5. James Jasin, 3705 So Cedar Dr: Appeal Variance Decisions.CITY OF
y , CHANIiASSEN
BOA DATE: 5/20/96 '
6/24/96
7/22/96
CC DATE:
CASE #: 96 -4
By: Rask:v
STAFF REPORT
a
a
1
PROPOSAL: Four (4) foot west side yard variance, six (6) foot east side yard variance, thirty -one
(3 1) 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: 3705 S. Cedar Drive
Lot 22, Block 4, Red Cedar Point
APPLICANT: James Jasin
3870 Maple Shores Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
831 -0030
PRESENT ZONING: RSF, Residential Single Family
0
1�
ACREAGE: Approximately 5,600 square feet (.13 acres)
DENSITY: N/A
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE: N - RSF, Residential Single Family
S - RD, Recreational Development, Lake Minnewashta
E - RSF, Residential Single Family
W - RSF, Residential Single Family
WATER AND SEWER: Available to the site
PHYSICAL CHARACTER: The lot contains an existing 22 x 37 foot one story home. Five lai
oak trees are located between the home and the lake. A variety
other trees are found on the property. The site is for the most p
flat and level with the exception of a small hill that is approximate
11 feet high located near the lakeshore.
2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential
I I Fol -
Itomm. WA
Ki gs Road.
1L
m i n n e - t/.,S -
ot
e�
.7
7 ,
f�l rc
Ji
L O
ke.
1L
m i n n e - t/.,S -
ot
e�
.7
7 ,
f�l rc
Ji
Jasin Variance
July 22, 1996
' Page 2
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND APPEALS UPDATE
' On July 22, 1996, the Board of Adjustment and Appeals held a public hearing to consider the
variance request of Mr. Jim Jasin. By a unanimous vote, the Board voted to deny the variance
' requested as submitted by the applicant. This matter was tabled during three previous meetings to
give the applicant an opportunity to submit revised plans. Two Board members indicated that they
would consider approval of variances for the following:
' Seven 7 foot setback on each side lot line
• Forty -four (44) feet from the lake
• Impervious surface variance of 25% (total impervious surface would be approximately 50 %)
• Maintain 30 foot front yard setback
• Construct a look -out home as opposed to a walk -out to reduce grading
The applicant revised his plans to provide a 44 foot setback from the lake, reduced the amount of
impervious surface slightly by reducing the length of the home, maintained the 30 foot setback from
the front property line, and decreased the overall height of the structure by reducing the pitch of the
roof. The applicant, however, did not wish to reduce the width of the house to provide the seven
(7) foot side yard setbacks. As proposed, the home is thirty (30) feet wide. The Board requested
that the applicant reduce the width of the home to twenty -six (26) feet to provide seven (7) foot side
yard setbacks.
' On July 11, 1996, Mr. Jasin submitted a letter explaining his revised proposal and variance request.
The applicant is requesting the following variances (see attached letter to Board of Adjustment and
Appeals dated July 11, 1996):
• 4 foot side yard setback variance on the southwest side of the home
• Maintain the present setback on the lakeside (31 foot variance)
• Maintain the present side yard setback on the northeast side (6 foot variance)
' • Lot coverage variance as required by the proposed footprint
The applicant has complied with the Board's recommendation with the exception of the side yard
' setbacks. The Board requested that the applicant provide a seven (7) foot setback on both side lot
lines. As proposed by the applicant, a four (4) foot and six (6) foot setback would be maintained
from the side property lines.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
' 1. Section 20- 615(4) states that the maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is
twenty -five (25) percent.
Jasin Variance
July 22, 1996
Page 3
2. Section 20- 615(5)c. states that the setback for side yards is ten (10) feet.
3. Section 20- 615(5)c. states that the setback for rear yards is thirty (30) feet.
4, Section 20 -481 states that the minimum setback from Lake Minnewashta is seventy -five (75)
feet from the ordinary high water level,
5. Section 20- 615(5)a. states that the setback for front yards is thirty (30) feet.
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 37 feet (814 square feet), to 30 x 64 feet
(1,920 square feet), which includes an attached three stall garage. An existing detached garage
would be removed to accommodate the new home and attached garage.
Red Cedar Point was platted in 1916 and consists of 157 lots which measure approximately 40 x
130 feet. This area was originally developed with summer homes and cottages. Over the years,
older cottages have been replaced with year -round single family homes. Numerous variances have
been granted to accommodate these year -round homes. Lots have also been assembled to create
larger building lots. Of the 20 properties which currently exist on the south side of Red Cedar
Point, 16 properties contain more than one lot of record, with the other 4 lots consisting of a single
40 x 130 lot. Therefore, the majority of homes are located on more than one lot of record on this
side of the lake.
The following variances have been approved on Red Cedar Point:
Var. # Location Type of Variance
93 -6
3618 Red Cedar Point
93 -3
3841 Red Cedar Point
92 -1
3607 Red Cedar Point
91 -4
3727 South Cedar Drive
88 -11 3605 Red Cedar Point
87 -15 3725 South Cedar Drive
87 -13 3629 Red Cedar Point
87 -10 3601 Red Cedar Point
15' lake 8' side yard variances for a deck and porch
2' side yard variance for a two car garage
1.5' side yard & 14.5 lake variance for a deck and
home addition
79' lot frontage variance for the construction of a
single family residence
4' & 2' side yard and a 26' lake variance for a garage
and home addition
4.5' side yard variance for a home addition
12' front yard, 3' side yard, 40' lot width, and a 13,000
sq. ft. lot area variance
45' lake setback variance for a home addition
Jasin Variance
July 22, 1996
Page 4
85 -27
3701 South Cedar Drive
5' front yard and 35' lake variance for a new single
family dwelling
85 -26
3713 South Cedar Drive
15' front yard variance for a two car garage
85 -20
3624 Red Cedar Point
4.8' side yard & 1.8 foot front yard variance for the
construction of a garage
84 -18
3707 South Cedar Drive
20' front yard variance for the construction of a garage
83 -5
3613 Red Cedar Point
12' front yard, 2' side yard, and a 7' lake setback
variance for the construction of a single family home
82 -12
3732 Hickory
2' side yard (east and west), 50' lot width, and 33 foot
lake setback variance for a new single family home
81 -8
3607 Red Cedar Point
13.5' lake setback variance for the construction of a
deck
ANALYSIS
The property contains an existing single family home. 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 insufficient 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. Hard surface coverage is approximately 51 % as proposed.
Staff is of the opinion that variances are needed to permit a reasonable use of the property. Staff
' requested that the following changes be made to the original plans to reduce the impacts on the
lakeshore and surrounding properties:
' 1. Maintain the existing setback of four (4) feet along the east property line by shifting the
building to the east one (1) foot. This setback will provide a seventeen (17) foot separation
between the building to the east and a twelve (12) foot separation from the building to the
' west.
Finding: The applicant revised the plans as recommended by staff.
' 2. Push the p roposed home back ten (10) feet providing a forty-four (44) foot setback from the
lake and a twenty (20) foot setback from the road. Staff will re- advertise the variance
' appeal to show this additional variance.
Jasin Variance
July 22, 1996
Page 5
3
H
5
Finding: The applicant revised the plan by moving the house pad eight (8) feet to
the north, reduced the depth of the deck by two (2) feet, and reduced the length of the
home by approximately eight (8) feet to eliminate the front yard variance. This will
achieve the recommended forty -four (44) foot lake shore setback and allow for a thirty
(30) foot front yard setback.
Submit a detailed grading and drainage plan showing existing and proposed elevations at
the following locations:
• Each lot corner.
• Top of curb or centerline of street at each lot line extension.
• Center of proposed driveway at curb.
• Grade at corner of proposed structure.
• Lowest floor level, top of block, and garage slab.
• Indication of direction of surface water drainage by arrows.
• Provide contours at two (2) foot intervals or spot elevations indicating the relationship
of proposed changes to existing topography and other features.
Finding: The applicant submitted a plan that shows several spot elevations and
retaining walls. Staff recommends a lookout rather than a walkout style home. The
revised plans show a walkout/lookout.
Show all trees in excess of six (6) inches.
Finding: Our main concern was the survival of the mature oak trees. The applicant is
proposing the use of retaining walls to preserve them. Oaks are sensitive to
construction and their chance of survival is slim to none when the root system is
impacted as shown on the proposed plans. With the proposed plan, these mature trees
will be compromised. Upon review of the grading plan, staff strongly recommends a
lookout design without retaining walls to increase the chances that the trees will
survive and reduce the negative impacts on adjacent properties.
Finding: The applicant is showing retaining walls surrounding the trees.
Show any proposed retaining walls and/or drainage swales.
I
L
L
7
6. Show elevations of the first floor of building on adjacent lots.
Finding: This requirement has been met.
CI
Jasin Variance
July 22, 1996
Page 6
FINDINGS
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and 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 applicant has demonstrated hardships that would warrant the granting of
variances if the necessary conditions are attached to the approval. Redesigning the home to
a lookout will make the home more compatible with surrounding properties while
minimizing the impacts on the lake. Variances as outlined under the recommendation
section of the report are needed to enjoy a reasonable use of the property.
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 difficulties could be
reduced by constructing a lookout type home as opposed to a walkout.
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.
Jasin Variance
July 22, 1996
Page 7
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 approval.
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 conditions are attached.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council adopted the following motion:
The City Council approves a four (4) foot side yard variance from the northeast lot line, a six (6)
foot side yard variance from the southwest lot line, thirty -one (3 1) 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 subject to the following conditions:
1. The proposed home shall be a lookout as opposed to a walkout style home.
2. Submit a grading and erosion control plan consistent with city ordinances at the time of
building permit application.
3. Rain gutters shall be utilized to direct storm water towards the street and away from adjacent
residences.
The Board of Adjustment and Appeals recommends that the City Council adopt the
following motion:
"The City Council approves a seven (7) foot side yard variance from the northeast lot line, a
six foot side yard variance from the southwest lot line, thirty -one (31) 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 subject to the following
conditions:
1. The proposed home shall be a lookout as opposed to a walkout style home.
I
r
I Jasin Variance
July 22, 1996
' Page 8
2. Submit a grading and erosion control plan consistent with city ordinances at the time of
' building permit application.
3. Rain gutters shall be utilized to direct storm water towards the street and away from
' adjacent residences."
I ATTACHMENTS
1.
Letter from James Jasin dated July 11, 1996.
'
2.
Letter from James Jasin stating reasons for the variances.
3.
Letter from adjacent property owner dated June 24, 1996
4.
5.
Letter from adjacent property owner dated May 20, 1996
Minutes from July 22, 1996 meeting
6.
Minutes from June 24, 1996 meeting
'
7.
8.
Minutes from June 10, 1996 meeting
Application dated May 1, 1996
9.
Survey showing existing building
10.
Survey showing proposed building
'
11.
Elevations of proposed building
12.
Floor plain of proposed building
13.
Plat map of Red Cedar Point
'
14.
Letter from James Jasin dated 6/16/96
15.
Elevations of original proposal
'
16.
Survey of original proposal
.TI_IL 1 2 —'fir• FR I 07: REEL —TEC:H 6 1 - 24 i 4_i 1 41 S P. ,
Ja mes J. Jas i n
3870 Maple Shnre.s Drive
F',%ccelstor, MN.55 331
61 2 - 470 - 2069 phone '
Board of Adjustmoia.t and Appeals 7/11 /c)6 '
City of Chanhassen
690 C:'otdter.• Drive '
Chanhassen M.N. 55317
1 973'7 -1900 '
FrLx 9:37 -6,739
CC; .John Bask Phan f. I I
I hay e. mviewed the sitiaatiora with my architect. We have decided that we etan reduce the ,
sirs; of the bogie.
Aly variance request is now simplified and shortened:
T idoyar•d setback vari ince on the S.W. Side
Ma the present .foundation li on the lakeside.
Maintaia the present sideyar•d setback on the ME side.
Lot coverage. as required by this footpriat.
