-dawrhlng ewk has temporarly or vermnntly ckkd. I. The permitted must at a minimum. espad, maintain and re,- as diswaed surfaces and by 'yelp, yin kdhnnt control mculuve and .00 idealization measures entry day wok b performed n the late kd of least weekly unit Ind-dNurbkp actlmy had akkd. mredner. the permit!. must perform these nnnelbuluee at least shady mil wgdanw corer Ie estapl had. f- CLEAN WATER STARTS WETLAND BUFFER SIGN Is Engineering tans Pnmee I _hashes MN 55]]11 �I 'I �'IINII\\,\\`ram �♦ ` / / / / I ! ! I / % / / /� nmw�)d / / --. 1 + \1111\\1\ \ � \ � — / / , \0 I ! / // /' / // !,1' 7 •eDwrL...mo 11\11\\ \ `\ \-._� / / , i / / i / / i/ �• / /sons r000,aa. 514.64/ 52ro012'E ---- -- - --�- �rt AW C I I. 11 y - L___� 1. �• � __ ,• �;1 m�P aSP�i¢\ `. �y �..t---=-7 r-- W Y �I I 71111I 111 � I I I li�ne m ow- � / au ✓ _ -_. �V � ir ,/ / •C I t rpat cis � ter. r--- +-1. _, --------------/------------ 9 q4\ \ '•.,. /:'1.�--tee n nev er>I + I '�.\ \ tee._ _____ ram/ ! i..J-_E `- _`j"_^�___�tiy �►•x{ "*a or I _ JL-iACPIMI_"'°_ S IVUIR �� — — `�• � �• \ , 160.7 I� __ 1 I savep•a � _ _� �namype6esu L } j31 Jjl � � \\ \\ \I SEESHEET2FO PROPOSEDO INO, EROSION CONTROL, AND WETLAND BUFFE;i�` PILOPOEPAHA'ATMM -�1�� MI TV 0 rOP Or Flm . wA L....i ne. AW$ e L01 Mee - $, qq pp nwr R Eueq P.&e ,• 2m e6 2 c b MT,M LEGEND x.uau. r w..r ..v eewt.e ep xom.m E.—I. s.. rr u.eerr P.,warY Lr euoe HOUSE DETNL m re0ro® rw(w) P.no�e o.w.ww eq.t t. wnaa Mr>mora�. •�rx� xx.x o.eerr emr.,p ne.er� n --� Dmores Llm poNge a b V eT.] BEWC K CI M n E, epy. 1n FnL 8 iw or SPnE m Y�erL --- Dwela Drm. m0 Wllly Eme .t. D'..1 E a fler. 876.x • Omelr Lbmmnr fwm - O Ov,ely Mnumal LI -EM Devly E.'vllnp Calwr —� o•w.. P,wrw grew IS 0 Wry m M60 • I *I 2-<<-tomb Preliminary CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY for: David Vogel DESCRIBED AS: Lot 7, Block 1, RILEY LAKE MEADOWS, Carver County, MN ADDRESS: 9641 Meadowlark Ln, Chanhassen, MN LAKE RILEY _ -- con ---- ca zz 4 ' ej.1 WAf /�// 7 am if I fill I I I I \ \I IIII\III IIII/ I I / I I / I \ 1 I IIII IIII\ \Ayi 0 p� Ill: \I01 \ A \ CS \ 1�i`,k\. J I —4. / / I Ir P j✓ v � � �� \ A11 ^ \ i@ `} x� v 0 0.6x 1 \ •Wicr°fi6ino,Ecnox xcwcn 1 _ M OOW Rai LANE ¢ e•v nv,/,em �\ \ CEN RI TM mu um sultww G bmY .it, fm, m: by 10775 Poppi uz v uks Y Q , dV�`®^^ < not an o Ny lk•r01aM Chasb, MN 55318 Su ap Wo Ne 1m of 8�e S c d u.nm,n 612418-6828 y xdw u. , ms •,, roe No.: 1604 / 1"6 - 2-o16 I Property Boundary Orange) 10 00 44 _ i Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota Rorie: (612}9U26 19 E-niel. jocoesanmv@rtm.mm 0 25 50 100 Figure "Oe""a"" mw v aa.aa rx�. ae ,ap,a Feet aoz "°me. a°"`• Proposed Oriveway %-� -2C)j0 Existing Contour & Elevation Mn_Topo Lidar (white) Top of Bank Minimum 30 Ft. (Variance Request: 70' encroachment into 100' setback) Delineated Wetland Boundary (red) Property Boundary Proposed Wetland Impact 957 SF (yellow hatch) Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota 0 5 10 20 Minimum 10 Ft. Wetland Setback From Proposed Driveway Proposed Driveway (12 It wide) (green) 12 In. Culvert Proposed Contour (black) & Elevation (yellow/black) �Pbone:(612}8626619�}86266199 E-mail: jecobs mvamw can Flqure 7 �pd N=aM1.lBM 4�HI11uS5B11 b2015