01-19-21 Agenda and PacketAGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2021, 7:00 PM
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
ELECTRONIC MEETING
Due to the COVID19 pandemic, for the next few weeks it is anticipated that some or all members of the
Planning Commission will participate in meetings by telephone and/or web conference pursuant to Minnesota
Statutes, Section 13D.021, rather than in person at the Planning Commission’s regular meeting place in the
Chanhassen City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Boulevard, Chanhassen, Minnesota.
The Public Hearings portion of the Planning Commission agenda allows for the public to provide comments
on those agenda items. To help ensure an open public process, we have made accommodations for the
public to continue to view and participate in public hearings by selecting one of two options:
EMAIL your comments to the Planning Commission at pccomments@ci.chanhassen.mn.us.All
comments received by 6:00 p.m.on the day of the meeting will be included as a part of the Planning
Commission meeting. This is the Planning Commission’s preferred method of public participation.
WATCH the meeting live online at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/agendas or on Mediacom Cable
Channel 107.2. The meeting begins at 7:00 pm. PHONE in your comments at 9522271630 when
the Chairman opens the desired public hearing for comment. The Chairman will take each call in the
order received.
For all options, you must provide your name and address for the record.
A.CALL TO ORDER
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.Consider a Request for a Variance to Allow Construction of an Accessory Dwelling
Unit Within a Proposed SingleFamily Residence Located at 10029 Trails End Road
2.Consider a Request for a Variance to Replace/Rebuild Retaining Walls, Add
Walkout Terrace, Add Stairway to Lake, and Reconfigure Lakeside Deck/Patio
Located at 6609 Horseshoe Curve
C.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
1.Approval of Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated January 5, 2021
D.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
1.City Council Action Update
AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSIONTUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 2021, 7:00 PMCITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARDELECTRONIC MEETINGDue to the COVID19 pandemic, for the next few weeks it is anticipated that some or all members of thePlanning Commission will participate in meetings by telephone and/or web conference pursuant to MinnesotaStatutes, Section 13D.021, rather than in person at the Planning Commission’s regular meeting place in theChanhassen City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Boulevard, Chanhassen, Minnesota.The Public Hearings portion of the Planning Commission agenda allows for the public to provide commentson those agenda items. To help ensure an open public process, we have made accommodations for thepublic to continue to view and participate in public hearings by selecting one of two options:EMAIL your comments to the Planning Commission at pccomments@ci.chanhassen.mn.us.Allcomments received by 6:00 p.m.on the day of the meeting will be included as a part of the PlanningCommission meeting. This is the Planning Commission’s preferred method of public participation.WATCH the meeting live online at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/agendas or on Mediacom CableChannel 107.2. The meeting begins at 7:00 pm. PHONE in your comments at 9522271630 whenthe Chairman opens the desired public hearing for comment. The Chairman will take each call in theorderreceived.For all options, you must provide your name and address for the record.A.CALL TO ORDERB.PUBLIC HEARINGS1.Consider a Request for a Variance to Allow Construction of an Accessory DwellingUnit Within a Proposed SingleFamily Residence Located at 10029 Trails End Road2.Consider a Request for a Variance to Replace/Rebuild Retaining Walls, AddWalkout Terrace, Add Stairway to Lake, and Reconfigure Lakeside Deck/PatioLocated at 6609 Horseshoe CurveC.APPROVAL OF MINUTES1.Approval of Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated January 5, 2021D.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
1.City Council Action Update
E.ADJOURNMENT
NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official bylaws.
We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not
appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled
from consideration will be listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting.
If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the
public record based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it
is up to each individual City Council member and Mayor if they want it to be made part of the public record or
not. There is no State Statute that forces the Mayor or City Council to share that information with the public or
be made part of the public record. Under State Statute, staff cannot remove comments or letters provided as part
of the public input process.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, January 19, 2021
Subject Consider a Request for a Variance to Allow Construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit Within a
Proposed SingleFamily Residence Located at 10029 Trails End Road
Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.
Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, Associate
Planner
File No: Planning Case No. 202106
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request for the use of a singlefamily
dwelling as a twofamily dwelling, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts
and Decision.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a second dwelling unit, commonly called an accessory dwelling unit
(ADU), above their proposed home’s attached garage. They have stated that the intent of the variance request is to
allow for them to care for their aging parents, who have some health concerns. Since the City Code restricts lots zoned
Residential SingleFamily to having a single dwelling unit, a variance is required to permit this use.
The applicant has stated that they bought the property at 10029 Trails End with the intent of constructing a multi
generational home to allow for them to care for their parents. They have noted that the City Code allows for variances
to be issued to permit the creation of ADUs in cases where there is a demonstrated need and where the home maintains
the exterior appearance of a singlefamily dwelling. They have explained that their parents’ age and father’s Parkinson’s
diagnosis necessitate this arrangement and that the proposed home will maintain the appearance of a singlefamily
dwelling. Finally, they have stated that granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood.
Generally speaking, the city cannot grant a variance for uses; however, Section 2059 does allow for the city to grant
variances for use of a singlefamily dwelling as a twofamily dwelling, so long as four conditions are met. A variance of
this nature has been requested three times since 2000, and all three of these requests were granted once the applicants
demonstrated that they met or agreed to meet the ordinance’s requirements. Staff has reviewed the applicant’s
proposed home and statement of need, and believes that they meet the requirements outlined in Section 2059 of the
City Code for granting the requested variance. For this reason, staff recommends approval of the requested variance.
A full analysis can be found in the attached staff report.
APPLICANT
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, January 19, 2021SubjectConsider a Request for a Variance to Allow Construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit Within aProposed SingleFamily Residence Located at 10029 Trails End RoadSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 202106PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request for the use of a singlefamilydwelling as a twofamily dwelling, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Factsand Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is requesting a variance to construct a second dwelling unit, commonly called an accessory dwelling unit(ADU), above their proposed home’s attached garage. They have stated that the intent of the variance request is toallow for them to care for their aging parents, who have some health concerns. Since the City Code restricts lots zonedResidential SingleFamily to having a single dwelling unit, a variance is required to permit this use.The applicant has stated that they bought the property at 10029 Trails End with the intent of constructing a multigenerational home to allow for them to care for their parents. They have noted that the City Code allows for variancesto be issued to permit the creation of ADUs in cases where there is a demonstrated need and where the home maintainsthe exterior appearance of a singlefamily dwelling. They have explained that their parents’ age and father’s Parkinson’sdiagnosis necessitate this arrangement and that the proposed home will maintain the appearance of a singlefamilydwelling. Finally, they have stated that granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood.Generally speaking, the city cannot grant a variance for uses; however, Section 2059 does allow for the city to grantvariances for use of a singlefamily dwelling as a twofamily dwelling, so long as four conditions are met. A variance ofthis nature has been requested three times since 2000, and all three of these requests were granted once the applicantsdemonstrated that they met or agreed to meet the ordinance’s requirements. Staff has reviewed the applicant’sproposed home and statement of need, and believes that they meet the requirements outlined in Section 2059 of theCity Code for granting the requested variance. For this reason, staff recommends approval of the requested variance.A full analysis can be found in the attached staff report.
APPLICANT
Michael and Juliana Sylvia
SITE INFORMATION
PRESENT ZONING: RSF SingleFamily Residential District
LAND USE:Residential Low Density
ACREAGE: .4 acres
DENSITY: NA
APPLICATION REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, Section 12, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances
Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” SingleFamily Residential District
Section 20615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks
BACKGROUND
In December of 2004, the final plat for the Settlers West subdivision was approved. The lot was never built on and has
remained vacant since that time.
In December of 2020, the applicant applied for a building permit for a home with an ADU. Staff informed them that a
variance would be required to accommodate the proposed use.
In December of 2020, the applicant applied for a variance to permit an ADU.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve the
variance request for the use of a singlefamily dwelling as a twofamily dwelling, subject to the conditions of approval
and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed building/structure meets all
requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be required after
plan review.
3. The exterior of the home shall maintain the appearance of a singlefamily home (i.e. single driveway, single main
entrance, etc.) and shall substantially conform to the plans dated December 10, 2020.
4. No separate entrance may be created for the apartment above the garage.
5. Separate utility services may not be established.
6. The apartment above the garage may not be rented as a separate unit, and may only be occupied by a relative of
the property owner.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, January 19, 2021SubjectConsider a Request for a Variance to Allow Construction of an Accessory Dwelling Unit Within aProposed SingleFamily Residence Located at 10029 Trails End RoadSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 202106PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request for the use of a singlefamilydwelling as a twofamily dwelling, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Factsand Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is requesting a variance to construct a second dwelling unit, commonly called an accessory dwelling unit(ADU), above their proposed home’s attached garage. They have stated that the intent of the variance request is toallow for them to care for their aging parents, who have some health concerns. Since the City Code restricts lots zonedResidential SingleFamily to having a single dwelling unit, a variance is required to permit this use.The applicant has stated that they bought the property at 10029 Trails End with the intent of constructing a multigenerational home to allow for them to care for their parents. They have noted that the City Code allows for variancesto be issued to permit the creation of ADUs in cases where there is a demonstrated need and where the home maintainsthe exterior appearance of a singlefamily dwelling. They have explained that their parents’ age and father’s Parkinson’sdiagnosis necessitate this arrangement and that the proposed home will maintain the appearance of a singlefamilydwelling. Finally, they have stated that granting the variance will not alter the character of the neighborhood.Generally speaking, the city cannot grant a variance for uses; however, Section 2059 does allow for the city to grantvariances for use of a singlefamily dwelling as a twofamily dwelling, so long as four conditions are met. A variance ofthis nature has been requested three times since 2000, and all three of these requests were granted once the applicantsdemonstrated that they met or agreed to meet the ordinance’s requirements. Staff has reviewed the applicant’sproposed home and statement of need, and believes that they meet the requirements outlined in Section 2059 of theCity Code for granting the requested variance. For this reason, staff recommends approval of the requested variance.A full analysis can be found in the attached staff report.APPLICANTMichael and Juliana SylviaSITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING: RSF SingleFamily Residential DistrictLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE: .4 acres DENSITY: NA APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 1, Section 12, Rules of Construction and DefinitionsChapter 20, Article II, Division 3. VariancesChapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” SingleFamily Residential DistrictSection 20615, Lot Requirements and SetbacksBACKGROUNDIn December of 2004, the final plat for the Settlers West subdivision was approved. The lot was never built on and hasremained vacant since that time.In December of 2020, the applicant applied for a building permit for a home with an ADU. Staff informed them that avariance would be required to accommodate the proposed use.In December of 2020, the applicant applied for a variance to permit an ADU.RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve thevariance request for the use of a singlefamily dwelling as a twofamily dwelling, subject to the conditions of approvaland adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction.2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed building/structure meets allrequirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be required afterplan review.3. The exterior of the home shall maintain the appearance of a singlefamily home (i.e. single driveway, single mainentrance, etc.) and shall substantially conform to the plans dated December 10, 2020.4. No separate entrance may be created for the apartment above the garage.5. Separate utility services may not be established.6. The apartment above the garage may not be rented as a separate unit, and may only be occupied by a relative ofthe property owner.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
Findings of Fact (Approval)
Variance Document
Development Review Application
Narrative
Justification of Request
Survey
House Plans
Affidavit of Mailing
Email Comment
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: January 19, 2021
CC DATE: February 8, 2021
REVIEW DEADLINE: February 16, 2021
CASE #: PC 2021-06
BY: MYW
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a variance for the temporary use of a single-family dwelling as a two-
family dwelling. While variances for uses are not normally allowed, the City Code specifically
allows for this use variance to be granted to facilitate the care of aging family members so long
as the structure maintains the appearance of a single-family dwelling, separate utility services are
not established, and the variance will not negatively impact the neighborhood.
LOCATION: 10029 Trails End Road
OWNER: Michael and Juliana Sylvia
9607 Sky Lane
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
PRESENT ZONING: “RSF” – Single-Family Residential District
2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
ACREAGE: .4 acres DENSITY: NA
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 all property owners within 500 feet.
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a second dwelling unit, commonly called an
accessory dwelling unit (ADU), above their proposed home’s attached garage. They have stated
that the intent of the variance request is to allow for them to care for their aging parents, who
have some health concerns. Since the City Code restricts lots zoned Residential Single-Family to
having a single dwelling unit, a variance is required to permit this use.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request for the use of
a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling, subject to the conditions of approval and
adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.”
10029 Trails End Road
January 19, 2021
Page 2
The applicant has stated that they bought the property at 10029 Trails End with the intent of
constructing a multi-generational home to allow for them to care for their parents. They have
noted that the City Code allows for variances to be issued to permit the creation of ADUs in
cases where there is a demonstrated need and where the home maintains the exterior appearance
of a single-family dwelling. They have explained that their parents’ age and father’s Parkinson’s
diagnosis necessitate this arrangement and that the proposed home will maintain the appearance
of a single-family dwelling. Finally, they have stated that granting the variance will not alter the
character of the neighborhood.
Generally speaking, the city cannot grant a variance for uses; however, Section 20-59 does allow
for the city to grant variances for use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling, so
long as four conditions are met. A variance of this nature has been requested three times since
2000, and all three of these requests were granted once the applicants demonstrated that they met
or agreed to meet the ordinance’s requirements. Staff has reviewed the applicant’s proposed
home and statement of need, and believes that they meet the requirements outlined in Section 20-
59 of the City Code for granting the requested variance. For this reason, staff recommends
approval of the requested variance.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances
Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District
Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks
BACKGROUND
In December of 2004, the final plat for the Settlers West subdivision was approved. The lot was
never built on and has remained vacant since that time.
In December of 2020, the applicant applied for a building permit for a home with an ADU. Staff
informed them that a variance would be required to accommodate the proposed use.
In December of 2020, the applicant applied for a variance to permit an ADU.
SITE CONSTRAINTS
Zoning Overview
The property is zoned Single-Family Residential District. This zoning classification requires lots
to be a minimum of 15,000 square feet, have front and rear yard setbacks of 30 feet, side yard
setbacks of 10 feet, and limits parcels to a maximum of 30 percent lot cover, of which no more
than 25 percent can be impervious surface. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height.
The rear of the property is encumbered by a large drainage and utility easement.
10029 Trails End Road
January 19, 2021
Page 3
The lot is 17,756 square feet and appears to meet all of the requirements of the City Code. No
home or other structure is currently present on the lot.
Bluff Creek Corridor
This is not encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
Bluff Protection
There are no bluffs on the property.
Floodplain Overlay
This property is not within a floodplain.
Shoreland Management
The property is not within a Shoreland Protection District.
Wetland Protection
There is not a wetland located in the development site.
NEIGHBORHOOD
Settlers West
The plat for this area was recorded in
December of 2004. As this is a newer
subdivision, the lots were plated and
subsequent homes were constructed
under substantially the same City Code
that exists today. Based on aerial photos
of the area, staff does not believe there
are many non-conforming properties or
deviations from the City Code within the
subdivision.
Many of the lots in this subdivision are
subject to the city’s bluff ordinance and
other properties are encumbered by
extensive drainage and utility easements
in order to help manage run off and
protect the area’s environmental features. This subdivision is also atypical in that its sewer and
water utilities are provided by the City of Eden Prairie, rather than the City of Chanhassen.
10029 Trails End Road
January 19, 2021
Page 4
Variances within 500 feet:
10036 Trails End Road (PC 2011-07): 4.3% Lot Cover (sport court) – Denied
ANALYSIS
Single-Family Dwelling as Two-Family Dwelling
The applicant is requesting a variance to construct an ADU above the garage in their proposed
home. Granting the requested variance would allow the applicant to construct a two-family
dwelling unit on a property zoned for a single-family dwelling. Ordinarily, the city cannot grant
variances for uses, i.e. a variance cannot be granted to use a property zoned single-family
residential for an industrial use like a brick factory; however, Section 20-59 of the City Code
allows for the city to issue variances to use a single-family dwelling as two-family dwelling, so
long as four conditions are met.
Specifically, Section 20-59 states:
A variance for the temporary use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling may only
be allowed under the following circumstances:
(1) There is a demonstrated need based upon disability, age or financial hardship.
(2) The dwelling has the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the
maintenance of one driveway and one main entry.
(3) Separate utility services are not established (e.g. gas, water, sewer, etc.).
(4) The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of
the residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is situated and will be
in keeping with the spirit and intent of this chapter.
The applicant has stated that they are requesting the variance in order to care for their aging
parents, one of whom was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease. This circumstance meets the first
requirement and the variance request is in
line with the ordinance’s goal of providing
an option for residents to provide in-home
care for their parents while allowing them to
maintain independence. If the variance is
approved, a condition should be placed on
the approval requiring that the ADU be
occupied by individuals that are related to
the homeowner and preventing its rental as
a spate unit.
The proposed ADU will be located above
the garage and the stairs leading to it can be
accessed via the garage entrance to the main
10029 Trails End Road
January 19, 2021
Page 5
house or from the main level’s back hall. The ADU has approximately 840 square feet of living
area and will feature a kitchen, living room, bedroom, bathroom, and laundry. No separate
exterior entrance to the ADU is present and no separate utility services are proposed. If the
Planning Commission chooses to approve the requested variance, conditions should be placed on
the approval forbidding the creation of a separate entrance and separate utility services.
Staff has reviewed the proposed
plans and the renderings of the
house’s exterior facades and believes
that they are indistinguishable from
those of single-family home. If not
for the presence of a second dwelling
unit, i.e. if the space above the
garage was storage space or a game
room, a permit could be issued
without a variance.
Given the above, staff believes that the applicant’s proposal meets all of the criteria required to
issue a variance for an ADU on the property and recommends approving the requested variance.
Impact on Neighborhood
Settlers West is a newer subdivision where relatively large footprint homes with three-car
garages are the norm. While most of the neighborhood’s homes were built with the garage doors
parallel to the street, multiple houses have the garages set at angles to the street, utilize a side
loading garage design, or otherwise depart from that configuration. The applicant’s proposed
home does not fall outside of the range of variation in design already present in the
neighborhood, nor does any element of its exterior façade depart from the norms associated with
single-family residences.
The variance request for an ADU to allow for the applicant to care for their aging parents is not
expected to generate the traffic, noise, or transient population concerns that can be associated
with placing multi-unit properties within single-family neighborhoods. The city has granted
several variances for ADUs in other neighborhoods and to staff’s knowledge they have generated
no complaints. Additionally, a condition that the ADU not be rented out will be attached to the
variance to prevent the property from subsequently being sold or used as a duplex. Staff does not
10029 Trails End Road
January 19, 2021
Page 6
believe that granting the requested variance would negatively impact any of the surrounding
properties.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments, approve the variance request for the use of a single-family dwelling as a two-
family dwelling, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts
and Decision.
1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed
building/structure meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code;
additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review.
3. The exterior of the home shall maintain the appearance of a single-family home (i.e.
single driveway, single main entrance, etc.) and shall substantially conform to the plans
dated December 10, 2020.
4. No separate entrance may be created for the apartment above the garage.
5. Separate utility services may not be established.
6. The apartment above the garage may not be rented as a separate unit, and may only be
occupied by a relative of the property owner.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval)
2. Variance Document (Approval)
3. Development Review Application
4. Variance Narrative
5. Justification of Request
5. Survey
6. Proposed Plan
7. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-06 10029 trails end road\staff report_10029 trails end road_var.docx
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(APPROVAL)
IN RE:
Application of Michael and Juliana Sylvia, for a variance to use a single-family dwelling as a two-
family dwelling on a property zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2021-
06.
On January 19, 2021, 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 12, Block 5, Settlers West
4. Variance Findings – Section 20-59 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the
granting of a variance to use a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling:
a. There is a demonstrated need based upon disability, age or financial hardship.
Finding: The applicant has stated that they are requesting the variance in order to care for
their aging parents, one of whom has been diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease.
b. The dwelling has the exterior appearance of a single-family dwelling, including the
maintenance of one driveway and one main entry.
Finding: Settlers West is a newer subdivision where relatively large footprint homes with
three-car garages are the norm. While most of the neighborhood’s homes were built with the
garage doors parallel to the street, multiple houses have the garages set at angles to the street,
utilize a side loading garage design, or otherwise depart from that configuration. The
applicant’s proposed home does not fall outside of the range of variation in design already
present in the neighborhood, nor does any element of its exterior façade depart from the
norms associated with single-family residences.
2
The proposed home has a single driveway and a single main entrance, and conditions have
been placed on the variance to prevent the creation of a separate entrance or significant
deviations from the proposed façade.
c. Separate utility services are not established (e.g., gas, water, sewer, etc.).
Finding: Separate utility services are not proposed and will not be established.
d. The variance will not be injurious to or adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of the
residents of the city or the neighborhood where the property is situated and will be in keeping
with the spirit and intent of this chapter.
Finding: The variance request for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) to allow for the
applicant to care for their aging parents is not expected to generate the traffic, noise, or
transient population concerns that can be associated with placing multi-unit properties within
single-family neighborhoods. The city has granted several variances for ADUs in other
neighborhoods and to staff’s knowledge they have generated no complaints. Additionally,
conditions have been placed on the variance to prevent the property from subsequently being
sold or used as a duplex. Granting the requested variance is not expected to negatively impact
any of the surrounding properties, and is in line with the City Code’s intent that residents
have the option to provide in-home care for family members while allowing them to maintain
independence.
5. The planning report #2021-06, dated January 19, 2021, prepared by MacKenzie Young-Walters,
is incorporated herein.
DECISION
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request for the use
of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling, subject to the following conditions of
approval:
1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building/structure
meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or
requirements may be required after plan review.
3. The exterior of the home shall maintain the appearance of a single-family home (i.e. single
driveway, single main entrance, etc.) and shall substantially conform to the plans dated
December 10, 2020.
4. No separate entrance may be created for the apartment above the garage.
5. Separate utility services may not be established.
6. The apartment above the garage may not be rented as a separate unit, and may only be
occupied by a relative of the property owner.
3
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 19th day of January, 2021.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Steven Weick, Chairman
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-06 10029 trails end road\findings of fact and decision 10029 trails end road (approval).docx
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 2021-06
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 the variance request for the
use of a single-family dwelling as a two-family dwelling.
2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County,
Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 12, Block 5, Settlers West.
3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed
building/structure meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code;
additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review.
3. The exterior of the home shall maintain the appearance of a single-family home (i.e.
single driveway, single main entrance, etc.) and shall substantially conform to the plans
dated December 10, 2020.
4. No separate entrance may be created for the apartment above the garage.
5. Separate utility services may not be established.
6. The apartment above the garage may not be rented as a separate unit, and may only be
occupied by a relative of the property owner.
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.
2
Dated: January 19, 2021 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
(SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor
AND:
Heather Johnston, Interim City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2021 by Elise Ryan, Mayor, and Heather Johnston, Interim City Manager, of the City of
Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to
authority granted by its City Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-06 10029 trails end road\variance document 21-06.docx
COTIUUN]TY OEVELOPTEMT DEPARTMET
Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard
Meiling Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (952) 227-1100 / Fax: (9521227-1110
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
SubrnittalDate:1>l r?leD CC DEte::/c.l> r
(Rdet to the rypogriala App,tcati.n CllDcuisl lv tqd/rd st/D.fiittd htbnti€too that must amfinpany this adicalio,])
E comprehensive Plen Amendment......................... $600E Minor MUSA line for failing on-site seriners..... $ 100
E Conditimal Use Pemit (CUP)
E suooivision (sue)
E Create 3 lots or less
trtr
E Creete over 3 |ots.......................16m + $15 per lot( loB)
Single-Family Residence $325
$42s
E Metes & Bounds (2 lots)$3{X)
$150
$1e)
$700
E consolidate Lots
E tnterim Use Permit (lUP)El Lot Line Adjusrnent.
trtr
ln coniunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325 E rinat P|at......................
(lndud€s $450 escrow br atbmey ccts)'
'Additirll€sw r€y b. lqrird tr dlr sIcdaE
0rqrgh th. d.trloprll.. afif.ct
All Others $425
E RezonirE (Ru )E Phnned Unit Developmenr eUD)$750 E Vacabn ot easements/Rightd{ay (VAC)........ $3fi,
(Addtrqd IEco.dinS f.€3 rnay *ly)D
D E Variance (VAR)$2m
E Sign ptan Reviru/................ .......$150
E slte Ptan Revkryv (SPR)
E W€iland Alteratim Pemil (wAP)
E Single-Family Residen6...........
trtr AdminishativB..... ................. S10O
Cornmerciaulnd6fhl Disilicls'...................... $$0
Plus ll 0 per 1 ,0(x) squars fst d building area:( tlousand squere feet)
1nctud. 11116.r o,
'trllEg
rtploys:
'lncfu.b if,rr$€. .a 4gf andorlc:
Residenlial Disfricts ............. $500
Plus $5 per d^dling unit ( units)
E A|l others
E zoning Appeal $1m
E Zoning Ordinanc€ Amendrnent (ZoA)$sm
tr t!g!E: Wh.n mrldpL .ppllc.dons rr. prGs.d coocurflr ly,
fhe +rop.l.te fec shdl bc cfirged fpr ch ryllcdon,
E Nomcatim Sbn (cry b irrtrr rn rlmore)$200
E ProPrty Oflners', List within 5(D' (cey b genc.ab er pre+dirrbn ruering)$3 per address
E Escrou, tq necording DoormenB (ctEck allthetE Conditional Use PermitE vacatbo
E Metes & Bornds SuMMsioo (3 docs.)
Use Permil I Site Ran Agreement
E Wetland Alcration FbmltE variance
E Easernents ( easements) E Oeeos
TOTAL FEE:
Descfipt on of Ptoposal: Requesting a variance to allow an ln-law apartment above the attached 3 car garage.
Property Address or Locatiofl:
Parcel #:
10029 Trails End Rd., Chanhassen
Legal Description:Lot 12, Block 5, Setflers West
Total Acreage:0.41 Wetlands Present?Eves ZNo
Present Zoning Single-Family Rosidential Dislrict (RSD Requested Zoning Select One
Present Land Use Designetion Select One
Existing Use of Property:Empty lot
Section 'l: Application Type (check all that apply)
Required lnformation
@Ctrect< oox if sepsrate nanative is attached
Requested Land Use Designatio n Select One
CITY OT CHAI{IIASSIN
PC 6oo.y R.$d D.b: ).il-L]b-]-A-.ll-
$300
$150
$27s
Section 2:
Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant lnformation
APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing his application, l, as applicant, represent to have obtained
aulhodzation from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to
the right to obiect at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. lf 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 lhe City should contact regarding any matter perlaining to this
applicetion. I will keep mlself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progregs of this application. I
further understand that additional fees may b€ cfiarged for consuhing fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an eslimate prior to
any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and corecl-
Contact:
Phone:
Cell:
Fax:
PROPERW OyYilER: ln signing this applicatioo, l, as property ot,wrer, have tull legal capacity to, and hereby do,
aulhorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditbns ot app'ro/al are binding and agreo b b6 bound by those
conditbns, subject oflly to the right to obiecl at the hearings or during the appeal perbds. I will keep mys6f in omed of
tlle deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this applicatbn. I further understand that additbnel fees rnay
be charged for consulting fe€s, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any auttprizalion to proce€d with the
study. I certify that the information and exhibiB submitted are tue and conect.
Name:Michael and Juliana Sytuia
Cell:
Fax:
(614 212-19(x)
S(lnatu ,". Michael Sylvia oirrt.a,- t rfr sa.O-:2@).12.t3 talc5{!E
ThG applkxlbn nust be compbEd in full and musl be accompenkd by all inbrmati:n and plans rBquir€d by
appli€ile City Odinance prwisirns. BebrB filing thb epplicatbn, reEr b th€ approprisb Applicaton ClEddist
and corfer with the Planning D€partment to determine the sp€cific ordinance and applicable HoceduEl
rcquirements and fees.
Contact
Phone:
Cell:
Fax:
VUho should receive copies of stafi repofts?
trtr!
Prope y orrvner Via:Applilan[ Ma:EngirEer Ma:Otr€r" Ma:
trtrtrtr
Email
Email
Email
Email
trtrtrtrtr
IilSTRUCTIONS TO 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 docurnents and payrnent. SUBMIT FoRM to send a digital
copy to the city for prccessing.
PRINT FOR SUBIIT FORT
Narne:
Addrcss:
city/s:tatezip:
Email:
Signaturc:
g61gss. 9607 Sky Lan€
City/StateZip: Eclen Praltu' al?cz
g,n4. mcsylvia@gmail.com
Mo'-
go.ft.1 Mi;hal
tu'-
946. 12111ffr
A determinatbn of comdeteness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of applicatbn submittal. A
syiten notice of applicataon deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicar within 15 business da],s of applioatbn.
PRqTBCT ENG0IEER (if applbeble)
Nam€:
Address:
Gty/slailezrp:
Email:
Section 4: Notification lnformation
Mailed Paper Copy
Mailed Paper Copy
Mailed Paper Copy
Mailed Paper Copy
'Odrer Contact lnfomdion:
No-o.
Address: _
City/Statezip:
tr-oil'
SAVE FORI
Dear Community Development Deparunent and City of Chanhassen,12n4t2020
My name is Michael Sylvia, and my wife is Juliana Sylvia. We have three sons, Mateo (l l),
Sebastian (9), and Cam (5). Our family purchased 10029 Trails End Road in Chanhassen (Lot
12, Block 5, Settlers West) on May 5, 2020. Since then, we've been designing our dream home
for our family of five, with living space above our garage for my parents, Barbma and Michael.
Currently, we are renting a home where my parents live in the finished basement, and have been
for the last l6 months. Living in the basernent is certainly not the ideal living arranganent for
any aging parent/grandparent, and this was never our long term plan. It has always been their
dream to have an inlaw apartment in a home with us. This lot not only provides an excellent
opportunity for this setup, as well as an incredible neighborhood and community that is Settlers
West. My mother is 70 years old, and my father is 7l , and they are both retired teachers. In
2013, my father was diagnosed with Parkinson's disease, a neurological degenerative condition
that impacts all aspects of his life. As expected, his condition continues to deteriorate steadily.
Their lives revolve around our sons, their only grandchildren. My mother is his primary
caregiver, but ultimately this is a family effort as my father needs assistance and supervision
constantly. The one thing they cherish the most is spending time with their grandchildren'
Given these circumstances, the easier we can make that for thern, the better it will be for our
family; especially for our children, who absolutely love Grandma and Grandpa.
On behalfofour entire family, thank you for your time and consideration of this very important
matter, that's dear to our hearts, and the happiness of our family. We are grateful for the
opportunity to have shared our special case with you, and look forward to working with the City
of Chanhassen. Thank you.
Sincerely,
The Sylvia family
684 Excelsior Blvd
Suite 220
Excelsior, MN 55331
Re: Written Justification of Variance Request
10029 Trails End Rd
Chanhassen, MN 553 l7
Sec. 20-59 - Conditions for use of Sinsle Family dwelline as Two Family
dwelling
2. Please note the dwelling has the appearance of a single-family
home in every way, including the maintenance of one driveway and one
main entry.
3. Separate utility services for gas, electricity, water, sewer, etc.
will not be established.
4. The variance will not injure or adversely affect the health,
safety or welfare ofthe residents ofthe cify or the neighborhood where the
property is situated and is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the code.
Justification for Request for Variance
The code states that a variance is appropriate in this situation,
and we feel that the variance is consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan
The circumstances of the family make this variance necessary
and the owner's use of the property will not affect the
community and neighborhood in any way.
a
Align Building and Remodeling, LLC
l. The variance request is to facilitate caring for aging parents and
is not based on economic considerations.
b.
The purpose of this variance is not based on economic
considerations. The utilities are for a single family
dwelling, in perpetuity.
We believe we meet the criteria for granting this variance
Granting this variance will in no way alter the character of the
locality. The house will look like a single family
dwelling, which it is.
Thank you for your consideration.
Steve Longman
Principle
c.
d.
e.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
( ss.
COUNTYOFCARVER )
I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
January 7,2021, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk ofthe City of Chanhassen,
Mirmesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of a Public
Hearing to consider a request for a variance to allow construction of an accessoty dwelling
unit within a proposed single-femily residence located at 10029 Trails End Road. Zoned
Single-Family Residential @SF), Planning Case No. 2021-06 to the persons named on
attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy ofsaid 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 ofsuch owners were those appearing as such
by the records ofthe County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota" and by other appropriate
records.
wrAAt'^
Subscribed and
thiilJh day o
m to before me
i Meuwissen, Deputy C
(Seal)
JEAil M SIECKLII{G
NffryPldbfJin*oa
ft Curtr Elara lt tl,lDa
2021.
N otary Public
Kim
This map as neither a legally recorded map nor a suNey and is not intencled to be used
as one. ilis map as a compilation of records, information and data located in various city.
countv. state and federalofrcts and olher sources regardrng the area shown and is lo
be used icr reterence gurcoses only The Cdy does not waflanl lhat the Geographrc
lnfomatjon System (GlS) Dala oseal to prepare this map are enor free, end the city do€s
nol represeni that the GIS Oala can be used for navigational trackang or any other
purpo;e requiring exactng measuremenl of distance or direciion or precision i6 the
irepicton of geographic features. The preceding disdaimer is provaded puBuanl to
Minnesota Statutes 5466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of thas map acknowledges
fiat the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims. and
agrees to d;fend, andemnify, and hold harmless the City trom any and all claims brought
bt User, its employees or agents. or third parties whiafi arise out of the use/s ac@ss or
us€ of data povided
(TAX_NAME,D
(TAX_ADD-LI D
<TAX ADD L2r
(Next Record)'(TAX-NAMED
(TAX_ADD_Ll E
(TAX ADD L2,,
Diaclalnror
This map is nerther a lelally recorded map nor a suryey and is nol intended to be used
asone. ihis map isa compilation of records, infomation and data located in various city,
county. state and lederal omces and olher sources regardlng lhe area shown. and is lo
be u;d for reference purposes only The Cty does nol wanant that the Geographrc
lnformation System (GlS) Oata used to Prepare this map are enor free, and the Caty does
not reprcsent that the GIS Data can be used for navigatjonal tracking or any other
purpoie requiring exacting measurement of distance or directaon or preosion in lhe
depictron of geogEphic featurcs. The preceding disclaimer is provided pu.suani to
Minnesota Slatutes 5466.03, Subd. 21 (2000). and lhe user of this map acknowledges
that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all daams. and
agrees to dafend. indemnaly, and hold hamless the City from any and all claims brought
bt User its employees or agents, or third parbes which arise out of the use/s access or
use of dala provided.
Subject
Parcel
I
Vit
?.I
E
\,
!
\
llss
.l .-- --.!I
,
L
fti i5r a
I a
!
7 {T-
Fr
I(-4 rc
l-,. I I
Subject
Parcel
d!,dtEE.9o,9EEoo
E,l
.E
Eso
0,s
o
o
rL
o:t h-E;r!>>(oGro=E'= ttc t! c:= aa:*,EEEe6p* 9E;EEEsEE;;UEAEEi B=f
=ilEEfE
EEHB$6 Q 6E-o-ceFt!>
>,6 q o'6o=! 19 oo i3 ol-=
neo 6o)$ ;Ho -cva;o) =6Ei>E3E- -cP ct Is ElnI t sl=-H S3s-ooEl 6-
eE filalD l, ol!
g E€IE: aEl c
E-3 3lH
BE iIH
(!(s
E()
-o
r1)
=oIo)clo
?cEco)oEcoEq6G(t,=o]Eg(!d5Eoo-sOE-E(EcN-qNc;o,-
>a)(Eq
cco;
;-q
EE
(l)t
f(!
o->d)o)(\,oof.-t-a(.)-o
Eo-c
ocl
o
G-
O
Y(5.Fco)atd)t>lE(ELL05Ec
U)p
0)coN
C,)oclo
=o
E(Eoo=ooEO'2-ao!lEe3(!o-oJJ9oo!ooc(tr!;Eo=
-oQo.!
<r 0)o;-pIloooaa3
38
t!ot .(52
a
(!c
.gl
od
6(EE
.9
=
oio!ooseo!9
8EEepE
fi.eo$'6E
r-o
REo6o-r<
;* UY -g) .c? oi-EE sg EEEee EreEio.-- o-coF"! 3-3 3E *sSiEi # s:i'=.=fi E', oE-6 PEiiqE *;i6;3 He ; fr gE
EEiE Ei EB
b +'= 3,3g Ex
g6E; , EE55Eo 6-.9q +-c o-o_!13F(!C(JU'TN('$
u;(E!coo)oq)oE()EoEg5E;g2-a6>Eoo()'-- c>Pe=
6E r
-ooo o-
EEgo aA866E(rcoXqo.5 l>;=o-. E
EE;
!sH
cFo
3'^F
BY =l!X;z d-1
g
6
t
E
9.;
a, ,=
=d,
+*S
-Oi! .t
=E
ca ..o9trEoo
tt=OE=ooo
a;
.EF
o.
(,
t!o
o
o(,oJ
GooILo
o-
ii(,
;o
Eo
CII
o.
>trr.9
o-Geto-J
t,E{,(,=c9.9.=lDk.eA'FrE.9oEo
= E)o- .E
oEor!
EEOEzB
ot!
o
o
CDtr
oo
=g.Erooo0, .=IEoE
=o-O r!
^-a
OE
PE.=-61za
66l!
Eo
o
E
c
.2
F
E
cioIF-
(5
C\Io(\
o
e(I,
lc(t,
j
(oE
c)lF
p
.E
c;
,E
.E
!
!2d)
o
(!
=ooF*F.
6
o
-o
Eo-c(.)
oc:o
oI
o
co
o
.EE
o(5-:l
=eitl-Fe-p6 q-o (aEaEE
.8 3s^ o- ii,.lJ o c)o h-(f
3 .3"
,q .E E:.c 15;:t
E=P6qod) Lo:r= O)6(l) crDaO-€N
S >n;oro9
E frE
SHE
o,'
o
(Ec
,q
f
oa
o)o-,9
oc
.cE
o
p
o2o
EOE;dE
:ofi.eo$'6E
r-o
O,E
S5o-
on)
o-
it)E
o
--o)
=E AE sg E B
:*E€ -sE E
EEEg BreE.: Y ^< o--c -o tr
-s:'o) oef=
sEEE e"EeE
E*-q= :=3EE::x.P 9ErxEo.-.,2 bE=8
gE;E E;HESFsx eiEE
H.gE3
=
HEE
*E-g i eH E.E F
-c o-(D+ yFOc(J(t,-O,l(ov
(,r o:
El HHr-
e al;;s;:
EEEBEEEE
Et'iEiEIE
EaHe;ttE
f;$eEEsr!
HFiE I E EE
o
6
o
.E
-
l
=doJNoN
o
;
i(,ooo,c
o
(.)
..,iq
3i;
-l-
.,2
o
oo
o,
c;cE
ID
d)
E
()E
Eo
d)ii-6(5
att oc(,r!([
-o o"
e€!BOao) a=
-'ll)o'=
;i(!r,
=->do>. 0)sE
o-f
E.9
o
E
-,E
oc
ac
Ec
o.)
o-cc(s.c
o
=
==
(5oc
o)o,oq)oc-EOEo
Eqt
rE
Eg2aEa6oo()i= -c
9o
EE
.(!op
=scJool'6o
b8(l)E.2=8pEE
3srccE
a9
=_9ruYzii
gEg:EEi:i?'iggi
itEi;E;tEiai:iEE
EIE EgiiEfiiEEEai
EgB EEEEEEEEEii?E
EEiiEiEiEgEiEEii
i;sEE;EEaaEE;EiEiE15.
5
E
E
g
a
!
E
b
a
o
(!ooJ
t!ooILo
o-
IDE
=o
EoILo
o-
>Eto(DEo-oeto-J
I iito,=
=at=a,i=
-Oo.g
=;
c6..o9EEOru
o=q,E:ooo
id
.EF€
o
oo
0000000000000000000000000NooooooooooFl <,t tn O <l lJ1 (D 6l N d)@ <l qt O F{.\l 01 lncO <t@O F. (o lrl Fr <l lnN Fr <l u) <n rO O Frit6F.r<t F{ -r d lt Fr <t F{ <l Fl a\t l\t f! N l\ l\ N \t (o sl sl <t + -l Fl Fl !-.1 ri(',Omr.r(nooooooooooo ooooo ooo ooo ooour oooo ooo ooo<, (o (o (o (o (0 (.o (o ro (o (o (o ro r.o (l, (o lo ro ro ro ro (h (o (o (o N !t v ct <t ro (I, (l, (l, (.C, (l)i'l rn r^ rr1 ul r^ u1 r/l rJ1 r,t rrt rJt rn rJl r/1 rrl rrt La1 ul u1 l,t <D v1 Ln 1,) (o ro ro ro ro r.,,t r.,1 Ln 6 6 u)F N F- F- N N l\ F. F. F F. F F- F N F. N F l'\ N F- (Ir N F- F\ .'l N (\1 (\l N F F- l'- F F F-.n La r^ rrt 1/1 ra u't r/) rJl rJ't r/l rjl rJ1 rrl rr1 rJ1 rjl r/l rrt rr1 rr1 u1 !^ ra 1,) H r.,1 rn !a l^ 6 6 !n ut rn uta\l r\l a\l l\l l\l a\J a\l a\l a\l a\l a\l f\l a\l a\1 l\l a\l a\r f\ (\ a! (\l o N a\t t\ f\t a! a! a\ t\t a! a!z ozHEEEEeeeppp<XXXXooaooo555=pppE31====2.2E,A999922229933=HEEtrE<aaaaaF F L ; 9J !] !! !l d. d. d. d. d. d.FFF=ooctclFFFFFFHHHEESSRSSSBRF
O O O F{ @ @ Or Or ('r <D Ol Ol <tt (t'\<t ul (o (o or o| o) or or or (h qt or or
ooooo6006066446000604 E d C. E G. C. &. G. E G. t t G. &. G. G. G. E noo600606600060666606zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzza! u,/ uJ uJ uJ uJ 4r r! uJ uJ uJ ur F
v) v't VM V) U) V) Vl ,lt ,tt Vt ,,h I
.JJJJ\,|<<aaaaa<<<aaa<<a<aaar
^ 4 e, G E e E C, d, 6, d, G, G, i, d, G, 6, G, E G, d,')g]FFF FFFFFFFFF FFFFF FFFLiJ or !l1 ^r r- <r ro ao ryr o rrl l\ F !t (g (\r t or (o .{ @ l'-< 6i 6 i ; d rn < rri r.o ro F. F <a or - N N rn < < yrP aiStici ii d6ci 56 b b66 J;;;;;(,EOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOtA -{ Fl r-.1 r.l Fl Fl -l Fl r-l Fl r'{ r"l r"{ r'{ !'{ .'i (n
sf+<f I t' !t <l <l <t <l (n .n .n r,}QlJ)$ oo.\ (\ r\r r\r a\t a\r a\ior or ol or o1 ('r (h 01 <tl (h or <tr or 01 lar or (t1 ln o Ln ol o 01 ql 0r (D6 lJ) rn rn ul r/l rJr !n rn rn !r) ra ur u1 9l rjl r/1 rr'! r/'t rrl l/1 ra !a 1/) rn !nst <t <t <l ll <tst++<l<l \t s +9st<t 6.o@ <t <l <l <t <t sf\ F- F- F rl rl A rl rl * * * * i rl * * n'. rl F. * i * * N s * * rl * rl A rl * * rlS .{ .r .r r{ Fr F{ -r r.l Fl Fl r.l Fl r.l ..1 r.l r.l ..1 Fl Fl d 09 d t-l F{ E .l Fl Fr r.l r.l ..{ !.r r.r ..1 ..{!! (Yl lrlrn rn rn rn (n .yt (n m rn (n (n.h.rl dl .rt .Yr.n(n9.n (n(n !!(nl'l (n (n rn (n (Y).o ra d)11 rn Ln ut !n 1,1o Ln Ln l. Ln Ln l^!n l,) lJl ut rn rrl lrl r/t!|.,| Ln rn 6 :-r rn u.' La Ln rn !n Ll) La 1,1 ./1gI Ltr Ln rn u't r,) l..l !n ln !/1 rn r') Ln !,t !l1 Ln La ln Lll rn Ll) sr !n !n !/1 -r Lll !n l.ar ul u't l.''t Ln rn u) !n
- zz z zzzzz zzzzzz zzzz z z=z zz 2 z zzz z zz z z z
^ r! zz i i i i 2 ; 2 2 ; i 2 i 2 i i i i 2 4 z z z u z i i i i i ; ; i i":=uJur rlr!=ruruJuJ=r!
-t= ql t^ t^ th t,lttt,,ttlt,,) th vl vl v1 v\ vl vt v\ v) ul a o vl ut v\ = a th u\ t \ th th th t \ tur t r
^,< \/t ll vl tt \rl tt t^ t\ t^ th a a th vl !1 th v) v) vl a d a/1 u1 th < v\ u) tt\ t\ tt th ttt t\ ttt tt
?o--- r --r r----r rr- - - r- rui-r ro-- r r- r r r-- r\,2 z. z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z, Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
<A---I-I--I-EII-----II=EII6IIT-IIIIIIF r! (J I L, U (J (J I L) (J (J (J (J U (J !J I U (J (J (J Z (J (J (J r! (J (J U (J (J U (J I (J (J
g
zia6oo666f 6ooo6ao6ooo .! ec.G.E_&. G. c. c.eeGdt e. G. &. t c. G. c. G. G. G. F ^ 6 O 6 6 O o 6 6 o oo o o o o o o o o 6 o 6 6 6 o 6 6 6 o |h I ttyt.r'dd&d&
",=A====3=frG3afr3i,aaii r * r. r h; g g E g I I2222n= 2 2 I 2 9 9 2 I 2 2 2 2 z 2 2 22 2 23?,?,; ; + X X X X ; ; ; ; ; ;-rf ??a -aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa*h g g*OEaaa== ====6 y F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F F E F F F = !! 9J !! 9l E E e 4 e E<i 4 o rn F- <r ro ao (n o ut (\ F- <t (o N rt ah (o r{ o F !: F F I z o (J tl r.l F F F F F FlF c) '-{ H N.n <t Ln rar (o t- F. ao o} -{ N N (n <t <, -u e
= !{ -r O Fr Fl Fr Fr Fr rn <) lrr.\r F.X o O O O O O O O O O O O O O r{ @ O ?\ tt rrt (g \O r\ F.< (o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o ao 6 < a ah ot < or (h (hF att -{ Fl r-.1 !-.1 r-r r-{ r-l r-.1 r-.1 d tl -,1 r-r r-r ti rY) (n <l 6 (D € Ot Or Ol 01 Ol Ot Or (h Ot Ol
q
E 5* E r ?
=E=E;lEiE#EEsETr=EgETEEa=rEIEc=EaEa;
,?v.)D=BivODEo?rzrB:p(,o<ziEE>o?o6Hg@voo
ro ro (o(0 (o (o(o@@
--t --t <,ta,
zzz009vva009
a) a) a)---zz2I-I
??"
222
{!{
(o (oNN)
ro(o(o(o@o,6(oD.-{ -{ --{7VVIP>
zzzooov-vogo
{{\.J
or or orooo
ooo
From:Steckling, Jean
To:Steckling, Jean
Subject:FW: 10029 Trails End Road (2021-06)
Date:Tuesday, January 19, 2021 8:45:40 AM
From: Kurt Scheppmann <kscheppmann@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2021 1:13 PM
To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Subject: 10029 Trails End Road (2021-06)
Mackenzie,
Being in the neighborhood of this variance request, we had an opportunity to review the
documents on the city website. Looks like the Sylvia's have a beautiful home planned, and
even more commendable is their plan to care for their aging parents. We welcome this plan
and the Sylvia family with open arms. Please feel free to share this with the Sylvia family and
the Planning Commission.
Thank you.
Kurt and Heidi Scheppmann
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, January 19, 2021
Subject Consider a Request for a Variance to Replace/Rebuild Retaining Walls, Add Walkout Terrace,
Add Stairway to Lake, and Reconfigure Lakeside Deck/Patio Located at 6609 Horseshoe
Curve
Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.2.
Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, Associate
Planner
File No: Planning Case No. 202107
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 19foot bluff impact zone and 29foot bluff
setback variance for the construction of a deck, a bluff impact zone and bluff setback variance for the construction
of retaining walls within the bluff, and a 25foot bluff, 5foot side yard, and 3foot shoreland setback variance for a
wateroriented accessory structure (WOAS), subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached
Findings of Facts and Decision.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant is requesting a 19foot bluff impact zone and 29foot bluff setback variance to install an atgrade deck
off of their rear patio door. They are also requesting a bluff impact zone and bluff setback variance to allow for the
reconstruction of retaining walls on the property. Finally, they are proposing constructing a stairway down to the lake
and replacing a nonconforming WOAS. Only the first two of these items require a variance; however, staff is
recommending that the WOAS’s setbacks be included in the variance in order to formally document the nonconforming
setbacks. The applicant has stated that the intent of these variances is to provide a usable area for outdoor recreation
behind the home and to repair failing retaining walls.
