The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-03_2019-03 3617 RED CEDAR POINT ROADW HoT-po 1 ,U, 9�`2 z92 9So� Cal Cdu je4. 9 October 1, 2014 Maaco Jeff Stone 40 Lake Drive East P.O. Box 578 Chanhassen, MN 55317 LRf3'iii On behalf of the City of Chanhas 2015 Community Event Sponsor opportunity for you or your busm annual contribution allows you tc providing financial assistance, mi Most importantly, participation ii demonstrates the cooperative rela kali I hope you will consider this amn Basis for bearings is assumed Benchmark: kuru q-arz T-ertifiratr Proposed Site Plan Survey For: COLD CREEK CONSTRUCTION Property located in Section 8, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota Invert of sanitary manhole #3627 Elevation = 937.30 feet • Denotes Found Iron Monument O Denotes Iron Monument ❑ Dentes Wood Hub Set for excavation only Denotes Existing Contours Denotes Proposed Contours x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation 000.0 EDDenotes Proposed Elevation III Denotes Surface Drainage 950.0 Proposed Top of Foundation 950.0 Proposed Garage Floor 950.0 Proposed Lowest Floor (Main Floor) Lot area excluding road Type of Building Front (street) - 30 feet Slab -on -grade Proposed Hardcover Building Setback Requirements Lot area excluding road Front (street) - 30 feet = 9,203 sq ft Side - 10 feet Building = 2,425 sq ft OHW - 75 feet (ordinary high water) Driveway = 407 sq ft Patio =_ 227 sq ft Total = 3,059 sg ft Percentage = 33.24% Power Overhead Wirer Pole 950.2 Red Cedar Point road 3 Rock Construction Entrance S 84°50'10" NORTH'/NFOFLors90 i t E 79.881 /0 49.13 t m tbca 77 the _ _ \ 950.2 hI 946.44 the 949.1 946,24 the e 1 950.7 950.3 950.5 N 747.99m I - - 950.0 11...00 Benchmark tom . �� r 20'0" lack LW 950.1 TOP Spike 12.0^ ^ I /� Walli 8yp9±5.9952.9 He 949.5 10.29arch e 120'" / 0.29 ' / � 954.9 952.9 2-5r FR 950 1310• ar 16.0i No. 3625 oiq52 2 -,9T --FR x 9.52.2 fie No. 3613 I 6 trd 954.6 952.1 953.A block TAN 95/.3I gyY�T Proposed -+ ,\\ will 950.9 I Re.5ldence rn a t, 954.4 952.9 N / M\ Deck 951.6 LU / 0.29 \ 2' Cantilever 0 \ o 9.52.0 M I 18.10•• 6 Porch 0.30 -�_.wy2-95/ '� ---, Jt j C)950.0 x _ -� 19'01' �� o x95/.7 1 Z. r. r r 950.2 0 \` Vinyl I x O Fence oak � 0.4 ,1 ggy ., Gtd. a 9 .4 Flagstone e ' v -x z to removed ,� 5 proposed Slit Fence 3. �p x Fireplace colic e to be re ved 9 5 u1 l0 ` 26 oak 46.2 �' 36 trd 948.7- _ ° 949.0 14 i Bock TiW 940.3 _'< _ _ _ - _ -' _ - aW 946.7 1 /4 pine --'-946.2 / Pop Rap ---- \ Survey, lint-_- -L P Q00 x946.9 x946.6 _946--------� + 9 ----- A5 _ _ e acre 944.5 944.5 944.5 944.5 944.5 NOTE: Proposed grades are subject to results of soil tests. Approximate Shore/me from Proposed building information must be checked with Google maps aerial images approved building plan and development or grading plan before excavation and construction. Oh/W - 944.5 [_oke Mlnnewashta Proposed grades shown on this survey are interpolations of proposed contours from the /OQ Year Flood per FEMA = 945.9 p drainage, grading and/or development plans. NOTE: The relationship between proposed poor elevations to be verified by builder. Lots 9 and 10, Block 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINNEWASHTA Carver County, Minnesota DEMARC LANG SURVEYING 6 ENGINEERING 7601 73rd Avenue North (763) 560-3093 linneapolle. Minnesota 55428 Demaminc.mm Project No. 88474 Scale: 1" = 20' F.B.No. 1093-44 Drawn By 9 9y� Property Address: 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd. Chanhassen, MN rev 4-26-19 front setback to 18. 5 SFW The only easements shown are from plats of record or Information provided by client. I certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota Prepared this 16th day of April 2019. Signed Minn. Reg. No. 24992 §§uruP!JJarz Tvirlifiratr Proposed Site Plan Survey For: COLD CREEK CONSTRUCTION Property located in Section 8, Township 116, Range 23, Carver County, Minnesota Basis for bearings is assumed 0 Denotes Found Iron Monument O Denotes Iron Monument ❑ Denotes Wood Hub Set for excavation only Denotes Existing Contours Denotes Proposed Contours x000.0 Denotes Existing Elevation 000.0 Denotes Proposed Elevation .mgl(- Denotes Surface Drainage 950.3 Proposed Top of Foundation 950.0 Proposed Garage Floor Benchmark: Invert of sanitary manhole #3627 946.1 Proposed Lowest Floor (Crawl Space) Elevation = 937.30 feet Type of Building Total Crawl Space Proposed Hardcover Lot area excluding road = Red Cedar Point Road 3 Rock Con5truch a Entrance .� tbx_ S8 050,100, E 79.88' ry 949. / 3 the Cbc Q) I 19 77 _._ .. 950.3 950.5 777777/1 li Benchmark Top Spike 949.5 2 -5T -PR ' 41 No. 3625 9517 l6 I,N as, Brock nW 95/.3 9,203.5q ft Building = 2,45 / -9q ft Driveway = 366 5q ft Patio=_ 227.5q ft Total 3,046 sg ft Percentage = 33.1017 Power Porch �„� Over ryead mres Pole Red Cedar Point Road 3 Rock Con5truch a Entrance .� tbx_ S8 050,100, E 79.88' ry 949. / 3 the Cbc Q) I 19 77 _._ .. 950.3 950.5 777777/1 li Benchmark Top Spike 949.5 2 -5T -PR ' 41 No. 3625 9517 l6 I,N as, Brock nW 95/.3 1 0 Will &W 950.9 1 16 trd CN 950 W 952.0CN M Porch 1 0 I � Z/ 0) Vinyl Proposed Fence ` Residence the �YIL-�i1r1Tc3ii 31'0" 029 J ^I I �r I-II 612-0- u 16 trd 950 in 0) Proposed ` Residence 19'10" b '0.3 -492-95I��_ y, -Patio 950.0 v r r �torre I I; to removed II Z: cohC e to be re ved 9451.5 H /r•V Lapi a949:r =0k 946.2 46 9.7, inC l4 pme _-- 946.2 Ilx _ 5u r veY n 09- n -- -5W 944.5 NOTE: Proposed grades are subject to results of soll tests. Proposed building Information must be checked with approved building plan and development or grading --� "'Ov OP(07590/0 tilt 950.2 6t e / 9 .4 ke , 9.5 Proposed SIM Fence 49.0 o' /,,_pine _ 946.9 -- _- D0 x946.9 x946.6 / Building Setback Requirements Front (street) - 30 feel Side - 10 feet OHW - 75 feet (ordinary high water) 950.2 f 950.2 950.7 ��!¢cB SAY 950. I > Wall � � &W�946.9 / 952.9 / 952.9 ,95gr 2 -5T -PR x 552.2 Ne No. 3613 a trd 954.6 952.1 q 953. A 954.4 My Deck \ 2'Cantdever O \ o \ x 951.7 CDN -e- O o' I Block r/W 946.3 Will &W946.7 'I, --R/p'Pap t Fra wCr e - 94 a 94 e 944.5 944.5 944.5 944.5 Approximate 5horelme from Google maps aerial images plan before excavation and construction. OHW - 944.5 Lake Mlnnewashta Proposed grades shown on this survey are Interpolations of proposed contours from the 100 Year Flood per FEMA = 945.0 drainage, grading and/or development plans. NOTE: The relationship between proposed floor elevations to be verified by builder. Legal Description Lots 9 and 10, Block 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINNEWASHTA Carver County, Minnesota DEMARC LANG SURVEYING S ENGINEERING 7601 73(d Avenue North (763) 560-3093 F.lsurveylred ceder point lake minneweshta - cerven9-44cpIm-941nve8474e1te planxi" Project No. 88474 1 Scale: 1" = 20' F.B.No. 1093-44 JDrawn By y q)y., Chanhassen, MN rev 4-26- 19 front setback to 18.5 He 954.9 951.6 The only easements shown are from plats of record or information provided by client. 'certify that this survey, plan, or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervlelon and that I am a duly Licensed Land Surveyor under the laws of the Stale of Minnesota Prepared this 16th day of April 2019 Signed Minn. Reg. No. 24992 Pam Reimer��E�� war IT -2 _\_A__\_w_\_\_\_w_\ _\\�_ \ _\�. __\_1_�_\_\_ti_\_ _\_�a11\'�_V.�:{1�7�' .roam .ui+vrm. �r.s ueuroa. i t. f % 0> Lot 9 8 10 Block rmwrrl.c�uwrucsuneuwsaawmumonro+�sun ar r� t 4 c'� 41W Red Cedar Point if r; G S -1P Lake Minnewashta `� 4-T Channhassen MN YS 19V a-2 8B T4 1wv'aw-`�21 lid ply iv`� �jl '4i IV 1h INS NN �_ A;l'�11�A\T\\�a�.l\\n'�4\\4\4\A4\Z\".Q\'>•_l'L\D�O`�A41 ��T��7�A�\O'a�'�.0 �4\\:A\\\\1\•A\R�AQ\O `t .._... .. ____________________________________ ------------------------------------- ^Q zz mz z 2 O 70 21'-0' 6-11' fB 12$ =.y 4 ea a2 z z zz Pam Reimer��E�� war mxw�a.rs..wa. C _\_A__\_w_\_\_\_w_\ _\\�_ \ _\�. __\_1_�_\_\_ti_\_ _\_�a11\'�_V.�:{1�7�' .roam .ui+vrm. �r.s ueuroa. i t. f % 0> Lot 9 8 10 Block rmwrrl.c�uwrucsuneuwsaawmumonro+�sun ar r� t 4 c'� M 1n b7 Red Cedar Point if r; G Lake Minnewashta `� raw., mrc �. siv Channhassen MN 1wv'aw-`�21 lid ply iv`� �jl '4i IV 1h �_ A;l'�11�A\T\\�a�.l\\n'�4\\4\4\A4\Z\".Q\'>•_l'L\D�O`�A41 ��T��7�A�\O'a�'�.0 �4\\:A\\\\1\•A\R�AQ\O Pam Reimer��E�� war mxw�a.rs..wa. C 36'17 Cedar Point Road �° �'"�� ... �< a M N'fl .roam .ui+vrm. �r.s ueuroa. i t. f % 0> Lot 9 8 10 Block rmwrrl.c�uwrucsuneuwsaawmumonro+�sun ar r� t 4 c'� M 1n b7 Red Cedar Point if r; G Lake Minnewashta `� raw., mrc �. siv Channhassen MN II �IIIII' I`I I II,1I ' � �i�4i I�II�II�II�I NW uasse4uue43 siren w"rR.o--+"i IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �_ ----------------- iuiod JepaD pay L 'W `onmRww o3eaivans� r=.d a�.oua�ussrwo ".� 4 �locl9 OL 8 6 30l Q " _ — �; .w=�s.ro niwx+ro �"".�s�.,�a�o�,„�� rn,sum�u�wsmasenw n�ssw�„„� me", Peoy;uiod JePOO LM JawPy wed II �IIIII' I`I I II,1I ' � �i�4i I�II�II�II�I IIIII� IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII .y��y�, I�II�II�II�I - ■' II�I�� ISI ISI ISI IIIIIII11IIA'LN �� 1a ,EI I! �i�Ai � 'i ISI ISI ISI ISI !�4i i I�II�II�II�I ■' al Sol —41 '��4�� IgIIaI W IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII �4�� I�II�II�II�I mi IIIIIIIIIII ; �I:�I i ISI IIIII111III ' ��' IIIIIIII � pxi i1. ,IIIIIIIIIIII DEMARC LAND SURVEYING 5 ENGINEERING '3&17 Ve-d eyr po,c a� r'vii A -PC a = it Zvi s F &I L0 n4� Z -4I 5� el" J- arJ co -4r -:: Z/, , 3 5 b 763.560.3093 17601 73rd Avenue North, Minneapolis, MN 55428 1 www.Demarcinc.com A RAINGARDEN A) GAREX PEN5YLVANICA WILDFLOWER MIX CONTAINS ASCLEPIAS TUBEROSA, A50.EPIA5(NGARANATA, ECHINAGEA PILLADA & PURPUREA, B) VERONICAFRUM VIRGINICUM COREOP515 LANCEOLATA, RATIBDA PINNATA & COLUr-NFERA, MONARDA FISTULA, ASTERS, LIATRI5 G) IRI5 VE5I00LOR 5PIGATA & ASPERE AND OTHERS ANNUALS FOR FIRST YEAR COLOR AND EROSIN CONTROL D) LIATRI5 5PIGATA (MARSH) • RAINGARDEN 51ZE MY CHANGE DO TO ACTUAL SQ' FOOTAGE OF DRAINAGE Revision #: Scale: Landscape Plan: 1 Landscape Design by: Cory Date: 6/13/2019 1/16°= 11 Reimer Shoreline The Mustard Seed Inc. A L14111 \ I .7.161•h11 r7A .YfY�79�\IJa�_]11 - _. ._. 1 w mmo WW �`► ♦rrrrr' I�I•' '�I�I I�I�I i`rl `► 'Irl ��. irrrrrr��r■■rrrrr► �rrr► Irrrrrrr�i��r7rrrrr� rrrrrr\ �rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr► �� Ii��r�rrmom= ■ ■ I•II•II•I I•I I•I I•II•I I•I � (■I I■I (■I I■) � -11-11-10-10—M-1101-0 NG & DESIGN LLC DRAFTI952-440-4602 i,i63a Irptl mer�redEorafiino com fiatl�re.et�lnlepreonlinewm ceLL.fixz.5817 1.. ' s E e lls mW xv y u LL Y O m LL Z d'Ir4w Z � °>~� Wa J ° 2 Lw ��ZFZ�� I- a D Lu U Z = a D W� O W~ J � �ZZKUWN o /n3gozc�m a m �o�aopQ w 000za�W ��QLL�6O2wo¢vi J W mlyUwpO�a �cnmoz��°aa awac~iO°��z�0 =IZ(q � UO 0 O UW 03cw�Zww ww7�H wc� aWZuZ=wwwo p ax woC�Q�Jl-flf cv WOwx-Wxa°W ` ac~)�vi>zw7�0 C WwmZW¢Kapw a W�-mOwLL¢aUx Q :x¢m�pmaLL� Z(rJ�a Jf ~Z° b Ofpz°wzzaFz f? wwc��oc� xK�O cn� JU p�wNwwa�-�° wmpxFp�maw x -m OOwO=ax WC )(D cr !rZ Lu JZ DI-FJ¢Hp OZ W a0 LLOa ¢ F- --.J YQ U Q�OO WO�¢�m a¢NZ C) C) Wp WwOWZ2wH 2SLL'mZtr00WLL F�LL � o I II II �W.. III•II•II•II•IIII•II•I I■II■II■) (■I ,�.....�..�,�...,.�..,_,_•. I•II•II•II•II•II•II•II•I (�II�II�II�I Oa LLUUmO PAGE 1 OF 5 • • ao il�-o3 CAMPBELL KNUTSON July 24, 2019 Roger N. Knutson Elliott B. Knetsch Joel J. Jamnik Ms. Jean Steckling Andrea McDowell Poehler City of Chanhassen Soren M. Mattick 7700 Market Boulevard Henry A. Schaeffer, III P.O. Box 147 Alina Schwartz Shana N. Conklin Chanhassen, MN 55317 Amy B. Schutt James J. Monge, III Re: Miscellaneous Recordings Jerome M. Porter David S. Kendall Kurt S. Fischer Dear Ms. Steckling: Thomas J. Campbell* Please find enclosed, for the City's files, Variance 2019-03 for Lot 9, Block 4, Red *Retired Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta. Said document was recorded on July 15, 2019 as Hennepin County document number A679828. Thank you. Very truly yours, CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association qJean2lson, Legal Assistant /jmo Enclosure CITY OF CHANHASSEN Grand Oak Office Center I RECEIVED 860 Blue Gentian Road Suite 290 JUL 2 9 2019 Eagan, Minne.sota 55121 SCANNED V Main: 651-432-3000 CHANHASSEN PLANNq,�' Fax: 631-234-6237 %N-o�v.ck-lawcom 202980v2 • D&ent #: A679828 Date: 07-15-2019 Time: 11:28 AM Pages: 4 Recording Fee: $46.00 Paid on 07-15-2019 County: Carver State: MN Requesting Party: CAMPBELL KNUTSON PA Kaaren Lewis County Recorder 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2019-03 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen City Council approves an 8.5 -foot front yard setback variance, a 25.1 - foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 10.4 percent lot coverage variance. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 9, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1" = 20' scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100 -year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in the front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28" oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 0 0 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228 -square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property's water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,257 square feet. 13. A permanent 20 -foot native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs and buffer averaging may be used, subject to the approval of the Water Resources Coordinator. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 16. The property owner shall configure the garage to provide a section of driveway at least nine feet wide that has a minimum depth of 16 feet 6 inches. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: June 24, 2019 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: / V Elise RyatUMayor e•N QGQ �� i AND: Ajjf 0: ` �' Todd Gerhardt, City Manager 2 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 3day ofi i 1� 2019 by Elise Ryan, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhasse,— Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 .� ►t1. _ IM 1,1UNA "-' ANNE KATHRYN LUNDELL 3 Notary Public -Minnesota s •..._, x" My caomNalo, Exirra Jan 31. 2021 g:\plmn\2019 planning =aces\19-03 3617 red cedar point road\variance document 19-03_=_ 2(adopted).dmx 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) Application of Pamela Reimer for an 11.5 -foot front yard setback, a 22.1 -foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance on a property zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2019-03 On May 21, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak, and voted to approve a 17 -foot front yard setback, a 22.1 -foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions. On June 10, 2019, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider an appeal of the variance approved by the Planning Commission and tabled the variance appeal, requesting that the applicant provide additional information. On June 24, 2019, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider an appeal of the variance approved by the Planning Commission and now makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 9, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta 4. Variance Findings —Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The intent of the city's shoreland management ordinance is to protect the city's aquatic resources by requiring structures to be setback 75 feet from lakes and limiting the SCAiNEED 0 0 maximum lot coverage permitted within 1,000 feet of a lake to 25 percent. The property currently has a nonconforming lot coverage of 36.4 percent and a nonconforming lakeshore setback of 52.9 feet. The ordinance's setback and lot coverage limitation is designed to minimize the amount of stormwater runoff that is discharged into the lake. The variance would decrease the property's nonconforming lot cover by I percent and require the use of pervious pavers, which would replace an additional 7 percent of the property's impervious lot cover with pervious pavement. The variance also requires the installation of a vegetative buffer and the implementation of a shoreline restoration project. The City Council finds that because a portion of Red Cedar Point Road was constructed outside of the public right of way in an area that would otherwise be the property owner's front yard, it is necessary to permit the house to be constructed closer to the lake to provide for a deeper front yard and driveway. The City Council finds that by using pervious pavers, installing a vegetative buffer, and conducting a shoreline restoration project, the impact of reducing the property's lakeshore setback to 49.9 feet will be mitigated. Given the existing nonconforming nature of the property and the BMPs being required as conditions of approval for the variance, the city believes that the applicant's proposal balances protecting the lake and allowing for reasonable use on a nonconforming property. The city's zoning code requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet in order to provide for greenspace and a consistent neighborhood aesthetic. The reduction to the front yard setback is in conjunction with the removal of an existing driveway that occupies the entire width of the property and the majority of the 30 -foot front yard setback. The city finds that reducing the front yard setback to 21.5 feet will minimize the extent to which the lakeshore setback will need to be reduced in order to accommodate a house, and will provide the property with a front yard comparable to what is present on the surrounding properties. The front yard setback also exists to ensure properties provide adequate off-street parking; due to the presence of Red Cedar Point Road within the front property line, the initially proposed front yard setback was insufficient to accommodate an average sized vehicle. The city finds that by increasing the requested front yard setback from 18.5 feet to 21.5 feet and allowing the home to move a corresponding distance closer to the lake, an adequate amount of off-street parking is provided between the driveway and three -car garage. The city finds that the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and in harmony with the general intent and purposes of the zoning code. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties", as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. `A r 0 Finding: The lot's substandard size combined with the required front and lake setbacks mean a reasonably sized home could not be constructed on the property without a variance. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The property is located in an older subdivision and the existing structure does not conform to the current zoning code. The parcel is significantly smaller than the minimum size required for riparian lots zoned RSF. The substandard nature of the lot makes it impossible to construct a single-family home meeting the current zoning code. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The property is located in one of the city's oldest subdivisions. The vast majority of the properties within 500 feet of the parcel either have received variances or are nonconforming uses. The existing housing stock is a mix between older single -level homes and more recent two-story homes. Due to the unique constraints posed by each lot and the changes in architectural trends over the decades, the housing in this area is a fairly eclectic mix. f. Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2019-03, dated May 21, 2019, prepared by MacKenzie Young -Walters, is incorporated herein. DECISION "The Chanhassen City Council approves an 8.5 -foot front yard setback variance, a 25.1 - foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 10.4 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. r 0 5. A new 1" = 20' scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100 -year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in the front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28" oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228 -square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property's water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,257 square feet. 13. A permanent 20' native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs and buffer averaging may be used, subject to the approval of the Water Resources Coordinator. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The Design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 16. The property owner shall configure the garage to provide a section of driveway at least 9 feet wide that has a minimum depth of 16 feet 6 inches. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 24th day of June, 2019. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: &A / ole Elise Ryan, Mayor g:\p1an\2019 planning cases\19-03 3617 red cedar point roadVindings of fact and decision 3617 red cedar_round2cc_2.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2019-03 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen City Council approves an 8.5 -foot front yard setback variance, a 25.1 - foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 10.4 percent lot coverage variance. 2. Pro e . The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 9, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1" = 20' scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100 -year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in the front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28" oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. SCANNED v 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228 -square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property's water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,257 square feet. 13. A permanent 20 -foot native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs and buffer averaging may be used, subject to the approval of the Water Resources Coordinator. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 16. The property owner shall configure the garage to provide a section of driveway at least nine feet wide that has a minimum depth of 16 feet 6 inches. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: June 24, 2019 CITY OF CHANHASSEN (SEAL) BY: L�e- Aftin ise Ry i ayor AND:Zr'�'^ Todd Gerhardt, City Manager PA =a n STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this S"day of .fit 11,1 2019 by Elise Ryan, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhass6, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 "sue ANNE KATHRYN LUNDELL 3`Notary Public -Minnesota �'' My C,,Wjon fi 0r" Jan 31.2711 gAplan\2019 planning cases\19-03 3617 red cedar point road\variarce document 19-03_ce 2(adopted).dom June 11, 2019 Pamela Reimer nTY OF C HANIASSE N Chanhassen is a Community for Life - Providing for Today and Planning for Tomorrow 14455 Westridge Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55347 Re: Variance Request — 3617 Red Cedar Point Drive Dear Ms. Reimer: This letter is to formally notify you that on June 11, 2019 the Chanhassen City Council tabled your variance request and requested that you provide the City Council with revised plans showing the recessed garage configuration discussed during the meeting. Due to the fact that there is no City Council meeting scheduled before the 60 -day deadline that expires on June 18, 2019, the city will be extending the deadline for an additional 60 days. The new deadline is August 19, 2019. It is the city's intention for this item to appear on June 24, 2019 City Council agenda: however, if the requested revisions are not received by Friday, June 14, 2019, the city may not be able to include the item on that agenda. If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-227-1132 or by email at mwaltersAci.chanhassen.mn.us. Sincerely, MacKenzie Young -Walters Associate Planner c: Building File g'Vim 0019 ph -®ea \Ii0)16"Wc �i.eMl tllli WdW,b PH 952.227.1100 • www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us • FX 952.227.1110 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD • PO BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN • MINNESOTA 55317 SCANNED 0 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 10, 2019 • Subject Consider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback for Property Located at 3617 Red Cedar Point Section NEW BUSINESS Item No: G.1. Prepared By MacKenzie Young -Walters, Associate File No: Planning Case 2019-03 Planner PROPOSED MOTION 447,1 p2r,S tPC! 25,1 "The Chanhassen Ci/ ouncil approves an S 5 -foot front yard setback variance, a 13'1 -foot lakeshore setback variance, and aS3 rpi![xYnt lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. m`�t'1 c,ad tlr;k1 4. `7a td r Ar,,ila,r —� C -W14, SUMMARY �yQerite kf tt Pehea �j✓lfi�.t�y,'r7N A At 1Rife )f ,Qocv P�r��,rlr,Mc,T On May 27, 2019, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a 17 -foot` front yard setback variance, a 22.1 -foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions of approval from both the applicant and a neighbor. The applicant feels that the granted front yard setback variance is insufficient and the neighbor feels the granted front yard setback variance is excessive. Section 20-29(d) of the City Code allows any aggrieved person to appeal a variance decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal with the Community Development Director within four business days of the Planning Commission's decision. Section 20- 29(e) grants the City Council the authority to reverse, affirm, or modify, wholly or partly, the decision appealed from the Planning Commission by a majority vote. The applicant is demolishing a non -conforming, single-family home and is requesting a variance to construct a new single-family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback, has a shed that encroaches approximately six feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. The proposed house would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverage to 34.5 percent, and require an 11.5 -foot' front yard setback variance. The parcel's existing house is over 90 years old, does not meet the city's minimum standards for single-family dwellings, and is in disrepair. This structure is located 52.9 feet from the lake's ordinary high water setback and the lot currently has 36.36 percent lot coverage, largely due to the fact that the front portion of the lot is covered by a gravel parking area Applicant's Proposal • 0 - Road M Proposed House ® Concrete -Removed Lot Cover M Water Stntcture -Existing House The Planning Commission determined that the proposed driveway length was insufficient to provide adequate guest parking, and chose to grant the equivalent of a 8.5 foot front yard setback variance (8.5 feet of right-of-way plus 8.5 -foot reduction from existing lot line equals 17 feet). "It was the applicant's intent to donate approximately 8.5 feet of the property to the city as public right-of-way. In order to maintain the relative position of the house after the donation, the requested variance was increased by 8.5 feet. Since the Planning Commission voted to increase the front yard setback by three feet, this resulted in a 17 -foot front yard setback variance with the dedication of land, compared to the 20 -foot front yard setback variance that would have been required to provide the applicant with their desired front yard setback. Subsequent conversations with Carver County lead to the applicant deciding they will not dedicate the right-of-way and, as a result, to maintain the intent of the variance approved by the Planning Commission, a front yard variance of 8.5 feet would be required. 61242019 , Coversheet 4. The applicant must enter into a roadoasement over the existing portion of the lot cover* street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1"= 20' scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100 -year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28" oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all concoction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228 -square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property's water -oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20 -foot native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 16. The property owner shall configure the garage to provide a section of driveway at least 9 feet wide that has a minimum depth of 16 feet 6 inches. 0 Variance Document ❑ Fi ga-Q�(AwmvAl) 0 Revised Survey ❑ Revised Footprint ❑ Revised Elevation ❑ June I0, 2019 City Council Staff Repgrt 0 Emailed Appeals Received ❑ Emailed Comments Received ❑ Al2 al Letter Received 6-10.19 https-.