Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
PC Staff Report 03-01-22
Planning Commission Item March 1, 2022 Item 6609 Horseshoe Curve: Consider a Request for Setback and Maximum Size Variances for a Water-Oriented Accessory Structure (WOAS), a Variance to Allow a Six-Foot, Six-Inch High Opaque Fence (Gate) within the Required Front Yard Setback and a Variance Request for a Front Yard Parking Pad File No.Planning Case No. 2021-07B Item No: C.2 Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner Applicant Elise Bruner & Brian Bruner 6609 Horseshoe Curve Chanhassen, MN 55317 Present Zoning Single Family Residential District (RSF) Land Use Residential Low Density Acerage .64 Density NA 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 XXIII, Division 5. Fences and Walls 24 SUGGESTED ACTION "City Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, deny the requested opaque gate variance, deny the requested variance for a front yard parking pad, and approve a 58-square foot water oriented accessory structure size variance, a 5-foot side yard setback variance, and 2-foot shoreland setback variance for the construction of a water oriented accessory structure, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopt the attached Findings of Facts and Decision." SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a 6.5-foot high opaque gate within the required front yard setback, a variance for a front yard parking pad, and variances from the water oriented accessory structure (WOAS) maximum size limit, shoreland setback, and side yard setback to add a storage shed to the property’s existing WOAS. 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 This requirement was subsequently repealed and properties are subjected to the current 75-foot shoreland setback.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 included 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 WOAS near the lake, and a front yard parking pad. On May 22, 2020, staff expressed concerns about the likely presence of a bluff on the property and 25 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 pad, and presence of impervious surface within the bluff impact zone. On July 16, 2020, staff and the designer met to discuss the proposed project. During the meeting, staff expressed concern regarding the proposed size and placement of the WOAS, but was supportive of the plans to stabilize the bluff and proposed pervious patio above the bluff. On November 20, 2020, staff and the designer met to discuss the proposed project. The proposed WOAS had been scaled back to address staff’s concerns. On November 30, 2020, staff and the designer met to discuss the proposed project. No significant concerns were raised. On December 18, 2020, the applicant submitted the variance request. 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 from 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. On July 6, 2021, the Planning Commission approved 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. On August 20, 2021, staff received a complaint that work on the site was exceeding what was permitted by the variance. Staff conducted an inspection and found that no permit had been issued and that work was being conducted by the lakeshore. A stop work order was issued. Subsequently, the applicant’s contractor received a zoning permit for the deck and stairs and this portion of the stop work order was lifted. He was informed that a grading permit would be needed to resume work on the slope. 26 From August 20, 2021 to September 16, 2021, staff and the applicant and their representatives had multiple discussions centering on the scope of work being conducted on the property, what had been approved as part of the variance, what ordinances and restrictions applied, and what permits were needed. On September 17, 2021, the applicant submitted a variance request asking the City to either revise their determination that a bluff was present on the property or grant a series of variances from the provisions of the bluff ordinance. The applicant also requested variances to add a shed to their existing WOAS and install a 6.5-foot opaque privacy fence within the front yard setback. On September 21, 2021, staff, after consulting with the City attorney, acknowledged that the property was not subject to the bluff ordinance and provided the applicant with a list of the permits that would be required for their proposed project. In this response, staff identified the proposed WOAS and front yard privacy fence as items which would still require variances. On September 27, 2021, the applicant updated their variance request to reflect the response they received from staff on September 21, 2021. On October 19, 2021, the applicant requested that their variance request be tabled at the October 19, 2021 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow them time to modify their request. They agreed to waive the required 60-day review period and agreed to extend the deadline to March 31, 2022. On February 28, 2022, the applicant submitted a revised variance request that reduced the proposed extent of the proposed fence to an opaque gate and retained the proposed WOAS. They also included a front yard parking area in their request. DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting that the City grant them a variance to install a 6.5-foot high opaque security gate. The proposed gate would straddle the driveway and be setback approximately 10 feet from the front property line. Since the City Code limits the height of opaque fences within the required 30-foot front yard setback to three feet, a variance is required to permit the proposed opaque gate in this location. The applicant is also requesting variances to allow them to add a 132-square foot shed to the property’s existing 225.5-square foot WOAS, and a deck less than 30 inches in height. The resulting structure would be 357.5 square feet in size with an 8-foot shoreland setback and a 1-foot side yard setback. Since WOASs are limited to a maximum of 250 square feet and subject to 10-foot side and shoreland setback, variances from these standards would be required to accommodate the proposed structure’s size and placement. Finally, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow for a front yard parking pad. Due to the City Code’s requirement that front yards remain unobstructed, save for certain allowed encroachments, and limiting of residential properties to a single access within the right-of-way, variances from these requirements would be required. The applicant has stated that they are requesting a variance from the City’s prohibition on opaque fencing within the front yard setback due to their concern that vehicles entering the driveway during wet or icy conditions will be unable to stop and could crash into their home. They have noted that due to the momentum that would be generated by a vehicle’s downward travel down their steep driveway a gate placed 30 feet back from the front lot line would be much less likely to be able to stop an out of control vehicle than one placed 10 feet back from the front lot line. They have also indicated that they do not believe a three foot high opaque gate would be able to address their safety concerns. 27 Additionally, the applicant has stated that a front yard parking pad is necessary to provide a safe place to park during inclement weather. They have noted that the pad would be located in the area occupied by the property’s former driveway access and that it would not place the property over its permitted 25 percent lot cover limit. Regarding the proposed WOAS, the applicant has stated that the shed is necessary due to the fact that they do not have an area in which to store valuable equipment (patio furniture, boats, etc.) down by the lake and that they have had previous issues with theft due to the inability to secure their property. They observe that the site’s topography creates a difficulty in continuing hauling items from the home to the lake and that a secure storage area is needed to remedy this. They have indicated the requested shed size is the minimum needed to store their canoe and that it is unreasonable for the City to propose that a portion of the recently built existing WOAS be removed due to the cost incurred in its constriction. The have also noted that the proposed location would minimize the sheds visibility from the lake, as required by code, and that there are provisions in the code allowing for a 400 square foot WOAS designed solely for the storage of watercraft and related items. Finally, they note that the proposed shed would not exceed the property’s lot cover limit and would be of a moveable design so as to not impede access to the City’s sanitary sewer line. In evaluating the requested variance for an opaque gate, staff cannot find that the applicant meets the conditions required for granting the requested variance. The applicant has not demonstrated that their security concern could not be addressed through a 6.5-foot high open gate, a 4-foot high chain link gate, or a 3-foot high opaque gate located within the front yard setback, as permitted by City Code. Based on the submitted material, the use of an opaque rather than open design for the gate appears to be a design choice rather than an engineering necessity. Staff believes the City’ prohibition on tall opaque fences and structures within the required front yard setback plays an important role in creating and maintaining neighborhood aesthetics. The existing parking pad that the applicant references is the old driveway access that was slated for removal as part of the driveway realignment in previously submitted and approved plans. The City Code does not permit front yard parking pads due to their increase of impervious surfaces within the right-of- way, increased risk of accidents, and the maintenance issues they can create during snow emergencies, as well as their aesthetic impact on neighborhoods. For these reasons staff cannot support the requested variance. Regarding the proposed WOAS, every riparian property in the city is subject to the same WOAS restrictions and property owners often must choose between lakeshore storage and recreational amenities. Staff believes that the WOAS regulations play an important role in limiting the amount of lot cover, both pervious and impervious, installed along the lake and in preserving the shoreline’s aesthetics. While the applicant is correct that the Code does allow for a 400-square foot WOAS, it does not permit one in conjunction with other amenities, such as the existing deck, and it limits these structures to a 20-foot width. The combined width of the applicant's deck and shed would be approximately 31 feet. Additionally, staff notes that any shed over 200 square feet would need to meet the requirements of the Building Code and the City would not allow the placement of this type of structure in an easement occupied by active infrastructure. For these reasons, staff cannot support the variance as requested; however, the property did have a nonconforming 308-square foot WOAS that was located seven feet from the ordinary high water level (OHWL) and five feet from the side yard setback. Under Variance 2021-07, the new deck was required to maintain those setbacks. While replacing the pre-existing patio and deck with a shed would be considered an expansion of the nonconformity, staff supports granting a variance to allow the applicant a 308-square foot WOAS with an 8-foot shoreland setback and 5-foot side yard setback, consistent with the footprint of the pre- 28 existing WOAS. A full discussion can be found in the attached staff report. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, deny the requested opaque gate variance, denies the requested variance for a front yard parking pad, and approves a 58-square foot water oriented accessory structure size variance, a 5-foot side yard setback variance, and 2-foot shoreland setback variance for the construction of a water oriented accessory structure, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopt the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. 1. The applicant shall consult with City staff and apply for required permits, either building or zoning, for all proposed structures (i.e. shed and deck). 2. No construction can occur until the required permits identified in Condition 1 are issued. 3. The applicant shall file for an Encroachment Agreement with the City for any encroachments within public drainage and utility easements. 4. The shed and its appurtenances shall be constructed so that it is removable from the public utility easement, for review and approval by the City prior to issuance of the required permit. 5. The applicant must apply for and receive any all applicable permits from the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Water Shed District. ATTACHMENTS Staff Report Findings of Fact and Decision (Partial Approval) Revised Written Justification for Variance Application Updated Variance Materials Development Review Application Gate 3D Images Pre-existing Parking Pad Images Engineering Comments Water Resources Engineer Comments DNR Comments Neighbor Comments Affidavit of Mailing 29 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: March 1, 2022 CC DATE: March 21, 2022 REVIEW DEADLINE: March 31, 2022 CASE #: PC 2021-07B BY: MYW SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a 6.5-foot high opaque gate within the required front yard setback, a variance for a front yard parking pad, and variances from the water oriented accessory structure (WOAS) maximum size limit, shoreland setback, and side yard setback to add a storage shed to the property’s existing WOAS . LOCATION:6609 Horseshoe Curve OWNER:Elise and 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. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY: The applicant is requesting that the City grant them a variance to install a 6.5-foot high opaque security gate. The proposed gate would straddle the driveway and be setback approximately 10 feet from the front property line. Since the City Code limits the height of opaque fences within the required 30-foot front yard setback to three feet, a variance is required to permit the proposed PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested opaque gate variance, denies the requested variance for a front yard parking pad, and approves a 58-square foot water oriented accessory structure size variance, a 5-foot side yard setback variance, and 2-foot shoreland setback variance for the construction of a water oriented accessory structure, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” 30 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance March 1, 2022 Page 2 opaque gate in this location. The applicant is also requesting variances to allow them to add a 132-square foot shed to the property’s existing 225.5-square foot WOAS, and a deck less than 30 inches in height. The resulting structure would be 357.5 square feet in size with an 8-foot shoreland setback and a 1-foot side yard setback. Since WOASs are limited to a maximum of 250 square feet and subject to 10-foot side and shoreland setbacks, variances from these standards would be required to accommodate the proposed structure’s size and placement. Finally, the applicant is requesting a variance to allow for a front yard parking pad. Due to the City Code’s requirement that front yards remain unobstructed, save for certain allowed encroachments, and limiting of residential properties to a single access within the right-of-way, variances from these requirements would be required. The applicant has stated that they are requesting a variance from the City’s prohibition on opaque fencing within the front yard setback due to their concern that vehicles entering the driveway during wet or icy conditions will be unable to stop and could crash into their home. They have noted that due to the momentum that would be generated by a vehicle’s downward travel down their steep driveway a gate placed 30 feet back from the front lot line would be much less likely to be able to stop an out of control vehicle than one placed 10 feet back from the front lot line. They have also indicated that they do not believe a three foot high opaque gate would be able to address their safety concerns. Additionally, the applicant has stated that a front yard parking pad is necessary to provide a safe place to park during inclement weather. They have noted that the pad would be located in the area occupied by the property’s former driveway access and that it would not place the property over its permitted 25 percent lot cover limit. Regarding the proposed WOAS, the applicant has stated that the shed is necessary due to the fact that they do not have an area in which to store valuable equipment (patio furniture, boats, etc.) down by the lake and that they have had previous issues with theft due to the inability to secure their property. They observe that the site’s topography creates a difficulty in continuing hauling items from the home to the lake and that a secure storage area is needed to remedy this. They have indicated the requested shed size is the minimum needed to store their canoe and that it is unreasonable for the City to propose that a portion of the recently built existing WOAS be removed due to the cost incurred in its constriction. The have also noted that the proposed location would minimize the shed’s visibility from the lake, as required by Code, and that there are provisions in the Code allowing for a 400-square foot WOAS designed solely for the storage of watercraft and related items. Finally, they note that the proposed shed would not exceed the property’s lot cover limit and would be of a moveable design so as to not impede access to the City’s sanitary sewer line. In evaluating the requested variance for an opaque gate, staff cannot find that the applicant meets the conditions required for granting the requested variance. The applicant has not demonstrated that their security concern could not be addressed through a 6.5-foot high open gate, a 4-foot high chain link gate, or a 3-foot high opaque gate located within the front yard setback, as permitted by City Code. Based on the submitted material, the use of an opaque rather than open 31 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance March 1, 2022 Page 3 design for the gate appears to be a design choice rather than an engineering necessity. Staff believes the City’s prohibition on tall opaque fences and structures within the required front yard setback plays an important role in creating and maintaining neighborhood aesthetics. The existing parking pad that the applicant references is the old driveway access that was slated for removal as part of the driveway realignment in previously submitted and approved plans. The City Code does not permit front yard parking pads due to their increase of impervious surfaces within the right-of-way, increased risk of accidents, and the maintenance issues they can create during snow emergencies, as well as their aesthetic impact on neighborhoods. For these reasons staff cannot support the requested variance. Regarding the proposed WOAS, every riparian property in the city is subject to the same WOAS restrictions and property owners often must choose between lakeshore storage and recreational amenities. Staff believes that the WOAS regulations play an important role in limiting the amount of lot cover, both pervious and impervious, installed along the lake and in preserving the shoreline’s aesthetics. While the applicant is correct that the Code does allow for a 400-square foot WOAS, it does not permit one in conjunction with other amenities, such as the existing deck, and it limits these structures to a 20-foot width. The combined width of the applicant’s deck and shed would be approximately 31 feet. Additionally, staff notes that any shed over 200 square feet would need to meet the requirements of the Building Code and the City would not allow the placement of this type of structure in an easement occupied by active infrastructure. For these reasons, staff cannot support the variance as requested; however, the property did have a nonconforming 308-square foot WOAS that was located seven feet from the ordinary high water level (OHWL) and five feet from the side yard setback. Under variance 2021-07, the new deck was required to maintain those setbacks. While replacing the pre-existing patio and deck with a shed would be considered an expansion of the nonconformity, staff supports granting a variance to allow the applicant a 308-square foot WOAS with an 8-foot shoreland setback and 5- foot side yard setback, consistent with the footprint of the pre-existing WOAS. 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 XXIII, Division 5. Fences and Walls 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.* 32 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance March 1, 2022 Page 4 *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 May21, 2020, the designer contacted staff with a proposal for the site that included a large concrete patio off the rear of the home, a concrete patio and large WOAS near the lake, and front yard parking pad. On May 22, 2020, staff expressed concerns about the likely presence of a bluff on the property and provided the designer with the sections of the City Code that they believed would apply to the proposal. Staff indicated that the proposal would require multiple variances and that a survey would be required to determine the exact nature and extent of the variances. On June 16, 2020, the designer sent a revised plan and requested a meeting with staff to discuss potential variances. On June 18, 2020, staff met with the applicant’s designer to discuss the proposed project. During the meeting, staff expressed concern regarding the proposed size and placement of the WOAS, proposed front yard parking, and presence of impervious surface within the bluff impact zone. On July 16, 2020, staff and the designer met to discuss the proposed project. During the meeting, staff expressed concern regarding the proposed size and placement of the WOAS but was supportive of the plans to stabilize the bluff and proposed pervious patio above the bluff. On November 20, 2020, staff and the designer met to discuss the proposed project. The proposed WOAS had been scaled back to address staff’s concerns. On November 30, 2020, staff and the designer met to discuss the proposed project. No significant concerns were raised. 33 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance March 1, 2022 Page 5 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 from 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 possibilityof 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. On July 6, 2021, the Planning Commission approved 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. On August 20, 2021, staff received a complaint that work on the site was exceeding what was permitted by the variance. Staff conducted an inspection and found that no permit had been issued and that work was being conducted by the lakeshore. A stop work order was issued. Subsequently, the applicant’s contractor received a zoning permit for the deck and stairs and this portion of the stop work order was lifted. He was informed that a grading permit would be needed to resume work on the slope. From August 20, 2021 to September 16, 2021, staff and the applicant and their representatives had multiple discussions centering on the scope of work being conducted on the property, what had been approved as part of the variance, what ordinances and restrictions applied, and what permits were needed. On September 17, 2021, the applicant submitted a variance request asking the City to either revise their determination that a bluff was present on the property or grant a series of variances from the provisions of the bluff ordinance. The applicant also requested variances to add a shed to their existing WOAS and install a 6.5-foot opaque privacy fence within the front yard and shoreland setback. 34 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance March 1, 2022 Page 6 On September 21, 2021, staff, after consulting with the City attorney, acknowledged that the property was not subject to the bluff ordinance and provided the applicant with a list of the permits that would be required for their proposed project. In this response, staff identified the proposed WOAS and front yard and shore land privacy fence as items which would still require variances. On September 27, 2021, the applicant updated their variance request to reflect the response they received from staff on September 21, 2021. On October 19, 2021, the applicant requested that their variance request be tabled at the October 19, 2021 Planning Commission meeting in order to allow them time to modify their request. They agreed to waive the required 60-day review period and agreed to extend the deadline to March 31, 2022. On February 28, 2022, the applicant submitted a revised variance request that reduced the propose extent of the proposed fence to an opaque gate and retained the proposed WOAS. They also included a front yard parking area in their request. SITE CONSTRAINTS Zoning Overview The property is zoned Single-Family Residential District and is located within the Shoreland Management District. 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. The shoreland ordinance allows 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 home had a preexisting WOAS which was a 308-square foot structure with a 5-foot side yard setback and 7- foot shoreland setback. This WOAS was located within the City’s sanitary sewer easement. The WOAS was replaced with a 225.5-square foot WOAS with a 5-foot side yard setback and 3-foot shoreland setback. The house and other features appear to meet all other requirements of the City Code. Bluff Creek Corridor The property is not encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Bluff Protection 35 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance March 1, 2022 Page 7 There is not a bluff on the property. Note: Based on the initial survey provided, staff determined that a bluff was present on the property. The property owner subsequently demonstrated that the City’s definition of bluff would not apply to the property and staff has acknowledged that the original bluff determination was in error. 