Please (;ow4der tla_at W hen the wate from the r oof is sent to thC: 1.t,Y'tOt tyitl f t.tt,tel "S ()I). tlaC
roof the is only a sna.all strip along each side to deal with. This will bc. hiinclk d with
proper gradii g. Iii addition. tb.e 40'X 44' backyor•d ca.a also be handled by p roj)or gi
I si.n.cerrly hope you Will approve this request for mahit.- titiin; the present foundation line
ora the lakeside and N.E. side arrd a 4' vat-iance along the S.W. Lid! . We will rro.aititcain the
30' frontyar (road) setback as regt_tested.
Wirrrrrest Regards,
r�
f� YY
J ames J . J asin
James J. Jasin
3870 Maple Shores Drive
' Excelsior, MN 5533I
612 - 470 -2069 phone
612 -470 -7415 fax
' Mr. John Rask 4/30/96
Planner I
City of Chanhassen
' 690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen MN. 55317
Phone 937 -1900 ext 117
' Fax 937 -5739
Dear John,
' As we have discussed Susan and I have purchased a small home on Lake Minnewashta at
3705 S. Cedar drive. We would like to remove this 70 year cabin and replace it with our
' permanent home. We will be selling our large home on Lake Minnewashta at 3870 Maple
Shores Drive. This new smaller home will become our homestead so we can stay- on the
lake thru retirement. We have both lived on Lake Minnewashta since 1970.
' The cabin to be removed is very old and it is not worth saving anything. The basement
was dug many years after the cabin was built so it actually is 3' smaller all around than
' the outer walls of the house.
I would like to build a home that is 30' wide on this 40' wide lot. The N.E. (left) side of the
house is placed approximately 3 1/2' from the side property line. This building line can be
maintained or we can go to a 5' side yard setback on each side. This decision is totally up to
the planning commission.
' Per our discussion I have drawn the lake setback to split the difference between the
present cabin and the neighbors on the right. We have designed the house and deck to fit
carefully with the neighbors to the right. His home is also a 2 story walkout.
On the street side we have maintained the 30' setback.
' On the exterior we have chosen to go with either cedar shake siding or stucco. We have
carefully chosen a design that will compliment the neighborhood. I am open to
architectural suggestions from the commission or the neighbors.
' I am requesting side yard, lake setback and coverage variiances.
A literal enforcement Section 20 -58 would cause undue hardship and a reasonable
' home could not be built on this property.
I sincerel • hoe our \
' y p y gl•oup «-i11 find this proposal acceptable.
q est Re and J. Jasid
From: George H. Werl, Jr. To: John Rask Date: 5/20196 Time: 11:11:34 Page 2 of 2 ,
Comments to Board of Adiustments and Appeals, May 20, 1996
George and Melanie Werl (owners) 3703 S. Cedar Drive, Lake Minnewashta
Regarding Side yard and Lakeshore Setback Variances, James Jasin
New construction, 3706 S. Cedar Drive, Lake Minnewashta
We (George and Melanie Werl) are the owners of the property and structure
immediately adjacent to the property at 3705 S. Cedar Drive seeking side and
lakeshore setback variances. We have reviewed the proposed plans for the
construction and have the following comments:
1) From plans, the proponent seeks setback variances on three of
four sides of the proposed structure. Plans also indicate that the
proposed structure will also rise significantly above the roof lines of all
nearby structures. It is our opinion that the proposed construction
would significantly overbuild the property. At minimum, the proposed
plan is certainly not consistent with other nearby homes, indeed
giving the neighborhood a haphazard, cluttered look, and thus
adversely impacting upon the community's quiet enjoyment of the
lakeshore environment.
2) It would appear that due to the size of the structure, many (if not
all) of the large, old growth trees would need to be removed to
facilitate construction. We are against the senseless destruction of
so many irreplaceable trees.
3) As the plan proposes to excavate deeply into the existing hillside
within a few feet of the adjacent properties, we have concerns
regarding soil settling and resulting foundation damage to our
structure (originally built in 1921). We also find the plan deficient in
that it does not address how the extremely steep side terraces
(required by the small side setbacks) will be maintained without
settling or erosion.
We are therefore not in favor of the proposed construction in it's present form.
Note that as a result of this proposed construction, we now find it necessary to
protect our investment our property as it pertains to our future construction plans.
The Board should consider that any variances granted to 3705 S. Cedar Drive must
also be granted to 3703 S. Cedar Drive. We would strenuously oppose the grant of
any variances in this matter that do not provide equal construction flexibility to both
properties.
L
From: George H. Werl. Jr. To: Board of Adjustm John RaOate: 6124196 Time: 16:08:08 Page 2 of 3
Comments to Board of Adjustments and Appeals, June 24, 1996
George and Melanie Werl (owners) 3703 S. Cedar Drive, Lake Minnewashta
' (This document consists of two pages)
' Regarding Side yard, Front yard and Lakeshore Setback Variances,
New construction, 3706 S. Cedar Drive, Lake Minnewashta
James Jasin, proponent.
We (George and Melanie Werl) are the owners of the property and structure
' immediately adjacent to the property at 3705 S. Cedar Drive seeking side yard, front
yard and lakeshore setback variances. We have reviewed the revised plans for the
construction and have the following comments:
' 1) Our comments on the original plans (May 20, 1996) expressed the
opinion that the proposed construction would significantly overbuild
the property, give the neighborhood a haphazard, cluttered look, and
thus adversely impact upon the community's quiet enjoyment of the
lakeshore environment. We note that the revised plans include no
' significant changes to address the overbuilding of the property.
2) Our comments on the original plans (May 20, 1996) noted that
' many (if not all) of the large, old growth trees would need to be
removed to facilitate construction. The Chanhassen staff report
indicates the survival of these trees to be "slim to none" even with the
' revised proposed construction. We continue to be against the
senseless destruction of so many irreplaceable trees.
3) Our comments on the original plans (May 20, 1996) noted that
due to the proposed excavation, we are concerned regarding soil
' settling and resulting foundation damage to our structure as well as
addressing how the extremely steep side terraces will be maintained
without settling or erosion. As the side setback towards our property
' is proposed to be further reduced, our concern is, of course
increased.
We are therefore still not in favor of the proposed construction, as the revisions do
not address any of the above stated concerns. However, even given our concerns
' (and those of other residents), staff has apparently still recommended approval of
the proposed construction and the granting of numerous variances.
' As we stated in our comments of May 20, 1996, we do have an investment in our
property to protect. We therein stated that a grant of the proposed variances to
' 1
From : -jeorge H. werl, Jr. To: Board of Adjustr : John RaOate: 6/24/96 Time: 16:09:39 Page 3 of 3
3705 S. Cedar Drive must also be equally granted to our property at 3703 S. Cedar
Drive.
In as much as we were not provided with the staff report until Friday, June 21,
1996, and, in point of fact have never been approached by Mr. Jasin to discuss his
proposal, we have not had sufficient time to prepare any formal site plans for future
development of our property that would be in keeping with Mr. Jasin's intentions.
We therefore propose the board assume that a structure equivalent to the plan
proposed by Mr. Jasin will be constructed in the future on our property. We request
that as a part of this instant proceeding, equivalent variances be granted to our
property at 3703 S. Cedar Drive To wit:
1) Section 20- 615(4): Increase allowable maximum impervious
surface requirement from 25% to at least the Jasin requested 51 %.
2) Section 20- 615(5)c: Decrease required minimum side yard
setback from ten (10) feet to at most the Jasin requested four (4) feet
from the east property line.
3) Section 20- 615(5)c: Decrease required minimum side yard
setback from ten (10) feet to at most the Jasin requested six (6) feet
from the west property line.
4) Section 20 -481: Decrease the required minimum setback from
Lake Minnewashta from seventy -five (75) feet to at most the Jasin
requested fourty -four (44) feet from the ordinary high water level.
5) Section 20- 615(5)a: Decrease the required minimum front yard
setback from thirty (30) feet to at most the staff proposed twenty (20)
feet from the road.
We again state that we strenuously oppose the grant of any variances in this matter
that do not provide equal construction flexibility to both properties.
2
r
I �
CHANHASSEN ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
' REGULAR MEETING
JULY 22, 1996
Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Carol Watson, Willard Johnson and Mark Senn
' STAFF PRESENT: John Rask, Planner I
' VARIANCE FOR A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD A 4 FOOT EAST SIDE YARD A 5 FOOT
WEST SIDE YARD AND LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 3705 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE,
JAMES JASIN.
John Rask presented the staff report on this item.
Watson: What is the total impervious surface, or the percent of loss?
' Rask: It really hasn't been reduced. He did shorten up the length of the structure. However,
additional driveway will be needed then to reach the structure so we're still looking at about
51% I believe.
Johnson: Do you want to comment Mr. Jasin at this time?
L
Jim Jasin: My name is Jim Jasin. I live at 3870 Maple Shores Drive, and I guess I'd just
like you to accept staffs recommendation. I've worked with staff however long, from the
beginning and I've tried to take into account all their suggestions and I ... so I'd just ask that
you would accept what they're recommending.
Johnson: Mark, any comments. Why don't you start.
Senn: John, was the lot a 40 foot lot?
Rask: Correct.
Senn: And we don't have any minimum width?
Rask: Minimum width on property would—be 75 feet at the lakeshore, moving up to 90 feet
for lot frontage. Frontage on a public street.
1
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996
Senn: So that was one of the things I was curious about. We're not really varying on that?
Rask: Yeah, it's a non - conforming lot and a non - conforming building on there now so he's
requesting a variance to do what he has proposed.
Senn: ...non- conforming lot?
Rask: Correct.
Watson: The structure's 41 feet from the...
Rask: Fourth floor currently.
Senn: And there's a variance here on the surface coverage that the lot itself would require
Rask: No, because the way the ordinance, if it was a vacant lot and never contained a home
or had a home on it, it would not be buildable under today's ordinance. The fact that he has
a structure on there or there has been a structure on there prior to adoption of the ordinance,
makes it a buildable lot. The question then comes into, what's a reasonable size home for this
parcel. Under the ordinance you would be allowed, under today's ordinance he would be
allowed to maintain that existing structure provided that he doesn't remove more than 50% of
it. There's a 50% rule in there. So he could do just repairs to it and build it up on it's
existing foundation without needing variances. It's when he takes the structure down and
wants to start over, that all these other come into play.
Senn: What do the neighbors think? I wasn't here.
Rask: Over the past two meeting we have heard from several of the adjoining, the neighbors
on both sides have submitted comments in writing and have attended the meetings and they
are concerned with the impacts that the house would have on their properties. The neighbor
to the northeast, they'd like to see similar variances granted on his property in the future. He
also, if this one goes and gets developed into a large year round home, he would also
consider doing the same thing but as currently these are more or less cottages. They were
cottages at one point.
Watson: There's another one down the road that wanted ... the same situation but they waited.
Rask: And with the other adjoining neighbor here has some concern also. I think some of
those have been alleviated with shortening up the structure and reducing the height and they
were here last time expressing concern.
2
l J�
0
u
u
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996
Senn: What is the need in relationship to the rebuilt?
Rask: The need?
Senn: I mean effectively what's being accomplished is they want to transform a cabin and a
summer home into a permanent residence?
Rask: Correct.
Senn: Same owner, same occupant?
Rask: No. The applicant recently purchased the lot. There's a resident in it now who I
believe is renting the structure. He wants to replace it with a year round house for himself.
It's I believe a retirement home. And the foundation on the existing structure is such that it
wouldn't support much remodeling at all.
Senn: This was in a couple months ago.
Rask: Correct.
Senn: But most of the discussion occurred at the last one.
Rask: Yes. This would be the third revision you've seen on it.
Johnson: We tabled the first one to come back with a better plan and we tabled the second
one to come back with a better plan.
Watson: I think the first one he wasn't here...
Senn: I think this just starts and keeps going up ... I don't know.
Jim Jasin: Can I say something? You know I have worked with staff since day one and I've
taken their recommendations all the way along and I have compromised all the way along.
Each time I was asked to do something, I did it. The only thing I couldn't do of what was
asked this time was from the 26 feet wide versus the 30 foot wide but I've compromised
everything else that you've asked for. Even what you asked for at the last meeting. But yes,
I've compromised...
Johnson: Carol made a comment last time ... but I can't go any smaller. Maybe less on the
side lot... neighbor's property.
