Removal of Appeal 3609 Red Cedar Point Road
From: Jada S <jadareneesanders@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 11:23 AM
To: Young-Walters, MacKenzie <mwalters@chanhassenmn.gov>
Cc: Pete Sanders <petercsanders@gmail.com>; Brad Kerber <brad@kerberfamilyhomes.com>; Seidl, Joe
<jseidl@chanhassenmn.gov>
Subject: Re: Planning Case 2022-13 3609 Red Cedar Point Variance Letter
Thank you. We will withdraw our appeal specific to our variance. I am unavailable for the next
several hours, but will revisit the floodplain and shoreland impact zone details later and follow
up with any additional questions.
Thanks again,
Jada and Pete
Sent from my iPhone
On Oct 5, 2022, at 10:32 AM, Young-Walters, MacKenzie <mwalters@chanhassenmn.gov>
wrote:
Jada and Pete,
Answers have been added to the email below.
From: Jada S <jadareneesanders@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 10:01 AM
To: Pete Sanders <petercsanders@gmail.com>
Cc: Young-Walters, MacKenzie <mwalters@chanhassenmn.gov>; Brad Kerber
<brad@kerberfamilyhomes.com>; Seidl, Joe <jseidl@chanhassenmn.gov>
Subject: Re: Planning Case 2022-13 3609 Red Cedar Point Variance Letter
Yes, thank you for this information. One more set of questions; can you please help us
understand:
1. How is the shoreland impact zone calculated?
Section 1-2 defines Shoreland Impact Zone as “Shore impact zone means land located between the
ordinary high water level of a public water and a line parallel to it at a setback of 50 percent of the
structure setback. (20)”. For your property the shoreland setback is 75’ so the shoreland impact zone is
37.5’.
2. What are design considerations/restrictions within the shoreland impact zone?
Restrictions apply to intensive clearing of vegetation and tree removal. These apply to properties
with existing native vegetation and tree coverage. If memory serves the norther portion of your
property is already turf grass which would render these provision largely moot. As was noted
earlier, the City Code requires parking/turn around to be located outside of the shoreland impact
zone.
3. Would a shed/boathouse be permitted in the shoreland impact zone (10' from shore, 10'
from property line)?
Yes, the shoreland ordinance allows for a water oriented accessory structure of up to 250 square
feet to be located within the shoreland setback (including the shore impact zone) so long as it is
10’ from the OHWL and 10’ from the side property line.
4. In lieu of a shed/boathouse w/attached parking pad, would a longer parking pad be
permitted (hardcover would be equal to what it would have been if shed+parking pad,
and would stay under our total lot hardcover %) from the private drive into the shoreland
impact zone, if it was located on the west side of the yard? For example, to accommodate
a mid-size fire truck (8.5'x29'). It would provide us depth for one vehicle/turn around,
plus our picnic table (functional for us plus would allow for flexible space for emergency
vehicle parking/staging); we could design creative solutions under/near the front porch
for our water related accessory storage, instead of having a shed in the shoreland setback.
To be clear, the total cumulative square footage of impervious area associated with the WOAS
(shed and any patio/impervious) would be capped at 250 sq. ft. The City Code does not allow for
driveways/parking areas within the shore impact zone unless there is no other feasible location.
Based on the survey and my measurements, it appears that there is space for a
turnaround/driveway area clear of the impact zone. At the shortest point to the west there is
about 14’ between the road and shoreland impact zone and this increased to about 29’ at east lot
line.
5. What kind of materials are allowed in the shoreland impact zone? Does the product make
a difference (ie. asphalt, pavers, crushed rock, etc.)?
Anything considered to be lot cover (asphalt, pavers, class 5 gravel, etc.) would subject to the
WOAS limits (i.e. 1 structure, maximum combined size of 250 sq. ft.). River rock, pea gravel,
and similar materials are not considered lot cover and could be used to create fire pits or similar
areas without counting toward either the 25% lot cover limit or the WOAS limits.
Upon receiving your response to the above we will confirm our appeal decision. Thank you!
Jada
On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 9:11 AM Pete Sanders <petercsanders@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks Mackenzie and Joe for the clarification. That is very helpful.
Pete
On Wed, Oct 5, 2022 at 8:53 AM Young-Walters, MacKenzie <mwalters@chanhassenmn.gov>
wrote:
Jada and Pete,
Regarding the parking pad/turn around, the City Code would allow a parking pad/turn around
within the shoreland setback so long as it was clear of the shoreland impact zone (so 37.5’ from
the OHWL) and did not exceed the property’s 25% lot cover limit. I’ve measured off the
shoreland impact zone so you can see where a parking pad/turn around would be permitted
(anywhere outside of the red).