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 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 OHWL, 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. Fences within the shoreland setback are limited to 3.5 feet in height. Wetland Protection There is not a wetland located in the development site. NEIGHBORHOOD Pleasant View/Alicia Heights 36 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance March 1, 2022 Page 8 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* (PC 2021-07A): 20’ bluff impact zone and 30’ bluff setback (deck) and bluff impact zone and bluff setback (retaining wall) – 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 37 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance March 1, 2022 Page 9 6697 Horseshoe Curve (PC 1985-02): 9.03’ side setback (addition, intensify nonconforming) – Approved *Bluff portions of the variance subsequently rendered moot by determination that no bluff is present on the parcel. ANALYSIS Opaque Gate The applicant is requesting a variance for an opaque gate setback approximately 10 feet from the front property line. The applicant is concerned that due to the driveway’s steep 19.5 percent slope delivery trucks and other vehicles entering the driveway during wet or icy conditions may be unable to stop. The applicant has noted that since momentum increases with speed and distance traveled, placing the gate near to the property line will increase its ability to stop out of control vehicles. They have also stated that a 3-foot high opaque gate on the downward slope would be unable to address their security concerns. In their narrative the applicant states that their only alternative under the City Code is an opaque fence of three feet or less in height, which they do not believe will be able to provide the required level of security; however, the City Code also allows for open fencing, defined as fencing with no more than 20 percent opacity, to be located within the required front yard setback with a maximum height of 6.5 feet and for chain link fences with a maximum height of four feet to be located in this area. While the applicant is proposing placing an opaque gate 10 feet back from the property line, the City Code would allow the placement of 3-foot opaque, 6.5-foot open, or 4-foot chain link fences within the front yard setback. In order for the City to support the variance request, it would need to be the case that none of the fencing permitted by the City Code could achieve the applicant’s stated security goals. 38 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance March 1, 2022 Page 10 While the applicant expresses concern over the ability of a 3-foot opaque gate to stop a vehicle, staff would note that SUVs tend to have ground clearances of between 6-8 inches, with the highest ground clearances being around 12 inches. Even for vehicles at the upper end of this ground clearance, a three foot high barrier would provide a significant obstacle in the event of a low speed collision, such as would happen with a vehicle sliding into the fence immediately after decelerating for the turn into the driveway. It is unlikely that a vehicle traveling at those speeds would flip over a 3-foot barrier. To provide context, the Minnesota Department of Transportation requires roadway guardrails to be between 28 inches and 31 inches in height, a height selected in part due to the inability for most vehicles to surmount it. The City Code would also permit the applicant to install a 6.5-foot open fence, i.e. a fence with no more than 20 percent opacity, in the location where the applicant is proposing to install the opaque fence. It is not clear that an open fence would be unable to provide an adequate stopping mechanism. Staff would expect that the force needed to push open a gate’s automatic opening mechanism, which by necessity is designed to open, would be less than the force required to break a gate off of its hinges or break through the materials making up the gate itself. Staff does not believe that a vehicle traveling at low speeds would have sufficient force to breach an open construction steel gate, assuming the opening mechanism held. The applicant has not demonstrated that an opaque style gate is necessary to withstand a low speed impact. It should also be noted that variances should only be granted to the minimum extent necessary to provide relief. The applicant is proposing a privacy style gate with nearly 100 percent opacity in area that does not permit fencing of that height with over 20 percent opacity. If it could be demonstrated that a gate meeting the City’s definition of open or meeting the City’s 3-foot height restriction for opaque fences is structurally unable to provide adequate stopping power, the minimum deviation from the 20 percent opacity or height standard necessary for the gate to serve the proposed function would be the appropriate level of relief. Finally, the City Code does allow the placement of opaque gates of up to 6.5 feet in height behind the required 30-foot front yard setback. There are numerous gates on the market that are rated to stop 15,000 pound vehicles traveling at speeds of 30 per hour which would be permitted by City Code in that location. Staff understands that the applicant is not proposing installing a K4 or M30 rated barrier and that the proposed placement 10 feet from the lot line is an attempt to avoid the need for that robust of a structure as well as to limit the damage to any vehicle that slides into the gate, but this further illustrates the presence of unexplored options within the bounds of City Code. 39 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance March 1, 2022 Page 11 Staff sympathizes with the applicant’s concern and agrees that their desire to ensure their home is not damaged by vehicle’s sliding down their driveway is reasonable; however, staff believes there are options permitted by the City Code that would provide a similar level of protection as the proposed opaque gate. In order to grant a variance, the City must find that “…the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter”, in this case the reasonable manner of protecting the home from out of control vehicles is permitted by the chapter. The use of a 6.5-foot high opaque gate in the proposed location rather than a gate meeting the requirements of the ordinance is a design choice that is not necessitated by any unique feature of the property. For this reason, staff cannot support the requested variance. Front Yard Parking Pad The applicant is proposing adding a parking pad located partially within the public right-of-way and entirely within the front yard drainage and utility easement and front yard setback. The applicant has indicated that they are currently using the property’s old driveway access as a front yard parking area and that it is very helpful in inclement weather. They have indicated their desire to place a permanent parking pad in that location and noted that it would not exceed the property’s 25-percent lot cover limit. Staff would note that when the applicant’s designer first approached staff with a conceptual plan for improving the property, it included a proposed guest parking area within the right-of-way and front yard setback and staff indicated that this would not be permitted by City Code in an email dated May 22, 2020. All subsequent proposals did not include a front parking area and all subsequently approved plans showed that the impervious surface and access associated with the former driveway location would be removed. Permits were granted for the driveway realignment because they showed that the existing driveway and its access would be removed. The City allows residential property’s a single driveway access in order to limit the amount of impervious surface within the public right of way and to provide for safe and efficient street networks. Parking pads within the public right-of-way increase the risk of accidents, due to vehicles colliding with parked vehicles or vehicles entering the street from unexpected locations. Horseshoe Curve is a narrow public road and staff is concerned that allowing parked cars abutting the road could intensify the risk of accidents. In addition to the potential safety concerns, front yard parking pads can create street maintenance issues during snow emergencies. Finally, the City prohibits front yard parking areas for aesthetic reasons as they result in the replacement of lawns with large expanses of paved surfaces. The City Code also limits driveway access to a maximum width of 24 feet at the right-of-way line, as part of its effort to limit the amount of impervious surface within the right-of-way. The applicant’s proposal would create an approximately 30-foot wide parking pad in addition to the 16-foot wide driveway, measured at the property line. The combined width of these accesses would be nearly double what is permitted by City Code and would result in 50 percent of the property’s street frontage being impervious surface. Granting the requested variance would not be consistent with the 40 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance March 1, 2022 Page 12 ordinance’s intent of preserving front yard greenspace and limiting impervious surfaces within the right-of-way. Staff notes that while the neighboring property has a parking/turn around area associated with its drive, it is separated from the roadway and appears to be located within its owner’s property. This feature can be observed on aerials dating to 1997 and would be considered a nonconforming driveway turnaround due to its location outside of the public right-of-way but within the property’s drainage and utilities easement. It is the intent of the City Code to encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses and the presence of a nonconformity within a neighborhood should not be used as grounds to allow for the proliferation of deviations from the City Code. For the aforementioned reasons, staff cannot support a variance request to locate a parking pad within the public right-of-way and the applicant’s front yard. Water-Oriented Accessory Structure (WOAS) The applicant is requesting a 107.5-square foot variance to allow them to add a 132-square foot shed to the property’s existing 225.5-square foot WOAS. The proposed placement of the shed would put it within one foot of the side lot line and eight feet from the OHWL. In the graphic (shown at right), the footprint of the pre-existing WOAS is shown in light purple, the proposed revised placement of the deck which was replaced is shown in black, and the proposed shed is shown in light blue. The applicant is requesting variances to permit the construction of the shed due to the challenges of transporting equipment down the steep slope from the home to the lake and the need to secure items that need to be stored by the lake, and has stated that the proposed size is the minimum necessary to allow them to store their canoe within the shed. The City recognizes the need for lakeshore storage and recreational amenities, as well as the importance of minimizing the number and size structures located along the shore. The City’s WOAS ordinance strikes a balance between these two needs by permitting one structure of up to 250 square feet located 10 feet from the side yard and 10 feet from the OHWL. For the purpose of applying the ordinance’s one structure provision, the City treats adjacent structures as a single structure. Every riparian parcel in the city is subject to these standards, unless they benefit from a legal nonconformity or variance, and though many owners would like additional storage space or multiple structures, City staff has always taken the position that property owners must prioritize how they configure their allowed WOAS. The Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 41 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance March 1, 2022 Page 13 responded to the City’s request for comment by noting that variances from the WOAS standards should only be granted when there are rare and unique circumstances. The DNR has recommend that the City not approve any deviation from the ordinance’s standards. Historically, variances have only been supported by City staff when a pre-existing condition is present. In this case, the applicant’s property did have a preexisting WOAS that was 308 square feet in size, five feet from the side lot line, and seven feet from the OHWL. The presence of this nonconforming structure was the rationale for staff formalizing the nonconforming setbacks as part of Variance 2021-07 and permitting the installation of a movable structure over the City’s sanitary sewer line, a situation that would not normally be permitted. While increasing the height of a nonconforming structure, such as by adding a shed on top of an existing patio or deck, would be an expansion of a nonconformity and require a variance, staff believes it would be consistent with past practice to support granting a variance allowing the applicant a 308-square foot structure setback five feet from the side lot line. The proposed increase from a 7-foot OHWL setback to an 8-foot OWHL setback would be a reduction to the previous nonconformity. The applicant could meet the 308-square foot requirement by either placing the proposed shed partially over the existing deck or removing 49.5 square feet of the existing decking. Alternatively, a smaller shed could be constructed. Any structure in the area would need to meet the Engineering Department’s requirements for encroachment in the sanitary sewer easement. The applicant has not demonstrated that there are any unique features to their lot which would justify allowing an expansion of their WOAS beyond the size of the pre-existing structure or which would require it to encroach closer than five feet to the side lot line. As the applicant has noted, they initially chose to construct the deck instead of a storage structure within the preexisting WOAS’s footprint and have now determined that a shed is necessary. The applicant has stated that they chose to construct the deck because they had been informed by staff that they had to choose between a shed or a deck. On July 8, 2020 staff sent the applicant’s designer a written response to questions regarding the City’s WOAS ordinance where staff stated “The City has considered patios/decks attached to a shed/boat house to constitute a single structure with an aggregate size limit of 250 sq. ft.” This was significantly in advance of the November 20, 2020 