Loading...
4. David Duhaime, 9225 Lake Riley Blvd: Variance Requests.CITY OF CHANHASSEN 1 BOA DATE: 9/23/96 CC DATE: 10/28/96 CASE #: 96 -9 By: Rask:v I STAFF REPORT Iz PROPOSAL: A five (5) foot west side yard variance, three (3) foot east side yard variance, a forty -seven (47) foot lake shore setback variance, and a variance from the maximum impervious surface requirement of twenty -five (25) percent for the construction of a single family residence. LOCATION: APPLICANT: C PRESENT ZO ACREAGE: DENSITY: 9225 Lake Riley Boulevard Lot 31, Shore Acres David Duhaime 4401 Country Club Road Edina, MN 55424 (612) 936 -9280 RSF, army Approximately 7,825 square feet ( 18 acres) N/A ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site Action by City Administrator Endors.;_t ✓ �W Rejec,ec; _ Date Submitted to Collinnission Date Submitted to Caunci� PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The lot contains an existing 22 x 34 foot one story home. Several large trees are located on the property. The site is flat and level at the location of the proposed home. The front yard drops approximately 11 feet from the road to the proposed home. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential N - PUD -R, Residential Single Family S - RD, Recreational Development, Lake Riley E - RD, Recreational Development, Lake Riley W - RSF, Residential Single Family Duhaime Variance October 28, 1996 Page 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS UPDATE On September 23, 1996, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals held a public hearing to consider the variance requests of Mr. David Duhaime for property located at 9225 Lake Riley Boulevard. The Board tabled action on this request to give the applicant an opportunity to submit revised plans. On October 14, 1996, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals considered the revised variance request. By a two to one vote, the Board recommended denial of the variance request as submitted by the applicant. A simple majority vote by the Board serves only as a recommendation to the City Council, who shall then make the final determination on the variance request. The applicant revised the original plans by reducing the width of the home by two (2) feet, stepped in the northeast corner of the home one (1) foot, and reduced the entryway by two (2) additional feet. These modifications provide a seven foot setback along the east property line. The revised plans should preserve the trees between the proposed home and the lake if the necessary precautions are taken during construction of the home. Concerns of driveway grade and drainage have also been rectified. One Board member recommended approval of the application as revised by the applicant which consisted of a 5 foot east lot line setback, a 7 foot west lot line setback, and a lake setback variance which is consistent with surrounding homes. The remaining two Board members recommended denial of the variance and stated that they would prefer to see, at a minimum, seven (7) foot setbacks along both side lot lines. The only issue or setback variance left unresolved was the five (5) foot setback along the east property line. Testimony received from neighboring property owners was mixed. Most favored the one and a half story design, but expressed some concern with the reduced setbacks. The owner of the vacant property to the east was generally in favor of the plan as proposed. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 1. Section 20- 615(4) states that the maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty -five (25) percent. 2. Section 20- 615(5)c. states that the setback for side yards is ten (10) feet. 3. Section 20 -481 states that the minimum setback from Lake Riley is seventy -five (75) feet from the ordinary high water level. u u J C 7 u Duhaime Variance October 28, 1996 Page 3 ' BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting variances to replace an existing cottage with a new and larger single family home. The house pad would be enlarged from 22 x 34 feet (814 square feet), to approximately 94 30 x 70 feet (2,000 square feet), which includes an attached two stall garage. ' Shore Acres was platted in 1951 and consists of 42 lots which measure approximately 50 x 170 feet. This area was originally developed with summer homes and cottages. Over the years, cottages have been replaced with year- around single family homes. Numerous variances have been ' granted to accommodate these year- around homes. Lots have also been assembled to create larger building lots. Of the original 42 lots, only 7 lots remain as single lots of record. (It should be noted that five of the seven single lots are located on either side of the subject property.) Shore Acres Subdivision currently contains 24 lots of record. Seventeen out of the twenty -four homes within this subdivision are located on more than one lot of record. J t r The following variances have been granted on Lake Riley Boulevard: Variance # Address Type of Variance 93 -10 9119 Lake Riley Blvd. 4' lake setback variance for garage and home Lots I1 and 12 addition 93 -8 9243 Lake Riley Blvd. 9' lake setback and 8' front yard setback Lots 38 and 39 variance for home addition 92 -9 9021 Lake Riley Blvd. 92 -2 9221 Lake Riley Blvd. Lot 29 91 -16 9203 Lake Riley Blvd. Lots 17, 18, & 19 90 -7 9051 Lake Riley Blvd. Lot 1 Rogers Add. 36' lake setback variance for deck addition 14' front yard, 6.5' side yard, and a 7% hard coverage variance for a detached garage 7.5' side yard variance for a home addition 12' lake setback variance for a new home 89 -13 9131 Lake Riley Blvd. 4' side yard variance for home addition Lots 15 & 16 89 -1 9247 Lake Riley Blvd. 14' front yard, 7' lake, and 4.5 side yard Lot 42 set back variances for a new home Duhaime Variance October 28, 1996 Page 4 86 -1 9005 Lake Riley Blvd. 9235 Lake Riley Blvd. Lots 34 8z 35 18' lake setback and lot area variances 40' lake setback variance for a new home The following table provides existing setbacks and width of homes found on adjoining lots: 1 7 ADDRESS SIDEYARDSETBACKS LAKE SETBACKS WIDTH OF HOME ' 9221 3 and 8 feet 38 feet (32 feet to 23 feet with 10 x 10 deck) porch 9223 Vacant lot ' 9225 Subject property 2.1 and 6.8 feet 52 feet 34 feet (existing) 9227 3 and 11 feet 53 feet (42 feet to 24 feet ' patio) 9233 2 and 16 feet 50 fee 2 f eet Note. The five lots listed above are similar in size and have 50 feet of lake frontage. g ANALYSIS The subject property contains an existing single family home /cottage. Under the provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the applicant is entitled to a reasonable use of the property. The ordinance allows repairs and improvements to be made to the existing building without variances. Instead of working with and trying to improve an outdated and inadequate building, the applicant is requesting variances which would allow him to completely remove the structure and rebuild a single family home. Variances would still be required if the applicant was to re -build on the same footprint. The applicant wishes to expand the existing footprint to construct a home that would serve as a year -round residence. Expanding the footprint of the building increases the need for variances. ' Staff is of the opinion that the proposed home needs to maintain a greater side yard setback along the west property line. Greater setbacks could be achieved by further