I would like to echo what Joe said, while various approvals and permits may be needed based on
your exact plans all riparian properties have a small section that is within the floodplain and it
does not prevent the improvements typically present on these properties.
If you have any additional questions, please let us know.
-MacKenzie
From: Seidl, Joe <jseidl@chanhassenmn.gov>
Sent: Wednesday, October 5, 2022 8:42 AM
To: Jada S <jadareneesanders@gmail.com>
Cc: Pete Sanders <petercsanders@gmail.com>; Young-Walters, MacKenzie
<mwalters@chanhassenmn.gov>; Brad Kerber <brad@kerberfamilyhomes.com>
Subject: RE: Planning Case 2022-13 3609 Red Cedar Point Variance Letter
Good Morning Jada, Pete,
The single point on the survey that is not adjacent to the shoreline that is at elevation 945.9
which is not below the floodplain elevation and therefore is not regulated as floodplain. As such
the floodplain regulations regarding fill do not apply in that area of the yard. City code does
allow for improvements to resident’s properties including those on the shoreline. It is fairly
common to see improvements along the shoreline including shoreline stabilization, beach
blankets, and vegetation management. Unfortunately, I would need a plan to confirm the work
you are proposing meets city code. I can say that the work described as I understood – grading
above the floodplain elevation, shoreline stabilization, and potential a beach blanket and water
orientated accessory structure are all commonly permitted here in Chanhassen. I would suggest
you check in with the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and DNR for this work as they are
separate governing agencies with there own rules and regulations.
Please see the attached Beach Blank Information from the DNR.
@ MacKenzie – do you have anything to add from the planning perspective?
Hope this helps.
Joe
From: Jada S <jadareneesanders@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 5:18 PM
To: Seidl, Joe <jseidl@chanhassenmn.gov>
Cc: Pete Sanders <petercsanders@gmail.com>; Young-Walters, MacKenzie
<mwalters@chanhassenmn.gov>; Brad Kerber <brad@kerberfamilyhomes.com>
Subject: Re: Planning Case 2022-13 3609 Red Cedar Point Variance Letter
Thank you for the clarification on the conditions of our variance approval. We will retract our
appeal. However, in the attached memorandum, we have a question on 5), about the floodplain:
having not read for ourselves the Floodplain and Shoreland Overlay District ordinances, can you
please clarify for us again what we can and cannot do on the spot elevation and shoreline areas
that are considered flood plain? We recall you saying to us on Friday that the elevations on our
survey should not impact our ability to improve the yard as we described, yet in the
memorandum, the focus is on the restrictions within the floodplain, which we do not fully
understand. It's possible that the flood plain management is a separate matter, and therefore 5)
should be deleted from the memo.
I will send a separate email with the photos of our flooding issues you requested.
Thank you for helping us, we appreciate it.
Pete & Jada
On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 4:32 PM Jada S <jadareneesanders@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for the memo and information. We are reviewing it now and will respond as soon as
possible.
Jada & Pete
On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 4:04 PM Seidl, Joe <jseidl@chanhassenmn.gov> wrote:
Hello Jada, Peter,
Where you able to review the letter I sent? Please let us know if you have any questions. We are
operating under the assumption that you do not plan to retract the planning commission decision
appeal.
Please advise. Thanks!
Joe
From: Seidl, Joe
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2022 10:31 AM
To: Pete Sanders <petercsanders@gmail.com>; Jada S <jadareneesanders@gmail.com>
Cc: Young-Walters, MacKenzie <mwalters@chanhassenmn.gov>; Brad Kerber
<brad@kerberfamilyhomes.com>
Subject: Planning Case 2022-13 3609 Red Cedar Point Variance Letter
Good Morning Jada, Peter,
Please see the attached letter that outlines the City’s position on the variance. I believe this letter
addresses all of your concern, and sums up the conversation we had on Friday. If you have any
questions, please give me or MacKenzie a call to discuss.
If this letter satisfies your concerns, the next step (if you choose) would be to withdraw the
planning commission decision appeal. Please note we are on a tight deadline, with a staff report
due Tomorrow October 5th if you do plan to go ahead with the appeal.
Please let us know ASAP what you decide to do so we can process accordingly. Ideally, we
would hear back from you this afternoon.
Kind regards,
Joe Seidl
Water Resources Engineer
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
jseidl@chanhassenmn.gov
PH. 952.227.1168
FX. 952.227.1170
www.chanhassenmn.gov