The URL can be used to link to this page

10-19-21 Agenda and Packet A.7:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER B.PUBLIC HEARINGS B.1 Consider a Request for an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for Grading in Excess of 1,000 Cubic Yards for the Creation of a Berm on Property Located at 9631 Foxford Road B.2 Consider a Request for an Amendment to Interim Use Permit (IUP) 2021-03 to Amend the Completion Deadline, Haul Route and Storage Area, Black Cherry Development, LLC (Erhart) B.3 Consider a Request for Setback Maximum Size Variances for a Water-Oriented Accessory Structure (WOAS) and a Height Variance to Allow a Six-Foot, Six-Inch High Opaque Fence with the Required Front Yard and Shoreland Setbacks on Property Located at 6609 Horseshoe Curve B.4 Consider a Request for Wetland Buffer Averaging, Wetland Setback Variances, Yard Setback Variances, and Other Variances for the Construction of a Single-Family Home, Septic System, and Driveway, PID 25.0080200 C.APPROVAL OF MINUTES C.1 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from October 5, 2021 D.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS D.1 City Council Action Update E.ADJOURNMENT AGENDA CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2021 CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 10:30 p.m. as outlined in the official by-laws. We will make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible, the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be 1 listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting. If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the public record based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it is up to each individual City Council member and Mayor if they want it to be made part of the public record or not. There is no State Statute that forces the Mayor or City Council to share that information with the public or be made part of the public record. Under State Statute, staff cannot remove comments or letters provided as part of the public input process. 2 Planning Commission Item October 19, 2021 Item Consider a Request for an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for Grading in Excess of 1,000 Cubic Yards for the Creation of a Berm on Property Located at 9631 Foxford Road File No.Planning Case No. 2021-24 Item No: B.1 Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Prepared By Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer Applicant David Gatto 9631 Foxford Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Present Zoning Rural Residential District (RR) Land Use Residential Large Lot Acerage 2.48 acres Density NA Applicable Regulations Chapter 7, Article III, Excavating, Mining, Filling and Grading Chapter 20, Article IV, Division 5, Interim Use Permits PROPOSED MOTION The Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the Interim Use Permit (IUP) to allow site grading subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation for grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards for the creation of a berm on property located at 9631 Foxford Road. SUMMARY The applicant is requesting an IUP to permit the construction of an eight-foot high berm on the southwest corner of their property. The applicant is removing approximately 70 diseased trees, building 3 a berm and re-landscaping with a mix of trees, shrubs and perennials. BACKGROUND Lake Riley Woods was platted on June 15, 1987 (Subdivision #86-25). The house was built in 1991. DISCUSSION See attached staff report. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Interim Use Permit to permit an eight-foot high berm on the southwest corner of their property as shown on plans prepared by James R. Hill, Inc., dated March 9, 2021, subject to the conditions of the attached staff report, and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation. ATTACHMENTS Staff Report Findings of Fact and Recommendation Development Review Application Grading Permit Application Plan Sheets Carver County Comments Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing 4 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: October 19, 2021 CC DATE: November 8, 2021 REVIEW DEADLINE: November 16, 2021 CASE #: 2021-24 BY: RG, EH, JS, MU SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The developer is requesting an Interim Use Permit (IUP) for grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards for the construction of a berm on the property. LOCATION: Lot 14, Block 3, Lake Riley Woods Addition, (PID 254080340) APPLICANT: David & Sharon Gatto 9631 Foxford Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Rural Residential District (RR) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Large Lot ACREAGE: 2.48 acres DENSITY: NA PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve the Interim Use Permit to allow site grading, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopt the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.” 5 Planning Commission 9361 Foxford Road IUP– Planning Case 2021-24 October 19, 2021 Page 2 of 7 LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has limited discretion in approving or denying IUPs, based on whether or not the proposal meets the standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and excavating, mining, filling and grading regulations. If the City finds that all the applicable standards are met, the Permit must be approved. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting an IUP to permit the construction of an eight-foot high berm on the southwest corner of their property. The applicant is removing approximately 70 diseased trees, building a berm and re-landscaping with a mix of trees, shrubs and perennials. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 7, Article III, Excavating, Mining, Filling and Grading Chapter 20, Article IV, Division 5, Interim Use Permits BACKGROUND Lake Riley Woods was platted on June 15, 1987 (Subdivision #86-25). The house was built in 1991. ANALYSIS SITE CONSTRAINTS Bluff Creek Corridor This property is not located within the Bluff Creek Overlay District. Wetland Protection There is not a wetland located on the property. Bluff Protection There are no bluffs on the property. Shoreland Management The property is not located within a shoreland protection district. Floodplain Overlay 6 Planning Commission 9361 Foxford Road IUP– Planning Case 2021-24 October 19, 2021 Page 3 of 7 This property is not within a federally designated floodplain. ACCESS Access to the property is via Foxford Road. While the property is also located on Pioneer Trail, County Road 14, there is no access to the county road. GRADING, DRAINAGE AND EROSION CONTROL The Engineering Department has reviewed the IUP submittal for grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards associated with this application. 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, erosion control, utility and transportation plans submitted with this application have been reviewed only for the purpose of determining the feasibility of the project in accordance with City Standards. A recommendation of IUP approval does not constitute final approval of details, including but not limited to alignments, materials and points of access, connection or discharge, that are depicted or suggested in the 7 Planning Commission 9361 Foxford Road IUP– Planning Case 2021-24 October 19, 2021 Page 4 of 7 application. The City of Chanhassen Engineering and Public Works Departments will review plans, in detail, when they are submitted and approve, reject or require modifications to the plans or drawings based upon conformance with City Standards, the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances and the professional engineering judgment of the City Engineer. 2. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that the proposed IUP application can be developed in accordance with the requirements of the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances (as it pertains to Engineering and Public Works requirements) and City Standards, provided it fully addresses the comments and conditions contained herein, and can be approved. 3. The applicant is proposing to import approximately 5,000 cubic yards of material in order to raise the elevations on the southwest portion of their property. The material will consist of up to four feet of granular or sand fill with up to four feet of top soil which will create a berm that will be stabilized with landscaping and other typical vegetation as indicated on the Landscape Plan, designed by The Mustard Seed, Inc., dated July 23, 2021. The applicant has also provided a Grading and Erosion Control Plan designed by James R. Hill, Inc., dated March 9, 2021, along with a narrative describing the erosion control practices and sequencing of construction operations. The Grading and Erosion Control Plan has been reviewed and found to be in general conformance with Sec. 7-35 and Sec. 19-145 of City Ordinances. However, there was not an existing conditions survey provided with the associated Grading & Erosion Control Plans. In order to review the impacts to existing drainage, particularly where the berm is raising the elevation close to the existing ditch abutting Carver County right-of-way, an existing conditions survey must be provided. Furthermore, staff recommends that certain plan notes be added regarding City Ordinance requirements and the applicant’s and contractor’s responsibility in meeting such requirements for clarity. One example is that there are plan call-outs regarding 1:1 slopes and the placement of landscape boulders associated with the steep slopes. If retaining walls are greater than four feet in height, they are required to be designed by a registered professional engineer and acquire the appropriate City permits. 4. There appears to be a small, incidental ditch wetland at the northeast corner of Pioneer Trail and Foxford Road. Based on the submitted plans, it does not appear that the project will impact this wetland, however, if wetland impacts are proposed during grading activities the applicant shall first seek a Wetland Conservation Act permit. Double row silt fence will be required on the north side of this wetland to protect the wetland from the incoming fill. 5. The erosion control plans provide an estimate of 2.49 acres for the entire parcel and 0.61 acres of disturbance associated with the proposed grading activities. To guarantee compliance with the plan, and related remedial work, a cash escrow or letter of credit shall be furnished to the City before any site grading commences. In accordance with Sec. 19-145.(d), the security is calculated based on the allowable, per parcel, amount of $7,500.00 per acre. This would equate to a total of $18,675.00 of security for the 2.49 acre site. However, after review of the required erosion control BMPs and area of disturbance (0.61 acres) compared to the total acreage of the site (2.49 acres), staff feels it reasonable to require a security for 125% of the area of disturbance rather than the entire parcel. 8 Planning Commission 9361 Foxford Road IUP– Planning Case 2021-24 October 19, 2021 Page 5 of 7 6. The applicant’s narrative and plans indicate that all work associated with grading activities and restoration will be completed in the summer of 2022. Thus, staff feels it adequate for the IUP to be approved for a period of one (1) year from the date of approval. LANDSCAPING The applicant proposes to replace the existing diseased conifers with a variety of tree species. MISCELLANEOUS Any proposed grading shall not negatively impact or allow water to drain towards the existing septic system or a secondary septic site on the property. Existing septic site and secondary septic site are to be marked and protected to ensure soil treatment areas do not get compacted from construction activity. The IUP shall be approved for a period of one year from the date of City Council approval. If the project is not completed by then, the applicant must apply for an extension of the IUP. Sec. 20-323. - Termination. An interim use permit shall terminate on the happening of any of the following events, whichever first occurs: (1) The date stated in the permit; 9 Planning Commission 9361 Foxford Road IUP– Planning Case 2021-24 October 19, 2021 Page 6 of 7 (2) Upon violation of conditions under which the permit was issued; (3) Upon change in the city's zoning regulations which renders the use nonconforming; (4) Upon the subdivision of the property or the alteration of the lot lines of the property. PERMITS Permits from appropriate regulatory agencies must be obtained; including but not limited to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District and Carver County. UTILITIES City utilities are not available at present to the property. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Interim Use Permit to permit an eight-foot high berm on the southwest corner of their property as shown on the plans prepared by James R. Hill, Inc., dated March 9, 2021, subject to the following conditions, and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Building 1. Any proposed grading shall not negatively impact or allow water to drain towards existing the septic system or a secondary septic site on the property. 2. Existing septic site and secondary septic site are to be marked and protected to ensure soil treatment areas do not get compacted from construction activity. Engineering 1. The applicant shall provide an existing conditions survey, or update the Grading & Erosion Control Plans, dated March 9, 2021, prepared by James R. Hill, Inc., to include surveyed existing topography, for review and approval prior to issuance of the Interim Use Permit. 2. The applicant shall update the Grading & Erosion Control Plans to include the following notes: a. Prior to commencement of any grading activities contact the City’s Water Resources Department, Ryan Pinkalla at 952-227-1173, to schedule an initial erosion control inspection. b. All temporary erosion control BMPs must be removed after final stabilization has occurred and prior to release of any securities. This includes, but is not limited to, the temporary construction entrance and all its appurtenances. c. Any construction of retaining walls over four feet in height require a City permit and shall be designed by a registered professional engineer. 10 Planning Commission 9361 Foxford Road IUP– Planning Case 2021-24 October 19, 2021 Page 7 of 7 d. Permitted hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday with no work permitted on Sunday or public holidays. e. Vehicular traffic on Foxford Road must be free flowing and unobstructed at all times during construction activities. f. Staging or impacts to Carver County right-of-way requires County approval. 3. All erosion control reviewed and approved in conjunction with Condition No. 1 shall be installed prior to the initiation of any site grading. Inspection and approval by the City of the installed erosion control measures must be had prior to commencement of grading operations. Erosion control measures require double row of silt fence up-gradient from the wetland. 4. The applicant shall supply a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $5,718.75 prior to grading operations. 5. The Interim Use Permit shall be approved for a period of one (1) year from the date of City Council approval. The applicant will need to request a formal extension 60 days prior to the expiration date of the Interim Use Permit. 6. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, as necessary, i.e. Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, Carver County, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, etc. and comply with their conditions of approval. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation 2. Development Review Application 3. Grading Permit Application 4. Grading Plan 5. Carver County Public Works Comments 10-5-2021 6. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-24 9631 foxford road iup for grading\staff report 9631 foxford rd.doc 11 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of David and Sharon Gatto for an Interim Use Permit (IUP) to construct a berm on their property. On October 19, 2021, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of David and Sharon Gatto for an IUP for the property located at 9631 Foxford Road. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed IUP preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1.The property is currently zoned Rural Residential District (RR). 2.The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential Large Lot use. 3.The legal description of the property is: Lot 14, Block 3, Lake Riley Woods, Carver County, Minnesota. 4.Section 20-232: a. The proposed use will not be detrimental to or endanger the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. b. The proposed use will be consistent with the objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance. c. The proposed use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. d. The proposed use will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. e. The proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. f. The proposed use will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. 12 2 g. The proposed use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. h. The proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. i. The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. j. The proposed use will be aesthetically compatible with the area. k. The proposed use will not depreciate surrounding property values. l. The proposed use will meet standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in Chapter 20, Article IV of the City Code. 5.The Planning Commission shall recommend an IUP and the City Council shall issue an IUP only if it finds, based on the proposed location, that: a. The use meets the standards of an Interim Use Permit set forth in Section 20- 232 of the City Code. b. The use conforms to the zoning regulations. c. The use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district. d. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty. e. The use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future. f. The user agrees to any conditions that the City Council deems appropriate for permission of the use. 6.The Planning Report No. 2021-24 dated October 19, 2021, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Interim Use Permit subject to the conditions of the staff report. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 19 th day of October, 2021. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY:___________________________________ Steven Weick, Chairman 13 COHMUN]TY OEVELOPI'ENT DEPARTi'ENT Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1 100 / Fax: (952) 227-11'lO SubmittalOate I APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 6SDay Review Oate Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply) fl ComprehensivePlanAmendment.........................$600 E Subdivision(SUB) D Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers..... $100 E Greate 3 lots or less D Conditional Use Permit (CUP) trn Single-Family Residence .. All Others................ E lnterim Use Permit (lUP) ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325 All Others............ ................ $425 E Rezoning (REz)!tr Planned Unit Development (PUD) . Minor Amendment to existing PUD ... $7s0 ... $100 ... $500n ntt otrers................. E Sign Plan Review. E Site Plan Review ( E Administrative ... $325 ... $42s trtr Final Plat. (lncludes $450 escrow br attomey costs)" 'Additional esdow may be required for other applications throllgh the det slopment contrad. E Vacataon of EasementvRight-of-way (VAC)........ $300 (Additbnal Gcording tu€6 may apply) E Variance (vAR).................................................... $200 $150 n wethnd Atteration permit (wAp) E Create over 3 1o8.....................(_ tots)E Uetes a Bounds (2 lots)........... E Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) $45 ..................... $300 $600 + $15 per lot $300 $150 $150 $700&tr SPR) ........'..................... $100 ! Single-Family Residence...... E Ari ffi;.-.:...--.--..--.......................... $1s0 $275 ............ $100E Commerchl/lndustrialDistricts'......................$500 r..1, Plus g10 per 1,ooo square reet oi ilil;iil ;.;, -- Ll zoning Appeal ( thousand square Eet) lndude number ot gxigDq employe€8: 'lnclude number of 4g!I employess:E Residential Districls......................................... $500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit ( units) llglE: Whrn multipl. .pplioltiolt3 ar. PIoo!5s.d omourEndy, th. $propdab l. Ehdl ba ohxlEd ior..oh .pplio.tion. s500 ................ $200 $3 per address # XoUnaai- Sign (city to instal and rqrov6) ........ ..... E Property Owners' List within 500' (clty to gEnerac der pr€-applbatbn meeting) . Ei Escrow fior Recording Documenrs (check ar that ?pply)........................ --t-.:tj:*]]....... sro per document E Conditional Use Permit E[ lnterim Use Permit E Site Plan Agreement E Vacation E Variance E \fietland Alteration Permit E Metes&Boundssubdivision(3docs.) E Easements( qrsements) Brfflia, 6ZO-z Section 2: Required lnformation Description of Proposal 7c€ P8q:ry- /ififuCffiroN Property Address or Location Parcel#: / t/' l/' Present Zoni Present Land Existing Use of Property: Legal Description: wedands Present? E Yes No Requested Select One Requested Land Use Desig +tDtA{ Select One Selecl One One Echeck box if separate nanative is attached Itz l)l eco*",ldIrq\]t ".o*".|t l( l+i tr /rc I rr (Reter to tl?p apptqnab Applk at*n Cl?s,c*tisl tor IequiB,d suhnifial inlomatin that musl @o$any tlis applbatin) ,/' Totel Acreage: 14 Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant lnformation APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY 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 app€al 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 additionalfees 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 inbrmation and exhibits submitted are true and correcl. Name: Address Contact: Phone: city/state/zip: Email: Cell: Fax: Signature Date: PROPERW OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as property owner, have tull 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 inbrmed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further undertand that additional Ees may be charged fior consultjng 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 conect. Name u\ 44r'D conact:51't+b^) Address:pnone: bl7- 1%?ob NCity/State/Zip Email: DPfr l Signature:Date:*02o4 Cell: Fax: Cell: Fax: N Contact: Phone: a cota This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all inbrmation and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Bebre filing thas application, reEr to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer wih the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements and Ees. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. Section 4: Notification lnformation Who should receive copies ot stafi rsports?'Othor Contact lnform.tion: trtrtr ! trlaiea Paper Copy NameE Email E Email n Email n Email Address:trtrtr Mailed Paper Copy Mailed Paper Copy Maibd Paper Copy City/State/Zip Email: II{STRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necess:lry form fields, then select SAVE FoRM b save a copy to your device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payrnent. SUBMIT FORM b send a digital copy to the city for prccessing. SAVE FORM PNINT FORM SUBiIIT FORU PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) No-o. Add.*. citv/state/zio: E-oil. Property Owner Via:Applicant Ma:Engineer Via:Othef Via: 15 101 CITY OF CHANHASSEN EARTHWORK PERMIT GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Complete an application for earthwork permit for any grading activity, hauling or depositing of material, or ground/soil disturbance in excess of 50 cubic yards approximately 5 truck loads)and less than 1,000 cubic yards, or any amount of material that may change the natural or present neighborhood drainage patterns within the City of Chanhassen. Applications should be submitted to the City of Chanhassen along with an application fee of$50.00 at least two (2)weeks prior to commencement of grading/earthwork. 2. Any grading activity in excess of 1,000 cubic yards requires an Interim Use Permit and City Council approval (a minimum of 60 days for processing). Interim Use Permits are can be applied for through the City's Planning Department. 3. A cash escrow or letter of credit will be collected at the time of permit issuance and will be fully refunded upon grading completion and acceptable restoration/revegetation of all disturbed areas. The escrow is required as security to insure restoration and proper erosion control measures are maintained. The escrow amount is based on an estimated cost to have others repair erosion control measures and site restoration. 4. The City of Chanhassen reserves the right to approve or deny any request. 16 Permit No. IOWCITY OF CHANHASSEN APPLICATION FOR EARTHWORK PERMIT Name and Address of Property Owner:Name and Address of Excavator: David and Sharon Gatto TBD 9631 Foxford Road Chanhassen, MN 55317 Sharon Gatto Contact:Contact: David Gatto @ Ames Construction Phone: 612-386-3030Fax: Phone: 612-386-0510Fax: Alternate Phone: David: 612-3 8 6-0 510 Alternate Phone: Legal Description of subject property: See submitted drawing for this information . Lot Block Subdivision Property Identification Number: Site Address: Description of work to be done: See Section 7 Chanhassen submittal for more info . Generally, remove 70 diseased trees, build mounds on SW side of lot re-landscape with select trees, shrubs and perennials . Indicate the use or occupancy for which the proposed work is intended: Occupancy and property use does not change . Estimated quantity of excavation(cubic yards): No excavation Attach a plan showing the following: 1. Present elevations. 2. Proposed elevations. 3. Elevations of neighboring property within 15 feet of excavation. N/A NO EXCAVATION 4. Location of any buildings or structures on the property where the work is to be performed and the location of any buildings or structures on land of adjacent owners that are within 15 feet of the property or which may be affected by the proposed grading operations. N/A NO BUILDING WI IN 15 ' I have read and understand the City of C ,1 . e 's General Requirements for obtaining a grading/earthwork permit. df Signature of Applicant: 4,/% Date: SEP 2, 2021 Office Use Only Date Received: °1•$•Z? 50 Application Fee Received: AiYes No Approved Denied Receipt No Q0gS32 al/Date: q 1"Zl Security Amount: $ Processed by: Receipt No. Date: 17 Chanhassen—Earthwork Permit: Section 7-35 Responses. a) Material added shall be approximately 5000 CY. b) 1. Owner of the property and General Contractor shall be David J. Gatto. Proof of Ownership will be provided if necessary. 2. Legal description—see submitted drawing 3. N/A—Neighborhood has been established for over 30 years. The project is not affecting any of the neighboring landowners. Approval from the Lake Riley Woods Homeowners Association is pending and required prior to beginning the work. 4. a) Grading Plan—See drawing b)Stockpile sites—N/A c) Physical relationship to community—property is available for viewing as necessary d) Site typo—See drawing for existing/proposed items. e) Material added shall be 2-4' of granular or sand fill overlaid with 2-4' of top soil to develop slightly sloping berm areas that will be finished with select landscaping and grass& perennial plants. Any change in the elevation near or exceeding a 1:1 slope and determined to be problematic for mowing will be finished with large boulder edges to develop the elevations desired. f) The water table in the area is known to be at 150' and appears again at approximately 300- 350' at the depth of nearly of all of the water wells in the area. g) The water well on the property is shown on the drawing. 5.The purpose of this"operation" is to generally re-landscape a portion of an existing large property that has suffered extensive Spruce Rhizosphaera needle cast. Seventy(70) Spruce and other trees on this property must be destroyed. This operation covers the SW portion of the property that is extensively exposed to the community. This operation will replace the trees with other types of trees and select landscaping that will benefit the Owner with future privacy, but also benefit the community with new and non-disease landscaping in a visual part of the Chanhassen community. 6. The operation will start this fall with the removal of the trees, followed by the placement of the fill and soil for the berms. Prior to any disturbance, erosion and sediment control measures will be installed. A specific construction entrance will be provided as shown on the submitted drawing complete with bypass piping for the drain water in the ditches adjacent to the roads and silt fence as shown. Silt fence will be installed as shown on the drawing and in accordance with the City of Chanhassen Engineering drawing included within the submitted drawing. After the soil is in place, compacted and graded it will be covered with a layer of Flexterra Flexible Growth Medium" or equal to guard against surface erosion. 18 That soil will be allowed to remain throughout the winter of 2021-22 to settle and compact. During the spring of 2022 and prior to any local road restrictions, the landscaping as shown will be generally developed on the property so that it may be evaluated during the summer of 2022 for health and adequacy. If the Owner determines additional trees and landscaping is necessary for their privacy, additional landscaping features will be added as necessary. 7. The hours of work will be generally during convenient daylight hours and will not affect any of the surrounding community that currently has road projects and a commercial golf operation across the highway. No operations on the Gatto property will exceed any of the parameters of the other surrounding operations. 8. Tree survey is indicated on the drawing. 9. Final landscape plan is submitted. No interim screening plan is included. 10. No soil shall be processed on site, all soil will be delivered. Any water used will be from the local well or with water trucks imported and used for the work. 11. Travel routes—N/A. Entrance is shown on Foxford Road for the work. 12. Dust control if necessary will be done locally, drainage and erosion control will be as required for Best Management Practices (BMPs), or as stated in#6 above or per any NPDES Permits or Small-lot construction site jurisdiction with respect to local, County, or State Code. 13. Restoration—see landscape plans. 14. David Gatto (property Owner and Contractor) 612-386-0510 shall be notified of any complaints and is committed to resolving any valid problem or complaint with respect to this improvement on the property. 15. Environmental Assessment— N/A 16. Wetland Alternation—N/A There are NO Wetlands identified on the property. 17. Other information 19 CITY OF CHANHASSEN P O BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 09/08/2021 9 : 58 AM Receipt No . 00483227 CLERK: ashleym PAYEE : Sharon & David Gatto 9631 Foxford Road Chanhassen MN 55317- 9631 Foxford Road Grading Permit 50 . 00 Total 50 . 00 Cash 0 . 00 Check 15702 50 . 00 Change 0 . 00 20 21 22 23 Carver County Public Works 11360 Highway 212, Suite 1 Cologne, MN 55322 Office (952) 466-5200 | Fax (952) 466-5223 | www.co.carver.mn.us CARVER COUNTY October 5, 2021 City of Chanhassen c/o Erik Henricksen, PE Project Engineer 952-227-1165 ehenricksen@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Re: Development / Access Review Comments: 9631 Foxford Rd. Interim Use Permit located at PID# 254080340 adjacent to County State Aid Highway (CSAH) 14 (Pioneer Trail) Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject development in the City of Chanhassen. Consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and County Codes, and other official controls of the County, the following are comments and recommended conditions of approval and as potential requirements for any necessary permits to be issued for the project. 1. Regarding grading adjacent to the County Highway – a. The proposed grading plan is outside of the existing County right of way and does not appear to impact the County right of way. b. Confirm the proposed drainage will not create an adverse impact towards the County right of way. c. Proposed grading shall tie-in and match the existing County right of way. 2. Regarding potential permitting in or impacting the County right of way – a. Prior to any work affecting or on County highways or in County right of way, the applicant shall coordinate plans with the County Engineer and obtain a Utility or Excavating/Filling/Grading Permit(s) from Carver County Public Works: (www.co.carver.mn.us/departments/public-works/quick-links/permits). Final details of locations, grades, and profiles affecting County roads as well as any utility connections will need to be reviewed and approved prior to any permits. b. Any damages, modifications, or changes incurred on County highways from current or approved conditions will need to remedied or updated at development expense, including costs incurred by the County. These are the County’s comments at this time. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please contact staff noted below: Joan Guthmiller Administrative Technician Carver County Public Works 952.466.5201 jguthmiller@co.carver.mn.us Angie Stenson AICP Sr. Transportation Planner Carver County Public Works 952.466.5273 astenson@co.carver.mn.us Dan McCormick, P.E. PTOE Traffic Services Supervisor Carver County Public Works 952.466.5208 dmccormick@co.carver.mn.us 24 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COLTNTY OF CARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on October 7,2021, the duly qualified and acting City Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe attached notice of Public Hearing to consider a request for an Interim Use Permit for grading in excess of 1,000 cubic yards for the creation of a berm on property located at 9631 Foxford Road. Znned Rural Residential (RR). Property Owner: David Gatto. Planning Case No.202l-24 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy ofsaid notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fi.rlly prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses ofsuch owners were those appearing as such by the records ofthe County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. 