redesign where the designer submitted a plan showing a sub-250-square foot WOAS and the initial December 18, 2020 variance submittal. Additionally, staff’s initial May 22, 2020 response to a WOAS inquiry for the property noted “These structures are limited to a maximum of 250 square feet (including the building and any associated patio/decking).” Given that accurate information was provided to the party responsible for the design in writing in advance of revisions and the initial variance submittal, staff cannot agree with the applicant’s statement that staff informed them they could have either a deck or a shed, but not a structure incorporating both. 42 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance March 1, 2022 Page 14 The applicant notes that the City Code allows for an up to 400-square foot shed to be placed on properties solely for the storage of boats and boating-related equipment. While this is correct, that is not the use the applicant is proposing. The applicant is proposing a combined deck and shed WOAS which is not entitled to those dimensions. Additionally, the 400-square foot boathouses are limited to a maximum width of 20 feet, while the applicant is proposing an approximately 31-foot wide structure. Finally, while the WOAS does allow for 400-square foot structures, these structures would require a building permit and Engineering would not support placing a structure meeting the requirements of the State Building Code over an active sanitary sewer easement. It should be noted that the Engineering department has expressed concerns in their memo about the desirability of approving any variance accommodating the placement of a shed overtop the sanitary sewer. They have stated that they feel the proposed structure and location should be considered an encumbrance that would alter the intended use of the easement, and as such they are recommending that the WOAS variance be denied in its entirety. The constraints created by the presence of the deck do not justify the requested variances. For these reasons, staff is recommending that only a variance commensurate with the pre-existing nonconforming structures size and encroachment be approved. Impact on Neighborhood Pleasant View is an older neighborhood with many atypically shaped lots, nonconformities, and variances; however, to staff’s knowledge, no property in the neighborhood has 6.5-foot opaque gate within the front yard. Fences and gates have a large visual impact. Granting the requested fence variance would negatively impact the neighborhood’s aesthetics, especially if other residents requested and were granted similar variances. Similarly, front yard parking pads are highly visible encroachments into required front yards and the public right-of-way. Many properties with downward sloping driveways or narrow driveways may wish to have an additional parking area. The proliferation of these types of structures would negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. Finally, due to their shoreland location, WOASs are highly visible. Properties with larger or more numerous structures than others are noticed and cited by residents interested in increasing the size of or adding an additional WOAS to their own properties. The aesthetic and environmental benefits that come from limiting the size and number of WOASs can only be realized if the City universally applies these standards. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, deny the requested opaque gate variance, denies the requested variance for a front yard parking pad, and approves a 58-square foot water oriented accessory structure size variance, a 5-foot side yard setback variance, and 2-foot shoreland setback variance for the construction of a water 43 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance March 1, 2022 Page 15 oriented accessory structure, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopt the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. 1. The applicant shall consult with City staff and apply for required permits, either building or zoning, for all proposed structures (i.e. shed and deck). 2. No construction can occur until the required permits identified in Condition 1 are issued. 3. The applicant shall file for an Encroachment Agreement with the City for any encroachments within public drainage and utility easements. 4. The shed and its appurtenances shall be constructed so that it is removable from the public utility easement, for review and approval by the City prior to issuance of the required permit. 5. The applicant must apply for and receive any all applicable permits from the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Water Shed District. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Partial Approval) 2. Variance Document (Partial Approval) 3. Development Review Application 4. Variance Request Justification 5. Staff Response to Variance Request 6. Updated Variance Request Justification 7. Plan Set 8. Variance Documents 9. Water Resources Coordinator Memo 10. Engineering Dept. Memo 11. Dept. of Natural Resources Email 12. Affidavit of Mailing g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-07b 6609 horseshoe curve 10-19-21 variance request\3-1-22 resumittal\staff report_6609 horseshoe curve_var_3_revised.docx 44 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (PARTIAL APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of Elise Bruner and Brian Bruner for a fence height variance and water-oriented accessory structure (WOAS) size and setback variances on a property zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2021-07B. On March 1, 2022, 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 variances 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:The intent of the City Code’s prohibition on tall opaque front yard fences is to create an attractive and consistent neighborhood aesthetic. The City Code allows for the use of open fences of up to 6.5 feet in hieght, chain link fences of up to four feet in height, and opaque fences of up to three feet in height to address security concerns. Granting the requested variances from the City’s fence height standards would not be consistent with the general purposes and intent of the City’s Zoning Code. The City Code prohibits the placement of parking pads within the required front yard to limit the amount of impervious surface in the right-of-way, provide an attractive and consistent neighborhood aesthetic, and to provide for safe and efficient street networks. Granting the requested variances to permit a front yard parking pad would not be consistent with the general purposes and intent of the City’s Zoning Code. It is the intent of the City Code to limit the size and location of structures within the required shoreland setback and to balance recognizing the rights of nonconforming structures to continue to exist with preventing their expansion. It would not be in line with the intent of the Zoning 45 2 Code to permit the applicant to construct a WOAS larger than the nonconforming WOAS that was previously present on the site. It would be consistent with the intention of the nonconforming use ordinance to grant a variance allowing the applicant to replace a portion of the nonconforming WOAS with a shed, increasing the height of the nonconformity in exchange for increasing the shoreland setback, so long as the size and side yard setback of the nonconforming WOAS are not increased. 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 has not demonstrated that they cannot achieve their goals of increasing their property’s security within the bounds of the City’s Code of Ordinances without the need for a variance. The applicant has not demonstrated why the right-of-way access and driveway configurations permitted by the City Code do not provide reasonable parking options. The applicant’s desire for a WOAS to store equipment is permitted by the City’s Code of Ordinances; however, the requested size and position is not. The applicant has the ability to reconfigure the proposed WOAS to maintain the size and encroachments of the nonconforming WOAS that was previously present on the site. 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 stated front yard security concerns can be addressed through mechanisms other than the proposed gate. The proposed opaque design for the gate appears to be a design choice rather than a requirement for the gate to serve its intended function. While the driveway grade is steep, the property was adequately served by the pervious driveway without a separate front yard parking pad for over twenty years. The applicant’s requested variances from the City’s WOAS standards are the result of their previous decision to replace the previous WOAS with an at-grade deck rather than a storage shed and their subsequent realization that storage space was necessary. No unique features are present that would prevent the applicant from constructing a WOAS that maintains the size and encroachments of the nonconforming WOAS that was previously present on the site. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: Pleasant View is an older neighborhood with many atypically shaped lots, nonconformities, and variances; however, to staff’s knowledge no property in the neighborhood has a 6.5-foot opaque gate within the front yard. Fences and gates have a large visual impact. 46 3 Granting the requested fence variance would negatively impact the neighborhood’s aesthetics, especially if other residents requested and were granted similar variances. Similarly, front yard parking pads are highly visible encroachments into required front yards and the public right-of- way. Many properties with downward sloping driveways or narrow driveways may wish to have an additional parking area. The proliferation of these types of structures would negatively impact the character of the neighborhood. Finally, due to their shoreland location, WOASs are highly visible. Properties with larger or more numerous structures than others are noticed and cited by residents interested in increasing the size of or adding an additional WOAS to their own properties. The aesthetic and environmental benefits that come from limiting the size and number of WOASs can only be realized if the City universally applies these standards. 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 #2021-07B, dated March 1, 2022, prepared by MacKenzie Young-Walters, is incorporated herein. DECISION The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments, denies the requested opaque gate variance, denies the requested variance for a front yard parking pad, and approves a 58-square foot water oriented accessory structure (WOAS) size variance, a 5-foot side yard setback variance, and 2-foot shoreland setback variance for the construction of a water oriented accessory structure, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopt the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. 1. The applicant shall consult with City staff and apply for required permits, either building or zoning, for all proposed structures (i.e. shed and deck). 2. No construction can occur until the required permits identified in Condition 1 are issued. 3. The applicant shall file for an Encroachment Agreement with the City for any encroachments within public drainage and utility easements. 4. The shed and its appurtenances shall be constructed so that it is removable from the public utility easement, for review and approval by the City prior to issuance of the required permit. 5. The applicant must apply for and receive any all applicable permits from the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Water Shed District. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 1st day of March, 2022. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Mark von Oven, Chairman g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-07b 6609 horseshoe curve 10-19-21 variance request\findings of fact and decision 6609 horseshoe curve ( partial approval).docx 47 48 49 50 51 BRUNER RESIDENCE ENTRY GATE AND SHED VARIANCE PACKAGE Issued: January 28, 2022 L000 PROJECT INFORMATION N/A Sheet #Title PRELIMINARY PRICING SET VARIANCE APPLICATION BID SET PERMIT SET VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS CD SET ENTRY GATE AND SHED VARIANCE 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+ DRAINAGE PLAN ●●●●●●● L401 LANDSCAPE PLAN ●●●●●● L501 WALL + SITE ELEMENT ELEVATIONS ●●●●●● L502 ENTRY GATE ENTRY DIAGRAM ● L601 WALL, STAIR, + SURFACING DETAILS ●●●●●● L602 DRAINAGE + LIGHTING DETAILS ●●●●●● L603 SITE ELEMENT DETAILS ●●●●● L604 SPA AND PLUNGE POOL DETAILS ● L605 WEST STAIRCASE HELICAL PIER LAYOUT ● L606 ENTRY GATE 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:1/14/2022filepath:/Users/bretwieseler/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/VARIANCE - ENTRY GATE AND SHED/L000.dwglast saved:bretwieseler January 27, 2022 1:50 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 TRAVIS VAN LIERE 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: 09/17/2021 DJ Rev #Description Date VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020 ISSUED FOR PERMIT 4/16/2021 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 6/4/2021 3 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 9/17/2021 GRADING PERMIT SUBMITTAL 9/28/2021 4 PERMIT SET REVISIONS 10/01/2021 5 WEST STAIRCASE HELICAL PIERS REVISIONS 10/13/2021 6 ENTRY GATE AND SHED VARIANCE PACKAGE 01/28/2022 211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 t 612 345 4275 52 1 1 4 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 2 2 2 2 3 926.90 BFFEEXISTING PORCH ABOVE EXISTING HOUSE 937.08 FFE REFER TO ARCH TYP. EXISTI N G S A NI T A R Y S E W E R LI N EPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE1 10' O H W S E T B A C K SS EASEMENT LOTUS LAKE OHW: 896.30 100 YEAR FLOOD LINE 30' FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' FRONT YARD SETBACK PROPERTY LINE -1R -1R -2R -2R -2R -2R -3R -4R -5R -2R -5R -5R -5R -5R -5R -6R EXISTING CONDITIONS + REMOVALS PLAN1 L010 EXISTING CONDITIONS +REMOVALS 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 R6 PRE-EXISTING DECK REMOVED -R creation date:1/26/2022filepath:/Users/bretwieseler/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/VARIANCE - ENTRY GATE AND SHED/L010.dwglast saved:bretwieseler January 26, 2022 8:48 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 TRAVIS VAN LIERE 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: 09/17/2021 DJ Rev #Description Date VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020 ISSUED FOR PERMIT 4/16/2021 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 6/4/2021 3 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 9/17/2021 GRADING PERMIT SUBMITTAL 9/28/2021 4 PERMIT SET REVISIONS 10/01/2021 5 WEST STAIRCASE HELICAL PIERS REVISIONS 10/13/2021 6 ENTRY GATE AND SHED VARIANCE PACKAGE 01/28/2022 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 211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 t 612 345 4275 NOTES: 1. CONTRACTOR TO REMOVE ALL EXISTING BUCKTHORN AND OTHER INVASIVE MATERIALS ON SITE. BUCKTHORN TO BE CUT DOWN TO STEM. PROVIDE COST FOR SPRAYING ALL INVASIVE AREAS WITH COMMERCIAL GRADE HERBICIDE FOR A MINIMUM OF THREE TIMES DURING GROWING SEASON PRIOR TO COMMENCING WITH FINAL LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION. USE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR SPRAYING HERBICIDE ADJACENT TO PUBLIC WATERWAYS. 