The applicant has noted that larger more significant encroachments, i.e. a rear bump out, abovegrade deck, and patio,
were present in the area where they are requesting a variance to install an atgrade deck prior to a 2018 remodel
where these features were removed. They have noted the removal of the previous features have left the rear area
behind the house as an area of dirt and weeds, without any improved area near the rear patio door. They have stated
that adding a deck would provide reasonable use of the area.
The applicant has stated that in 2020, boulders from the failing walls came loose and rolled down the hill causing
damage to their property. They have stated that if they are not permitted to reconstruct the wall, they believe further
erosion and damage will occur. Finally, they have noted that they are proposing replacing one of the walls with a living
wall system which they believe will have significantly less impact than a traditional retaining wall.
The applicant has stated that the stairway system is being proposed to provide safe access to the lake and that the
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, January 19, 2021SubjectConsider a Request for a Variance to Replace/Rebuild Retaining Walls, Add Walkout Terrace,Add Stairway to Lake, and Reconfigure Lakeside Deck/Patio Located at 6609 HorseshoeCurveSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.2.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 202107PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 19foot bluff impact zone and 29foot bluffsetback variance for the construction of a deck, a bluff impact zone and bluff setback variance for the constructionof retaining walls within the bluff, and a 25foot bluff, 5foot side yard, and 3foot shoreland setback variance for awateroriented accessory structure (WOAS), subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Facts and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is requesting a 19foot bluff impact zone and 29foot bluff setback variance to install an atgrade deckoff of their rear patio door. They are also requesting a bluff impact zone and bluff setback variance to allow for thereconstruction of retaining walls on the property. Finally, they are proposing constructing a stairway down to the lakeand replacing a nonconforming WOAS. Only the first two of these items require a variance; however, staff isrecommending that the WOAS’s setbacks be included in the variance in order to formally document the nonconformingsetbacks. The applicant has stated that the intent of these variances is to provide a usable area for outdoor recreationbehind the home and to repair failing retaining walls.The applicant has noted that larger more significant encroachments, i.e. a rear bump out, abovegrade deck, and patio,were present in the area where they are requesting a variance to install an atgrade deck prior to a 2018 remodelwhere these features were removed. They have noted the removal of the previous features have left the rear areabehind the house as an area of dirt and weeds, without any improved area near the rear patio door. They have statedthat adding a deck would provide reasonable use of the area.The applicant has stated that in 2020, boulders from the failing walls came loose and rolled down the hill causingdamage to their property. They have stated that if they are not permitted to reconstruct the wall, they believe furthererosion and damage will occur. Finally, they have noted that they are proposing replacing one of the walls with a livingwall system which they believe will have significantly less impact than a traditional retaining wall.
The applicant has stated that the stairway system is being proposed to provide safe access to the lake and that the
WOAS is being reconfigured to align with the stairs. As was noted, neither of these items require a variance from the
City Code.
Staff recognizes that the applicant has provided a thoughtful proposal that does its utmost to balance the owner's needs
with minimizing the impact to the bluff and lake. Furthermore, if the applicant had proposed the deck as part of the
initial remodel, a substantial portion of it could have been approved without a variance as a reduction to an existing
nonconformity. Additionally, the condition of the existing retaining walls does require action and the applicant’s
proposed living wall solution is designed to address the safety and erosion concerns in a way that improves the bluff
relative to the existing conditions.
While the city is typically extremely hesitant to support variances permitting structures within the bluff impact zone, the
city has been receptive to variances for retaining walls designed to address erosion in the past. Finally, this is a unique
situation in that a bluff was not present on the property when the home was constructed, but was created when the
retaining walls constructed along with the home increased the slope’s grade to an extent that triggered the bluff
ordinance. This change in conditions rendered previously conforming features nonconforming, and has necessitated the
variance process. For these reasons, staff is recommending approval of the variance requests.
A full discussion is provided in the attached staff report.
APPLICANT
Brian T. Bruner, Esq. 6609 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317
SITE INFORMATION
PRESENT ZONING: "RSF" SingleFamily Residential District
LAND USE:Residential Low Density
ACREAGE: .64 acres
DENSITY: NA
APPLICATION REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, Section 12, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming Uses
Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District.
Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” SingleFamily Residential District
Section 20615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks.
Chapter 20, Article XXVIII, Bluff Protection
BACKGROUND
General History
In April of 1999, the city approved a twolot subdivision with variances allowing for a 20% driveway grade and 81foot
shoreland setback.*
*Note: At the time this subdivision was proposed, the ordinance required structures maintain the shoreland setbacks of the
adjacent properties. This requirement was subsequently repealed and properties are subjected to the current 75foot
shoreland setback.
In July of 1999, the city issued a building permit for the construction of a singlefamily home.
In March of 2000, the city issued a building permit to add a deck.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, January 19, 2021SubjectConsider a Request for a Variance to Replace/Rebuild Retaining Walls, Add Walkout Terrace,Add Stairway to Lake, and Reconfigure Lakeside Deck/Patio Located at 6609 HorseshoeCurveSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.2.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 202107PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 19foot bluff impact zone and 29foot bluffsetback variance for the construction of a deck, a bluff impact zone and bluff setback variance for the constructionof retaining walls within the bluff, and a 25foot bluff, 5foot side yard, and 3foot shoreland setback variance for awateroriented accessory structure (WOAS), subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Facts and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is requesting a 19foot bluff impact zone and 29foot bluff setback variance to install an atgrade deckoff of their rear patio door. They are also requesting a bluff impact zone and bluff setback variance to allow for thereconstruction of retaining walls on the property. Finally, they are proposing constructing a stairway down to the lakeand replacing a nonconforming WOAS. Only the first two of these items require a variance; however, staff isrecommending that the WOAS’s setbacks be included in the variance in order to formally document the nonconformingsetbacks. The applicant has stated that the intent of these variances is to provide a usable area for outdoor recreationbehind the home and to repair failing retaining walls.The applicant has noted that larger more significant encroachments, i.e. a rear bump out, abovegrade deck, and patio,were present in the area where they are requesting a variance to install an atgrade deck prior to a 2018 remodelwhere these features were removed. They have noted the removal of the previous features have left the rear areabehind the house as an area of dirt and weeds, without any improved area near the rear patio door. They have statedthat adding a deck would provide reasonable use of the area.The applicant has stated that in 2020, boulders from the failing walls came loose and rolled down the hill causingdamage to their property. They have stated that if they are not permitted to reconstruct the wall, they believe furthererosion and damage will occur. Finally, they have noted that they are proposing replacing one of the walls with a livingwall system which they believe will have significantly less impact than a traditional retaining wall.The applicant has stated that the stairway system is being proposed to provide safe access to the lake and that theWOAS is being reconfigured to align with the stairs. As was noted, neither of these items require a variance from theCity Code.Staff recognizes that the applicant has provided a thoughtful proposal that does its utmost to balance the owner's needswith minimizing the impact to the bluff and lake. Furthermore, if the applicant had proposed the deck as part of theinitial remodel, a substantial portion of it could have been approved without a variance as a reduction to an existingnonconformity. Additionally, the condition of the existing retaining walls does require action and the applicant’sproposed living wall solution is designed to address the safety and erosion concerns in a way that improves the bluffrelative to the existing conditions.While the city is typically extremely hesitant to support variances permitting structures within the bluff impact zone, thecity has been receptive to variances for retaining walls designed to address erosion in the past. Finally, this is a uniquesituation in that a bluff was not present on the property when the home was constructed, but was created when theretaining walls constructed along with the home increased the slope’s grade to an extent that triggered the bluffordinance. This change in conditions rendered previously conforming features nonconforming, and has necessitated thevariance process. For these reasons, staff is recommending approval of the variance requests.A full discussion is provided in the attached staff report.APPLICANTBrian T. Bruner, Esq. 6609 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING: "RSF" SingleFamily Residential DistrictLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE: .64 acres DENSITY: NA APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 1, Section 12, Rules of Construction and DefinitionsChapter 20, Article II, Division 3. VariancesChapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming UsesChapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District.Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” SingleFamily Residential DistrictSection 20615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks.Chapter 20, Article XXVIII, Bluff ProtectionBACKGROUNDGeneral HistoryIn April of 1999, the city approved a twolot subdivision with variances allowing for a 20% driveway grade and 81footshoreland setback.**Note: At the time this subdivision was proposed, the ordinance required structures maintain the shoreland setbacks of theadjacent properties. This requirement was subsequently repealed and properties are subjected to the current 75footshoreland setback.In July of 1999, the city issued a building permit for the construction of a singlefamily home.
In March of 2000, the city issued a building permit to add a deck.
In November of 2018, the city issued a building permit for a significant remodel which include the demolition of the existing
deck and patio.
In June of 2020, the city issued a building permit to add a rooftop deck.
Several permits for interior work and maintenance are also on file with the city.
Case History
On May 21, 2020, the designer contacted staff with a proposal for the site that included a large concrete patio off the rear
of the home, a concrete patio and large WOAS structure near the lake, and front yard parking pad.
On May 22, 2020, staff expressed concerns about the likely presence of a bluff on the property and provided the designer
with the sections of the City Code that they believed would apply to the proposal. Staff indicated that the proposal would
require multiple variances, and that a survey would be required to determine the exact nature and extent of the variances.
On June 16, 2020, the designer sent a revised plan and requested a meeting with staff to discuss potential variances.
On June 18, 2020, staff met with the applicant’s designer to discuss the proposed project. During the meeting, staff
expressed concern regarding the proposed size and placement of the WOAS, proposed front yard parking, and presence
of impervious surface within the bluff impact zone.
On July 16, 2020, staff and the designer met to discuss the proposed project. During the meeting, staff expressed concern
regarding the proposed size and placement of the WOAS, but was supportive of the plans to stabilize the bluff and
proposed pervious patio above the bluff.
On November 20, 2020, staff and the designer met to discuss the proposed project. The proposed WOAS had been
scaled back to address staff’s concerns.
On November 30, 2020, staff and the designer met to discuss the proposed project. No significant concerns were raised.
On December 18, 2020, the applicant submitted the variance request.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves a 19foot bluff
impact zone and 29foot bluff setback variance for the construction of a deck, a bluff impact zone and bluff setback
variance for the construction of retaining walls within the bluff, and a 25foot bluff, 5foot side yard, and 3foot
shoreland setback variance for a wateroriented accessory structure, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and
adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
1. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets all requirements of the
Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review.
3. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must
be obtained prior to construction.
4. The applicant shall install tree protection fencing at the furthest point from the trunk as possible around all trees
within the grading limits.
5. The applicant shall file for an Encroachment Agreement with the city for any encroachments within public drainage
and utility easements.
6. The wateroriented accessory structure shall be constructed of modular, removable decking for review and
approval by the city prior to issuance of a building permit.
7. The improvements must substantially conform to the plans dated December 18, 2020.
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, January 19, 2021SubjectConsider a Request for a Variance to Replace/Rebuild Retaining Walls, Add Walkout Terrace,Add Stairway to Lake, and Reconfigure Lakeside Deck/Patio Located at 6609 HorseshoeCurveSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.2.Prepared By MacKenzie YoungWalters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 202107PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 19foot bluff impact zone and 29foot bluffsetback variance for the construction of a deck, a bluff impact zone and bluff setback variance for the constructionof retaining walls within the bluff, and a 25foot bluff, 5foot side yard, and 3foot shoreland setback variance for awateroriented accessory structure (WOAS), subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Facts and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is requesting a 19foot bluff impact zone and 29foot bluff setback variance to install an atgrade deckoff of their rear patio door. They are also requesting a bluff impact zone and bluff setback variance to allow for thereconstruction of retaining walls on the property. Finally, they are proposing constructing a stairway down to the lakeand replacing a nonconforming WOAS. Only the first two of these items require a variance; however, staff isrecommending that the WOAS’s setbacks be included in the variance in order to formally document the nonconformingsetbacks. The applicant has stated that the intent of these variances is to provide a usable area for outdoor recreationbehind the home and to repair failing retaining walls.The applicant has noted that larger more significant encroachments, i.e. a rear bump out, abovegrade deck, and patio,were present in the area where they are requesting a variance to install an atgrade deck prior to a 2018 remodelwhere these features were removed. They have noted the removal of the previous features have left the rear areabehind the house as an area of dirt and weeds, without any improved area near the rear patio door. They have statedthat adding a deck would provide reasonable use of the area.The applicant has stated that in 2020, boulders from the failing walls came loose and rolled down the hill causingdamage to their property. They have stated that if they are not permitted to reconstruct the wall, they believe furthererosion and damage will occur. Finally, they have noted that they are proposing replacing one of the walls with a livingwall system which they believe will have significantly less impact than a traditional retaining wall.The applicant has stated that the stairway system is being proposed to provide safe access to the lake and that theWOAS is being reconfigured to align with the stairs. As was noted, neither of these items require a variance from theCity Code.Staff recognizes that the applicant has provided a thoughtful proposal that does its utmost to balance the owner's needswith minimizing the impact to the bluff and lake. Furthermore, if the applicant had proposed the deck as part of theinitial remodel, a substantial portion of it could have been approved without a variance as a reduction to an existingnonconformity. Additionally, the condition of the existing retaining walls does require action and the applicant’sproposed living wall solution is designed to address the safety and erosion concerns in a way that improves the bluffrelative to the existing conditions.While the city is typically extremely hesitant to support variances permitting structures within the bluff impact zone, thecity has been receptive to variances for retaining walls designed to address erosion in the past. Finally, this is a uniquesituation in that a bluff was not present on the property when the home was constructed, but was created when theretaining walls constructed along with the home increased the slope’s grade to an extent that triggered the bluffordinance. This change in conditions rendered previously conforming features nonconforming, and has necessitated thevariance process. For these reasons, staff is recommending approval of the variance requests.A full discussion is provided in the attached staff report.APPLICANTBrian T. Bruner, Esq. 6609 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING: "RSF" SingleFamily Residential DistrictLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE: .64 acres DENSITY: NA APPLICATION REGULATIONSChapter 1, Section 12, Rules of Construction and DefinitionsChapter 20, Article II, Division 3. VariancesChapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming UsesChapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District.Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” SingleFamily Residential DistrictSection 20615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks.Chapter 20, Article XXVIII, Bluff ProtectionBACKGROUNDGeneral HistoryIn April of 1999, the city approved a twolot subdivision with variances allowing for a 20% driveway grade and 81footshoreland setback.**Note: At the time this subdivision was proposed, the ordinance required structures maintain the shoreland setbacks of theadjacent properties. This requirement was subsequently repealed and properties are subjected to the current 75footshoreland setback.In July of 1999, the city issued a building permit for the construction of a singlefamily home.In March of 2000, the city issued a building permit to add a deck.In November of 2018, the city issued a building permit for a significant remodel which include the demolition of the existingdeck and patio.In June of 2020, the city issued a building permit to add a rooftop deck.Several permits for interior work and maintenance are also on file with the city.Case HistoryOn May 21, 2020, the designer contacted staff with a proposal for the site that included a large concrete patio off the rearof the home, a concrete patio and large WOAS structure near the lake, and front yard parking pad.On May 22, 2020, staff expressed concerns about the likely presence of a bluff on the property and provided the designerwith the sections of the City Code that they believed would apply to the proposal. Staff indicated that the proposal wouldrequire multiple variances, and that a survey would be required to determine the exact nature and extent of the variances.On June 16, 2020, the designer sent a revised plan and requested a meeting with staff to discuss potential variances.On June 18, 2020, staff met with the applicant’s designer to discuss the proposed project. During the meeting, staffexpressed concern regarding the proposed size and placement of the WOAS, proposed front yard parking, and presenceof impervious surface within the bluff impact zone.On July 16, 2020, staff and the designer met to discuss the proposed project. During the meeting, staff expressed concernregarding the proposed size and placement of the WOAS, but was supportive of the plans to stabilize the bluff andproposed pervious patio above the bluff.On November 20, 2020, staff and the designer met to discuss the proposed project. The proposed WOAS had beenscaled back to address staff’s concerns.On November 30, 2020, staff and the designer met to discuss the proposed project. No significant concerns were raised.On December 18, 2020, the applicant submitted the variance request.RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approves a 19foot bluffimpact zone and 29foot bluff setback variance for the construction of a deck, a bluff impact zone and bluff setbackvariance for the construction of retaining walls within the bluff, and a 25foot bluff, 5foot side yard, and 3footshoreland setback variance for a wateroriented accessory structure, subject to the Conditions of Approval, andadopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.1. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets all requirements of theMinnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review.3. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit mustbe obtained prior to construction.4. The applicant shall install tree protection fencing at the furthest point from the trunk as possible around all treeswithin the grading limits.5. The applicant shall file for an Encroachment Agreement with the city for any encroachments within public drainageand utility easements.6. The wateroriented accessory structure shall be constructed of modular, removable decking for review andapproval by the city prior to issuance of a building permit.
7. The improvements must substantially conform to the plans dated December 18, 2020.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
Findings of Fact (Approval)
Variance Document
Development Review Application
Narrative
Justification of Request
Plan Set
Variance Document Pages: Aerials, Previous Existing Site Plan/Notes, Existing Site Photos
Variance Document Pages: Existing Site Photos
Variance Document Pages: Existing Site Photos
Variance Document Page: Existing Site Photo, 3D Model Renderings
ERS Memo
WRC Memo
Engineering Memo
Affidavit of Mailing
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: January, 19 2021
CC DATE: February 8, 2021
REVIEW DEADLINE: February 16, 2021
CASE #: PC 2021-07
BY: MYW
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing placing an at-grade deck outside their rear patio door approximately
one foot from the top of the bluff, reconstructing a failing retaining wall within the bluff, adding
a staircase to provide safe access to the lake, and replacing a water-oriented accessory structure
(WOAS) with nonconforming area, bluff setbacks, side yard setbacks, and shoreland setbacks.
Since the deck and retaining wall are within the bluff, a variance is required; however, the stairs
and replacement of the nonconforming WOAS are permitted by City Code without a variance.
LOCATION: 6609 Horseshoe Curve
APPLICANT: Brian T. Bruner, Esq.
6609 Horseshoe Curve
Chanhassen, MN 55317
OWNER: Elise R. Bruner, Esq.
6609 Horseshoe Curve
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING: “RSF” – Single-Family
Residential District
2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
ACREAGE: .64 acres DENSITY: NA
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 all property owners within 500 feet.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 19-foot bluff impact zone and
29-foot bluff setback variance for the construction of a deck, a bluff impact zone and bluff setback
variance for the construction of retaining walls within the bluff, and a 25-foot bluff, 5-foot side
yard, and 3-foot shoreland setback variance for a water-oriented accessory structure (WOAS),
subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.”
6609 Horseshoe Curve
January 19, 2021
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting 19-foot bluff impact zone and 29-foot bluff setback variance to install
an at-grade deck off of their rear patio door. They are also requesting a bluff impact zone and
bluff setback variance to allow for the reconstruction of retaining walls on the property. Finally,
they are proposing constructing a stairway down to the lake and replacing a nonconforming
WOAS. Only the first two of these items require a variance; however, staff is recommending that
the WOAS’s setbacks be included in the variance in order to formally document the
nonconforming setbacks. The applicant has stated that the intent of these variances is to provide
a usable area for outdoor recreation behind the home and to repair failing retaining walls.
The applicant has noted that larger more significant encroachments, i.e. a rear bump out, above-
grade deck, and patio, were present in the area where they are requesting a variance to install an
at grade deck prior to a 2018 remodel where these features were removed. They have noted the
removal of the previous features have left the rear area behind the house as an area of dirt and
weeds, without any improved area near the rear patio door. They have stated that adding a deck
would provide reasonable use of the area.
The applicant has stated that in 2020, boulders from the failing walls came loose and rolled down
the hill causing damage to their property. They have stated that if they are not permitted to
reconstruct the wall, they believe further erosion and damage will occur. Finally, they have noted
that they are proposing replacing one of the walls with a living wall system which they believe
will have significantly less impact than a traditional retaining wall.
The applicant has stated that the stairway system is being proposed to provide safe access to the
lake and that the WOAS is being reconfigured to align with the stairs. As was noted, neither of
these items require a variance from the City Code.
Staff recognizes that the applicant has provide a thoughtful proposal that does its utmost to
balance the owners’ needs with minimizing the impact to the bluff and lake. Furthermore, if the
applicant had proposed the deck as part of the initial remodel, a substantial portion of it could
have been approved without a variance as a reduction to an existing nonconformity.
Additionally, the condition of the existing retaining walls does require action and the applicant’s
proposed living wall solution is designed to address the safety and erosion concerns in a way that
improves the bluff relative to the existing conditions.
While the city is typically extremely hesitant to support variances permitting structures within
the bluff impact zone, the city has been receptive to variances for retaining walls designed to
address erosion in the past. Finally, this is a unique situation in that a bluff was not present on the
property when the home was constructed, but was created when the retaining walls constructed
along with the home increased the slope’s grade to an extent that triggered the bluff ordinance.
This change in conditions rendered previously conforming features nonconforming, and has
necessitated the variance process. For these reasons, staff is recommending approval of the
variance requests.
6609 Horseshoe Curve
January 19, 2021
Page 3
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming Uses
Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District.
Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District
Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks.
Chapter 20, Article XXVIII, Bluff Protection
BACKGROUND
General History
In April of 1999, the city approved a two-lot subdivision with variances allowing for a 20%
driveway grade and 81-foot shoreland setback.*
*Note: At the time this subdivision was proposed, the ordinance required structures maintain the
shoreland setbacks of the adjacent properties. This requirement was subsequently repealed and
properties are subjected to the current 75-foot shoreland setback.
In July of 1999, the city issued a building permit for the construction of a single-family home.
In March of 2000, the city issued a building permit to add a deck.
In November of 2018, the city issued a building permit for a significant remodel which include the
demolition of the existing deck and patio.
In June of 2020, the city issued a building permit to add a rooftop deck.
Several permits for interior work and maintenance are also on file with the city.
Case History
On May 21, 2020, the designer contacted staff with a proposal for the site that included a large
concrete patio off the rear of the home, a concrete patio and large water oriented accessory structure
near the lake, and front yard parking pad.
On May 22, 2020, staff expressed concerns about the likely presence of a bluff on the property and
provided the designer with the sections of the City Code that they believed would apply to the
proposal. Staff indicated that the proposal would require multiple variances, and that a survey would
be required to determine the exact nature and extent of the variances.
On June 16, 2020, the designer sent a revised plan and requested a meeting with staff to discuss
potential variances.
6609 Horseshoe Curve
January 19, 2021
Page 4
On June 18, 2020, staff met with the applicant’s designer to discuss the proposed project. During the
meeting staff expressed concern regarding the proposed size and placement of the water oriented
accessory structure, proposed front yard parking, and presence of impervious surface within the
bluff impact zone.
On July 1 6, 2020, staff and the designer met to discuss the proposed project. During the meeting
staff expressed concern regarding the proposed size and placement of the water oriented accessory
structure, but was supportive of the plans to stabilize the bluff and proposed pervious patio above
the bluff.
On November 20, 2020, staff and the designer met to discuss the proposed project. The proposed
water oriented structure had been scaled back to address staff’s concerns.
On November 30, 2020, staff and the designer met to discuss the proposed project. No significant
concerns were raised.
On December 18, 2020, the applicant submitted the variance request.
SITE CONSTRAINTS
Zoning Overview
The property is zoned Single-Family Residential District, is located within the Shoreland
Management District, and is subject to the bluff protection ordinance. This zoning classification
requires riparian lots to be a minimum of 20,000 square feet, have front and rear yard setbacks of
30 feet, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, a shoreland setback of 75 feet, and limits parcels to a
maximum of 25 percent lot cover. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height, and
properties are allowed one water oriented accessory structure up to 250 square feet in size within
the 75-foot shoreland setback. Structures must be setback 30 feet from the top, side, and toe of
the bluff, and alteration of the land and vegetation within the bluff impact zone is heavily
restricted. Both the shoreland and bluff ordinance allow the construction of stairways, lifts, and
landings, subject to design criteria. A portion of the property is also encumbered by a sanitary
sewer easement.
The lot is 27,878 square feet with 6,377 square feet (23 percent) lot cover. The existing house
has a nonconforming bluff setback of between 5 and 19 feet, with a porch that encroaches into
the bluff. The property also features retaining walls located within the bluff impact zone. The
home’s WOAS is a nonconforming 308-square foot structure with a 3-foot bluff setback, 5-foot
side yard setback, and 7-foot shoreland setback. This WOAS is also located within the city’s
sanitary sewer easement. The house and other features appear to meet all other requirements of
the City Code.
Bluff Creek Corridor
This is not encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
6609 Horseshoe Curve
January 19, 2021
Page 5
Bluff Protection
There is a bluff on the property. The city’s bluff protection ordinance requires structures to be
setback 30 feet from the top, toe, and side of the bluff and prohibits the alteration to land or
vegetation within the bluff impact zone, the area of the bluff and within 20 feet of the top of the
bluff. Stairways, lifts, and landings are permitted in areas where they will not redirect water flow
or increase drainage velocity so long as they do not exceed four feet in width and meet other
design criteria. Limited topographic alterations, grading, and filling within the bluff impact zone
is permitted through an earthwork permit, subject to standards designed to protect the integrity of
the bluff.
Floodplain Overlay
This property is not within a floodplain.
Shoreland Management
The property is located within a Shoreland Protection District. This district requires a 75-foot
structure setback from the lake’s ordinary high water level (OHWL) and limits the property to a
maximum impervious surface coverage of 25 percent. The shoreland ordinance permits one
WOAS to be located within the 75-foot shoreland setback, provided that it is at least 10 feet from
the ordinary high water level, no larger than 250 square feet, and has a maximum height of 10
feet. Stairways, lifts and landings providing access up and down bluffs and steep slopes to shore
areas are also permitted so long as they do not exceed four feet in width, do not cause soil
erosion, and meet other design criteria.
Wetland Protection
There is not a wetland located in the development site.
NEIGHBORHOOD
Pleasant View/Alicia Heights
6609 Horseshoe Curve
January 19, 2021
Page 6
The plat for Pleasant View was
recorded in March of 1910 and
Alicia Heights, a two lot subdivision
within Pleasant View, was recorded
in June of 1999. Pleasant View is
one of the oldest neighborhoods in
the city and it predates the
establishment of the City of
Chanhassen and its ordinances. The
neighborhood is located on a
peninsula jutting into Lotus Lake
and this combined with challenging
topography meaning it has a large
number of atypically shaped lots,
many of which do not conform to
current city standards. Some of the
homes are original to the
neighborhood, while others are new
construction or have been
extensively updated. Many
properties have nonconforming
elements or have received variances
due to the age of the neighborhood
and atypical configuration of the
lots.
Variances within 500 feet:
6605 Horseshoe Curve (PC 1991-09): 17’ shoreland setback (deck) – Approved
6631 Horseshoe Curve (PC 1996-07): 15’ shoreland setback (addition and attached garage) –
Approved
6677 Horseshoe Curve (PC 1982-03): 25’ front and 7’ side setback (detached garage) –
Approved
6681 Horseshoe Curve (PC 1986-15): 6’ side setback (detached garage) – Withdrawn
(PC 1987-03): 6’ side setback (detached garage) – Approved
(PC 2002-10): 16’ front and 5’ side setback, 4% LC (detached garage
and addition) – Approved
6691 Horseshoe Curve (PC 1987-14): 19.6’ front setback (detached garage) – Approved
6697 Horseshoe Curve (PC 1985-02): 9.03’ side setback (addition, intensify non-conforming) –
Approved
6609 Horseshoe Curve
January 19, 2021
Page 7
ANALYSIS
At-Grade Deck
The applicant is requesting a variance
to place an at-grade deck
approximately one foot from the top
of the bluff. Initially, the applicant
had expressed interest in a patio made
of an impervious surface; however,
after staff expressed concern over the
placement of impervious surface
within the bluff impact zone, the
request was revised to feature a
surface comprised of pervious
decking, complete with drainage
system. It should be noted that prior
to the property’s 2018 renovation, a
144-square foot bump out projected 8
feet from the home for a 12-foot bluff setback, a 225-square foot above-grade deck projected out
15 feet from the existing porch and was located partially within the bluff, and an approximately
200-square foot concrete patio connected the deck and bump out within the bluff impact zone.
In comparison to the 2018 conditions on the property, the applicant is proposing replacing
approximately 344 square feet of impervious surface within the bluff impact zone and a 225-
6609 Horseshoe Curve
January 19, 2021
Page 8
square foot deck partially located within the bluff with approximately 652 square feet of pervious
decking setback one foot from the top of the bluff at its closest point. Since the nonconforming
deck, bump out, and patio were removed over a year ago, the applicant is not entitled to replace
them nor can the proposed deck be approved without a variance as a reduction to an existing
nonconformity; however, even if the requested variance is granted for the proposed deck, the
removal of impervious surface within the bluff impact zone and of the encroachment into the
bluff itself does represent an improvement to the original conditions present on the property.
A final factor in determining the appropriateness of granting a variance, is the fact that a bluff
was not present on the property when the home was built. In 1999, when the home was built,
there was a steep slope in the rear yard that did not meet the definition of a bluff. As part of the
permit to construct the home, a retaining wall was shown in the rear yard. This retaining wall
leveled off approximately 20 feet of the rear yard creating a steeper slope that met the definition
of a bluff. Since the original survey did not show a bluff on the property and as-built surveys
were not required at that time, permits were issued based on the fact that the available survey did
not show a bluff until the scope of work proposed in May 2020 triggered the need for a new
survey and the presence of a bluff was confirmed.
Ordinarily, staff would not support the construction of a structure within the bluff impact zone;
however, this is a very unique situation. The 2018 removal of the pre-existing structures has left
the area to the rear of the house as a patch of bare soil and weeds, meaning that many of the
ordinary concerns about removing vegetation within the bluff impact zone are not a factor, and
the applicant is proposing making significant improvements to prevent further degradation of the
bluff as discussed in the following subsection. Additionally, the applicant’s desire to have an
improved area outside of their patio door is reasonable and in keeping with what is present on the
surrounding properties. While the applicant’s proposed deck is larger than the minimum size
necessary to provide an improved surface off of the patio door, staff believes the requested
dimensions are reasonable in light of what was previously present on the property.
For the above reasons, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve a 19-foot
bluff impact zone and a 29-foot bluff setback variance to permit the construction of the proposed
deck.
6609 Horseshoe Curve
January 19, 2021
Page 9
Retaining Walls
The applicant is proposing to rebuild two
retaining walls within the bluff impact zone.
Both of these retaining walls are boulder
walls and the applicant states that the
southern retaining walls is failing with
boulders having come loose and rolling
down the hill during a June 21, 2020 rain
storm. They believe that if the wall is not
replaced, additional wall failures will occur,
causing the slope to suffer additional erosion
and possibly resulting in rocks and sediment
reaching the lake.
The applicant is proposing replacing the southern
retaining wall with a living wall system. The living
wall system will utilizes a type of geogrid replete with
plantings to anchor and support the slope. These
systems utilize both geogrid and root structure of the
plants to help prevent erosion, and the plant roots
have the added benefit of helping to absorb
stormwater. The applicant has stated that this type of
construction will require less material than a
traditional timber or boulder retaining wall. The
applicant is also proposing using fescue on the lakeside slope, as its relatively deep root system
makes it a good low maintenance option for the area.
Staff concurs with the applicant’s
assessment that the existing southern
retaining wall must be replaced, and
believes that the proposed living wall
system is a viable, innovative, and
environmentally responsible way to
shore up that section of the slope. Since
the living wall system requires regrading
that will extend the “retaining wall” area
further into the bluff, it is not considered
a simple replacement of an existing
nonconforming use and requires a
variance; however, staff believes the
proposal represents an improvement
over rebuilding the existing boulder
retaining wall within its current footprint, which could be done without a variance.
6609 Horseshoe Curve
January 19, 2021
Page 10
The applicant is also proposing removing a boulder retaining wall on the west
portion of the property and replacing it with a smaller concrete retaining wall.
The proposed western retaining wall is located almost entirely within the
footprint of the existing boulder retaining wall, and the majority of the existing
retaining wall running along the top of the bluff is being removed. While the
northwestern most corner of the new retaining wall will be located outside of
the existing footprint, it is the area furthest from the top of the bluff. The
applicant is also proposing a drainage system to help manage the stormwater
associated with the retaining wall. Since the existing western retaining wall
could be rebuilt in its current more impactful configuration without a variance
as a continuation of an existing nonconformity, staff believes that it is
appropriate to grant a variance to accommodate the less impactful revised
placement.
For the above reasons, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the
variance to permit the construction of retaining walls within the bluff impact zone.
Water-Oriented Accessory Structure (WOAS)
The property has a nonconforming WOAS
that is a combination of impervious patio and
pervious decking. This structure is
approximately 308 square feet, 58 square feet
larger than the maximum size permitted by
ordinance, and has a nonconforming 3-foot
bluff, 7-foot shoreland, and 5-foot side yard
setback. Additionally, the structure is located
overtop of a sanitary sewer line. The
applicant is proposing replacing this with a
smaller modular shoreline deck.
Since the proposed WOAS is 220 square feet,
entirely pervious, removable, and setback an
additional 2 feet from the toe of the bluff, this
is a clear reduction to the existing
nonconformity and does not require a
variance. Staff is including the structure’s
setbacks in the requested variance for the sole purpose of formally documenting the structure’s
nonconforming status and preventing any future confusion as to the legality of the structure’s
size, placement, and composition.
6609 Horseshoe Curve
January 19, 2021
Page 11
Impact on Neighborhood
Pleasant View is an older neighborhood with
many atypically shaped lots, nonconformities,
and variances. The applicant’s proposal will
result in a smaller nonconforming WOAS, a
stabilized slope, and the creation of an at-
grade deck approximately 92 feet from the
lake’s OHWL. The proposed deck will have
less of a visual impact than the deck and patio
that were present on the property before the
2018 remodel, and both the proposed
retaining wall and WOAS are smaller and
less visually obtrusive than what is currently
present on the property. The applicant has
also worked to create a proposal that is
minimally impactful to the property’s
environmental features. The use of a living
wall system instead of a traditional retaining
wall will help stabilize the bluff and should
prevent further erosion. None of the applicant’s proposed improvements will negatively impact
the neighboring properties or recreational users of Lotus Lake.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments,
approves a 19-foot bluff impact zone and 29-foot bluff setback variance for the construction of a
deck, a bluff impact zone and bluff setback variance for the construction of retaining walls
within the bluff, and a 25-foot bluff, 5-foot side yard, and 3-foot shoreland setback variance for a
water-oriented accessory structure, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the
attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
1. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets
all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or
requirements may be required after plan review.
3. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and
a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
4. The applicant shall install tree protection fencing at the furthest point from the trunk as
possible around all trees within the grading limits.
5. The applicant shall file for an Encroachment Agreement with the city for any
encroachments within public drainage and utility easements.
6. The water-oriented accessory structure shall be constructed of modular, removable
decking for review and approval by the city prior to issuance of a building permit.
7. The improvements must substantially conform to the plans dated December 18, 2020.
6609 Horseshoe Curve
January 19, 2021
Page 12
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval)
2. Variance Document (Approval)
3. Development Review Application
4. Variance Request Narrative
5. Variance Request Justification
6. Plan Set
7. Variance Documents
8. Landscaping and Tree Preservation Memo
9. WRC Memo
10. Engineering Memo
11. Affidavit of Mailing
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-07 6609 horseshoe curve\staff report_6609 horseshoe curve_var.doc
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(APPROVAL)
IN RE:
Application of Brain T. Bruner, Esq. on behalf of Elise R. Bruner, Esq. for a variance to
replace/rebuilt retaining walls, add a walk-out terrace, and reconfigure a lakeside deck/patio on a
property zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2021-07.
On January 19, 2021, 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:
Lots 1, Block 1, Alicia Heights
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: It is the intent of the city’s Zoning Code to protect the city’s environmental
resources by preventing the construction of structures near the top, side, and toe of bluffs as
well as limiting the size and nature of structures near lakes; however, property owners have
the right to repair and replace nonconforming structures. It is also the intent of the
nonconforming use ordinance to encourage property owners with nonconforming structures
to reduce the extent of existing nonconformities and bring their properties closer to
complying with City Code by allowing them to replace an existing nonconforming structure
with a less intensive nonconformity.
In this case, the applicant’s proposal reduces the size and impact of a nonconforming, water-
oriented accessory structure (WOAS), replaces a failing boulder retaining wall with a more
environmentally sensitive living wall, and replaces another boulder retaining wall with a
smaller concrete wall located further from the top of the bluff. While the footprints of the two
walls in places exceed the footprints of the walls they are replacing, they are less impactful
2
than the walls that they are replacing and represent an environmentally responsible solution
for a complicated parcel with numerous nonconformities.
The proposed deck is replacing a deck, patio, and bump out that was removed from the bluff
impact zone in 2018. While the nonconforming use ordinance does stipulate that
nonconformities discontinued for more than a year cannot be replaced, the proposed deck has
been designed to have minimal impact on the bluff and is much less impactful than what was
previously present on the property.
Given that it is the intent of the City Code to allow the owners of nonconforming properties
opportunities to make reasonable improvements their property, granting a variance to permit
thoughtfully designed and environmentally sensitive improvements that remove numerous
nonconforming elements is in line with the intent of the City Code and consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
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 proposal to add a deck to the property is reasonable given the
improvements (deck, patio, and bump out) that were previously present on the property and
the presence of broadly similar rear-facing decks and patios present on neighboring
properties. Additionally, the presence of steep slopes throughout the rear yard means there is
not place where a rear-facing deck could be placed without receiving a variance from the
city’s bluff ordinance.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner.
Finding: The plight of the landowner is due to pre-existing conditions on the property,
including the nonconforming location of the house, retaining walls, and water-oriented
structure. All of these conditions were present on the property, prior to the applicant
purchasing the property and commencing their remodeling and landscaping projects.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: Pleasant View/Alicia Heights is an older neighborhood with many atypically
shaped lots, nonconformities, and variances. The applicant’s proposal will result a smaller
nonconforming WOAS, a stabilized slope, and the creation of an at-grade deck
approximately 92 feet from the lake’s Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). The proposed
deck will have less of a visual impact than the deck and patio that were present on the
property before the 2018 remodel, and both the proposed retaining wall and WOAS are
3
smaller and less visually obtrusive than what is currently present on the property. The
applicant has also worked to create a proposal that is minimally impactful to the property’s
environmental features. The use of a living wall system instead of a traditional retaining wall
will help stabilize the bluff and should prevent further erosion. None of the applicant’s
proposed improvements will negatively impact the neighboring properties or recreational
users of Lotus Lake.
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 #2021-07, dated January 19, 2021, prepared by MacKenzie Young-Walters,
is incorporated herein.
DECISION
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 19-foot bluff impact zone
and 29-foot bluff setback variance for the construction of a deck, a bluff impact zone and bluff
setback variance for the construction of retaining walls within the bluff, and a 25-foot bluff, 5-foot
side yard, and 3-foot shoreland setback variance for a water-oriented structure, subject to the
following conditions of approval:
1. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets all
requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements
may be required after plan review
3. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and a
building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
4. The applicant shall install tree protection fencing at the furthest point from the trunk as
possible around all trees within the grading limits.
5. The applicant shall file for an Encroachment Agreement with the city for any encroachments
within public drainage and utility easements.
6. The water-oriented structure shall be constructed of modular, removable decking for review
and approval by the city prior to issuance of a building permit.
7. The improvements must substantially conform to the plans dated December 18, 2020.”
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 19th day of January, 2021.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Steven Weick, Chairman
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-07 6609 horseshoe curve\findings of fact and decision 6609 horseshoe curve (approval).doc
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 2021-07
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 19-foot bluff impact zone
and 29-foot bluff setback variance for the construction of a deck, a bluff impact zone and
bluff setback variance for the construction of retaining walls within the bluff, and a 25-
foot bluff, 5-foot side yard, and 3-foot shoreland setback variance for a water-oriented
structure.
2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County,
Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Alicia Heights.
3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed building
meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or
requirements may be required after plan review
3. Retaining walls more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer and
a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
4. The applicant shall install tree protection fencing at the furthest point from the trunk as
possible around all trees within the grading limits.
5. The applicant shall file for an Encroachment Agreement with the city for any
encroachments within public drainage and utility easements.
6. The water-oriented structure shall be constructed of modular, removable decking for
review and approval by the city prior to issuance of a building permit.
7. The improvements must substantially conform to the plans dated December 18, 2020.
2
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: January 19, 2021 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
(SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor
AND:
Heather Johnston, Interim City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2021 by Elise Ryan, Mayor, and Heather Johnston, Interim City Manager, of the City of
Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to
authority granted by its City Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-07 6609 horseshoe curve\variance document 21-07.doc
Y//
*crTYotcumuAssrtl
6lrx! e: APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW A ' I
sr.F:*ar Dare.'*-'E!+*ilo- "" *"-j.:9."- ;;;-ggEi-t 6GDav Re,ie* *teg=4-
(Refer to lhe awo$iele Applicdbh chccmst lot E,quiad submital i,:/o,,7r|allm thel mud a&omparly lhis adication)
! Comprehensive Plan Amendment...
E Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers ...
E Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
E SingleFamily Residence..............................
E All Others.........
fl lnterim Use Permit (lUP)
E ln coniunction with Single.Family Residence
E A[ others.........
fl Rezoning lRez;! Planned Unit Development (PUD) ................
E Minor Amendment to existing PUD...............
! A orhers........
E Sign Plan Review...................
D Subdivision (SUB)
E create 3 lots or less
E create over 3 lots ...
D Site Plan Review (SPR)
! Administrative. ....... .. ..'.... $100
D Commerciaulndustrial Districis'...............-...... 5500
Plus $'10 per 1,000 square feet of building area:( thousand square feet)
'lndude number ofglELtq employees:
-
'lndude n8ber of 49q emPloYees:
E Residential Oistricls............................ ............ $500
Plus $5 per dwelling unit ( units)
E Notitication Sign (city to irEtalland remove).........-....... " '
E Property Owners' List within 500' (City to generab anet preapplicstion rEeing)
( lots)
D Metes & Bounds (2 lots)............
E Consolidate Lots..... . ........ .
D LotLineAdiustmen1............ ........
D Final P|at.........
(lncludes S45O escrow for attomey costs)'
;Additonal es6ow may b€ required for other apdicaUons
through ttle develoPment contrad.
! Vacation of Easements,/R€ht-of-way (VAC)
(Additronal recordirE fees may apply)
E Variance (VAR)
! Wetland Alteralion Permit (WAP)
E Single-Family Residence ..... ........ . ....
E Att others........
E Zoning Appeal.
E Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA).........
$3 per address
( ?z addresses)
..................,.... $50 per document
D Site Phn Agreement
n Wetland Atteration Permit
E Deeds
TOTAL FE
!q!Ei Yl,ihen mulupl€ .pplications a,e proco+ted coicu,rendy,
the approp.ids lre shall be ch.rgod for each application.
$600
$100
$325
9425
$325
$425
$750
$100
sso0
$1s0
s300
$200
s150
$275
$100
$500
$200
E] Esffow for Recording Oocuments (check allthat apply) . .. -fl conditional Use Fermit D lnterim Use Permit
Ei vacation fl Variance
I u*es a Bounds subdivision (3 docs.) ! Easements 1- easements)l<r
e (check all that aPPIY)Section 1: Application TYP
Section 2: Required lnformation
Description of P.oposal: Replace / Reconfigure Existing Boulder Retaining Wall variance
6609 Horseshoe Curve, Chanhassen, Minnosota 55317
Parcel #:
Residential250550010Legal Description
Present Land Use Designation
0.64 Wetlands Present?
Single Family Rssidential Districl (RSF)
Select One Requested Land Use Designation Select One
Total Acreage:
Present Zoning
EYes ENo
Requested Zoning Select One
Existing Use of Property:Residential
Echeck box if separate nanative is attached
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
ptannino Division - 7700 Market Boulevard
i,taiting
-Aaoress - p.O. Box 147. Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phonet (952\ 227-1100 I Fax. 1952\ 227-1110
Property Address or Location:
Owner and APP|icant lnformationSection 3: Property
APPUGANToTHERTHANPRoPERTYowNER:lnsigningthisaPplication.|.asapplicant.representtohaveobtained
aurhorization ftom ," p.p"rty o*nriti, or" itriilipil*ti'"n. iagree io be bound bv conditions of approval' subiect only to
the right to object at tne nearings onl appii"ation or ouring th; appeal oeriod. lf ihis application has not been signed by
the property owner. r nare aracneo'se;;i;;;;.;"i;iioriot full ligal ;apacitv to file the application This application
shourd be processed in ,y n"r"
"n-o-iJ,r-it'.
prrtv "t". tt'" city s[ould tontia regarding any matter pertaining to this
aootication. I wi1 keep mysetf int"#J "i
tf'"-6i"-"Oiines for submilsion oimaeriat an-a tne progress of this application' I
furiher understand rt
"t "aoirion"r
r*!lri;;;;E; k;
";nsuhing.fees
feasibility studies' etc with an estimate prior to
any authorization to proceeO w1;r tnliirJi.-Ljiiifi tfr"t rf'L informition and exhibit! submitled are true and correct'
Name
-7. Enr.v1.a-- t Es-
Address:uuDq V th-l
c M N ,f! r-7 Cell:
Fax:
(.lL'L.r'r1 q
City/State/zip t
Email glbran,r PA -l-v-ra.'l. (.../t
Signature:Date:tz-/rsk z-
PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as property owner, have full legal capacity to' and hereby do'
authorize the fiting of tnis appticationl t ['nO""t"nO'tt "i "oi1ditions
of approval are 6inding and.agree to be bound by those
conditions, subject onty to the right i; ;d; ;i th; heirlngs or Ouring.i# appeal penods: I will keep mysetf informed of
the deadtines for suumission ot matJriatlno tt'" p.G"J; thi" appiication. l further understand thal additional fees mav
O. "n"id for *nsutting fees, feasiOir,tyiirii*i"iJ- *irr, an estimlte prior to any authorization to proceed with the
study. icerlify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and conect'
Name EI;v'u Contact:
Address: U o rh,, a Phone:
City/Statezip c ^^ Aal Y<.^lvlN ,t3 r'1 Cell:
Fax:
1S L- 1r7-LL./ j
Email: e rn \ri a-1 h6+Jw!-i ( - Co t,".-.
Date:I z_l tq/t t.
PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable)
Name:
Address:
Contact:
Phone:
City/Statezip:
Email:
Cell
Fax
Who should receive copies of staff reports?'Other Contact lnformation:
Property Owner Via:AppllEnt Via:Engineer Via:Othef Va:
aa Email
Email
Email
Email
E Mailed Paper copy Name Travis Van Liere
atr
Mailed Paper Copy
Maaled Paper Copy
Address 21 1 N 1st St #350
City/Slatefzip:
Email:
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT:Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a coPy to your
device. PRINT FORit and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT F ORM to send a digital
copy to the city for processing.
SAVE FOR PRINT FORiIi SUB ]T FORH
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A
writien notice ot applicaiion deliciencies shall be mailed to the applicanl within 15 business days of application.
nformation
appropriate
redandlansallberequed bymandStpuaccompanlbyicationUmbestThsapp istheckCtheloreferApplicationfithSrovtstonSBeforelingapplicationp
raluleordandnancermdeteneprocedthetoapplicabrtmentspecificn9Depa
applicable City Ordinance
and confer with lhe Plann
requirements and Ees.
tra A Mailed Paper copy
MN 55401
Contact:
Phone:
n^7 Pr--
Signature:
Section4: Notificationlnformation
Za
UZ
fu llin
o 612 345 4275
minneapolis, mn 55401
211 north 1st street suite #350
TRAVIS VAN LIERE STUDIO
tvls
December 18, 2020
City of Chanhassen
Community Development Department
Planning Division
7700 Market Blvd
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: WRITTEN DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUEST
To whom it may concern,
As required by the City of Chanhassen, we are respectfully submitting this written description of
variance requests for the following property:
Bruner Residence
6609 Horseshoe Curve
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Variances Requested
1. Bluff Setback Area Encroachment Variance
2. Replace / Reconfigure Existing Boulder Retaining Wall Variance
Summary of Concern
The existing home on this property was built in 1999 and recently remodeled in 2017 by Christian
Dean Architecture. The landscape was not considered at that time, so the current project is
looking to finalize landscaping on the property while considering client needs while respectfully
meeting existing codes and standards.