9
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996 1
on the side lots
Watson: What would be the address of that property? Approximately. I
Jim Jasin: 3629.
Jim Jasin: Where I stand, a 1 foot difference from what she asked for on that side.
Watson: 3629. They have about a 12 front yard and 3 foot side yard. And 15,000 square
Johnson: Yeah, but she asked for 7 feet on both sides. I wanted 10 because I've seen too
much of this where they're sitting on top of the neighbors and you've got in the future, there's
'
always a hassle.
'
Jim Jasin: Well we're going to end up with 12 feet on one side and 17 feet on the other side.
Watson: 3629.
Watson: That's not your land.
Johnson: That's not your land.
'
Watson: See the other people can come over and do the same thing and then you don't have
12 feet on the side.
'
Jim Jasin: Well there's been a lot of variances greater than that out there in that area,
,
Johnson: No way. I've been on them so I know.
Jim Jasin: ...Johnsons last time and said that she had 10 feet on either side of her house ... she
had a variance on the sidewalks so I don't know how she could get up and say that. The
other thing is .... got a totally non - conforming deck that they never even came and asked for a
variance for. He just built it. And I reserve saying that because ... but here he's got a deck
'
that's totally non - conforming that he never even asked for a variance. He just went and built
it. And she's saying, she's got 10 feet on her side and she gets variances for side lot on her
house. So I don't know. You know when people say ... go back and check ...
'
on the side lots
Watson: What would be the address of that property? Approximately. I
Jim Jasin: 3629.
Watson: 3629. They have about a 12 front yard and 3 foot side yard. And 15,000 square
foot lot.
'
Jim Jasin: So you know there she said, she didn't have any side yard and...
Senn: Which one is that?
Watson: 3629.
I Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996
' Johnson: You're talkin g 13,000 square feet.
' Senn: Yeah, so there's no coverage...
' Jim Jasin: That's probably because she owns something on the back side. Not the lot itself
because the lot is 40 x 151 ... 13,000 square feet.
I Watson: No, it's a 13,000 square foot area variance.
Senn: Is that what that's supposed to say is lot area variance?
1 Rask: Yes.
' Senn: I get it.
Jim Jasin: It appears... and I'm going to be coming down with the roof length and going up
' with a look out where she's got a full three story. Another thing here is you look at Dave
Hempel's deck, and there is no variance on the deck. It's way out from what would be
allowed so I don't think that that's right. And I don't think Dave's got a problem right now
with the side lot variance. When he spoke the last time he said, well if we're going to
approve it, it doesn't make any difference to him whether it's 5 feet.
' Johnson: Well for fire sake, I feel the farther apart we keep it the better off we are. If we
get a big storm out there and that place catches on fire, it will take out that whole strip.
' Senn: What's the address of the deck?
' Rask: 3707.
Senn: 3707?
' Rask: Correct.
Senn: There's a 20 foot front yard variance there for a corner lot.
Rask: I don't think it's the deck. I didn't. see any permits for it. Ldon't know if it was there
before the ordinance... There's no indication as to when or where that, when that deck was
' constructed.
Senn: When was the house constructed?
I
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996
Rask: Boy, it was.
Jim Jasin: You mean when was it remodeled? The deck was one way after they remodeled,
to my understanding.
Rask: We don't have any building permits for the original house either. We would on the
remodel. We would on the garage addition. But we do not have any original building
permits.
Senn: If we have it off the remodeling, wouldn't there be some records of that deck?
Rask: If it's all internal, they're not expanding the footprint, they don't have to get surveys.
Senn: Okay.
Johnson: If the gentleman on the other side comes up and wants to build a home the same
size and we've already granted a variance for this one, we'll have a whole bunch of them
sandwiched just like a sardine can.
Jim Jasin: Well you'd just have two houses that way because this lot is two lots and the one
over on the next side is two lots. Dave's got two lots and the one on the other side of this
lot.
Watson: But there's others in there that don't.
Johnson: Once we set a precedent, we leave ourselves wide open.
Senn: Well, you two have sat through everything so I think I'll wait for direction.
Watson: Well the only reason I'd accept those parameters... was because I felt that that was
what I was going to live with. And I'm saying that I had hoped that we had to come
down ... and those parameters. The original footprint has put us closer to the lake obviously
than we would like to be, and lots of other things that come into play that we can't really
control at this point.
.Jim Jasin: These lots were plotted in .1916 and it's hard to apply 1980 rules to 1916 lots.
Johnson: You've got to bend some on some of them. I've seen a lot in this city where the
people have tried to work with the city board and the staff. I think Carol gave you a pretty
good figure which we would try to live with.
C�
u
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996
Watson: We've got a couple neighborhoods like this...
Johnson: Yeah, we've got three neighborhoods in this city that could just like a snowball it
could affect the neighborhoods too. Well you did it for this guy, you've got to do it for us.
Watson: Well you know. I mean if, on one side of the house we have a 4 foot from the side
yard, right? Or 6 feet on the one side and 4 on the other.
Johnson: I still say it should be 7 and 7 at least. I wanted 10 but I'll go along with 7 and 7
but I won't go with less. And there are homes that would fit on there.
Watson: Do we have any statistics John? John, do we keep any statistics about where are
smallest side lot line variances are? You know, what have we done. Where have we done
them. What was our reasoning when we allowed 4 feet... I'm just wondering what, if we've
done that.
Rask: No we haven't.
Watson: Do we have any 4 foot side yard?
Rask: That, I'm sure we probably do somewhere. They're existing.
Watson: They're existing but nothing that we have actually done.
Rask: Yeah, that I can't speak to. I don't think you see any that close on the variances
granted on Red Cedar Point.
Rask: Okay. Yep.
Jim Jasin: There's an 8 foot side yard variance they granted, 3906.
Jim Jasin: There is a 4 foot granted to 3605. There's a 4.5 foot granted to 3725. There's a 4
foot 8 inch side yard on 3624.
Watson: Well I guess for 3624 that was a garage so the structure's not going to be nearly as
large.
Jim Jasin: So there was an 8 foot on...
Watson: For a deck and porch.
94
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996
Jim Jasin: 4.5 foot on 3725. If you want to go 5 and 5, that's fine with me. That's not an
issue. I know Dave Hempel said last time that 5 and 5 was okay with him.
Johnson: But you've got to get back to the back yard and you'll be walking on the neighbor's
property, You've got to get to the back yard and that's a pretty slim area. 5 foot on either
side is too close. 7 is too close. 10 is even marginal.
Watson: What do you think Mark? Give us a new look here.
Senn: Well I think if you two have kind of set the parameter and you've done it twice, you
know 7 foot. I mean it's up to you I think whether you want to stick to your guns or not. If
you want to stick to your guns, well I'll support it with you. My biggest problem with this,
from my standpoint, the thing that bothers me the most about it is the coverage.
Watson: The 51 %. That's what bothers me too...
Senn: We can sit here and 12 feet here and 12 feet there from the side yard is all we want or
from...
Watson: But more than half of this lot is impervious surface and no matter how hard we try
to run the water off that, the runoff to the street, we're going to be running runoff straight into
that lake regardless of how we do it simply because the coverage is so high.
Jim Jasin: But Carol we're only talking about a 40 by 44 foot section that would all go
forward. Everything else is going back to the street.
Watson: Well I understand that.
Jim Jasin: And how much water is there in 40 x 44? That's less than half the size of this
room. It's not that big a yard.
Watson: Not assuming that every bit of the rest of it goes to the street, that's probably true
If it all makes it to the street.
Jim Jasin: That's my plan and I know that I can do that.
Watson: Well I'm not going to make the motion this time. I did it last time.
Jim Jasin: Staff recommends approval.
I
L
I Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996
Watson: We understand that.
' Senn: We don't even allow that kind of a coverage ratio is any type of a commercial investor
situation, and even there we've got storm sewers that can trace them all over the place.
' Watson: Right, we don't have that here.
' Johnson: The folks down the street that have that low spot across the road. It will look like
a hockey rink, with an island in the middle out there.
' Senn: The thing that, when lots were created on the basis of 40 feet by whatever you said
this was. 150 feet I think. Nobody ever anticipated, or I can guess even imagined that this
size of a structure would ever be put on a lot this size. As far as coverage goes.
' Watson: Well, when I came down here in 1979 either did 1. It never occurred to me. In fact
it was that very issue that started this whole thing for me.
Senn: I mean as you all know, I'm probably one of the most liberal benders on variances...
Well I mean most the time when we're dealing with these things, I mean to allow somebody
' to add on something to stay in their house or something like that. I mean those get to be
hard decisions. Do it this way and let them stay or do you tell them it's time to move on. I
' don't know. But I mean all the years I've been sitting on this I don't remember any record
near 50% impervious and that's what I guess I keep coming back to.
' Jim Jasin: There's a lot of them out there, I'll address your point, that are way over...
Watson: Yeah but we didn't do that specifically. I mean we know we're sitting here with a
' proposal that's going to cover 51% of this piece of ground. We know that. You know the
figures are in front of us.
Johnson: Technically the non - conforming one is smaller.
Watson: Technically my 7 feet on each side isn't going to solve that problem for us. I mean
' I picked it but it's not going to significantly change.
Johnson: But still our problem the situation is much of this ... and I know what Mark is saying
' too. 51% to put your house up. Then you put a walkway around the house and you've
covered the whole lot.
I Jim Jasin: Well I'll trim the side of the driveway with lilacs.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - July 22, 1996
Watson: I'm ready for a motion.
Johnson: I make a motion that we deny the variance at 3705 South Cedar Drive. House is
too large. Too much coverage, over 51 %.
Senn: I'll second that.
Johnson: Any more discussion?
Johnson moved, Senn seconded that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals deny the 4 foot
west side yard valiance, 6 foot east side yard variance, 34 foot lakeshore setback valiance,
and a valiance from the maximum impervious surface requirement of 25% for the
construction of a single family home on the basis that the house is too large and theme's too
much impervious coverage at 51 %. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Johnson: You can appeal this to the Council.
Senn: I think it's important that you understand... Staff tried to work with you to come up
with the best workable solution ... you can go to Council because the Council can make any
decision they want ... and that's really the best place for a decision such as this. If there's any
way that staff..
ZONING APPEAL FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION TO ALLOW A BOAT LIFT
ON THE BOYER'S STERLING ESTATES BEACHLOT AT OUTLOT 1, BOYER'S
STERLING ESTATES, MARY J MOORE.
John Rask presented the staff report on this item.
Johnson: Does the ordinance specifically say anything about boats...?
Rask: No. No, we don't address that. We have a separate section of the Code that deals
with recreational beachlots and we don't refer to boat lifts specifically anywhere in that. It
just states that all structures need to meet that 10 foot setback. No place anywhere in our
ordinance do we deal with boat lifts. Even on an individual lot. We state there's only three
boats moored on a site but we don't say -if they can be tied to a dock or boat lift or pulled on
shore.
Johnson: The only thing I was referring to is all the literature I read here, there's no referring
to the boat lift whatsoever. That's the reasoning of course.
10
1
�I
r
7
7
CHANHASSEN ZONING BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 24, 1996
Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson, and Don Chmiel
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Planning Director; Sharmin Al -Jaff, Planner II; and
Roger Knutson, City Attorney
VARIANCE FOR A 10 FOOT FRONT YARD, A 4 FOOT EAST SIDE YARD, A 4 FOOT
WEST SIDE YARD AND LAKESHORE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED RSF,
RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND LOCATED AT 3705 SOUTH CEDAR DRIVE,
JAMES JASIN.
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff repoit on this item.
Johnson: Mr. Jasin, do you want to address this?
Jim Jasin: You bet, thank you.
Johnson: Go to the podium up there and state your name and address please.
Jim Jasin: Okay. My name is Jim Jasin. I live at 3870 Maple Shores Drive on Lake
Minnewashta. My wife is Susan Jasin. We've lived on Lake Minnewashta for 27 years and
we've raised our family there. We now have four of our children in the area of Chanhassen,
and two are out of the area. And our goal is to stay here and stay on the lake. This has been
our home. Plus with taxes the way they are, we'd like to reduce our ... because I'm going to
retire and I want to set up a mortgage with a fixed income situation... The Red Cedar Point
subdivision was platted in 1916 and didn't really take into account today's zoning so that's
why we're asking for a variance. This is a lot of record. There have been many, many
variances requested and granted in this subdivision and... community. I put together a plot of
the subdivision and in this area here I've drawn out where the variances are, and I've listed
them over here. What I'd like to do is show you what we're starting with. A house that we
started with is 71 years old I believe and the foundation was, the house was built without a
foundation and then it was later dug so it's been shored up with posts ... trees in the middle.