//chanhassen.novusagenda.coni/agendapublic/CoverSheet.aspx?ltemlD=1108&MeetinglD=60 4/4 6/24/2019 Coversheet down to 11.5 feet deep at its shortest poo- is would allow for an average sized vehicle (16 Ong) to park perpendicular in front of the third stall and for a second vehicle to park at an angle in front of the double garage door. The applicant believes this would honor the intent of the variance granted by the Planning Commission while allowing them to retain sufficient garage depth to accommodate the storage of boats or larger - than -average vehicles within the garage. Note: A more detailed summary of the other aspects of the requested variance (lot cover and lake setback) can be found in the attached executive summary from the June 10, 2019 City Council Meeting, and a full analysis can be found in the attached staff report. Councilman McDonald expressed concern that the proposal didn't improve parking on Red Cedar Point Road. Staff responded that they felt the variance provided adequate parking for the property in questions, but would not help alleviate any of the existing issues. Councilwoman Tjomhom asked for clarification on the provided parking. Staff noted that the proposal provide three in -garage parking spaces and 1-2 guest parking spaces depending on vehicle size. Councilwoman Tjomhom asked if the street could be signed No Parking. Staff indicated that this was something that could be done. Councilwoman Coleman asked about average car length and if the driveway could accommodate two cars. Staff indicated that depending on vehicle size and how they were parked, it likely could. Mayor Ryan asked for clarification on the buffer requirement. Staff noted that it was part of the new local water management and that such buffers would likely be required for future shoreland variances. Mayor Ryan asked what the lot cover worked out to if the pervious pavers were exclude from the calculations. Staff indicated that it would be around 28 percent Mayor Ryan asked about the logistics surrounding the removal of the cottonwood tree. Staff clarified that Public Works would be responsible for removing the tree and that no replacement was planned or required. Mayor Ryan asked for clarification on the driveway length and amount of parking typically provided. Staff stated the driveway as approved would range from 17.5 to 14.5 feet deep and that a city parking stall was 18 feet by 9 feet. Staff noted that most driveways can accommodate at least two cars. There was extensive discussion on a variety of potential garage and driveway configurations. The City Council indicated that they would like to see a proposal showing the third stall recessed back three feet. The applicant's representative requested that instead of the variance be granted by the Planning Commission, the applicant would like to propose a recessed third stall. The applicant stated that it was not desirable to reduce the depth of the entire garage by three feet due to the fact that it is only 24 feet deep and a 21 -foot deep garage would be too shallow. They stated that they felt this configuration met the intent of the Planning Commission's variance by providing the deeper garage parking space. Note: A more detailed background including summaries of questions, comments and concerns raised during the public hearing conducted on May 21. 2019 and during meetings associated with Planning Case 2018-01, can be found in the attached staff report. The applicant's proposal would provide a similar amount of driveway parking to the variance granted by the Planning Commission. In both configurations, there would be one section of the driveway capable of accommodating average sized vehicles with a second section that would likely require an average -sized vehicle to park at an angle to the garage. The variance granted by the Planning Commission did create a deeper second driveway section than what the applicant is proposing, but it was not deep enough to allow for the perpendicular parking of multiple average sized vehicles. The City Council, Planning Commission. staff, and neighbors have all expressed concern about the lack of parking along Red Cedar Point Road; however, the driveway and three -car garage combine to provide an amount of off-street parking similar to average parking provided by other properties in the neighborhood. In order to ensure that the third stall is built as proposed, staff recommends that the following condition of approval be added: 16. The property owner shall configure the garage to provide a section of driveway at least 9 feet wide that has a minimum depth of 16 feet 6 inches. tuu 1 W 1XV I MCI Staff recommends that the Chanhassen City Council approve an 11.5 -foot front yard setback, a 22.1 -foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. hfps:l/chanhassen.novusagenda.comlagendapublictCoverSheet.aspx?ltemlD=1108&MeetinglD=60 3/4 6424/2019 , e• l t� no - It=,- J Nss 1 s_..J_______ .00 .aca •a.i: •- Appbc 'a Regoeoed Setback Proposed House PC Approved Setback -Removed Lot Co%-er Peopaed Garage Step6aek .Existing Hoose It=,- J Nss 1 n nn a�,�� a ■■ ■■■ :x The revised proposal would create a I Moot wide longer section of driveway in front of the recessed third stall that is 17.8 feet deep along its longest leg and 16.5 feet deep along its shortest leg. The remaining 18 feet of driveway would be 13.5 feet deep along its longest point and taper httpsJ/chanhassen.novusagenda.conVagendspublicJCoverSheet.aspx7hemiD=1108&MeetinglD=6O 2/4 •- -Road Proposed House Concrete -Removed Lot Co%-er M%Vater Structure .Existing Hoose J.- W P,"p G.. S"bxk larka.a.-1 n nn a�,�� a ■■ ■■■ :x The revised proposal would create a I Moot wide longer section of driveway in front of the recessed third stall that is 17.8 feet deep along its longest leg and 16.5 feet deep along its shortest leg. The remaining 18 feet of driveway would be 13.5 feet deep along its longest point and taper httpsJ/chanhassen.novusagenda.conVagendspublicJCoverSheet.aspx7hemiD=1108&MeetinglD=6O 2/4 6/24/2019 • C 1 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 24, 2019 9� • Subject 3617 Red Cedar Point: Consider Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback, and Front Yard Setback Section CONSENTAGENDA [tem No: D.7. Prepared By MacKenzie Young -Walters, Associate Planner File No: Planning Case 2019-03 .S "The Chanhassen City Council approves an 11.5 -foot front yard setback variance, a Jt.l-foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions." Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. On June 10, 2019, the City Council heard the appeals of the Planning Commission's May 21, 2019 approval of multiple variances to allow the construction of a single-family home at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road. The appeals and subsequent discussion focused on whether the approved driveway provided adequate off-street parking: there was general agreement on the appropriateness of the other approved variances. The variance approved by the Planning Commission required the applicant to reduce the proposed depth of their home by three feet to accommodate a longer driveway. The applicant appealed this variance stating that the resulting reduction in garage length led to an impractical, shallow garage. A neighbor also appealed the variance, expressing concern that the approved driveway was too shallow to accommodate adequate guest parking. During the Council meeting, the applicant proposed maintaining their requested 11.5 foot front yard setback but recessing the third garage stall by three feet in order to address the Planning Commission's desire to create a longer driveway section. The City Council tabled the appeal and requested that the applicant provide revised plans showing this proposal. The applicant submitted three documents showing this revised configuration, which are provided below. Staff has color coded the revised survey in order to clarify how it differs from what was originally proposed and what was approved by the Planning Commission. N.ewLrt AW) . Rey' d Proppsgl SZte Play, Reams to pig .' (Jeae,) —� 14em }4 eeoeeoAf) Comrmt ayeVx' JZo Ce�ifo- I(eGi 1 f /dbk CUHIELc+ 4rtlo-lK-•- (I) ol� Biu/i1E9- K', kidt 7ZA*I „AU;� C�'�ilQd --i�Jg -oleo f, No to to l k +0 9 o pf 6e fd.4 e I Pt< io� dfP WA L 6 of ae(/ VOW, https://than hassen. novu sage nda. wn Vagendapu blic/CoverSheet. aspx?lteml D=11068Meeting I D=60 114 City Council • • 3617 Red Cedar Point Road — Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 3 of 19 since they believe the parcel's size and existing lake setback make it impractical to construct a house and garage while meeting the property's 30 -foot front yard setback. The applicant has stated that they believe the requested variances are in line with those granted by the city in similar circumstances, and they have noted that many properties in the neighborhoods have structures with similar or smaller front yard setbacks. They believe the proposed house will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and feel that replacing much of the existing gravel frontage with vegetation will improve the property's aesthetics. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 1, General Provisions Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article H, Division 4, Non -conforming Uses Chapter 20, Article Vii. Shoreland Management District Chapter 20, Article X11. "RSF" Single -Family Residential District Section 20-615. Lot Requirements and Setbacks BACKGROUND General Background County records indicate that the existing structure was built in 1927. The city does not have a building file for this property, nor does it have any records of any permits associated with this address. Throughout the second half of 2017, staff received numerous inquiries from interested parties about 3617 Red Cedar Point Road. Staff informed individuals interested in the property that a variance would likely be required to rebuild on the property. Staff indicated that any variance request should maintain the existing shoreland setback and reduce the amount of lot coverage present on the parcel. Staff indicated that it would consider supporting a front yard variance in the interest of maintaining the existing lake setback, but expressed concerns about the ability of a shortened driveway to provide onsite parking. Additionally, staff expressed reservations about the property's ability to accommodate a three -car garage, recommending that a tuck under or side -loading configuration be used. Planning Case 2018-01 On January 2, 2018, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and City Council • • 3617 Red Cedar Point Road — Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 4 of 19 mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and voted 5-0 to approve the variance. During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following concerns: 1. Commissioner Tietz expressed concern over the narrowness of the road and access issues that will be created by construction activities. Staff indicated that the applicant's contractors would need to work with the Engineering and Building Departments to minimize obstruction, but that the issue was unavoidable. The applicant stated that he owned another property in the area which would be used as a staging area to partially mitigate these issues. 2. Commissioner Tietz expressed concern that the proposed pervious pavers be properly designed and installed. Staff stated that the design would need to conform to the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute's guidelines and would need to be approved by our Engineering Department. 3. Chairman Aller asked if Public Safety had expressed concern with the proposal. Staff indicated that they had not. 4. Commissioner Weick wanted to know how much additional driveway length would be needed to accommodate two standard cars. Staff estimated an additional four feet would be required. The applicant stated that since his daughter drives a jeep, he believes he can fit two to three cars in the proposed driveway. 5. The Commission asked for clarification on the average parking in the area. Staff clarified that they believed most homes in the area did have driveway space for two cars, with an estimated average of 4.5 parking spaces between garages and driveway parking. 6. The Commission asked if staff felt the site's management of water resources was being improved. Water Resources Coordinator Strong indicated that she felt it was probably as close as possible to an equal trade. 7. Commissioner Weick expressed disappointment that the lot coverage was not being more significantly reduced. 8. Commissioners Madsen and Tietz expressed concerns about the limited driveway parking. 9. Chairman Aller expressed concern about the potential impact to the lake. During the public hearing, the following concerns were raised: 1. Debbie Lockhart expressed concerns about snow removal and snow storage, stating that the snowplow currently uses the property for a turnaround and snow storage area. City Engineer Oehme indicated that he had spoken with the plow driver and feels that the city can use its extra right of way along the end of Red Cedar Point Road to facilitate snow removal and snow storage. 2. Steve Gunther expressed concerns about how the lot coverage variance will impact the lake via increased runoff. He requested that the Commission look at it as a variance from City Council • • 3617 Red Cedar Point Road — Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 5 of 19 the 25 percent standard, noting that the home could be reconfigured to reduce the required lot coverage. On January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the variance request. On January 22, 2018, the City Council meeting during which the appeal was scheduled to be heard was canceled. Staff notified the applicant and appellant that the appeal would be rescheduled for the February 12, 2018 City Council meeting. Staff also extend the 60 -day review deadline for this item. On February 12, 2018, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's approval of an 11.5 - foot front yard setback, a 22.1 -foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions of approval. During the meeting, the City Council expressed the following concerns: I . Councilman McDonald requested clarification on the size of the lot compared to surrounding parcels and on the prevalence of variances in the area. Staff responded that the lot is roughly average and noted that many properties in the area have received variances. 2. Councilman McDonald asked for clarification on how snowplowing operated in the area. Staff noted that there was right of way to the north that could be used to facilitate snowplowing. 3. Councilman McDonald asked why the house could not be moved further back to accommodate a larger driveway. Staff responded that city policy has been not to allow the intensification of existing non -conforming lake setbacks. 4. Councilwoman Ryan asked staff to speak on the paver requirement. Staff stated that in this instance the Water Resources Coordinator felt comfortable with their use and that a maintenance agreement would be required. 5. Councilwoman Ryan asked staff to estimate the height of the house compared to surrounding structures. Staff stated that exact information was not available, but estimated it was comparable and noted that it met ordinance. 6. Councilwoman Ryan asked why staff had recommended a tuck under garage. Staff clarified that the configuration did the most to reduce the house footprint. 7. Councilwoman Ryan asked staff to comment on the shoreland restoration requirements. Staff noted that that requirement would be met through coordination with the watershed district. 8. Mayor Laufenburger asked how long the applicant would have to act on the variance. Staff responded that construction would have to start within one year. 9. Councilman McDonald asked the applicant how they would stage construction. They responded that they would use their existing property in the area as parking, but noted any building would have the same staging issues within the area. City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road — Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 6 of 19 During the meeting, the Mayor allowed the audience to address the City Council. The property owner spoke in favor of granting the variance. On February 12, 2019, one year passed without construction being started. Per the terms of the variance, this resulted in the variance issued on February 12, 2018 lapsing. Current Request On January 9, 2019, the applicant contacted staff asking about the possibility of utilizing the variance from Planning Case 2018-01. The applicant was advised that the variance would expire on February 12, 2019. Staff indicated that the variance represented the largest footprint that the city was likely to support, and recommended that the applicant familiarize themselves with the conditions that were placed on the variance. On March 29, 2019, staff informed the applicant that Planning Case 2018-0 I's variance could not be extended, and that they would need to apply for a new variance. Staff indicated that it was likely the city would support a similar variance request to the one that was previously issued. Staff recommended that the applicant investigate the required conditions and indicated that staff would likely recommend identical conditions, unless the requested amount of impervious surface was significantly reduced. On May 21, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and voted 4-0 to approve a 17 -foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1 -foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions of approval. During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following concerns: 1. Chairman Weick asked for clarification as to the driveway length and orientation. Staff clarified that in order to park an average sized, 16 -foot long, vehicle the garage would need to be pushed back 3 feet and that to create a consistent length the house would need to be reoriented to intersect the road at a 90 -degree angle. 2. Commissioner Skistad asked if increasing the driveway length would push the house closer to the length. Staff clarified that as written, the increased driveway length would require the house to be redesigned but that an increased lake setback variance could be granted, though it was not generally city policy to allow houses to move closer to the lake. City Council • • 3617 Red Cedar Point Road — Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 7 of 19 3. Chairman Weick asked for confirmation that one of the historical variances was for 50 percent lot cover. Staff confirmed it was, and noted that existing base was taken into account when dealing with non -conforming uses. 4. Commissioner Reeder asked if the building could go higher. Staff stated that the submitted plans were under the maximum height allowed. 5. Commissioner Reeder asked what the depth of the garage was. The applicant stated that it was 26 feet deep. 6. Chairman Weick noted that use of pervious pavers would reduce the property to between 28 and 29 percent impervious coverage. 7. Commissioner Randall expressed concern that a three -car garage was too large for the lot and that the driveway length would establish a precedent. 8. Commissioner Reeder noted that the house would likely have many different owners and that he felt the driveway setback should be increased to a minimum of 16 feet. 9. Commissioner Skistad expressed support for the plan as proposed, and asked if the house could be moved 3 feet closer to the lake and 3 feet further from the front lot line. Commissioner Reeder noted he would not support reducing the lake setback. 10. Commissioner Reeder asked if the variance could be structured to increase the driveway length but permit a front cantilever. Staff noted that the City Code does not grant a property with a variance, architectural exemptions, and stated they would need to consult with the City Attorney to determine if this would be possible. 11. The Planning Commission asked how deep the existing driveway was. Staff responded that it was approximately 30 feet deep. 12. Commissioner Randall asked what the minimum driveway depth allowed by Code was. Staff stated that there was no minimum, but that the shortest depth present in PUDs was 20 feet. 13. Chairman Weick stated that he felt a 16 -foot driveway length was viable. The applicant's builder stated that they would be willing to reduce the garage depth by 3 feet. 14. The Planning Commission asked for clarification on the resulting driveway depth. Staff stated that it would be between 17.5 and 14.5 feet deep. 15. Chairman Weick noted that they could make a minimum driveway length a condition of the variance. 16. The Planning Commission discussed the merits of allowing an average depth versus requiring a minimum depth. During the public hearing, the following sentiments were expressed: 1. The applicant stated that due to circumstances beyond their control, they had been unable to acquire the property in time to act on the previously issued variance. They stated that their requested variance maintained the previously issued setbacks and City Council • 3617 Red Cedar Point Road — Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 8 of 19 reduced the lot cover compared to what had initially been granted. They stated that they were willing to meet the conditions of the variance. They stated that they were providing off-street parking consistent with what was provided by other homes in the area. 2. Steve Gunther expressed appreciation for the measures being taken to reduce the impact of the property's impervious surface; however, he expressed concern regarding the length of the driveway and requested that the driveway have a minimum length of 16 to 18 feet. He noted that most of the homes in the area did not have a three -car garage. 3. Dave Bangasser expressed concern that the proposed driveway was too short and suggested that the depth of the house should be reduced to accommodate a longer driveway. He requested that the driveway have a minimum length of 18 feet. He stated that he did not believe any other variances had been granted that would not accommodate two vehicles being parked in the driveway. 4. Betsy Anding indicated that she agreed with and supported the statements made by Steve Gunther and Dave Bangasser. 5. Dave Bishop noted that he believes the street is only 15 feet 2 inches wide in front of the subject property, and asked that the Planning Commission consider and address how construction staging would work. Staff responded that construction vehicles are not allowed to park on streets of that width, and that city ordinances will be enforced. 6. Jeff Souba expressed his support for granting the requested variance and noted that guests can park in the garage or on the property. 7. Paul Wagner, the applicant's builder, outlined his professional experience and his plan for minimizing the impact and disruption associated with construction. 8. Dave Bangasser reiterated his position that a minimum depth was needed and that 18 feet was an appropriate minimum. On May 27, 2019, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision, stating that they believe they should be granted the same front yard setback as was approved in Planning Case 18-01. On May 27, 2019, a resident appealed the Planning Commission's decision, stating that they believed that the granted variance does not provide for adequate guest parking. The property is zoned Single -Family Residential and is located within the city's Shoreland Management District. This zoning district requires lots to be a minimum of 20,000 square feet, have front yard setbacks of 30 feet, rear yard setbacks of 75 feet from the lake's ordinary high City Council • • 3617 Red Cedar Point Road — Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 9 of 19 water level, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and limits parcels to a maximum of 25 percent lot coverage. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height. The lot is 9,203 square feet, and currently has 3,353 square feet of impervious surface resulting in 36.4 percent lot coverage. The existing structure meets the 30 -foot front yard setback and 10 - foot east side yard setback, has a shed located approximately four feet from the west side lot line, and is setback 52.9 feet from the lake's ordinary high water mark. The rear yard also has a 114 square foot fireplace/patio area that is setback 24 feet from the lake. Note: A portion of the parcel, 562 square feet, is covered by Red Cedar Point Road which is a public street. This area is not included in the lot area or lot coverage totals above. NEIGHBORHOOD Red Cedar Point The plat for this area was recorded in August of 1913. Over the subsequent century, the City of Chanhassen was formed, a zoning code was passed, the zoning code was amended numerous times, and buildings were built, demolished, and rebuilt to meet the standards and needs of the existing ordinances. Additionally, the neighborhood's roads were not always constructed within their designated right of way. In some areas, this has led to portions of buildings being located in the right of way and portions of these roads being located within residents' property lines. Very few properties in the area meet the requirements of the city's zoning code, and most properties either are non -conforming uses or are operating under a variance. Variances within 500 feet: 78-07 3637 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 19' front setback (garage) 80-08 3629 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved -12' front setback, 3' foot side setback, +1.5' side setback for (chimney), 20' lot width, 40' lot frontage, 13,000 square feet lot area (house) 81-08 3607 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - 13.5' lake setback (deck) City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road — Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 10 of 19 83-09 3613 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - 12' front setback, 2' side setback, 7' lake setback (house) 84-18 3707 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 20' front setback (detached garage) 85-20 3624 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved -1.2' front setback, 4.8' side setback (detached gage) 85-27 3701 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 5' front setback, 35' lake setback (house) 87-13 3629 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - 12' front setback, 3' side (house) 88-113605 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - 4' E side setback, 2' W side setback, 26' lake setback (garage, addition intensifying non -conforming) 92-013607 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - 1.5' side setback, 14.5' lake setback (addition expanding non -conforming) 93-06 3618 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 8' side setback, 15' lake setback (deck and porch) 96-04 3705 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 3' side setback, 31' lake setback, 25% LC (house) 02-05 3628 Hickory Road: Approved - 13' front setback (Hickory), 2' front setback (Red Cedar Point), 5' side setback (detached garage) 04-07 3637 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 19.25' front setback, 4' lake setback, 15% LC (addition) 06-04 3633 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 22.5' front setback, 15.8' front setback, 2.39% LC (gage) 08-04 3637 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 20.2' front setback, 8' side setback (house) 09-15 3625 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved -15.5' front setback, 6.5' E side setback, 9' driveway setback, 18.5' lake setback, 12.3% LC, allow one car garage (house) 15-07 3701 South Cedar Drive: Approved - increase existing non -conformity (enclose deck 15' in lake setback) 15-14 3603 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - 20.2' front setback, 17' lake setback (two-story attached garage) 16-113627 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved -13.6' lake setback, 4.8% LC (home) City Council • • 3617 Red Cedar Point Road — Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 11 of 19 17-09 3622 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - Intensify non -conforming by raising garage in side yard setback (garage) 18-013617 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - 11.5' front setback, 22.1' lake setback, 11% LC (home) Note: Variance 18-01 lapsed due to one year passing without construction occurring. ANALYSIS Front Yard Setback The property's existing structure meets the RSF District's 30 -foot front yard setback, however, the proposed house would be setback 18.5 feet from the front lot line, requiring an 11.5 -foot front yard variance. The city requires front yard setbacks in order to ensure the presence of front yard green space, preserve the character of its Single -Family Residential Districts, and to provide for off-street parking. The property's front yard is currently covered by a 2,105 -square foot gravel parking area that runs the entire width of the property and extends past the property's 30 - foot front yard setback. While the proposed house's expanded footprint and driveway will occupy about half of the space currently covered by gravel, the other half will be replaced with vegetation. Converting the gravel area to green