This house non-conforming due to encroachment into bluff setback, hence variance for certain
items are needed. Please see the written justification of variance request for further information.
Our design team met with the city planning office several times throughout the process of this
project. Below is a summary of our previous meetings and their outcomes:
1
o 612 345 4275
minneapolis, mn 55401
211 north 1st street suite #350
TRAVIS VAN LIERE STUDIO
tvls
July 16, 2020
• Meeting Contact: MacKenzie Walters
The primary landscape elements discussed at this meeting included:
- Proposed storage water-oriented accessory structure location and requirements
- Proposed walk-out terrace
- Proposed lakeside staircase connecting walk-out terrace to lakeside deck
- Proposed erosion control system to improve and replace failing boulder retaining wall
- Proposed low maintenance grasses to naturalize and cover full property ground cover
- Proposed new driveway access to property entry
November 20, 2020
• Meeting Contact: Erik Henricksen
The primary landscape elements discussed at this meeting included:
- Omitted proposed storage water-oriented accessory structure
- Modified material of proposed walk-out terrace from precast concrete to porous wood
decking material
- Modified material of proposed lakeside staircase from precast concrete to porous
wood decking material
- Simplified grading of proposed lakeside staircase from heavy grading to grading as
needed
- Proposed lakeside deck
- Fits within the footprint of existing concrete patio
- Maintains alignment with the rest of the plan layout
- Porous wood decking
- Proposed erosion control system to replace failing boulder retaining wall (unchanged
from last review)
- Proposed low maintenance grasses to naturalize and cover full property ground cover
(unchanged from last review)
- Proposed new driveway access to property entry (unchanged from last review)
2
o 612 345 4275
minneapolis, mn 55401
211 north 1st street suite #350
TRAVIS VAN LIERE STUDIO
tvls
Conclusion
Our design team and the clients have continued to work with the city and other governing agencies
to develop a plan that maintains the spirit and works in concert with the applicable city codes and
ordinances while providing practical use for the property by the owners.
Thank you in advance for your due consideration of our request for a variance.
Sincerely,
Travis Van Liere, PLA, ASLA
Principal - Travis Van Liere Studio
3
December 4, 2020
City of Chanhassen
Community Development Department
Planning Division
7700 Market Blvd
PO Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
RE: WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION OF HOW VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 6606
HORSESHOE CURVE, CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 COMPLIES WITH THE FINDINGS
FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 20-58
Dear Planning Division,
As required by the City of Chanhassen, we are respectfully submitting this written
justification in support of our variance request currently pending with your office.
Overview and Introduction
My name is Elise Bruner, and my husband, Brian, and our daughter, Sieglinde, reside at
6609 Horseshoe Curve in Chanhassen. I am writing this written justification on behalf of
myself and my family. By way of background, I grew up in Chanhassen on the very
same property that is currently under review by the Planning Division. The name of the
parcel of land, Alicia Heights, is, in fact, named after my mother, Alicia. My childhood
home, now 6611 Horseshoe Curve, was the only home I knew. The property of 6609
was split and sold in 1999 and the new home was built where we are living presently.
As such, I have a very deep connection to this property.
Practical Difficulties
We understand that variances are requested when the strict enforcement of the
ordinance would cause a “practical difficulty” because of circumstances unique to the
property, such as when the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its
size, physical surroundings, shape, or topography. In consideration of all equities and
hardships in this case, we believe that our application warrants favorable discretion,
since everything we hope to do will improve the use of this property and reduce further
degradation of the property.
•Reasonableness
We confirm that as homeowners, we propose to use our property in a reasonable
manner. While we would like to use our property in a particularly reasonable way, we
cannot currently do so under the rules of the applicable ordinance.
At the current time, we do not have reasonable use of our lake property. With a
severely sloped property from the road to the house, and again from the front
side to lake, there are essentially two (2) limited flat areas on the lakeside for
family recreation, including:
(1)lower patio area by the slider door that is accessible from our walk-out home.
(2)flat patio area by shoreline.
The rest of the land is not usable for quiet enjoyment beyond a nature-scape. To this
end, we wish to create livable space for reasonable use as follows:
•Build a lower-level deck patio outside the slider door that is directly
accessible from our walk-out home. There is currently nothing outside our
slider door other than dirt and weeds. Building a deck is a reasonable use and
extension of our home.
•Build a staircase from the lower-level deck patio to the lakeshore. We
currently have no easy access to the lake without concern for falling, tripping, or
losing one’s balance. We have witnessed able-bodied friends slip while trying to
get down to the lake, and anyone with physical limitations would arguably not be
comfortable going down to the lake. Without an appropriate staircase, this will
continue to be a problem. The distance from our lower-level slider door to
the lakeshore is about 117 feet and has a 29.75-foot grade change. This is
just over a 25% slope.
•Build a modular (removable pieces) shoreline deck patio near the
lakeshore. This would comport with necessary setbacks and allow access for
maintenance of the utility line in this area.
•Uniqueness
Our current problem is due to circumstances unique to this property and was not
caused by our actions. As noted by the enclosed photographs and topography, the
physical characteristics of our property present unique challenges due to the sloping
topography and limited accessible space for use.
When we purchased the property in 2016, the home, boulder retaining walls, lakeshore
platform, and lack of staircase were all pre-existing factors. In 2019, we removed a 144
square-foot bump out on the lakeside of the house, as well as a deck that protruded
toward the lake 8 feet as part of an extensive home remodel that was approved by the
City of Chanhassen. Those structures are no longer present. However, without certain
reasonable improvements, the current state of the property is not sustainable for
enjoyable use over the long run.
•Boulders rolling down the hill – On June 21, 2020, boulders that are present in
an already dilapidated retaining fall came loose and rolled down the hill due to
the rains. The boulder retaining wall is no longer safe and has already caused
damage to the pre-existing shoreline platform. There are about 5 large boulders
that have already rolled down the hill. Please see enclosed pictures for proof.
We anticipate that without a new retaining wall, erosion and damage will
continue.
•Run off around the house and down the hill – Without an appropriate
drainage plan, sediment, rocks, etc. will continue to degrade the property and
ultimately go into the lake – which is what we remain concerned about.
Without improvements, the pre-existing susceptibilities of the property will only continue
to grow.
• Essential Character
Provided the variance is granted, the comprehensive plan will not alter the essential
character of our property or locality. The resulting structure of the boat house, as well
as the stairs and deck, will not be out of scale, out of place, or otherwise inconsistent
with the surrounding area. Please see enclosed photographs for similarly situated
staircases and boathouses on Lotus Lake.
The proposed comprehensive plan is more protective of the environment than
what is currently present. Please consider the following:
•Use of permeable deck surfaces will allow water to percolate into the soil to
filter out pollutants and recharge the water table. As noted in the enclosed
comprehensive plan, we intend to use permeable deck material on the lower-level patio,
staircase, and lakeshore deck to ensure that water is properly channeled into the
underlying soil, which will force slow percolation during periods of heavy rainfall.
•Use of Living Walls will again allow water to absorb into the soil and slow
erosion. As noted in the enclosed comprehensive plan, we intend to use a living
wall instead of the pre-existing boulder retaining wall. Living retaining
walls function just as a traditional stone or timber wall, and typically require much
less actual building material to construct. In keeping with the plan, we hope to
reduce storm water runoff and erosion.
•Use of Fescue “Low Grow No Mow” Application of fescue on the lakeside
slope is currently present, as we have already had great success with the
product, but we will continue the seeding of the entire lakeside area accordingly.
The use of this product is environmentally friendly due to the relatively deep root
systems (4-9”), which enhance drought-resistance by reducing water loss and
reaching deeper water reserves. Due to the nature of the fescue, once planted, it
requires only minimal water and no chemical fertilizers or pesticides for proper
maintenance.
•Preservation of Tree Canopy The comprehensive plan seeks to preserve the
pre-existing tree canopy on the property. We do not wish to disrupt the beauty of
the mature trees that we have.
CONCLUSION
Thank you in advance for your due consideration of our request for a variance.
Sincerely,
Elise Bruner and Brian Bruner
BRUNER RESIDENCE
VARIANCE APPLICATION DRAWINGS
DECEMBER 18. 2020
L000
PROJECT INFORMATION
N/A
SKeet #TitOe IssXeG
PRELIMINARY
PRICING SET PERMIT BID SET CD SET LANDSCAPE
REVISIONS
L000 PROJECT INFORMATION Ɣ
L001 GENERAL NOTES Ɣ
L009 EXISTING INCOMING SURVEY Ɣ
L010 EXISTING CONDITIONS REMOVALS PLAN Ɣ
L011 OVERLAY DIAGRAM Ɣ
L101 SITE PLAN Ɣ
L102 SURFACING AND WALLS PLAN
L103 SITE FURNISHINGS AND LIGHTING PLAN
L201 GRADING PLAN Ɣ
L401 LANDSCAPE PLAN Ɣ
L501 WALL ELEVATIONS Ɣ
L601 WALL, DOCK, DECK DETAILS Ɣ
L602 PAVING DETAILS Ɣ
L603 LIGHTING AND DRAINAGE DETAILS Ɣ
L607 PLANTING DETAILS Ɣ
L608 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS Ɣ
L700 SCHEDULES AND SPECIFICATIONS
SHEET INDEX
LOCATION MAP
SITE ADDRESS:
6609 HORSESHOE CURVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
LOT SIZE:
SEE EXISTING SURVEY INFORMATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
SEE EXISTING SURVEY INFORMATION
ZONING:
SEE EXISTING SURVEY INFORMATION
BUILDING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
SEE EXISTING SURVEY INFORMATION AND
VARIANCE APPLICATION FOR PROJECT
JURISDICTION:
CITY OF CHANHASSEN, MN
OWNER:
BRIAN AND ELISE BRUNER
6609 HORSESHOE CURVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
GENERAL CONTRACTOR:
SURVEY INFO PROVIDED BY:
EGAN, FIELD & NOWAK, INC.
1229 TYLER STREET NE #100
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55413
T 612 466 3300
PROJECT INFO:
PROJECT SITE
7
5
A
ABV ABOVE
AD AREA DRAIN
ADA AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
ADJ ADJACENT
AGG AGGREGATE
ALGN ALIGNMENT
ALUM ALUMINUM
ANOD ANODIZED
APPROX APPROXIMATE
ARCH ARCHITECT, ARCHITECTURE
AVG AVERAGE
B
BB BALLED AND BURLAPPED
BC BACK OF CURB
BFFE BASEMENT FINISHED FLOOR
ELEVATION
BLDG BUILDING
BOC BOTTOM OF CURB
BOP BOTTOM OF POOL
BOR BOTTOM OF RAMP
BOS BOTTOM OF STAIR
BOT BOTTOM
BOW BOTTOM OF WALL
BTWN BETWEEN
C
CAL CALIPER
CAP CAPACITY
CB CATCH BASIN
CHAM CHAMFER
CIP CAST IN PLACE
CIVIL CIVIL ENGINEER
CJ CONTROL JOINT
CL CENTER LINE
CLR CLEAR, CLEARANCE
CM CENTIMETER
CMU CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT
CO CLEAN OUT
COL COLUMN
COMP COMPOSITE, COMPACTED
CONC CONCRETE
COND CONDITION
CONIF CONIFEROUS
CONST CONSTRUCTION
CONT CONTINUOUS
CNTR CENTER
CF CUBIC FEET
CU CUBIC
CY CUBIC YARDS
D
(D)DEEP, DEPTH
DBL DOUBLE
DECID DECIDUOUS
DEMO DEMOLISH, DEMOLITION
DET DETAIL
DIA DIAMETER
DIM/S DIMENSION/S
DN DOWN
DR DRAIN
DWG/S DRAWING/S
E
E EAST
EA EACH
EJ EXPANSION JOINT
EL ELEVATION
ELEC ELECTRICAL
EQ EQUAL
EQUIP EQUIPMENT
EST ESTIMATE
ETR EXISTING TO REMAIN
E.W.EACH WAY
EXP EXPOSED
EXT EXTERIOR
EXTG EXISTING
F
FDN FOUNDATION
F.F.FILTER FABRIC
FFE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION
FG FINISHED GRADE
FIN FINISH
FL FLOOR
FOB FACE OF BRICK
FOC FACE OF CONCRETE
FOW FACE OF WALL
FT FEET, FOOT
FTG FOOTING
FURN FURNISHING
FUT FUTURE
G
GA GAUGE
GALV GALVANIZED
GC GENERAL CONTRACTOR
GEN GENERAL, GENERATOR
GEO GEO-TECHNICAL
GL GLASS, GLAZING
H
(H)HIGH/HEIGHT
HB HOSE BIB
HC HANDICAP
HDCP HANDICAP, HANDICAPPED
HDWD HARDWOOD
HDWR HARDWARE
HORIZ HORIZONTAL
H.P.HIGH POINT
HR HANDRAIL
HT HEIGHT
I
I.D.INSIDE DIAMETER, INSIDE DIMENSION
I.E.INVERT ELEVATION
IN INCH, INCHES
INCL INCLUDED
INSUL INSULATION
INT INTERIOR
INV INVERT ELEVATION
J
JST JOIST
JT JOINT
K
K.O.KNOCK OUT
L
(L)LENGTH
L.A.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
LB POUND
L.F.LINEAR FOOT
LOCN LOCATION
LOD LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
L.P.LOW POINT
LT LIGHT
M
MAINT MAINTAIN, MAINTENANCE
MAS MASONRY
MAT MATERIAL
MAX MAXIMUM
MECH MECHANICAL
MEMB MEMBRANE
MFR MANUFACTURER
MH MANHOLE
MIN MINIMUM
MISC MISCELLANEOUS
MTL METAL
N
N NORTH
N/A NOT APPLICABLE
N.F.C.NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION
N.I.C.NOT IN CONTRACT
No.NUMBER
NOM NOMINAL
NTS NOT TO SCALE
O
OA OVERALL
O.C.ON CENTER
O.D.OUTSIDE DIAMETER, OUTSIDE DIMENSION
OFD OVERFLOW DRAIN
OH OVERHEAD
OHW ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
OPNG OPENING
OPP OPPOSITE
ORNM ORNAMENTAL
P
PA PLANTED AREA
PAR PARALLEL
PC POINT OF CURVATURE, PRECAST
PERF PERFORATED
PERP PERPENDICULAR
PL PLATE, PROPERTY LINE
PLYWD PLYWOOD
PNT PAINT
POB POINT OF BEGINNING
POI POINT OF INTERSECTION
POT POINT OF TANGENCY
PSF POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT
PSI POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH
PT POINT, PRESSURE TREATED
PU POLYURETHANE
PVC POLYVINYL CHLORIDE
PVMT PAVEMENT
PVR PAVER
Q
QTR QUARTER
QTY QUANTITY
R
R RISER, RELOCATE
(R)RISER HEIGHT
RAD RADIUS
RD ROOF DRAIN
REBAR REINFORCING BAR
RECEPT RECEPTACLE
RECT RECTANGULAR
REF REFERENCE
REINF REINFORCED, REINFORCEMENT
REM REMOVE
REQD REQUIRED
RET RETAINING, RETURN
REV REVISION
RO ROUGH OPENING
ROW RIGHT OF WAY
RP RADIUS POINT
RT RIGHT
S
S SOUTH
SCHED SCHEDULE
SECT SECTION
SD STORM DRAIN
S.F.SQUARE FEET
SHT SHEET
SIM SIMILAR
SLR SEALER
SPEC SPECIFICATION
SPP SPECIES
SQ SQUARE
SS SANITARY SEWER
SST STAINLESS STEEL
ST STORM SEWER
STA STATION
STD STANDARD
STL STEEL
STRUCT STRUCTURE, STRUCTURAL
SURF SURFACE, SURFACING
S.Y.SQUARE YARD
SYM SYMMETRICAL
T
(T)THICK
T&B TOP AND BOTTOM
TBC TOP OF BACK OF CURB
TBD TO BE DETERMINED
THR THRESHOLD
TOC TOP OF CURB, TOP OF CONCRETE
TOD TOP OF DECK
TOF TOP OF FOOTING
TOP TOP OF PAVING
TOPO TOPOGRAPHY
TOR TOP OF RAMP
TOS TOP OF STAIR
TOW TOP OF WALL
TRANS ELECTRICAL TRANSFORMER
TSL TOP OF SLAB
TVLS TRAVIS VAN LIERE STUDIO
TYP TYPICAL
U
UTIL UTILITY
V
VAR VARIABLE, VARIES
VEH VEHICLE
VIF VERIFY IN FIELD
VERT VERTICAL
VOL VOLUME
W
W WEST
(W)WIDE, WIDTH
W/WITH
W/O WITHOUT
WD WOOD
WL WATER LEVEL
WP WATERPROOF, WORK POINT
WS WATER SUPPLY
WT WEIGHT
WTR WATER
WWF WELDED WIRE FABRIC
WWM WELDED WIRE MESH
Y
YD YARD
SYMBOLS
&AND
∠ANGLE
⌒ARC LENGTH
@ AT
℄CENTER LINE
Ø DIAMETER
°DEGREE
#NUMBER, POUND
/PER
±PLUS/MINUS
⅊PROPERTY LINE
℄SF
X X X X
LOD
OHW
SS
ST
LANDSCAPE LINE LEGENDLANDSCAPE SYMBOL LEGENDLANDSCAPE ABBREVIATIONS
EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION000.00
PROPOSED
SPOT ELEVATION
DET
SHT
DET
SHT
TRAFFIC
FLOW
X
EXISTING TREES
TO BE REMOVED
EXISTING TREES TO BE
SAVED AND PROTECTED
NEW DECIDUOUS TREE
NEW CONIFEROUS TREE
NEW SHRUB
NEW PERENNIAL/ANNUAL
CB RD AD
AIR CONDITIONER UNIT
CATCH BASIN, ROOF
DRAIN, OR AREA DRAIN
GAS METER
WATER METER
S
P.E.
GEN.GENERATOR
HOSE BIB
EXTERIOR
ELECTRICAL OUTLET
EXTERIOR LIGHT SWITCH
AC
HB
WTR
GAS
LIGHT FIXTURES
TRASH CONTAINER
PLANTER POT
SWING GATE
SHT
SHT
PUP-UP EMITTER
-XP
-XW
-XE
-XS
-XL
-XR
-XF
X
XXX
XXX.XX
LOCN
POT
CONTOUR ELEVATION
DATUM ELEVATION
TRAFFIC FLOW ARROW
KEY NOTE
SHEET NOTE
EDGING TYPE
FENCING TYPE
LIGHTING TYPE
PAVING TYPE
REMOVAL
SITE ELEMENT
WALL TYPE
GROUNDCOVER TYPE
PLANTING REFERENCE
ALGN
POB
000.00
TOW
X
POINT OF BEGINNING
POINT OF ENTRY
AT BUILDING
1
REVISION CLOUD
REVISION NUMBER
PARALLEL
ALIGNMENT
QTY
SPP
ELEVATION CALLOUT
DETAIL CALLOUT
SECTION CALLOUT
MATCH LINE / CONTROL LINE
STRUCTURAL GRID LINE
AREA OF ENLARGEMENT
SYMMETRY
SPRINKLER HEADS
BREAK LINE
PAVING HATCH LEGEND
G
X
X
DET
SHT
PLANT HATCH LEGEND
SECTION/DETAIL HATCH LEGEND
XXX
PROPERTY LINE
RIGHT-OF-WAY
EASEMENT
SETBACK
CENTER LINE
SILT FENCE
TREE PROTECTION FENCE
LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE
ORDINARY HIGH WATER
MARK
DRAIN TILE
SANITARY SEWER
STORM SEWER
EXISTING CONTOURS
PROPOSED CONTOURS
XX
X
90°180°270°360°
SLOPE-AT-SURFACE/
DRAINAGE FLOW ARROW
X.XX
STAIRDN
UP
ASPHALT SURFACING
UNIT PAVER (RUNNING BOND)
UNIT PAVER (HERRINGBONE)
DRY-SET UNIT PAVER
FLAGSTONE PAVING
AGGREGATE SURFACING
PAVING/SITE ELEMENT
TO BE REMOVED
GRASSPAVE POUROUS PAVER
RIPRAP
TURFSTONE PAVERS
MORTAR-SET UNIT PAVER
CONCRETE
ASPHALT
STONE, TYPE 1
STONE, TYPE 2
MORTAR
GRANULAR FILL
COMPACTED AGGREGATE
METAL
WOOD
DIMENSIONAL
LUMBER (SECTION)
PLANTING SOIL
EARTH (DISTURBED)
EARTH (COMPACTED
OR UNDISTURBED)
GRASSPAVE POROUS
GRASS PAVER
TURFSTONE
STONE, TYPE 3
NETLON ADVANCED
TURF SYSTEM
TURF
PLANTING AREA
GROUNDCOVER TYPE 1
GROUNDCOVER TYPE 2
GROUNDCOVER TYPE 3
CONCRETE SURFACING
SAND SURFACING
SAND
SEEDING TYPE 2
SEEDING TYPE 1
FESCUE
creation Gate:11/19/2020fiOepatK:/Users/EretZieseOer/DropEo[ (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/5. VARIANCE/L000.GZJOast saveG:EretZieseOer DecePEer 16, 2020 5:11 PMTKe GesiJns sKoZn anG GescriEeG Kerein incOXGinJ aOO tecKnicaO GraZinJs,
JrapKics anG specifications tKereof, are proprietar\ anG cannot Ee copieG,
GXpOicateG or coPPerciaOO\ e[pOoiteG, in ZKoOe or in part, ZitKoXt tKe e[press
Zritten perPission of Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. TKese are avaiOaEOe for
OiPiteG revieZ anG evaOXation E\ cOients, consXOtants, contractors,
JovernePent aJencies, anG venGors onO\ in accorGance ZitK tKis notice.
Cop\riJKt 2020Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. AOO riJKts reserveG.
Oicense no:
I KereE\ certif\ tKat tKis pOan, specification, or report Zas prepareG E\ Pe or
XnGer P\ Girect sXpervision anG tKat I aP a GXO\ LicenseG LanGscape
ArcKitect XnGer tKe OaZs of tKe State of Minnesota.
43728
T R A V I S V A N L I E R E
Gate:1/23/2018
6 6 0 9 H O R S E S H O E C U R V E
C H A N H A S S E N , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 3 1 7
B R U N E R R E S I D E N C E
DraZn B\:
Date:
ScaOe:
DraZinJ:
SKeet:
12/18/2020
DJ
Rev #Description Date
VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
t 612 345 4275
L001
GENERAL NOTES
N/A
GENERAL NOTES
1.USE OF THE WORD 'CONTRACTOR' IN THE
DRAWINGS INDICATES BOTH THE GENERAL
CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUBCONTRACTORS
ON THE PROJECT.
2.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE ALL
MATERIALS AND LABOR TO COMPLETE THE
SCOPE OF WORK AS INDICATED IN THE
DOCUMENTS.
3.ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUB-CONTRACTORS
ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR COORDINATING
THEIR WORK WITH THE WORK OF OTHERS.
NEITHER THE OWNER NOR THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
COORDINATION OF THE WORK. NO
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION WILL BE MADE
TO ANY CONTRACTOR FOR EXTRA WORK
RESULTING FROM FAILURES OF
COORDINATION.
4.THE CONTRACTOR MUST ASSURE
COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES,
REGULATIONS, AND PERMITS AND
INSPECTIONS GOVERNING THE WORK OR
MATERIALS SUPPLIED.
5.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
APPLYING FOR, OBTAINING, AND PAYING FOR
ALL NECESSARY PERMITS, APPROVALS AND
INSPECTIONS, UNLESS OTHERWISE
INDICATED IN THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS.
6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL HAVE A COPY OF
ALL DRAWINGS WITH THEM ON SITE AT ALL
TIMES AND SHALL RECORD ALL
MODIFICATIONS/CHANGES TO THE WORK ON
THE DRAWINGS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
PROVIDE A COMPLETE AS-BUILT SET OF
DRAWINGS TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
AT PROJECT COMPLETION.
7.EXCEPT FOR ITEMS SPECIFICALLY MARKED
AS 'BY OTHERS' OR 'NOT IN CONTRACT', IT IS
THE INTENT OF THESE DRAWINGS TO
DESCRIBE A COMPLETE PROJECT. THE
CONTRACTOR MUST THOROUGHLY REVIEW
THE DRAWINGS PRIOR TO SUBMITTING A BID
AND IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT OF ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS
DISCOVERED. NO ADDITIONAL
COMPENSATION WILL BE MADE FOR ITEMS OF
WORK NOT SHOWN OR DESCRIBED ON THE
DRAWINGS THAT COULD BE REASONABLY
INFERRED FROM THE DRAWINGS IN
PROVIDING THE OWNER WITH COMPLETE
SYSTEMS AND A COMPLETE PROJECT.
8.EXISTING CONDITIONS SHOWN ON THE
DRAWINGS ARE FROM A SURVEY PERFORMED
BY OTHERS. EXISTING TOPOGRAPHIC
FEATURES MAY NOT BE EXACT AS TO THEIR
LOCATION, CHARACTER, OR NUMBER. THE
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
VERIFYING THE CONDITIONS OF THE SITE
PRIOR TO BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION AND
FOR IMMEDIATELY NOTIFYING THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY
DISCREPANCIES OR VARIATIONS FROM THE
DRAWINGS.
9.THE CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN AND
PROTECT ALL BENCH MARKS, SURVEY
MONUMENTS, PROPERTY IRONS, LAYOUT
STAKES AND OTHER REFERENCE POINTS. ALL
FINES AND REPLACEMENT COSTS FOR
DAMAGE TO ANY OF THESE ITEMS THAT IS
DUE TO THE CONTRACTOR'S ACTS OR
NEGLIGENCE ARE THE CONTRACTOR'S
RESPONSIBILITY AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.
10.THE CONTRACTOR SHOULD EXPECT TO FIND
TELEPHONE, ELECTRIC, GAS, CABLE
TELEVISION, AND FIBER OPTIC LINES,
IRRIGATION SYSTEMS, AND OTHER PUBLIC
AND PRIVATE UTILITIES. THE CONTRACTOR, IN
COOPERATION WITH THE APPROPRIATE
UTILITY COMPANY, IS RESPONSIBLE TO
VERIFY THE LOCATION, SIZE, AND DEPTH OF
ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION
ACTIVITY. AT LEAST 48 HOURS PRIOR TO ANY
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY, THE CONTRACTOR
MUST CONTACT GOPHER STATE ONE CALL AT
800 252 1166 OR TO NOTIFY THE
APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES AND
VERIFY THE EXACT LOCATION, SIZE, AND
DEPTH OF ALL UTILITIES WITH THE
APPROPRIATE UTILITY COMPANIES.
11.ANY RELOCATION OF PUBLIC UTILITIES SHALL
BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ANY
AND ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE UTILITY
COMPANY, INCLUDING FEES, BONDS, PERMITS
REQUIRED FOR SUCH WORK.
12.PRIOR TO ANY WORK WITHIN THE PUBLIC
RIGHT OF WAY, THE CONTRACTOR MUST
OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY PERMITS AND
SUBMIT A TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
COMPLYING WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF
THE MNDOT ROADWAY REQUIREMENTS.
13.DO NOT PROCEED WITH ANY PORTION OF
WORK AS INDICATED IN THE DOCUMENTS IF
OBSTRUCTIONS, DISCREPANCIES OR
UNKNOWN CONDITIONS ARE ENCOUNTERED.
NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY
ON HOW BEST TO PROCEED.
14.CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN A
SAFE AND SECURE SITE THROUGHOUT THE
PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH NATIONAL,
STATE, AND LOCAL SAFETY ORDINANCES.
15.UPON SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION OF
PROJECT THE CONTRACTOR SHALL REQUEST
IN WRITING, A FINAL ACCEPTANCE
INSPECTION WITH THE OWNER AND
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
CODES
1.ALL WORK SHALL CONFORM TO THE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOCAL CODES AND
ALL OTHER GOVERNING AUTHORITIES HAVING
JURISDICTION.
2.APPLICABLE CODES: THIS PROJECT IS TO
COMPLY WITH THE CITY OF CHANHASSEN
MUNICIPAL CODE AND SUB-CODE
REQUIREMENTS AND STATE OF MINNESOTA
CODE REQUIREMENTS.
3.VERIFY IF THIS PROJECT WILL REQUIRE
SPECIAL REVIEW AND APPROVALS FROM THE
RILEY PURGATORY BLUFF CREEK
WATERSHED DISTRICT.
SUBMITTALS / SHOP DRAWINGS / SITE MOCK-UPS
1.CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE SHOP
DRAWINGS AND FIELD MOCKUPS TO THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR FINAL REVIEW
AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION
FOR THE FOLLOWING ITEMS: PAVING, WALLS,
FENCES, SPECIAL METAL FABRICATIONS &
CONNECTIONS, SPECIAL FINISHES,
SPECIALTY DETAILS, AND LIGHTING.
2.MOCK-UPS WILL ESTABLISH EXPECTATIONS
FOR QUALITY NAD WORKMANSHIP.
3.MOCK-UPS WILL BE SET UP IN A SECURED
PORTION OF THE SITE FOR REFERENCE
THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION AND REMAIN
UNTIL PROJECT SITE CONSTRUCTION
COMPLETION.
4.CONTRACTOR SHALL REVIEW, STAMP, SIGN
AND DATE ALL SUBMITTALS PRIOR TO
FORWARDING TO ARCHITECT/ENGINEER. THE
ENGINEER¶S REVIEW IS FOR CONFORMANCE
WITH THE DESIGN CONCEPT AND GENERAL
COMPLIANCE WITH THE RELEVANT CONTRACT
DOCUMENTS. THE ARCHITECTS REVIEW DOES
NOT RELIEVE THE CONTRACTOR OF THE SOLE
RESPONSIBILITY TO REVIEW, CHECK AND
COORDINATE THE SUBMITTALS THE
CONTRACTOR REMAINS SOLELY
RESPONSIBLE FOR ERRORS AND OMISSIONS
IN THE SUBMITTALS.
5.ALL CONTRACTORS SHALL SUBMIT SHOP
DRAWINGS AS REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL
PRIOR TO COMMENCING WITH ANY WORK.
6.SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE IN THE FORM OF
BLACK-LINE PRINTS OR PORTABLE
DOCUMENT FORMAT (PDF) FOR REVIEW.
EXISTING CONDITIONS / REMOVALS NOTES
1.VERIFY AND STAKE ALL PROPERTY LINES AND
STRUCTURE LOCATIONS PRIOR TO
COMMENCING WITH CONSTRUCTION.
MAINTAIN PROPERTY LINE STAKES, CONTROL
POINTS, BENCH MARKS, AND OFFSET STAKES
THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION. ANY LOST
SURVEY MARKERS TO BE REPLACED BY THE
CONTRACTOR AT THE CONTRACTORS
EXPENSE.
2.THE LIMITS OF WORK INDICATED ON
DRAWINGS, ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND
ARE INTENDED TO DEFINE THE GENERAL
VICINITY IN WHICH THE SCOPE OF WORK
EXISTS. ACTUAL LIMITS OF WORK SHALL
INCLUDE AREAS NECESSARY TO COMPLETE
THE SCOPE OF DESIGN INTENT.
3.THE CONTRACTOR MUST REVIEW THE LIMITS
OF WORK WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO STARTING WORK. ANY WORK
OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF WORK AS SHOWN ON
THE DRAWINGS OR AS MODIFIED IN THE FIELD
BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT WILL BE
DONE AT CONTRACTORS EXPENSE UNLESS
THE CONTRACTOR NOTIFIES THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT OF THE NEED FOR THE WORK IN
WRITING AND IS DIRECTED TO PERFORM THE
WORK BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OR OWNER
BEFORE PERFORMING THE WORK.
RESTORATION OR REPLACEMENT OF ANY
PAVEMENTS, CURB, GUTTER, PLANT
MATERIALS, TURF, UTILITIES, OR OTHER SITE
ELEMENTS OUTSIDE THE LIMITS OF WORK
THAT ARE DAMAGED DUE TO THE
CONTRACTOR'S ACTS OR NEGLIGENCE WILL
BE AT THE CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE. THE
EXTENT AND ACCEPTABILITY OF THE
REPLACEMENT WILL BE DETERMINED BY THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
4.A TREE PERMIT MAY BE REQUIRED FOR
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. THE CONTRACTOR
MUST SIGN ALL PERMITS AND PAY THE
PERMIT FEE BEFORE STARTING WORK AND
MUST COMPLY WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS
OF ALL GOVERNING AGENCIES IN
PERFORMING THE WORK OF THIS PROJECT.
5.THE CONTRACTOR MUST MEET AND
IMPLEMENT ALL NPDES, SWPPP, AND
EROSION CONTROL REQUIREMENTS IN
EFFECT AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION
6.ALL TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL
MEASURES MUST BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO ANY
REMOVAL WORK AND MUST BE MAINTAINED
UNTIL PERMANENT EROSION CONTROL
MEASURES HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY
IMPLEMENTED AND ESTABLISHED.
7.INSTALL SILT FENCING AROUND THE
PERIMETER OF THE LIMITS OF WORK AND
MAINTAIN UNTIL PERMANENT EROSION
CONTROL IS ESTABLISHED. ALL SILT FENCE
MUST HAVE GEO-TEXTILE FABRIC WITH STEEL
POSTS. MACHINE SLICING OF SILT FENCE
AROUND OR UNDER TREES WILL NOT BE
PERMITTED. SILT FENCE AROUND OR UNDER
TREES MUST BE HAND PLACED AND
FASTENED TO THE GROUND WITH STAPLES.
8.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
REVIEWING THE EROSION CONTROL
REQUIREMENTS OF THE SITE AND FOR
INSTALLING AND MAINTAINING EROSION
CONTROL MEASURES WHERE NEEDED, EVEN
IF THEY ARE NOT INDICATED ON THE
DRAWINGS.
9.INLET PROTECTION (SILT FENCE BARRICADES,
SILT SACKS, RISER PIPES, OR FILTER FABRIC
AND GRAVEL) MUST BE INSTALLED IN ALL
EXISTING AFFECTED CATCH BASINS PRIOR TO
ANY REMOVAL WORK AND IN ALL NEW CATCH
BASINS IMMEDIATELY AFTER CATCH BASIN
INSTALLATION.
10.ADJACENT STREETS, ALLEYS, AND
PROPERTIES MUST BE SWEPT TO KEEP THEM
FREE OF SEDIMENT AND MATERIALS
TRACKED, BLOWN, OR WASHED FROM THE
SITE. CONTRACTOR MUST MONITOR
CONDITIONS AND SWEEP AS NEEDED OR
WITHIN 24 HOURS NOTICE BY THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT. SWEEPING IS INCIDENTAL TO THE
PROJECT.
11.CONTRACTOR MUST MAINTAIN DUST
CONTROL FOR THE SITE AT ALL TIMES AND
PROVIDE WATERING TRUCKS AS NEEDED OR
WITHIN 24 HOURS NOTICE BY THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT. DUST CONTROL IS INCIDENTAL
TO THE PROJECT.
12.WHERE DISTURBED SOILS WILL LAY EXPOSED
FOR MORE THAN 21 DAYS, THE CONTRACTOR
MUST SEED WITH A TEMPORARY COVER
CROP TO PREVENT EROSION. TEMPORARY
SEED MIX MUST BE APPROVED BY THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. TEMPORARY
SEEDING IS INCIDENTAL TO THE PROJECT.
13.THE CONTRACTOR IS SOLELY RESPONSIBLE
FOR SECURING THE SITE AND PROVIDING
PROTECTION FROM THE WORK FOR THE
PUBLIC. ALL OPEN EXCAVATIONS AND OTHER
HAZARDS MUST BE FENCED.
14.THE RELOCATION AND/OR PROTECTION OF
ALL EXISTING UTILITIES MUST BE
COORDINATED BY THE CONTRACTOR AND
ANY COSTS FOR SUCH WORK IS THE
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR. NO
ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION WILL BE
ALLOWED FOR EXTRA TIME AND EFFORT OR
PROVISIONS NECESSARY TO WORK AROUND
ANY UTILITIES.
15.IT IS THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY TO
REPORT ANY EXISTING DAMAGE OR FAULTY
CONDITION OF ANY UTILITIES TO THE UTILITY
OWNER AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR
TO CONSTRUCTION AS, ONCE WORK HAS
COMMENCED, IT WILL BE ASSUMED THAT ALL
DAMAGE TO UNDERGROUND OR ABOVE
GROUND INSTALLATIONS HAS BEEN CAUSED
BY THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS AND IT
WILL BE THE CONTRACTOR'S RESPONSIBILITY
TO MAKE THE NECESSARY REPAIRS. UPON
COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT, CONTACT ALL
UTILITY OWNERS AND MAKE ARRANGEMENTS
FOR A FIELD INSPECTION TRIP BY A
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE CONTRACTOR AND
REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UTILITY OWNERS
TO CONFIRM THAT ALL DAMAGE CAUSED BY
THE CONTRACTOR'S OPERATIONS HAVE BEEN
REPAIRED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE
OWNERS
16.THE CONTRACTOR MUST PROTECT ALL
EXISTING ROADS, CURB, STRUCTURES,
TREES, AND SITE ELEMENTS NOT
DESIGNATED FOR REMOVAL. ANY DAMAGE
SHALL BE REPAIRED OR REPLACED AT
CONTRACTOR'S EXPENSE TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT.
17.ITEMS SHALL REMAIN UNTIL DESIGNATED FOR
REMOVAL. REMOVE DESIGNATION ITEMS
SHOWN ON THE PLAN TO THE FULL DEPTH OF
THEIR CONSTRUCTION UNLESS OTHERWISE
NOTED.
18.VERIFY THE LOCATION AND DIMENSION OF
ITEMS TO BE REMOVED PRIOR TO
COMMENCEMENT OF WORK.
19.ALL CONCRETE AND ASPHALT REMOVAL
SHALL BE SAW CUT. EDGES OF MATERIALS
TO REMAIN SHALL BE SHORED UP AND
PROTECTED DURING CONSTRUCTION TO
PRESERVE EDGE INTACT. REPAIRS TO
DAMAGED EDGES TO BE DONE WITH CARE
AND AT NO COST TO THE OWNER.
20.ITEMS ENCOUNTERED BELOW GRADE AND
NOT SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS SHALL BE
BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
21.SALVAGE EXISTING MATERIALS AS INDICATED
ON THE PLANS. REMOVE SALVAGED
MATERIALS AS INDICATED WITH CARE AND
STORE ON SITE IF APPLICABLE, CLEAN ALL
DEBRIS AND CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL FROM
SALVAGED ITEMS AND REUSE AS DIRECTED
BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
22.REMOVE DEMOLISHED MATERIALS FROM SITE.
DISPOSAL BY BURNING AND/OR BURYING IS
PROHIBITED. ALL UNSUITABLE MATERIAL AND
DEBRIS MUST BE DISPOSED OF IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
ANY AND ALL GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITIES
HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THIS PROJECT.
23.RELOCATE / TRANSPLANT EXISTING PLANT
MATERIAL AS INDICATED IN THE DRAWINGS
AS DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT. MAINTAIN TRANSPLANTED PLANT
MATERIAL THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION.
24.EXCAVATIONS SHALL BE ADEQUATELY
SHORED, BRACED AND SHEETED SO THAT
EARTH WILL NOT SETTLE AND SO THAT
EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS OF ANY KIND WILL
BE FULLY PROTECTED FROM DAMAGE. ANY
DAMAGE RESULTING FROM LACK OF
SHORING, BRACING AND SHEETING SHALL BE
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR
AND SHALL BE REPAIRED TO THE
SATISFACTION OF THE OWNER.
TREE PRESERVATION
1.PROTECT ALL TREES DESIGNATED TO BE
SAVED AND ALL HARDWOOD TREES 6 INCHES
OR GREATER IN DIAMETER THAT ARE NOT
SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED FOR REMOVAL.
2.PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION, CONTACT
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO VISIT SITE AND
VERIFY TREES TO BE SAVED. CONTRACTOR
MUST REVIEW THE DRAWINGS AND DAILY
WORK SCHEDULE SO THAT, SHOULD
PROPOSED GRADES POSE A HAZARD TO A
'TREE TO BE SAVED', THE CONTRACTOR'S
WORK IS NOT IMPEDED AND THERE WILL BE
TIME TO STUDY THE ISSUE.
3.WHERE EXISTING TREES AND/OR SIGNIFICANT
SHRUB MASSINGS ARE FOUND ON SITE,
WHETHER SHOWN ON THE EXISTING
CONDITIONS PLAN OR NOT, THEY SHALL BE
PROTECTED AND SAVED UNLESS NOTED
OTHERWISE OR UNLESS DIRECTED BY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO BE REMOVED
AND/OR ARE IN AN AREA TO BE GRADED. ANY
QUESTION REGARDING WHETHER PLANT
MATERIAL SHOULD REMAIN OR NOT SHALL BE
BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO REMOVAL.
4.ALL TREES TO BE PRESERVED AS INDICATION
ON LANDSCAPE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND
REMOVALS PLAN SHALL BE PROTECTED BY 6¶
HEIGHT CHAIN LINK FENCING. THE FENCE
SHALL BE LOCATED AT A MINIMUM AROUND
THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE FOR ALL TREES
(SEE TREE PROTECTION FENCING DETAILS).
THE FENCE SHALL BE FIRMLY ANCHORED
INTO THE GROUND AND SHALL REMAIN
UPRIGHT AND INTACT UNTIL ALL
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS COMPLETE.
BARRIER FENCES MAY BE USED TO PROTECT
TREES OUTSIDE OF THE MAIN CONSTRUCTION
AREAS. BARRIER FENCES SHALL CONSIST OF
SAFETY-CAPPED REBAR POSTS PLACED NO
MORE THAN 8 FEET ON CENTER WITH 4 FOOT
HIGH ORANGE SQUARE MESH BARRIER
FENCING, RESINET SLM40, OR EQUAL,
ATTACHED TO POSTS. BARRIER FENCE MUST
BE INSTALLED AT THE LIMITS OF THE
DRIP-LINE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND
MUST NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL FINAL
LANDSCAPING IS TO BE COMPLETED.
5.CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES OR STORAGE
SHALL NOT OCCUR WITHIN THE TREE
PROTECTED AREAS. THE CONTRACTOR
SHALL STAKE OR MARK OUT ALL TREE
PROTECTION FENCING LOCATIONS ON SITE
FOR APPROVAL BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
PRIOR TO COMMENCING WITH
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES ON SITE.
6.THE CONTRACTOR IS REQUIRED TO WATER,
FERTILIZE AND ATTEND TO OTHER
MAINTENANCE NEEDS OF THE EXISTING
TREES AS NEEDED PER THE ARBORIST¶S
RECOMMENDATIONS TO MAINTAIN HEALTHY
GROWTH THROUGHOUT THE CONSTRUCTION
PERIOD. PROVIDE 6´ PROTECTIVE LAYER OF
HARDWOOD MULCH AROUND ALL EXISTING
TREES WITHIN CRITICAL WORK AREAS.
SPREAD CHIPS USING HAND TOOLS ONLY,
SUCH AS SHOVELS AND WHEEL BARRELS.
7.WHEN EXCAVATION IS TO OCCUR NEAR A
TREE THAT IS TO BE PROTECTED MUST BE
CARRIED OUT, DAMAGE CAN BE LIMITED BY
ROOT PRUNING. ROOT PRUNING SHALL BE
COMPLETED BEFORE GRADING HAS STARTED
AND SHALL OCCUR BENEATH THE
PROTECTIVE FENCING AS SHOWN ON THE
PLANS.
8.ROOT PRUNING FOR PROTECTED TREES
SHALL BE PERFORMED WITH A TRENCHING
MACHINE PRIOR TO ADJACENT EXCAVATION
COMMENCES. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
STAKE THE LIMIT OF ROOT PRUNING AS
INDICATED ON THE PLANS. LIMITS OF
TRENCHING SHALL BE APPROVED BY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO ANY
TRENCHING IN THE FIELD. DO NOT TRENCH
FOR IRRIGATION OR ELECTRICAL WITHIN DRIP
LINES OF EXISTING TREES. COORDINATE ALL
TRENCHING REQUIRED FOR UTILITY WORK
WITH LANDSCAPE PLANS.
IF ROOTS OF TREES DESIGNATED TO BE
SAVED ARE EXPOSED, CUT OR OTHERWISE
BROKEN AND DISTURBED BY CONSTRUCTION
OPERATIONS, THEY MUST BE IMMEDIATELY
AND CLEANLY ROOT PRUNED WITH A SHARP
AXE OR PRUNER. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT OF ANY EXPOSED ROOTS THAT
REQUIRE PRUNING PRIOR TO COMMENCING
WITH WORK. NO ROOTS OVER 3´ IN DIA.
SHALL BE PRUNED WITHOUT REVIEW BY
ARBORIST AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
9.LIMIT SOIL COMPACTION BY LIMIT
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AROUND EXISTING
PRESERVED TREE CRITICAL ROOT ZONES.
THIS INCLUDES RESTRICTING ALL TRAFFIC
AND STORAGE OF MATERIALS FROM UNDER
THESE AREAS.
10.ANY PRUNING OF EXISTING PROTECTED
TREES SHALL BE PERFORMED BY A
CERTIFIED ARBORIST AS DIRECTED BY THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
SOIL PREPARATION NOTES
1.SOIL PREPARATION IS CRITICAL IN CREATING
A HEALTHY AND LONG-LASTING LANDSCAPE.
REMOVE EXISTING TOPSOIL AND STOCKPILE
ON SITE FOR USE AT A LATER DATE.
2.CONDUCT A SOIL EVALUATION OF EXISTING
STOCKPILED TOPSOIL TO BE USED TO
DETERMINE THE SOILS COMPOSITION,
COMPACTION RATE, NUTRIENT QUALITIES,
ORGANIC CONTENT, PH LEVELS AND WATER
HOLDING CAPABILITIES. THE IDEAL PARTICLE
SOIL MIX IS APPROXIMATELY 45 SAND, 40
SILT, 10 CLAY, AND 5 ORGANIC MATERIALS
WITH A PH LEVEL NEAR SEVEN.
3.PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF LANDSCAPE AND
IRRIGATION SYSTEM, CONTRACTOR TO
PREPARE SOIL TO ENSURE A PROPER
ENVIRONMENT FOR PLANT ROOT
DEVELOPMENT.
4.CONTRACTOR TO DECOMPACT SOILS IN
PLANTING AREAS BY ROTO-TILLING, DISC OR
RIPPING SOIL TO A MINIMUM DEPTH OF 12´.
DECOMPACTING OF SMALLER PLANTING
AREAS SUCH AS PARKING AREAS AND
AROUND STRUCTURES, MAY REQUIRE THE
REMOVAL OF COMPACTED SOILS TO A DEPTH
OF 18´ OR MORE AND THEN REPLACEMENT
WITH NEW OR AMENDED SOILS. REMOVAL
ALL DEBRIS 2´ OR GREATER FROM NEW OR
AMENDED SOILS.
5.WHEN PERFORMING SOIL DECOMPACTION,
MULTIPLE PASSES ACROSS THE AREA MAY BE
REQUIRED. WHEN POSSIBLE VARY
DIRECTIONS OF DECOMPACTION TO ENSURE
ADEQUATE COVERAGE. WHEN USING A DISC
OR RIPPING EQUIPMENT, IT IS REQUIRED
THAT THE FINAL PASSES OVER THE ARE BE
MADE WITH A ROTO-TILLER TO BREAK UP ANY
LARGE CLUMPS TO MAKE FINAL GRADING
EASIER.
6.AFTER INITIAL SOIL DECOMPACTION
PROCEDURES ARE PERFORMED, SOIL
AMENDMENTS SHOULD BE ADDED. THE
ADDITION OF SOIL AMENDMENTS SHALL BE
DETERMINED FROM SOIL TESTING
CONDUCTED PRIOR TO COMMENCING WITH
CONSTRUCTION. SOIL AMENDMENT MAY
INCLUDE INORGANIC MATERIAL SUCH AS
SAND, SILT OR CLAY, WHICH HELP IMPROVE
SOIL TEXTURE. ORGANIC MATERIAL SUCH AS
COMPOST, MANURE, AND PEAT MOSS MAY
ALSO BE USED AND HELP IMPROVE SOIL
STRUCTURE. OTHER AMENDMENTS SUCH AS
FERTILIZER IMPROVE NUTRIENT CONTENT
AND SULFUR ADJUSTS THE SOIL PH LEVEL.
