PC Staff Report 10-19-21Planning 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