Do you want me to go into these variances?
Aanenson: We've got them listed out.
Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996
Jim Jasin: Alright. So here's another shot of the house. What I'm really working on
improving here. Ever since the beginning I worked with the city staff and taken their
recommendations and worked with each one of them. So I'd like to go over the proposal that
I made to the city staff in detail because I feel I've taken into account every request and some
of the neighbor's requests. So first I'd like to apologize for not being in town. Last time I
was out of town on business and Susan, and my son -in -law, Bill... Every time we have met
the people in the planning group they've been super. My original proposal was drawn to the
suggestions of John Rask who was guiding me through the procedure. It was by his
suggestion that we move the house forward, to split the distance between the house that I had
taken down and the Hempel's... Also it was his suggestion that we go five feet on either side
rather than 4 and 6. He felt that you'd like to... This is another shot of the house taken this
summer. Last fall. This is a shot of downstairs where you can see ... needs to come out
because it's just trees... This is a lot showing, or a picture showing elevations... And this is a
picture along the frontage of the house showing the neighbor's house and their porch coming
out towards the lake in front of our's so we won't be certainly blocking their view at any
point building the house the way it's presented. In reviewing the records I note that the city's
response to my proposal was postmarked on the 17th. Since the meeting was on May 20th, I
really didn't have time to prepare ... or any formal response... tabling the matter. It is my
intention to work with city planners. I was quite surprised that they changed... Okay the first
one falls with the lot line. Maintain the existing side yard of 4 feet along the east side, which
is the lake side, by shifting the building 1 foot east. The side yard setback, this will provide
a 17 foot separation, I'm sorry, between the building to the east and a 12 foot separation from
Hempel's. We will push the proposed home back 8 feet and reduce the size of the deck by 2
feet. This provides a 44 foot setback from the lake, which is well in the back of Hempel's
house... In my letter I stated that we can run gutters all the way along the side of the house
so that we can take all the water out to the back. The only water that would come down here
is found in this 6 feet and ... 4 feet, and if necessary, I can grade it all back out. But all this
water's going to go to the street. So I don't think we're going to have a water problem on the
stairs from that much water. I mean it's, I think we can take care of the water on the lot
without any problem. And as Sharmin eluded to, the walls ... have been professionally
designed by the landscape architect... give you the plan. I didn't want to go ahead with a
landscape architect until ... retain these trees because we will not be filling at all around the
trees with any of the excavating. Or digging out around the ... This can be done with a good
landscape plan. By building tiers of landscaping and I'll show that to you. Okay, any
questions on that? Skip the next one... Oh yeah, this is a picture of the Hempel's home,
which is next door and please note that it is three levels. This is the walkout level. Totally
exposed. This is the next level and the third level. So I'm really keeping in line with their
elevations. In fact when I bring my grade up, it will be somewhere right in there. So I won't
be exposing as much of the home on the bottom as they have here... As you can see in this
picture, the stairs are way below the base of the tree so that if I put the stairs in the same
2
r
L L
L
Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996
place, can you guys see this? How they—coming down at the floor level of the house. So I
won't be disrupting any of this soil here. In other words I've been leaving all that in the
grading plan ... I was hoping actually when I let myself down these stairs and I said my
goodness. I can cut through right here. I won't be disrupting dirt. I won't be disrupting the
trees that much. I think I can prepare the wall plans that will allow the trees to be saved.
I've done it on several other homes that I've built on wooded lots ... save the trees there too.
Staff was concerned about a full walkout and we had the architect... the plans. We dropped
the height of the roof five feet, and we dropped the bottom ... three feet so now I only really, I
don't have the same exposure as you originally saw. So that should help. If you want to ... if
people decide for looks you want eyebrows and on the side, I'm willing to spend the extra
money to make the house look good and do the lot right. I'm not strapped in building a
house. I can add the things where I need. Again we've brought the roof line down to a 6:12
pitch. Here's a picture I got from the Keystone Retailing Walls showing something similar to
what I'll be doing. Not exactly but I'll be running the stairs inbetween the retaining walls like
that and I'll be doing a number of tiers that the landscape architect chooses to drop. I've done
retaining walls with these before, and these are the same I think that you've used on
Minnewashta Parkway. Here again I wanted to show you the elevation of the tree bases. But
I really feel fortunate that those stairs were there because that will save the trees. Here again
is more retaining walls from the Keystone catalog, which you can see ... and it isn't that big a
project when you're only dealing with 40 feet of frontage. Here's a house that's down the way
on the beach from us. But you can see again it's a full three stories exposed. Stacked right
up on the other and a high roof so I'll be cutting that off and cutting off part of the roof. And
very close on the side. On this side over here and I'll show an aerial photography shot that I
made of that house. Here's two houses together, and you can see by this car that's about, it's
a small car so it's maybe 7 feet wide at the maximum. These two roof lines are very close,
and it's in our area. We won't get anywhere near as close as that with the roof line. Also the
coverage on these two is much more than I have. So the letter that I got on Saturday, it says
staff recommends the Board of Adjustment and Appeals approve the variance for the 4 and 6
foot side yards and the 34 foot lakeshore setback ... so I guess I'd like to ask for the order. I'd
like to ask for your approval. There with what the staff has shared... Any questions?
Chmiel: No. Not right now I don't.
Johnson: Okay. Are you all done sir? Is there any neighbors wish to speak on this project?
Please, state your name and address please.
Dave Hempel: My name's Dave Hempel. I live at 3707, the adjoining property to the
proposed construction. I don't know if I can make any other points that I didn't make last
time I was here. The front yard, the grading, the walkout. None of us neighbors... the
structure so close to the other building with some concerns if it's properly graded and guttered
3
Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996
and so forth, I'm sure that could be alleviated to some degree. I don't know if some of Jim's
representations were exactly correct. My house is considered on the tax statement as a 1 1/2
story because that upper room is built in the roof with a window up in there and it's a non -
trussed structure so it ... attic. There is a ... that gives the appearance of a two story at the roof
line out on it and I had to replace ... I think disagreements or whatever you want to call them
on the proposed project, the lot setback and there are variances granted in the area and I had
one granted. Several other people have had them granted but I don't know if anybody's had
variances granted on just about every aspect of the building code. I'd almost be more willing
to accept, I mean if this thing went through as proposed, I'd be more willing to accept the 5
foot setback on my side instead of 6, and encroaching on the other neighbor by going to a 4
foot setback. True it gives the 17 or 18 foot, whatever his numbers were, perhaps between
the two structures now but I'm sure ... other lot in the future and if you start talking fair is fair
and you give the adjoining property a 4 foot setback, you're going to have two buildings 8
feet apart. I don't know. It just seems like about a very large structure for that piece of
property, in my mind. I could envision you know a 1 or 1 1/2 story with a dormer roof room
upstairs and walkout or something... the length of it. I don't know whether, I can't remember
real well. I guess 70 feet. I don't know. I think everybody in the area ... and that's basically
where we're all coming from. The project is pretty much... and you don't like to see them be
encroached upon anybody ... the neighbors next door on the other side. I don't know how
much work the city will have to do if all that runoff goes out to the street. There is a low
spot there and when they put the sewer and water through the area, the city raised the culverts
up and there's one part of the street up there that's muddy and ... I don't know what kind of
problems that will cause... I guess that's all I can really say right now. I don't know. Overall
I guess the... I know Jim pointed out a couple of other structures... I've lived there for 31
years ... and the other home I believe was, I don't know. Is the code 15 foot side lot?
Chmiel: 10 foot.
Dave Hempel: So there wouldn't be any variances on that particular structure that looks
similar to ... three story walkout. I know several of the other neighbors have been denied
variances and have built structures to stay within, you know. Odd sized structures rather than
24, 36 feet. They cut down on the 26 feet...
Johnson: Thank you Mr. Hempel. Anybody else?
Lynn Johnson: My name is_Lynn ,Johnson and I live at 3629 Red Cedar Point. And thank
you for showing my home. It was rather coincidence that I'm here today. I was here last
week, or the last time that this Council met and did not speak because I wanted to give the
property owner the opportunity to make adjustments but since I've seen my home as part of
this issue, I would like to respond to first of all some of the things that were brought up about
4
n
J
f
Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996
my home. First of all on either side of me, on one side is a home that was built in the
1930's. I have no idea where their property line is but I can tell you that on that side of the
property, to the best of my knowledge, I am 10 feet from the property line. On the other
side, which is Charles Anding's home, that home was built in the 1950's. I'm not sure what
their property line is but I can tell you that I am 10 feet from my property line. Different, at
least to my property is the ... at the house level and Chuck's son is here and he tells me that on
the—side it is 10 feet. So that's... 125 feet from the lake. So in no way am I, or did I need a
variance in order to put that house up. I'm not sure about the side yard. I did come before
the Council and discuss my house and I'm not sure since I've been there 10 years, what the
issues were. One of the issues I know was the... The property that I am on, at one point it's
all a hill and where I have the property it ended and went down to a dramatic drop. A
retaining wall that was there, and existing, and that of course was not touched. But to
accommodate the concerns of runoff, I changed the roof structure to a shed roof structure and
so the water runs off and it runs out into the street without any problems. I am not opposed
to these people building and I do understand that sure, many people do need variances in
order to accommodate a structure on their property. What I'm here and opposed to, the
reason I came in the first place is, I feel that they need a variance from the ... and from each
side of the house and also for the lake, which is what... Further I would like to state that
when I saw the pictures there, and ... was up for sale I went over and looked at it. I was quite
surprised that the house currently is very close to the lake and so even using those guidelines
of ..44 feet from the lake. That really surprises me because there is very much of a grade
there and it seems to me the house is extremely sitting on a hill, very close to the lake
structure. I, of course would not have ... but visually when you look at that, it seems like the
house is quite close to the lake. It is my wish that you give careful consideration to giving
too many variances. This is the 90's and there are a lot of people interested in having
lakeshore property and I can't blame them for that but when you are asking for the ordinance
to be looked at from four different angles, and variances to be given to four different ... I think
that has to be given very, very careful consideration.
Johnson: Thank you. Anybody else wish to?
Richard Wing: My name's Richard Wing, 3401 Lakeshore Drive. North side of Lake
Minnewashta and ... long time friend of Jim Jasin... I don't wish to discuss the variances
tonight. I think that involves the neighbors and the people that will live near to it, and I live
on the north side, not anywhere near this area... after another of 40 foot, 50 foot lots of record,
and I was really hopeful that years ago ... city would take a dimmer and dimmer view of letting
this area just continue to develop in the 1910 style in the period of the 1990's. 40 foot lots
are difficult to deal with and ... but just as a resident of the city, that the city is continuing to
allow large homes to be built on these small lots and additions to be built that just simply
didn't fit. When you have 10 pounds of potatoes in a 5 pound bag... Again, I don't wish to
5
Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996
discuss the variances. I guess the only thing I'm really here...I've known Jim as long as I
have, I wouldn't want to look at the alternative, or the opposite side of Jim. I think he builds
a very quality home and what he puts on that lot regardless... is going to be a home of
architectural standard. Quality materials. Quality building. Quality landscaping... are going
to be very fine. I think whatever home he puts there, it's going to be a real addition. If
you're going to have something built there, I guess I'm just pleased it's Jim because it's going
to be a quality home. The concern is if someone like Jim said this isn't going to work and
it's too expensive to put up and so on and so forth... around Red Cedar Point, you can see
some of the options that would maybe occur on that lot. If somebody came in and said well,
I'll get the lot but I can't afford to do much with it, I think the neighbors could suffer
greatly-just because of the size of the lot. Again, I don't want to address the variances but I
just want to support Jim as quality builder and my friend and I think he'll put up a good
product there, whatever it turns out to be. Thank you.