SULFUR SHALL BE INCORPORATED AT THE
RATE OF ONE POUND OF SULFUR PER 100
SQUARE FEET.
7.ALL AMENDMENTS SHOULD BE MIXED
THOROUGHLY WITH EXISTING SOIL. AN
ADDITIONAL SOIL TEST SHALL BE TAKEN TO
ENSURE PROPER SOIL CONDITIONS PRIOR TO
PLANTING.
8.DURING THE REMAINDER OF THE LANDSCAPE
INSTALLATION, VARIOUS AREAS OF THE SITE
MAY BE RE-COMPACTED DUE TO THE USE OF
EQUIPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC.
DECOMPACT ANY AREAS THAT BECOME
RE-COMPACTED PRIOR TO INSTALLATION OF
FINAL LANDSCAPING COMMENCES.
LAYOUT NOTES
1.THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO
ACCURATELY SURVEY AND LAYOUT THE
PROPOSED WORK FOR CONSTRUCTION. THE
CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO VERIFY
GRADES, LINES, LEVELS, DIMENSIONS PRIOR
TO COMMENCING WITH WORK. NOTED
DIMENSIONS TAKE PRECEDENT OVER SCALED
DIMENSION, LARGER SCALE OVER SMALLER
SCALE, ADDENDA AND CLARIFICATION OVER
PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS.
2.CONTRACTOR TO LAY OUT PROPOSED
LOCATIONS FOR ALL HARDSCAPE, WALLS,
AND SITE ELEMENTS AND VERIFY LAYOUT
WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION. HARDSCAPE, WALLS AND
SITE ELEMENTS ARE DIMENSIONED ON THE
LAYOUT PLAN. ANY DISCREPANCIES OR
CONFLICTS WITH THE EXISTING CONDITIONS
OR OTHER DRAWINGS SHALL BE REPORTED
TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IMMEDIATELY
FOR CLARIFICATION AND/OR ADJUSTMENT.
3.FOR DIMENSIONS OF EXISTING BUILDINGS,
PROPOSED BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS AND
RELATED WORK, REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL
DRAWINGS
4.WHERE DIMENSIONS ARE CALLED AS ³EQUAL,´
SPACE REFERENCED ITEMS EQUALLY,
MEASURED TO CENTERLINE.
5.MEASUREMENTS ARE TO FACE OF BUILDING,
WALL, FIXED SITE ELEMENT, GRID LINE OR
DEFINED PROPERTY LINE IRON / BENCH
MARKS. DIMENSIONS TO CENTER LINE ARE
AS INDICATED.
6.INSTALL INTERSECTING ELEMENTS AT 90
DEGREE ANGLES TO EACH OTHER UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED.
7.PROVIDE EXPANSION JOINTS WHERE
CONCRETE FLAT WORK MEETS VERTICAL
STRUCTURES SUCH AS WALLS, CURBS, STEPS
AND BUILDING ELEMENTS.
8.PROPOSED SURFACES SHALL MEET EXISTING
SURFACES WITH A SMOOTH AND
CONTINUOUS TRANSITION AND FLUSH ALONG
ENTIRE EDGE
9.EXPANSION JOINTS IN CONCRETE WALKS
SHALL BE LOCATED NOT MORE THAN TWENTY
FEET (20¶-0´ O.C.) MAXIMUM OR AS INDICATED
ON THE PLANS.
10.VERIFY ALL JOINTING LAYOUTS FOR
CONCRETE IN FIELD PRIOR TO
IMPLEMENTATION. ALL CONTROL JOINTS IN
CONCRETE TO SAW CUT UNLESS APPROVED
BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
11.LAYOUT OF PROPOSED TRAILS TO BE STAKED
OUT BY CONTRACTORS AND APPROVED BY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT IN FIELD.
GRADING NOTES
1.EXCAVATION, BACKFILL AND COMPACTION
SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
RECOMMENDATIONS.
2.PROVIDE AND MAINTAIN POSITIVE DRAINAGE
AWAY FROM ALL STRUCTURES AT ALL TIMES.
3.ALL DESIGN CONTOURS AND PROPOSED
ELEVATIONS INDICATED ARE TO FINISH
GRADE UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL ACCOUNT FOR ALL
IMPORTED SURFACE AND PLANTING
MATERIALS IN DETERMINING EARTHWORK
REQUIREMENTS
5.GRADING OPERATIONS MUST MINIMIZE THE
POTENTIAL FOR EROSION.
6.NO GRADING, STOCKPILING OF MATERIALS,
OR STAGING IS PERMITTED OUTSIDE THE
LIMITS OF WORK.
7.PRIOR TO ROUGH GRADING THE SITE, THE
CONTRACTOR MUST REMOVE ALL TOPSOIL IN
AREAS TO BE DISTURBED AND STOCKPILE ON
SITE FOR FUTURE USE. EXCESS TOPSOIL
MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE AFTER
FINISH GRADING AT THE CONTRACTOR'S
EXPENSE.
8.IF THE EARTHWORK FOR THE SITE IS
ANTICIPATED TO PRODUCE AN EXCESS OF
MATERIAL, THE CONTRACTOR MUST REMOVE
ALL EXCESS MATERIAL FROM THE SITE AND
DISPOSE OF IT AT THE CONTRACTOR'S
EXPENSE.
9.NO TOPSOIL SHALL BE REMOVED FROM
SEEDING AND/OR RESTORATION AREAS
WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT.
10.TOPSOIL COMPACTED BY CONSTRUCTION
TRAFFIC IN SEEDING AND/ OR RESTORATION
AREAS OF THE PROJECT SHALL BE LOOSENED
UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT.
11.COMPOST SHALL BE MECHANICALLY
INTEGRATED INTO THE TOP 6" OF EXISTING
SOIL BY MEANS OF ROTO-TILLING AFTER
CROSS-RIPPING. GROUND COVER &
PERENNIAL BED AREAS SHALL BE AMENDED
AT A RATE OF 8 CUBIC FEET PER THOUSAND
SQUARE FEET OF NITROGEN STABILIZED
ORGANIC AMENDMENT AND 10 LBS. OF
12-12-12 FERTILIZER PER CU. YD.,
ROTO-TILLED TO A DEPTH OF 8". NO MANURE
OR ANIMAL-BASED PRODUCTS SHALL BE
USED FOR ORGANIC AMENDMENTS.
12.THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MAY DIRECT ON
SITE CHANGES TO THE GRADING TO SUIT
ACTUAL FIELD CONDITIONS AND TO ACHIEVE
DESIGN INTENT. SUCH CHANGES SHALL BE
DONE AT THE NO INCREASE TO THE PRICE OF
THE CONTRACTED WORK.
13.THE TOPS OF EXISTING MANHOLES, INLET
STRUCTURES AND SANITARY CLEANOUTS
MAY BE ADJUSTED AS NECESSARY TO MATCH
PROPOSED GRADES IN ACCORDANCE WITH
ALL APPLICABLE STANDARDS.
14.STORM WATER ROOF DRAIN LOCATIONS ARE
BASED UPON PRELIMINARY ARCHITECTURAL
PLANS. CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE TO
AND FOR VERIFYING LOCATIONS ON FINAL
ARCHITECTURAL PLANS.
SEEDING NOTES
1.ALL SEEDED AREAS SHALL BE WARRANTED
BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR A PERIOD OF TWO
YEARS AFTER OWNER ACCEPTANCE. ANY
ACTS OF VANDALISM OR DAMAGE WHICH MAY
OCCUR PRIOR TO THE OWNER'S WRITTEN
ACCEPTANCE SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE CONTRACTOR.
2.SEED ALL DISTURBED AREAS NOT
SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED AS STRUCTURE,
HARD SURFACE, PLANTING AREAS OR LAWN.
3.THE SEEDING CONTRACTOR MUST NOTIFY
THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF THE
PROPOSED SEEDING START DATE A MINIMUM
OF ONE WEEK PRIOR TO SEEDING.
4.METHOD OF SEEDING AND SEEDING RATE
SHALL BE AS LISTED ON SEEDING KEY.
5.NO SEEDING MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL
BE ACCEPTED UNLESS THE CONTRACTOR,
PRIOR TO THE SUBMISSION OF A BID AND/OR
QUOTATION, REQUESTS APPROVAL OF THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
6.THE SEEDING / RESTORATION CONTRACTOR
SHALL KEEP NEWLY SEEDED AREAS
WATERED FOR A MINIMUM OF 4 WEEKS OR
UNTIL SEED IS 80 ESTABLISHED. SPRING
SEEDING COMPLETED AFTER MAY 15TH MUST
BE WATERED BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR AT
LEAST 4 WEEKS, OR UNTIL AUGUST 15TH,
WHICHEVER IS LONGER. THE SEEDING /
RESTORATION CONTRACTOR MUST ALSO
PROVIDE THE OWNER WITH A BID FOR
INDIVIDUAL WATERING APPLICATIONS WITHIN
THE TWO YEAR WARRANTY PERIOD FOR
POTENTIAL WATERING DURING UNUSUALLY
DRY PERIODS.
7.EROSION CONTROL MATTING MUST BE USED
ON ALL SLOPES GREATER THAN 3:1.
8.SEEDING IN RESTORATION AREAS WILL
FOLLOW PROCEDURES LISTED IN
³RESTORATION NOTES.´
9.EROSION CONTROL MATTING IS REQUIRED IN
RESTORATION AREAS SHALL BE INSTALLED
BY THE SEEDING / RESTORATION
CONTRACTOR.
PLANTING NOTES
1.EXACT LOCATION OF PLANT AREAS AND
MATERIALS TO BE APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT RESERVES THE
RIGHT TO ADJUST PLANTINGS TO EXACT
LOCATIONS IN THE FIELD.
2.VERIFY PLANT COUNTS AND SQUARE
FOOTAGES: QUANTITIES ARE PROVIDED FOR
REFERENCE ONLY. IF QUANTITIES ON PLANT
LIST DIFFER FROM GRAPHIC INDICATIONS ON
PLANS, THEN THE GREATER NUMBER /
QUANTITY SHALL PREVAIL. CONTRACTOR IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR QUANTITY TAKE OFFS AND
SHALL PROVIDE FULL COVERAGE OF
PLANTING AREAS AS INDICATED ON
DRAWINGS. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
OF ANY PLANTING DISCREPANCIES.
3.ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE WARRANTED
BY THE CONTRACTOR FOR A PERIOD OF ONE
YEAR AFTER OWNER'S WRITTEN
ACCEPTANCE. ANY ACTS OF VANDALISM OR
DAMAGE WHICH MAY OCCUR PRIOR TO THE
OWNER'S WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE SHALL BE
THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR.
4.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST APPROVE THE
DECOMPACTED SUBGRADE AFTER
DECOMPACTION WORK IS COMPLETE AND
PRIOR TO TOPSOIL PLACEMENT.
5.PROVIDE 4 INCHES OF TOPSOIL FOR ALL
LAWN TURF AREAS. PROVIDE A MINIMUM
OF12 INCHES OF PLANTING SOIL MIX
CONSISTING OF 1/3 TOPSOIL, 1/3 SAND, AND
1/3 COMPOST IN ALL SHRUB AND PERENNIAL
BEDS. WHERE SHRUBS OR PERENNIALS ARE
GROUPED, CREATE ONE CONTINUOUS
PLANTING BED. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO
APPROVE TOPSOIL PRIOR TO SPREADING.
CONTRACTOR MUST SUBMIT TESTING
RESULTS AND FERTILIZER
RECOMMENDATIONS.
6.ALL NEW TREE PLANTINGS AND EDGED
PLANTING BEDS TO RECEIVE 3 INCH DEPTH
OF DOUBLE- SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH.
ALL NEW EDGED GROUNDCOVER PLANTING
BEDS TO RECEIVE 3 INCH DEPTH OF PINE
BARK MULCH. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO
APPROVE MULCH PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
7.ALL PLANTING BEDS NOT CONTAINED BY
STRUCTURES, CURB, OR PAVING MUST BE
EDGED WITH METAL EDGING (ALUMINUM OR
STEEL).
8.WHERE LAWN / SOD ABUTS PAVED SURFACES,
FINISHED GRADE OF SOD MUST BE HELD 1
INCH BELOW THE SURFACE ELEVATION OF
THE PAVED SURFACE.
9.SOD SHALL BE LAID PARALLEL TO THE
CONTOURS AND SHALL HAVE STAGGERED
JOINTS.
10.STAKE ALL PROPOSED TREE LOCATIONS IN
FIELD FOR APPROVAL PRIOR TO
INSTALLATION. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
RESERVES RIGHTS TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS
TO LOCATIONS PRIOR TO PLANTING.
11.ALL PROPOSED PLANTS SHALL BE STAKED AS
SHOWN ON THE DRAWINGS AND/OR AS
DIRECTED IN THE FIELD BY THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
MUST APPROVE ALL STAKING LOCATIONS OF
PLANT MATERIAL PRIOR TO ANY DIGGING.
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT SHALL BE NOTIFIED
AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE
DELIVERY DATE FOR ALL PLANT MATERIAL.
12.PAINT OR STRING ALL NEW PLANTING AREAS
AND LOCATIONS IN FIELD FOR LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT APPROVAL. ADJUSTMENT IN
LOCATION OF PROPOSED PLANT MATERIAL
MAY BE NEEDED IN THE FIELD. SHOULD AN
ADJUSTMENT BE ADVISED, THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT MUST BE NOTIFIED.
13.ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE CLEARLY
IDENTIFIED (COMMON OR LATIN
NOMENCLATURE) WITH A PLASTIC TAG WHICH
SHALL NOT BE REMOVED PRIOR TO THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S APPROVAL.
14.ALL PLANTING STOCK SHALL MEET AND
CONFORM TO ³THE AMERICAN STANDARDS
FOR NURSERY STOCK´, ANSI, LATEST
WRITTEN STANDARDS AND CONSTITUTE
MINIMUM QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL
PLANT MATERIAL.
15.AN INSPECTION TO APPROVE PLANT
MATERIAL AT THE NURSERY SHALL OCCUR
PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. CONTRACTOR TO
PROVIDE 48 HOUR NOTIFICATION TO
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
16.ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE FERTILIZED
UPON INSTALLATION WITH DRIED BONE MEAL
OR OTHER FERTILIZER AS INDICATED MIXED
IN WITH THE PLANTING SOIL PER THE
MANUFACTURER'S INSTRUCTIONS.
17.ALL PLANT MATERIALS TO BE INSTALLED PER
PLANTING DETAILS.
18.WRAP ALL DECIDUOUS TREES FROM THE
GROUND TO THE FIRST BRANCH. WRAPPING
MATERIAL SHALL BE QUALITY, HEAVY
WATERPROOF CREPE PAPER
MANUFACTURED FOR THIS PURPOSE. WRAP
ALL DECIDUOUS TREES PLANTED IN THE FALL
PRIOR TO DECEMBER 1ST, AND REMOVE ALL
WRAPPING BETWEEN MAY 1ST AND JUNE 1ST,
OR AS INSTRUCTED BY THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT.
19.IF THE LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PERCEIVES
ANY DEFICIENCIES IN THE PLANT
SELECTIONS, SOIL CONDITIONS, OR ANY
OTHER SITE CONDITIONS WHICH MIGHT
NEGATIVELY AFFECT PLANT MATERIAL
ESTABLISHMENT, SURVIVAL, OR GUARANTEE,
LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL BRING
THESE DEFICIENCIES TO THE ATTENTION OF
THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
20.NO PLANT MATERIAL SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE
ACCEPTED UNLESS APPROVAL IS REQUESTED
OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT BY THE
LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR PRIOR TO THE
SUBMISSION OF A BID AND/OR QUOTATION.
ANY SUBSTITUTION IS REQUIRED TO
APPROVED IN WRITING BY THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT.
21.PROVIDE MATCHING FORMS AND SIZES FOR
PLANT MATERIALS WITHIN EACH SPECIES AND
SIZE DESIGNATED ON THE PLANS. ALL PLANT
MATERIAL SHALL MEET SIZE AND QUALITY
STANDARDS AS INDICATED IN DOCUMENTS
AND SHALL BE OF TOP QUALITY AND
VIGOROUS HEALTH. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REJECT PLANTS
NOT MEETING THESE STANDARDS.
22.ALIGN AND EQUALLY SPACE PLANTINGS IN
ALL DIRECTIONS AS DESIGNATED ON THE
PLANS.
23.FINISH GRADE OF PLANTING AREAS SHALL BE
1´ BELOW ADJACENT PAVING OR SURFACING
AREAS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
24.ALL TREES PLANTED ADJACENT TO PUBLIC
AND/OR PEDESTRIAN WALKWAYS SHALL BE
PRUNED CLEAR OF ALL BRANCHES BETWEEN
GROUND AND A HEIGHT OF EIGHT (8) FEET
FOR THAT PORTION OF THE PLAN LOCATED
OVER THE SIDEWALK AND/OR ROAD.
25.PRUNE NEWLY PLANTED TREES AND SHEAR
NEWLY PLANTED HEDGES AS DIRECTED BY
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
26.PROTECT ALL NEW EVERGREEN PLANTINGS
FROM WINTER BURN BY WRAPPING NEW
PLANTINGS WITH BURLAP. MAINTAIN
THROUGHOUT WARRANTY PERIOD.
27.TREE ROOT BARRIERS SHALL BE INSTALLED
WHERE TREES ARE PLACED WITHIN 5 FEET OF
EXISTING OR NEW PAVEMENT SURFACES.
THE ROOT BARRIER SHALL BE PLACED ON
THE SIDE OF THE TREE PIT CLOSEST TO THE
IMPROVEMENTS. DO NOT ENCLOSE ROOT
BALL FOR TREES WITH ROOT BARRIER.
28.ALL PLANTING AREAS ON SLOPES OVER 4:1
SHALL RECEIVE COCONUT FIBER EROSION
CONTROL NETTING FROM ROLLS. NETTING
SHALL BE #CT-125, AS MANUFACTURED BY
NORTH AMERICAN GREEN (OR EQUAL).
INSTALL AND STAKE PER MANUFACTURER'S
SPECIFICATIONS.
29.CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE A WRITTEN
REQUEST FOR THE OWNER ACCEPTANCE
INSPECTION UPON COMPLETION OF ALL
PLANTING WORK
30.PLANTING IN SEEDING AND/OR RESTORATION
AREAS WILL FOLLOW PROCEDURES LISTED IN
³SEEDING NOTES´ AND ³RESTORATION
NOTES.´
31.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO
MAINTAIN ALL NEW PLANTING AREAS OF
PROJECT UNTIL SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION
OF PROJECT.
32.AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION ALL PLANT
MATERIAL SHALL BE IN HEALTHY, VIGOROUS
GROWING CONDITION, PLANTED IN FULL
ACCORDANCE WITH THE DRAWINGS AND
SPECIFICATIONS.
IRRIGATION NOTES
1.IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO BE DESIGN / BUILD.
AN AUTOMATIC IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE
INSTALLED TO PROVIDE COVERAGE FOR ALL
PLANTING AREAS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. LOW
VOLUME EQUIPMENT SHALL PROVIDE
SUFFICIENT WATER FOR PLAN GROWTH WITH
A MINIMUM WATER LOSS DUE TO WATER RUN
OFF. IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL USE HIGH
QUALITY, AUTOMATIC CONTROL VALVES,
CONTROLLERS AND OTHER NECESSARY
IRRIGATION EQUIPMENT. ALL COMPONENTS
SHALL BE NON-CORROSIVE MATERIALS. ALL
DRIP SYSTEMS SHALL BE ADEQUATELY
FILTERED AND REGULATED PER THE
MANUFACTURER¶S RECOMMENDED DESIGN
PARAMETERS. CONTRACTOR TO SUBMIT
SHOP DRAWINGS FOR APPROVAL OF SYSTEM
PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
2.IRRIGATION SYSTEM WILL OPERATE ON
POTABLE WATER, AND THE SYSTEM WILL
HAVE APPROPRIATE BACKFLOW PREVENTION
DEVICES INSTALLED TO PREVENT
CONTAMINATION OF THE POTABLE SOURCE.
3.IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE DESIGNED
AND INSTALLED, TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT
POSSIBLE, TO CONSERVE WATER BY USING
THE FOLLOWING DEVICES AND SYSTEMS:
MATCHED PRECIPITATION RATE
TECHNOLOGY ON ROTOR AND SPRAY HEADS
(WHEREVER POSSIBLE), RAIN SENSORS, AND
MULTI-PROGRAM COMPUTERIZED IRRIGATION
CONTROLLERS FEATURING SENSORY INPUT
CAPABILITIES.
4.ALL LAWN, PLANTING AREAS AND NEW TREE
PLANTINGS WITHIN PROPERTY LIMITS MUST
BE IRRIGATED, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
NEW SEEDING AND / OR RESTORATION AREAS
TO BE IRRIGATED SEPARATELY AS INDICATED
ON DRAWINGS.
5.ALL NEW PLANTING BEDS, NEW TREE
PLANTINGS, GREEN ROOFS AND CONTAINER
PLANTINGS TO RECEIVE DRIP LINE EMITTER
IRRIGATION. ALL TURF / LAWN, SEEDED AND /
OR RESTORATION AREAS TO RECEIVE
OVERHEAD SPRAY IRRIGATION.
6.PROPOSED IRRIGATION LAYOUTS AND
MATERIAL LISTS MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH
BIDS. ACCEPTABLE PRODUCT
MANUFACTURERS INCLUDE RAINBIRD, TORO,
AND NETAFIM. THE IRRIGATION CONTROLLER
SHALL BE SIZED TO ACCOMMODATE ALL
PROPOSED ZONES, INCLUDING ANY AREAS
INDICATED AS FUTURE IRRIGATION, AND
SHALL BE FULLY AUTOMATIC WITH A
VOLATILE MEMORY CHIP.
7.IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY THE
LOCATION OF ALL IRRIGATION SLEEVES. IF
ADDITIONAL SLEEVING IS REQUIRED,
IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY THE
GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT. ONLY TRENCHLESS METHODS
WILL BE APPROVED AFTER PAVING IS
COMPLETED.
8.THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR IS
RESPONSIBLE FOR PROVIDING A COMPLETE
IRRIGATION SYSTEM FROM THE POINT OF
CONNECTION AT THE COLD WATER STUB OUT
LINE(S) FROM THE BUILDING. THE STUB
OUT(S) FROM THE BUILDING, THE BACKFLOW
PREVENTER, AND OTHER CODE REQUIRED
PLUMBING ELEMENTS MUST BE PROVIDED BY
A LICENSED MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR.
9.THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR MUST INSTALL
THE IRRIGATION CONTROL PANEL IN THE
LOCATION INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS OR
AS APPROVED BY THE OWNER / LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT. COORDINATE LOCATION W/
APPLICABLE TRADES.
10.THE IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR MUST
PROVIDE OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
MANUALS AND ON-SITE INSTRUCTION TO THE
OWNER IN THE SYSTEM OPERATION. THE
IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR INITIAL SYSTEM STARTUP,
WINTERIZATION FOR THE FIRST WINTER, AND
STARTUP THE FOLLOWING SPRING.
11.IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL INCLUDE
IRRIGATION COVERAGE FOR ALL SEEDING /
RESTORATION AREAS UNLESS OTHERWISE
INDICATED.IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR SHALL
COORDINATE WITH SEEDING / RESTORATION
CONTRACTOR REGARDING IRRIGATION
SYSTEM SCHEDULE AND IRRIGATION NEEDS
IN RESTORATION AREAS.
12.ALL SPRAY AND ROTOR HEAD LOCATIONS
SHALL BE STAKED, FLAGGED AND/OR
OTHERWISE CLEARLY MARKED ON THE
GROUND PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
SPRINKLER HEAD STAKING SHALL BE
INSPECTED AND APPROVED BY THE OWNER'S
REPRESENTATIVE OR THE LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT BEFORE INSTALLATION. STAKED
LOCATIONS SHALL BE SPACED TO PROVIDE
HEAD-TO-HEAD COVERAGE.
13.SET SPRINKLER HEADS PERPENDICULAR TO
FINISH GRADE OF AREAS TO BE IRRIGATED
UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED.
14.ADJUST IRRIGATION SYSTEM LAYOUT FOR
ANY VERTICAL OBSTRUCTIONS OR
INTERFERENCE. DO NOT OVERSPRAY ONTO
WALKS, ROADWAYS, WALLS, FENCES AND /
OR BUILDING STRUCTURES.
15.IRRIGATION SYSTEM SHALL BE BASED ON
MINIMUM PRESSURE AND MAXIMUM FLOW
DEMAND. VERIFY WATER PRESSURE BEFORE
START OF CONSTRUCTION. REPORT ANY
DIFFERENCES IN WATER PRESSURE
READINGS AT IRRIGATION POINT OF
CONNECTION PRIOR TO COMMENCING WITH
IMPLEMENTATION OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM.
16.IF EXISTING IRRIGATION SYSTEM IS TO BE
RETAINED FOR REUSE, CONTRACTOR SHALL
PROPOSE ALL REQUIRED ADDITIONS TO
EXISTING SYSTEM NECESSARY TO OBTAIN
FULL COVERAGE OF ALL LANDSCAPE WORK
AS INDICATED ON DRAWINGS AND PROVIDE A
DESIGN BUILD DRAWING IDENTIFYING
EXISTING AND PROPOSED IRRIGATION
SYSTEM COMPONENTS FOR INSTALLATION.
17.PROVIDE AS-BUILT DRAWING OF FINAL
IRRIGATION SYSTEM TO OWNER / LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT FOR THEIR RECORDS. UPON
COMPLETION OF INSTALLATION OF
IRRIGATION SYSTEM, IRRIGATION
CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE THE
FOLLOWING:
ā ACCURATE AND COMPLETE "AS BUILT"
PLANS OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM INCLUDING
8-1/2"[11" ZONE MAP TO BE PLACED INSIDE
EACH CONTROLLER BOX.
ā A LOG ON ALL WATER WINDOWS, RUN
SCHEDULE TIMES, AND OTHER CHANGES
AND/OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE IRRIGATION
SYSTEM SINCE INSTALLATION.
ā ONE HOUR OF TRAINING TO OWNER ON
IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND CONTROLLER
OPERATION.
ā THREE OF EACH TYPE OF HEAD AND
EMITTER INSTALLED.
ā ONE OF EACH TYPE OF VALVE INSTALLED.
ā REVIEW WINTERIZATION PROCEDURES FOR
IRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH OWNERS
REPRESENTATIVE.
SITE LIGHTING NOTES
1.THE LIGHTING PLAN IS INTENDED TO SHOW
THE LOCATIONS AND TYPE OF LUMINAIRE
FIXTURES ONLY. POWER SYSTEMS, CONDUIT,
WIRING, VOLTAGES AND OTHER ELECTRICAL
COMPONENTS ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF
THE CONTRACTOR. EXTERIOR LIGHTING
TYPES SHALL CONSIST PRIMARILY OF LOW
VOLTAGE LANDSCAPE LIGHTING UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED.
2.ALL LANDSCAPE LIGHTING AND THEIR
COMPONENTS SHALL MEET THE UL1838
GOVERNING STANDARDS.
3.CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT OF ANY LIGHTING LOCATIONS
THAT CONFLICT WITH DRAINAGE, UTILITIES
OR OTHER STRUCTURES.
4.COORDINATE PROPOSED POWER SOURCES
FOR ALL SITE LIGHTING ELEMENTS AND THEIR
LOCATIONS.
5.COORDINATE SWITCHING AND CONTROLS
SYSTEMS FOR EXTERIOR LIGHTING WITH
OWNER, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. VERIFY ALL
SWITCH LOCATIONS ON SITE PRIOR TO
INSTALLATION.
6.INSTALL LIGHT FIXTURES PER
MANUFACTURER¶S RECOMMENDATIONS AND
PER LOCAL, STATE, AND NATIONAL
REGULATIONS.
7.ALL LIGHTING IN PAVEMENT AND HARDSCAPE
TO BE CORE DRILLED. VERIFY FINAL
LOCATIONS IN HARDSCAPE AREAS PRIOR TO
DRILLING..
8.ALL LIGHT POLE BASES SHALL BE DESIGNED
AND SIGNED OFF BY A STRUCTURAL
ENGINEER.
9.ALL ELECTRICAL JUNCTION BOXES FOR
EXTERIOR LIGHTS SHALL BE LOCATED IN
PLANTING AREAS OR OTHER DISCRETE
LOCATIONS AND APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT PRIOR TO INSTALLATION.
10.ALL TRANSFORMERS SHOULD BE SIZED TO
ALLOW FOR ANY FUTURE INCREASE IN
SYSTEM LOAD, AS WELL AS THE RESISTIVE
VALUES ASSOCIATED WITH LONGER CABLE
RUN DISTANCES AND THE USE OF VOLTAGE
TAPS GREATER THAN 12-VOLT. INSTALL
TRANSFORMERS PER MANUFACTURER¶S
RECOMMENDATIONS.
11.ALL 120-VOLT ELECTRICAL WORK SHOULD BE
PERFORMED BY A LICENSED ELECTRICIAN
UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED BY LAW.
REFER TO ALL NEC AND ALL LOCAL CODES
FOR ADDITIONAL DETAILS.
12.ALL EXTERIOR RECEPTACLE BOXES SHOULD
BE G.F.C.I.-PROTECTED FOR USE WITH
TRANSFORMERS THAT UTILIZE A PLUG-IN
CORD. ALL RECEPTACLE BOXES SHOULD
UTILIZE AN ³IN-USE´ OR ³BUBBLE´ TYPE
RECEPTACLE COVER TO PROTECT IT FROM
WATER ENTRY.
13.ALL RECEPTACLES, LOW VOLTAGE
TRANSFORMERS, AND FIXTURES CANNOT BE
LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET OF ANY WATER
SOURCE THAT WOULD BE NORMALLY
OCCUPIED BY HUMANS.
14.EXTERIOR LIGHTING SYSTEM SHALL
CONNECT TO EITHER PHOTOCELL OR
ASTRONOMICAL TIMER. VERIFY FINAL
LIGHTING CONTROLS WITH OWNER AND
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO
INSTALLATION.
RESTORATION NOTES
1.ALL EXOTICS, INVASIVE AND UNDESIRED TALL
NATIVE SPECIES TARGETED FOR REMOVAL
WILL BE REMOVED BY HAND OR SPRAYED
WITH APPROVED HERBICIDE. THIS WORK
SHALL BEGIN DURING THE FIRST STAGES OF
CONSTRUCTION AND EXTEND THROUGH THE
MANAGEMENT PERIOD.
2.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST APPROVE
MANAGEMENT STRATEGY OF NATIVE SPECIES
TO BE LEFT AND MANAGED ON SITE.
3.RESTORATION PLANTING AND SEEDING SHALL
BEGIN AFTER ALL CONSTRUCTION AND TREE
PLANTING WORK IS COMPLETE AND THE
IRRIGATION SYSTEM INSTALLED BY OTHERS
IS IN PLACE.
4.RESTORATION CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY
THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF THE
PLANTING AND SEEDING START DATE A
MINIMUM OF ONE WEEK PRIOR TO SEEDING
AND PLANTING.
5.SALVAGED TOPSOIL APPROVED BY THE
RESTORATION CONTRACTOR WILL BE
SPREAD ONLY ON AREAS CLEARED OF
TOPSOIL DURING CONSTRUCTION.
APPROVED TOPSOIL WILL ONLY BE SPREAD
TO THE ORIGINAL GRADE OR GRADE
APPROVED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
6.SEVERELY COMPACTED SOIL CAUSED BY
CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC SHALL BE
LOOSENED TO ORIGINAL GRADE BY OTHERS.
MINOR COMPACTION SHALL BE LOOSENED BY
RESTORATION CONTRACTOR TO ORIGINAL
GRADE OR GRADE APPROVED BY THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
7.SEEDING SHALL BE HAND BROADCAST AND
RAKED EITHER BY HAND OR WITH A DRAG
HARROW.
8.ALL PLANT MATERIAL SHALL BE WARRANTED
BY THE RESTORATION CONTRACTOR FOR A
PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER OWNER'S
WRITTEN ACCEPTANCE. ANY ACTS OF
VANDALISM OR DAMAGE WHICH MAY OCCUR
PRIOR TO THE OWNER'S WRITTEN
ACCEPTANCE SHALL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY
OF THE CONTRACTOR.
9.SEEDED AND SODDED AREAS SHALL BE
WATERED WITH THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM
(INSTALLED BY OTHERS) FOR A MINIMUM OF
FOUR WEEKS OR UNTIL SEED IS
ESTABLISHED. ALL WATERING ASSUMES A
SYSTEM COVERING ALL RESTORATION AREAS
IS IN PLACE AND RESTORATION CONTRACTOR
HAS CONTROL OVER WATERING SCHEDULE
FOR RESTORATION AREAS.
10.PLANTINGS SHALL BE PLACED ACCORDING TO
SPECIFIC ZONE SECTION NEEDS AND NOT
ACCORDING TO A FIXED PATTERN.
ON-CENTER GOALS ARE ON AVERAGE.
11.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT MUST APPROVE ALL
SEEDING LOCATIONS PRIOR TO SEEDING.
12.NO FERTILIZER OR SOIL AMENDMENTS ARE
REQUIRED IN THE RESTORATION AREAS
UNLESS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE
RESTORATION CONTRACTOR.
13.RESTORATION CONTRACTOR SHALL PROVIDE
A WRITTEN REQUEST FOR THE OWNER
ACCEPTANCE INSPECTION UPON
COMPLETION OF ALL RESTORATION SEEDING
AND PLANTING WORK.
WARRANTY
1.ALL HARDSCAPE AND PAVING AREAS TO BE
WARRANTED FOR 1 YEAR AFTER OWNER
ACCEPTANCE.
2.ALL PLANT MATERIAL TO BE WARRANTED FOR
1 YEAR AFTER OWNER ACCEPTANCE. AN
INSPECTION OF PLANT MATERIAL WILL
OCCUR AFTER THE FIRST YEAR FOLLOWING
SUBSTANTIAL COMPLETION / OWNER
ACCEPTANCE. THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
SHALL NOTIFY THE CONTRACTORS OF
INSPECTION DATE. REPLACEMENTS MAY BE
REQUIRED AT THIS TIME. REPLACEMENTS
SHALL BE PLANTED WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM
THE DATE OF INSPECTION UNLESS
OTHERWISE DIRECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH
ACCEPTED HORTICULTURAL PRACTICES.
LANDSCAPE STRUCTURAL NOTES
1.BUILDING CODE: CONFORM TO LATEST
EDITION OF STATE BUILDING CODE AND
INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE (IBC).
2.CONTRACTOR SHALL BE SOLELY
RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MEANS AND
METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION AND FOR THE
SAFETY OF PERSONS AND PROPERTY.
CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
COMPLYING WITH ALL SAFETY PRECAUTIONS
AND REGULATIONS DURING THE WORK. THE
ENGINEER WILL NOT ADVISE ON NOR ISSUE
DIRECTION AS TO SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND
PROGRAMS.
3.THE DRAWINGS HEREIN REPRESENT THE
FINISHED STRUCTURE. DURING ERECTION OF
THE STRUCTURE, THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
BE SOLELY RESPONSIBLE FOR TEMPORARY
SHORING, BRACING, FORMING, ETC. TO HOLD
THE STRUCTURE IN PROPER ALIGNMENT AND
TO WITHSTAND ALL LOADS TO WHICH THE
STRUCTURE MAY BE SUBJECTED. SUCH
MEASURES SHALL BE LEFT IN PLACE AS LONG
AS REQUIRED FOR SAFETY AND UNTIL ALL
FRAMING AND CONNECTIONS ARE IN PLACE.
4.FOOTINGS AND SOIL DATA:
4.1.SOIL PARAMETERS ARE ASSUMED FOR
THE DESIGN OF THE RETAINING WALLS
FOR THE FOLLOWING:
4.1.a.MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SOIL
BEARING CAPACITY = 2000 PSF.
4.1.E.LATERAL SOIL PRESSURES
(EQUIVALENT FLUID PRESSURE) 45
PCF.
4.2.FOOTINGS SHALL BEAR ON NATURAL
UNDISTURBED SOIL OR ON COMPACTED,
ENGINEERED FILL. ALL SUBGRADE
SHALL BE PREPARED AND COMPACTED
ACCORDING TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS
PROVIDED BY A GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER.
5.ALL TOPSOIL, FILL AND OTHER UNSUITABLE
BEARING MATERIAL SHALL BE REMOVED. A
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SHALL INSPECT
THE EXCAVATED AREA TO ENSURE ALL
MATERIALS REQUIRING REMOVAL HAVE BEEN
REMOVED AND TO VERIFY THE SOIL BEARING
CAPACITY USED FOR DESIGN PRIOR TO
CONCRETE PLACEMENT.
6.EMBEDMENT DEPTH FROM EXTERIOR GRADE
TO BOTTOM OF FOOTING SHALL NOT BE LESS
THAN 5¶-0´. BOTTOM OF FOOTING ELEVATION
SHALL BE LOWERED AS REQUIRED TO MEET
THIS MINIMUM.
7.ALL RETAINING WALLS SHALL HAVE A
MINIMUM OF 12 INCHES OF FREE-DRAINING
GRANULAR BACKFILL, FULL HEIGHT OF WALL,
UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE. PROVIDE
CONTROL JOINTS IN RETAINING WALLS AT
APPROXIMATELY EQUAL INTERVALS NOT TO
EXCEED 40 FEET OR 3 TIMES THE WALL
HEIGHT. PROVIDE EXPANSION JOINTS AT
EVERY FOURTH CONTROL JOINT UNLESS
OTHERWISE INDICATED.
8.MUD SLABS, FOOTINGS OR SLABS SHALL NOT
BE PLACED ONTO OR AGAINST SUBGRADE
CONTAINING FREE WATER, FROST OR ICE.
CONTRACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL NECESSARY
PRECAUTIONS TO PREVENT ANY FROST OR
ICE FROM PENETRATING ANY FOOTING OR
SLAB SUBGRADE BEFORE AND AFTER
PLACING CONCRETE UNTIL SUCH SUBGRADES
ARE FULLY PROTECTED BY THE PERMANENT
BUILDING STRUCTURE OR PROPER DEPTH OF
BURY.
9.DO NOT UNDERMINE EXISTING FOUNDATIONS.
10.REINFORCED CONCRETE:
10.1.DESIGN CODE: USE BUILDING CODE
REQUIREMENTS FOR STRUCTURAL
CONCRETE (ACI 318), LATEST ADOPTION
10.2.CONCRETE MIXES SHALL BE DESIGNED
PER ACI 301 USING THE FOLLOWING
PARAMETERS:
10.2.a.PORTLAND CEMENT CONFORMING
TO ASTM C150 OR C595.
10.2.E.AGGREGATE CONFORMING TO ASTM
C33.
10.2.c.ADMIXTURES CONFORMING TO
ASTM C494, C1017, AND C260. DO
NOT USE CALCIUM CHLORIDE OR
ADMIXTURES CONTAINING CALCIUM
CHLORIDE.
10.2.G.CONCRETE SHALL BE READY-MIXED
IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM C94.
11.REINFORCING STEEL
11.1.BARS -ASTM A615, GR. 60
11.2.PLACEMENT OF CONCRETE AND
REINFORCEMENT SHALL BE IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ACI AND CRSI
STANDARDS.
11.3.DO NOT FIELD BEND BARS PARTIALLY
EMBEDDED IN HARDENED CONCRETE
UNLESS SPECIFICALLY INDICATED OR
ACCEPTED BY THE ENGINEER.
11.4.PROVIDE CORNER BARS EQUAL IN SIZE
AND SPACING TO WALL HORIZONTAL
REINFORCEMENT UNLESS OTHERWISE
DETAILED.
12.COLD WEATHER CONCRETING SHALL FOLLOW
PROCEDURES IN ACI 306.
13.HOT WEATHER CONCRETING SHALL FOLLOW
PROCEDURES IN ACI 305.
14.PROVIDE 32 BAR DIAMETER LAP LENGTHS
FOR WALL FOOTINGS UNLESS NOTED
OTHERWISE. FOR OTHER LAP LENGTHS
PROVIDE CLASS B LAP SPLICES IN
ACCORDANCE WITH ACI 318.
15.BAR SUPPORTS AND HOLDING BARS SHALL BE
PROVIDED FOR ALL REINFORCING STEEL TO
ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH MINIMUM
CONCRETE COVER. BAR SUPPORTS SHALL BE
PLASTIC, PLASTIC TIPPED, EPOXY COATED OR
STAINLESS STEEL FOR UNCOATED STEEL.
BAR SUPPORTS FOR COATED STEEL SHALL BE
PLASTIC, PLASTIC COATED OR EPOXY
COATED.
16.CONCRETE MIX DESIGN(S) SHALL BE
SUBMITTED TO ENGINEER/ARCHITECT FOR
REVIEW.
17.PROVIDE REINFORCING STEEL SHOP
DRAWINGS TO ENGINEER / LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT FOR REVIEW / APPROVAL.
18.MATERIAL STRENGTHS:
LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION NOTES
DESCRIPTION
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (fc)
AT 28 DAYS
MAX
AGGREGAT
E SIZE
SLUMP
MAX WATER
TO CEMENT
RATIOS
(W/C)3/
FOOTINGS 3,000 PSI 1 1/2"4" ± 1"0.57
RETAINING
WALLS (5
AIR
ENTRAINED)
4,000 PSI 3/4"4" ± 1"0.45
1 / TOLERANCE ON AIR CONTENT AS DELIVERED
SHALL BE ± 1.5
2/ PRIOR TO THE ADDITION OF PLASTICIZER OR
HIGH-RANGE WATER-REDUCER
1 / TOLERANCE ON AIR CONTENT AS DELIVERED
SHALL BE ± 1.5creation Gate:11/19/2020fiOepatK:/Users/EretZieseOer/DropEo[ (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/5. VARIANCE/L001.GZJOast saveG:EretZieseOer DecePEer 4, 2020 11:14 AMTKe GesiJns sKoZn anG GescriEeG Kerein incOXGinJ aOO tecKnicaO GraZinJs,
JrapKics anG specifications tKereof, are proprietar\ anG cannot Ee copieG,
GXpOicateG or coPPerciaOO\ e[pOoiteG, in ZKoOe or in part, ZitKoXt tKe e[press
Zritten perPission of Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. TKese are avaiOaEOe for
OiPiteG revieZ anG evaOXation E\ cOients, consXOtants, contractors,
JovernePent aJencies, anG venGors onO\ in accorGance ZitK tKis notice.
Cop\riJKt 2020Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. AOO riJKts reserveG.
Oicense no:
I KereE\ certif\ tKat tKis pOan, specification, or report Zas prepareG E\ Pe or
XnGer P\ Girect sXpervision anG tKat I aP a GXO\ LicenseG LanGscape
ArcKitect XnGer tKe OaZs of tKe State of Minnesota.
43728
T R A V I S V A N L I E R E
Gate:1/23/2018
6 6 0 9 H O R S E S H O E C U R V E
C H A N H A S S E N , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 3 1 7
B R U N E R R E S I D E N C E
DraZn B\:
Date:
ScaOe:
DraZinJ:
SKeet:
12/18/2020
DJ
Rev #Description Date
VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
t 612 345 4275
HORS
E
S
H
O
E
C
U
R
V
E
6609
H
O
R
S
E
S
H
O
E
C
U
R
V
E
LOTUS LAKE
EXISTING INCOMING SURVEY1 L009
EXISTING INCOMING SURVEY
N
1" = 16'
SCALE: 1 incK =
0 16'32'8'
16 feet
creation Gate:11/19/2020fiOepatK:/Users/EretZieseOer/DropEo[ (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/5. VARIANCE/L009.GZJOast saveG:EretZieseOer DecePEer 4, 2020 11:28 AMTKe GesiJns sKoZn anG GescriEeG Kerein incOXGinJ aOO tecKnicaO GraZinJs,
JrapKics anG specifications tKereof, are proprietar\ anG cannot Ee copieG,
GXpOicateG or coPPerciaOO\ e[pOoiteG, in ZKoOe or in part, ZitKoXt tKe e[press
Zritten perPission of Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. TKese are avaiOaEOe for
OiPiteG revieZ anG evaOXation E\ cOients, consXOtants, contractors,
JovernePent aJencies, anG venGors onO\ in accorGance ZitK tKis notice.
Cop\riJKt 2020Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. AOO riJKts reserveG.
Oicense no:
I KereE\ certif\ tKat tKis pOan, specification, or report Zas prepareG E\ Pe or
XnGer P\ Girect sXpervision anG tKat I aP a GXO\ LicenseG LanGscape
ArcKitect XnGer tKe OaZs of tKe State of Minnesota.
43728
T R A V I S V A N L I E R E
Gate:1/23/2018
6 6 0 9 H O R S E S H O E C U R V E
C H A N H A S S E N , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 3 1 7
B R U N E R R E S I D E N C E
DraZn B\:
Date:
ScaOe:
DraZinJ:
SKeet:
12/18/2020
DJ
Rev #Description Date
VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020
NOTE:
GENERAL NOTES
1.SEE SHEET L001 FOR GENERAL NOTES.
2.REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING INFO.
3.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR,
AND IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE W/
PAVING, CONCRETE, AND WALL CONTRACTORS ON
SLEEVE LOCATIONS UNDER DRIVEWAYS, WALKS, AND
WALLS.4.REFER TO SHEET L010, EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN FOR
BOUNDARY INFORMATION. ALL CONSTRUCTION
STAKING MUST BE PERFORMED BY A REGISTERED LAND
SURVEYOR
5.DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS
ARE TO BE USED FOR ALL LAYOUT WORK.
6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY LAYOUT
DISCREPANCIES.
7.ALL SITE ELEMENTS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND
APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION.
8.AUTOCAD FILE AVAILABLE TO CONTRACTOR UPON
REQUEST FOR FIELD LAYOUT.
KEYNOTES
1.EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREE(S) TYP. - SAVE AND
PROTECT
2.EXISTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY/SITE FEATURE -
SAVE AND PROTECT
3.EXISTING CITY STREET/ALLEY - SAVE AND PROTECT,
REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS PER CITY STANDARDS
4.EXISTING DOCK BY OWNER, REORIENT TO ALIGN WITH
PATH, STAIRS
5.FOOTPRINT OF EXISTING LAKESIDE PAVING AND DECK
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
t 612 345 4275
EXISTING GARAGE
REFER TO ARCH
936.33
HORSESHOE CURVE
LOTUS LAKE
O.H.W.: 896.30PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE5' SIDE YARD SETBACKTRAFFIC FLOW
TRAFFIC FLOW
PROPERTY LINE
5' SIDE YARD SETBACKNEIGHBORING
STRUCTURE
NEIGHBORING
STRUCTURE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
10' FRONT YARD SETBACK
DN926.90
BFFE
EXISTING
PORCH
ABOVE
EXISTING HOUSE
937.08
FFE
REFER TO ARCH
TYP.
TYP.
TYP.
4
10' OH
W
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5
5
-1R
-1R
-2R
-2R
-2R
-2R
-3R
-4R
-5R
-5R
-2R
-5R
EXISTING CONDITIONS AND REMOVALS PLAN1 L010
EXISTING CONDITIONS ANDREMOVALS PLAN
N
1" = 16'
SCALE: 1 incK =
0 16'32'8'
16 feet
REMOVALS KEY
R1 EXISTING BITUMINOUS DRIVE TO BE REMOVED
R2 EXISTING SITE WALL TO BE REMOVED
R3 EXISTING PAVING TO BE REMOVED
R4 EXISTING DECK TO BE RECONFIGURED AND REALIGNED
R5 EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED
-R
creation Gate:11/19/2020fiOepatK:/Users/EretZieseOer/DropEo[ (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/5. VARIANCE/L010.GZJOast saveG:EretZieseOer DecePEer 4, 2020 11:33 AMTKe GesiJns sKoZn anG GescriEeG Kerein incOXGinJ aOO tecKnicaO GraZinJs,
JrapKics anG specifications tKereof, are proprietar\ anG cannot Ee copieG,
GXpOicateG or coPPerciaOO\ e[pOoiteG, in ZKoOe or in part, ZitKoXt tKe e[press
Zritten perPission of Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. TKese are avaiOaEOe for
OiPiteG revieZ anG evaOXation E\ cOients, consXOtants, contractors,
JovernePent aJencies, anG venGors onO\ in accorGance ZitK tKis notice.
Cop\riJKt 2020Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. AOO riJKts reserveG.
Oicense no:
I KereE\ certif\ tKat tKis pOan, specification, or report Zas prepareG E\ Pe or
XnGer P\ Girect sXpervision anG tKat I aP a GXO\ LicenseG LanGscape
ArcKitect XnGer tKe OaZs of tKe State of Minnesota.
