Loading...
07-06-21 Agenda and PacketAGENDA  CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, JULY 6, 2021, 7:00 PM CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD A.CALL TO ORDER B.PUBLIC HEARINGS 1.Consider a Request for Variances to Construct a Deck and Retaining Wall within the Bluff Setback and Bluff Impact Zone on Property located at 6609 Horseshoe Curve 2.Consider a Request to Amend City Code Chapters 1 and 20 to Define "Agritainment"/"Agritourism"; Create Standards and Criteria for an Agritainment Use as an Interim Use; Allow Agritainment Uses as an Interim Use in the Agricultural Estate District; and Receive an Interim Use Permit for an Agritainment Use on Property Located at 9111 Audubon Road C.APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1.Approve Planning Commission Minutes dated June 15, 2021 D.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS 1.City Council Action Update 2.Discuss Future Code Amendments 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, July 6, 2021 Subject Consider a Request for Variances to Construct a Deck and Retaining Wall within the Bluff Setback and Bluff Impact Zone on Property located at 6609 Horseshoe Curve Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1. Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, Associate Planner File No: Planning Case No. 2021­07 PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 20­foot bluff impact zone and 30­foot bluff setback variance for the construction of a deck and a bluff impact zone and bluff setback variance for the construction of retaining walls within the bluff, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is requesting that the City allow them to extend the deck approved during the January 19, 2021 Planning Commission meeting an additional two feet into the bluff setback. As part of this redesign they are also proposing replacing a previously approved concrete retaining wall and concrete window well pad located within the bluff setback and impact zone with a living wall system similar to the one previously approved to replace the property’s southern retaining wall. The applicant’s submittal also includes a revised driveway configuration which increases the property’s lot cover beyond what was shown in the January 19, 2021, though the resulting lot cover still remains under the district's 25 percent lot cover limit. Changes to the walkway providing access to the lake are also proposed although all of these are allowed by City Code and do not factor into the requested variances. Finally, the applicant initially proposed replacing the property’s existing equipment pad and associated retaining wall with a 9­foot by 9­foot maintenance area and associated retaining wall extending into the bluff; however, after consultation with staff they agreed to revise their plans to stay within the existing area of encroachment. The applicant has stated that the revised deck configuration is necessary to accommodate foot traffic using the staircase to travel from the front of the property to the lake. They note that the approved 12­foot deck width does not provide adequate space for furniture and a walkway and that the 12­foot deck width had been selected when the proposed deck was to of an impervious rather than pervious design with the goal of minimizing impervious surface, a concern that no long applies. They feel that there are potential safety risks caused by the narrow walking space provided by a 12­ foot wide deck and that the two­foot increase would simply cover exposed ground while not requiring any new grading or footings which could negatively impact the bluff. Regarding the proposed change to the western retaining wall and window well, the applicant notes that replacing a concrete retaining wall with a living wall system will allow for greater infiltration of stormwater and also removes lot PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, July 6, 2021SubjectConsider a Request for Variances to Construct a Deck and Retaining Wall within the BluffSetback and Bluff Impact Zone on Property located at 6609 Horseshoe CurveSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 2021­07PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 20­foot bluff impact zone and 30­foot bluffsetback variance for the construction of a deck and a bluff impact zone and bluff setback variance for theconstruction of retaining walls within the bluff, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Fact and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is requesting that the City allow them to extend the deck approved during the January 19, 2021 PlanningCommission meeting an additional two feet into the bluff setback. As part of this redesign they are also proposingreplacing a previously approved concrete retaining wall and concrete window well pad located within the bluff setbackand impact zone with a living wall system similar to the one previously approved to replace the property’s southernretaining wall. The applicant’s submittal also includes a revised driveway configuration which increases the property’slot cover beyond what was shown in the January 19, 2021, though the resulting lot cover still remains under thedistrict's 25 percent lot cover limit. Changes to the walkway providing access to the lake are also proposed although allof these are allowed by City Code and do not factor into the requested variances. Finally, the applicant initiallyproposed replacing the property’s existing equipment pad and associated retaining wall with a 9­foot by 9­footmaintenance area and associated retaining wall extending into the bluff; however, after consultation with staff theyagreed to revise their plans to stay within the existing area of encroachment.The applicant has stated that the revised deck configuration is necessary to accommodate foot traffic using the staircaseto travel from the front of the property to the lake. They note that the approved 12­foot deck width does not provideadequate space for furniture and a walkway and that the 12­foot deck width had been selected when the proposeddeck was to of an impervious rather than pervious design with the goal of minimizing impervious surface, a concern thatno long applies. They feel that there are potential safety risks caused by the narrow walking space provided by a 12­foot wide deck and that the two­foot increase would simply cover exposed ground while not requiring any new gradingor footings which could negatively impact the bluff. Regarding the proposed change to the western retaining wall and window well, the applicant notes that replacing a concrete retaining wall with a living wall system will allow for greater infiltration of stormwater and also removes lot cover that would otherwise be located within the bluff impact zone. Since the proposed living wall would cross the top of the bluff and extend further into the bluff than the previously approved concrete retaining wall, a variance is required for this retaining wall. Finally, the applicant has noted that the proposed driveway reconfiguration is needed to lessen the driveway’s grade; a change that will provide safer access in winter and create a larger area for vehicles to turn around. While this change does increase the property’s lot cover beyond what had been proposed in January, they have noted that it still reduces the property’s lot cover from the amount shown in the pre­existing conditions survey. They have also stated that the revised configuration allows the driveway to line up with the proposed stair system providing access to the lake. By way of background, the applicant has reminded staff 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, and that the approved deck does not fully cover this 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 property’s remaining boulder walls, they believe further erosion and damage will occur. Finally, they have noted that a living wall system was already approved to replace the southern wall and that they believe that using that same system to replace the western retaining wall would achieve better outcomes. 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. The City is typically hesitant to support variances allowing for an expansion of a previously issued variance; however, in this case, the City feels that so long as the deck expansion is confined to the area previously degraded by the pre­ existing features and their removal and does not require any regrading of the bluff, the difference in the impact between a 12­foot wide and 14­foot wide deck is negligible. Additionally, staff believes that the proposed reconfiguration of the window well area is a net improvement on the original plan. Finally, while staff would prefer not to see the driveway’s impervious surface increase, if it came in as a separate permit, staff would likely approve the permit as it would still result in an impervious surface coverage under what is allowed by Code and less than what was previously present. Staff is also sympathetic to the applicants desire to do everything possible to minimize the slope on what is an extremely steep driveway, and while the overall slope of the driveway remains at 19%, the reconfiguration does lessen the slope on the lower section of the driveway. For these reasons, staff is recommending approval of the variance requests. APPLICANT Brian T. and Elise R. Bruner, 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 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, July 6, 2021SubjectConsider a Request for Variances to Construct a Deck and Retaining Wall within the BluffSetback and Bluff Impact Zone on Property located at 6609 Horseshoe CurveSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 2021­07PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 20­foot bluff impact zone and 30­foot bluffsetback variance for the construction of a deck and a bluff impact zone and bluff setback variance for theconstruction of retaining walls within the bluff, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Fact and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is requesting that the City allow them to extend the deck approved during the January 19, 2021 PlanningCommission meeting an additional two feet into the bluff setback. As part of this redesign they are also proposingreplacing a previously approved concrete retaining wall and concrete window well pad located within the bluff setbackand impact zone with a living wall system similar to the one previously approved to replace the property’s southernretaining wall. The applicant’s submittal also includes a revised driveway configuration which increases the property’slot cover beyond what was shown in the January 19, 2021, though the resulting lot cover still remains under thedistrict's 25 percent lot cover limit. Changes to the walkway providing access to the lake are also proposed although allof these are allowed by City Code and do not factor into the requested variances. Finally, the applicant initiallyproposed replacing the property’s existing equipment pad and associated retaining wall with a 9­foot by 9­footmaintenance area and associated retaining wall extending into the bluff; however, after consultation with staff theyagreed to revise their plans to stay within the existing area of encroachment.The applicant has stated that the revised deck configuration is necessary to accommodate foot traffic using the staircaseto travel from the front of the property to the lake. They note that the approved 12­foot deck width does not provideadequate space for furniture and a walkway and that the 12­foot deck width had been selected when the proposeddeck was to of an impervious rather than pervious design with the goal of minimizing impervious surface, a concern thatno long applies. They feel that there are potential safety risks caused by the narrow walking space provided by a 12­foot wide deck and that the two­foot increase would simply cover exposed ground while not requiring any new gradingor footings which could negatively impact the bluff.Regarding the proposed change to the western retaining wall and window well, the applicant notes that replacing aconcrete retaining wall with a living wall system will allow for greater infiltration of stormwater and also removes lotcover that would otherwise be located within the bluff impact zone. Since the proposed living wall would cross the topof the bluff and extend further into the bluff than the previously approved concrete retaining wall, a variance is requiredfor this retaining wall.Finally, the applicant has noted that the proposed driveway reconfiguration is needed to lessen the driveway’s grade; achange that will provide safer access in winter and create a larger area for vehicles to turn around. While this changedoes increase the property’s lot cover beyond what had been proposed in January, they have noted that it still reducesthe property’s lot cover from the amount shown in the pre­existing conditions survey. They have also stated that therevised configuration allows the driveway to line up with the proposed stair system providing access to the lake.By way of background, the applicant has reminded staff that larger more significant encroachments, i.e. a rear bumpout, above­grade deck, and patio, were present in the area where they are requesting a variance to install an at­gradedeck prior to a 2018 remodel where these features were removed. They have noted the removal of the previousfeatures have left the rear area behind the house as an area of dirt and weeds, without any improved area near the rearpatio door, and that the approved deck does not fully cover this 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 property’s remainingboulder walls, they believe further erosion and damage will occur. Finally, they have noted that a living wall system wasalready approved to replace the southern wall and that they believe that using that same system to replace the westernretaining wall would achieve better outcomes.Staff recognizes that the applicant has provide a thoughtful proposal that does its utmost to balance the owners’ 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.The City is typically hesitant to support variances allowing for an expansion of a previously issued variance; however, inthis case, the City feels that so long as the deck expansion is confined to the area previously degraded by the pre­existing features and their removal and does not require any regrading of the bluff, the difference in the impact betweena 12­foot wide and 14­foot wide deck is negligible. Additionally, staff believes that the proposed reconfiguration of thewindow well area is a net improvement on the original plan. Finally, while staff would prefer not to see the driveway’simpervious surface increase, if it came in as a separate permit, staff would likely approve the permit as it would stillresult in an impervious surface coverage under what is allowed by Code and less than what was previously present.Staff is also sympathetic to the applicants desire to do everything possible to minimize the slope on what is anextremely steep driveway, and while the overall slope of the driveway remains at 19%, the reconfiguration does lessenthe slope on the lower section of the driveway. For these reasons, staff is recommending approval of the variancerequests.APPLICANTBrian T. and Elise R. Bruner, 6609 Horseshoe Curve, Chanhassen, MN 55317SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  “RSF” – Single­Family Residential DistrictLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE:  .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. 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. In April of 2021, the applicant applied for a building permit in compliance with Variance 2021­07. Several permits for interior work and maintenance are also on file with the City. Variance 2021­07 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 water­oriented accessory structure (WOAS) 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. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, July 6, 2021SubjectConsider a Request for Variances to Construct a Deck and Retaining Wall within the BluffSetback and Bluff Impact Zone on Property located at 6609 Horseshoe CurveSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 2021­07PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 20­foot bluff impact zone and 30­foot bluffsetback variance for the construction of a deck and a bluff impact zone and bluff setback variance for theconstruction of retaining walls within the bluff, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Fact and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is requesting that the City allow them to extend the deck approved during the January 19, 2021 PlanningCommission meeting an additional two feet into the bluff setback. As part of this redesign they are also proposingreplacing a previously approved concrete retaining wall and concrete window well pad located within the bluff setbackand impact zone with a living wall system similar to the one previously approved to replace the property’s southernretaining wall. The applicant’s submittal also includes a revised driveway configuration which increases the property’slot cover beyond what was shown in the January 19, 2021, though the resulting lot cover still remains under thedistrict's 25 percent lot cover limit. Changes to the walkway providing access to the lake are also proposed although allof these are allowed by City Code and do not factor into the requested variances. Finally, the applicant initiallyproposed replacing the property’s existing equipment pad and associated retaining wall with a 9­foot by 9­footmaintenance area and associated retaining wall extending into the bluff; however, after consultation with staff theyagreed to revise their plans to stay within the existing area of encroachment.The applicant has stated that the revised deck configuration is necessary to accommodate foot traffic using the staircaseto travel from the front of the property to the lake. They note that the approved 12­foot deck width does not provideadequate space for furniture and a walkway and that the 12­foot deck width had been selected when the proposeddeck was to of an impervious rather than pervious design with the goal of minimizing impervious surface, a concern thatno long applies. They feel that there are potential safety risks caused by the narrow walking space provided by a 12­foot wide deck and that the two­foot increase would simply cover exposed ground while not requiring any new gradingor footings which could negatively impact the bluff.Regarding the proposed change to the western retaining wall and window well, the applicant notes that replacing aconcrete retaining wall with a living wall system will allow for greater infiltration of stormwater and also removes lotcover that would otherwise be located within the bluff impact zone. Since the proposed living wall would cross the topof the bluff and extend further into the bluff than the previously approved concrete retaining wall, a variance is requiredfor this retaining wall.Finally, the applicant has noted that the proposed driveway reconfiguration is needed to lessen the driveway’s grade; achange that will provide safer access in winter and create a larger area for vehicles to turn around. While this changedoes increase the property’s lot cover beyond what had been proposed in January, they have noted that it still reducesthe property’s lot cover from the amount shown in the pre­existing conditions survey. They have also stated that therevised configuration allows the driveway to line up with the proposed stair system providing access to the lake.By way of background, the applicant has reminded staff that larger more significant encroachments, i.e. a rear bumpout, above­grade deck, and patio, were present in the area where they are requesting a variance to install an at­gradedeck prior to a 2018 remodel where these features were removed. They have noted the removal of the previousfeatures have left the rear area behind the house as an area of dirt and weeds, without any improved area near the rearpatio door, and that the approved deck does not fully cover this 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 property’s remainingboulder walls, they believe further erosion and damage will occur. Finally, they have noted that a living wall system wasalready approved to replace the southern wall and that they believe that using that same system to replace the westernretaining wall would achieve better outcomes.Staff recognizes that the applicant has provide a thoughtful proposal that does its utmost to balance the owners’ 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.The City is typically hesitant to support variances allowing for an expansion of a previously issued variance; however, inthis case, the City feels that so long as the deck expansion is confined to the area previously degraded by the pre­existing features and their removal and does not require any regrading of the bluff, the difference in the impact betweena 12­foot wide and 14­foot wide deck is negligible. Additionally, staff believes that the proposed reconfiguration of thewindow well area is a net improvement on the original plan. Finally, while staff would prefer not to see the driveway’simpervious surface increase, if it came in as a separate permit, staff would likely approve the permit as it would stillresult in an impervious surface coverage under what is allowed by Code and less than what was previously present.Staff is also sympathetic to the applicants desire to do everything possible to minimize the slope on what is anextremely steep driveway, and while the overall slope of the driveway remains at 19%, the reconfiguration does lessenthe slope on the lower section of the driveway. For these reasons, staff is recommending approval of the variancerequests.APPLICANTBrian T. and Elise R. Bruner, 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 DistrictChapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single­Family Residential DistrictSection 20­615, Lot Requirements and SetbacksChapter 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.In April of 2021, the applicant applied for a building permit in compliance with Variance 2021­07.Several permits for interior work and maintenance are also on file with the City.Variance 2021­07 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 water­oriented accessory structure (WOAS) near the lake, and front yard parkingpad.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 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. On January 19, 2021, the Planning Commission approved 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 retraining walls within the bluff, and a 25­foot bluff, 5­foot side yard, and 3­foot shoreland setback for a WOAS. On June 4, 2021, the applicant submitted a variance request to increase the width of the deck from 12 to 14 feet, replace the western concrete window well and retaining wall with a living wall system, and add a 9­foot by 9­foot equipment pad and associated retaining wall to east of the house. On June 17, 2021, staff contacted the applicant expressing concern over the proposed equipment pad and associated retaining wall’s encroachment into the bluff, and requesting that the applicant investigate the possibility of relocating or modifying the proposed equipment pad. On June 22, 2021, the applicant agreed to remove the 9­foot by 9­foot pad and associated retaining wall, revising the design to work within the existing boulder wall and AC pad’s encroachment into the bluff setback. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve a 20­foot bluff impact zone and 30­foot bluff setback variance for the construction of a deck and a bluff impact zone and bluff setback variance for the construction of retaining walls within the bluff subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. 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 at­grade deck may not cross the top of the bluff as shown on the plans dated June 4, 2021. 7. The improvements must substantially conform to the plans dated June 4, 2021, save that the depicted equipment pad and associated retaining wall may not encroach into the bluff setback and impact zone beyond the encroachment of the existing equipment pad and retaining wall. 8. All conditions and provisions of Variance 2021­07 referring to the property’s water­oriented accessory structure shall be met. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, July 6, 2021SubjectConsider a Request for Variances to Construct a Deck and Retaining Wall within the BluffSetback and Bluff Impact Zone on Property located at 6609 Horseshoe CurveSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 2021­07PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 20­foot bluff impact zone and 30­foot bluffsetback variance for the construction of a deck and a bluff impact zone and bluff setback variance for theconstruction of retaining walls within the bluff, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Fact and Decision.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is requesting that the City allow them to extend the deck approved during the January 19, 2021 PlanningCommission meeting an additional two feet into the bluff setback. As part of this redesign they are also proposingreplacing a previously approved concrete retaining wall and concrete window well pad located within the bluff setbackand impact zone with a living wall system similar to the one previously approved to replace the property’s southernretaining wall. The applicant’s submittal also includes a revised driveway configuration which increases the property’slot cover beyond what was shown in the January 19, 2021, though the resulting lot cover still remains under thedistrict's 25 percent lot cover limit. Changes to the walkway providing access to the lake are also proposed although allof these are allowed by City Code and do not factor into the requested variances. Finally, the applicant initiallyproposed replacing the property’s existing equipment pad and associated retaining wall with a 9­foot by 9­footmaintenance area and associated retaining wall extending into the bluff; however, after consultation with staff theyagreed to revise their plans to stay within the existing area of encroachment.The applicant has stated that the revised deck configuration is necessary to accommodate foot traffic using the staircaseto travel from the front of the property to the lake. They note that the approved 12­foot deck width does not provideadequate space for furniture and a walkway and that the 12­foot deck width had been selected when the proposeddeck was to of an impervious rather than pervious design with the goal of minimizing impervious surface, a concern thatno long applies. They feel that there are potential safety risks caused by the narrow walking space provided by a 12­foot wide deck and that the two­foot increase would simply cover exposed ground while not requiring any new gradingor footings which could negatively impact the bluff.Regarding the proposed change to the western retaining wall and window well, the applicant notes that replacing aconcrete retaining wall with a living wall system will allow for greater infiltration of stormwater and also removes lotcover that would otherwise be located within the bluff impact zone. Since the proposed living wall would cross the topof the bluff and extend further into the bluff than the previously approved concrete retaining wall, a variance is requiredfor this retaining wall.Finally, the applicant has noted that the proposed driveway reconfiguration is needed to lessen the driveway’s grade; achange that will provide safer access in winter and create a larger area for vehicles to turn around. While this changedoes increase the property’s lot cover beyond what had been proposed in January, they have noted that it still reducesthe property’s lot cover from the amount shown in the pre­existing conditions survey. They have also stated that therevised configuration allows the driveway to line up with the proposed stair system providing access to the lake.By way of background, the applicant has reminded staff that larger more significant encroachments, i.e. a rear bumpout, above­grade deck, and patio, were present in the area where they are requesting a variance to install an at­gradedeck prior to a 2018 remodel where these features were removed. They have noted the removal of the previousfeatures have left the rear area behind the house as an area of dirt and weeds, without any improved area near the rearpatio door, and that the approved deck does not fully cover this 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 property’s remainingboulder walls, they believe further erosion and damage will occur. Finally, they have noted that a living wall system wasalready approved to replace the southern wall and that they believe that using that same system to replace the westernretaining wall would achieve better outcomes.Staff recognizes that the applicant has provide a thoughtful proposal that does its utmost to balance the owners’ 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.The City is typically hesitant to support variances allowing for an expansion of a previously issued variance; however, inthis case, the City feels that so long as the deck expansion is confined to the area previously degraded by the pre­existing features and their removal and does not require any regrading of the bluff, the difference in the impact betweena 12­foot wide and 14­foot wide deck is negligible. Additionally, staff believes that the proposed reconfiguration of thewindow well area is a net improvement on the original plan. Finally, while staff would prefer not to see the driveway’simpervious surface increase, if it came in as a separate permit, staff would likely approve the permit as it would stillresult in an impervious surface coverage under what is allowed by Code and less than what was previously present.Staff is also sympathetic to the applicants desire to do everything possible to minimize the slope on what is anextremely steep driveway, and while the overall slope of the driveway remains at 19%, the reconfiguration does lessenthe slope on the lower section of the driveway. For these reasons, staff is recommending approval of the variancerequests.APPLICANTBrian T. and Elise R. Bruner, 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 DistrictChapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single­Family Residential DistrictSection 20­615, Lot Requirements and SetbacksChapter 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.In April of 2021, the applicant applied for a building permit in compliance with Variance 2021­07.Several permits for interior work and maintenance are also on file with the City.Variance 2021­07 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 water­oriented accessory structure (WOAS) near the lake, and front yard parkingpad.