space will represent an improvement to the property's aesthetics. er Pont CCedar Road { ar' 39/'30'19' E 79.99 hf YCl. 3&fu91f � E"T ..za � y"P=n` ?Ifs �NfIYs� , ML.J �_—^J• � Bmf •9K4� The applicant is requesting a reduced front yard setback because they feel that it is not possible to fit a modern house and garage on a substandard lot while maintaining the existing shoreland setback without relief from the front yard setback. Given the lot's average depth of 122 feet, if the applicant maintained the existing shoreland and front yard setback they would be restricted to a combined home and garage depth of approximately 39 feet. The proposed house and garage have a maximum depth of 47 feet and minimum depth of approximately 41 feet. The applicant has stated that it is not practical to construct a shallower house, due to the proposed home's tuck under garage. The applicant chose to propose a tuck under configuration based upon staff recommendation and preference for a front yard variance as opposed to the side yard variances that would be required for other attached garage configurations. City Council • • 3617 Red Cedar Point Road — Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 12 of 19 The applicant's proposed front yard setback of 18.5 feet is consistent with a line drawn across the front of the property connecting the comers of the adjacent homes. When examining properties within 500 feet of 3617 Red Cedar Point Road, staff found that 13 of the 25 properties have received a variance from the required front yard setback. As the table below shows, six of those properties were allowed front yard setbacks of less than I 1 feet, and a further four variances were granted allowing front yard setbacks of between 14 and 18 feet. Additionally, the neighborhood has numerous non -conforming properties with similarly short front yard setbacks. The requested 18.5 - foot front yard setback is in line what is present in this neighborhood; however, the presence of a portion of Red Cedar Point Road within the property's front lot line results in a shorter driveway and front yard than is present on many properties with similar variances. Front Yard Setback Variances Granted within 500' of 3617 Red Cedar Point Road Closest Structure Front Yard Variance Distance from lot line Garage 1.2 feet 28.8 feet Garage 2 feet 28 feet House 5 feet 25 feet House 12 feet 18 feet House 12 feet 18 feet House 12 feet 18 feet House 15.5 feet 14.5 feet Garage 19 feet 11 feet Addition(Home) 19.25 feet 10.75 feet Garage 20 feet 10 feet House 20.2 feet 9.8 feet House 20.2 feet 9.8 feet Garage 22.5 feet 7.5 feet City Council • • 3617 Red Cedar Point Road — Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 13 of 19 The final consideration in determining an appropriate front yard setback is the ability of the driveway to provide for off-street parking. The impact that the reduced front yard setback has on this is amplified by the fact that Red Cedar Point Road encroaches between 6 8.29 and 8.638.5 feet onto the applicant's property resulting in a driveway that is approximately 11 feet long at its shortest point and about 15 feet long at its longest. Staff is concerned that the short driveway length will not facilitate off-street parking, but acknowledges that many properties in the area provide a similar amount of off-street parking 13eve eempambly ABA dFiVeWaYS. Staff conducted an estimate of the off- street parking provided by the driveways and garages of nearby homes, and determined that houses in the area provide an average of 4.5 combined off-street parking spaces, with 8 of the 17 surrounding parcels survey providing 4 or less combined off-street parking spaces. Staff believes that the proposed driveway could accommodate one car parked at an angle to the street, as the driveway is too short to allow for an average sized, 16 -foot long, car to park perpendicular to the street. The proposed driveway configuration combined with the three -car garage would provide off-street parking for up to four vehicles. For reference, the City Code requires a two -car garage and 30 -foot front yard setback, which would provide 4-6 off-street parking spaces depending on the width of the right of way, two in the garage and two to four in the driveway. Fingirteer-ing 9Staff is recommending that the house be setback an additional three feet to accommodate the perpendicular parking of vehicles within the driveway. The additional three feet of driveway length would allow the driveway to park one average sized vehicle and one smaller vehicle perpendicular instead of one parallel. Ensuring sufficient driveway length is important since the street width in front of 3617 Red Cedar Point Road is only 16.5 feet. This means it is not feasible for two vehicles to pass along the street if vehicles parked on the driveway overhang into the street. Even with the additional three feet of driveway length, the driveway will not be able to accommodate the perpendicular parking of larger vehicles. A minimum driveway length of approximately 20 feet would be required to accommodate the perpendicular panting of above average sized vehicles. Lot Coverage The city requires a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet for riparian properties and limits these properties to 25 percent lot coverage. The applicant's lot is substandard with a lot area of 9,203 City Council • • 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 14 of 19 square feet. The property currently has a lot coverage of 36.4 percent, or 3,353 square feet. When owners propose improvements to properties that have non -conforming lot coverage, the policy is that the existing nonconformity must be reduced; however, there is no formal rule stating how much of a reduction must occur. In this case, the applicant is proposing to reduce the property's existing lot coverage by 183 square feet, a 1.9 percent reduction. When considering what lot coverage is appropriate, both the percentage of lot coverage compared to the District's standard and the absolute square footage of lot coverage present on the property should be considered. A non -riparian lot meeting the RSF District's 15,000 square -foot minimum is allowed up to -_- 3,750 square feet of impervious surface. Lots zoned Residential Low and Medium Density (RLM) and meeting the minimum size of 9,000 square feet are entitled to up to 3,150 square feet of lot coverage. These totals provide an indication of what the city considers to be reasonable minimum maximums for single-family residential lot coverage. The 3,170 square feet proposed by the applicant a q is close to the minimum maximum for RLM lots; however, the city has limited lot coverage to totals below those s thresholds, especially in areas with stormwater ; 950. management issues or which are adjacent to water resources. It should also be noted that areas zoned RLM are x a required to preserve significant amounts of permanent open space to offset their higher lot cover percentage. In evaluating these requests, staff looks at the extent to; "3—ul which the proposed amount of lot coverage and anyassociated stormwater best management practices will w represent an improvement to the property's existing ROM tooted LC = aewo es LC conditions. A 183 square -foot reduction in the property's lot coverage is not in and of itself a meaningful improvement to the property's existing conditions, and if no other measures are taken to reduce impervious surface or improve stormwater management, staff does not recommend approving the variance with the proposed lot coverage. Staff believes that the applicant can improve the property's stormwater management while retaining the proposed lot coverage by utilizing permeable pavers for the proposed driveway and patio, by installing a 20 -foot buffer along the lake, and develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan to improve ecosystem health and function. Staff recommends that if a variance for the proposed lot coverage is granted, the three aforementioned items be made conditions of approval. Using permeable pavers would reduce the property's impervious surface from by approximately 680 square feet, assuming a front yard variance of 8.5 feet, resulting in 27.1 percent impervious surface and 7.4 percent pervious surface for a total lot cover of 34.5 percent. City Council • • 3617 Red Cedar Point Road — Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 15 of 19 Shoreland Setback The city's Shoreland Overlay District requires a 75 -foot setback for properties located along Lake Minnewashta; however, the existing primary structure has a 52.9 -foot setback from the lake. Since the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and build a wider structure within the lake setback, a variance is required. Due to the fact that the property has an average depth of 122 feet, requiring the new home to meet the 75 -foot shoreland setback would provide the applicant with a very constrained buildable area. These situations are fairly common in the city's older lakeside neighborhoods, and the city's practice has generally been to use the property's existing lake setback to determine what shoreland setback is reasonable. Within 500 feet of the property, shoreland setback variances of up to 35 feet have --n,s .,o j � w EceD :,c •.yiiilis._..1 been granted to facilitate the construction of homes, and a total of three shoreland setback variances of over 20 feet have been issued. The properties to the east and west of the parcel have respective lake setbacks of 54.6 feet and 61.4 feet. The proposed lake setback of 52.9 feet is in line with city precedent and similar to the setback maintained by the adjacent properties. Staff is concerned that significantly increasing the size of the structure and amount of impervious surface within the shoreland setback will increase the amount of stormwater runoff being diverted into Lake Minnewashta. Staff believes that requiring the rear patio discussed below to be constructed using permeable pavers and requiring the installation of a 20 -foot buffer between the home and the lake will serve to mitigate this impact. Portions of the rear patio will be setback closer to the lake than the existing house's 52.9 -foot setback. At its closest point, the proposed patio would be setback approximately 45 feet from the lake. Since the City Code allows for lakefront properties to have one water oriented accessory structure of up to 250 square feet with a minimum setback of 10 -feet from the lake's ordinary high water level, no variance is required for the patio's encroachment into the shoreland setback. The applicant has agreed that the patio will be the property's only water oriented accessory structure, and will be removing the existing fireplace area which is setback approximately 24 feet from the lake. Impact on Neighborhood Red Cedar Point is one of the oldest neighborhoods in the city. Many of its properties are non- conforming uses, and 16 of the 25 properties within 500 feet of 3617 Red Cedar Point Road have been granted at least one variance. Of these 16 properties, 13 have a variance for reduced front yard City Council • • 3617 Red Cedar Point Road — Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 16 of 19 setbacks, five have been granted additional lot coverage, and 11 were permitted a reduced shoreland setback. Many of the nine properties that do not have associated variances also have non- conforming lot coverage, front yard setbacks, and shoreland setbacks. The height of the proposed house is higher than some of the surrounding homes, but with a peak height of 27 feet and building height of 22 feet, it is significantly below the 35 -foot maximum building height allowed by City Code. The existing housing stock in the surrounding area is a mix between older single -level homes and more recent two-story homes. Due to the unique constraints posed by each lot and the changes in architectural trends over the decades, the housing in this area is a fairly eclectic mix. Proposed House Street Elevation Existing House Street View b a IN I WWr_WOii8iR. Laid i f Iilu Iii /_\:a'1 The applicant's proposed shoreland setback maintains the existing distance to the lake and granting it would be consistent with how similar requests have been treated in the past. The requested lot coverage variance represents a minimal reduction of an existing nonconformity, but if pervious pavers are utilized and a buffer is installed along the lake, the property's stormwater management will be significantly improved. The proposed front yard setback will result in a very short driveway and a limited ability to accommodate on-site parking, but it is consistent with the surrounding properties and what has historically been allowed within the neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of the proposed variances with conditions. RECOMMENDATION 1 - - ... ... ... ....... .. .. .. ... \.. ... City Council • • 3617 Red Cedar Point Road — Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 17 of 19 Or "The Chanhassen City Council approves an 8.5 -foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1 -foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions." .� �.low�. .. .... .. ... ... . . .. .. ... ... . .. . . .. .. ... .. . . .. • Y • .. _..... \- Y.- _ ..._ • .. ... . .. . ... .. ..... _.. .. .. ........... . .. .. .. .. .. ... .. ... .. . . .. ... . .. . .. .. .. .. Or "The Chanhassen City Council approves an 8.5 -foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1 -foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions." City Council • 0 3617 Red Cedar Point Road — Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 18 of 19 I . The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1" = 20' scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100 -year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in the front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28" oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property's water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20' native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must pmpese to ftrthefreduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. Should the City Council deny the variance request, it is recommended that the Planning Geffm3iss City Council adopt the following motion and attached Finding of Fact and Decision: City Council • • 3617 Red Cedar Point Road — Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 19 of 19 "The Chanhassen City Council Board of Appeals and AEljusunefft denies a variance request to allow an 11.5 -foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1 -foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions." ATTACHMENTS 1. Finding of Fact and Decision Approval CC 2. Finding of Fact and Decision-AheRiate-Approval PC 3. Finding of Fact and Decision Denial 4. Variance Documents 5. Development Review Application 6. Tree Removal Plan 7. Survey 8. WRC Memo on 3617 Red Cedar Point 9. ERS Memo on 3617 Red Cedar Point 10. ENG Memo on 3617 Red Cedar Point 11. Affidavit of Mailing 12. Email from Resident GAPLAN\2019 Planning Cases\19-03 3617 Red Cedar Point Road\Staff Report -3617 Red Cedar Point Rd Round2_CC.docx COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DETMENT Planning Division — 7700 Market Botevard ITY OF CHAUSEN Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen. MN 55317 Phone: (952)227-1300/Fax (952)227-1110 01 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW submittal Date. t 1 q, 1 d PC Date: 1 CC Date. � Lf ((I R 60 -Day Review Date: I I 19r Section. • .apply) (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ............. ....... __. $600 ❑ Subdivision (SUB) ❑ Site Plan Agreement ❑ Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers..... $100 ❑ ❑ Create 3 lots or less ............... ..... ........_ - 5300 ❑ Easements(_ easements) ❑ Deeds 17 ❑ Create over 3 lots.......................$600 + $15 per lot ❑ Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Section 2: Required Information (_ lots) ❑ Single -Family Residence ................................ $325 ❑ Metes & Bounds (2 lots) ................................ .. $300 ❑ All Others .........................................................$425 ❑ Consolidate Lots .............................................. $150 ❑ Lot Line Adjustment ......................................... $150 ❑ Interim Use Permit (IUP) ❑ Final Plat .... ,... ........... . ..........5700 ❑ In conjunction with Single -Family Residence.. $325 (Includes $450 escrow for attorney costs)' ❑ All Others......................................................... $425 *Additional escrow may be required for other applications through the development contract ❑ Rezoning (REZ) ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD)..................$750 ❑ Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC) _._. $300 ❑ Minor Amendment to existing PUD ................. $100 (Additional recording fees may apply) ❑ All Others ....................................................... $500 Q Variance (VAR) $200 ❑ Sign Plan Review... .. ............................................. $150 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) ❑ Site Plan Review (SPR) ❑ Single -Family Residence.... .. __ ___._. $150 ❑ Administrative ..... ...................... ................... $100 ❑ All Others. _ _ . _ _ $275 ❑ Commercial/Industrial Districts'......................$500 ❑ Zoning Appeal_.. _......... ..............._._........._ $100 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area: ( thousand square feet) ❑ Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)........ $500 'Include number of exi tin employees. 'Include number of new employees: ❑NOTE: Residential Districts $500 When multiple applications are processed concurrently, ......................................... the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. Plus $5 per dwelling unit ( units) ✓❑ Notification Sign (City to install and remove)...................................................................................................................... $200 Property Owners' List within 500(City to generate after pre -application meeting) .................................................. $3 per address (_addresses) Fvl Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply)....................................................................... $50 per document ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Interim Use Permit ❑ Site Plan Agreement ❑ Vacation 7 Variance ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit ❑ Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) ❑ Easements(_ easements) ❑ Deeds 17 TOTAL FEE: Section 2: Required Information Description of Proposal. Property Address or Location. Parcel #: 256600320 Legal Description Total Acreage 023 Wetlands Present? Present Zoning Single -Family Residential District (RSF) Present Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density Existing Use of Property Detached Single Family ❑Check box if separate narrative is attached. 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd. Block 4, Lot 9. Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta ❑ Yes 0 No Requested Zoning Single -Family Residential District (RSF) Requested Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density a PropertySection 3: . Applicant APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant. represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application I agree to be bound by conditions of approval subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period If this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct Name ?a M e Izi J; �I m e P Contact: Pl? 171 e /n k e i m r r Address. i'/1/5 ;'r 7,t-1 d " LA Phone. fi�''- City/State/Zip /)tn Yrcl/eie AN 55.35/7Cell 45,z- X10 1y�,2 Email: a r e i,ne gin a i l 6011M Fax. Signature L� , `� Date z1-17-1 PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions. subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself 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. I certify that the informationand submitted are true and correct exhibits r r W?fi`i Name: cid � 7- l eJ,b i Contact: J� t�f Jct 4-49a RZF Address: 116 9,f/) /,�;n ��r� tlir Phone: City/StatefZip:Cell �/ -lib 4�9/ !!! Email: T SSo c� 13f� @ �iPNGI' ['(�/�l Fax Signature. Date: &/e/z I %{ 2c1/ y This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements and fees A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name. Contact Address Phone City/State/Zip: Cell Email: Fax Section 4: Notification Information Who should receive copies of staff reports? *Other Contact Information: ❑� Property Owner Via D'Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Name Q Applicant Via YEmail ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Address ❑ Engineer Via ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip. ❑ Other' Via ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Email INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields. then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your device PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital copy to the city for processing. SAVE FORM PRINT FORM SUBMIT FORM 0 April 10, 2019 City of Chanhassen Community Development Department 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Variances for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road 0 We are requesting the following variances on the property: 1. 10.9% hard cover variance 2. 22.1 ft. lake set back variance 3. 18.5 ft front yard setback from property line to the NE garage corner justifications for the variance: 1. The lot is sub standard. 2. We will be removing an old structure and building a new home. 3. Increased tax base for the city. 4. We will reduce the current hard cover by 44 sq.ft. 5. Current homes in the neighborhood have similar variances that we are applying for and therefore this helps justify the variance; furthermore, this property was approved in 2018 for exact above variance. 6. We will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 7. We will be bringing the side setback into compliance by removing the outhouse. Note: The patio in the backyard is the water oriented structure. The current structure on the property is a 1930's vintage Sears mail order cabin that is showing its age. The structure does not have a garage or a working bathroom, rather an outhouse that is beyond the side yard setback. The driveway currently is gravel and runs the entire width of the property and is lacking in green space. Our plan is to build a single family home (plans attached) that will improve the neighborhood from aesthetics and tax base standpoint. I am currently a neighbor and look forward to moving down the street, closer to long-time friends. As mentioned above, we will also be reducing the current hardcover and bringing the West side yard setback into compliance. Sincerely, Pamela Reimer -A Re naval 0 rwrw4, ". •rS.e. OR.r [wry. NrRr� w�..ryAY•r Frnw[.r wlu [w•rr NII ..e -.R 1•wRrrRgrr.gRn P..riw • RF1J0 u- Red Cedar Pant R. wn no. MIOICE NO. 90005, ITOb F.S.N0. 109344 SCALE. 1•- -W-_ • R.rtirrrr. o wr•rr D1SS FRRu RwRrrP• iNY1•r-rl-b1N1 Pd 1010 o«w- n R.. aw.r ••n.. -n r..r.v h-as.w rb � umz&R -RR "Orn«y WAew :i pTi Ref«b«R - 7A! y R cw.r... - M7,& 6d�.0-.erR N! YR Ya w[AwC! rg4r - N y R na.s .OI R �«Perl•ye WH. IRT �4 v4z / NJ y R - r.pr✓w d �'11Ylrowv m U.' 4et.r N R. h � T7 M, JR. r Ao r b�lrtivR � iAJ / n. e 23rW r -ry-- ^' 7777, Ab fill M+r _+"'°�.-_L--` ?i . tar_.R +4rI + r +QO R•. A•R !1D X/d P--wA 1-1 o wR _ r RrRrP/ i yy3617• rcr.. Awo b Ali APR �M' •P # .`A..f u..w .rowi- r• r.... .•.. r rw w rrRw «•R•rbr.r Iw.rr r -s r+r.wwrrwr-r-rrw�« rr w Rr rrrrr• r r 1 � . Rw Yrrr w R•w.« r«r r. rr rW war fww.RPr nn Rnrrrr s.F V LAM 9 MW 10. Bled R. RID (PMR POINT WC6 WHEWASHIA Cr CPRPq. Mr The Gregory Group, Inc. u. LOTSURVEYSCOMPANY I [.r M tw LAND SURVEYORS "013 r1FD UMUOI TM t W$ M fTAIE OF I.@IMFSOTA V.•VI.N�WP 1%I�YfM. g7ururynrs Orrlifirutr EMSTMO COHDMONS SURVEY FOR ''11�;�•r �. Mr MARK O. WILLLVAS CUSTOM HOMES rwrw4, ". •rS.e. OR.r [wry. NrRr� w�..ryAY•r Frnw[.r wlu [w•rr NII ..e -.R 1•wRrrRgrr.gRn P..riw • RF1J0 u- Red Cedar Pant R. wn no. MIOICE NO. 90005, ITOb F.S.N0. 109344 SCALE. 1•- -W-_ • R.rtirrrr. o wr•rr D1SS FRRu RwRrrP• iNY1•r-rl-b1N1 Pd 1010 o«w- n R.. aw.r ••n.. -n r..r.v h-as.w rb � umz&R -RR "Orn«y WAew :i pTi Ref«b«R - 7A! y R cw.r... - M7,& 6d�.0-.erR N! YR Ya w[AwC! rg4r - N y R na.s .OI R �«Perl•ye WH. IRT �4 v4z / NJ y R - r.pr✓w d �'11Ylrowv m U.' 4et.r N R. h � T7 M, JR. r Ao r b�lrtivR � iAJ / n. e 23rW r -ry-- ^' 7777, Ab fill M+r _+"'°�.-_L--` ?i . tar_.R +4rI + r +QO R•. A•R !1D X/d P--wA 1-1 o wR _ r RrRrP/ i yy3617• rcr.. Awo b Ali APR �M' •P # .`A..f u..w .rowi- r• r.... .•.. r rw w rrRw «•R•rbr.r Iw.rr r -s r+r.wwrrwr-r-rrw�« rr w Rr rrrrr• r r 1 � . Rw Yrrr w R•w.« r«r r. rr rW war fww.RPr nn Rnrrrr s.F V LAM 9 MW 10. Bled R. RID (PMR POINT WC6 WHEWASHIA Cr CPRPq. Mr 0 MEMORANDUM TO: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant City Planner FROM: Renae Clark, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: May 6, 2019 SUBJ: Variances for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road Project Summary: The applicant is proposing a new single family home in replace of an existing home at the above address on Lake Minnewashta. The project requires a variances from the Shoreland Management requirements within Chapter 20 of the City Zoning Code for hard cover and lake setback. A similar project was reviewed and approved by the City in 2018. The proposed project makes slight improvements to water resources by reducing impervious surface approximately 300 square feet (sq. ft.). Recommendations provided below remain generally consistent with the previous authorization. Water Resources Review Comments and Recommendations: 1. Tree protection fence, located outside the dripline, should be shown on the site plan for all trees proposed to be saved. 2. The Site Plan dated 4/26/19 (REV) incorrectly notes the 100 YR FEMA floodplain for Lake Minnewashta as 945.0 feet. The correct floodplain elevation per FEMA (Dec. 2018) is 945.9 feet. City Code section 20-329 requires the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. The plan indicates a crawl space that does not meet this threshold. The plan should be updated to show all low floor elevations meeting this standard. 3. The proposed plan reduces hardcover by approximately 300 sq. ft. To mitigate the impacts to Lake Minnewashta of a reduced lakeshore setback and increased impervious service, I recommend the following conditions consistent with the previously approved variance request: a. A permanent 20' native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. b. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The Design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. c. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. • MEMORANDUM TO: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist DATE: May 21, 2019 C, SUBJ: 3617 Red Cedar Pt Rd, Variances to construct a home The lot has a number of existing mature trees in the rear yard. They are all within the shoreland impact zone and are therefore required to be preserved and protected. According to the submitted plan, a 28" oak in the shoreland impact zone is not scheduled for protection. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the tree and remove it from the grading area. To protect the trees during construction, the following practices are required: • Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and grading limits. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. When excavating near the tree, roots should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or tearing the roots. No equipment or materials may be stored within the tree protection area/rear yard. Additionally, as required by city ordinance, one tree will be required to be planted in the front yard. Recommendations: i. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28" oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 2. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 3. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. a. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 0 0 MEMORANDUM TO: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner FROM: George Bender, Assistant City Engineer DATE: May 2, 2019 SUBJ: Multiple Variance Requests for 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd Planning Case: 2019-03 The requested variances have been reviewed and the following comments were noted: • A title search for the property should be required in order to document all existing easements. • The plan should allow for reasonable off-street parking in the driveway. The edges of the driveway are not dimensioned but by scale the west side is 14.5' and the east side is 11'. Providing a minimum average length of 16' is recommended based on Staff research for the average size vehicle length. (Essentially the garage would need to be moved back 3' from the back of the curb) • The slope of the driveway shall not exceed 10%. • A dedication of ROW over the street pavement and curb is requested. If a dedication is not feasible to request then an easement over the existing roadway portion of lot would be acceptable. • Maintain the requirements from the prior review for this lot as part of Planning Case 18-01. 