43728
T R A V I S V A N L I E R E
Gate:1/23/2018
6 6 0 9 H O R S E S H O E C U R V E
C H A N H A S S E N , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 3 1 7
B R U N E R R E S I D E N C E
DraZn B\:
Date:
ScaOe:
DraZinJ:
SKeet:
12/18/2020
DJ
Rev #Description Date
VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020
NOTE:
GENERAL NOTES
1.SEE SHEET L001 FOR GENERAL NOTES.
2.REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING INFO.
3.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR,
AND IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE W/
PAVING, CONCRETE, AND WALL CONTRACTORS ON
SLEEVE LOCATIONS UNDER DRIVEWAYS, WALKS, AND
WALLS.4.REFER TO SHEET L010, EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN FOR
BOUNDARY INFORMATION. ALL CONSTRUCTION
STAKING MUST BE PERFORMED BY A REGISTERED LAND
SURVEYOR
5.DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS
ARE TO BE USED FOR ALL LAYOUT WORK.
6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY LAYOUT
DISCREPANCIES.
7.ALL SITE ELEMENTS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND
APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION.
8.AUTOCAD FILE AVAILABLE TO CONTRACTOR UPON
REQUEST FOR FIELD LAYOUT.
KEYNOTES
1.EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREE(S) TYP. - SAVE AND
PROTECT
2.EXISTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY/SITE FEATURE -
SAVE AND PROTECT
3.EXISTING CITY STREET/ALLEY - SAVE AND PROTECT,
REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS PER CITY STANDARDS
4.EXISTING DOCK BY OWNER, REORIENT TO ALIGN WITH
PATH, STAIRS
5.FOOTPRINT OF EXISTING LAKESIDE PAVING AND DECK
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
t 612 345 4275
5' SIDE YARD SETBACK5' SIDE YARD SETBACK1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
10' FRONT YARD SETBACK
DN4
10' OH
W
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
5
5
OVERLAY DIAGRAM1 L011
OVERLAY DIAGRAM
N
1" = 16'
SCALE: 1 incK =
0 16'32'8'
16 feet
EXISTING HARDCOVER
EXISTING HOUSE 2,985 s.f.
EXISTING DRIVEWAY 2,684 s.f.
EXISTING PAVING 305 s.f.
EXISTING WALLS 403 s.f.
AREA OF PROPERTY 27,878
s.f.
EXISTING HARDCOVER AREA 6,377 s.f.
EXISTING HARDCOVER 23
HARDCOVER / PROPERTY AREA RATIO ALLOWED BY
CODE 25
PROPOSED HARDCOVER
EXISTING HOUSE 2,985 s.f.
PROPOSED DRIVEWAY AUTOCOURT 2,550 s.f.
PROPOSED AGGREGATE EDGING 178 s.f.
AREA OF PROPERTY 27,878
s.f.
PROPOSED HARDCOVER AREA 5,713 s.f.
PROPOSED HARDCOVER 21
HARDCOVER / PROPERTY AREA RATIO ALLOWED BY
CODE 25creation Gate:11/19/2020fiOepatK:/Users/EretZieseOer/DropEo[ (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/5. VARIANCE/L011.GZJOast saveG:EretZieseOer DecePEer 4, 2020 11:34 AMTKe GesiJns sKoZn anG GescriEeG Kerein incOXGinJ aOO tecKnicaO GraZinJs,
JrapKics anG specifications tKereof, are proprietar\ anG cannot Ee copieG,
GXpOicateG or coPPerciaOO\ e[pOoiteG, in ZKoOe or in part, ZitKoXt tKe e[press
Zritten perPission of Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. TKese are avaiOaEOe for
OiPiteG revieZ anG evaOXation E\ cOients, consXOtants, contractors,
JovernePent aJencies, anG venGors onO\ in accorGance ZitK tKis notice.
Cop\riJKt 2020Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. AOO riJKts reserveG.
Oicense no:
I KereE\ certif\ tKat tKis pOan, specification, or report Zas prepareG E\ Pe or
XnGer P\ Girect sXpervision anG tKat I aP a GXO\ LicenseG LanGscape
ArcKitect XnGer tKe OaZs of tKe State of Minnesota.
43728
T R A V I S V A N L I E R E
Gate:1/23/2018
6 6 0 9 H O R S E S H O E C U R V E
C H A N H A S S E N , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 3 1 7
B R U N E R R E S I D E N C E
DraZn B\:
Date:
ScaOe:
DraZinJ:
SKeet:
12/18/2020
DJ
Rev #Description Date
VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020
NOTE:
GENERAL NOTES
1.SEE SHEET L001 FOR GENERAL NOTES.
2.REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING INFO.
3.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR,
AND IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE W/
PAVING, CONCRETE, AND WALL CONTRACTORS ON
SLEEVE LOCATIONS UNDER DRIVEWAYS, WALKS, AND
WALLS.4.REFER TO SHEET L010, EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN FOR
BOUNDARY INFORMATION. ALL CONSTRUCTION
STAKING MUST BE PERFORMED BY A REGISTERED LAND
SURVEYOR
5.DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS
ARE TO BE USED FOR ALL LAYOUT WORK.
6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY LAYOUT
DISCREPANCIES.
7.ALL SITE ELEMENTS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND
APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION.
8.AUTOCAD FILE AVAILABLE TO CONTRACTOR UPON
REQUEST FOR FIELD LAYOUT.
KEYNOTES
1.EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREE(S) TYP. - SAVE AND
PROTECT
2.EXISTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY/SITE FEATURE -
SAVE AND PROTECT
3.EXISTING CITY STREET/ALLEY - SAVE AND PROTECT,
REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS PER CITY STANDARDS
4.EXISTING DOCK BY OWNER, REORIENT TO ALIGN WITH
PATH, STAIRS
5.FOOTPRINT OF EXISTING LAKESIDE PAVING AND DECK
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
t 612 345 4275
EXISTING GARAGE
REFER TO ARCH
936.33
HORSESHOE CURVE
LOTUS LAKE
O.H.W.: 896.30PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE5' SIDE YARD SETBACKTRAFFIC FLOW
TRAFFIC FLOW
PROPERTY LINE
5' SIDE YARD SETBACKW.W
NEIGHBORING
STRUCTURE
NEIGHBORING
STRUCTURE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
10' FRONT YARD SETBACK
DN926.90
BFFE
EXISTING
PORCH
ABOVE
EXISTING HOUSE
937.08
FFE
REFER TO ARCH
TYP.
TYP.
TYP.
4
10' OH
W
S
E
T
B
A
C
KPOBDN DN
DN
DN DN
DN
DN
5
5
40'-6"12'49'-10"12'8'-8"2'
3'
12'-7"4'4'-6"TYP.2'TYP.11'-7"
6'-9"12'6 EQ.6'
37'
13'
R6'R6'2'13'R12'ALGNALGN1'1
1
2 2
6'6'4'41'4'3', TYP.11 SP. EQ.4'
4'86'-6"3
6 EQ.36'77'-3"12 EQ.1', TYP.9', TYP.2 EQ.19'12'63'-5"ALGN
3'-3"11'20'-6"
PROPERTY LINE
OHW ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
SITE PLAN1 L101
SITE PLAN
1" = 16'
SCALE: 1 incK =
0 16'32'8'
16 feet
SHEET NOTES
1.REPLACE CURB-CUT FOR EXISTING DRIVE APRON
2.INSTALL NEW CURB CUT FOR DRIVEWAY PER CITY
STANDARDS
3.SLOT DRAIN @ GARAGE THRESHOLD
CONTOUR ELEVATIONXXX
POB POINT OF BEGINNING
PROPOSED CONTOURSXXX
EXISTING CONTOURSXX
X
TRAFFIC
FLOW TRAFFIC FLOW ARROW
EXISTING TREE TO BE SAVED
AND PROTECTED
DECID.CONIF.ORNM.
PROPOSED NEW TREE
DECID.CONIF.ORNM.
SETBACK
EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION000.00X
LEGEND
N
creation Gate:12/4/2020fiOepatK:/Users/EretZieseOer/DropEo[ (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/5. VARIANCE/L101.GZJOast saveG:EretZieseOer DecePEer 4, 2020 11:34 AMTKe GesiJns sKoZn anG GescriEeG Kerein incOXGinJ aOO tecKnicaO GraZinJs,
JrapKics anG specifications tKereof, are proprietar\ anG cannot Ee copieG,
GXpOicateG or coPPerciaOO\ e[pOoiteG, in ZKoOe or in part, ZitKoXt tKe e[press
Zritten perPission of Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. TKese are avaiOaEOe for
OiPiteG revieZ anG evaOXation E\ cOients, consXOtants, contractors,
JovernePent aJencies, anG venGors onO\ in accorGance ZitK tKis notice.
Cop\riJKt 2020Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. AOO riJKts reserveG.
Oicense no:
I KereE\ certif\ tKat tKis pOan, specification, or report Zas prepareG E\ Pe or
XnGer P\ Girect sXpervision anG tKat I aP a GXO\ LicenseG LanGscape
ArcKitect XnGer tKe OaZs of tKe State of Minnesota.
43728
T R A V I S V A N L I E R E
Gate:1/23/2018
6 6 0 9 H O R S E S H O E C U R V E
C H A N H A S S E N , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 3 1 7
B R U N E R R E S I D E N C E
DraZn B\:
Date:
ScaOe:
DraZinJ:
SKeet:
12/18/2020
DJ
Rev #Description Date
VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020
NOTE:
GENERAL NOTES
1.SEE SHEET L001 FOR GENERAL NOTES.
2.REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING INFO.
3.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR,
AND IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE W/
PAVING, CONCRETE, AND WALL CONTRACTORS ON
SLEEVE LOCATIONS UNDER DRIVEWAYS, WALKS, AND
WALLS.4.REFER TO SHEET L010, EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN FOR
BOUNDARY INFORMATION. ALL CONSTRUCTION
STAKING MUST BE PERFORMED BY A REGISTERED LAND
SURVEYOR
5.DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS
ARE TO BE USED FOR ALL LAYOUT WORK.
6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY LAYOUT
DISCREPANCIES.
7.ALL SITE ELEMENTS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND
APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION.
8.AUTOCAD FILE AVAILABLE TO CONTRACTOR UPON
REQUEST FOR FIELD LAYOUT.
KEYNOTES
1.EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREE(S) TYP. - SAVE AND
PROTECT
2.EXISTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY/SITE FEATURE -
SAVE AND PROTECT
3.EXISTING CITY STREET/ALLEY - SAVE AND PROTECT,
REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS PER CITY STANDARDS
4.EXISTING DOCK BY OWNER, REORIENT TO ALIGN WITH
PATH, STAIRS
5.FOOTPRINT OF EXISTING LAKESIDE PAVING AND DECK
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
t 612 345 4275
CB
CB CB
CB CB
CB
CB
CB
CB
EXISTING GARAGE
REFER TO ARCH
936.33
HORSESHOE CURVE
LOTUS LAKE
O.H.W.: 896.30PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE5' SIDE YARD SETBACKTRAFFIC FLOW
TRAFFIC FLOW
PROPERTY LINE
5' SIDE YARD SETBACKW.W
NEIGHBORING
STRUCTURE
NEIGHBORING
STRUCTURE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
P.E.
10' FRONT YARD SETBACK
1.50
2.42
2
:
1 19DN926.90
BFFE
EXISTING
PORCH
ABOVE
EXISTING HOUSE
937.08
FFE
REFER TO ARCH
TYP.
TYP.
TYP.
4
10' OH
W
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
CB
DN DN
DN
DN DN
DN
DN
927928930932926
925
931934933935936937938939953
952
952
951
950
949
948
947
946
945
944
943
942
941
940
939
926
924
922
920
918
916929926.75
924.58
BOS
933.50
TOW
936.92
TOS
929.33
BOW
935.00
TOS
927.75
BOS
900.00
TOD
5
5
926.75
936.33
RIM
931.00
BOW
933.00
BOW
934.50
TOW 926.75
TOS
926.75
933.00
BOW
931.50
TOW
935.50
936.33
938.50
935.50
926.75 926.75
926.17
BOS
926.17
BOS
926.17
BOS
924.50
TOS
922.75
TOS
921.00
TOS
925.75
RIM
925.75
RIM
925.75
RIM
925.75
RIM
925.75
RIM
926.75
RIM
936.33
RIM
917.50
TOS
919.25
TOS
908.33
TOS
915.75
TOS
914.00
TOS
912.25
TOS
910.50
TOS
908.75
TOS
907.00
TOS
905.25
TOS
903.50
TOS
901.75
TOS
4
4
4
4
BEYOND
BEYOND
2
1
1
3
1
GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN1 L201
GRADING AND DRAINAGEPLAN
N
1" = 16'
SCALE: 1 incK =
0 16'32'8'
16 feet
PROPERTY LINE
OHW ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
CONTOUR ELEVATIONXXX
SLOPE-AT-SURFACE/DRAINAGE FLOW ARROWX.XX
POB POINT OF BEGINNING
DRAIN TILE
PROPOSED CONTOURSXXX
XX
X EXISTING CONTOURS
NEW PERENNIAL/ANNUAL
PERENNIAL GRASS
POINT OF ENTRY AT BUILDING
TRAFFIC
FLOW TRAFFIC FLOW ARROW
EXISTING TREE TO BE SAVED
AND PROTECTED
DECID.CONIF.ORNM.
PROPOSED NEW TREE
DECID.CONIF.ORNM.
PROPOSED SPOT ELEVATIONXXX.XX
LOCN
SETBACK
EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION000.00X
STAIRDN
UP
LEGEND
SHEET NOTES
1.12" NDS CATCH BASIN
2.SLOT DRAIN
3.POP-UP EMITTER
4.DRAIN TILE, TYPICAL
CB RD AD CATCH BASIN, ROOF DRAIN, OR AREA DRAIN
creation Gate:11/19/2020fiOepatK:/Users/EretZieseOer/DropEo[ (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/5. VARIANCE/L201.GZJOast saveG:EretZieseOer DecePEer 4, 2020 11:37 AMTKe GesiJns sKoZn anG GescriEeG Kerein incOXGinJ aOO tecKnicaO GraZinJs,
JrapKics anG specifications tKereof, are proprietar\ anG cannot Ee copieG,
GXpOicateG or coPPerciaOO\ e[pOoiteG, in ZKoOe or in part, ZitKoXt tKe e[press
Zritten perPission of Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. TKese are avaiOaEOe for
OiPiteG revieZ anG evaOXation E\ cOients, consXOtants, contractors,
JovernePent aJencies, anG venGors onO\ in accorGance ZitK tKis notice.
Cop\riJKt 2020Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. AOO riJKts reserveG.
Oicense no:
I KereE\ certif\ tKat tKis pOan, specification, or report Zas prepareG E\ Pe or
XnGer P\ Girect sXpervision anG tKat I aP a GXO\ LicenseG LanGscape
ArcKitect XnGer tKe OaZs of tKe State of Minnesota.
43728
T R A V I S V A N L I E R E
Gate:1/23/2018
6 6 0 9 H O R S E S H O E C U R V E
C H A N H A S S E N , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 3 1 7
B R U N E R R E S I D E N C E
DraZn B\:
Date:
ScaOe:
DraZinJ:
SKeet:
12/18/2020
DJ
Rev #Description Date
VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020
NOTE:
GENERAL NOTES
1.SEE SHEET L001 FOR GENERAL NOTES.
2.REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING INFO.
3.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR,
AND IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE W/
PAVING, CONCRETE, AND WALL CONTRACTORS ON
SLEEVE LOCATIONS UNDER DRIVEWAYS, WALKS, AND
WALLS.4.REFER TO SHEET L010, EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN FOR
BOUNDARY INFORMATION. ALL CONSTRUCTION
STAKING MUST BE PERFORMED BY A REGISTERED LAND
SURVEYOR
5.DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS
ARE TO BE USED FOR ALL LAYOUT WORK.
6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY LAYOUT
DISCREPANCIES.
7.ALL SITE ELEMENTS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND
APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION.
8.AUTOCAD FILE AVAILABLE TO CONTRACTOR UPON
REQUEST FOR FIELD LAYOUT.
KEYNOTES
1.EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREE(S) TYP. - SAVE AND
PROTECT
2.EXISTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY/SITE FEATURE -
SAVE AND PROTECT
3.EXISTING CITY STREET/ALLEY - SAVE AND PROTECT,
REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS PER CITY STANDARDS
4.EXISTING DOCK BY OWNER, REORIENT TO ALIGN WITH
PATH, STAIRS
5.FOOTPRINT OF EXISTING LAKESIDE PAVING AND DECK
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
t 612 345 4275
EXISTING GARAGE
REFER TO ARCH
936.33
HORSESHOE CURVE
LOTUS LAKE
O.H.W.: 896.30PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE5' SIDE YARD SETBACKTRAFFIC FLOW
TRAFFIC FLOW
PROPERTY LINE
5' SIDE YARD SETBACKW.W
NEIGHBORING
STRUCTURE
NEIGHBORING
STRUCTURE
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
3
10' FRONT YARD SETBACK
DN926.90
BFFE
EXISTING
PORCH
ABOVE
EXISTING HOUSE
937.08
FFE
REFER TO ARCH
TYP.
TYP.
TYP.
4
10' OH
W
S
E
T
B
A
C
K
DN DN
DN
DN DN
DN
DN
5
5
13
PM
1
PM
G
1
G
1
36
EQ
1
1
1
2
L608
7L608LANDSCAPE PLAN1 L401
LANDSCAPE PLAN
N
1" = 16'
SCALE: 1 incK =
0 16'32'8'
16 feet
PROPERTY LINE
OHW ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK
SHEET NOTES
1.4' MOWED PATH, TYPICAL
CONTOUR ELEVATIONXXX
POB POINT OF BEGINNING
PROPOSED CONTOURSXXX
XX
X EXISTING CONTOURS
POINT OF ENTRY AT BUILDING
TRAFFIC
FLOW TRAFFIC FLOW ARROW
EXISTING TREE TO BE SAVED
AND PROTECTED
DECID.CONIF.ORNM.
PROPOSED NEW TREE
DECID.CONIF.ORNM.
SETBACK
EXISTING SPOT ELEVATION000.00X
STAIRDN
UP
LEGEND
PLANT SCHEDULE
TREES
KEY NAME QTY SIZE
PM PseXGotsXJa Pen]eisii
DOUGLAS FIR 14 EA.14' (H) BB
PERENNIALS
KEY NAME QTY SIZE
EQ ETXisetXP
HORSETAIL 36 EA.#4 CONT.
TURF, GROUND COVERS, AND SEED MIXES
HATCH KEY NAME QTY SIZE
TAG
QTY
G1 NOW-MOW 21,810 s.f.N/AFESCUE
creation Gate:12/4/2020fiOepatK:/Users/EretZieseOer/DropEo[ (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/5. VARIANCE/L401.GZJOast saveG:EretZieseOer DecePEer 4, 2020 12:36 PMTKe GesiJns sKoZn anG GescriEeG Kerein incOXGinJ aOO tecKnicaO GraZinJs,
JrapKics anG specifications tKereof, are proprietar\ anG cannot Ee copieG,
GXpOicateG or coPPerciaOO\ e[pOoiteG, in ZKoOe or in part, ZitKoXt tKe e[press
Zritten perPission of Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. TKese are avaiOaEOe for
OiPiteG revieZ anG evaOXation E\ cOients, consXOtants, contractors,
JovernePent aJencies, anG venGors onO\ in accorGance ZitK tKis notice.
Cop\riJKt 2020Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. AOO riJKts reserveG.
Oicense no:
I KereE\ certif\ tKat tKis pOan, specification, or report Zas prepareG E\ Pe or
XnGer P\ Girect sXpervision anG tKat I aP a GXO\ LicenseG LanGscape
ArcKitect XnGer tKe OaZs of tKe State of Minnesota.
43728
T R A V I S V A N L I E R E
Gate:1/23/2018
6 6 0 9 H O R S E S H O E C U R V E
C H A N H A S S E N , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 3 1 7
B R U N E R R E S I D E N C E
DraZn B\:
Date:
ScaOe:
DraZinJ:
SKeet:
12/18/2020
DJ
Rev #Description Date
VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020
NOTE:
GENERAL NOTES
1.SEE SHEET L001 FOR GENERAL NOTES.
2.REFER TO ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS FOR BUILDING INFO.
3.ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR, MECHANICAL CONTRACTOR,
AND IRRIGATION CONTRACTOR TO COORDINATE W/
PAVING, CONCRETE, AND WALL CONTRACTORS ON
SLEEVE LOCATIONS UNDER DRIVEWAYS, WALKS, AND
WALLS.4.REFER TO SHEET L010, EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN FOR
BOUNDARY INFORMATION. ALL CONSTRUCTION
STAKING MUST BE PERFORMED BY A REGISTERED LAND
SURVEYOR
5.DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS
ARE TO BE USED FOR ALL LAYOUT WORK.
6.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL IMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT OF ANY LAYOUT
DISCREPANCIES.
7.ALL SITE ELEMENTS SHALL BE STAKED IN THE FIELD AND
APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION.
8.AUTOCAD FILE AVAILABLE TO CONTRACTOR UPON
REQUEST FOR FIELD LAYOUT.
KEYNOTES
1.EXISTING SIGNIFICANT TREE(S) TYP. - SAVE AND
PROTECT
2.EXISTING NEIGHBORING PROPERTY/SITE FEATURE -
SAVE AND PROTECT
3.EXISTING CITY STREET/ALLEY - SAVE AND PROTECT,
REPAIR ANY DAMAGED AREAS PER CITY STANDARDS
4.EXISTING DOCK BY OWNER, REORIENT TO ALIGN WITH
PATH, STAIRS
5.FOOTPRINT OF EXISTING LAKESIDE PAVING AND DECK
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
t 612 345 4275
L501
WALL ELEVATIONS
1" = 16'
940' 0"
935' 0"
930' 0"
925' 0"
933.50
TOW 6"940' 0"
935' 0"
930' 0"
925' 0"
933.50
TOW
940' 0"
935' 0"
930' 0"
925' 0"
933.50
TOW6"2'-6"6"931.50
TOW931.00
BOW
933.00
TOW
WALL RETURNS BEYOND
C.I.P. CONCRETE WALL
FACE OF BUILDING
DECK ABOVE -
SEE ARCH. DWGS.
FINISHED GRADE BEYOND
WALL RETURNS
BEYOND
DECK ABOVE - SEE ARCH. DWGS.
FINISHED
GRADE
BEYOND
C.I.P. CONCRETE WALL
931.00
BOW
1L601WALL RETURNS BEYOND
C.I.P. CONCRETE WALL
FACE OF BUILDING
DECK ABOVE -
SEE ARCH. DWGS.
FINISHED GRADE BEYOND
SCALE:1/2" = 1'-0"
WALL 1 - NORTH FACING ELEVATION1 SCALE:1/2" = 1'-0"
WALL 1 - WEST FACING ELEVATION2 SCALE:1/2" = 1'-0"
WALL 1 - SOUTH FACING ELEVATION3
creation Gate:11/19/2020fiOepatK:/Users/EretZieseOer/DropEo[ (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/5. VARIANCE/L501.GZJOast saveG:GanieOOeMXricKNo NovePEer 19, 2020 8:11 PMTKe GesiJns sKoZn anG GescriEeG Kerein incOXGinJ aOO tecKnicaO GraZinJs,
JrapKics anG specifications tKereof, are proprietar\ anG cannot Ee copieG,
GXpOicateG or coPPerciaOO\ e[pOoiteG, in ZKoOe or in part, ZitKoXt tKe e[press
Zritten perPission of Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. TKese are avaiOaEOe for
OiPiteG revieZ anG evaOXation E\ cOients, consXOtants, contractors,
JovernePent aJencies, anG venGors onO\ in accorGance ZitK tKis notice.
Cop\riJKt 2020Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. AOO riJKts reserveG.
Oicense no:
I KereE\ certif\ tKat tKis pOan, specification, or report Zas prepareG E\ Pe or
XnGer P\ Girect sXpervision anG tKat I aP a GXO\ LicenseG LanGscape
ArcKitect XnGer tKe OaZs of tKe State of Minnesota.
43728
T R A V I S V A N L I E R E
Gate:1/23/2018
6 6 0 9 H O R S E S H O E C U R V E
C H A N H A S S E N , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 3 1 7
B R U N E R R E S I D E N C E
DraZn B\:
Date:
ScaOe:
DraZinJ:
SKeet:
12/18/2020
DJ
Rev #Description Date
VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
t 612 345 4275
L601
WALL, STAIR, AND SURFACINGDETAILS
1" = 16'
1/2" PREMOLDED EXPANSION JOINT
#3 SMOOTH BAR DOWELS 12" O.C.
CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE AS
SPECIFIED - SEE SURFACING PLAN FOR
FINISH
1/4" X 3/4" HAND TOOLED CONTROL
JOINT. SEE LAYOUT PLAN FOR
JOINTING.
CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE AS SPECIFIED
- SEE SURFACING PLAN FOR FINISH.
1/4" X 3/4" HAND TOOLED CONTROL
JOINT. SEE LAYOUT PLAN ON SHEET L5
FOR JOINTING.
CONSTRUCTION JOINT AS SPECIFIED
AND NEEDED.
CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE AS
SPECIFIED - SEE SURFACING PLAN
FOR FINISH.
1/2" PREMOLDED EXPANSION JOINT.
SILICONE JOINT W/ 1
2"Ø BACKER ROD
CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE AS
SPECIFIED - SEE SURFACING PLAN FOR
FINISH.
EXPANSION JOINT
CONTROL JOINT
CONSTRUCTION JOINT
SILICON EXPANSION JOINT1"1
2"
1
8"3/4"1
8"3/4"1
2"VARIESVARIESVARIESVARIESSCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0"
CONCRETE SURFACING @ PLANTING BED7 SCALE:N/A
CONCRETE JOINTING, TYPICAL8 SCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0"
AGGREGATE SURFACING, TYPICAL9
TOP OF PAVING
ELEVATION VARIES
C.I.P. CONCRETE SURFACING
W/ 6 [ 6 W.W. MESH. EXPOSED
FINISH. SEE PLANS FOR
JOINTING. EXPANSION JOINTS
AS NEEDED.5"118"6" MIN.1'1"COMPACTED, CRUSHED
AGGREGATE BASE,
COMPACT TO 98 SPD
COMPACTED OR
UNDISTURBED
SUBGRADE, AS
RECOMMENDED BY
GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER.
EXTEND BASE BEYOND
EXTENTS OF UNIT
PAVERS. 6" MIN.
SNOW MELT SYSTEM,
SEE MECH. DWGS.5"118"6" MIN.1'1"TOP OF PAVING
ELEVATION VARIES
C.I.P. CONCRETE
SURFACING
COMPACTED, CRUSHED
AGGREGATE BASE,
COMPACT TO 98 SPD
COMPACTED OR
UNDISTURBED
SUBGRADE, AS
RECOMMENDED BY
GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEER.
EXTEND BASE BEYOND
EXTENTS OF UNIT
PAVERS.12" MIN.
LOOSENED AND
AMENDED PLANTING
SOIL AS SPECIFIED.
VEGETATED AREA
AS SPECIFIED.
GEOFABRIC TYP.
SNOW MELT SYSTEM,
SEE MECH. DWGS.
TOP OF PAVING
ELEVATION VARIES
ALL JOINTS ARE TO BE SAW CUT
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
JOINTS SHALL BE STRAIGHT,
CLEAN AND NEAT. STONE
VENEER, SEE L102, L700
C.I.P. CONCRETE SURFACING
W/ #4 BAR @ 12"O.C. EW. SEE
PLANS FOR JOINTING.
EXPANSION JOINTS AS
NEEDED.
COMPACTED, CRUSHED
AGGREGATE BASE, COMPACT
TO 98 SPD
COMPACTED OR UNDISTURBED
SUBGRADE, AS RECOMMENDED
BY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER.5"1'GEOFABRIC TYP.
SNOW MELT SYSTEM, SEE
MECH. DWGS.
SCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0"
CONCRETE SURFACING @ DRIVEWAY AND AUTOCOURT5
SCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0"
CONCRETE SURFACING @ LAWN6
AGGREGATE SURFACING
8"3"GEOFABRIC UNDERNEATH, TYP.
COMPACTED OR UNDISTURBED
SUBGRADE AS RECOMMENDED BY
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
TOP OF PAVING
ELEVATION VARIES
1' , TYP.7"TYP.5/4[6 IPE DECKING, TYP.T.O.S.
SEE PLAN
3'-3" O.C., TYP.3'-3" O.C., TYP.
4'-01
2"
1
2" GAP., TYP.
2[6 P.T. JOIST @ 16" O.C., TYP.2" MIN.HELICAL PIER TO FROST, TYP.
2[12 P.T. STAIR STRINGER, TYP.
5/4[6 IPE DECKING ON TREAD AND RISER, TYP.
2[6 P.T. SLEEPER, TYP.
FINISHED GRADE BEYOND
1', TYP.2' TYP.2'-6" MAX.SCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0"
WOOD STAIRCASE SECTION, TYPICAL34'-4"8"
1'-3"9"4'TO FROST929.33 6" MIN.VARIESBOW VARIES
SEE PLANS
933.50
TOW
C.I.P. CONCRETE WALL W/
BOARD FORM FINISH
SURFACING AS
SPECIFIED - SEE PLANS
COMPACTED
GRANULAR BACKFILL -
WRAP W/ GEO-FABRIC
COMPACTED GRANULAR
BACKFILL- WRAP W/
GEO-FABRIC
#5 VERT @ 12" O.C.
#5 HORZ @ 12" O.C.
4" DIA. CORRUGATED PVC
DRAINTILE WITH SLEEVE.
DRAIN TO DAYLIGHT. (VERIFY
DAYLIGHT LOCATIONS IN
FIELD)
REINFORCED CONCRETE
SPREAD FOOTING
#4 @ 12" O.C. EA WAY, TOP
AND BOTTOM
COMPACTED OR
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
GEOFABRIC, TYP.
INFILL SOILS, COMPACT PER
ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS
COMPACTED GRANULAR
BACKFILL - WRAP W/
GEO-FABRIC
GEOFABRIC, TYP.
INFILL SOILS, COMPACT
PER ENGINEER
REQUIREMENTS
AGGREGATE
SURFACING
GEOFABRIC
UNDERNEATH, TYP.
OUTSIDE EDGE OF
HOUSE AND WINDOW
CASING- V.I.F.3"8"2 MIN.
CATCH BASIN. DRAIN TO
DAYLIGHT. (VERIFY DAYLIGHT
LOCATIONS IN FIELD)
WALL RETURN BEYOND 7"TYP.314"6"8"1'
BURY BELOW GRADE
GEO-FABRIC
UNDERNEATH, TYP.
COMPACTED OR
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
AS RECOMMENDED BY
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
SURFACING BEYOND
- SEE PLANS
COMPACTED CRUSHED
CLASS 5 BASE.
COMPACT TO 100 SPD
SURFACING BEYOND
- SEE PLANS
914"8"ALUMINUM EDGING
1'
T.O.S.
SEE PLAN
2[6 P.T. FRAMING, TYP.
5/4[6 IPE DECKING ON
TREAD AND RISER,
TYP.
SCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0"
WOOD LANDSCAPE TREAD - SECTION, TYPICAL2
7", TYP.1', TYP.612"6" MIN.4"6"8"COMPACTED OR UNDISTURBED
SUBGRADE AS RECOMMENDED
BY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
1/2" WASHED DRESSER TRAP
ROCK BENEATH DECK EXTENTS
926.75
TOD
924.42
BOS
SURFACING
BEYOND - SEE
PLANS
GEO-FABRIC
UNDERNEATH,
TYP.
COMPACTED
CRUSHED
CLASS 5 BASE -
COMPACT TO
100 SPD
SLOPE
ALUMINUM EDGING
5/4[6 IPE DECKING, TYP.
2[12 P.T. STAIR
STRINGER, TYP.
5/4[6 IPE DECKING
ON TREAD AND
RISER, TYP.
SCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0"
DECK STAIRS - SECTION4SCALE:3/4" = 1'-0"
C.I.P. CONC. WINDOW WELL1
creation Gate:12/4/2020fiOepatK:/Users/EretZieseOer/DropEo[ (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/5. VARIANCE/L601.GZJOast saveG:EretZieseOer DecePEer 4, 2020 12:29 PMTKe GesiJns sKoZn anG GescriEeG Kerein incOXGinJ aOO tecKnicaO GraZinJs,
JrapKics anG specifications tKereof, are proprietar\ anG cannot Ee copieG,
GXpOicateG or coPPerciaOO\ e[pOoiteG, in ZKoOe or in part, ZitKoXt tKe e[press
Zritten perPission of Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. TKese are avaiOaEOe for
OiPiteG revieZ anG evaOXation E\ cOients, consXOtants, contractors,
JovernePent aJencies, anG venGors onO\ in accorGance ZitK tKis notice.
Cop\riJKt 2020Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. AOO riJKts reserveG.
Oicense no:
I KereE\ certif\ tKat tKis pOan, specification, or report Zas prepareG E\ Pe or
XnGer P\ Girect sXpervision anG tKat I aP a GXO\ LicenseG LanGscape
ArcKitect XnGer tKe OaZs of tKe State of Minnesota.
43728
T R A V I S V A N L I E R E
Gate:1/23/2018
6 6 0 9 H O R S E S H O E C U R V E
C H A N H A S S E N , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 3 1 7
B R U N E R R E S I D E N C E
DraZn B\:
Date:
ScaOe:
DraZinJ:
SKeet:
12/18/2020
DJ
Rev #Description Date
VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
t 612 345 4275
L602
DRAINAGE AND LIGHTINGDETAILS
1" = 16'
SCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0"
SQUARE CATCH BASIN IN PLANTING AREA5
SCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0"
POP-UP EMITTER8
NDS POLYOLEFIN POP-UP
DRAINAGE EMITTER - OR
APPROVED EQ.
NDS 1/4 BEND SEWER
DRAIN ELBOW - OR
APPROVED EQ.
SURFACING AS
SPECIFIED - SEE PLANS
COMPACTED TOPSOIL
1
4" LEACH HOLE
DRAIN TILE, TYP.
GRANULAR FILL WHERE
APPLICABLE
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADEVARIES6" MIN.SLOPE TO DRAINSLOPE TO DRAIN
RIM ELEV.
ELEV. VARIES, SEE L2012" MIN.16" DIA. MIN.
COVER TOP OF
CATCH BASIN WITH 2"
OF 2-3" DIA BLACK
MEXICAN BEACH
PEBBLES
GEO FABRIC, TYP.
NDS GALV. STEEL GRATE,
SEE L700
NDS RISER IF REQUIRED
NDS 12" OR 18" SQUARE
CATCH BASIN AS
SPECIFIED
NDS UNIVERSAL OUTLET
INVERT ELEVATION
GRANULAR FILL
GEO FABRIC, TYP.
SCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0"
UPLIGHT IN MONOLITHIC STAIR2
TOP OF SURFACING
ELEVATION VARIESSEE MANUFACTURERRECOMMENDATIONUP LIGHT. SEE
MANUFACTURER'S
SPECIFICATIONS.
SURFACING AS SPECIFIED,
SEE PLANS
FLEXIBLE CONDUIT
SCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0"
UPLIGHT IN LPLANTING AREAS3
1" MAX
BOLLARD LIGHT, SEE L103
BOLLARD FLANGE MOUNT TO
CONCRETE PIER, SEE
MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS.
SURFACING BEYOND, SEE L401
FLEXIBLE CONDUIT TO LIGHT
FIXTURE.
SCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0"
BOLLARD4
FACE OF HOUSE
P.T. 2[6 LEDGER BOARD
CONNECTION @ HOUSE
912"3"3"3"6"
V.I.F.
(2) P.T. 2[6 BEAM, TYP.
5
4"(t) IPE DECKING, TYP.
9" NDS GRATE, GALV. STEEL
GRATE
NDS 9" SQUARE CATCH
BASIN - USE RISERS AS
REQUIRED
NDS UNIVERSAL OUTLET
DRAIN PIPE, CONNECT TO
SITE DRAINAGE SYSTEM
INVERT ELEVATION
GRANULAR FILL, TYP.
GEOFABRIC, TYP.
HOUSE FOUNDATION
BEYOND - V.I.F.
926.75
RIM
1/2" WASHED DRESSER
TRAP ROCK BENEATH
DECK EXTENTS
SLOPE SLOPE
WRAP W/ GEOFABRIC
DECK FRAMING
ABOVE
9" NDS GRATE, GALV.
STEEL GRATE
NDS 9" SQUARE
CATCH BASIN - USE
RISERS IF REQUIRED
NDS UNIVERSAL
OUTLET
DRAIN PIPE, CONNECT
TO SITE DRAINAGE
SYSTEM
INVERT ELEVATION
GRANULAR FILL, TYP.
GEOFABRIC, TYP.
1/2" WASHED DRESSER
TRAP ROCK BENEATH
DECK EXTENTS
925.75
RIM
SCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0"
SQUARE CATCH BASIN BENEATH DECK6 SCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0"
SQAURE CATCH BASIN IN DECK7 SCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0"
SLOT DRAIN @ GARAGE THRESHOLD9
SCALE:NTS
TYPICAL SLOPETAME2 ASSEMBLY AND ANCHORAGE (FOR REFERENCE ONLY)1
SLOPETAME2
UNITS
PLAN SPECIFICATIONS
UNIT SIZE - 50 CM X 50 CM X 2.5 CM
(20" X 20" X 1")
UNIT WEIGHT - 558 GRAMS (19 OZ.)
STRENGTH - 402 KG/CM (5720 PSI)
COLOR - BLACK (STANDARD)
RESIN - 95 POST-CONSUMER
2
OR 2.2 KG (4.8 POUNDS)
RECYCLED HDPE/LDPE
UNITS
FABRIC
WEIGHT - 2.25 OZ./SY( 76.3 GM/M )2
TENSILE - 65 [ 40 LB/FT (585 KG/M )2
8.3 CM (3.3")
2.3 CM (0.9")
6 CM (2.4")
25 CM (9.8")16.7 CM (6.6")
50 CM (19.7")
2.5 CM
15 CM
TYPICAL ANCHOR PIN
FACE OF SLOPE
SLOPE CROSS SECTION
START AT TOP OF SLOPE
WITH HOLES IN UPPER RIGHT
CORNER.
TOP OF SLOPE
FOLD OVER TOP OF SLOPE AND ANCHOR
TYPICAL
ANCHOR PIN
LOCATION
TOE OF SLOPETOP OF SLOPESLOPETAME
2
SLOPETAME2
FABRIC
TOE OF SLOPE
ANCHOR PIN
SLOPETAME2 CROSS-BRACING
AVAILABLE IN 9 STANDARD ROLL SIZES
PLACE ROLLS GOING DOWN THE
SLOPE WITH CROSS-BRACING
RUNNING ACROSS THE SLOPE
1600 JacNson St., SXite 310
GoOGen, CoOoraGo 80401
800-233-1510 OR 303-233-8383
FAX: 303-233-8282
rev. 08/04
InvisiEOe StrXctXres, Inc.
FOR REFERENCE ONLY - SEE MANUFACTURER'S FULL SPECIFICATIONS FOR INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS
EQ'EQ'
12"
TOP OF CANISTER SHALL BE
FLUSH WITH FINISHED GRADE.
SEE MANF. SPECS.
16" WIDE X 6" THICK MONOLITHIC
STONE STAIR, TYP.
COMPACTED CRUSHED
CLASS 5 BASE. COMPACT
TO 100 SPD.
GEOFABRIC
SLEEVE LIGHTS INTO PVC BASE
FLEXIBLE CONDUIT TO LIGHT
CANISTER
18"7
8"
CAULK JOINT
6"6"5"VERIFY DIMS.
PER MAFR.
SPECS.6"5" THICK CONCRETE
SURFACING W/
SNOW-MET SYSTEM
BRICKSLOT 100 SST.
SLOT DRAIN BY ACO -
OR APPROVED EQ.
C.I.P. CONCRETE
SURROUND W/ (4)
#4 BARS
COMPACTED
CRUSHED AGG.
BASE, COMPACT
TO 98 SPD
GEOFABRIC
COMPACTED OR
UNDISTURBED
SUBGRADE
GARAGE DOOR - SEE
ARCH. DWGS.
GARAGE THRESHOLD -
V.I.F.
VERIFY DIMS. PER MAFR. SPECS.
EXPANSION JOINT
creation Gate:11/19/2020fiOepatK:/Users/EretZieseOer/DropEo[ (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/5. VARIANCE/L602.GZJOast saveG:EretZieseOer DecePEer 4, 2020 12:31 PMTKe GesiJns sKoZn anG GescriEeG Kerein incOXGinJ aOO tecKnicaO GraZinJs,
JrapKics anG specifications tKereof, are proprietar\ anG cannot Ee copieG,
GXpOicateG or coPPerciaOO\ e[pOoiteG, in ZKoOe or in part, ZitKoXt tKe e[press
Zritten perPission of Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. TKese are avaiOaEOe for
OiPiteG revieZ anG evaOXation E\ cOients, consXOtants, contractors,
JovernePent aJencies, anG venGors onO\ in accorGance ZitK tKis notice.
Cop\riJKt 2020Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. AOO riJKts reserveG.
Oicense no:
I KereE\ certif\ tKat tKis pOan, specification, or report Zas prepareG E\ Pe or
XnGer P\ Girect sXpervision anG tKat I aP a GXO\ LicenseG LanGscape
ArcKitect XnGer tKe OaZs of tKe State of Minnesota.
43728
T R A V I S V A N L I E R E
Gate:1/23/2018
6 6 0 9 H O R S E S H O E C U R V E
C H A N H A S S E N , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 3 1 7
B R U N E R R E S I D E N C E
DraZn B\:
Date:
ScaOe:
DraZinJ:
SKeet:
12/18/2020
DJ
Rev #Description Date
VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
t 612 345 4275
L603
SITE ELEMENT DETAILS
1" = 16'
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"
DECK - SURFACING PLAN2
CB
CB CB CBCB
926.75
926.75
926.17
BOS
926.17
BOS
926.17
BOS55'-5"
1'-3"
O.C.
55'-8"
49'-9"5'-6" O.C.5'-6" O.C.9 SP. EQ.6' O.C.6' O.C.8" O.C.4'-9" O.C.11'-8"24'-512"1"
5'-8"
11
2"
ALGN
6'-8" O.C., TYP.8"5"1'-4"
O.C.
TYP.5'-9"5'-9"5'-3"5'-3"112"1'-4"
O.C.
TYP.
55'-10"12'24'-9"2'ALGN6'
FACE OF HOUSE, TYP. - V.I.F.
P.T. 2[6 LEDGER BOARD
CONNECTION @ HOUSE, TYP.
925.75
RIM
925.75
RIM
925.75
RIM
925.75
RIM
925.75
RIM
P.T. 2[6 RIM JOIST, TYP.
(2) P.T. 2[6 BEAM, TYP.
P.T. 2[6 RIM JOIST, TYP.
HELICAL PIER FOOTING
BEYOND, TYP.
9
L602
10L602CATCH BASIN BEYOND, TYP. -
CONNECT TO SITE DRAINAGE
SYSTEM AND DRAIN TO
DAYLIGHT
FACE OF HOUSE, TYP. - V.I.F.
DECK FRAME BEYOND, TYP.
5/4[6 IPE DECKING, TYP.
5/4[6 IPE SKIRT BOARD ON
ALL EXPOSED EDGES
HELICAL PIER FOOTING
BEYOND, TYP.BBA A
SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0"
DECK - FOOTING AND FRAMING PLAN1
SCALE:3/4" = 1'-0"
DECK - SECTION A-A9 SCALE:3/4" = 1'-0"
DECK - SECTION B-B10
SLOPE SLOPE
FACE OF HOUSE
5'-6" O.C.5'-6" O.C.
51
2" , TYP.
1
4" GAP, TYP.
HOUSE FOUNDATION
BEYOND- V.I.F.
HOUSE FOUNDATION
BEYOND- V.I.F.
4'-9" O.C.
5'-3"5'-3"8"
P.T. 2[6 LEDGER BOARD
CONNECTION @ HOUSE
FACE OF HOUSE
P.T. 2[6 LEDGER BOARD
CONNECTION @ HOUSE
926.75
TOD
926.17
BOS
926.75
TOD
926.17
BOS
FINISHED GRADE AS
SPECIFIED - SEE PLANS
HELICAL PIER FOOTING,
TYP. - SIZE AND DEPTH
AS SPEC'D. BY
GEOTECHNICAL ENG.
CATCH BASIN -
CONNECT TO SITE
DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND
DRAIN TO DAYLIGHT
GEOFABRIC, TYP.
COMMERCIAL
LANDSCAPE EDGING
5/4[6 IPE DECKING, TYP.
(2) P.T. 1[6 RIM JOIST
5/4[6 IPE SKIRT BOARD
ON ALL EXPOSED EDGES
(2) P.T. 2[6 BEAM, TYP.
P.T. 2[6 JOIST, TYP.
JOIST HANGER, TYP.
6'3"3"12'
JOIST HANGER, TYP.3"3"5/4[6 IPE DECKING, TYP.
(2) P.T. 1[6 RIM JOIST
5/4[6 IPE SKIRT BOARD
ON ALL EXPOSED EDGES
P.T. 2[6 JOIST, TYP.
(2) P.T. 2[6 BEAM, TYP.
JOIST HANGER, TYP.
COMPACTED OR
UNDISTURBED
SUBGRADE, AS SPEC'D.
BY GEOTECHNICAL ENG.
SLOPE SLOPE
1/2" WASHED DRESSER
TRAP ROCK BENEATH
DECK EXTENTS
FINISHED GRADE AS
SPECIFIED - SEE PLANS
HELICAL PIER FOOTING,
TYP. - SIZE AND DEPTH
AS SPEC'D. BY
GEOTECHNICAL ENG.
CATCH BASIN -
CONNECT TO SITE
DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND
DRAIN TO DAYLIGHT
GEOFABRIC, TYP.
COMMERCIAL
LANDSCAPE EDGING
COMPACTED OR
UNDISTURBED
SUBGRADE, AS SPEC'D.
BY GEOTECHNICAL ENG.
1/2" WASHED DRESSER
TRAP ROCK BENEATH
DECK EXTENTS
6
L6026
L602
creation Gate:11/19/2020fiOepatK:/Users/EretZieseOer/DropEo[ (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/5. VARIANCE/L603.GZJOast saveG:GanieOOeMXricKNo NovePEer 19, 2020 8:10 PMTKe GesiJns sKoZn anG GescriEeG Kerein incOXGinJ aOO tecKnicaO GraZinJs,
JrapKics anG specifications tKereof, are proprietar\ anG cannot Ee copieG,
GXpOicateG or coPPerciaOO\ e[pOoiteG, in ZKoOe or in part, ZitKoXt tKe e[press
Zritten perPission of Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. TKese are avaiOaEOe for
OiPiteG revieZ anG evaOXation E\ cOients, consXOtants, contractors,
JovernePent aJencies, anG venGors onO\ in accorGance ZitK tKis notice.
Cop\riJKt 2020Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. AOO riJKts reserveG.
Oicense no:
I KereE\ certif\ tKat tKis pOan, specification, or report Zas prepareG E\ Pe or
XnGer P\ Girect sXpervision anG tKat I aP a GXO\ LicenseG LanGscape
ArcKitect XnGer tKe OaZs of tKe State of Minnesota.
43728
T R A V I S V A N L I E R E
Gate:1/23/2018
6 6 0 9 H O R S E S H O E C U R V E
C H A N H A S S E N , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 3 1 7
B R U N E R R E S I D E N C E
DraZn B\:
Date:
ScaOe:
DraZinJ:
SKeet:
12/18/2020
DJ
Rev #Description Date
VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
t 612 345 4275
L607
PLANTING DETAILS
NTS
2 [ DIA. OF BALL MIN.
REFER TO PLANTING
PLANS FOR QUANTITY
AND SIZE
WRAP AND PROTECT TREES
THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION,
REMOVE TREE WRAPPING
AFTER 1-YEAR WARRANTY
WALK THROUGH
ROOT BALL. REMOVE ALL
WIRE. SCORE ROOT BALL
AND PULL BACK TOP 1
3 OF
BURLAP AND TWINE
SHREDDED HARDWOOD
MULCH. @ 3" DEPTH.