reducing the width of the home. Other homes have greater side yard setbacks and/or are smaller in size than what is being proposed by the applicant. The property owner of the vacant lot to the east has indicated to city 0 Duhaime Variance October 28, 1996 Page 5 staff that he has plans to build on the lot within the next year, and would like similar setback variances. ' The applicant has revised his variance appeal by reducing the width of the home by two feet, raising the elevation slightly to reduce the driveway grade, and stepping the northeast corner of the house in to provide a greater setback along the east property line. The revised appeal provides a five foot west lot line setback, a 7 foot east lot line setback, and a 54 foot setback from the lake, excluding the deck. I Staff finds that the applicant has demonstrated hardships in the size and shape of the lot. The existing lot is approximately 180 long with 50 feet of lake frontage, and 35 feet of frontage on the road. The lot contains an existing home located at 2.1 feet from the west lot line and 6.8 feet from the east lot line. Because of the increase in the size of the proposed home, staff is recommending that seven foot setbacks be provided along both side lot lines. Other homes within this subdivision located on a similar size lots are narrower in width than what is being proposed by the applicant. If the appropriate side yard setbacks are maintained, the proposed home should not negatively impact surrounding properties, or impair light and air to adjacent residence. The revised driveway grade is 11 percent. City Code states that driveway grades shall not exceed 10 percent. The property currently contains an existing driveway which has a 14 percent grade. Therefore, the proposed driveway will lessen the non - conformity by reducing the slope. To further reduce the driveway grade would require additional fill material and a larger retaining wall, which would negatively impact drainage on the neighboring parcel. The proposed driveway will utilize a small retaining wall (1.5 - 3.0 feet in height) to reduce the driveway grade. Staff is, therefore, recommending approval of the driveway grade as proposed. No variance is required because the driveway is existing and the applicant is lessening the non - conformity. In the review of drainage patterns in the neighborhood, the City's Engineering Department determined that existing drainage patterns will not be impacted by the construction of the new home. Drainage over the subject property and adjacent lots may actually improve as the current home will block drainage to the west, and direct stormwater towards the lake through the use of swales. Staff would encourage the applicant to work with the neighbor to the west (9227 Lake Riley Blvd.) in improving current drainage. A swale could be utilized along the common property line to improve drainage on both lots. In addition, the proposed grading plan and home location will preserve the trees located between the home and lake, if care is taken during construction. Staff recommends approval of a three (3) foot east and west side lot line variance, a thirty -three (33) foot lake shore setback variance, and a variance to exceed hard surface coverage by twenty -five (25) percent. FINDINGS Duhaime Variance October 28, 1996 Page 6 The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre- existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The variance appeal as submitted is excessive of what is required to have a reasonable use of the property. Revisions could be made that would make the home more compatible with surrounding properties while maintaining adequate setbacks. Maintaining seven foot side yard setbacks would allow the home to blend with pre- existing standards while adequately handling surface water drainage. b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: A number of lots in this subdivision have justifiable hardships because of lot size and width. The hardships associated with these properties are generally not applicable to other properties in the same zoning classification elsewhere in the city. C. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: Whereas, the new home will increase the income potential of the property, the variance appears to be based upon a desire to have a reasonable use of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self - created hardship. Finding: The alleged difficulty is not self - created. However, the need for a variance could be lessened by providing a seven foot setback along the west property line. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or neighboring properties if the necessary conditions are attached to the variance. 1 r L Duhaime Variance ' October 28, 1996 Page 7 f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values ' within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation should not substantially impair an adequate supply of ' light and air, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety to adjacent property, if the necessary changes are made and conditions added. I RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the following motion: "The City Council recommends approval of a three (3) foot east and west side lot line variances, a thirty -three (33) foot lake shore setback variance, and a variance to exceed hard surface coverage by twenty -five (25) percent based on the findings presented in the staff report and subject to the following conditions: 1. Maintain seven (7) foot side yard setbacks along the east and west property lines. ' 2. Maintain a forty -two (42) foot setback from lake, including deck. 3. Rain gutters shall be utilized to direct runoff from the roof away from adjacent homes. 4. Type III erosion control shall be utilized during construction activity and until the site is re- vegetated. ' 5. Tree protection fencing shall be utilized during construction." I ATTACHMENTS 1. Minutes from September 23, 1996 meeting of the Board of Adjustment and Appeals 2. Revised survey dated September 19, 1996 3. Revised house plans 4. Letter from David Duhaime stating reasons for the variance. 5. Application dated August 28, 1996 6. Survey showing existing building 7. Plat map of Shore Acres 8. Plat map showing properties which received variances Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 REQUEST FOR SIDE YARD, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF, RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 9225 LAKE RILEY BOULEVARD, DAVID DUHAIME. John Rask presented the staff report on this item. Johnson: Is the original footprint, was that about 40? Rask: Yeah, the original footprint I believe was 61 feet. Or actually excuse me, it looks 52 feet from the nearest corner. Watson: So this deck is how large? Rask: It's 32 feet wide by 20 feet deep. Long or protruding away from the house. It's 23 feet, and then it's the width of the house which is 32 I believe. So with that I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Johnson: You figure what, about 46 feet? Rask: Yes. 46 feet was the average. The DNR, they have a provision. There is a provision in the statutes that allows the averaging of setbacks. We did not adopt that part of the state statute which allows that averaging but we do use it as a rationale for determining what is an appropriate setback in these instances. Watson: I have just a comment to make, after reading this ... and it's kind of discouraging that people who have the privilege of living on the lake and also have the responsibility therefore of protecting that lake, are the ones who want practically to build inside of it. They want to go wall to wall on the lots. They want to cover the whole lot with a building or deck or driveway or something, and I guess the last few proposals we've seen here on lakes have been very discouraging as far as any responsibility towards the lake and what's going to happen to it. I mean we've come in and we've got 52% impervious lot surfaces. 