11 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) 1, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on May 9, 2019, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing to consider a request for variances for hard cover, lake setback and front yard setback for property located at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road, zoned Single Family -Residential (RSF), Planning Case File No. 2019-03 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Kim I Me ssen, Depu CI k Subscribed and sworn to before me this Btt day of M 12019. DEMI M STEMNG NOWY Alc- sots Publi Manftr'ap"„'n.Aw This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one This map is a comp dation of recordsinformation and data located in various city, county. state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to oe used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depxclk.a of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §166 03. Subd. 21 (2000). and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be kable for any damages. and expressly waives an claims, and agrees to defend, indemnity, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the users access or use of data provided This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one This map is a completion of records. information and data located in various city county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and m to be used for reference purposes only The CM does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational. tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466 03. Subd 21 (2000). and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not De liable for any damages. and expressly waives an clams. and agrees to defendindemnity and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User its employees or agents. or third parties which anse out of the users access or n u «TAX_NAME» •TAX_ADD_Lln 4(TAX_ADD_L2»,«TAX_ADD_L3r «Next Record »aTAX_NAME» eTAX_ADD_L1a nTAX_ADD_L2a,aTAX_ADD_L3» Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting late & Time: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. This heating may not start urn Proposal: and front yard setback for property located at 3617 Red Cedar titer in the evening, dependin on the order of the agenda .ocation: CHall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Property To consider a request for variances for hard cover, lake setback Proposal: and front yard setback for property located at 3617 Red Cedar Pont Road and zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). �pplicant: Pamela Reimer Property 3617 Red Cedar Point Road .ocation: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: Vhat Happens 1. Stall will give an overview of the proposed project. it the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. NOON d If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at www,ci.chanhassen.mn,us11019-03. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact MacKenzie Young -Wafters by email at mwalters(6ci.chanhassen mn.us or )uestions & by phone at 952.227-1132 If you choose to submit written ;omments: Comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in NEW! Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas, advance of the meeting Staff will provide copies to the www.c.chanhassen.mn.usmof me to sign up! Commission The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday priorto the Planning Commission meeting. IEW! Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas, )ackets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to Pww.d chanhassen.mn usinotityme to sign up' At Rales F 9CW : &bsm an. Pweed Um Ceeebpnwb So Pwt Renew. Un*4 we rim Um vid" Aaaran. Reim LMdaMiwN Plan Anwmwaew4 CodaAmrd+adt iepseeapacna-npbebrehPwrwp Cmmum Cq aMrea npue wY aaeeny'rMhn SOb bddhpOPdakbbemdetldhepgaamnwuy MArwaw wfa +wKd b ebem h mewp SwRVWaanamm NkW apduem UrdAndim(M for mraot onlam Thowann w ajobymc,a A1ft"Cmmawn" l/ idgwowtWim au dhnOmndawwrdwhm Tie Arm wa ba adwadwhP.aabwPedt wbaehpapowaanAddhlweppaaa 1heCAaaaamwidmh abclwr5 wbasoashwnab mitaeemmwbMmbh ChCwaa Th1Uy Candmgmem *mamaer wmyo artlyh Pwrrg Camaamsneaamwdam Remrps w4 uewM meewreMnreataeaarobmpaAy ran d h Cp Coed esagt naarga ab wbae wrotlnrkbn mproY b maneroaMvdebd &MM swe Soak 51999 "Xis wa appkaems b bepmw wh 600* aka h W*" wean In dbdrd $ane eppefabmse.R totlwrarcaMy mry wtesewymmhbmmpete Mypwem watrybbbmwndra�h aaxss snub mea wm h Pwnnp pgamiwe npa'drpa sYaxarosdeaMtg brh Cir Land neap A rcgta?aW spo4esonsWAesrea4rtawraHgedbaadeamranwhCry O iderebpwSnemApadb aee'wYAh nePbx!ob re3rmpAs popawl $W aaw agwideb RwewhDbN rwhblyrlrwaad pemrysl exaneh Plrvaip Caamsswi hddshPdldc Apnq hCay Cara roam Wunnwneadanymnebaerne eeprdep h:PAkaan witty adatlnhrepmbh Cry Law/ A ymwmbrim aamwho lobe rdUM n hrepal dear sewed h Pmrg saA PAem twin m h ndhmon Ocitice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting DaE1 d Time: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 7A0 p.m. This heating may not Stan Ali 1AW in fro m.ninn deoendino on the order of the agenda Loedon: City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd To consider a request for variances for hard cover, lake setback Proposal: and front yard setback for property located at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road and zoned Single Family Residential RSF Applicant Pamela Reimer Property 3617 Red Cedar Point Road Location: A location map is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1 Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. K you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www,ci.chanhassen.mn.usi2Cl9-03. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact MacKenzie NOON d Young -Walters by email at mwalters((oci.chanhassen.mn.us or by phone at 952.227.1132. If you choose to submit written comments, t is helpful to have one copy to the department a1 advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. NEW! Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas, packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to www.c.chanhassen.mn.usmof me to sign up! colkvMPsaeabe: . Stldsawwe.IbnbOUM DwntlVkrds Sae Rm Amen LadaeaY we Awean Uses M m Alwaaa Re=m CwpawdewPWAbadAbrawreCaaeMrmwdsawreapaekampbabehPlwwgCammsm N adrawepnYpdpapw1in5004adh xgep pleb De mdeddhaplydmnwwq Mrroewpwtr is MOIDd Mille" . $a9pepaawnpmmhugeaNAeolm hl raps of pwrtrwA AAamao"ab a nmmimaam Teas"" are mWwbynpM MhPwmpCmAewmrabpwadMpkwnwrbMawnadhrtbatandanmmnwdaan nbAnwlbapndbhpptbapwb wbodhpY¢W awPildhYwm9voaaa ThOCO mwaaette pOhMrrq ab6sauhYmar4nW wl1i0aeraadlbh CdY CaurA lhCay Carol mey nrwse wA+mamoddy webarapr9yhPwwrpCanrsaminmmI-dwym Rewn9s.ir4 userbmd aroMwotaasau�ph maiaar qww d h Cry Card wb41AmAl� aro esti woes wn•dww bm rwwdna b mnTmWedaw . aeraab bLb Sarr 51999tepraa as Appowebbw pbdwlwbnaglgaaMwha4plwAwaea ma slwdra Sane wppkawadwlbblw anOmY^rlbkaMkd wahbaaepbb MypwamwwMgbbYwr�wn Mageh as roa ddltl noon eAt h PwrYp Oe fa'bbnl Ywpwrdrq d wlAan are adblMy w h Cq Cand r�9 . Arnbbalab0�eswmwgwdbpWpwae9tlwhetr OAende'Mipaweemasapeam mal esti h ngammd n9wbq bwr propmll 9M n ab baaW Ie b mrA h popd att aM An W d 0e7mi s i . axaeaehpwwapCamwbnMdhpbkbwup hCryCand canna MrekwnatlwtwMary aresAmaA+re nwwb100anam wwbeed4Odn9bmpm1DhC4Wa6 1yNWO1Dh1%wn 1Db1FOJ*nhnpm PIN TAX NAME TAX—ADD-1.1 TAX—ADD-1.2 TAX—ADD-1.3 SHAPE.STAreall 256600320 PATRICIA SOUBA 110980 VON HERTZEN CIR CHASKA MN 55318 2712 3617 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600070 GARY PETERSON 13260 BRASS PKY ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-2772 3632 HICKORY RD 156600010 EDWIN L & LIVIA SEIM 1601 VILLARITA DR CAMPBELL CA 95008.1519 3616 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600270 KELUE I GEIGER 3603 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 553317721 3603 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600280 MARIA P KNIGHT 3605 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331.1121 3605 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600290 DOUGLAS B & JAMIE ANDERSON 3607 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331.7721 3607 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600310 HOWARDDANDERSON 3613 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MIN 55331-7721 3613 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600020 DIANE LEESON ANDING 3618 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331.7720 3618 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600030 STEVEN & MARSHA KEUSEMAN REV CABIN TRST 3622 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 553311720 3622 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600330 BETSY S ANDING 3625 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331.7721 3625 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600340 DAVID MELIN 3627 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 553317721 3611 RED CEDAR POINT RD 2566DOOSO GUNTHER LIVING TRUST 3628 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331.9766 3628 HICKORY RD 256600350 CATHERINE 1 BLACK REV TRUST 3629 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331.7721 3629 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600060 SCOT A LACE 3630 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331.9766 3630 HICKORY RD 256600360 PETER I & KARRI I PLUCINAK 3631 SOUTH CEDAR DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331.9686 3631 SOUTH CEDAR DR 256600510 MARY 10 ANDING BANGASSER 3633 SOUTH CEDAR DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331.9686 256600380 THOMAS C & JACQUELINE JOHNSON 3637 SOUTH CEDAR DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331.9686 3637 SOUTH CEDAR DR 256600390 DANIEL P EAGAN 3701 SOUTH CEDAR DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 3701 SOUTH CEDAR DR 256600410 ANVER L & ANNE K LARSON 3705 SOUTH CEDAR OR EXCELSIOR MN 553319688 3705 SOUTH CEDAR OR 256600080 GREGORY BOHRER 3706 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9768 3706 HICKORY RD 256600420 JILL D HEMPEL 3707 SOUTH CEDAR DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331.9688 3707 SOUTH CEDAR DR 256600580 COLIN J JONES 3710 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 3710 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600300 KIM D PARKHURST 5330 MICHAELE LN MINNETONKA MN 55345 4224 3609 RED CEDAR POINT RD 2566MO LAURIE ANN HANSON TRUST AGREEMENT 5901 CARTER LN MINNETONKA MN 55343.8966 3624 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600400 GREGORY & JOAN DATTILO 7201 JUNIPER AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9614 3703 SOUTH CEDAR DR Stecklincli, Jean From: Walters. MacKenzie Sent: Monday, May 13, 2019 7:51 AM To: Steckling, Jean Subject: FW: 3617 Red Cedar Point Road - Variance From: davemaryjo@aol.com <davemaryjo@aol.com> Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 4:40 PM To: kaaenenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Re: 3617 Red Cedar Point Road - Variance Kate & MacKenzie. We are writing this email in response to the vanance request at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road 5 houses east of our house on Lake Minnewashta We are generally in support of the proposed development however, have a serious concern regarding the lack of off- street parking The City code requires adequate off-street parking be provided and requires a minimum stall length of 18 feet Clearly this plan does not provide that The survey does not show the proposed distance from the edge of the current road paving to garage for parking cars in the driveway. however. it appears to be approximately 11 feet In the past staff has also expressed concern for adequate off street parking I am not aware of any variances granted since the current zoning ordinances was put in place in the 1970's that allowed a driveway less than 18' in length The two properties across the street are very tight on off-street parking but both can accommodate two vehicles and both were Constructed well before the current zoning rules were established This condition is even more extreme than typical because the roads in this neighborhood are extremely narrow From our house east to the end of the Point the road is too narrow to park a car without blocking vehicular travel, this includes the area of the proposed development. Red Cedar Point Road and South Cedar Drive are slightly wider west of the intersection allowing for parking on one one side of the road. however. people often park 2' onto our lawn on both streets in order to create more room for cars to pass resulting in tom sod mud and damage to our sprinkler system since the city did not install curbing when the roads were upgraded While this is a realty as a result of platting long before the zoning code was adopted we don't want to see it magnified by making R worse than it already is - especially when there are reasonable attemates. Reducing the depth of the garage/house from the proposed 47'-2" to 41 feet would allow the minimum required for cars to park the length of the driveway We are pleased to see Pam stay in the neighborhood and have verbally expressed this concern to her We trust the staff Can work with the applicant to address this Concern Thank you for your consideration Dave 8 Mary Jo Bangasser 3633 South Cedar Drive Chanhassen MN 55331 0 0 Steckling, Jean From: Walters, MacKenzie Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 1:01 PM To: Steckling, Jean Subject: FW: Proposed variance for 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd. From: Nancy Renneke <nancyrennekewrites@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 12:04 PM To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Proposed variance for 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd. Dear Ms. Wafters. Hello. I am writing to support our neighbor, Pam Reimer, in her request for a property variance We live just a few lots past her new property at 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd We are new to the neighborhood, but I recently visited with her and trust that she II be a good steward of her future home and Lake Minnewashta We're excited that a responsible buyer has come along to finally take care of this lot the way it deserves to be maintained. It's a potentially beautiful lot, but the old Sears cabin is run down and the lot needs the loving care - and grass - Pam will provide. Her ownership will make the neighborhood better for all and I hope you 11 agree that her plans are appropriate. It's my understanding that Pam's proposal offers adequate parking and it's apparent that her proposed driveway is not unusual for our little community. If you've driven down our street, you II appreciate that this is a unique neighborhood where houses are close together, the street is narrow and everyone's parking is limited That's part of its lakeside neighborhood charm. The peninsula is a dead end and it's apparent to us already that this isn't a street with traffic other than people who live here and our guests. Its our understanding and experience that since we all live on a unique street, everyone cooperates with each other Case in point one of our neighbors just gave us permission to borrow part of his driveway for two days to park our boat before we are able to get in the water I hope you and the planning commission will see that our street is unique, and that Pam's vanance request suits the neighborhood We feel lucky that Pam - an experienced homeowner and good neighbor on the lake - will redevelop that site, and we hope her variance request will be approved, allowing construction of a beautiful home that will enhance our neighborhood. Thank you. Regards. Nancy Renneke 3607 Red Cedar Point Rd. 0 0 Steckling, Jean From: Walters, MacKenzie Sent Tuesday. May 21, 2019 7:56 AM To: Steckling, lean Subject: FW 3617 Red Cedar Point Road Variances Attachments: 520 19 Red Cedar Point Garage Survey t.pdt From: Steve Gunther <stgunther@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 7:09 AM To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn us>, kaaenenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Subject: 361/ Red Cedar Point Road Variances Mackenzie and Fate. I am writing this email in response to the Variance Requests for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road(the former Souha property). This is the same input that I offered µhen this propem µas considered for variances se%eral months ago. I objected to those variance requests, feeling that the lot size. road width and the traffic pattern "ere not consistent with the large house being considered for construction on that lot. !vI} objections remain. I hope this time you µill listen to the input from the neighbors who are to be forever affected b% %our decisions. First. as the president of the Lake MinneAashta Presenation Association and an m%ner on the lake since 1998. 1 object to providing a hard cover variance for this propert% because of the effect it µill have on water qualitN in the lake. The more hardcover a proper% has. the less chance that rainwater has to drain through the soil and be filtered before it enters Lake Minneµashta. The I.MPA has been spending considerable effort educating homeowners to reduce hardcover on their properties for the good of the lake and all its users. We need more vegetation not less. On the road side. runoff from the driveway ser%icing the proposed 3 car driveway µill increase the transport of petroleum products and leaves and grass clippings into the storm drains. This serves to introduce contaminants into the lake. The impact of the petroleum products is ob\ ious. The leaves and clippings serve as a nutrient source for the algae in the lake. which degrades the water qualiq for e%er one. A previous owner violated the hardcover limit and added a larger than allowed Class 5 dri\eway. That deviation should ha\e been remediated. not made permanent. Reducing the hard cover (b} u square feet) \et still exceeding the hardco%er requirement is not good enough. While 1 object to the lake setback variance request. I understand compromises must be made on a non- conforming lot. 1 expect that Chanhassen and the Watershed District w ill require proper shoreline planting 0 0 buffering or a rain garden to present direct runoff into the lake. LMPA board member Kc-, in Zahler is a trained Master \Pater Ste%%ard and offers hissers ices without charge to residents to help explain and plan this kind of action. He can be reached at 612-618-9817 or %ia email at ki7ahler a hotmaiI com I also object to the street setback %ariance for safer% reasons. I belie%e that. given the lot size. the number of street-tacing garage spaces should be reduced to 2. Because 3 garage stalls are planned. that reduces the front setback on a street intersection that is inordinatel% small and tight. 11'a car or %%atercraft trailer is hanging into the street on that dri%e.%aN space. it creates an undue hazard for others. including large garbage trucks. snow plo%%s and emergence vehicles that ha%e to na%igate those sentight roads. The a%erage car length is 1.3-16 feet. For reference. a Honda Civic is o%er 15 Ret long. It looks like this dri%e%%a% space is less than that. more like 11-12 feet. Ha%ing onl\ a'_ car garage should not beconsidered a hardship for owners in this neighborhood where lots are narro%% and small. Eser% lakeside house on Red Cedar Point. South Shore Dri%e and Hickon Road has no more than'_ garages except those that hase much larger tromage or have side loaded garages. I've attached a marked up PDF for \our use. All homes constructed or remodeled in the last 15 %ears. with the exception of one house. have been constructed with onts t%%o garages facing the street. If Ms. Reimer insists on ha%ing three stalls. wh) not have one of them be double deep' That eliminates the need for a street setback variance. It also reduces the amount of dri%e%%a\ Ihardco%erl you need to sen ice the 3 spaces. We did that with our house built in 2003 as a way to contain the footprint of our house within the 250o hard cover limit. I ma% not he able to attend the Planning Commission meeting on I uesda% Ma} 21st but will do my best to be there. In lieu of that. please accept this email as m% objections to the hardco%er and street setback variance requests. I'%e copied m\ neighbors who might be affected M these %ariance requests with m% comments in case the% would like to send on their own. Steve Gunther 3628 Hickory Road. Chanhassen. MN 55331 president. lake Minne%%ashta Preser%ation Association stgunther a gmail.com Citizen Investor Multisports Enthusiast 0 Steckling, Jean From: Walters, MacKenzie Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 7:59 AM To: Steckling, Jean Subject: FW: variance for 3617 Red cedar Point Rd From: Helen Gunther <helen.gunther@resuIts. net> Sent: Monday, May 20, 2019 7:27 PM To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn,us> Subject: variance for 3617 Red cedar Point Rd. I am writing to express my concern for the proposed home to be built on 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd. As a homeowner on the lake I am extremely concerned about the plans for the new home. I was very concerned and disappointed when you approved the plans for the last home that was proposed for this lot. I felt it was way too big for the size lot and the impact to the lake and the surrounding neighbors was extremely detrimental. I realize there is more hardcover on the property now than building code allows, and I realize the proposed house plans reduce that hardcover a tiny bit. But I have a hard time believing that asphalt and a house absorb water or run off at the same rate as class 5 gravel. You might consider class 5 gravel hardcover, but I don't think it has the same lack of runoff as asphalt. The absorption rate cannot possibly be the same. So I would urge you to approve a plan where there was a more significant reduction in hardcover. I also think whoever builds on a lot that is less than X acre should build a home appropriate to the size of the lot... especially for a lakeshore lot. Red Cedar Point is a very narrow street, with little room for cars, trucks or emergency vehicles to go through as it is. Allowing a driveway as narrow as the one proposed is going to cause accidents, frustrations, and possibly even dangerous situations if emergency vehicles are unable to get through. Furthermore, hardly any homes on the point have a 3 car garage. The few that do are on much larger lots, and none of them exceed the hardcover code. The lot just does not lend itself to a 3 car garage. The garage needs to be further away from the street, which will increase hardcover, but it's why the home should only be approved for a 2 car garage Last time plans for this lot were brought before the planning commission, the board was happy the potential owner was not asking for a side yard setback. This seemed incredulous to me since the lot is 80 feet wide and shouldn't need a side yard setback. Most of the people coming before the commission looking for side yard setbacks have lots that are only 50 or 60 feet wide. Someone ought to be able to build a lovely home on an 80 foot wide lot. Are the plans that are attached correct? Is this the home that will be built? The plans call for a backyard patio, but the plans show windows across the back of the home. Is the owner going to crawl out the window to get to the patio? Are you really sure this is the home that will be built? 0 I understand the lot is non -conforming and variances are needed to build on it. But I would urge the commission to send the owner back to their architect/builder to come up with a plan for a home more suited to the size of the lot and take into account the restrictions of the neighborhood and the road. One more thing. I don't think the owner should be penalized for this, but how are all the construction vehicles going to be able to park and not block the neighbors who need the road to access their homes? I strongly urge the commission to have the homeowner reduce the size of the home they are requesting to make it more appropriate for the lot. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Helen ,�,� DREAM WITH YOUR EYES OPEN. I let me be your guide. Hefen Gunther The RitterTeant P, /-%l.91X Results • Steckling, Jean From: Walters, MacKenzie Sent: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 1254 PM To: Steckling, Jean Subject: FW: 3617 Red Cedar Point Road Variances I µill be unable to attend the planning meeting this evening and 1 would like to echo Mr. Gunther's concems'objections on these variances. %IN name is Keith Paap and I live at 3601 Red Cedar Point Rd. The lake setback variance is not ideal. howe%er problems mac be mitigated by shoreline buffering as µas suggested. However the street setback variance is of particular concern and m% primary objection. As a resident that must drive through this stretch daih. I am concerned about the access and safetyalong this stretch of road. This is a stretch of road that is single lane with no a%ailable street parking. Two can cannot pass side by' side on this stretch of road so any parking along the street in this area "ill simply block the road. If the depth of the driveway does not provide adequate space for %isitor parking at this location there would be no µhere for them to park without blocking access on the street. The setback variance request map be consistent with the comers of the adjacent home. but the neighboring home as a side entrance garage allowing for a deeper driveway for off street parking. Making sure this setback provides enough depth for off street parking while avoiding adding significant hardcover by making it three stalls wide may be handled with a double deep garage as suggested. Access on the street will also be of particular concern during construction as workers tend to leave vehicles along the street as µas the case during construction at 3627 Red Cedar Point Rd. The access and safety' concerns during construction will be temporary. Not providing adequate setback for vehicles to remain off the street while at the residence would be a permanent hardship for those of us that must travel this stretch of road daih. Thank you. Keith Paap keith a oaap.net (email l 0 On Tue. Mac 21. 2019 at 7:09 AM Stege Gunther <stcunther a email.com> wrote: Mackenzie and Kate. I am writing this email in response to the Variance Requests for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road(the former Souba property). This is the same input that I offered when this property was considered for variances several months ago. I objected to those variance requests. feeling that the lot size. road width and the traffic panem were not consistent with the large house being considered for construction on that lot. My objections remain. I hope this time you will listen to the input from the neighbors who are to be forever affected be your decisions. First. as the president of the Lake Minnewashta Presen ation Association and an owner on the lake since 1998. 1 object to providing a hard corer variance for this propert\ because of the effect it will have on water qualitc in the lake. The more hardcover a propertc has. the less chance that rain"ater has to drain through the soil and he filtered before it enters Lake Minnewashta. The LMPA has been spending considerable effort educating homeowners to reduce hardcover on their properties for the good of the lake and all its users. We need more vegetation not less. On the road side. runoff from the drisess'a% sen icing the proposed 3 car driyesva% will increase the transport of petroleum products and leases and grass clippings into the storm drains. This serves to introduce contaminants into the lake. The impact of the petroleum products is obs ious. The leases and clippings serve as a nutrient source for the algae in the lake. which degrades the water quality for e%enone. A precious owner violated the hardcover limit and added a larger than allowed Class 5 drivewac. That deviation should have been remediated. not made permanent. Reducing the hard cover (by 44 square feet) yet still exceeding the hardcover requirement is not good enough. While I object to the lake setback variance request. I understand compromises must be made on a non- conforming lot. I expect that Chanhassen and the Watershed District will require proper shoreline planting buffering or a rain garden to present direct runoff into the lake. LMPA board member Kevin Zahler is a trained Master Water Steward and offers his senices without charge to residents to help explain and plan this kind of action. He can be reached at 612-618-9817 or s is email at Ljzahler a hounail om I also object to the street setback variance for safeh reasons. I bcliece that. given the lot size. the number of street -facing garage spaces should be reduced to 2. Because 3 garage stalls are planned. that reduces the front setback on a street intersection that is inordinately small and tight. if a car or watercraft'trailer is hanging into the street on that dricewa\ space. it creates an undue hazard for others. including large garbage trucks. snow plows and emergency vehicles that have to navigate those cert tight roads. The average car length is 14-16 feet. For reference. a Honda Civic is over 15 feet long. It looks like this driveway space is less than that. more like 11-12 feet. Hating onh a 2 car garage should not be considered a hardship for owners in this neighborhood where lots are narrow and small. Even lakeside house on Red Cedar Point. South Shore Drive and Hickory Road has no more than_' garages except those that have much larger frontage or have side loaded garages. 