The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-20_3892 LONE CEDAR LANE SHORELAND SETBACK VARIANCE REQUEST, � f, 011 11 ADVANCE SORVEYING & ENGINEERING CO - 5300 S. Hwy. No. 101 Minnetonka, NIN 55345 Phone (952) 474 7964 Fax (952) 225 0502 WWW.ADVSUR.COM SURVEY FOR:HA WMNS TREE& LANDSCAPING SURVEYED: October, 2014 DRAFTED: October 29, 2014 REVISED: March 19, 20 15, to show proposed walls. REVISED: April 30, 2015, to show proposed walls, shed, stairs, grading, drainage and erosion control details for review. REVISED: June 4, 2015 to show revisions to respond to city review comments. REVISED: July 16, 2015 to show revised plan. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 2, Block I, Trolls -Wen First Addition, Carver County, Minnesota. SCOPE OF WORK & LIMITATIONS: 1. Showing the length and direction of boundary lines of the above legal description. The scope of our services does not include determining what you own, which is a legal matter. Please check the legal description with your records or consult with competent legal counsel, if necessary, to make sure that it is correct, and that any matters of record, such as easements, that you wish shown on the survey, have been shown. 2. Showing the location of existing improvements we deemed important. 3. Setting new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the comers of the property. 4. Showing elevations on the site at selected locations to give some indication of the topography of the site. The elevations shown relate only to the benchmark provided on this survey. Use that benchmark and check at least one other feature shown on the survey when determining other elevations for use on this site. 5. Showing your proposal for retaining walls, steps, shed, grading, drainage and erosion control for your review and approval and for the review and approval of such governmental agencies as may have jurisdiction over your project before you use this survey and plan to make decisions. 6. While we show die way you indicate that you intend to build the tall retaining wall, our services do not include structural design of the wall and it is subject to revision per your structural engineer's design. STANDARD SYMBOLS & CONVENTIONS: "0" Denotes 1/2" D pipe with plastic plug bearing State License Number 9235, set, unless otherwise noted. r'VD'rTVTPAT]C1V: A *10V OX51 010 V050 DO'� 5 V61 GWV'o 0 1 �O '*'�p k0- �ey- VS IN NON 'y 'ACO C1,0 'XI I hereby certify that this plan, specification, report or survey was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Professional Engineer and License 1 1 13 1E n Land Surveyor under the laws of the state of Minnesota. ?10� VV- DYDSVO,�", go 0 G' -N 10 A31�0 -SIV, �Q.Mp: James H Parker Rev. No.: 9235 -910 ovo 10.1111 "", 'D? , 1-4w '19 0 S!La_Lwe: I_LF Date: March 30, 2015 970 GRADE GRANULAR FILL, TOP FOOT 60% MULCI1, 40% SAND 966 --.----PROPOSED RANDOM SIZE GRANITE 13LOCK STACKED RETAINING WALL ---- EXISTING YARD � D L011 EXI TIN - . 01 79 � 1 JA 0 :P6. 10 r 9- Cn cc C) Sr ----PROPOSED YARD GRADE ---- PROPOSED YARD GRADE AT SWALE 960 : I , ----12 " RIP RAP WITH FILTER FABRIC BENEATH ---PROPOSED 4 INCH PVC DRAIN LINE Z1.5 D C .00"0�7�.o 0 00> 0 0 PROPOSED WALL CONCEPTI)ETAIL hv ,---GRANULAR FILL, TOP FOOT 60% MULCH, 40% SAND ---PROPOSED 956 YARD NA', GRADE 1, 0 -979, 980� I \ \ I , -------- gal A5.0 -982 ------- VVI '91CPaON If gal wy qs CO, -D '44OOV os� -9by -------- 984 ?w0v -9B4- - -73 5V VO,'� V�11 10 Z�t, * -PROPOSED RETAINING WALL — ----- 91, ----------- D txs�& 6,4� or, -98/ ---------- ROCK SWALE DETAIL GRAPHIC SCALE 20 0 10 20 40 F_ IN FEET GRASSY SWALE WITH PLASTIC REINFORCEMENT GRID, NOTCH TOP OF RETAINING WALL 3 INCHES BEPEMOVED OUBLE ROW OF SILT FENCE 1;�� txz� zlt� 0 SCANNED _150246e5 2015 07 17 J JP PROP REF #Wl 0 0 The contents of this file have been scanned, Do not add anything to it unless it has been scanned. 0 0 CAMPBELL KNUTSON October 6, 2015 Ms. Kim Meuwissen City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: I J,1isAWlaneous Aecord,!d "oewrents Dear Ms. Meuwissen: 16 _,� 0 RECEIVED OCT n 9 2015 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Please find enclosed, for the City's files, the following original recorded documents: Variance for Lot 2, Block 2, Hillside Oaks, recorded September 16, 2015 as document number A616639; and 2. Variance for Lot 2, Block 1, Trolls -Glen First Addition, recorded September 16, 2015 as document number A616637. Thank you. Very truly yours, CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Jean /jM0 Enclosures SCANNEC 183816 A' V1 Document No. A616637 OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA Certified Recorded on -September 16, 2015 3:19 PM Fee $46 00 John E Freernyer 616637 County Recorder CrrV OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2015-20 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance request to replace and expand a retaining wall that encroaches into the shoreland setback and bluff setback, as shown in plans provided by Hawkins Tree & Landscaping dated July 16,2015. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Trolls -Glen First Additiom 3. Condition. The variance approval is subject to the following condition: a. The applicant shall work with staff to ensure reasonable effort shall be made to protect the oak, located north of the upper wall, and possible root area during construction. b. The middle tier shall be planted with native, deep-rooted vegetation that will provide the water quality and ecological benefits and act to screen the wall as viewed from the lake within 14 days of completion of construction. As this wall will be up to twelve (12) feet in height, at least some woody vegetation/ornamental trees will be required and total aerial cover at maturity shall be no less than 85%. A landscape plan shall be prepared and submatted to the City for review and approval. c. The vegetation between tiered walls shall be low or no maintenance. d. Surety funds shall be required equal to I 10% the cost of landscaping the middle tier prior to any earth -disturbing activities. e. The applicant shall apply for and receive a building permit prior to construction. f. The following materials are prohibited for retaining wall construction: smooth face, poured -in-place concrete (stamped or pattcmed concrete is allowed), masonry, railroad ties or timber. SCANNED g. Walls taller than six feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock. 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. Dated: August 18, 2015 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: z4m� (SEAL) 96my Laufq(iburger, Naor AND: JA Todd Gerhardt City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER The foregoirig instrument was acknowledged before me thiecday of '&IQ IewLr- , 2015 by Denny Laufenburger, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the Cit� of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. #KIM T. M UWISSEN P =E ut� Notary Pubk-MWM80t& M mv =0__ 3!�L V EWw" in 31,2= DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 IVA rl idiff'Ire7r, 400* 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 22 7-1110 0 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE JOB NO. 9/2/15 2015-20 ATTENTION Jean Olson RE: Document Recording TO: Campbell Knutson, PA Grand Oak Office Center 1 860 Blue Gentian Road, Suite 290 Eagan, MN 55121 WE ARE SENDING YOU Z Attached E Under separate cover via the following items: El Shop drawings F1 Prints El Plans El Samples El Specifications El Copy of letter El Change Order El Pay Request 0 - COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION El /18/15 - 15-20 - Variance to replace/expand retaining wall at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane (Lot 2, Block 1, Trolls -Glen First Addition) El FORBIDS DUE For Recording El PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: D For approval E) For your use El As requested E3 For review and comment El FORBIDS DUE REMARKS El Approved as submitted El Resubmit El Approved as noted El Submit El Returned for corrections Return [D For Recording El PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US COPY TO: Ryan Johnson, 3892 Lone Cedar Lane copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints SIGNED:4 �- j�] 0 f & L4,� ]KimVeuwissen, (kQ�) 227-1107 lf enclosures am not as noted, kindly notify us at once. SCANNEC CrrY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2015-20 I- Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance request to replace and expand a retaining wall that encroaches into the shoreland setback and bluff setback, as shown in plans provided by Hawkins Tree & Landscaping dated July 16,2015. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 2, Block 1, Trolls -Glen First Addition. 3. Condition. The variance approval is subject to the following condition: a. The applicant shall work with staff to ensure reasonable effort shall be made to protect the oak, located north of the upper wall, and possible root area during construction. b. The middle tier shall be planted with native, deep-rooted vegetation that will provide the water quality and ecological benefits and act to screen the wall as viewed from the lake within 14 days of completion of construction. As this wall will be up to twelve (12) feet in height at least some woody vegetation/ornamental trees will be required and total aerial cover at maturity shall be no less than 85%. A landscape plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval. c. The vegetation between tiered walls shall be low or no maintenance. d. Surety funds shall be required equal to 110% the cost of landscaping the middle tier prior to any earth -disturbing activities. e. The applicant shall apply for and receive a building permit prior to construction. f The following materials are prohibited for retaining wall construction: smooth face, poured -in-place concrete (stamped or patterned concrete is allowed), masonry, railroad ties or timber. i I le g. Walls taller than six feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock. 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. Dated: August 18, 2015 CnT OF CHANHASSEN BY: A-,� 84"�3�— (SEAL) F)(my Lauf6burger, Ukor AND: —A JA Todd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MnjNEsoTA (ss COUNTY OF CARvER The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me thile� ay of '1:1-n 2015 by Denny Laufenburger, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt� City Manager, of the Cit� of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. I!fKIM T. ME ry P! UW�WEN Notary =Pubk4AWv*$Ot& W 31, 2W DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 2 el)'�l JAI NOTARY KIBLIC Adminisirration Re: Planning Case #2015-20, Variance Request Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax:952.227.1110 Dear Mr. Johnson: Building Inspections 0 0 Phone: 952.227.1180 August 26, 2015 Uff OF expand a retaining wall that encroaches into the shoreland setback and bluff setback, CMSEN as shown in plans provided by Hawkins Tree & Landscaping dated July 16, 2015, 7700 Markel Boulevard Ryan M. Johnson PO Box 147 3892 Lone Cedar Lane Chanhassen, MN 55317 Chaska, MN 55318 Adminisirration Re: Planning Case #2015-20, Variance Request Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax:952.227.1110 Dear Mr. Johnson: Building Inspections This letter is to inform you that on August 18, 2015, the Planning Commission, acting Phone: 952.227.1180 as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approved a variance request to replace and Fax: 952.227.1190 expand a retaining wall that encroaches into the shoreland setback and bluff setback, Engineering as shown in plans provided by Hawkins Tree & Landscaping dated July 16, 2015, Phone: 952.227.1160 subject to the following conditions: Fax: 952.227.1170 1 . The applicant shall work with staff to ensure reasonable effort shall be made Finance to protect the oak, located north of the upper wall, and possible root area Phone: 952.227-1140 during construction. Fax:952.227.1110 Park & Recreation 2. The middle tier shall be planted with native, deep-rooted vegetation that will Phone: 952.227.1120 provide the water quality and ecological benefits and act to screen the wall as Fax: 952.227.1110 viewed from the lake within 14 days of completion of construction. As this wall will be up to twelve (12) feet in height, at least some woody Recreation Carder vegetationlomamental trees will be required and total aerial cover at maturity 2310 Coulter Boulevard shall be no less than 85%. A landscape plan shall be prepared and submitted Phone: 952.227.1400 to the City for review and approval. Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & 3. The vegetation between tiered walls shall be low or no maintenance. Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 4. Surety funds shall be required equal to I 10% the cost of landscaping the Fax: 952.227.1110 middle tier prior to any earth -disturbing activities. Public Works 5. The applicant shall apply for and receive a building permit prior to 7901 Park Place Phone: 952.227.1300 construction. Fax: 952.227.1310 6. The following materials are prohibited for retaining wall construction: smooth Senior Center face, poured -in-place concrete (stamped or patterned concrete is allowed), Phone. 