2. PROVIDE EROSION CONTROL MATTING FOR ALL DISTURBED SLOPED AREAS THAT ARE GREATER THAN 3:1. 3. INSTALL SILT FENCING WHERE ANY DIGGING OR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IS TO OCCUR ADJACENT TO LAKE. 4. PROVIDE TEMPORARY SEEDING TO ALL AREAS THAT LAY EXPOSED OR BARE FOR MORE THAN 21 DAYS. 5. VERIFY ALL TREES TO BE REMOVED AND OR TRANSPLANTED ON SITE WITH LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. NOTIFY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT 7 DAYS PRIOR TO COMMENCING WITH WORK. 53 1 1 4DNEXISTING 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 2 2 2 2 3 926.90 BFFEEXISTING PORCH ABOVE EXISTING HOUSE 937.08 FFE REFER TO ARCH TYP. EXISTI N G S A NI T A R Y S E W E R LI N EPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE1 10' O H W S E T B A C K SS EASEMENT LOTUS LAKE OHW: 896.30 100 YEAR FLOOD LINE 30' FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' FRONT YARD SETBACK PROPERTY LINE 1 2 3 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. DRIVEWAY + AUTOCOURT 3,028 s.f. AGGREGATE SURFACING 210 s.f. PROPOSED MOVEABLE STORAGE SHED 132 s.f. PROPOSED PARKING PAD @ STREET 300 s.f. WALLS 15 s.f. AREA OF PROPERTY 27,878 s.f. PROPOSED HARDCOVER AREA 6,614 s.f. PROPOSED HARDCOVER PERCENTAGE 23.72% HARDCOVER / PROPERTY AREA RATIO ALLOWED BY CODE 25%creation date:1/27/2022filepath:/Users/bretwieseler/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/VARIANCE - ENTRY GATE AND SHED/L011.dwglast saved:bretwieseler January 27, 2022 1:50 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 TRAVIS VAN LIERE 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: 09/17/2021 DJ Rev #Description Date VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020 ISSUED FOR PERMIT 4/16/2021 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 6/4/2021 3 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 9/17/2021 GRADING PERMIT SUBMITTAL 9/28/2021 4 PERMIT SET REVISIONS 10/01/2021 5 WEST STAIRCASE HELICAL PIERS REVISIONS 10/13/2021 6 ENTRY GATE AND SHED VARIANCE PACKAGE 01/28/2022 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 211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 t 612 345 4275 3REV SHEET NOTES 1.PROPOSED 6'(h) ENTRY GATE 2. PROPOSED 11 'x 12' MOVEABLE STORAGE SHED 3. PROPOSED CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE PARKING PAD 6ADD6ADD6ADD 54 1 1 4DNEXISTING 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 2 2 2 2 3 926.90 BFFEEXISTING PORCH ABOVE EXISTING HOUSE 937.08 FFE REFER TO ARCH TYP. EXISTI N G S A NI T A R Y S E W E R LI N EPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE1 AC WILDFLOWER GARDEN DN DN DN RISR DN3RISR DN3GAS&ELEC.GEN.HB AUTOCOURT DRIVEWAY 10' O H W S E T B A C K SS EASEMENT LOTUS LAKE OHW: 896.30 100 YEAR FLOOD LINE 30' FRONT YARD SETBACK 10' FRONT YARD SETBACK PROPERTY LINE GATE LOCATION AS ALLOWED BY CODE PROPOSED GATE LOCATION 13'3'-8"±10'-6"12'11'1'-2" 3'-9"8'-9"RISR DN 3 RISR DN 3 RISR DN 3 RISR DN 3 RISR DN 3 RISR DN 3 RISR DN 3 RISR DN 3 RISR DN 3 RISR DN 3 RISR DN 3 RISR DN 3 RISR DN 3 RISR DN1 PROPOSED LOCATION FOR MOVABLE STORAGE SHED 12 4 6 3 8 5 7 6 9 RISR DN 3 RISR DN 3 RISR DN 3 RISR DN 3 RISR DN 32L606 1L5021 L606 10 30'10'SITE PLAN1 L101 SITE PLAN 1" = 16' SCALE: 1 inch = 0 16'32'8' 16 feet N creation date:1/26/2022filepath:/Users/bretwieseler/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/VARIANCE - ENTRY GATE AND SHED/L101.dwglast saved:bretwieseler January 27, 2022 1:50 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 TRAVIS VAN LIERE 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: 09/17/2021 DJ Rev #Description Date VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020 ISSUED FOR PERMIT 4/16/2021 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 6/4/2021 3 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 9/17/2021 GRADING PERMIT SUBMITTAL 9/28/2021 4 PERMIT SET REVISIONS 10/01/2021 5 WEST STAIRCASE HELICAL PIERS REVISIONS 10/13/2021 6 ENTRY GATE AND SHED VARIANCE PACKAGE 01/28/2022 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 211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 t 612 345 4275 6ADD SHEET NOTES 1. CURB-CUT FOR EXISTING DRIVE APRON TO BE REPLACED 2. CURB CUT FOR NEW DRIVEWAY TO BE INSTALLED PER CITY STANDARDS 3.PROPOSED 6'(h) ENTRY GATE 4. PROPOSED CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE SURFACING 5.EXISTING CONCRETE RETAINING WALL 6.EXISTING DECK STAIRCASE 7. EXISTING DECK 8.PROPOSED 11 'x 12' MOVEABLE STORAGE SHED 9.EXISTING REMOVABLE DECK 10.PROPOSED CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE PARKING PAD 6ADD 6ADD 55 1 1 4DNEXISTING 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 2 2 2 2 3 1.50% 2.42% 926.90 BFFEEXISTING PORCH ABOVE EXISTING HOUSE 937.08 FFE REFER TO ARCH TYP. EXISTI N G S A NI T A R Y S E W E R LI N EPROPERTY LINEPROPERTY LINE1 AC WILDFLOWER GARDEN DN DN DN RISR DN3RISR DN3 953.50 M.E.954.45± M.E.GAS&ELEC.GEN.HB 7'x7'4" SPA w/ COVER AUTOCOURT DRIVEWAY 899.92 BOD 899.92 BOD 10' O H W S E T B A C K SS EASEMENT934933935936951 950 949 948 947 946 945 944 943 942 941 940 939 926 924 922 920 918 916 936 937 938 932929931915 914 913 912 911 910 909 908 907 906 905 904 903 902930934933935936932929931930928927 899 902903 900901 LOTUS LAKE OHW: 896.30 100 YEAR FLOOD LINE 30' FRONT YARD SETBACK 899.92 BOD 899.92 BOD 954.33954.75 954.29± M.E.954.53± M.E.954.13± M.E. 954 953 952 10' FRONT YARD SETBACK PROPERTY LINE 19.25%2 4 1 6 3 5 4 7 DN RISR 3 DN RISR 3 DN RISR 3 DN RISR 3 DN RISR 3 DN RISR 3 DN RISR 3 DN RISR 3 DN RISR 3 DN RISR 3 DN RISR 3 DN RISR 3 DN RISR 3 DN RISR 1 DN RISR 3 DN RISR 3 DN RISR 3 DN RISR 3 DN RISR 3 956.58± TOP OF GATE 8 GRADING + DRAINAGE PLAN1 L201 GRADING + DRAINAGE PLAN N 1" = 16' SCALE: 1 inch = 0 16'32'8' 16 feet creation date:1/25/2022filepath:/Users/bretwieseler/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/VARIANCE - ENTRY GATE AND SHED/L201.dwglast saved:bretwieseler January 25, 2022 12:45 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 TRAVIS VAN LIERE 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: 09/17/2021 DJ Rev #Description Date VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020 ISSUED FOR PERMIT 4/16/2021 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 6/4/2021 3 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 9/17/2021 GRADING PERMIT SUBMITTAL 9/28/2021 4 PERMIT SET REVISIONS 10/01/2021 5 WEST STAIRCASE HELICAL PIERS REVISIONS 10/13/2021 6 ENTRY GATE AND SHED VARIANCE PACKAGE 01/28/2022 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 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 EXTEND 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. NOTE: SEE L401 LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR RESTORATION NOTES 6ADD6ADD SHEET NOTES 1.PROPOSED 6'(h) ENTRY GATE 2. PROPOSED CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE SURFACING 3. EXISTING CONCRETE RETAINING WALL 4. EXISTING DECK STAIRCASE 5. EXISTING DECK 6. PROPOSED 11 'x 12' MOVEABLE STORAGE SHED 7. EXISTING REMOVABLE DECK 8. PROPOSED CAST-IN-PLACE CONCRETE PARKING PAD 6ADD 56 L502 ENTRY GATE - SECTIONDIAGRAM 1" = 16'creation date:1/15/2022filepath:/Users/bretwieseler/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/VARIANCE - ENTRY GATE AND SHED/L502.dwglast saved:bretwieseler January 15, 2022 4:02 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 TRAVIS VAN LIERE 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: 09/17/2021 DJ Rev #Description Date VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020 ISSUED FOR PERMIT 4/16/2021 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 6/4/2021 3 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 9/17/2021 GRADING PERMIT SUBMITTAL 9/28/2021 4 PERMIT SET REVISIONS 10/01/2021 5 WEST STAIRCASE HELICAL PIERS REVISIONS 10/13/2021 6 ENTRY GATE AND SHED VARIANCE PACKAGE 01/28/2022 211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 t 612 345 4275 SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" ENTRY GATE - SECTION DIAGRAM1 6ADD 19.25% SLOPE EDGE OF STREET10' SETBACK30' SETBACK3'-8"± 13'-8"± 33'-8"±PROPERTY LINE6'4'-4"±GATE POST, TYPICAL GATE SWING, TYPICAL LINE OF SIGHT GATE LOCATION AS ALLOWED BY CODE15'± 35'± PROPOSED GATE LOCATION 57 L606 ENTRY GATE DETAILS 1" = 16' SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ENTRY GATE - ELEVATION1 creation date:1/15/2022filepath:/Users/bretwieseler/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/VARIANCE - ENTRY GATE AND SHED/L606.dwglast saved:bretwieseler January 17, 2022 9:16 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 TRAVIS VAN LIERE 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: 09/17/2021 DJ Rev #Description Date VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020 ISSUED FOR PERMIT 4/16/2021 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 6/4/2021 3 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 9/17/2021 GRADING PERMIT SUBMITTAL 9/28/2021 4 PERMIT SET REVISIONS 10/01/2021 5 WEST STAIRCASE HELICAL PIERS REVISIONS 10/13/2021 211 1ST STREET NORTH, SUITE 350 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55401 t 612 345 4275 6ADD 949.42± TOF 950.00± TOF 956.58 TOP 6'6" SQ., TYP. 2", TYP. 19' O.C. 9'-03 4", TYP.VARIES4"MIN.6"±EQ.EQ. 13' DRIVEWAY WIDTH - V.I.F. EQ. O.C.EQ. O.C. ℄ ℄ 24"Ø C.I.P. CONC. BELL FOOTING TO FROST, TYP. - REINF. AS SPECIFIED BY STRUCT. ENGINEER. 6"x6" ALUMINUM SQUARE TUBE POST. W/ WELDED CAP, TYP. - EMBED INTO CONC. FOOTING 48" MIN. GATE HARDWARE, TYP. 1 /12" SQ. ALUMINUM TUBE FRAME BEYOND, TYP. 21 2"x 3 16" ALUMINUM EDGE CAP - CONT. WRAP FRAME TO CONCEAL ENDS OF ALUMINUM TUBE PICKETS SURFACING AS SPECIFIED - SEE PLANS (34) 1 2"x11 2" ALUMINUM SQARE TUBE @ 2" O.C., TYP. - BOTH SIDES OF GATE58" GAPTYP.LINEAR ARM GATE OPERATOR, TYP.48" MIN.949.75± 950.33±TO FROST2L606112"6'112"TYP.58"GAPTYP.11 2" 6"VARIES1'O.C.VARIES -4" MIN.4" MIN. COVERAGE24"Ø C.I.P. CONC. BELL FOOTING TO FROST, TYP. - REINF. AS SPECIFIED BY STRUCT. ENGINEER. 6"x6" ALUMINUM SQUARE TUBE POST. W/ WELDED CAP, TYP. - EMBED INTO CONC. FOOTING 48" MIN. 1 /12" SQ. ALUMINUM TUBE FRAME, TYP. 21 2"x 3 16" ALUMINUM EDGE CAP - CONT. WRAP FRAME TO CONCEAL ENDS OF ALUMINUM TUBE PICKETS SURFACING AS SPECIFIED - SEE PLANS (34) 1 2"x11 2" ALUMINUM SQARE TUBE @ 2" O.C., TYP. - BOTH SIDES OF GATE LINEAR ARM GATE OPERATOR, TYP. COMPACTED OR UNDISTURBED SUBGRADE AS RECOMMENDED BY GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERT O FROST48" MIN.21 2"1L606SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ENTRY GATE - SECTION2 OBSTRUCTION LOOP CENTER LOOP EXIT LOOP 4'4'6'6'4'6' REMOTE POWER UNIT AND CONTROLS, PLACE IN PROPOSED MECHANICAL AREA - FIELD VERIFY FINAL LOCATION PRIMARY POWER, VERIFY REQUIREMENTS PER MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS 3 4" CONDUITS, EACH A HOME RUN (1) 3" PVC (1) 2" PVC (1) 1" PVC BYAN 900 GATE OPERATOR, TYP. 18" SONOTUBE BELL FOOTING, TYP.2'-1038"TYP.9'-2" TYP.1 2" PVC FOR ALL PHOTOEYES 13'2'O.C.7' O.C. ELS25 ON PEDESTAL- VERIFY ACCESS REQUIREMENTS W/ OWNERS PROPERTY LINE 10' FRONT YARD SETBACK ALIGN POST W/ 10' SETBACK 4' 10'- 6"1L6062 L606 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" ENTRY GATE - PLAN3 58 ROOT ZONE ROOT PRUNING LIMITS PRUNING CUT, TYP., PER ARBORIST RECOMMENDATIONS BASE OF TREE GROUND PLANE PLAN VIEW MAXIMUM 25" ON ONE SIDE OR 33% OF TOTAL ROOT SYSTEM NO MORE THAN HALF THE CROWN OF THE TREE AT END OF SLOPE SECURE BLANKET MATERIAL BY INSERTINGSTAPLES ABOUT 20" APART THROUGH THE FABRIC EXTEND MATERIAL ABOUT 40" ON TOP OF THE GROUND AND RANDOMLY INSERT STAPLES THROUGH THE MATERIAL ABOUT 20" APART NOTES: 1. EROSION CONTROL BLANKET TO BE CATEGORY 4-COCONUT 2S FOR SLOPES GREATER THAN 5:1 AND SIDES AND BOTTOM OF ALL DRAINAGE SWALES AND PONDING AREAS AND CATEGORY 2-STRAW 2S FOR ALL SLOPES LESS THAN 5:1 PER MNDOT SPEC. SECTION 3885. 