Kevin Smith: My name is Kevin Smith. I live at 3837 Red Cedar Point. I'm not what you'd
call a neighbor, but I'm down the street. I used to own the piece of property at the end of
Red Cedar and I have gone through the process that I hear here and I do want to say that I
sold the piece of property and now have a beautiful house on it and the neighbors had some
questions about oh, what was going on there. The planning group here, we've worked
together. The buyer and the seller and what he wanted to do and I want to commend the
planning group here for, I have 160 feet on the lake and 11 feet on the road, so there was
some real head scratching going on, on how in the world can you get access that's adequate to
this lot. Well, with the planning people it was all worked out and it's working fine but the
same issues came up. The amount of water that was going to come off of this new piece of
property that used to be an empty lot and now there's a house there. And I guess I want to
say that you people have a tough job because you're applying today's laws to yesterday's lots
and to my knowledge everything that's out there on Red Cedar Point, which you have allowed
variances for, have turned out very successful. I don't think we can point out there to any
kind of job that went on that we're really sorry that we allowed the variance. Now as Mr.
Wing said, I'm not going to even address the neighbor's issue about the variance. I mean they
live next door. But we need to have quality building. We need to be able to address these
40 foot lots that you're stuck with and I don't think it's appropriate to say to Mr. Jasin that
he's got to wait for another lot to come available so he can have 80 feet. Then he can build.
That doesn't make sense. You've got expensive property and the city needs to build on it.
Build something on it and it's your job to decide what you're going to let build there, and all
the. way along- and I know you have in the past and I have a case in point, you have done a
good job of deciding for this area, what's quality and what's going to work. And I want to
thank you for it and where I come from is, I'm not sure of whether this is really an
infringement on the neighbors or there's s6`me politics going on, and it doesn't really matter
because I think you'll sort all that out and do a good job of deciding whether this variance,
1
I
n
I Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996
whether these variances should be passed. And as a neighbor far away, I really don't have an
' objection. What I want out there is in 10 years for us to still be proud of what's there, and
these properties, these 40 foot lots are going to continue to come up and up and up and up
and up so you are really laying ground work for the future. Alright, thank you.
' Johnson: Anyone else wish to address it? Gentleman there?
George Roehl: My name is George Roehl. I live on the property immediately adjacent to the
other side, 3703 South Cedar. My address of record is 10 Acorn Drive,...Lake, Minnesota.
We purchased the cabin about a year and a half ago and the cabin at 3703 is not suitable for
year round habitation. It's not insulated ... in many cases. I am looking at a piece of property,
built about the same time as the property Mr. Jasin has, that will need to be rebuilt also in the
future. Both properties are about 70 years old. In my case the property requires a lot more
work since it's not insulated. I was not present at the last meeting. I did however fax to the
Board some written comments as I could not be here. I also faxed for your review some
written comments for this meeting and I'd like to review them very quickly. My prime
comment is that I feel that this particular design over builds the property. A 30 foot wide
house on a 40 foot wide lot, presenting three stories to the lakeshore, requiring side setbacks
on both sides, street setbacks, pavement variance and a setback from the lake. Inasmuch as
you're giving variances to virtually everything, I think that perhaps some more consideration
should be given as to the scope of the project. My second concern that I have again
reinforced this time around is the loss of the trees. I refer to the staff report, I believe it's
page 5 of the staff report where staff indicates that the survival, the survival of the trees on
the property is in their words, slim to none, even retaining walls. These are oaks ... trees, I
have some serious concerns that these trees will be taken out because they're not going to
grow back. If I could prevail upon about three overheads back, if you have that handy.
There was a picture of the rear elevation of the house as seen from the lake that shows the
detail of the steps. I have some serious concerns given the drawing elevation. That's a
wrong elevation of the house. But I also have some serious concerns regarding the lot and
my picture that was up there, that shows the elevation of reference stated on the first floor of
the house as seen from the lake. And I would have some serious concerns because of the
sharpness of the grade that you have seen in the pictures, that the trees indeed can be
preserved when dropping some 9 or 10 feet from the reference grade, right down to make
that... where the house is. Again, I'm not a landscape architect. I'm not a landscape authority
on this but I would like to stress concerns that the drawing that I see on the overhead right
now and pictures and the property that I know to have seen ... The third thing of course is that
these terraces, it seems to me that we are cutting a very sharp cut into that hillside, that the
terraces are going to be rather predominant. We are in the property next door. I have a baby
that my wife is currently holding and we currently hear, and a five year old, who also runs
around. I would be somewhat concerned about sharp drops, especially as the children being
7
Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996
children. As such I cannot really be in favor of the project in it's present form. I would like
to address that point. That I am not. I read in the staff report that it is the recommendation
of staff to approve. If that is the case, and given the fact that I still oppose the project in it's
present form, I then must turn my attention to the preservation of the equity in my own
property. If you intend to allow this large of a structure to be built, bear in mind that both of
the homes, for 3703 and 3705, were built about the same time. They have virtually identical
footprints. Virtually identical square footage and virtually identical... If you would grant the
variance to 3705, then I will be requesting the similar variances be granted at 3703. If the
two properties are to be going ahead in unison, as you stated before, we have 40 foot lots
here. Then I would be very concerned about the ... of my future building plans because of Mr.
Jasin's plans. Thank you for your time.
Johnson: You're welcome. Anyone else wish to address this? Which one of you two want
to go first? Mayor. Don, do you want to address this first?
Chmiel: Sure. I think the quality and style of the project that is being shown to us this
evening is beyond any question a good looking structure. But the size still bothers me just a
little bit. Size being that you would have roughly 30 feet in width and your request for the 5
foot variance on each side. And I look at that and I also have some concerns with the in and
adjacent structures next to each other. From the water runoff, and I'm not sure whether that
can all be contained or taken care of But the other aspect would be, as far as any fires.
Fires are a real big concern of mine and having structures there and if it's a very windy day,
other structures too close can automatically be let as well. Whether it be sparks or just the
flame zapping in either direction, and that really gives me some real deep concerns with that.
We try to maintain the maximum of having a 25% total for maximum impervious surface, and
I think this is something that we really have to continue to look at. I also noted that on each
of these other locations that variances were made, I think there's only one other one that had
requested almost the same that you're looking for. And that one with the 20 feet front yard
variance for the construction of garage, 12 feet from the front yard, 2 feet from the side yard,
and a 7 foot lake setback. The garage is probably something in itself that is not quite as tall
as these structures that you're proposing. So I really still, I really still have some, as I keep
saying, concerns. I know when you try to build a home, you try to build something that's
going to be what you'd like. What you'd like to live in and consequently I think I would like
to see, in fact I would even recommend, that this be looked at again by Mr. Jasin to
something smaller in size for that particular lot. Now I have a cabin as well and it's an all
year round facility and if you don't have a 60 foot lot in that particular county, and you
haven't built, that's just the way they are. A 40 foot lot to them is just much too small to
accommodate a good size structure, depending upon how many square feet. So I would like
to, rather than sort of vote against this, I would like to see Mr. Jasin look to something a little
smaller that maybe could accommodate, and I know that 20 feet wide to build a home is
J
r
i
I Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996
hardly any dancing room. But nonetheless, I would like to see that done from the standpoint
of the city. And thereto, by allowing something to happen, I get concerned about litigation.
Why would the City allow this if such a circumstance would take place with a fire? So I
guess that's about all I have right now.
Johnson: Carol.
' Watson: I want to maintain the 44 foot front. I want 30 foot back. I want a maximum
width of 26 feet ... on each side. That way there would be room, and there'd be enough room.
The neighbors should not have to absorb all of the area between these two houses. That's
' what the 10 feet on each side of the house was for. So that each neighbor, each person
accepts their responsibility for the separation of houses. So I can't see myself going for
anything less than 7 feet, at least on each side, which would give the maximum width of this
house at 26 feet. And I want my 44 foot front and I want the 30 foot back. So it seems to
me that makes the house about 26 by, oh I'd say 62 feet. And I don't want a lot of dead
trees.
' Al -Jaff: What about a walkout versus a look out?
' Watson: You know, I always maintain I'm not an engineer and, but water runoff, when
houses get close together, is a big problem. I mean we always have the person coming in
' saying, his water's running on my yard. It runs straight off his roof and lands in my yard.
When houses get this close together, that's even a bigger problem. So if engineering feels
that that can't be done, and maintain the water on this property and get it off the property,
' then it can't be allowed to happen. It should be so that his water's retained on his property
and managed without causing any erosion. Without interfering with his neighbors right to a
dry basement. Because there are other 40 foot lots in there and they are very, very correct
' when they said we will see this again. You bet we will. And I want to know that the next
time it comes, that we can live with it at least as well as we do this time because it is going
to happen. It's going to happen next door. It's going to happen down the street. I have a
' relative with one of those 40 foot lots out there. It's still the old cabin on it, and I'm sure
they're just holding their breath waiting for something like this to happen so they can say,
okay. Now it's happened. Now I can build.
' Johnson: Well I feel the same way. You've got to come up with something smaller because
I wouldn't go along with any of this.. It's got to have space. I might go along with Carol's 7
' feet but you've got to have some, with that much coverage on a 40 foot lot: I'd rather see 10
foot myself but I think I'd work with something. If they can come up with something...
because we're going 51 % coverage on the size lot that's double the impervious surface. I
can't go along with...
E
Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996
Watson: Do we need a motion?
Johnson: Yeah, do you want to make a motion?
Watson: I'll make a motion to deny the variances. Do you want me to list them? You can
list them, on the property at 3706 South Cedar Drive, for the reasons stated. I want very
clearly what our concerns were stated so that they reflect in the fact that we're not saying that
there won't be any variances and we're not saying that they can't build. We just feel that this
lot is much too small for this size of home and that we do sincerely hope that something can
be worked out. So state what you want and our concerns would be the drainage.
Johnson: I'll second that. Any more discussion?
Chmiel: Yeah. As I mentioned before, I would like to see this be looked at again by Mr.
Jasin before we deny this. Is there a timeframe problem with this Roger?
Knutson: Well you have, unless the applicant gives you an extension, the City has to act on
it in 60 or maybe 120 days.
Aanenson: We're okay on the timeframe. We checked already.
Knutson: You have? That's not an issue?
Al -Jaff: May lst is when the applicant was submitted so we've got time.
Knutson: Then if you wanted to table. If you wanted to ask the applicant if he wants to
reconsider and come back with something else, you can table that too, whenever you think
that would be the appropriate time.
Watson: I can withdraw my motion if we prefer to have a motion to take a little time.
Johnson: I'll withdraw my second.
Watson: And work this out because that certainly would be our first choice.
Knutson: How much time would you want?
Jim Jasin: Carol, I have to go back to the drawing boards. I need at least 30 days.
Knutson: So can you just pick a time when you want to bring this back?
10
r
J
L
I �,
Board of Adjustments and Review - June 24, 1996
Jim Jasin: Let's say the end of July.
' Knutson: Okay. I can't say okay.
I Watson: We like it when you answer questions.
Chmiel: I think that would be fine, if your second also would.
I Watson: Absolutely.
Chmiel: I make a motion to table.
Watson: Second.
Chmiel moved, Watson seconded to table action on a valiance for- a 10 foot front yard, a 4
foot east side yard, a 5 foot west side yard, and lakeshore setback variances for the
' construction of a single family residence on property zoned RSF, Residential Single Family
and located at 3705 South Cedar Drive until the end of July so the applicant can bring back
' revised drawings. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
' ZONING APPEAL FOR AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING MAP FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED SOUTH OF TH 212 AND EAST OF TH 169 ON THE FORMER
SITE OF SUPERAMERICA, MARK FEYEREISEN.
Sharmin Al -Jaff presented the staff report on this item.
Watson: When we were supposedly calling it agricultural and allowing that gas station to be
there, how were we justifying the gas station on an agricultural property?
Al -Jaff: It pre -dated the ordinance. It was there prior to.
Watson: So we didn't call it anything. Or didn't address the fact that it was in fact.
Al -Jaff: No, it was agricultural. However it was a non - conforming.
Watson: But we called it a non - conforming? Did we actually address it as a non - conforming
use on that property?