952.227.1125 masonry, railroad ties or timber. Fax:952.227.1110 Website 7. Walls taller than six feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us SCANNED Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing forTodayand Planning for Tomorrow Ryan M. Johnson August 26, 2015 Page 2 The City will record the variance on the property with Carver County. The variance is valid for one year from the approval date. A building permit must be applied for prior to August 18, 2016 through the City's Building Department or the variance becomes void. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at (952) 227-1132 or by email at dingvalson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, Drew Ingvalson Assistant Planner EC: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director Todd Gerhardt, City Manager Terry Jeffery, Water Resources Coordinator g:�plm\201 5 plmning �\2015-20 3892 twe ecdu lane varianc6appmval letter.doe CEANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 18, 2015 Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, John Tietz, Nancy Madsen, Lisa Hokkanen, and Maryam Yusuf MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Weick STAFT PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Drew Ingvalson, Planner; and Alyson Fauskc, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC HEARING: 3892 LONE CEDAR LANE VARIANCE, PLANNING CASE 2015-20: REOUEST FOR VARIANCE TO 75 FOOT SHORELAND SETBACK TO ALLOW FOR THE EXPANSION OF A RETAINING WALL ON PROPERTY ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (RSF) AND LOCATED AT 3892 LONE CEDAR LANE (LOT 2. BLOC 1. TROLLS -GLEN FIRST ADDITION). APPLICANTIOWNER: RYAN & TINA JOHNSON. Ingvalson: Alright thank you very much Chairman. This one like you said is an expansion of an existing non -conformity and as you said it's at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane. This property is right off of Lake Minnewashta and is in the shoreland district. 1977 the City first adopted the shoreland chapter as authorized by Minnesota statute so this property needs to follow that. This is an image of the property from the lakeshore. In 1982 the subject property was granted a 11.23 foot front yard setback variance and a 7,500 square foot lot area variance. The property was constructed in 1983. The structure was built at this time and it is assumed that these retaining walls that you see here on the lower part and on the upper part were constructed around that same time. However there is not any city record of when they were constructed because at that time the City did not require any building permit for a retaining wall that was under 4 feet tall so we're not exactly sure what time these were constructed but sort of assume that it was constructed around the same time the house was built. If you're looking at those retaining walls the top retaining wall up here is 4 feet tall and then the bottom retaining wall is also 4 feet tall. The bottom retaining wall is 33 feet away from the ordinary high water level and the upper retaining wall, which is quite a bit up a steep hill is 55 feet from the ordinary high water level. The property owner is requesting a variance to demolish 2 existing retaining walls that you were shown earlier that encroach into the shoreland and bluff setbacks and is looking to replace them with new retaining walls, one of which expands on existing non -conformity. So the existing non -conformities that we have on the property, if you look on the image to the left, the red dotted line is the 75 foot shoreland setback. The 2 retaining walls that are currently existing are in blue. Here is the top retaining wall and then the bottom retaining wall is within this green area and there's a blue line underneath there. They both are within that shoreland setback. The 2 retaining walls also encroach into the 30 foot bluff setback. The bluff setback, the bluff area is seen in this orange color here and would go out 30 feet, which both then encroach into. The SCANNED 0 0 1 % � Chanhassen Planning Commission —August 18, 2015 proposed project that is in front of us today is to demolish both of these 2 blue retaining walls you see here. Also this walkway that goes down. Connects the upper level to the bottom level by the shoreland. To replace it with 2 new retaining walls, one of which will be a retaining wall in the exact same place, which will be the same size and location as existing retaining wall which will be the lower retaining wall here. ne applicant is also looking to put in a proposed shed. This proposed shed will meet all requirements from the city. It will be considered a water oriented structure. It will require an encroachment agreement but that will be something that staff is already looking at and will not require a variance. The walkway also, this middle walkway will be demolished and instead will have a walkway that goes along the south side of the retaining walls. The upper wall is where a lot of the change is going to occur. The height of the upper wall is going to increase from 4 feet, which is this retaining wall here, to the bottom wall here which is going to be 12 feet. The location will be moved closer to the shoreland as you can see and this is what will require a variance. It will also require a variance from an expansion on the non -conformity of being within the bluff area because it will be taller than the existing retaining wall. The main stated reason by the applicant for this alteration to the retaining walls is to increase the yard space. Looking at this image here the dark green area is existing yard space that the applicant has. The light green area is what would be obtained through this expansion. The longest distance from the house to the current retaining wall is 24 feet. The applicant is looking to expand this out to 34 feet. The shortest area on this image is 15 feet from the structure and what they're looking to is expand it out to 26 feet. One of the stated, other stated concerns by the applicant for doing this remodel overall is for safety reasons. Looking at this image to the left, this is the stairway that you can see the wall is, I'm not sure if you can tell in this image but it's definitely giving on that side and starting to give from some of the weight of the earth on the other side. It's also beginning to deteriorate as you can see on these two other images off to the side. It's made of timber right now so it is deteriorating rather rapidly and definitely needs to be replaced. However it should be noted that the variance is not required for to increase the safety of this. It could be done in the same place that it currently is without a variance for it because they'd just be replacing and maintaining what they have. Another concern with this variance request is the preservation of a tree that is located on the adjacent property. It is located to the north. The subject property is here and the subject tree is located right in this area. It is a white oak tree and one of the major concerns of that is that a lot of the work that's going to be done around here is going to, around this retaining wall will possibly be detrimental to the tree. About 25 to 50 percent of the roots are located, are most likely located on the subject property in this area and also, let's see here. So to help stop some of the detrimental effects of this staff has come together with some measures to protect the tree's health and also the soil in this area. One of the first things would be to use construction mats in the construction area. This would reduce some of the compaction of the soils in this area and would be very helpful to the roots that are on the subject property. Also minimizing the grading changes to the absolutely minimum possible. Not making them any more drastic than need to be. Then also covering the area with wood chips instead of sod for a finish. T'hat will help some of the root re -growth in this area and help facilitate that. Then lastly providing good care of the tree area during construction. Just watering while, if there's any droughts in the area. If there isn't too much rain during that time period of construction. So the tree preservation condition of approval for this would be that the applicant shall work with staff to ensure reasonable efforts shall be made to protect the oak located on the north of the upper wall and possible root area during construction. This was also reviewed for shorcland management. One of the main points 2 4p; 40 0 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission — August 18, 2015 of the shoreland management is really two fold. One is actually to protect any natural environment in the area through reducing runoff and erosion but another element of that is also to protect the view scape from the public waters of Lake Minnewashta or any other public water. To help do this the staff has proposed that there would be some vegetation planted in this middle fier area to help number one, reduce runoff and then also to help with the view scape of this 12 foot wall to screen some of that from the public area. Currently looking at the image in the bottom left there are rocks in the area which are not helpfiil and actually very detrimental to the runoff in the area. It pushes, helps push the water going down the slope fiister and is just, pushes more erosion in the area. Having some plantings in this area, specifically some deep rooted vegetation would help with some of that runriff in this middle area and then also would help screen that 12 foot wall. Here's the drainage plan for the proposed project. The drainage will run from this area over into the center of the retaining wall and there will actually be a drainage path through the retaining walls and eventually out to Lake Minnewashta. Currently drainage goes off to the sides of the property which is actually fairly detrimental with the steep slopes in that area and there's a lot of, it's very erosive to the soil in that area. For the character of the neighborhood there has been multiple variances granted within the area but none of them have been for a shoreland setback. There was one request that was denied. Other than that the other approved variances were for bluff setbacks, lot size requirements, front yard setbacks and for access off of a public street, or off a private street, excuse me. However there are other characteristics of this neighborhood that should be addressed, mainly that there's a lot of properties in this area that have retaining walls within that 75 foot shorcland setback noted by staff when we went out on the site. The 2 adjacent properties both have retaining walls that are within that same area. There hasn't been a note of how tall any of these retaining walls or anything of that but it's fairly, easy to assume that a lot of these retaining walls were done during that period where the City did not require for retaining walls to come in that were 4 feet tall or under. Here's the retaining wall design. It's going to be constructed out of granite blocks so this is material will be a lot sturdier than the timbers that are currently there and looking here it will be 12 feet tall. Staff has recommended that the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approve the shoreland setback and bluff setback variance request as shown on plans provided Hawkins Tree and Landscaping dated July 16, 2015 with conditions from the staff report and adopts the attached Findings of Fact. Here are the conditions if you'd like to look at them and at this point in time that concludes the presentation and I'm open to any questions that you might have. Aller: Okay, any questions? Tietz: Commissioner. Aller: Commissioner Tietz. Tietz: Drew I noticed on that slide that showed the construction or the cross section of the retaining wall. Ingvalson: Absolutely. Tietz: That appeared to be a concept because it said that they are not structural engineers and that you'd need a structural engineer to produce the final design. Has that been done? Chanhassen Planning Commission — August 18, 2015 Aanenson: I'll let Alyson answer that question. Fauske: Excellent question Commissioner Tietz. With the upper retaining wall being in excess of 4 feet high they do have to get a building permit. As such the plans for that wall has to be designed by an engineer registered in the State of Minnesota and signed by that engineer. Typically drainage behind a retaining wall that size is included in that plan so there will be an engineer that would have to sign off on the final drainage plan for the wall. Tietz: Good, thank you. Fauske: You're welcome. Aanenson: Just to look to that, that is condition number 5 in the staff report that they would have to get that engineered. Yep. Tietz: Yeah. Hokkanen: Are they required then to have some kind of a fence or some kind of barrier from that, anything over 4 feet? Fauske: Typically when we have a retaining wall next to a public travel surface, a sidewalk, a road, that sort of thing, they're certainly encouraged to do something like that. A landscaping feature to kind of keep people, you know small children away from the edge of that retaining wall but our code is for anywhere near a public traveled way. Aanenson: I would say also it may impact if it was on a neighboring property. This is all on their own property. Hokkanen: So then it doesn't. Aanenson: Yeah. Yeah so if it would maybe abutting another neighbor's property so in this circumstance you'd have the 12 feet. Then you have that area that we were recommending they landscape then you've got that wall that they're replacing so it's all on their private, so it's kind of their own risk as. Hokkanen: okay. Aller: Have we recommended the type of landscape that we would put next to that wall? We're looking