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.On January 19, 2021, the Planning Commission approved a 19­foot bluff impact zone and 29­foot bluff setback variancefor the construction of a deck, a bluff impact zone and bluff setback variance for the construction of retraining walls withinthe bluff, and a 25­foot bluff, 5­foot side yard, and 3­foot shoreland setback for a WOAS.On June 4, 2021, the applicant submitted a variance request to increase the width of the deck from 12 to 14 feet, replacethe western concrete window well and retaining wall with a living wall system, and add a 9­foot by 9­foot equipment padand associated retaining wall to east of the house.On June 17, 2021, staff contacted the applicant expressing concern over the proposed equipment pad and associatedretaining wall’s encroachment into the bluff, and requesting that the applicant investigate the possibility of relocating ormodifying the proposed equipment pad.On June 22, 2021, the applicant agreed to remove the 9­foot by 9­foot pad and associated retaining wall, revising thedesign to work within the existing boulder wall and AC pad’s encroachment into the bluff setback.RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve a 20­foot bluffimpact zone and 30­foot bluff setback variance for the construction of a deck and a bluff impact zone and bluff setbackvariance for the construction of retaining walls within the bluff subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopt theattached Findings of Fact and Decision.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 ofthe 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 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 publicdrainage and utility easements.6. The at­grade deck may not cross the top of the bluff as shown on the plans dated June 4, 2021.7. The improvements must substantially conform to the plans dated June 4, 2021, save that the depicted equipmentpad and associated retaining wall may not encroach into the bluff setback and impact zone beyond theencroachment of the existing equipment pad and retaining wall.8. All conditions and provisions of Variance 2021­07 referring to the property’s water­oriented accessory structureshall be met. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Findings of Fact and Decision Variance Document Development Review Application Narrative Justification of Request, June 3 Justification of Request, June 4 Email Response to Staff Comments Plan Set WRC Memo Affidavit of Mailing Planning Commission Staff Report dated January 19, 2021 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: July 6, 2021 CC DATE: July 26, 2021 REVIEW DEADLINE: August 3, 2021 CASE #: PC 2021-07A BY: MYW SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting variances to replace an at-grade deck outside their rear patio door extending to the top of the bluff and to reconstruct failing retaining walls within the bluff. The project will also involve increasing the size of their driveway, removing a previously approved concrete pad from the bluff setback and impact zone, rebuilding an existing retaining wall within the bluff impact and setback zones, and reconfiguring a previously approved staircase providing access to the lake; however, all of these items are permitted by City Code and do not require a variance. LOCATION: 6609 Horseshoe Curve APPLICANT: Elise Bruner 6609 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 OWNER: Brian Bruner 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 20-foot bluff impact zone and 30-foot bluff setback variance for the construction of a deck and a bluff impact zone and bluff setback variance for the construction of retaining walls within the bluff subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance July 6, 2021 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting that the City allow them to extend the deck approved during the January 19, 2021 Planning Commission meeting an additional two feet into the bluff setback. As part of this redesign, they are also proposing replacing a previously approved concrete retaining wall and concrete window well pad located within the bluff setback and impact zone with a living wall system similar to the one previously approved to replace the property’s southern retaining wall. The applicant’s submittal also includes a revised driveway configuration which increases the property’s lot cover beyond what was shown in the January 19, 2021, though the resulting lot cover still remains under the District’s 25 percent lot cover limit. Changes to the walkway providing access to the lake are also proposed although all of these are allowed by City Code and do not factor into the requested variances. Finally, the applicant initially proposed replacing the property’s existing equipment pad and associated retaining wall with a 9-foot by 9- foot maintenance area and associated retaining wall extending into the bluff; however, after consultation with staff they agreed to revise their plans to stay within the existing area of encroachment. The applicant has stated that the revised deck configuration is necessary to accommodate foot traffic using the staircase to travel from the front of the property to the lake. They note that the approved 12-foot deck width does not provide adequate space for furniture and a walkway and that the 12-foot deck width had been selected when the proposed deck was of an impervious rather than pervious design with the goal of minimizing the impervious surface, a concern that no long applies. They feel that there are potential safety risks caused by the narrow walking space provided by a 12-foot wide deck and that the two-foot increase would simply cover exposed ground while not requiring any new grading or footings which could negatively impact the bluff. Regarding the proposed change to the western retaining wall and window well, the applicant notes that replacing a concrete retaining wall with a living wall system will allow for greater infiltration of stormwater and also remove lot cover that would otherwise be located within the bluff impact zone. Since the proposed living wall would cross the top of the bluff and extend further into the bluff than the previously approved concrete retaining wall, a variance is required for this retaining wall. Finally, the applicant has noted that the proposed driveway reconfiguration is needed to lessen the driveway’s grade; a change that will provide safer access in winter, and create a larger area for vehicles to turn around. While this change does increase the property’s lot cover beyond what had been proposed in January, they have noted that it still reduced the property’s lot cover from the amount shown in the pre-existing conditions survey. They have also stated that the revised configuration allows the driveway to line up with the proposed stair system providing access to the lake. By way of background, the applicant has reminded staff 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 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance July 6, 2021 Page 3 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, and that the approved deck does not fully cover this 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 property’s remaining boulder walls, they believe further erosion and damage will occur. Finally, they have noted that a living wall system was already approved to replace the southern wall and that they believe that using that same system to replace the western retaining wall would achieve better outcomes. Staff recognizes that the applicant has provided 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. The city is typically hesitant to support variances allowing for an expansion of a previously issued variance; however, in this case, the city feels that so long as the deck expansion is confined to the area previously degraded by the pre-existing features and their removal and does not require any regrading of the bluff, the difference in the impact between a 12-foot wide and 14-foot wide deck is negligible. Additionally, staff believes that the proposed reconfiguration of the window well area is a net improvement on the original plan. Finally, while staff would prefer not to see the driveway’s impervious surface increase, if it came in as a separate permit, staff would likely approve the permit as it would still result in an impervious surface coverage under what is allowed by Code and less than what was previously present. Staff is also sympathetic to the applicant’s desire to do everything possible to minimize the slope on what is an extremely steep driveway, and while the overall slope of the driveway remains at 19% the reconfiguration does lessen the slope on the lower section of the driveway. For these reasons, staff is recommending approval of the variance requests. 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 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance July 6, 2021 Page 4 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 that include the demolition of the existing deck and patio. In June of 2020, the City issued a building permit to add a rooftop deck. In April of 2021, the applicant applied for a building permit in compliance with Variance 2021-07. Several permits for interior work and maintenance are also on file with the City. Variance 2021-07 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 (WOAS) 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. 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance July 6, 2021 Page 5 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. On January 19, 2021, the Planning Commission approved 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 retraining walls within the bluff, and a 25-foot bluff, 5-foot side yard, and 3- foot shoreland setback for a WOAS. On June 4, 2021, the applicant submitted a variance request to increase the width of the deck form 12 to 14 feet, replace the western concrete window well and retaining wall with a living wall system, and add a 9-foot by 9-foot equipment pad and associated retaining wall to the east of the house. On June 17, 2021, staff contacted the applicant expressing concern over the proposed equipment pad and associated retaining wall’s encroachment into the bluff, and requested that the applicant investigate the possibility of relocating or modifying the proposed equipment pad. On June 22, 2021, the applicant agreed to remove the 9-foot by 9-foot pad and associated retaining wall, revising the design to work within the existing boulder wall and AC pad’s encroachment into the bluff setback. 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 WOAS 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. 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance July 6, 2021 Page 6 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. 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 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance July 6, 2021 Page 7 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 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 6609 Horseshoe Curve (PC 2021-07): 19’ bluff impact zone and 29’ bluff setback (deck), bluff impact zone and bluff setback (retaining wall), and 25’ bluff, 5’ side, and 3’ shoreland setback (WOAS) - 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 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance July 6, 2021 Page 8 6697 Horseshoe Curve (PC 1985-02): 9.03’ side setback (addition, intensify nonconforming) – Approved ANALYSIS Expanded At-Grade Deck The applicant is requesting a variance to construct an at-grade deck that at its closest point would reach the top of the bluff. Earlier this year the Planning Commission issued a variance allowing a proposed deck to be placed one foot from the top of the bluff. The applicant has indicated that as they finalized their design they realized that the approved 12-foot wide deck did not provide 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance July 6, 2021 Page 9 adequate space to accommodate both furniture and foot traffic. They have indicated that the requested two-foot expansion would not require additional footings, would not require any grading or alteration of the existing slope, and would simply cover an existing exposed area between the edge of the approved deck and top of the bluff. As with the previously issued variance, staff’s primary concern in evaluating this request is the protection of the bluff and prevention of any activities that may increase the risk of erosion. Switching from a 12-foot wide to 14-foot wide deck is not anticipated to create additional runoff, and staff remains comfortable with the design and configuration of the property’s drainage system. If this area was covered by established vegetation or if the proposal required grading, staff would recommend against allowing further encroachment into the bluff setback; however, in this instance, moving the deck closer to the top of the bluff is not expected to alter or negatively impact the bluff. Additionally, the expanded deck still represents an improvement from the conditions present on the property in 2018 when: a 144-square foot bump out projected eight feet from the home with 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 approximate 200-square foot concrete patio connected the deck and bump out within the bluff impact zone. 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. It was not until the scope of work proposed in May 2020 triggered the need for a new survey that the presence of a bluff on the property was confirmed. Ordinarily, staff would not support the expansion of a previously issued bluff variance; however, this is a very unique situation. The 2018 removal of the pre-existing structures has left an area of bare soil and weeds between the house and top of the bluff, rendering most concerns about removing vegetation within the bluff impact zone moot, and the applicant’s proposed expansion is not expected to alter the bluff. 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 20-foot bluff impact zone and a 30-foot bluff setback variance to permit the construction of the proposed deck. 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance July 6, 2021 Page 10 Retaining Walls The applicant’s original variance called for replacing the southern boulder retaining wall with a living wall system and replacing the western boulder retaining wall with a concrete retaining wall and concrete window well pad. Both of these walls were in need of repair, with the southern wall shedding boulders down the hill. The City granted the applicant a variance to replace the walls because the proposed retaining walls, especially the living wall system, were deemed to be less impactful to the bluff than replacing the existing walls in their existing location and configuration, which the homeowner could have done under the City’s nonconforming use ordinance without a variance. The applicant is now proposing replacing the western retaining wall with a living wall system rather than the previously approved concrete retaining wall and pad. The proposed living wall system would utilize 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. This change would also remove approximately 81 square feet of impervious surface located adjacent to the top of the bluff 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance July 6, 2021 Page 11 Staff believes the proposed living wall system is a viable, innovative, and environmentally responsible alternative to traditional retaining walls. 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 this proposal represents an improvement over both the pre-existing boulder wall and previously approved concrete wall and pad. Regarding the impact of the revised deck configuration on the previously approved southern living wall system, the applicant has stated that due to the level nature of the area where they are proposing to extend the deck, there will be no significant alterations to the previously approved living wall system. Engineering staff has reviewed the proposed plans and agrees with the applicant’s assessment that the expanded deck will not substantively alter the southern living wall. 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. 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance July 6, 2021 Page 12 Impact on Neighborhood Pleasant View is an older neighborhood with many atypically shaped lots, nonconformities, and variances. The applicant’s revised proposal will replace a boulder retaining wall along the top of the bluff with a more environmentally friendly living wall and remove approximately 65 square feet of lot cover immediately adjacent to the top of the bluff. The proposed two-foot increase in deck width from the previous proposal will still respect the bluff line and will be setback approximately 90 feet from the ordinary high water level. The revised deck will have less of a visual and environmental impact than the deck and patio that were present on the property before the 2018 remodel. The applicant has 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, approve a 20-foot bluff impact zone and 30-foot bluff setback variance for the construction of a deck and a bluff impact zone and bluff setback variance for the construction of retaining walls within the bluff subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact 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. 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance July 6, 2021 Page 13 6. The at-grade deck may not cross the top of the bluff as shown on the plans dated June 4, 2021. 7. The improvements must substantially conform to the plans dated June 4, 2021, save that the depicted equipment pad and associated retaining wall may not encroach into the bluff setback and impact zone beyond the encroachment of the existing equipment pad and retaining wall. 8. All conditions and provisions of variance 2021-07 referring to the property’s water- oriented accessory structure shall be met. 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. Email Response to Staff Comments 7. Plan Set 8. Variance Documents 9. WRC Memo 10. Affidavit of Mailing 11. January 19, 2021 Staff Report (PC 2021-07) g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-07a 6609 horseshoe curve july 6 variance request\staff report_6609 horseshoe curve_var_2.docx 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of Elise Bruner on behalf of Brian Bruner for variances to replace/rebuild retaining walls and construct an at-grade deck on a property zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2021-07A. On July 6, 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 pre-existing boulder retaining wall and previously approved concrete retaining wall and pad, with a more environmentally sensitive living wall. While the footprint of the wall in places exceed the footprint of the wall it is replacing, it is less impactful than either the boulder wall or concrete wall that it is replacing and it represents an environmentally responsible solution for a complicated parcel with numerous nonconformities. 2 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 to 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 no place where a rear-facing deck could be placed without receiving a variance from the city’s bluff ordinance. It is also reasonable for the applicant to request a variance to replace failing nonconforming retaining walls with new, more environmentally sensitive, retaining walls in order to maintain the integrity of the slope. 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 accessory 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 in a more environmentally sensitive retaining wall along the western top of the bluff and the creation of an at-grade deck approximately 90 feet from the lake’s Ordinary High Water Level (OHWL). 3 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 proposed western living wall system will not be visually obtrusive. 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 #2021-07A, dated July 6, 2021, prepared by MacKenzie Young-Walters, is incorporated herein. DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 20-foot bluff impact zone and 30-foot bluff setback variance for the construction of a deck and a bluff impact zone and bluff setback variance for the construction of retaining walls within the bluff, 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 at-grade deck may not cross the top of the bluff as show on the plans dated June 4, 2021. 7. The improvements must substantially conform to the plans dated June 4, 2021, save that the depicted equipment pad and associated retaining wall may not encroach into the bluff setback and impact zone beyond the encroachment of the existing equipment pad and retaining wall. 8. All conditions and provisions of variance 2021-07 referring to the property’s water-oriented accessory structure shall be met.” ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 6th day of July, 2021. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-07a 6609 horseshoe curve july 6 variance request\findings of fact and decision 6609 horseshoe curve (approval).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2021-07A 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 20-foot bluff impact zone and 30-foot bluff setback variance for the construction of a deck and a bluff impact zone and bluff setback variance for the construction of retaining walls within the bluff. 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 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 at-grade deck may not cross the top of the bluff as shown on the plans dated June 4, 2021. 7. The improvements must substantially conform to the plans dated June 4, 2021, save that the depicted equipment pad and associated retaining wall may not encroach into the bluff 2 setback and impact zone beyond the encroachment of the existing equipment pad and retaining wall. 8. All conditions and provisions of Variance 2021-07 referring to the property’s water- oriented accessory structure shall be met. 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: July 6, 2021 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor AND: Laurie Hokkanen, 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\21-07a 6609 horseshoe curve july 6 variance request\variance document 21-07a.doc COiIiIUNITYDEVELOP ENT OEPARTIENT Planning Oivision - 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P O. Box '147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) ?27-1100 / Fax: (952) 227-1'110 * MYMCHII{IIASSIN Submittal Ll APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW ".r.n1 b-L2!--CC Dale 1 JL )l 6 0-Oay *"r"* O"rS 3 letI Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply) (Flefer lo the awropiate Applbatbn checkn* lot equiEd E Comprehensive Plan Amendment......................... $600E Minor MUSA line forfailing on-site ser!,Ers.....t100 E Conditional Use Permit (CUP)!tr Single-Family Residence All others....,................... $325 $425 n lnterim Use Permit (lUP) ! ln coniunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325E All Others........ ..... . . ......$425 n Rezoning (REZ) D Planned Unit Development (PUD).................. S75OE Minor Amendment to existing PUD......-.......... $1OOE AllOthers........ ................... $500 n Sign Plan Review............................,.. .......... . ...... $150 E Site Plan Review (SPR) E Administrative. ................... S100E Commercial/lndustrial Districts'...................... $500 Plus $10 pe l,000 square feet of building area:( thousand square feet) lndude number of 9!lE!,49 empbyees: _ 'lnclude number oI49! empbyees:E Residential oistficts.,...,........... s500 Plus S5 per dr\tllirE unit (- units) ! Subdivision (SUB) ! Create 3lots or less . ... ...- a;;;i;;,;;1 r"i; - .. .........( lots) Metes & Bounds (2 lots)................. Consolidate Lots........................ .... ... .. ..... Lot Line Adjustment......................................... Final P|at................ (lncludes $450 escrow for attorney costs)' 'Additional escrovJ may be required for other applications lhrougi the delelopment contracl. E Vacation of Easements/Right-of-wey (VAC)........ $300 (Addilional recording bes may apply) @ Variance (VAR).................................................... $2OO E Wetland Alteration Permit (wAP) D Single-Family Residence................ .............. $150! A ohers........ ................. SzTs D ZoningAppeal ....................... $1OO n Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)................. $500 IIQ]E Whln mulupb applk lior! .rc p.occ..ed concumntly, tho rpproprirE frq rhsll bs charged lor..ch appllcado.r. L_ addresses) ......$50 per document D Site Plan Agreement tr trnn E Notitication Sign lcity ro insratt and .emove) ................ E Property Oimers' List within 500' lcity to generae afrer prE-apptbation meeting) El Escrow for Recording Documents (checkall thatapply)............................ D Conditional Use Permit D lnterim Use Permit ! Vacation @ Variance ! Meles & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) ! Easements L- easements) Wetland Alteralion Permit Oeeds Section 2: Required lnformation Description of Proposal Property Address or Location Parcel #: 250550010 REVISION: BLUFF ENCROACHMENT AREA VARIANCE 6609 HORSESHO E6Upy E, CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 Legal Description:RESIDENTIAL 0.64 Wetlands Pres€nt?ff ves fl tto Single-Family Residential District (RSF)Requested Zoning Selecl One Present Land Use Oesignation Select One lotal Acreage: Present Zoning Existing Use of Properly:RESIDENTIAL Requested Land use DesignatiofflFPbFto{RNHAssEN RECEIVED E]Check box if separate nanative is attached. CHANHASSEN PI.{IJNING DEPI $brittal intoination that must eompahy this appl'ralan) TOTAL FEE: JUN 0 4 202t Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant lnformation APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, l, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. 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 the City should contac,t regarding any matter pertaining to this application I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that addilional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are fue and correct. Name EttsE BRUNtrR Contact Phone:Address City/State/Zip:Cell: Fax: Oate lsz- 717 -26 l1 Emait: e brv ef brvnell Signature:/(-oE-a-t)t PROPERTY OWI'IER: ln srgning this application, l, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, sub.iect only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep mysetf intormed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, elc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name:ERtfrN BRuNEtz Address City/State/Zip Cell: Fax: 6/2-zos-E/1'/ Email:vn I 0v.@1 Signature:Date.z-!l This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans reguired by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Beficre fling this application, refer to lhe appropriate Appliettion Checklist and confer with the Planning Oepadment to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requiremenls and fees. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A wriften notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. Contacl: Phone: Cell: Fax: Who ghould rcceiyo copies of staff reports?'Other Contact lnfotmation: El Property Owner Via El Applicant Via E Engineer Via E othef via Email Email Email E Maited Paper Copy A Maited Paper Copy E Maited Paper Copy E Mailed Paper copy Name TRAVIS VAN LIERE Address 21 1 N 1ST STREET #350 MINNEAPOL rs. MN 55401 |NSTRUCT|O]{S TO APPLICAI{T: Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your Oevice. pntUf fOnllt and deliverlo city along \ dth required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital copy to the city for Processing SAVE FORT'SUBirlIT FORIiI E Email Caty/State/Zip Email:travis@tvl ro.com PROJECT Et{Glt{EER (if aPplicable) No-o Address: Citv/State/Zio: Email: contac - Phone. - Section 4: Notification lnformation PRINT FOR*I tvl s June l+.2021 City of Chanhassen Community Deve[opment Department P[anning Division 7700 Market Btvd P0 Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: WRITTEN DESCRIPTI0N 0F VARIANCE RE0UEST To whom it may concern, As required by the City of Chanhassen, we are respectfulty submitting this written description of variance requests for the following property: Bruner Residence 6609 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 Va riances Reouested 1. REVISI0N: Btuff Setback Area Encroachment Variance - Extension of Previousty Proposed and City-Approved House-Adjacent Deck The existing home on this property was buiLt in 1999 and recently remodeled in 2017 by Christian Dean Architecture. The [andscape was not considered at that time, so the current project is looking to finalize Landscaping on the property while considering client needs whi[e respectfutly meeting existing codes and standards. This house non-conforming due to encroachment into btuff 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 ptanning office severa[ times throughout the process of this project. This variance request is additionaI to the approved variance apptication by the City of Chanhassen on January 191h,2021 . CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED JUN 04 2021 TRAVIS VA]{ LIERE STUOIO 211 north lst street suite 1350 minneapolis. mn 55401 o 6LZ 343 4?75 Summarv of Concern 1 CHAI,IHASSEN Pt-Afl t{[ic DEpf ConcLusion 0ur desig n 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 applicabte city codes and ordinances whiLe providing practicaI use for the property by the owners. Thank you in advance for your due consideration of our request for a variance. S in ce re [y, Travis Van Liere, PLA, ASLA Principa[ - Travis Van Liere Studio tvl s 3 IRAVIS VAI{ LIENE STUOIO 211 no.th 1st street suite #350 minneapoljs, mn 55401 o 672 345 4?75 June 3, 2021 CHAIIHASSEN PI.AI{NING DEPI City of Chanhassen Community Development Department Planning Division 7700 Market Blvd PO Box '147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION FOR SECOND VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 6609 HORSESHOE CURVE, CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 COMPLIES WTH 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 second variance request. While the updated variance request information contained here is not overwhelming, we want to do this proiect in the right way and go through the conect channels. Sometimes in projecls of this nature, you do not know exaclly how a layout or plan is going to look or feel until you physically are on site. Seeing as we started our plans nearly 2 years ago, there have naturally been some changes. Sec. 20-58. General conditions for orantino. To review, a variance may be granted if all of the following criteria are met: (1) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and inlent of this chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. (2) When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difiiculties,' as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the prop€rty owner proposes to use the prop€rty 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. (3) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. (4) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. (5) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. (6) Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in M.S. S 216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter. GITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVEO JUN 04 2021 Our second variance request is being done proactively, and we are trying to comply with the City of chanhassenandabidebythestatedprovisionsofour&ady4@'withonlysomeSlight modifications. 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, physicel sunoundings, shape, or topography. ln mnsideration of all equities and hardships in this case, we believe that our application wanants favorable discretion, since eveMhing we hope to do will improve the use of this property and reduce further degradation of the property. 1. 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 oarticularlv reasonable wav, we cannot cunently 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. 2. Uniqueness Our cunent problem is due to circumstances unique to this property and was Ogllcaused by our actions. As noted by the enclosed documentation, the physical characteristics of our property present unique challenges due to the sloping topography and limited accessible space for use. 3. Essential Character Provided this second variance is granted, the comprehensive plan will not alter the essential character of our property or locality. The extension of our deck will not be out of scale, out of place, or otheMise inconsistent with the sunounding area. POTENTIAL CHANGES REQUESTED IN 2t,ID VARIANCE APPLICATION 1 . Extend bamboo composite deck off house 2 feet for a dimensional variance. This change amounts to 14 feet instead of 12 feet. *'See discussion below. 2. Reduce overall length of bamboo composite staircase from lake to house to avoid damage and/or removal of trees near the house. This change shortens the staircase overall from the lakeside to the house. The comprehensive plan seeks to pIgSCryg the pre-existing tree canopy on the property. We do not wish to disrupt the beauty ofthe mature trees that we have. 3. Replace the full concrete window well (which was originally designed as a three-sided retaining wall) on west side of house with one ('l) main concrete retaining wall and living retaining wall (i.e., vegetation wall). The living wall was already approved in our first variance to be used on the lakeside to replace the degraded retaining rock wall. We want to extend the use of this natural product to the side of the house instead of concrete. The use of additional living walls will again allow water to absorb into the soil and slow erosion. Living retaining walls function just as a traditional stone or timber wall, and typically require much less actual building material to construct. ln keeping with the plan, we hope to reduce storm water runoff and erosion.4. Shift new driveway location to the west 1 1 feet. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES *EXTENSION OF BAMBOO DECKING FROM 12 TO 14 FEET We fully understand and respect that the City of Chanhassen remains concemed about the bluff setback. We believe our request for 2 feet of bamboo decking is reasonable and comports with the normal and customary use of the space without unduly impacting the bluff. To go back in time, and in relation to one of the specific changes to our pro.iect details #1 above, we had originally planned to install a full concrete slab as the terrace material outside the sliding door next to our house. Due to concems raised by the City of Chanhassen concerning hardcover percentage with the use of concrete, the size ofthe walkout deck was twelve (12) feet. Upon further reflection, we ultimately selected a more user-friendly, non-hardcover bamboo composite. This product is permeable, sturdy, and provides us with the necessary decking and stair material to make less of an impact on the property overall. Unfortunately, when the plan was submitted to the City of Chanhassen for review, the size of the deck did not account for the fact that it was no longer concrete. ln other words, since the deck product changed to a permeable product and is NOT hardcover, we are respectfully requesting an additional 2 feet of decking. The extension of deckinq souarelv falls within the Sec. 20-58. General conditions for orantinq as follows: g\EEry: First, this additional soace provides more safetv to oeoole using the deck as a walkway to pass through to go down lo lhe stairs and lake. As it stands, a 12-foot deck provides gglDe, but not ample walk-through space, especially with the need for space to exist between the house and fumiture. Having this added space would allow for reasonable use of the property, in a permissible manner and with due reoard for safew. The two-foot dimensional variance is minimally required to account for safety considerations. Therefore, we want to ensure lhat people are not tripping or losing their footing when passing through on the deck. Creatino more accessible space for oeoole will reduce the ootential for trips/falls or other accidents. USER ENJOYMENT: Second,this sDace fundamentallv adds to the user enioyment and utilization of the space, which would otherwise not be utilized for anything. ln other words, it increases the value of the property. The normal flow of foot traffic was not fully undeGtood until the area was staked. We did not realize this was going to be the case until the property was physically staked only a few weeks ago. Seeing something in a drawing and then going into the field with stakes are different things. The enjoyment of this property is, in fact, unique, in that there are basically two (2) areas where people can congregate: Either we enjoy the space directly outside our walkout deck next to the house, or we go down to the lake. CONCLUSION lntheend'thefromwhatitisnow.ouraimistotry and improve the natural enjoyment of the property while balancing the interests of the natural environment. We have selected products and made changes that we believe improve the property and preserve the surroundings. Thank you in advance for your due consideration of our request for a second variance. Sincerely, NOT IMPEDING INTO BLUFF: Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the addition of two feet of decking does not impede into the bluff. There is no need tor an overhano. nor does this two-foot extension reouire anv additional footinos. tree removal. or qradinq. These two feet of decking are a natural extension over ground that would otherwise not be used. Elise Bruner and Brian Bruner June 4,2021 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED JUN 04 202t CIIAI'JIIASSEN PI.AJ{I,JIiIG DEPT RE: WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION OF HOW VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 6606 HORSESHOE CURVE, CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 COMPLIES WITH THE FINDINGS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO SECT]ON 20-58 Dear Planning Commission, City Council and Staff Members, We respectively submit a request to amend portions of our approved variance application from the City of Chanhassen for 6609 Horseshoe Curve - Planning Case #2021-07. We are reaffirming our commitment to doing this project in the right way and going through the proper channels and authorities. We realize this a unique circumstance and not a typical request after previously applying and being granted a variance on our project this past winter. However, sometimes with projects of this nature, you do not know exactly how a layout or designed plan is going to look or feel until you physically are on site, particularly in our case and with how difficult the site constraints are for this project. Seeing as we started our project nearly 2 years ago, there have naturally been some changes and modifications to our initial designs over that time. This request to our original approved variance is one such instance. To go back in time, we had gone into the design for the landscape and exterior of our home initially thinking we would do a new paved patio surface and walkout terrace to replace an existing structure and patio that had previously existed on lake side portion of our home. However, in our review with city staff, concerns were raised about the impact this new paved surface would potentially have on overall hardcover for the project and the impact impervious surfacing could have with stormwater runoff on the top of a manmade bluff that existed on our property (created by the original home construction in 1999). Owing to the restrictions on hardcover percentage overall, we ultimately opted to utilize a more user-friendly, pervious paving at-grade composite decking material for our lower City of Chanhassen Community Development Department Planning Division 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 level patio space. This product is sturdy, maintenance free, and provides us with the necessary surfaclng to create a useable flat space on a steep sloped property while making less of an impact on the site. We soon came to realize however that the 12' width we originally proposed is not fully conducive to how we intend to use this space and are respectfully requesting to increase the size of our approved new at grade deck by an additional 2 feet (going from 1 2' width to 14' width). These two feet of additional decking are being requested by for the following reasons: SAFETY: First, this additional space provides more safety to family, friends and guest using the deck and provides us with the necessary width for us to have an unobstructed walkway to pass through the space as you navigate to the front of the home or down the lake. Our original variance application and approved plan shows a 12-toot deck. While this provides enough room for seating and functionality, it doesn't allow for an efficient walk-through space to navigate up and down the slope around the home. We recently became concerned with the width of the deck once the new deck and planned new stairways were physically staked for our review a few weeks back (as we are beginning to start construction). Seeing aspects of our design in a drawing format and then going into the field with actual stakes and dimensions are two very different things. We want to ensure that people are not tripping, losing their footing, or having to step off the deck and walk on the steep sloped areas of the bluff while navigating our new deck space at the lower level of our home. USE: Second, the additional 2' in width fundamentally adds to the functionality and utilization of the lakeside deck space. lt gives much needed level space that is navigable, safe and functional on a steep sloped property where level, functional outdoor space is at a premium. BLUFF IMPACT: Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the addition of two feet of decking does not impact the top of the defined bluff as we still would be located outside of the defined top of bluff line indicated on our plans. This two foot extension takes use of the existing flat area already created by the previous home design, patio and existing boulder retaining wall and would not require any tree removal, or grading. The two feet of decking are a natural extension over ground that would otherwise not be usuable. To accommodate for this additional decking, we have also made other adjustments to the original design by reducing the amount decking originally proposed on the east side of the home. ln closing, we want to express that our amended variance request for a two-foot extension is being done proactively before the project is to be completed completed We are trying to comply with the City of Chanhassen and abiding by the stated provisions of our already-approved variance, with this minor adjustment. Thank you for your due consideration with our requested revision Below is a summarv of the oreviouslv ADDTO ved va ri a nce a ool i c ation w ritten iustification: Overview and lntroduction 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 cunently 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 sunoundings, shape, or topography. ln consideration of all equities and hardships in this case, we believe that our application wanants favorable discretion, since everything we hope to do will improve the use of this property and reduce further degradation of the property. o 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. (21 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: o Build a lower-level deck patio ou ide the slider door that is directlv accessible from our walkout home. There is currentl y nothing outside our slider door other than dirt and weeds. Building a deck is a reasonable use and extension of our home. o Build a staircase from the lower-level deck D ati o 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 teel and has a 29.75-foot grade change. This is just over a 25% slope. Build a modular (removable oieces) shoreline deck oatio near the lakeshore. This would comport with necessary setbacks and allow access for maintenance of the utility line in thls area. a a 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. ln 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. U n iqueness a Boulders rollinq down the hill - On June 21 , 2020, boulders that are present in an already dilapidated retaining fall came loose and rolled dovvn 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. o Run off around the house and down the hill - Without an a ppropriate 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. o 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. Use of permeableLleeksurfaees will allow water to percolate into the soil toa a 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 Livinq Walls will a gain 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. ln keeping with the plan, we hope to reduce storm water runoff and erosion. . @ Application of fescue on the lakeside slope is cunently present, as we have already had great success with the The proposed comprehensive plan is more orotective of the environment than what is currentlv present. Please consider the followinq: 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 droughlresistance 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. . @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 1 Walters, MacKenzie From:Elise R. Bruner <ebruner@brunerlawgroup.com> Sent:Monday, June 21, 2021 2:05 PM To:Walters, MacKenzie Cc:Unmacht, Matt; Henricksen, Erik; Brian T. Bruner; Travis Van Liere; Danielle Jurichko Subject:RE: 6609 Horseshoe Curve Variance Importance:High Follow Up Flag:Follow up Flag Status:Flagged CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. MacKenzie, Good afternoon. We are following up with you and your staff concerning our pending variance application request. Permit us to respond to your concerns as follows: 1. We very much appreciate the note that your office will recommend approval to the two-foot extension of the walkout bamboo deck. Thank you for your due consideration and support of this modification. 2. We will REMOVE the proposed 9’ x 9’ aggregate maintenance area and retaining wall on the east side of the house around the existing air conditioner. We proposed to replace the existing boulder retaining wall to match the aesthetic of the house, but we will keep this area as is which does not impede into the bluff. This removes 64 square feet of overall hardcover. 3. Concerning the reconfiguration of the driveway, this modification is proposed to a) decrease the steepness of the driveway’s slope, which will reduce potential weather-related accidents in winter b) create a softer vehicle turnaround space, and c) align with the layout of the proposed deck staircase on the west side of the house. In the end, these proposed modifications with the removal of the proposed maintenance area noted in #2 brings overall hardcover on our property to 21.8%. Thank you in advance for your due consideration of our variance application request. We will be present at the July 6 meeting via phone, but please reach out to us with any further questions or concerns before this time. Regards, 2 Elise R. Bruner | biography Partner/Lead Engagement Attorney Member, American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA) Member, International Medical Graduate (IMG)Taskforce phone: 952-797-2619 fax: 612-435-9831 address: 5125 County Road 101, Suite 106, Minnetonka, MN 55345 email: ebruner@brunerlawgroup.com video conference | instant message: sic:ebruner@brunerlawgroup.com client portal: https://brunerlawgroup.casemgmtsys.com web: http://www.brunerlawgroup.com linkedin: https://www.linkedin.com/in/elisebruner PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL: This electronic mail message and any attached files may contain information that is proprietary, privileged, confidential and/or exempt from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, the use, dissemination, distribution, or copying is prohibited and may be subject to legal restriction or sanction. Please notify the sender by a new electronic mail of any unintended recipients and delete the original message and any attachments without making any copies. From: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2021 10:25 AM To: Elise R. Bruner <ebruner@brunerlawgroup.com>; Brian T. Bruner <bbruner@brunerlawgroup.com> Cc: Unmacht, Matt <MUnmacht@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Henricksen, Erik <EHenricksen@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: 6609 Horseshoe Curve Variance Elise, Staff met to go over your submitted variance request yesterday and during our discussions a couple issues were raised which we hope that you can further clarify: 1) Staff noticed that a 9x9 pad and associated retaining wall is being proposed off the east side of the house. This pad and it’s retaining wall extend approximately 4’ across the top of the bluff. The pre-existing retaining wall does not cross the bluff line and does not have any associated impervious surface. Your variance request does not mention this new expansion and encroachment. Staff is hoping that you can relocate the proposed equipment pad to avoid the need for a variance. In no circumstance will staff be able to recommend approval of a variance allowing the pad and retaining wall to cross into the bluff. If you wish to request that the pad and retaining wall be allowed in their current configuration and location, I would encourage you to provide explicit justification as to why the proposed location, size, and design in needed. Staff feels the proposed 9x9 pad is significantly larger than the minimum size required to accommodate an air conditioning unit. 2) While the proposed design does reduce the properties lot cover by about 237 square feet from the noted pre- existing lot cover, it increased the proposed lot cover by 427 square feet from the previously approved variance. The increase to lot cover from the revised driveway configuration also significantly exceeds the amount of lot cover reduced by removing the previously approved concrete window well. While this total is under the 25% allowed and does not in and of itself require a variance, the significant reduction to pre-existing lot cover was one of the reasons the City supported the first variance request. Staff would recommend submitting a short supplemental clarifying why the change to the driveway’s configuration was required. 3 Overall, staff will be recommending approval of the 2’ increase in deck width with the condition that no portion of the deck may cross the top of the bluff. Other changes like those to the orientation of the stairs and exact configuration of the living wall systems will be noted, but will not require a variance. Again, staff will be recommending that a variance not be given to accommodate the proposed 9x9 pad within the bluff on the east side of the house. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, -MacKenzie BRUNER RESIDENCE VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS JUNE 4, 2021 L000 PROJECT INFORMATION N/A Sheet #Title PRELIMINARY PRICING SET VARIANCE APPLICATION BID SET PERMIT SET CD SET LANDSCAPE REVISIONS L000 PROJECT INFORMATION ●●●● L001 GENERAL NOTES ●●●● L009 EXISTING INCOMING SURVEY ●● L010 EXISTING CONDITIONS + REMOVALS PLAN ●●●● L011 OVERLAY DIAGRAM ●●● L101 SITE PLAN ●●●● L102 SURFACING + WALLS PLAN ●●● L103 SITE FURNISHINGS + LIGHTING PLAN ●●● L201 GRADING PLAN ●●●● L401 LANDSCAPE PLAN ●●●● L501 WALL + SITE ELEMENT ELEVATIONS ●●●● L601 WALL, STAIR, + SURFACING DETAILS ●●●● L602 DRAINAGE + LIGHTING DETAILS ●●●● L603 SITE ELEMENT DETAILS ●●● L607 PLANTING DETAILS ●●●● L609 EROSION CONTROL + TREE PROTECTION DETAILS ●●●● L700 SCHEDULES + 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 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 SITE AND LANDSCAPE LOTUS LAKE creation date:6/2/2021filepath:/Users/daniellejurichko/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/VARIANCE II/L000.dwglast saved:daniellejurichko June 3, 2021 10:48 AMThe designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2021 Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T R A V I S V A N L I E R E date: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 Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: Sheet: 12/18/2020 DJ Rev #Description Date VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 6/4/2021 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 “EQUAL,” 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 “RESTORATION 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 “THE 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 “SEEDING NOTES” AND “RESTORATION 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: ·ACCURATE AND COMPLETE "AS BUILT" PLANS OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM INCLUDING 8-1/2"x11" ZONE MAP TO BE PLACED INSIDE EACH CONTROLLER BOX. ·A LOG ON ALL WATER WINDOWS, RUN SCHEDULE TIMES, AND OTHER CHANGES AND/OR MODIFICATIONS TO THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM SINCE INSTALLATION. ·ONE HOUR OF TRAINING TO OWNER ON IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND CONTROLLER OPERATION. ·THREE OF EACH TYPE OF HEAD AND EMITTER INSTALLED. ·ONE OF EACH TYPE OF VALVE INSTALLED. ·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 “IN-USE” OR “BUBBLE” 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.b.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.b.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.d.