11
CHANHASSEN BOARD OF
ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 10, 1996
Chairman Johnson called the meeting to order at 6 :30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Willard Johnson, Carol Watson and Mark Senn
STAFF PRESENT: John Rask, Planner I
5 FOOT SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
GARAGE ADDMON AT 960 LAKE SUSAN DRIVE, DAVE BLOOMOUIST.
John Rask presented the staff report on this item.
Johnson: Mr. Bloomquist, do you want to address this? State your name and if you have any
comments you want to make to the Board.
Dave Bloomquist: Dave Bloomquist. The reason for the addition on the garage ... The
setback.... actually 21 feet on the other side of the house ... trying to get a variance so that I'm
consistent with the other homes in the neighborhood. The house, to the center of the lot
where there's the most ... Any questions?
Johnson: Not at this time? Anybody else from the neighborhood wish to speak?
Dave Pierre: Yeah, I would.
Johnson: State your name please,
Dave Pierre: My name is Dave Pierre and I live across the street from Dave. And I guess
from my perspective, I have no problem with it. I think in fact it would probably be a little
more consistent with the neighborhood since the houses on the right hand side, he has a three
car garage. And you know, as they say, it certainly wouldn't deter from the neighborhood so
I would support it.
Bruce Long: Bruce Long... I'm against this proposal because when Mr. Bloomquist bought
the house as it is with a 2 car garage. It states in the covenants of our development that there
should be no other buildings like, sheds_ or anything. Mr Bloomquist currently has a shed...
storing of his additional property. It's unfortunate that the house was built 21 feet on the
other side but that's how it was built and Mr. Bloomquist entered into that agreement when he
bought the house. I'm sure, you know he has a two car garage. He probably has a bigger
house than I do. There are homes in that development, when the Third Addition was built...
10 feet away from the property with 3 car garages. So the possibility of building a house on
1
1
0
F�
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996
that property with a 2 car garage home on it, it could have been a good possibility that if the
' builder, whoever that was, had ample time and plenty of opportunity to put a house in there
with a 3 car garage. The problem that also arises here that Mr. Bloomquist is granted the
opportunity to build in the 10 foot area, then the 5 foot easement, things are going to get
' pretty tight when the utility company has to get in there with telephone... Also, he's in kind of
a unique situation. His side property backs up into a neighbor's back yard, which kind of
gives the effect of more open space. But if he's allowed to do that, then the rest of the
neighborhood is wanting to build in their 5 foot, 10 foot easements as well. So you get more
of a problem with that... Not that there's anything wrong with that but I guess ... so I've got to
say that Mr. Bloomquist, there are other homes in that development. Maybe not right now
' for sale with 3 car garages ... open up the possibility for anybody to start building sheds on the
other side of the property and 3 car garages. If you have a 2 car garage right now ... I have the
opportunity to build a 4 car garage... The houses are too close together and the sheds and 4 -5
' car garages, depending on the property that you have, it's going to take away from the
neighborhood and I suggest that this 10 foot easement where it is. That's it.
' Johnson: Thank you. Anybody else?
Audience: Sir, what's your name again, I'm sorry.
Bruce Long: It's Bruce Long.
' Audience: And what's your address?
Bruce Long: It's 990 Lake Susan Drive. My home was built, some of those large homes that
have a 3 car garage.
Johnson: Anyone else wish to address it? Do you wish to address this?
Ty Lac: My name is Ty Lac and I live right there. I don't really have a lot of problem with
' this. I want to make sure everybody has done their homework before it gets approved, if it
really gets approved. Some of the concerns about how our community image. My husband
is working tonight so he put me in charge but, the drainage may be an issue and ... projects that
' are not. We do have a problem there so I wouldn't want to make it worse. And the other
problem that I have is, their fireplace sits right on that side of the house, which I would guess
is a pretty common place to have a fire, if there were to be a fire. And so it may be difficult
' to get through, to get a fire truck through. And I know on the other side you can but my
concern would be that the fence would have to come down in order to get to an area back
there. But other than that, I mean I don't, I'm not saying I don't approve of it. I just want to
' make sure that everybody can make me feel confident that it's a good decision.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996
Johnson: You're the house to the left as you face it?
Ty Lac: Yes. I look at it.
Watson: I saw that drainage water.
Johnson: Thank you ma'am. Anybody else wish to address this? Mark, do you want to go
first? Or Carol, either one of you. Go ahead Mark.
Senn: I'm a little confused on exactly what, why are we ending up with a 5 foot variance?
Rask: Right now the current home is about 17 1/2 feet from the property line so adding a
third stall, going into.
Senn: ...Okay.
Rask: Yeah, it's certainly the closest point. It does widen out as it gets closer to the street.
Senn: Okay, so really what it is, at that point then it's really, what you're assuming then is
you're assuming what the 12 foot... construction then?
Rask: Yes, correct.
Watson: So that allows for the door and...
Johnson: Plus you're overhang hanging over.
Senn: I don't know, when I went out and looked at it, you know if he wants the storage
space ... put it on the other side of the house. He doesn't have to ask us one way or the other.
I don't like that solution because you're going to look at it and say that it makes a lot more
sense ... on the other side so I guess I hear that a little bit ... space they can go there. And so
that bothers me and looking effectively at kind of the rest of the neighborhood, you kind of
stand back ... right in front of the house and go back and look, you know it really...
Watson: We had a precedent up there on Ridge Road. That new house up there has a garage
on the side:
Senn: I know...
Watson: It's really odd looking too.
3
J
L
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996
Senn: I know. Personally, that's what you start thinking about...
Watson: Actually it's a very expensive home. It proves the point.
Senn: What I was looking at when I was out there, and I talked with the applicant a little bit
about this. We're basically taking the outer wall, or the plan is to take the outer wall out of
the garage and put a better, a cluster basically and just expanding the current garage up there.
To do that, it doesn't need to be 12 feet. In fact if you look at the way their piers are set up,
you wouldn't want it to be 12 feet because they would start the door frame off of the existing
pier. Because that way there are piers all across the front of the house would match.
Watson: How much do you catch up then by doing that?
Senn: You catch up a little over 2 feet, okay. So what happens is, if you do that, now we're
down to inches in terms of the variance. Because as soon as you pick up that 2 feet, and
you're talking about building the garage out not 12 feet but 10 feet out, we're looking at the
front corner being less than, I think 6 inches variance and the back corner being, I think it
was like a foot and a half on a variance.
Rask: Yeah, he's at 17 1/2 now so if you could shave 2 more.
' Senn: So that'd be 18, 19 1/2 so I mean he's a half foot off basically, right?
Rask: He's at 17 now so if he came out 10 feet, he would have 7 1/2 feet from the property
' line. The current garage is 17 1/2.
Senn: Okay, so you've got 2 1/2 from the back corner. You have 6 inches in the front.
Rask: And 6 inches in the front.
Senn: Okay, 6 inches in the front corner. 2 1/2 in the back corner. Which would still leave
you basically, then what? 7 1/2 feet from the property line basically to get around the house.
' Johnson: But the other home, the others are still at 10 feet?
Senn: No, I understand what you're saying Willard but I'm just saying, I was out there saying
t how do you weigh this versus that and to me, what I found... weighing it in fact this way to
see if there was a way to make ... and so we-don't have a problem with the drainage. We don't
have the problems with getting around the house. But again, the other solution is very
' obvious. You know we've talked about it time and time again and people are starting to do it
4
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996
that way and again, to me that would, I think we'd have a lot of irritated people in the
neighborhood that way ... a mess but that's just my opinion.
Watson: Well and we don't want all the additional accesses if they need to connect that to
the street.
Senn: That's right. Which they have every right to do again.
Watson: Well, it makes sense. I mean unless they do just want it for storage and don't need
to drive a vehicle.
Senn: Well, it could be storage and it could be a door facing the back. It could be a back in
garage basically from the back yard. You know they could come around the house from the
end where we're saying don't put a garage in ... basically and access the garage from the back
end. Like I say, there's a lot of different ways to do it and since there is ways to do it on the
property, what I try to do is look back and say, hey what's the best way to do it. And it
seems to me if we can skinny it up to a point that we're only talking about 6 inches, and 2
1/2 feet on the variance, at that point I don't, I'm just saying from the overall perspective, I
see that as a much better solution than the other solution. And so from that standpoint I'd
much rather see that go as a solution than just leaving it to happen on it's own, which could
happen you know, without anything effectively other than the permit the other way.
Watson: ...re- create. I thought that the drainage. But if you came up that little slope there
far enough, the drainage could continue to go right where it is but you wouldn't want to mess
with that drainage. It is going to have to go somewhere and I would think that if it got down
to that area, and you start having that water pool somewhere.
Senn: Well the way the drainage is set up now, basically it just runs into the road which
you'd probably be talking about doing, if they... constructed this, what you'd end up doing is
you'd probably put in a little bit more of a defined drainage.
Watson: You'd have to drain tile it or something to steer the water to the same spot.
Senn: Yeah, and do it in the same area effectively than it's being done in now.
Watson: A person could ... flood his own garage is what it would amount to, if you didn't do
something.
Senn: And that's not something we can engineer. I mean again, I'm not saying there's a
solution to that. I'm just saying that can be a stipulation that that has to be.
5
r
i
L
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996
Watson: Engineered...
Senn: Yeah, I mean they have to come up with something that the engineering department
would approve and would satisfy this lady's concerns back here because from her standpoint
that seems to be her main issue too. She doesn't seem to have a problem with the garage
backing up to her, but she is concerned about the drainage so I mean to me that's an obvious
point to make sure that if this thing is going to go ahead, it's got to go ahead on the basis that
is ... correctly.
Audience: I just want to add a couple of things. I don't see, if you do start getting into the 10
foot easement, I don't see, I mean we're talking about a garage here so that's kind of a shed
garage. If you start setting a precedent for getting into the 10 foot easement and I don't see a
reason why the rest of the house couldn't have been built in that easement as well. Maybe
add a third, three bedroom. Make the house extra long and wide and add 3 cars, 3 or 4 car
garage onto that as well so then we're really filling up the lot quite a bit. And also, his lot is
reasonably flat so you have your 5 foot easement to drive your equipment through here on
each side so you have a 10 foot wide truck, that's great. On a lot of homes in Chanhassen
aren't flat. There's a lot of, like my property, there's a hill stepping down into somebody
else's property and if you look at the properties out in the new development out on CR 17,
you see some of those hills over there are atrocious. I don't see how, I don't know how you
can ... fire trucks that are operating within the city and get into the back of the house or
whatever. There is a lot of step, there's a lot of properties that make it easy to access
emergency vehicles or whatever if there's a fire in the back yard or whatever so I just think
you're going to, I think you're going to get real cluttered... you're going to get not only garages
built within that 10 foot easement but you're going to get the rest of the homes. There are
going to be new homes that are going to be built ... knock out walls and put extra kitchens.
You're going to get the same effect I think as what you're going to get in Minneapolis.
You're going to have real narrow sidewalks going between houses and a little chain link fence
separating the property. If you like that, that's a great idea. The problem with that...
Minneapolis or New York City, but I moved to Chanhassen for the extra space.
Watson: Well I'm sure that John can tell you that we're not wild about the 10 foot side.
Johnson: Because I think as long as Mr. X is down the street has got 3 stall garages, I've got
a 2 stall and I want a 3 stall and I don't have the room for it. I guess you've got to live with
what you've got. I've got a'2 bedroom home here. I hate to admit it but I have and that was
my mistake.
Watson: You don't want to put your third bedroom into that 10 foot side yard.
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996
Johnson: So I can live with what I've got.
Senn: Carol? Well again, you have to remember this is not a do or no do. This is a do.
The question is how to see it done.
Watson: Oh sure, he can go on the other side is what your point is.
Senn: I mean this gentleman talks about crowding the lot. He can put up a much bigger
addition on the other side and crowd the lot a lot more and he doesn't need a variance from
us at all. And that's what I'm trying to keep in perspective from that context, and I'm not at
all worried about the fire safety stuff because we all know, the trucks don't go in the back
yard anyway. They hook up to the fire hydrants on the inside and they just want to get their
equipment and hoses and stuff through and have clearance you know to do that.
Watson: Well we can get pretty well anywhere we want to get.