1'ye attached a marked up PDF for your use. All homes constructed or remodeled in the last 15 %ears. with the exception of one house. have been constructed with onl\ two garages facing the street. If Ms. Reimer insists on having three stalls. why not have one of them be double deep? That eliminates the need for a street setback variance. It also reduces the amount of driveway (hardcover) you need to service the', spaces. We did that with our house built in 2003 as a was to contain the footprint of our house within the 25°0 hard cover limit. 0 r] I may not be able to attend the Planning Commission meeting on Tuesday Ma} 21st but «ill do m} best to be there. In lieu of that. please accept this email as mN objections to the hardco%er and street setback variance requests. I've copied m% neighbors uho might be affected bN these xariance requests %%ith m% comments in case the% would like to send on their o"m. Steve Gunther 3628 Hickon Road. Chanhassen. MN 55331 president. Lake Minnewashta Presenation Association steunther u gmaiI com Citizen I Investor Multisports Enthusiast 0 0 Steckling, Jean From: Walters, MacKenzie Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 9:35 AM To: Steckling, Jean Subject: FW: appeal for Variance for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road From: Helen Gunther <helen.gunther@results.net> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 8:28 PM To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Cc: stgunther@gmail.com; davemaryjo@aol.com; kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.us; Ryan, Elise <E Ryan@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: appeal for Variance for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road Dear Mackenzie, I am writing to appeal the variance the planning commission approved on Tuesday May 21" for the above stated property. I am appealing the front setback variance. I do not believe the approved variance would provide adequate off street (guest) parking for the home in question and would create a dangerous situation since the road the home is on is a substandard, narrow road. I also think by granting this variance the planning commission is setting a bad precedent for future requests for front setback variances. The driveway with the current approved setback would not allow for cars to be safely parked in the driveway. I believe a driveway on a street where there is no room for on street parking should at least provide space to park 2 cars. Since a standard car is 16 feet long, I believe most of the driveway, from the garage to the curb should be 18 feet. 16 feet is not sufficient, since no one parks their car against the garage door. To have a driveway any shorter would mean cars would be sticking out into the street, on a street that is already very narrow. I am also appealing the wording of the variance granted, which states, "The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources CoordinatorI believe it should state that the homeowner "must further reduce hard cover through the use of pervious paver systems Please advise my next steps. Thank you. Helen Helen Gunther helen unther@resu/ts.net 0 0 Steckling, Jean From: Walters, MacKenzie Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 9:36 AM To: Steckling, Jean Subject: FW: Variance Appeal for May 21 2019 to What was Proposed, the Already Approved Variance from 18-01, but with Significantly Reduced Hardcover and Acceptance of all 15 Conditions and City Easement granted Attachments: Variance Appeal for May 21 2019 3617 Red Cedar Point.doc From: Pam Reimer <preimer90@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 7:49 AM To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Cc: Builder Paul Wagner <wags1956@hotmail.com> Subject: Variance Appeal for May 212019 to What was Proposed, the Already Approved Variance from 18-01, but with Significantly Reduced Hardcover and Acceptance of all 15 Conditions and City Easement granted We the owner, architect, and builder hereby APPEAL the decision from May 21, 2019 and REQUEST the Same variances and accept the Same decision to APPROVE and we Accept all 15 requirements that were conditions for Approval 18-01 ending 19-02 AND we should look really good. seeing as this new plan SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCES HARDCOVER an ADDITIONAL 1.9% MORE than the already Approved Variance which is the focus of the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Planning Council, Thank You. Contact was made to MacKenzie Walters 19-01 to build on this lot and utilize the existing variance that was already approved. The architect put together a house plan that met the approved footprint - and then some!: He reduced the hard cover from 36.4. to the Approved Variance of 36.3. and then SIGNIFICANTLY reduced hard coyer an additional 1.9%! That's wav more than one of the other multiple variances approved by Council at 50% hardcover, which Council brought to attention in the May 21 meeting! The builder utilized the existing approved variance's Surveyor, to put the proposed house on the already approved footprint, meeting 4 times with MacKenzie Walters to get it exact and by the Variance deadline He has done 75 projects on lakeshore property. has a respect for narrow roads and was a fireman and concerned about safety. Not 1 customer has any complaints and neighbors see him daily. He reduced current side setback from 6' to 10.3 and 10.29, which is in compliance. He didn't put in a basement or crawl space. because... He hired the engineer to analyze soil samples requiring this lot to have $70,000 borings. He arranged with their $5000 engineer how deep the pilings would go on our already -approved plan. IN GOOD FAITH, the lot was purchased, the same footprint was used that was already Approved, and the plans were made for a smaller house with the same footprint. Architecturally accurate house plan: $2500 -PS 000 Money invested in already approved footprint and plan. IN GOOD FAITH, MacKenzie said the same 15 conditions would apply, and our Team accepted these and met multiple times with George Bender, city engineer and Renae Clark, city water resources coordinator. We also accepted i additional condition the City asked of us: to dedicate some of my land to the City, or give a portion as an easement to the City. We gave in and accepted this 16th condition. IN GOOD FAITH, The City wants about 677 square feet of my lot, and George suggested this would lower my property tax; therefore, I was willing to dedicate this land portion, valued at about $50.000• to pay a percent less property tax However, the Residential Appraiser on May 24 denied the request to dedicate, stating the current city road does not appear to be negatively impacting the land value, so he cannot justify a land value decrease. So the variance stands at 11.5/22.1/9.5 and owner will grant easement No monetary value We lose land and gain nothing by giving in but the City's thanks. IN GOOD FAITH, I have discussed the vegetation buffer with Renae and hired an outstanding experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve the ecosystem health. He proposed a plan with accepted vegetation, and design filters, and is ecological to improve the condition of the lake. Renae liked the custom mix and suggested prairie grass as well. This is an expense which NONE of the other similar non -conforming lot variance were required to plant $2-10.000.00 We lose money and gave in. IN GOOD FAITH, to fulfill requirements of further reduction of hard coverboth my builder and landscaper use pgrvious pavers. $7-20.000.00 We lose money and gave in. IN GOOD FAITH, to fulfill requirement of tree protection, my builder shared with MacKenzie in our last meeting, and to the neighbors at the Variance meeting, that he is a horticulture expert and will go above expectations to protect with tree fencing. $1-5.000.00 We lose income and gave in. WIFfI110) • \ . . •u !' • :�� • ! ! IUST 3 MONTHS AGO, The new variance was an additional cost - $528.00. We lose money and gave in, even hough we "sho��ecl intentions of buildinl�' BEFORE the already approved variance lapud I 1N GOOD FAITH, I have the same setback as already approved in Variance 18-01 through February of this year 2019. I'm on the Point with limited neighbors on the dead-end of Red Cedar Pointwho are in a non- conforming unique very old neighborhood with parking varying from 1 space to 4 spaces. Our already Approved Variance has a combined garage and driveway parking for 5 spaces! See photos and numbers listed for all of my direct neighbors on our dead end street. NOT Hickory and NOT South Cedar Drive, this variance for 3617 Red Cedar Point only focuses on our dead end street, Red Cedar Point. Per Mackenzie's report, my combined 3 -car garage and driveway just needs to provide an amount of off-street parking similar to the average provided by other properties in the neighborhood. End of discussion. And Council said on May 21, it's too bad hea Variance lapsed so Harship for parking, in a nighborh000d where ALL houses have 1-4 parking apaces. If the garage were made smaller, it would only be = not enough for me to pp.('to hit the drywall. See photo of current garage, where 1 hit the front of the garage with my vehicle. Comments were made that I had a 26' garage, but that is not correct, my house is smaller, and it leaves 21' if variance takes away 3'. My 1 car needs to be parked inside, especially in the winter. Additionally, the already Approved variance allows enough space for my storage of a lawn mower, bike, snowblower, Christmas tree, bins, and a dog wash for my licensed therapy dog by the Service door. PLEASE don't take that away from me, since # 1) It is in compliance with my neighborhood, #2) It was already Approved in the Variance that just ended a month before 1 applied! #3) 1 have NO storage options, since I have no basement, no crawl space, no storage on the main level, and... IN GOOD FAITH,1 have given the City my patio as my 1 water oriented structure; therefore, my garage is also my "shed" because I gave in and won't have a shed and cannot store things in the outhouse, since, as my neighbors rejoice, "Let's get on with this, pass the same variance that Jackson's got UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY COUNCIL, and let them build, so we can get rid of that outhouse and all the mess in the,vord• broken down brick f replace and dustv gravel for a for yard!" And Council on May 21 agreed that these already approved drawings were a better solution than a shed. $L.oss of Shed. We lose any other water oriented structure and gave in. IN GOOD FAITH, I accepted the Water Resource Coordinator's requirement to put pervious pavers on my driveway, which was approved and accepted 1 month after we applied. THIS, too, reduces hardcover significantly because I planned to put in a cement driveway. Now using Pervious Pavers: S10-20.000. We lose money and gave in• In the last meeting with MacKenzie, we noted that I'm 1 woman and don't have a big family or gatherings. I'm consistent with the neighbors. In our meeting, they said even if 1 make my garage smaller, it's not going to fix the problem because if people with big cars come and can't fit into my garage, it's not going to solve the parking problem. Mackenzie, my builder and Steve laughed, "You shrink the garage and it defeats the point of parking the big car in the garage, and it's back to the driveway for my stuff? " I'm a current neighbor, and my lot down on South Cedar Drive has a short driveway so you either pull into a single car garage or park at an angle so as not to hang into the street, so 1 was careful to provide parking In the city notes "Very few properties in the area meet the requirements of the city's zoning code and most properties either are non -conforming uses or are operating under a variance., variances on R7 and 8. My neighbor Nancy says I'm a good neighbor and I already bought the property and am committed to this neighborhood and committed to the survey plan that was already approved. She wrote to MacKenzie: Hello, I am writing to support our neighbor, Pam Reimer, in her request for a property variance. We live just a few lots past her new property at 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd. We are new to the neighborhood, but I recently visited with her and trust that she'll be a good steward of her future home and Lake Minnewashta. We're excited that a responsible buyer has come along to finally take care of this lot the way it deserves to be maintained. It's a potentially beautiful lot, but the old Sears cabin is run down and the lot needs the loving care - and grass - Pam will provide. Her ownership will make the neighborhood better for all and I hope you'll agree that her plans are appropriate. It's my understanding that Pam's proposal offers adequate parking and it's apparent that her proposed driveway is not unusual for our little community. If you've driven down our street, you'll appreciate that this is a unique neighborhood where houses are close together, the street is narrow and everyone's parking is limited. That's part of its lakeside neighborhood charm. The peninsula is a dead end and it's apparent to us already that this isn't a street with traffic other than people who live here and our guests. It's our understanding and experience that since we all live on a unique street, everyone cooperates with each other. Case in point, one of our neighbors just gave us permission to borrow part of his driveway for two days to park our boat before we are able to get in the water. I hope you and the planning commission will see that our street is unique, and that Pam's variance request suits the neighborhood. We feel lucky that Pam - an experienced homeowner and good neighbor on the lake - will redevelop that site, and we hope her variance request will be approved, allowing construction of a beautiful home that will enhance our neighborhood. Thank you. Regards, Nancy Renneke 3607 Red Cedar Point Rd. Since the Variance meeting on May 21, all the neighbors on my street that were out for Memorial Day weekend told me they would like Council to approve the architect, builder and my Variance and start building a new house. The previous owner, Jeff Scuba, was also over, taking windows and siding from the yellow Sears & Roebuck cabin for emotional souveniers, and I let him for free. It will cost us a tear - down fee. $10.000.00. We lose income. The longer the delay, the more I have to pay housing and storage rent. until I get the CO to move into my new house. The architect should not start over with a new plan, since he used the already approved footprint, AND made the house smaller and thus reduced hard cover. The survey company should not need to make a new survey, since it was already done 4 times to meet Planning Commission MacKenzie's approval. The builder has been operating under the assumption that this variance was already approved, and measured for trusses and all the building parts, and got me a bid which I can afford. 1 have been picking out lumber, cabinets, lighting based on the proposed house on an already approved footprint. The boring company engineer already calculated for the soil borings. Heat calcs were done for the Building Permit, which is our Requirement #1. Energy calcs were already done for the Building Permit, which is our Requirement # 1. To change the whole plan is not economical. My builder is ready, the boring company is ready, and we are excited to check off # 1 of 16, to apply for a Building Permit. So I ask you now for a simple majority vote that, "The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments APPROVES an 11.5 foot front yard setback from the street to the City of Chanhassen, a 22.1 foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5% lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." THANK YOU. New owner, old owner, architect, builder (fireman, horticulture expert, at site every day of building with his own team of builders, 43 years and not 1 complaint from his customers - that's a testimony!) 0 Steckling, Jean 0 From: Walters, MacKenzie Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 9:36 AM To: Steckling, Jean Subject: FW: Variance Appeal for May 21 2019 to What was Proposed, the Already Approved Variance from 18.01, but with Significantly Reduced Hardcover and Acceptance of all 1 S Conditions and City Easement granted Addition to appeal 2 -----Original Message ----- From: Fred Meier <fredmeier@integra.net> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 9:06 AM To: Pam Reimer <preimer90@gmail.com> Cc: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Builder Paul Wagner <wags1956@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Variance Appeal for May 212019 to What was Proposed, the Already Approved Variance from 18- 01, but with Significantly Reduced Hardcover and Acceptance of all 15 Conditions and City Easement granted Also a regular size boat will not fit in a 21 foot garage so are they going to pay for your storage Thank You Fred Meier Fred's Drafting & Design LLC > On May 27, 2019, at 7:48 AM, Pam Reimer <preimer90@gmail.com> wrote: > <Variance Appeal for May 212019 3617 Red Cedar Point.doc> Steckling, Jean From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Please add this to the list 0 0 Walters, MacKenzie Friday, June 7, 2019 8:05 AM Steckling, Jean FW: 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd Variance Appeal New DW Variance Precedence.pdf From: davemaryjo@aol.com <davemaryjo@aol.com> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 8:03 AM To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; kaaenenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Cc: helen.gunther@results.net; stgunther@gmail.com Subject: 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd Variance Appeal MacKenzie & Kate, I understand that Pam Reimer is appealing the Planning Commission variance, presumably to take back her offer to setback the garage by 3 feet Pam made the offer in the face of neighborhood concerns voiced and a strong indication from 3 of the 4 Commission members they had significant concern for the driveway. I believe that even with the additional 3' of driveway length the driveway would be the most challenging in the neighborhood and clearly sets a new precedence. I don't recall this degree of neighbor opposition to any past request. In addition to those that have written emails or spoken at the Planning Commission. there are several others that have concerns for setting this new driveway precedence but don't want to speak out publicly. I tried to convey to the PC why their accepting the staffs proposed language did not work The City Engineer noted an average vehicle length is 16' and therefore an average driveway length of 16' should work. Please see and forward to the City Council for their consideration the attached exhibit that attempts to show that the angle of the road and the turning radius for vehicles make the proposed driveway with the additional 3 feet very challenging at best. The exhibit also briefly outlines the shortage of on street parking throughout the neighborhood and the safety challenges that can arise as a result. Just 6 weeks ago there was a 911 call in the neighborhood and the sheriff and fire department vehicles could not get through on South Cedar. I also have pictures of every driveway listed in the staff report as having received a variance to show how the proposed dnveway(s) would set a new precedence but, due to file size, is not included I am requesting the City Council add a condition of approval that reads: The driveway shall be designed to provide parking for a minimum of two (2) 8-1/2' by 18' stalls with ingress and egress requiring not more than a two point maneuver by a vehicle with a turning radius of 20 feet. Thank you for your consideration. Dave Bangasser 3633 South Cedar Drive 0 0 Shortage of Street Parkin No parking on Hickory & Red Cedar Pt, Rd, East of intersection 31 homes without street parking. Parking is tight one side of South Cedar and Red Cedar Pt Rd, west of intersection Holidays and weekends create parking challenges Condition worse with loss of Souba 13 stalls that were used. Emergency vehicles could not get through South Cedar on 911 call 6 weeks ago. Could not find drivers who are often on the lake, n u Sets New Precedence 0 20 Variances listed in report on 16 Properties All have a minimum for 2'Ready Access' parking spaces in driveway Ready Access — 2 point maneuver On average, 3.3 'Ready Access' parking spaces in driveway With Additional Parking (More than 2 pt.) average is 4.6 DEW stalls Counting Garage, Average of 7 parking spaces for the 16 properties with variances. Photos & summary at the end if want to take the time to review. 0 Sets New Precedence 0 Proposed: Total of 4 = 3 garage + 1 driveway parking spaces including 2 highly questionable. Applicant stated at P.C. this garage will be used for storage and a dog wash. One stall is effectively a shed since there will be no basement, water oriented structure or attic storage above the garage for mowers, snow throwers, kayaks, seasonals, etc. Driveway is very challenging for parking, especially given the narrow road which is angled relative to the garage, While the Planning Commission approval sets back 3', it remains challenging. 0 As Requested O'Ready Access' DW Stalls 1- 6 Pt, Maneuver DW Stalls What happens when above average vehicles arrive? Very Narrow Street —15' Street Angle Red —Avg, Vehicle Pink — Full Sized Brown - Road 0 0 • Typical Turning Radius 20' (Honda Odyssey) • 40' required for 180 degrees turnaround. • Add 2' for front of vehicle overhang on tight turns. • Applicant states she is a single women with small vehicles but this is clearly a family house long term and should accommodate family vehicles, 0 As PC. 0 11 roved —Garage Setback 3' Avg. Does not work 16' average car length 15'-10" avg, D/W length O'Ready Access' — Full Sized 1 'Ready Access' — Avg. Car Middle stall 1'-? into road East stall 2-6" into road with average vehicles 0 As PC, Approved 0 `Ready Access' — Full Sized 1 'Ready Access' —Avg, Car 1- 6 Pt. Maneuver only works if other vehicle comes and goes after. Red — Avg. Vehicle Pink — Full Sized 0 0 0 Requested Condition of Ap p royal Asking for a condition requiring driveway parking for a minimum of two (2) 8-1/2' by 18' stalls with ingress and egress requiring not more than two point maneuvering by a vehicle with a turning radius of 20 feet. 0 0 Requested City Condition of Approval Provide storm water management at new 'hammerhead' where Cottonwood tree is removed, Storm water from the crest of Hickory and South Cedar drain to this point and the tree & green space provide some treatment that will be lost, pushing salt directly into the lake. 0 0 Maria P. Knight 3605 Red Cedar Point Rd. Excelsior, MN 55115 Re: Appeal of zoning variance at 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd. June 9, 2019 Dear Mayor and Council members: 1 am Maria Knight and I live at 3605 Red Cedar Point Road, four houses east of the lot seeking this variance. I am not available to attend your June 10 meeting to hear this appeal, so I wish to have these written comments entered into the record at the public comments section of the hearing. I have three concerns: 1. The proposed house would be too close to Red Cedar Point Road. The actual roadway in front of the subject lot is paved 15 feet 4 inches across, regardless of what is says on the City site plan. This is narrow for even a one-way road, yet it must serve as simultaneous entrance and egress to my home and seven others'. Going east -bound just before the subject lot, Red Cedar Point Rd. slopes down sharply, and this critical stretch can be a skating rink in the dead of winter. One can't always drive a perfectly straight line when all four tires are skidding downhill. To avoid crashes, residents need to have protection from parked cars on the applicant's lot hugging the outside edge of that narrow road. Zero shoulder space along this hill is one thing, but a stationary parked truck or two butting out at the bottom near the paving's edge will be an accident waiting to occur, in my opinion. All of my neighbors have had to accommodate tradesmen's trucks on their driveways for innumerable reasons over the years, and I expect this site must cater to the same. A typical Ford serviceman's panel truck is 19'6" long. Allowing a minimum 18 inches from the truck to the garage door plus two feet from the truck bumper to the edge of the street pavement, for safety s sake the City should require 23 feet of clear space between the road pavement and the north side of the proposed building. Compromising our safety with a setback that green -lights only 11 feet or even 17 feet for the applicant's actual driveway will cause some guest vehicle bumpers to be encroaching the road pavement or be dangerously close to that edge. To my mind, this would constitute a design flaw for which the City would be liable. It is immaterial whether the applicant owns a tiny car herself or thinks that she can control guests to always park perpendicular to the natural garage door openings. Evaluating this variance application should not be personal: the proposed variance would apply to the lot even when the applicant sold the property to somebody else. E Moreover, I believe third -party driveway users are going to park on the applicant lot's driveway in the most natural manner, which is not parallel to the road, but rather in line with the three proposed garage doors like every other house. So I oppose both the front yard setback variance as it was applied for (11.5 ft.) and the variance as granted by the Planning Commission (8.5 ft), because both create an unreasonably dangerous condition to the road we all have to travel, by placing the building too close to Red Cedar Point Road. 2. There is insufficient provision for road access during construction or snow storage during winter. The only construction access on this lot is the line where it abuts Red Cedar Point Road. The tiny setback from the road applicant has proposed allows insufficient staging space on her own land during construction. The neighborhood has gone through a similar construction experience within the last year or so, when the second house west of the applicant's lot was torn down and rebuilt. In that case and fortuitously, the opposite neighbor had paved almost his entire front yard in asphalt, so street traffic diverted across the opposing side's driveway while construction blocked the street That alternative is impossible in applicant's case because her opposing lot typically has a car parked there all day. At the Planning Commission hearing I heard the applicant's contractor represent that it would never burden the street and that construction would never be any problem for the neighbors. I enclose, however, a photo I took of a contractor trailer parked overnight straddling both the applicant's lot and the street right of way after they demo -ed the existing cabin ten days or so ago. Our little dead-end neighborhood depends on Red Cedar Point Road being continuously available because we all work varied hours, and there is only this single route for any fire or ambulance rescue. Unenforceable promises are not sufficient In a similar vein, for many decades the applicant lot's ample front yard has been a winter snow storage site for this narrow dead-end street Lake winds deposit snow drifts at that corner nearly every year. I query whether the tiny remaining "front yard" described in the variance application is sufficient even to store the snow from the applicant's own driveway, let alone a portion of the street snow overburden. I believe that any variance should specifically solve the snow storage inadequacy and reduce road -blocking drifts at this corner. The proposed variance does not specifically protect neighborhood access during construction or provide sufficient snow storage, which leads me ask you to deny this variance application. 