17 feet or something from the lake....DNR can't possibly fix up a lake fast enough to keep up with that. Rask: Yeah just to, the setbacks of 7 feet were obviously taken from the most recent request that we had, which was real similar to this. I mean the Board and the Council both had quite a bit of discussion on this issue as far as what is an appropriate setback when you're dealing with these smaller lots. Watson: Right. Instead of it that... certainly it's better than what we had seen. Johnson: ...gentleman address this and then we'll come back to comments from the rest of the Board. Senn: In your impervious calculation, did that include the deck? I J Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 ' Rask: Yes, that did include the deck and the driveway. Watson: The 52% then. ' Rask: Correct. ' Johnson: ...address this... Jim Corrigan: I'm Jim Corrigan, and I'm the builder and this is Dave Duhaime the homeowner. ' I just have a couple quick things. I want to address the responsibility issue, and I can definitely see your point on most lots. The size of these lots are, they make it, as you can see ... 42 ' lots ... and that's our argument that these lots are too small to actually build on and Dave made an attempt to buy the lot next door but wasn't able to do that. So we're stuck with this and it's almost impossible to get the 25% impervious ratio on these lots and get a house... I'm not sure if ' that showed up anywhere on any other lots ... that 25 %. I can't see making 25 %. I mean I can see the responsibility but I think to try to meet 25% is almost impossible. ' Watson: ...but anybody's use for a deck is not necessarily 23 x 32 so you know. I mean I understand what you're saying but also we're looking at things that go beyond the. ' Jim Corrigan: On the deck, that's not a concern of our's. The only reason I think they put in a 23 foot deck, he doesn't plan on building a 23 foot deck. Is that they drew a line between the two homes on each side and that's what, on the original plat, if you drew a line between the two ' houses, it showed that we had room for a 23 foot deck and we thought that was reasonable, as long as we stayed in line and didn't move any closer to the lake than the homes on each side. And we did talk about moving the house forward 10 feet, which we thought we'd be willing to ' do but the only problem I ran into was this huge oak tree that we really can't move closer because we'll kill that oak tree and take that oak tree out. If we move it closer. So we're almost at the point where we have to keep that footprint the way it was on the original. On the original survey, ' at setback. So we're not, definitely not close enough to be on the 17 foot setback. And I mean we're more than willing to be at 40 feet to go along with the 40 foot lakeshore setback. It's just, we don't intend to move the house forward because of the oak tree. And then we were, where... ' house, we tried to maximize the side yard setbacks but we unfortunately found out that we were at 3.92 instead of over 5 feet. The couple of issues that I guess I'd want to look at is, I know the staff recommended 7 feet on both sides. The only problem with going 7 feet on both sides, ' where we're trying to encourage 5 feet on both sides, is that at 7 feet on both sides, you without a doubt would have to go to a two story house. And a very narrow two story house, and you may as well make a wall to the neighbors. Almost more of an eyesore than if you go with a story and ' a half and are able to put a couple of bedrooms on the main level. It allows more light in and I think it's more appealing to the whole neighborhood rather than a real narrow, two story house. ' So that's the big issue is the setback here. And yeah, he recommends 46 foot setback. I mean we're real close on that. What shows up on the survey right now is that's just one of those things that the person that drew the plans just drew a line between the two houses. I think the house ' next to it had a 32 foot setback and we're looking at probably about 40 foot setback. And then Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 the driveway issue, I think hinges on the first two issues. From ... we have no problem coming up with that information at all. Showing the trees and all—but I think the big thing we're looking for direction on is side yard setback. If we can have 5 feet, I think we can put a better looking home on the lot than if we had to go with the 5 feet because at 5 feet, or at 7 feet we most certainly have to go to a two story house. A narrow two story house, and I don't know if Dave has anything to say. Dave Duhaime: I think Jim covered most of the issues. I just want to point out a sense that I have where we really would like to get some direction because I'm kind of between a rock and a hard place. Again we purchased this lot, which is, if you look on the survey, the width reduces as you get up towards the road and so you're in a position where if you try to position any home, that they'll keep playing with on this lot, you will align yourself either with one side or the other and which ever way you align yourself with, you create yourself a problem in the opposite back corner because the lot reduces as you go back. If you look at the table of side yard setbacks that John has prepared here, you can see that that's a common problem to the lots in that area. Where they've got, in most cases, a very small setback. 3 feet, 2.1 feet, 3 feet and 2 feet are the smallest side yard setbacks in all four of those properties listed on this table. And on the opposite side, because they've aligned themselves parallel on that side, they can create more room. What we've tried to do here is center it as much as possible, and if you look at the plan and you look at the home that was next door, you can take that particular home when it comes to the coverage issue. If you were to take the footprint of the home next door and overlay it on the existing property, I think that you can see what I'm talking about is, if you took the existing house right here and laid it in scale on top of the proposed home right here, you're almost in terms of lot coverage, looking at the identical situation. One difference however is that their garage is incorporated into this home so this whole part here is garage and so I think from a standpoint of coverage, we're doing a, I thought when the architect came up with this, a good job of taking what's already existing in the area and making what we're doing here similar, or more conservative in the case that we considered a garage. Of building a garage into this. And we went to the 1 %2 story specifically because in addition we think it has more of an aesthetic appeal to create that look. But this home, would in any event ... or 5 feet, this one here ... would be so closing into it that if you go with that wall as he points