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 AGGREGATE 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 ± 1.5%creation date:6/2/2021filepath:/Users/daniellejurichko/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/VARIANCE II/L001.dwglast saved:daniellejurichko June 2, 2021 4:43 PMThe designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2021 Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T R A V I S V A N L I E R E date: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 Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: Sheet: 12/18/2020 DJ Rev #Description Date VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 6/4/2021 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 inch = 0 16'32'8' 16 feet creation date:6/2/2021filepath:/Users/daniellejurichko/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/VARIANCE II/L009.dwglast saved:daniellejurichko June 2, 2021 4:43 PMThe designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2021 Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T R A V I S V A N L I E R E date: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 Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: Sheet: 12/18/2020 DJ Rev #Description Date VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 6/4/2021 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 5' SIDE YARD SETBACKTRAFFIC FLOW TRAFFIC FLOW 5' SIDE YARD SETBACKNEIGHBORING STRUCTURE NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 926.90 BFFE EXISTING PORCH ABOVE EXISTING HOUSE 937.08 FFE REFER TO ARCH TYP. TYP. EXISTI N G S A NI T A R Y S E W E R LI N EPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE 1 LOTUS LAKE O.H.W.: 896.30 1 4 10' FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' OH W S E T B A C K SS EASEMENT WILDFLOWER GARDEN -1R -1R -2R -2R -2R -2R -3R -4R -5R -2R -5R -5R -5R -5R -5R EXISTING CONDITIONS AND REMOVALS PLAN1 L010 EXISTING CONDITIONS ANDREMOVALS PLAN N 1" = 16' SCALE: 1 inch = 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 REMOVED R5 EXISTING TREE TO BE REMOVED -R creation date:6/2/2021filepath:/Users/daniellejurichko/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/VARIANCE II/L010.dwglast saved:daniellejurichko June 3, 2021 10:49 AMThe designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2021 Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T R A V I S V A N L I E R E date: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 Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: Sheet: 12/18/2020 DJ Rev #Description Date VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 6/4/2021 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 2 2 2 2 3 DNEXISTI N G S A NI T A R Y S E W E R LI N E 1 1 4 10' FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' OH W S E T B A C K SS EASEMENT OVERLAY DIAGRAM1 L011 OVERLAY DIAGRAM N 1" = 16' SCALE: 1 inch = 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 2,929 s.f. PROPOSED DRIVEWAY + AUTOCOURT 3,038 s.f. PROPOSED AGGREGATE EDGING 157 s.f. PROPOSED WALLS 16 s.f. AREA OF PROPERTY 27,878 s.f. PROPOSED HARDCOVER AREA 6,140 s.f. PROPOSED HARDCOVER 22% HARDCOVER / PROPERTY AREA RATIO ALLOWED BY CODE 25%creation date:6/2/2021filepath:/Users/daniellejurichko/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/VARIANCE II/L011.dwglast saved:daniellejurichko June 2, 2021 4:42 PMThe designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2021 Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T R A V I S V A N L I E R E date: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 Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: Sheet: 12/18/2020 DJ Rev #Description Date VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 6/4/2021 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 5' SIDE YARD SETBACKTRAFFIC FLOW TRAFFIC FLOW 5' SIDE YARD SETBACKNEIGHBORING STRUCTURE NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 DN926.90 BFFE EXISTING PORCH ABOVE EXISTING HOUSE 937.08 FFE REFER TO ARCH TYP. TYP.POBEXISTI N G S A NI T A R Y S E W E R LI N EPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE 1 LOTUS LAKE O.H.W.: 896.30 1 4 AC 10' FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' OH W S E T B A C K SS EASEMENT WILDFLOWER GARDEN HB DN DN DN RISR DN3 RISR DN3 RISR DN3 55'-10"10'2' 4' 12'-8"6 EQ.6' 43' O.C.2'1'11 2 2 51'9'-4" 3 7 EQ.36'84'13 EQ.2', TYP.3'-6" 1'-8"9'1' TYP. 4 3'-7" 10'-7"20'-5"13'-6" 9'-5"6'-1"35'1'-6"9'9'-3"TYP.4'74'2'TYP.4'TYP.R 8 ' , T Y P .R12'29' 13'4'4' 2' 4'4'TYP.2'-7"76'-7" 1 L501 2 L501 3 L501 4L5017 L501 11'20'-5" PROPERTY LINE OHW ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK SITE PLAN1 L101 SITE PLAN 1" = 16' SCALE: 1 inch = 0 16'32'8' 16 feet 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 date:6/3/2021filepath:/Users/daniellejurichko/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/VARIANCE II/L101.dwglast saved:daniellejurichko June 3, 2021 10:46 AMThe designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2021 Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T R A V I S V A N L I E R E date: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 Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: Sheet: 12/18/2020 DJ Rev #Description Date VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 6/4/2021 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 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 4.P.O.B. AT NORTHWEST CORNER OF GARAGE 1ADD 1ADD 1ADD 1ADD CB CB CB CB CB CB CB CB EXISTING GARAGE REFER TO ARCH 936.33 HORSESHOE CURVE 5' SIDE YARD SETBACKTRAFFIC FLOW TRAFFIC FLOW 5' SIDE YARD SETBACKNEIGHBORING STRUCTURE NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 P.E.1.50% 2.42%DN926.90 BFFE EXISTING PORCH ABOVE EXISTING HOUSE 937.08 FFE REFER TO ARCH TYP. TYP. CB EXISTI N G S A NI T A R Y S E W E R LI N E P.E.PROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE 119%CB LOTUS LAKE O.H.W.: 896.30 1 4 CB CB AC 1:610' FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' OH W S E T B A C K TOS: 936.92 BOS: 936.33 928.50 BOS 932.50 TOW 932.00 TOS 933.75 TOS 935.50 TOS 925.00 TOS 930.25 TOS SS EASEMENT WILDFLOWER GARDEN HB934933935936954 953 952 951 950 949 948 947 946 945 944 943 942 941 940 939 926 924 922 920 918 916 936 937 938 932929931928927923.25 TOS 900 901 899 898 926.75 936.33 RIM 934.25 BOW 926.75 927.83 BOD 926.17 BOD 925.75 RIM 925.75 RIM 925.75 RIM 926.75 RIM 936.33 RIM 919.75 TOS 918.00 TOS 916.25 TOS 914.50 TOS 912.75 TOS 911.00 TOS 909.25 TOS 907.50 TOS 936.33 925.75 RIM 930.00 BOW 930.00 BOW 932.00 BOW935.50 936.00 921.25 TOS 934.50 TOW 905.75 TOS 904.00 TOS 915 914 913 912 911 910 909 908 907 906 905 904 903 902 934.00 BOW 929.33 BOW 929.00 CB CB CB 930DN DN DN RISR DN3 RISR DN3 RISR DN3 899.92 BOD 926.75 BOS 926.17 BOD 928.50 TOS 4 4 4 4 BEYOND BEYOND 2 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 5 5 5 6 6 L609 1 8 L602 9 L602 11 L602 10 L602 1 L603 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN1 L201 GRADING AND DRAINAGEPLAN N 1" = 16' SCALE: 1 inch = 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 XXX 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 CB RD AD CATCH BASIN, ROOF DRAIN, OR AREA DRAIN creation date:6/2/2021filepath:/Users/daniellejurichko/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/VARIANCE II/L201.dwglast saved:daniellejurichko June 3, 2021 11:01 AMThe designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2021 Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T R A V I S V A N L I E R E date: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 Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: Sheet: 12/18/2020 DJ Rev #Description Date VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 6/4/2021 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 Standard Erosion Control Notes for RPBCWD Development Reviews C1.The erosion control plan must include the following notes: a. Natural topography and soil conditions must be protected, including retention onsite of native topsoil to the greatest extent possible. b. Additional measures, such as hydraulic mulching and other practices as specified by the District must be used on slopes of 3:1 (H:V) or steeper to provide adequate stabilization. c. Final site stabilization measures must specify that at least six inches of topsoil or organic matter be spread and incorporated into the underlying soil during final site treatment wherever topsoil has been removed. d. Construction site waste such as discarded building materials, concrete truck washout, chemicals, litter and sanitary waste must be properly managed. e. All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs must be maintained until completion of construction and vegetation is established sufficiently to ensure stability of the site, as determined by the District. f. All temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs must be removed upon final stabilization. g. Soil surfaces compacted during construction and remaining pervious upon completion of construction must be decompacted to achieve a soil compaction testing pressure of less than 1,400 kilopascals or 200 pounds per square inch in the upper 12 inches of the soil profile while taking care to protect utilities, tree roots, and other existing vegetation. h. All disturbed areas must be stabilized within 7 calendar days after land-disturbing work has temporarily or permanently ceased on a property that drains to an impaired water, within 14 days elsewhere. i. The permittee must, at a minimum, inspect, maintain and repair all disturbed surfaces and all erosion and sediment control facilities and soil stabilization measures every day work is performed on the site and at least weekly until land-disturbing activity has ceased. Thereafter, the permittee must perform these responsibilities at least weekly until vegetative cover is established. The permittee will maintain a log of activities under this section for inspection by the District on request. AIS Note for RPBCWD Development Reviews (Rules B, D, E, F, G) Activities must be conducted so as to minimize the potential transfer of aquatic invasive species (e.g., zebra mussels, Eurasian watermilfoil, etc.) to the maximum extent possible. 1ADD 1ADD 1ADD 1ADD EXISTING GARAGE REFER TO ARCH 936.33 HORSESHOE CURVE 5' SIDE YARD SETBACKTRAFFIC FLOW TRAFFIC FLOW 5' SIDE YARD SETBACKNEIGHBORING STRUCTURE NEIGHBORING STRUCTURE 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 2 3 DN926.90 BFFE EXISTING PORCH ABOVE EXISTING HOUSE 937.08 FFE REFER TO ARCH TYP. TYP. EXISTI N G S A NI T A R Y S E W E R LI N EPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE 1 LOTUS LAKE O.H.W.: 896.30 1 4 AC 10' FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' OH W S E T B A C K SS EASEMENT WILDFLOWER GARDEN HB DN DN DN RISR DN3 RISR DN3 RISR DN3 4 AB 1 AB G 1 G 1 2 L607 1 P 1 BP 1 BP 3 BP 2 BP 1 AB 2 AB 1 BP 3 BP 1 BP 1 AB 1 L607 2 P 40 SH 20 SH TYP. TYP. 7 L607 TYP. LANDSCAPE PLAN1 L401 LANDSCAPE PLAN N 1" = 16' SCALE: 1 inch = 0 16'32'8' 16 feet PROPERTY LINE OHW ORDINARY HIGH WATER MARK 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 creation date:6/2/2021filepath:/Users/daniellejurichko/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/VARIANCE II/L401.dwglast saved:daniellejurichko June 3, 2021 11:01 AMThe designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2021 Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T R A V I S V A N L I E R E date: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 Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: Sheet: 12/18/2020 DJ Rev #Description Date VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 6/4/2021 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 NOTE: HYDROMULCH ON 3:1 OR STEEPER SLOPES PLANT SCHEDULE TREES KEY NAME QTY SIZE AB Abies balsamea BALSAM FIR 9 EA.14' (H) B+B BP Betula populifolia 'Whitespire' WHITESPIRE BIRCH 12 EA.12' (H) B+B PERENNIALS KEY NAME QTY SIZE P1 PERENNIAL GARDEN PLANTING (TO BE DETERMINED)600 SF #1 CONT. P2 Equisetum hymale EQUISETUM HORSETAIL 34 SF #1 CONT. SH Sporobolus heterolepis PRARIE DROPSEED 60 EA #1 CONT. TURF, GROUND COVERS, AND SEED MIXES HATCH KEY NAME QTY SIZE TAG QTY G1 NOW-MOW 21,142 s.f.N/AFESCUE 940' 0" 935' 0" 930' 0" 925' 0" 934.50 TOW 3"940' 0" 935' 0" 930' 0" 925' 0" WALL RETURN BEYOND C.I.P. CONCRETE WALL FACE OF BUILDING DECK ABOVE - SEE ARCH. DWGS. FINISHED GRADE BEYOND 960' 0" 955' 0" 950' 0" 945' 0" 6 952.00 BOW 609 FOUNDATION TO FROST 955.50 TOW SEE SURFACING PLANS 4 METAL ADDRESS NUMBERS. PIN TO WALL C.I.P. CONCRETE ENTRY ADDRESS MONUMENT MAILBOX, BY OWNER 1'3'-6"1'4'-6"930' 0" 925' 0" 932.50 TOW FINISHED GRADE BEYOND METAL-CLAD TIMBER WALL FACE OF HOUSE FULLY BURY 2 COURSES OF TIMBER AGGREGATE LEVELING PAD BEYOND WALL RETURN BEYOND 9' 935' 0" 930.00 BOW 940' 0" 930' 0" 925' 0" 932.50 TOW 935' 0" 930.00 BOW 940' 0" WOOD LATTICE SCREEN 932.00 8'-11" EQ.EQ. 9' FINISHED GRADE BEYOND METAL-CLAD TIMBER WALL FACE OF HOUSE BEYOND WOOD LATTICE SCREEN FULLY BURY 2 COURSES OF TIMBER AGGREGATE LEVELING PAD BEYOND WALL RETURN BEYOND 8'-11" EQ.EQ.2'-6"2'-6"934.00 C.I.P. CONCRETE WALL FACE OF BUILDING DECK ABOVE - SEE ARCH. DWGS. 929.33 934.50 TOW WALL RETURN FINISHED GRADE BEYOND 934.00 BOW L501 WALL ELEVATIONS 1" = 16'creation date:6/3/2021filepath:/Users/daniellejurichko/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/VARIANCE II/L501.dwglast saved:daniellejurichko June 3, 2021 10:45 AMThe designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2021 Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T R A V I S V A N L I E R E date: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 Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: Sheet: 12/18/2020 DJ Rev #Description Date VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 6/4/2021 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 SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" WALL 1 - NORTH FACING ELEVATION1 SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" WALL 1 - SOUTH FACING ELEVATION2 SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" WALL 2 - SOUTH FACING ELEVATION3 SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" WALL 2 - WEST FACING ELEVATION4 SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" S6 - ADDRESS MONUMENT - NORTH FACING ELEVATION5 1ADD L601 WALL, STAIR, AND SURFACINGDETAILS 1" = 16' 1' , TYP.7"TYP.5/4x6 COMPOSITE DECKING TYP.T.O.S. SEE PLAN VARIES - SEE PLANS VARIES - SEE PLANS VARIES - SEE PLANS 1 2" GAP. TYP. 2x6 P.T. JOIST @ 16" O.C., TYP.2" MIN.HELICAL PIER TO FROST, TYP. 2x12 P.T. STAIR STRINGER, TYP. 5/4x6 COMPOSITE DECKING BY ON TREAD AND RISER, TYP. 2x6 P.T. SLEEPER, TYP. FINISHED GRADE BEYOND 1', TYP.2' TYP.2'-6" MAX.5/4X6 COMPOSITE DECKING SKIRT BOARD ALONG ALL EXPOSED EDGES PLAN1', TYP. 2x6 P.T. RIM JOIST, TYP. 4" O.C. TYP. 4" O.C. TYP. SCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0" WOOD STAIRS @ DECK3 5'-2"8" 1'-4"8"3'3'-6"929.33±VARIESBOW VARIES SEE PLANS 934.50 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 AGGREGATE SURFACING GEOFABRIC BENEATH, TYP. 2% MIN. CATCH BASIN. DRAIN TO DAYLIGHT. (VERIFY DAYLIGHT LOCATIONS IN FIELD)1'3" COVERAGE 2" COVERAGE 3" COVERAGE COMPACTED GRANULAR BACKFILL - WRAP W/ GEO-FABRIC GEOFABRIC, TYP. INFILL SOILS, COMPACT PER ENGINEER REQUIREMENTS 929.33 BOW 926.75 TOD PLAN 925.00 TOS 1', TYP.3"4' 2'-9" O.C. 1 2" GAP., TYP. 4" O.C. TYP.923.25 TOS VARIES - 2'-6" MAX.7", TYP.3'-3" O.C. 3'-8" COMPACTED OR UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE AS RECOMMENDED BY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER 2x12 P.T. STAIR STRINGER, TYP. 5/4x6 COMPOSITE DECKING ON TREAD AND RISER, TYP. FINISHED GRADE BEYOND ADJACENT DECK - SEE PLANS 2x12 P.T. HANGERBOARD RIM JOIST AND SKIRT BOARD 5/4X6 COMPOSITE DECKING SKIRT BOARD ALONG ALL EXPOSED EDGES 5/4X6 COMPOSITE DECKING SKIRT BOARD ALONG ALL EXPOSED EDGES SLOPE STABILIZATION SYSTEM 5/4x6 COMPOSITE DECKING TYP. 2x6 P.T. JOIST @ 16" O.C., TYP. HELICAL PIER TO FROST, TYP. 2x6 P.T. SLEEPER, TYP. 2x6 P.T. RIM JOIST, TYP. 4" O.C. TYP. SCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0" WOOD STAIRCASE SECTION, TYPICAL4 SCALE:3/4" = 1'-0" C.I.P. CONC. WINDOW WELL1 creation date:6/3/2021filepath:/Users/daniellejurichko/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/VARIANCE II/L601.dwglast saved:daniellejurichko June 3, 2021 10:39 AMThe designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2021 Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T R A V I S V A N L I E R E date: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 Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: Sheet: 12/18/2020 DJ Rev #Description Date VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 6/4/2021 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 6' MIN.3'-212"6"6" MIN.31 2"6"FINISHED GRADE AS SPECIFIED - SEE PLANS FIELD VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS W/ FABRICATOR PRIOR TO FABRICATION AND CONSTRUCTION. PROVIDE SHOP DRAWINGS FOR METAL RAILING CONSTRUCTION 5" COMPACTED AGGREGATE LEVELING COURSE P.T. 4X4, TYP. # 4 REBAR @ 48" O.C. AND DEADMAN TIE-BACK AND DEADMAN, TYP. KEEPER CLIP, TYP. WRB- LAP OVER METAL KEEPER CLIP METAL FASCIA, TYP. PERMABARRIER BENEATH FASCIA CAP - LAP OVER WRB CAP FLASHING TO MATCH FASCIA FINISHED GRADE AS SPECIFIED - SEE PLANS MECH AREA SCREEN W/ C.I.P. CONC. PIER FOOTINGS TO FROST 4"Ø CORREGATED PVC DRAINTILE WITH SLEEVE. DRAIN TO DAYLIGHT. (VERIFY DAYLIGHT LOCATIONS IN FIELD) 3" COMPACTED GRANULAR BACKFILL COMPACTED OR UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE 932.50 TOW 2'-6"932.00 BOW 930.00 BOW SCALE:1/2" = 1'-0" TIMBER WALL W/ METAL CLADDING @ MECHANICAL AREA2 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 @ 2' 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"8"GEOFABRIC TYP. PROVIDE ADD ALTERNATE PRICING INTEGRATED SNOW MELT SYSTEM IN DRIVEWAY SURFACING. SEE PLANS FOR LOCATIONS. SCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0" CONCRETE SURFACING @ DRIVEWAY AND AUTOCOURT5 1ADD L602 DRAINAGE AND LIGHTINGDETAILS 1" = 16' SCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0" SQUARE CATCH BASIN IN AGGREGATE8 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 AREAS5 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" BOLLARD6 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 DECK9 SCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0" SQUARE CATCH BASIN IN PLANTING AREAS10 SCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0" SLOT DRAIN @ GARAGE THRESHOLD11 SCALE:NTS TYPICAL SLOPETAME2 ASSEMBLY AND ANCHORAGE1 SLOPETAME2 UNITS PLAN 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 PLACE ROLLS GOING DOWN THE SLOPE W/ CROSS-BRACING RUNNING ACROSS THE SLOPE FOR REFERENCE ONLY - SEE MANUFACTURER'S FULL SPECIFICATIONS FOR INSTALLATION INSTRUCTIONS SPECIFICATIONS UNITS: UNIT SIZE - 50 CM X 50 CM X 2.5 CM (20" X 20" X 1") AVAILABLE IN 9 STANDARD ROLL SIZE UNIT WEIGHT - 558 GRAMS (19 OZ.) OR 2.2 KG (4.8 POUNDS) STRENGTH - 402 KG/CM (5720 PSI) COLOR - BLACK (STANDARD) RESIN - 95% POST-CONSUMER RECYCLED HDPE/LDPE FABRIC: WEIGHT - 2.25 OZ./SY (76.3 GM/M) TENSILE - 65 x 40 LB/FT (585 KG/M ) Invisible Structures, Inc. 1600 Jackson St., Suite 310 Golden, Colorado 80401 800-233-1510 OR 303-233-8383 FAX: 303-233-8282 rev. 08/04 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 date:6/2/2021filepath:/Users/daniellejurichko/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/VARIANCE II/L602.dwglast saved:daniellejurichko June 2, 2021 4:34 PMThe designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2021 Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T R A V I S V A N L I E R E date: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 Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: Sheet: 12/18/2020 DJ Rev #Description Date VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 6/4/2021 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 SLOPE TO DRAINSLOPE TO DRAIN RIM ELEV. VARIES SEE L201 VERIFY AGGREGATE SURFACING BEYOND, SEE PLANS COVER TOP OF CATCH BASIN WITH 2" FREE DRAINING AGGREGATE WRAP GRATE WITH GEOFABRIC NDS GALVANIZED STEEL GRATE NDS RISER IF REQUIRED NDS 12" OR 18" SQUARE CATCH BASIN, AS SPECIFIED NDS UNIVERSAL OUTLET INVERT ELEVATION DRAIN PIPE, CONNECT TO OVERALL SITE DRAINAGE SYSTEM GRANULAR FILL, TYP. GEOFABRIC, TYP. NOTE: SAME DETAIL APPLICABLE TO LAWN SURFACING. RAISE DRAIN TO BE FLUSH WITH LAWN SURFACING. 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:N/A CONCRETE JOINTING, TYPICAL4SCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0" AGGREGATE SURFACING, TYPICAL3 AGGREGATE SURFACING 8"3"GEOFABRIC UNDERNEATH, TYP. COMPACTED OR UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE AS RECOMMENDED BY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER TOP OF PAVING ELEVATION VARIES TOP OF PAVING ELEVATION VARIES C.I.P. CONCRETE SURFACING W/ 6 x 6 W.W. MESH. EXPOSED FINISH. SEE PLANS FOR JOINTING. EXPANSION JOINTS AS NEEDED.5"1' MIN.8"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. SCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0" CONCRETE SURFACING @ LAWN2 V.I.F. 21 2" O.C.FIXTURE TO BE INSTALLED FLUSH WITH FINISHED DECK. SEE MFR'S SPECS. WOOD DECKING, SEE PLANS FLEXIBLE CONDUIT TO LIGHT FIXTURE. RUN UNDER DECK JOISTS TOWARD HOUSE. 1 3/4"Ø OPENING TO RECEIVE FIXTURE. CENTER ON DECKING PLANKV.I.F.DECK JOIST158" TYP.SCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0" SURFACE MOUNTED PATH LITE IN DECKING7 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. L603 SITE ELEMENT DETAILS 1" = 16' SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" DECK - SURFACING PLAN3 CB CB CB CBCB 926.75 55'-8" 49'-9" 9 SP. EQ.4'-9" O.C.4'-9" O.C.13'-11"17'-812"5'-8" 11 2" ALGN 5"3'4'-814"4'-814"112"55'-9"14'18'6' FACE OF HOUSE, TYP. - V.I.F. 925.67 RIM 4 L6035L603FACE OF HOUSE, TYP. - V.I.F.BBA A 925.50 RIM JOIST HANGER, TYP.5' O.C.5' O.C.1'-4" O.C. TYP. 6'-8" O.C., TYP. DECK FRAME BEYOND, TYP. HELICAL PIER FOOTING BEYOND, TYP. LATERAL LOAD CONNECTION DEVICE, TYP. - AS REQUIRED PER MN RESIDENTIAL CODE: (1) CONNECTOR REQUIRED WITHIN 24" OF ENDS OF DECK, TOTAL OF (4) CONNECTORS REQUIRED PER DECK CONNECTOR: SIMPSON DTT1Z - OR APPROVED EQ. 5/4x6 5/4x6 COMPOSITE DECKING, TYP. 5/4x6 COMPOSITE DECKING SKIRT BOARD ON ALL EXPOSED EDGES ADJACENT DECK EXTENSION - SEE PLANS 112"P.T. 2x8 LEDGER BOARD CONNECTION @ HOUSE, TYP. P.T. 2x6 RIM JOIST, TYP. (3) P.T. 2x6 BEAM @ CENTER P.T. 2x6 RIM JOIST, TYP. HELICAL PIER FOOTING BEYOND, TYP. CATCH BASIN BEYOND, TYP. - CONNECT TO SITE DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND DRAIN TO DAYLIGHT BLOCKING @ 36" O.C., TYP. (2) P.T. 2x6 BEAM ADJACENT DECK FRAMING - SEE PLANS 5'-8" BLOCKING @ 36" O.C., TYP.2'-2"1'-3"925.50 RIM 925.50 RIM 925.50 RIM SCALE:1/4" = 1'-0" DECK - FOOTING AND FRAMING PLAN2 SCALE:3/4" = 1'-0" DECK - SECTION A-A4 SCALE:3/4" = 1'-0" DECK - SECTION B-B5 SLOPE FACE OF HOUSE 5' O.C.5' 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. 1'-3"4'-81 4"2'-2" FACE OF HOUSE P.T. 2x8 LEDGER BOARD CONNECTION @ HOUSE 926.75 TOD 926.17 BOS (2) P.T. 2x6 BEAM, TYP. P.T. 2x6 JOIST, TYP.3"3"14' SIMPSON LUS26 OR APPROVED EQ., TYP.SIMPSON LUS26 OR APPROVED EQ., TYP. 5'-11"3"3"SLOPE 6 L602 6 L602 COMPACTED OR UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE, AS SPEC'D. BY GEOTECHNICAL ENG. SIMPSON LUS26 OR APPROVED EQ., TYP. FINISHED GRADE AS SPECIFIED - SEE PLANS COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE EDGING COMPOSITE DECKING BOARD, TYP. 1x6 P.T. RIM JOIST 5/4x6 COMPOSITE DECKING SKIRT BOARD ON ALL EXPOSED EDGES.DRILL & EPOXY 1/2" DIA THREADED ROD @ 24" O.C. W/ HILTI HIT-HY 70 ADHESIVE (4 1/2" EMBED) - INSTALL THREADED RODS 4" FROM TOP OF CMU WALL P.T. 2x8 LEDGER BOARD CONNECTION @ HOUSE DRILL & EPOXY 1/2" DIA THREADED ROD @ 24" O.C. W/ HILTI HIT-HY 70 ADHESIVE (4 1/2" EMBED) - INSTALL THREADED RODS 4" FROM TOP OF CMU WALL (3) 2x6 BEAM @ CTR. 3/4" WASHED DRESSER TRAP ROCK BENEATH DECK EXTENTS HELICAL PIER FOOTING, TYP. - SIZE AND DEPTH AS SPEC'D. BY GEOTECHNICAL ENG. GEOFABRIC, TYP. CATCH BASIN - CONNECT TO SITE DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND DRAIN TO DAYLIGHT (2) P.T. 2x6 BEAM 4'-81 4" 3"41 2"3" HELICAL PIER FOOTING, TYP. - SIZE AND DEPTH AS SPEC'D. BY GEOTECHNICAL ENG. COMPACTED OR UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE, AS SPEC'D. BY GEOTECHNICAL ENG. 926.75 TOD 926.17 BOS FINISHED GRADE AS SPECIFIED - SEE PLANS COMMERCIAL LANDSCAPE EDGING 3/4" WASHED DRESSER TRAP ROCK BENEATH DECK EXTENTS CATCH BASIN - CONNECT TO SITE DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND DRAIN TO DAYLIGHT GEOFABRIC, TYP. (2) P.T. 1x6 RIM JOIST P.T. 2x6 JOIST, TYP. (2) P.T. 2x6 BEAM COMPOSITE DECKING BOARD, TYP. 5/4x6 COMPOSITE DECKING SKIRT BOARD ON ALL EXPOSED EDGES.creation date:6/3/2021filepath:/Users/daniellejurichko/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/VARIANCE II/L603.dwglast saved:daniellejurichko June 3, 2021 11:04 AMThe designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2021 Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T R A V I S V A N L I E R E date: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 Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: Sheet: 12/18/2020 DJ Rev #Description Date VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 6/4/2021 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 3"4"1'-4" MIN.3" OF WASHED 3/8"-MINUS DRESSER TRAP AGGREGATE GEO FABRIC UNDERNEATH, TYP. COMPACTED OR UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE 12"Ø CONC. FOOTING TO FROST 1x4 CEDAR CAP 1x3 CEDAR TRIM, FRONT AND BACK 1x2 CEDAR VERT. - INSIDE 1x2 CEDAR HORIZ., TYP. - OUTSIDE 3X3 CEDAR POST BEYOND EMBED CEDAR POST IN FOOTING 1x4 CEDAR BOTTOM RAIL 1x3 CEDAR TRIM, FRONT AND BACK 11 2"11 2" GAP34"112" GAPTYP.3'-612"31 2" FINISHED GRADE - SEE PLANS 1x4 CEDAR CAP 1x3 CEDAR TRIM, FRONT AND BACK 4x4 CEDAR POST 1x4 CEDAR BOTTOM RAIL 1x3 CEDAR TRIM, FRONT AND BACK 1x2 CEDAR VERT., TYP. - INSIDE 1x2 CEDAR HORIZ., TYP. - OUTSIDE 112"112" GAP4"PAINT/STAIN PAINT/STAIN ADJACENT TIMBER WALL5'-7" TYP.7L6036603SCALE:1" = 1'-0" LATTICE SCREEN - SECTION6 SCALE:1" = 1'-0" LATTICE SCREEN - ELEVATION7 SCALE:1 1/2" = 1'-0" POP-UP EMITTER1 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.1ADD 1ADD L607 PLANTING DETAILS NTS 2 x 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 x 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 x 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 PLANT MATERIAL, SEE SHEET L401 MULCH, AS SPECIFIED PLANTING SOIL MIX PREPARED OR UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE PLANT INTO BIOD-MAT 40 EROSION CONTROL 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 date:6/2/2021filepath:/Users/daniellejurichko/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/VARIANCE II/L607.dwglast saved:daniellejurichko June 2, 2021 4:43 PMThe designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2021 Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T R A V I S V A N L I E R E date: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 Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: Sheet: 12/18/2020 DJ Rev #Description Date VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 6/4/2021 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 TABLE NOTE: 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 1%400 FT 900 FT 100 FT 50:1 2%200 FT 450 FT 75 FT 25:1 4%100 FT 225 FT 75 FT 20:1 5%80 FT 180 FT 75-50 17:1 6%67 FT 150 FT 50 FT 12.5:1 8%50 FT 112 FT 50 FT 10:1 10%40 FT 90 FT 50-25 FT 5:1 20%20 FT 45 FT 25-15 FT 4:1 25%16 FT 36 FT 15 FT 3:1 33%12 FT 27 FT 15 FT 2:1 50%8 FT 18 FT 15 FT L609 EROSION CONTROL DETAILS 1" = 16'creation date:6/2/2021filepath:/Users/daniellejurichko/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/VARIANCE II/L609.dwglast saved:daniellejurichko June 2, 2021 4:43 PMThe designs shown and described herein including all technical drawings, graphics and specifications thereof, are proprietary and cannot be copied, duplicated or commercially exploited, in whole or in part, without the express written permission of Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. These are available for limited review and evaluation by clients, consultants, contractors, governement agencies, and vendors only in accordance with this notice. © Copyright 2021 Travis Van Liere Studio, LLC. All rights reserved. license no: I hereby certify that this plan, specification, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Landscape Architect under the laws of the State of Minnesota. 43728 T R A V I S V A N L I E R E date: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 Drawn By: Date: Scale: Drawing: Sheet: 12/18/2020 DJ Rev #Description Date VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 6/4/2021 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 SCALE:N/A TREE PROTECTION FENCING INSTALLATION5 SCALE:N/A BIOLOG INSTALLATION6 SCALE:N/A SILT FENCE INSTALLATION1 SCALE:N/A EROSION CONTROL BLANKET INSTALLATION2 SCALE:N/A EROSION CONTROL MAT INSTALLATION3 SCALE:N/A GRAVEL CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE DETAIL4 SCALE:N/A ROOT PRUNING DETAIL7 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: June 24, 2021 Re: 6609 Horseshoe Curve Variance - City Planning Case No. 2021-07 The Water Resources Department has reviewed the variance request located at 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 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 variances to construct a deck and retaining wall within the bluff setback and bluff impact zone at 6609 Horseshoe Curve . This is a second variance request for this property, a previous variance was approved in January 2021. The variance request associated with this memorandum is independent from the previous approval. 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 is proposing to extend the deck by 2-feet towards the lake. This is not anticipated to have an impact on the Living Wall or retaining walls on the property. 4. The applicant proposing the installation of a “Living Wall” and fescue that is called “Low Grow No Mow” at two different locations. This is intended to reduce erosion potential on the retaining wall area and on steep slopes on the property. 5. 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. 6. 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. Proposed Conditions 1. There are no proposed conditions associated with Water Resources review of this variance request. 