'l Kim en, City lerk JEAll M SIECKLITIG ? * t{olry Ptflel/lhnota Subscribed and thisTh daY of t before me Notary Pubtic 2021. rt orirln Sdta !t tt' 2e' 25 Subiect Parcel Oi.cl.lmer Thas map is neither a legally record€d map nor a survey and is nol intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, infomaton and daia located an various oty, county, state and federal offces and othea sourceg regarding the area sho n, and i5 to be used ior reference purposet only. The Cily does not warrant that the Geographic lnformation System (GlS) Data used to prepare this map are eror free, and the Cry does not epresent that the GIS Data can be used for navrgatonal, tracking or any other purpose requinng exacting measurement ol distance or direction or Paeosion in the depiction ot geographac features. The pteceding disdaimer is provicled puGuant to Minnesota Statnes 5466.03. Subd. 21 (2000), and the user ol this map acknowledges tlat the City shall not be liable for any dameges, and expessly waives all daams, and agrees to defend, indemn y. and hold hamless lhe Crty from any aM all daims brought by User, ita employees or agents, or third parties which anse out of lhe use/s access or use of data provided DiSclalmat This map is neither a legally re@ftled map nor a survey and is nol intended to be used as one. This map is a compilaton of recods. anloflhation and data located in various city, coung. state and federal offces and other sources regardang the area sho{m, and is to be used for refeence purpces only. The City does not wanant that the Geographic lnlormation SFtem (GlS) Data used to prepare this map are eror free, and lhe City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used fo' navigational, tracking or any other purpGe rcquidno exactjng measuement ot distance or diredjon or precision in the depiction of geographic fuatures. The precedang disdaifier is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes S466 03, Subd. 21 (2000). and tne user of this map acknowledges that the CiV shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claams. and agrees lo defend, ind€mnify, and hold hamless the City from any and all daims broughl by User, its employees or agents, or third panies which arise out of the usefs ac@ss or use of data provicled. rTAX_NAMEI aTAX_ADD_L'l > ITAX ADD L2> (Next RecordXTAX_NAMEI (TAX_ADD_L1D (TAX_ADD_L2) Subject Parcel --o r)5 uq |,,'1 *Q I ;tl t)il .!! H 1rl 26 ECP o^u) -9-t E -f i slEe sE: E 3€e E E 3x El 'E 6E > E EI5 EPE E9:l a d,l[ Y o U 9l or.E L oE -atl Pt or I or E' :EESi;; EE gEIgFaE;a I5l3Ps==EE5I;: EE= 5o;r-a:8.6Oe:Al g=*9 o o HgH Efi f; EF =tN NoN o g Etoooo G q qiIl .@ 0) oood-.!(5oooo,c(ELo o-o-co;=:EE (t)O)c-oaI,o59EC) =E8E-a!oodoo'a' : O- !,i-> 9ooQ o .v. (E o E ;)o o(,p oo .; -9 oc .9 o oI e g oo5([coo8,9'o 6- "EE '9!lr8(o-o< rl).C-loor-E€ s3:a ? :-E€ EB ,5^ !i or I U o.;.E-t? E-c= oo=c?O-- (l-c.oc':E96 9:=o s:+EE gE!! eEtf Efrtfr EE;E EiHgt3'I 3,8gE g*E: EEEEo.9 -c .= (/,/./Dl-(JO-oE.9q +< orD+lcF 6 E(J irr.\l(9lrf o o) 6- o- oE o J C).9! o E o, .9) F E cioor- o NoN ot o)-oooo*(EE o,fF a; ,g q .; -9 o:(D o) (E =oot-F. ot o)-o E(!EO oc-o (oI o =lo, Ic .,Egbo,o bo .!? o FC =o0., E figI (., -,cEe.E: oJ-iEeE 6E. EcE*-o o)i;,apoeUl:ro q)889;-s 6 oE Bfraoio(.) oN o;o il) -o OJi b() o eo, Of,_c EB(u0 o!;o,E EE(56oc 8E-':>--oEECool BfrAEcc'=(uE_c-o 6qo<It c 0)q)o c')cEoo E E o)E; til,c .o ooI=EoE 11) o Eco o E It) o rl)o E o o- =c .9) .l> =uJ2 (! ! :lEEIEliEEEiiiii EiillElssiiiiiii E E 6 P 3 E 6! 8 d..o9ttroo o=OEfooo i'; i: c6 o, oo o !!()oJ foo CLI o- io ;o t(, ELo o- I ii) o.=o- q: SEi= c.E =; E') Eoo, =EO.=ok.9oFJ-E .9oEo3 Ero- .=bE orlll.98otrzB o GE G o E)c oo =otEEO LOD(!6o'=IE .cE ll atee E.=OE PE.EE 2ro oooE o o aEe- o-o _9-t E .,f i.90E.E'()9 $iE p Hg; E3€eEEgrr El =E 6E > g aI;EeEE P El-9 o o i or)l (!l -. c(I (E-c ;B€EI;EE HEla;9ss EEg= e I aB0, Ege::EEE cEilffi$gE =eN:No6t utl e E oooo oEq (, II; '6't n) oil) o- d-,:(E oo)oo)c(5Loo-o-c (l);3 ts0){Jc -o!2 I69FO =E8E -a-oodoo'6' : O-o>-> tD ,i oQF! o :o o E =fo oop oo o .9 o o = e I cf(!cootp Oa .!z E lig &r8(o-Or< 0,_c -oaE =-- -, 8fr P= 8 E d 6() gij = E: EE E'H"E, AE5I EEBf EEqH !=35E::x.e 9H;x tEEciiEH EEaEaEi:i o C)6' o-oc o) f(,) ,aE .E inic .c; E6;c!€oq F-E -5(uE 8€Nci o)a qI o= OEj6o=E' OE.fg o Eq, r5 =oot-l'- ui il) -o EoEo cfoO oI tt Ec c)p ()t Eltp o)c N .E (,)cEEEbo) -o .:o trooE - tt)gb I q) -cEg EEca-EEq bq> Ed:ro(to Eo-o: boEU, AE 36 a)c.9 o o) E Foc ?cq E n) oEc(5 Eo q '; = 6o1'coo)ocnoc!EO EoEoicl;e-6 e> 9. -a65E6o(l)i-rE, Pe XE E8.9cJ:E'6$ c tltb8 OE.2t8=E6 eEoqrccEO'L66 =*EE. iEiElri*iliiiil EEEiiiEEEiiEiiEi ;gEEsEEiitEgegEiE 6 E t l, .9 3 .6 ..o9ccoo 6=.,E3C,o(J (, ,EF o5 (, t!o o G(.) oJ (!ooao o- io =o Eo CL e o- >Eto o-l!eto-J 9ot 0, .= =a, t*E otEe}E >EE_9 o.oeto-J 27 oooooooooooooooodt ra = + - Fi F. (o r'l F{ N a{ N,n sl r! -oo600000No^llnm(n0ooo66000000000006----6-.'roa6@0oooOaj -l Fl Fl rr m .i t"l O O O O O O O .n - - < < <r <r <r sr s <t s s s g s s Iz Lh Ltr !'r !n La ra lJ] !,l Ln rn r, ln rn ul rr') rr1 d N a.r a.r N a\t N N a\, N a',1 a! N N a! a! a\l JFr-FF(l-2?2"-22223=fYYYYYooooooooo:*atra f H 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Eiii = = = =, L r! U- u- u- lt u- L tr 7 A2222'.=?60il6H60663< O- o- O- 4 4 O O ..r O Fr O .-t Ft r-t F.t O!!UlrOF.tOFtu1 ut ul F F. C,l 01 Or Fr (n(o E 6r - ..r + q co ri m.n d) (n .o Lr1 (o(o@ -+|Jn!nlrtrnotolo1 or or crr or ot ot ot ol ooF-r\NF. l.n+Ln u') N 01 (rl (O -61 or or C'r ooo(p Ooo(o€olr\(o(o\O(O (O (O (O (O Gl (D rcl (O+--6@ oo@co o.oo0o{d{{*or**Ftrl{F-*rl{ F.l .-l t-l .i Fr O d t-l F{ -l -t .'l .'{ F l F{ .'lm d) m d) rn F.i fn ao m .n d) iYl ln i'o m mLri Ln Ln Ln ut N ra l,) rn Lr1 ralJlv)lnraLnui Ln Ln !n ur ob La tt Ln r,1 r^ rJ) l,1 Ln rr') rn 2ZZZZaZ.ZZZZZZZZ.Z - - - - r rrr^,z2zz2-zzzzzzzzzz": d u u tJJ l.J Lu Lll t! uJ lrl tJJ -ttr tr t/'t r, (^ S Ut Vt tA th q, Vt Vl vr ti U1 ^'a ut Lrt ri a = tl v\ tn ta th t^ vl tn ta v\ 9IIII:E:}X---I-I--Ia,z z z z z -,r, z z z Z Z Z z z 2 Z ?IIIT--I-I-I----IF: u U U L) (J U (J U (J (J U L, () U U U . OOOOOOOOO.(J F F F: I d d d G. E G. 6. G. t 1-f 93YY aoooooaoo:irieii:3555555558 R=EaAEI88888dd886 = Y = = = =, tt- rr u- tL l! LL r! u- lr o--t o- o- o- o- c st O.r O.r O F{ .r r-{ i-.r C)x Lr1 o F{ c) .r .\ lrl Ln r- F. or or or .:l Q !9< di -.{ + < o (n an (n m an m l,l (o (o @F + Ln !a ut ln ro gl qr cD CD o ol qr cn (,1 qr t-J4> *--tnFYoz=z-sflfi, E>'- z- E == oZii1r, zg = 3t EEpC6H == i e1 oFliloE == 3 ==E-H i==EA=:=;EEEIHEs =iEEE:EEqEEffr=EEE 28 Planning Commission Item October 19, 2021 Item Consider a Request for an Amendment to Interim Use Permit (IUP) 2021-03 to Amend the Completion Deadline, Haul Route and Storage Area, Black Cherry Development, LLC (Erhart) File No.Planning Case No. 2021-03 Item No: B.2 Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Prepared By Bob Generous, Senior Planner Applicant Black Cherry Development, LLC Tim and Dawne Erhart 14500 Martin Drive, Ste. 3000 9611 Meadowlark Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Present Zoning Agricultural Estate District (A2) Land Use Residential Low Density Acerage 112 acres Density NA Applicable Regulations Chapter 7, Article III, Excavating, Mining, Filling and Grading Chapter 20, Article IV, Division 5, Interim Use Permits Chapter 20, Article VI, Wetland Protection PROPOSED MOTION The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the amendment to the Interim Use Permit to allow site grading by extending the completion deadline to July 25, 2022, and the haul route and stockpile location subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation. SUMMARY The applicant is requesting an amendment to the IUP permitting the removal of organic soils from the 29 wetland and the stockpiling of soil on the property to extend the completion date to July 25, 2022, from January 25, 2021, and to revise the haul route and stockpile site on the properties. The grading plan for the wetland area has not changed. BACKGROUND On January 25, 2021, the Chanhassen City Council approved the Interim Use Permit to allow site grading for the wetland and a haul route and stockpile area on the southern portion of the properties. DISCUSSION See attached staff report. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the amended Interim Use Permit to permit a revised haul route and stockpile area as shown on the plans prepared by Alliant Engineering, Inc., dated September 27, 2021, subject to the following conditions and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Engineering 1. The Interim Use Permit shall be approved for a period of one (1) year from the date of City Council approval. The applicant will need to request a formal extension 60 days prior to the expiration date of the Interim Use Permit. 2. A survey of the proposed stockpile location shall be provided before grading operations and after grading operations to delineate the total area and volume of material stockpiled in conjunction with this Interim Use Permit. 3. The applicant and their Engineer shall work with City staff in amending the Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control Plans dated October 1, 2021, prepared by Mark Rausch, PE with Alliant Engineering, Inc., in the event that the Erhart Farms grading permit is not approved on October 25, 2021. 4. The applicant shall supply an additional cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $13,500.00 prior to grading operations. 5. Permitted hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday with no work permitted on Sunday or public holidays. 6. All erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be installed prior to the initiation of any site grading. Inspection and approval by the City of the installed erosion and sediment control measures must be had prior to grading operations. 7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, as necessary, i.e. Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, Carver County, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, etc. and comply with their conditions of approval. No vegetation within the upland or wetland buffer areas of the city property shall be removed. Environmental Resources 1. No vegetation within the upland or wetland buffer areas of the City property shall be removed. 2. No access to the project site shall be allowed through City property. 3. The applicant is required to submit a restoration plan that includes the replacement of trees within 30 the buffer area and the haul route for the original haul route. The quantity shall be determined to match the existing density occurring in the forest outside of the construction limits. 4. Soil compaction tests shall be taken and levels documented post construction for the original haul route. If soil bulk density exceeds limits to plant growth (1.0g/cc), then appropriate restoration methods shall be employed such as aeration as directed by the City. Water Resources 1. The applicant must limit all grading to the wetland boundary. No grading or vegetation removal is allowed beyond the wetland into the upland. 2. The wetland boundary must be completely flagged and walked with the City’s Water Resources Coordinator before any construction activities can begin. 3. Erosion and sediment control measures must be adequately in place before construction begins. 4. No grading is permitted in the Type 3 portion of Wetland 2 (see plans for further details). Area of non-disturbance must be flagged prior to construction and approved by the City’s Water Resources Coordinator. 5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits through the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Overlay District, including dredging, floodplain. ATTACHMENTS Staff Report Findings of Fact and Recommendation Extension Request Grading Plan/Wetland Alteration Update Affidavit of Mailing 31 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: October 19, 2021 CC DATE: October 25, 2021 REVIEW DEADLINE:November 16, 2021 CASE #: 2021-03 BY: RG, EH, JS, MU SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The developer is requesting an amendment to the Interim Use Permit (IUP) for excavation of the existing wetland along with excavated borrow being placed on a location within the parcel. LOCATION:Outlot A, Butternut Ridge Addition, (PID 25.1550022) and Outlot E, Foxwood (PID 25.2990510, city-owned) and 9197 Eagle Ridge Road (PID 25.0240811) APPLICANT:Black Cherry Development, LLC Tim and Dawne Erhart 14500 Martin Drive, Ste.3000 9611 Meadowlark Lane Eden Prairie, MN 55344 Chanhassen, MN 55317 terhart@riekor.com PRESENT ZONING: Agricultural Estate District (A2) PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that City Council approve an amendment to the Interim Use Permit to allow site grading by extending the completion deadline to July 25, 2022, and the haul route and stockpile location subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the Findings of Fact and Recommendation.” 32 Planning Commission Amendment to IUP – Planning Case 2021-03 October 19, 2021 Page 2 of 10 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE:Approximately 112 acres DENSITY:NA LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City has limited discretion in approving or denying IUPs, based on whether or not the proposal meets the standards outlined in the Zoning Ordinance and excavating, mining, filling and grading regulations. If the City finds that all the applicable standards are met, the Permit must be approved. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The applicant is requesting an amendment to the IUP permitting the removal of organic soils from the wetland and the stockpiling of soil on the property to extend the completion date to July 25, 2022, from January 25, 2021, and to revise the haul route and stockpile site on the properties. The grading plan for the wetland area has not changed. Since there is no net loss of wetland, City Code does not require a Wetland Alteration Permit. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 7, Article III, Excavating, Mining, Filling and Grading Chapter 20, Article IV, Division 5, Interim Use Permits Chapter 20, Article VI, Wetland Protection BACKGROUND On January 25, 2021, the Chanhassen City Council approved the IUP to allow site grading for the wetland and a haul route and stockpile area on the southern portion of the property. On August 9, 2021, the Chanhassen City Council approved: a. The ordinance rezoning the development from Agricultural Estate District (A2) to Single- Family Residential District (RSF) (Blocks 1 and 2); b. Preliminary plat with variances ANALYSIS This project started last winter and the sudden warm up forced the applicant to stop work with it only half completed. They intend to complete the work during this winter's frozen season. 33 Planning Commission Amendment to IUP – Planning Case 2021-03 October 19, 2021 Page 3 of 10 The IUP expires January 25, 2022. The applicant needs another month to assure completion and then some time in spring to get everything re-established. They are simultaneously working on a grading permit for the Erhart Farm property, but the wetland excavation work is separate from the development grading proposed. The applicant requested a six-month extension of the IUP to July 25, 2022. Staff is recommending a one-year extension until October 25, 2022. Revised Haul Route and Stockpile Area 34 Planning Commission Amendment to IUP – Planning Case 2021-03 October 19, 2021 Page 4 of 10 Erosion and Sediment Control The Engineering Department has reviewed the Amendment to the IUP submittal for extending the completion deadline, amending the haul route, and amending the wetland spoil stockpile area associated with IUP #2021-03. 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 grading and erosion control requirements 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 decision. Note that references to the “City Standards” herein refer to the City of Chanhassen Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. 35 Planning Commission Amendment to IUP – Planning Case 2021-03 October 19, 2021 Page 5 of 10 General Comments/Findings 1. Any and all grading, erosion control, utility and transportation plans submitted with this application have been reviewed only for the purpose of determining the feasibility of the project in accordance with City Standards. A recommendation of IUP approval does not constitute final approval of details, including but not limited to alignments, materials and points of access, connection or discharge, that are depicted or suggested in the application. The City of Chanhassen Engineering and Public Works Departments will review plans, in detail, when they are submitted and approved, rejected or require modifications to the plans or drawings based upon conformance with City Standards, the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances and the professional engineering judgment of the City Engineer. 2. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that the proposed IUP amendment application can be developed in accordance with the requirements of the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances (as it pertains to Engineering and Public Works requirements) and City Standards, provided it fully addresses the comments and conditions contained herein, and can be approved. 3. The applicant proposed to excavate approximately 21,200 cubic yards of material from an existing wetland along with placing the excavated wetland spoils on a portion of parcel 25155022 (the applicant’s 114.54 acre property) with the originally approved IUP (IUP #2021-03) dated January 26, 2021. The proposed request was to complete the excavation of an existing wetland (Wetland 2) during winter months of 2020/2021 to create a basin for a permanent water storage area along with the enhancement of the visual aesthetic of the existing wetland. The plans provided proposed no net increase or decrease in the size or footprint of the wetland. However, due to weather conditions the work was not completed as dredging of the wetland required frozen ground conditions. As such the applicant is proposing an extension to IUP #2021-03, until July 25, 2022. See proposed Condition 1. 4. The property is currently in the process of a formal subdivision review (Erhart Farms), and plans associated with Erhart Farms will require that the current wetland spoil stockpile area be relocated to a different area of the property owner’s parcel. The need of relocating the stockpile, along with other plan recommendations as the property was eventually intended to develop, were addressed by staff in the review of the original IUP submittal. The previous review by staff, dated December 18, 2020, commented: “Based on several pre-application meetings had regarding possible future development of parcel 25155022, staff has concerns regarding the location of the wetland spoils stockpile and haul route. While the haul route is feasible, it is recommended that the alignment and location be reconsidered in conjunction with the future build-out of the area (future wetland buffers, potential rear yard areas, future street connections, etc.). Ultimately, the proposed haul route is adjacent to wetlands and preventative measures to assure minimal compaction should be pursued to promote the long-term health of the surrounding natural environment (i.e. a restoration plan, preventative compaction measures such as ground protection mats over wood mulch, etc.). Additionally, while the location of the wetland spoil stockpile is ultimately the purview of the applicant, it currently is being placed within the path of a potential public road extension. As wetland soils, or hydric soils, are anticipated to be the predominately excavated material and are typically high in organic materials, they do not lend themselves to suitable road subgrades. It is the understanding of staff that the location of the wetland spoil stockpile is temporary, and as such, the proposed stockpile area will need to be surveyed before and after placement to delineate the boundary of material placed. This will ensure that once the material 36 Planning Commission Amendment to IUP – Planning Case 2021-03 October 19, 2021 Page 6 of 10 is relocated it will not serve as subgrade to future road extensions within the parcel. See proposed condition 4.” Condition 4 was to provide a survey of the proposed stockpile location before and after grading operations in order to delineate the total area and volume of wetland spoils stockpiled. This would have assured that the location of the wetland spoils was documented and all wetland spoils not suitable for engineering fill could be removed and/or relocated in conjunction with the future development. The applicant will be submitting another set of plans in pursuit of a mass grading permit for the Erhart Farms subdivision currently under review which will require that the current stockpile location be relocated. However, the same condition will be required of the newly relocated stockpile area as the newly proposed location is again within the proximity of a potential future road and other possible public improvements. See proposed Condition 2. 5. The applicant has provided updated erosion control plans (ESCP) in general conformance with Sec. 19-145 as required by City Ordinance. While the ESCP incorporates areas outside the limits of the proposed grading and haul route associated with the IUP amendment, it is understood that the applicant will be supplying the City with updated grading plans associated with mass grading of the Erhart Farms subdivision currently under review with the intent of both grading permits being issued simultaneously (October 25, 2021 City Council meeting). Thus, the ultimate ESCP illustrated on the plan set dated October 1, 2021 would adequately account for grading on the entire site (both for the IUP amendment and the Erhart Farms subdivision’s mass grading). However, if the grading permit associated with the Erhart Farms subdivision is not approved, the applicant will be required to amend the grading, ESCP and restoration plans to only account for areas associated with the grading operations necessary for IUP #2021-03. See proposed Condition 3. 6. The original erosion control plans provided with IUP #2021-03 dated December 4, 2020 had an estimated of 3.669± acres of disturbance associated with the proposed grading activities. To guarantee compliance with the original plans and related remedial work, a cash escrow was furnished to the City. In accordance with sec. 19-145.(d), the security was calculated based on the allowable, per parcel, amount of $7,500.00 per acre. Based on the disturbed area, this equated to $27,517.50. The updated plans will have a total of approximately 5.5 acres of disturbance, or an approximate difference of 1.8 acres. This equates to an additional cash escrow of $13,500.00 to guarantee compliance with the additional disturbance associated with the updated plans. See proposed Condition 4. 7. The proposed wetland where excavation is to occur is adjacent to single-family homes, thus staff recommends permitted hours of operation to be in accordance with Sec. 13-52.(c) particular to “Construction activities in conjunction with new developments…”. See proposed Condition 5. 8. As the extents of the project have increased due to the relocation of the wetland spoils stockpile and the construction of a new haul route to access the stockpile location, the applicant must ensure all newly proposed erosion control measures are installed prior to grading operations recommencing. See proposed Condition 6. 9. The proposed development will exceed one (1) acre of disturbance and will, therefore, be subject to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency’s (MPCA) General Permit Authorization to Discharge Stormwater Associated with Construction Activity Under the National Pollution Discharge Elimination/State Disposal System (NPDES Construction Permit). Along with the 37 Planning Commission Amendment to IUP – Planning Case 2021-03 October 19, 2021 Page 7 of 10 MPCA’s NPDES Construction Permit, other jurisdictional authorities’ rules may be triggered requiring additional permitting. See proposed Condition 7. 10. It is recommended that as the nature of the updated wetland dredging plans have not significantly altered from the previously approved plans, that all previous conditions associated with Environmental Resources and Water Resources reviews remain with the amended IUP. WETLAND On November 19, 2020, the applicant submitted a No-Loss Application for wetland excavation through the Wetland Conservation Act (WCA) process. A Notice of Application was sent to the TEP on November 24, 2020. The proposed wetland excavation was discussed during a Technical Evaluation Panel (TEP) meeting on December 8, 2020. Based on the information provided, the proposed activity appears to be unregulated based upon WCA 8420.0105 Scope. Subpart 1., which states the following: “Scope; generally. Wetlands must not be impacted unless replaced by restoring or creating wetland areas of at least equal public value. This chapter regulates the draining or filling of wetlands, wholly or partially, and excavation in the permanently and semi-permanently flooded areas of Type 3, 4 or 5 wetlands, and in all wetland types if the excavation results in filling, draining, or conversion to nonwetlands.” Because the applicant is proposing only excavation in Type 1/2/6 wetlands on the property, and that the excavation will not exceed a depth of 6.5 feet, this activity is not regulated by the WCA. This means that this project is not anticipated to result in a net loss of wetland function or value, and as such, no wetland replacement or mitigation is necessary. The Notice of Decision with this determination was sent on December 22, 2020. Section 20-417. – Exemptions and no loss determinations. of the City Code states: “Activities exempted by Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420.0122 or determined to result in no net loss of wetlands shall be exempted from the provisions of this article. However, certificates of exemption or no loss must be obtained from the city prior to starting work.” This means that activities that result in no net loss of wetlands are exempt from the City’s Wetland Protection Article and thus exempt from the Wetland Alteration Permit process. This project qualifies for this exemption. This section of the City Code also states the following: “A person conducting an activity in a wetland under an exemption shall ensure that: 1. Appropriate erosion and sediment control measures are taken to prevent sediment discharges from the site; 2. The activity does not block fish activity; and 3. The activity is conducted in compliance with all other applicable federal, state, and local requirements, including best management practices as listed in Minnesota Rules Chapter 8420.0112, and water resource protection requirements established under M.S. § 103H. 38 Planning Commission Amendment to IUP –Planning Case 2021-03 October 19, 2021 Page 8 of 10 Numbers 1 and 3 listed above are listed under the Water Resources conditions below. Number 2 listed above is not anticipated to apply to this project as the current wetland is not fish habitat and no proposed activities are anticipated to block fish activity. Wetland Alteration Area LANDSCAPING AND TREE PRESERVATION The applicant has provided plans including a tree inventory with grading limits. The proposed amended project utilizes property that will be included in future development and therefore 39 Planning Commission Amendment to IUP – Planning Case 2021-03 October 19, 2021 Page 9 of 10 causes no further degradation to the existing forested areas of the property, provided that the haul route and stockpile locations do not deviate from the proposed plans. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the amended Interim Use Permit to permit as shown on the plans prepared by Alliant Engineering, Inc., dated September 27, 2021, subject to the following Conditions and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Recommendation: Engineering 1. The Interim Use Permit shall be approved for a period of one (1) year from the date of City Council approval. The applicant will need to request a formal extension 60 days prior to the expiration date of the Interim Use Permit. 2. A survey of the proposed stockpile location shall be provided before grading operations and after grading operations to delineate the total area and volume of material stockpiled in conjunction with this Interim Use Permit. 3. The applicant and their engineer shall work with City staff in amending the Grading and Erosion and Sediment Control Plans dated October 1, 2021, prepared by Mark Rausch, PE with Alliant Engineering, Inc. in the event that the Erhart Farms grading permit is not approved on October 25, 2021. 4. The applicant shall supply an additional cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $13,500.00 prior to grading operations. 5. Permitted hours of operation will be 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Saturday with no work permitted on Sunday or public holidays. 6. All erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be installed prior to the initiation of any site grading. Inspection and approval by the City of the installed erosion and sediment control measures must be had prior to grading operations. 7. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits from the appropriate regulatory agencies, as necessary, i.e. Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, Carver County, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Army Corps of Engineers, etc. and comply with their conditions of approval. Environmental Resources 1. No vegetation within the upland or wetland buffer areas of the City property shall be removed. 2. No access to the project site shall be allowed through City property. 40 Planning Commission Amendment to IUP – Planning Case 2021-03 October 19, 2021 Page 10 of 10 3. The applicant is required to submit a restoration plan that includes the replacement of trees within the buffer area and the haul route for the original haul route. The quantity shall be determined to match the existing density occurring in the forest outside of the construction limits. 4. Soil compaction tests shall be taken and levels documented post construction for the original haul route. If soil bulk density exceeds limits to plant growth (1.0g/cc), then appropriate restoration methods shall be employed such as aeration as directed by the City. Water Resources 1. The applicant must limit all grading to the wetland boundary. No grading or vegetation removal is allowed beyond the wetland into the upland. 2. The wetland boundary must be completely flagged and walked with the City’s Water Resources Coordinator before any construction activities can begin. 3. Erosion and sediment control measures must be adequately in place before construction begins. 4. No grading is permitted in the Type 3 portion of Wetland 2 (see plans for further details). Area of non-disturbance must be flagged prior to construction and approved by the City’s Water Resources Coordinator. 5. The applicant shall apply for and obtain permits through the Riley Purgatory Bluff Creek Overlay District, including dredging, floodplain. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation 2. Extension Request 3. Grading Plan/Wetland Alteration Update 4. Public Hearing Notice and Mailing List g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-03 erhart iup\amendment to iup 10-19-21\staff report black cherry development erhart iup amendment_final.docx 41 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: Application of Black Cherry Development LLC for an amendment to an Interim Use Permit for excavation of existing wetland along with excavated borrow being placed on a location within the parcel. On October 19, 2021, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Black Cherry Development LLC for an amendment to the Interim Use Permit for the property located at Outlot A, Butternut Ridge Addition, (PID 25.1550022) and Outlot E, Foxwood (PID 25.2990510, city-owned) and 9197 Eagle Ridge Road (PID 25.0240811). The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed interim and was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1.The property is currently zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). 2.The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential Low Density use. 3.The legal description of the property is: Outlot A, Butternut Ridge Addition and Outlot E, Foxwood Addition. 4.Section 20-232: a. The proposed use will not be detrimental to or enhance the public health, safety, comfort, convenience or general welfare of the neighborhood or the city. The proposed grading will enhance the aesthetics of the area. b. The proposed use will be consistent with the objectives of the City's Comprehensive Plan and the zoning ordinance by preserving and enhancing the wetland function and value. c. The proposed use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained so to be compatible in appearance with the existing or intended character of the general vicinity and will not change the essential character of that area. The proposed pond will enhance the appearance of the area. d. The proposed use will not be hazardous or disturbing to existing or planned neighboring uses. The proposed use will enhance the planned neighboring uses. 42 2 e. The proposed use will be served adequately by essential public facilities and services, including streets, police and fire protection, drainage structures, refuse disposal, water and sewer systems and schools; or will be served adequately by such facilities and services provided by the persons or agencies responsible for the establishment of the proposed use. f. The proposed use will not create excessive requirements for public facilities and services and will not be detrimental to the economic welfare of the community. The storage capacity of the wetland will improve stormwater management for the area. g. The proposed use will not involve uses, activities, processes, materials, equipment and conditions of operation that will be detrimental to any persons, property or the general welfare because of excessive production of traffic, noise, smoke, fumes, glare, odors, rodents, or trash. h. The proposed use will have vehicular approaches to the property which do not create traffic congestion or interfere with traffic or surrounding public thoroughfares. i. The proposed use will not result in the destruction, loss or damage of solar access, natural, scenic or historic features of major significance. j. The proposed use will be aesthetically compatible with the area. k. The proposed use will not depreciate surrounding property values. l. The proposed use meets standards prescribed for certain uses as provided in Chapter 20, Article IV of the City Code. 5.The Planning Commission shall recommend an Interim Use Permit and the City Council shall issue an Interim Use Permit only if it finds, based on the proposed location, that: a. The use meets the standards of a Conditional Use Permit set forth in Section 20- 232 of the City Code. b. The use conforms to the zoning regulations. c. The use is allowed as an interim use in the zoning district. d. The date or event that will terminate the use can be identified with certainty upon completion of the grading and restoration. e. The use will not impose additional costs on the public if it is necessary for the public to take the property in the future. f. The user agrees to any conditions that the City Council deems appropriate for permission of the use. 6.The planning report #2021-03 dated October 19, 2021, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is incorporated herein. 