out, on two stories, you're going to be looking at a wall there. The sun comes across in this direction and we thought if we made it a story and a half ...more air flow, more light and everything. We did put a lot of thought into that. Also as Jim points out, just so I'm sure it's clear. If you draw a line from this deck to the deck on the house over here, that's how we came up with this proposed deck length. That's completely arbitrary and not particularly important to me at all. I have no, I certainly don't have an objective of covering the lot with deck. With another consideration here as you increase the elevation you need to get down on the house... onto the ground level somehow and over the course of that kind of...The deck is not an important issue to this plan and I think what we're, oh the other thing I wanted to point out is, the existing house is 34 feet so we'd come in 2 feet on both sides. And in every single case ... trying to move the house back or move the house forward, and then counting the right -of -way and the house with a detached garage ... so hopefully we can get something definitive this meeting... Johnson: ...does anybody else wish to talk? L L h Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Ronnie Ytzen: The only thing. I'm ... and I live right next door. I live... Johnson: State your name please for the record. Ronnie Ytzen: Ronnie Ytzen. I live at 9227 Lake Riley Boulevard. I like the idea of a story and a half house. I guess the only concern that I was really thinking about was the side yard setback on my house, and I've been there for 25 or 30 years and I've seen like four houses burn down in that area so I'm very nervous about houses close to each other. Every place you go you see the same thing. Houses really close to each other. I think with just a house a story and a half, as you said, it does allow for people ... to look across and see some of the lake. It looks more airy. I have a feeling that if he's required to raise his driveway, it's going to create quite a drainage problem and all the water can flow right down between the two houses and puddle up in there so that's something that might be addressed or something to give thought about if you require him to raise the driveway. That's all I have to say, thank you. Alan Dirks: My name's Alan Dirks. I have the lot on the other side of Dave and I would have loved to have bought the lot. But after this meeting perhaps I can. I just want to encourage you folks to know that on those lots have been sitting that way for a long time. He's ... there's no place to go ... so I'd just encourage you to see that those lots originally were just small... small little homes ... owned one of those that Ron mentioned that burned to the ground and the only reason I've been waiting to do anything with my lot is because I was hoping to get one of the side lines. And so now that it's there, I'm all for putting something nice on that and I'm going to put something nice on mine and make the whole neighborhood... 5 feet, plenty of room for him to, I mean to access ... as far as fire fighting and that kind of thing, that is true but I mean you're constraining a lot on the lots that you have already ... so I looked at what Dave had put together for a home and I just wanted to come in here and ... on the other side and ... fine with what his plan is. ...I know it's a tough thing for you guys to figure out too, what to do with this as far as what's best. If you own lakeshore in Chanhassen, you've got to do something with it... ' Eunice Kottke: My name Eunice Kottke. I live at 9221 Lake Riley and we have been through... not intentionally. I first drew up plans for ... home in about 1985. '84 or '85. It was approved immediately by the Council, or the Planning department. It was ... all of the statutes which meant ' that we had to stay on the footprint and my home is exactly on the footprint as the summer place. We could increase ... but it was our choice to go up because I didn't want to lose any ... and I find ' it a very livable, lovable house. With the ... somebody came up with a new street plan. I never made it ... I was working. I had a job at that time. My work was in Florida winters for 6 years w while the house was being ... was to the garage down next to the house. That would have ' eliminated all ... to the house ... I want you to understand why it is ... I'm also a woman and I don't want to be shoveling 8 feet 6 inches out to—just about what your elevation is. I'm not sure. That's what mine was and so that's why I worked and worked and we eventually got the garage ' at the road... boardwalk so that people can come down comfortably. There's a lot of things happening so that ... get rid of the shed and get rid of some of the ... but I welcome to the neighborhood. L Board of Adjustments and Appeals e September 23, 1996 Senn: I've got a suggestion. I think this works. I do not have a problem with the lake setback as long as whatever we do stays at the outer most part of that line. Johnson: 46 foot? Senn: Well yeah. If somebody lands a number there. Rather than just say, so I would say align the outer edge of the deck with the line between the two neighbors, okay. So now that's the outer edge of your deck. Reduce the deck that 12 feet. Move the house forward, okay. With the stipulation... that line of the deck to 12 feet. Back the house up to it ... down a little bit further, okay. Which will bring it... Maintain at least a 5 foot setback on the west side and 7 foot setback on the east side, okay. Driveway would be reduced to a minimum width. I had 10 feet down but I don't know, John I'll leave that up to you guys, which would help with the impervious surface. And the addition put on, that only a one and a half story house can be put on this ... and then just basically throw in the other staff conditions regarding... Rask: Yeah, as long as we can get past the driveway. The slope of the driveway. Jim Corrigan: How about the tree? We've got a ... very much appreciate this discussion. This is kind of like ... the tree that comes into play if we try to move the house closer. It's about, it's not shown on there but what would you estimate? It's about 4 feet. It's a big oak. It's a 100 year old oak ... but it's maybe 3 or 4 feet in and over a little bit probably from the house... Senn: But your deck goes there anyway. Jim Corrigan: Your deck can go around the tree. We're talking about going down with a foundation and I think it'd be. Senn: Okay, so your other plans that you're talking about... talking about building the deck around the tree? Jim Corrigan: No. I think you technically could go on the side of the tree with the deck if you followed that side of the house. But if you put a foundation under there, you're going to now be so close to that tree, as to cut off. I don't know. Watson: How far between the house and that tree were we? I mean. Dave Duhaime: ... fairly close. Rask: That 7 feet would be... Watson: I'm going to make a motion then we can discuss and, okay. After we get a motion and a second on the floor then we can discuss it. Okay. I make a motion to table. Johnson: Okay, I'll second that. r Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Watson: And provide some information for them to go with. ' Senn: I think that makes sense. I think we've got to pin point where some of this stuff is. ' Watson: Because this tree ... I don't want to pass on it and I certainly don't want to say we don't want to do it. I think we just need to provide some of the information that it needs to go forward. Senn: If it works out what do you think of the suggestion? The question is now we need to put it on paper and from where everything is in relationship to it. Watson: Right. When we have, on the east side you said there's 5 feet? Senn: Yeah, I was saying 5 feet on the east side. 5 feet setback on the west side, I'm sorry. 