at 12 feet. Can we put a small overstory tree or understory tree? Ingvalson: So we have from our conditions we bad number 2 there, the specific condition I'll read off is that the middle tier shall be planted with native deep rooted vegetation that will Provide the water quality and ecological benefits and acts to screen the wall as viewed from the lake within 14 days of completion. We have there is it going to be vegetation ornamental trees we required and the one thing that we did have in there is a specific condition was that it shall be, 4 I Chanhassen Planning Commission —August 18, 2015 the area cover shall be no less than 85 percent. Nothing specific with types of plantings. That's something we'd probably be working out as we move forward with it, if this was approved. Aanenson: When they would submit their building permit we would ask them to subject the landscaping plan too, Aller: And is the oak on city right-of-way or is it on private property? Ingvalson: Private property. Aller: Their's or neighbors? Ingvalson: Neighbors. Aller: Okay so they would have to deal with the neighbors. Aarrenson: The neighbors have met on site with the City Forester so we've had discussions about, it's a civil matter but we are trying to use best practices. Both neighbors are in concurrence of that and have taken inventory and status of the tree so they're both monitoring that during construction period. Aller: Okay. And then on drainage and runoff, is there a benefit to having the piping come through the center of the property as opposed to the side yard? It seems to me that if it's slowed down by the natural flow on the yard� even though that there's some erosion. That's not as fast of runoff so you wouldn't have a lot of the nutrients and other things pouring into the lake, is that something that we're looking at? Fauske: Well typically you do want drainage to follow the natural lay of the land. That being said there's a lot ot there's very steep slopes on this property so when you get slopes that see the velocity of the water is conducive for erosion on the property so the benefit of having the drainage feature that goes through the middle of the property is, the intent is to try not only gather some of that water but get it to that area inbetween the upper tier and the lower tier and then with the natural vegetation it's taking some of that runoff and pulling it out. It's using that to feed and get the deep root so that you're getting some of the natural absorption into the plant material versus direct runoff towards the lake. Aller: Okay, thank you. Any additional questions at this time? Commissioner Madsen. Madsen: Would it be more favorable for the tree if the retaining wall stayed in it's current location? Ingvalson: Either way with this project that's going to be done here, if they do construct a retaining wall in that same place they will need to do construction in that area so you're looking at a situation where there's going to be work done there either way. Really what we're looking at is trying to mitigate any of those negative issues that we'd have there. There will be a potential change in grade in that area that we would hope that we could minimize. 0 Chanhassen Planning Commission —August 18, 2015 Madsen: Okay. And the neighbor who has the tree, is that neighbor in favor of this proposed change? Ingvalson: I believe they had signed a document stating that they were in favor but I would have to check first. The property owner at 3898, Pam and Terry Johnson have signed and I have a document in here saying they were in favor of this. They have not stated anything they would change their minds since the previous talks they've had with staff. Madsen: Okay. Aanenson: I'd just mention that the City Forester did meet with both owners out there so. I think they're both working hard to make sure they save that. Madsen: Thank you. Ingvalson: Absolutely. Aller: And for the record of those individuals at home there are a number of letters in support from the neighbors up and down Lone Cedar Lane that can be viewed on the website. Any additional questions? Aanenson: This is a public hearing so we have to open. Aller: Yes we'll open the public hearing. We don't have the applicant here so we'll open the public hearing and anyone wishing to speak either for or against the item can do so at this time. And seeing no one come forward my guess is that they feel that the letters that have been attached to the package have stated their ascent to the request as indicated in the package and I'll close the public hearing at this point in time and open it up for discussion. Comment. Yusuf. I'll just make a comment. I do appreciate just how good the packet is and the lengths that the applicant went to to gather up support from the neighbors and working with the staff. Aller: How do you feel about the project? Yusuf I understand the challenge. I understand the challenge that they're faced with and you know it's a good opportunity to fix it. I'm in favor. Atler: Any additional comments? I think it's great that the neighbors were contacted and were brought in and that communication was there and that the forester is working with them. Especially with the neighbors with such a precious commodity being a large oak such as we're dealing with and the efforts that staff has gone through with the applicant to make sure that the conditions arc there to safeguard the erosion and the bluff and the other natural resources in the area. It does look like to me that it's replacing and repairing and maintaining as opposed to coming up with some new major project, although the wall is larger and they will be gaining the 1.1 Chanhassen Planning Commission — August 18, 2015 ability to have the access to more lawn or area. Back yard. That it looks to me that they're doing what they need to do to make sure that the property is maintained more than developed. Hokkanen: I agree. Aller: So because of that I'm in favor. Hokkanen: I'm in favor. AtIcr: Any additional comments? Questions? Concerns? I'll entertain a motion. Hokkanen: I'll propose a motion. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance request to replace expand, replace and expand retaining walls that encroach into the shoreland setback, bluff setback and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second? Undestad: Second. Aller: I have a motion by Commissioner Hokkanen and a second by Commissioner Undestad. Any further discussion? Hokkanen moved, Undestad seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request to replace and expand retaining walls that encroach into the shoreland setback and bluff setback, as shown in plans provided by Hawkins Tree & Landscaping dated July 16, 2015, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision, subject to the following conditions: I . The applicant shall work with staff to ensure reasonable effort shall be made to protect the oak, located north of the upper wall, and possible root area during construction. 2. The middle tier shall be planted with native, deep-rooted vegetation that will provide the water quality and ecological benefits and act to screen the wall as viewed from the lake within 14 days of completion of construction. As this wall will be up to twelve (12) feet in height, at least some woody vcgetation/omamental trees will be required and total aerial cover at maturity shall be no less than 85%. A landscape plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval. 3. The vegetation between tiered walls shall be low or no maintenance. 4. Surety funds shall be required equal to 110% the cost of landscaping the middle tier prior to any earth -disturbing activities. 5. The applicant shall apply for and receive a building permit prior to construction - 6. The following materials are prohibited for retaining wall construction: smooth face, poured -in-place concrete (stamped or patterned concrete is allowed), masonry, railroad ties or timber. Chanhassen Planning Commission —August 18, 2015 7. Walls taller than six feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: 1190 LYMAN BOULEVARD VARLANCE, PLANNING CASE 2015-15: REOUEST FOR VARIANCE TO WETLAND SETBACK TO RELOCATE SEPTIC SYSTEM ON PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE (A2) AND LOCATED AT 1190 LYMAN BOULEVARD. APPLICANT/OV*INER: DUANE SKLUZACEIC Ingvalson: This next case is for a wetland setback variance request. Location of the subject property is at 1190 Lyman Boulevard. If you look over here it is just off of Powers Boulevard and then off of Lyman also. The city sewer currently is not available to this property and also the subject property is not required to connect to city sewer due to it being over 150 feet from the city sanitary sewer. Here's an image of the subject house. This house was constructed in 1984 with a septic system designed to handle 2 bedrooms. At some point in time after 1984 this house was remodeled and, for it to have another 2 bedrooms so now it is currently a 4 bedroom home. There's not any city record in our city building files that show when this was completed or when this was done. So the request the applicant has is that they are requesting a variance from the 75 foot wetland setback to construct a new septic system with a 4 bedroom design. The existing system is failing so that's why this is coming about. They need to get a new system in there. This new system will be an enlargement as I stated from a current 2 bedroom design to a 4 bedroom design. The applicant is proposing to do a Type 3 mound system which will be located on top of part of the current system partially. Here is an image of the property and all the setbacks that this structure is going to need to meet. Looking on here the dark green is the wetland. The light green is the 75 fi)ot wetland setback. The reddish pink is the 20 foot structure setback. Here's from the house. The blue circle is the 50 foot well setback. The purple is the 10 foot property line setback. Brown here is the 20 foot steep slope setbacks and there's also some more structures in there that make it very difficult to put this new system in. This goldish color is gravel which is compacted soils which can't be used for a septic system. Leaving only this white area as possible areas for a new septic system. The proposed location is right here, this orange rectangle for the new system. An alternative location is right here in this cross hatched area or this cross line area as an alternative spot. However the building, the City's building department has gone out and looked on site. There is a drainage way that goes through to the wetland right here in this dark blueish area which also makes this a poor area for a new septic system. The main reason that the property owner is looking to have this septic system in another spot was to preserve some mature trees. Looking on the left side here the mature trees that they are looking to preserve for this project. To the right is some smaller trees that will need to be removed with the new septic mound system that they're looking to locate it. Here is an elevation and drainage diagram. The low point on the property is located on the southwest area with it going down in elevation to the wetland area. Here is the location of the drainage ditch. You can see these contours that drainage flows through this area to the wetland. There's also steep slopes behind the back side of the house which make it difficult for the, that makes it not able to meet the steep slope area there. The diagram shows the proposed septic site right here. It has to be located with the contours per building requirements for a new septic system. This report was 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 1=10 Application of Ryan M. Johnson for a variance to construct retaining walls that encroach into the shoreland setback and bluff setback on property zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF) located at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20. On August 18, 2015, 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 Single -Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 2, Block 1, Trolls -Glen First Addition 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 subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential District. The purpose of the request is to expand the usable space in the subject property's rear yard. The current rear yard is constrained due to significant elevation changes on the property. Currently, the rear yard is only 24 feet long at its longest point and 15 feet at its shortest point. The applicant has proposed to increase the lengths of these areas to 34 feet at its longest point, and 26 feet at its shortest point. This is a reasonable request and keeps with the general intent of the Chapter. 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 applicant's request to expand the rear yard through moving a retaining wall is reasonable. The applicant has no other alternatives for increasing the rear yard SCANNED space due to extremely steep slopes in the subject property's rear yard and the proximate location of the shoreland. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. The stated intent is to increase the usable yard space in the rear yard. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The existing structure was built in 1983. It is assumed that the existing retaining walls were built during construction of the home. The property has steep slopes that limit the usable space of the rear yard. Additionally, the proximity of the home to the shoreland allows for very little space out the rear of the home. The applicant purchased the property after the construction of the existing retaining walls and thus did not create the nonconformity on the property. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Multiple properties in the area have retaining walls that encroach into the 75 -foot shoreland setback. Many of the lots in the neighborhood have retaining walls within the shoreland setback because the original homes were constructed in the 1970s, several years before the city required permits for retaining walls that were less than four feet tall. 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 #2015-20, dated August 18,2015, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein. PA 0 0 DECISION The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request to replace and expand retaining walls that encroach into the shoreland setback and bluff setback, as shown in plans provided by Hawkins Tree & Landscaping dated July 16, 2015, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall work with staff to ensure reasonable effort shall be made to protect the oak, located north of the upper wall, and possible root area during construction. 2. The middle tier shall be planted with native, deep-rooted vegetation that will provide the water quality and ecological benefits and act to screen the wall as viewed from the lake within 14 days of completion of construction. As this wall will be up to twelve (12) feet in height, at least some woody vegetation/ornamental trees will be required and total aerial cover at maturity shall be no less than 85%. A landscape plan shall be prepared and submitted to the city for review and approval. 3. The vegetation between tiered walls shall be low or no maintenance. 4. Surety funds shall be required equal to 110% the cost of landscaping the middle tier prior to any earth -disturbing activities. 5. The applicant shall apply for and receive a building permit prior to construction. 6. The following materials are prohibited for retaining wall construction: smooth face, poured -in-place concrete (stamped or patterned concrete is allowed), masonry, railroad ties or timber. 7. Walls taller than six feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 180'day of August, 2015. CITY OF CHANHASSEN lu Chairman PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request to replace and expand retaining walls that encroach into the shoreland setback and bluff setback, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." Ora SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The property owner is requesting a variance to allow replacement of retaining walls that encroach into the shoreland and bluff setbacks. One retaining wall will maintain its same height and location and will not require a variance. The other retaining wall will be built taller and will be moved closer to the shoreland than the existing retaining wall. LOCATION: APPLICANT: 3892 Lone Cedar Lane (PID 25-8600020) Ryan M. Johnson 3892 Lone Cedar Lane Chaska, MN 55318 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF). 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (Net density 1.2 — 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 0.32 acres (13,939.2 square feet) DENSITY: N/A LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION- MAKING: The city's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The city has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to aH property owners within 500 feet. SCANNED 0 0 Planning Commission 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20 August 18, 2015 Page 2 of 12 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The property owner is requesting a variance to demolish two existing retaining walls that encroach into the shoreland and bluff setbacks and replace them with new retaining walls. The proposed project requires a variance from the city; however, the applicant's request to replace and relocate their retaining wall is a reasonable use of the property. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 1, General Provisions Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and definitions Chapter 20, Article fl, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article IV, Division 4, Nonconforming Use Section 20-72, Nonconforming uses and structures Chapter 20, Article VU, Shoreland management district Section 20-481, Placement, design, and height of structure. Chapter 20, Article XXIIII, Division 5, Fences and Walls Section 20-1025, Retaining Walls Chapter 20, Article XXVHI Section 20-1401, Structure Setbacks BACKGROUND In 1977, Chanhassen's shoreland chapter was first adopted as authorized by Minnesota Statute. The Shoreland Management District section of City Code requires structures on recreational development public waters to be set back 75 feet from the ordinary high water level. The existing retaining walls on the subject site encroach into the required 75 -foot setback from the ordinary high water level. In 1982, the subject property was granted an I 1.23 -foot front yard setback variance and a 7,500 square -foot lot area variance to construct a home within the shoreland district. The existing structure on the subject property was constructed in 1983. It is assurned that the existing retaining walls were built concurrently with the home; however, there is no record of their construction within the city's building files. During that time period, the City did not require a permit for the construction of retaining walls that did not exceed four feet in height. 'Me subject site currently has two retaining walls within the shoreland setback. The existing retaining walls are approximately 33 feet and 55 feet from the Ordinary High Water Level (shoreland). These existing retaining walls are both four feet tall. The walkway, which has retaining walls on both sides, reaches a height of slightly over five feet at its tallest point. 0 0 Planning Commission 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20 August 18,2015 Page 3 of 12 The applicant intends to replace the lower retaining wall (closest to the take and furthest east) with a retaining wall that is four feet tall, the same height and in the same location as the existing retaining wall. The upper retaining wall (closest to the home and furthest west) will be removed and the property owner intends to install a 12 -foot tall retaining wall that is located approximately 10 feet closer to the take, about 45 feet from the ordinary high water level. In addition, the proposed upper wall will be located ftirther from the bluff on the site, yet the wall will still be located within the required bluff setback. This wall will be taller than the existing retaining wall. Replacement of existing, legal nonconforming structures is allowed by City Code; however, the nonconforming uses and structures section of City Code, Section 20-72 (d), states that a dwelling "that is a nonconforming use or structure may be altered, or expanded provided, however, that the nonconformity may not be increased." The relocation and increase in the height of the upper retaining wall is considered an expansion of the nonconformity on the property. These changes from the existing retaining wall are what require this project to apply for a variance from the shoreland and bluff setbacks. The upper retaining wall will also require an encroachment agreement from the City due to it being located within the 10 -foot drainage and utility easement. On May 12, 2014, the City of Chanhassen amended City Code by adding a definition for expansion, Section 1-2, which states: "expansion means an increase in the floor area or volume of an existing building (including deck additions), increase in the building occupancy, capacity or parking demand, or increase in the degree or intensity of the nonconforming condition of the building, land area, site or use. (20)" The applicant is also proposing a 20 -foot by 12 -foot water -oriented structure within the shoreland setback. This structure is allowed by City Code and does not require a variance. However, the water -oriented structure will require an encroachment agreement from the city due to it being located within a drainage and utility easement. ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to remove two retaining walls, which are both within the 75 -foot shoreline setback, and construct two new retaining walls. One retaining wall, which is closest to the shoreland (see Image I on the next page), will be replaced with a retaining wall that is the same height and in the same location as the existing wall. This portion of the project does not require a variance. Another retaining wall, the one nearest the home and furthest west, will be constructed closer to the shoreland by up to twelve feet� and will be eight feet taller than the existing retaining wall (existing = four feet tall, proposed = 12 feet tall). This retaining wall will be positioned further from the bluff on the south side of the property (see the orange area in Image 1), but will also be taller than the existing retaining wall. The applicant wishes to replace the existing retaining wall for safety reasons and to create more usable space on land near his home. I 1 0 0 Planning Commission 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20 August 18,2015 Page 4 of 12 Image 1: Existing and Proposed Retaining Walls 10, PLASTJ Existing Retaining RETAIN 0 Ilk 79-4f 06 Walls (Blue) V __116.00 - , I I I I I - I - --------- t =-.-TO BE R1 to --IX)LIBI I to, 0 9,01, to It V!F Proposed Retaining Walls (Gree B uff Area ,OR 75 -Foot Shore] nd Setback Lin —o- 1 0 0 Planning Commission 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20 August 18, 2015 Page 5 of 12 Yard Space The current rear yard landscape does not allow for very much yard space. As seen in Image 2 below, the existing rear yard (from the house to the retaining wall) is only 15 feet in length at the nearest point and is 24 feet at its widest point. The applicant's proposal will increase the rear yard space to 26 feet in length at its nearest point and 34 feet at its longest point. Increasing the usable rear yard space is a reasonable request from a property owner. Image 2: Existing and Proposed Rear Yard Space 10? 0 PLASn 50 ,G GRID, O.k \ % RFTAD 1 4- I I ---------- ::==9 -TO BE R __-DOUB] %0 "Ai e 7. x1stil %a On% of Proposed C) G Ifee 9 6 0 $2, 05 c 6 1040 0 �P_ It tt Planning Commission 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20 August 18, 2015 Page 6 of 12 Safety The existing retaining wall is made of lumber and has deteriorated significantly since its creation. There are portions of the wall that are starting to give and are leaning due to the pressure from the soil it is holding (see Image 3). There are also portions of the wall and steps that are rotting (see Image 4). The applicant has proposed to replace the existing retaining wall with granite blocks. The granite blocks will be much sturdier and should have a longer life span than the existing lumber material. Image 3: Leaning Retaining Wall Images 4 and 5: Rotting Retaining Wall a 0 Planning Commission 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20 August 18, 2015 Page 7 of 12 Character of the Neighborhood The construction of this retaining wall will not alter the essential character of the subject neighborhood. The adjacent properties tothe north and south both have retaining walls that encroach into the 75 -foot shoreland setback. Furthermore, aerial images show that there are other properties in the area that have retaining walls within the shoreland setback. Tree Preservation The applicant has no trees along the north property line, but the neighbor has several trees adjacent to the property line, one of which is a significant white oak. The base of the tree is located within inches of the property line. On the subject property, grading and excavation is proposed up to the line. This activity will directly affect the root area of the white oak. To accomplish the plan as proposed, it will be necessary for equipment to work right up to the base of the tree and grade changes to take place in 25 - 50% of its root area. The construction has the potential to detrimentally affect the neighboring tree's health. It is unknown how much of the root area is on the property at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane, but roots are opportunistic and will take advantage of available space. For this reason, it is assumed that there arc enough roots Image 6: White Oak Tree on the applicant's property to merit caution and protection of the neighbor's oak. According to research by the University of Minnesota, white oaks are sensitive to both excavation and fill within their root zones. According to the proposed plan, the top of the slope will be shifted resulting in a cut of one to two feet along the north property line directly at the base of the tree. Ideally, the grade in this area would not change thereby protecting any feeder and large, structural roots closest to the base of the tree. It would also eliminate the work required to restore a 2:1 slope. if the grade did not change in this area, the retaining wall would likely require additional height, most likely a layer of block. A second consideration would be to shift the location of the proposed wall slightly to the south, away from the tree. The wall could use the same alignment as the existing wall for about the first 15 feet and then turn towards the lake and the proposed alignment. There are additional measures which could be taken to protect the tree's health and the soil from compaction. First, construction mats laid over the area between the wall and the property line a 0 Planning Commission 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20 August 18,2015 Page 8 of 12 would reduce the compaction within the primary root zone. If equipment access will be along the north property line, mats should be used within the whole corridor to reduce compaction. Second, if the grade changes could be minimized to the greatest extent possible or eliminated while still maintaining proper drainage it would greatly reduce the amount of root damage within the primary root zone. Third, it would be preferable to cover the area with wood chips and not install sod, landscape fabric or rock in the area when finishing the site. This would help to facilitate root re -growth in the area. Lastly, providing good care of the tree during the construction process would be prudent such as regular watering of the root area if rainfall is insufficient. Image 7: White Oak Tree Location White Oak Tree Location VOJMG -IQ-42:0 . .. ........ Ve 1'0 00 it A Q� -4 It' M !"77 J�y ------ .... Proposed -:0 -- -- ------- ------- --- ---- Retaining Walls .7 ............ . . . . . ..lop Ultimately, the responsibility and liability of insuring that the oak tree is not irreparably damaged during construction is up to the subject property owner and the contractor. If a variance is granted, the following conditions should be included in the approval. 1. Measures will be taken to insure the greatest protection possible of the root area of trees during construction. Planning Commission 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20 August 18,2015 Page 9 of 12 Shoreland Management Shoreland rules preclude the placement of any structure within the setback from the ordinary high water elevation (OHW) of any lake. There are exceptions to this requirement: stairways for access to the lake on steep slopes and the placement of one (1) water -oriented structure. The history of the shoreland regulations are best explained in the opening paragraph of the Statement of Need and Reasonableness for MN Rules Chapter 6120: "The Commissioner of Natural Resources is required by statute (Minn. Stat., Sect. 105.485) to promulgate standards for the subdivision, use, and development of shorelands in both unincorporated areas of counties and within cities. Standards for counties were adopted in 1970 and, because the statute was amended to include cities in 1973, standards for cities were adopted in 1976." These rules are important for a variety of reasons. By preventing the proliferation of structures fully encompassing and being placed immediately adjacent to the water resource, these rules protect and preserve the aesthetic of the viewscape from the public resource, be it a lake or river. This also protects property values. In addition, there are ecological and environmental reasons for the shoreland rules. The protection of vegetation provides habitat and protects water quality. There four primary ways in which the preservation of vegetation is important, particularly on steep slopes and bluffs: I . It directly removes water from the soil layers that could result in sloughing; 2. The root system holds the soil in place; 3. Vegetation reduces the force of raindrops which could dislodge soil particles and lead to erosion; and 4. Vegetation slows runoff and filters out suspended sediments that would otherwise be introduced into the water resource. Under existing conditions, the middle tier between the two walls, is two to three-inch clear rock over fabric. This condition does not provide the benefits that would be provided by vegetation mentioned earlier. If this area was to be landscaped with deep-rooted, native vegetation it would better provide the benefits discussed earlier including screening a twelve -foot (12') tall wall. The applicant has indicated a willingness to plant such vegetation. There is an obvious need to improve the existing condition from both a safety and an ecological perspective. This could be accomplished by replacing the walls in their current location with their current dimensions and establishing vegetation where appropriate. However, if a variance is granted, the following conditions should be included in the approval. The middle tier shall be planted with native, deep-rooted vegetation that will provide the water quality and ecological benefits and act to screen the wall as viewed from the lake within 14 days of completion of construction. As this wall will be up to twelve (12) feet in height at least some woody vegetation/ornamental trees will be required and total areal cover at maturity shall be no less than 85%. Planning Commission 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20 August 18,2015 Page 10 of 12 2. Surety funds shall be required equal to 110% the cost of landscaping the middle tier prior to any earth -disturbing activities. 3. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect the oak located north of the upper wall. Drainage and Elevation The applicant has proposed to direct drainage off the home towards the center of the property, between the retaining walls, and into the lake (see Image 8). As a part of their drainage plan, the applicant has indicated a willingness to plant vegetation between the two retaining walls to support slope stabilization and water infiltration. Image 8: Drainage Plan I k t d, if Pi I VA J ..... . — ------------ The highest elevation on the property (985 feet) is at the southwest comer of the lot. Elevation continues to fall as you travel north and cast within the property. The elevation is at 970 feet near the rear of the house and drops about a foot at the existing retaining wall. Traveling east, the elevation then drops to about 955 feet at the retaining wall nearest the lake (20 to 30 feet from the upper retaining wall) and falls to 944.5 feet at the ordinary high water level. There is approximately 33 feet between the most eastern retaining wall and the ordinary high water level. 6 0 Planning Commission 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20 August 18, 2015 Page I I of 12 Variances Granted within 500 Feet of the Property Upon review, staff found five variance requests, including the subject property, that were made within 500 feet of the subject property (see attachment 8). One of the five variance requests was for a shoreland setback, which was denied. The other variance requests were from the bluff setback, front yard setback, and for access off of a private street, all of which were approved. However, as discussed previously, there are numerous retaining walls that have been constructed within the shoreland setback in this area. The construction of many of these retaining walls predates the shoreland ordinance and City's zoning permit requirement for retaining walls under four feet in height. SUNM"Y The property owner is requesting to demolish existing retaining walls that encroach into the 75 - foot shoreline setback and 30 -foot bluff setback. The applicant intends to replace the existing walls with new retaining walls. One of these retaining walls will not require a variance due to it being in the same location and being the same height as the existing wall. Another retaining wall will require a variance because it will be an increase in the nonconformity. This proposed retaining wall will be twelve feet tall, eight feet taller than the existing retaining wall, and will be located up to thirteen feet closer to the ordinary high water level. Additionally, the retaining wall will be moved back further from the bluff on the south side of the property, but will be considered an expansion because it will be taller than the existing retaining wall. The existing retaining wall has significantly deteriorated since its original construction and needs to be replaced for safety purposes. Also, locating the proposed retaining walls within the shoreland setback will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood as several neighbors, including the northern and southern adjacent neighbors, have retaining walls that encroach into the shorcland setback. There is a significant white oak tree located on the adjacent neighbor's property. Compaction of soils in the area, cutting and other disturbances could prove to be detrimental to the health of the tree. If a variance is approved, staff recommends that measures be taken to ensure the greatest protection possible of the root area of this tree during construction. The middle area between the retaining walls is currently two to three-inch clear rock over fabric. This type of material is not conducive allowing water to percolate into soils. The applicant has indicated a willingness to work with staff to increase vegetation in this area as a part of their approval of this variance. Furthermore, increased vegetation of this area will also serve as a visual buffer of the 12 -foot high retaining wall from the public waters. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the variance request to replace and expand retaining walls that encroach into the shoreland setback and bluff setback, as shown in plans provided by Hawkins Tree & Landscaping dated July 16, 2015, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision subject to the following conditions: 1-1 Planning Commission 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20 August 18, 2015 Page 12 of 12 I . The applicant shall work with staff to ensure reasonable effort shall be made to protect the oak, located north of the upper wall, and possible root area during construction. 2. The middle tier shall be planted with native, deep-rooted vegetation that will provide the water quality and ecological benefits and act to screen the wall as viewed from the lake within 14 days of completion of construction. As this wall will be up to twelve (12) feet in height, at least some woody vegetation/ornamental trees will be required and total aerial cover at maturity shall be no less than 85%. A landscape plan shall be prepared and submitted to the City for review and approval. 3. The vegetation between tiered walls shall be low or no maintenance. 4. Surety funds shall be required equal to I 10% the cost of landscaping the middle tier prior to any earth -disturbing activities. 5. The applicant shall apply for and receive a building permit prior to construction. 6. The following materials are prohibited for retaining wall construction: smooth face, poured -in-place concrete (stamped or patterned concrete is allowed), masonry, railroad ties or timber. 7. Walls taller than six feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock. ATTACHMENTS I . Findings of Fact and Decision. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Variance Request from Ryan and Tina Johnson, dated July 17,2015. 4. Applicant's Rational for Variance Request. 5. Letters of Support from Neighbors. 6. Registered Land Survey. 7. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice. 8. Variances within 500 feet. 9. Letter from Ryan Johnson, dated August 10, 2015. g:Vlan\20 15 planning �\2015-20 3892 ]one cedar ]me variance\staff report 3892 lone cedar lane.doc 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION Wokig Application of Ryan M. Johnson for a variance to construct retaining walls that encroach into the shoreland setback and bluff setback on property zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF) located at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane — Planning Case 2015-20. On August 18, 2015, 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 Single -Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 2, Block 1, Trolls -Glen First Addition 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 subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential District. The purpose of the request is to expand the usable space in the subject property's rear yard. The current rear yard is constrained due to significant elevation changes on the property. Currently, the rear yard is only 24 feet long at its longest point and 15 feet at its shortest point. The applicant has proposed to increase the lengths of these areas to 34 feet at its longest point, and 26 feet at its shortest point. This is a reasonable request and keeps with the general intent of the Chapter. 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 applicant's request to expand the rear yard through moving a retaining wall is reasonable. The applicant has no other alternatives for increasing the rear yard 0 0 space due to extremely steep slopes in the subject property's rear yard and the proximate location of the shoreland. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. The stated intent is to increase the usable yard space in the rear yard. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The existing structure was built in 1983. It is assumed that the existing retaining walls were built during construction of the home. The property has steep slopes that limit the usable space of the rear yard. Additionally, the proximity of the home to the shoreland allows for very little space out the rear of the home. The applicant purchased the property after the construction of the existing retaining walls and thus did not create the nonconformity on the property. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. Multiple properties in the area have retaining walls that encroach into the 75 -foot shoreland setback. Many of the lots in the neighborhood have retaining walls within the shoreland setback because the original homes were constructed in the 1970s, several years before the city required permits for retaining walls that were less than four feet tall. 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 #2015-20, dated August 18, 2015, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein. 2 0 DECISION 0 The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request to replace and expand retammg walls that encroach into the shoreland setback and bluff setback, as shown in plans provided by Hawkins Tree & Landscaping dated July 16, 2015, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall work with staff to ensure reasonable effort shall be made to protect the oak, located north of the upper wall, and possible root area during construction. 2. The middle tier shall be planted with native, deep-rooted vegetation that will provide the water quality and ecological benefits and act to screen the wall as viewed from the lake within 14 days of completion of construction. As this wall will be up to twelve (12) feet in height, at least some woody vegetation/ornamental trees will be required and total aerial cover at maturity shall be no less than 85%. A landscape plan shall be prepared and submitted to the city for review and approval. 3. The vegetation between tiered walls shall be low or no maintenance. 4. Surety funds shall be required equal to 110% the cost of landscaping the middle tier prior to any earth -disturbing activities. 5. The applicant shall apply for and receive a building permit prior to construction. 6. The following materials are prohibited for retaining wall construction: smooth face, poured -in-place concrete (stamped or patterned concrete is allowed), masonry, railroad ties or timber. 7. Walls taller than six feet shall not be constructed with boulder rock. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 18'h day of August 2015. C1717Y OF CHANHASSEN BY: Chairman 0 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division — 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 CIR OF CHANNSEN Phone: (952) 227-1300 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Submittal Date: PC Date: % ML I __ CC Date: q L14 - 60 -Day Review Date: C4 I Ic A— — ILS_ Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply) (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) El Comprehensive Plan Amendment ......................... $600 E] El Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers ..... $100 El Conditional Use Permit (CUP) E] 0 Single -Family Residence ................................ $325 n El All Others ......................................................... $425 El Interim Use Permit (IUP) $150 El [I In conjunction with Single -Family Residence.. $325 El All Others ......................................................... $425 Rezoning (REZ) through the development contract. 0 Planned unit Development (PUD) .................. $750 El minor Amendment to existing PUD ................. $100 El All Others ......................................................... $500 El Sign Plan Review ................................................... $150 E] Site Plan Review (SPR) El Administrative .................................................. $100 El Commercial/industrial Districts* ...................... $500 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area: (_ thousand square feet) *Include number of existin employees: *Include number of new employees: El Residential Districts ............................. 7�.� ...... ... 500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit (_ units) E] Subdivision (SUB) E] Create 3 lots or less ........................................ $300 E] Create over 3 lots ....................... $600 + $15 per lot (_ lots) E] Metes & Bounds (2 lots) .................................. $300 n Consolidate Lots .............................................. $150 E] Lot Line Adjustment ......................................... $150 El Final Plat .......................................................... $700 (Includes $450 escrow for attorney costs)* *Additional escrow may be required for other applications through the development contract. El Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC) ...... _ $300 (Additional recording fees may apply) XVariance (VAR) .................................................... $200 E] Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) El Single -Family Residence ............... ............... $150 E] All Others ....................................................... $275 El Zoning Appeal ...................................................... $100 El Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) ................. $500 NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. otification Sign (City to install and remove) ...................................................................................................................... $200 Property Owners' List within 500' (city to generate after pre -application meeting) ......... ........ $3 per address /11 � _,:K6 "a' ddr'esses') !W ZVEscrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply) ....................................................................... $50 per document EJ Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Site Plan Agreement El Vacation Variance Wetland Alteration Permit F-1 Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) Easements (_ easements) TOTALFEE: Section 2: Required Information Descriptionof Proposal: �alfi,kciee +<�, eL[61AJ eXpart-10n f7G_gx�,� Slf\aft" 9,�6ac _ ,k Property Address or Location: 3 � I Z ron e- Ce J nl- Z,,k'ljl C kcA m 0 s'3Y Parcel #: 6 � 0 L 07 Legal Description: Zp4 2, 1 Jr. Ili - 61? P" TotalAcreage: .32 Wetlands Present? El Yes PrNo Present Zoning: Select One 42 5 F Requested Zoning: Select One Present Land Use Designation: Select One Existing Use of Property: _0 Check box is separate narrative is attached. Z,01 01�f;Requested Land Use Designation: Select One SCANNED r SCANNED Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant Information APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, 1, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. If this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Contact: Address: Phone: City/State/Zip: Cell: Email: Fax: Signature: Date: PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, 1, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: R�40'(� nn� Cytact: R�:J OL 0 )In -S CA 4,0CCI MO 5531 Address: �One_ Qdaw' 6r -r -w-.# -Phone: 6 12, q 9 , 9 Zo/. City/State/Zip: Cell: 12 Email: frA Co ro A r, Do Q. Mck ;I , COWN Fax: ()& Signature: Fb= rn 497�� Date: --2ki 2 / 7--oll This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements and fees. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name: Contact: Address: Phone: City/State/Zip: Cell: Email: Fax: Section 4: Notification Information Who should receive copies of staff reports? *Other Contact Information: Property Owner Via: *at Mailed Paper Copy Name: '0� El Applicant Via: Email E] Mailed Paper Copy Address: El Engineer Via: E] Email E] Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip: El Other* Via: 0 Email E] Mailed Paper Copy Email: INSTRUCTIONS T APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital copy to the city for processing (required). D�� E�� EiE�] SCANNED Pi 7/17/201S 0 Variance Request for 3892 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska, MN 55318 The current timber retaining walls at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska, MN 55318 need to be replaced as they are materially deteriorated and pose a safety risk to the property owners family and their guests. The proposed plan will replace the timber retaining walls with granite block retaining walls. Based on a meeting at the property location with the City Manager and Water Resources Coordinator to review the unique property attributes, a variance is being requested to move the upper retaining wall approximately 10 feet to the east of its current location which will increase the height of the upper retaining wall to 12 feet due to the slope of the land. The length of the upper retaining wall (running north to south) will not extend beyond its current length. The lower timber retaining wall will remain in its current location and wfl] be replaced with granite block. Through extensive conversations with the City of Chanhassen Water Resources Coordinator, the following has been incorporated into the proposed plan: 1. Plantings such as fescues, nannyberries, dwarf -bush honeysuckle, big bluestem, little bluestem, prairie cordgrass, dogwoods, black eyed susans, prairie coneflower, cardinal flower, sunflower, blazingstar, lilly, bee balm, sun sedge or Karl Foerster reed grass will be used on the majority of the land between the proposed upper retaining and the lower retaining wall to maintain an area that is natural in appearance, provides screening from the lake, offers erosion prevention and sediment control and provides surface water benefits. 2. The four gutter drainage lines on the lake side of the property currently funneling water to the north and south sides of the property will be placed underground and tie into the drainage line that will run under the center of the retaining walls to address erosion issues in its current state. Finally, please see the attached letters from several neighboring lake property owners showing support for plans we have proposed to the City of Chanhassen. Sincerely, Ryan and Tina Johnson SCANNED 0 0 3892 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska, MN 55318 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. The current retaining walls are a legal non conforming structures that we are replacing. We are relocating the upper retaining wall to gain increased functionality and due to the unique attributes of the lot. 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. Slope is the largest practical difficulty for usability. The variance request not only addresses the slope issues but also helps with water drainage and erosion on the property. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. The variance is not based on economic considerations alone. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The retaining walls are preexisting structures from when the house was built and was not created by the landowner. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The variance will not alter the essential character of the locality. 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. Not applicable to this project. SCANNED July 15, 2015 Dear City of Chanhassen Representative, This letter is to express my support for the retaining wall project that Ryan and Tina Johnson located at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska, VIN 55318 have proposed. We have reviewed the proposed plans and have no objections to the work they are looking to complete. Sincerely, Gregg and Gay Jandro 3896 Lone Cedar Lane Chaska, MN 55318 �� C 4N N E C 0 July 15, 2015 Dear City of Chanhassen Representative, 0 This letter is to express my support for the retaining wall project that Ryan and Tina Johnson located at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska, MN 55318 have proposed. We have reviewed the proposed plans and have no objections to the work they are looking to complete. Y' Terry and rPam "Johnson 3898 Lone Cedar Lane Chaska, MINI 55318 "CANN;:[' 0 0 July 15, 2015 Dear City of Chanhassen Representative, This letter is to express my support for the retaining wall project that Ryan and Tina Johnson located at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska, MN 55318 have proposed. We have reviewed the proposed plans and have no objections to the work they are looking to complete. Sincerely, %�Tv-q- Scott and Laurie MurphY4� 3880 Lone Cedar Lane Chaska, MN 55318 0 July 15, 2015 Dear City of Chanhassen Representative, 0 This letter is to express my support for the retaining wall project that Ryan and Tina Johnson located at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska, MINI 55318 have proposed. We have reviewed the proposed plans and have no objections to the work they are looking to complete. Sincerely, Charles Webber 3850 Lone Cedar Lane Chaska, IVIN 55318 SCANNEL- 0 July 15, 2015 Dear City of Chanhassen Representative, This letter is to express my support for the retaining wall project that Ryan and Tina Johnson located at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska, MN 55318 have proposed. We have reviewed the proposed plans and have no objections to the work they are looking to complete. Todd 3860 �ng and Ren ie Cedar Lane MN 55318 9 SCANNEE' 0 July 15, 2015 Dear City of Chanhassen Representative, This letter is to express my support for the retaining wall project that Ryan and Tina Johnson located at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska, MN 55318 have proposed. We have reviewed the proposed plans and have no objections to the work they are looking to complete. Sincerqy, William Humphries 3890 Lone Cedar Lane Chaska, MN 55318 (�.