43 3 RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the amended Interim Use Permit to permit the excavation of the wetland and storage of soil on the property in anticipation of the eventual development of the site subject to the conditions of the staff report. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 19th day of October, 2021. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: _ Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-03 erhart iup\amendment to iup 10-19-21\findings of fact amended iup.docx 44 From:Dan Blake To:Generous, Bob Cc:Tim Erhart; Mark Rausch Subject:IUP 2021-03 Date:Thursday, September 16, 2021 10:38:55 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Bob - As you are aware this project started last winter and the sudden warm up forced us to stop work with only half completed. We intend to complete the work during this winter's frozen season. The IUP expires January 25, 2022. I think we need another month to assure completion and then some time in spring to get everything re-established. We are simultaneously working on a grading permit for the Erhart Fram property, but the wetland excavation work is fairly separate from the development grading proposed. We hereby request a 6 month extension of the IUP to July 25, 2022. Thank you, Dan Blake The Pemtom Land Company 612.282.5482 45 HAWKCREST COURT HAWKCREST CIRCLEEAGLE RIDGE ROADINFILTRATION BASIN 2WETLAND 2EAGLE RIDGE WAY EAGLE RIDGE ROADT.H 101PROJECTLOCATIONWETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 700ERHART WETLAND ALTERATIONCHANHASSEN, MINNESOTASUITE 700ALLIANT ENGINEERING, INC.733 MARQUETTE AVENUEMINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402CONSULTANT SURVEYOR ENGINEER PETER GOERSLICENSE NO. 44110MARK RAUSCHLICENSE NO. 43480LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTEM: mrausch@alliant-inc.comEM: pgoers@alliant-inc.comMARK KRONBECKLICENSE NO. 26222EM: mkronbeck@alliant-inc.comDEVELOPER SUITE 3000BLACK CHERRY DEVELOPMENT, LLC14500 MARTIN DRIVE,EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344CONTACT: TIM ERHARTCONTACT: DAN BLAKEVICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALEERHART WETLAND ALTERATION COVER1SHEET INDEX NO.COVER SHEET1EXISTING CONDITIONS2SITE PLAN3WETLAND EXCAVATION/GRADING PLAN4SPOIL PILE/GRADING PLAN5EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN6EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES AND DETAILS7RESTORATION PLAN8WETLAND SCIENTISTADAM CAMERONKJOLHAUG ENVIRONMENTALEM: adam@kjolhaugenv.comSERVICES COMPANYWETLAND MANAGEMENT PLAN946 1413122987653211119876BLOCK 55OUTLOT COUTLOT DOUTLOT EOUTLOT EOUTLOT CBLOCK 3BLOCK 4HAWKCREST COURT HAWKCREST CIRCLE4BLOCK 2BLOCK 512EAGLE RIDGE ROADINFILTRATION BASIN 2FL / FW / LW / LW / LW/LWW L / FSW / F W / LL / WWWW LLWWWWINFILTRATION BASIN 2BOTTOM EL 891TOP EL 891.24 HWL 895.99 HWL 918.69(GREAT PLAINS BLVD.)STATE TRUNK HWY. NO. 101WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 700ERHART WETLAND ALTERATION EXISTING CONDITIONS2EXISTING CONDITIONS LEGEND: 47 1512141316181229876532111198746BLOCK 55OUTLOT COUTLOT DOUTLOT EOUTLOT EOUTLOT CBLOCK 3BLOCK 4HAWKCREST COURT HAWKCREST CIRCLE4BLOCK 2BLOCK 1BLOCK 512OUTLOT FEAGLE RIDGE ROAD WETLAND 3WETLAND 2WETLAND 1HWL 904.6611032456789BLOCK 1OUTLOT A WETLAND 411121314OUTLOT BOUTLOT EOUTLOT BOUTLOT BB L O C K 1 EAGLE RIDGE WAY EAGLE RIDGE ROADEAGLE RIDGE ROAD EAGLE RIDGE ROAD EX HWL 876.79PR HWL 876.82EX HWL 879.45PR HWL 879.43EX HWL 895.05PR HWL 895.04UNDELINEATED WATERBODYEX HWL 897.29PR HWL 897.30FUTURE BLOCK 2 LOTSFUTURE DEVELOPMENT(GHOST PLAT)GREAT PLAINS BLVD. (TH-101)12OUTLOT ABLOCK 1WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 700SITE LEGEND: ERHART WETLAND ALTERATION SITE PLAN3 SITE DATA: 48 232111198OUTLOT DOUTLOT EOUTLOT EBLOCK 4BLOCK 512EAGLE RIDGE ROADINFILTRATION BASIN 2INFILTRATION BASIN 2BOTTOM EL 891TOP EL 891.24 HWL 895.9913245BLOCK 1OUTLOT BFILTRATION BASIN 2HWL 882.03WETLAND 2CLASSIFICATION ASSUMED:MANAGE 2 - CITY, MEDIUM - RPBCWDBUFFER REQUIREMENTS:20' MIN.,40' AVG., 80' MAX - RPBCWD20' MIN. + 30' SBK - CITYWETLAND 4OUTLOT ABLOCK 1WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 700GRADING NOTES: GRADING LEGEND: ERHART WETLAND ALTERATION WETLAND EXCAVATION/GRADING PLAN4TYPICAL GRADING CROSS SECTIONB'-B'ESTIMATED EARTHWORK: NATURAL WETLAND OUTLET CROSS SECTIONC'-C'49 106789OUTLOT A11121314OUTLOT EOUTLOT BB L O C K 1 EAGLE RIDGE WAY EAGLE RIDGE ROADEA G L E R I D G E R O A D POND AND INFILTRATION BASINEAGLE R I D G E R O A D FILTRATION BASIN 3HWL 906.08FUTURE BLOCK 2 LOTSFUTURE DEVELOPMENT(GHOST PLAT)WETLAND 3CLASSIFICATION ASSUMED:MANAGE 2 - CITY, MEDIUM - RPBCWDBUFFER REQUIREMENTS:20' MIN.,40' AVG., 80' MAX - RPBCWD20' MIN. + 30' SBK - CITYWETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 700ERHART WETLAND ALTERATION SPOIL PILE GRADING PLAN5GRADING LEGEND: 50 BLOCK 3BLOCK 4HAWKCREST COURT HAWKCREST CIRCLEBLOCK 2BLOCK 5EAGLE RIDGE ROAD WETLAND 3WETLAND 2WETLAND 1HWL 904.66WETLAND 4EX HWL 876.79PR HWL 876.82EX HWL 879.45PR HWL 879.43EX HWL 895.05PR HWL 895.04WATERTOWERLOCATION AUNDELINEATED WATERBODYEX HWL 897.29PR HWL 897.30GREAT PLAINS BLVD. (TH-101)DISCHARGE POINT TO LAKERILEY VIA WETLAND(LAKE RILEY IS AN IMPAIRED WATERSWITHIN 1 MILE)WETLAND 2MANAGE 1 - CITY, MEDIUM - RPBCWDBUFFER REQUIREMENTS:20' MIN.,40' AVG., 80' MAX - RPBCWD25' MIN. + 30' SBK - CITYWETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 700ERHART WETLAND ALTERATION EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN6NOTE TO CONTRACTOR: ACTIVE SWPPP LEGENDVICINITY MAPNOT TO SCALENOTE: INSPECTOR:DURING CONSTRUCTION:EROSION CONTROL PARTIESIMPAIRED WATER REQUIREMENTLEGEND: DNDNOTES: DESIGNER:INSTALLER:51 ROCK CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCEWASHED ROCK ORWOOD/MULCH PERSPECIFICATIONS18" MINIMUM CUT OFF BERM TOMINIMIZE RUNOFF FROM SITENOTES:1. MnDOT 3733 TYPE 4 FILTER FABRIC SHALL BE PLACED UNDER ROCK OR MULCH TOSTOP MUD MIGRATION THROUGH MATERIAL.2. FUGITIVE ROCK OR MULCH WILL BE REMOVED FROM ADJACENT ROADWAYS DAILY OR MORE FREQUENTLY AS NECESSARY.3.CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THECOMMENCEMENT OF GRADING OPERATIONS ON THE SITE.4.THE ENTRANCE MUST BE MAINTAINED IN PROPER CONDITION TO PREVENTTRACKING OF MUD OFF THE SITE. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOPDRESSINGWITH ADDITIONAL ROCK, WOOD/MULCH, OR REMOVAL AND REINSTALLATION OFTHE PAD.5.THIS ENTRANCE WILL BE USED BY ALL VEHICLES ENTERING OR LEAVING THEPROJECT.6.THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE WILL BE REMOVED PRIOR TO THE PLACEMENT OFBITUMINOUS SURFACING.PUBLIC ROAD50' MINIMUM LENGTHROCK-6" MINIMUM DEPTHWOOD/MULCH- 12" MINIMUM DEPTH20' MINIMUM WIDTHNOTE:ALL SLOPES WITH A GRADE EQUAL TO OR STEEPER THAN 3:1REQUIRE SLOPE TRACKING. SLOPES WITH A GRADE MORE GRADUALTHAN 3:1 REQUIRE SLOPE TRACKING IF THE STABILIZATION METHODIS EROSION CONTROL BLANKET OR HYDROMULCH.UNDISTURBED VEGETATIONTRACKED EQUIPMENTTREADS CREATE GROOVESPERPENDICULAR TO SLOPEDIRECTION.SLOPESLOPE TRACKINGEROSION CONTROL BLANKETINSTALLATIONOVERLAPLONGITUDINAL JOINTSMINIMUM OF 6"OVERLAP END JOINTSMINIMUM OF 6" AND STAPLEOVERLAP AT 1.5' INTERVALS.ANCHOR TRENCH(SEE DETAIL AND NOTES BELOW)ANCHOR TRENCH1. DIG 6" X 6" TRENCH2. LAY BLANKET IN TRENCH3. STAPLE AT 1.5' INTERVALS4. BACKFILL WITH NATURAL SOIL AND COMPACT5. BLANKET LENGTH SHALL NOT EXCEED 100'WITHOUT AN ANCHOR TRENCH6"6"1' TO 3'DIRECTION OFSURFACE FLOWNOTE:SLOPE SURFACE SHALL BE FREE OF ROCKS, SOIL CLUMPS,STICKS, VEHICLE IMPRINTS, AND GRASS. BLANKETS SHALLHAVE GOOD SOIL CONTACT.STAPLE PATTERN/DENSITY SHALLFOLLOW MANUFACTURERSSPECIFICATIONSERHART WETLAND ALTERATION WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTOL NOTES AND DETAILS 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 700EROSION CONTROL SCHEDULE:FINAL STABILIZATION:EROSION CONTROL GENERAL NOTES:POLLUTION PREVENTION MANAGEMENT MEASURES:SEDIMENT CONTROL PRACTICES:MAINTENANCE PROGRAM:EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLWINTER STABLIZATION: DEWATERING: 52 BLOCK 3BLOCK 4HAWKCREST COURT BLOCK 5EAGLE RIDGE ROADINFILTRATION BASIN 2INFILTRATION BASIN 2BOTTOM EL 891TOP EL 891.24 HWL 895.99WETLAND 3WETLAND 2WETLAND 1HWL 904.66WETLAND 4EX HWL 876.79PR HWL 876.82EX HWL 879.45PR HWL 879.43EX HWL 895.05PR HWL 895.04UNDELINEATED WATERBODYOUTLOT AWETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 700ERHART WETLAND ALTERATION RESTORATION PLAN8LEGEND:SEED PLANTING NOTES: NOTES: 53 151413122987653211119876BLOCK 55OUTLOT COUTLOT DOUTLOT EOUTLOT EOUTLOT CBLOCK 3BLOCK 4HAWKCREST COURT HAWKCREST CIRCLE4BLOCK 2BLOCK 512EAGLE RIDGE ROAD WETLAND 3WETLAND 2WETLAND 1HWL 904.6611032456789BLOCK 1OUTLOT A WETLAND 4111213141516OUTLOT BOUTLOT EOUTLOT BOUTLOT BBLO C K 1 B L O C K 1 EAGLE RIDGE WAY EAGLE RIDGE ROADEAGLE RIDGE ROADOUTLOT DEAGLE R I D G E R O A D EX HWL 876.79PR HWL 876.82EX HWL 879.45PR HWL 879.43EX HWL 895.05PR HWL 895.04UNDELINEATED WATERBODYEX HWL 897.29PR HWL 897.30FUTURE BLOCK 2 LOTSFUTURE DEVELOPMENT(GHOST PLAT)GREAT PLAINS BLVD. (TH-101)12OUTLOT ABLOCK 1WETLAND ALTERATION PERMIT 733 Marquette AvenueMinneapolis, MN 55402612.758.3080www.alliant-inc.comSuite 700ERHART WETLAND ALTERATION WETLAND MANAGMENT PLAN9 WETLAND BUFFER CALCULATIONWETLAND SUMMARYWETLAND IMPACT CALCULATIONLEGEND: 54 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) )ss COUNTYOFCARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on October 7,2021, the duly qualified and acting City Clerk ofthe 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 an amendment to Interim Use Permit (IUP) 2021-03 to amend the completion deadline, and haul route and storage area. Znned Agricultural Estate (A2). Applicant: Btack Cherry Development LLC. Ptanning Case No. 2021-03 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy ofsaid notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records ofthe County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. \ Kim City Subscribed and thisTh davo f swom to before me bL/- lerk JEAITI Mf{tuy Notary Public 2021 lt Oor .adr ft,b!t,@1 55 DbclalnEr This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a @mprlaton oI records, iniormation and data located in vadous city. county, state and federalofices and olhe{ sources regEtding the area sho*n and as to be us€d br reierence purposes only. The City does not warant that the Geographic lnbrmaton System (GlS) Data used to prepare this map are enor free and lhe City does nol represent that lhe Gls Data cen be used lor navi{latonal, lrackang or any other purpd;e requinng exactng measurement of distance or directon or preosaon in the depaclton of geographic fuatures. The Preceding disclaimer is provaded pu6uant lo Minnesota Statdes S,t66.03, SuM 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowiedoes that the cfty shall not be liable fo. any damages, and e)Qressly vraaves all claims, and agrees to deiend, indemnfy, and hold harmless the Ciy f.om any and all claims bought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the use/s access or use of data Provided. (Next Record )r(TAX_NAill E)D (TAX_ADD_LlD (TAX ADD L2D Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is nol intended to be used as one. This map is a @mpilaton of records, intormation and data loceled in various cit, county, state and lederal offces and olhel sources regarding lhe area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does nol wanant thal the Geographic lniormatjon System (GlS) Oata used to prepare this map are eror 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 ol dircclion or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding discleimer is provided puBuant to Minnesota Statutes 5466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of lhis map acknowtedges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and e)Qressly waives all claims. and agrees to defend. indemnify, and hold harmless the City trom any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third partaes which arise out of the useis acce$ or use of data provided. f,,,x :4t=.,f ) T ;1 /) I \o - I I J cTAX_NAMET (TAX_ADD_Ll)t <TAX-ADD_L2r I $+1f II 56 o p q el o c; E .E l! t E q ,9 t- E cioo t- o NoN o, q.) -oooo oE o-F E .>dl 0.) (! ooF.f.* 0)-o Eo.c,(.) oEloO (!- O N q) (5 [! E =1 .9 ol ! o)coN do o (,olo o pc([ rl) :)o b5b9L- OE12o -c)EC--= EE! lt) o! =oqo)E-o'oc 69cvbPc-op LCoo) rr(l,9eo-PU OrLNcroEC!6<-c a.l-.qr J) c C) o o c)o C)cO oo d) o(J og ID o(,E o o eo (, 6'E o o ot o Goo ooo B otE -oo. -c (o Eo,3i oO 6tsa9cL'69 CL(E d=EbOEsAoo6ee6 =o o) o).c .eE;eg !? -Ol !:i oTgEB..E 1, gfi -a$ E EEee I re E aE:E EEEE E Er P tiiEp ;; ri i E}E gE;r ;:E-b3'= 33eE g:gE;,EgsE o, 6-.9 q P.c o- o _! .:cF(DC(r(arN(9$ .!2 siE"P(I, (nr- rr -lD:-6i=o"'6EE s P&AEC.E L 9., o(D (l) '- <f.t E 9E oi sEeE u5bF 9 e =(Dqe>r;P;E* =SQoOtrE E.=:rooc=E 6 c o oForo o 9- (n d)== )X'o! l! d,HeeEP 5 aE ioo - o'= d, o6 o o, i.i9 o= o= 6* ig;eXeE = B LE= t-Not N|(,o) o It)EoEo- -o o :,i Ec o) o-caoEq'6 e a P(uc 0)o -o o o Eo -o lo C)cq)(, -oo c0 (.)ocoo o) (\, c) -o- o rl) o- _t'6 o-o't fE M E;3E€ct €9E EEo !trc <Lo (D at^-c. aFE x*o..o!b6s!eoor9-a o,a.nE Q E.=a sr' c o - J =orcq EiE=^ "qHE#o-(, q - =>'6ryg(5 i3 Peln =C o) oE ?c Ec,q) o-cc(!.cq o = = = tttoDcil)o)(U oroce'i- o ovEg EE;g 9:nEA6ooc)i= -cqo g; .(!6a>oc)oo)'oo oE c) ro.2;9lo E6 eEo< JCcEo)L O t/i =*l!xzii 5 ; 6 8 6 c _g ;gt 3 ! g$iir*t*il iEiiEigiiiiEi EgaEiiiEEIIEEE I 5 I E E Eg 9 E -a E 3 E T 6I B E,>t 5. g 3 E 6 ! E E E g E E e a 5 3 ! E a E t E E g E E E I .9 I ! E ! e !! ! _9 -! 9 n i g a; .EF c6 !) Go ! Gooao o- |ll(, e CL >tr8.9 6.GetrJ 9.; ar .=o- q: Eg eOG.C =f, d..o9EEoo a=o)E =ooo EDc oo =tDo.:ok.9oFrE -9oEo:CDo. .EEEo(!.9E OEza ot!.c t!.co Btr !,o =P5Laolllaao.=-toE=o dpE.Eot eEEo-za oooE G o o C;;o ,E = 6 E _a F E cfoo t- o Glo(\ o o-oo()o*o! ll,aF E .>dl o) o oof.-F- o) EoEo ocao(J oI (-) c\J g o IJJ 6 l=ao p o)coN do o o o oc(5g a e E=bP(L=qrF 14(5 -0)EC'=: 9E!0)^ovc =oodJ Ed_oc E8 =d) E-o!LCoq) (,t(! 9eIq(gr Lc{oo -tC!Ecol()= -)J co E o) q)o .c (E6 o o tt e q o .q. E 't o Eoo 'o TE -u)OE -g (o =o8i EO (I)to9'oE (!(g (l,=E6OE+Ao9i;9g8 o o) o) "c 9- =-d,.n1Ei E-EE Ec f eEee EreE AE:g EEEf E*AH:EEE::E.P 9HIX =EE€ g-ss€ fBEfr gEEH 3*ET E HEE *gBE sIEEFE o-or+tcF(EtrLr(,-N(Y)tt (, 0, ooo Eoo to L,^ F- = -!: =E $siE"E zA !ig#;$ Eg tg66. pFEA gEBiHEE3i ?:3bEbF9a IEgfiEIEHEiB 6EEEEIEfrEEi 3E:85leeeEPgEgBESESAE E r!= (!(Ol- O'x ar 0,o.c .!l rD i;l X o iitt : tilEEI;gEe o) o _9o, c;c c)q) E oE n) o c)-o c{) E fooD oo'6' o- =.o., F o.ac .9 o 6 E oc fc E a rl) oEc(o -cq'o E ui(! !E o,o)oo)oc! (D arl Eg 6E>; 9. u,6bEo.9q Pe!:Pg; -oo-9o:+cr(!p'oo 9Ad8(l)E.>.,8pEh eE lCcEo)Lo0 =9![ 3 5 3I ,E E ! €ts g ii*tuiisiiii EEiE:EE:EEEiE EEii!EiiEiiii gEIiiEBEiiiEEi Eg€!iiiEEEEEEE ! 5 I E = ;9 E 5 3 9 9 .g t E nt E f, b. g 3 E a E - dI EI q r -9a ! c 3 9 E a -q E E Eg B E E E t ! I E ,9 ! P o l!(, oJ llloo IG oo e E! >Etoo'go.o9tLJ 9i; 6' ,= ss r! .c =E ca ..o9c,coo, tD=ll,E =ooo l, oo E o oo E Eoo o GIJoJ a; Ei: 06 (, (lo 57 o o c) o o oo o ooooo o o ooooo o Q o o o oooo oo o o oooo.\r .! co Q or 01 o N c) .! o F\ L, o H .y) o o o o o o 6 6 6 6 6 6 Ot O - O 6 6 = & ;6r/) o o .{ !-r o N sr (o (o rn (n o m r^ m !-r (o u) F. oo oo .\ < \o o 6 N (Yi o,.{ = + + o ci +O O O O O O O O O o .r o O m H O ff) ..i (n r-r .n n -{ 6 m 6 - fD ct - .ri .,r .i' F,r o O 6or or o o o o o ot (o (o rn o) N Ln !n o) Ln.n.n Ln !n !a Lrl o) ln 0' !n rri o !n iri iji in L/) !n 6 5<h Or -{ .{ !-r !-r !.1 O).!.\r it (tql.\ld Or N.!N c! .{ ry l\t o Ol Ot N ..J aO e.t .\t .\i ^i r.,.i 6 (ci6ry .! (9 (9 l9 (9 Lo N o O Q ry Q O o c.,l g O O O O o O .{ O N o o F. O O O o Ci m 16 -j - ,4r c'! 9'! g',! !',! 4 !1 4ql ln ln r/r !n Lrl lrl lrl rn rn Lo rn Lrt Ln r.. L^ ur !r) !r) rn.n.i6 6 il !1 llr !/r!n =a!a!a\rNNa{Na{NNa{a{Na!a\a{a{NNa!a\a!a\|a{a{NNNNNNe.ic^,ta.lc,ta.,Ja.it 6E (,33=3==33FFFFFFF.,,t/1 .r\ th tt1 .rt .h th =rI-IIII(,FFFFFFF<(o(o(o(ororo(l)uJ(h <D o) or o) cD ol utHC)!rclr-{OOOr{Na!a')fnut(oaot\ F- F\ f.\ F\ N F- ol) I6 o do oi e ;d. t zuJJ(, (, =(9 (9E3== !===BBtsi3=3==i s h h 7 yC t tt-^ t- E k = h g H hgHTEiHEEEEEEEHE$EE .r,n o 6 h,n or or C,) o (h or .-r U,) or o ol o')H $ Q I X.r O -{ O H o r-r $ r. O 6.r c|9 rt{ ql Q Y' N r{ H .\r ^r m m sr N o.\ O r-rororro (o o 01 (o ro (o lo (.l (oo or F- crt F. r- zzzzz4 ooooo!!=.1<<<<<9E i' F F F I F = dv \h tt\ \h #>>>>>;!zYoooooXQUJIIIIIUId OOir-rO.r!/)Fr<lrOF-66)< < l'\H <) .r !r ..{ !.r N anOl .r .r !r !r el Ol !r F.sl <t.n dt r\.n .r 9iC,t N r-r.!.{.{ m m 16 qJ.o an tn.n rn rn an ltrEFFF,.$=i.EEF "FFFFF" F FFiFFFFFTFe,r @ m m m m .n m m .n .yi rn rr) (n rn m m m = .r) rn .n (n m (n m Lri = = BB il il R n h ; S n S BB g B H S 8333,^ S s B s BSB33 B $ g =z z z z z z z z i^ tn z z z z z = z z z z z z z 6 z i z z z z z z z z z z2 ^ j j :)i ii ;>l; i iiiT z ; ; iiz.24 i= ; id ii ;; ; ;)\ ; : :E e Qee e g=aaE e E iaqEQ U 3 e : QiEEe ae Q a u u Q t ='!'4 = I I I I I ; r 4 4 E r r f, r - E r r r r tr r q r r ul r r r r r r = E-,O O z z z z z z = < Z Z Z z z * Z Z Z Z z z z v Z S) z z Z Z Z Z Z z z Z dr d d + f _f _+ -f _+ = I $ s $ + f e + s + + f f f ? t E = = = = = = = = + = ;F (, (,(J(J(J u(J(J o- Ln u u (J(Jl. i O O O O OOO d O > O O > OOOO O O O (, 6o Z A e- E rP e; Ee E 5p =f E ?aE =# =EE E; " ;=E=!*= EE; x. E= gi;* u * 3 =*=:EEfrg *a=aei = ggEEEE=E=E=EEEEfiEEEEE:ggEEE*H$ESE;EEE oo t Zo<6dmFU CrFrFoo+g x e !/1cju < N 2 "1;t- a A - <l '622222 = .! gii;d;;;E E-z d 4 Z e = i i fr fr fr fr H6 i E E i e a; iti1i i6;,isi A = ii iEiEH IagEEEEEEEf =uE+EEcEEEEEE=iEsEEEEEfr i=.-=Io o o r{ .r o H.r !,i + { Fr ot 01 o uJ > <h ('r ('r or or !-.r @ (h (J ( ol o 01 >.3 3 3 3 *xoolnF.@oor,(our:'iIQrr!orro..lo.r..1 ooo..to 6 .-{ o rr c) r-t c, o.{S q q e n n n n n O qr e I e c) o C:r,-{ .r ..l .{ m rn .n @ 6 6 o = = ; - c.r 6 rn Ln ro oFdr{!-rr-rt{FrFrFr.\r(n<tln(o\o@(o(o(o(o(o(o(o@(oFF-NNr\r,\r.\F.F.F.F.F-6 58 e i 1 E E 1 3 ; il.a= = ; 5 E ; = E a E l I ; E i E ! * a e E E z 6) --lvca--{ r.c, (D (o (o (o ro (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o (o ro (o (o (o (o (o (o ro (o (o (o (o rD (o i i 6 6 6 6 6 or o trr t'n trr @ u, ui l! N N fJ N \r lv ^J ^.l ^., t.. rr rr F F P E P Fd dG G EjEtr 66,b -Jton |. pO to oo c. -J ot (, ^J rr c, (o (O (o (o @ { Or (,r irF 6 I 6 6 i- b'= 5 o <, 6 i^ -r in < < n er rl u ut o o ur (o { r, o o o o o r,r ===i8Eq=E*qA a E aE E E aEaaaaaaaFEEEFafiI = = = A o ^ = = .i .! S in i ilt a x x rn ^ m m rn m m m rrl rt'r m m m m m iRb b b b X 9i9A4Ai, 9 = I B I = I p4? n a u,,ri.r rtrt o Tii ii 6 6 O € ii 6 E U O - c, m (r m m rn (, r'1 o o 6 E 6 o E E 1 I -1 I I ;aiair(Ea^,44-6ul6e?!4!,4d146)6loo6)6)6ro aliiio*o=ioo 3dEdii3cAeB3336d Ezz ooa)o.)r) oor) o a)aro.)r)oo.)rl.)o o r)o .) o .).)r) o oo o Fiii....tr-------i--...-----irr-I-9 z z z z z z z z z z z. z z z z z z z 2 z z z 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 z ========-r-===i-rr--rr------r---I!E E E E E E E E i A i E E E E E i'" "" i, a n A h i, A b, i i, i, b, i, "8 itt t, @ in ah O't a t i art a a v\ vr u1 tn a u1 ti ti tr vr tt'l m m m m rn m I! O it h m m ii m ft m m m m P |2 _2,; .2 _2 i i _; i ? ? ? ? ? ? ? -2 -2 _. _i _2 ? ? ? ? ? " " ? " " ? ? !- ======--- = = 2 z z z z 2 z z z 2 2 z z z 2 2 z z z z z z z (n ( ( ur u (n ut (,| tJ! (^ (^ (rl (, (, (n 9r (, (^ (,r (^ !, !4 Ur (,r Ur U (^ (^ (, (n (n t,l Ur (^ G 6 i,i an an (ri (n ur u! lJt G L (, (,r (^ ur (, tn ut (n (n ul (, ur u! (n ( ( (/r lr! u (,,l (,l (n ni ni ai a, 4,, ai rrr @ @ l, @ @ sr ti i, r.rJ u, ur qr tu u, rrr @ qJ (, s,) (, (^, lr, q, @ rlt lr' q' * e ei P i i F F }. P rr F ts P rr P l. P rj P PE P }i5i i rr -J -J -J -r -r -J -J { -.r'{ {'.J { { { { \.J \.r \J :J \.J :J \.J ! ! { { .\J { { { do dodo&&&66 do& i N N, t6 5666o1010r oro lao -.J \.1 !nj 666660oo @tr cj tn o o I\r (,!(,(b(^@ur(, F01 Qro s 3383 33383S S S S E SS SS9E E t - F P P reI 6 5 6 <j 6 tr ;; |- o ro ao 6 < or (,,) N l. o (9 @ @ !o o ! ot (^ otb E 6 6 d 6 6 -J L^ < n ii ur { !h Ln o o (,l (o ! 6 o o o o o "J :==I:cn=n*i=HEHHHHHHHHHHHHN=E885Ei=E=E**=f ==gd==33ecqqc3zn,n,* r-5ui 6 Z g, 9, 6 9? 6 6 6 6 6 5 6 O 3O==9O m- rnmmmmrn-=?- - ; q ; q o o ; s ; ; i i * a a z Cti-o---g-g9oogogg !!(horor FO}JOO Etr=IOzzz24--{ --{ --l -{ _iloooo,ooooo --{ --l --l --l -v-a-- I\J I! 19 IJA.)N N) N.' AJ N IJ N,, NJ N N AJ AJ N AJ I\) IV I\J iJ t.J iJ AJ A'' AJ NJ NJ P AJ AJ NG i; G i.i i,6 G i, i, (,l (n G i, i, i, G 6 i,(, !n an (^ q! (,' (, (^ (, (, (, (, (, ( (^ (n 6i 6 6 6 L ;. .6 al' oi .s' 5 ij ij ij iJ N N p N tu N,r r.r re rv I\r N o N ^r i\r N? ^? !? P; n ; i o in o p F o o d 6 6 ia {a (o (o (o @ (o @ \o @ to (D ^J @ ro (o (o (o (o (o b ir b b 6 &i 6 b b E 6 6i 6 6 6 6,5 6 6 @ to (o tD to (o (o 5 to (o to @ to (P !P556666566bb666666566OO998888888883o666ts6aOAtsP.r r\J^JDNq,uJlE=E8s8s588858888d88888883s88388333 59 Planning Commission Item October 19, 2021 Item Consider a Request for Setback Maximum Size Variances for a Water-Oriented Accessory Structure (WOAS) and a Height Variance to Allow a Six-Foot, Six- Inch High Opaque Fence with the Required Front Yard and Shoreland Setbacks on Property Located at 6609 Horseshoe Curve File No.Planning Case No. 2021-07B Item No: B.3 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 60 PROPOSED MOTION The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested fence height variance and approves a 58-square foot WOAS size variance, a 5-foot side yard setback variance, and 2-foot shoreland setback variance for the construction of a WOAS, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. SUMMARY The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a 6.5-foot high opaque privacy fence within the required front yard and shoreland setbacks and variances from the 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 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. 61 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. 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. 62 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. DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting that the City grant them a variance to install a 6.5-foot high opaque privacy fence and security gate. The fence would run across the front of the property and extend down the side lot lines to the lake. Since the City Code limits the height of opaque fences in the front yard to 3 feet and the height of all fences within the 75-foot shoreland setback to 3.5 feet, a variance is required to permit the proposed fence height and configuration within these setbacks. 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, 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. The applicant has noted that they have had issues with passersby stopping to look at their home and even entering their driveway to get a view of the house. They have stated that due to the downward slope on their property the 3-foot opaque fence permitted by the City Code would not provide adequate privacy. They also observe that they have a rooftop patio which necessitates additional privacy from the street. Finally, they note concerns that the neighbors will likely build a home near the 10-foot side yard setback, which could further impact their family’s privacy. 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. 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 fence height variances, staff cannot find that the applicant meets the conditions required for granting the requested variance. The applicant’s security concern could be addressed through the installation of a 6.5-foot ornamental fence and security gate within the front yard setback, which is permitted by the City Code, and their privacy concerns can be addressed through the use of vegetative screening, as permitted by the City Code. The privacy concerns cited in relation to their neighbor’s home are shared by many properties in the city where structures are built to the allowed 10-foot setback, and an opaque privacy fence would be permitted by City Code along the side yard between the two structures. The concerns expressed about the need for privacy due to the rooftop patio 63 is the result of the property owner’s decision to construct an unscreened rooftop patio and not circumstances unique to the property. Finally, the requested fence height variance for an opaque privacy fence within the 75-foot shoreland setback is not justified by any unique feature of the applicant’s property and is not consistent with the City’s goal of maintaining a visually open and unobstructed shoreline. Were this variance to be granted, every other riparian property in the city would be able to request and be granted the variance due to a desire for increased privacy. For these reasons, staff is recommending the Planning Commission deny the requested fence height variances. 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. 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. 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 fence height variance and approve 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 WOAS, 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. ATTACHMENTS Staff Report Findings of Fact and Decision (Partial Approval) Variance Document (Partial Approval) Written Justification Written Justification - Updated 9-27-21 Plan Set Photos and Surveys Water Resources Review Engineering Review 64 Affidavit of Mailing Letter from Steve and Jeannie Wanek 10-15-2021 65 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: October 19, 2021 CC DATE: November 8, 2021 REVIEW DEADLINE: November 16, 2021 CASE #: PC 2021-07B BY: MYW SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a 6.5-foot high opaque privacy fence within the required front yard and shoreland setbacks 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 privacy fence and security gate. The fence would run across the front of the property and extend down the side lot lines to the lake. Since the City Code limits the height of opaque fences in the front yard to three feet and the height of all fences within the 75-foot shoreland setback to 3.5 PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested fence height variance 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.” 66 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance October 19, 2021 Page 2 feet, a variance is required to permit the proposed fence height and configuration within these setbacks. 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, 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. The applicant has noted that they have had issues with passersby stopping to look at their home and even entering their driveway to get a view of the house. They have stated that due to the downward slope on their property, the 3-foot opaque fence permitted by the City Code would not provide adequate privacy. They also observe that they have a rooftop patio which necessitates additional privacy from the street. Finally, they note concerns that the neighbors will likely build a home near the 10-foot side yard setback, which could further impact their family’s privacy. 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. 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 fence height variances, staff cannot find that the applicant meets the conditions required for granting the requested variance. The applicant’s security concern could be addressed through the installation of 6.5-foot ornamental fence and security gate within the front yard setback, which is permitted by the City Code, and their privacy concerns can be addressed through the use of vegetative screening, as permitted by the City Code. The privacy concerns cited in relation to their neighbor’s home are shared by many properties in the city where structures are built to the allowed 10-foot setback, and an opaque privacy fence would be permitted by City Code along the side yard between the two structures. The concerns expressed about the need for privacy due to the rooftop patio is the result of the property owner’s decision to construct an unscreened rooftop patio and not circumstances unique to the property. Finally, the requested fence height variance for an opaque privacy fence within the 75-foot shoreland setback is not justified by any unique feature of the applicant’s property and is not consistent with the City’s goal of maintaining a visually open and unobstructed shoreline. Were this variance to be granted, every other riparian property in the city would be able to request and be granted the variance due to a desire for increased privacy. For these reasons, staff is recommending the Planning Commission deny the requested fence height variances. 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 67 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance October 19, 2021 Page 3 shoreline’s aesthetics. 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.* *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 68 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance October 19, 2021 Page 4 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. 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. 69 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance October 19, 2021 Page 5 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 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 form staff on September 21, 2021. 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 70 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance October 19, 2021 Page 6 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 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 71 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance October 19, 2021 Page 7 Pleasant View/Alicia Heights The plat for Pleasant View was recorded in March of 1910 and Alicia Heights, a two-lot subdivision within Pleasant View, was recorded in June of 1999. Pleasant View is one of the oldest neighborhoods in the city and it predates the establishment of the City of Chanhassen and its ordinances. The neighborhood is located on a peninsula jutting into Lotus Lake and this combined with challenging topography meaning it has a large number of atypically shaped lots, many of which do not conform to current City standards. Some of the homes are original to the neighborhood, while others are new construction or have been extensively updated. Many properties have nonconforming elements or have received variances due to the age of the neighborhood and atypical configuration of the lots. Variances within 500 feet: 6605 Horseshoe Curve (PC 1991-09): 17’ shoreland setback (deck) – Approved 6609 Horseshoe Curve (PC 2021-07): 19’ bluff impact zone and 29’ bluff setback (deck), bluff impact zone and bluff setback (retaining wall), and 25’ bluff, 5’ side, and 3’ shoreland setback (WOAS) – Approved* (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 72 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance October 19, 2021 Page 8 6691 Horseshoe Curve (PC 1987-14): 19.6’ front setback (detached garage) – Approved 6697 Horseshoe Curve (PC 1985-02): 9.03’ side setback (addition, intensify nonconforming) – Approved *Bluff portions of the variance subsequently rendered moot by determination that no bluff is present on the parcel. ANALYSIS Fence Height The plans submitted by the applicant show a 6.5-foot opaque fence with a security gate extending across the front of the property, approximately 10 feet from the front lot line at its closest point, and then running down the side lot lines to the OHWL. The City Code limits opaque fences within the 30-foot front yard setback to a maximum height of three feet and all fences within the 75-foot shoreland setback to a maximum height of 3.5 feet. The applicant is requesting a variance from these restrictions due to concerns about cars entering their driveway and desire for increased privacy. Specifically, they have stated that the house’s location below the elevation of the road, presence of a rooftop patio, and anticipated construction of a neighboring home near the side lot line necessitate a deviation from the City’s fence standards. The stated security and safety concerns the applicant raises regarding cars entering the driveway can be addressed by the construction of a 6.5-foot open fence, i.e. a fence with no more than 20 percent opacity, and associated security gate. This type of fence is permitted in the front yard of properties by the City Code allowing the applicant to address the stated safety and security concerns without the need for a variance. While the open fence permitted by the City Code would not address the applicant’s stated concerns about the home’s visibility from the road, it must be noted that many houses within the city are readily visible from the public right of way and that many homes along Horseshoe Curve are located significantly below the elevation of the public right-of-way, as are homes in other areas of the city. The City prohibits the placement of high, opaque fences within the front yard setback in order to create an attractive and consistent neighborhood aesthetic and ensure the sight 73 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance October 19, 2021 Page 9 distance triangle, the area near intersection of roads and driveways where visual obstructions present a traffic safety risk, remains unobstructed. The general trend for cities to require open and unobstructed front yards is one of the reasons why many homes in the United States locate their family and recreational areas within the rear yard. The applicant’s home conforms to this trend with no front yard recreation amenities and the at-grade deck and other indicated family areas, except the rooftop deck, being screened from view from right-of-way by the building. Residents desiring a more private front yard have the option of utilizing vegetation, so long as it does not obstruct necessary sight lines. Prior to the applicant’s decision to realign their driveway as part of their recent and ongoing remodeling and landscaping project, it appears that the parcel was fairly well screened from public view by its landscaping. The increased visibility of the home is at least partially the result of the removal of this vegetation and a comparable level of screening could be provided though landscaping. The applicant’s concerns about the visibility of the rooftop deck from the street are the result of their decision to construct the rooftop deck in 2020 and realign the driveway which created a direct and unobstructed line of sight from the road to the deck. The applicant has the ability to extend a wall from the house across the north side of the roof top deck or construct another barrier along that side of the deck to screen occupants of the deck from public view in order to address their stated privacy concerns without a variance. Regarding the applicant’s expressed concern about the potential for the neighbor to construct a home as close as 10 feet to the side lot line, the presence of a home meeting the required setbacks would not justify the requested variance. Both the applicant’s property and their neighbors’ homes and structures are subject to the same yard setbacks as the majority of other riparian properties zoned RSF in the city. The neighbor’s home would need to be situated in the buildable area setback 30 feet from the front lot, 75 feet from the lake, and 10 feet from the side lot lines. 