APPROVED
PLANTING SOIL
MIX AS SPECIFIED
4" TOPSOIL MIN,
FINE GRADE AND
SOD
PREPARED OR
UNDISTURBED
SUBGRADE
NOTES:
1.ALL BARE ROOT PLANTINGS TO FOLLOW NURSERY
BEST PRACTICE STANDARDS
2.SOAK ROOTS IN WATER FOR LEAST ONE HOUR BUT
NOT MORE THAN 24 HOURS PRIOR TO PLANTING.
3.SCARIFY ROOTS AND THE BOTTOM OF THE HOLE.
4.APPLY CORRECTIVE PRUNING OF BRANCHES AND
ROOTS IF NECESSARY.
5.TRANSFER PLANT DIRECTLY FROM WATER TO
HOLE. SET PLANT SO ROOT FLARE IS AT THE
FINISHED SOIL ELEVATION.
6.WATER THOUROUGHLY WITHIN 2 HOURS TO
SETTLE PLANTS AND FILL VOIDS
7.BACKFILL VOIDS AND WATER A SECOND TIME
8.PLACE MULCH WITHIN 4 HOURS OF THE SECOND
WATERING UNLESS SOIL MOISTURE IS EXCESSIVE.
9.REFER TO IRRIGATION PLANS FOR IRRIGATION
INFORMATION.
6" MIN.
2 [ DIA. OF BALL MIN.
SHREDDED
HARDWOOD MULCH
@ 3" DEPTH.
APPROVED
PLANTING SOIL
MIX AS SPECIFIED
4" TOPSOIL MIN,
FINE GRADE AND
SOD
PREPARED OR
UNDISTURBED
SUBGRADE
REFER TO IRRIGATION
PLANS FOR IRRIGATION
INFORMATION.
REFER TO PLANTING PLANS
FOR QUANTITY AND SIZE
PROTECT TREES DURING
TRANSPORTATION AND
THROUGHOUT
CONSTRUCTION - REMOVE
PROTECTION AFTER TREE HAS
BEEN PLANTED
ROOT BALL. REMOVE ALL
WIRE. SCORE ROOT BALL AND
PULL BACK TOP 1
3 OF BURLAP
AND TWINE
4" TOPSOIL MIN, FINE
GRADE AND SOD
PREPARED OR
UNDISTURBED
SUBGRADE
SUBGRADE -
SCARIFY WALLS
OF TREE PIT TO
ENSURE GOOD
WATERING
PERCOLATION
REFER TO IRRIGATION
PLANS FOR IRRIGATION
INFORMATION.
3" SHREDDED HARDWOOD
MULCH COVER, PLANTING,
TURF OR APPROVED EQUAL.
VERIFY W/ LANDSCAPE
ARCHITECT FINAL MULCHING
REQUIREMENTS
4" HIGH WATERING RING,
DIAMETER TO MATCH
ROOT BALL AREA - FOR
CONSTR. PHASE ONLY,
REMOVE MULCH RINGS
PRIOR TO FINAL WALK
THRU
REFER TO PLANTING PLANS
FOR QUANTITY AND SIZE
PROTECT TREES DURING
TRANSPORTATION AND
THROUGHOUT
CONSTRUCTION - REMOVE
PROTECTION AFTER TREE HAS
BEEN PLANTED
REFER TO PLANTING PLANS
FOR ADDITIONAL TREE
INFORMATION
WRAP AND PROTECT TREES
THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION,
REMOVE TREE WRAPPING AFTER
1-YEAR WARRANTY WALK
THROUGH
4" TOPSOIL MIN, FINE
GRADE AND SOD
PREPARED OR
UNDISTURBED
SUBGRADE
3" SHREDDED HARDWOOD
MULCH COVER, PLANTING, TURF
OR APPROVED EQUAL. VERIFY
W/ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FINAL
MULCHING REQUIREMENTS
4" HIGH WATERING RING.
DIAMETER TO MATCH ROOT
BALL AREA - FOR CONSTR.
PHASE ONLY, REMOVE
MULCH RINGS PRIOR TO
FINAL WALK THRU
SUBGRADE -
SCARIFY WALLS
OF TREE PIT TO
ENSURE GOOD
WATERING
PERCOLATION
REFER TO IRRIGATION
PLANS FOR IRRIGATION
INFORMATION.
2 [ DIA. OF BALL MIN.
REFER TO IRRIGATION
PLANS FOR IRRIGATION
INFORMATION.
REFER TO PLANTING
PLANS FOR QUANTITY
AND SIZE
WRAP AND PROTECT TREES
THROUGHOUT CONSTRUCTION,
REMOVE TREE WRAPPING
AFTER 1-YEAR WARRANTY
WALK THROUGH
ROOT BALL. REMOVE ALL
WIRE. SCORE ROOT BALL
AND PULL BACK TOP 1
3 OF
BURLAP AND TWINE
SHREDDED HARDWOOD
MULCH. @ 3" DEPTH.
APPROVED
PLANTING SOIL
MIX AS SPECIFIED
4" TOPSOIL MIN,
FINE GRADE AND
SOD
PREPARED OR
UNDISTURBED
SUBGRADE
VARIES
REFER TO IRRIGATION PLANS
FOR IRRIGATION
INFORMATION.
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
PLANTING SOIL MIX
PROPOSED PLANTING BED,
REFER TO PLANTING AREAS.
DRESS BED WITH 3" OF FINELY
SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH
12" MIN.AS SHOWN, SEE L401SECONDARY EDGE OFPLANTING BEDDD D
NOTES:
1.D = TYPICAL ON CENTER (O.C.)
SPACING AS INDICATED IN THE
PLANTING SCHEDULE
2.REFER TO IRRIGATION PLANS FOR
IRRIGATION INFORMATION.
PLANT
CENTER,
TYP.
PLANT MATERIAL, SEE SHEET L401
MULCH, AS SPECIFIED
PREPARED OR UNDISTURBED
SUBGRADE
PLANTING SOIL MIX
1/2 D 1/2 D
PRIMARY EDGE OF PLANTING BEDD
Xref /Users/GanieOOeMXricKNo/DropEo[ (TVLS)/AUTOCAD/DETAILS/PLANTING/PLANTINGS ON SLOPE.GZJ
2 X DIAMETER
OF ROOT BALL
6"
MIN.REFER TO IRRIGATION
PLANS FOR IRRIGATION
INFORMATION.
UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE
PREPARED PLANTING
SOIL, AS SPECIFIED
SHREDDED HARDWOOD
MULCH, 3" DEPTH
ROOT BALL. REMOVE ALL
WIRE, SCORE, AND PULL
BACK TOP 1/3 OF BURLAP
AND TWINE
SCALE:1" = 1'-0"
DECIDUOUS BALL AND BURLAP TREE PLANTING, TYPICAL1 SCALE:1" = 1'-0"
CONIFEROUS BALL AND BURLAP TREE PLANTING, TYPICAL2 SCALE:1" = 1'-0"
DECIDUOUS SPAYED TREE PLANTING, TYPICAL3 SCALE:1" = 1'-0"
CONIFEROUS SPAYED TREE PLANTING, TYPICAL4
SCALE:1" = 1'-0"
SHRUB PLANTING, TYPICAL6 SCALE:1" = 1'-0"
GARDEN PLANTINGS, TYPICAL7 SCALE:1" = 1'-0"
GROUNDCOVER PLANTINGS, TYPICAL8
SCALE:1" = 1'-0"
DECIDUOUS BARE-ROOT PLANTING, TYPICAL5 SCALE:1" = 1'-0"
PLANTINGS ON SLOPE9
creation Gate:11/17/2020fiOepatK:/Users/EretZieseOer/DropEo[ (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/5. VARIANCE/L607.GZJOast saveG:GanieOOeMXricKNo NovePEer 17, 2020 5:05 PMTKe GesiJns sKoZn anG GescriEeG Kerein incOXGinJ aOO tecKnicaO GraZinJs,
JrapKics anG specifications tKereof, are proprietar\ anG cannot Ee copieG,
GXpOicateG or coPPerciaOO\ e[pOoiteG, in ZKoOe or in part, ZitKoXt tKe e[press
Zritten perPission of Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. TKese are avaiOaEOe for
OiPiteG revieZ anG evaOXation E\ cOients, consXOtants, contractors,
JovernePent aJencies, anG venGors onO\ in accorGance ZitK tKis notice.
Cop\riJKt 2020Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. AOO riJKts reserveG.
Oicense no:
I KereE\ certif\ tKat tKis pOan, specification, or report Zas prepareG E\ Pe or
XnGer P\ Girect sXpervision anG tKat I aP a GXO\ LicenseG LanGscape
ArcKitect XnGer tKe OaZs of tKe State of Minnesota.
43728
T R A V I S V A N L I E R E
Gate:1/23/2018
6 6 0 9 H O R S E S H O E C U R V E
C H A N H A S S E N , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 3 1 7
B R U N E R R E S I D E N C E
DraZn B\:
Date:
ScaOe:
DraZinJ:
SKeet:
12/18/2020
DJ
Rev #Description Date
VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
t 612 345 4275
ROOT ZONE
ROOT PRUNING
LIMITS
PRUNING CUT, TYP.,
PER ARBORIST
RECOMMENDATIONS
BASE OF TREE
GROUND PLANE
PLAN VIEW
MAXIMUM 25" ON ONE SIDE OR 33 OF
TOTAL ROOT SYSTEM
NO MORE THAN HALF
THE CROWN OF THE TREE
AT END OF SLOPE SECURE BLANKET
MATERIAL BY INSERTINGSTAPLES ABOUT
20" APART THROUGH THE FABRIC
EXTEND MATERIAL ABOUT
40" ON TOP OF THE
GROUND AND RANDOMLY
INSERT STAPLES
THROUGH THE MATERIAL
ABOUT 20" APART
NOTES:
1.EROSION CONTROL BLANKET TO BE CATEGORY 4-COCONUT 2S FOR SLOPES GREATER THAN 5:1 AND SIDES AND
BOTTOM OF ALL DRAINAGE SWALES AND PONDING AREAS AND CATEGORY 2-STRAW 2S FOR ALL SLOPES LESS
THAN 5:1 PER MNDOT SPEC. SECTION 3885.
2.INSTALL PER MNDOT SPEC. SECTION 2575
LONGITUDINAL SEAMS:
BLANKET MATERIAL MUST OVERLAP
AT LEAST 6" AND STAPLES INSERTED
THROUGH BOTH FABRICS AT A
MAXIMUM SPACING OF 40" APART
TRANSVERSE SEAMS:
BLANKET MATERIAL MUST
OVERLAP AT LEAST 6" AND
STAPLES INSERTED THROUGH
BOTH FABRICS AT A MAXIMUM
SPACING OF 20" APART
STAPLES AT 3' O.C.
STAPLES MUST BE
INSERTED THROUGH
OVERLAP MATERIAL SLOPE LENGTH
LESS
THAN
50
'
1.BEFORE INSTALLATION APPLY TOPSOIL, FERTILIZER AND SEED TO SURFACE.
2.BEGIN AT THE TOP OF THE CHANNEL, INSTALL MATS BY ANCHORING IN A 6" DEEP BY 6" WIDE TRENCH WITH
APPROXIMATELY 12" OF MAT EXTENDED BEYOND THE UP-SLOPE PORTION OF THE TRENCH. ANCHOR WITH A
ROW OF STAPLES APPROXIMATELY 12" APART IN THE BOTTOM OF THE TRENCH. BACKFILL AND COMPACT THE
TRENCH AFTER STAPLING. APPLY SEED TO COMPACTED SOIL AND FOLD REMAINING 12" PORTION OF MAT BACK
OVER SEED AND SOIL. SECURE MATS WITH A WITH A ROW OF STAPLES SPACED APPROXIMATELY 12" APART
ACROSS THE WIDTH OF THE MATS.
3.ROLL CENTER MATS IN DIRECTION OF WATER FLOW IN BOTTOM OF CHANNEL.
4.PLACE CONSECUTIVE AND ADJACENT MATS END OVER END (SHINGLE STYLE) WITH A MINIMUM 6" OVERLAP. USE
A DOUBLE ROW OF STAPLES STAGGERED 4" APART AND 4" ON CENTER TO SECURE OVERLAPPED MATS.
5.FULL LENGTH EDGE OF MATS AT TOP OF SIDE SLOPES MUST BE ANCHORED WITH A ROW OF STAPLES
APPROXIMATELY 12" APART IN A 6" DEEP BY 6" WIDE TRENCH.
6.THE TERMINAL END OF MATS MUST BE ANCHORED WITH A ROW OF STAPLES APPROXIMATELY 12" APART IN A 6"
DEEP BY 6" WIDE TRENCH.
7.BACKFILL AND SEED AFTER STAPLING.
8.FOLLOW MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROPER INSTALLATION.
FABRIC ANCHORAGE
TRENCH BACKFILL
WITH TAMPED
NATURAL SOIL
WIRE MESH REINFORCEMENT,
ATTACH FABRIC TO WIRE MESH
WITH HOG RINGS, PER MNDOT SPEC.
SECTION 3886 B1.
SILT FENCE
FABRIC
DIRECTION OF
RUNOFF FLOW
METAL (OR WOOD)
POST OR STAKE
NATURAL SOIL
1.SILT FENCES SHOULD
BE INSTALLED ON THE
CONTOUR (AS OPPOSED
TO UP AND DOWN A
HILL) AND
CONSTRUCTED SO THAT
FLOW CANNOT BYPASS
THE ENDS.
2.ENSURE THAT THE
DRAINAGE AREA IS NO
GREATER THAN 1/4
ACRE PER 100 FT OF
FENCE.
3.MAKE THE FENCE
STABLE FOR THE
10-YEAR PEAK STORM
RUNOFF.
4.WHERE ALL RUNOFF IS
TO BE STORED BEHIND
THE SILT FENCE,
ENSURE THAT THE
MAXIMUM SLOPE
LENGTH BEHIND THE
FENCE DOES NOT
EXCEED THE
SPECIFICATIONS
SHOWN IN TABLENOTE: SILT FENCE SHALL FOLLOW
MNDOT SPEC. SECTION 3886.
DESIGN
RECOMMENDATIONS
FIGURE 1: TYPICAL INSTALLATION FOR SILT FENCE
6"
MIN 6"MINPLAN VIEW
NOTES:
1.ALL TREE PROTECTION FENCING AND EROSION CONTROL FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO THE PLANS PRIOR TO ANY DEMOLITION. AFTER
DEMOLITION OR AS NECESSARY, TREE PROTECTION FENCING MAY BE RELOCATED WITH APPROVAL FROM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. ALL TREE
PROTECTION FENCING AND EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD.
2.TREE PROTECTION FENCING SHALL CONSIST OF TEMPORARY METAL WIRE CHAIN LINK MESH FENCING OR APPROVED EQUAL.
3.CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT STORE ANY MATERIALS OR PARK ANY VEHICLES IN TREE PROTECTION ZONES. THE FENCE SHALL PREVENT TRAFFIC
MOVEMENT AND THE PLACEMENT OF TEMPORARY FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, STOCKPILES AND SUPPLIES FROM HARMING VEGETATION WITHIN THE
LIMITS OF PROTECTION.
4.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEANLY CUT ALL ROOTS EXPOSED BY GRADING AS DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.
5.THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE DESIGNATED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AND STAGING AREAS.
6' MAX
6' MAX.
POST SPACING 3' MINIMUM 6' IDEAL
FROM DRIPLINE
DRIPLINE
2/3 OFLOGDRIPLINE
INSTALL SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH
(MNDOT TYPE 6). EQUIVALENT MATERIAL
MAY BE SUBSTITUTED AT THE DISCRETION
OF THE ENGINEER.
STAKE DRIVEN THROUGH LOG MESH
COIR LOG 6"-7" MINIMUM DIAMETER
SOIL
WEDGE OR 2"X2" STAKE
PRE-DRILLED HOLES
0.5"X0.5" OPENING IN NET
1/3 OFLOG10' MIN LENGTH
2" WASHED COURSE AGGREGATE,
12" THICK, OVER GEOFABRIC
50'
M
I
N
20' MI
N
EDG
E
O
F
P
U
B
LI
C
R
O
A
D
O
R
P
A
V
E
M
E
N
T
TABLE 1: MAXIMUM SLOPE LENGTH AND SLOPE FOR WHICH SILT FENCE IS APPLICABLE
BY CALCULATION BY CALCULATION BY ACCEPTED DESIGN
PRACTICES
SLOPE (H:V)SILT FENCE STORAGE EQUALS
2 FT FOR A 100-YEAR EVENT
SILT FENCE STORAGE EQUALS 2 FT
FOR A 2-YEAR EVENT OR 3 FT FOR A
100-YEAR EVENT
MAXIMUM SLOPE
LENGTH
100:1 1400 FT 900 FT 100 FT
50:1 2200 FT 450 FT 75 FT
25:1 4100 FT 225 FT 75 FT
20:1 580 FT 180 FT 75-50
17:1 667 FT 150 FT 50 FT
12.5:1 850 FT 112 FT 50 FT
10:1 1040 FT 90 FT 50-25 FT
5:1 2020 FT 45 FT 25-15 FT
4:1 2516 FT 36 FT 15 FT
3:1 3312 FT 27 FT 15 FT
2:1 508 FT 18 FT 15 FT
L609
EROSION CONTROL DETAILS
1" = 16'creation Gate:11/19/2020fiOepatK:/Users/EretZieseOer/DropEo[ (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/5. VARIANCE/L609.GZJOast saveG:GanieOOeMXricKNo NovePEer 19, 2020 8:10 PMTKe GesiJns sKoZn anG GescriEeG Kerein incOXGinJ aOO tecKnicaO GraZinJs,
JrapKics anG specifications tKereof, are proprietar\ anG cannot Ee copieG,
GXpOicateG or coPPerciaOO\ e[pOoiteG, in ZKoOe or in part, ZitKoXt tKe e[press
Zritten perPission of Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. TKese are avaiOaEOe for
OiPiteG revieZ anG evaOXation E\ cOients, consXOtants, contractors,
JovernePent aJencies, anG venGors onO\ in accorGance ZitK tKis notice.
Cop\riJKt 2020Travis Van Liere StXGio, LLC. AOO riJKts reserveG.
Oicense no:
I KereE\ certif\ tKat tKis pOan, specification, or report Zas prepareG E\ Pe or
XnGer P\ Girect sXpervision anG tKat I aP a GXO\ LicenseG LanGscape
ArcKitect XnGer tKe OaZs of tKe State of Minnesota.
43728
T R A V I S V A N L I E R E
Gate:1/23/2018
6 6 0 9 H O R S E S H O E C U R V E
C H A N H A S S E N , M I N N E S O T A 5 5 3 1 7
B R U N E R R E S I D E N C E
DraZn B\:
Date:
ScaOe:
DraZinJ:
SKeet:
12/18/2020
DJ
Rev #Description Date
VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020
N O T F O R C O N S T R U C T I O N
211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401
t 612 345 4275
Bruner Residence - Chanhassen, Minnesota
December 17, 2020
VARIANCE DOCUMENTS
DECEMBER 18, 2020
Bruner Residence - Chanhassen, Minnesota
December 17, 2020
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH SURROUNDING CONTEXT
1” = 200’
LOTUS LAKE
6609 HORSESHOE CURVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
N
Bruner Residence - Chanhassen, Minnesota
December 17, 2020
AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH 2016 - PRE-REMODEL
1” = 40’
LOTUS LAKE
N
Bruner Residence - chanhassen, minnesota
PREVIOUS EXISTING SITE PLAN + NOTES PRE-CHRISTIAN DEAN ARCHITECTURE
Bruner Residence - Chanhassen, Minnesota
December 17, 2020
EXISTING SITE PHOTOS PRE-CHRISTIAN DEAN ARCHITECTURE
Bruner Residence - chanhassen, minnesota
December 17, 2020
EXISTING SITE PHOTOS PRE-CHRISTIAN DEAN ARCHITECTURE
Bruner Residence - Chanhassen, Minnesota
December 17, 2020
EXISTING SITE PHOTOS PRE-CHRISTIAN DEAN ARCHITECTURE
Bruner Residence - Chanhassen, Minnesota
December 17, 2020
EXISTING SITE PHOTOS POST-CHRISTIAN DEAN ARCHITECTURE
Bruner Residence - Chanhassen, Minnesota
December 17, 2020
EXISTING SITE PHOTOS POST-CHRISTIAN DEAN ARCHITECTURE
Bruner Residence - Chanhassen, Minnesota
December 17, 2020
EXISTING SITE PHOTOS POST-CHRISTIAN DEAN ARCHITECTURE
Bruner Residence - Chanhassen, Minnesota
December 17, 2020
EXISTING SITE PHOTOS POST-CHRISTIAN DEAN ARCHITECTURE
Bruner Residence - Chanhassen, Minnesota
December 17, 2020
EXISTING SITE PHOTOS POST-CHRISTIAN DEAN ARCHITECTURE
Bruner Residence - Chanhassen, Minnesota
December 17, 2020
EXISTING SITE PHOTOS POST-CHRISTIAN DEAN ARCHITECTURE
Bruner Residence - Chanhassen, Minnesota
December 17, 2020
EXISTING SITE PHOTOS POST-CHRISTIAN DEAN ARCHITECTURE
Bruner Residence - Chanhassen, Minnesota
December 17, 2020
EXISTING SITE PHOTOS POST-CHRISTIAN DEAN ARCHITECTURE
Bruner Residence - Chanhassen, Minnesota
December 17, 2020
EXISTING SITE PHOTOS POST-CHRISTIAN DEAN ARCHITECTURE
Bruner Residence - Chanhassen, Minnesota
December 17, 2020
EXISTING SITE PHOTOS POST-CHRISTIAN DEAN ARCHITECTURE
Bruner Residence - Chanhassen, Minnesota
December 17, 2020
EXISTING SITE PHOTOS POST-CHRISTIAN DEAN ARCHITECTURE
Bruner Residence - Chanhassen, Minnesota
December 17, 2020
EXISTING SITE PHOTOS POST-CHRISTIAN DEAN ARCHITECTURE
Bruner Residence - Chanhassen, Minnesota
December 17, 2020
3D MODEL RENDERINGS PROPOSED LANDSCAPE DESIGN (TVLS)
WALK-OUT TERRACE
2
1
3
5
6
4
PROPOSED GATHERING SPACE: Creates habitable + enjoyable family gathering space
BLUFF SETBACK AREA ENCROACHMENT VARIANCE
REPLACE / RECONFIGURE EXISTING BOULDER RETAINING WALL VARIANCE
REPLACE / RECONFIGURE EXISTING BOULDER RETAINING WALL VARIANCE
PROPOSED SLOPETAME 3
EROSION CONTROL
SYSTEM: Controls slope and
adds natural + sustainable
character
PROPOSED LAKESIDE STAIRCASE: Creates safe + easy access down to lakeshore with slope mitigation
PROPOSED LAKESIDE DECK: Fits within the footprint of existing concrete patio + maintains alignment with plan layout
PROPOSED NEW DRIVEWAY: Facilitates access to property + maintains alignment with plan layout
PROPOSED LOW MAINTENANCE GRASS: Naturalizes and covers full property ground cover
EROSION CONTROL
LAKESIDE STAIRCASE
LAKESIDE DECK
DRIVEWAY
GROUNDCOVER
1
2
3
5
6
4
Bruner Residence - Chanhassen, Minnesota
December 17, 2020
3D MODEL RENDERINGS PROPOSED LANDSCAPE DESIGN (TVLS)
WALK-OUT TERRACE
PROPOSED GATHERING SPACE: Creates habitable + enjoyable family gathering space
BLUFF SETBACK AREA ENCROACHMENT VARIANCE
REPLACE / RECONFIGURE EXISTING BOULDER RETAINING WALL VARIANCE
PROPOSED SLOPETAME 3 EROSION CONTROL SYSTEM: Controls slope and adds natural + sustainable character
EROSION CONTROL
REPLACE / RECONFIGURE EXISTING BOULDER RETAINING WALL VARIANCE
PROPOSED LAKESIDE STAIRCASE: Creates safe + easy access down to lakeshore with slope mitigation
LAKESIDE STAIRCASE
PROPOSED LAKESIDE DECK: Fits within the footprint of existing concrete patio + maintains alignment with plan layout
PROPOSED LOW MAINTENANCE GRASS: Naturalizes and covers full property ground cover
LAKESIDE DECK
GROUNDCOVER
Bruner Residence - Chanhassen, Minnesota
December 17, 2020
3D MODEL RENDERINGS PROPOSED LANDSCAPE DESIGN (TVLS)
WALK-OUT TERRACE
PROPOSED GATHERING SPACE: Creates habitable + enjoyable family gathering space
BLUFF SETBACK AREA ENCROACHMENT VARIANCE
REPLACE / RECONFIGURE EXISTING BOULDER RETAINING WALL VARIANCE
PROPOSED SLOPETAME 3 EROSION CONTROL SYSTEM: Controls slope and adds natural + sustainable character
EROSION CONTROL
REPLACE / RECONFIGURE EXISTING BOULDER RETAINING WALL VARIANCE
PROPOSED LAKESIDE STAIRCASE: Creates safe + easy access down to lakeshore with slope mitigation
LAKESIDE STAIRCASE
PROPOSED LAKESIDE DECK: Fits within the footprint of existing concrete patio + maintains alignment with plan layout
LAKESIDE DECK
Bruner Residence - Chanhassen, Minnesota
December 17, 2020
3D MODEL RENDERINGS PROPOSED LANDSCAPE DESIGN (TVLS)
PROPOSED NEW DRIVEWAY: Facilitates access to property + maintains alignment with plan layout
DRIVEWAY
PROPOSED LOW MAINTENANCE GRASS: Naturalizes and covers full property ground cover
GROUNDCOVER
Bruner Residence - Chanhassen, Minnesota
December 17, 2020
3D MODEL RENDERINGS PROPOSED LANDSCAPE DESIGN (TVLS)
PROPOSED NEW DRIVEWAY: Facilitates access to property + maintains alignment with plan layout
DRIVEWAY
PROPOSED LOW MAINTENANCE GRASS: Naturalizes and covers full property ground cover
GROUNDCOVER
MEMORANDUM
TO: MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner, AICP
FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist
DATE: January 19, 2021
SUBJ: 6609 Horseshoe Curve, Variances from Bluff Setback
The property is a fully wooded site of mainly native deciduous trees. The proposed landscaping
changes will require the removal of 7 trees on the site. No replanting has been proposed. A
fescue mix will be seeded over the disturbed areas and is appropriate for the conditions. The
plans show perimeter erosion control fencing which will protect most trees on the property, but
there are a number shown for preservation that will be inside of the grading limits. The native
trees on site, maples, lindens, oaks, and such, are sensitive to root compaction and root
severance. More so for the older trees that may have less ability to recover from root damage.
Grade changes, whether adding soil or removing it, can damage important feeder roots causing
the death of a portion of the root system. Given enough damage, the trees will die. Staff
recommends that the applicant add tree protection for all preserved trees located within the
grading limits.
Recommendation:
1. The applicant shall install tree protection fencing at the furthest point from the trunk as possible
around all trees within the grading limits.
Memorandum
To: MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
From: Matt Unmacht, Water Resources Coordinator
CC: Charles Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer
Ryan Pinkalla, Water Resources Technician
Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer
Date: January 6, 2021
Re: 6609 Horseshoe Curve Variance - City Planning Case No. 2021-07
The Water Resources Department has reviewed variance request located at 6609 Horseshoe
Curve. These comments are divided into two categories: general comments and propo sed
conditions. General comments are informational points to guide the applicant in the proper
planning of any water resources issues or stormwater infrastructure fo r this project, to inform
the applicant of possible extraordinary issues and/or to provide the basis for findings.
Proposed conditions are requirements that Water Resources recommends be formally imposed
on the applicant in the final order.
General Comments/Findings
1. The applicant is requesting two variances. One bluff setback variance and one variance
to replace and reconfigure the existing boulder retaining wall. The applicant went
through multiple rounds of submittals and revisions with City staff in order to better
accommodate City ordinances and staff recommendations.
2. The property is located on Lotus Lake. According to the Riley-Purgatory Bluff Creek
Watershed District, water quality on Lotus Lake has improved in some parameters, such
as water clarity and phosphorus, but degraded in others, such as chlorophyll-a, in recent
years. The project is proposing construction very close to the lake and on the steep
slopes on the project.
3. The applicant has one existing Water Oriented Accessory Structure (WOAS) on the
property, which consists of pavers and a deck. This WOAS is considered non-conforming
because it encroaches beyond the 10-foot Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL) setback
and is over the allowable 250 square feet. The applicant is proposing to remove and
replace this existing WOAS with one that is 220 square feet of deck patio. This means
that the existing WOAS, which is considered impervious surface, would be replaced with
non-impervious surface. The proposed WOAS would still encroach beyond the 10-foot
OHWL setback, however there is no way for the applicant to orient this structure
without encroaching into other setbacks such as side yard and bluff setbacks. Overall,
the applicant is proposing to reduce the intensity of the existing non-conformity.
Additionally, hardcover on the entire property (due, in part, to the removal of the
existing WOAS) would be decreasing from 23% to 21%.
4. The existing property currently has no easy access down to the lake. The applicant is
proposing to construct a staircase from the lower-level deck patio to the lakeshore. This
proposed staircase meets the standard set forth in Sec. 20-481(e)(3) Stairway, lifts, and
landings.
5. The applicant proposing the installation of a “Living Wall” and fescue that is called “Low
Grow No Mow.” This is intended to reduce erosion potential on the retaining wall area
and on steep slopes on the property. The City feels this approach can be effective.
6. As for other water resources issues: outside of Lotus Lake, there are no wetlands on this
property. In addition, this project does not involves any City owned stormwater
infrastructure. As such, there are no concerns or conditions to place on the project
based on these conditions.
7. It is the opinion of the Water Resources Department that this variance request can be
granted in accordance with the requirements of the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances (as
it pertains to Water Resources requirements) and City Standards, provided it fully
addresses the comments and conditions contained herein, if applicable, and can be
approved.
Proposed Conditions
1. There are no proposed conditions associated with a review by the Water Resources
department. Given the sensitive nature of Lotus Lake, the proximity of the proposed
work to the lake, and the steep slopes on site, extra care and review will be undertaken
during the building permit process to ensure that proper erosion and sediment control
measures are undertaken during construction to protect the lake.
Memorandum
To: MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
From: Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer
CC: Charles Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer
George Bender, Assistant City Engineer
Kevin Crooks, Utility Superintendent
Matt Unmacht, Water Resources Coordinator
Ryan Pinkalla, Water Resources Technician
Steve Lenz, Engineering Technician
Date: January 7, 2021
Re: Setback Variance at 6609 Horseshoe Curve – Planning Case #2021-
07
The Engineering Department has reviewed the Variance submittal for 6609 Horseshoe Curve.
These comments are divided into two categories: general comments and proposed conditions.
General comments are informational points to guide the applicant in the proper planning of
public works infrastructure for this project, to inform the applicant of possible extraordinary
issues and/or to provide the basis for findings. Proposed conditions are requirements that
Engineering recommends be formally imposed on the developer in the final order. Note that
references to the “City Standards” herein refer to the City of Chanhassen Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates.
General Comments/Findings
1. Any and all grading, utility and transportation plans submitted with this application have
been reviewed only for the purpose of determining the feasibility of the plans and
providing utility and transportation facilities for the project in accordance with City
Standards. A recommendation of variance approval does not constitute final approval
of details, including but not limited to alignments, materials and points of access,
connection or discharge, that are depicted or suggested in the application. The
applicant is required to submit detailed construction drawings and/or plat drawings for
the project, as applicable. The City of Chanhassen Engineering and Public Works
Department will review plans, in detail, when they are submitted and approve, reject or
require modifications to the plans or drawings based upon conformance with City
Standards, the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances and the professional engineering
judgment of the City Engineer.
2. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that the proposed project can be
developed in accordance with the requirements of the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances
(as it pertains to Engineering and Public Works requirements) and City Standards,
provided it fully addresses the comments and conditions contained herein, an d can be
approved.
3. The applicant is proposing the reconfiguration and realignment of an existing driveway
to the property. The provided survey indicates that the proposed driveway will be
constructed with a 19% grade oriented from Horseshoe Curve right-of-way to the
existing home. While city ordinance requires driveways to be constructed with a grade
not to exceed 10%, the subdivision (Alicia Heights) received approved variances allowing
for a maximum of 20% grades on driveways due to the topographic constraints of the
development. As such, the proposed driveway grade can be approved, however the
applicant will be required to file for a Driveway Replacement permit as work will impact
Horseshoe Curve right-of-way.
4. The applicant is proposing the reconfiguration and realignment of an existing Water
Oriented Structure (WOAS). The existing WOAS consists of stone pavers and wood
decking which will be removed and replaced with a modular wood decking WOAS. The
WOAS lies within a public drainage and utility easement (DUE) that was recorded with
the Alicia Heights plat in 1999. Additionally, the city owns and maintains a public
sanitary sewer main constructed in 1975 that is located within the DUE and located
directly under the existing and proposed WOAS. As such, the applicant will be required
to enter into an encroachment agreement for the WOAS, and the WOAS shall be
constructed so that it is removable to allow for access to and for the proper
maintenance of the public sanitary sewer main. See proposed condition 1 and 2.
5. The applicant is proposing the construction of stairs to gain lake access from the
proposed lower level deck patio to the proposed WOAS. While this proposed staircase
meets the standards set forth in Sec. 20 -481(e)(3) and Sec. 20-1402, they will encroach
into a 5’ side yard DUE. See proposed condition 1.
Proposed Conditions
1. The applicant shall file for an encroachment agreement with the city for any
encroachments within public drainage and utility easements.
2. The water oriented structure shall be constructed of modular, removable d ecking for
review and approval by the city prior to issuance of a building permit.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
( ss.
COTJNTY OF CARVER )
I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on
January 7,2021,the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk ofthe City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe anached notice ofa Public
Hearing to consider a request for a variance to replace/rebuild retaining walls, add a walk-
out terrace, add a stairway to lake, and reconfigure lakeside deck/patio located at 6609
Horseshoe Curve. Zoned Single-Famity Residential (RSF), Planning Case No. 2021-07 to
the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy ofsaid 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 ofthe County Treasurer, Cawer County,
Minnesota, and by other appropriate records.
J
Subscribed and
thislt- dav o
Kim T.euwissen, Deputy Cl
(Seal)
JEAil M SiIECKLIIIG
NdryPlnbffinstsry*tE+..btr,l4a
s to before me
<a^^
2021.
Notary Public
Disclaianer
This map is neither a legally Ecorded map nor a survey and i3 not intended to be used
as one. ihis map is a compilalion of records. information and alata located in vadous city.
county. sliate and fede.al offices and other sources regarding the arca shown, and as to
be used br reference pumo6es o.lly. The cny does nol war.ant that the Geog6phic
lnbrmation System (GlS) Data used to prepare this map are eror free, and lhe City does
not represeni ulat the Gls Data can te used for navigational trackino or any other
porpose requanng exactng measurement of dEliance or directlon or pleosion in the
deficton of geographic Catures. The precedang disdairier is provided pursuant to
Minnesota Statnes S466.03, Subd. 2l (2000). and the user of trlas map acknowledges
fiat lhe City shall not be liable tor any damages. and expressly waives all daims. and
agrees to d;iend, indemnily, and hold harmless the City fom any ard all claims b(ought
b, user, its employees or agents. or third parties which aise out of the us€/s access or
use of data provrcled
<TAX_NAMET
<TAX_ADD_LI r
rTAX ADD L2r
<Next Record>(TAX-NAMED
<TAX_ADD-Llr
<TAX ADD L2tr
Diaclelmer
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a suoey and is not intended to be used
as one This map is a @mpilation of records. information and daia located in vadous city
count, state and lederal off@s and other sources regardang the area shown, and is to
be us€d lor reference purposes only. The Cjty does not war.ant that the Geographic
lnformalion System (GlS) Dala used to prepare this map are eror f.ee, and the City does
not represent that the GIS oata can be used for navigallonal, tracking oa any other
purpose requiring exactjng measuemenl of distrance or dhection or precasaon in the
depiction of geographic ieatures. The prececlang disclaimer is provided puBuant to
Minnesota Statutes 5466.03, Subd 21 (2000), and the user ol this map acknowjedges
that the City shall not be liable fo. any damages, and exPressly waives all claims and
agrees to debnd, indemnat, and hold harmless the Caty from any and all claims brought
by Ljser. ils employees or agents, or third parties wllich adse out ot the use/s access or
use of data provided.
Subject
Parcel
\'\
-il
-/Z\
K
\
.,
-')\
.t#)>2
h-I
I
I
!
n
r
,/
.A ll
2?'.,
)
aI
\
\.\:!
Subiect
Parcel
o:
HH;,.tl,oo:!i ro = ettc (5 c= oesEb:Ifoetrg:i E3 0,
€;iE E
sEE;t
}EeEE
N B=€=
$EE:t
E Efi93-cetri!>i5 Ea6o=!9ob;bFs
fc
Ecq)
o.c,coE
(.)
e
it)
G
B
E
.c)Nc
0)Yoo
=(Jocoo
0)
([
o,
o,
oIt)'6'
o-
.r2
E
fo-oo
o,co
o)
Eo
.,-
.a
o
oo
o-
ciE'-
o)o
E
(,
Eo
dr ii6(uoo)c ct)(o(!ao-cB!i
Ol,o*?EI6';b-Or,
=->
>. q)s<
;
=]
o
o
E
o.,
-o
0)
E
+
C,tc
fo
o
6
E
;ao
=t-o
NoN
o
:
E
oooo
t!E
.:
c
c,o
a
c
.96
.!2
E
Eoo
o
o-
o
o
o
ul
oc
=d)
t
q)
,9
I.IJ
U.l
oca
co
ic
G
c0
d
o
.!2
t
e
.9.
o,
lo
o)oE
o,
-
o
@(o
o
o
-9
Ee3,
=r-o' < c,EDC Y O
-EE "g.' EEet E 3s Eo-- os!F+P6 e:=6
EEE E;T!::op EgEE
: HE gEifi
E== i="EE
Ene Iifig
9cu i'_*Et
EE= EE E=.9E.=60FOO-:i o)o o;in-c 0)(! c(J ir-Naot
=oo
r5
l
E
o
.s
o
.9
o,c
o
o)-c
.9Eao
.aE
o
rl)
oo-
lo-
il)
F
ID.c.
(.)E
=
!
d
,E
:
=
E
..2
F
c
cioo
a-
o
NoN
o,
-r!)co
([o
o.)aF
6
d,
o
=oot-F-
ui
o
-o
E(t,
_co
ocJo()
oI
O
Id,>E)(,c
= Ein2 6o66Pe:s(E'0 ,a-ooEEelI
EEE
EEE(E .r, .,>= o):ste(!E,o)
xi P .sl
qsr 6
HE E
bsEE='c;o)6Er
L!at
.q
c
IDp
ot
E([t!
cq,
o)(5
o)ocv
Eo
Eo,
6E5(,,}l
9-aEa6o.9q
O^c.;t
XE
.dl6a
c)(0ol'6o
b8(l)E,>'8pp6
eEots
JC
C,Eo)L
A6
=xIE
(o
!
E
ai
Ec
o)
(!
-cc(!.cq'6
=
=;
-c
a
o
o.)
E
EEiieii,EigE
EgIBEEgEEiiEE
EEE;EEEiEEEEE
rii?EEBEai;;g
iEiEEEEiEE?ig
gciiiEgEiEEEEi
EiEEiiEE;[fiEE
E
q
E I
E
E-2
E
E
q
E
.9a q
tg
q!63
a
E
!
9 c
5
E
9
E
8
EE
,9 z
e
E
-!!
',q
5
6a ..o9EEoo
o=C'E
=ooo
iiog
'o
tooo
o-
>Etoo'Eo.oeto-J
I ii)o,=
o. :lf=
-Oo.t
=;
o
t!ooJ
:joooILo
A
G(J
CLrL
CDE
oo
=Eoo
.= .a
EEatE-LE.9oEofEDo-E
oE
0,G-9d
OEza
6l!EtrE.co
o
EooE
PEE'6l!ano'=-EaJ=
=o€odp
oc
nE
6126
oo6Eto
o
E
.9
F
E
cioo
t-
o
NoN
ot
(\l
fco
jo!
lt)
=F
5
ci
.E
.:
-q
o
o-o
EoE
(.)cloo
o-
p2dl
o,
o
ooF-t-
9d,>(,,(5C
= Ea
,EE?l,D(|/);:
e:s(!.o,ia o.E
9sr.8
e E*
EEEh= a)'EO!l
9= E
r gt
eoE
EHE,J- -c:i(,o
;gE
EqE
srt
L!
tr
Ec
c)p
C,)t
Eo
LL
dl
ul
ll,)c-
d)
i.
o)
.9tr
o)Cf
dl
F
c
,q
co
ci
ao
.9
o
E
o
eo
d)o
AE(-):
oroOot
oq
i!
or !io;(o-@<
c,
0o.
oE
9-icB
=!a
*-EE Ec ;tEes EreE.! Y ^E o, -c -o F-+ ='o, o- f =
:3EE E *"; E!
Eeqg:=sEE::E-E ggEE
e;=E E=HgfrEgEI HiE;
igEE saE:
tEE-i *HE,EFE d6+.9FOtr(J(,,rN(.)S
Eoo
E
E
.9o
.2
Eo(.)
cl!
o-
(,
o
o
.,)t 9lc
,EI-EEEA
g EI5fsEE
EgigEEE
=;il€g€E€EEEgAS
P=e 8 g*i.
HEgCIEE
o
E
o
E
=o
=tlI
o
a:c
Ei!,ooo3
(!
.Cq'q
;i
3
.9
(,
Gtl,E
c;c
o)q)
E
o).c,
(.,
oEt
al, oE(,o(5aqc€!=O.,
?E
tB-(! {,
=->do>.oe<
o-c
.9
o
otr;!
oc
=C
Eio
o-cc(o
-cI'6
,Ii
o
(,
ai
-oo)
=^a
.5
o-c
I
DIt)!
-9o-a
rl)
(5
oop
co
g
f
,Etr
ut
o)
ooo-
c
.o
oo
Eoa
o)
o
!co
o
E
o)
()
o
o
o
olc.9a
=ulz
(!Dc
o)
o(')c
o)
o)
Ec
o)E!
9
5
3
E
6
g
-q
6
id
.EF
66
o
!!o
o
oIoJ
Eoolto
o-
(l(,
c!
iio
;o
Eolt
e
o-
>Et.9
o.osto-J
e ii,
6! .=
=a,fl=-(,o.c
.d ..o9CEoo
o=OE
=ooo
a;
Ei:
oa
o
t!cl
ct
o oo o oo N o d) O O O OO O O OO O OO OO O OO o oo o O Fr orn rn + 6 (n a N N a\r !i an.n !i 6t (n N F{ t\ c) N N Fr r.{ r\ ro <l rn f\r (n F{ o Fr or..r o .n F o o o O O O O O O O ln o .Yt (n .n o o o O () .! .\l .! N O .\ N N .'{o 6o...r 6 o o o o oo o oo o o OO O OO O O O OOO OO O O OO6 0 6 E{ (o \o (') Fr ot .r H (tt rrt L,] 0 (n o o o N o o N or o o o o rn o o o oli 6 m o G) (o o coo co@ c) !/) La (n cr an (o aYt La <t <l L/1 l,r'1 rn .Yr .n (n o (n (n.n(n
-(o<'\OOF.F(nrnand)(n(oOO(o@(o(o(oF.(o(oF. l- (o \O(o (o @ (o (o (o (o1 v\ tn v\ ur u) rn lrl L/) Lr') rn ln u1 L/l Lrt r/) r, r.l) Ln r, ra L^ l/l ln L^ Ln la La !n Ln rn ln ul rn
E (.{ N a{ a! a\l l\ N N N a.,J a.,l N N a\r (\ a\ N 61 6lNN(\tNNNN..,lN..,lNNN.\l
4-- C c. n c.4 d. GGG.d.&.6.4,6. e. G. g. G. G, e. E e, E e G d, A,el<raa-.l f f l:)llf llf f lf lllf f >:)llfg-uJoSrSQ U U U (J U (J (J U (J (J U (J U U I U (J U U (J (J U (J
sJ S uJ !! M trr uJ uJ Er u t! uJ t! !J uJ uJ t! uJ uJ uJ uJ u, u,r r.!,r uJ uJ r.!,r sJ ir,ro ; o > ) ) o --.r o J J o o o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o oo o o
-, - r-, t - G.- e, d. -- - - - I I - - - - - - ! - - E - - t - -th = tt z 2 2 ta F th ts F tt tt tl\ v) tt vt v) ta tt ta ur a t^ u1 th tt1 v, t^ tl\ th th th
r,.r(46aa3(,-6!illl 6 v,t1 th t^ t1 t^ t^ ta t^ ta t^ t^ t^ ta th th vt qt rh \h thd < i v) v) q E ry ts ry lJ E G. e. e, e, G, e, e, g, e e G e, 4 t E E G. G. G. G. G.o o'J.i o s * 10 a o f I oo o ooo oo o oo o oo o ooo ooo o6- -r= ==-o- o.o---- - --- -- --------- --r{ r-.ns 4 a! 4 rn !-.{ t-.1 (! ri) lrl gl !i rn st s1 o uro.ro ct ot Lrt F r-r !r.t (o !-.r !/1 (oNP ib r\ o r,r ut u) o o o o o o o Fr rr ?.r ?.r N a! (ft ri <l (o (o t- F- @ a Fr ot qr qt orI 16 ur G, (n (o alt (o (o ro ro (o (o (o (o (o (0 (o (o @ (o (o (o ro ro \o (o (o ro {o ro to @ roo (o (o (o .n (r) an (o ro (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o o \o to'o ro to (o (o ro lo (o (o (o
(o9an r+ sr @.o@@ ro .t, (o.c,(o(o.o .o,o\o (o (o r-{ r.cr (o (o
=1,l NN Ol!OO NN r.,l a\l N l\r N a! 1\l N NNON a.,l N'i .\J lJ.l t ul r/) v1 la rrt la !n rJ1 r, Lrt rn u1 tn Ln Lo u) tjl tl) rn ulcO a- q! qr Ot Cti Or Or O| Ol q! Ol Ol Ol Ot 01 O1 Cn (,1 Ol Or Ctl Or (Ir
I + r.. x * * r\ ri A A r.. r.. r.. n * * * * .\ r.. n r.. F\ r- |.- r- F. r,. F. F. * F-
.: <r !-.a -{ -r: F{ !-.1 r-{ t-l r..l r-{ F{ Fl F{ Fl Fl .'l .'{ .'{ r'{ ?'{ !"{ r'{ F{ t"l !"4 Fl fl !"{ r'{ Fl
:',.1 .d trt.n r?) i.i (n rn r, ln (n an (n.n.n m ('t .n rn.y, rn m ln rn lr1 rn m ln ln an an an-'tlN r/)tnt ; Ln !n rn ra u) rn l,) 6 !n u1 !n u.,l l^ !n !n Ln u't Ln ra u) r,) rr1 v1 ra rrl Laz ur@ tn 6 l, 6ai ur Ln t,1 lJ1 u) lrt r/l tJ) ln tJ1 Ln t,t La u) L,) rr1 tn L,) rrl La ralJl l./) l/' ur Ln2 z*z z z N z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z
^, p yg E i i ;i' i i i i 2 i 2 2 i i i i i ; ; ; i ; 2 i i i i i 2 i'i r- e a r! t! UJ --l UJ r! UJ UJ tlJ El lJ.l UJ UJ UJ lrJ UJ t! U, UJ lr,l UJ UJ LU lrJ lr, L! UJ lrl UJ !U..-r (9 = - a vl vt -4 tlt ttl tt tn vl v\ vl ta ta t^ tal ta ta tn ta ta tn t^ t^ ttt th ra vl ta t\ th
^'- < <l tt ttt ttt <L v) a v) vt th th ti t^ v\ tl\ v\ vt t\ t/\ tll tl\ t\ ttl tt\ ul ttl tt t\ tll t\ tll
2>d- r.--- >- r---r---- --- -- - -- ---- E----,.r 7 H Z Z Z i Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
aio=t--E----I---------------r-----F: .O IIJ 5 U (J U (, U (J U (J 9 (J (J U U (J U U (J (J U (J U (J (J U (J U U (J U U
o
dAA9 6. g. e. 6. g. E E g, G, e, g, G E 6, G, e, G t EEeta\u f f lf lllllllllf lf f f za))=
=!-:-595x O O O o u o o u u u u u u u u u u u = u u u ui ll I t L!4 I 4 Z r! !! uJ uJ rlJ uJ !! LlJ uJ rrJ uJ u, uJ r.!J ur ul ur tr.r r.J gJ ur ur ur:X;>>>1...,O...., O O o o o o o o o o o o O o o O O O O O o o1- e;F F=E rcEG rr---- :E-- --- -:E- I-- E---r 9 (9 = r r i Z F (a F F Vl V't ta ut t^ ta tA th th tt th t/\ Vt Vt Lt\ V\ tlt t\ t\ ttt V, tt'i (al ? !- -- -- = E) : (,lJ !r,l UJ t! trJ lrJ UJ gJ UJ !! UJ lll UJ UJ lr, !r, uJ uJ Lll (rl lrJ UJ uJIrE 3 B A 6 A I E p E E PPPzzzzPPPB?28?zBPPPPPx6=?*ssolof f oooooooooooooooooooooo<;;O===(9.o :E.o.o------ -r- -- - -rr r-- rrrr
lf.r t (o s E B tn ri Fr a{ rYt rJl or F{ (rt <l |n o rJt o.{ o o cD r,) F- r-{ r/) o r-r ra (o Nx o st (o ta rrt rn .! o o o o o o ..{ Fr r-.r i-{ N N (n (r,t sl @ (o F. F o @ cn ol or or (n< F{ Fl (r! rn (o Or O \o @ (O rO (o (o (o rO rO (o 10 rD (o (D (o (o (o tO (O (o (o (o (o (o (o (ots Fr .-r ?.{ (?t d) .n st \o ro ro @ ro ro (o (o (o (o (D (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o
tl\F
?Ba',- .E_5E f E - s 9. --E = -3 Egt* ilEEE! ,,= Es: 6t,Hin -_ efrt?'J
=iEE$iEEIEEiEgEEEE=EE=EiIgIfrEEEEHE
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, January 19, 2021
Subject Approval of Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated January 5, 2021
Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Item No: C.1.
Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support
Specialist
File No:
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of the verbatim minutes from its January 5, 2021
meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Planning Commission Verbatim Minutes dated January 5, 2021
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 5, 2021
Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Mark Randall, Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, and Mark
Von Oven, Michael McGonagill
MEMBERS ABSENT: Doug Reeder
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; MacKenzie Young-
Walters, Associate Planner; Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer,
Matt Unmacht, Water Resources Coordinator, Matt Kerr, IT Support Specialist; Alison Vance,
Admin. Support Specialist
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Todd Simning TPS Holdings, LLC, 2160 Paisley Path, Excelsior,
MN and 350 Hwy. 7, Suite 218, Excelsior, MN
Kathleen Jorfee (spelling??) 1341 Powers Ridge, Chanhassen
Brian & Keri Colvin 825 Flying Cloud Drive, Chaska, MN
Tim Erhart Black Cherry Dev., LLC, 14500 Martin Dr., Ste.
3000, Eden Prairie, MN
Dan Blake Black Cherry Dev., LLC, 14500 Martin Dr., Ste.
3000, Eden Prairie, MN
Ethan Kindseth Alma Homes, LLC, 2500 Shadywood Rd., Ste. 750,
Orono, MN
Weick: Good evening, everybody, calling to order tonight’s Planning Commission meeting.
Tonight is Tuesday, January 5, 2021 and happy new year to everyone here and my fellow
Commissioners and anyone listening. May this be bountiful and pleasant of a new year. I will
conduct a quick roll call just to make sure who’s here to vote evening. So when I say your name,
just say here for me to I know you are present. Commissioner Randall?
Randall: Present.
Weick: Gotcha. Commissioner Reeder?
Reeder: [No answer]
Weick: I will skip Commissioner Reeder for a minute. Commissioner McGonagill?
McGonagill: Present.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
2
Weick: OK great. Commissioner Skistad?
Skistad: Present.
Weick: Hello, good evening. Commissioner Noyes?
Noyes: Here.
Weick: Gotcha. And Commissioner Von Oven?
Von Oven: Here.
Weick: All right. I’ll try Commissioner Reeder?
Reeder: [No answer]
Weick: If he is able to join later, we will certainly welcome him in. We do have a quorum this
evening with six of the Planning Commission members. We do have a busy agenda this evening.
We have five public hearings on tonight’s agenda. We will present them as we normally do
although this is a Zoom meeting again I would implore my fellow Commissioners please don’t
test each other or hold private chats on the side through the Zoom application. Everything we
talk about needs to be public for the record. Thanks for that. Again we have five items on the
agenda tonight. Staff will present the item and Commission members will have an opportunity to
ask questions. At that time the applicant may make a presentation if they would like and also is
available for questions from the Commission members. After that we will open the public
hearing. Because we are electronic, electronically meeting, we will summarize any email we’ve
received on the item; we will take in person comment as appropriate here is the Chambers, and
we have a telephone number for phone calls if you would like to call in and get your opinion on
the record. Once we’ve appropriately heard from everybody, through the different medium, we
will close the public hearing it will be open for Planning Commission comments, open for a
motion and we will take a roll call vote at that time. As I did mention, we do have several items
on the agenda tonight. I hope we don’t have to, I hope we can move real quickly but we do have
a 10:30 p.m. curfew. I would imagine will not have to enforce that this evening but keep that in
minds as we discuss and move to vote on some of these items. We do want to keep the process
moving this evening. With that I will introduce the first item on the agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR A 110-
UNIT APARTMENT BUILDING FOR SENIOR LIVING LOCATED AT 1361 LAKE
DRIVE WEST (POWERS RIDGE APARTMENTS)
Generous: Thank you Chairman. Commissioners, I’ll go through the powerpoint. Planning Case
2021-04 is Lake Place at Powers Ridge. Tonight is a public hearing. This item goes forward to
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
3
City Council on January 25, 2021. The applicant is TPS Holding LLC. As stated they are
requesting a site plan approval with variance for the building height for 110-unit, three-story
independent living senior residential development. The property is located at 1361 Lake Drive
West; it’s part of the Powers Ridge development. It’s zoned Planned Unit Development
Residential. The Lake Susan Hills Planned Unit Development was approved in 1987. As part of
the development, it was a mixed housing project; it included 411 single-family homes,
approximately 100 townhouse units and up to 375 multi-family units within this multi-family
area. It’s approximately 21 acres total in the multi-family portion of the development. The Lake
Susan Hills multi-family development came in in two parts. Phase 1 was Building A and it
consisted of 100 units. Phases 2-4 had a total of 244 units that were approved. The first building
was completed in 2000. The second building, the B Building, was completed in 2003. The D
Building was constructed in 2016 and 2017 and was completed and now finally, the fourth
Building C is coming in. Originally it had been approved as part of the site plan for 88 units.
The applicant has revised that plan and that’s why we have a new site plan review and they’re
coming in with 110 units. It’s still a three-story building with underground parking, however,
it’s an independent senior living building so there are some different standards required for
parking that will need to reduce the total amount of site coverage. Ah, the site plan, the currently
building again is a three-story apartment with underground parking. 110 parking stalls are
provided underneath. It has additional surface parking that provides the one for, the one stall per
four units for visitor parking and it provides parking on the east end for, there’s a community
building that’s part of the entire association and development. Architecturally, the building has
significant architectural variation. It has multiple plains and multiple building materials. It
includes masonry, and either they haven’t finalized the number for either block or a brick finish
or a cultured stone. If we could go to the overhead picture the materials sample board is on, it
also has horizontal lap siding fiber cement which is very consistent throughout, there we are,
developments within Chanhassen. It also has vertical board and batten in a white artic white
color that provides some lightness. It has gray asphalt shingles on the roof. It has a standing
seamed metal canopy over the entranceway and it has either and they’re waiting for final pricing
on either a bronze or a white window finish, framing so they provided us both those architectural
drawings so that we can see what each looks like. Again the final pricing will determine what the
final elevation is. Again, you see the articulation on the north side, north and west side of the
buildings. Most but not all of the units have either decks or patio areas of them. The building
itself has an outdoor patio on the west end as well as one on the northeast corner of the property.
Floor plans again. 110 parking units are in the underground parking area. Each floor has a mix
of one, two, one, one with a den, two and two with a den units on them. The entrance area is a
canopy or is a common area. There’s also an outdoor deck which leads down to a lower patio
area that includes a pickle ball court for residents of the development. The second and third
floors again repeat the layout of the individual units, a concourse and an elevator system. The
third floor has additionally has common area, a community area. They are providing an
alternative where a portion of this common area would be a recessed roof-type deck area where
people could go out and get some fresh air. Again, they’re waiting on final pricing to determine
whether that’ll go forward. Erik will review the utilities and grand and stormwater operations.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
4
Henricksen: Thanks, Bob. Just checking here. Everybody hear me ok? [Sounds in background
acknowledging]. So I will be going over some of the stormwater, grading and drainage on this
slide and then continue on to the utilities and access to the site. The applicant for stormwater is
proposing the use of two stormwater BMPs. One on the northwest portion of the site is an at-
grade filtration basin and the one on the southeast side is an underground filtration basin to treat
the stormwater. The information provided in their stormwater management report does indicate
that the approach is feasible and they are going to be meeting total suspended solids and total
phosphorus reductions along with volume and rate controls. However, these storm systems as
you can see through the red arrows do discharge into the public systems. There’s a public
stormwater system to the north that they’re proposing to tie into off of Lake Drive West which
connects to a stormwater pond that the city owns and maintains and to the south they’ll also be
discharging their stormwater into a public system, another pond to the south. As such, we are
requesting that the applicant through the condition analyze and ensure, confirm essentially that
the volumes can be handled and accounted for within the public storm system. There’s not too
much concern about that from staff however, you know, we do want to see that taken into
account in their modeling to ensure that those systems are sized appropriately. Additionally on
some of the grading plans and the stormwater plans we would and we will be requiring on the
updated final construction plan submittal some drainage arrows and emergency overflow routes.
There is a low point at the southeast area of the site that’s adjacent to the current clubhouse. With
low points, yep right there, there’s going to be emergency overflow routes and we just want to
ensure that the stormwater won’t be directed towards that clubhouse so plans will have to be
updated accordingly and will be reviewed on the final construction plans. Utilities, there’s
nothing too exciting about utilities on this site. It is adequately served by public sanitary and
water main. The applicant is looking to tap into these mains although there are existing stubs and
apparently it doesn’t fit into their site plan so they will be abandoning those per city standards
and then tapping the two new mains, or the two new laterals, excuse me. The water is begin
proposed as an eight inch. It’s going to be a dual domestic and a fire main to the apartment
complex. Sanitary sewer is going to be eight inches as well. There just going to core drill into an
existing manhole which is actually already located on the property. The only extraordinary kind
of condition, even if extraordinary, is that the monument sign that they’re proposing, the
location, is actually right on top of one of our sanitary mains so we will require that to be located
outside of the drainage and utility easement, a D&U a size for appropriate spacing for
maintenance and possible reconstruction of the line if that’s ever to occur. That’s really the only
condition. They will have to get an encroachment agreement if they do kind of go into the….
Access to the site, this site as Bob had kind of mentioned has been built out over several phases
of the PUD. During 2000, the site access one through four were built out to access the site based
on previous site plans. The applicant has elected to eliminate access one but still utilize two,
three and four. Access two and four are utilized to get to the above-ground parking and also the
main entrance to the apartment complex while access three is going to be for the underground
parking. Staff did review and we did receive public comment that when, if you imagine using
access three to go in and out of the parking, when you’re exiting the parking ramp is going to
require users to kind of look over their shoulder and to the left down that serpentine street to
ensure there’s no cars oncoming. So, one of the thoughts was if it was relocated to the east side,
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
5
or the west side rather than the east side, maybe that would help but essentially the layout of the
access or this private drive would the same affect where vehicular users would still have to look
over their left shoulder so staff recommended in the report to have the developer just reassess
kind of their site circulation; take a look at possible alternatives to locations of maybe
underground parking. While not required at this time, it’s something that they should take into
account just to try to make the site….. It was already built out as such so their kind of just using
what’s there but it can hurt to take another look at that. Lastly, pedestrian access on the site. So
as you can see there are throughout the phases and the buildout of this PUD, there have been
concrete sidewalks being installed which Bob was kind of showing there; the existing ones are
kind of gray. There are some gaps that will be created so the applicant will be required to kind of
fill those pedestrian access routes for circulation within the site. Additionally, there an existing
trail to the west of the development that was extended from Phase, I believe, 1 and the applicant
will be required or the developer to extend the public trail system just to continue that route,
eventually getting all the way over to Sunrise Park, I believe is the name, just east. And with that,
Bob, I can turn it back over to you.
Generous: Staff review of the landscaping plans show that there was some deficiencies in their
plan. There are deficits in the boulevard plantings that are required as part of any development
and that’s one of the conditions of approval. There’s a deficit in the parking lot landscaping.
They need to add additional trees and they want to change their species diversity as part of the
tree inventory so that they meet city standards so we don’t have too many of one genial. Finally,
we also recommend that additional landscaping be provided along this easterly access to provide
some screening for the lower, first level units on that side of the building so they can revise that
as part of their building permit process. As part of the application, the applicant is requesting a
variance for the building height. Our ordinance defines building height as the height from grade
to the midpoint of the roof and as they showed on their architectural plan, they are about 42 feet
in height. The R12 zoning district limits height to 35 feet so they are requesting a variance. The
primary reasons we believe that they meet all the criteria in the variance operations and
specifically they are looking at their…they will be in harmony….consistent with the comp plan,
they’re providing a multi-family development on a multi-family guided site and zoned
appropriately. The practical difficulties are they’re trying to build to current design standards,
building standards. They’re going with 10- and nine-foot ceiling heights and they’re using a
foot-and-a half mechanical joists between floors so they can run all of the mechanical equipment
within that. Additionally, because of the steepness of the slope, they’ve made the roof height
taller to that it sheds the snow in the winter. Staff is recommending approval the variance. As
part of this project, the city is looking at requiring that they provide affording senior housing for
the community. Kate will address that briefly.
Aanenson: I just wanted to let you know that you will see this project back if it goes forward, is
approved by you and for the City Council and that would be via a tax increment financing
district. The City Council started discussing this with the applicant last summer, in July and
through August and September, just to talk about the potential for a senior affordable project. As
you know, in the comprehensive plan, we did identify that affordable senior housing is in need in
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
6
the city of Chanhassen. The other project on this site was built for seniors but there’s not an
affordability component. So in order to make that happen, the Council is contemplating doing a
tax increment district so this will come back to you as part of the process but I just wanted to
briefly inform you kind of, of the process. It’s kind of truncated in a couple different
components. Our financial consultants…once this goes through the City Council, they will have
to set a public hearing, there’s a 30-day comment period the school district, everybody gets to
weigh in on this but it will come back to you because you will have to say that the zoning of this
this property is consistent with the comprehensive plan. You don’t get to weight in to the
financial component but you will see this again. So I just wanted to let the Planning Commission
be aware of that. Again, as Bob stated, there is a requirement that the Council set a TIF district of
50% of the units have to be affordable at the 60% median income. So that was a proposal that
was presented but they’ll go through that whole process, the Council will, and then again you’ll
have another opportunity to weigh in on the consistence to the comprehensive plan. So just
wanted to share that with you.
Generous: Finally, staff is recommending approval of the site plan with the variance. We are
also requesting to add planning condition no. 6 that the developer shall record cross parking and
cross access agreements with the parcels in the Powers Ridge development. Originally, this
development had been under one owner and platted together and so the city attorney at the time
said that we could record these cross access and cross parking agreements as part of each site
plan and so that was one of the items missed as part of my review and so I’m bringing that
forward that that be added before we go forward to City Council. With that, I’d be happy to
answer any questions.
Weick: Wonderful. Thank you. Any Commission members with questions of either Kate or Bob?
[Someone is speaking but cannot understand]
Weick: Is that Commissioner Von Oven? I can’t quite tell what you’re…pretty muffled.
Von Oven: Nope, not me.
McGonagill: Commissioner McGonagill. Can you hear me now?
Weick: No.
McGonagill: Can you hear me now?
Weick: Better.
McGonagill: OK, very good. We’ll try it this way.
Weick: Go for it.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
7
McGonagill: Bob this is a question for the Engineering staff. When I look at the original plan
on Page 3, they did show parking going out of…to the building. And when they go to Page 5,
and they actually have a site plan, they only have one way in. That fact that is almost an S shape
inside of that I am concerned about traffic in the parking area and again not having the….. from
the garage on the west end as well. I understand that when you leave on the west end, you have
to look over your left shoulder but you’re not crossing traffic, you’re turning into traffic where as
if you go out of the east end and go to the left, you’re actually having to cross over traffic. And I
….and I’ve got to go. The original design made a lot more sense to me that this one when there’s
only one way out of that long parking garage. There’s my question. Why is that OK?
Weick: I’m just going to repeat the question as I understood it. The question is, I think, why not
have exits out of, why not have three and four as entrances and exits?
Generous: I believe the applicant’s architect and engineer would be better to answer that one,
however, as part of the city review, there is no concern expressed by either the fire marshal or the
building official with the design itself.
Weick: So having only one exit point isn’t an issue?
Generous: Right. That’s a vehicle exit. There’s multiple pedestrian exits out of there but the
applicant’s engineer or architect would be a resource in answering that.
Weick: OK
McGonagill: Bob, I appreciate that. My point on that is where they have the exit point, you’re
asking senior….to go out the cross traffic at that point and I believe that’s more unsafe that going
out the….you follow me?
Generous: I believe we haven’t thrown out the prospects of having that 2nd access point into it,
as a matter of fact, as part of my initial comments to the architect, I was asking if they were
going to access point also. Yes, it would be a better resource.
McGonagill: OK
Weick: Are there any other questions from the planning commissioners at this point?
Skistad: I have a question.
Weick: Sure
Skistad: If you look on Page 13, under the Grading, the groundwater. It looks like the
groundwater is only 10 feet from the bottom of the parking garage. That seems like that’s a
concern. And also, sounds like it could change the height of the building if they hit groundwater
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
8
earlier than expect to hit it? Because all of our water in Chanhassen is basically well water so
we’ve got to protect that groundwater, so that’s a concern for me. I mean, are we endangering the
city wells by building so close, a large apartment building with all the parking down there, even
though it says we’re supposed to catch it before it goes down there. You know cars are going to
be bringing down material when they park in the garage.
Aanenson: Erik Henricksen, do you want to answer that question?
Henricksen: Ya, 10 feet for our review would be adequate separate from groundwater to bottom
floor elevation of a foundation. City Code as it currently stands is three feet separation. Anything
less than three feet would require grade adjustment. Based on our review of the borings, there
was one location that had it within two feet. Again, based on those borings and the groundwater
sampling, there really wasn’t any concern of those elevations. There are certain subdivisions that
go in, for instance, where you have house pads that are within four feet but it’s still allowable by
city ordinance. As that is adequate separation from the bottom of the foundation to the
groundwater tables. It was addressed in our review and it is conditioned I believe that, if
groundwater is, they have to have a geotechnical engineer on site at all times during grading
operations and if groundwater is encountered, the grading plan would have to adjusted but it does
have to come under review by city staff prior to that being adjusted.
Weick: Commissioner Skistad, does that answer your question or do you have a follow up on
that?
Skistad: Well, I understand what he’s saying but it’s still a concern and I think also if you look at
it, what was allowed here via the 2040 plan was only 59 apartments, 59 units and so now we’re
going to basically double the units which is part of the reason why I’m assuming the parking
garage needs to be the way it is, is for that reason so we’re trying to, I think we’re building too
much building too much building for the land as per our 2040 plan and I understand that it’s
possible for us to increase but I’m not sure that the land here actually supports that in this
instance, despite the fact that we would like to have more senior living.
Generous: Commissioner, as part of the site plan that was approved for this, the original approval
was for an 88-unit apartment building which is Building C which had more underground parking
requirements because it was not a senior building so it had one and a half parking spaces per unit
had to be underground so the footprint’s almost exactly the same what was originally approved.
They were able to reduce it because they’re going to a senior building and have less parking
requirements.
Skistad: Well, just because it’s approved doesn’t mean it was a good idea. The other concerns
that I have are the, you look at all of the very end, there’s like 40 recommendation points when
you go through this one. I think we need to go back and nail some of this down a little bit more
specifically.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
9
Weick: And your primary concern is around size relative to groundwater…
Skistad: I think it’s the 40 points, you’ve got, you’re doubling the housing for the 2040
maximum density plan, you’ve got 51 additional subsidized housing for taxpayers, you’ve got an
additional traffic light, potentially, and if we’re doing a TIF, aren’t we really pay for that traffic
light anyway. There’s additional city services needed for the additional building units and
there’s no, I don’t see any tax offsetting that and the project won’t pay for itself which is why
they want a TIF also would be my expectation. The driveway is an issue and with the letter that
we received, there’s the underground lot which potential is too close to the groundwater. There
are grading changes that are required. I don’t know, I just feel like there are too many variances
for the project when you need three pages if we’re going to do this, we recommended if this. I
think that’s too many.
Weick: OK. Thank you for sharing those. I think those are all good points.
Von Oven: So question for staff. Are we still on that portion of the…
Weick: Please.
Von Oven: Thanks. Should be an easy one. Is the only variance that we are looking at here the
difference between 35 and 42 feet? Is that the entire reason that this issue is in front of us?
Generous: That’s the only variance as part of the plan. It’s site plan approval because they’re
increasing the number of units on this one site from what was previously approved.
Von Oven: Right. The increase of the units which leads to a decrease of the parking spaces
because it’s a senior unit. Right?
Generous: Correct.
Von Oven: Then just out of pure curiosity, I think there’s a potential picture of the front of it on
Page 8. I’m that point at the top of the gable is the 42 feet. Can I assume that the rest of the
building is lower than 35 feet at the highest point of the roof, to the right?
Generous: It’s actually the midpoint of that gable, approximately here that we measure the
building height to. So the top will be higher than that. I looked at one number, I think it was 39
feet.
Weick: I don’t know if you have report in front of you Commissioner Von Oven, I had the same
thought and I was able to kind of expand the picture on Page 6. I’ll just finish my thought. If you
kind of look at the visually, you can see that the roofline of the entire building is actually in line
with the top of that…you know what I mean?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
10
Von Oven: Let see. Did you blow up that picture that’s on the right-hand side?
Weick: I did.
Von Oven: OK got it.
Weick: When you do that it actual brings, the whole building actually peaks pretty darn close to
the top of that peak. It’s a visual, when you look at it just from the front, it’s a funny visual.
Von Oven: Yep. Thank you.
Weick: Other questions? Hearing none, I would invite the applicant to talk about the project and
do keep in mind we did have one specific regarding the parking 3 and 4 if you are able to answer
that question, that would be wonderful.
Simning: Yes, I am. Todd Simning, 2166 Paisley Path. Long-time local resident of Chanhassen.
Thank you Bob, Erik and Kate for a good introduction on the overall project. First, just want to
say that I’m excited to bring this project to the city. I’ve done a lot developments in the city, a lot
of market rate, higher end homes. This really is the first time that we’re able to bring a project to
Chanhassen that brings an affordable complex to the city. It’s something that I’ve been talking to
Kate, the Mayor Elise Ryan, and other staff about for quite some time about what does the city
need and how can we actually bring it to the city. This is actually something personal to me. I’ve
been building a lot of really nice houses for a long time. This is the first time that we’re actually
looking to do something long term to actually help the city. One of the most important things that
we want to do for any municipal, any city, and particularly the one you live in, is to try to make
certain that you can keep aging residents back into the community so that their not forced to go
out west or to areas that their families are at and they’ve been here a long time and it’s one of the
reasons why we are bring this project to the city of Chanhassen. One of the Planning
Commission members was stating that there are 40 recommendations and this isn’t paying for
itself and granted, it’s not. If it was 100% market rate again, yes, it would probably pay for itself
but when you’re looking at trying to bring an affordable complex to any development, it’s very
difficult to make the numbers work. As Kate knows, and City Councilmembers, we had two or
three planning sessions along with working with the city financial consultant, Ahlers, and really
analyzed what it was going to cost to do this. Is the city going to recoup their costs? Is it going to
cost the city anything, and I think, Kate, you can back me up on that, that it actually wasn’t going
to cost the city anything. It was more of what can we do to bring the affordable housing into the
city of Chanhassen but almost more importantly, if you look at our structure, you look at the
units, you look at the amenities that we have. In most municipalities, people are a little reluctant
to have “affordable” come into their neighborhoods because it means that they’re going to have a
nice building. It’s going to be downgraded. Well, in this case, when you look at the pickle ball,
gardens on the west-hand side, again, somebody has brought up why aren’t you using both of the
entrances/exits for the garage. One of the biggest reasons why we’re not using the west entrance,
is that we actually wanted to create a garden over there. We want to create an area where the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
11
elderly can actually have a garden, can actually have a nice area to sit down and enjoy. There
will probably be a dog run over in that area. It really sets itself up to be an optimal spot for
sunshine, relaxation for those that are in our community. With that, with you look at the east side
driveway, number 1, it was already predesigned, so we’re not creating anything new. I actually
went out to the site and I would encourage all of you to go to the site and review that. I actually
backed up onto our property and set myself up exactly where our driveway where our driveway
was going to exit and you’ll notice that, in the staff report, it said you’re going to be looking
back to your left and in reality, you’re not going to be looking back to your left. We’re actually
sitting at the high point where the road from Lake Drive W. come up, it actually plateaus well
before our entrance into our garage, which is straight across from the other one, and you just
naturally look to your left and you have a very, very good visible and then secondarily, on your
right-hand side, it’s actually coming down and you have another really good visible area. So our
intent, and I want to go on the record and I want to Council to also know this, our intent really is
not to utilize both exits, particularly the on the west-hand wide because, again, we’re trying to
create something that is different in the city of Chanhassen where we’re actually creating garden
space for people that actually live there and then, secondly, the area on the east side, again, I’ll
encourage you to go there, you are sitting so high up and you’re really at a plateau that you really
have good visibility at that area. So, I just really want to make sure that hit that. For me
personally, I have a vested interest in this project. I do very high quality projects. I’ve numerous
developments in Chanhassen. I think probably at least a dozen or so over the last 34 years. In this
case with this senior project, I’m not only going to be the developer but I’m going to be one of
four owners. There are five of us that are going to own it long term. We have a vested interest in
producing a high quality project similarly to what I have actually created in the city of
Chanhassen from my single-family development. I’ve never done a multi-family here. This will
be the first one but super excited to actually bring the affordable component into the city of
Chanhassen. One thing I wanted to know, and I know Kate had noted that she had thought she
thought that 50% of the units were going to be affordable and I’m pretty sure, Kate, according to
Ahler’s report it was going to be 45% of the building which would be 50 units. So not 50% but I
think it was 50 units and can make certain that we go through that but I just wanted to make
certain that I hit that. So, number 1, the relocation of the garage. We are planning on using the
east entrance. Secondly, with the trail system, I was going to make a comment that I didn’t think
the trail behind our building, along Lake Drive W. was going to be important because our
sidewalks are going to interconnect and there are two pedestrian crossings on the east and west
side that actually go across the road and connect with the trail system along Lake Drive W. but I
heard Erik state that they are planning on actually trying to get this connection all the way down
to the local park which is just to the west of us and if that’s the case, then it does make sense that
we do construct that trail all the way along the back side and eventually it’s connect with the
park system. I don’t know if that’s a city project that’s going to do that or local because it looks
like it’s city property from the west there. What else did I have? I think that was pretty much it
on my side as a developer. I look at 40 recommendations and I spoke with both of my architects
this morning about the architecture and I also spoke with Matt from Civil Site Group today
about, “hey is there anything that’s giving you any hesitation that we can’t accomplish what Erik
and Bob and staff has kind of recommended that we change” and neither one of them gave me
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
12
any indication that there was anything out of the ordinary, so of the 40 points on there, it might
seem onerous that there’s 40 items, but from our standpoint, it didn’t seem like it was, they were
all very small very small items for the 40. So, with that I will open it up to any questions. If
there’s something technical, I will open it up to either, Even, my architect or, Matt, my civil
engineer. Thank you.
Weick: Thank you and I appreciate your openness and candor about the project. I think that
perspective is helpful. I would open it to my fellow commissioners if you have any follow up
questions, directly. You may do so now. Any questions for the applicant? Yes. Well, thank you
and thank you for providing that level of detail about the project. At least for myself, that was
helpful. So thanks for doing that. At this time I will open the public hearing. The number, 952-
227-1630, if you’d like to be heard. We are watching the phones. Where there any emails sent in
on this one?
Generous: The one letter that we included as part of the packet with the concern about the
entrance to the parking lot. I had several people call.
Young-Walters: We have a call…
Weick: Let’s do it.
Kathleen Jorfee: 1341 Powers Ridge. I just have a question because 110 units and you have 110
parking places, I feel there are…will rent and maybe have two cars. I know the building at 1351,
they have very little parking for visitors and if you have a couple with two cars, they’re going to
take up the parking lot and you know with snow removal piled up, that takes up space. I don’t
know, is this a concern?
Weick: Thank you for the question. I think we would have city…[someone speaking in
background]…was that your only question?
Young-Walters: I believe we have another call and then I believe staff will respond to the
question. If you could please state your name for the record.
Sherm Bile: Hi my name is Sherm Bile and I live at 1321 Lake Drive W. which is Powers Ridge.
We’ll be a neighbor to the new building coming up. A good neighbor I hope and we’re looking
forward to it but I wanted to ask or remind the Commission that they have a letter of mine in
their packet, or at least they should and it’s regarding the exit to the building on the east side.
I’ve heard a lot of flowery talk about that tonight but I would also ask the Commission to come
out here and park right where the presenter parked and give us your opinion on how you think
that driveway is. It’s a narrow S curved driveway that is quite narrow even now with the snow
coming in from the side. It faces the east then coming up, we’re trying to accommodate seniors
and I’m a senior, I’m 83 years old, nimble as a catfish but I’m telling you, I pay very close
attention when I’m driving out the S curve and that’s literally what it is, it’s an S curve and I
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
13
don’t think we need to challenge our seniors like that going in and out of their home. Now the
west end has none of those concerns. It’s very close to Lake Drive W., it’s got a much wider
driveway. I paced it off, it’s at least five or six feet wider, it’s much shorter and you turn right
and that’s very important for you to remember, exiting the east, you turn left and if you’re a
driver, you know what a challenge left turn always are. You’ve got to cross two lanes of traffic,
get in the right lane, make sure there’s nothing coming from both directions. That exit on the east
end exits directly across from the 1321 building which is needless hassle for seniors coming in
and out. So I ask you to just give it your best judgement. Pretend your mom and dad were
driving in and out of that day in and day out and ask yourself, which driveway would you rather
have them driveway out of, the west end or the east end. I think you commission members for
your service. You guys are really good and you deserve to be recognized. Chanhassen has a good
bunch of people in their local government and I support you all the way. The planners, the
commissioners, the Council and Godspeed to you all. Just read my memo, read my email and
assess for yourself. Thank you very much for listening. Bye.
Weick: Thank you so much. Can’t see, do we have other calls?
Young-Walters: We do not have any other calls.
Weick: OK. So we had two calls which is exciting because we haven’t had a call before so I
apologize if I got a little flustered. The first question I would prefer if staff would try and speak
to what the Code is for the number of parking spaces and I guess I’ll just leave it at that.
Generous: The applicant actually exceeds Code requirements. They need to provide 128. That
would be the 110 for the units themselves and then 28 for that additional parking. They need a
total of 128; they’re providing a total of 155 parking spaces on their property and so that again is
part of the reason that we’re doing the cross access and cross parking agreement because, within
the entire development, there is some cross connection that are taking place. Additionally, if you
look at the driveway on the westerly side of this entire development, it’s all on this lot. So there
must be some that must have previously been recorded but we want to make sure that those are
in place for perpetuity.
Weick: OK
Aanenson: I would just add. I think Bob pointed out earlier that there are different parking ratios
depending on number of bedrooms. That’s a factor that’s weighed in too, whether it’s senior
housing or two or three bedrooms all based on that.
Weick: OK. So it exceeds what the Code is. I do understand the caller’s concern with potential
visitors and multi-car families, assuming that the Code takes that into consideration when trying
to weigh how many spots are required vs. the space that they take up. So that’s helpful at least
knowing what the minimum numbers are for that space and certainly the commissioners can
form their own opinions on that. And then the second call, and again, we’ve talked about it, but I
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
14
do appreciate the interest of the caller and although we read the emails that come in, it’s always
nice to from people in their own voices in their own passion what their opinion is about an item
so thank you very much for calling in on that. I think we’ve addressed it, it’s certainly out there
for commissioner consideration as we move forward. Are there any other calls that came in while
I was babbling, MacKenzie? No, OK. So I will close the public hearing portion of this item and
open up for Planning Commission comment, motion, votes, all of the above. Thoughts and
considerations regarding this item?
McGonagill: Mr. Chairman, can you hear me better now?
Weick: Oh wonderful. That is so much better.
McGonagill: I had to reset my speakers.
Weick: Not a problem.
McGonagill: That was my error. I think it’s a beautiful project. I appreciate the developer and
what he’s doing and I like the things he’s putting in place. I am hung up though, still, on the west
end egress. I think it needs to be there. I think it’s just too long. I think there needs to be two
outlets on a parking garage that long and I agree with the last caller with the comments of going
in and out of crossing traffic. That was a concern I looked just myself. I haven’t been to the site
but I was just looking at the plans. So outside of that issue of the west exit. I do appreciate the
gardens because I do love to garden but I’d rather have safe access to the building than gardens
so outside of the parking deal, I mean the driveway, I’m okay. I just don’t know how we deal
with that because it’s not the variance their asking but it’s the only concern I have with the
application, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Weick: OK and that’s certainly a part of the record that’s passed to City Council really no matter
which we vote on the item so certainly that I think is obvious in the record at this point and
something they would certainly consider regardless of what’s passed to them. Other thoughts? I
know there were some concerns and questions. Any final thoughts on those?
Skistad: Well I think I don’t have any problem with the building, I think the building is beautiful
and the use is beautiful but I still stand on my other comments and concerns I have overall and I
will not be supporting this.
Weick: OK. Thank you. I certainly would entertain a motion. I’m not trying to cut anyone’s
thoughts off though so if you do have comment, please do so. I think the motion is up on, at least
I can, is up on the screen. I guess I would ask if there aren’t comments and there isn’t a motion at
this point, can you guys hear me?
Voice: Yes
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
15
Weick: I would just say that if there are things that are preventing you to make a motion, we
would certainly discuss that and you’re certainly able to make any motion you’d like. You are
not limited to what is on the screen in front of you. If there was a different opinion that you
wanted the Commission to vote on, you can certainly do that as well.
Von Oven: I was sitting, enjoying the uncomfortable silence because I did have a ton to add.
Weick: I wasn’t.
Von Oven: Yes I know. I’m watching you squirm. I will say a couple of things. One, I
thoroughly appreciate the thoroughness of my fell Planning Commissioners. This is one of those
where I went in and read through this whole thing and I didn’t see any huge issues with it. I think
there’s one reason for that when I read through the 30 points and everything that was here and
that is that if there were major safety concerns or major sort of bad stuff in here, I don’t think it
would make it through our city staff. I don’t think city staff would be recommending to approve
this. That made me feel better about the long list and Mr. Generous addressed it. The second one
is, I have not sat and looked out of my window the way Mr. Bile did so I have not had that
experience and I appreciate the caller coming in. I also believe if there were truly a safety
concern, city staff would be calling it out and I’m strengthened by the fact that Mr. Simning is an
investor in this property himself so if there truly is a danger there, he is putting himself at risk.
So with that I am happy to make the motion that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends approval of the site plan for a 110-unit, three-story apartment building with a
variance for the building height to allow 42 feet to the midpoint of the roof subject to the
Conditions of Approval and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. The
developer shall record cross parking and cross access agreements with the other parcels in the
Powers Ridge development.
Weick: We have a valid motion from Commissioner Von Oven. Do we have a second?
Noyes: Chairman, Commissioner Noyes. I’ll second.
Weick: Thank you, Commissioner Noyes. With that, before we vote, any final comment? I will
conduct a roll call vote. Commissioner Von Oven?
Von Oven: Aye
Weick: In favor. Commissioner Noyes?
Noyes: In favor.
Weick: Thank you. Commissioner Skistad?
Skistad: No
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
16
Weick: Thank you. Commissioner McGonagill?
McGonagill: Aye
Weick: Thank you. I will call Commission Reeder. I’m not sure he joined though. I don’t think
so. No? OK. And Commissioner Randall?
Randall: Aye.
Weick: In favor. I also vote in favor. The motion passes, five in favor, one opposed and will go
to City Council with all comment attached. Thank you again everybody. Bob, thanks for your
presentation. Thank you to the applicant for being available and thank you to the commissioners
as always, important and educated input.
Von Oven moved, Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council approve the site plan for a 110-unit, three-story apartment building
with a variance for the building height to allow 42 feet to the midpoint of the roof subject to
the Conditions of Approval and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
The developer shall record cross parking and cross access agreements with the other
parcels in the Powers Ridge development. The motion passes with a vote of five in favor
and one opposed and will go to City Council with all comment attached.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
OF A DECK ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3616 RED CEDAR POINT
Young-Walters: Thank you. This is Planning Case 2021-01. It is a variance to expand an existing
nonconforming deck at 3616 Red Cedar Point Road. As a reminder, if the Planning Commission
does not pass this or denies this by at ¾ majority vote, it will go to the City Council on
January 25, 2021. Additional, anyone aggrieved by decision of the Planning Commission, may
appear the decision and they will have four days to register an appeal with staff in writing which
would also then move it to the City Council. With that being said, I’ll jump into it. The location
is Red Cedar Point. We have had quite a few variances over the years in this area. This is 3616
Red Cedar Point here. It’s zoned Residential Single-Family. This is technically a corner lot due
to the presence of right-of-way (ROW) here. The zoning district requires a 20,000-square foot
minimum lot area, 30-foot setbacks from any street frontage so that would be 30 feet from the
east as well as the southern lot line and then 10-foot setbacks for the side yard and a 75-foot
shoreland setback. Properties in this area are limited to 25% lot cover, are permitted one water-
oriented accessory structure with a 10-foot setback from the lake and that structure would be
limited to 250 square feet in size. The existing conditions on this site. The lot is 7,206 square
feet. It has only 77½ feet of the required 90 feet of lot frontage along the south and only 45 of the
required 90 feet of lot frontage along the lake. The house has a nonconforming 72.8-foot
shoreland setback and the deck has a nonconforming 62-foot shoreland setback. It has a
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
17
nonconforming 15.3-foot front yard setback on the east and at 15-foot nonconforming setback on
the south. As a side note, the house does not meet the ordinance’s minimum size. No two-car
garage is present and the parking pad that services the property is located in the city’s ROW. So
quite a few nonconformities on the property. The applicant is proposing to expand the deck out
from the east and west walls of the home out to the edge of the existing deck stairs. This would
maintain the existing nonconforming lake setback. They are not proposing any new impervious
surface. They’ve stated that the existing deck does not provide a usable outdoor area. The
existing deck is right around 100 square feet. Surrounding properties have received variances to
allow for updates and improvements. Other properties in the area have decks that are similarly
sized to what they are proposing and the substandard lot size and existing home placement does
not allow for any improvement to the property without a variance. Staff did our usual
assessment. This is a very constrained parcel in an area where nearly every property is operating
under a variance or has an existing nonconformity. The proposed deck expansion would be 300
feet, about 28x10 and then with another 16 feet or so for a stairway. This seems to be pretty
reasonable given the size of decks and patios present on the surrounding properties. They aren’t
proposing any new lot cover and all of the improvements are still set quite a bit back from the
lake. Initially, the applicant had proposed having the stairs come off here, in red, which would
have increased the setback, I’m sorry decreased the setback to the lake by approximately an
additional five feet. Staff looked it over and didn’t see any reason to why the stairs couldn’t
come off the side. We contacted the applicant and asked if they’d be amendable to relocating the
stairs. They agreed so they will not be increasing the nonconformity. Regarding the east lot line
setback, this is an extremely unique corner lot. The ROW of the road along the east terminates
about half way down the property line and then becomes essentially a private drive serving five
houses. It’s extremely low traffic. Where the deck would be would not be interfering with the
road sight line. There is no property across the street that would have to look at it. It’s only four
feet above grade. It’s open construction. In this unique instance, staff does not see any concern
with granting a variance to allow that to go down to a 12-foot setback. So for these reasons, staff
would recommend that the Planning Commission grant the variance to permit the deck’s
expansion but require that the stairs be relocated to maintain the existing setback. I would be
happy to answer questions you may have.
Weick: Great, thank you, MacKenzie. Any questions for MacKenzie regarding this item?
Von Oven: I guess just real quick. You said there are a bunch of other variances in the area, are
they all basically the same, imposing on the setbacks of the lake, given that this is such a thin
strip of land?
Young-Walters: Yes, there are 16 of the properties within 500 feet have received variances and
25 different variances have been given to those. They run the gambit. There’s a lot of lot cover
variances due to the small size of the lots; there’s quite a few front yard setback variances, I want
to say 11 but I’m not checking my notes. I think I have that number in the staff report. Similar
number of variances from the shoreland. Staffs’ general rule has been for the shoreland to try to
hold properties to the extent of their existing nonconformity, so to not let them go closer to the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
18
lake then the original house was built. I hope that answers your questions, if not I can look up the
numbers quick for you.
Von Oven: No that was perfect. Thank you.
Skistad: MacKenzie, this is Laura. So if they move the stairs, there’s room to do that and still
maintain the setback and it doesn’t run into another one of the setback?
Young-Walters: Nope, great question. Because this is a corner lot, any of the setbacks that aren’t
facing the street is reduced to a 10-foot. So if you look here, you’ll see there is a 20½-foot
distance from the edge of the house to that lot line. Even assuming they went with a five- or six-
foot wide stair which is wider than the typical four-foot you’d see, they’d still have 16 feet, I’m
sorry, 14 feet on that side which would give them four fee to spare off that 10-foot side setback
so should be plenty of room.
Skistad: OK. Thank you.
Weick: Thanks, everyone. I’m not sure if the applicant is on the line but if you are you are
welcome to speak about this project.
Simning: You guys get me again.
Weick: Hey, alright!
Simning: Todd Simning, this time representing Dave Melin and Adore Homes. Anyway,
MacKenzie, we’ve been working through this for the last month or so and obviously, Dave and I
are onboard to move the staircase over. Honestly, unless anybody has any other questions, we
don’t have a whole lot to add to the conversation.
Weick: OK, thank you. Any questions, from the commissioners? As has been noted, I don’t like
the silence at all so just start talking randomly. Thank you very much. I think it’s pretty straight
forward from the staff report and from what MacKenzie presented already. With that I would
open the public hearing portion of this item. The call-in number is on your screen at 952-227-
1630. While people are dialing, did we have any email?
Young-Walters: We received one email initially expressing concern about the potential for
impervious surface to be added. Once it was explained that it was decking and would pervious,
they were not concerned. That was the only contact we had.
Weick: OK. Plus they are well under the lot cover, are they not?
Young-Walters: They’re only at a little over 14%.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
19
Weick: OK. Thank you. No one is here in Chambers with us today, I did not hear the telephone
ring. With that I will close the public hearing portion of this item and open for commissioner
comment, motion, and uncomfortable silence.
Skistad: I’ll go ahead and make a motion unless I’m interrupting someone who wants to
comment.
Weick: Go ahead Commissioner Skistad.
Skistad: OK. The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustment appeal 13-foot shoreline and
18-foot east front yard setback variances to replace and expand the deck subject to the
Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
Weick: Thank you, Commissioner Skistad. We have a valid motion. Do we have a second?
Noyes: Chairman, I’ll second. Commissioner Noyes.
Weick: Thank you, Commissioner Noyes. Any final comment before we vote? With that I will
conduct a roll call vote. Commissioner Randall?
Randall: Aye.
Weick: In favor. Commissioner McGonagill?
McGonagill: Aye.
Weick: Thank you. Commissioner Skistad?
Skistad: Aye.
Weick: Thank you. Commissioner Noyes?
Noyes: Aye.
Weick: Thank you. Commissioner Von Oven?
Von Oven: Aye.
Weick: Thank you and I also vote in favor.
Skistad moved, Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustment
approve the 13-foot shoreline and 18-foot east front yard setback variances to replace and
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
20
expand the deck subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of
Facts and Decision. The motion passes unanimously with a vote of 6-0.
Weick: Jumping, leaping over our ¾ hurdle. Thank you everybody and thank you, MacKenzie,
for your presentation.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A GOLF
DRIVING RANGE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 825 FLYING CLOUD DRIVE
(GOLF ZONE)
Young-Walter: This is Planning Case 2021-02 and the Chairman said, this is a request for an
Interim Use Permit (IUP) resume operating a golf driving range on a property that is zoned
Agricultural Estate. Because this is an IUP, it will go before the City Council on January 25,
2021 with the recommendation that the Planning Commission at this time. This is an overview of
the site. As was mentioned, the present zoning is Agricultural Estate. The city’s 2040 Land Use
Plan calls for the northern section that is outside of the flood plane to be guided for office use
and the rest of it to be agriculture. The site is a little over 97 acres. Currently, it is not in use,
however, it was a golf driving range from 1998 to 2018 and the applicant is essentially proposing
to resume operations. They are not proposed any change or alteration to the site of expansion of
facilities. A little bit of background. There are quite a few different case numbers associated with
this. Site Plan 98-8, Interim Use Permit 98-2, Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 98-2 and Wetland
Alteration Permit (WAP) 98-1. The verify brief background on those is that in July of 1998, the
city approved the site plan and IUP, CUP and WAP to allow the initial driving range to begin
operation. The next year, they amended that site plan to allow a second story to be constructed
over the driving dens and then they also amended the City Code to allow the service 3.2% malt
liquor on the site. In October 2006, the owner at that time requested a site plan amendment and
variances to allow an 11,100-square foot additional to the site so they significantly expanded the
club house and in 2018 then the driving range closed. Under our City Code, an IUP, if inactive
for six months and is no longer valid which is why the new owner of the site is requesting a new
IUP. The applicant’s proposal to resume operation of the golf driving range, as I noted earlier,
they will be using the existing facilities. They are not proposing the construction of any new
buildings, they’re not proposing any grading or alterations or expansion of the site. They will be
conducting obviously, any needed repairs and maintenance to get the building up to Code and
inviting and well-kept again, but they are proposing substantially the same business model and
scope of operations that were present on the original golf driving range. This is a very interesting
site and it has a lot of environmentally-sensitive features. I just pulled up a quick GIS map.
These are all preserved-class wetlands and this is the Minnesota River floodplain. So as you can
see, a portion of the driving range is within the floodplain but the building itself is out of the 100-
year or 1% annual flood chance region and golf driving ranges are a permitted use within the
floodplain under our City Code. Because they aren’t proposing any alterations within these areas;
the driving range is well clear of the wetlands and it’s allowed in the floodplain and the buildings
are clear, neither the Watershed District nor Department of Natural Resources (DNR) have
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
21
contacted us with any concerns about the resumption of activities nor does staff have significant
concerns. When determining whether or not to grant an IUP, the City Code lists basically three
standards that need to be met. I go through these point by point in the staff report, however, in
summary Section 20-232’s goal is to just to ensure the use is not going to be detrimental to
surrounding properties, that it won’t be detrimental to the environment, that it will not be
detrimental to the city, and that it’s adequately served by infrastructure, so access and utilities.
Staff believes that this proposal meets these standards. Section 20-322’s goal is to ensure that the
use meets the zoning requirements, will not incur a public cost at a future date, and has an
identifiable end date. A little segway, this section particularly deals with interim uses. Interim
uses are different than pretty much any other use in the city in that they are by nature, temporary.
They have a definite end date. So when the Planning Commission issues a CUP, that conditional
use will endure in perpetuity. It doesn’t end as long as that use is maintained. In order to grant
and IUP, we have to have a specific event that will cause the permit to close to allow the
property to be used for a different in conformance with the future land use plan. In this case, that
event would be the extension of city sewer and water service to the site, at which point, staff is
proposing there would be a one-year grace period and then this permit would expire. The
applicant has been made aware of this and staff believes that their proposal meets the
requirements of the interim use ordinance. The final Section is 20-259 and that is the specific
performance standards for a golf driving range that’s designed to prevent them from negatively
impacting the surrounding properties. Again, the applicant’s proposing essentially the exact same
scope of operations that were in place for 20 years. There were no issues with the previous
operation and staff believes the use as proposed will not create issues and meets those standards
as well. I would like to call out a couple of the conditions that will be imposed on this IUP. The
first I got into a little earlier and that’s the IUP will terminate 12 months after municipal services
are extended to the site. That’s required as part of issuing the IUP that there is a fixed end date.
The site will be required to pass building, fire, and septic compliance inspections to ensure it’s
safe to resume operations. The site will not be allowed to be altered beyond what was allowed in
previous permits. They will need to restore the rain garden and meet the old site plan’s
landscaping requirements. The driving range nets are required to protect the wetlands to prevent
stray balls from flying off into them. If the applicant chooses to use pesticides and fertilizers,
they will need to provide a plan to the city and chemicals cannot be stored in the floodplain.