-A,NNP.L July 15, 2015 Dear City of Chanhassen Representative, This letter is to express my support for the retaining wall project that Ryan and Tina Johnson located at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska, IVIN 55318 have proposed. We have reviewed the proposed plans and have no objections to the work they are looking to complete. S incer ? ely, Gary and Terry Johnson 3894 Lone Cedar Lane Chaska, MINI 55318 ADVANCE SURVEYING & ENGINEERING CO. 53N S. H., No. 101 lifirsucharks, M 55345 Marc (952) 474 7964 Fee (952) 225 0502 WWW.ADVSUR.COM SURVEY PoR: HAWKINS TREE & LANDSCAPING SURVEYED (hoolver, 2014 DRAFTED: Mastic, 29.2014 E D. March 19,2015. to show proposed walls. R VINE— -TME D. April 30,2015, 1. show ro,odl walls, shed. stairs, grading. drainage and erosion central details for review. REV REV D. Jesse 4.2015 to show revisions to Migrant to city or,,itw comments. ME July 16,2015 to show revised Plan. LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 2, black 1, Trolls-Glers First Addition. Camer County, Marineau. SCOPE OF WORK& LIMITATIONS: 1. Showing the length arW d�fim of boundary ]am.% of the above legal description. The ... pe of our services due, hot include deacrourfla, her a. we which is to,.] an.. Pleam, check the legal description with your records or ..all with courmuleat legal counsel. if ruccoater, he make sum that it is cormi and that any matters of record, such as ,.,.am.,. that aaa wish he. on the survey, have bicen the". 2. Showing the location coexisting improvements we deemed important, 3. Selling new monuments or verifying old monuments to mark the comera offfic praperty. 4, Showing elevations an the site at selechal locations to give me indication of the topography of the site, The elevations shown releac only In the benchmark provided (in this survey. Use that benchmark and chock at [cout one other feature shown on the survey when determining other elevations for use on his sitc. 5. Showing yew proposal for remaining walls. steps, shed, graffing, drainage and crosion control for your review and approval and for the review mul iipra,4 or such governmental agencies a may have jurisdiction ever yaor po,ject before you .. hwumo,, ad plan to make decisions 6. While we show the vs, yen indicate that you irtand to build the tall maturing wall, our services do not include structural design of the wall and it is subject to revision per your structural engirmices &ai,. GRAPHIC SCALE STANDARD SYIABOLS & CONVENTIONS: _pI&_qi_cpTu_gFc`mimJ 10 M 41V Dramas lai'[D pipe wit—b State, Licarea, Number 9235, mi. unless conewim new. an 0 o CERTHFICATION: was prepared by me ormake my direct supervision am that I mosdoly Liscreacelf'ratcassion) Eagiroarrand Licensed I ,sioswov, .." es"', Z,,x- .... ��'* rA W Inner Unit Sumc,or under the laws ofthe state aflivifternarta. ...... "I .... to Sagreavire, TypedNarm,famisa,11,Parker ReaNi,,9235 ..... 'a A so Date: March 30.2015 I easiest a. .1oo In, Ali woorses..A"paires -a Ilen—soin ormarwass irvrvasrsai`wl� it siel as n-appasolinsslonstIonsloss"T. IT.= — Issue 00 -Am -c' . . ......... PROPOSED WALL CONCEPT DETAIL T... aci�0 C::'avAwoaorAsaAsA1L ---------- MT �AJMN x =.a SCANNFi) ROCKSWALEDETAIL 1502465 2015 07 17 A ZF PROF RET )rML Fj 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) 1, Karen J. Engelhardt being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on August 6, 2015, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing for 3892 Lone Cedar Lane Variance Request —Planning Case 2015-20 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "N', by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me this�2�dayof -A"qu-,4- 2015. AM .= "Ke I , 1 77 A.&O� Notary IN� IkK'MT PME?WlSSEN utmt w b=k" t 2m Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, August 18, 2015at7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later in the evening, d pending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Members, 7700 Market Blvd. Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Variance to 75 -foot shoreland setback to allow for Proposal: the expansion of a retaining wall on property zoned Single the expansion of a retaining wall on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) Applicant: Rvan & Tina Johnson Property 3892 Lone Cedar Lane Location: (Lot 2, Block 1, Trolls -Glen First Addition) (Lot 2, Block 1, Trolls -Glen First Addition) A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1 . Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. I Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 2'. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit— If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: the City's projects web page at: www.cl.chanhassen.mn.us/2015-20. If you wish to talk to www.cl.chanhassen.mn.us/2015-20. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Drew Ingvalson by Questions & email at dinqvalson(a) ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at Comments: 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written comments, it is 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. NEWI Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas, packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/notifyme to sign up! City Revi Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before Me Planning commission. City ordinances require all property within SM feel of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any Interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a repon on the subject application that includes all pertnient Information and a recornmenclation These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the micort and a recommendation. The Item *11 be opened for the public to Speak about the proposal as a pan of the hearing process. The Commission witl close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recamineridation. Rezonings. land use and cock, amendments take a simple majority vole of the City Council except rezonings and land use arnandments from residential to commerclallindustral. • Unnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Dmartment regarding its status and scheduling for the City Coonal meeting. • A neighborhood spokesperson/representativau, encouraged to provide a contact for the city, Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhootl regarding their proposal. Staff is aim available to ramew the McJect with any interested persomst. • Because the Manning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any comemondence regarding the application *11 e Included in the report to the City Council. 0 you wish to he" something to be included in the report. please contact the Manning Staff person named on the nobfication. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until later In the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for Variance to 75 -foot shoreland setback to allow for Proposal: the expansion of a retaining wall on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) Applicant: Ryan & Tina Johnson Property 3892 Lone Cedar Lane Location- (Lot 2, Block 1, Trolls -Glen First Addition) A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: I Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2'. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.cl.chanhassen.mn.us/2015-20. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Drew Ingvalson by Questions & email at dincivalson(o)ci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at Comments: 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this Item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. NEWI Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agericas',iIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII, packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/notifyme to sign up! City litervism, Proctichums; • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Revews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Weiland Alterations, Reonii Comprehensive Man Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before Me Planning Commission. City ordinances require all properly within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any Interested petty is invited to attend the Meeting. • Staff firmares a report on the subject application that includes all imminent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request, At the Manning Commission meeting. staff will give a verbal ovemierv, of the report and a recommendation. The Item wflt be opened for Me public to speak about the proposal as a pan of the hearing process, The Commission Wit Close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, all. or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a Simple majority vote of the City Council except racionings and land use amendments from residential to mmmefdalAndustnal. • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an Item through the process shmid check with the Planning Department regarding Its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersonlrefiresentafive is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers am encouragecl to ri with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested persons). • Because the Manning Commission holds the public hearing, the Oty Council does not. Mnutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application Wit be Included in the report to Ithe City Ckuncil. If ycxu wish to hiore something to be Induced in the report, please contact the Manning Staff pemon named on the notification, ALLAN R & CHRISTINE A AHO 3890 FOREST RIDGE CIR CHASKA, MN 55318-9657 CHARLY R WEBBER 3850 LONE CEDAR CIR CHASKA, MN 55318-9652 DAVID PETERJOHN 3921 HAWTHORNE CIR EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7504 GARY D JOHNSON 3894 LONE CEDAR LN CHASKA, MN 55318-9609 JOSEPH A EPPING 7508 77TH ST W CHASKA, MN 55318-9600 LORI A BARTMAN 3886 FOREST RDG CHASKA, MN 55318-9657 ROSS SPANIER 222 HENNEPIN AVE S APT 202 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401-2474 SCOTT ALLEN BROIN 3840 LONE CEDAR CIR CHASKA, MN 55318-9652 TERRANCE M & PAMELA JOHNSON 3898 LONE CEDAR LN CHASKA, MN 55318-9609 AUGUST B & AMY J SIEFKER 3895 LONE CEDAR CIR CHASKA, MN 55318-9653 CRAIG & VICKY ANDERSON 7507 77TH ST W CHASKA, MN 55318-9600 DONALD R ROPER JR 7509 77TH ST W CHASKA, MN 55318-9600 GREGG R & GAY MARIE JANDRO 3896 LONE CEDAR LN CHASKA, MN 55318-9609 KIRK S & RENEE C BORAAS 7502 77TH ST W CHASKA, MN 55318-9611 MARY ANN TESTER 3897 LONE CEDAR LN CHASKA, MN 55318-9609 RYAN J & PATRICIA M MOSKALIK 7504 77TH ST W CHASKA, MN 55318-9611 SCOTT P & LAURIE A GAUER 3820 LONE CEDAR CIR CHASKA, MN 55318-9652 THOMAS G HUDY 3882 FOREST RIDGE CIR CHASKA, MN 55318-9657 CHARLES W MCGONIGAL 7065 DEL REY AVE LAS VEGAS, NV 89117-1607 DAVID B & DIANE V ZAMJAHN 7506 77TH ST W CHASKA, MN 55318-7611 FREDERICK ALLAN DATNE JR 7501 77TH ST W CHASKA, MN 55318-9611 JAMES R & SHERYL A BJORK 3900 LONE CEDAR CIR CHASKA, MN 55318-9654 LOC HOANG 3881 LONE CEDAR LN CHASKA, MN 55318-9609 ROBERT E FROLUND 3888 FOREST RIDGE CIR CHASKA, MN 55318-9657 RYAN M JOHNSON 3892 LONE CEDAR LN CHASKA, MN 55318-9609 SCOTT T MURPHY 3880 LONE CEDAR LN CHASKA, MN 55318-9609 THOMAS L & CARMEN HUESMAN 3861 LONE CEDAR LN CHASKA, MN 55318-9609 TODD C & REN A MONING TROLLS -GLEN HOMEOWNERS ASSN WILLIAM D & DEBRA J HUMPHRIES 3860 LONE CEDAR CIR 3895 LONE CEDAR LN 3890 LONE CEDAR CIR CHASKA, MN 55318-9652 CHASKA, MN 55318-9609 CHASKA, MN 55318-9652 0 0 WILLIAM J PLANT 3884 FOREST RIDGE CIR CHASKA, MN 55318-9657 0 0 Variances within 500 Feet of 3892 Lone Cedar Lane Variance Number Address Description A 13 -foot bluff setback variance from the CAS 14-20 3880 Lone Cedar Lane toe of the bluff to construct a water -oriented structure (approved) A Subdivision Variance for access off a CAS 07-07 3820 Lone Cedar Lane private street. (approved) A variance request to encroach on the 75 - foot shoreland setback (denied) and a VAR 02-13 3840 Lone Cedar Lane 10 -foot bluff setback variance to construct one (1) retaining wall. (approved) A variance request to encroach 11.23 feet into the front yard setback and a 7,500 VAR 82-11 3892 Lone Cedar Lane square foot lot area variance to construct a home within 1,000 feet of the shoreland (approved) An 18.5 -foot front yard setback VAR 78-10 3895 Lone Cedar Lane variance for the construction of a single- family home (no record of decision) g:\plan\2015 planning cw�\2015-20 3892 Ime codar Ime varianceWarianem within 500 feet.doc 0 0 August 10, 2015 City of Chanhassen Planning Commission 7700 Market Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Variance Application - 3892 Lone Cedar Lane Dear City of Chanhassen Planning Commission Representative, I am writing in regards to the variance application submitted on July 17, 2015 for replacement of the timber retaining walls at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane, Chaska, MN 55318. Unfortunately, I am not able to personally attend the planning commission meeting on August 18th, 2015 as I will be on a family vacation that had been planned earlier in the year. We have spent a considerable amount of time formulating the plans that are before you for review and approval. These plans have gone through numerous revisions based on feedback we received from the city throughout the process coupled with an onsite meeting we hosted at the property with Todd Gerhardt, Terry Jeffery, Drew Ingvalson and Councilwoman Elise Ryan so they could get a firsthand look at the unique attributes of the property and this project. Hawkins Tree and Landscape Service will be the contractor for this project and I have asked Mike Hawkins to attend the planning commission meeting to answer any questions you may have. Thank you in advance for your time and consideration and I look forward to getting the variance application approved so we can begin replacement of the deteriorated retaining walls on the property. Sincerely, Ryan M. Johnson CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 2015-20 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, August 18, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a variance to the 75 -foot Shoreland Setback to allow for the expansion of a retaining wall on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) and located at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane (Lot 2, Block 1, Trolls - Glen First Addition). Applicant/ Owner: Ryan & Tina Johnson. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ci.chanhassen. mn.us/2015-20 or at City Hall during regular business hours. Ali interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Draw Ingvalson, Assistant Planner Email: dingvalsonCa ci.chanhassen.ran.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Thursday, August 6, 20154 No. 4169) Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) These newspapers havecninplied with therequirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02,331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. (0 was published on the date or dat� and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the winposition and publication of the Notice: abcdefgbijklinnopqrstuvwxyz , JB IV� Laun,A Hartmann Subscribed and mom before me on this —�e� day of 2015 �� I ,*b,c JYM y E J EAN N ETTE BARK NOIARY P1,BJC - MINNESOTA MY COMMiSSION DRRES 01iW18 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 SCANNEC 0 17A CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 2015-20 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, August 18, 2015, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a variance to the 75 -foot Shoreland Setback to allow for the expansion of a retaining wall on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) and located at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane (Lot 2, Block 1, Trolls -Glen First Addition). Applicant/Owner: Ryan & Tina Johnson. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the City's web site at www.ei.chanhassen.mn.us/2015-20 or at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Drew ingvalson, Assistant Planner Email: dingyalson(a)ci.chanhassen.nin.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on August 6, 2015) SCANNED 0 Ingvalson, Drew 0 From: Moore, Zachary (DNR) <Zachary.Moore@state-mn.us> Sent: Monday, July 27, 2015 8:01 AM To: Ingvalson, Drew Cc: Haworth, Brooke (DNR); Meuwissen, Kim Subject: RE: City of Chanhassen Agency Review Request for 3892 Lone Cedar Lane Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: No comments. -Zach Follow up Flagged From; Meuwissen, Kim [mailto:kmeuwissen(a)ci.chanhassen.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 10:08 AM TO: Skancke, Jennie (DNR); Haworth, Brooke (DNR); 'Becky Christopher' Cc: Ingvalson, Drew; Mohn, Jerry; Smith, Stephanie; Littfin, Mark; Sinclair, Jill; Hoffman, Todd; Jeffery, Terry Subject: City of Chanhassen Agency Review Request for 3892 Lone Cedar Lane Development Plan Review Agencies: Please review the attached request and respond with your comments no later than Thursday, August 6, 2015 to: Drew Ingvalson, Planning Intern City of Chanhassen PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-227-1132 dingvalson(@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Replies to this email will be automatically directed to Drew. You can view the project web page and link to associated documents at http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2015- 20. Thank you! 0 Kint Meum . ssen Sr. Communicati(in.V.4dniiiiistraiii,e Support Specialist 952-227-1107 13iiemi,issenCa,ei.chanhassen.mn.us CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 VFirld us on - Facebook 5CP,t4t4F-U Ak W M NITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 40anninUg Division - 7700 Market Boulevard Ciff OF CHMIMSEN Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MIN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1130 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 AGENCY REVIEW REQUEST LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Please review and respond no later than the review response deadline Agency Review Request Date: Agency Review Response Deadline: te Application Filed: Cia— July 21, 2015 August 6, 2015 July 17, 2015 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: August 18, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. September 14, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. September 15, 2015 Application: Request for variance from the 75 -foot Shoreland Setback to allow the expansion of a retaining wall on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) and located at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane (Lot 2, Block 1, Trolls -Glen First Addition) Planning C se: 2015-20 1 Web Page: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2015-20 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: Federal Aciencies: Admacent Cities: El Attorney F1 Army Corps of Engineers E] Chaska Z Building Officia ED US Fish& Wildlife E] Eden Prairie Engineer [] Jackson Township Fire Marshal Watershed Districts: Ej Minnetonka Z Forester El Carver County WMO El Shorewood Z Park El Victoria Director Z Water R Lower MIN River Minnehaha Creek Admacent Counties: Carver Couin cies: Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek E] Hennepin El Community Development Utilities: El Scott El Engineer El Cable TV - Mediacom El Environmental Services School Districts: F1 Electric - Minnesota Valley [-I Historical Society El Parks El Electric - Xcel Energy 0 Eastern Carver County 112 0 Soil & Water Conservation District Ej Magellan Pipeline E] Minnetonka 276 El Natural Gas - CenterPoint Energy State Agencies: El Phone - CenturyLink Other Agencies: E] Hennepin County Regional Railroad El Board Water & Soil Resources of Authority L1 Health MIN Landscape Arboretum El Historical Society SouthWest Transit Natural Resources -Forestry El TC&W Railroad Natural Resources -Hydrology El Pollution Control Transportation 3CANNrV Property Card Parcel ID Number*600030 Taxpayer Information Taxpayer Name GARY D JOHNSON TERESAA JOHNSON 3894 LONE CEDAR LN CHASKA. MN 55318-9609 Property Address Address 3894 LONE CEDAR LN City CHASKA, MN 55318 '\f 72� oqw:�;;.7 ti Parcel Information Uses Res 1 unit GIS Acres 0.27 NetAcres 0.27 Deeded Acres Plat TROLLS -GLEN FIRSTADDITION Lot 003 Block 001 Tax Description Building Information Building Style 2 STORY __77bove Grade --T—Bedrooms 1752 5 Green Acre 1 N _T I Finished Sq F t $421,100.00 Year Suit 1979 1 Garage Y Bathrooms 2.75 Miscellaneous Information School District 0112 Watershed District 1 WS 062 MINNEHAHA CREEK Homestead Y Green Acre 1 N _T Ag Preserve N Assessor Information Estimated Market Value 2014 Values (Payable 2015) 2015 Values (Payable 2016) Last Sale Land $421,100.00 $482,20000 Date of Sale 10/31/2013 Building $259,500.00 $270,300.00 Sale Value $625,000.001 Total $680.600.00 $752,500.00 1CTr � i,� . I'— "I — — , � 'ele'ence, purposes Orr, � � -n:a S �: si irarl� fe "ai z� �eanmg survEy,-g C' Ct-c s r-ilar jrS-S Ga, C�dfy does hot guarantee the accuracy of lin, m'." tich c.dlen.d herein. This data s furnished on ad as is basis and Carver County makes do representations or warranties e4her e.pressed or implied for the merchantabddy orfdm" ol' the information provided for any purpose This disclaimer is provided pursuant to vinnesona, statutes §465,03 and the user of the data provided harem eclarkawledges that Carver County shall not pa, liable for any damagea, and by using the data in any way expressly waives all claims. and agrees to defend indemnify. and hold harreless Carver County. its all Offroem agents. employees etc from any add all claims brought by anyone who uses Are information proviced for herard As empkiyeas Of agents or CARVER dfird! pai wrablin arise but of users access By acceptance of this data me user agrees notto traral this data or provide Access to it or any pad of it to another party unless the user ncludes Coi wish the data a copy 0 this disclaimer Friday, July 17, 2015 Carver County, MIN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division — 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MIN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1130 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 *CITY OF CHANNSEN AGENCY REVIEW REQUEST LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL I Please review and respond no later than the review response deadline Agency Review Request Date: July 21, 2015 Agency Review Response Deadline: August 6, 2015 Date Application Filed: July 17, 2015 Contact: Contact Phone: Contact Email: Drew Ingvalson 952-227-1132 dingvalson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Assistant Planner El Park Director Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: 60 -Day Review Period Deadline: August 18, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. September 14, 2015 at 7:00 p.m. September 15, 2015 Application: Request for variance from the 75 -foot Shoreland Setback to allow the expansion of a retaining wall on property zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) and located at 3892 Lone Cedar Lane (Lot 2, Block 1, Trolls -Glen First Addition) Planning Case: 2015-20 1 Web Page: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2015-20 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. Citv DeDartments: Carver County Anencies: El Community Development El Engineer El Environmental Services 0 Historical Society F1 Parks El Soil & Water Conservation District State Agencies: El Board of Water & Soil Resources r_1 Health E) Historical Society E) Natural Resources -Forestry Z Natural Resources -Hydrology Pollution Control Transportation Federal Aciencies: El Army Corps of Engineers El US Fish& Wildlife Watershed Districts: El Attorney n Building Official E Engineer El Fire Marshal El Forester El Park Director Water Resources Carver County Anencies: El Community Development El Engineer El Environmental Services 0 Historical Society F1 Parks El Soil & Water Conservation District State Agencies: El Board of Water & Soil Resources r_1 Health E) Historical Society E) Natural Resources -Forestry Z Natural Resources -Hydrology Pollution Control Transportation Federal Aciencies: El Army Corps of Engineers El US Fish& Wildlife Watershed Districts: El Carver County WMO n Lower MN River E Minnehaha Creek El Riley -Purgatory -Bluff Creek Utilities: E) Cable TV — Mediacom n Electric — Minnesota Valley El Electric — Xcel Energy El Magellan Pipeline 0 Natural Gas — CenterPoint Energy E] Phone — Centuryl-ink Ad'acent Cities: E] Chaska E] Eden Prairie [-) Jackson Township El Minnetonka El Shorewood El Victoria Adwacent Counties: El Hennepin El Scott School Districts: 0 Eastern Carver County 112 E] Minnetonka 276 Other Agencies: E] Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority El MN Landscape Arboretum E] SouthWest Transit El TC&W Railroad SCANNED Property Card I Parcel ID Number*8600020 I Taxpayer information I RYAN M JOHNSON TINALJOHNSON 3892 LONE CEDAR LN CHASKA, MN 55318-9609 Property Address Address 3892 LONE CEDAR LN City CHASKA. MN 55318 st Parcel Information Uses Res 1 unit GISAcres 0.32 Net Acres 0.32 Deeded Acres Plat TROLLS -GLEN FIRSTADDITION Lot 002 Block 001 Tax Description Building Information Estimated Market Value Building Style 1-2 STORY Above Grade 2415 1 Finished Sa Fit Last Sale 5 Year Built 1983 1 Garage Y Date of Sale 12/12/2013 Bathrooms 3.25 $303,700.00 $338,300.00 Miscellaneous Information Total School District — 0112_ Watershed District 1 WS 062 MINNEHAHA CREEK Homestead Y Green Acres N Ag Preserve N Assessor Information Estimated Market Value 2014 Values (Payable 2015) 2015 Values (Payable 2016) Last Sale Land $407,100.00 $466,300.00 Date of Sale 12/12/2013 Building $303,700.00 $338,300.00 Sale Value $760,000.001 Total $710,800.00 $804,600.00 1 1 Thi, nas pr.,idfu rnifiw.,th is to, purposes only This data is not suitable for legal engineering, surve, ng or other smiktr purposes Carver County does not guarantee the accu racy of the information cointaximed! herein Ttijs data is furnisined on an as is basis and Carker County makes no representations or warranties either expressed ormtpload! for the miachmalb1h, or fitness of the 'unnathen provided! he my purposia f1hn; disdaimer m provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466 03 and the user of the data provided herein acknowledges that Catner County dish not be liable for any damages. and by us ing this data in any way expressly wawes all claims and agrees to defend indemnify and had harmle" Carver County its officials officers agents employees etc, from any and all claims brought by anyone who uses the information proviced for herein its employees or agents or CARVER mid parties wirsoli ares out of uk,r, socass By acceptance of this data the user agrees not to hartsmil this data or provide, access to it or any pan of it to another party unless tria user ncludes COLTNT-y with the data a copy of this disclaimer Monday, August 03. 2015 SCPNINED Carver County. MN CITY OF CHANHASSEN P 0 BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 07/17/2015 12:34 PM Receipt No. 00289432 CLERK: JoleneB PAYEE: Ryan Johnson 3892 Lone Cedar Lane CAS 2015-20 ------------------------------------------------------- Use & Variance 200.00 Sign Rent 200.00 Recording Fees 50.00 GIS List 90.00 ----------- Total 540.00 Cash 0.00 Credit Cd 540.00 Change ----------- 0.00 SCANNED