74 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance October 19, 2021 Page 10 The house would also be subject to same 35-foot height limit as all other RSF properties. Every portion of the side yard located outside of those setbacks that could be shared with the neighbor’s home is entitled to construct a 6.5-foot opaque fence and a 6.5-foot high fence would not be able to block the view from the second story of a home in any event. It is not clear how allowing the applicant to extend their privacy fence into the front or shoreland setback would provide additional screening from the neighbor’s potential home. Again, if screening beyond it is allowed by the fence code is desired, it can be accomplished through the use of vegetation. The situation with regards to the applicant’s request to extend their privacy fence within the 75- foot shoreland setback is similar. Every riparian property in the city is limited to a maximum fence of height of 3.5 feet within their required shoreland setback. Many property owners may wish to shield the lakeside portion of their yard from view from their neighbors or recreational lake users; however, the City has determined that there is public interest in not allowing tall visually obtrusive fences to balkanize this area. There is no unique attribute to the lakeside portion of the applicant’s property that can be cited to support their requested deviation from the City Code. The applicant also has the ability to plant vegetation along their property’s side lot lines within this area to provide for additional privacy. While staff is sympathetic to the stated privacy and security concerns, they are not unique to the applicant’s property, many of them can be addressed within the bounds of the City Code, and several are the result of changes the applicant has made to the property. Were these requested variances to be granted, it would establish precedent that a desire for privacy is sufficient to justify placing 6.5-foot high opaque fences within the front yard and shoreland setback areas, contrary to the goal and intent of the City’s fence ordinances. For these reasons, staff recommends that requested fence variances be denied. Water-Oriented Accessory Structure (WOAS) The applicant is requested 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 8 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. 75 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance October 19, 2021 Page 11 The City recognizes the need for lakeshore storage and recreational amenities, as well as the importance of minimize 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 responded to the City’s request for comment by noting that the applicant has not demonstrated why they cannot meet setback and size requirements for a WOAS and that a need for storage is not a justification for a variance. 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, 5 feet from the side lot line, and 7 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 5 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 5 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 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 76 6609 Horseshoe Curve Request for Variance October 19, 2021 Page 12 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 fences within the front yard or fences over 3.5 feet in height within the 75-foot shoreland setback. Fences have a large visible impact, both for neighbors and individuals utilizing public rights-of-ways and waters. Granting the requested fence variances would negatively impact the neighborhood’s aesthetics, especially if other residents requested and were granted similar variances. Similarly, due to their shoreland location, WOASs are highly visible. Properties with larger or more numerous structure 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 fence height variance and approve 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 WOAS, 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. 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\staff report_6609 horseshoe curve_var_3_final.docx 77 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (PARTIAL APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of Elise Bruner on behalf of 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 October 19, 2021, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed 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 front yard fences is to create an attractive and consistent neighborhood aesthetic. The City Code allows for the use of vegetation to provide additional front yard privacy. Similarly, the City Code has a prohibition on fences over 3.5 feet in height within the shoreland setback in order to ensure that the City’s shoreland maintains an open and unobstructed appearance. 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. 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 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 78 2 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 requested location and configuration of the proposed fence is not typical for the city’s riparian residential properties, and are not necessary for the applicant to have reasonable use of the property. The applicant’s goals of increasing privacy and security can be accomplished within the bounds of the City’s Code of Ordinances without the need for a variance. 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:Multiple properties within the city are located below the elevation of the adjacent right-of-way and the front yard of most properties in the city is readily visible from the road. The applicant’s front yard privacy concerns are the result of their decision to realign the driveway, remove vegetation, and construct a rooftop deck. The stated front yard privacy and security concerns can be addressed through mechanisms other than the proposed fence. Similarly, the stated concerns about the prospect of the neighbor building a large house near the required 10-foot setback could be applied to all RSF properties in the city. Finally, the area of the applicant’s property that is within the shoreland setback is fairly typical with no unique features that would justify a fence height variance. 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 6.5-foot opaque fences within the front yard or fences over 3.5 feet in 79 3 height within the 75-foot shoreland setback. Fences have a large visible impact, both for neighbors and individuals utilizing public rights-of-way and waters. Granting the requested fence variances would negatively impact the neighborhood’s aesthetics, especially if other residents requested and were granted similar variances. Similarly, due to their shoreland location WOAS are highly visible. Property’s 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 WOAS 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 October 19, 2021, prepared by MacKenzie Young- Walters, is incorporated herein. DECISION The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments, denies the requested fence height variance 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. 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. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 19th day of October, 2021. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, 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 80 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2021-07B 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested fence height variance 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. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Alicia Heights. 3. Conditions.The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. 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. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. 81 2 Dated: October 19, 2021 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL)Elise Ryan, Mayor AND: Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2021 by Elise Ryan, Mayor, and Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-07b 6609 horseshoe curve 10-19-21 variance request\variance document 21-07b.docx 82 September 17,2021 CHANHASSEN PI-AJ,Ii/IIJG DEPI RE: WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION FOR THIRD VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 6609 HORSESHOE CURVE, CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 COMPLIES WTH THE FINDINGS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 20-58 Dear Planning Division, As required by the City of Chanhassen, and in follow up to our email communication sent to the Planning Division on September 3, 2021 confirming our intention to file another variance application (in which all relevant parties were placed on notice), we respectfully submit this written justification in support of our variance request. As we submit this third variance, we wish to highlight that pre-existing conditions of this property are unique and directly create hardship and problematic characteristics in preparing for newly proposed landscape design. We have remained communicative with the City of Chanhassen and applicable departments during this entire process, including, but not limited to, the two previous variance submitlals which were ultimately approved by the City of Chanhassen. Unfortunately, there is still confusion of allowable work on this property. We request that this third application and all information herein be reviewed carefully and collaboratively with appropriate parties and departments. We submit this variance application to clarify that our property is not a bluff according to the plain language of the Chanhassen Municipal Code. We seek to formally correct the record through this application since we would otherwise not be required to submit a variance application for landscape work on the property were the record to correctly reflect the fact that this property is not a bluff. 6609 HORSESHOE CURVE DOES NOT MEE T THE MUNICIPAL DEFINITION OF "BLUFF" We request that the City of Chanhassen conclude that this property is not a bluff in an effort to clarify the extents of what type of landscape design is actually required to apply for permitting or variance. The topographic and architectural pre-existing conditions were not caused by our actions. Evidence enclosed with this application confirms that the existing topography was IE! considered a bluff before the home on this property. The manmade, lqt natural, bluff was created by building the pre-existing home and retaining the topography with boulder retaining walls. Permit us to review a nd consider the followinq aoDlicable leoal ouidance: Chanhassen Municioal Code. According to the Chanhassen City Code, Chapter 1, Section 1-2., a bluff means "a Ellglal topographic feature such as a hill, cliff or embankment having the following characteristics.. . ' [a formula follows for grade and elevation characteristic requirements]. I CITY OF CHAIIHASSEII RECEIVED sEP_l 7 2021 City of Chanhassen Community Development Department Planning Division 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 83 Minnesota Administrative Rules. Minnesota Rules 6106.0050, Subp 8, defines a Bluff to mean "a @lg!3! topographic feature having..." [a formula follows for grade and elevation characteristic requirementsl. Natural tooooraphv defi nitions: (1) Natural topography means the elevation of a parcel of land prior to any human modification of the topography (Emphasis added). (2) Natural topography or "existing topography" means the topography of the lot, parcel, or tract of real property immediately prior to any site preparation or grading, including excavation or filling [Emphasis addedl. Commentarv. ln the Staff Report completed by the City of Chanhassen, dated January 19,2021 , the City acknowledged that "this is a unique situation in that a bluff was not present on the property when the home was constructed. but was created when the retaining walls constructed along with the home increased the slope's grade to an extent that triggered the bluffordinance. This change in conditions rendered previously conforming features nonconforming and necessitated the variance process." See attachment and highlighted text. The City confirmed in its report that the property was not a naturally occurring bluff butjslellele_Eg.!:lECe- due to hu man action lnitially, the City stated that our property "may" be on a bluff (inconclusive). The basis ofthe City's determination that our property is now a bluff was based on EFN's Boundary & Topographic Survey. Please find enclosed the original survey of the property completed in 1999 prior to any work being done on the property. lnthissurvev. no bluff is delineated. ln otherwords, the naturaltopography ofthe property PRIOR to any work done confirms that this was Nq[ a bluff. After our first variance submittal, the City of Chanhassen required that we obtain a new survey with the bluff delineation. Per the email communication from the surveyor on September 9, 2021 , Egan, Field & Nowak, lnc., at the time of the survey completed June 8, 2020, "we were unaware that the property was a "manmade" bluff." The Staff Report from the City of Chanhassen also has already been on the record as to the uniqueness of our property. As stated, ''A bluff was not present on the property when the home was constructed but was created when the retaining walls constructed along with the home increased the slope's grade." ln the most literal sense of the word, "man-made" is the definitional opposite of "natural." This is a clear and easy-to-understand distinction between bluff and not a bluff for Code interpretation purposes. Had the City of Chanhassen's municipal code drafters wished to omit the term natural, that would have been an option. This language modifier of "natural" to the term topographic feature is paramount to this discussion. Either there is a finding of fact that the City determines that a "natural topographic feature" is the same as a manmade topographic feature, or the City follows the plain language of the code to conclude that the property's topographic feature is man-made and therefore not a bluff. The property's pre-existing manmade condition is further highlighted by the fact that the 'man-made" slope was constructed with the benefit of the tools, materials, plantings, techniques, and combined experience and expertise of professional tradespeople so that itwill effectively weather the elements and provide lasting and effective soil support, drainage control, and erosion prevention for the yard and surrounding areas, and does so without the need for regulatory intervention. 4. DISCUSSION Per the plain language oi the City of Chanhassen's Municipal Code, 6609 Horseshoe Curve does !9! meet the definition of a "bluff' due to its characteristic of being manmade rather than natural. VARIANCE REQUEST _ ITEMIZED 84 Notwithstanding our position that our property is not a bluff, we respectfully submit the following variance application for specific items. (1) SHED - LAKESIDE STORAGE. We wish to placea 11'x 12'storageshed atthe lakeside adjacent to the new modular deck. This placement requires a variance from the lojoot side yard setback and a variance from the one water-oriented accessory structure. The proposed construction would not exceed hardcover requirements and would ensure that this shed is moveable and not permanent as to allow the City of Chanhassen access to any necessary sanitation line. ln our past conversations with the City Planning Department, the City initially stated it would support either a deck OR shed, but not both. Practical difficulties contrnue to exist in not having a shed down by the lake. Upon further reflection, we believe we still have a hardship issue since under the current situation, we have no place to store any valuable boating or swim equipment, as well as expensive furniture and tools that are used at the lakeside on a normal basis. We have previously had items stolen from our boat and lakeshore since they were out in the open and not secured in a locked shed. Vvhile we certainly appreciate that the City supported our placement of a modular, completely removable deck that was grandfathered into the location of the old deck and paver patio, this is only part of the equation. The normal and customary use of this area would logically require some form of storage to truly enjoy the space and not create practical difficulties. (2')OPAQUE PRIVACY FENCE AND SECURITY GATE AT FRONT YARD/STREET AND SIDEYARD. We wish to install a six-foot, six-inch high opaque privacy fence and security gate in our fiont yard near the street and to the east, place a side yard fence at the same height. The exact location of the front yard fence and security gate depends in part on the removal of the old driveway as well as consideration for mature trees. ln our email communications dated August 10, 2021 to MacKenzie Walters, owing to the unique conditions of our property, notably the downward slope starting at the street and continuing toward our home, a compliant privacy gate and fence at the driveway would be an important feature to include on our property. We currently have a high volume of cars that stop at the top of our driveway and gawk, and in some instances accidentally drive all the way down. Due to the city's deflnitions provided, the City of Chanhassen would only permit a 3joot-high fence at the driveway side of our property. However, a 3-foot-high fence on a downward slope will do nothing to provide us with the required privacy or security. As a result, we are asking for a six-foot six-inch-high opaque fence and gate in the front yard to match the height of the privacy fence height allowed for side yards. We further highlight the fact that it is reasonably Sec. 20-58. General condition6 for Erantinq. To review, a variance may be granted if all of the following criteria are met: (1) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. (2) V\/tren 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. (3) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. (4) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. (5) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. (6) Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in M.S. S 216C.06, subd. '14, when in harmony with this chapter. Permit us to review the items for the Citv's consideration: 85 anticipated that our neighbors to the east will be building a large home and near the 1oJoot side yard setback, which warrants additional privacy considerations for our family. (3) Per the previously approved plan, restorative work was undertaken on the hill on west side of property, flat area before the shoreline, and shoreline to remove noxious and invasive weeds including buckthorn and its root system, thistle, hemlock, et cetera per the Minnesota Noxious Weed Law, which the Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) has an Eradication List and Control List. Sections 18.76 to 18.91 contain rules for controlling and eradicating noxious weeds on all lands within the state. Our landscape contractor also removed rotting tree root systems on the shoreline from dead trees as they created an unsafe condition for us and our guests as a person's leg(s) would break though the decaying root system while walking along the shoreline or while walking from the shoreline into the water and fall-through to the knee or mid-calf level). There are extensive notes on the restorative work in the plan set (page L001) as contained in the previously approved variance application. Our landscape architect is currently providing updated restoration noles. Please Note: our property has had natural, no-mow fescue on our property up the shoreline, except where the noxious and invasive weeds were growing. This is true for other properties on Lotus Lake. Wth the most recent Stop Work Order (SWO) dated Septembe|l, 2021, we were told by the Engineering Department that irrigation and sod are not permitted. These two components of our plan remain integral to our enioyment and maintenance of the property over the long-term. Furthermore, the irrigation and grasses were previously included in our past variance applications. (5) AIR CONDITIONER STE . We seek to replace a degraded boulder retaining wall on the east side of the property to obscure the air conditioner for clear sight. Thas is not an extension of a wall, but instead flts within the preexisting footprint currently provided by the boulders. (6) GRADING OF EARTH ON LAKESIDE. We request the permission to grade the lakeside area for enjoyment and recreation at the lakeside. As noted by the enclosed documentation, the physical characteristics of our property present unique challenges due to the sloping topography and limited accessible space for use. At the current time, we still do not have reasonable use of our lake property. Wth a severely sloped property from the road to the house, and again from the front side to lake, there are essentially two (2) limited flat areas on the lakeside for family recreation, including: (1) lower patio area by the slider door that is accessible from our walk-out home, and (2) flat patio area by shoreline. This is the purpose of our request for the flat area at the shoreline. (7) RIPRAP ON SHORELINE. To prevent erosion and to stabilize shoreline, we would like to install riprap on the shoreline. (4) CONCRETE PAD'DECK EXTENSION IN FRONT OF SUNROOi' PLUS STEEL RETAINING WALL FOR PLACEMENT OF HOT TUB AND PLUNGE POOL. We seek to install a concrete pad that will serve as the structural support for the two non-permanent items, namely the hot tub and plunge pool. The Statf Report for the City of Chanhassen contains an error in fact that we wish to address in this application. The original concrete deck footings remain in the ground (beyond the frost line) on the property in front ofthe sunroom and run even with the sunroom edge, which should permit us to rebuild our deck up the original deck footings. The Staff Report states, "Since the nonconforming deck, bump out, and patio were removed over a year ago, the applicant is not entitled to replace them, nor can the proposed deck be approved without a variance as a reduction to an existing nonconformity... " [Emphasis addedl. This is not true since original footings are still in the ground. See Page 8 of the Staff Report and attached photograph. See Section 20-72 of the Chanhassen Municipal Code. Lastly, in our previous discussions with the City, City initially stated that a hot tub is a permanent structure. This is not the case. lf the hot tub needs to be moved. we can move it. 86 PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AND LIMITED USER ENJOYMENT We understand that variances are requested when the strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause a "practical difficulty" because of circumstances unique to the property, such as when the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape, or topography. ln consideration ofall equities and hardships in this case, we believe that our application warrants favorable discretion, since everything we hope to do will improve the use of this property and reduce furlher degradation of the property. ln addition, we fundamentally believe that our property is not a bluff per the Chanhassen Municipal Code and therefore we should be excluded from that definition for purposes ofwhat we are permitted to do on our property. CONCLUSION ln the end, our aim is to try and improve the natural enjoyment of the property while balancing the interests of the natural environment. We have selected products and made changes that we believe improve the property and preserve the surroundings. Thank you in advance for your due consideration of our request. Sincerely, A Elise Bruner and Brian Bruner 87 September 27, 2021 City of Chanhassen Community Development Department Planning Division 7700 Market Blvd PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: '.UPDATED- WRITTEN JUSTIFICATION FOR THIRD VARIANCE REQUEST FOR 6609 HORSESHOE CURVE, CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 COIUPLIES WITH THE FINDINGS FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 20.58 Dear Planning Division, As required by the City of Chanhassen, and in follow up to the City's email communication sent to us on September 21, 2021, we are submitting the following updated written justification in support of ourvariance request. First, we confirm that the City Statr has formally acknowledged that its initial determination that a bluffwas present was an error and that the bluff ordinance does not apply to our property. This determination thereby renders our previous two variance applications unnecessary Second, in light of the fact that our property does not trigger the bluff ordinance, we wish to pare down the items that remaan within the scope of the Planning Oivision's review and consideration. VARIANCE REQUEST - UPDATED Sec. 20-58. General nditions for orantino. To review, a variance may be granted if all of the following criteria are met: (1) Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this chapter and when lhe variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. (2)Vvhen there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties,'' as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that lhe 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. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in M.S. S 216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony u/ith this chapter. (3) (4) (5) (6) 88 Permit us to review the items for the Citv's consideration: 1) SHED - LAKESIDE STORAGE We wish to place an eleven foot by twelve-foot (11' x 12') storage shed at the lakeside adjacent to the new modular deck. This placement requires a variance from the 1o-foot side yard setback and lojoot and shoreland ordinary high-water level (OHV\fL) setback. Per the City's rnitial email response dated September 2'1, 2021, when a shed and patio/deck are contiguous, they are treated as a single WAOS. ln this case, the City confirms that the combined area of lhe two would be approximately 308 sq. ft. Assuming the variance is granted, the City has indicated that a zoning permit would be needed to place a prebuilt shed on the property- The proposed shed placement would not exceed hardcover requirements and we would ensure that this shed is moveable and not a permanent structure, as to allow the City of Chanhassen access to any necessary sanitation line. As discussed, we still have a hardship issue since under the cunent situation. we have no place to store any valuable boating or swim equipment, as well as expensive furniture and tools that are used at the lakeside on a normal basis. We have previously had items stolen from our boat and lakeshore since they were out in the open and not secured in a locked shed. The normal and customary use of this area would togically require some form of slorage to truly enjoy the space and not create practical difficulties in lifting awk\ rard and heavy lake equiprnent up and down the property. ?\OPAQUE PRIVACY FENCE AND SEC ITY GATE AT FRONT YARD/S TREET. We wish to install a six-foot, six-inch (6' 6") high opaque privacy fence and security gate in our front yard within eight (8) feet of the street. We understiand this installation would require both a variance and conditional use permit for a fence taller than six feet, as well as potentially an encroachment agreement for the lence to be placed within the 'lojoot city easement. To reiterate information already contained in the original narrative, we currently have a hillh volume of cars that stop at the top of our driveway to view our unique architecturally designed home, and in some instances, cars accidentally drive down the drivewey. This is a security issue, especially in winter. since once a car goes down the driveway, it becomes a hazard where snow or ice is present. lndividuals not familiar with lhe driveway conditions would not realize that they cannot stop once the decision is made to come down and potentially be injured and or damage our home. VMthout a variance, the City of Chanhassen would only permit a 3-foot-high fence at the driveway side of our property. However, a 3Joot-high fence on a downward slope will do nothing to provide us with the required privacy. As a result, we are asking for a 6'6" opaque fence and gate in the front yard to match the heBht of the privacy fence height allowed for side yards. We further highlight the fact that it is reasonably anticipated thatour neighbors to the east will be building a large multi-bvet homeand near the 10- foot side yard setback, which warrants additional privacy considerations for our family. Lastly, we have a roofiop deck patio that warrants additional privacy from the street, for which a 3- foot-high fence would do nothing to provide any privacy. PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES A D LIMITED USER ENJOYMENT We understand that varianc€s are requested when the strict enforcement of the ordinance would cause a "practical difficulty' because of circumstances unique to the property. such as when the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape, or topography. 89 ln consideration of all equities and hardships in thas case, we believe that our application warrants favorable discretion, since everything we hope to do will improve the use of this property and reduce and prevent injury to people by avoiding the need to cany heavy lake equipment and other furniture up and down the property, provide privacy from the street for quiet enjoyment, and prevent injury or accidents to people or our home itself in the event they inadvertently drive down the driveway during cold weather months. CONCLUSION Our aim has remained to improve the natural enioyment of the property while balancing the interests of the natural environment. We have selected products and made changes that we believe improve the property and preserve the surroundings. Thank you in advance for your due consideration of our request. Sincerely,g,*{. fr^ Elise Bru and Brian Bruner 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 Memorandum To: MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner From: Matt Unmacht, Water Resources Coordinator CC: Charles Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer Ryan Pinkalla, Water Resources Technician Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer Date: September 28, 2021 Re: 6609 Horseshoe Curve Variance - City Planning Case No. 2021-07B The Water Resources Department has reviewed the new variance request located at 6609 Horseshoe Curve. These comments are divided into two categories: general comments and recommendations. General comments are informational points to guide the applicant in the proper planning of any water resources issues or stormwater infrastructure fo r this project, to inform the applicant of possible extraordinary issues and/or to provide the basis for findings. Recommendations are the determination of the variance request by the Water Resources group based on the facts of the application. General Comments/Findings 1. The applicant is requesting two variances. One variance for the 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 variance is for a privacy fence. 2. The property is located on Lotus Lake. According to the Riley-Purgatory Bluff Creek Watershed District, water quality on Lotus Lake has improved in some parameters, such as water clarity and phosphorus, but degraded in others, such as chlorophyll-a, in recent years. The project is proposing construction very close to the lake. 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. In addition, the applicant was reducing the overall size of the WOAS. Overall, 135 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 has begun. 4. The applicant is requesting to construct an 11’ x 12’ storage shed at the lakeshore, adjacent to 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 new WOAS, plus the existing deck, would result in a WOAS of 357.5 square feet. 5. 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 applicant’s new request actually decreases the intensity of the encroachment into this setback from the previously approved variance by two feet. 6. As for other water resources issues: outside of Lotus Lake, there are no wetlands on this property. In addition, this project does not involves any City owned stormwater infrastructure. As such, there are no concerns or conditions to place on the project based on these factors. 