7 feet on the east. ' Watson: What's on that side? Is the east side...? Rask: That's correct. Watson: And how far is that house from his property line? Rask: About I 1 feet so you're providing a 16 foot separation between the two structures. The side of the 7 feet is kind of the unknown. It's the undeveloped lot. Watson: Okay. Johnson: You want to go 5 on this side? Senn: Well I'm just looking... speaking of the widths ... give somewhere. If you go 10, let's say you go 10 on the other side ... balance it out. You've got 16 over here. You've got 17 over here. It seems to me the balance... When the neighbor comes in with a proposal, we're going to go to 10. If we hold at 10, then like I say, we've got 17 there and 16 there. ' Watson: Okay, then we get down to the issue of impervious surface. If we can get rid of a lot of, and that's one we can get. ' Senn: Yeah, that's reducing the deck in half. Okay, effectively. And it's also reducing the size of driveway because it's going to help on the impervious surface. ' Watson: Now where are we coming with the DNR as far as how they're going to feel about our decision? If we were to move the house forward. ' Senn: Are we going to table? Can we table and ... provide that direction. I'm supposed to leave. ..you guys can keep discussion. I don't want to cut that short. You know how I feel and he ' knows how I feel. ...1 agree with you. I want to see the tree. I want to see wherever. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Watson: Yeah, and we have to incorporate the DNR ... more information. I Senn: Yeah, from the DNR standpoint. I would not, I'm not insistent on 25 %... I think we'll go a long ways towards doing that. As far as the lake setback, I won't agree with them on that ' either. I mean from that standpoint I think we need to maintain in unison what's there now. I mean I don't want to see something going closer to the lake than what's there now but at the same time I'm not going to sit here and tell somebody to move their house back when all the I other houses are down here . Watson moved, Johnson seconded that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals table the ' request for side yard, impervious surface, and lakeshore setback variances for the construction of a single family residence located at 9225 Lake Riley Boulevard. All voted in favor and the motion carried. , Jim Corrigan: May I throw something out or is that out of order? ... That 5 foot setback side that you were talking about that we've got 16... On the other side was the unknown or the empty lot. ' Where we need the 5 feet is in the very back far comer ... so we're really talking about I think it's 8.9 or something ... So on the one side we could utilize the 5 yard setback ... and use it. Senn: I don't have a big problem with that. You guys can figure this. Sorry about that. I've got to get to the other meeting... , Watson: Bye. Come again. Johnson: You're talking about maintaining on the left hand side 5 feet? Watson: Yeah. Johnson: ... far corner. Watson: Well ... far corner which is the worse case scenario and ... 7 feet... , Jim Corrigan: Is there a way to make it a setback ... over the course of the lot? I Rask: It's always whatever the minimum is. The minimum setback is what you need the variance from. ' Jim Corrigan: Well we can commit to the placement of the house that recognizes the small part as a non - conforming legal use and build 1 % stories which meets... ' Watson: Then if we move the house forward, like Mark was talking about, and we cut this deck down to 12 feet. Isn't that what we decided? ' Rask: Yeah ... 12 feet. I I Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 ' Watson: Oka y... we're still over 10 feet. 10 -11 feet. Somewhere in there. Rask: Yeah I think. This revised plan you have before you tonight, this one, they brought the house forward 8 feet from what was originally proposed. Watson: So we're looking at another, moving it forward another 10 feet? Rask: I don't think that's possible. I think this is what Mark was referring to. It'd be two additional feet here. To basically keep it in line with what's currently on it. ' Johnson: But he wants to stay even with the neighbors... Watson: Even with the neighbors and then move the house and move that 12 foot deck which... ' And that would, and John was talking about a tree and stuff so perhaps that is. Rask: Yeah, there are some significant trees to the front of the existing cottage. Between the cottage and the lake, which probably would be okay with the placement of the house because by the time you get construction equipment in there and you impact the red zone, you're going to lose them eventually even if they don't come out now. That was a concern of our's from the start. Even with the original proposal, the closeness there. Even though the house paid isn't on them, we've learned through experience that, especially with oak trees, they're very sensitive to any type of construction activity. We had our forester out there to look at them. She thought ' 50% at best with that proposal. Jim Corrigan: Could I make one more comment? ' Johnson: Go ahead. ' Jim Corrigan: On the, Councilman Senn mentioned drawing a line between the two and I guess I'd like a couple things. Whether or not we drop the deck or patio from the house and... averaging them out between what he says is 54 feet and 32 feet and averaging it to 46 and then you draw a line, I think there's a big difference between those two. Between those two so I just wanted to make sure that's clear. If we draw a line, I think we'd be more than willing to go along with that line and then determine what that line is. If it's from the patio and the deck or if it's ' from the house and right now they're showing that from the house and not necessarily the deck that sits out in that 10 feet or 12 feet or something. I guess that's what I'd like to... The other thing on the grade of the height we're putting in. I notice ... the height of the driveway, that's another thing we were considering. There's another oak tree in back so that's why we're trying to keep it down a little bit to try to help preserve another oak tree as well so those two things. Watson: Yeah, and that's kind of an engineering issue, and not being an engineer, I'm not willing to tackle the ... and height and move this and move that you know. That's what that guys sits there. That's his job. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Johnson: ...use that patio is... Watson: And the house itself rather than decks because. Jim Corrigan: Our's would encompass the deck. Rask: Yeah, the DNR does consider the deck to be part of the structure. Watson: Well I understand a deck is a structure but when we're trying to figure out where, you know the deck being 10 feet or 12 feet or deck's kind of. Johnson: Yeah so if you figure, let's just as a figure say it's... Watson: Worry about the building. Johnson: Let's say that you average that in and come up with a figure of 46 feet. That's where the deck has to start and then the house. Watson: Yeah, the house would have to be, I mean the deck and then build the house... sidewalk even would be supposed to be 46 feet away. Johnson: Yeah, we want nothing closer than 46 feet. Rask: Okay. Yeah, I took an average of all the, well I took an average of this one, this one, this one, this one and the one adjacent to it. And I included in an average... so that's where I had come up with the 46. Watson: And even though there isn't a house on the lot ... that all the responsibility for setbacks cannot be his. Rask: Correct. Watson: The setback responsibility has to be divided equally between this gentleman, and the gentleman who's going to build a house. Nobody's responsible for that in and of themselves. So I mean if we ... like you were saying we wanted to come up with 16 feet or something or 17 feet between the houses, it's going to have to be an equal 17 feet. Not all the responsibility, the 10 feet responsibility on the neighbor who hasn't happened to build yet. And the other, the smaller portions here. We can't do that in all good conscience to the person who's going to try and put a house on another skinny little thing next door. Johnson: Yeah, because we don't know what's going to be on next door. Watson: I think ... like he's building a tower either. ...No, It's actually 20 feet. F , 1 C r Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 ' Jim Corrigan: Can we coordinate that? Alan, if you know how you're going to place your's and I know how I'm going to place mine and we end up with... ' Watson: The only problem is, you probably won't own your house forever and either will he. We have to do this as though, it can't be kind of an arrangement between you guys. It has to be ' something that's logical from a zoning and business standpoint that would fit and look reasonable. I don't want to have to move away from Chanhassen because we. ' Audience: We have a house at 9203 Lake Riley, which is up the hill from there. And we have 16 feet right now between our two homes and I have about ... and my neighbor has ... and they were both existing structures that we were dealing with....some of these things that we always ... try to lay the garage where it's narrow and slowly expand out and some of those are just kind of restrictions of building too... �J Watson: Right, so we want to be sure that you're not dealing with something more restrictive than him simply because we've decided that we are going to end up 16 feet between these two houses and if he's using say 10 feet of that, then you're going to be responsible for more of that setback in order to come up with the 16 feet... Johnson: ...and he's already built then we've got to deal with the new guy that you sell to and he'll say well gee, how come you allowed this to happen? Watson: We always start with 20 feet and try to stay as close to the integrity of that 20 feet as we can, and still allow some ... but the 20 feet is a minimum and the variance process begins the minute you say I want less than 20 feet between these two houses. Audience: Then the 16 comes up as kind of a. Watson: No it was picked, Mark just picked it. I mean it still seems like a reasonable figure but there's nothing magical about 16 feet or 18 feet or 12 feet. It's just... Johnson: I'd rather see 10 put on both sides but we were trying to come up with a compromise of some sort. Watson: See everybody's equally responsible for that 20 feet. Audience: Right. I understand. I agree with you whole - heartedly on lots that are being developed now... Johnson: After you've been here a couple years on this Board. Watson: When you talk about variances... been there, done that you know. Johnson: And I feel if you crowd them too much, you've got to realize the fact you're going to get from that front right yard is the street being considered. It's in the lake. If you build right up Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 to the neighbor's property ... and the neighbor decides to put a fence right up there, how are you going to get by, you know. That's why I look at this. I've been on a few of these cases where a guy got mad and they threw up a fence and you don't have any room to get by. Audience: Our kids are going to be playing together anyway. Johnson: Things change. Jim Corrigan: You know John you gave us a plan that you said was, here's one that's two story. If we build that, you know a couple things apply and we really try and used a two story plan—which we looked at. First of all I think it's going to be very offensive... The second thing, that plan shows, and this was a big problem. How do you get from the street into this house? You've got a garage sitting where the back of this house is. You end up ... and so you don't end up being able to get through the house and so that's maybe you house for example, it has no door facing the street. It'd be a side door, which is how you enter that which means you'd be coming in and out... of his house and I think that would be also... Watson: And that's why I assume those houses will end up with detached garages because, in order to accommodate that... Jim Corrigan: I just wonder if you do that, if you go with a detached garage, and ... anyway from the street... Watson: Of course it does. Of course it does. Jim Corrigan: You know compared to what we proposed, which is very charming. Rask: Well just about anything that can occur on this lot is going to require variances. Either from impervious surface, setbacks. The only thing that wouldn't ... to save at least 50% of the structure and build on that. You could build up or improve what's there. Anything else is going to require a variance. If he went two full stories, he's right. The concerns do come in with light and air. However, that may be reason to deny two story. The Board certainly has the right to. Watson: It is one level. Rask: Yeah. What it boils down to is what's reasonable for this property compared to the adjoining structures and what's been done out there now and staff's position, the 7 feet seems to be adequate given that the other homes adjacent to this are 23, 24 feet in width. 6 feet smaller so. Watson: Let's go with staff's 7 feet. That's what we did before too and I think... Johnson: Can you work with something if we give 7 feet on there? Rask: I think that kind of contradicts what Mark's 5 feet on the one, which was basically the motion made. r F1 i Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Watson: Well the motion was to table. Rask: That was different from the direction given by Mr. Senn. Johnson: Because I'd rather see you hold to 7 feet... understand where Mark's coming from. Watson: Well I sort of picked 7 out of the air before because I decided that I could get comfortable with it before on that other 40 foot lot. We've been here before. The 7 feet because that way, even if the adjacent person builds 7 feet from their property line, you still have at least 14 feet, which is not wonderful but we only have 40 foot lots to begin with so. As far as the distance from the lake. Without knowing exactly where those trees are and how this would... When you look at redoing this, can you just look at doing it without messing around, but on the next time, can we see where these trees are and how big they are. Because I looked at the lot and it was hard to know. I'm not a good judge of distance and how far something looks