Senn: If they have to, that's right. It's not going to, as far as the easement. The 5 foot area
is all we have a right to touch anyway. The 5 foot on each side. We can't go outside of that
one way or the other...
Johnson: But I've got a problem with squeezing it in. Otherwise Joe Smith will want to
build a garage.
Watson: I wish there was some way to keep it within the side yard. The garage is just
standard are a certain size. You aren't going to get underneath it, you know.
Rask: For example, that one David Braemer came forward with those 10 foot, up near
Conestoga. That ended up going to Council and it was approved. He was asking for a 1 foot
variance but he went with a 10 stall. It gets tight for, if you get your car in there and try to
get out but it's certainly appropriate for storage.
Senn: And in a lot of cases we look at these where tandem situations were a possibility.
Watson: Yeah, I was hoping when I got out there I'd see that you could put it behind...
I
J
Senn: ...would work great because... number of times in the past ... but there's just no way that
would work.
Watson: No. We wouldn't save a thing.
7
' Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996
Senn: So I don't know.
' Johnson: I feel no, but you know how I feel. I've got a problem with this.
' Watson: What does that make me?
Johnson: Let you decide which way it goes.
' Rask: Just one uick comment on the drainage issue. An roved grading plan for
n g pp g g P
' Chanhassen Hills 2nd Addition which shows basically sheet drainage back and a couple of
spots and a catch basin here and a drainage swale... Besides that, and I don't know what's
happened since this was approved and people have done landscaping or sheds or what not.
' But this was the intent was for it to drain down to the south here and end up on the street...
Watson: I would say that's a very efficient way of doing what was intended to do. It seems
' to be in one area. I don't think that the drainage doing anything other than what's probably
proposed for it to do because it is everywhere. It isn't in just a small dip in the land right
there. It seems to be taking the water out to the street. I think that basically the drainage is
' probably doing what it's supposed to, where it was supposed to go.
Rask: It's as high as 920 back here and it goes to 918 up here. Down in this corner so
' obviously you have water coming through there.
Audience: There's approximately one foot of drop from the corner of the park up ... property.
Senn: The original drainage was supposed to go, as I understood it, this way. I mean it's
supposed to be, if you go back to, see here's this lot right here. What you're talking about is
' a natural drainage occurring is occurring here so...
Audience: This one is not draining properly across here.
' Senn: No, I understand that. But all your drainage is basically designed to go to here.
' Watson: And it doesn't. It's directed to the street instead... because there's a lot of water on
that side what you're doing just there so it must be doing both.
' Dave Bloomquist: Yeah, and from here to here there's about a one foot drop. And currently
that one's real close to the property line. It_starts off at this point and ends up at about out
' here at about 2 feet from the property line. I mean there will be a little bit of water sitting in
there... and that's just because the grass is slowing it down. There are... With respect to setting
8
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996
precedent, this is the only lot in the whole neighborhood that has ... to the neighbor. There's
nothing else, everybody else is side by side...
Watson: But in reality what we have to look at is the fact that it's, from the property line as
opposed to that house.
Johnson: Because I don't count the area with a big back yard because you've got to look at
his property.
Dave Bloomquist: I just want to, oh excuse me.
Johnson: Go ahead sir.
Audience: I just want to verify this. You say this is the only kind of set up that is in the
whole neighborhood? ...there's one right across the street from me sitting on this corner. That
garage is on this side 98 feet to the neighbor. Close to the same set up. Your property sets
up the same way as this property does.
Audience: My statement was, it sat 98 feet to the neighbor.
Audience: Well that's great. What does that, that makes it more aesthetic?
Audience: No. It means it's a long ways to the neighbor ... is that crowded? I mean they
have a right to put up a fence on that property?
Audience: I think, people on the Board, there's other situations like this. There's other
people, they're putting up a fence. On the last project they had a right to. There's no law
against that but if he throws in a 3 stall garage, I feel it's going to make things very crowded.
...there's another property, right across the street kind of perpendicular. Just kitty corner from
them. Same set up but there's a 3 stall garage on that property and I think it's 1,000, or not
1,000. 991 Lake Susan Drive. Bigger home than Mr. Bloomquist has. But they squeezed a
3 car garage in there as well. So there is homes. You can fit bigger homes with 3 stall
garages on properties out in that development.
Watson: Well it all depends on how you make use of the lot. If they had moved that house
over, there wouldn't have been any problem. If they had moved the house to the other side of
the lot. Because basically where the house was placed when it was built, and obviously it
was built to have a 2 car garage.
Audience: I'm just saying, there was ample opportunity across the road.
0
n
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996
Watson: Oh absolutely. The land was there. The decision was made apparently to build a 2
car garage and put it on this house and put it over on that one side of the lot. I can only
guess why the developer, in his infinite wisdom decided to do that.
Johnson: They can't hold the city responsible for what the contractor does.
Watson: We'd be in deep trouble.
Johnson: ...put it in the middle or put in one side.
Watson: We absolutely don't have any kind of variance in this neighborhood huh?
Rask: No, not in this neighborhood.
Watson: I have to admit I've never heard of one.
Johnson: ...there's never been one there.
Watson: On that one we gave in the other neighborhood, where we denied the variance for
the garage, the man with the vintage cars. The Council went ahead and gave him the
variance?
Rask: Yeah, that was a one foot variance that was granted.
Senn: So we don't keep sitting here, I move that we approve it with the stipulation that there
be a 2.5 foot variance.
Watson: Maximum variance.
Senn: Maximum variance and that the city engineer approve drainage so there's no effects to
the adjoining property owner prior to construction of the garage.
Watson: Well regardless, if I were to abstain, it would automatically go to Council anyway.
Rask: Correct.
Watson: I guess go ahead and vote.
Johnson: Second, do you want to second?
10
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996
Watson: Sure.
Senn moved, Watson seconded to approve the variance to the side yard setback for the
addition of a gauge at 960 Lake Susan Ddve, with the stipulation that there be a maximum
2.5 foot valiance and that the city engineer approve the diainage to insure that it does not
affect adjoining neighbors. Senn voted in favor, Johnson opposed, and Watson abstained.
Watson: Now Council can go ahead.
Rask: It will be on January 24th's Council meeting.
Watson: January?
Rask: Okay, June 24th.
Dave Bloomquist: I won't be here. I'll be about 3,000 miles from here.
Senn: Well if there's a scheduling problem, just take care of it with John. We can reschedule
you on any future agenda...
Watson: So it shows up when you can be there.
Rask: July 10th is it? The next one?
Senn: I don't know. We meet almost every Monday night anyway.
Watson: It's the 8th. Because the 5th is on a Friday.
Johnson: While you're at it John ... I'll be back and forth. I'll be back then.
VARIANCE FOR A 50 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR A
CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE AT 730 VOGEL TRAIL JIM SELLERUD.
John Rask presented the staff report on this item.
Watson: Well between the topography and road, it doesn't leave a lot of choices.
Senn: I'll move approval. I mean heck with it.
11
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996
Johnson: I'll second it.
Watson: I'm just wondering where the car would go?
Johnson: To tell you the truth, that development should have never gone in. They should
have, I don't know how.
Watson: Asleep at the wheel in 1975. No, you know it actually is okay. I mean if you read
it, it sounds like a disaster. When you get there and you look and you think, actually the
reality is this would work.
Johnson: I think I was on the original one and I think there was a couple more down there.
Watson: ...he sent me a little letter telling me I had screwed up... Did you make the motion
Mark?
I Senn: Yes.
Watson: I'll second it.
Senn moved, Watson seconded to approve the 50 foot front yaid setback valiance foi• the
conshUction of a garage for Tim Sellemd. All voted in favor and the motion carried.
Johnson: Truthfully I wish you would have put it up the first time but I can see financially
and stuff it didn't work out.
Watson: Well in 1975 you know ... We didn't have this big deal about 2 or 3, 4, 15 car
garages. You know we hadn't gotten to that yet.
Johnson: You were probably newly married and you're thinking gee whiz, this will take care
of me. The same with me and a 2 bedroom home.
Watson: And the energy crisis was on. We thought we probably would be walking to work.
We certainly wouldn't be adding cars to the family you know.
Johnson:: I've got a big lot but 'I only built a two bedroom home and that was stupid but I
live with it... Motion to close the public hearing.
Watson moved, Senn seconded to close the public herring. All voted in favor and the motion
carried.
12
Board of Adjustments and Appeals - June 10, 1996
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Johnson: Now the Minutes there was, we didn't approve the ones from the time before
because I thought there was something in there that maybe you wanted to do and I forgot to
underline it and I can't remember what it was.
Watson: April 8th?
Johnson: The time you were here. The other time, yeah. There was something in there that
I thought maybe you. -and now I don't remember what it was.
Watson: It was the April 8th one huh? Because I read these and, maybe it was May 20th?
Johnson: It was something I thought pertained to Carol and that's what...
Senn: If she doesn't remember. I'll move to approve the Minutes.
Johnson: Okay, I'll second it then.
Watson: I read these and nothing jumped out at me.
Johnson: It seems to me it was something but I couldn't remember what it was.
Senn moved, Johnson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals dated April 8, 1996 as pirsented. All voted in favor; except Watson who abstained
and the motion carried.
Johnson: ...the second one changes in there. On page 8. It just came out that 6 year old at
my place. It sounded like she was the one we were having trouble... and I just said that you
had to keep an eye on her and then on page 9 about, something about a refrigerator. Two
people didn't know. There was two people that didn't know. There was two people that did
know. So I just want to make that clarification.
Senn: Alright, move approval.
Johnson. I second it.
Senn moved, Johnson seconded to approve the Minutes of the Board of Adjustments and
Appeals meeting dated May 20, 1996 as amended by Willaid Johnson. All voted in favor;
except Watson who abstained, and the motion carried.
13
L
L
i
I
Watson: I haven't abstained on anything in 10 years. I've done it twice tonight. I make the
motion.
Senn: You've got...
Rask: For the 24th.
Watson: Is that the one down on 212?
Rask: That's on Red Cedar Point.
Watson: Oh okay. What about 212?
Rask: 212 is the 24th also.
Watson: Can we get just about as much background as your little computer can
Watson moved, Senn seconded to adjourn the meeting. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15
p.m.
Submitted by John Rask
Planner I
Prepared by Nann Opheim
14
CITY OF CHANHASSEN '
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937 -1900 '
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
APPLICANT: /� 6`7 L �/� S .c� OWNER:
ADDRESS: � 8 �Gi /
3 31 C.'ZCC C C
ADDRESS:
L h c r Sl
TELEPHONE (Daytime)
TELEPHONE: 61L g e036 I
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit
_ Vacation of ROW /Easements
Interim Use Permit
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 /SPRNACNAR/WAP /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.
' -six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8' /z" 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.
F
J
PROJECT NAM
LOCATION —3��
LEGAL DESCRIPTION /o r 2 Q h3co Ltc
TOTAL ACREAGE
WETLANDS PRESENT YES NO
' PRESENT ZONING
' REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
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
jxte are approved the appli nt.
c
, rte �Q G
of App ' ant at e
of Fee Owner _ flb Date
Application Received on r (� I Fee Paid Receipt No. 5
The applicant should contact staff for h meeting.
pp o a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the . g
If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
P
1t i
PIP-
V
F i
e
9�
1 �F ttit 2
� � I h
I Tfas 0.
�a6
c �1r� ' l f o� E
v
AD .11
A
QQ 6
❑ WOOD STAKE PLACED
o • IRON MON. SET • IRON MON. INPLACE
B.M. -
BEARINGS ON
PROPOSED INFORMATION
ASSUMED DATUM
1st FLOOR ELEV. GARAGE FLOOR ELEV.
BASEMENT ELEV. TOP BLOCK ELEV.
— ► DRAINAGE 000.0 - EXIST. ELEV. (000.0.) PROPOSED ELEV. P . EXIST. & PROP. ELEV.
000.0
I hereby certify (hat this plan, survey or report was
JOB 0
SCHOBORG
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that Iam
ND SURVEYING
a duty Registered Land Surveyor under the laws oftheState
of Minnesota.
Book - Page
INC.