Obviously, there is a lot of environmental impacts that can happen if that condition was not in
place. And if they do for any reason decide to expand or alter the site or it’s grading, they must
receive the appropriate permits from the relevant agencies. With that, I would be happy answer
any questions you may have.
Weick: Thanks, MacKenzie. I actually have one question. Has anyone from the city or
environmental department or parks I guess, gone out and looked at the site since it closed?
Young-Walters: Yep. Myself, Jill Sinclair the Environmental Resources Coordinator, and Matt
Unmacht the Water Resources Specialist. All three of walked the site and did an evaluation.
That’s part of how we determine that the landscaping was deficient and would need to be
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
22
brought up to Code and that the rain garden wasn’t in place. We also looked around for golf balls
to see if there were any still lying around and couldn’t find any. We did do a site visit.
Weick: And I assume, especially Jill Sinclair, would have noted, what I’m thinking specifically
about is, the only thing I can think of with a golf driving range is retrieving the golf balls. You’re
using some type of machine which over the years, if you use is it when the ground’s really wet,
you could mess up the ground. I would assume she would have seen something had it been
present, some damage, or..
Young-Walters: I would defer to Matt on that. I believe he observed where he felt the wetlands
started with relation to the driving range and might be able to comment on if he felt there was
any concern with that. Matt, are you on the call?
Unmacht: Yes, can everyone hear me?
Weick/Others: Yes, barely.
Unmacht: We stopped out a few weeks again, MacKenzie, Jill and myself and I don’t have any
concerns about any sort of machinery, specifically with regards to the wetlands. The wetland
boundary is located well off where most people are capable of hitting the golf ball. I would hope
so. I’m not too concerned about any use of machinery that’s going to impact the wetlands. I
didn’t notice any sort of residual ground impacts or vegetative impacts outside of the wetland
area sort of where these machines would normally operate. MacKenzie, maybe you did, but I
didn’t notice anything that called to my attention, that “hey this is going to be really impactful to
this area”. Long answer to I would say I’m not concerned about it.
Weick: Great and that’s exactly what I was wondering about. Any other questions from fellow
commissioners? Great. That was a thorough report, MacKenzie. With that, if the applicant is on
the line, you are welcome to tell us a little bit about your project.
Brian Colvin: Absolutely. Thank you, MacKenzie. Thank you, everyone. My wife, Keri, and I
are very excited to reopen the Golf Zone for the community. We want to bring a positive
environment to the surrounding families, surrounding communities, all the local schools, and
then the instructors that have been coming out there for years just to instruct students and adults
and teach the game of golf. As far as the driving range comment about the wetlands, the ball
pickers are staying the right vicinity of the driving range and I think where the balls go are
roughly anywhere from 50 to 100 yards or more before the wetlands so we don’t even come to
the wetlands with the ball picker or any machinery of any type.
Weick: Great. Thank you for that explanation. Any questions for the applicant from the
commissioners? Well, thank you again for taking the time…
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
23
Brian Colvin: I did also, can I mention one other thing? As far as the inspection, we do already
have lined up later this week, we have a licensed HVAC service will be coming out this
Thursday and Friday to go through all of the heating and ventilation and they’re going to go
through everything and make sure everything is up to par and up to Code and then next week we
also have a licensed electrician who will be doing the same and then after that we will be
following up the fire marshal and city inspection to have them come out and give us a punch list
if there any and if there is, we will take care of that in an ample amount of time.
Weick: Fantastic. Thank you for taking the time to meet with us this evening.
Brian Colvin: Thank you.
Weick: Ya. With that and hearing no questions from commissioners, I will open the public
hearing portion of tonight’s item. The telephone number is on your screen, 952-227-1630. Did
we receive any email?
Young-Walters: No.
Weick: No email correspondence on this one. There is no one in Chambers to make comment
and I do not believe the phone is ringing.
Young-Walters: It is not.
Weick: Fair enough. With that I will close the public hearing portion of tonight’s item and open
for commission comments and we’ll get the motion up there on the screen as well. I can speak
for myself to say that do miss having Golf Zone and…
Brian Colvin: Thank you and with that being said, I’ve heard that more times than none in the
last couple months. For example, I had the UPS driving show up to my personal house the other
day and thank me for trying to open it back up.
Weick: That’s awesome. Those are good stories.
Brian Colvin: [Laughter] We’re very excited.
Skistad: This is Commissioner Skistad. I’ll go ahead and make a motion.
Weick: Thanks.
Skistad: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of an Interim Use Permit
for a golf driving range subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings
of Fact and Recommendation.
Weick: Thank you, Commissioner Skistad. We have a valid motion. Do we have a second?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
24
Von Oven: I’ll second.
Weick: We have a second from Commissioner Von Oven. Any final Commission comments?
McGonagill: The only question I have, Chairman, is why would anybody want to play golf? OK
I just wanted to go there with that. So no, I have no questions.
[Laughter]
Weick: Man, that’s on the record now.
Von Oven: Because at the new Golf Zone, they have a promotion where you can hit your ball to
Shakopee.
McGonagill: Oh there you go. I heard the deal about lessons so I think I’m probably in good
shape to go there.
Keri Colvin: You can come to the putt putt.
McGonagill: There you go. That’s my game.
Weick: Alright. We will do a roll call vote and I will start with you Commissioner McGonagill.
McGonagill: Aye.
Weick: In favor. Commissioner Von Oven?
Von Oven? Aye.
Weick: In favor. Commissioner Skistad?
Skistad: Aye.
Weick: In favor. Commissioner Noyes?
Noyes: Aye.
Weick: In favor. And Commissioner Randall?
Randall: Aye.
Weick: In favor. I also vote in favor. The motion passes unanimously 6-0 and I wish the
applicant all the luck in the world with the new business.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
25
Skistad moved, Von Oven seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends approval of an Interim Use Permit for a golf driving range subject to the
Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
The motion passes unanimously with a vote of 6-0.
Brian Colvin: Thank you, Commissioner.
Weick: With that, we’re 3/5 of the way through tonight’s items.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN INTERIM USE PERMIT FOR EXCAVATION OF
EXISTING WETLAND ALONG WITH EXCAVATED BORROW BEING PLACED ON
A LOCATION WITHIN THE PARCEL
Weick: I don’t have the address of the item.
Generous: There’s no address, unfortunately.
Weick: Okay. That’s why I don’t have an address then.
Generous: It’s three PIDs.
Weick: Great. With that, I will hand it over to Mr. Generous for the staff report.
Generous: Thank you, Chairman.
McGonagill: Mr. Chairman? Before you get into it I’m going to have to recuse myself from this
because I know the applicants.
Weick: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner McGonagill. Commissioner McGonagill has recused
himself.
McGonagill: I did want to thank staff for the report. It’s a fairly simple thing but they went
through a lot of detail. I just want to tell you, Bob, you did a nice job, so thank you.
Generous: You can thank the engineers for that one.
Weick: Just for the record, we do have a quorum with the remaining five commissioners.
Generous: Planning Case 2021-03, Black Cherry Development is the applicant. The public
hearing is tonight. This goes to the City Council on January 25. They’re requesting an interim
use permit for the excavation of an existing wetland along with the excavated borrow being
relocated onto the property and stored. There’s no address for this so it’s hard to explain. It’s
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
26
west of Great Plains Boulevard and east of Eagle Ridge Road. There’s three properties that are
actually involved in this. The big one, the property is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2), and
it’s guided for residential low density development. We will see the rest of the site developing
sometime in the future except for the city portion which is permanent open space and part of a
trail connection out to Highway 101. The existing site, again, consists of three parcels. Outlot E,
Foxwood Subdivision is a city-owned property. It is 1.66 acres. It’s this little piece on the corner.
Outlot A, Butternut Ridge is 113 acres of property that runs all the way out to Powers Boulevard
and includes the majority of the site, and 9197 Eagle Ridge Road which is the property to the
north. It actually accesses via a private street off of Eagle Ridge Road. There is one single-family
home on it. The applicant purchased that property recently. We are a co-applicant. There’s some
trees up in this portion of the wetland that the City is requiring to be preserved and taken out of
excavation plans. There are two large wetlands within this area. This one is a reed canary grass.
They are proposing to excavate it to turn it into an open water type wetland. There’s a second
wetland down to the south. There’s some open water but then there’s a lot of reed canary grass
and more natural features around it. The existing farmstead is part of the Butternut Ridge
Development. It is located here approximately 2.5 acres. The rest of the Butternut Ridge
Development is outlots. There is a state-owned and maintained stormwater pond that was built in
conjunction with the Trunk Highway 101 upgrade that went to four lanes. This is the wetland
that they are looking at doing the excavation in and then I’ll be turning this over to Matt.
Originally, we thought there would be a wetland permit included in it but it’s not. Matt will go
through that.
Unmacht: This summer the applicant came in with a wetland delineation to delineate the whole
site, both that Wetland 2 that you see on that photo there along with the larger wetland that Bob
mentioned, and then actually there is some more wetlands on the site. They just delineated the
entire site. That was approved in July of 2020. On November 19, 2020 the applicant came in
with what’s called a no-loss application. That’s submitted through the Wetland Conservation Act
process. Basically, a no-loss is applicant coming in and saying these activities won’t result in any
loss of wetland function or value. Because the excavation is only proposed in wetland types of 1,
2, and 6, the Wetland Conservation Act doesn’t even regulate these types of activities so it
wouldn’t regulate excavation and wetland types 1, 2, and 6. That key there on the bottom isn’t
super clear but you can see the pink area Type 3, that area. That area is not allowed to be
excavated. That’s Type 3. That is regulated by WCA and would need wetland replacement if it
was going to be excavated, so the excavation will not be happening I that area there. Like I said,
as long as the excavation is limited to wetland types 1, 2, and 6 and does not exceed 6.5 feet in
depth, the project is not regulated by WCA so the technical evaluation panel for the Wetland
Conservation Act met about this as well. They concurred with the determination that a no-loss
can be issued for this project. That was issued on December 22, 2020. Relatedly, to the wetland
alteration permit, originally we thought a wetland alteration permit would be necessary in this
case, but after talking with the City Attorney, because a no-loss determination was issued there’s
a section in our code that reads that activities exempted by Minnesota Rules, Chapter 8420.0122,
which is the wetland conservation act, or determined to result in no net loss of wetland, shall be
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
27
exempted from the provisions of the article. They don’t need a wetland alteration permit for this
work, is kind of the summary. With that, I will turn it over to Erik.
Henricksen: Thanks again, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. Looking at the grading plan or this
wetland dredging I would call it to create that, as Bob mentioned, an open-water feature, the
applicant has expressed that this is desirable for mainly visual aesthetics of the wetland, having
that open water rather than the canary reed grass. The work entailed would result in
approximately 21,000 cubic yards of material being excavated from the wetland. With an interim
use permit for earthwork, if you go over the threshold of 1,000 cubic yards you do need an
interim use permit. That’s why we are here today looking at this. The plan, as Matt indicated, is
to work around that Classification 3 wetland so there dealing with the no-loss area. They are
looking to complete and do the work during winter conditions. It’s fairly similar to what the City
does when we do stormwater pond cleanouts. We want kind of the frozen conditions for access
and it limits dewatering, it’s just more feasible at that time. They aren’t proposing any increase
or decrease in the footprint of the wetland. Hence, the no-loss excavation is adjacent to an
existing neighborhood which was briefly touched on. Foxwood Development abuts this wetland
and where the work is going to be conducted so staff recommended the condition that the hours
of operation align with your major land development or subdivision buildout, which is
essentially 7-6 Monday through Friday, Saturday is 9-5, and no work on Sundays or holidays, to
be consistent with this type of work. The land disturbance does exceed one acre so the applicant
will be required to get the MPCA’s general construction permit on this where they will involve
the SWPPP, which one was provided. There are some minor updates that staff is recommending
that be approved as a condition that the applicant’s engineer and applicant work with staff to
kind of shore up some loose ends…erosion control. Just real quick, I guess we have the plan up.
You can see on the plan view the extent of the footprint but below that is the actual cross section.
From the plan view you can see the arrows that are indicating the cross section extends, yup right
there. BB. The idea is I think they want to create essentially a three to four-foot deep open water
feature wetland. This is kind of a more holistic look of the overall plan. We were looking at the
north section that’s highlighted in green here, that’s the excavation area. The proposed plan as
provided shows a haul route as indicated as Bob is highlighting. Thank you for that. Then a
stockpile area down to the south. All of this contained within the applicant’s property so they are
not hauling anything off site. Staff would have recommended an alternative route. The only
reason is because the applicant and the property owner in entering into pre-application meetings
for a potential future subdivision in the area, staff would have recommended rather than taking
the route shown which right now ghost platted as backlots kind of go a little more to the west and
through where the area would have been developed. That’s where roads would be constructed,
building pads, that kind of thing. Trees would have cleared in that area. Streets would have been
compacted and all that kind of stuff so it wouldn’t of minimized the impact overall to the site.
However, there was some pre-clearing by the applicant prior to us receiving the application so
the haul route is kind of already cleared so in essence, staff can approve it but it will just add a
couple more conditions which I will discuss at the next slide. Additionally, with the pre-clearing
of the trail there were some spoils from that. Essentially trees, trunks, limbs and stuff like that
that were actually placed in Wetland 3. That’s that larger wetland to the south. A part of this IUP
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
28
we are going to want to see that the plan is updated to remove those trees from the wetland on to
alongside of the wetland. The proposed haul route as you can see is adjacent to wetlands. There
is a haul route section located at the bottom of the slide where they do show, they’re thinking
about where future buffers are going to be. Their putting in BMPs getting away from the wetland
which is good but there’s certain, like I had mentioned, amendments to the erosion control plan
we are going to see when you are next to a wetland or a water feature or any kind of water body
the State, we need to see double row of BMPs, essentially two silt fence separated by five feet.
That’s actually a requirement also in the general construction permit which, once we receive the
updated plans, we have a robust review process to ensure every part of that permit is adhered to.
Lastly, the location of the stockpile. It is on the applicant’s property; however, because the area
is proposed to be subdivided and there is potential for public streets to be located in the area,
housing pads, things of that nature, and coupled with the idea that you’re dredging out a wetland
which has hydric soils or really organic finds and basically soils that are typically not suitable for
engineering fill or any kind of structural foundation. We’re requesting the condition that prior to
the stockpile being placed and afterwards it be surveyed so we can delineate the extents of this
kind of, we’ll call it topsoil muck peat. Just so we know where its location is so that way in the
future if roads are extended and we can account for that for any kind of public utilities or
transportation that goes through that area. That was brought up to the applicant and their
engineer and they found that to be acceptable knowing what kind of material is at the bottom of a
wetland. Here are some images from a site visit that was conducted by our Environmental
Specialist, Bob, and myself. It was found that there was some, with the pre-clearing of the haul
route, some of the pre-clearing extended into wetland buffer area along with the haul route area
so these pre-cleared areas will be required to be incorporated into a restoration plan in
association with this IUP. It’s kind of outlined in the staff report for environmental review and
listed out as conditions in the environmental review as well. Essentially, we can kind of get
everything restored…on the applicant. With that, I can turn it back to you, Bob.
Generous: And with that, staff is recommending approval of the interim use permit subject to the
conditions in our staff report as well as adoption of the findings of fact and recommendation.
With that, we would be happy to answer any questions you have.
Weick: Great. Thanks, everyone involved in that report. Very thorough. I do have a question. It
probably could be answered by the applicants as well, but there is a version of it that I think
maybe you guys can address. Since this isn’t, the reason for this is an aesthetic, to create I
assume some kind of pleasing pond look, is there any portion of this that the applicant is
requesting any type of devices or anything to maintain that look? The reason I ask is that the City
did something pretty similar in our neighborhood and it was pretty for about two months and
then all the same weeds grow right back, right? It ends up looking just like it did before. I guess
my question is there, is this, do they have the opportunity to continue to dredge it in the future?
To maintain the look? Have they asked to put pumps in or anything to maintain any kind of
aesthetic for this? Or is this just a simple dredge?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
29
Henricksen: As currently proposed on the plans there were no other kind of novel proprietary
devices like aerators or pumps or anything like that that we saw so essentially this is a dredge.
Getting rid of the canary grass. Create that depth in the pond to have that open water feature. I
know that on the plans they are working with environmental scientists and wetland specialists as
well so overall I think the short answer, there weren’t anything that we saw on the plans that
would indicate…
Weick: Okay. That’s the only question I had. I would open to fellow Commissioners comments
or questions for staff.
Noyes: Mr. Chairman? I do have a question for staff. One of the attached artifacts was the letter
from Terry Jeffery of the Watershed District. If you go through his letter, basically you get to the
end it seems like he’s against this mostly due to some loss unrelated to the plant communities
and some of the diversities associated with that plant community. How is that factored into this?
Is it relevant? How are we responding to that letter that was dated December 23? I think the
timing is relevant so I would love to hear from planners on how we factor this in.
Generous: I think Matt would be the best person to respond to this one.
Unmacht: Yes. Terry’s letter certainly brings up some valid points and they are items that were
discussed in the Wetland Conservation Act process when the technical evaluation panel met. I’m
just not sure what the extent of the City’s ability to necessarily mitigate against some of his
concerns were. We certainly weighed the possibility of some of the concerns he brought up, but
ultimately, given that it’s not governed by the Wetland Conservation Act and a wetland
alteration permit is not needed, we did not end of necessarily including some of those concerns
in our final review.
Generous: If I may, there was one condition, at least on the city-owned property, that the wooded
wetland area be preserved and not graded out and dredged out. We did encourage on some of the
other locations on the property so they could reevaluate that and see if they would to preserve
more of that wooded wetland type to provide that wildlife habitat diversity.
Weick: Does that help you out, Commissioner Noyes or did you have a follow-up on that?
Noyes: No, I think it helps me out. I’m not sure that I’m in agreement with it given what the
intent of this whole project is. It’s more aesthetic than anything but it does help answer my
question so thank you.
Von Oven: I’m pretty unfamiliar with this type of project. I think one of the things that surprised
me is, this will result in a question, the pre-clearing. Is that normal in this kind of a project or did
the applicant jump the gun? It seems like there is a whole lot of sort of mistakes that were made
that now need to be fixed. Is that a normal thing or was this just a wait, you’ve gone too far?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
30
Henriksen: I guess I’m not familiar with when this project was thought of to dredge and all of
that. All I know is that whenever we get a development application review it’s always beneficial
for staff to go and take a look at the property and the plan and just to get a sense of kind of the
surroundings and get an idea. I mean you can look at plans and you can glean so much from
them, but when you’re actually on the ground it can really help. We wanted to take a look at the
proposed haul route just to see, you know, it’s feasibility with slope, sensitive areas and that kind
of stuff. It was only at that time that I was aware and I think all the staff that went out there that it
was pre-cleared. I don’t know if there were discussions at any point previously with staff. I know
I wasn’t apprised of those meetings so it really was kind of the property owner’s purview to
remove trees from their property essentially albeit… Again, their property, their purview. That’s
kind of how staff reacted or evaluated based on the plans provided with the conditions for
restoration of the areas and making right what environmentally we see as kind of future land use
based on these ghost plats and whatnot. I know Jill Sinclair, our Environmental Specialist, took a
great look at that and kind of conditioned as such to kind of remediate some…
Von Oven: Great. Thank you.
Weick: Any other questions for staff on this one? Hearing none, I would invite the applicant if
they are on the line to join us and maybe either answer some of the questions that you heard or
just tell us about the project.
Tim Erhart: One of the applicants, Dan Blake, is on the line with us here. He’s a partner in Black
Cherry and doing the engineering work for our effort here. Thank you, Chairman for the
opportunity. I feel like I’m becoming a regular on the Planning Commission agenda now. I also
want to thank Bob, Matt and Erik for their work to get us to this point. We’re very excited about
it. Something that I’ve been, being the property owner all this here. It’s been something that I’ve
had a vision for many years. Obviously, there’s one big question that needs to be answered. Why
are we doing this? If I could have a little patience and kind of go back a little bit of history here.
Some 20 years ago, I purchased this property in 1980 and sometime after that the City saw fit to
purchase the land just north of my property which was owned by Frank Fox. It was a unique area
of old growth woods and very steep hills and they wanted to preserve that for future generations
for a park. That project is online today. It’s called Foxwoods Preserve. It’s got some really nice
trails in there and a lot people from the Foxwoods Development use it as well as other people
that park over on my property on Powers Boulevard walk the area. Our vision for this area was
expanded when the freeway was built from the original 40 acres to 75 acres as more land was
added to the north. Our vision is to add another 25 acres to the east including this pond, this
basin we are talking about, and all the other ponds that Bob had referred to, ultimately bringing
Foxwoods to approximately 100 acres of wilderness and ponds and trails. The goal initially and
first of all is to protect the old growth forest that sits in these areas. Also to, there is a number of
wetland basins either in it or adjacent to it on my property that have either been restored into
open water wetlands and there’s another four or five if we can expand the park to 100 acres to be
added to it. As you can see from this map there is a whole area of environmental resource for
Chanhassen citizens to use including 8 or 9 wetlands ultimately, old growth forest and a lot of
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
31
trails. Another goal was to again reestablish some of these wetlands back to pre-ag conditions.
I’ll get into that next. What’s the history of the basin we’re talking about here, or all the basins in
the entire I would metropolitan area of the Twin Cities. Back in the 1800s as settlement was
occurring in the area, the wetland level was established by deep beaver dams throughout the
state. When settlements occurred, these beaver dams were destroyed or cut, dredged, and the
basins drained for cutting hay for winter food for the cattle that they were starting to grow herds
of that in their farms. During the 1900s as the woods were cleared and hearty alfalfa was
introduced, the hay that was taken from these basins was then replaced with alfalfa for winter
food and the basins were left empty because nobody restore the beaver dikes and the beavers
didn’t come back. What we find is literally tens of thousands of these basins around that have
been degraded and basically are grass. What we are trying to do here is to restore this basin as
well as the other ones here to pre-ag conditions. That’s one of the objectives of that. To do that,
we have to, our proposal is to, and what we have done in the past, is excavate. Well, either
replace the beaver dam which we have in some of these basins. In this case it’s not practical
because the elevations is already controlled by the state’s new settling pond so he only option
here is to excavate this one. To answer your question, Mr. Chairman, to avoid regrowth of simple
more weeds, you have to excavate somewhere between four and six feet deep. Then you will
have a very long-term open water pond. If you look at that pond in the west area, Bob can you
point that out? We excavated that in 1988 to approximately five feet deep and it has remained
open the entire time so that’s some over 30 years. That’s what we’re trying to do here. The goal
is to accomplish that by dredging it to that depth. By doing so, we will attempt to create resting
and nesting areas for waterfowl and marine animals like muskrats, otters, beavers and so forth.
We want to create, if we’re looking at the 100-acre park, is that this becomes a dramatic entrance
from anybody coming on the trail from Bandimere Park area on 101 going west into Foxwoods
Preserve. Rather than just viewing a degraded bottom basin of reed canary grass, now you can
see open water with ducks, geese, swans, and so forth. A second goal of all this was to create, the
applicant made a complete a trail system from Bandimere Park. The trail system that envisioned
for Foxwoods Preserve and by doing this is to make everything connected. We also want to
allow a future paved bike trail system from 101 to Powers Boulevard through my property when
it develops which will be very, very pleasurable for people who want to use their bikes, but
primarily the trails that are in the park today are nature trails, wood chipped and so forth. What
we envision now is basically wood chip trails until the hill area is developed which we can then
upgrade to bike trails. We want to improve the aesthetics of the Foxwood Development itself by
creating more open water. There’s one nice pond on the south end of the Foxwood Development
that we created going back 25 years ago and in this case, we were able to reestablish the beaver
dike by putting a culvert there and rebuilding the surface of that. Adding a second pond will
increase the nice view from Eagle Ridge Road as you drive through. It will also improve the
views from 101, people driving up and down 101. We want to eliminate invasive and undesirable
woody plants and materials from the basin including buckthorn, box elders, unstable laying trees
and numerous dead trees and branches which now kind of encompass the basin. It’s basically a
jumble mumble of nests of reed canary grass and a lot of dead weedy stuff. Part of that we want
to identify, mark and preserve high-value trees such as oaks, maples, basswoods, hackberry,
elms, ash and black cherry to allow the eventual domination of these old-growth species in this
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
32
entire 100-acre park. We have that in the western part today. Our vision would be to get that over
the entire park eventually. The only way to do that is to eliminate undesirable species to allow
desirable species to take root and flourish. Actions we’ve taken to date so far is that, as Matt has
said, we’ve delineated the wetland boundaries, we’ve worked with the city to try to identify the
ponding area where the excavation is which Bob showed you. We’ve marked all the wetland
buffer areas where the clearing was to occur. We identified and marked valuable trees in the haul
road area. We cleared undesirable trees and underbrush allowing us to see where we can put the
final road. Trees that were marked as desirable species were not removed and you can see them
in the pictures. They still remain. There is a tremendous amount of trees still in this area but now
it’s cleared of all the underbrush. You literally could not walk through this area prior to us
clearing this out. Now we can kind of see where we can put the haul road which will have
minimum impact on these nice trees that are remaining. Again, what’s remaining are all species
that can eventually turn into a big woods growth forest. To get the trail route through we had a
very large obstacle in the previous owner of that property on 101 to the north there was owned
by Blanski and he wasn’t in a position to allow the City to finish the trail from 101 west. It turns
out Mr. Blanski was moving so we purchased that property so we could remove that obstacle
from our project here and now I believe next week Dan and Jill and Matt and maybe Erik will be
going out and try to locate where that trail is going to so. That’s action items that are continuing.
The last is that we, in the staff report there is a number of issues that quite frankly because of the
timing of this and that this excavation has to be done by the end of February because it has to be
done while it’s all frozen. Moving along we haven’t really had the time to have a meeting with
Bob and the other staff people to kind of work through these issues and some of the requirements
so that’s why it’s a little, might be a little bit confusing at this point. We are looking forward to
that. I believe that’s been scheduled for next week. With that, I open it up to any questions you
might have.
Weick: Thank you, and thank you for offering the history of the area. It’s a beautiful area. Any
questions for the applicant from my fellow Commissioners? And thank you for answering the
question about regrowth.
Erhart: I love to give that answer.
Weick: That helped, thanks.
Von Oven: Mr. Erhart, thanks for being here. I have one simple question. It’s going to sound
strange but are you building a park?
Erhart: You know I was on the Planning Commission a few years ago and I’ve been involved
with the City and Todd Hoffman and Jerry and I think we’ve all been building this park since
1980. I see it as a community effort. I play one little small role in it but I think in the end we’re
going to have just a beautiful asset for the community for hundreds of years.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
33
Von Oven: Is this the end state when this wetland has been dredged and it looks like the one on
the left. That was super helpful by the way because I heard Commissioner Weick’s question. I
got to clear weeds from my property every year. I can’t imagine that’s going to stay but that’s
cool. What’s the next step beyond this dredging? Once it looks this way and you’ve got the trail
from Bandimere, is the vision now complete? Or are there more steps that, I’m not putting all the
pieces together.
Erhart: I’ve kind of declared my vision for it. Maybe we should hear from the City. We’ve been
working together on this. Maybe they have some more input on this something. Bob or Kate? Do
you have something you might add?
Aanenson: I’m not sure there’s a question in there.
Von Oven: I think Mr. Erhart actually just answered the question which is once this is done, he’s
done. Is that fair to say?
Aanenson: I think as Bob indicated already the next step is that he’s going to come in for another
phase of development so in order to plat the lots around this, this is kind of the first phase which
he needs to do in a timely manner as he state while the ground is still frozen. It’s just kind of
sequencing things so he can move forward with the next phase, the development on his property.
Erhart: You can see on this map here there’s a small development that we’re talking to the City
about right now to take advantage some of the existing infrastructure and it would be in this area.
I guess that’s probably why we initiated this action at this time. If that’s what you mean by next
step yeah, we’re working on that and I think that’s very exciting.
Aanenson: I didn’t know if that, I thought we talked about that that was your intent so yeah.
Erhart: Yeah.
Aanenson: That this was the sequence to making that happen.
Von Oven: Super helpful. That clears it up for me. Thank you.
Weick: Isn’t the area to the north of the proposed trail developed?
Aanenson: That’s Foxwood.
Weick: So we’re taking about the area, the light green to the south…
Aanenson: Correct.
Weick: Which is not yet developed but could be.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
34
Aanenson: Yes.
Generous: And the rest of the…
Weick: Right. Sure.
Aanenson: One of the things that we did ask Mr. Erhart to do as planners. We always like to see
ahead so you don’t, so we asked him to show how the road would connection because that’s in
our comprehensive plan to just layout that out. You can see the existing roads that are off of
Pioneer Road which is the Homestead area. That’s a large lot subdivision and then you’ve got
the other subdivision that has the horse property that would be coming off of 101. So this shows
the existing streets but it was always contemplated that this road coming off from the north off of
Foxwoods would eventually tie down where we will have a future lift station and the potential. I
know Mr. Erhart has talked about a trail head there that would connect into that trail. Doing this
wetland kind of lays the groundwork to move to the next step of platting additional property up
there. I believe I stated that correctly, Mr. Erhart. Didn’t I?
Erhart: Yeah. I think ultimately on this map the slanted areas, I don’t know what would you call
that area there. That’s what we envisioned to be ultimately part of Foxwoods Preserve and that’s
as the land is developed.
Weick: Does that help you out, Commissioner von Oven?
Von Oven: It does. Thank you very much.
Erhart: I also want to point out there’s no particular schedule for developing this land either so
don’t have the expectation that somehow during the next 12-24 months that all of sudden this is
all going to be developed. That’s not the vision today. We just happen to have this area up here
that lends itself to be what I am calling a Foxwood addition because it’s there and the lift station
and water in the area. If we can use that then we can do that now and get some more people in
there. It’s a very nice development. Nice homes. Another asset to the community and we will do
that and if we can’t use those assets then we won’t do that at this point.
Weick: Mr. Erhart, I do have a follow-up question. Commissioner Noyes mentioned the letter
that we received from Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek and I just wanted to give you an opportunity
to sort of give us your perception of sort of a before and after of that area. I think their concern
was that there’s a little bit of diversity there, albeit maybe it’s not the most aesthetically pleasing
but there is some diversity to the sort of wildlife plant community there and be taking all of that
out it sort of makes it a single type of area. Could you give us your perspective of sort of the
before and after of what this area will mean?
Erhart: Sure. I worked with Terry. Actually in some of the construction of these ponds we had a
great time. I appreciate his love and passion for the outdoors as much as I have. I think Terry is
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
35
the kind of a guy that’s kind of a show me kind of a guy. I’m going to express my ideas and
show me how you are going to fix it. I think in this case here I don’t know exactly how much
open water. If you take the whole 100-acre park in the future, I don’t know how many acres of
water we might have there, but let’s say it’s 25%. The rest of it will all be, will either be a big
area of cattails out by 101 and the rest will be wooded. I think all combined with the open water,
the wetlands, the cattails, old growth forest, I think it offers a tremendous diversity for wildlife in
this area. Even today, I’ve got guys that hunt deer with bow and arrow on my property and I get
my share of them. I’ve got a freezer full of venison right now. It’s a great wildlife area. And they
all have to drink water.
Weick: That’s fair. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from the Commissioners for
Mr. Erhart at this time? Well, thank you and again, thank you. I know we all appreciate the
history that you bring and the passion that you bring for this area. I certainly appreciate it as a
citizen, a resident of Chanhassen. With that, I will open the public hearing portion of tonight’s
item.
Generous: No emails were received regarding this project. I did have two or three calls of people
who saw the development sign and asked what was going and when I told them that it was a
creation of an open water wetland they said oh, that’s very nice.
Weick: Okay.
Erhart: If I can point out there, we did meet, Dan did meet with the neighbors there. There are
five different homes that are directly adjacent to the water and he basically gave them a tour and
explanation of what we were trying to do so that occurred about a week ago.
Weick: Great. Thank you. Again, there’s no one present in chambers this evening and no one has
called in so with that I will close the public hearing portion of this item and open for
Commissioner discussion and consideration of a motion that will pop on the screen here shortly.
I will say that for myself, Commissioner Noyes you sort of hit on something that I noticed and
I’ve worked with Terry in the past as part of this commission and have grown to respect his
opinion quite a bit so when I read his letter I was a little concerned, to be honest. Because he
seemed to have a pretty strong opinion about disturbing that area and I think it’s really just a
question of, and again I’m not an environmental specialist, it sort of as it is now I’m sure there
are certain flora and fauna and animals that thrive in sort of that environment and the way it is
going to be in the future it will certainly allow a different additional type of flora and fauna and
animal to thrive in that area. To me, it’s a question of what is it that we want that area to look
like because I think you could argue whether it’s truly detrimental to the area pretty convincingly
on either side, at least from what I’ve heard. I’d love to hear, Commissioner Noyes, if you had
any further follow up or opinion on that.
Noyes: I agree with you. I just wanted to make sure that that opinion was being factored into this.
I think the applicant’s explanation of what’s going on helped give me a better appreciation for
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
36
what’s being disturbed and what it’s going to look like in the future so I have a better feeling for
it now. I appreciate the follow up.
Weick: Okay. Cool.
Dan Blake: Mr. Commissioner, if I may interject? This is Dan Blake. Tim’s partner at Black
Cherry.
Weick: Sure.
Blake: For whatever it’s worth, we still need a watershed permit so we will be going before
Terry and the Watershed board with basically the same application so they’ll get their say and
we’ll have to convince the...
Weick: Well I’m glad you spoke up. That is helpful information. Thank you. Other comments?
Von Oven: This is a tough one. I started off with my question earlier with this is the first time
I’ve seen this kind of project come through. The transparent thought when I read this a few days
ago when I saw allow excavation wetland and I thought, wait a minute. My whole time on the
Planning Commission has been all about protecting wetlands but they’re going to dig one up. So
that doesn’t feel right and Terry’s letter didn’t help with that, just to be perfectly honest. On the
other hand, there’s a lot of good here. It is quite the site in terms of a park, next to a park and the
walking trails and all of that and obviously having more of that in Chanhassen and combined
with the ability for some development in there that will overlook a nice pond versus what it is
today. It doesn’t help me make the case either way. I’m dying to hear from other commissioners
to see how they’re feeling about this because I honestly feel like I can be swayed right now. The
other comment I’ll make is whoever that was that just spoke. Mr. Blake. Mr. Blake, that was a
very helpful comment because you’re right. The people who help us with the wetlands,
somebody help me here.
Weick: The Riley Purgatory Creek?
Von Oven: Thank you. Bluff Creek. Yes, that is comforting to know that there is still a decision
to be made on that side of the argument. Commissioner Skistad looks like she wants to say
something.
Skistad: Actually, I don’t on this one. I listened through all of it and I’ve sat through a lot of
wetland conversations in the past and I’ve walked through many of ours now and this one makes
sense to me, surprisingly. It didn’t at first but with the explanation I’ve feel comfortable with
what’s happening here.
Von Oven: Can I ask you what makes it make sense to you?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
37
Skistad: Well I think going back to the original wetlands instead of just a wetter area…this is to
me more of an actual wetland which is a little bit deeper with the reeds on the outside. If I look at
over by the Chanhassen High School area, what that has become now versus what it was when
they did more of the restoration there. I feel like this is more of a restoration project to what it
originally should be versus what it currently is.
Von Oven: Cool. Thank you.
Weick: Commissioner Von Oven, you just said something that made me realize I can’ see
anybody. You can see all the people in the squares and you know when they’re thinking and
ready to talk. I just want to for the record state that I’m completely blind here. I cannot see
anybody so when you shake your head or look like you’re about to speak I don’t know that. Does
that help at all with my own comfortableness?
Von Oven: It does. And also for the record because we can see each other doesn’t mean that we
have developed some language that we can speak to each other.
Weick: Which would not be appropriate.
Von Oven: Which would not be appropriate.
Noyes: Chairman, it sounds like you’re both blind and jealous tonight.
Weick: Yes, yes. Thank you so much. I wish we were all together, then we wouldn’t have to
worry about any of this. I can see you.
Skistad: You need another screen I guess.
Weick: I definitely digress and I apologize for that. Back to this item at hand. Really good
thought behind this and I really do appreciate as I share a lot of the same questions and this is a
good one. A good discussion, that is.
Skistad: I’ve seen like the ducks come back and a lot of the wildlife that you would expect and
the wetlands to come back over behind the Chanhassen High School area? That was something I
really noticed living in that area and walking through it for so many years after they, I don’t even
remember exactly what they did, but they basically in my mind did the same thing and dug it out
and repopulated it with plants that fit the area. There’s definitely still the reed areas are still there
because they are around the outside of it. It just now can house more wildlife than it did before.
So I guess I’ll just go ahead and make a motion.
Weick: I will second the motion. We have a motion and second. Any comment before we vote?
I’ll jump in again and only to say that there was some question raised regarding the pre-clearing
of the haul route and I would only point out for the record in the recommendation under
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
38
environmental resources, there’s point number three and there’s point number seven and both of
those very specifically lay out recommendations from our environmental resources group about a
restoration plan around the haul route as well as the buffer area that have potentially already been
disturbed. I just wanted to make a note of that that is a stipulation in the recommendation that we
are approving.
Commissioner Skistad moved, Commissioner Weick seconded to recommend that the City
Council approve the interim use permit to allow site grading subject to the conditions of
approval, and adoptions of the findings of fact and recommendation. The motion passed
unanimously with a vote of 5-0 and one recusal by Commissioner McGonagill.
Weick: Thank you, again everyone for your presentations as well as Mr. Erhart and Mr. Blake
for really insightful comments and perspective. Good luck with this project which I assume
hopefully is going to start pretty soon for you as we are in the deep of winter. With that, we will
move to our final item on tonight’s agenda.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR VARIANCES TO MODIFY A NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE BY ADDING A SECOND STORY TO AN EXISTING HOME LOCATED
AT 9243 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD
Young-Walters: This is Planning Case 2021-05, Request to intensify an existing, nonconforming
structure at 9243 Lake Riley Boulevard. The is a variance so if it’s not approved by a ¾ majority
vote for denied by a ¾ majority vote, it will go to the City Council. Similarly, any resident
aggrieved with the decision can appeal to staff in writing within four days and it will then move
to the Council for consideration. That being said, I will jump into it. The property is located at
9243 Lake Riley Boulevard. This is zoned Residential Single-Family. It is a shoreland property
and it is riparian. This district requires a 20,000-square foot lot area, 30-foot front and 30-foot
rear setbacks, 10-foot side yard setbacks and a 75-foot shoreland setback. Properties are limited
to 25% lot cover, are permitted to have a water-oriented accessory structure 10 feet from the
ordinary high water level (OHWL). That structure would be limited to 250 square feet in size.
The site’s existing conditions: The lot is 12,569 square feet. It’s currently at 24.4% lot cover so
very close to its maximum. It has a nonconforming 64-foot shore setback for the house and that
is 66.9 feet shoreland setback for the deck. It has a front setback of 19.1 feet. The east side is a
nonconforming 9.6-foot setback and there is also a 2½-foot encroachment into a sanitary sewer
easement along the west side. I would note that variances were issued for the front and shore
setbacks in 1977 and 1993, respectively. The house was built a little off those, likely due to
errors in construction or improvements in surveying technology so there are minor differences
from the location of the actual house building pad from the variances given at those time.
However, they applied for all the permits, they went through the process and that’s why we treat
this as a legal nonconforming. So the applicant is proposing to a story on to the existing rambler.
They have stated that they will maintain the existing footprint and that they will not be increasing
any of the nonconforming setbacks, and that they will not be adding any lot cover to the
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
39
property. In the pictures, this is a shot I took from Google Maps of the house and then this is the
rendering they provided of what the façade will look like once the renovations are complete.
They’ve stated the existing home doesn’t provide adequate space for their family and needs to be
modernized and expanded. The existing home is two bed, two bath with approximately 1,700
square feet of living area. They’ve observed that the lot size and the existing home placement, I
mean there’s no expansion possible without a variance and that expanding vertically is the least
impactful option. They believe that their proposed home renovation is consistent with the
neighborhood character and will represent an improvement to the existing home and property
values. Staff looked it over and one of the first things we did is we looked at what the yard
setbacks essentially left in terms of areas that could be improved without a variance. This green
line is the approximate 10-foot side yard setback, 30-foot front yard setback and 10-foot side
yard setback and then the blue line is the shoreland setback. Again to the best of staff’s ability to
sketch it out in Paint. This doesn’t really any option for improving the house without a variance.
Any other variance the applicant requested would involve increasing lot cover which would put
the property over its 25% lot cover limit and that would obviously have a greater impact on the
lake and environmental resources. It would also an additional setback, either moving closer to
the front yard or the side yard or the lake, again, which would have a bigger impact on the
surrounding homes. Going up is the most logical and least impactful way to improve the
property. Staff did investigate the possibility of doing a second story without variances. Given
the constraints, they would be limited to a 16-foot wide second story. Staff felt that was pretty
constrained in terms of providing reasonable living area. The applicant’s proposed maximum
height is well under the 35-foot maximum. It would be 22.8 feet, measured at the midpoint of the
highest gable. So, again, they’re not pushing the envelope. They’re not doing incredibly steep
roofs that would have the chance to obstruct site lines across the street. They’re not proposing
increases to the setbacks. Staff does not believe this will negatively impact any of the
surrounding properties. One thing that staff looks at with the nonconforming use ordinance is its
intent to essentially remove nonconforming structures and uses. In this case, staff doesn’t believe
there’s any possible scenario where a house could be built on this property meeting all setbacks
and requirements and the existing use of a single-family home is the desired us for the zoning
area. We don’t believe that allowing the nonconformity be intensified, it runs counter to the
intent of the ordinance in this case. For these reasons, staff would recommend that the Planning
Commission grant the variance to permit the addition of a second story to the nonconforming
structure. I’d be happy to answer any questions you have.
Weick: Thanks, MacKenzie. With that I will opening to commissioner questions. Must have
been one heck of a report, MacKenzie. Hearing none, I would invite the applicant, if you are still
on the line and you’d like to mention anything about your project to the commissioners, you may
do so at this time.
Ethan Kindseth: Good evening, Ethan here with Alma Homes. We are working with the
Galleger’s on this project. Thank you, MacKenzie. I think that did a great job of summing up the
constraints we’ve been dealing with and coming with a solution on this. I don’t have a great deal
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
40
to add. I think we’ve looked at any possible scenarios that we could to make this work within the
confines of what the lot came to us with. If anyone has questions, I’m happy to answer anything.
Weick: Thank you for sticking with us here. Based on the renderings, it’s going to be a beautiful
home and I do appreciate that is stays within the existing nonconformities in that area and areas
like that. That’s a really big deal and so in my opinion, it’s nice to see that someone can upgrade
and improve their home and still store of maintain what was there before from at least a footprint
standpoint. Any questions for the applicant or builder from any of the other commissioners?
Hearing none, thank you again for joining us and sticking with us this evening. With that I will
open the public hearing portion of tonight’s item. The phone lines are open and I don’t believe
we received any comment. There was nothing in the packet.
Young-Walters: No, staff did not receive any questions or emails on this subject and we are not
receiving any phone calls.
Weick: I’m going to go ahead and close the public hearing portion of this item and open for
commissioner comments and the motion’s coming up there on the screen so certainly would
entertain a motion or comments on this item.
McGonagill: Chairman, this is Commissioner McGonagill. The only comment I have is my
complements to the applicant. They’re trying to build a beautiful home for themselves but they
are taking with the lot gave them and they’re working with it and not trying to force it. You
know what I’m saying?
Weick: Oh ya.
McGonagill: I agree with you. The hardcover is staying the same, staying within the variances
and not trying to ask for a ton of things so I appreciate the applicants’ going that. That’s what we
like to see in the city and you are to be complemented for that.
Weick: I agree. Thank you for that.
McGonagill: So if there are no other comments, I will give you a motion.
Weick: That would be great.
McGonagill: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request
to intensify a nonconforming structure by adding a second story meeting the existing
nonconforming front, side and shoreland setback, subject to the Conditions of Approval and
adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
Weick: We have a valid motion from Commissioner McGonagill. Do we have second?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
41
Noyes: I’ll second, Commissioner Noyes.
Weick: We have a second from Commissioner Noyes, I believe. Thank you. Any other comment
before we vote? Hearing none, we will have a roll call vote. I will start with Commissioner
Randall.
Randall: Aye.
Weick: In favor. Commissioner McGonagill?
McGonagill: Aye.
Weick: In favor. Commissioner Skistad?
Skistad: Aye.
Weick: Thank you. Commissioner Noyes?
Noyes: Aye.
Weick: Thank you. And Commissioner Von Oven?
Von Oven: Aye.
Weick: And I also vote in favor. The motion passes unanimously, 6 votes to 0 and another one
hurdles over the ¾ barrier in fine fashion, I must say. A great way to end the evening. Thank
you, MacKenzie. Thank you, again, to the applicant/builder for sticking with us to this last item
and good luck with your project. With that, if someone would please note the Planning
Commission minutes dated December 1, 2020.
McGonagill moved, Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and
Adjustments approves the variance request to intensify a nonconforming structure by
adding a second story meeting the existing nonconforming front, side and shoreland
setback, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts
and Decision. The motion passes unanimously with a vote of 6-0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: So noted the verbatim Minutes of the Planning Commission
meeting dated December 1, 2020.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Weick: Kate do you have an update for us?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
42
Aanenson: At the last City Council meeting, actually there are two since you last met. December
7. MacKenzie’s been hard at work continuing on the Code amendments. There was some
addressing, some street administrative, septic and earthwork. Those were all approved. I just
want to add, I know Matt Unmacht our Water Resources Coordinator, you’ll be seeing that here.
He’s still waiting for some comments from other Watershed Districts. You’ll be seeing kind of a
big lift on the stormwater changes going forward. Then on Monday, December 14, the Island
property was approved that you saw and then the final plat for the 3rd Addition. You didn’t see
that one; final plats just go to the City Council so that’s the 3rd Addition of The Park that Lennar
is working on. Not the top part. The request for the Gateway, the auto repair, that was also
approved by the City Council and the Outdoor Storage of Boats, Trailers and Recreational
Vehicles, let’s just say, hit a bump. And do, that’s tabled until further notice. There are strong
feelings on both sides so we’ll where that goes.
Weick: From the Council?
Aanenson: From the residents. I would never say that about the Council. So strong feelings from
the residents so I think people felt like maybe there wasn’t a good opportunity to share their
feelings and a lot of other feelings. We’ll probably kinds of revisit that in a few months. I know
that’s been asked on Facebook a little bit too so we’re following up on that. I do want to think
the Planning Commission. We had a heavy lift here because we didn’t have a meeting. Our last
one was the first part of December so I appreciate everybody hanging in there. We have people
that want to get to work which is great on projects and their businesses and in addition to that, I
do want to remind you that we do have two items on for your next meeting in two weeks. So
we’ll kind of taper back and those just happen to be variances. With that, that’s all I had. Again,
thank you to the Commission’s insightful detail to reviewing the applications. Appreciate that.
Weick: Thanks, Kate. I’m really, my head is spinning about the storage, I’d love to hear more
but I think that is our final item on tonight’s agenda and as you all hear about a half hour ago, my
bedtime alarm went off so I would accept a motion to adjourn.
Young-Walters: They know they can go to 10:30.
Weick: Ya, it’s killing you. Oh shoot.
Von Oven: It’s like the best part of my day.
[Laughter]
Von Oven: I’ll motion to adjourn.
Weick: All those in favor?
All: Aye.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – January 5, 2021
43
Weick: We are adjourned.
McGonagill: See Mr. Chairman, we’re all home and you’re not so we really don’t care.
Weick: This is a tough crowd. Good night.
Von Oven: Take care.
Skistad: Night.
Von Oven moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried
unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at
9:45 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Jean Steckling & Kim Meuwissen
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday, January 19, 2021
Subject City Council Action Update
Section ADMINISTRATIVE
PRESENTATIONS
Item No: D.1.
Prepared By Jean Steckling, Senior Admin. Support
Specialist
File No:
ATTACHMENTS:
City Council Action Update
City Council Action Update
MONDAY, JANUARY 11, 2021
Approve a Request for a Rezoning and a Four-Lot Subdivision (Deer Haven) with Variances
Located at 6480 Yosemite – Ordinance Rezoning and Preliminary Plat - Approved
Minutes for these meetings can be viewed and downloaded from the city’s website at
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us, and click on “Agendas and Minutes” from the left-side links.
g:\plan\forms\development forms\city council action update.docx