from something else. Rask: That's on part of the recommendation is to show trees in excess of 6 inches. Watson: Yeah, so that we can see ... and if we move the house forward, cut the deck down, how much can you do that without disturbing. Johnson: Use your 46 foot. I think we can use that... Watson: Yeah, using that as the basis for the least amount we can be from the lake. Johnson: Is the DNR going to go along with that? Watson: As far as this house, I'm trying to envision where's your garage... (There was a tape change at this point in the discussion.) Jim Corrigan: ...I think at this, in fact 24 foot houses? Is that correct with what you're describing right now? And so that house there is room, given the 1 % stories, truly becomes a hallway because the pitch of the roof makes that room so narrow when you try to get what we would shoot for there is 5 foot walls... As you move that in you're, you'd end up with nothing. Watson: I know and I still feel we have to be more concerned with how this thing sits on the property when you're desiging the house. Right? Johnson: I feel that way too. Rask: Yeah the setbacks are the issue here. Watson: The setback is the issue for us. House designs. Board of Adjustments and Appeals - September 23, 1996 Jim Corrigan: You can't deal with 5 though on the one side and something that compromises on the other because that we feel would be doable. Still maintaining and having... If I go 7 and 7, I've already told him, start over. Johnson: I'd rather see 10 but I'd go along with the 7 and 7. I realize it's a bad situation with these small lots but we've work with them for years and. Watson: Do you have enough John? Rask: Yes. Watson: We've already moved on this to table ... when you work something out we'll get it back. Rask: Yes, the first meeting in October. Watson: We want to leave that public hearing open then so we won't close the public hearing. Johnson: Yes. - there's just two of us. Watson: Yeah, we'll withhold the Minutes until next time too because Mark isn't here. I have one comment to make before we adjourn. Johnson: Sure. Watson: There's a variance that the Council granted in Saddlebrook for the storage building. When those storage buildings are built and they put those roll doors on them, they look like one car garages sitting at an odd angle out in the middle of a bunch of lots. I'm sure there are people who drive through and think, why would anyone want to do that? And I have to ask, the question does beg for an answer. So if, I don't know. If they're going to use those rolled doors, I think we have to be more concerned about the placement on the lot. It does look like a one car garage planted out in the middle of this green space when and they put little petunias in front of it to think that's going to... Because of the rolled doors, it doesn't look like a storage building. It looks like a single car garage. Just for future reference. If it was even not at an angle or something. A little more, there's just something about when they sit at this angle... I make a motion to adjourn. Johnson: I'll second. Watson moved, Johnson seconded to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion carried. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 p.m. FJ Submitted John Rask Planner H Prepared by Nann Opheim ' i t CALK c ..z - W 3 S. p 07 r t i I- ic:A I t Ut SUKVt Y FOR CORRIGAN CUSTOM HOMES • I p m f fT ' o -f� 47 y r� Exur v ,�eZ,t.F ' fR /! 0 B)tb' lN.sTj•� rCET, m./ < 9twrY,ggp 1- 0 7 �i I G9•sj rollbol =8�9la3 •.. n II.Z. J y' rl N i I. I: d a 9z Ih � I • T�..//¢�s�� n 1 I LEGA DESCRIPTION P f14*�'( 3 Lot 3I, SHORE ACRES, . ,I Carver County, Minnesota. o ff' Er sr. 8717 ,✓e10r��� - - - • P,[nR�f6� 1 901 1 1 1 J•8' /.sG 1 07 - 29 7 O a twa� $ 0 eG8•�� f r fil - r AA - o�rON et - �sS.k "--cicK i o ` 40_ zi wo`,w� I =� fo ld. , N C DENOTES IRON FOUND w1v M' • DENOTES IRON SET t 7 —• DENOTES DIRECTION OF SURFACE FLOW f s •KEzr a.eaArloe rs .y�J 7 xxx DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION s�Xf9GE �E =BG3B (xxx) DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION � r✓ / >gPcO ✓ri0'��GS.3 878 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS - on.3GA RAGE FLOOR 87t• TOP OF FOUNOennw P - __` KIM A. REAUME BOOK PAGE , O 23 yZ 3 aEUS,EkEn .o Exvs ^ N 04 PROJECT N0. SHEET 1 Te /Ildy =K .4f��•.. SURVEYS 612 -475 -1314 612a75_1o15FAX REVISIONS I N — -1 rL 0 VkoPDXO e/OVI/tOG 9 /9 5r. yP J y' rl N i I. I: d a 9z Ih � I • T�..//¢�s�� n 1 I LEGA DESCRIPTION P f14*�'( 3 Lot 3I, SHORE ACRES, . ,I Carver County, Minnesota. o ff' Er sr. 8717 ,✓e10r��� - - - • P,[nR�f6� 1 901 1 1 1 J•8' /.sG 1 07 - 29 7 O a twa� $ 0 eG8•�� f r fil - r AA - o�rON et - �sS.k "--cicK i o ` 40_ zi wo`,w� I =� fo ld. , N C DENOTES IRON FOUND w1v M' • DENOTES IRON SET t 7 —• DENOTES DIRECTION OF SURFACE FLOW f s •KEzr a.eaArloe rs .y�J 7 xxx DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION s�Xf9GE �E =BG3B (xxx) DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION � r✓ / >gPcO ✓ri0'��GS.3 878 PROPOSED ELEVATIONS - on.3GA RAGE FLOOR 87t• TOP OF FOUNOennw P - __` KIM A. REAUME BOOK PAGE , R 23 yZ 1 aEUS,EkEn E 1 m:DSURVE(OK PROJECT N0. SHEET 1 SURVEYS 612 -475 -1314 612a75_1o15FAX REVISIONS I N — -1 VkoPDXO e/OVI/tOG 9 /9 5r. yP Q ,1 RG lr�fis� sr/rsO, 6C/06t /09 cx N 3305 GARI AND LANE N , -- VL7MOUIH, MINNESOT -' SS44) f L F i L 17 City Of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen, MN 55317 RE: Duhaime - Request for Building Variance at 9225 Lake Riley Boulevard August 28, 1996 9225 LakeRileyBoulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 The following will serve to outline the specific details related to the requested variance as well as to justify the manner in which this request complies with the criteria for granting a variance (pursuant to Section 20 -58) as follows: Summary. A. It is my intent to replace an existing, seasonal structure with a year -round home. B. The lot consists of approximately 50 feet of lakeshore which reduces to a width at the street of approximately 35 feet. The two side dimensions are appproximately 170 feet on the east and 193 feet on the west. The narrow nature of the lot makes it particularly difficult to make a reasonable use of the property and comply with the 10 foot side yard setback. Nonetheless, the centering of the proposed structure would actually result in an overall improvement to the side yard setbacks as compared with the existing building. C. The footprint of the neighboring house to the immediate west of the proposed new home has been included on the plot plan section of the blueprint so as to illustrate that the reasonable use of the property by the proposed new home would be very much in conformance with the existing house next door. This helps to substantiate that the the requested variance would result in a use of the property in a manner which is very comparable to the use made of similar adjacent and surrounding properties. D. Substantial effort has been made to utilize the critical boundaries of the footprint of the existing home as well as to conform to the standards of the adjacent homes with respect to the design and placement of the proposed home. The south wall of the propsed new home would be no closer to the lake than the existing structure. Because the existing structure and the neighboring homes to both the east and the west are already closer to the lake than current code allows, a compliance