7. 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. 8. It is the opinion of the Water Resources Department that this variance request should be denied. There appears to be sufficient options for the applicant to alter the plans that would not require a variance. For example, the applicant was previously limited laterally on where the WOAS can be placed because of a buffer setback. That buffer setback no longer applies and as such the WOAS can be moved into this area. This could potentially negate the need for both the side yard and OHWL encroachment. In addition, there doesn’t appear to be sufficient justification for the size of the shed beyond storage. The shed could be smaller in order to be under the maximum allowable size. Recommendations 1. The Water Resources Department recommends denial of the variance request to construct a WOAS that exceeds the maximum size allowable by City Code. City staff 136 recommends approving variance only to the extent of the previous non-conforming structure. For example, the previous WOAS was 308 square feet. City staff does not recommend going beyond this previous non-conforming WOAS size. It appears that there are sufficient solutions available to the applicant which would negate the need for a variance. In addition, the applicant has not provided enough justification for this variance beyond storage. 2. The Water Resources Department recommends approval of the OHWL setback. The applicant’s updated variance request decreases the intensity of the variance and thus approval is recommended. 3. The Water Resources Department has no comment on the variance request for a privacy fence. 137 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 Matt Unmacht, Water Resources Coordinator Ryan Pinkalla, Water Resources Technician Steve Lenz, Engineering Technician Date: September 29, 2021 Re: Fence 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 developer in the final order. Note that references to the “City Standards” herein refer to the City of Chanhassen Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. General Comments/Findings 1. Any and all grading, utility and transportation plans submitted with this application have been reviewed only for the purpose of determining the feasibility of the plans and providing utility and transportation facilities for the project in accordance with City Standards. A recommendation of variance approval does not constitute final approval of details, including but not limited to alignments, materials and points of access, connection or discharge, that are depicted or suggested in the application. The 138 applicant is required to submit detailed construction drawings and/or plat drawings for the project, as applicable. The City of Chanhassen Engineering and Public Works Department will review plans, in detail, when they are submitted and approve, reject or require modifications to the plans or drawings based upon conformance with City Standards, the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances and the professional engineering judgment of the City Engineer. 2. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that the proposed project can be developed in accordance with the requirements of the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances (as it pertains to Engineering and Public Works requirements) and City Standards, provided it fully addresses the comments and conditions contained herein, an d can be approved. 3. The applicant previously proposed the reconfiguration and realignment of an existing Water Oriented Structure (WOAS). The existing WOAS consisted of stone pavers and wood decking which was removed and replaced with a modular wood decking WOAS. The WOAS lied within a public drainage and utility easement (DUE) that was recorded with the Alicia Heights plat in 1999. Additionally, the city owns and maintains a public sanitary sewer main constructed in 1975 that is located within the DUE and located directly under the existing and proposed WOAS. As such, the applicant was required to enter into an encroachment agreement for the WOAS, and the WOAS was constructed so that it is removable to allow for access to and for the proper maintenance of the public sanitary sewer main. The applicant is now proposing the addition of a shed to be attached to the modular wood deck. The same conditions associated with the original WOAS are required of the shed, see proposed conditions 1 and 2. 4. As no plans were provided to the city for the proposed shed for review, the Engineering and Public Works department will review plans through the permitting process once received. Staff has concerns if helical pier footings are used for the construction of the shed due to the proximity of the public sanitary sewer main. Staff was notified that during the construction of the stairs down the hillside that the helical piers damaged the properties private lateral which required repairs. If piers are to be used, staff will require they remain 3 feet offset from the public sanitary sewer main and that the main be televised to ensure no damage during construction occurred. 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 ere cted within a public drainage and utility easement. See proposed condition 1. Proposed Conditions 139 1. The applicant shall file for an encroachment agreement with the city for any encroachments within public drainage and utility easements. 2. The shed and it’s 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. 140 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 October 7,2021, 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) and a height v ariance to allow a six-foot, six-inch high opaque fence within the required front y and setback. Zoned Single-Family Residential (RSF). Property Owner: Elise and Brian Bruner. Planning Case No. 2021-07B to the persons named on attached Exhibit"A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. I Kim . M 'ssen, City Clerk Subscribed and sworn to, be, f fo re me JEAN M STECKLING this day of T 021. Notary Pubiio-Mkxreaota My oaiwISMon r pYw Jen 31,2024 Thni Notary Publi 141 o TO 114. i 7 y 11111111,111111"Subject Parcel / 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. GVN Subject i Parcel 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 users access or use of data provided.142 y O co 0 N O m y 2 u oOL--.O C U C 9 mc._ o . vvca O C O O cn O) ( Y C 'O R ?, (0 m°mEo IICOc > (/) c c>,a n E.E E 5 o a L E -0 > -0 RS— Q CO = U u) O 03 N- C N 'E O) g U w m E m a L E `c4 n m mmaRC •O O-L C O E mcm E E m 8a F) p)6 3 E O Rn L C E C 7 (o ao . m8om- wma O 0 - O O O U_) y m m - C m T J m N O N p N O i 0 c O L Y (n C O O r Cco -• .imc mmmm >cr- m cu c`0 0> Cn C O Q O 0 L_ 0 3 U (R) rn O d H co-ET cmEms 3Emmvm L ,E. - EQ N a) E O O O N 0 3 O C O N O Rv O ma¢ `mmt. NccoE a c m ay0OOLOQcOco .LRrCOO mU acmEc3 -csD ceca1mYiLcmot— v a.- o m m c C L N +. L U v ° E .0 0 0 ' C 40 0 w U U y O CO d •'' 1_ 4. v E.` E ar c E c n 3.--0 ~ a O . E U N o C O L a-C .0 E O E — a) - O >,•.-• > co y m c 3 E m J a m ,c'. m a y E O N a 'c c 0 .- o) O C0- 0 Q O 0 m C U 2 OQ• iifU 3 U E c$ ma c macoLo $ J' tea m >.-r m&mmc O C) O O)O fD N O (D m C C O 4- N E E -0 N CO 0 0 ' y C0 E a W o>m_W co T " 3 c NC 'y I c Y O A I) C ' U C O Q O C U S N N O 3 y —..= m m y ?°L c n. m o. o m 3Cy +' '5 U ' y N O L w (0 p 0 Cl3 C > a+ (0 U -1 EmcJJcoo f ymmM ' T m M O .X OC '- m L O O 0 -0 "0 19 O 7 EM N OL R O E U O ctm c>oUCDr_m3c3ZiaU) N O O O + Hfl4 ll U '•a= C E " m. - mm. •- uEOIWiI *IU UD one ltlltflhiflhgON m m V o3g 7 0 N .0 -0 R 1 0-` ' C 7 f, W 7 O- (0 3 G) co O . co p R O o U m m m o o a E a o - o aaCLyONa) 0 0 (D ' O c ,) O O O 3 ( C >, (n w .0 C ,_ CO 0 3.421 m ig a9 c c g E m-H U C RU y '( O C N C COO 0 7 ... .0 O ( 6 C ' C ••j U R L O r C CIO 0 0 m`-'m J c m m.. E°m m G cOL7CRc._ m e o O C Cr.- O y O N 0 R3 co,U (0 "_ O t 7 i O O d 0 O m m S m t E v o .•v) m o md _R .. = D O ,_ U O 06 L a O -0 -0 _ C O Ocp O _c C O O R E c C- a C C c-0 m 'm E- 0 m o in m J ..c•E rU-. a 0 .-IP. 0 .RO C ( 0 0 (a u)i 00 O L . O O CO O :_, L Q d O w a m t o n m E c ai o °o a m o Z 4) >. O c6 > y - 2 O O a C 0O O 13EoaY •C . L c E R >' p E y OC v)o m u E m-°-g m E a>a _ E co c0 = CO -0 3 3 T m = .- 7 R0 L 3 L O m O O U O O) a c 44 _ 4. O O b- o?v` a E.a,E')q T p m m;,-<co -0 cm - L O = 6 a.Ut .,_ N col_ 0d L.. 7 Rn O C O O oci L O O ,§ aoo..o gym cc Dvc L co co =B N O c-) — cw i d j Egc uU m e 5ngmct 20C0) U O) co(D O- O (13 C L d O m c w o0 o v n C 3 00 - 0 0 ca ' (O L 0_ CI) L 0 0 L i . O > QmL nc EE mEmgV o aViUU , L ._ Rl w co Q - m C U (A ,- N co 'Q y 0 3 0 1- a. C. To J c a m E m $a m m. - z c co Nco2 30-3$-pcmo"g°`SxNLL `maE- EN d y 01 O O cf) oa<amz- EE¢m 35?.YY80. mom a) C.otS ..aC CoWamcEja-E8'n25 °a2a2E ••0 G> u) ...,C • ca oa > vc 1p 2-2m ..mc°-v.ca co' C R A + C R d C C RJI E U a` c.c m 1m m `,=c r aisi a g t m r co 0 y t t 0 O d I (n 3o2soo. 3os rga. L=aoo5rOG) d + U m mmco mmEL...y N.. Nc ° C C. C. a_ (a d y O rovacma:m` p,timm 3 Jai R U 0 O O v C .c Rv E 3 Kaov1 .5mnomEEocl main 0 i I- • O pr O W (6 .TnU o 5mm n > (°n n¢Emm n 0 J a a a J R Q U Z o u . . a a) Y 7 U C a+uj a m o a c ° n Is Q O c O . O_ C (C6 • co A (0 m° gEa cc a°.. mc ( n O O C C N •- O .... N E > 0 d R -0 2z.° =m o o_W J m e 0 L O Q) 7 O 0) O C -0 c C c.aa a= u€E ° J$ C O N L tTC U U O O O C C N i_ . O aUo mE3mn m O Y 0 C u) Y O E O) N m E c a`m rnrn L U 3 O E aL U (n c E c = (p mam mEomE mmamv svOO0OK.-m c - m c m m T3ccoN ` L CO 0 0 O V C O L CO y u) O O Z CO O au°'ic Hm st' mm , cm mm 10G 0 4? •N D U L 0 0 0 Q O 0 E 0 3 c6 Co O d H C co E T c m E `Y ; 10 m m m v c as -0 -5 C N E Y E L O .- O ja d '+. p W o¢ ° o T=°°c a c m p E L 'i N O U O` to O O U C i R t O P.U 8 °""Vg-- o R)3'- c o Cal t m =_ y X 2 E -c +. O O V N O S C U y0 O O R d d E O v E n F=- E c a a V L W tF- w • y O Y X T ?, C w 0 p .• L V o y R RC (n ifi Q. .. p0 mom m E m c t o 5 mc1Nip2NaCi c O C > O U) D O O M C 3 m m u v 3 °--, E ' z 6.E 1 C O O O O c U y O O. 0 w -c c .--• L 0 0 1- N 0 O C U _ R 0 Rn 3 j 8 n m> aL °o J`o m c OiO (6 O 0 C C • 0) N E -p N 0 0 — 3 ( I) C Eam c `mmrc ° '''' UE-o RRS CO O LL 13 'C V C 0 - 0 0 O Q (p —` -p 3 3 y _y O Y m m ° o r- m m v c13 ' m °c mNL0a0CUN_ _- O _ mctm_ um.^oQ$ o m. R y a LU 30 _a) a) •O co C 0 O U E N 0 > R C E o U a m 8 t n a °c o L m U c m v°o'TiR) _ Ru C 3 a) y O odOy 0 .0. _ 0-.. L O 2 O N 0 7 .O Cr) co ,- .+ E ,-U- O c c-o m v m N oE N N C cR3 O O E U 0__C > c01) O O U a • O (Or a•- • C E - m °m mr mmag8mun O N rn O 0 O - ` O a>) L N 'U O 0 0 • O ` aE Q•( pR` (,) V O O a aam re,mcc2mo3vavc V c E Q 0 O i C m W ` O C Y L ,.,>. Q- U U E w N _O 3 -a co +. •O C v m a m= m o o m N=T _m D m 3 Cr) _ N , O co 0 O 3 = O Q C _ E N t C X Ol cmp a;__ Hc $Lmo a c c- a) ...,. (1 C .0 -.0, N t (,) 3 Q C '- N N O N a N y O o w U.'m z umi o cf m o'c-_ 0 z o z E y ,..,- c cn (a L y .` U C y Co O c0 3 N 3 R C g, .7, °a m v a o Q g m=U 8 o •C .0 y •U 7 ' CO 3 Q' m 0 0 3 R6 w O C ([)U R O L O c C R •O O O m c m ' c a m E S p m W.°5 0 y C O C 0 (6 O m p 0 as .0 r Q) . L (`) O O d -0 Ti 0 m..5. c m L E v m > rn 2rn m o U R O _ > U A oti L •( 1 O -0 73 .0 .-. R6 U O Y C N P. c0 0. C)a C 0 >, o c m m E-E c ° g ) m 8 -ra r47. 0 a U p ` o L C O O co vim) ` c) c = Q C O O R O O E - a) Q d vo O m o 8 E m- c u c p O - Ra 0) E y E to 0 0 a O L .— O '' r C f6 C O &- L — a E c o n m E c 3 o m g 8 n m o Z U O C O L _ 3 v w y m E SC9 a) 4- R 7 0 C Q--' 6- _E U L O > 0 0 0 ',(0 +p (p c6 Q m¢ o o"m y m m a>,c - o n mOA _ O O L O a D p C Q O'— 0 > ! O > L O C R >. 0 c Co C yam u E m x a)c_°m n> a m Ey __CD = CO U CO = ; 0 (B L 3 O O O a N V O Q C .. = ... p .° m E c- m ccoo co = u (O O RU RA v a '- Q(n H V CI-a) L. p O C T y U 0 0 7 m a m c°i 9 a o a m x a v m o T - 0 (0 fA O O a.- 0 O L +. a) O O c c W e m c a 3,8 v mL 0 cr. = 0 (4 C a. C . ( o- L a O L a) O O L 'C , L O .` > -> C a m c o.0 a m .o c7 a E meciCf- n' O C> > Ca 0 U) W (O < I- cR) C O y N C7 v = a O >- 0 3 0 1- . L... O, O -,-_, E °c 3 .,E n gig,Dm E m m g d m m-c°c a V 0 ct m ma E Lmo x L L 0 a ff E 3 zoom O y D E °m o-v c m o= a g o c.c C a`" RR3 p m c a E o¢m.°)L1Z50 w o ag WC0 -C o cmmm am Sv J mvm oL.c8n0) 3 Cw 0 C Comam= mtac£Uf°82vaEncE ••C. d U) .4 C N oa > ac mQ.8m TT ovvc mma- C A C C' d C c 0) _ L mm mm . f,,50 _ oma20I- R co Ua cc mT=c 0U(n Et LLcCp E N om "mmaima_mmnLo". 06 r O d 4) a+ I E O (•,) m.am@g ma .> ymwc' umico y c C. C. Q R R t a) Y • m_- a m a a m m°,,. m m" co 3 J v 0. O O 0 0 U C .. d E 3 U 3c Joa>W>L ta cE8cmmamRCOW ( 3 rT.U o N mr a3 > (i n¢ Emma o f a aaJ R CI (.)Z a31C) . 143 o o o o o N O m O o o O o O o 0 0 o O o 0 0 0 o O o O o 0 0 0 r-I o m m 0 m e--1 N N N r-I M Cr) Cr e-i N CO N L--I N O N N .--1 e-i N CO 4 LC) N m e-I o e--i O1 N O N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 nl O m m rm o o 0 0 o N N N N O Ni N N r-I 0 o rJ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O e--1 LD LD 01 r-I C) r-I r-I Cn o Ln Ln O m 0 0 0 N O O N C) 0 0 0 O m 0 0 O O Co 0 0 LD LD O 00 0 00 00 O Co Le) Li) Co o Co Co Co Ln 4 R Ln Ill Co Co m Co O Co Co m Co Z VIl Le) O ^LnLi') Lmf) LM rn m rn n U) inif) Lmr) U) O O Li)) U1l VI) LUn If) L LD ^ Le)r) Le) Lf) Ln kr) Le) LLI) Lc) Ln ) LLnn If)LD E [V N N N N N N IN IN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Ya 0 0 0 > > CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC c CC CC CC CL CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC DDDDMDDDDDDDD > DDDDDDDDD U W 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 LU W W W W LU LU W W W W W LU W W W W W W W LU LU LU W O _ > > > O J 0 J _, O O O o 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 O z 1_ 1_ 1_ _ cc 2 cc cc 2 2 2 = 2 = _ = 2 = = 2 = 2 2 = 2 = 2 = _ = 2 V) Z Z z N I_ V n V)) I- I- L V) Ln V) V) V) co V) V) V) Cl) V) V) V) Ln U) V) V) V) V) V) Cl) W a W W LU W LU W LU LLJ LU W LU W W LLJ W W W LU W W W LL W W LU Ln L/) Q Q Q N W VI W W If Ln Ln in V) V) U) L/) L/) Cl) V) V) V) V) V) V) Cl) V) V) V) V) V) V) CC < V) V) V) CL N CC N N CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC D O w W w O a 0 a SC 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 a J J J 2 CO 2 CO CO _ = 2 = = 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 = 2 = _ = 2 2 = _ a N V) (1L 11 CI- Co ei e-1 N CO Ln N C) e1 M V If) O Ln O ei 0 O CT) Lf) N r-I V) LD e"I Lil LD N LL I CO N Lr) V) V) O o 0 0 0 O O O r-I r-I r-I r-I N N re) COCr LD LD N N CO CO 1-1 al alCT/ C) LD L) Co LD C) LD LU LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD V) LD LD Co Co rY) LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LDo m c7 4 LD 00 00 LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD r'i LD LD 00 Lr) N N IN O O N N N N N N N N N N N N o N N N N Ln Ln Lf) Le) L!) Ln in Ln Lf) Ln Ln Ln N if) If) Lf) Ln Lf) LnLn00NCT) CT) al C) C) CT) C) 01 C) C) C) C) C) C) C) Dl Ql l71 Q1 D) V) V e--I .--I r-I ri ei r-1 e-i e-1 r-1 r•I .--1 ri e-I r I e-1 r-I r-1 ri e-I e-i r-I e--I r I r 1 ‘-I r I r I e-I e-I ei riLnmCoMCOLDMMmmmenCoComCoMMmrnmro) Co m m m m m m r I M m MLnIf) LI) Lr) Ll) Ln LI) Lf) Ul Ln V) Ln Lr) Ln Ln In Ln Ln LI) V) Lf) V) Lr) Lf) Ln 1/1 Ln Lr) Ln in Ln Ln Z Ln Ln Ln Ln p0 Lr1 If) LI) If) L/) Lr) U) Lr) Ln Ln If) V) Ln Ln Ln Ln Lr) If) Ln Lr) Ln Lf) Ln LI) Li) Lf) Lf) 2 Z Z Z Z NJ Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z ZZZZZZZZZZZ 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 2 2 Z Z EE w W Lu -I w w w W LU Lu LL.J w Lu Lu w w w w LU w w W Lu W Lu w W Ill W w W OD V) N Ln -1 V) V) V) V) (AV) Cl) V) V) U) V) V) V) V) Cl) V) V) V) Cl) V) Cl) V) Ln Ln V) V) Cl) 0 z Q Cl) U) V) Q V) V) V) Vl V) V) Ln V) Ln V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) Ln V) Ln V) V) Ln V) V) V) V) 0 CC 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 a a a a a a 2 a = _ = z 2 = _ = = _ = _ = = _ = = = 2 = 2 = 2 = = _ _ = _ = = 10 z 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 z Zx0WaaaWaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa I-I- m LU u u u (D u u U u u u u u u u u (2U u u u U u u u u u u u u u u u 0 oN 0 0 0INcCCCC 0 cC cC cC cC cL cC cC cC cC cC CC cC cC cC cL OC cC cL cL cC cC cC cC 2 D D D _ _ D _ _ > 0 D _ _ D D _ = Z = o = 2 C x Liu U U U U u U U U u U u U U U U U U J U u U U U LUW LUZ W W W W LLJ W W W W LLJ W W W W LW W W W W W W LU W W Z 0 > > > ___I0 J 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 H H H CC = CC CC 2 = = = = = _ = = 2 2 = = _ = = 2 = 2 2 = = 2 e-i 0 L) Z Z Z Z 1- N I 1- V) V) V) V) V) V) Ln N Ln Cl) V) Ln V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) V) a a a n W LL J W W LLJ LL) LLl W LU LLJ W W LLJ LU LLJ W W LLJ LLJ LLJ W W LL! 0 I Y V) Ln L _i N CC LU N N W CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC CC w w w O _1 0 aO0 > Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a o U J J J L m = m m = 2 2 2 2 = = 2 = _ _ = 2 2 2 = 2 2 2 2 = = 2 I .-I in CL d CL m Hi Hi N Cr) Ln N C) e-i Co izt Ln o Ul o Hi o o Q) Ln N Hi U) O Hi Ln LD N X O 4 Ln Ln Lf) N 0 0 0 0 O O O r-I e--I e--f e--I N N m m V LD LD N N Co 00 c) C) Ol C) CJ) a i e--I M LD a) O LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LU LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LU LD LD LD LD LD I- r-1 e-1 Co Co Co C LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LD LnI-V) cC N I- W I- I- illcc D cC cC Ln 1- N w w CO- U CC 0=C a Q u m N U CL L~n ~0 Z a z CC } U >w Z CC 7 J O J O J O > W Z W H =Z LU Lyi O CC 2 Ln O m un _ Z LU = z 0 0 U J Z z n w z = z w ZW2I- J LL1 cc a w > O W} Z z m w W a w a O O m = v) J mZ - J Y J cU O H a J J Z a }c 7CLu IC O LL w ez- w = o2S N a N W aZf z a W J a > LC C O O Z W V) Vl W a O V) - W 2 W U 0 W CC > a = 0 a 5 a Z Z l7 Ln Z Lr) 0 LU Q < m } 0 2 w O v z LL w a LJL' O= a W Q E2 cc °m,, c, Lu J 0 ZI EC U CO J w a 0 0 ee z E ct COLL H = a. < 0 = Z ~ = = 2 0 m Z = U 1- Z X• Q cc O < < O 0 = a 0 Q LU = a 2 ~Q LU J a U } O U U_ } a a cc 0 v 2 2 z oac I- a m Y - cc I- H c -, a - ua Y U Ln ul J CC V) Z CC 0 133 -, M. I- U m 03 144 145 Planning Commission Item October 19, 2021 Item Consider a Request for Wetland Buffer Averaging, Wetland Setback Variances, Yard Setback Variances, and Other Variances for the Construction of a Single- Family Home, Septic System, and Driveway, PID 25.0080200 File No.Planning Case No. 2021-20 Item No: B.4 Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner Applicant Jeff and Deb Papke Present Zoning Rural Residential District (RR) Land Use Residential Low Density Acerage 2.12 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 VI. Wetland Protection Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District. Chapter 20, Article XI, “RR” Rural Residential Districts. Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Section 20-905. Single-Family Dwellings Chapter 20, Article XXIV, Division 2, Section 20-1122. Access and Driveways PROPOSED MOTION The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the wetland accessory structure buffer setback variance for the extension of a driveway, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and denies the requested wetland minimum buffer width and wetland principal structure setback variances, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. 146 SUMMARY The applicant is proposing to construct a single-family home on a peninsula in Lake Minnewashta. Due the presence of wetlands around the peninsula, they are requesting a variance from the City’s wetland buffering requirements to permit the use of buffer averaging and from the City’s principal and accessory structure wetland buffer setback requirements to allow for the proposed home placement and design. BACKGROUND Parcel On December 14, 1992, Ordinance 180 was passed amending the entirety of the City’s wetland protection ordinance, including amending Sec. 20-405(1) to read “Septic and soil absorption system must be setback a minimum of one hundred fifty (150) feet from ordinary high water mark of the wetland.” This meant that the parcel could not be built on without a variance. On October 10, 1993, Mr. Papke applied for a variance to place a septic system 75’ from the wetland’s ordinary high water level (OHWL). At that time, City Code required a 150’ setback. On November 22, 1993, the Board of Appeals and Adjustments moved to table the requested variance citing a need for additional information. On December 13, 1993, the Board of Appeals and Adjustments voted unanimously to deny the variance request. On January 10, 1994, the City Council heard an appeal of the denial and voted 4-1 to direct the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact supporting the denial of the variance. On January 24, 1994, the City Council adopted the Findings of Fact supporting the denial of the variance request. The finding supported denial by stating: 1. Property can be developed without a variance by connecting to City sewer. 2. No unique factor of property justifying a variance. 3. Only purpose of variance was to avoid the cost of connecting to City sewer. 4. Poor soils mean the septic had a high chance of failure, and a failed septic system close to Lake Minnewashta would cause significant harm to the lake. On March 10, 1994, the City received a letter from an attorney representing Mr. Papke requesting that the City either grant the requested variance or purchase the property at fair market value. On April 25, 1994, Ordinance 202 was passed amending Sec. 20-405(1) to read “Septic and soil absorption system must be setback a minimum of seventy-five (75) feet from the ordinary high water mark of the wetland.” This meant that the property was buildable without the need for a variance. On May 29, 2001, Ordinance 320 was passed establishing principal and accessory structure setbacks from wetland buffers. This meant that due to driveways technically being accessory structures, a variance would be required to build on the property. On June 24, 2021, Mr. Papke met with staff to go over what would be needed to apply for a variance to 147 build on his property. Staff explained the process and what documentation would be required. On July 13, 2021, Mr. Papke met with staff to verify that he had the necessary documents to apply for a variance by the July 16, 2021 deadline. Staff indicated several additional exhibits would be required, including a full septic design, and agreed to extend the submittal timeline to July 21, 2021 to provide time for the revisions. On July 20, 2021, Mr. Papke, citing an inability to provide the required septic design by the July 16, 2021 deadline, withdrew his variance application. On August 6, 2021, Mr. Papke submitted a complete variance application. On August 18, 2021, the City sent Mr. Papke a letter stating that due to the complexities of the site and the need to solicit and incorporate comments from multiple other agencies, the City would need to extend the review timeline, as allowed by Minnesota Statute § 15.99 subdivision 3(f), to complete the review. Staff informed him that due to the extension, the public hearing would be held on October 19, 2021 rather than September 7, 2021. Note: Staff believes the property would have been buildable without a variance before December of 1992 and between April of 1994 and May of 2001. DISCUSSION The applicant is requesting variances from the minimum buffer width to allow for buffer averaging to accommodate the proposed building pad. They are also proposing an accessory structure wetland buffer setback variance for the proposed driveway. Finally, they are requesting eighteen-, twelve-, and ten-foot primary structure wetland buffer setback variances for the proposed patio and screen porches. The applicant has stated that the intent of these variances is to allow them to construct a single-family home on a lot of record. The applicant has noted that the accessory structure wetland buffer setback variance for the driveway is necessary to allow them to expand the existing nonconforming driveway and access the parcel’s buildable area. They have indicated that they are also requesting variances from the City’s minimum buffer widths in order to allow for wetland averaging to shift the buildable area approximately 20 feet south with the goal of providing adequate area for a mound septic system. They have also stated that the proposed patio and screen porch variances are to provide areas to enjoy the lake view and that they are only within the required setbacks due to fact that the expanded buffers are present on the northern portion of the property. Finally, the applicant has observed that the parcel is lot of record, zoned and guided for single-family residential use. Staff agrees with the applicant’s position that the lot is a lot of record and that the applicant is entitled to reasonable use of the parcel, i.e. the construction of a single-family home. In these cases, it is staff’s practice to support the variances needed to remedy the practical difficulties preventing reasonable use of a parcel, but not to support variances that have their genesis in the structure’s proposed size, placement, or design. After reviewing the information provided by the applicant, staff has determined that the only variance necessary to allow for the construction of a single-family home on the parcel comparable to what is present on similarly zoned parcels within the area is the accessory structure wetland buffer setback variance requested to facilitate the extension of the nonconforming driveway. The other requested 148 variances are the result of the size, placement, and configuration of the applicant’s proposed home. The property has a viable buildable area that conforms to all requirements of the City’s zoning ordinance, and the applicant has not demonstrated why the requested deviations from the City’s minimum buffer width and primary structure setbacks are required to allow for reasonable use of the parcel. For these reasons, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the requested accessory structure wetland buffer setback variance for the expansion of the driveway and deny the requested minimum wetland buffer width and primary structure wetland buffer setback variances for the proposed home. 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 approve the wetland accessory structure buffer setback variance for the extension of a driveway, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and deny the requested wetland minimum buffer width and wetland principal structure setback variances, and adopt the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. 1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction. 2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed building/structure meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review. 3. A recently conducted geotechnical evaluation of the building area shall be provided with the building permit application. 4. The applicant shall provide plans that meet Sec. 20-1122 of the City of Chanhassen Municipal Code for review and approval prior to any site improvements. 5. Any work that affects MnDOT right-of-way must obtain the appropriate permit from MnDOT prior to any site improvements. 6. The installation of a private well on the site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Health, and all applicable permits shall be obtained prior to any site improvements. 7. A survey showing proposed tree removal and preservation and an inventory of all trees on site 6 inches dbh and larger shall be submitted to the City. 8. A minimum of one tree (2.5”caliper) is required to be planted. 9. Must apply for and receive all relevant permits and approvals from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to any site improvements. 10. The property owner shall have sole responsibility for assessing the existing and potential future noise situation and taking the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact from any highway noise. ATTACHMENTS Staff Report Findings of Fact and Decision (Partial Approval) Variance Document Development Review Application Variance Request Narrative Criteria for Granting a Variance Survey with Buffer Averaging Survey without Buffer Averaging 149 Survey with Septic Design Proposed House Plans Landscaping and Tree Preservation Report Water Resources Review Comments Engineering Review Comments County PW Review MnDOT Review Emailed Comments Papke Response to County Affidavit of Mailing MCWD Permit 21-497 Lot-House Review Email from Pete Keller 10-17-2021 150 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: October 19,2021 CC DATE: November 8, 2021 REVIEW DEADLINE: December 4, 2021 CASE #: PC 2021-20 BY: MYW, EH, ET, MU SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is proposing to construct a single-family home on a peninsula in Lake Minnewashta. Due the presence of wetlands around the peninsula, they are requesting a variance from the City’s wetland buffering requirements to permit the use of buffer averaging and from the City’s principal and accessory structure wetland buffer setback requirements to allow for the proposed home placement and design. LOCATION:PIN 25.0080200 APPLICANT:Jeff and Deb Papke 6180 Cardinal Drive Shorewood, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: “RR” –Rural Residential District 2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE:2.12 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 variances from the minimum buffer width to allow for buffer averaging to accommodate the proposed building pad. They are also proposing an accessory structure wetland buffer setback variance for the proposed driveway. Finally, they are requesting eighteen-,twelve-,and ten-foot primary structure wetland buffer setback variances for the PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the wetland accessory structure buffer setback variance for the extension of a driveway, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and denies the requested wetland minimum buffer width and wetland principal structure setback variances, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” 151 Papke Variance Requests Planning Case No. 2021-20 October 19, 2021 Page 2 proposed patio and screen porches. The applicant has stated that the intent of these variances is to allow them to construct a single-family home on a lot of record. The applicant has noted that the accessory structure wetland buffer setback variance for the driveway is necessary to allow them to expand the existing nonconforming driveway and access the parcel’s buildable area. They have indicated that they are also requesting variances from the City’s minimum buffer widths in order to allow for wetland averaging to shift the buildable area approximately 20 feet south with the goal of providing adequate area for a mound septic system. They have also stated that the proposed patio and screen porch variances are to provide areas to enjoy the lake view and that they are only within the required setbacks due to fact that the expanded buffers are present on the northern portion of the property. Finally, the applicant has observed that the parcel is lot of record, zoned and guided for single-family residential use. Staff agrees with the applicant’s position that the lot is a lot of record and that the applicant is entitled to reasonable use of the parcel, i.e. the construction of a single-family home. In these cases, it is staff’s practice to support the variances needed to remedy the practical difficulties preventing reasonable use of a parcel, but not to support variances that have their genesis in the structure’s proposed size, placement, or design. After reviewing the information provided by the applicant, staff has determined that the only variance necessary to allow for the construction of a single-family home on the parcel comparable to what is present on similarly zoned parcels within the area is the accessory structure wetland buffer setback variance requested to facilitate the extension of the nonconforming driveway. The other requested variances are the result of the size, placement, and configuration of the applicant’s proposed home. The property has a viable buildable area that conforms to all requirements of the City’s zoning ordinance, and the applicant has not demonstrated why the requested deviations from the City’s minimum buffer width and primary structure setbacks are required to allow for reasonable use of the parcel. For these reasons, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the requested accessory structure wetland buffer setback variance for the expansion of the driveway and deny the requested minimum wetland buffer width and primary structure wetland buffer setback variances for the proposed home. 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 VI. Wetland Protection Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District. Chapter 20, Article XI, “RR” Rural Residential Districts. Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Section 20-905. Single-Family Dwellings Chapter 20, Article XXIV, Division 2, Section 20-1122. Access and Driveways 152 Papke Variance Requests Planning Case No. 2021-20 October 19, 2021 Page 3 BACKGROUND Parcel On December 14, 1992, Ordinance 180 was passed amending the entirety of the City’s wetland protection ordinance, including amending Sec. 20-405(1) to read “Septic and soil absorption system must be setback a minimum of one hundred fifty (150) feet from ordinary high water mark of the wetland.” This meant that the parcel could not be built on without a variance. On October 10, 1993, Mr. Papke applied for a variance to place a septic system 75’ from the wetland’s ordinary high water level (OHWL). At that time, City Code required a 150’ setback. On November 22, 1993, the Board of Appeals and Adjustments moved to table the requested variance, citing a need for additional information. On December 13, 1993, the Board of Appeals and Adjustments voted unanimously to deny the variance request. On January 10, 1994, the City Council heard an appeal of the denial and voted 4-1 to direct the City Attorney to prepare Findings of Fact supporting the denial of the variance. On January 24, 1994, the City Council adopted the Findings of Fact supporting the denial of the variance request. The finding supported denial by stating: 1) Property can be developed without a variance by connecting to City sewer. 2) No unique factor of property justifying a variance. 3) Only purpose of variance was to avoid the cost of connecting to City sewer. 