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. CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ( ss. cor.NTY oF CARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on June 24,2021, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk ofthe City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of a Public Hearing to consider a request for Variances to construct a deck' retaining wall and air conditioning pad within the blufr setback and blufr impact zone on proPerty located at 6609 Horseshoe Curve, zoned Singte-Family Residential (RSF), Ptanning Case No. 2021'074 ) 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 of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota and by other appropriate records. Kim T.Deputy Cler Subscribed and swom to before me thiilFt\ayo JEAI{ItI SIECKLING itcfery fubiltrnooooft6frrIS-,fi !1. re. tr-v +{\ 2021. Notary Public (Seal) Subject Parcel Otlchltn r This map B nerther a legally aecoaded map nor a suNey and is not intended to be us€d a! ohe. This map is a compilalion of records, infomabon and data located in vatious ctty, coonty, state and Ieder-al offices and olhe( source8 regading the aaea showlt. and is to be used for refurence purpoa$ only. The City does not wanant that the Geogtrphic ln ofinatio. System (GlS) Data us€d to p.epae this map are enor tee. and the Crty does nol ep.esent that the GIS Data can be used for navoa{rcm|, traclino or any olher puQo6e requiflng exacting measuEme of dBl,ance or diredion or paecision in the de clion of geograoic featrr*. The precedino disdaitner is provided pu6uant to Minnesota St.altes 5,(66.03, SuM. 2l (2000). and the user ot thie map actnord€dg€s that $e City ghall not be liable io. any damag*, and expaessly waives all claims, and agrees to debnd. indemnify. and hold hamles the City fro.n any and all daims baouOht by User, rts employees or agents. or third parl,es which aise out of the usefs access or u3€ of data pn vraled. Dirclahrsr This map as neilher a legally lecoftled map nor a survey anal is rlot inlended to be used as one. This map is a comfilation ot recods. infomalioo and data located an varcus city, counly. state and lEderal offce3 and otlEr sources regadino the area shown. and i8 to be used br reGlence purposes only. The City does not warant that the Geog6phic lnfomation SysEm (GlS) Oata used to prepale this map are enor free. and ihe City does no[ represent f|at lhe GIS Data can be used fo. navigatbMl. baclin€ o. any ofier purpos€ requidng 6xac'tno measuement of distance or dileclim or paecision in the depidirrr ot OeogEphac baturEs. The precedino disdaimer as Prova(l€d pursuant to Minn8ota statl,te3 5448.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of lhis map elnowl€dges fiei a|e City shall not be liable tor any damag€., and epre$ly waiv* all daim3, and agre€ to deGnd, indemnify, and hold harmless the City iorn any and all daims b.ouoht by u3er. ltr employees oa agents. or lhid part$ $'trich erise out of the us€/s acaess or use ol ahta prcvided (Next RecordxTAX_NAMET rTAX_AD D_Ll r ITAX_ADD_L2r Subject Parcel L ,lt r t I \ .\r\ r( <TAX_NAMET <TAX_ADD_L1l <TAX ADD L2l A ")'-t I ^J Eg EdcD! EF .92 , EO.ioog F-o6gr9 8EN_€(od >..E (E-cE= Eb F-g p2d) o (! =o t-F. !; n) -o EoEo ocfoo - o *E > O" co9ho=tr o.! o:E6, E>E 3Ep! cr, oE=NPEc(E= X :E;o.E O-:oE 9EE8E:-o d'oE:o;EobqrlE EEEE sEge IDcl dl c) .9. ul oc f c)c .g dl .i =oc!E o =oeo dro =.Eo; otoo, l,aloq o!?: or !io; (o< o)t2e fr i,eE sc E EEee I re E aEsg EEE€ EEEEEEEEEfi;i EEES 1EE+JEEEEoE.9q +-c a- o ^! jcF(oCLTl,,TN(9t at o; El HH;,..r Fl >t (l,Oi iIEE EEE eflE*aiEr iE,igEEiE :eHr.attE fi$ eE.flgf! g;it € E gE o 6 o c ; lo =t-o No6t o ooot! l! (J (J =; B PT*o) UPEO, or -o.o) ;: g0)OE-oh9oco,o>FO =o(JEoo'or, -oao.oooao- lt =>.96>o)o-co= Po)a4to(!>. O) =E u;oE (t, cDo aDoc,EO EoEg 5E EgLoEi o0,EsaQor EEB -ooo o-i:o Ic)co 9.}E6EcacorXq9E: ID- Eox-:Ebb zEfr rcc 5EEau;-1 -= o;i =z E> q, .EF c6 0, oo o GooJ (!oo.Lo G oo o CI ii a,E!o Eooo o- >gEOoEo- l! E! 9i; o.= =of= G.t =E c6..o9CEoo, tD=!,Efogo o Eoo =E"O.=oi.9oFrE .9oEo =tto- .E oE!ro.cEotrz3 ot!Ect! o CDE oo = .g.E r!oo'=-E(,E =o€ods OE ,ol ='iEi5 o6oEEt! o o 6 o, o =ooF.l'-i o)o Eo o cfoo oI --(_) *_f > O" c Eefl o.E 0):EE, E=E8Ero -.!cto E.= N YoO) PE!6:ii:(!Eq Etsu3(!!(/)d:-ot-oE]:olEo ss:EE:383Ege oc f d) q, ,9 LU ocl d) E ,q dl o c l!E o oP o! d)o o:(ro9r EA 9E O'ToE (o< o)Ee frO -n =:gE:$,,i>0r96 o..ql 6trEE- Eo A tsg; gsr E :s:3EE e"aeE EEAH !}5E =: i! EE#E a;:l+ E;: I E aE; aEE Fn Iea;-EEEHEE O- o{=.YFOC(J(,,-Nc)t tDt O) ; El H Hr, eEl=:st: E*]e;aiEE fi*lSEE=ifi EfNfEEEE f;g eEnsr! E 3;E E ET:3; b >EF5 E = 1..o 6lo(\l o =tr E ooot! .C t! q 'q i;; PTqo) UPEo- or -o-co ;: "E6oc-oa 9ococr>FO =oo!o(,EA -ooo,orooaA!, 3-.}.95 3e o: =.qPo))ooo>6) =E- o E o E .t4.iao 6 EdoE.= rD aa6 .9t FO EP ciooP F-o6g 8e 6r- g(od >.E (! -cE: 9E c6 ..o9trcoo o=OE =ooo (!!,tr o, CD(D cr, oce'EO EoEg EE:9 Lin6>E6€-P-'ErCL9ol iHE9i o Loos36EfE(! o.> o\uocl,/)co69 9E;9lo E Ehb esH f EE 6E*Ut u; .= ri rz a; E 3 ; E t o (l()oJ ::l!ooa PG G IJ =ea iotr 'o oclo o- >;t.o o.(t9to-J 9a 0, .= o.x +=rO(!.C }E oF i: c6 !, oo o ooo o.\ O (n Oo O OOO O OOO O OO O O OQ O QOQ O O Fi O;F6--c.r-..1 =rnrna r<-rnNFr r\ C) N (\ Fr Fr .{ (o <t rnN(nr{O..{ori\i ct F cj o o o o o o o .n o o (n o ln (n ln o o o o o c{ .! N N o .{ .\r r! r'{ii 6 i\ 5 6 6o 6 66 6 o6O o O oo o (f () () o oo o o Qo O O OO6 6 ; 6 6 or = 6 - - sr O rn !n O .o O O o ...r o o .rl or o o o o () o o o o66o(o(oOooco@ornl{t4.'1Oooo!nst<traul .Yl .n r!' r!)Q l!1.o om - 6 ii o F. n .') .n (n .n .n o @ o o @ @ ro I \9 \ (o (o N F\ (O (I, (O (O @ (O (O (O (Oz ,i 6 6 rn rn u) L^ !a Ln rj't !^ !n rri Ln lrt rrl L,t ln r, rn u) La Ln L/) u) rrl ul r./1 Ltr Ln rn Ln Ln ENNNa!Na!a!6la!a!a\l(\l^l 6l a\l 6l N a! a\ a! r! a\l a\l r\l a{ c{ a{ N N a'{ a{ r! 6l ka = n V ax. E G G.G,E G. e,4, E e, G, G, c Gt c. G.E 6. G. G, E. G. tr<===f I l:)f ltf f,lllll:)f f 3lf,lf,f =)OA',5Q U IJ (J (J U (J () (J U (J U (J (J U U U (J (J (J U U (J U U ur ! !9 !! !9 ru r! !! uJ u,r !u lrJ uJ M.l t! ut BJ u ul uJ uJ r! r! r! t! t! t! uJ uJo :. > > > o J o J J oooo o ooo o oo o o oo o ooo o oo o r-L L!----d EI- !---- ------- :E-- --I- --ttr = i t, tt - tt * * q q vt vt tt\ tl tl ti vl vl ta ta rh th ttt tt tn v) th ta t^ t\ thH; e e i H ga H !1 -,+ H H AUAA H H H B AAAA H H H H H 3 B H Hd < v) v) q d. ry d. ry ry E d c c. G. e. e, e, G, G, E s d. E E 6. G. e, 4 4. d. E d.o o'1 S S S O I o a f o o oo o o ooo o oo o o oo o oo o o ooo id= = =- a -.o.o ---- ---- --- - --- ---- -t- -{ r-,n d d G m..r r-{ (\ (n rt F\ Ctt ri m st !a O lJ1 Cr !r O O gt !n N -l Ln (o -r lJ,| (q F.uJ ba Fa Lr.r ur t. i:j o o o ci o O 6..l Fl Fr Fr..,l N m rn t lo \1,,'\ F. @ € F{ qr qr O) OrE 6 in ryi 6 oi @ ro ib 6 6 (o G @ ro (o (o (o \o (9 (9 lo (o .o lo (o (o (o (o (o (o (o ro roa 6 6 iyi - ij @ (o (o (o (o (o @ (o (o (o (o (o (o 10 ro \o ro (o (o (o \o (D @ Lo (o (o (o (o (DgrYt <r <r (ooo (o(o(o rororo@\o (o (o (o @.:l (o (o:1r/i-.nN6oNo'lr\TNNNNNNNNa\loN.'{(] ii i;i; 666 1,! rn rn r/) r,) r, r, r,) !n La rri Ln ur u) u)t| +O +9? ?qq ??+q? q99 q+q , q ::,1 + r\F.F.+F.F.F- F F N r\ F. r\ r- F F- F- N F. t\ F- F F.FF\F\F\F.Fr-F: +:{;{ i:: -r -r ;-.1 .-{ r.l Fl ti ..,1 r-.{ ..1 ra F{ Fl Fl Fl .l .'{ !"{ r'{ F{ Fl Fl Fl .'l t"l t"l r'{:l n .^..r.n i.i m (n rn m an .n lnman ln (n (n (Yl (n.n (Yl .n d) tn (n (n (n rYl rn d1 rn (o.' 6 in iri ;x rri .ri l.n l.n rrt r.ar rJt r^ !n !n l./) rJl rJl ln rJ) rn !n !/r Ln rn ul !/l ra u1 r/1 L/l r/l Z '/i rri ri ui Ed .a rn !n ui r.,,t !a u1 La !r1 s1 r/) !n r.,t !^ !,t Ln ul ra u1 rJl !a r/) Ln rn rn Lrl rJt = z z z z n! z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 2 z z z z z z. z 2 z z z ^. O'r,t i 2 2'u 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 I -'l F = @ u u J uJ uJ uJ uJ t! UJ gJ lJ., t! UJ (}, lfJ UJ UJ lJ.l El r! uJ t! U.J UJ UJ uJ uJ t! UJ t! -. ro = i; t^ 6 r 6 th tt tt ttt tt t\ th vt qt .^ tn vl U\ ta a v1 lt tl\ v\ tA th t^ -t = z i; i; i; < l a ii .ti tt a ui vi vt a a v\ ttt t\ ut a v\ th vt t\ U) u\ t1 th t/\ tlt vt qs o- iii--- - r- ---r- --- - rrr------r- --1,^ - 2 z z ?, z. z- 2 z z z z z z z z z z z z 2 z z z z z. z 2 z z z z 3;85556555555855555555555555555565 o R g g B " ? ZZ??>,>.>->*>->-tdtt?Zt t A?ZZ U ur===E f ===f f f f >lf f lf f f f,f f zf lf fAl393x O o o o o o o u u u u I u u u u u (J u = u u u u 11 vl t! lJ u z r! !! uJ ur uJ uJ uJ n uJ uJ uJ uJ r! t! uJ ul !! uJ uJ t! u, uJ:5==Z!;9d.P?99PP99??9?9?9?PgP?99?- o (r 5 - - z r t-a, t I ttt tll tt t^ tn tt t\ th vl ta t^ th tn v\ u) ta ti v\ t/\ v\ .n t^ t^ =.-6-Zet t H * H !4 t{ H H HH H AAAAH HH S HH 3 H HH H B HH Eq=4EEd;g=:EEEEEEEEHEEqEFEEEEHEHFq-t = 3i d r d m -r Fr (! (n ra i- Cn ri m st l./1 o !n o Fr o o o !n N.l rr q) Er r^ (o Fx ij { ra r,|.n i.j ij 6 d i5 ci 6 6 -r i .i ."r - N 6 fn < \o (o F. F @ @ ql 01 (n 01 ql d = : di (6 .rr o (.o ro (o (o 6 16 6 (o \o (o ro ro (o (o (o (o o to ro \o (o (9 (9 (0 (o @ to F J ;.j iii 6 fj { 6 6 6,5 6,o'o (o (o 16 r.o ro lo \o lD @ to (o (o (o to (o ro lo lo @ ro v\Fttn6hASPF =-irex3U = ? e= B.^ 3 E;Fz r :l >!l a9 x -=ooZa E*i E= ug. .fr=Zii :*uaiEEEEg=EEEEEEE=EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE 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 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, July 6, 2021 Subject Consider a Request to Amend City Code Chapters 1 and 20 to Define "Agritainment"/"Agritourism"; Create Standards and Criteria for an Agritainment Use as an Interim Use; Allow Agritainment Uses as an Interim Use in the Agricultural Estate District; and Receive an Interim Use Permit for an Agritainment Use on Property Located at 9111 Audubon Road Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.2. Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner File No: Planning Case No. 2021­13 PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of City Code amendments to sections 1­2, 20­ 251.5, and 20­576 regarding Agritainment; and an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for Agritainment Use at 9111 Audubon Road, And Adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is proposing the creation of an Agritainment definition, use standards, creating an interim use in the Agricultural Estate District, and approving an Interim use at 9111 Audubon Road. APPLICANT Todd Degler, 112131 Haering Lane, Chaska, MN 55318 SITE INFORMATION PRESENT ZONING:  Agricultural Estate District (A­2) LAND USE:Office Industrial ACREAGE:  63.27 acres  DENSITY:  NA  APPLICATION REGULATIONS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, July 6, 2021SubjectConsider a Request to Amend City Code Chapters 1 and 20 to Define"Agritainment"/"Agritourism"; Create Standards and Criteria for an Agritainment Use as anInterim Use; Allow Agritainment Uses as an Interim Use in the Agricultural Estate District; andReceive an Interim Use Permit for an Agritainment Use on Property Located at 9111 AudubonRoadSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: B.2.Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner File No: Planning Case No. 2021­13PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends approval of City Code amendments to sections 1­2, 20­251.5, and 20­576 regarding Agritainment; and an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for Agritainment Use at 9111Audubon Road,AndAdopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is proposing the creation of an Agritainment definition, use standards, creating an interim use in theAgricultural Estate District, and approving an Interim use at 9111 Audubon Road.APPLICANTTodd Degler, 112131 Haering Lane, Chaska, MN 55318SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  Agricultural Estate District (A­2)LAND USE:Office IndustrialACREAGE:  63.27 acres DENSITY:  NA  APPLICATION REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article II, Division 2.Amendments Chapter 20, Article IV, Division 3, Standards for Agricultural and Residential Districts Chapter 20, Article IV, Div. 5. Interim Use Permits Chapter 20, Article X, Agricultural Estate District, A­2 BACKGROUND The applicant has submitted the proposed changes to City Code. Staff prepared a strike­through and bold format to show recommended changes. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendments to Chapters 1 and 20 regarding Agritainment uses, as revised by City staff, and the Interim Use Permit to permit the Agritainment use on the property subject to conditions of the staff report and adoption of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Findings of Fact and Recommendation Development Review Application Objective Narrative and Site Plan Presentation Affidavit of Mailing CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: July 6, 2021 CC DATE: July 26, 2021 REVIEW DEADLINE: August 3, 2021 CASE #: 2021-13 BY: RG, EH, DN, JR, JS, ET, MU SUMMARY OF REQUEST: Consider a request to amend City Code Chapters 1 and 20 to define "Agritainment"/"Agritourism"; Create Standards and Criteria for an Agritainment Use as an Interim Use; Allow Agritainment Uses as an Interim Use in the Agricultural Estate District; and Receive an Interim Use Permit for an Agritainment Use. LOCATION: 9111 Audubon Road APPLICANT: Applicant: Todd Degler 112131 Haering Lane Chaska, MN 55318 Property Owner: Gayle Degler 541 Pine View Court Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District (A-2) 2040 LAND USE PLAN: Office Industrial ACREAGE: 63.67 acres LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION- MAKING: The City has a relatively high level of discretion in approving zoning code amendments because the City is acting in its legislative or policy-making capacity. A zoning code amendment must be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. The City has limited discretion in approving or denying interim use permits, based on whether or not the proposal meets the use standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance. If the City finds that all the applicable use standards are met, the permit must be approved. 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 Planning Commission recommends City Council approve City Code amendments to section 1-2, 20-251.5, and 20-576 regarding Agritainment; An Interim Use Permit (IUP) for Agritainment Use at 9111 Audubon Road; And Adopt of the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.” Degler Farm Code Amendments and IUP July 6, 2021 Page 2 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is proposing the creation of an Agritainment definition, use standards, creating an interim use in the Agricultural Estate District and requesting an Interim Use Permit. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Article II, Division 2. Amendments Chapter 20, Article IV, Division 3, Standards for Agricultural and Residential Districts Chapter 20, Article IV, Div. 5. Interim Use Permits Chapter 20, Article X, Agricultural Estate District, A-2 BACKGROUND The applicant currently farms their property. They would like to create an Agritainment use as part of their farming operation. SITE CONSTRAINTS Bluff Creek Corridor This property is located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD). The City of Chanhassen established the Bluff Creek Overlay District by ordinance in 1998 to protect the Bluff Creek Corridor, wetlands, bluffs and significant stands of mature trees through the use of careful site design and other low-impact practices. This parcel is partially encumbered by the BCOD. Section 20-1255 of the Chanhassen City Code requires a conditional use permit for all development within the Bluff Creek Corridor. The Bluff Creek Corridor primary zone is located on the property. The Primary Corridor is designated open space. All structures must meet a 40-foot structural setback from the Primary Corridor boundary as required by Chanhassen City Code. In addition, no grading is allowed within the first 20 feet of the Primary Corridor. The proposed development shall not impact the BCOD. No grading or vegetative alterations shall be permitted in the BCOD Primary Zone. Wetland Protection There is a wetland located on the property. The proposed development should not impact this wetland. Bluff Protection There are bluffs on the property. The proposed development should not impact bluffs. Degler Farm Code Amendments and IUP July 6, 2021 Page 3 Shoreland Management The property is located within a shoreland protection district. Floodplain Overlay This property is not within a floodplain. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT Any approval by the City for development of the property must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The applicant has submitted the proposed changes to City Code. Staff will prepare a strike-through and bold format to show our recommended changes. Chapter 1 Section 1-2 Rules of Construction Agritainment Agricultural, horticultural, or agri-business activity that allows organizations or members of the general public, for the purpose of recreation, education or active involvement to view, enjoy, or participate in rural activities of a farm or farm-related operation. Uses including corn mazes, hayrides, pumpkin picking, corn pits, hill slides, pumpkin throwers, lookout towers, zip lines, straw bale mazes, apple picking, play structures, antique tractor displays, sawmill demonstrations, hay stacks, kiddie trains, animal rides, sleigh rides, snowshoeing, maple syrup harvesting, cross country skiing, mountain biking, sledding hills, are exhibited regardless of compensation. Chapter 20, Zoning Article IV, Division 3, Standards for Agricultural and Residential Districts Sec. 20-251.5 - Agritainment. The following conditions will apply to Agritainment activities: 1) The site must be zoned Agriculture “A-2”. Plans shall be required showing the location of all improvements, structures or proposed activity areas. 2) The site must be on and have access to a collector or minor arterial. 3) The minimum lot size shall be 20 acres. 4) The site must have 25% of its land being used as “agriculture” as defined in Sec. 1-2. “Rules of construction and definitions”. Degler Farm Code Amendments and IUP July 6, 2021 Page 4 5) All structures, parking, and storage areas must be set back 50 feet from public or private rights-of-way, and 300 feet from any adjacent single-family residences or a minimum of 50 feet from a side lot line, whichever is greater. 6) Parking plan shall be supplied with permit detailing size, capacity, and location. Parking areas shall be limited to on-site parking. Accessible parking shall be shown on the plans and must be on an accessible surface. The number of accessible spaces shall be based on the maximum parking capacity. 7) The maximum number of persons to be using the facility at any one time needs to be tied in the application permit or tied to 80% parking capacity as outlined in the permit plan. This allows variations of seasonal activities layouts. 8) Accessory agriculture Buildings used for Agritainment events must meet existing building code. , or be approved by the city engineering department prior to use. Intent is to allow provision for use of existing agriculture building where special building use is requested. Building requirements shall be based on occupancy. 9) Hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. 10) Retail sales shall be limited to Agritainment-related items. This includes, but is not limited to, items that can be produced locally or grown on site, such as produce, honey, sweet corn, pumpkins, gourds as well as non-edible items such as products and crafts produced or manufactured on -site, such as wood slabs, benches and birdhouses. Retail items promoting the establishment with its name are permitted. 11) All animals must comply to section 20-264 –(10) “Petting farms” 12) A termination date shall be established for the interim use permit. The use shall be permitted until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular even, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. Prior to the permit expiring, the applicant may request an extension to the interim use permit by submitting a new application. The renewal application will be subject to all city ordinances including any new ordinances enacted after the original approval. 13) Parking screening is required within 50 feet of a residence. 14) Proof of insurance must be provided in permit plan. 15) Rules for vendors – Location of vendors to be identified on site plan. 16) The applicant shall include erosion and sediment controls on the permit submittal or provide justification for why erosion and sediment control may not be necessary. In addition, if City staff identify that erosion and sediment control issues are created or persist during the duration of the IUP, the City can require subsequent erosion and Degler Farm Code Amendments and IUP July 6, 2021 Page 5 sediment control measures to mitigate against these issues. All appropriate temporary erosion and sediment control measures shall be maintained by the owner until permit is closed out. 17) Agritainment Interim Use sites are required to provide an initial analysis of the “before” and “after” operational traffic impacts to the abutting and surrounding road system resulting from proposed plans associated with the Interim Use and associated traffic movements and volumes in order to identify capacity deficiencies at affected intersections and to help identify feasible solutions to the deficiencies. 18) Shall provide sanitary facilities for the site visitors. The use of and location of portable chemical toilets must be reviewed and approved as a condition of approval of an agritainment use. The maintenance and use of chemical toilets shall be subject to the following: a. Shall be securely anchored to the ground to prevent tipping. b. Shall be screened from public right-of-way and residential property with landscaping. c. Shall be serviced at least weekly. d. Only models designed to minimize the potential for spilling may be used. e. Receipt of an annual license from the City's Planning Department. The license shall be issued unless the conditions of approval of this section have been violated. All license applications shall be accompanied by the following information: 1. Name, address, and phone number of applicant(s). 2. Site plan showing proposed location of chemical toilet(s). 3. Name, address, and phone number of chemical toilet supplier. 4. Plan for commercially maintaining the chemical toilet, including a copy of any agreement for maintenance, and the name, address, and phone number of person responsible for maintenance. 5. A written description of how the applicant intends to screen the portable chemical toilet(s) from all views into the property. Article X, Agricultural Estate District Section 20-576, Interim Uses Add: Agritainment SURROUNDING ZONING AND USES The property to the west is in the city of Chaska. Two single-family homes are located to the west of the site. The Preserve at Bluff Creek is located to the east across Bluff Creek. Liberty at Bluff Degler Farm Code Amendments and IUP July 6, 2021 Page 6 Creek is located to the south of the site. The Bluff Creek Primary Corridor wraps around the southern and eastern portions of the property. INTERIM USE PERMIT The applicant is requesting an interim use permit for Agritainment use of the property. ACCESS Access to the property is from Audubon Road (County Road 15). All conditions set forth by Carver County shall be addressed by the applicant, and all permits required shall be obtained prior to the commencement of Agritainment operations. The applicant shall provide an initial analysis of the “before” and “after” operational traffic impacts to the abutting and surrounding road system resulting from proposed plans associated with the interim use and associated traffic movements and volumes in order to identify capacity deficiencies at affected intersections and to help identify feasible solutions to the deficiencies prior to the commencement of any Agritainment operations. ANALYSIS The Engineering Department has reviewed the IUP and Ordinance amendment submittal for 9111 Audubon Road (Degler Farm Center). 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 proposal, to inform the applicant of possible extraordinary issues and/or to provide the basis for findings. Proposed conditions are requirements that Engineering and Public Works recommend to be formally imposed on the submittal 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 plans submitted with this application have been reviewed only for the purpose of determining their feasibility and providing utility and transportation facilities for the IUP in accordance with City Standards. A recommendation of IUP 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 updated plans for the project, as applicable. The City of Chanhassen Engineering and Public Works Departments 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 IUP 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, and can be approved. 3. The applicant is proposing; (a) to amend Ordinance to define “Agritainment”/”Agritourism”; (b) create standards and criteria for an Agritainment use as an Interim Use; (c) allow Degler Farm Code Amendments and IUP July 6, 2021 Page 7 Agritainment uses as an Interim Use in the Agricultural Estate District; and (d) receive an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for an Agritainment Use on Property Located at 9111 Audubon Road (Degler Farm Center). a. The applicant has provided proposed language for the definition of Agritainment. The definition has no direct impact on public infrastructure (sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water, transportation, etc.) and as such, Engineering and Public Works have no comments or associated conditions. b. The applicant has provided proposed criteria for an Agritainment Interim Use. None of the criteria proposed addresses the potential impact Agritainment activities may have on the abutting and surrounding road networks in which ingress/egress to the site is had from. It is the judgement of the Engineering and Public Works departments that an Agritainment Interim Use site would increase traffic volumes to and from the site as the activities differ from that of typical agricultural sites. Based on the proposed definition, any proposed Agritainment Interim Use site could offer recreational activities and amenities that generate larger volumes of traffic throughout the year such as zip line courses, hay rides, and outdoor recreational activities, than are commonly associated with typical agricultural uses. In order for staff to evaluate the traffic impacts of any potential Agritainment Interim Use site, an initial assessment of expected traffic volumes must be provided in order for staff to assess if the abutting and surrounding road network can facilitate the expected increase in traffic. See proposed condition 1. c. The applicant has proposed that Agritainment be authorized through an Interim Use in the Agricultural Estate District. Engineering and Public Works departments agree that the Interim Use is the correct mechanism for Agritainment, and have no additional comments or associated conditions. d. The applicant has proposed that an Agritainment Interim Use be approved for 9111 Audubon Road (Degler Farm Center). Degler Farm abuts Carver County right-of- way. See proposed condition 2. It is the opinion of the Engineering and Public Works departments that the proposed IUP for Degler Farm Center can be approved provided it fully addresses the comments and conditions provided by the Engineering and Public Works departments. As the proposed Ordinance has yet to be adopted, see proposed condition 3. e. Parking capacity shall be based on the city standard parking lot layout. (18-foot deep x 9-foot stall width with a 26-foot, two-way drive aisle.) The Water Resources Department has reviewed the IUP and Ordinance amendment submittal for 9111 Audubon Road (Degler Farm Center). 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 proposal, to inform the applicant of possible extraordinary issues and/or to provide the basis for findings. Proposed conditions are requirements that Water Resources recommends to be formally imposed on the submittal in the final order. General Comments/Findings Degler Farm Code Amendments and IUP July 6, 2021 Page 8 1. Any and all plans submitted with this application have been reviewed only for the purpose of determining their feasibility and their impact on water resources issues for the IUP in accordance with City Standards. A recommendation of IUP approval does not constitute final approval of details. The applicant is required to submit updated plans for the project, as applicable. The City of Chanhassen Water Resources 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 judgment of City Staff. 2. It is the opinion of the Water Resources department that the proposed IUP can be developed 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, and can be approved. 