3. The City will regret setting a bad precedent There are several lakeshore parcels in the Red Cedar Point area that will soon be candidates for teardown and replacement Small lake lots seem to attract oversize 0 0 houses. I am concerned that sanctioning a variance for a too short driveway and inadequate off street parking in this case is going to set an unfortunate precedent that will confront the City again and again. Common sense requires that million dollar houses with three car garages on narrow roads include safe and adequate driveway parking space. Final Comments I don't know which arguments will be presented during this appeal, but I wish to include my response to several trains of thought at the Planning Commission hearing that rang sour to my ear: --- Seven out of nine of the applicant's neighbors also own dogs, and to my knowledge none of us require an unnaturally long garage to accommodate a dog washing station, which seems to be at the heart of this variance request. --- None of the neighbors near the lot have off-street driveway parking adjacent to their garage as short as the applicant is requesting. --- There are many ways that the proposed building can be modified (i.e., cantilevering the second story over a shorter garage area) to provide a standard parking driveway on this very small lot. --- Applicant is requesting a variance, and it should not be unexpected that initial building plans, including even piling locations, will need to be changed at applicant's expense to meet community priorities. Making required changes is not an undue burden on applicant or a favor to the City. --- If the City grants a variance in this case, the City's conditions with applicant should be global, specific and final, and enforceable in writing. Thank you for your attention. Maria P. Knight (enclosure) 0 0 General Background County records indicate that the existing structure was built in 1927. The city does not have a building file for this property nor does it have any records of any permits associated with this address. Planning Case 2018-01 On January 2, 2018, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and voted 5-0 to approve the variance. On January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of the variance request On January 22, 2018, the City Council meeting during which the appeal was scheduled to be heard was canceled. Staff notified the applicant and appellant that the appeal would be rescheduled for the February 12, 2018 City Council meeting. Staff also extend the 60 -day review deadline for this item. On February 12, 2018, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission's approval of an 11.5 -foot front yard setback, a 22.1 -foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions of approval. On February 12, 2019, one year passed without the allowed construction being substantially completed. Per the terms of the variance, this resulted in the issued variance lapsing. Current Request On January 9, 2019, the applicant contacted staff asking about the possibility of utilizing the variance from Planning Case 2018-1. The applicant was advised that the variance would expire on February 12, 2019. Staff indicated that the variance represented the largest footprint that the city was likely to support, and recommend that the applicant familiarize themselves with the conditions that were placed on the variance. On March 29, 2019, staff informed the applicant that the Planning Case 2018-01 variance could not be extended, and that they would need to apply for a new variance. Staff indicated that it was likely the city would support a similar variance request to the one that was previously issued. Staff recommended that the applicant investigate the required conditions and indicated that staff would likely impose identical conditions, unless the requested amount of impervious surface was significantly reduced. On May 21, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and voted 40 to approve the variance subject to conditions of approval. During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following concerns: 1. Chairman Weick asked for clarification as to the driveway length and orientation. Staff clarified that in order to park an average sized, 16 -foot long vehicle, the garage would need to be pushed back three feet and that to create a consistent length, the house would need to be reoriented to intersect the road at a 90-0egree angle. 2. Commissioner Skistad asked if increasing the driveway length would push the house closer to the length. Staff clarified that as written, the increased driveway length would require the house to be redesigned but that an increased lake setback variance could be granted, though it was not generally city policy to allow houses to move closer to a lake. 3. Chairman Weick asked for confirmation that one of the historical variances was for 50 percent lot cover. Staff confirmed it was an 0 0 4. Commissioner Reeder asked if the building could go higher. Staff stated that the submitted plans were under the maximum height allowed. 5. Commissioner Reeder asked what the depth of the garage was. The applicant stated that it was 26 feet deep. 6. Chairman Weick noted that the use of pervious pavers would reduce the property to between 28 and 29 percent impervious coverage. 7. Commissioner Randall expressed concern that a three -car garage was too large for the lot and that the driveway length would establish a precedent 8. Commissioner Reeder noted that the house would likely have many different owners and that he felt the driveway setback should be increased to a minimum of 16 feet 9. Commissioner Skistad expressed support for the plan as proposed, and asked if the house could be moved three feet closer to the lake and three feet further from the front lot line. Commissioner Reeder noted he would not support reducing the lake setback. 10. Commissioner Reeder asked if the variance could be structured to increase the driveway length but permit a front cantilever. Staff noted that the City Code does not grant a property with a variance architectural exemptions, and stated they would need to consult with the City Attorney to determine if this would be possible. 11. The Planning Commission asked how deep the existing driveway was. Staff responded that it was approximately 30 feet deep. 12. Commissioner Randall asked what the minimum driveway depth allowed by code was. Staff stated that there was no minimum, but that the shortest depth present in PUDs was 20 feet. 13. Chainnan Weick stated that he felt a 16 -foot driveway length was viable. The applicant's builder stated that they would be willing to reduce the garage depth by three feet 14. The Planning Commission asked for clarification on the resulting driveway depth. Staff stated that it would be between 17.5 and 14.5 feet deep. 15. Chairman Weick noted that they could make a minimum driveway length a condition of the variance. 16. The Planning Commission discussed the merits of allowing an average depth versus requiring a minimum depth. During the public hearing, the following sentiments were expressed: 1. The applicant stated that due to circumstances beyond their control they had been unable to acquire the property in time to act on the previously issued variance. They stated that their requested variance maintained the previously issued setbacks and reduced the lot cover compared to what had initially been granted. They stated that they were willing to meet the conditions of the variance. They stated that they were providing off- street parking consistent with what was provided by other homes in the area 2. Steve Gunther expressed appreciation for the measures being taken to reduce the impact of the property's impervious surface; however, he expressed concern regarding the length of the driveway and requested that driveway have a minimum length of 16 to 18 feet He noted that most of the homes in the area did not have a three -car garage. 3. Dave Bangasser expressed concern that the proposed driveway was too short and suggested that the depth of the house should be reduced to accommodate a longer driveway. He requested that driveway have a minimum length of 18 feet He stated that he did not believe any other variances had been granted that would not accommodate two vehicles being parked in the driveway. 4. Betsy Anding indicated that she agreed with and supported the statements made by Steve Gunther and Dave Bangasser. 5. Dave Bishop noted that he believes the street is only 15 feet 2 inches wide in front of the subject property, and asked that the Planning Commission consider and address how construction staging would work. Staff responded that construction vehicles are not allowed to park on streets of that width, and that City ordinances will be enforced. 6. Jeff Souba expressed his support for granting the requested variance, and noted that guests can park in the garage or on the property. 7. Paul Wagner, the applicant's builder, outlined his professional experience and his plan for minimizing the impact and disruption associated with construction. 8. Dave Bangasser reiterated his position that a minimum depth was needed and that 18 feet was an appropriate minimum. On May 27, 2019, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's decision, stating that they believe they should be granted the same front yard setback as was approved in Planning Case 18-01. On May 27, 2019, a resident appealed the Planning Commission's decision, stating that they believed that the granted variance does not provide for adequate guest parking. (Nate: A more detailed background including summaries of questions, comments and concerns raised during the meetings associated with Planning Case 2018-01 can be found in the attached staff report) Front Yard Setback: The applicant's proposed front yard setback of 18.5 feet is consistent with a line drawn across the front ofthe property connecting the comers of the adjacent homes; however, Red Cedar Point Road encroaches onto the applicant's property resulting in a driveway that is approximately 11 feet deep at its shortest point and about 15 feet deep at its longest The setback that the applicant is requesting is that same as was allowed in Variance 18-1. The Planning Commission, staff and neighbors are concerned that a driveway ofthat length does not provide sufficient off- street parking; however, the driveway and three -car garage combine to provide an amount ofoff-sheet parking similar to the average provided by other properties in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission voted to increase the front yard setback to 21.5 feet to allow for a longer driveway and additional parking surface. The granted front yard setback would result in a driveway that is approximately 14 feet deep at its shortest point and about 18 feet deep at its longest, resulting in an average depth of around 16 feet, roughly the length of an average sized car. It likely that angled parking would be required to prevent longer vehicles from overhanging onto Red Cedar Point Road. Note: Concern has been expressed to staff that the applicant could simply reduce the length of a single garage stall to meet setback, extending the shallower portion of the driveway but the not the deeper section. If this concern is shared by the City Council, a condition could be added to the variance stipulating a minimum average driveway length. Lot Coverage: The applicant's lot is substandard with a lot area of 9,203 square feet The property currently has a lot coverage of 36.4 percent, or 3,353 square feet. The applicant is proposing 3,170 square feet of lot cover. In evaluating these 0 0 requests staff looks at the extent to which the proposed amount of lot coverage and any associated stornwater best management practices will represent an improvement to property's existing conditions. Staff believes that the applicant can improve the property's stotmwater management while retaining the proposed lot coverage by utilizing permeable pavers for the proposed driveway and patio, by installing a 20 feet buffer along the lake, and develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan to improve ecosystem health and function. Staff recommends that if a variance for the proposed lot coverage is granted, the three aforementioned items be made conditions of approval. Note: The neighbor appeal the variance expressed concern over the phrasing of condition 15, feeling that it left the impression that the use of pervious pavers was optional. Staff has revised the language in the condition to clarify that the use of pavers is mandatory. Shoreland Setback. The city's shoreland overlay district requires a 75 -foot setback for properties located along Lake Minnewashta; however, the existing primary structure has a 52.9 -foot setback from the lake. Since the applicant is proposing demolishing the existing structure and building wider structure within the lake setback, a variance is required. These situations are common in the city's older lakeside neighborhoods. and the city's practice has generally been to use the property's existing lake setback to determine what shoreland setback is reasonable. The proposed lake setback of 52.9 feet is line with city precedent and similarto the setback maintained by the adjacent properties. (Note: A detailed discussion of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report.) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Chanhassen City Council approve an 8.5 -foot front yard setback, a 22.1 -foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1" = 20' scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100 -year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28" oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must betaken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228 -square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property's water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20 -foot native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with Permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. ❑ Staff Report 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd ❑ Development Review Application ❑ Findings of Fact PC Adopted ❑ Tree Removal Plan ❑ Updated Survey ❑ WRC Memo ❑ ERS Memo ❑ Engineering Memo ❑ Affidavit of Mailing ❑ Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval) ❑ Findings of Fact and Decision (Denial) ❑ Variance Document ❑ Email Comments Received ❑ Email Appeals Received ❑ Appeal letter received from Maria Knight 06-10-2019 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PROPOSED MOTION: PC DA6. CC DATE: May 21, 2019 June 10, 2019 REVIEW DEADLINE: June 18, 2019 CASE #: 2019-03 BY: MW "The Chanhassen City Council Beafd afAppeals aod Adjustments approves an 8.5 -foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1 -foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions." SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is demolishing a non -conforming single-family home and is requesting a variance to construct a new single-family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback, has a shed that encroaches approximately six feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. The proposed house would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverage to 34.5 percent, and require an 11.5 -foot front yard setback variance. LOCATION: 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PID 256600320) APPLICANT: Pamela Reimer 14455 Westridge Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55347 OWNER: Patricia Souba 110980 Von Hertzen Cir. Chaska, MN 55318 PRESENT ZONING: RSF 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: .23 acres DENSITY: NA 1 WON. NO \- "The Chanhassen City Council Beafd afAppeals aod Adjustments approves an 8.5 -foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1 -foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions." SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is demolishing a non -conforming single-family home and is requesting a variance to construct a new single-family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback, has a shed that encroaches approximately six feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. The proposed house would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverage to 34.5 percent, and require an 11.5 -foot front yard setback variance. LOCATION: 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PID 256600320) APPLICANT: Pamela Reimer 14455 Westridge Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55347 OWNER: Patricia Souba 110980 Von Hertzen Cir. Chaska, MN 55318 PRESENT ZONING: RSF 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: .23 acres DENSITY: NA City Council • • 3617 Red Cedar Point Road — Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 2 of 19 LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The city has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAUSUMMARY The parcel's existing house is over 90 years old, does not meet the city's minimum standards for single-family dwellings, and is in disrepair. This structure is located 52.9 feet from the lake's ordinary high water setback and the lot currently has 36.4 percent lot coverage, largely due to the fact that the front portion of the lot is covered by a gravel parking area. The applicant is proposing replacing the existing structure with a modem home. In order to do this, they are requesting a variance to formalize the existing 22.1 - foot encroachment into the required shoreland setback. They are also proposing to remove the gravel parking area, a shed located within the western side yard setback, an outdoor fireplace area, and a concrete walkway in the rear yard to bring the property more in line with City Code. Removing the shed will bring the property's side yard setback into compliance with City Code. The lot coverage proposed for the new home, driveway, and patio area would require a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, a 1.9 percent reduction from the existing condition. They are also requesting an 11.5 -foot front yard setback variance; to / 26 cvt 90.2 - Road Concrete -Water Stnicture 9• Gi f 9/9.5 Plvpowd BYlFM1 \ 9.0 -- y9d66' - Proposed House MRemoved Lot Cover -Existing House 0 • 6/24/2019 3617 Red Cedar Point Road Variance --C- PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 21, 2019 (APPEALED) CITY COUNCIL JUNE 10, 2019 (TABLED ACTION) CITY COUNCIL JUNE 24, 2019 APPLICANT: PAMELA REIMER REQUEST FOR A 11.5 FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK, A 22.1.FOOT SAORELARD SETBACK, AND AN 9.5 PERCENT LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED SINGLE-FAMILY BORE. June Io CitvCouncil Meeting C-11 oThe Council had the following discussion: a ftry��.J :� vm nmllnhvml�.SJ nAimen:n rytluit�m N:J r,��lbuil MnaJ. a 4.An14r ulWu��n ry.niikJry ins(NM+�A`:=1^x�`^r)nml:ulx-0J.almlmulJh.igndm av <MtinIrJupIwaff .hmkl} 'LJ j,n«.w mun+nazn<Vnblp.i:µ'nn.v) 4a1 rnla,mlnWI it rymrs .wrt en LxtJ ppfmmnuwh a A+hJ 6m rny..ml.Lnma. kv;iLO'-Soy-S L.gmW ny.:�lrydiny pun: i.W In'9ixvmz Leel +NNL'.ml r^'Ps+l n.. .wa:ail...ILm u..J.nn. IYlmsne&rmi,mmilri1nt61Pr+R�a^N�Li^':m rvof, miim+. < In ('.wnimahkJllwanrala.W nv W"INlln al�akanl rymik Jr.::nny> J��xinynx lm.peaJ n�aW:�' aWL Change from June to'^City Council Meeting C, aCondition 13 amendedto read: A permanent 20400tnative segetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer mal' work around the path and stairs and buffer avcraemg maw be used subiect to the annrova] of the Water Resources Coordinator. The buffer muss be designed and installed by an experienced professional in ratite shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. DCoodition 16 added reading:. The property owner shall configure the garage to proside a section of driveway at town 9 feel wide that has a minimum depth of 16 feet 6 inches. Ifee,(�7e cld'h Coma's directed rerision (Recessed 3" stall' g Altematice (Recessed z car garage)) Nde:IncadetbrLinea�6.$'de h v®. We ddbbpae ".Ck xeuklbe�ry.. DricewacF h4Mt c ,n. ka..W a pTMeed4War • 6/24/2019 2 0 • 6/24/2019 MOTION (applicant's proposal) O "The Chanhassen City Council approves an 8.5 -foot front yard setback, a 22.1400t Lakeshore setback, and an 9.5 percent lot coverage variance for the construction of a single family house, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions." 41G"CIO'2 t altemau� r eaufigurauonl Me Chanhassen City Council amends condition 16 to . - "read The property owner shall configure the garage to provide a section of driveway at least 17 feet wide that has a minimum depth of 16 feet 6 inches', and appro an 8.5 -foot front yard setback, a 22.1400t lakeshore i setback, and an 9.5 percent lot coverage variance for the construction of a single family house, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings BuLer Acvraeing(CnncepNal Design) av ur - w �I sae •� nr : 0 • 6/24/2019 Proposed House Footprint and FJevations-- • r n u n n n r __ ■u Background (PC 2018-01) oda :gaoled an tt5-foot front yard setback, zs.rdoot Lakeshore setback and a ii percent lot ccoxr variance. JJanuan' 8, 2018. Staff rrcei, ed an appeal of the Planning Co. radenan a Decision. The appeal cited concerns about the length of drivercay, amount of lot m\cr and the size of the proposed house. aFebruary r2, 2018- The City Council upheld the Planning Commission's decision to grant the requested \,riance. aFebruary 12, Zing. The variance granted as part of PC 2018-01 expired. May. 21 Planning Commission Meeting v' OPublic Hearing: a Iti ..almvl...i.e:u Wai In•PwJJn....:n FrreIM1 uva Hn.InnnNnwW a+Iah6LlsmJm�. a 1v J'rvmvJ uiW4lh Jri. nrJepJe mW nt0.J�n mv.p+/mW alti wH.11L.a mr..f lu.v-.rcuW r.Juedlniin �nlvnwminlMx\m mX�W zelnoml. a i mcW^mnrm<Jv'mrnmv Jrm�n. kvNlhmNmgvm mi:wuvnndlN'. i miJminlwwJ.uryun fm mlu�tJ 0 APPIFvnl ia&:enl xialu,.m.w:mamw Jmvnar M:1 ha. OOecisian: o n'.a Jr+nwgm�e� IXe.nwuv xi�L..;i 4.uN... Wm. -+N rahvl. t]APPeaI: � ' et'..welwa. m.�n�, aniru\u uv.hle xMlFwlnnh. We aLP'^41J.v��o : • 6/24/2019 Summary -of Appeal O oApplioznt notes the following as reasons for the appeal: .Iti a,A Cit.(amril npp'o%M roue -.vla<t}ear. and applirwn(s ryolnsnl intoes LC from Irmim sl> apfmaM old gam, Oh an eaument f o road"". .rorlpmya dali�e"s. rzo zecummMalezrrld�lex a�W lfia: uaal pay*mz ramex . xme rootodo of, porFnre.htwd he nreman!ald. no aw-se «vlax, s Neighbor notes the following as reason for the appeal: . floc. W" IS, Ampul'n, 1, fa d,.I. gtesf par4irry, 0 belfe—a minimum ds rs,,hoold I c ammnmMaM 1, dm e MR,- pramrial forays to o ,I—i fl,, -I. rrea16 danaroms vtution, and tlot a ininimnm W a5 of ddah it I, de t e Ca.iod alxxn oII.Wsh..of proc lemr. e woold like far,".,ditlml w Le IepluIo L Site Conditions: 3617 Red {Cedar Point Rd 1 Wlm�enae-ylSJ Vuam lal(jra4F1 yi Fmol iclhwi: Nau lo'Fa.IYIMeL:Nmla lo'wel ssalw-b -a bhNl �__, ].S +mniaml xlMcl: 5e.y' WVAS: nO ayuurc fml.4lmm We [' •Nde: ,L'e yuw lalW Welvmd4m,emlb .un. _ Ra1CNv Vuinl Wwd.'11uFarea is ml weluNJ 61 I ? , 0 0 6/24/2019 Neighborhood Comments f�. LlSeven neigf� b� , contacted staff. D6 expressed concerns, r expressed support E36 mnmmed felt that: - oPlan does not preside sufficient off-street inyking for guests and will exacerbate existing arking ty' issues, safeconcerns due to road wldpr oHouse is m'erbuilt/maximized. Concerned with amount of impermous being proposed of supportive felt that: ❑ Proposal Would be improvement of existing oFeel parking is in line with neighborhood, all traffic is neighbors, work together to cope with parking. Neighborhood Off Stmel Parking 6.stimatr 0 O IRmue.ti4uiR h �. E�xL=aa.em W64[ ComNtl rcv home J m� Ranye.,hi,em). and WnAS. yyyE14 itOae—nmmnfo,miop ao,et�.�.� - :mwsd.Y6dtr.e.weaerankd '4 Neighborhood Comments f�. LlSeven neigf� b� , contacted staff. D6 expressed concerns, r expressed support E36 mnmmed felt that: - oPlan does not preside sufficient off-street inyking for guests and will exacerbate existing arking ty' issues, safeconcerns due to road wldpr oHouse is m'erbuilt/maximized. Concerned with amount of impermous being proposed of supportive felt that: ❑ Proposal Would be improvement of existing oFeel parking is in line with neighborhood, all traffic is neighbors, work together to cope with parking. Neighborhood Off Stmel Parking 6.stimatr 0 9 j ; • 6/24/2019 Driveway 6vhibit 3 t4 k 999.]] 999.99 � h 50 a r— N.hN 'IMo.eaeeth-ha.blm W.0 W..enec.Aick4vW. vi:xt414w1 n�,v Imee'm-w WJ mtl is Nk Nn11.I INIc.,hn Iv NJin nNcr waAaop inalhesb.ci Nal Ixi9d�inlnw�9dv...Wy.i ry.p n45'sdde i�ma W..dh d W..mh 'Ihk4. Wsi-siemu^+p W th 16 { xihsTaf edm Plm.I •The Wbhi Naos denannlend eur dh t nastbe dm• I —L inn nd in the dii.n n, d the subject Pnopatt. • Rblic wa" gaff is confident We a. ca I be effec wl%pla.M xitb kn utilinngdle subj po . • Riblic waks,ill reed ro renanx a Inge ronrn,md trte xitNn the e.elxm. patios dtbe ngMJ-.a>' and generally tiv,an-up tM area. coomina ion..;n am nd aw« xitb llereighb in 306 and 3613 Red , R Rdin Wer m faGliane tM cliange in plv..ing pactic e t - 0 • 6/24/2019 Buller Area Stag Asusament and Summary• wJ.rvl...krclirc ne1..nMn rynirc� e. nm.�,��. �Le in.ry��nf�M n4aaN r.iMlaW Hn,n.ar. � PqueslN.a xiln lM1me6nn4d to surmw.nnp poFMMad OW�s� ♦Hslnc� rry.c H 4 P 0 0 6/24/2019 r u, "The Chanhassen City Council approves an 8.5400t front yard setback, a 22.1 - foot lakeshore setback, and an 9.5 percent lot coverage variance for the _ construction of a single family house, subject to the conditions of approval an& ` adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions A all vdv W usssg4uueqo W4$0/AOUUIW Dm epi uj 03101 4ul0d JOP83 POW v )[20,19 O� 16 401 LTJ POCH 4ulod le Pad LM O.LZ &.0 JOLUISH LuRd O.LZ &.0 Jf ------------------------------------- ------------ --------------- ----------------------- ------------------------------------- -------- ----------- -------- --- ------------ ----------- ------------------- ----- ------- 0 0 1. ti 30l T ---------- PN x 0H 6 4 Ag ww --------- ---------------- - -------- ---------------- -------------------------- zid --------------- !D!,o 6bci be x XgymZ N -------------- ---------- -- ------ - ---------------- ----------------- ----------------- ----------------- ------- ---------------------------- 2-M A zl Z-11 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: Pc- 19-03 Application of Pamela Reimer for a 20 -foot front yard setback, a 22.1 -foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance on a property zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2019-03 On May 21, 2019, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF). 2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density. 3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 9, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta 4. Variance Findines — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The intent of the city's shoreland management ordinance is to protect the city's aquatic resources by requiring structures to be setback 75 feet from lakes and limiting the maximum lot coverage permitted within 1,000 feet of a lake to 25 percent. The setback and lot coverage limitation is designed to minimise the amount of stormwater runoff that is discharged into the lake. The applicant's proposal calls for maintaining the existing nonconforming lake setback and slightly reducing the existing lot coverage. Staff believes that by using pervious pavers, installing a vegetative buffer, and working with the watershed district to conduct a shoreline restoration project the proposed home's impact on Lake Minnewashta will be minimized. Given the existing nonconforming nature of the property and the BMPs being required as conditions of approval for the variance, the city believes that the applicant's proposal balances protecting the lake and allowing for reasonable use on a nonconforming property. SCANNED If 0 0 The city's zoning code requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet in order to provide for greenspace and a consistent neighborhood aesthetic. The applicant's proposed reduction to the front yard setback is in conjunction with the removal of an existing driveway that occupies most of the front yard and is similar to the front yard setback maintained by other homes in the neighborhood. The front yard setback also exists to ensure properties provide adequate off-street parking; the proposed driveway length of 15 feet is insufficient to accommodate an average sized vehicle. In order to provide for adequate off-street parking an average driveway length of at least 16 feet is required. The requested front yard variance does not provide for this length, but granting an 17 -foot front yard setback variance instead of the requested 20 -foot front yard setback variance would meet the intent of the ordinance. b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical difficulties," as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter. Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for solar energy systems. Finding: The lot's substandard size combined with the required front and lake setbacks mean a reasonably sized home could not be constructed on the property without a variance. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The property is located in an older subdivision and the existing structure does not conform to the current zoning code. The parcel is significantly smaller than the minimum size required for riparian lots zoned RSF. The substandard nature of the lot makes it impossible to construct a single-family home meeting the current zoning code. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The property is located in one of the city's oldest subdivisions. The vast majority of the properties within 500 feet of the parcel either have received variances or are nonconforming uses. The existing housing stock is a mix between older single level homes and more recent two-story homes. Due to the unique constraints posed by each lot and the changes in architectural trends over the decades, the housing in this area is a fairly eclectic mix. £ Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter. 2 n 0 0 Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2019-03, dated May 21, 2019, prepared by MacKenzie Young -Walters, is incorporated herein. DECISION "The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 17 -foot front yard setback, a 22.1 -foot lakeshore setback, and an 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must dedicate the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb as public right of way. 5. A new I" = 20' scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100 -year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28" oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property's water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20' native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The Design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 0 0 15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 21`t day of May, 2019. CIT' IM g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-03 3617 red cedar point roaddindings of fact and decision 3617 red cedar _mund2_all (apptoval).doc 4 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-03 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday; May 21, 2019 at 7W p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for variances for hard cover, lake setback and front yard setback for property located at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road and zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). Owner: Patricia Souba. Applicant: Pamela Reimer. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for Public review on the citys web site at www.ci.chanhassen. mn.us/2019-03 or at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal MacKenzie Young -Walters Email: mwalters@ ci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Published in the Chanhassen Villager onThursday, May 9, 2019: No 9736) SCMNW Affidavit of Publication Southwest Newspapers State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. '7 1 A(B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No. —J 1 / was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and publication of the Notice: abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz n By w Laurie A. Harhnann Subscribed and swom before me on this �� day of 2019 N bis RATE INFORMATION JYMMEJEANNETTE BARK NOTARY PUBUC - MINNESOTA MY COMMISSION EXPIRES 01131123 Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $31.20 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $31.20 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $13.62 per column inch PC_ 19-03 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on May 9, 2019, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public Hearing to consider a request for variances for hard cover, lake setback and front yard setback for property located at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road, zoned Single Family -Residential (RSF), Planning Case File No. 2019-03 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Kim Me ssen, Depu Cl k Subscribed and sworn to before me this (:Yt day of (i1 12019. WW1:U.T: o. JEAN M STECKLIN6 Notary PL"0_MkWWWM Publi -ftk"J 31.2M sCANNEL' This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnity, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arse out of the user's access or use of data provided. This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City tices not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which Anse out of the users access or use of data provided. 0 ((TAX NAME» «TAX_ADD_L1» aTAX_ADD_L2»,(<TAX_ADD_L3>) «Next Record »«TAX_NAME>) «TAX_ADD_L1» «TAX_ADD_L2a,aTAX_ADD_L3>> Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 7:00 P.M. This hearing may not start until ' later in the evening, depending on the order of theagenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. To consider a request for variances for hard cover, lake setback Proposal: and front yard setback for property located at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road and zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). Applicant: Pamela Reimer Property 3617 Red Cedar Point Road Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the What Happens W public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2019-03. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact MacKenzie Questions & Young -Walters by email at mwalters(fti.chanhassen.mn.us or Comments: by phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. NEWI Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas, packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/notifyme to sign up! City Review Procedure: • Subtlivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditiwtal and Interim Uses, Welland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 50)feet of the subject site to be notti of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. • Stant prepares a report on the subject application that Includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request At the Planning Commission meeting staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a pan of the hearing Process. The Commission will close the Public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reveres, arms or mortify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rwonings and land use amendments from residential to commerci ill ndustrial. a Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespereonlrepresentative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Star is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be induced in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be induced in the report, lease contact the Planning Star person named on the notification, Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. This hearing may not start until ' later in the evening, depending on the order of the agenda. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. To consider a request for variances for hard cover, lake setback Proposal: and front yard setback for property located at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road and zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). Applicant: Pamela Reimer Property 3617 Red Cedar Point Road Location' A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. • at the Meeting: 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please visit the City's projects web page at: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2019-03. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact MacKenzie Questions & Young -Walters by email at mwalters(fti.chanhassen.mmus or Comments: by phone at 952-227-1132. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online on the project web site listed above the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. NEWI Sign up to receive email and/or text notifications when meeting agendas, packets, minutes and videos are uploaded to the city's website. Go to • www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/notifyme to sign up! City Review Procedural: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses. Weiland Akerations, Rezonings. Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before Me Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested Party is invited to attend the meeting. • Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Counul except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciaillndustrial • Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status antl scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersonlrepresentalive is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meal with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). • Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City CouncilIf you wish to have something to be included in the report, lease vented the Planning Star person named on the nofifcatian. PIN TAX NAME TAX _ ADD _LS TAX_ADD_L2 TAX—ADD-1.3 SHAPE.STArea() 256600320 PATRICIA SCUBA 110980 VON HERTZEN CIR CHASKA MN 55318-2712 3617 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600070 GARY PETERSON 13260 BRASS PKY ROSEMOUNT MN 55068-2772 3632 HICKORY RD 256600010 EDWIN L & LIVIA SEIM 1601 VILLARITA DR CAMPBELL CA 95008-1519 3616 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600270 KELLIE 1 GEIGER 3603 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 3603 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600280 MARIA P KNIGHT 3605 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 3605 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600290 DOUGLAS B & JAMIE ANDERSON 3607 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 3607 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600310 HOWARD D ANDERSON 3613 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 3613 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600020 DIANE LEESON ANDING 3618 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7720 3618 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600030 STEVEN & MARSHA KEUSEMAN REV CABIN TRST 3622 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7720 3622 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600330 BETSY SANDING 3625 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 3625 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600340 DAVID MELIN 3627 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 3627 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600050 GUNTHER LIVING TRUST 3628 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9766 3628 HICKORY RD 256600350 CATHERINE J BLACK REV TRUST 3629 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-7721 3629 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600060 SCOT A LACEK 3630 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9766 3630 HICKORY RD 256600360 PETER J & KARRI J PLUCINAK 3631 SOUTH CEDAR DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9686 3631 SOUTH CEDAR DR 256600510 MARY JO ANDING BANGASSER 3633 SOUTH CEDAR DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9686 256600380 THOMAS C & JACQUELINE JOHNSON 3637 SOUTH CEDAR DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9686 3637 SOUTH CEDAR DR 256600390 DANIEL P FAGAN 3701 SOUTH CEDAR DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 3701 SOUTH CEDAR DR 256600410 ANVER L & ANNE K LARSON 3705 SOUTH CEDAR DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 3705 SOUTH CEDAR DR 256600080 GREGORY BOHRER 3706 HICKORY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9768 3706 HICKORY RD 256600420 JILL D HEMPEL 3707 SOUTH CEDAR DR EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9688 3707 SOUTH CEDAR DR 256600580 COLIN 1 JONES 3710 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 3710 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600300 KIM D PARKHURST 5330 MICHAELE LN MINNETONKA MN 55345-4224 3609 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600040 LAURIE ANN HANSON TRUST AGREEMENT 5901 CARTER LN MINNETONKA MN 55343-8966 3624 RED CEDAR POINT RD 256600400 GREGORY & JOAN DATTILO 7201 JUNIPER AVE EXCELSIOR MN 55331-9614 3703 SOUTH CEDAR DR 0 0 Steckling, Jean From: Walters, MacKenzie Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 8:05 AM To: Steckling, Jean Subject: FW: 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd Variance Appeal Attachments: New DW Variance Precedence.pdf Please add this to the list 0 From: davemaryjo@aol.com <davemaryjo@aol.com> Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 8:03 AM To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; kaaenenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Cc: helen.gunther@results.net; stgunther@gmail.com Subject: 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd Variance Appeal MacKenzie & Kate, I understand that Pam Reimer is appealing the Planning Commission variance, presumably to take back her offer to setback the garage by 3 feet. Pam made the offer in the face of neighborhood concerns voiced and a strong indication from 3 of the 4 Commission members they had significant concern for the driveway. believe that even with the additional T of driveway length, the driveway would be the most challenging in the neighborhood and clearly sets a new precedence. I don't recall this degree of neighbor opposition to any past request. In addition to those that have written emails or spoken at the Planning Commission, there are several others that have concerns for setting this new driveway precedence but don't want to speak out publicly. I tried to convey to the PC why their accepting the staffs proposed language did not work. The City Engineer noted an average vehicle length is 16' and therefore an average driveway length of 16' should work. Please see and forward to the City Council for their consideration the attached exhibit that attempts to show that the angle of the road and the turning radius for vehicles make the proposed driveway with the additional 3 feet very challenging at best. The exhibit also briefly outlines the shortage of on street parking throughout the neighborhood and the safety challenges that can arise as a result. Just 6 weeks ago there was a 911 call in the neighborhood and the sheriff and fire department vehicles could not get through on South Cedar. I also have pictures of every driveway listed in the staff report as having received a variance to show how the proposed driveway(s) would set a new precedence but, due to file size, is not included. I am requesting the City Council add a condition of approval that reads: The driveway shall be designed to provide parking for a minimum of two (2) 8-112' by 18' stalls with ingress and egress requiring not more than a two point maneuver by a vehicle with a turning radius of 20 feet. Thank you for your consideration, Dave Bangasser 3633 South Cedar Drive -3CXvNu Shortage of Street Parkin No parking on Hickory & Red Cedar Pt. Rd. East of intersection 31 homes without street parking. Parking is tight one side of South Cedar and Red Cedar Pt Rd. west of intersection Holidays and weekends create parking challenges Condition worse with loss of Souba 13 stalls that were used. Emergency vehicles could not get through South Cedar on 911 call 6 weeks ago. Could not find drivers who are often on the lake. Sets New Precedence 20 Variances listed in report on 16 Properties All have a minimum for 2'Ready Access' parking spaces in driveway Ready Access — 2 point maneuver On average, 3.3 'Ready Access' parking spaces in driveway With Additional Parking (More than 2 pt.) average is 4.6 D/W stalls Counting Garage, Average of 7 parking spaces for the 16 properties with variances. Photos & summary at the end if want to take the time to review. Sets New Precedence Proposed: Total of 4 = 3 garage + 1 driveway parking spaces including 2 highly questionable. Applicant stated at P.C. this garage will be used for storage and a dog wash. One stall is effectively a shed since there will be no basement, water oriented structure or attic storage above the garage for mowers, snow throwers, kayaks, seasonals, etc. 0 Driveway is very challenging for parking, especially given the narrow road which is angled relative to the garage. While the Planning Commission approval sets back 3', it remains challenging. As Requested OI • 0 'Ready Access' DW StallsCO h • 1- 6 Pt. Maneuver DW Stalls ,�� rn S '' U-1 a • What happens when above averageo J, - vehicles arrive? p � Ln N u CO • Very Narrow Street — 15' Street Angle X14'-6" Red —Av . Vehicle i V .p Pink— Full Sized Brown - Road y _ ,o I N • Typical Turning Radius 20' (Honda Odyssey) • 40' required for 180 degrees turnaround. • Add 2' for front of vehicle overhang on tight turns. • Applicant states she is a single women with small vehicles but this is clearly a family house long term and should accommodate familv vehicles. 0 As P.C. Approved — Garage Setback 3' Avg. Does not work 16' average car length 15'-10" avg. D/W length 0 'Ready Access' — Full Sized 1 'Ready Access' — Avg. Car Middle stall 1'-3" into road East stall 2-6" into road with average vehicles P � o o � � o Q rD �+ rn N rD rD a, rn r TI D r -t � CD D D < n n N (D n (1) n n rD CD rD rD Ln Ln CD o -7 3 o D rD < UQ �o N rD 7n Entrance dGl s J S 84°50'10" 79.886 the E the 1 .=946..L7 94644, I �" 9` D n D 0 Q rbc Requested Condition of Approval Asking for a condition requiring driveway parking fora minimum of two (2) 8-1/2' by 18' stalls with ingress and egress requiring not more than two point maneuvering by a • vehicle with a turning radius of 20 feet. Requested City Condition of Approval Provide storm water management at new `hammerhead' where Cottonwood tree is removed. Storm water from the crest of Hickory and South Cedar drain to this point and the tree & green space provide some treatment that will be lost, pushing salt • directly into the lake. Steckling, Jean From: Walters, MacKenzie Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 9:35 AM To: Steckling, Jean Subject: FW: appeal for Variance for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road From: Helen Gunther <helen.gunther@results.net> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 8:28 PM To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Cc: stgunther@gmail.com; davemaryjo@aol.com; kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.us; Ryan, Elise <ERyan@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: appeal for Variance for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road Dear Mackenzie, I am writing to appeal the variance the planning commission approved on Tuesday May 21" for the above stated property. I am appealing the front setback variance. I do not believe the approved variance would provide adequate off street (guest) parking for the home in question and would create a dangerous situation since the road the home is on is a substandard, narrow road. I also think by granting this variance the planning commission is setting a bad precedent for future requests for front setback variances. The driveway with the current approved setback would not allow for cars to be safely parked in the driveway. I believe a driveway on a street where there is no room for on street parking should at least provide space to park 2 cars. Since a standard car is 16 feet long, I believe most of the driveway, from the garage to the curb should be 18 feet. 16 feet is not sufficient, since no one parks their car against the garage door. To have a driveway any shorter would mean cars would be sticking out into the street, on a street that is already very narrow. I am also appealing the wording of the variance granted, which states, "The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator". I believe it should state that the homeowner "must further reduce hard cover through the use of pervious paver systems". Please advise my next steps. Thank you. Helen Aeten Gunther helen unthercwresults.net Steckling, Jean From: Walters, MacKenzie Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 9:36 AM To: Steckling, Jean Subject: FW: Variance Appeal for May 21 2019 to What was Proposed, the Already Approved Variance from 18-01, but with Significantly Reduced Hardcover and Acceptance of all 15 Conditions and City Easement granted Addition to appeal 2 -----Original Message ----- From: Fred Meier <fredmeier@ integra. net> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 9:06 AM To: Pam Reimer <preimer90@gmail.com> Cc: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Builder Paul Wagner <wags1956@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Variance Appeal for May 212019 to What was Proposed, the Already Approved Variance from 18- 01, but with Significantly Reduced Hardcover and Acceptance of all 15 Conditions and City Easement granted Also a regular size boat will not fit in a 21 foot garage so are they going to pay for your storage Thank You Fred Meier Fred's Drafting & Design LLC > On May 27, 2019, at 7:48 AM, Pam Reimer <preimer90@gmail.com> wrote: > <Variance Appeal for May 212019 3617 Red Cedar Point.doc> Steckling, Jean From: Walters, MacKenzie Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 9:36 AM To: Steckling, Jean Subject: FW: Variance Appeal for May 21 2019 to What was Proposed, the Already Approved Variance from 18-01, but with Significantly Reduced Hardcover and Acceptance of all 15 Conditions and City Easement granted Attachments: Variance Appeal for May 21 2019 3617 Red Cedar Point.doc From: Pam Reimer <preimer90@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 7:49 AM To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Cc: Builder Paul Wagner <wags1956@hotmail.com> Subject: Variance Appeal for May 212019 to What was Proposed, the Already Approved Variance from 18-01, but with Significantly Reduced Hardcover and Acceptance of all 15 Conditions and City Easement granted ;t;wVEa�! We the owner, architect, and buio hereby APPEAL the decision fromey 21, 2019 and REQUEST the Same variances and accept the Same decision to APPROVE, and we Accept all 15 requirements that were conditions for Approval 18-01 ending 19-02. AND, we should look really good, seeing as this new plan SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCES HARDCOVER an ADDITIONAL 1.9% MORE than the already Approved Variance which is the focus of the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Planning Council. Thank You. Contact was made to MacKenzie Walters 19-01 to build on this lot and utilize the existing variance that was already approved. The architect put together a house plan that met the approved footprint - and then some!: He reduced the hard cover from 36.4. to the Approved Variance of 36.3. and then SIGNIFICANTLY reduced hard cover an additional 19%! That's way more than one of the other multiple variances approved by Council at 50% hardcover. which Council brought to attention in the May 21 meeting! The builder utilized the existing approved variance's Surveyor, to put the proposed house on the already approved footprint. meeting 4 times with MacKenzie Walters to get it exact and by the Variance deadline He has done 75 projects on lakeshore property has a respect for narrow roads, and was a fireman and concerned about safety. Not 1 customer has any complaints and neighbors see him daily. He reduced current side setback from 6' to 10.3 and 10.29, which is in compliance. He didn't put in a basement or crawl space. because... He hired the engineer to analyze soil samples requiring this lot to have $70,000 borings. He arranged with their $5000 engineer how deep the pilings would go on our already -approved plan. IN GOOD FAITH, the lot was purchased, the same footprint was used that was already Approved, and the plans were made for a smaller house with the same footprint. Architecturally accurate house plan: $2500-$5.000. Money invested in already approved footprint and plan. IN GOOD FAITH, MacKenzie said the same 15 conditions would apply, and our Team accepted these and met multiple times with George Bender, city engineer and Renae Clark, city water resources coordinator. We also accepted 1 additional condition the City asked of us: to dedicate some of my land to the City, or give a portion as an easement to the City. We gave in and accepted this 161' condition. IN GOOD FAITH, The City wants about 677 square feet of my lot, and George suggested this would lower my oro ems, tax; therefore, l was willing to dedicate this land portion, valued at about $50,000 to pay a percent less property tax However, the Residential Appraiser on May 24 denied the request to dedicate, stating the current city road does not appear to be negatively impacting the land value, so he cannot justify a land value decrease. So the variance stands at 11.5/22.1/9.5 and owner will grant easement. No monetary value. We lose land and gain nothing by giving in but the City's thanks. IN GOOD FAITH, 1 have discussed the vegetation buffer with Renae and hired an outstanding experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve the ecosystem health. He proposed a plan with accepted vegetation, and design filters, and is ecological to improve the condition of the lake. Renae liked the custom mix and suggested prairie grass as well. This is an expense which NONE of the other similar non -conforming lot variance were required to plant. $2-10.000.00 We lose money and gave in. IN GOOD FAITH, to fulfill requiregnts of further reduction of hard co both my builder and landscaper use pervious pavers. $7-20.000.00 We lose money and gave in. IN GOOD FAITH, to fulfill requirement of tree protection, my builder shared with MacKenzie in our last meeting, and to the neighbors at the Variance meeting, that he is a horticulture expert and will go above expectations to protect with tree fencing. $1-5.000.00 We lose income and gave in. IN GOOD FAITH, our team has SIGNIGICANTLY reduced lot coverage from the Already Approved Variance JUST 3 MONTHS AGO. The new variance was an additional cost: $528.00. We lose money and gave in, even though we "showed intentions of building" BEFORE the already approved variance lapsed IN GOOD FAITH, I have the same setback as already approved in Variance 18-01 through February of this year 2019. I'm on the Point with limited neighbors on the dead-end of Red Cedar Pointwho are in a non- conforming unique very old neighborhood with parking varying from I space to 4 spaces. Our already Approved Variance has a combined garage and driveway -parking for 5 spaces! See photos and numbers listed for all of my direct neighbors on our dead end street. NOT Hickory and NOT South Cedar Drive, this variance for 3617 Red Cedar Point only focuses on our dead end street, Red Cedar Point. Per Mackenzie's report, my combined 3 -car gage and driveway just needs to provide an amount of off-street parking similar to the average provided by other properties in the neighborhood. End of discussion. And Council said on May 21, it's too bad hea Variance lapsed so Harship for parking, in a nighborh000d where ALL houses have 1-4 parking apaces. If the garage were made smaller, it would only be = not enough for me to not to hit the drywall. See photo of current garage, where I hit the front of the garage with my vehicle. Comments were made that I had a 26' garage, but that is not correct, my house is smaller, and it leaves 21' if variance takes away 3'. My 1 car needs to be parked inside, especially in the winter. Additionally, the already Approved variance allows enough space for my storage of a lawn mower, bike, snowblower, Christmas tree, bins, and a dog wash for my licensed therapy dog by the Service door. PLEASE don't take that away from me, since #1) It is in compliance with my neighborhood, #2) It was already Approved in the Variance that just ended a month before I applied! #3) I have NO storage options, since I have no basement, no crawl space, no storage on the main level, and... IN GOOD FAITH, I have given the City my patio as my 1 water oriented structure; therefore, my garage is also my "shed" because I gave in and won't have a shed and cannot store things in the outhouse, since, as my neighbors rejoice, "Let's get on with this, pass the same variance that Jackson's got UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY COUNCIL, and let them build, so we can get rid of that outhouse and all the mess in the yard, broken down brick fireplace and dust/ gravel for a front yard!" And Council on May 21 agreed that these already approved drawings were a better solution than a shed. $Loss of Shed. We lose any other water oriented structure and gave in. IN GOOD FAITH, I accepted the Water Resource Coordinator's requirement to put pervious pavers on my driveway, which was approved and accepted 1 month after we applied. THIS, too, reduces hardcover significantly because I planned to put in a cement driveway. Now using Pervious Pavers: $10-20.000. We lose money and gave in. In the last meeting with MacKenzie, we noted that I'm 1 woman