4) Poor soils mean septic had a high chance of failure, and a failed septic system close to Lake Minnewashta would cause significant harm to the lake. On March 10, 1994, the City received a letter from an attorney representing Mr. Papke requesting that the City either grant the requested variance or purchase the property at fair market value. On April 25, 1994, Ordinance 202 was passed amending Sec. 20-405(1) to read “Septic and soil absorption system must be setback a minimum of seventy-five (75) feet from the ordinary high water mark of the wetland.” This meant that the property was buildable without the need for a variance. On May 29, 2001, Ordinance 320 was passed establishing principal and accessory structure setbacks from wetland buffers. This meant that due to driveways technically being accessory structures, a variance would be required to build on the property. On June 24, 2021, Mr. Papke met with staff to go over what would be needed to apply for a variance to build on his property. Staff explained the process and what documentation would be required. 153 Papke Variance Requests Planning Case No. 2021-20 October 19, 2021 Page 4 On July 13, 2021, Mr. Papke met with staff to verify that he had the necessary documents to apply for a variance by the July 16, 2021 deadline. Staff indicated several additional exhibits would be required, including a full septic design, and agreed to extend the submittal timeline to July 21, 2021 to provide time for the revisions. On July 20, 2021, Mr. Papke, citing an inability to provide the required septic design by the July 16, 2021 deadline, withdrew his variance application. On August 6, 2021, Mr. Papke submitted a complete variance application. On August 18, 2021, the City sent Mr. Papke a letter stating that due to the complexities of the site and the need to solicit and incorporate comments from multiple other agencies, the City would need to extend the review timeline, as allowed by Minnesota Statute § 15.99 subdivision 3(f), to complete the review. Staff informed him that due to the extension the public hearing would be held on October 19, 2021 rather than September 7, 2021. Note: Staff believes the property would have been buildable without a variance before December of 1992 and between April of 1994 and May of 2001. SITE CONSTRAINTS Zoning Overview The property is zoned Rural Residential District (RR), is located within the Shoreland Management District, and is a peninsula surrounded by wetlands classified as preserve. This zoning classification requires a minimum lot size of 2.5 acres, 50-foot front and rear yard setbacks, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, a shoreland setback of 75 feet from the OHWL, and limits parcels to a maximum of 20 percent lot cover. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height. The wetlands require the establishment of a 40-foot permanent buffer strip and there is a 40-foot primary structure setback and 20-foot accessory structure setback from this buffer strip. The site does not have access to municipal sewer or water service. The lot is a nonconforming 2.12 acres (92,347 sq. ft.). Currently, the only improvement on the site is an existing nonconforming gravel driveway. Bluff Creek Corridor The parcel is not encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District. 154 Papke Variance Requests Planning Case No. 2021-20 October 19, 2021 Page 5 Bluff Protection There are is not a bluff present on the property. Floodplain Overlay Portions of the property are located within the AE Flood Zone (1% annual chance) and the entire property is located within the 0.2 percent annual chance Flood Zone. The house and other structures are not located within the AE Flood Zone. The proposed septic site is also clear of the AE Flood Zone the applicant is proposing and staff is requiring a septic design that meets the requirements of Sec. 20-382(2). 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 water-oriented accessory structure (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. Vegetative clearing is also restricted with the 37.5-foot shoreland impact zone, save limited clearing to for a view, access, and allowed facilities. This is limited to a section 30 percent the width of the lot or 30 feet wide, whichever is less. *Since property is zone RR the more restrictive 20 percent limit would apply. Wetland Protection The property is surrounded by a wetland classified as preserve. This classification requires a 40-foot wide permanent buffer strip with a 40-foot primary structure setback and a 20-foot accessory structure setback from the buffer strip. NEIGHBORHOOD 155 Papke Variance Requests Planning Case No. 2021-20 October 19, 2021 Page 6 Unplatted The parcel is located on a peninsula in Lake Minnewashta which is split between two owners. This parcel is an unplatted lot and the parcel to the east is an outlot of the Crimson Bay subdivision. Given its location on a peninsula, the parcel is simultaneously isolated due to the lack of any adjacent homes and highly visible due to its location on the lake. The nearest two subdivisions are Crimson Bay, zoned RR, to the east and Cedar Crest, zoned Single-Family Residential (RSF), to the west. To the south of the property is the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum. The neighborhood is a mix of single-family homes on both large and standard sized lots and open spaces. Variances within 500 feet: There are no known variances within 500 feet of the subject site. ANALYSIS Buildable Area The applicant is proposing using wetland buffer averaging to shift the parcel’s buildable area approximately 20 feet to the south. Buffer averaging is a mechanism whereby different sections of the wetland buffer have different widths, but the area of the wetland buffer remains the same. While the Minnehaha Creek Watershed permits the use of buffer averaging as part of its typical permitting process, the City’s wetland protection ordinance does not. In order to use wetland buffer averaging, the applicant would need to receive a variance from the City’s 40-foot minimum buffer width requirement for wetlands classified as preserve. The applicant is requesting an 18.5’ minimum buffer width setback variance to allow for a 22.5-foot wide buffer along the southern portion of the property and is proposing a 61.1-foot wide buffer along the north to compensate. The applicant has not provided calculations showing that the total area of the proposed buffer would equal or exceed the area protected by the City’s minimum buffer width; however, the City Code does not directly require a square footage of protected area and the applicant would need to demonstrate this as part of getting the buffer averaging approved by the Watershed District. In their variance narrative, the applicant states that buffer averaging is required to provide an adequate area for a mound septic system, and that they were advised that the City has approved 156 Papke Variance Requests Planning Case No. 2021-20 October 19, 2021 Page 7 the use of buffer averaging in the past. While the applicant is correct that the City has permitted the use of buffer averaging in the past, its use has been confined to subdivisions, planned unit developments, and site plan approvals. Generally, the City has approved wetland buffer averaging as part of larger projects where it allows for increased protection for more sensitive areas within a development, facilitates the dedication of areas for permanent preservation, or is required to create a viable building pad and/or lots, again typically in exchange for protecting other more ecologically valuable portions of the site. Staff has evaluated the documents that the applicant has submitted and does not agree that buffer averaging is necessary to allow for the proposed septic system. Septic systems are not structures and may be constructed within the required wetland buffer, and the applicant’s proposed averaged buffer would actually increase the portion of the septic system located within the buffer. The only impact that the proposed buffer averaging would have on the selected septic site is that shifting the buildable area 20 feet south increases the distance from the closest point of the buildable area from 15 feet to 20 feet from the edge of the shown septic area. Since septic system soil treatment and dispersal areas need to be setback 20 feet from the home, the applicant would likely not be able to build right up to required 40-foot wetland primary structure buffer setback while meeting the required 20-foot septic system setback. This difficulty could be resolved through a revised home design rather than a variance from either the required wetland buffer or septic system setback. Many of the variances that the applicant is requesting are the result of the proposed home’s design. The footprint of the home that the applicant is proposing covers virtually the entire area of the property that is outside of the 40-foot wetland primary structure buffer setback created by 157 Papke Variance Requests Planning Case No. 2021-20 October 19, 2021 Page 8 the proposed buffer averaging. The result is a house with a 4,277-square foot footprint. Within this footprint is a 1,989-square foot garage (51 foot by 39 foot) and approximately 3,250 square feet of living space (2,150-square foot main level and 1,100-square foot second level). In addition to the garage and livable area of the house, the applicant is proposing a patio and two screen porches. The City Code subjects these items to the same 40-foot principle structure wetland buffer setback as the home, as screen porches are defined as architectural elements of the home and the first 10 feet of patios are considered integral to the home. This means the porches would require 10-foot and 12-foot principle structure wetland buffer setback variances and the patio would require a 16-foot principle structure wetland buffer setback variance. The primary question in evaluating the requested variances, is are they necessary for the applicant to have reasonable use of the parcel. In order to determine what constitutes reasonable use, staff examines minimum requirements of the City Code and the surrounding neighborhood. The minimum area and garage requirements for single-family homes established by the City Code is shown on the table above. While the City has never taken the position that residents seeking variances should be limited to building houses no larger than the bare minimum allowed by Code, the applicant’s proposed home footprint is over three times the established minimum. To provide some additional context, according to the 2020 census, the median size of a completed single-family house in 2020 was 2,261 square feet. The applicant’s proposed 3,250 square feet of living area is significantly larger than the median size of a newly constructed home, and could be further increased by constructing a larger second level. Another element the City uses as a stand in for reasonable home size is the requirement within the subdivision ordinance that for lots where the house plan of future homes is unknown, a 60- foot by 60-foot building pad shall be used. This building pad represents the assumption that a reasonably sized home and its accessory structures can be accommodated within a 3,600-square foot buildable area. Again, the applicant’s proposed 4,277-square foot footprint exceeds the buildable area that residential lots are required to provide to ensure they accommodate a single- family home and accessory structures. A final metric for determining reasonable use is to look at home sizes for similarly zoned parcels in the surrounding area. In this case, the lots of the Crimson Bay subdivision provide a reasonable base for comparison as they are also zoned RR, riparian, and have an average lot size of 2.14 acres. Staff utilized aerial photos to calculate the combined footprint of the homes and attached garages within the Crimson Bay subdivision. Staff found that the largest building footprint was 4,633 square feet and smallest building footprint was 2,660 square feet. The average building footprint of the five homes was 3,729 square feet and the median building footprint was 3,590 square feet. These numbers are inflated due to the fact that they include all 158 Papke Variance Requests Planning Case No. 2021-20 October 19, 2021 Page 9 roofed areas of the principle building, i.e. eaves and porches, which are not included in the applicant’s building footprint total. Despite this, it is worth noting that the applicant’s proposed 4,277-square foot footprint, not including porches or eaves, is larger than the average footprint of buildings on similar sized and zoned lots in the area. Finally, if the applicant’s proposed porches are included in their building footprint, the total size would increase to 4,715 square feet and the footprint would be larger than that of the largest structure in the Crimson Bay subdivision. As the applicant has noted, the proposed building footprint, minus the porches, fits within the property’s required 40-foot wetland buffer setbacks. Additionally, based on the surveys provided by the applicant, it does not appear that the use of buffer averaging significantly alters the size of the lot’s buildable area. While some changes to the proposed house may need to be made to accommodate the required 20-foot septic system setback and more triangular northwest section of the building pad, the resulting building footprint would still be in line with what is present on comparably zoned and sized parcels in the area and would still exceed the minimum area standards established by the City Code. In order to approve a variance, the City must be able to find both that the applicant has practical difficulties in complying with the zoning code and proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning code and that the plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. In this case, staff believes that the applicant can design and construct a reasonably sized single-family home on the parcel without the requested minimum buffer width or principle structure wetland buffer setback variances, and that the need for the requested variances stems primarily from the design and footprint of the applicant’s proposed home. For the above reasons, staff recommends denial of these variances. Driveway Expansion 159 Papke Variance Requests Planning Case No. 2021-20 October 19, 2021 Page 10 Access to the parcel is provided by a nonconforming gravel driveway that varies between approximately 10 and 15 feet in width on a neck that varies between approximately 22 and 30 feet in width. The southernmost portion of the driveway appears to lay within the required minimum five-foot side yard setback and for most of its length the driveway is within the required 40-foot wetland buffer and 20-foot accessory structure wetland buffer setback. The driveway is a nonconforming structure and the applicant may continue using it in its current configuration without a variance; however, the applicant is proposing to expand and alter, including replacing the gravel with a paved surface, the existing driveway in order to provide access to the proposed house. Since the City Code defines driveways as accessory structures, the expanded portion requires a variance from the 20-foot wetland accessory structure buffer setback. The applicant has noted that there is no practical way to provide access to the lot’s buildable area without either realigning or expanding the driveway. They have also observed that the parcel is atypical in that it is virtually surrounded by wetlands, meaning there is no possible way to provide access to the parcel without infringing on a required wetland accessory structure buffer setback. Finally, they make the case that driveway access is necessary to allow for reasonable use of the property, i.e. the construction of single-family home. Staff has evaluated the applicant’s proposed driveway configuration and agrees that they have worked hard to minimize the deviation from the existing nonconforming driveway, minimize the size of the proposed driveway, and that the proposed expansion is necessary to provide adequate access to the proposed buildable area. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the requested wetland accessory structure buffer setback variance. Septic System The applicant is not requesting any variances to accommodate the placement of the septic system. The Engineering Department has concluded that hooking up to municipal sanitary sewer is impractical due to the impact that it would have on the surrounding natural habitats and associated costs since the nearest public sanitary sewer main is over 1,100 feet away. The inability to utilize the City’s sanitary sewer system means that the applicant must utilize a septic system. While numerous residents have reached out to the City to express concern over locating a septic system on a peninsula surrounded by environmentally sensitive wetlands, the City does not have the ability to deny a permit for an appropriately designed septic system that meets all of the setbacks required by ordinance. In order to provide an increased level of protection for the lake and wetlands, the applicant’s designer is proposing a septic system that meets the criteria for septic systems within a flood plain, even though the system is located outside of the AE flood zone. Since no variances are 160 Papke Variance Requests Planning Case No. 2021-20 October 19, 2021 Page 11 being requested for the septic system, it is the City’s expectation that the final design meet the requirements of all relevant rules and regulations as well as all of the setbacks required by the City Code. Highway 5 The parcel is expected to be impacted by the Arboretum Area Transportation Plan (AATP), adopted by the City in February 2021 and by Carver County in March 2021. This plan is partially funded with preliminary design work scheduled to begin in 2022, and the improvements are anticipated to occur between 2027 and 2031. This plan includes expanding Highway 5 to a four-lane roadway and a proposed bridge across from the subject parcel. MnDOT has indicated that the planned expansion would result in the property’s access being converted to a right in/right out (access from the east and exit to the west), and Carver County has noted the parcel may lose access entirely as part of the planned improvements, hence it being identified for full property acquisition in the AATP. In their responses to the City’s interagency review request, both Carver County and MnDOT have indicated that the applicant will be building at their own risk and asked that the applicant be made aware of the plans for the area. In response to Carver County’s memo, the applicant has stated they are aware of the proposed plans but asked staff to note that the proposed plans are unfunded and not approved and are a concept recommendation and vision subject to change. They have further noted that the County to date has declined to acquire the property. Numerous residents have expressed concern about the safety of the property’s access to Highway 5 and how building on the site will impact the proposed highway expansion. While these are valid concerns, the access is preexisting and Highway 5 is not a City street. MnDOT currently has jurisdiction of Highway 5 and has not indicated that they oppose the variance. MnDOT has noted that the applicant should be aware of the traffic and noise generated by Highway 5 and that they will not expend funds for noise mitigation for the property in its current condition or when Highway 5 is expanded in the future, which they have stated is the responsibility of the applicant. While the above provides useful context for the discussion, it does not alter the property owner’s rights with regards to the parcel. The lot is a lot of record zoned for single-family residential use, and the applicant is entitled to reasonable use of the parcel. The City must evaluate the variance request based upon the criteria for granting a variance established by the City Code, and cannot use the potential for future condemnation as grounds for denying a requested variance. Impact on Neighborhood 161 Papke Variance Requests Planning Case No. 2021-20 October 19, 2021 Page 12 The property is not near any other buildable lots and there are no neighbors in the traditional sense who would be impacted by the construction of a single- family home on the parcel; however, by virtue of being located on a peninsula jutting into a recreational development lake, the proposed structure would be readily visible by individuals enjoying the lake. That being said, the applicant is not requesting a variance from the lake’s 75-foot shoreland setback or zoning district’s 35-foot height limit. This means that the home would not have a visual impact significantly different than other homes on riparian properties. Since the lake is classified as a recreational development lake, the presence of homes along the shore is a typical and expected use, and would not be out of character with the area. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments approve the wetland accessory structure buffer setback variance for the extension of a driveway, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and deny the requested wetland minimum buffer width and wetland principal structure setback variances, and adopt the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. 1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction. 2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed building/structure meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review. 3. A recently conducted geotechnical evaluation of the building area shall be provided with the building permit application. 4. The applicant shall provide plans that meet Sec. 20-1122 of the City of Chanhassen Municipal Code for review and approval prior to any site improvements. 5. Any work that affects MnDOT right-of-way must obtain the appropriate permit from MnDOT prior to any site improvements. 6. The installation of a private well on the site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Health, and all applicable permits shall be obtained prior to any site improvements. 7. A survey showing proposed tree removal and preservation and an inventory of all trees on site 6 inches dbh and larger shall be submitted to the City. 8. A minimum of one tree (2.5”caliper) is required to be planted. 9. Must apply for and receive all relevant permits and approvals from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to any site improvements. 162 Papke Variance Requests Planning Case No. 2021-20 October 19, 2021 Page 13 10. The property owner shall have sole responsibility for assessing the existing and potential future noise situation and taking the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact from any highway noise. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Partial Approval) 2. Variance Document (Partial Approval) 3. Development Review Application 4. Variance Request Narrative 5. Variance Request Justification 6. Survey with Buffer Averaging 7. Survey without Buffer Averaging 8. Survey with Septic Design 9. Proposed House Plans 10. Landscaping and Tree Preservation Memo 11. WRC Memo 12. Engineering Memo 13. Carver County Memo 14. MnDOT Memo 15. Emails from Residents 16. Papke Response to Carver County 17. Affidavit of Mailing g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-20 papke parcel - lake minnewashta peninsula resubmittal\staff report_papke parcel_var.docx 163 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (PARTIAL APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of Jeff and Deb Papke for variances from the minimum wetland buffer width, wetland principle structure buffer setback, and wetland accessory structure buffer setback to facilitate constructing a single-family home on a property zoned Rural Residential District (RR) – Planning Case 2021-20. On October 19, 2021, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Rural Residential District (RR). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. The legal description of the property is: All that part of Government Lot Five (5), Section (8), Township One Hundred Sixteen (116), Range Twenty-Three (23), lying Northerly of the Northerly right-of-way line of Minnesota State Highway Number Five (5), except that portion thereof platted as “Cedar Crest”, according to the recorded plat thereof in the Office of the County Recorder, Carver County, Minnesota. Together with an appurtenant 30.00-foot wide perpetual non-exclusive roadway easement for vehicular and pedestrial traffic over that portion of Outlot A, Crimson Bay, Carver County, Minnesota, legally described as follows: Beginning at the southwesterly corner of said Outlot A; thence northerly along the westerly line a distance of 350.00 feet and there terminating. The easterly line of said easement shall be prolonged or shortened to terminate on the southerly line of said Outlot A. 3. 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 property in question is zoned Rural Residential (RR) and guided in the 2040 Land Use Plan for residential low density development. Single-family dwellings are a permitted use in the RR district. It is in harmony with the intent of the zoning code and 164 2 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to allow the owners of a parcel zoned and guided for single-family dwellings to construct a single-family home. The requested variance from the property’s wetland accessory structure buffer setback for the expansion of the driveway is necessary to allow for access to the site’s buildable area and the construction of a single- family home. The variances requested from the City’s minimum buffer width and wetland principle structure buffer setback are not consistent or in harmony with the City’s goal of providing the maximum possible protection to the City’s sensitive environmental features. 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 construction of a single-family home on the parcel is a reasonable use and is not possible solely due to the fact that the required wetland accessory structure buffer setback prohibits altering or expanding the existing driveway. For this reason a variance from the wetland accessory structure buffer setback should be approved to allow the applicant reasonable use of the parcel. The requested variances from the City’s minimum buffer width and wetland principle structure setback are the result of the applicant proposing a home that does not fit within the property’s buildable area. Based at the footprints of homes situated on comparably sized and zoned properties to the east, the minimum buildable area required for new lots during subdivision, the City’s minimum standards for single-family homes, and the average size of new home reported by the 2020 census, the City has determined that a home providing reasonable use of the property could be constructed within the building pad allowed by the City Code. Since reasonable use of the property can be obtained without these variances, they should not be granted. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding:The plight of the landowner with regards to their inability to extend the driveway without a wetland accessory structure buffer setback variance is the result of the unique circumstances created by the parcel being a peninsula surrounded by wetland classified as preserve. The variances requested from the City’s minimum buffer width standard and principle structure setbacks have their genesis in the size, location, and configuration of the applicant’s proposed home. The parcel has a viable building area which could accommodate a home of a different size, location, and/or configuration without the need for these variances. 165 3 e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The property is not near any other buildable lots and there are no neighbors in the traditional sense who would be impacted by the construction of a single-family home on the parcel; however, by virtue of being located on a peninsula jutting into a recreational development lake, the proposed structure would be readily visible by individuals enjoying the lake. The construction of a single-family home on a previously undeveloped parcel will necessarily be a change; however, allowing the construction of a single-family home on an appropriately zoned parcel would be consistent with the intended character of the locality. In order to minimize the impact to the sensitive environmental features on the parcel, the degradation of which could impact the essential character of the locality, only the wetland accessory structure buffer setback needed to accommodate the driveway expansion is approved. All other elements of the home will be required to adhere to the requirements of the City Code. 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 #2021-20, dated October 19, 2021, prepared by MacKenzie Young-Walters et al. is incorporated herein. DECISION The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the wetland accessory structure buffer setback variance for the extension of a driveway, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and denies the requested wetland minimum buffer width and wetland principal structure setback variances. 1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction. 2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building/structure meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review. 3. A recently conducted geotechnical evaluation of the building area shall be provided with the building permit application. 4. The applicant shall provide plans that meet Sec. 20-1122 of the City of Chanhassen Municipal Code for review and approval prior to any site improvements. 5. Any work that affects MnDOT right-of-way must obtain the appropriate permit from MnDOT prior to any site improvements. 6. The installation of a private well on the site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Health, and all applicable permits shall be obtained prior to any site improvements. 7. A survey showing proposed tree removal and preservation and an inventory of all trees on site 6-inches dbh and larger shall be submitted to the City. 8. A minimum of one tree (2.5”caliper) is required to be planted. 9. Must apply for and receive all relevant permits and approvals from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to any site improvements. 166 4 10. The property owner shall have sole responsibility for assessing the existing noise situation and taking the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact from any highway noise. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 19th day of October, 2021. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-20 papke parcel - lake minnewashta peninsula resubmittal\findings of fact and decision papke parcel (partial approval).docx 167 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2021-20 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a wetland accessory structure buffer setback variance for the extension of a driveway, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and denies the requested wetland minimum buffer width and wetland principal structure setback variances. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as: All that part of Government Lot Five (5), Section (8), Township One Hundred Sixteen (116), Range Twenty-Three (23), lying Northerly of the Northerly right-of-way line of Minnesota State Highway Number Five (5), except that portion thereof platted as “Cedar Crest”, according to the recorded plat thereof in the Office of the County Recorder, Carver County, Minnesota. Together with an appurtenant 30.00-foot wide perpetual non-exclusive roadway easement for vehicular and pedestrial traffic over that portion of Outlot A, Crimson Bay, Carver County, Minnesota, legally described as follows: Beginning at the southwesterly corner of said Outlot A; thence northerly along the westerly line a distance of 350.00 feet and there terminating. The easterly line of said easement shall be prolonged or shortened to terminate on the southerly line of said Outlot A. 3. Conditions.The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction. 168 2 2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed the building/structure meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review. 3. A recently conducted geotechnical evaluation of the building area shall be provided with the building permit application. 4. The applicant shall provide plans that meet Sec. 20-1122 of the City of Chanhassen Municipal Code for review and approval prior to any site improvements. 5. Any work that affects MnDOT right-of-way must obtain the appropriate permit from MnDOT prior to any site improvements. 6. The installation of a private well on the site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Health, and all applicable permits shall be obtained prior to any site improvements. 7. A survey showing proposed tree removal and preservation and an inventory of all trees on site 6 inches dbh and larger shall be submitted to the City. 8. A minimum of one tree (2.5”caliper) is required to be planted. 9. Must apply for and receive all relevant permits and approvals from the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District prior to any site improvements. 10. The property owner shall have sole responsibility for assessing the existing noise situation and taking the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact from any highway noise. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. 169 3 Dated: October 19, 2021 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL)Elise Ryan, Mayor AND: Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2021 by Elise Ryan, Mayor, and Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-20 papke parcel - lake minnewashta peninsula resubmittal\variance document 21-20.docx 170 COMTU'{ITY DEVELOPME T DEPART ENT Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ptione: {952) 227-1 'l0O / Fax: (952) 227-11'tO Submittal Date: CITY OF CHAI{HASSHI{ APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PC Date:..*n n /fl l>l SGDay *o***lo/ e lU Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply) (Rerer to t p aw@Friate Afilicdion O7€,cnis, {ot Gquhed submilta/ inldtrcfnn that aud @m8rry this aNi@rion) I Comprehensive Plan Amendment fl Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers ..... ! Conditional Use Permit (C UP)n Single-Family ResidenceE att ofrers...... n Minor tunendment to existing PUD ! All Others...... D Sbn aan Review................ I Site Plan Review (SPR) E Administrative E Commerciaulndustrial Distficts' $600 ! Subdivision (SUB)$100 n Create 3 lots or less .................-.,...................$300E Create over 3 |ots.....,.................$600 + $15 per lot Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area:( thousand square feet) lndude numb€r of exilrlip €rnployees: 'lndude nunber of @,v emplqEes:fl Residential Disttts-......................------.SSOO Plus $5 per dwelling unit ( units) f] Property Owners' List wihin 500' (C)ty to geneEte after p{e-apdbation meel,og) E Escrow for Recording Documents (cfreck all that E Conditional Use Permit ntrE Lot Line Adjustnent....................... E rinat P|at.........,............ (lncludes $450 escrow for attomey costs)' 'Additixlal esctow may be lBquil€d for o0rer applicatioos through ttE devBlofrn€nt cont'aci- E Vacaion of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC)........ $300 (Additio.El lecording Ees Inay apdy) E Variance (VAR)....,.....,.,......,.................,.............. $200 Wefland Alteration Pemit WAP)tr Singls.Family Residence.. !g!E: t{hen muhipl8 appllcauons are proca6$d conqrflrndy, the approDriate ftG rhdt be chaged for each applica6on, { J addresses) $3 per address $50 per document $325 $425 $1oo $500 $150 $100 $500 $300 $1so $150 $700E tnterim Use Permit (lUP) I ln conjunctlrn with Single-Family Residence.. $325D At oarers...... -..-.....-.......... $425 E Rezoning (REz) E Phnned Unit Development (PUD) ..............,... $750 $1s0 $275 $1oo $500 trtr Vacation Mete6 & Bounds SubdMsion (3 docs.) m Use PermitE VarianceE Easements ( easements) f! Site Plan Agreement E Wefland Afteration PermitE oeeos$, , --,TorAL FEE: --l .>c q-{" Section 2: Required lnformation Descrip[on of Propqsl; Allow; continuation of existing driveway for access to house, house setback to be averaged with 20'S and 60' N, west & north porchs in setback. Property Address or Location: Parcet*A 25.0080200 Legal Dessiption:Pa.t of Govt lot 5, Sec I Twnsp 16, Range 23, Carvey County MN Total Acreage:2.50 Wellands Present? El Yes E tto Present Zoning:Single-Family Residential District (Rff Requested Zoning:Selecl One Present Land Use Desig n"6on. Residential Large Lot Request€d tand Use Desbnatio"' S#dbAUANHASSEN...-_.RECEVED-- Existing Use of Property Echeck box if separate narrative is attached.AUG 0 6 2021 u 171 Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant lnformation APPLICANT OTHER TIiAN PROPERW OIYNER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant represent to have obtainod authorization fom the property owner to file this appliceton. I agree to be bound by conditons of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. f this applicatbn has not been signed by the property owner, I have attacfied sepaft e documentation of tull legal capacity to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regErding any matter pertaining to this application. I will ke€p mysef irformed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this applicetion. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fee, feasibility studi6s, etc. with an estimat€ prior to any authorizalion to proceed with the study. I certify tfiat the infomation ard exhibib submitted are true and conect. Name:Contact Phone:Address: City/Statezip: Email: SiJnature: PROPERTY OWttlER: ln signing this apdication, l, as prop€rty owner, have tull legal capacity to, and herBby do, authorze the filing of thb applicatftrn. I understand lhat condilions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to objec-t at the hearings or during the app€al p€rbds- I will ko€p m!6elf informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of lhis 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 cartry that the information and exhibitls submifted are fue and correct. Name:Jefi aM Deb Papke Contact: Phone:Address:6180 Cardinal Drive Shorewood, MN 553[]1 (763) 300-s074 Cell: Fax: Cell: Fax: Cell: Fax: Jefr PPapke (763) 3m-s074 City/Statezip: Email:papke@gmail.com Signature: PROJECT EIGII{EER (if applkuble) Name: Address: Contact Phone: City/Statelzip: Email: This applicalion must b€ comd€ted in lUll and must be accdnpanied by ail informatioo and plans rsquirBd by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing lhis apdbatiln, r€fer to the apgopriata Apdicaton Checklist and confer with the Planning Oepartnent b detemine the specific ordimnce and applicable procedural EquirBrnents and ie€s. A detemination of completeness of lhe application shall be made within 15 business days o, application submittal. A written notice of eppli(5bn defici€ncies shall be mailed to lhe applicant within 15 business days of apdicatbn. Section 4: Notification lnformation VUho should recalve coples of stafr reporE? n Property owner Via: E Email E Mailed Paper CopyE Applicant Ma: E Email E] wtaileo Paper copyI Engineer Via: E Email f] Maihd Paper Copytr Otrlor Ma: fl Email E uanea Paporcopy 'Other Contact lnformation: Name: Address: City/StateZip: Email: INSTRUCTTONS TO APPLICANT: Complote all necessary form fields, tlen selec-t SAVE FORM to save a copy to your device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required docaments and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital copy to the city for processing. SAVE FOR SUB IT FORH 94". 6124120 PRINT FORU 172 )uly 16,2O2L v.fE8!fflBAssEil .tJG 06 2021 Variance request for papke property on Lake Minnewasht ii :SEN pl-Alllllllc DEPJ This site is a lot of record. ln 1994, it was acquired by Jeff and Debra Papke with the intentions of building a single-family residence in the future. ln conjunction with the acquisition of the property we obtained a letter from then current attorney of the City of Chanhassen that states the property was a buildable lot. Since the acquisition we have consistently used the property for recreational purposet i.e., boatin& swimming, picnics. We have reached our retirement years and are now able to move fonnard with our plan of building on our lake property. This is a large lot of approximately 2.2 acres on a peninsula on the south side of Lake Minnewashta. Another small lot exists east of our property, but is not a buildable lot. There are no close neighbors to our property. ln preparing for the construction process, we have worked with a team consisting of environmental enSineers, surveyors, septic system designer (licensed Advanced Designer) and architects to design a structure that fits within the buildable footprint. ln that effort we have had to change our plans from a single level house to a two-story structure to fit that area. The footprint ofthe house structure falls within all setbacks as prescribed by the City of Chanhassen. We are not encroaching on any wetlands. However, to actually access the property, and allow for an adequate area for a septic system, and improve the functionality ofthe home, we are requesting the following; 1) We are requesting variance forthe continuation ofthe existing driveway to access the house site and access to the garaSe. We have accessed the property and parked in this area for decades but now find that this area would be considered an accessory structure. This area is an extension of existing driveway to the structure that will provide driveway and parking covering of approximately 2,950 square feet that will cross the setback spelled out on Sec 2G904 regarding accessory structure setbacks. Without this variance there would be no access to the structure from the existing driveway. 2) We are requesting an averaging ofthe wetland buffers. This property does not have access to city sewer. ln an on-site meeting in May, Matt Unmacht (Chanhassen) and Ben Carlson (BWSR) both suggested that we request a variance to average the buffert statin8 that the City of Chanhassen has approved similar variance requests. To provide for the best areas for onsite septic treatment we are requestint averaging of buffer setback and shifting the house site 20 feet to the south. This provides a combined setback and buffer of 6O feet to the south and a combined setback and buffer of 100 feet to the north, which is the lakeside, rather than 80 feet in each direction. This averaging of buffers is necessary to provide for an adequate area for a mound septic system. we have been in contact with and are in the process of submitting an application to the Minnewashta Watershed District as they are the governing atency which would determine ifthe buffers may be averaged. We are planningtoadd fill to raise the structure above the existing grade and blend the septic mound system into the available landscaping space. The actual septic plan has been submitted to Eric Tessman for review. The permit application will be submitted with the application forthe building permit. A drawing of the septic system is included. 3) We would like to have porch areas added to the structure to enjoy the lake views. We are requesting a slight projection of porch A of 190 square feet and porch B of 24 square feet. These areas are highlighted in the attachment. Additional information is included under 2. ln Section Criteria for Granting a Variance. 4) We would like a patio on the lake side of the house adjacent to the structure, approximately 300 sq ft. lf averaging of the buffers is allowed the patio and porch A will be 89 feet from the wetlands. The city requires total of 80 feet from wetlands (consisting of 40 foot s€tback and ttO foot buffer) from wetlands. 173 Criteria for granting a Variance We believe we are in compliance with a general conditions for Sranting a variance, specifically: 1. 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. This lot is zoned for single ftmily residential use. We are proposing to use it for that purpose. ln the Chanhassen Comprehensive plan Chapter 2 Land Use both the 2030 and 2O4O Land Use Maps support this use by showing the lot shall be used for Residential Low Density. These Land Use Maps are attached and are also available on the Chanhassen website. 2. When there are practical difficulties in complying with zoning ordinances. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with granting Of a variance, means that the property owner propos€s to use the prop€rty in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter. We are requesting variances to use the property in a reasonable manner consistent with this section, i.e., we need to be able to access structures from the existing driveway. we have significantly altered our house design to be able to only have a small number of variances. By allowing averaging ofthe buffert we will be able to place a septic system within zoning and setback requirements. lf averaging of the buffers is allowed the patio and porch A will be 89 feet from the wetlands. The city requires total of 80 feet from wetlands (consisting of 40 foot setback and 40 foot buffer) from wetlands. The granting of the variance clearly would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other Iand' 3. That the purpose ofthe variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. The purpose of the variation is to allow the property owner to build a single-family home. lt is not based on desires to increase value or income potential, nor is it based on desires to avoid additional costs. We simply wish to build a single-family home on our lot which is zoned for such use. 4. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property and not created by the landowner. The hardship in this case is created by the physical surroundings ofthe site. Areas where we have accessed for years are categorized as accessory structures. Lake Minnewashta and wetlands surround most ofthe site and the setback requirements limit the buildable space. Again, we have worked with a team consisting of environmental engineers, architect, surveyor and a licensed Advanced septic DesiSner to desiSn a structure and septic system that provide minimal impact to the surroundings' 5. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. We are not encroaching on any wetlands. We are maintaining setbacks and averaged buffers. The applicable locality entities consist of single-family homeS which is what we are proposinS. Granting the variance does not alter the essential character ofthe locality. Additional information: The impervious surfaces including the existing driveway, proposed structure, accessory structures and all requested variances will account for 12.6% impervious coverage ofthe property, which is well below the 20% limit. Detailed drawings attached. Drawing of the structure as placed with OHWL, wetland delineation, 40/ setback and 40/buffer. 174 Drawing of structure with 2d averaged shift south providing 6d south and 10d north. First and second level floor plans with details. Garage parking provides for enclosed boat, RV and vehicle storage. Elevations have not been completed but the structure will be 3G34' tall. Drawing of the septic system on site. Respectfully Jeff and Deb Papke iipa oke @ema il.com 763300s074 doaDke54@Email.com 7533008713 175 176 177 178 179 180 MEMORANDUM TO:MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner, AICP FROM:Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist DATE:September 7, 2021 SUBJ:Papke Parcel, Variances from Wetland and Yard Setback The property has a number of larger trees on site with a thick understory of young trees and large shrubs. The center portion of the parcel has been cleared and vegetation is concentrated around the edge of upland area. The surveys submitted for the variance request does not show existing trees therefore staff cannot comment on proposed tree removal or preservation. A survey showing proposed tree removal and preservation and an inventory of all trees on site 6” dbh and larger will need to be submitted to the city as required by city code. Clear cutting the parcel is not allowed. A minimum of one tree will be required to be planted. Recommendation: 1. A survey showing proposed tree removal and preservation and an inventory of all trees on site 6” dbh and larger shall be submitted to the city. 2. A minimum of one tree (2.5”caliper) is required to be planted. 181 Memorandum To: MacKenzie Young Walters, Associate Planner From: Matt Unmacht, Water Resources Coordinator CC: Erik Henriksen, Project Engineer, Ryan Pinkalla, Water Resources Technician Charlie Howley, Public Works Director Date: 09/09/2021 Re: Planning Case No. 21-20 – Papke Parcel (Lake Minnewashta Peninsula) BACKGROUND The Water Resources Department has reviewed the Variance submittal for the Papke Property – Lake Minnewashta Peninsula. The applicant is requesting wetland setback variances for a driveway, porches, and a patio, potentially a septic system variance, and requesting the use of wetland buffer averaging. The City’s wetland protection ordinance (Chapter 20, Article 20-VI) states that “Wetlands help maintain water quality, serve to reduce flooding and erosion, act as sources of food and habitat for a variety of fish and wildlife, and are an integral part of the community's natural landscape. Wetlands provide the aesthetic benefits of open space and can be used to provide a natural separation of land uses. It is the intent of this article to establish a policy of sound stewardship through coordination of regulations that conserve, protect, enhance, and result in the no net loss of these environmentally sensitive resources. In addition, it is the intent of the city to promote the restoration of degraded wetlands…The intent of this article is to avoid alteration and destruction of wetlands. When this is not feasible, mitigation must be provided to recreate the function and value of the lost or altered wetlands.” The City’s wetland buffer ordinance exists to protect these wetlands from degradation. Development directly adjacent to a wetland can negatively impact habitat and water quality due to stormwater runoff, erosion, and flooding, among other factors. Due to the important role that these ordinances plays in 182 protecting the quality of the City’s natural resources, the City should take extra caution when reviewing potential wetland and buffer variances. The wetlands on this property discharge directly to Lake Minnewashta. Lake Minnewashta is not listed as impaired for nutrients by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, however, intense development in areas that drain to the lake, and especially in areas that are in such close proximity to the lake, could lead to its listing in the future. As such, extra care and review should be undertaken on any project that proposed development that could impact Lake Minnewashta. On April 20, 2021, the applicant submitted a complete wetland delineation report, which identified one wetland on the property. This wetland was classified as combination of wetland types 3/6/2. On May 11, 2021, an on-site TEP review of the wetland delineation was conducted. The TEP review resulted in changes to the wetland boundaries, but not the wetland types. An updated wetland delineation figure was submitted on May 12, 2021 (see photo below, delineation boundary in green). The wetland delineation with this updated wetland boundary was formally approved on May 24, 2021. This approved wetland delineation allowed the developer to determine precisely where the wetland boundary and subsequent wetland buffers and setbacks would be and plan accordingly. 183 This wetland is classified, per the City’s MnRAM database, as a Preserve wetland. This means that this is a high quality wetland and that a permanent buffer, from the edge of the wetland, must be established. This buffer must be 40-feet in width. In addition, principal structures (homes, patios, garages, etc.) must then be set back 40-feet from the buffer edge, and accessory structures (driveway, shed, boathouse, etc.) must be setback 20-feet from the buffer edge. The applicant is proposing to use wetland buffer averaging on this parcel. This means that the total square footage of the required wetland buffer remains the same, but the buffer may not be precisely 40-feet throughout. For example, if the applicant proposed the buffer to be 30 -feet in one location it would need to be 50-feet in another location, so long as the total amount of buffer area remains the same (or more than) the required 40-feet. City of Chanhassen ordinances do not allow for wetland buffer averaging, hence the need for the variance. It appears that the use of wetland buffer averaging is proposed to accommodate the septic system. However, the septic system can still be constructed in its proposed location even without the need to use averaging. Regardless of the City of Chanhassen’s ordinances on wetland buffer averaging, the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District also has rules regarding wetland buffer averaging and approval from the District for the use of averaging would be required prior to any building permit approval. In addition, the applicant is proposing wetland buffer setback variances for various aspects of the home:  Porch A encroaches approximately 13.5-feet into the 40-foot principal structure setback  Porch B encroaches approximately 12-feet into the 40-foot principal structure setback  Patio encroaches approximately 16-feet into the 40-foot principal structure setback All three of the above items would require a wetland buffer setback variance. However, all three of these items are necessitated as a result of design choices rather than any specific constraining features of the property. It appears that it is possible to propose a smaller home on this site that would not require these three variances and would not require the need for wetland buffer averaging. Doing so would still allow reasonable use of the property while also best protecting the sensitive natural resources of this parcel. The applicant is requesting a variance to construct a driveway where the current access road exists. Per the City Code, a driveway would be required to be setback a minimum 60-feet from the wetland buffer edge (40-foot wetland buffer plus 20-foot accessory structure setback). There is no feasible way to construct a driveway at this location that would conform to these required setbacks. The applicant has shown a willingness to decrease the size of the driveway 184 from initial plans. As such, it is the opinion of the Water Resources department that a variance for the driveway should be granted. CONCLUSION/RECOMMENDATION The proposed project poses risks to the wetlands, wetland buffers, and the overall health of Lake Minnewashta. The Water Resources department understands that due to the location of this parcel, development is nearly impossible without some impacts to sensitive natural resources. However, based on the submitted plans, it appears that the proposed home goes beyond what is necessary to construct a home of reasonable use and thus posing unnecessary risks to the natural resources on the parcel. It appears that there is a smaller home pad available that would allow reasonable use of the property while negating the need for wetland buffer averaging and the wetland buffer structure setbacks. As such, the Water Resources department recommends denial of the variances for the use of wetland buffer averaging and wetland buffer setbacks relating to the home. However, due to the site constraints relating to the driveway, the Water Resources department recommends approval of the variances for the construction of the driveway. 185 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 Charlie Burke, Public Works Operations Manager Matt Unmacht, Water Resources Coordinator Date:9/16/2021 Re:Variance Review at PID 25.0080200 – Planning Case #2021-20 The Engineering Department has reviewed the variance submittal for PID 25.0080200. 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 application 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 utility and transportation plans submitted with this application have been reviewed only for the purpose of determining the feasibility of providing utility and transportation facilities for the project in accordance with City Standards. A recommendation of variance approval does not constitute final approval of details, including but not limited to alignments, materials and points of access, connection or discharge, that are depicted or suggested in the application. The applicant is required to submit detailed construction drawings for the project, as applicable. The City of Chanhassen Engineering and Public Works Departments will review plans, in detail, when they are submitted and approve, reject or require modifications to the plans or drawings based upon conformance with City Standards, the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances and the professional engineering judgment of the City Engineer. 186 2. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that the proposed variance can be developed in accordance with the requirements of the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances (as it pertains to Engineering and Public Works requirements) and City Standards, provided it fully addresses the comments and conditions contained herein, and can be approved. 3. The applicant is requesting a number of variances to facilitate the construction of a single family home on PID 25.0080200 (Site). These include wetland buffer averaging, wetland setback variances and a possible subsurface sewage treatment system variance. 4. The Site currently gains access to the TH 5 right-of-way via an existing gravel driveway. TH 5 is owned and maintained by the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). MnDOT has provided comments regarding the variance application and associated documents which are dated September 7, 2021 and attached to this report. While currently TH 5 is a 55 MPH, two-lane, undivided highway, there are plans to expand the facility to a four-lane divided highway along with the construction of a bridge directly adjacent to the Site’s access. The construction of a bridge at this location of the TH 5 improvement project should provide for less impact to the surrounding wetland complexes and preservation of the hydrology of Lake Minnewashta and the surrounding wetlands. The Arboretum Area Transportation Plan’s (AATP) Executive Summary dated January 2021, also attached to this report, outlines these planned improvements. These improvements are currently anticipated to occur between 2027 and 2031. While MnDOT’s review expresses that the Site’s access would be converted to a right-in/right-out as part of the TH 5 expansion project, it is still unknown how site access would be facilitated due to the proposed construction of a bridge. The image below was taken from the Executive Summary to illustrate this undetermined detail. As seen from the image, the bridge and the current access point to the Site differ in elevation, the exact differential is currently unknown. a. Due to the proposed elements of the AATP and specifically the future of TH 5, the applicant should understand the long-term implications and risk of improvements made to this property. 5. As the improvements to TH 5 aren’t anticipated until a later date, any development or improvement associated with the Site would require that the Site’s driveway be surfaced with bituminous, concrete or other hard surface material to meet Sec. 20-1122 of City Ordinance. See proposed conditions 1 and 2. 187 6. PID 25.2610060 (Parcel) immediately to the east and abutting the Site was platted as an Outlot with the Crimson Bay Subdivision in 1987. The original intent of the Parcel was addressed during the May 6, 1987 Planning Commission meeting and was proposed to facilitate a beachlot. Access to the Parcel was proposed to utilize the Site’s existing gravel driveway and 6 parking stalls were proposed to be constructed. The intent behind these improvements on the beachlot was due to the dangers of Crimson Bay residents having to walk along TH 5 to access the proposed beachlot. However, per zoning ordinances motorized vehicles are prohibited from parking or driving on beachlots and the concept was abandoned by the applicant of the Crimson Bay subdivision. The applicant declared the Parcel to remain open space. The City is not aware of any cross access agreements between the Site and the Parcel, with the only access to the Parcel being via Lake Minnewashta. 7. In accordance with Sec. 19-41 of Chanhassen’s Municipal Code (Code), when a premises is adjacent to or within 150 feet of the City’s sanitary sewer system, buildings located on the premises are required to connect to the public system. The Site currently does not 188 have municipal sanitary sewer adjacent to or within 150 feet of the premises and a connection or extension of the municipal sewer system to the Site is impracticable due to the impacts to the surrounding natural habitats and associated costs as the nearest public sanitary sewer main is over 1100 feet away. In order for the Site to meet its sanitary sewer needs a private subsurface sewage treatment system (SSTS) would be required. The Building Department has received a design submittal for SSTS for review. 8. In accordance with Sec. 19-19 of Code, when a premise is adjacent to or within 150 feet of a municipal watermain, buildings located on the premises are required to connect to the public system. While the premises are currently adjacent to a City watermain, staff does not find a connection to be practicable or prudent. The AATP identified in the relatively near future this public watermain abutting the Site will likely need to be abandoned and relocated in order to facilitate the widening of TH 5 and the construction of a bridge directly abutting the Site. As such, the Site’s potable water needs would best be served by a private well as depicted by the provided plans. See proposed condition 3. Proposed Conditions 1. The applicant shall provide plans that meet Sec. 20-1122 of the City of Chanhassen Municipal Code for review and approval prior to any site improvements. 2. Any work that affects MnDOT right-of-way must obtain the appropriate permit from MnDOT prior to any site improvements. 3. The installation of a private well on the Site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Health, and all applicable permits shall be obtained prior to any site improvements. 189 Carver County Public Works 11360 Highway 212, Suite 1 Cologne, MN 55322 Office (952) 466-5200 | Fax (952) 466-5223 | www.co.carver.mn.us CARVER COUNTY September 27, 2021 City of Chanhassen c/o MacKenzie Young-Walters AICP Associate Planner 952-227-1131 mwalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Re: Development / Access Review Comments: Variance requests for the property located at Parcel ID# 250080200 adjacent to State Trunk Highway (TH) 5 (Arboretum Blvd.) Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject development in the City of Chanhassen. Consistent with the County Comprehensive Plan and County Codes, and other official controls of the County, the following are comments and recommended conditions of approval and as potential requirements for any necessary permits to be issued for the project. 1. Regarding adopted planning document – a. The Arboretum Area Transportation Plan (Plan) is a transportation planning document that identifies transportation improvements for highway corridors in and around the MN Landscape Arboretum including TH 5. The planning process was a coordinated, two-year process highlighted by significant public engagement and consensus building efforts to develop a future transportation improvement vision. The Plan includes a detailed investment and implementation plan for short, mid, and long-term transportation projects in the study area. b. The Plan was adopted by the City of Chanhassen on February 8, 2021 and by the Carver County Board on March 16, 2021. The Plan was also adopted by the City of Chaska and the City of Victoria. The planning process and subsequent project implementation is a continued partnership between the County, Cities, and MnDOT. c. The Plan identifies TH 5 as a future bridge over Lake Minnewashta in the location adjacent to the subject property. This concept recommendation and vision will be studied further; however, agency and community input advised towards the importance of reconnecting the wetland and lake area by constructing a bridge of TH 5 over Lake Minnewashta. d. Due to the vision for TH 5 to be a future bridge in this location, closure of the subject property’s access to TH 5 might become necessary, although any actual changes to that access would be studied further. The Plan identifies the subject property as a future full property acquisition. e. The planned project for the segment of TH 5 over Lake Minnewashta adjacent to the subject property is partially funded. The County is moving forward with implementation efforts in line with the adopted Plan and is planning to begin preliminary design work for this section of TH 5 in 2022. f. The property owner is encouraged to reach out to Carver County Public Works, the lead 190 agency for the Arboretum Area Transportation Plan, to discuss the likelihood, nature, and scope of an acquisition prior to commencing construction work on the proposed home. These are the County’s comments at this time. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please contact staff noted below: Joan Guthmiller Administrative Technician Carver County Public Works 952.466.5201 jguthmiller@co.carver.mn.us Angie Stenson AICP Sr. Transportation Planner Carver County Public Works 952.466.5273 astenson@co.carver.mn.us Dan McCormick, P.E. PTOE Traffic Services Supervisor Carver County Public Works 952.466.5208 dmccormick@co.carver.mn.us 191 Metropolitan District 1500 County Road B-2 West Roseville, MN 55113 September 7, 2021 MacKenzie Young-Walters Associate Planner City of Chanhassen SUBJECT: Lake Minnewashta House MnDOT Review #P21-043 0.18 mi W of Crimson Bay Rd Control Section: 1002 Chanhassen, Carver County Dear MacKenzie Young-Walters, The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has reviewed the above referenced survey and associated documents for Lake Minnewashta House, in compliance with Minnesota Statute 505.03, subdivision 2, Plats. Before any further development, please address the following: Traffic MN 5 is planned to expand to a four-lane roadway in this location. The access to MN 5 would be converted to a right-in/right-out as part of the project. Please contact Almin Ramic, South Area Traffic Safety, at 651-234-7824 or almin.ramic@state.mn.us with any questions. Drainage If any improvements are required to the driveway access at MN 5, documents need to be submitted to determine if a drainage permit is required. Please contact Jason Swenson, Water Resources Engineering, at 651-234-7539 or jason.swenson@state.mn.us with any questions. Noise MnDOT's policy is to assist local governments in promoting compatibility between land use and highways. Residential uses located adjacent to highways often result in complaints about traffic noise. Traffic noise from this highway could exceed noise standards established by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. Minnesota Rule 7030.0030 states that municipalities having the authority to regulate land use shall take all reasonable measures to prevent the establishment of land use activities, listed in the MPCA's Noise Area Classification (NAC), anywhere that the establishment of the land use would result in immediate violations of established State noise standards. An equal opportunity employer 192 Page 2 of 3 MnDOT policy regarding development adjacent to existing highways prohibits the expenditure of highway funds for noise mitigation measures in such developed areas. The project proposer is required to assess the existing noise situation and take the action deemed necessary to minimize the impact to the proposed development from any highway noise. If you have any questions regarding MnDOT's noise policy please contact Natalie Ries, Metro District Noise and Air Quality, at 651-234-7681 or Natalie.Ries@state.mn.us. Permits Any other work that affects MnDOT right-of-way will require an appropriate permit. All permits are available and should be submitted at: https://olpa.dot.state.mn.us/OLPA/. For questions regarding permit submittal requirements, please contact Buck Craig of MnDOT’s Metro District Permits Section at 651-775-0405 (cell) or buck.craig@state.mn.us. Review Submittal Options MnDOT’s goal is to complete reviews within 30 calendar days. Review materials received electronically can be processed more rapidly. Do not submit files via a cloud service or SharePoint link. In order of preference, review materials may be submitted as: 1. Email documents and plans in PDF format to metrodevreviews.dot@state.mn.us. Attachments may not exceed 20 megabytes per email. Documents can be zipped as well. If multiple emails are necessary, number each message. 