3. The applicant is proposing; (a) to amend Ordinance to define “Agritainment”/”Agritourism”; (b) create standards and criteria for an Agritainment use as an Interim Use; (c) allow Agritainment uses as an Interim Use in the Agricultural Estate District; and (d) receive an Interim Use Permit for an Agritainment Use on Property Located at 9111 Audubon Road (Degler Farm Center). a. The applicant has provided proposed language for the definition of Agritainment. The definition has no direct impact on water resources (wetlands, storm sewer, shoreland, etc.) and as such Water Resources has no comments or associated conditions. b. The applicant has provided proposed criteria for an Agritainment Interim Use. There does not appear to be any language in this criteria related to erosion and sediment control. With the interim use of Agritainment, there is an increased risk of erosion and sediment leaving a site due increased car/traffic on exposed soils/bare ground, increased dust creation, etc. The Water Resources department proposes that language be added to require the applicant to include erosion and sediment controls on the permit submittal, or for the applicant to provide justification for why erosion and sediment control may not be necessary. In addition, the City should maintain the right to require erosion and sediment control if issues are identified after permit has been approved and the IUP is underway. Language to include can be found in condition 1 below. c. The applicant has proposed that Agritainment be authorized through an Interim Use in the Agricultural Estate District. Water Resources agrees that the Interim Use is the correct mechanism for Agritainment, and has no additional comments or associated conditions. d. The applicant has proposed that an Agritainment Interim Use be approved for 9111 Audubon Road (Degler Farm Center). In general, the proposed IUP and its subsequent uses will not greatly affect water resources issues. However, the southern half of the Degler Farm property exists within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. The Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) exists to protect the Bluff Creek corridor, wetlands, bluffs, and significant stands of mature trees through the use of careful site design, protective covenants, sensitive alignment and design of roadways and utilities, incorporation of natural features, landscaping, techniques outlined in the city’s surface water management plan, and the practices delineated in the city’s surface water management plan. As part of the development of the District, City staff Degler Farm Code Amendments and IUP July 6, 2021 Page 9 have created a signpost that reads “BCOD Conservation Area.” This signpost serves to educate the public about where the District exists and delineates the boundary of the District. While the applicant is not proposing any development or increased hard cover within the District, the applicant is proposing to incorporate a hayride that would be partially within the BCOD. City staff feels that this is an ideal scenario to incorporate the BCOD Conservation Area sign posts. See condition 2 below. In addition, the applicant is proposing a hayride route that appears to cut through an agricultural wetland on the eastern side of the route. While this is not considered a wetland impact, the applicant should consider moving the eastern side of the route even further east, in order to avoid driving equipment/tractors through the wetland. See condition 3 below. Lastly, temporary erosion and sediment control measures should be included with the permit submittal. These measures include, but are not limited to, perimeter controls to protect Bluff Creek, dust control, restoration after the event ends, etc. The applicant will need to include these erosion and sediment control measures on their permit submittal or provide justification for why erosion and sediment control is not necessary on this site. See condition 4 below. MISCELLANEOUS The IUP shall be approved for a period of five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. The applicant will need to request a formal extension 60 days prior to the expiration date of the IUP. This timeframe shall allow for the use to get established on the site and the City to evaluate the impact of the use on the community. Section 20-323. – Termination. An interim use permit (IUP) shall terminate on the happening of any of the following events, whichever first occurs: (1) The date stated in the permit; (2) Upon violation of conditions under which the permit was issued; (3) Upon change in the city’s zoning regulations which renders the use nonconforming; (4) Upon the subdivision of the property or the alteration of the lot lines of the property. Any change in use of the current buildings on site, including the barn, will require it to come up to full Code. This will invoke MN Statute 1306, which will require the buildings to be fitted with a Fire Suppression System and Fire Alarm System to monitor the Suppression System. We would also need to address egress, exit and emergency lighting, door hardware, fire-rated construction, and many other fire code-related items when it comes to change in use and access to the general public. This includes bringing people through and any access or use of an observation tower. Tower will need to be built to current Code. Safety concerns with the items on site such as: pumpkin canons, pumpkin catapult, zip lines, swings, etc. Who will be verifying that these items are built to Code for use by the general public and any resulting dangers for use? Department of Labor and Industry may be responsible for overseeing licensing for these items. Degler Farm Code Amendments and IUP July 6, 2021 Page 10 Corn/Straw Mazes – any and all ignition sources will need to be a great distance away, including open flame (recreational fire pits). Corn/straw mazes are highly combustible and can trap people inside if a fire develops. Some research into history of corn maze fires states all vehicle parking and any sources of ignition, such as campfires and smoking, to be at least 75 feet away at all times. Emergency Responder access – will need to maintain emergency vehicle access to all areas on site and entrance and egress. Will require proper road surface for emergency and fire vehicles. Possible vehicle turnaround area depending on distances. Will require a fire hydrant to be placed on site. Language stating use of Agricultural Buildings Sec 20 #8 Stating “Accessory Agriculture buildings used for Agritainment Events must meet existing Building Code, or be approved by the City’s Engineering department prior to use. Intent is to allow provision for use of existing agricultural buildings where special building use is requested.” This language would not be sufficient to address buildings on site for use for events. Existing buildings will more than likely change in occupancy type for this type of business, which will require both the Fire Marshal and Building Official to confirm use, occupancy type, and applicable codes for public use. A full architectural analysis would be required into items such as: fire safety, egress, structural integrity, use and occupancy type, as well as many other applicable codes. Special permission will not be given to leave existing buildings “as is” for use in Agritainment activities. PERMITS Permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained; including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry, Minnesota Agricultural Department, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District and Carver County. Carver County Public Works staff requested the applicant submit general traffic information about the proposed use including the expected average daily traffic using the site and the peak hour or at a minimum the peak daily traffic expected. This information will be a starting point for Carver County’s review in order to make any determinations regarding related event traffic control measures and/or access improvement needs. UTILITIES City utilities are available to the property. Water is located in Audubon Road. Sewer is located in Lyman Boulevard and at the northeast corner of the property. However, none have been extended into the interior of the site. Sanitary facilities shall be provided for use of the visitors to the site. Such use shall comply with Building Code or meet the requirements for chemical toilets spelled out in the Agritainment Standards. RECOMMENDATION Degler Farm Code Amendments and IUP July 6, 2021 Page 11 Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of the amendments to Chapters 1 and 20 regarding Agritainment uses and the Interim Use Permit to permit the Agritainment use on the property subject to the following conditions: Code Amendments: Revise per staff recommendations. Interim Use Permit Building: 1. Accessible parking shall be located on an improved, centralized, permanent surface and shall be based on the maximum parking provided based on the rotational parking plan. 2. The use of structure shall comply with Building and Fire Code occupancy requirements. Engineering: 1. All conditions set forth by Carver County shall be addressed by the applicant, and all permits required shall be obtained prior to the commencement of Agritainment operations. 2. The applicant shall provide an initial analysis of the “before” and “after” operational traffic impacts to the abutting and surrounding road system resulting from proposed plans associated with the interim use and associated traffic movements and volumes in order to identify capacity deficiencies at affected intersections and to help identify feasible solutions to the deficiencies prior to the commencement of any Agritainment operations. 3. Parking capacity shall be based on city standard parking lot layout. Fire: 1. Any change in use of the current buildings on site, including the barn, will require them to be brought up to full Code. 2. Corn/Straw Maze – any and all ignition sources will need to be a great distance away, including open flame (recreational fire pits). 3. All vehicle parking and any sources of ignition, such as campfires and smoking, shall be at least 75 feet away at all times. 4. Emergency Responder access – will need to maintain emergency vehicle access to all areas on site and entrance and egress. Will require proper road surface for emergency and fire vehicles. 5. Will require a fire hydrant to be placed on site. Planning: 1. The applicant must obtain all required state licensure and permits. 2. The Interim Use Permit shall be approved for a period of five (5) years from the date of City Council approval. Degler Farm Code Amendments and IUP July 6, 2021 Page 12 3. Buildings and use areas shall be as shown on the approved “site plan”. Additional use areas or buildings shall require an amendment to the Interim Use Permit. 4. Sanitary facilities shall be provided for site visitors. 5. Site shall be open for inspections by City staff with advanced notice. Water Resources: 1. The applicant shall incorporate Bluff Creek Overlay District (BCOD) Conservation Area signage within the BCOD portion of the site. These signposts would not impede the applicant’s ability to use the site for agriculture. Precise number and location of signage can be determined when further plans are submitted and must be approved by the City’s Water Resources Coordinator. 2. The applicant shall move the eastern hayride route even further east, in order to avoid driving through an agricultural wetland. The applicant can work with the City’s Water Resources Coordinator to determine a more appropriate location. 3. The applicant shall show erosion and sediment controls on their permit submittal, or provide justification for why erosion and sediment control measures are not necessary. However, City staff believes that, due to the applicant’s proposed use of the site, in particular parking on agricultural fields, this site is at risk of increased dust control issues. Staff feels that an erosion and sediment control plan be submitted which shows dust control measures. Some other potential erosion and control measures the applicant should consider includes perimeter controls to protect Bluff Creek and a restoration plan for after the event ends, etc. Erosion and sediment controls will need to be approved by City staff before the permit can be issued. The City retains the right to require further erosion and sediment control measures if issues are identified after the IUP has been approved and is underway. 4. No grading or vegetative alterations shall be permitted in the BCOD Primary Zone. And Adopt the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation 2. Development Review Application 3. Objective 4. Narrative & Site Plan 5. Presentation 6. Public Hearing notice and mailing list g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-13 degler farm center ord amendment and iup\staff report degler farm.docx 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Todd Degler and Gayle Degler for an Interim Use Permit to operate an Agritainment business. On July 6, 2021, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Todd Degler and Gayle Degler for an Interim Use Permit for the property located at 9111 Audubon Road (County Road 15). The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed conditional use was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District, A-2. 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Office Industrial use. 3. The legal description of the property is: See Exhibit A. 4. Section 20-232: a. The proposed use will not be detrimental to but will enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city by providing a unique experience. b. The proposed use will be consistent with the objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance by meeting the standards of each. c. The proposed use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. The use will be buffered from adjacent properties and will preserve the Bluff Creek Primary Zone. d. The proposed use will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. e. The proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. f. The proposed use will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. g. The proposed use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. 2 h. The proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. i. The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. j. The proposed use will be aesthetically compatible with the area. k. The proposed use will not depreciate surrounding property values. l. The proposed use will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in Chapter 20, Article IV of the City Code. 5. The Planning Commission shall recommend an Interim Use Permit and the City Council shall issue interim permits only if it finds, based on the proposed location, that: a. The use meets the standards of a conditional use permit set forth in section 20-232 of the City Code. b. The use conforms to the zoning regulations. c. The use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district. d. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. e. The use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future. f. The user agrees to any conditions that the City Council deems appropriate for permission of the use. 6. The planning report #2021-13 dated July 6, 2021, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Interim Use Permit subject to the conditions of the staff report. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 6th day of July, 2021. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY:___________________________________ Steven Weick, Chairman 3 EXHIBIT A To the following described Real Estate situated in Carver County, Minnesota. (A) The Northwest Quarter of the Southeast Quarter (NW¼ of SE¼ of Section 22, Township 116, Range 23, containing 40 acres of land, more or less. (B) Also, beginning at the post in South line of Northwest Quarter of Southeast Quarter (NW¼ of SE¼) Section 22, Township 116, Range 23, One (1) chain West from the Southeast (SE) Corner of said Northwest quarter of Southeast quarter (NW¼ of SE¼); thence South 38½ dgs. West 2.38 chains; thence South 73 dgs. West 4.35 chains; thence South 36½ dgs. West 1.90 chains; thence South 17½ dge. West 3.70 chains; thence North 82 dgs. West 1.50 chains to a point in North and South middle line of Southwest quarter of Southeast quarter (SW¼ of SE¼); thence North along said middle line 8.00 chains to a post in South line of Northwest Quarter of Southeast Quarter (NW¼ of SE¼); thence East 10.00 chains to place of beginning, situated in East Half (E½) of Southwest Quarter of Southeast Quarter (SW¼ of SE¼), Section 22, Township 116, Range 23, containing 3.60 acres. (C) Also, Commencing at a post on center line of Section 22, Township 116, Range 23, which post bears South 4.20 chains from center post of said Sec. 22; thence South 15.32 chains to Quarter Quarter post; thence North 44½ dgs. West 27.90 chains; thence East 15.32 chains; thence South 4.28 chains; thence East 4.28 chains to place of beginning, situated in Lot 2, Sec. 22, Township 116, Range 23 and containing 17.37 acres, more or less. (D) Also, Beginning at the Quarter Section post on South line of Section 22, Township 116, Range 23, running thence North along center line of said Section 20.00 chains to middle line of Southeast quarter (SE¼) of said Section; thence East along said middle line 10.00 chains; thence South parallel with first mentioned line 15.75 chains to a point in the center of a creek; thence Southerly along center of said creek to South line of said Section; thence West 7.00 chains to place of beginning, containing 19 acres of land more or less, situated in West half of Southwest quarter of Southeast quarter (W½ of SW¼ of SE¼) of Section 22, Township 116, Range 23. COMi'UNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1100 I Fax: (952) 227-1110 CffiOTCHAI{HASSXI{ APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW suomittaroate:L lq l?/ ,co".J lt, l>t cc oate,]-.1h,(p-..1f,11 oo-oay Review oate:?/3 / a{ Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply) (Refer to lhe appn iate Application Checklist lor required ! Comprehensive Plan Amendment......................... $600 E Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers..... $100 E Conditional Use Permit (CUP) E Single-Family Residence ................................ $325 E Att others...... .. ................... M25 E lnterim Use Permit (lUP) ! ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325 E A Others...... ......................$425 E Rezoning (REz) E Planned Unit Development (PUD).................. 5750 E MinorAmendment to existing PUD................. $100E Atl Others...... ...................... $500 E Sign Plan Review.................................................$150 E Site Ptan Review (SPR) E Administrative ..................... $100 E Commercial/lndustrial Districtst........... .......... $500 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area:( thousand square feet) 'lnclude number ot gllglDg employees: submiltal inlomation that must a@ompany this application) E subdivision (suB) E Create 3lots or |ess.......E a;;;i; ;,;' 3 r"ia.-...... ... tr tr tr tr ( lots) ! tvtetes & Bounds (2 lots)................. E Consolidate 1ots..................... E Lot Line Adjustment................... E Final P|at...................... (lncludes $450 escrow for attorney costs)' 'Additional escrove may be required for other applications through the developmeri contrad. Vacation of Easements,/Rig ht-of-way (VAC) (Additional recording tu€s may apply) Variance (VAR) . . Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) E Single-Family Residence....................... E Att others...... Zoning Appeal..... . $300 . $200 . $150 .$275 . $100 . $500 'lnclude number ot @W employees:E ResidentiarDistricts-.... .. - -------Jsoo !rlE**;ffiH*l'til3lf:ffi[,tffi,HilT"',' Plus $5 per dwelling unit ( units) @ Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) Property Owners' List within 500' lCity to generate afrer pre.application meeting) ...................( addresses) A-Y E Escrow for Recording Documents (check all thatepply)........... E conditional Use Fermit E[ lnterim Use Permit fl vacation E Variance E Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) E Easements L- easements) $3 per address ......... ... ......... $50 per document E Site Plan Agreement E Wetland Alteration PermitE Deeos TOTAL FEE: -1 Description of Proposal: . Create a new derinition in the city code - "Agritainmenf . Create criteria for what defines and is allowed in an Agritainment permit & lUP. 91 1 1 Audubon Road, Chanhassen, MN 5S17 Section 2: Required lnformation Property Address or Location Parcel #: 25O22OAOO Total Acreage: Present zoning Wetlands Present? Agricultural Estate District (A2) ,1s1;6n Agriculture !ves!Ho Requested Zoning Select One Present Land Use Desig Existing Use of Property: Requested Land Use Designation Select One Farming Echeck box if separate narrative is attached \ Legal Description: Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant lnformation Todd DeglerName Address 112131 Haering Lane Contact Phone:(952) 221-2819 City/State/Zip Email:todddegler@gmail.com Chaska Cell: Fax: Date Cell: Fax: Date Cell Fax sig n",rr". Todd Degler Ogiarv s9n6d by Todd O69rt Dar.2@160716@8.050q 6n121 PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name Gayle Degler Contact Phone:Address g1 Pine View Court (952) 403-7047 ChanhassenCity/State/Zip: Email:gdeglerl @gmail.com sig n"1rr". Gayle Degler oniMr ogEd b, G.yL 069br 0d.2021607r60a26{6!0 6n t2'l PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name: Address Contact: Phone: City/State/Zip Email: This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before liling this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements and fees. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of applicetion. Who should receive copies of staff reports?'Other Contact lnformation: I Maited Paper Copy I Maited Paper Copy E ttitaitea Paper Copy E ruaiteo Paper Copy City/State/Zip Email: E Email E Email E Email E Email Name tr INSTRUCTIONS 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 documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital copy to the city for processing SAVE FORM PRIMT FORM SUBMIT FORM APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERW OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, sub.iect only to the right to object 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 the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Section 4: Notification lnformation Property Owner Via:Applicant Ma:Engineer Ma:Othef Ma: Address' Objective: • Create a new definition in the city code - “Agritainment” • Create criteria for what defines and is allowed in an Agritainment permit. • Amend city code to include Agritainment as a New Interim Use for the “A-2” district. (For use in Chapter 1 of city code:) Definition – Agritainment Agricultural, horticultural, or agri-business activity that allows organizations or members of the general public, for the purpose of recreation , education or active involvement to view, enjoy, or participate in rural activities of a farm or farm related operation. Uses include corn mazes, hay rides, pumpkin picking, corn pits, hill slides, pumpkin throwers, lookout towers, zip lines, straw bale mazes, apple picking, play structures, antique tractors displays, saw mill demonstrations, hay stacks, kiddie trains, animal rides, sleigh rides, snowshoeing, maple syrup harvesting, cross country skiing, mounting biking, sledding hills, axe throwing, archery stand, are exhibited regardless of compensation. Sec. 20-xxx - Agritainment. The following conditions will apply to Agritainment activities. 1) The site must be zoned Agriculture “A-2”. 2) The site must be on and have access to a collector or minor arterial road. 3) The minimum lot size shall be 20 acres. 4) The site must have 25% of its land being used as “agriculture” as defined in Sec. 1-2. “Rules of construction and definitions” 5) All structures and storage areas must be set back 50 feet from public or private rights-of- way, and 300 ft from an adjacent single-family residences or a minimum of 50 feet from a side lot line, whichever is greater. 6) Parking plan shall be supplied with permit detailing size, capacity, and location. Parking areas shall be limited to on-site parking. 7) The maximum number of persons to be using the facility at any one time needs to be tied in the application permit or tied to 80% parking capacity as outlined in the permit plan. This allows variations of seasonal activities layouts. 8) Accessory agriculture buildings used for Agritainment events must meet existing building and fire code. Intent is to allow provision for use of existing agriculture building where special building use is requested. 9) Hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 PM. 10) Retail sales shall be limited to Agritainment related items. This includes but not limited to, items that can be produced locally or grown on site, such as produce, honey, sweet corn, pumpkins, gourds as well as non-edible items such as products and crafts produced or manufactured on site, such as wood slabs, benches, birdhouses. Retail items promoting the establishment, with its name are allowed. 11) All animals must comply to section 20-264 –(10) “Petting farms” 12) A termination date shall be established for the interim use permit. The use shall be permitted until a particular date, until the occurrence of a particular event, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. Prior to the permit expiring, the applicant may request an extension to the interim use permit by submitting a new application. The renewal application will be subject to all city ordinances including any new ordinances enacted after the original approval. 13) Parking screening is required when within 50 ft of a residence. 14) Proof of Insurance must be provided in permit plan. 15) Rules for Vendors – Location of vendors to be identified on site plan. Degler Farm Narrative & site plan Brief Background: Degler Farm has an extensive background in farming and educational teaching. Family founded by multi- generational elementary and high school educators; Degler Farm has a passion for educating youth. Our mission is to educate local youth on the operation, economics, and future of agriculture. In this spirit, Degler Farm would like to be more community facing through the growing area of Agritainment. We want to bring our passion for education and combine it with farm friendly activities. This “outside the classroom” learning on the farm is not only instructive, but fun. We see it as another yet another way to reach our neighbors and local community. Activity: Description: Education component: Hay rides -Give participants a ride on a tractor pulled wagon. Local farm history in Chanhassen Tree identification Corn Maze -Participants walk through a corn cut maze How corn is grown Corn Pit -Area of shelled Corn for play What shelled corn looks like – differences between sweet corn and field corn. Straw Bale Maze -Smaller kid size maze What is straw? Pumpkin Picking -Pick your own Crop rotation and plant care Antique Tractor Displays -Outdoor tractor displays Evolution of the farm tractor. Snowshoeing -Snowshoeing Outdoor fitness & nature etiquette, animal tracking Other activities: Hill slides, pumpkin throwers, lookout towers, zip lines, apple picking, saw mill demonstrations, hay stacks, kiddie trains, animal rides, sleigh rides, snowshoeing, archery stands, axe throwing maple syrup harvesting, cross country skiing, mounting biking, sledding hill, hiking trails. Parking Size: .76 acres .92 acres 114 car capacity 138 car capacity 2.25 acres 335 car capacity Parking Size/Capacity: A one acre parking lot with only lanes and spaces could fit approximately 150 cars. Assuming we are going with box (90 degree) parking, the dimensions of the space required to park two cars is 504 (9 feet wide)(17.5 feet long + 21 foot travel lane + 17.5 foot space) square feet. Shown on map are approximate parking car capacities Parking Location: The 3 lots are options shown as rotational placements of parking. We will still farm the acres and plant a permeable tough alfalfa grass mix which has deeper root base, tough enough for driving over. Entrances/exits are from Audubon Road and marked with dotted lines. Expected Use: In 2020 the most cars we had on the premise was 25 cars parked at 1 time. (40 on a Saturday) Lot 1 Lot 2 Lot 3 Locations: Vendor Locations: Vendor location options are shown in locations marked as shown in red. Corn maze Location: Location of 2020/2021 corn maze is shown below. Due to rotational nature of crops, corn maze location can change. Corn pit & straw bale maze Location is shown in red. Hay Ride: Hay Ride path is a loop that starts at farm and travels through the back pasture. It will start/end at the farm yard. Hay ride route will change slightly based on crop rotation. Cross country skiing, hiking, and biking will utilize same trail. Trail Location: Other Locations: Sledding Hill/Hill Slides: -Marked in Red/shaded area Zip line: -Marked in Red line Proof of Insurance: Farm Bureau – Policy number: 0000081422 Eff: June 2020. Termination Date: Interim Use Permit will terminate when the property is developed. Degler Farm May 2021 Why are we here? Covid made people find local fall activities. •We saw an increase in our fall activities. •We want add to our activity list, but discovered these activities are not addressed by current city code. •Create a new definition in the city code -“Agritainment” / “Agritourism” •Create criteria for what defines and is allowed in an Agritainment permit. •Amend city code to include Agritainment as a New Interim Use for the “A-2” district. Outcomes: Background: 9111 Audubon Rd, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Notable Events 2005 1990 1972 1947 Dean & Lois Degler start their life together milking dairy cows Degler Farm hosts school tours from St. Louis Park. Begin Pumpkin sales Active in local 4-H clubs and schools tours Transition from a dairy farm to a crop production specializing in blended horse feed, corn, soybeans. Meet Degler Farm! 5th Generation Family Farm 2018 First hayrides. 