2. INSTALL PER MNDOT SPEC. SECTION 2575 LONGITUDINAL SEAMS: BLANKET MATERIAL MUST OVERLAP AT LEAST 6" AND STAPLES INSERTED THROUGH BOTH FABRICS AT A MAXIMUM SPACING OF 40" APART TRANSVERSE SEAMS: BLANKET MATERIAL MUST OVERLAP AT LEAST 6" AND STAPLES INSERTED THROUGH BOTH FABRICS AT A MAXIMUM SPACING OF 20" APART STAPLES AT 3' O.C. STAPLES MUST BE INSERTED THROUGH OVERLAP MATERIAL SLOPE LENGTH LESS THAN 50 ' 1. BEFORE INSTALLATION APPLY TOPSOIL, FERTILIZER AND SEED TO SURFACE. 2. BEGIN AT THE TOP OF THE CHANNEL, INSTALL MATS BY ANCHORING IN A 6" DEEP BY 6" WIDE TRENCH WITH APPROXIMATELY 12" OF MAT EXTENDED BEYOND THE UP-SLOPE PORTION OF THE TRENCH. ANCHOR WITH A ROW OF STAPLES APPROXIMATELY 12" APART IN THE BOTTOM OF THE TRENCH. BACKFILL AND COMPACT THE TRENCH AFTER STAPLING. APPLY SEED TO COMPACTED SOIL AND FOLD REMAINING 12" PORTION OF MAT BACK OVER SEED AND SOIL. SECURE MATS WITH A WITH A ROW OF STAPLES SPACED APPROXIMATELY 12" APART ACROSS THE WIDTH OF THE MATS. 3. ROLL CENTER MATS IN DIRECTION OF WATER FLOW IN BOTTOM OF CHANNEL. 4. PLACE CONSECUTIVE AND ADJACENT MATS END OVER END (SHINGLE STYLE) WITH A MINIMUM 6" OVERLAP. USE A DOUBLE ROW OF STAPLES STAGGERED 4" APART AND 4" ON CENTER TO SECURE OVERLAPPED MATS. 5. FULL LENGTH EDGE OF MATS AT TOP OF SIDE SLOPES MUST BE ANCHORED WITH A ROW OF STAPLES APPROXIMATELY 12" APART IN A 6" DEEP BY 6" WIDE TRENCH. 6. THE TERMINAL END OF MATS MUST BE ANCHORED WITH A ROW OF STAPLES APPROXIMATELY 12" APART IN A 6" DEEP BY 6" WIDE TRENCH. 7. BACKFILL AND SEED AFTER STAPLING. 8. FOLLOW MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR PROPER INSTALLATION. FABRIC ANCHORAGE TRENCH BACKFILL WITH TAMPED NATURAL SOIL WIRE MESH REINFORCEMENT, ATTACH FABRIC TO WIRE MESH WITH HOG RINGS, PER MNDOT SPEC. SECTION 3886 B1. SILT FENCE FABRIC DIRECTION OF RUNOFF FLOW METAL (OR WOOD) POST OR STAKE NATURAL SOIL 1. SILT FENCES SHOULD BE INSTALLED ON THE CONTOUR (AS OPPOSED TO UP AND DOWN A HILL) AND CONSTRUCTED SO THAT FLOW CANNOT BYPASS THE ENDS. 2. ENSURE THAT THE DRAINAGE AREA IS NO GREATER THAN 1/4 ACRE PER 100 FT OF FENCE. 3. MAKE THE FENCE STABLE FOR THE 10-YEAR PEAK STORM RUNOFF. 4. WHERE ALL RUNOFF IS TO BE STORED BEHIND THE SILT FENCE, ENSURE THAT THE MAXIMUM SLOPE LENGTH BEHIND THE FENCE DOES NOT EXCEED THE SPECIFICATIONS SHOWN IN TABLENOTE: SILT FENCE SHALL FOLLOW MNDOT SPEC. SECTION 3886. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS FIGURE 1: TYPICAL INSTALLATION FOR SILT FENCE 6" MIN 6"MINPLAN VIEW NOTES: 1. ALL TREE PROTECTION FENCING AND EROSION CONTROL FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO THE PLANS PRIOR TO ANY DEMOLITION. AFTER DEMOLITION OR AS NECESSARY, TREE PROTECTION FENCING MAY BE RELOCATED WITH APPROVAL FROM THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. ALL TREE PROTECTION FENCING AND EROSION CONTROL DEVICES SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD. 2. TREE PROTECTION FENCING SHALL CONSIST OF TEMPORARY METAL WIRE CHAIN LINK MESH FENCING OR APPROVED EQUAL. 3. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT STORE ANY MATERIALS OR PARK ANY VEHICLES IN TREE PROTECTION ZONES. THE FENCE SHALL PREVENT TRAFFIC MOVEMENT AND THE PLACEMENT OF TEMPORARY FACILITIES, EQUIPMENT, STOCKPILES AND SUPPLIES FROM HARMING VEGETATION WITHIN THE LIMITS OF PROTECTION. 4. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CLEANLY CUT ALL ROOTS EXPOSED BY GRADING AS DIRECTED BY THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. 5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE DESIGNATED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCES AND STAGING AREAS. 6' MAX 6' MAX. POST SPACING 3' MINIMUM 6' IDEAL FROM DRIPLINE DRIPLINE 2/3 OFLOGDRIPLINE INSTALL SHREDDED HARDWOOD MULCH (MNDOT TYPE 6). EQUIVALENT MATERIAL MAY BE SUBSTITUTED AT THE DISCRETION OF THE ENGINEER. STAKE DRIVEN THROUGH LOG MESH COIR LOG 6"-7" MINIMUM DIAMETER SOIL WEDGE OR 2"X2" STAKE PRE-DRILLED HOLES 0.5"X0.5" OPENING IN NET 1/3 OFLOG10' MIN LENGTH 2" WASHED COURSE AGGREGATE, 12" THICK, OVER GEOFABRIC 50' M I N 20' MI N EDG E O F P U B LI C R O A D O R P A V E M E N T TABLE 1: MAXIMUM SLOPE LENGTH AND SLOPE FOR WHICH SILT FENCE IS APPLICABLE BY CALCULATION BY CALCULATION BY ACCEPTED DESIGN PRACTICES SLOPE (H:V)%SILT FENCE STORAGE EQUALS 2 FT FOR A 100-YEAR EVENT SILT FENCE STORAGE EQUALS 2 FT FOR A 2-YEAR EVENT OR 3 FT FOR A 100-YEAR EVENT MAXIMUM SLOPE LENGTH 100:1 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:9/28/2021filepath:/Users/bretwieseler/Dropbox (TVLS)/PROJECTS (DROPBOX)/BRUNER RESIDENCE/2. DWG/1. DRAWINGS/VARIANCE - ENTRY GATE AND SHED/L609.dwglast saved:bretwieseler September 28, 2021 1:07 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 TRAVIS VAN LIERE 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: 09/17/2021 DJ Rev #Description Date VARIANCE APPLICATION 12/18/2020 ISSUED FOR PERMIT 4/16/2021 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 6/4/2021 3 VARIANCE APPLICATION REVISIONS 9/17/2021 GRADING PERMIT SUBMITTAL 9/28/2021 4 PERMIT SET REVISIONS 10/01/2021 5 WEST STAIRCASE HELICAL PIERS REVISIONS 10/13/2021 6 ENTRY GATE AND SHED VARIANCE PACKAGE 01/28/2022 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 59 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1100 lFax: (952\ 227-1110 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Submittal Oate: O \?Pcoare:lol tqlot "" o",", ll l? []t CITY OT CIIAI'IIIASSII'I 2-l It 60-Day Review Date I t, Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply) (Refer to the appropiate Application Checklist for required submitlal infomation lhat must accompany lhis application) E Comprehensive Plan Amendment......................... $600 E Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers ..... $100 E Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ! Single-Family Residence ................................ $325 n Al ottrers...... ....................... $425 ( lots) ! Metes & Bounds (2 lots).................................. $300 fl Consolidate 1ots.............................................. $1 50 E Lot Line Adjustment......................................... $150 E Final Plat-..................... ........ $700 (lncludes $450 escrow for attorney costs)* 'Additional escrow may be required for other applications lhrough the develoEnent contract. Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC)........ $300 (Additional recording tees may apply) $150 $275 lnterim Use Permit (lUP) E ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence n Att others...... Rezoning (REZ) E Planned Unit Development (PUD)................ f] Minor Amendment lo existing PUD............... . $32s . $425 . $750 . $100 E Subdivision (suB) E Create 3 lots or less E Create over 3 lots.... tr ........................ $300 ...$600 + $15 per lot E At otners... ! Sign Plan Review... ................... $500 E Site Plan Review (SPR) E Administrative ..................... $100 E Commercial/lndustrial Districts*...................... $500 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area:( thousand square feet) 'lnclude number of elg2g employees: 'lnclude number of !98 employees: E Residential Districts........-..........-..................... $500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit ( units) [f Notiflcation Sign (city to install and remove) ............. EI Property Owners' List within 500' lcity lo generate after pre-application meeting) Ef Variance (VAR).$200 ' S150 ! wettand Atteration Permit (wAP) E Single-Family Residencen Alt others...... E zoninq Appea|................. ......... $100 E Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)................. $500 !!EE: When multlple applications are processed concunen{y, the appropriate tee shall be charged for each applicatlon. . $200 ... $3 per address L_ addresses) ....................... $50 per document E Site Plan Agreement fl Wetland Alteration Permit Bt'ri"flit' -Frso 'e E Escrow for Recording Documents (check allthat apply).................... E Conditional Use Permit ! lnterim Use Permit E Vacation ! Variance E Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) E Easements L- easements) Section 2: Required lnformation Description of Proposal 66o7 Hwse-sHo e- Cttr't o C,fu,+t ha-s*cez, Tn /y -95317Property Address or Location: Parcel #: 2SoSgOO lO .b1 Legal Description Rcs t /aa17 p1 Wetlands Present?!ves !ruo Requested Zoning Select OnePresent Zoning:Select One RSF Present Land Use Designation Select One Requested Land Use Designation sele^q\Qnft CH ANHvrr RECEIvEDftcstdt,t dcnecx box if separate narrative is aftached SEPJl 2O CHANHASSEN Total Acreage: Existing Use of Property: 60 Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant lnformation 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, 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 contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name Contact Phone:Address Cily/State/Zip: Email: Signature: Cell: Fax: Date 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: F/tse Bruncr $r, ntt $ru rte/Contact Address eS )10 e Cttl t e-Phonet 1-tz-'7q-7 -zG lq ce,l: 6/7 - Zo-9 - 9/1q Emat ebr/r1./n r0 (.ty?lbr,tner b ("p c- l,*'tg'/o-'ap. C c,44 Signature Date: Oq- n-20)l PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name: City/State/Zip {93t 7 Address: Contact: Phone: City/State/Zip Email: Cell: Fax: This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing th,s 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 submiftal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. Section 4: Notification lnformation Who should receive copies qf staff reports?*Other Contact lnformation : Name: -fP.*\A-l {ft}.) EEILt City/State/Zip:Mew4 MN .r(:zlat I E Property Owner Via: EfEmailE Applicant Via: E Email ! Engineer Via: E Email E othef via: E Email [frr,laiteo Paper copy ElMailed Paper copy E uaiteo Paper Copy ! Maiteo Paper Copy Address: --2-\ \ N [!1 .JF <<b Email INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Com plete 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 SAVE FORM PRINT FORM SUBMIT FORM I d'i @ to r- l,/nrtaLA-< r.*,, copy to the city for processing. 61 bruner residence - 6609 horseshoe curve, chanhassen, mn January 18, 2022 ENTRY GATE - 3D IMaGEry 62 bruner residence - 6609 horseshoe curve, chanhassen, mn January 18, 2022 ENTRY GATE - 3D IMaGEry 63 bruner residence - 6609 horseshoe curve, chanhassen, mn January 18, 2022 ENTRY GATE - 3D IMaGEry 64 bruner residence - 6609 horseshoe curve, chanhassen, mn January 18, 2022 ENTRY GATE - 3D IMaGEry 65 bruner residence - 6609 horseshoe curve, chanhassen, mn January 18, 2022 ENTRY GATE - 3D IMaGEry 66 PREEXISTING PARKING PAD, IMAGE 1 67 PREEXISTING PARKING PAD, IMAGE 2 68 Memorandum To: MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner From: Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer CC: Charles Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer George Bender, Assistant City Engineer Brett Martinson, Water and Sewer Maintenance Foreman Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer Ryan Pinkalla, Water Resources Technician Steve Lenz, Engineering Technician Date: February 17, 2022 Re: Fence, Parking Pad and Shed Variance at 6609 Horseshoe Curve – Planning Case #2021-07B The Engineering Department has reviewed the Variance submittal for 6609 Horseshoe Curve. These comments are divided into two categories: general comments and proposed conditions. General comments are informational points to guide the applicant in the proper planning of public works infrastructure for this project, to inform the applicant of possible extraordinary issues and/or to provide the basis for findings. Proposed conditions are requirements that Engineering recommends be formally imposed on the applicant in the final order. Note that references to the “City Standards” herein refer to the City of Chanhassen Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. General Comments/Findings 1. Any and all grading, utility and transportation plans submitted with this application have been reviewed only for the purpose of determining the feasibility of the plans and providing utility and transportation facilities for the project in accordance with City Standards. A recommendation of variance approval does not constitute final approval of details, including but not limited to alignments, materials and points of access, connection or discharge, that are depicted or suggested in the application. The 69 applicant is required to submit detailed construction drawings and/or plat drawings for the project, as applicable. The City of Chanhassen Engineering and Public Works Department will review plans, in detail, when they are submitted and approve, reject or require modifications to the plans or drawings based upon conformance with City Standards, the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances and the professional engineering judgment of the City Engineer. 2. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that the proposed variance requests cannot 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. 