2. For files over 20 megabytes, upload the PDF file(s) to MnDOT’s web transfer client site at: https://mft.dot.state.mn.us. Contact MnDOT Planning development review staff using the same email above for uploading instructions, and send an email listing the file name(s) after the document(s) has/have been uploaded. 3. A flash drive or hard copy can be sent to the address below. Please notify development review staff via the above email if this submittal method is used. MnDOT Metro District Planning Section Development Reviews Coordinator 1500 West County Road B-2 Roseville, MN 55113 You are welcome to contact me at (651) 234-7792, or david.kratz@state.mn.us with any questions. Sincerely, David Kratz Senior Planner Digitally signed by David Kratz Date: 2021.09.07 12:51:03 -05'00' 193 Metropolitan District 1500 County Road B-2 West Roseville, MN 55113 Copy sent via email: Jason Swenson, Water Resources Buck Craig, Permits Doug Nelson, Right of Way Almin Ramic, Traffic Jason Junge, Transit Natalie Ries, Noise Diane Langenbach, Area Engineer Ryan Wilson, Area Manager Mohamoud Mire, South Area Support Mackenzie Turner Barger, Ped/Bike Jesse Thornsen, Ped/Bike Lance Schowalter, Design Cameron Muhic, Planning Tod Sherman, Planning Jordan Olson, Surveying Angie Stenson, Carver County Russell Owen, Metropolitan Council An equal opportunity employer 194 From:Steve Gunther To:astenson@co.carver.mn.us; Eric.Johnson@bolton-menk.com; dmielke@co.carver.mn.us; abranhag@umn.edu; diane.langenbach@state.mn.us; Ross.Tillman@bolton-menk.com; Bender, George; hschnoes@minnehahacreek.org; Walters, MacKenzie Cc:Adam Dirlam; Chad Gauger; Helen Gunther; Kevin Zahler; sarah marek; Lacek, Scott; Steve Gunther Subject:Lake Minnewashta Development concerns - 21-20 Papke Parcel - Lake Minnewashta Peninsula Date:Thursday, October 7, 2021 10:55:49 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. To representatives of: City of Chanhassen Carver County Minnesota Department of Transportation Minnehaha Creek Watershed District University of Minnesota Landscape Arboretum I am the President of Lake Minnewashta Preservation Association (LMPA, https://lakeminnewashta.org/) and am writing on behalf of the LMPA board to voice our concern for the development proposed on the 21-20 Papke Parcel - Lake Minnewashta Peninsula http://www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/1772/Lake-Minnewashta- Peninsula-Parcel-Varian. This proposed development appears to be a potential detriment to the lake environment, wetland environment and the neighborhood environment. Building on land that is so close to the high water level and installing a septic system so near to the lake appears to us to be irresponsible. We know with global warming/climate change that we can easily have significantly more rain and much higher lake levels. We need to pay attention to the science! The impact of a failing septic system on the lake could be significant. In addition, adding a new entrance to Highway 5 seems to be completely illogical. We are aware that MDOT has plans to change this stretch of Highway 5 into a four lane road in the future. We are also aware that both the Minnesota Landscape Arboretum and Crimson Bay Road have plans to change their connection to Highway 5. It seems to be very problematic to now introduce a new interruption into Highway 5. We are aware that the five vested parties are reviewing this variance request and that a report will be made available by October 14, 2021. We are also a very vested party and we wish to provide our input to that report as well. We hope and expect that experts from the PCA and DNR are also being consulted in regards to this potential multifold environmental hazard. Please keep us well informed on the next steps for this review so that we can work together to ensure the safety of our environment. Sincerely, Steve Gunther president, Lake Minnewashta Preservation Association stgunther@gmail.com 612-859-3729 Citizen | Investor | Multisports Enthusiast 195 From:Field Notes To:Walters, MacKenzie Subject:Lake Minnewashta Peninsula Parcel Request for Variances Date:Wednesday, September 8, 2021 7:30:16 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. I wanted to express my disappointment that a wetland on Lake Minnewashta is being considered for construction. Wetlands are diminishing and help filter our lakes. Also, I believe it would be a safety hazard having a driveway/road on already busy Highway 5. J. Lutz 196 From:Kevin Zahler To:Walters, MacKenzie Subject:RE: Lake Minnewashta Peninsula Parcel Request for Variances, Case No. 2021-20 Date:Saturday, August 21, 2021 7:26:36 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. MacKenzie, Thanks much for your detailed response, we look forward to further action. In regards to point 5, I am concerned, we all know climate change is real and I think we need to pay attention to the science and the trends. We all know that the annual rain fall is increasing (aside from this year aberration), the trends are clear. We are approaching the new normal and it is important to pay attention to the trends. Once this is done it will be too late and there could be a significant environmental leak to Lake Minnewashta. Best regards, Kevin Zahler +1-612-618-9817 kjzahler@hotmail.com From: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 11:59 AM To: Kevin Zahler <kjzahler@hotmail.com> Subject: RE: Lake Minnewashta Peninsula Parcel Request for Variances, Case No. 2021-20 Kevin, The City and its partner agencies have not yet completed the review of this variance request, so I am unable to respond in detail to many of your questions. Due to the complexity of the case and number of agencies involved the City has exercised its right to extend the review period and has scheduled the public hearing for October 19th, 2021. A staff report containing the City’s recommendation, as well as any and all comments received from other agencies, should be available on October 14th, 2021. I have responded to your specific questions in red. Sincerely, -MacKenzie From: Kevin Zahler <kjzahler@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, August 20, 2021 9:47 AM To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> 197 Subject: Lake Minnewashta Peninsula Parcel Request for Variances, Case No. 2021-20 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Hello MacKenzie, This variance request has come to my attention and I have some concerns. 1. Has city engineering studied this situation? They are conducting their review of the request. 2. Has MCWD been involved in studying this variance? They have been informed of the variance and their comments have been requested as part of our standard agency review request. 3. Has MDOT, AATP and Carver county been involved in this variance? MNDOT has been informed of the variance and their comments have been requested as part of our standard agency review request. My understanding is that Engineering has reached out to both Carver County and AATP to solicit their comments as well. 4. A septic system this close to the lake in these modern times seems very wrong and unnecessary. The elevations on their survey indicate that the property is below the highest recorded water level, see below. This includes the septic system. I guess they will add fill? However, the septic system will still be below the water level in any case. I understand your concerns. The proposed septic system will need to meet all relevant state/county/city design standards. If it does, the City cannot disallow a design that that meets code. It will be the applicant and designers responsibility to demonstrate that it meets code. 5. The predictions due to climate change suggest that we will have much higher rain fall in the future. I think if you consult with climate predictors they will suggest much higher lake levels in the future. Variance requests are evaluated and ordinances are enforced based on current conditions. 6. AATP including MDOT have plans to install a 4 lane causeway through this area. That causeway is problematic due to the increased runoff of chlorides during freezing months. However, how will this property enter this future causeway? Plus, AATP, including the Arboretum have been very clear on safety issues related to highway 5. That is why they are moving the entrance to the arboretum to Minnewashta Parkway. Plus, Crimson Cay Road is being considered to close with a north entrance. Doesn’t is seem wrong to now allow another impedance to traffic plus the increased runoff from highway 5? MNDOT is responsible for Highway 5 and I would expect their comments to address these concerns. It seems that the city, Carver County, MDOT, MCWD, AATP need to perform a much better review of this request. Thanks for your help. I appreciate your concern; however, please understand that as of this date no review has been completed, nor have any recommendations been made. 198 Minnewashta - 10000900 Carver County Water Level Data Period of record: 09/04/1957 to 08/09/2021 # of readings: 1179 Highest recorded: 946.26 ft (06/20/2014) Lowest recorded: 942.2 ft (10/28/1988) Recorded range: 4.06 ft Last reading: 943.72 ft (08/09/2021) Ordinary High Water Level (OHW) elevation: 944.5 ft Datum: NGVD 29 (ft) Best regards, Kevin Zahler Pathfinder GS Corporation 6651 Minnewashta Parkway Excelsior, MN 55331 USA kjzahler@hotmail.com Alternate email: kjzahler1@gmail.com Office & Mobile phone +1-612-618-9817 WhatsApp, WeChat, Viber Skype: kevinzahler Make a difference! 199 From:Allan Aho To:Walters, MacKenzie Subject:Lake Minnewashta peninsula variance Date:Friday, September 10, 2021 7:38:41 AM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. We live at 3890 Forest Ridge Circle, in a neighborhood just to the west of the proposed new residence on the peninsula. I cannot see how a residence could be built in this location that would have a safe connection to Highway 5. The point where the existing gravel drive from the property abuts Hwy 5 is a death trap in the making. Hwy 5 in this area is a narrow raised causeway, with two lanes, no center divider, and inadequate shoulders. Traffic volumes are high during most of the day, and traffic speeds are typically 50 mph plus, unless it is rush hour, and the area is backed up. If a private drive to an active residence were allowed here, every vehicle that entered or left this drive would be an opportunity to cause an accident. There are only two lanes, no shoulders, drop- offs on both sides, and no exit lane or bypass lane. How will school buses stop and wait safely to pick up the resident’s children? How will a garbage truck stop safely to pick up the trash? How will the US Mail safely stop to deliver the mail? How about the multiple visits by Amazon and UPS trucks that are part of modern shopping? How about the residents themselves, and visitors. How will they be able to safely make a left turn into the drive when approaching from the west? How about all the guests at a party, attempting to enter or leave the drive and pull out onto 5? I request that, in the interest of community safety, the variance be denied, and the development of the parcel for a residence not be allowed. Allan Aho 3890 Forest Ridge Circle Chaska, 55318 (note, our address is in the City of Chanhassen) Sent from Mail for Windows 200 From:Clay/Linda To:Walters, MacKenzie Subject:Lake Minnewashta Peninsula variance request. Date:Thursday, August 19, 2021 2:23:29 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Seriously? A single family home with a septic system on that piece of property? Ridiculous and unconscionable. Sent from my iPhone 201 Steckling, Jean From: Sent: To: Subject: Project lmplementation (l{rr-r!16) DOrr.!orrl It{12-tO.Ol jjpapke@gmail.com Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:53 PM Walters, MacKenzie RE: Variance for Papke Property (i r-2t G i.5) fial-4,Lallarlda.r r*-L. ihrdd.d Hadlri ri.rdta.rt G^*u CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Thank you for the update MacKenzie. Please forward all responses that pertain to our property so that we can review prior to the variance meeting. With regard the county's comments, they do not agree with the final plan for the HWY 5 corridor. The work beginning in 2022 is between Minnewashta Parkway and Rolling Acres and does not impact our property. Please include the following documents in your presentation as there is no work proposed that impacts our property until, potentially, the Mid-term 2027-2031time frame. Furthermore, all plans beyond the short term are "unfunded and not approved" according to the project team and are "concept recommendation and vision" subject to change. I participated in all of the public meetings and discussed the plans and the impact to our property with all members of the team. C\^Mlsr'#I^,,"" E llc ?Ln E mr. (lrribrrtlD n{r a lpadli( improItlru i lpr(fif 6m? li.l*]l --*1*-- .jJrr,I, i rrJ, lr.r, lg,irta (xsrat toridaDa/r 0r5r-2) {""n0t5w6) Ll t'l 3) sbl 0r5u-{l rt rr.a Gr$r) lt tnrl rd.tto.hb!.'lrr cae..Eh 0{*-tl ..-.--L-.--- lthflt6onr i (rval2)fi'r}a (ir!2-r)F.+- s I mplementation Approach {w&t{) nr hr air Flh ro tl$oat o IEDd rmefirilo d rlDrtmg(rm (Hnry. [$m[ e$ t: oli6 d Iido.ia. 0urla .d 0 illrlra[ m[ rrt Ptlr t5 ltttr rE ltlr I i (Htw'r) I 202 AP.sF*v* P?oi.<l S.qGrdaO C&gorl|. tt 9a.ldr,$d55b urffi -c.ffi 'llbE6ir9a-&t!It g..dr.t rr.r9db,a-.d.rr r4c, c4ffi b !rl..u -6rd d6+Ja-rrrrrah.rff6a{.r..9!r &ia qi.ii.i{.a rlla T,.nnt t D.Ei6 * (hrr- lM rLbd 6$il.r ll4l bb ll+5iFIdt EO{6t' ?r h{9cF..r.ad.{ltu.d rn, Ei r 16rtur.aorqlrDrlro!.fr l*rat t 9 16 r.t-!.rP.Y r-ag.art .#iil d*ra o .Frr lrt!9 r6r@i a.ut- arf a d6d rnrhgld, 8 rd r.!9...\ 16 Aoa<n l'.{d.r' r ,lst Et rl& c.€<a$x & o, dJ[j, Pa.Y.a,9..rm,rroi{r.t ils rrlL .F.lFt rru..hra rEdrd.-d d r.Iyi 4$!, '4r.'Dl,garr.r,F r{(u rrs r*r r 9..d rrw. d dY-eLdirnr 6 nr dr M-.rnqrl.s$adt!s tort .ld d tfrlr r.r .rL,tdr !tn. .qlrrt 16 or.i..t Da!..dD t n*nd.r, li trh nn '6ri!F[ nrt,nll.ar{9 i6 ,oi*u .il d.ora 4ldr'grt rEEa A 9i9.! l.br.,ad .r.6..iia, t*6 firr d6..n 6r'.,rh.taet. rr.:f..irp. I r !r.9l..dit ilalbt rq6do4 rr.a. o, b.r.o.rltLt '*t Encgffi( Additionally, in recognition of the proposed long term plans for HWY 5, we had discussions with Mr. Pat Lambert, Carver County RoW Agent for RALF funds in February & March of 2021 regarding the potential for Carver County to acquire our property. Mr. Lambert made inquiries regarding our property, but as the proposed plans for HWY 5 are not funded or an approved project, he declined to pursue any efforts to acquire our property in the near term. ln summary, the input from Carver county to date should not provide any hesitation on the part of the Chanhassen Commission to approve our variance application. Respectfully Jeff and Deb Papke Sent from Mail for Windows From: Walters. MacKenzie Sentr Tuesday, September 21, 2021 5:26 PM To: iipa oke @sma il.com Subject: Variance for Papke Property Jeff and Deb, Carver County Public Works provided us with the attached letter in response to your variance request and asked that a copy of it be forwarded to you. 2 lmplementation Approach a-"7"f-- + 203 Sincerely, -M a cKe nzie MacKenzie Young-Walters, AICP Associale Planner CITY OF CHANHASSEN PH. 952.227.11X? FX. 9[52.27 .1110 www.ci.chanhassen.mn.lEos 3 204 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTYOFCARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on October 7,2021, 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 wetland buffer averaging, wetland setback variances, yard setback variances, and other variances for the construction of a single-family home, septic system, and driveway on a property zoned Rural Residential (RR), PID 25.0080200. Property Owner: Jeff and Deb Papke. Planning Case No.2021-20 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy ofsaid notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records ofthe County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Kim T.Ci Clerk Subscribed and this?6 dayo swom to before me f ()<+al><<- JFTil M Noaty Ptrilb-tlh.t€€e Notary Publ c ,202r. fat oottif-l E{f, l! 31, dEl 205 Subject Parcel Disclaimel This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a sutuey and is not intended to be used as ooe. ilis map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, countv. state and tederal oftces and olher sources regardrng the area shown. and is to be uigd for reference purposes only. The Crty does not warranl lhat the GeograPhic lnformation System (GlS) Data used to prepare this map are enor free, and the City does not represenl thal the GIS Dala can be used tor navigalional, tracking or any other purpose requinng exacting measurement of distance or direction or preclsion in the clepictjon of geographic features The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Slatutes 5466.03, SuM. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any alamages. and expressly waives all daims, and agrees to defend, indemnir, and hold harmless the City from any aod all claims broughl bt User. its employees or agents. or third parties which arise out ol lhe use/s aca€ss or use of data provided. Dbclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a suruey and is not intended to be used as one. This map isa cofipilation of records, information and data located in various city county, slate and federaloffices and other sour@s regarding the aaea shown. and is to be used for reference purposes only The City does not wanant that the Geographic lniormation System (GlS) Oata used to prepare this map arc eror free, and the City does not represent that the Gls Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other puDose requaring exacting measurement of distance or direction or preosion in the depictron of geographic features The preceding disclaimer is provaded pursuanl to Minnesota Statutes 5466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the use. of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all daims. and agrees to delbnd, indemnjfy, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by LJser, its employees or agents. or thard parties which arise out of the useis access or use of data provided. (TAX-NAME)t (TAX_ADD_L1)t (TAX ADD L2) (Next RecordXTAX_NAME) (TAX_ADD_Ll ) (TAX ADD L2)) Subiect Parcel L] f',.' ID [E I -{- h,J 4 Il; tt l' L\x I JtI: 206 ;sE.!Ec -b c!5oqov -Eor 3€1sO'E .:E;o= oEj-qo=Ei o< E 6 o, (5 =ooNf.- tui o-o EoEo ocao(.) oI o tt .s-E e gb *oeEi= 6E q1, ->, g E;Eg E H'=H€Ea;;;! B69 6 0 Esg:-p!o .p qe e E6sirH:E- - o'r,(o OE E ->(oo€; E eqEEg _Y(D(!> o o-(! o- -ooo Eco o"f i,ioc;o Eoo. (! o ! g. I OOOsl6t: tsEoLocuE(\l r!oE(L< o ior0acao -^ ; o€ E'=.8 Ei",E€ _3:q 5 E:Es I f" 3co-- o.cPc'^- i 9E, 9::ts sl.s E g Eg! EEsP 3sE;q€ PE 9 E;t EEcE :-Hg€Erfi;r 5:E=a* 5 (E= 2 o,^ tr=o d-- .nO J, o.^ H.iEg =I*erE=EE:,HE5Fg; ot(E 0E d.6 q !l)F (E c(J ir-N(9\t oc oq) Eco'6 .9 E E O ql .=cco(I n)E o .o o. (5E fEF l,ro =O-l () fr tg;l=:sE- ,-EEtl;Et: F EBBgBiiEEi EgEIEiBEEEE ci c.9 o c) E oc 1c Ec a) (5Eco q o ==; tioac 0)o)oo)oce'EO(D rnovEc, 5E{-or}| 2-aEA6o.9q '-vqo XE .(56_9ol+c)oc)'6o caoUo!.2t o:EE eEotrccEotL6li =_9ulxzd iEEEliia:Eiiiiii ljEiEEiiEiiEEiEii liEsEESeiiiiEEaE;Ea E 6 z E t E E E !9 a E g E o, i= 06 o oo Eo l!(, oJ ::ooo C}'o o- 0,E;o tooI o- >Eto6'EcL t!strJ EDtr ooE E"O.=o8.9.,FJ-E .9o =o:ano. .sEE Gr l!.9dor2A ot! t! o (tt Ea, o, =P6 L6oo(, '=-E.JE=o ^-ooc eE Eo-zi oot!Ecl! o Eq co)ci5g6 -E6c c.l -goeNd O, -E EIO! oEj-s(U=EE (l)t .fg E ! o) 6 oot-F. ui 0) -o E(!EO ocaoO o- t!-() E*eE E'E=P E}E i HgBE EH;3.?>ooi*! aao 5 > .C)69;IpE9o(5yli:'ii.;3o ige Ea E E; dd- sEiSs EEEE* 3E ! re 0.) o-o(L -oc)o !c(5 o ii o)c o : o)o.o o- o ,!E o P o o o OOo,,c!: coEoLoc ,.i €Ni!ot(]-< €, F € =g E g e E-6 Et E EEgg -E'; FEaitEEi::E.P 9BIX =o..,.o 6 E = REAH:E q='EI S EgE!SEEEI *E-BislfEFE F (! c L., (,)rN(v)\t oc oo Eco E Eoo ol .Ecc(!(! oE o .o o. o! lEF {rl ofl 9e ,El.-EeEN cl F x = o E gI.E; E BP EEIEEtS-e,IElgeI i-' EHES$Eg E!,r BEa$ *H$E-*E$ E$EEE;g EgSEEEe3; b;b(5 5 o :([ o _c =fo ,9 o ooo g, jj.!(5oo(I)o)E(5 o^+: 0., orBoct9-oEa4 E9EO)f'oo-9B 6eo!ap'H = ->. o='t (-, oqF: =o6t NoN ID iE: o @ot! t!Eq '6t =3 ol coi'6 o dl E 'aoc ?c Ei o) ClEE(! .Eq oi =; 6oaE()o, o)oc- E9 EE;9 9lnEA6o e.Pqo XE.(n6oEECJocl'6o 9Aouoro '> .; o- E6 eE d=)ccEo|L U'O =_9ulxzii 5. id .EF .5 {, nlo o l!(, oJ E6oIL 9 o. q) =o o o o- >Etso 0, 'Eo- t!eto-J 9i; a, ,=o-?o-Xf=-(,o.E =i c6 ..o9EEoo tl, =OE=ooo I ii)o.=+6 +*8 eOE5 =E €..o9EEo., tD --OE =ooo 207 oo(oo C, Flood00(oo -a\loE ..,1 N d. =lFUJ(ooOEo<{rnl! F.i(o olF oqn F3 B= N=l-,2 ooL.iqoz:s1,Y zx.' * zEH= o)o'Dcl r!.o= --o -z6odo!.t +F ..r<$3UnEr--t + 6 8=E<-rulto H )<NC'T<NFI zz =o >zZ)f;->*O r-ug(Jo <=FzYz -' 5 U<uJr!FO-E No @oo r',1 a\lo z 6ao6 TTJUx d.a zo G, (Jo@ (o t6 a oA 208 Pursuant to Minnesota Statutes Chapter 103D, and on the basis of statements and information contained in the permit application, correspondence, plans, maps, and all other supporting data submitted by the applicant, and made a part hereof by reference, PERMISSION IS HEREBY GRANTED to the applicant named below for use and development of land in the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District. Issued to: Jeff Papke Permit No: 21-497 Location: PID: 250080200, Chanhassen Purpose: Erosion Control and Wetland Protection – Single Family Home Date of Issuance: 09/29/2021 Date of Expiration: 09/29/2022 By Order of the Board of Managers __________________________ Erin Manlick Permitting Assistant This permit is not transferable without District approval, and is valid to the date of expiration. No activity is authorized beyond the expiration date. If the permittee requires more time to complete the project, an application for renewal of the permit must be received by the District at least 30 days before expiration. The applicant is responsible for compliance with all District Rules and for the action of their representatives, contractors, and employees. Conditions: Project to be completed as described in plans submitted to the MCWD office on August 18, 2021 according to the provisions of this permit. • Recordation and submission of wetland buffer maintenance declaration within 30 days • Properly install and maintain all required erosion control measures until the disturbed areas are re-stabilized • Notify MCWD in writing upon completing installation of perimeter and sedimentation controls • When the site is re-stabilized and the MCWD staff has performed a final inspection, all perimeter control must be removed 209 Inspection/Analysis/Monitoring Fees A site inspection and monitoring by District staff will be performed where the activity involves: • a commercial/industrial/multi-family residential development • a single family residential development greater than 5 acres or of any size if within the Minnehaha Creek subwatershed • any alteration of a floodplain or wetland • dredging within the beds, banks or shores of any protected water or wetland • a violation • any project which in the judgment of the District staff should be inspected due to project location, scope, or construction techniques In these cases, the applicant shall pay to the District a fee equal to the actual costs of field inspection of the work, including investigation of the area affected by the work, analysis of the work, and any subsequent monitoring of the work, which in the case of a violation shall be at least $35. Standard Fee Schedule District professional staff $ 65.51* District clerical staff $ 46.69* Consulting Senior Engineer $ contracted rate Consulting Engineer/Technician $ contracted rate District Counsel $ contracted rate Application fee $ 10.00 Copy costs $ .25 + actual staff time Color copy costs $ 1.00 + actual staff time * Hourly 210 211 From:thepjkeller@aol.com <thepjkeller@aol.com> Sent:Sunday, October 17, 2021 10:29 AM To:Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject:Lake Minnewashta Peninsula Project CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. MacKenzie, Thanks again for your time Friday afternoon, glad it all worked out. I meant to ask you about the lake peninsula project, but forgot. This summer there was some activity out there and the vehicles entering and exiting really messed up traffic on Hwy 5. Without adding a turn lane on Hwy. 5 to accelerate and decelerate at the driveway, it just isn't safe. I do not see a need for variances and I have a hard time believing a septic tank out there will not pollute the lake. Anyone else I should mention my concerns to? I appreciate your time and expertise. Thanks, Pete Keller 212 Planning Commission Item October 19, 2021 Item Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes from October 5, 2021 File No.Item No: C.1 Agenda Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES Prepared By Jean Steckling, Sr. Admin Support Specialist Applicant Present Zoning Land Use Acerage Density Applicable Regulations PROPOSED MOTION The Planning Commission approves the minutes from its October 5, 2021 meeting. SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION 213 ATTACHMENTS Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated October 5, 2021 214 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OCTOBER 5, 2021 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman von Oven called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, Mark von Oven, Erik Johnson, Doug Reeder, and Kelsey Alto. MEMBERS ABSENT: Steven Weick. STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer. PUBLIC PRESENT: Edgar Crespo 7205 Hazeltine Boulevard Robert Billiet Mid MN Septic Services Mark Nordland Level 7 Development Vice Chair von Oven reviewed guidelines for conducting Planning Commission meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR A SEPTIC SYSTEM VARIANCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7205 HAZELTINE BOULEVARD Community Development Director Aanenson gave a presentation, noting the property is zoned residential, is a non-conforming lot, and has a septic system 10 feet from the property line and 20 feet from the dwelling. There are disturbed soils on the site and the septic system is failing. The proposed project is to install a Type IV septic system utilizing a pre-treatment; the justification for the variance is that the existing septic system is failing, the topography limits the viable locations, the required setback limits the viable locations, and the disturbed soils location affects where it can be placed. Staff recommends approval of the variance. Commissioner Reeder asked if there is access to City services. Ms. Aanenson replied no, there is no ability to connect to City services. Commissioner Skistad asked what the lot size requirement is for a well and septic within the city. Ms. Aanenson replied typically they are 2.5 acres, although there are some smaller lots that have well and septic. Commissioner Skistad asked if they know when sewer and water will be available in this area. 215 Planning Commission Minutes – October 5, 2021 2 Ms. Aanenson does not know when it would extend down the corridor. Vice Chair von Oven opened the public hearing. Vice Chair von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Johnson moved, Commissioner Reeder seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request to utilize a Type IV septic system, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the Findings of Facts and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 6 to 0. PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR AVIENDA TOWNHOMES Community Development Director Aanenson gave a presentation and stated this is the first phase of the Avienda project. The intention is to create 39 lots and six outlots, with density of 3-6 units/acre. This is part of the PUD so it is governed by those architectural standards. As part of the PUD, the City looked at densities and Ms. Aanenson said it is always the City’s intention to create a transition between the existing single-family homes and this development. Therefore, the plans has been to have detached townhomes. Ms. Aanenson showed the landscaping plan, including a transition buffer of 90+ trees, as well as the architectural design. Project Engineer, Erik Henricksen, shared about grading, drainage, private/public streets, and public utilities within the proposed development. The developer has been mass grading the site to prepare it for build-out. Mr. Henricksen noted there was a neighborhood meeting the previous day. The Applicant is proposing two private streets and the extension of one public street (Mills Drive); these generally meet the standards set forth in City ordinance for street design and would meet the 7-ton design. Staff is recommending that the intersections of public and private streets are installed with a concrete apron and valley gutter to give a better visual cue to drivers that it is a private street. ADA curb ramps will be required at all intersections. Mr. Henricksen spoke about sewer and water, noting water will be looped and tied into existing utilities and previously approved utilities which are being extended. All sanitary sewer and water mains will be publicly owned and maintained. Ms. Aanenson noted there is close proximity to two parks for these townhomes, and there is walkability and open space within the development. Commissioner Reeder asked to see the road access into the townhomes. Mr. Henricksen replied in order to get to these townhomes, Avienda Parkway and Bluff Creek Boulevard are proposed to be the access points. The goal is to have the roads ready before someone can move in. 216 Planning Commission Minutes – October 5, 2021 3 Commissioner Skistad noted regarding the 20-foot private roads and parking on only one side, there have been situations in other neighborhoods where there has not been adequate parking and she wants to be sure they don’t run into those same problems here. Ms. Aanenson noted the Applicant could speak to that as they have similar developments in other areas of the metro. Commissioner Johnson noted he has a conflict of interest on the issue and will step out for any further discussion. Vice Chair von Oven asked if it is common to have public utilities in a private street. Mr. Henricksen replied yes, and they have to be covered by public drainage and utility easements which allows the City to maintain those utilities. Commissioner Reeder asked if this modifies the overall PUD to provide more or less housing. Ms. Aanenson noted they are following the plan that was approved in 2020; any changes made would have to go through a PUD amendment. Right now, they are consistent with what was approved. Mark Nordland, Applicant, noted the neighborhood meeting was fairly well attended and they spoke about what will happen on the property lines, grading, etc. Regarding roads, they will work with the Fire Department for safety. At most, 1-2 homes would be open before the pavement is fully finished, but the goal and plan are to have it fully finished. Mr. Nordland said on Mills Drive, parking is on both sides of the street and the private drive would have parking on one side only. Each home will accommodate two vehicles in the driveway, as well as plenty of parking within Avienda itself. Rick Denman, Charles Cudd Homes, is a luxury home builder and said the homes will have a Homeowners Association, and the homes will range in size from 2,200-3,500 square feet, ranging in price from the high $600,000’s to the mid $800,000 range. On the south side, the sizes and prices will range a bit higher. Mr. Denman showed similar models on screen, noting interiors and exteriors are beautiful. He stated they are excited to be in Chanhassen with this development. Commissioner Skistad asked what demographic they are expecting. Mr. Denman replied these townhomes are primarily empty-nester focused with main floor living. Vice Chair von Oven opened the public hearing. Vice Chair von Oven closed the public hearing. Commissioner Skistad moved, Commissioner Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the Subdivision of 40+ 217 Planning Commission Minutes – October 5, 2021 4 acres into 39 lots and six outlots, Avienda Townhomes, plans prepared by Landform dated September 8, 2021, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision. All voted in favor and the motion carried with a vote of 5 to 0. Commissioner Johnson recused himself from this item. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED SEPTEMBER 21, 2021 Commissioner Noyes noted one typo on the minutes where it says present and absent, both say “present.” Commissioner Noyes noted the summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated September 21, 2021 as amended. CITY COUNCIL ACTION UPDATE: Ms. Aanenson noted upcoming items on the Planning Commission agenda. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Alto moved to adjourn the meeting. The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:41 p.m. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Jean M. Steckling 218 Planning Commission Item October 19, 2021 Item City Council Action Update File No.Item No: D.1 Agenda Section ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS Prepared By Jean Steckling, Sr. Admin Support Specialist Applicant Present Zoning Land Use Acerage Density Applicable Regulations PROPOSED MOTION SUMMARY BACKGROUND DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS 219 City Council Action Update 220 City Council Action Update MONDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2021 Discuss a Request to Consider Land Use Amendment and Rezoning for Westwood Church Property – Work Session Discussion Item Discussion of Conditional Uses vs. Interim Uses in the Fringe Business (BF) District (Work Session Item) – Work Session Discussion Item Approve a Request to Amend Conditional Use Permit (CUP) 88-17 to Expand an Existing Outdoor Storage Area at 7851 Park Drive (Lakeshore Equipment) – Approved Minutes for these meetings can be viewed and downloaded from the city’s website at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us, and click on “Agendas and Minutes” from the left-side links. 221