2019 Create first Corn Maze, Hayrides, corn pit Degler Farm Agritainment activities Corn MazeHayrides Pumpkins for everyone Degler Farm Agritainment activities Gravity Box Basketball Pumpkins, Corn Pit, Hayride Youth Groups Call To action •Work with city to create new ordinance as soon as possible 7 THANK YOU! Google Reviews 4.8 of 5 Stars SW news article -2019 Local, family-owned, and family-friendly! This place is a hidden gem and our group of 4 20-somethings had a BLAST! The farm has so many fun attractions -we did them all over the span of about 2 hours and highly recommend that you try them all as well to get the most out of your experience! The owners are incredibly kind and welcoming, and so fun to chat with. See you again next year -Abbi Today I went with my boyfriend, my friend, and my sister to visit on our shared day off, and boy was it a treat. The place wa s great, the owners very friendly, and the weather worked out (as it is, of course, something they control). I like laying siege to a hillside using a cannon and trebuchet (the superior weapon). Unfortunately, I could not launch my friend Cameron into the abyss below. Overall great time, and I go t a free pumpkin for stopping by, which made the day better. Will stop back next year they are open, thanks, Degler (times like, 8 of them)! -Dominic We had a fantastic experience! The space is smaller and intimate, run by a family. You can feel the love that went into creat ing this place. Would definitely go back! -Malana We had a great time here today. The hay ride was excellent. Such a beautiful property. -Jason Wonderful place! Most fun I’ve had with my kids! They loved it there! 100% Recommendation! -Jesse I launched a pumpkin really, really far (like really far), it was really fun. I'll make sure to visit every year, and the wife was a fan too! -Dom Definition –Agritainment •Agricultural, horticultural, or agri-business activity that allows organizations or members of the general public, for the purpose of recreation, education or active involvement to view, enjoy, or participate in rural activities of a farm or farm related operation. Uses include corn mazes, hayrides, pumpkin picking, corn pits, hill slides, pumpkin throwers, lookout towers, zip lines, straw bale mazes, apple picking, play structures, antique tractors displays, saw mill demonstrations, hay stacks, kiddie trains, animal rides, sleigh rides, snowshoeing, maple syrup harvesting, cross country skiing, mounting biking, sledding hills, are exhibited regardless of compensation. Sec. 20-xxx -Agritainment The following conditions will apply to Agritainment activities. 1) The site must be zoned Agriculture “A-2”. 2) The site must be on and have access to a collector or minor arterial. 3) The minimum lot size shall be 10 acres. 4) The site must have 20% of its land being used as “agriculture” as defined in Sec. 1 -2. “Rules of construction and definitions ” 5) All structures and storage areas must be set back 50 feet from public or private rights -of-way, and 300 ft from an adjacent single-family residences or a minimum of 50 feet from a side lot line, whichever is greater. 6) Parking plan shall be supplied with permit detailing size, capacity, and location. Parking areas shall be limited to on -site parking. 7) The maximum number of persons to be using the facility at any one time needs to be tied in the application permit or tied to 80% parking capacity as outlined in the permit plan. This allows variations of seasonal activities layouts. 8) Accessory agriculture buildings used for Agritainment events must meet existing building code, or be approved by the city engineering department prior to use. Intent is to allow provision for use of existing agriculture building where special buil ding use is requested. 9) Hours of operation shall be from 8:00 a.m. to half hour after sunset. 10) Retail sales shall be limited to Agritainment related items. 11) All animals must comply to section 20 -264 –(10) “Petting farms” 12) A termination date shall be established for the interim use permit. The use shall be permitted until a particular date, u ntil the occurrence of a particular even, or until zoning regulations no longer permit it. Prior to the permit expiring, the applicant may request an extension to the interim use permit by submitting a new application. The renewal application will be subject to al l city ordinances including any new ordinances enacted after the original approval. Brief Background: Degler Farm has an extensive background in farming and educational teaching. Family founded by multi-generational elementary and high school educators; Degler Farm has a passion for educating youth. It’s in our DNA. Our mission is to educate local youth on the operation, economics, and future of agriculture. In this spirit, Degler Farm would like to be more community facing through the growing area of Agritainment. We want to bring our passion for education and combine it with farm friendly activities. This “outside the classroom” learning on the farm is not only instructive, but fun. We see it as another yet another way to reach our neighbors and local community. Degler Farm activities Degler Farm Agritainment activities Pumpkin ThrowerSaw millingPumpkin Cannon Newer Activities CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ( ss. COTINTY OF CARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on lrune 24,,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 attached notice ofa Public Hearing to consider a request to amend City Code Chapters I and 20 to define "Agritainment'/*Agritourism'; Create Standards and Criteria for an Agritainment use as an Interim Use; Atlow Agritainment uses ts an Interim Use in the Agricultural Estate District; and Receive an Interim Use Permit for an Agritainment use on property located at glll Audubon Road. Zoned Agricultural Estate (A2), Planning Case No.202l-13' to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. I Kim Clerk Subscribed and swom to before me (Seal) JEAII M S]ECKLII{Gil6ryheillIEcra li*rlh.,:t&,tD. thiALl{tday of . )r,.rr<-,2021. N otarv Public Sub.iect Parcel Dl!cl.lmor This map is noilher a legally rccoaded map nor a $rrvey and b not inEnded lo be u3€d as one. This map is a compilaton ot recods. infodation and data loaated in varbus qly, counly, state and fedeBl ofices and other sources regading the aaea shorn, aM is to be u!€d br leElence purpcaes only. The Cig does not warant lhat the Geo0raphic lnbmaton System (GlS) oata l.lsed to prepae Uis map are enor free, and the City does not reEesent that the Gls Data can be used for navoational, tr&king or any other purpoBe requiring exac'tng measuement of distance or direclion or rrecision in the de clbn of geographic lbatures. The p.eceding dirdaimer i9 provided puEuanl to Minn*ota St.tl.lte3 5,(66.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and tie user ol this map acknou,ledges dlat $e City shall not be liable fo. any damages, and expPssly waives all daims, and agre6 to debnd. indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brouoht by user, ils employe€s oI agents, or third parlies which aris€ out of the users accass or use of data pDvided. <TAX_NAMET (TAX_ADD_Ll ) (TAX ADD L2) (Next RecordD(TAX_NAtlED ITAX_ADD_LI r <TAX ADD L2l DLcLh.r This map is n€i0Er a legally reco.ded map nor a suley and is not intended to be used as orle. ThB mep is a compihtion ot recoads, intormation and data located in vadou3 city, cou.ty. slale and federal ofices and olher sources regadin! the area shown. and is to be used for lEfelence purpoees ooly. The city doeg nol warranl that the G€ographic lnfu.maton Sygtem (GlS) Data used to p,epare this map ale enor te€. aftl the City does not represenl flat the GIS Dalia can be used for navigatioml, trac*ing oa any other purpooe equiring exacling lneasulement of distance o. dire(ton or preosioo in the defiicton of Oeographic Eatures. The precadano disdaamer is proviired puBuant to Minnesota StaMes $,16{t.03, Subd. 21 (2000). and the use. ot this map acknodedg€3 that the city shall not be liaue for any damag*. aM expresly waives all daams, anal aorees to debnd. indemnity, and hold hamles3 the City from any and all daims brolghl by User. ib employees or aoents. or third parlies which aris€ oui of the us€/s access or use ol data provided. I I N 'ir IIt _: !! rl - - _-__L il .t, l %$l N It Subject Parcel I 6 Edo! EP FO trp cio F-o6g -o8E 1.s(o6 tE (o<c: 9E F- .E o2 d) o (! o f---N a o_o E({ "c(,) c)o GI Eg:(,) =;_ 9EE E g Rp E#! P E Hp 9.€EEP *riEp E# € 3,4 :fis#9 -{5 eu 5 5E!; E E€ TFFF: dro\ c6{ or 9 6 o1. 9=: ;EE:E 3E Es ho (!.: -tL(! E,E F HO6$P:fS 5E: IEfi 0) ot o)o !!oF rl) o) c)o o o C' .9 .9 o = e Eqoto-t6 Qo )E <.:-3 or< eeEt Ao:ro:!o5_tg.oE- Y. O5EE it :o c E ddj =>oI od ;F-CJr o): anE?\,, 6zti=6 F ", O O= EEbiag4€Ee;-rTFs rs a:=EgEEEi G.9 X€ ]=c 6.P€EE9E8E .e.9 9P b 9.i I€pEiB-oHnrEd 9EE; 3 ; gAig5E E g.! fE= "88 Es9EE:E.P5€OagE.9(,Foo-o P &8€ . . .F o G o- N o \t , 19 o 9 t*gAr I : Iae;i;3 EEIEIEfE E'IEEE*E* Ed: i;: E: :BIEgEEE;--' I Y-€(J P:N g='.E t s9EN9?=EE'E E;? d-E $9F o oo d) _o o) = '6 o =oo:t_c 3ta(!0o- ;d)]Ep,e6E 9b oEccoo)aae6l-cccF(\, -o (t)Y 85o-t (Eoc ID ([ o)c 0) d) Ec C)c 3 co'-([ (.)E oc o, ooco (! E It) o .2oo It) o-lc.9 CD =IIJz E?E EE;EE EE,E$[i iEEii$iEEflaEiEEE i:iigllEsliEssss liis€Es;:iiicEeEEEc e q _g n 6 o i: .6 (, t!o o oooJ Go e CL o ;o Eo CIo o- >Etso o-Geto-J q ii, o.=o-?o-Xf; r! .l: }E C'E oo =caro .:ta 8.9O'E .90Eo =EDo..S EEo6.9E OEz8 oosgoEo otr oo = PELl!o,ao'=-EoE =o!odpr.Lotr eE E1ze o6o tro o E .9 F. Er!oIF. o NoN (o .>f ;(5E rl) =F d! : P ,E s,'-. ,E -q E2dl ID ([ oof.-t* ut o.) -o E EO 0c5oo o- o g -g- E *! EE€ ETE; q :- 6<O= r;-E; t i PoD<,1? =?fiqEF 6(J E= cQ:-ido-.E9 =bO,P E {: E,- ;: E;i sqge qrocFboI E 9 = Sf6.E =9E;EE =.=!ur EflEEEE 5E: g#F il) o) IDo !EoF _q(,) o)o _q o d "9o .9 o '6 e e o-t6 Qo <;-3 o)< "leE€ ; I:€! 6 IRP8 E I!F=E,el*:6 o.q 6 EEg -EEr'= eE F# Es *6 :iiE 3€Ett EEIE AE:* €ePeEUXfr-aEEaiSs: EEt:IEse **Es;EEi* r.e-E€6Fdd E F S€ 1-o.io+ . rP o 9 ;*;tr I E E;IEtEE: gElfrE r EE,r gHSrgEEE EE,NEEEi"=9EN91 =E!'E H;*E.E $$E o =o o E .a! lo =c.t-i Eo o = E tooolll t! (, qit ' PT* 0., EEhoo-ocO)6: "E6oc-oa9oc 0,)0r>tro =oOEoo'o tt -ooo-oop'E q(,;b.95>oo-E o= Pq) oo>\ C)=a ,!;(!-,E d)ar, G aho Eo Eo Ed)-=bg€o)3> 9.@5>EoaoiE-c- 9e, XE E. ooo o!TEPCJE([ oe 6 (!6 cl,co69gE; ID- E E6E esff )cc 6E*a u; .= -:: oBY= E E= ElEEiEituiEsiiis EeE iii€EEEEafiig lglsls;agsgiEigal IgEEEEgEEiiEES[EEEE q 6 E g E .! 6 I 6 i: od o (!o o GIoJ E!,o CLo o- oo ELe {,E =o Eo CI eG >Et.9 o.o9tGJ 9 ii) 6,r .= +'E G.E =r .6..o9EEoa, an=OE =ooo 6ir 9a ov E$:E O--oof,r: = o!oEHi 90.,tc oElrD >:lE o irlr eol oE6al3 sElrRll 33El o- l, -Ll aeEl 'd)ElO-c cl e; El- >.-:lP or tll i.H ll =Ell oa .,o9EEoo o={,Efooo ::ooo CIg o- tz (o fol Or o d, II ^dr!;o=d== -!9!Z=>z3i=Effc*s =r\tNC'l qN orrnrnoor<Hoo !9 o9.r utr\i\ stoo<t st (o \o (o I +aoo i\Fl'\6A@@@ F. r\ F\ O Lil- eii***3*iiiiiiii*iii******8,r -P s N : s t-{ Fr st i.r rr d d d .{,{ d H<r:.i ^58^l}.n + !! m (n (n m Y m.n (n.n (n m rh m (n m m ln rn rn.n rt ai m(n rn:^ , o <t { @.n mN i s_.1 !a rn rn La .h l/r !.r /r !ir, !/r rn .,) l^ rJl rn Ln ra LA r/1 !i.1 r,) 1/) u) Ln ,a H + Fr vr u) .Yr !1 u,r ".L-.,,l!4!nLd!aLaULArn.,)!n.nu)u)v)rnrnrnLaLn!/1In.n!nLrtrnYi;d-l-rnr,)..lLrilJ.i== z z z z z P z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z fi;S=zzdzz ^ 2 2 r s i z q i 2 i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i z 4 = I s g' S z' z'I,; = > 2AUCH aBH HH HH UAAdH H H H H HH H H > = -.< d d z H H R }}'P E E E E E EE qE E E 4?42? ? E ? 2222? <d = :* I >.? ? = i ] = !+r r r o- r - r r r r - r r r r r r r - - r r r r r < O t $ li'n i r j-r 6 6 rz zzzzzX zzzz zzzzzzzzzzz zzzzA t_1Azze 22 F55Y=o5fi 69668655565o565888885;s=E==JEE m.{..,r<r.-^o1Ioo zzezezeee= 5: o oo oooooooooo LL't, t-/t dl dl dl d! @ @ @ @ @ aD @ dl dl d. d. I II IIIIII-I-I d ooo oi ll EESlElttSt 6 @ up lJJ r! lJJ E|rr < Z lJ o ; E E = = 3 = = E E E E ==3-E E E E ; E ; E ==E1Ar;1Ar E E E E E - * @ r- N 6r m rn l.\ v 6r an ln <l <l <t rl <t <f st st <t rt st <l ul ut LE, (o \o o (o o o Fr a\ o r.r< r-{ r.l a! c{ lrl ti @ @ Or <tr Or O\ <tl < Ol<h( gl( qr 01 orOr( Ot(ho)( ra @ O <l cO a{ (r, t \ <tF.{H.{da!a\(nm(n:f<f<frn z8-<t^(lt_;i s a Z -= P :EEEEEEEE=EIE=iEEEEEEEEEiE=EEEEg;EiE F (ar lYt r{ a! tt tllo f\r \t 6 lY' (Odccco ooooooo66o cizzzz: :=:=::f f tz 2 a196dl @ @ .o lo .o .o .o .o .o - OSfEEE EEEEiEEEEE 555 =<rrJrlrrJuJuJz?ddzg ts 3 ts 7 z 233 3 3 = 3 B 3 3 7 z z z z zg.9.E o. I x x 2 6 6 6 6 = ; 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 = ; ; ; = E s -H t 6 y;;i>>>>-H>>>=======gdddu==s=q= = = s EE EE = ? EEe I s ss ss I = ==ZZg 3* t 5 3N.\O6l<t@(\1 LO O.{ F..i Flri!-r$tI<l 6 N (O <t (! or N J $ ..r ()N m o N <t r\r rn m st st rt st $ <t rt Il <t ll < st !/l !a r.o (o (n <t o.n o 6rn rn rn @or ol or o) ( or ch or 01 qr 0ro o1 0r dr ot 6 (h ot aD <l <t o a\t <r !nr.l .{ o) ..r f{ ?r r.. d !-.r !-{ !-r r-r -r Fr ..{ r.r f.r ..r Fi .l Ft -t ..1 r{ (D ot .n .r (h ol (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 (o @ @ Qo I G (,l i .i! sr r.r (, it 6 s tr tu i\J l- o o (b .J (h (, 5 (, t\J iJ o o @ tD & { ur 5 le o u, F o u)I 6 5 6 6 E 5 6 o 6 F 65 b F 5 6o 6oe o 6 6 F o F o oo o P P P ulu! o o € €€€ €€PFF PPi" mrn >mooo ooooo ee eoo oo>(4tsBE=9 aaaaAaqEE E qE E E q E 3 6 a a a e 6a a a a a aaagis:-7F=--.r --{ -{ -{ -{ -i - m m m - m m m: m U, U V V V u n a u':D':D, a, - = ZZ=6n222992d=z=3=2232 d :aaaaaa zzzvz - I eHsuvFvvv I =g5o olo tr:iE€;1,a=Fzo--toz i Ii;gEEEEiiIUEiHiEEEEEEEEE=E;E=sl,E3i3E=i (o (o (o (o (o (o ro (o (o (o (o (o lo (o \o (o (o (o ro (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o !9 !9 E 99 | F PE-iEEEn-snJ ^r r\r l\J N l. H t. p rr F t. t. }. F. c) o o o (o @ l.r (o @6 6 E E 6 6 6 in 6 5 in ir ia F 6 6 o .{ o, (, 5 qr N P o o (o @ @ \r 5 E 5 ot 5E 6 56 6 F 6 6o 6 }.o a a p 66 ci6o o o oo }. o P c)o o 5 P (, o 5 E E E E E E E E EEEEEEEEa a a a a a a a a a fl e a a : c E E :Z2^Z2"aeq?E E q E E E q E a 3 e a A A e e a 6 a a aA992=-e-{ --r --{ --{ --{ --{ ,. m u F v - V V v v F - , v v F e V g Z e222929d22=dz2rd, F 6; BooooQo 5 q,\t-ar, = ;EE00 {P o o oo oa) or) o o o o .)11 rro o o o o (.) n o o oo .)r)o oo11 o6 - m 7 mrrr-rrrr----rtrt.-..--r-.---...--->o=att>tEttEttt;EttFttttEtttFFttttFtEPhgzg2 2 2 2 2 2 -,t, 2 2 z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 1 z z z z z 9 < I z'i=====a=.rrr-------r--r-rrr--rrr-<=!I= vvfi va6 < oQfi fr E e e a v v 8 88 v8 a a a e a 8 8 0 v v v 6i i i e6mmmmm=mmmmmmmrnmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmln -z ? ? ? = = 3 " ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -z g = rn _- I" = == ===fi = == = == ==== ===Z= = ==r== ==== 12aZ =2ssssssisusssuBHususssssuuEsususEs=EEsS(rJ UJ (, (r) qr UJ lJ (]J UJ (,J UT UJ (! (! UJ (r (r (r UJ Ul (r (rJ (^r uJ (r uJ tiJ (^r u) oJ (/J ('rJ qr i; i P .E, PiIiiFFBFFFiiFiFFiFiFF;stisiiiinniEEFSiE a E (D (oEDE ss'ii FF|+iF!9i,6A'tl< I ! s s-rrJrl {{ !\l @@@@coa5 | -J (o d oa S F i!o5q, ao@ co@ @or(,Du,uJPo o I'J(,rr uJ ! N i\)..J o o 66 o6 otololororNS 19 \.J od,zo aolol o Ol m mmm(n(n fn rn rn m (h or6 ao€6oo@ aooo o o@ia F- r\ F\ F- r- r\66 00 0<t9 YY9$$ TTT T P9F- r'\ N t- F- l.\ l.\ l-! F- F r\ |r\ F\ F- F <l F.r.l cr ..{ ..1 i .{ .{ .{ .r ri s I trmm(nmma')mm(nmnlfn,nL].i L^ r^ L^ !^ rn !n !n rJ} !/) !a La rn In !,) L/r !n!.j lai L/l !n rn !n !a t/. r,} !n !r, Ln ln !n .n L/r Lnzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz zZZZZZZZZZZZZZy!ZuJ ur r! uJ urr!Ecqt\ tt\ u\ \i t\ ar\ th vl th th th a !1 u1 = = att\ tt\ .r1 tJ\ ah th a ./1 tt1 u1 < <L vr IIIIII-III-IIIO-O-IzZZzzzZzzzZzzzzzZ III-IIIII-IIIIOAIOOuu(J()(J9u(J(J(')(-)uuruJu !-{Nrn@<t!n ci d d d d9zzzzza oaooad'c.G.Gd.d.G.ttEI:fztE (J IJ () U (J U U (-') (J CO dI CD 6'D Jzzzzzzzzzzzzzzloooooooooooooo>T-FFFFFFFFFFFFF<(9(,(,(9(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,(,9< =zzzz=zzzzz=zzt)II-II-III-IIII<6 tt t1 tt.^ t't th th th r^ tA \rt t\ th = =33=33ts3B3883=UmroOr-r<IOOOOO<t6 Lri rn \D (o (o F F l. o o o o o <l<t <t <l <l sl <l <t <l st tn rn ln L/t Ln o)Or 01 Ol ql (h Ol Ol O) 6l o) O'r Cll o) O1 rr O66OO oeseEse44 -zlf == g (J I L,' rJ (.) (J U (J (J a6 d! dl aO aOzzzzzzzzzzzzzz toooooooooooooo - -FFFFFFFFFFFFFF(l>'(,(,(,(9(,(,(,(,(,(9(,(,(,(,d>zzZ=zzzzz=zz11El- IIIII-IIIIT==i=99t/t tJ\ th t l .,t) tJt th tl1 a v1 6 :t- =B3=338333ts33ts36K5m(oOr-{<tOOOOOOH.o!11 I^ rn ro \O (O F F. T. O O O O O N m ^<r <t \t st sl <t \t <l <l ur !/1 Ut LA l,l t^ rr) (J oror6rororolool 0r or ol ot (h (h or or 4 ?Ft =szdofo_e8qi(J .oo< l<1=g= 4 qe z6EE- E?laae',eE E- ElE=EEEBi:-i3:tiEEs::<==oo E E =E :i?lfri= ;E=Ei *E E cicidcic,zzzzz U DRAFT June 2021 Questions/concerns about the Degler Agritainment Proposal adjoining our property at 9231 Audubon Road: 1 Office/industrial and parks/open space was the old plan. What is the nmr plan for the zoning of our property? 2 ls the old plan for a road running from the Lyman lift station through Degler's property at 9211 Audubon Rd to take Drive now dead? 3 Water ls available along our Audubon boulevard. Saler is pending. What doesthat mean? 4 What is the county/city going to do about the extra traffic along Audubon Road from the Lyman stoplight to the Autumn Woods/Butternut stoplight? lt's already bumper to bumper due to Chanhassen High and the business parks, not to mention the coming Lennar and Avienda Developments proposed. ls a round-about at Degler's driveway the answer? 5 The number of cars in the three proposed parking lots on Deghrs property is shocking when filled tocapacity. Howwill cars be funneled in and out of Degler's driveway efficiently? This gives us visions of the Renaissance Fair backup. 6 What are thelirnits.sn nsise levels? ln t?re past, rre've been abh to hear the Deglers yelling from inside their bam over the sound of their milking roachines. What will rit be like when there will be groups of extra people yelling, screaming and cheering? 7 The Degler Agritainment hours proposed are too long also. Families in the neighborhood are trying to put their young kids to bed when it gets dark out and they don't need the extra noise. 8 Then there is the problern of Degler's guests spilling oy€r onto our property. We expect there will be "exploring/trespassing'like a free'for-all. (We've already had kids from the new housing/apartments around us coming into our yardn/buildings. So we now have to put locks on our barn/streds for safety reasons.) 9 Because of the above concerns, we feel that it is time to market our property. What would the City of Chanhassen like to see at 9231 Audubon Road? From start to fin'rsh, how long is Degler's Agritainment Development going to take? Sincerely, George and Connie 5t. Martin 952-MS-6219 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, July 6, 2021 Subject Approve Planning Commission Minutes dated June 15, 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 minutes from its June 15, 2021 meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Minutes dated June 15, 2021 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES JUNE 15, 2021 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman von Oven called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, Mark von Oven, Erik Johnson, Doug Reeder, and Kelsey Alto MEMBERS ABSENT: Steve Weick STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner PUBLIC HEARINGS: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A TWO-FOOT HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6300 HUMMINGBIRD ROAD Senior Planner Generous presented the staff report on this item. He noted the applicant is Armenak Petrosian and said this is the public hearing and if the item is appealed or does not meet the 75% standard it goes forward to the City Council and is scheduled for June 28, 2021. The specific request is a 2-foot height variance for an accessory structure. City Code permits a 20- foot accessory structure height and this garage/accessory building is 24 feet with a 22-foot height based on City dynamics. 6300 Hummingbird Road is zoned single-family residential and is a .82-acre lot; setbacks are 30-foot front and rear with 10 feet on the side. In 2019 the applicant applied to build a 768-square foot one story (approximately 15-foot tall) accessory structure to replace an existing structure on site. After beginning construction, the applicant modified his plans to a two -story design and completed the building. When the City’s Building Official went out, they discovered that the building was too tall and the applicant was advised to come in and go through the variance process. The applicant would like to keep this building as it is constructed. Staff is recommending that the Planning Commission deny the variance request and require the applicant to revise the plan and reconstruct the structure to meet ordinance requirements. However, if the Planning Commission would like to grant the variance, an alternate motion is also provided. Commissioner Reeder asked if this garage was built as part of an existing house, would it be too tall? Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021 2 Mr. Generous replied no, it would not. If it was part of the principal structure, then the height goes up to 35 feet. He noted he has had several phone calls regarding this item and were all in support of approving the variance request. Armenak Petrosian has lived in Chanhassen for 40 years and owns 6300 Hummingbird Road, which is where his in-laws live. He said it is just as Mr. Generous stated and he never imagined going over and beyond what is required within the City. He made a mistake and is here to answer any questions. Commissioner Noyes asked if Mr. Petrosian did the construction himself or had a contractor working with him. Mr. Petrosian replied he constructed the first floor himself; he poured the concrete himself, and the second floor he did not as he was sick and hired someone to do it for him. It is a typical 10- foot garage with an 8-foot floor and 5:12 pitch which corresponds to the roofline and they were trying to match and blend. Commissioner Noyes asked if Mr. Petrosian is allowed to keep the structure, can he explain future construction plans of tying it into the house. Mr. Petrosian replied the reason he changed the original plans is because he and his wife spoke and eventually, they may wa nt to construct a property there. Whatever they build now, whatever the original roofline was will not fit into the future property because there is not going to be a second floor. Commissioner Reeder asked the timeframe for building on the property. Mr. Petrosian does not know as his father-in-law is 88 years old and he wishes him a long life. Commissioner Reeder would be willing to allow the variance if the Applicant will actually do what he says he would do and perhaps even delay the requirement that he remove it by a couple of years to allow the time to do that and take out a building permit. However, if it is totally indefinite, then he has a problem. Mr. Petrosian said, unfortunately, it depends on when his in-laws both pass away. At that time, the front will be demolished and they will rebuild. Commissioner von Oven asked if the Planning Commission denied the variance, what of the available options has he explored and what will he do? Mr. Petrosian said he does not have many options. He tried to build something that will suit his family and there was no intent to harm anyone, the neighbors, or not comply with the City requirements. The alternative would be to demolish the house and he clarified the second floor in Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021 3 order to comply with the requirements. In order to comply he would need to make the roof almost flat. Commissioner von Oven asked if Mr. Petrosian referred to the outbuilding as the house because his in-laws are living in the outbuilding? Mr. Petrosian replied no, his in-laws are living in the house. Commissioner Noyes asked if the original plan had 8-foot walls and the applicant changed them to 10-foot walls. Mr. Petrosian said no, they were 10 feet on the bottom. Commissioner Noyes said Mr. Petrosian changed the pitch of the roof. Mr. Petrosian noted he added the second floor and custom trusses but it was just a very high- pitched roof. Commissioner Noyes asked when he added the roof, he did not make the outside walls taller? Mr. Petrosian said no. Commissioner Noyes clarified Mr. Petrosian put in a different truss. Instead of having a triangle truss there is more of a 5-sided truss that allows a room above. Vice Chair von Oven opened the public hearing. Mark Sass, a former contractor, noted Mr. Petrosian is a great neighbor and built it right. All of the neighbors around, as far as he knows, have no complaint whatsoever and Mr. Petrosian did a lot of work with the neighbor to the north to grade and get things so that it feels good. His question is, what is the solution? Butcher the building – it is a really nice, solid structure – whether he built a new house in the back and all these future dreams, who knows where they are? He knows this is a precedent but noted they are all okay with it. If there is anything Mr. Sass can do, he is happy to help, he has worked with the City for 40 years and knows all the inspections, etc. Vice Chair von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Reeder asked staff if they looked at what the options would be if the application is denied. Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021 4 Mr. Generous replied as Mr. Petrosian pointed out, he could lower the roof or raise the grade around it so it is not as high. He noted mostly it is in the building construction and they would have t o change the height of the roof peak. Commissioner Reeder asked if the idea of making the ground level higher is feasible or not. Mr. Generous went out to the property and on the west side of the structure it is actually much higher. Mr. Petrosian could alter the grade and it would fit in with his future house plan if he were to do that. Commissioner Reeder asked Mr. Petrosian if he could do that. Mr. Petrosian replied he is not an engineer and cannot speak to the construction business. To his understanding, raising the ground around the garage is not really going to give him anything as then he has to raise the floor of the garage, as well. Otherwise, he will be unable to get into the garage. Associate Planner Young-Walters said technically the way the ordinance reads, grade is measured from highest adjoining grade to mid-point of the highest of the highest gable. Hypothetically that means if on several sides of the structure the grade was two feet higher than it was on, say, the front of the structure where the entrance was, they would measure from the highest grade not the lowest grade. The only exemption to that is if there is more than a 10-foot change in elevation in which case they use lowest grade plus ten. It is arguably using the letter of the Code to defeat the spirit, but in theory it would meet Code. Engineering would have to decide if the drainage would work. Commissioner Alto clarified that would not affect the aesthetics of the building at all so why would they make them add more dirt to one side. She would rather just approve the variance. Mr. Petrosian said actually he already has two feet on one side of the garage because his neighbor has always had a problem with drainage. Mr. Petrosian added two feet between them so the wat er comes to him and he has drainage all the way to the street. He can add more to it if that will satisfy the requirements. Mr. Young -Walters noted it is theoretically possible. Commissioner Noyes noted that precedence is the whole issue here, and Mr. Petrosian does not have good alternatives. In plenty of other municipalities it has migrated towards - rather than asking permission up front - people asking for forgiveness after the fact. He thinks they are trying to avoid that in Chanhassen. Now if someone reads the minutes or sees the video of this, they may think they know how to get around this for the next time and that person will say the City approved it before. Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021 5 The Planning Commission discussed adjusting the grade of the property and the City Code. Mr. Generous clarified the Planning Commission could tell Mr. Petrosian to go back and make changes to the site to bring it into compliance then a variance is not necessary. That way it avoids all the issues of precedent because they are bringing it into compliance with ordinance. Vice Chair von Oven is a proponent of not setting these types of precedents. He noted the mistake was made during the pandemic, not one of the neighbors has complained given the chance – Mr. von Oven clarified if something else were to come before this Commission similar to this, all it would take for him is one neighbor to complain. He noted the combination of neighbors speaking on Mr. Petrosian’s behalf and seeing pictures, it is definitely not out of place, although it is out of place in the Code and staff did exactly the right thing recommending denial. He is trying to talk himself into the fact that this will not necessarily be a precedent and seeing if they can approve. Commissioner Skistad seconded Vice Chair von Oven as those are fair points. After the year that everyone has gone through, making exceptions like this and then determining future cases is case-by-case and facts are different every time. Vice Chair von Oven added Mr. Petrosian’s first statement that in Chanhassen they have a shortage of senior living and this house is being occupied by seniors who have a fantastic place to live on behalf of their son-in-law and daughter. Although they cannot ride on that alone, the combination of all these factors gives him something to say to the next applicant who would truly come in and say they found a way around the system. Commissioner Reeder asked if they should table this and allow the applicant to look at the option of moving the dirt around to see if it is feasible rather than denying it. Commissioner Noyes thought about that same option and the other thing the Commission must keep in mind is that if they deny, Mr. Petrosian has the chance to go before the Council and make the same case and they may have a decision to grant the variance. The applicant is not dead in the water if they table it or vote to deny the variance as written. He still looks at moving dirt around as a band-aid. Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner von Oven seconded, that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approve the requested two-foot height variance for an accessory structure subject to the following conditions: 1. the Applicant shall provide revised plans that accurately reflect the constructed accessory structure and 2. the Applicant shall schedule and receive a final inspection. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Ayes 4, Nays 2 (Reeder, Noyes). Mr. Generous clarified the motion passes but the 75% rule does not, so this acts as a recommendation to City Council. On June 28, 2021 it will go before the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021 6 CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A FENCE VARIANCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 931 LAKE SUSAN HILLS DRIVE Senio r Planner Generous noted this property is a corner lot and the applicant , Alec McKinley, is requesting a variance to put up a privacy fence in what the City Code defines as his front yard. On corner lots the front yard is designated by where the garage is located for access purposes. The property is part of the Lake Susan Hills PUD and is a typical lot of .34 acres with 30-foot front and rear setbacks and 10-foot side setbacks. Staff suggested line of sight triangles so those on the sidewalk can be clearly seen. Staff is recommending approval of the variance request for the six-foot fence and what is designated as the front property subject to the conditions in the staff report which are the site triangles being preserved. Alec and Amy McKinley live at 931 Lake Susan Hills Drive, and said the privacy fence purpose is two-fold for security for their children and for privacy. He noted there is no intention of creating a security threat by rolling their cars out the driveway and injuring anyone, so they understand the site lines and adamantly support that. Commissioner Noyes asked the McKinley’s if the staff suggestions are acceptable to them. Mr. McKinley noted they did not have intention of running the fence right down the property line to the sidewalk but pushing it back a bit. He said 30 feet is pretty big for a site view next to his driveway and he understands that goes with City Code, but if that is what it will take for them to get their fence, they would go for it. Vice Chair von Oven opened the public hearing. Vice Chair von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Skistad moved, Commissioner Noyes seconded, that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance to construct a six-foot fence along West Lake Drive, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached findings of facts and decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERIM USE PERMIT TO REMOVE THE CONDITION REQUIRING THE INSTALLATION OF DRIVING RANGE NETS Associate Planner Young-Walters stated this is a continuation of Planning Case 2021-02, the resumption of the golf zone use at 825 Flying Cloud Drive. The applicant s, Brian and Keri Colvin, are requesting that Condition 9 from the I nterim Use Permit (IUP) be removed, which is the condition requiring the installation of driving range nets, particularly the nets across the back of the golf zone driving range. Mr. Young-Walters refreshed the Commissioners on the location, noting it is zoned A2 – Agricultural Estate and is guided in the 2040 land use plan for office and Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021 7 agricultural use. The site is just under 100 acres in size and is currently operating as a golf driving range under IUP 2021-02. Mr. Young-Walters gave a short background on the driving range including amendments, noting it closed down in 2018 and per City Code after 6 months of inactivity the original IUP permit expired. In January 2021, the City Council approved the resumption of use under a new IUP and had a condition that nets be installed by June 14, 2021. This is what the applicant is asking relief from and has stated they want to be allowed to operate the driving range without installing the rear nets as the wetlands are approximately 400 yards away and golfers cannot hit balls further than 300 yards. They also machine and hand-pick balls daily and the previous driving range had not utilized rear nets for 10 years of its operation, a 2020 site visit did not find stray balls, and the applicant has stated if they observe balls in the wetlands, they will voluntarily install the nets. He believes the applicant is still intending to have the side nets present. Staff’s position is that wetland boundaries are not always obvious. The most recent wetland delineation in 1998 expired (wetland delineations are good for three years), showed that the wetland boundary at the time was 275 yards rather than 400 yards from the concrete bunkers where the driving occurs. In the staff report, the Water Resources Coordinator noted that there is significant concern with equipment being operated regularly near and within the wetland and within the wetland buffer. One of the big reasons staff did not require the applicant to get a new delineation when this IUP came through to be resumed is because staff had been under the understanding that the nets would be installed at 230 yards which provides 45 yards of cushion between the last known edge of the wetland and where they would reasonably expect balls to travel. Without the nets, staff is very concerned about ball-picking equipment being used within wetland buffer areas and near the wetland. Staff is recommending denial and that the condition of nets being installed be retained. The applicant is a little confused. He understood that his nets were required to be put in the back; he did not realize that they were talking about side nets and all. From their hitting area, using multiple GPS units off of mats in the hitting stalls within the facility, it is 375 yards right to the edge of the weed line. The wetlands start roughly about 400 feet in. They have two ball picking machines that drive in the center of the driving range to pick the balls. On the outside where the poles would be at the 230-yard mark, they have 5-6 employees every day that do a clean pick by hand; every ball is picked off that property before they go home at night . Mr. Colvin clarified the machine is not driving anywhere near the wetlands. He did not know they were also talking about putting nets up on the sides and stated on the west side; he has not measured the wetlands as they never planned on putting nets on that side because the land goes so far over before hitting the woods – Tiger Woods could not even hit a ball into the wetlands over on that side. He showed an overhead map and explained the distances and wetlands. Commissioner Skistad asked where they hit the balls in looking at the map. Mr. Colvin replied they hit from the building and within the blue boundary marked on screen. Commissioner Alto asked if Mr. Colvin ever intended to put up any nets, whether on the back or the side. Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021 8 Mr. Colvin said after owning, maintaining, and watching for 60 days, he realized that nobody can hit into these wetlands. The previous owner did not have nets, as they had deteriorated, for the last 10 years. Commissioner Alto said wouldn’t the nets also prevent wildlife and birds from crossing the path of the balls if the nets were there. Mr. Colvin replied yes. Commissioner Noyes stated they probably could have issues both ways that the nets would cause issues with the birds. Associate Planner Young-Walters clarified that Condition 9 requires that the nets be installed in compliance with DNR guidelines in 1998. The DNR specified a minimum of a 4.5-foot clearance for the nets as well as maximum heights so that they would not interfere with migrating birds or any animals passing through. Mr. Colvin said having the nets start 4.5-5 feet above the ground and go up actually defeats the whole purpose of having nets. Most balls, about 80-90% that are coming out at 230 yards are already dropping and rolling underneath that 4.5-foot net. Commissioner Reeder asked why Mr. Colvin does not want to put the net up. Mr. Colvin replied he does not feel there is any need for it as none of the balls are entering the wetlands from t he hitting area and it is an expense that as a new business owner he does not want to cover if there is no need for it. As far as everything else, he was given a maintenance list by the City and took care of that, they did the landscaping, put in a rain garden and he felt that was all necessary and was taken care of within 30 days. Mr. Colvin feels like the nets are unnecessary and very costly. Vice Chair von Oven asked how costly the nets are. Mr. Colvin was under the assumption they were putting the nets just in the back. He had one bid just for the back and that was $32,000. He had two other bids for the back and one came in at $28,000 and another at $30,000; out of curiosity he asked for a bid on what it would cost for the nets to go around the who le perimeter and one came in at $89,000 and the other came in at $97,000. Vice Chair von Oven opened the public hearing. Vice Chair von Oven closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021 9 Commissioner Skistad said 4.5 feet off the ground does not make sense to her either. It seems that the regulation does not make logical sense and perhaps they should review it. Commissio ner Johnson asked if the 4.5 feet is a regulation or if that is just how they install the nets. Commissioner Skistad noted it is the DNR because they want to let animals through. She said if they let animals through, they also let golf balls through. Mr. Young-Walters said from going through the meeting minutes in the 1990’s, the original net discussion was a balancing act. There was concern about balls traveling into the wetlands, and they have a wetland alteration permit because part of the driving range that is no longer in use went into the wetland at 255 yards. He noted a portion of about 18,000 square feet on screen that was filled in order to allow for the driving range. Staff had been very concerned about long shots going deep into that buffer area and into the wetlands and the compromise was with the nets there a person who hits a high and far ball would be caught by the nets. He noted some will roll further but the goal is to keep them from hitting the wetland. In regards to the location of the wetland, Mr. Young-Walters understands what the applicant is saying, however, one cannot identify a wetland just based on surface vegetatio n. A certified delineator must come out, take soil samples, look at type of soils, hydrology, etc., to know where that boundary is. The last delineation done at this site showed it at 275 feet out from the bunker. He noted wetlands move and without a new delineation there is no way to know if it has moved closer, further back, or zig -zagged around. Mr. Colvin commented regarding a high shot near the 255, to reach that would actually be a 255- yard carry. For those who do not golf, the average PGA Tour player has a 255–275-yard carry, which is impossible for anybody to come to his facility make that let alone total that out. He took all those facts from TrackMan Technology, a database that takes information in from every Tour player. Keri Colvin stated the last City inspection was in 2014 and the nets were not up then. The previous owner closed it in 2018 and Mr. Young-Walters did a complete walkthrough of the property prior to the IUP. Looking back at the previous City Council and Planning Commission minutes, they could not find a single golf ball out in the wetlands or in the woods. The facility had not had nets up for over 10 years at that point. Mr. Young -Walters clarified that inspection was done by himself, a Water Resource Coordinator, and the City Arborist. They did not do an intensive search, they walked out maybe 20-30 yards beyond the end of the poles which is the 230-yard point. In looking at the aerials in 2019, waters were up to the 230-yard pole so anything that would have been there from 2018, beyond that point would not have been there when they conducted that walk through. Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021 10 Commissioner Reeder clarified this requirement for the fence was put in the last time they approved it. Mr. Young-Walters replied this was one of the conditions on the 1998 IUP and was one of the conditions they informed the applicant they would be keeping for the reissued permit and was upheld at City Council when they reissued the permit. Commissioner Reeder asked if the applicant knew that. Mr. Young -Walters said the applicant was given the initial IUP and was told they would be maintaining all conditions and was advised to familiarize himself with it. There was extensive discussion on this condition when he asked for an extension on implementing it before the City Council meeting where this was approved. Commissioner Reeder asked Mr. Colvin if he did not understand that he had to do this or if he did not cost it out. Mr. Colvin understood, he knew the list of things that he had to do. Ever ything else from the City that was requested he completely agrees with, however, once they had the facility open for 60 days, he realized that it just does not make sense to put these nets up because nobody can hit balls anywhere into these wetlands. As a new business owner this is a very costly addition and if it does not have to be put in, he simply does not want to. It is a lot of money to put these nets in to stop pretty much zero balls that would go into the wetlands. Also, to start them 4.5 feet seems like he is really wasting everyone’s time and money. Commissioner Reeder noted it was not in Mr. Colvin’s original business plan to put the nets up. Mr. Colvin replied when he purchased the facility, he never planned on putting nets up as there had not been nets up there in the last 10 years. Commissioner Reeder stated it said in the permit Mr. Colvin received that he had to. Mr. Colvin understands that part. After owning the facility for 60 days he decided to go back to the Planning Commission and City Council and ask them to amend the request of the netting because no one can reach the wetlands. Commissioner Noyes asked Mr. Young-Walters if the DNR is driving the requirement for the netting in t he original permit. If the DNR was sitting here right now, would they say they are not really concerned about this. Mr. Young -Walters replied unfortunately the DNR did not respond to either of the interjurisdictional requests which puts him in an awkward position in trying to speak for them. In reviewing the letter, the DNR sent to the City in 1998, his understanding is that the City was Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021 11 primarily concerned about balls moving into the flood plain and wetland and the DNR was primarily concerned with the animal migrations and wildlife not being impacted. Commissioner Noyes would love to go back and say there have not been nets in the previous 10 years of operation but he does not think that holds a lot of water; just because they were non- compliant does not mean they can be non-compliant going forward. He thinks it is valuable to understand why they would be requesting the fencing, whether it is the City or the DNR. Commissioner Alto noted they also do not have proof that the 10 years without nets did not have an impact, there is just no physical evidence that they can see right now. She said 60 days of being open and not having an impact – the wetlands are not able to speak for themselves in this matter – and if the DNR and the City also thinks it is best, she has to side with them. Vice Chair von Oven asked from a historical perspective, what was the order? Did Mr. Colvin purchase the property and then come to the City for the IUP renewal? Or did he obtain the renewal and then make the decision to purchase the property? Mr. Colvin replied they purchased the property and then came for the renewal of the IUP. Mr. Young-Walters clarified he believes they met before Mr. Colvin finalized the purchase to go over the 1998 IUP and to discuss whether or not the City would be amenable to reissuing it. Vice Chair von Oven said Mr. Colvin had a good feeling that by purchasing the property that he would have a path through the City. Mr. Colvin replied yes. Commissioner Alto moved, Commissioner Reeder seconded, that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council deny the Applicant’s request to remove Condition 9 from the IUP 2021-02. Commissioner Noyes has a hard time voting to deny because he does not know why it is required to have the nets, yet. He really wants to know if the DNR is the one pushing this because of the wetland issue. At this point in time, he would vote against the motion to deny and perhaps recommend they get more information related to the origin of the netting requirement. Vice Chair von Oven has gone back-and-forth on this one and he stated this is clearly not a surprise for the owners. He does not think one purchases a driving range anywhere around a City and think s that they may not have to get some nets. He also agrees and he is not sure these nets are serving the purpose that was intended. At the end of the day taking the facts and saying if the right thing to do is eliminate the need for these nets, it is not through a variance but is through amending the need for a net next to a wetland within 275 feet. Mr. von Oven said if it had been a surprise to the owners, he would try to find a way to ease that burden. However, if this was not in Planning Commission Minutes – June 15, 2021 12 the business plan, then it wasn’t a very good business plan, or it was a hopeful business plan that the previous owner did not have nets for 10 years so they could perhaps not have nets. He has to be on the side of denying the variance. Commissioner Alto said as they spoke earlier in terms of setting precedence, doesn’t it set the precedent that one can buy a business that is out of compliance and hope that the City will allow them to continue to be out of compliance. Commissioner Skistad is all for supporting and protecting wetlands but she does not feel that this does either. It would have been better if it was addressed before it got to this point, but perhaps one cannot know that until they have had the business and been hitting golf balls for 60 days. She will vote against this motion for those reasons. The motion carried with a vote of 4 to 2. Ayes 4, Nays 2 (Noyes, Skistad) Mr. Generous stated this is a recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council on July 12, 2021. Mr. Young-Walters noted staff will do their best to reach out to the DNR and try to clarify their feelings on this condition. He said Staff did reach out to the DNR when the discussion on delaying the condition came up and were not able to get a response, but he promises they will try. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Approve Planning Commission Minutes dated June 1, 2021. Commissioner Johnson moved to approve the Planning Commission Minutes from June 1, 2021. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Skistad 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 8:29 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, July 6, 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, JUNE 14, 2021 Ordinance XXX: Approve an Amendment to Chapter 20, Zoning, Concerning Mobile Food Vending (Food Trucks) – Approved MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2021 Approve a Request for a Two-Foot Height Variance for an Accessory Structure on Property Located at 6300 Hummingbird Road – 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 PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, July 6, 2021 Subject Discuss Future Code Amendments Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Item No: D.2. Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, Associate Planner File No:  BACKGROUND Staff periodically reviews areas of the City Code that could potentially be amended to close loopholes, remove obsolete provisions, improve clarity, or allow for increased flexibility. Our practice is to bring these issues and potential solutions to the City Council’s attention. The City Council has indicated that they would like staff to hold a public hearing before the Planning Commission on the following potential Code amendments: 1. Sign Code Update 2. Fences a.  Shoreland Fences b.  Above­Ground Pool Requirements c.  Height d.  CUP Requirements e.  Barbed Wire/Electric Restrictions 3. Retaining Walls Please be aware that this is not an exhaustive list, and items not on this list may come before the Planning Commission before the above listed items due to the urgency or ease of addressing newly discovered issues. Additionally, the proposed solutions may change as staff continues to research and discuss the issues. A brief summary of each item and staff’s recommendation can be found in the attached report. ATTACHMENTS: Upcoming Code Amendments CITY OT CIIAI'IIIASSIN Chanhassen is a Community f0r Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: STJB.I: Planning Commission MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner Ju,ly 6,2021 City Code Amendments to Chapter 20 "Zoning" BACKGROUND Staff periodically reviews areas ofthe City Code that could potentially be amended to close loopholes, remove obsolete provisions, improve clarity, or allow for increased flexibility. Our practice is to bring these issues and potential solutions to the City Council's attention. The City Council has indicated that they would like staff to hold a public hearing before the Planning Commission on the following potential Code amendments. l) Sign Code Update 2) Fences a. Shoreland Fences b. Above-ground Pool Requirements c. Height d. CUP Requirements e. BarbedWire/Electric Restrictions 3) Retaining Walls Please be aware that this is not an exhaustive list, and items not on this list may come before the Planning Commission before the above listed items due to the urgency or ease ofaddressing newly discovered issues. Additionally, the proposed solutions may change as staffcontinues to research and discuss the issues. A brief summary of each item and stafPs recommendation can be found in the following section. SUMMARY OF ISSUES Sign Code Update Issue Summary Most ofthe City's sigr code is over 25 years old and over that period of time lhere have been sigrificant changes in technology, the commercial landscape, and sigrage uends. Staffhas noticed increasing instances of well thought out and architecturally compatible signs being unable to meet PH 952.227.1100. www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Fx 952.227.1110 I/OO I.,IARKET BOULEVARD.PO BOX I4T.CHANHASSEN .MINNESOTA 55517 Planning Commission City Code Amendments luly 6,2021 Page 2 the requirements ofthe City's sign code, as well as increasing challenges in reasonably applying the City's directional signage, pick up signage, and menu board sigrrage provisions. Finally, recent court decisions, particularly Reed v. Town of Gilbert, have rendered several provisions within our sign code unable to survive a court challenge. Proposed Solution Staffbelieves a complete overhaul of the existing sign code is required to address the above issues. The revised sign code will be designed to survive legal challenges under Reed and allow of increased creativity and diversity in signage, while still ensuring that signage is architecturally compatible and limited in size, location, and frequency. The new code will also allow for increased flexibility in responding to the changing commercial trends by allowing the approval ofadditional direction or pick up signage at an administrative level. Issue Summary There have been several ongoing issues with fences: 1 . Fences within the rear yard of riparian properties are limited to 36". Staff has historically applied this only to fences within the shoreland setback in order to avoid conflict with provisions requiring swimming pool fences to be a minimum of 5' in height. Additionally, no setback from the ordinary high water level is specified for fences. 2. Multiple residents have contacted staff expressing concem that above-ground pools do not have any fencing requirements. In-ground pools are subject to fencing standards in order to minimize the risk of accidental drowning and large relatively permanent above- ground pools can present a similar risk. 3. The City Code requires a Conditional Use Permit for residential fences exceeding 6.5', even though all other deviations from the Code are handled through the variance process. 4. Fences in the front yards ofcomer and double fiontage properties are subject to more restrictive height limits than fences within the front yards ofother properties. Additionally, the height limitation on fencing within sight triangles is only applied to comer and double frontage lots, though the safety concem would apply to any driveway access. 5. The language regulating barbed wire and electric fences would allow anyone in an agricultural disrict to install these types offences, regardless ofifthey are actively engaged in agriculture. Proposed Solution Staff believes that the fence section of the ordinance should be rewritten to: clarifu that the 36" shoreland height limit only applies to fences within the shoreland setback and requires these fences be setback l0' from the ordinary high water level; require fences meeting the standard for in-ground pools for permanent above-ground pools with non-removable access; remove the Fences (Public Hearing Required) Planning Commission City Code Amendments luly 6,2021 Page 3 conditional use permit requirement for residential fences over 6.5'; establish universal standards for front yard fences and sight distance triangles; and, prohibit barbed wire and electric fences fr om non-farm properties. Retaining Walls Issue Summary The City Code's application of structure setbacks to retaining walls is inconsistent, and does not always acknowledge the difference between retaining walls and other structures. These inconstancies have led to general confusion about where retaining walls are and should be permitted. Additionally, the City Code uses but does not define the term "stage wall", which has caused some confusion for contractors. Finally, the section on retaining walls says only walls over 4' in height require a permit while another section ofthe code notes walls under 4' in height require a zoning permit. Proposed Solution Staff proposes clariffing that within bluffs, shoreland setbacks, and the BluffCreek Overlay Distriit, retaining walls are not permited within protected impact zones, though they are allowed within general structure setbacks. Retaining walls in wetland buffer areas would be subject to accessory strucfl[e standards ifover 4' in height, otherwise they would be treated as fences. The term "stage wall" should be replaced with 'liered wall", a more commonly used term, and a definition for tiered walls should be added to the City Code. Finally, the section on retaining walls should be amended to clariff that zoning permits are required for walls under 4' in height and a building permit is required for walls over 4' in height. g:\planvnw\issue papels and reports (drafu)\l-misc\2021 upcoming codelrc.docx