3. The applicant previously proposed the reconfiguration and realignment of an existing Water Oriented Structure (WOAS) which was approved in 2021. The existing WOAS consisted of stone pavers and wood decking which was removed and replaced with modular wood decking along with a smaller footprint than the previous non-conforming WOAS. The WOAS lies within a public drainage and utility easement (DUE) that was recorded with the Alicia Heights plat in 1999. Addit ionally, the city owns and maintains a public sanitary sewer main constructed in 1975 that is located within the DUE and located directly under the existing and previously approved WOAS. As such, the applicant was required to enter into an encroachment agreement for the approved WOAS, and the WOAS was constructed so that the decking was removable to allow for access to and for the proper maintenance of the public sanitary sewer main located directly underneath. The applicant is now proposing the addition of a shed to be attached to the modular wood deck. The addition of the shed to the modular wood deck increases the WOAS square footage over the original non-conformity, and a shed is considered a more substantial structure than modular decking. Structures such as sheds located within DUEs and located directly over public utilities such as sanitary sewer mains would be an encumbrance that would alter the intended use of the easement and inhibit the proper repair and maintenance of the public utility. As such, the Engineering Department recommends denial of the second WOAS variance request to add a shed to the previously approved modular wood deck. 4. The applicant is proposing a variance for a secondary access, or “parking pad”, abutting Horseshoe Curve. The submittal materials provided by the applicant identify the area of the proposed parking pad as a “pre-existing” parking pad, however the area identified is the pre-existing driveway access that was proposed to be removed with the previous variance submittals along with the removal plans of Grading Permit #21-05 issued on October 1, 2021. Leaving the pre-existing driveway access while also installing a new driveway access is the same as having two accesses to a residential property which is only permitted when the secondary access services a utility facility. Additionally, secondary driveway accesses are ideally maintained as natural grass to limit the amount 70 of impervious surface in those instances – the parking pad being proposed would be constructed of concrete. Access management along public right-of-way is maintained to one access per residential property in order to provide for safe and efficient street networks. Allowing for parking pads directly abutting a city street increases the risk of accidents, such as vehicles colliding with obstructions (parked vehicles) directly abutting the street. Horseshoe Curve is a narrow public road with sharp curves and poor site lines and adding additional obstructions directly abutting the road could intensify the risk of accidents. Also, having parked vehicles directly abutting the street along such a narrow corridor can create maintenance issues during snow emergencies. Lastly, if parking pads were permitted abutting public streets for residential properties, there are also concerns with aesthetics of roadway corridors and neighborhoods which can degrade livability for the community. As such, the Engineering Department recommends denial of the secondary access, or “parking pad”, variance request. 5. The applicant is proposing a variance for the construction of a 6.5 foot high opaque privacy fence located in the front yard. If the variance is approved the applicant will be required to enter into an Encroachment Agreement if the fence is erected within a public drainage and utility easement. See proposed condition 1 . Proposed Conditions 1. The applicant shall file for an encroachment agreement with the city for any encroachments within public drainage and utility easements. 71 Memorandum To:MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner From:Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer CC: Charles Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer George Bender, Assistant City Engineer Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer Ryan Pinkalla, Water Resources Technician Steve Lenz, Engineering Technician Date:February 17, 2022 Re:Fence, Parking Pad and Shed Variance at 6609 Horseshoe Curve – Planning Case #2021-07B The Water Resources Department has reviewed the Variance submittal for 6609 Horseshoe Curve. These comments are divided into two categories: general comments and proposed conditions. General comments are informational points to guide the applicant in the proper planning of public works infrastructure for this project, to inform the applicant of possible extraordinary issues and/or to provide the basis for findings. Proposed conditions are requirements that Water Resources recommends be formally imposed on the applicant 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. The applicant is requesting three variances. One variance for adding a shed to the previously approved Water Oriented Accessory Structure (WOAS), which includes a side- yard setback variance, an Ordinary High Water-Level (OHWL) setback variance, and a WOAS size variance. The other two variances are for a privacy fence and parking pad located at the front of the property abutting Horseshoe Curve. 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 72 as water clarity and phosphorus, but degraded in others, such as chlorophyll-a, in recent years. The project is proposing placing WOAS very close to the lake – approximately 8 ft away from the waters edge. As such, the applicant is requesting that the new WOAS extend beyond the 10-foot OHWL setback. This setback is designed to limit the amount of development or structures that are placed near a lakeshore. This protects the lake from sediment and erosion issues, while also protecting said structures from possible flooding issues. The applicant’s existing WOAS encroaches into this OHWL setback, however, a variance for this deck was approved as it actually decreased the encroachment into the setback from the previous WOAS (pre-2021). The addition of the proposed shed would increase the encroachment. 3. In January 2021, a variance was approved to replace an existing, non-conforming WOAS on the property with a modular deck. This new structure was considered non- impervious surface whereas the existing, non-conforming WOAS was impervious surface. Overall, the applicant proposed to reduce the intensity of the existing non- conformity. As such, the Water Resources Department recommended approval of the variance request for the non-conforming WOAS. It is the Water Resources Department’s understanding that construction on the modular deck is complete and that the area is 225.5 square feet which is smaller than that 308 square foot size of the preexisting WOAS. 4. The applicant is now requesting to construct an 11’ x 12’ (132 square feet) storage shed at the lakeshore, adjacent to the new modular deck. This shed is proposed to be contiguous with the deck, meaning that they are to be treated as one structure. The maximum allowable WOAS allowed by the City Code is 250 square feet. The proposed shed and recently constructed modular deck, would result in a total WOAS footprint of approximately 357.5 square feet which is significantly larger than what is allowed by code and what was previously approved via the variance process. 5. The Department of Natural Resources was contacted as part of the standard agency coordination for this variance request. The DNR does not believe that storage is reason enough to grant this variance. 6.The variance request references Chanhassen City Code Sec 20-281 E(2)(f) which reads “As an alternative for general development and recreational development waterbodies, water-oriented accessory structures used solely for watercraft storage, and including storage of related boating and water-oriented sporting equipment, may occupy an area of up to 400 square feet provided the maximum width of the structure is 20 feet as measured parallel to the configuration of the shoreline.”as justification for the variance, howevertheapplicant’s design does not appear to meet the requirements for this section of code as the proposed structure (combined modular deck and shed) is not solely for watercraft storage. Furthermore, the proposed design is approximately 32’ in length which is 12’ longer that the maximum width outlined in city code. 73 7. It appears that the applicant created the lack of storage predicament described in the variance. During the design process the need for storage could have been prioritized over the modular deck but the applicant choose to install a deck instead of the storage shed. Because the area upland of the lake is no longer considered a natural bluff, the applicant could feasibly design and construct a modular deck combined with a shed that would meet all WOAS requirements outlined in code including setbacks to adjacent properties, OHWL, and sanitary sewer lines. 8. The Water Resources Department has no comment on the variance request for a privacy fence. 9. The Water Resources Department has no comment on the variance request for the parking pad. 10. It is the opinion of the Water Resources Department that this variance for the WOAS request should be denied. There appears to be sufficient options for the applicant to alter the design that would not require a variance. For example, the applicant could reduce the size of the modular deck to 118 square feet and place the shed (132 square feet) adjacent to the deck to achieve the 250 square feet size required by city code. Furthermore, there appears to be sufficient locations to place a WOAS on the property that would not require variances for side yard setback and setback to the OHWL. In addition, there does not appear to be sufficient justification for the size of the total WOAS beyond storage. Proposed Conditions 1. N/A 74 Ecological and Water Resources 1200 Warner Road St. Paul, MN 55106 February 7, 2022 MacKenzie Young-Walters Associate Planner, City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Variance Request, 6609 Horseshoe Curve, Chanhassen – Lotus Lake Dear MacKenzie, I have had a chance to review the variance request for 6609 Horseshoe Curve in Chanhassen. The applicant is proposing a variance to the setback and dimensional standards for a water-oriented accessory structure (WOAS) on Lotus Lake. The proposed WOAS would be an 11-ft by 12-ft storage shed set 8-ft back from the OHWL. The Chanhassen Shoreland Ordinance allows for one WOAS that shall not exceed 10-ft in height and 250 square feet in area and is setback 10-ft from the OHWL. We encourage the applicant to work with the city to make their proposal consistent with Chanhassen Shoreland Ordinance provisions related to WOAS to ensure the impact to the shoreland zone is minimized to the greatest extent possible. Deviations from the shoreland ordinance, including the setback and dimensional standards listed above, are only to be allowed where there are rare and unique circumstances. This is essential in order to protect important shoreland habitat from erosion and water quality impacts, prevent vegetation destruction and maintain vegetative structure screening, and to minimize runoff from impervious surfaces. Thank you for the opportunity to review this variance request. Sincerely, Taylor Huinker Area Hydrologist CC: Dan Petrik, Land Use Specialist Equal Opportunity Employer 75 February 20, 2022 Chanhassen Planning Commission via email to: mwalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Re: Variance Request for 6609 Horseshoe Curve - Planning Case 2021-07B Dear Planning Commission Members, We live at 6615 Horseshoe Curve, 3 houses from the 6609 property. Due to a scheduling conflict, we are unable to attend the March 1 meeting to present our concerns in person. We do not support any of the requested variances. Specifically: The Shed: We do not support a variance for the WAOS that would expand the footprint of the new deck structure now in place (20.5ft x 11ft) to encroach, or further encroach, on side or shoreline setbacks. If square footage is added to reach 250 sqft or a variance is granted to 308 sqft, any additional structure should not encroach or further encroach on the side or shoreline setbacks. With the extensive regrading that has been done at the lakefront, there is now ample space to expand westward and avoid setback encroachments. Any hardship here has been created by the property owner in their choice to build the new deck vs a different configuration. The Security Gate: We do not support a variance for the proposed security gate. A code conforming gate can easily be designed and constructed to meet the property owner’s safety concerns. There is no hardship here. The Parking Pad: We do not support a variance for the proposed parking pad. This property will have sufficient space on the proposed driveway to accommodate a reasonable number of visitor vehicles. In reviewing the available documents regarding this property, there does not appear to be any reason to grant these variances. The plights that the property owner presents are not due to circumstances unique to the property. The circumstances cited in the request have been created by the property owner or they can be handled without any variance. 76 Granting any of these variances infringes on adjacent property owners or the lakeshore. It will also set a precedent for easing the current rules which are very reasonable. We appreciate your consideration of our position on this matter. Sincerely, Steve & Jeannie Wanek 6615 Horseshoe Curve 77 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on February 17,2022, the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing to consider a request for setback and maximum size variances for a water- oriented accessory structure (WOAS), a variance to allow a six-foot, six-inch high opaque fence(gate)within the required front yard setback, and a variance request for a front yard parking pad on property located at 6609 Horseshoe Curve. Zoned Single-Family Residential(RSF). Property Owner: Elise Bruner & Brian Bruner 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. 