and don't have a big family or gatherings. I'm consistent with the neighbors. In our meeting, they said even if I make my garage smaller, it's not going to fix the problem becauseWople with big cars come and can'tonto my garage, it's not going to solve the parking problem. Mackenzie, my builder and Steve laughed, "You shrink the garage and it defeats the point of parking the big car in the garage, and it's back to the driveway for my stuff] " I'm a current neighbor, and my lot down on South Cedar Drive has a short driveway so you either pull into a single car garage or park at an angle so as not to hang into the street, so I was careful to provide parking. In the city notes "Very few properties in the area meet the requirements of the city's zoning code and most properties either are non -conforming uses or are operating under a variance., variances on V. 7 and B. My neighbor Nancy says I'm a good neighbor and 1 already bought the property and am committed to this neighborhood and committed to the survey plan that was already approved. She wrote to MacKenzie: Hello, I am writing to support our neighbor, Pam Reimer, in her request for a property variance. We live just a few lots past her new property at 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd. We are new to the neighborhood, but I recently visited with her and trust that she'll be a good steward of her future home and Lake Minnewashta. We're excited that a responsible buyer has come along to finally take care of this lot the way it deserves to be maintained. It's a potentially beautiful lot, but the old Sears cabin is run down and the lot needs the loving care - and grass - Pam will provide. Her ownership will make the neighborhood better for all and I hope you'll agree that her plans are appropriate. It's my understanding that Pam's proposal offers adequate parking and it's apparent that her proposed driveway is not unusual for our little community. If you've driven down our street, you'll appreciate that this is a unique neighborhood where houses are close together, the street is narrow and everyone's parking is limited. That's part of its lakeside neighborhood charm. The peninsula is a dead end and it's apparent to us already that this isn't a street with traffic other than people who live here and our guests. It's our understanding and experience that since we all live on a unique street, everyone cooperates with each other. Case in point, one of our neighbors just gave us permission to borrow part of his driveway for two days to park our boat before we are able to get in the water. I hope you and the planning commission will see that our street is unique, and that Pam's variance request suits the neighborhood. We feel lucky that Pam - an experienced homeowner and good neighbor on the lake - will redevelop that site, and we hope her variance request will be approved, allowing construction of a beautiful home that will enhance our neighborhood. Thank you. Regards, Nancy Renneke 3607 Red Cedar Point Rd. Since the Variance meeting on May 21, all the neighbors on my street that were out for Memorial Day weekend told me they would like Council to approve the architect, builder and my Variance and start building a new house. The previous owner, Jeff Souba, was also over, taking windows and siding from the yellow Sears & Roebuck cabin for emotional souveniers, and I let him for free. It will cost us a tear - down fee. $10.000.00. We lose income. The longer the delay, the more 1 Oe to pay housing and storage rentttil l get the CO to move into my new house. The architect should not start over with a new plan, since he used the already approved footprint, AND made the house smaller and thus reduced hard cover. The survey company should not need to make a new survey, since it was already done 4 times to meet Planning Commission MacKenzie's approval. The builder has been operating under the assumption that this variance was already approved, and measured for trusses and all the building parts, and got me a bid which I can afford. I have been picking out lumber, cabinets, lighting based on the proposed house on an already approved footprint. The boring company engineer already calculated for the soil borings. Heat talcs were done for the Building Permit, which is our Requirement #1. Energy calcs were already done for the Building Permit, which is our Requirement #1. To change the whole plan is not economical. My builder is ready, the boring company is ready, and we are excited to check off #1 of 16, to apply for a Building Permit. So I ask you now for a simple majority vote that, "The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments APPROVES an 11.5 foot front yard setback from the street to the City of Chanhassen, a 22.1 foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5% lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision:' THANK YOU. New owner, old owner, architect, builder (fireman, horticulture expert, at site every day of building with his own team of builders, 43 years and not 1 complaint from his customers - that's a testimony!) 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 2019-03 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for variances for hard cover, lake setback and front yard setback for property located at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road and zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). Owner: Patricia Souba. Applicant: Pamela Reimer. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review on the city's web site at www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2019-03 or at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. MacKenzie Young -Walters Email: mwaltersaci.chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on May 9, 2019) giplan\2019 planning cases\19-03 3617 red cedar point road\ph notice to villager.docx X111.:44 0 0 MEMORANDUM TO: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant City Planner FROM: Renae Clark, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: May 6, 2019 SUBJ: Variances for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road Project Summary: The applicant is proposing a new single family home in replace of an existing home at the above address on Lake Minnewashta. The project requires a variances from the Shoreland Management requirements within Chapter 20 of the City Zoning Code for hard cover and lake setback. A similar project was reviewed and approved by the City in 2018. The proposed project makes slight improvements to water resources by reducing impervious surface approximately 300 square feet (sq. ft.). Recommendations provided below remain generally consistent with the previous authorization. Water Resources Review Comments and Recommendations: 1. Tree protection fence, located outside the dripline, should be shown on the site plan for all trees proposed to be saved. 2. The Site Plan dated 4/26/19 (REV) incorrectly notes the 100 YR FEMA floodplain for Lake Minnewashta as 945.0 feet. The correct floodplain elevation per FEMA (Dec. 2018) is 945.9 feet. City Code section 20-329 requires the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. The plan indicates a crawl space that does not meet this threshold. The plan should be updated to show all low floor elevations meeting this standard. 3. The proposed plan reduces hardcover by approximately 300 sq. ft. To mitigate the impacts to Lake Minnewashta of a reduced lakeshore setback and increased impervious service, I recommend the following conditions consistent with the previously approved variance request: a. A permanent 20' native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. b. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The Design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. c. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. _T U 26 0 • FIGURE 2-6 Land Use Table in 5 -Year Stages, Existing, and Planned Land Use In Actions u".:a uu u,. n•a m..,a Allowed Density Range Within Urban Service Area 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Change 2015-2040 MadmumResidential Land UsesLow Densi Residential devil ed 4 3 829 3900 4 175 4 451 4 605 4 718 889 Low Densi Residential vacant 88513 253 99 153Medium Densi Residential develo ) ;smUdtdAcre 8 300 313 349 387 452 517 217 Medium Densi Residential vacant 199 186 150 112 47 1Hi h Densi Residential develo 16 68 99 130 161 206 250182 Hi Densi Residential (vacant) 149 118 87 89 44 33 Mixed Use PLmadl Residential" develo 20 27 39 47 54 56 58 31 Mixed Use nmany est eons (vawnp 3t 19 1 11 1 4 2 Eat E IoyyeeaBldg. C/1 Land Uses . Ft. Commercial (develo d 1/400 206 215 252 290 309 328 122 Commercial(vacant) 122 113 76 38 19 - Industrial (developed 1/500-050 646 752 762 773 808 905 259 Industrial vacant259 153 143 132 97 - Oce devil 1/300 53 62 100 108 150 190 137 Oflice vacant 153 156 wi 82 40 Mixed Use Prim ly C/1•(developed) 1/400 30 38 52 67 77 86 56 Mixed Use Primarily CH• vacant 56 48 34 19 10 ztmcove Public/Semi Public!24Uses 7 Institutional 1,204 1,204 1204 1 O4 1 211 1 11 Parks and Recreation 438 457 468 478 481 491 53 rn Space 944 944 1,301 1 01 1 301 1 01 357 RoadwayRi is of We t 37 1 37 1 37 1 37 1 252 1 411 174 Utility Railroad Airport u rota a 10,932 10,841 11,181 11 40 11 65 11 65 2.484. Outside Urban Service Area Minimum Maximum 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 Change 2015-2040 tot size lot slag fareLot Residential 2.5 na948 948 946 948 948 948 - Agriculture land use 891 882 577 518 493 493 398 u rota osewe 1 839 1 830 1 525 1 1.4661 1.441 1 1,441 1 tivis) Undeveloped 1 1 1 Wetlands within land use desi ations 2 089 2 089 2.089 2.089 2,089 2.089 Open Water, Rivers and Streams — — 2 059 2,059 2,059 1 2,059 1 2 059 1 2,059 1 - TOW 1/ 760 14,760 14 795 1 795 14 795 14 795 35 I�LQ�JyQ n�tc r�llY ¢ ti�4a 3� Cable e A J L COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division — 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address — P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY OF CHOHMSEN Phone: (952) 227-1130 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 AGENCY REVIEW REQUEST LAND DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL Please review and respond no later than the review response deadline Agency Review Request Date: Agency Review Response Deadline: Date Application Filed: April 29, 2019 May 9, 2019 April 19, 2019 Contact: Contact Phone: Contact Email: MacKenzie Wafters 952-227-1132 mwalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us Planning Commission Date: City Council Date: 60-Day Review Period Deadline: May 21, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. June 10, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. June 18, 2019 Application: Consider a request for variances for hard cover, lake setback and front yard setback for property located at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road and zoned Sin le Famil Residential RSF . Owner: Patricia Souba. Applicant: Pamela Reimer. Plannin Case: 2019-03 Web Pa e: www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us/2019-03 In order for staff to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Departments: Federal Agencies: Adiacent Cities: ❑ Attorney ❑ Army Corps of Engineers ❑ Chaska ® Building Official ❑ US Fish & Wildlife ❑ Eden Prairie ® Engineer ❑ Jackson Township ® Fire Marshal Watershed Districts: ❑ Minnetonka ® Forester ❑ Shorewood ® Park Director ❑ Carver County WMO ❑ Victoria ® Water Resources ❑ Lower MN River ❑ Law Enforcement ® Minnehaha Creek Adiacent Counties: ❑ Riley-Purgatory-Bluff Creek Carver County Agencies: El HennepinUtilities: ❑ Scott ❑ Community Development El Cable TV — Mediacom El Engineer School Districts: ❑ Environmental Services ❑ Electric — Minnesota Valley ❑ Historical Society ❑ Electric — Xcel Energy ❑ Eastern Carver County 112 ❑ Parks ❑ Magellan Pipeline ❑ Minnetonka 276 ❑ Soil & Water Conservation District ❑ Natural Gas — CenterPoint Energy ❑ Phone — CenturyLink Other Agencies: State Agencies: ❑ Hennepin County Regional Railroad ❑ Board of Water & Soil Resources Authority El Health ❑ MN Landscape Arboretum El Historical Society ❑ SouthWest Transit El Natural Resources-Forestry ❑ TC&W Railroad ® Natural Resources-Hydrology ❑ Pollution Control ❑ Transportation yCEbYItiE 0 . Walters, MacKenzie From: Walters, MacKenzie Sent: Monday, April 22, 2019 2:57 PM To: wags 1956@hotmail.com' Subject: 3617 Red Cedar Point Paul, Just to follow up on our phone conversation, the following revisions should be made to the survey: 1) Lot cover table should be revised to remove the 562 sq. ft. covered by the road from both the lot area and lot cover portions (so you'll have an adjusted lot area of 9,203). 2) Flagstone fireplace areas should be indicated as "to be removed" and its 102 sq. ft. should not be included. 3) It looks like the house was situated further back on the lot than is indicated by the variance request. The closest point of the house to the front lot line (lot line not road) should be 18.5' back, and the closes point of the house (not rear patio, but actual house) should be 52.9' back from the lake. I think once you've moved the house forward the amount of driveway area you lose will make the lot cover numbers add up to the 35.9% you are requesting. Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, -MacKenzie MacKenzie Young -Walters © Associate Planner CITY OF CHANHASSEN PH. 952.227.1132 FX. 952.227.1110 www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us 00 CITY OF CHANHASSEN P 0 BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 04/19/2019 2:24 PM Receipt No. 00407000 CLERK: AshleyM PAYEE: Pamela Reimer • 3617 Red Cedar Point Road- Planning Case No 19-03 ------------------------------------------------------- variance 200.00 Sign Rent 200.00 Recording Fees 50.00 GIS List 78.00 Total 528.00 Cash 0.00 Credit Cd 528.00 Change 0.00 COMMU Planning Division DEVELOPMENT DEP WENT IfY �� Planning Division – 7700 Market Boul rd Mailing Address – P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone. (952) 227-1300 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Submittal Date: it - � lcl PC Date:S I D I I ( C) CC Date (�l t G ( I `- 60 -Day Review Date: � I ( �g 119f iaetruir�an.n urunnwmaryuae:ruurr.trnmo�� (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment ......................... $600 ❑ Subdivision (SUB) ❑ Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers..... $100 ❑ Create 3 lots or less ........................................ $300 El Conditional ❑ Create over 3 lots.......................$600 + $15 per lot Use Permit (CUP) l— lots) ❑ Single -Family Residence ................................ $325 ❑ Metes & Bounds (2 lots).................................. $300 ❑ All Others .........................................................$425 ❑ Consolidate Lots .............................................. $150 El Interim Use Permit (IUP) El Lot Line Adjustment.........................................$150 ❑ Final Plat ❑ In conjunction with Single -Family Residence.. $325 ..........................................................$700 (Includes $450 escrow for attorney costs)* ❑ All Others......................................................... $425 *Additional escrow may be required for other applications ❑ Rezoning (REZ) through the development contract. ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD) .................. $750 ❑ Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC)........ $300 ❑ Minor Amendment to existing PUD ................. $100 (Additional recording fees may apply) ❑ All Others......................................................... $500 21 Variance (VAR) .................................................. $200 ❑ Sign Plan Review ................................................... $150 ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) ❑ Site Plan Review (SPR) ❑ Single -Family Residence ............................... $150 ❑ Administrative.................................................. $100 ❑ All Others....................................................... $275 ❑ Commercial/industrial Districts*......................$500 ❑ Zoning Appeal ...................................................... $100 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area: ( thousand square feet) *Include Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)................. $500 number of xe istinaemployees: Include Include number of new employees: ❑ Residential Districts $500 NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, .................................... Plus $5 per dwelling unit (_ units) the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. ❑✓ Notification Sign (City to install and remove)...................................................................................................................... $200 Property Owners' List within 500' (City to generate after pre -application .......... $3 per address meeting) .................................. ...... Z addresses) 21 Escrow for Recording Documents check all that apply) ............................................ $50 per document ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Interim Use Permit ❑ Site Plan Agreement ❑ Vacation ❑r Variance ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit ❑ Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) ❑ Easements( easements) ❑ Deeds TOTAL FEE:52,P— Section 2: Required Information Description of Proposal: Property Address or Location: Parcel #: 256600320 Total Acreage: 0.23 Legal Description: 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd. Block 4, Lot 9, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta Wetlands Present? ❑ Yes ® No Present Zoning: Single -Family Residential District (RSF) Present Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density Existing Use of Property: Detached Single Family ❑Check box if separate narrative is attached. Requested Zoning: Single -Family Residential District (RSF) Requested Land Use Designation: Residential Low Density SCANNED P do PropertySection 3: . Applicant APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. If this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. l Name: angglr Qpermer Contact: Plmeii KeimCr- 2 Address: 1 Zf Phone: %Sn2- v2 /O, el 'p- City/State/Zip: City/State/Zip: �/�C/n� 10�Ja � i^ ie 1P11V 53271%Cell: 4S� - 2 Z0 �� 7 Email: preiineir alna ca /7, Fax Signature: r-zillrlr chi. - Date: r PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself 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. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. r Name: A- c/a rT-- �019a Contact: �1� �� Jauk?Gj R7F Address: VD// ZygfLe—ew ("ii" 124 .4 Phone: City/State/Zip: 21 e'5� Cell: 1 /5 - x146- Email,/o¢f/o0 Fax: Signaturrr � Date: DRi t / % 9D/ o This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural requirements and fees. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name: Contact: Address: Phone: City/State/Zip: Cell: Email: Fax Section 4: Notification Information Who should receive copies of staff reports? *Other Contact Information: [� Property Owner Via: QQEmail ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Name: [� Applicant Via: ETEmail ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Address: ❑ Engineer Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip: ❑ Other* Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Email: INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital copy to the city for processing. SAVE FORM PRINT FORM SUBMIT FORM • 0 April 10, 2019 City of Chanhassen Community Development Department 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Variances for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road We are requesting the following variances on the property: 1. 10.9% hard cover variance 2. 22.1 ft. lake setback variance 3. 18.5 ft front yard setback from property line to the NE garage corner Justifications for the variance: �� S fir" F f�6atK 1. The lot is substandard. 2. We will be removing an old structure and building a new home. 3. Increased tax base for the city. 4. We will reduce the current hard cover by 44 sq.ft. S. Current homes in the neighborhood have similar variances that we are applying for and therefore this helps justify the variance; furthermore, this property was approved in 2018 for exact above variance. 6. We will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 7. We will be bringing the side setback into compliance by removing the outhouse. Note: The patio in the backyard is the water oriented structure. The current structure on the property is a 1930's vintage Sears mail order cabin that is showing its age. The structure does not have a garage or a working bathroom, rather an outhouse that is beyond the side yard setback. The driveway currently is gravel and runs the entire width of the property and is lacking in green space. Our plan is to build a single family home (plans attached) that will improve the neighborhood from aesthetics and tax base standpoint. I am currently a neighbor and look forward to moving down the street, closer to long-time friends. As mentioned above, we will also be reducing the current hardcover and bringing the West side yard setback into compliance. Sincerely, Pamela Reimer SCANNED • 0 3617 RED CEDAR POINT ROAD VARIANCES - PLANNING CASE NO. 19-03 $200.00 Variance $200.00 Notification Sign $78.00 Property Owners List (26 addresses x $3 each) $50.00 Escrow for recording variance documents $528.00 TOTAL $528.00 Credit Card Payment $0.00 BALANCE OWED -- - 61tumn oad = 543 sq. ft (not 1nclu Ma�,uLdu7cay�Gt3 335 0- 'ICIZ-' Pirepla = 13 sq ft H«r�6liwrc/zr�N,r°(Aw, 2540 - / Flagstone = /01 sq ft -j�rpil%ae_ ti ;r if ----- Total = 3,353 :21 -ft _4S - Power Percentage = 36.36% --s Pore Note: The road surface of 543 sq. ft r5 not in, j PttioµcG �� ' hardcover or the total lot area. _k)VOV t 1ft'Aet a Cas-mmp)- VrL_rw�1 r ��E = 3 19 5> Road l fu ivr xi m bC' * vv �0° E 7it 9.8 NORTyUNEOFLOTS9R lO 949.13 the 949: l y 4 the \ u 947.9 1 950.5 946.77 the 952.7 •22 trd_ N , . <. Block T1W 950.1 Wall iM'946.9952.9 950 / -_ =___ � ..- 4I i --- i i-si�`nwae �_1►./ 852.9 r-°-At¢Grtd46 _ n) i ---' �'kc• ''. '.,:r 16.0 15 x 952.2 ' i ffe 10.0 6trd 954.8 N /8 trd ri 952. l 950.7 4.50 .� ., 1 ' 953. l I o 10.0i1t �4yea' �1 1 T 3 K4 n 4 c+)\ G 1.o \\\2'Candkwsr 52.0 a zm304r ch I u 9 G7 1 f<4� 0!x14= DJL„ 9 I \ I y9 !0 9 _ I ��^ , --coo x 951.7 - - Z ` i- �Ip� .., 24 5e. 22trd .N I-�'Yi W r r r 951.3 ° .. 950. x 950.2 0 e 26 oak u --- 950.4 m 950 , , 6 trd(' AO �j c -x x Flagstone I • tante - � _-... 949.4 CWAr-9T-9P _ cant e 949.5-- FjnTbce 949. N-SrntiClil?13�_ �D y� 949. ! u) U) ` l � -.&,�1 36 trd 269ask�46.2 - 949.0 948.7 _ x -1-916 ° I 61ack TAY 946.3 - 346.9 --15 pipS - 1 Wall d'W 946.7 14 c 946.2 I 946.9 946.0 ' RP 4 947. 5urvey i°ap 24,x- 80.00 xs46.9 xs46.s + � -946--- ---- metre 944.5 wtre__________ 944.5 - - 944.5 944.5 l 944.5 Appnoximate.5horalrne from OHW = 944.5 Google maps genal rmage9 m m Ii� � II�IIINIII m .IAS: I Toperty Card axpayer Information taxpayer Name PATRICIA SOUBA C/O JEFF SCUBA Mailing Address 110980 VON HERTZEN CIR CHASKA, MN 55318-2712 Property Address 3617 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 Parcel Information Uses SRR Tax Description & LOT 10 Building Information Parcel ID Number x600320 GIS Acres 0.23 Net Acres Deeded Acres Plat RED CEDAR POINT LK MINNEW Lot 009 Block 004 Building Style 1 Story Frame Above rade 720 Finished So Ft Bedrooms 2 Year Built 1927 Garage N (Payable 2019) Miscellaneous Information School District Watershed District Homestead Green Acres Ag Preserve 0276 1 WS 062 MINNEHAI CREEK N I N I N Assessor Information Estimated Market Value 2018 Values 2019 Values Lag Sak (Payable 2019) (Payable 2020) Land $520,000.00 $518,700.00 Date of Sale Building $25,200.00 $22,300.00 Sale Value Total $545,200.00 $541,000.00 The data provided herewith is for reference purposes only. This data is not suitable for legal, engineering, surveying or other similar purposes. Carver County does not guarantee the accuracy of the nformafim contained herein. This data is fumished on an as is bask and Carver County makes no representations or warranties, either expressed or Implied. for Me merchantability or facets of the informatics provided for any porpose. This disclaimer k provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03 and be user of the data provided herein acknowledges that Carver County shall not be liable for any damages. and by using this data in any way e,rpressly waives all claims, and agrees to defendindemnify. and hold harmless Caner Countyits olgaals, officers. agents, employees, etc. has any ant alt claims brought by anyone who uses the information provided for herein, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of users access. By acceptance of this data. the user agrees not to transmit this data or provide access to it or any pad of it to another party unless the user includes with be data a copy of this disclaimer. SCANNED Aonday, April 22, 2019 Carver County, MP Re n4ovaj The Gregory Group, Inc. es. LOT SURVEYS COMPANY F9a40.Jd 1. M LAND SURVEYORS REgaTam UNOk]t 1)� IAW S OF Siw7EOF WNM6SOTA ant]W w•�Nn M1�WFto- ..�.nata.s.>wa w,�aaml SurUrynrs C7:rrtifirufr JW.t- EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY FOR: o�y n MARK D. WILLIAMS CUSTOM HOMES Piapanalxad'-Se.e ). T9.r�iI1t4 k.yal, hyena wdkeu )%] IW [.W IOW Fd CLa.lar.COC 9rY-uY b.et d..dl„ae-sYd. %41f ®.e.ow-%1JOfM __ �- �✓1 /lie Ped Cedar Pant Se7•Sry1 79 i ae9: iun n �i5o rr 23TJR y` - - ab 3623 w V M INVOICE NO. t6eo7 S' F.B.NO. 1097.74 SCALE. 1* 29 • o�a..rraw..-. o narrtrnw.r .cw.o oft -)91M OMW75IM(00 rip",a0 L'He..l IIrAyt CT Reubre - 3Z7" fYvine - 3279Tk Wlad vhz r105 A 54 AMr SCJ ".A r.J.a-fl AnT4u - /3 "k aa.aa�ae- 101 >+k 9 nlN� ]ae m✓awawne d3/J H k e rot .sldee w n1e�e -�WYlawcL Wt9e/ICn seta !z.lY" >l Nd 3617 Hel �ra H[r !!OI O LL 11 . I• % � Hal mvk N9! w+.ev an fq. 1 tiw xw aeae rao _ _Sr[al �Sa�TA! P1lw rNC.9___N_C _ aK. lake Mmnewashta ,W re- la]nell.'1TLM - "5.0 ]C• M' ...Hw:b /-wt Ya awn aM M n a! s Y1Mrin n.+lrgm9 I aw19/ FH N trL MaaaY,- w eeF.. na. AM.a tf w « Mre,trr..w.wW nrw �r.Cy lrr w s.-tw nvw wta. Wwewlo:-9w. Seera.aaa. 1]h Cala Cba ]Ol] �4"'iulaMLP star _ ee itas /.w9 L.O r Hrl 362-Sr36 � Ab. /3 9s e at . ulf Pe Y •aT! m w 9Ha w twRn: rao �-44 i...a Haenr.re yoaa,a h- L�+.n w.Ww- Lou 9 and 10. Block 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINNEWASHTA Cm Coma. Mw erre g>c1t4i The Gregory Group, Inc. db9 LOTSURVEYSCOMPANY E.blmba.n 1%2 LAND SURVEYORS REGISTERED UNDER THE LAWS OF STATE OF MINNESOTA MIIIT10A—H W "3 Mm"FeetMvu551a ,uW NtrM2 +ururyars C4rrfifirair pu;, ra EXISTING CONDITIONS SURVEY FOR: a MARK D. WILLIAMS CUSTOM HOMES Pa lauad m Sad9n e. TomeMP 116. Rule z3, Cara C9my. Mmaae ftp Addlae3617 Rad Ceda Ilea Rd. ch.% M BmdsA. la.envf ®" arkae R)62] r]eveuoo=43TMW Red Cedar Point Road �9 d h 1 9AS yb.T> � tt 91..9 Oa NA Tlu wy eeunus aMwr ue eun pia a am9 a Hunueen pews N sea. I1va51M1RYe Fln. alW+ea9e.uapalua PlePueegmew ue0enry6pupuYfenalppa Ione W51®e! 4w iawwallaMMa ae V MI MnaaY slrwredRe nn og a WMer zon. INVOICE NO. 86405.87066 F.B.NO. 1093-44 SCALE: 1'= 20' • IMala Foca Ymlbenw4 O oal.IwneM.a.le r -� aeawr EevOCaaua +LW.O O.safaerV awlen 6uism Sema R9aaameai Fladlevea)-wiest Side -t01M OIM'-]5 Met (ar6mry IINb pMI) Ela l /4nYaeer 6.22254 k Ra ¢en.y nyh N•ner) 93a�' 2 -Sr -PR = 2159 k Re9vck+rl: Ab. 3625 yy, > 3279gk 6/M15VMlC I law. a raee = 543& /roe ackda9 q%O> / xl k &a 4w 953 I$ 10.0 Mi4 BW 9509 I 1 - %.36R ~ j 10.0 - j ; r w iO 953.0 Porch �y .M 9: -SF Nd 3617 Z m, 3vk 951.c 4 5 91..9 Oa NA Tlu wy eeunus aMwr ue eun pia a am9 a Hunueen pews N sea. I1va51M1RYe Fln. alW+ea9e.uapalua PlePueegmew ue0enry6pupuYfenalppa Ione W51®e! 4w iawwallaMMa ae V MI MnaaY slrwredRe nn og a WMer zon. INVOICE NO. 86405.87066 F.B.NO. 1093-44 SCALE: 1'= 20' • IMala Foca Ymlbenw4 O oal.IwneM.a.le r -� aeawr EevOCaaua +LW.O O.safaerV awlen 6uism Sema R9aaameai Fladlevea)-wiest Side -t01M OIM'-]5 Met (ar6mry IINb pMI) Ela l /4nYaeer 6.22254 k Ra ¢en.y nyh N•ner) Id sry akAaae = 2159 k Re9vck+rl: 7M,& Cmnete 3279gk 6/M15VMlC = 2103 59 k a raee = 543& /roe ackda9 F-pi— P4epMrt / xl k iYg9rane 101l 5q k Taal 3.353 59 k Pc1re1Ra3c - %.36R Nae: Mroed Sar d5439q.ftarcl ule4aren H¢ M1ire(A2r P-H1a fObl bl a'u. �'b3 _. 35� 919 ]l+f.a T 919 5 9995 m 919 � I � 3 919.0 916.9 9 .3SSa 8D.D9 �9K.9 x916 SR4' 91c _ lake Mlnnewashta I00re.rowPerzw-9150 IAV 9 3 pW? 7 SbbW�l Las 9 Rod 10. Bock 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINNEWASHTA Cava Comry. Mm SCANNED e19 w alae w wa3o1 ear. r'95P 9 9519 /6.0 I -- o" 9s3s k No. 36/3 ~ j 10.0 - j aM 951.a 953.1 l PR -SF Nd 3617 55�w m, 3vk 951.c 5 IeM931.> 3 5 0. ; n"1.7 35� 919 ]l+f.a T 919 5 9995 m 919 � I � 3 919.0 916.9 9 .3SSa 8D.D9 �9K.9 x916 SR4' 91c _ lake Mlnnewashta I00re.rowPerzw-9150 IAV 9 3 pW? 7 SbbW�l Las 9 Rod 10. Bock 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINNEWASHTA Cava Comry. Mm SCANNED e19 w alae