_�
8997 Cty. Po, 13 SE
972-3221 O.t.no. MN 5s328
Date: TAi✓. /7, 79� Regtslratlon No. 14700
Scale
/ A 2�
"max
L
Tmel T
T,g l1N
s
9Q.
o ld
P
y R�
q� EAS v a ��
AA yrF P I lt/
ti \1 0,
t� Q Qo Q D5 F p fs � 1
0
w
oa "�
7bP of H06 -o <1P l� epA
o \
6, i o
�94a�ti' ao
Lo 7 2 2 1 ILL oc.t' -¢ 1
f1'EO G6,DAe i
W it
y1 qA
kD `
P�rP h/
0
❑ ' WOOD STAKE PLACED o • IRON MON. SET • • IRON MON. INPLACE
B.M. - of Eby/ AT Ott, oo e ve � iP O fo 7 - - a? E LeF4/, 953. 7
�� „' t�
/e'
BEARINGS ON
ASSUMED DATUM
PROPOSED INFORMATION gs6. s
1st FLOOR ELEV. GARAGE FLOOR ELEV.
9
TAS 9 A/
BASEMENT EV. 8 TOP BLOCK ELEV.
LE
DRAINAGE 000.0 - EXIST. ELEV. (000.0.) PROPOSED ELEV. P . EXIST. & PROP. ELEV.
000.0
1 hereby certify that lhl9 plan, survey or report was
JOB ff
SCNOBORG
prepared by me or under mydlrecl supervision and that Iam
ND SURVEYING
a duly Registered Land Surveyor underlhe laws of the State
of Minnesota.
Book e
9
INC. l
_1
M7 c1y. nd. a Se
972 -3221 Delano, MN 5"28
�
Date: /✓. Z7, � T 9�s Registration No. 14700
Scale
/ n_ JO
[,
_ __ - �n�� � �� ��v 1� � N ,
C ya u� ��,T
r
�v
!�N,�1".rV-1 /�,[t,
aJI��X I
NI
HICK Ry
\
3o- 29 \ _.
30
" A,
s O 92C 33 12
r �` W; 2 Z 19 8 O 34 \\
U 1 35
Q 18 9 36 1 \�
J 17 ICn 0 2- 37 g
16 r J I I r 3 4 3f?� 7 \ \
15 12. �. 9 �F 4G $
1 14 6 5
13'. 41 +� 4
ADD 10N WAY ' C 1 _ - - - -� POINTZ = .. ;,� �` F M vM
W g 7 6 5 4 3 1 Ftls
d 4 il �o
11 ; �
9 10 11 15 _
f - 1 4 4 1 ' \ T4 I J 1 1 10 9 B 6 5 4 ?�
&K:v pgMiH ^ 1 3 �C I I r
5 k.
3 3 ," ADDITION 12 6 s cwP� P o� '' e
��U WNEH SNa s 1Q �, �M/, 1 1 23 PZ
jNKNOAN
r Q t 2 9 i OHW
W J /•
n n Y G o 3130 944.5
gip. 3433\ /
E6 /.
y
3C
1
James J. Jasin
3870 Maple Shores Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
612 - 470 -2069 phone
612- 470 -7415 fax
Board of Adjustment and Appeals
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
Chanhassen MN. 55317
Phone 937 -1900
Fax 937 -5739
6/16/96
First I would like to apologize for not being in town for the last meeting.
Please be advised that I have been working with the city planner's, since day one. Every
time we have met they have been super. My original proposal was drawn to the
guidelines John Rask had established for me. It was by his suggestion that we move the
house towards the lake, splitting the distance between Hempel's lake setback and our
foundation line. In addition he advised that we go with a 5' sidelot variance on each side
rather than going with the present foundation line at 4 feet and a 4' variance on the
Hempel side. We felt you would like this better.
In reviewing the records, I noted that the cities first response to my proposal was
postmarked on May 17th. Since the meeting was on May 20th I didn't have time to prepare
a grading plot or any formal responses. Thank you for tabling the matter.
It is my intention to work with the suggestions of the city planning group as I have done in
the past. Lets step thru those one by one.
J
J
1. Maintain the existing sideyard setback of four feet along the east four (4) feet by
shifting the building to the east one foot. This sideyard setback will provide seventeen (17)
foot separation between the building to the east and a twelve (12) foot separation to the
building to the west ( Hempels).
2. We will push the prosed home back eight (8) feet and reduce the size of the deck by two
(2) feet. This provides a 44 foot setback from the lake and fits within the setback of the
original home. We would like to maintain the slatted deck as originally designed ie 2'
bigger but we are willing to go smaller if it is your requirement. Staff should now request
an eight (8) foot variance on the road setback.
3. We are submitting a detailed grading plan as requested (Revised June 14th.).
4. Included is a drawing showing all trees in excess of six (6) inches.
5. Enclosed is my sketch showing the retaining walls. We will have this professionally
done upon approval of the variance's.
6. Elevations of first floors are. Hempel 957 feet, Jasin 956.8 feet, Weri 957.3 feet.
page # 2
Staff was concerned about the full walkout. We had the architect redraw the plan to a
lookout style home with a walkway from the door at floor level. We shortened the
windows and will bring a knee wall around the lakeside of the house. This will allow us
to bring the grade up under the windows. This new plan reduces the overall high look by
3'. In addition he has taken out five (5) feet of overall height by reducing the roof pitch
from 10/12 to 6/12. Enclosed are drawings of the new design.
Please be aware that there was an error in the staff report. The Hempel home is three (3)
levels with the lower level at 948.8' First floor at 957 feet and upper at 965.2'.
As discussed above we have moved the house back eight feet. This will allow a 17'
separation between the house and the three (3) trees. These trees will be protected by
retaining walls as requested. Please note in the pictures there is a set of existing steps,
between the saved trees. These stairs are several feet lower than the tree bases at the
tree base. We will rebuild these stairs and develop a retaining wall system throughout
the lake yard to control drainage. Our plan is to use Keystone block for all the walls. This
is similar to what the city has done on Minnewashta Parkway. We will retain a landscape
architect to do this plan. I would prefer not to encure the expense until we have your
concurrence on some of the other situations. In addition. we will use gutters along the
total sides of the house to control roof runoff. We can divert all roof water to the
street side of the home. All this should help with yours and the neighbors concerns.
I have included with this letter a Plot Plan dated October 11, 1916 of the Red Cedar Point
Subdivision. It has a listing of many of the variance's granted on Red Cedar Drive. Also
colored in green is the location of each. In addition I have included pictures of a few.
I have discussed my plans with other neighbors from Red Cedar Point they have told me,
"variance's are a way of life out here. You should not have a problem!"
I plan to be at the meeting to answer questions and request your concurrence.
Vdarm�st Regards,
. l �
James J. Jasin
r
James J. Jasin
3870 Maple Shores Drive
' Excelsior, MN 55331
612 - 470 -2069 phone
' City Council Members 8/8/96
City of Chanhassen
690 Coulter Drive
' Chanhassen MN. 55317
Phone 937 -1900
' Fax 937 -5739
On Monday Aug. 12th you will be reviewing my request for variance. on 3705 S.
' Cedar Drive. As you review this portion of the council meeting packet please keep the
following in mind.
' From the beginning I have worked with John Rask city planner. Each time
throughout the process he has recommended approval of my proposal. This is
because we worked together to incorporate an original plan, and then changes and
then compromises based on the boards suggestions. Here are the changes we made to
' work within their requests.
1. May 20th meeting: Original Proposal (See exhibit "A ")
2. June 24th meeting: 1st revision (See exhibit "B")
Moved home back 10 ft., reduced deck size 2' and added grading plan and tree
' location as requested. We reduced the height by 5' and changed the design from
a walkout to a lookout. (We still much prefer a walkout if this can be
approved)
3. July 15th meeting: (See exhibit "C ")
We reduced the length of the home 10' thereby reducing the footprint by 300
sq. feet. This reduces the overall volume of the home.
4. Aug. 12th Meeting:
We request that we are allowed to keep the 30 foot wide home design.
Our request is the same as the July 15 proposal. (We still much prefer a
walkout if this can be approved)
' 4' Sideyard on S.W. side
Maintain present foundation line lakeside (existing 31' variance)
Maintain present sideyard setback on N.E. side (existing 6' variance)
' Lot coverage as required by this footprint.
I sincerely hope you accept the planners recommendation and accept this proposal.
' If you would like a tour of the area please call me at work at 831 -0030 or at home at
470 -2069. Please note the home at 3629 Cedar Dr. is 30' wide home on a 40' lakefront
' 50' streetside lot. It is moved toward the street to maintain equal lakeside setback.
Our design is not so severe. See variance 87 -13
' W' est Regards, _
ame and Susan Jasin
1 �'f
P° �
�
r w E :P
r/ D
g
b w _
b \ '
�� E9P
�. '�V7 9s6e
� 9 � t I
IY� '
❑ = WOOD STAKE PLACED o • IRON MON. SET • = IRON MON. INPLACE T� l 3.
J
BEARINGS ON PROPOSED INFORMATION '
ASSUMED DATUM 1st FLOOR ELEV. GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. TA.f //V BASEMENT ELEV. TOP BLOCK ELEV.
—> = DRAINAGE 000.0 = EXIST. ELEV. (000.0.) PROPOSED ELEV. E & P_ -
EXIST. & PROP. ELEV.
000.0
I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was JOB it '
SCHOQORG prepared by me orundermydlrecl supervision and that Iam
N D S U R V EYI N G a duly Registered Lend Surveyor undor the laws of the Slate Az of Minnesota. /� Book - Page
INC. 6997 Cry, Rd. 13 SE Date: T.a.✓. /Z,, / 79� Scale
Registration No. 14706 / ir_ �JD
9723221 0e hno, MN 55329 G
i
n �
e
7aP of rjB
9ss s
Zer 22 az vc.C' 4
R,9 G90.q e Ro 1 ,V7 -
, rr
i
E lE niE 14
076 _
O - WOOD STAKE PLACED o • IRON MON. SET • - IRON MON. INPLACE -
B.M. - ToF� of =,ea J AT ,o4w, C e"ji -lP vow ZO 7 — 7 15: 953. 7
BEARINGS ON
PROPOSED INFORMATION ff6. S GARAGE FLOOR ELEV.
ASSUMED DATUM
1st FLOOR ELEV.
BASEMENT ELEV. TOP BLOCK ELEV.
DRAINAGE 000.0 - EXIST. ELEV. 000.0:. PROPOSED ELEV. E 6 . p - EXIST. d PROP. ELEV.
000.0
I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was
JOB If
SCfioBoRQ
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that Iam
- 4
N D SU RV EYI N G
e duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State
Book - Page
of Minnesota.
INC.
^/
Scale
0997 Cty. ro. 17 SE
Data; T AA1 /Z, / ;rfX Reglslrallon No. 14700
9727221 Delano, MN 55328
• q�s P
� E
-
TA.rl�v
P
o' ,iN'
t
e
S e�
71e of UB
j r
9�s s
2 1 suces
� E
Lo 7" 2 2 1 2L vc.' 4 ,
Rke.o G E.DA e Ro iA17
filP-
l/ e�
D b of q sr.6
E tE ,tiE 14
9 b
❑ - WOOD STAKE PLACED
o - IRON MON. SET • - IRON MON. INPLACE
B.M. -TOF of =,,eo -1 AT Ow. �o,e.vF,P o� Co 7 45:4eFA 963.7
BEARINGS ON
PROPOSED INFORMATION gs6. s
ASSUMED DATUM
—7 1st FLOOR ELEV. GARAGE FLOOR ELEV.
BASEMENT ELEV. � TOP BLOCK ELEV.
—► = DRAINAGE 000.0 - EXIST. ELEV. (000.0)� PROPOSED ELEV. E 11 P - EXIST. & PROP. ELEV.
000.0
I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report was
JOB h
sictiopona
prepared by me orundermydirect supervision and that Iam
ND SURVEYING
adulyRegistered Land Surveyor under the lawsoftheState
Book - Page
INC.
of Minnesota.
_/
-
Date: .T/ Al �7� Registration tJo. 14700
Scale
0997 Cry, Pd. a SE
9723221
Delano, MN 55328
T A M1fs
T,4 -rlAl
oifi