4_4.) ,Tu'Tv Kim . Me uwr en, City Clerk Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17 day of r14' " 2021 CHRISTINE S. LUSIAN Notary Public State of Minnesota My Commission Expires lanuary31,2027 otary Public 78 asd p6c° N 1 4 411111111, 1 Subject Parcel 1 Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.This map is a compilation of records,information and data located in various city, county,state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to TAX NAME» be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System(GIS)Data used to prepare this map are error free,and the City does TAX_ADD_L1» not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other TAX ADD L2» purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes§466.03,Subd. 21 (2000),and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims,and agrees to defend,indemnify,and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User,its employees or agents,or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. w T it„ It Subject tParcel ' r Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.This map is a compilation of records,information and data located in various city, county,state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown,and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System(GIS)Data used to prepare this map are error free,and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Next Record»«TAX_NAME» Minnesota Statutes§466.03, Subd. 21 (2000),and the user of this map acknowledges TAX ADD L1» that the City shall not be liable for any damages,and expressly waives all claims,and TAX ADD L2»agrees to defend,indemnify,and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User,its employees or agents,or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. 79 C r 0 0 C L w - y0 7 0 C i ro LOT Lo aOSC (CO .0 a) OL y N ! JLCN O m,+° oEoyrMl0fO .0 ._ L O a) O L a-' -O rm_oo. PS: 2. O •` (O .3 u) - t y Q O_U m m m u m umi s . 0.; co a) a) O N U c N E (a O mcm mnEc ° LE c ° `m 03 (C O' LL - U L a) (oL C a) 0- (O com mooN y mmmm $E -o N ' N a) - O cn— O N U) y Y y O - O .0 >• r O -mc mamm > c c5 0) c . y 0 •0 3 O 'O A 3 U (O U) . - (O c .-. o T m £ >m m m m H m m c C@"O Q 0 V fx O C .. Q N CC " 7 as c O a U O (moo ... p m 0 Q °c 0 >.-m c-3o E a c m a O U O y a) y2 a) ( mU mmUmahmocgo— co O y m U C >, ai L a 0 .y T... fO 0 0 + L.. N 7 O Q on c c m E m c 0 > c x m C tL C co U y QV .N — 4- U U U) ..+ O .QL a) Ep ET- 0siz-, “tiy `p a) •X c E p 0 E 0 p p E fy, 00 T— (Lo ,— C = mm Ems oc mL=m; mm 0 i (o 7 > c C OL, QpQ -D N m C 0 t OQ U) ' a) a) ,p mac 82g;8? -yU=u1, g 0 N E r co O w a) C c a 0 O U •a) > .c L O y m o °='m E m c£ o o m2EO2U (O O ) 5 c o O- O U > p L a) Q (O N 3 3 y m m 3 6.o a E c °o >'a 5 >m C p. O C Q C o - Q•a) O) c + LO•• .LO-• r O T C ° .0 m QS c _ y m m cr-2 o T a`orn m L o C fn O c O• Y y L 1 ( n d0_ C c a) ' C _ N co (O a) __ Q O y m ao m ° o L m m 3 o• m w O 3 0 -0 N N O . Q a) •, c- 3-00OaCp m` > 3EyOOi0) U 'O to c • O O 0-2 c Q H 0. 3 CV N -> 3 a) a) as (' ..m° E = o a L c m o m m o 0co • N .2 -0 y L -0 C a) y L -co O '0 N 'O -O U) . . •7 V , y 3 E 4,.. L Q m m . .m m 3 E c 8 m 2 c a) a) U N 0 c d U a) -. (0 0 0 G fO C a) O r m Q a) y C m n o m m au N E a o m m m 0 C) 0 N o. y C0j C y N I- 0 m O C L 4.) N .> 00 a) a) 0 I-- co 5 c - c °a m n'm-c gr 2 0 3 a m U c U N O E O U x -O m > i 7 6 .C "-' > Q 0 O ( O N N 3 •N 7 y C D m a m o p m N 'p co O (o •X i ( 13 c N O C 7 L 0 =_ ` U 7 a) C Q N Y C y X a) . Ql o.m- c'3' c m . 2= .2 a h U U 27O) _ -C .-, D U) (O O. 0 w 0- cop O C ' y U Q d to a) 1 Q c _ -O m U a m m o o c E n o- o m m,?•: w a) a) +-% T O .c O U) OO 3 CD O) O L H -C >'E7 U) O 2 - (O O m J 8.v c c$ c-. r m O C L y ' a) C 0 C C cc a) 0 a) V N C a3 .c lc a) (a L co CO '- mPf 0 p 0 m 'g cm'o-m° E O 10 W mo m s-SCU > V a.0 0 0Y O a) .- 7 0 > (O m e ') .c 3 y Q) t U) -p Q O mma cmLEL 0 y > rnwinm g mQ) cO I- a) c a) r w i L p O'•—• O O,U (O N a. C O L CO O O CO U c c E c E y m-' £ c m cmm 0 m 0. d y OO ( O (( 7) -O Q a) a) R u) N2 Q'i - 0' a) L ..: LO a) t cow c E :_' N C O) ( Q) w _m m L t g a E E m m o a m oUa)C U) y Q W C 0 O i d E" com E a0c >,'-- - a) a) a) O 73 , O C O N CO (6 E .V U O E U 0 0 O O cm p C 0 ( o C u)< o o y Y Y SIUa m m m m 2-2!a r13EZOQCa) I= .Q . O Q•- C LaT .Emmmc a> M (O y (O -O > cr - ' m 2« 7 (o w L (O _E O O O 3 0 Cl p cn Q c -• Q (O E O ) y Q E .E! m E,o• m m c a U) 6 = y - 2 T6_- O O) s 0-.2 .Ow1— UaL Q•> pV C T y y Nc 0 -O = mcF mU°cNmmmcumirnomma) = > C ` (O 0 c () U) co 0 a) Q O O L ` Q) ; a) > C a m c u m v, £. a c m c r 0 C n c 0 0 0 c o w • (a) L a...0 7 O N 0 '.- L L E o = °c L E £ H m E m n v c aasI- = U Ua-- rw •-.W a) < I- (o (0 Qr- N co of I- "O >- O 3 01— U - U -p mm3 F, mnmomm $a mmm Vcn oNCO _c mmHE-a) a2SN rL o,t MUIVHfflPJURD° 2 a c-C c c 0- 7 L 's cmmE a^; maa3 mvr ym 'u aCCtcamrmmaamTyEaLCC0Q'd y w C (O am _2mam -°arc-m P C 6 C C C s lea ma mmOOOOcOUT.0 og>rLJO1O §smm .aasO G O. aJ a a Z 0_ U c 0 O a) w a) Y 3 U C U) y o >. v t 2 a C Tasr) Q U .F L.. — a,N 0 CO N E > (o _c 0 -0 m oc0 ° ° @ ma m oL O C E O y Q C 0 C c_. a a2 E £ 52 3 y o.-- c a) > O O 0 U) 2 - O C ' N E 03 .0 a) oUm 2E3eo- w£ mm m-o u_ OL 7 Q L Y a) Q mcm um, Ecmy ym mac vf6aiOa) N (0 U) L L — U co U y L _C a)CO com L 8 2 y m c m c 0iEcN - 7 o O)= a) U)CO 0 7 0 .0 >' co) ai c H m H m m m m H cm a) • U) +O. Cr C Cl.) 0 •a) 3 'O V -+T. g (O (n U C C oEc mE > m mmm ymmc C O)U a) (o E O C .,- i U C C ... C 2O O U)0 io 0¢ °c o >.=''"E. E E.c m a N > = Y 0Y(n Ta) L Q -- O 0 O, C 0 a Cn) 0 LO_• a) ) N mUs) 7mmEo1+ 082me m-°0,CO t y m y L 0 a U L_ .L-. 'O O (o V) 0 C- ` 'o- OoOmLYQOr- m a-. m Y C C to N c (O 4) 0 O U N Q (U 'yE. . 4 C 5 O >,2O (OI— E +) c c `; Em~ cvc moUvr-r d H O ( O O L L O C C `O .= Q Q != m o 0 p U) .- a) N Q 'mad S L m 8 E,2 t H'U t7,g a) • v (O E U) L yN N .O '- p 0 7 y ^ a) 0 U .- > L.. L p Lo moo mE HCLOo5m O U) U L.' ... O N Q C Q U > co U) i c N Q (O 41 •6- m $U c £ m o^ i.2 c 'm C QNO fl ' U.co i)CO O N a) - L O Q (O ` a) __ Q Y p w £rn m ° 'o `° c b m o m I) O O 3 O -O N ; 3 c " O L N ;«., '( cc EmmE' m 8¢m` > `^ 3 C 0 0 - C C N cO O Q0 c 0- U (Ni > a) a) ( . vmo o L ° 0mm._-r °mvo c `0 ,_ N N a) - Q 3 C ' co U) . . 3 .0 y E 3 w L m r m S > o>,m m a v com.b-w C) O CO c ` L O "- a) a) -O -O ._.• . O coQ U)m c=- c 0 Ec 0 O O i 'O 0- d U c0 > U) 0 a) C fO 0 r a) C +. Q m a.o c m aU y£v o m m a 3- N N Lc V) 'i X p O O) a a) •y O Q CO i cf) CO __ O O p 0 o a c c ? m m m o m ° m.`-6 ° 0 N C L 0 .y .L d L C a) c O a)O '- as ' 0 c (A C c m m L m t.£t y o v i,N i Coi aCl > "O 'C > Q O m N a) 3 a. a a m= m o m=o O. Ca O rnL O .p-' CO QT CO . L-' Q (OQ = C '§ y U °- ON (moo t- E .5 vQm Ooo-£ ao o03r >.0 F 0 r c V U) (O >i U C V) N . O (O 3 a)0 L U) O >'43 wy,,, .-. 0 E i co O -m-, ro"' 81 c L E co'a U u O G L - 'V 7 3 o a) O m N O 1E y 7...1 O C co a) (O O L 0) c '- 06 p 0 c) '''CD g m '3 m m m 2 E °m m m%m=c V c i N c N (O N .= a,' °.5 L Q O - a) O).> U •y C 0 3 C N y. - a) CD O (O U c j E H c- m r E c m c m>m 9 U ,.° m rr O3 y O p - O c p `f a) a) R a) C c a) cti ' 0 C (a a) - a) E , Q-O O) c0 a) m c L - E o 2 E 0'm s'c S y u a cd o ' a)y Q'c = Q O L a) t CO C f= p C C _ a m_ o a m E c °m m m o ZC cU UVrOcuceCON (o0 >i0EUUQEVOOOa) C 'as (OO m¢o 2Nsmomai.r-' oamm d ._ CO a) U C ?y C i 0 0 ,_ C • ` p c . •a) 3 -- a) ; L 0 2 O Q C E 0 c (n o m .. E m s E c m m a> m.m- E N N N U) a) m 2 0 0 (o O O O) 0- c +. as 0 o.` am_mm mEm-' Lcc a) - >, C •= (O . C co N O_0 a) fl. O 7 u) I- U aL Q > >— } N L +L. a)a) 7 m c g m c°)U c o m rn m-..c.o v °n Z O - ._ O > (O p . O L Q L 7 O O O i .c w L a) 9 > C a m c '° c_ m n c.a c ,,r m C i- = U U > N NCr W CD I- CO (O Q,- N (`M I- 10 > O i OI- U E a) -0mo3 camEm m8amm.c°-== O caEg, c- , rnC..)a _ atm , _ ,_-00U) U Em0 c - ° cm`o05 mo3c O 3 c C 0 7s0 c m m mo., mvd0m-ooacca C cmmamrm ? o-s23,02LmLrnOam E C. O U) +N+C (O oamac ma mom-E -Oc m5C. C C O .EL ymmmmm2cr=-'momam C O A AC as Uacc mUNuott mrg 2 O d a1 . 2 C mHm o mo EL p` NmHt£ ym CO Cl 0. Q. 0 Z d C Y 3 m y o. c-` . T o cmm m 3 m v w 0fa0 0 0 c - 3 0 W 0 zs _ ._ 2. >Lcro IoE mm mmm J O. a a J oC arm Z CO SU: U o._:mH a3 >v)o.Q£m a80 0 o 0 0 0 N O m 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O O 0 0 o O 0 0 <--1 0 rn M O en e1 N N N <--1 en en cf e--1 N en CV <--1 N O N N r-1 ei N kr) L( N en e-1 0 (--I 0) N O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 en 0 0 en O en en en 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N 0 N N N rti o O N 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 O O O O O O 0 0 O 0 O O O O O 0 O 0 e•-i 10 t0 Cr) e-I O) ,--1 r 1 0) 0 u') u1 0 en o 0 0 N 0 o N 0) 0 0 0 0 en 0 0 0 0 M O 0 ID ID 0 CO 0 CO 00 O en u) kil en O en en en u) vt [f u) u1 re) en M en O rn en en en t0 Tr 0 N N en en en en en en IO O 0 t0 00 t0 tD kr) e` t0 ID N N LID l0 tD t0 00 L0 ID ID tD Z in u) u) u) u) u) k) u) u) u1 u) u) u1 u) to it Ln Ln in u) V) u) u) u) u1 kr) V) u) in u1 u) u) u) d N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a 0 0 0 > > C C C C Cc CC C C C C C CC C CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CCDMM > > > > > > D > > > > = D > > > > > > > U w 3 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U w > W _W W W W LU LU W W W W W W LU UJ W W LU UJ W W W LU LU W LU W LU O - > > > O J O J J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I z F- F- H I C I C cc2 2 2 2 2 = = I = = I I I I I I I I I I I I I N z z z V) 1— N I- F- V) ) VI In NV 0 0 V) 0 0 V) V) V) 0 id) In u) V) V) (I) V) VI 0 W a W W W W W W W (11 W W W W LU W W W W W W W W W W W W V) V) < a a V) W V) L6i I1J V) V) V) V) (n N V) N V) in In N N V) In V) V) V) V) N V) in V) 0 p Iu C. w O O J O O O O O 0 O O O 0 O 0 O O O 0 0 O O O O O O 0 I a J J J I CO I CO CO 2 2 II II2 2 2 III III Ill III = 2 a N In d d O_ en e-i eti N en u) N 0) ei rn cr u) O u) 0 (-i 0 O 0) u) N 1-1 u) t0 r-i u) t0 N w 00 N u) u) Ln O O O O O O 0 O e•-1 e•-1 <-1 <-1 N N en en cr VD ID N N CO CO •-1 0) 0) 0) 0) I t0 u) en ID 0) t0 t0 t0 1D 1D l0 1D tD 1D t0 ID l0 t0 1.0 t0 1.0 1.0 t0 t0 t0 1.0 1D 1,0 1D t0 LID 10 I0 V) kr) tD en en en t0 l0 ID 1D 1D ID IO t0 ID LID ID ID tO t0 t0 ID ID t0 tD 1.0 ID kr) ID ID ID ID ID t0 tDO en cr .7 t0 00 00 Li) kr) 1DI kr) ID ID ID LC) ID ID ID rl tD IO00 u) N N N O O N N N N N N N N N N N O N NNN1) kr) In N in kr) In kr) kr) u) V) u) 11) u1 V) It) kr) kr) 00 N 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 01 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) O) e <7 N. A N 4 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N A V) • 1-1 ci e•-1 r.i r-( (-I e-1 e-1 ei .--( (--1 e-i ei (-I (--I (-I .-I I-1 (-I (-I e1 e-4 ei (-I e•-1 r-I (-I e1 e-I r•-i r-i u1 en en en en IA en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en en M en en en en cn en en en u) V) V) u) u) u) in u) u) V) u) In u) u) u) u) u) u) u) in V) u) u) u) u) u1 V) V) 0 0 0 0 Z V) n 0 u) CO u) u) V) u) u) u) 11) in V) u) Ln V) In V) in In Ln u) u) u) u) u) kr) u) V) u) u) 2 Z Z Z Z N Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z 2 2 2 2 a 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 O w Z Z Z w 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 2 Z J i- E W W W J W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W I 0 V) V) VI J V) V) V) V) V) V) Cl) N V) V) VI V) Cl) V) V) V) V) 0 V) V) Cl) (/) N (n V) V) V) O z < a Q a > a Q a a a Cl) Cl) a Q a a a a a Q a a a a Q Cl) a a a a a a 02- d 2 2 2 z 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 22 ZIII 2 2 I 2 2 2 = = I aI O z Z z Z w Z Z Z ZZZZZZ Z Z Z Z ZZZZZZZZ Z z Z Z z z x p w a a a w a a a a a < a a a < a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a Q J 0 = I 2 C 2 2 2 I I I I I 2 2 2 I = 2 IIIIIIIIIIII I- CO u.1 U U U 0 U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U 0 0 0 0 0 N CC CC CC0 CC C EC C CC CC CC CC CC CC CC C CC CC C C CC CC CC C C C OC CC w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 = z MDDD x U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U J U U U U U W_ W_ W_ Z L.LJ Lu W W W LU W W W W W W W U.! W W W LU W LU W W LLJ LU J J O J 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0ZO f- H H C = C C = = = I 2 2 2 2 = = = I I I I I 2 = I I I 2 2 r•-1 O 0 z z z _,, cc1- N I- F- V) V) V) V) V) Cl) Cl) VI V) 0 V) 0 V) V) V) In 0 N V) V) V) 0 V) w W W W W W W W W W W LU W) W W W W W W W W) W W W W 01 w Y vat Cl)a Ian _I N cC N N cC CC C CC CC cc ce 0NC cc ONC C ce C o C 01C cc Cl) C C OTC C cc C 0 0 > w W w O 1 0 a 100000000000000000000000 a o u) J J J 0 CO I 030322222212222222222222222 I e-1 kr) CL CL d re) ri eH N en u) N 0) r'1 en .7 u) O u1 0 e-I O 0 0) u) N e-1 u) 0 r'-1 In (o N x 0 u) kr, u) N 0 0 0 O 0 0 O e1 (--I (-I e-I N N en en Cr (0 t0 N N CO CO 0) 01 01 0) 0) a e-1 e-1 en IO 0) 0 CO CD CD 1D t0 kr) t0 t0 t0 1D I0 t0 10 t0 1D ID 1D t0 t0 1D t0 t0 ID tD kr) ID 1D I- e-i e-1 K) M Cr) Cf t0 t0 ID tD 1D (0 t0 ID t0 tD ID t0 1D t0 1D ID ID ID ID t0 1D ID ID kr) tD tD ID 0 uJCYwZ I-a 0 V)IM I- I-M w C V)IL Z Z C w a U CO N U a I') 0CzUwOw = C w z w C x v Z W Z U Q } } 9 C w a w ~ 2 Z m 0 Z 0 = > 0 a Y C J C W } J Z J 0 0 U w = F- 0 U J U J Z Y 2 Cl) C a w Z C 2 W Z W C < W e O W z Q Z CO W w ..J_ I Z ZQ O Q CO = V) J V)CID J J a J d O 2 a CD w C7 ›- i w J } C H a z In 0 V) a w Z a C Y LA 2 a ~OawJzp = 2 0 J p w w w I 02S N 2 „,, _, w H to > 027 Z Q 2 ccwa = a > w 2 t O_ O In Z w _ VI N LA.,a a V) w CC w U O_ 2 < 0 m i_ 2 0 w ct } a o 0 C > a z Z Z 02$ J p U J a o a 00 0 2 ,,n Z ZI C U (D t W Q 0 p C Z C C W Z 2 a Q 0 = Z I- I z Z 0 m Z a U CC x I- a J 2 Z 0 2 a 2 F- U- V) Q N I- w > 0 U a Q U U a > C I = w a w a Q a t a a a 0 0 p a it J eta F-- J a >' U a a p v 2 2 C cc F- a m -, Y -, CC I- F- 2 D_ , kw2 Y U 1n w J 2 C 0 2 Z C O m -, C I- 0 CO CO 81