with current code for the proposed new home would result in a view to the lake which would include approximately 20 feet of the sides of each of the neighboring homes. This would be very undesirable and would look peculiar in that the new home would be very much out of conformance with the neighboring properties. ' II. Detail. A. South Wall. P The wall of the proposed new home nearest Lake Riley (south) would be located at the same point as that of the existing structure. This location places the south wall of the proposed home 52 feet from Lake Riley, maintaining the current, legal, non - conforming use of the property, in this respect. B. East & West Walls. As the plot plan on the far right of the blueprint indicates, the width of the proposed home, as measured from the outermost edges of the east and west walls of the proposed home would be slightly lesser than that of the existing structure. The placement is also changed slightly to more evenly locate the new home so as to maximize the side yard setbacks on both sides. Duhaime - Request for Variance - City of Chanhassen August 28, 1996 Page 2 of 2 a. West Wall. (1) The west wall of the existing home is 3.9 feet from the lot line at the southern comer. This would be improved to 5 feet. (2) The west wall of the existing home is 2.1 feet from the lot line at the northern corner. This would be improved to 5 feet. b. East Wall. (1) The east wall of the existing home is 6.8 feet from the lot line at the southern corner. This would be improved to 10 feet. (2) The east wall of the existing home is 6.8 feet from the lot line at the northern corner. This would be reduced to 5.5 feet. C. North Wall. 1. The most significant change to the footprint of the new home versus the existing structure is in the extension of the new home northward, toward the street. This extension takes the overall length of the new versus the old structure from 22.2 to 70 feet. This increased length includes an attached garage which makes up approximately 24 feet of the overall 70 foot length. The inclusion of the attached garage in the overall length dimension is an important note, as the neighboring house to the west has an overall length which is slightly more than the 70 feet of the proposed new home - and has an additional detached garage located at the northernmost edge of the lot near the street. The existing property does not have a garage. D. Deck to Match Adjacent Homes. 1. The proposed deck would extend out from the back of the house toward the lake to a point which, at its maximum, intersects with that line which would be drawn between the furthest extended points of the deck on the house to the east and the raised patio on the house to the west. This is also illustrated by the plot plan on the blueprint. E. Elevation & Style. 1. As the front (street side) elevation illustrates, the proposed home would be a two story "A- Frame." Thank you for your consideration of the enclosed and the foregoing. Sincerely, David A. Duhaime Enclosures u CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937 -1900 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION APPLICANT: David A Duhai.me ' ADDRESS: 2 CountYV ib Boad rdina, rA 55� 2n ' TELEPHONE (Day time) 6 1 2— 9 ? F— 9 2 P 0 OWNER: David A. & Susan T". Duhaime ADDRESS: C'ountrw C'1 uh Pnnd Fr'i na _ *?T7 «A''6. TELEPHONE: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit _ Vacation of ROW /Easements Interim Use Permit y- Variance Non - conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* _ Zoning Appeal Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review* X Escrow for Filing Fees /Attorney Cost ** ($50 CUP /SPR/VACNARNVAP /Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract ' NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME LOCATION LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOTALACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST YES NO This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. 1 will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. Signature of Applicant Signature of Fee Owner Application Received on f 9F Date Date Fee Pai Receipt No. I 1 The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. t CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY CORRIGAN ". F01 . CUSTOM HOMES LAK c�rG 1 6K /rf bAP� B)2. L DT lI EKNl oDdf` 4 shy sG r v f' /V C DENOTES IRON FOUND; • DENOTES IRON SET iy f` 1 —• DENOTES DIRECTION. OF SURFACE FLOW swePEti•a�Krrloa/�•f� / xxx DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION f �eyev.,863.a ("X) DENOTES. PROPOSED ELEVATION PROPOSED 'ELEVATIONS' oRii� .I.CYN/�y >eeco✓r.�f.:aGS3 LOWEST "FLOOR GARAGE FLOOR TOP OF FOUNDATION P KIM A. REAUME BOOK PAGE R •� HERESY CER'I�5' :H ' ^:S SCR': =5. REGISTERED H z ?LAN, OR REPORT W?.S ?3E ?AREC _: ME E LAND SURVEYOR PROJECT NO. SHEET OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPER`: =S:ON AND C �GO(rj G THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND I 612- 475 -1314 SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE SURVEYS 612475 -1015 FAX REVISIONS STATE of MINNESOTA. INC. -- N �� 3305 GARLAND LANE N. PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 DATE f'i "Z�� g�i REG.. NO. .19522 ` -fi 47 I � I LEGAL DESCRIPTION Lot 31, SHORE ACRES, Carver county,, Minnesota._ Er 1r. ' 6gP,/(y SL. p N 0 971.7 0 I / ,3 16z^ I 1 1 J 101.29 f` I 0 � LiT30 »oN I � (� CY'feww7) � 1 I 1. ` Q 'gum I Q O 9225 ;D POCK 86b•y 86S•z � 1 �9 LOT 3 - ZZ n � � I 1 �i GG 4 shy sG r v f' /V C DENOTES IRON FOUND; • DENOTES IRON SET iy f` 1 —• DENOTES DIRECTION. OF SURFACE FLOW swePEti•a�Krrloa/�•f� / xxx DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION f �eyev.,863.a ("X) DENOTES. PROPOSED ELEVATION PROPOSED 'ELEVATIONS' oRii� .I.CYN/�y >eeco✓r.�f.:aGS3 LOWEST "FLOOR GARAGE FLOOR TOP OF FOUNDATION P KIM A. REAUME BOOK PAGE R •� HERESY CER'I�5' :H ' ^:S SCR': =5. REGISTERED H z ?LAN, OR REPORT W?.S ?3E ?AREC _: ME E LAND SURVEYOR PROJECT NO. SHEET OR UNDER MY DIRECT SUPER`: =S:ON AND C �GO(rj G THAT I AM A DULY REGISTERED LAND I 612- 475 -1314 SURVEYOR UNDER THE LAWS OF THE SURVEYS 612475 -1015 FAX REVISIONS STATE of MINNESOTA. INC. -- N �� 3305 GARLAND LANE N. PLYMOUTH, MINNESOTA 55447 DATE f'i "Z�� g�i REG.. NO. .19522 ` -fi w 1 I b 4 f All . . . . . . . . ...... ..... v 1 fi '2 SEC: 24, T 116 . 0 Rr,23 j . „ 29 Alf I � I DOC. 91219 ._ — 336...'- �__ 1 ilt4 1 (66 ?I l: U2I + 90�� BENJAMIN SWE DOQ 91221 its f _ G E. SHRANKA VENCIL Gu iREW1TT 1 f3 1 ,I R 169, P. q6 -109 BK 132, V, 169 l I C. NO 64964 ROBERT G ROGERS ! CTF 18026 I `•._, �e ./r 1 11 , 11 I I 81191 / C f LO lD 7 S, ow' 92N0 .. ✓9U6 �1/ 4 � 3 l2 1. ST .Ig ./. ,'.. e --- b0 ...- ..a__..... _.. ..... ... _... 00 100 -- .. 00 -e 24 6o I� c9 Ip l I y it .o I I 20 -71 d OD - Wf(OT F . .. ,:? 1 �ee 13 31 l �H ( Y ; �3'•�Q ._'4�� �'2221Y"U`,,,, '! a � - 1 2)q . s /� � II 2�jLl I w 9 � 7Z 24 'l} �. )(� ��' m ` � mi a2 a1 ao t4 3�J ���l�l � I 1 C 2 28 35 t�l .�6I tI d I 1 ; 2 SEC: 2 T. /16 , R,;23 � . DALE L BOYEII 1 DSG. 912 i� r 1 -"— BENJ4MIN SWF Doc sixxl i vEMUL p. PqE 91sT � 1 ` 2�.a:, 1 "`- - G E. SHRANKA K 168, P. - 109 BK i62, P.168 C. No K)6 66964 I r 1 Q � fit. tV ROBERT G R06ERS ; 02 1 1 CTF. 18026 1 r, �e ,�j . /• 1 3 1 9 j17 1 , W 92ND - 3BD6s� 'v 340 0 3ZD SD ��3/ _ ip : c ST 4 3 ...�_..,.�._... _ loo 1O0 ,e ' 0 i. by y� �iZb1 ll� 1 e az��l _ 0urtor ,oF 1' 2. O 2 7Q ,rte QOM �r ,7 i e r 12 1 y� 1 32 i G 24 26 2 Ic i 30 i 4 Irn Ad r 1