Loading...
2 Variance 3705 South Cedar DriCITY STAFF REPORT BOA DATE: 5/20/96 6/24/96 7/22/96 CC DATE: CASE #: 96-4 By: Rask:v Itl PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Four (4) foot west side yard variance, six (6) foot east side yard variance, thirty-four (34) foot lake shore setback variance, and a variance from the maximum impervious surface requirement of twenty-five (25) percent, for the construction of a single family residence 3705 S. Cedar Drive Lot 22, Block 4, Red Cedar Point James Jasin 3870 Maple Shores Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 831-0030 PRESENT ZONING: ACREAGE: DENSITY: ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: WATER AND SEWER: PHYSICAL CHARACTER: RSF, Residential Single Family Approximately 5,600 square feet (.13 acres) N/A N - RSF, Residential Single Family S - RD, Recreational Development, Lake Minnewashta E - RSF, Residential Single Family W - RSF, Residential Single Family Available to the site The lot contains an existing 22 x 37 foot one story home. Five large oak trees are located between the home and the lake. A variety of other ~---~,~es are found on the property. The Site' is for the most part flat and level with the exception of a small hill that is approximately 11 feet high located near the lakeshore. 2000 LAND USE PLAN: Low Density Residential e!,~o:l.O!A jo Al!=) Jasin Variance July 22, 1996 Page 2 UPDATE On June 24, 1996, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals tabled action on this request to give the applicant an oppommity to submit revised plans. The Board indicated that they would consider approval of variances for a home located at 44' from the lake, 30 feet from the from lot line, and 7 feet from each side lot line. Also, the Board indicated that they would prefer to see a look-out style home as opposed to a walk-out. On July 11, 1996, Mr. Jasin submitted a letter explaining his proposal and revised variance requests. No new plans were submitted. The applicant made changes to the original proposal and is requesting the following variances (see attached letter to Board of Adjustment and Appeals dated July 11, 1996): · 4 foot side yard setback variance on the southwest side of the home · Maintain the present setback on the lakeside (31 foot variance) · Maintain the present side yard setback on the northeast side (6 foot variance) · Lot coverage variance as required by the proposed footprint The applicant reduced the length of the home to provide for a 30 foot setback from the front yard setback and a 44 foot setback from the lake as requested by the Board. As shown on the previous plans, the applicant also reduced the height of the structure by reducing the pitch of the roof. The applicant has complied with the Board's recommendation with the exception of the side yard setbacks. The Board requested that the applicant provide a seven (7) foot setback on both side lot lines. As proposed by the applicant, a four (4) foot and six (6) foot setback would be maintained from the side property lines. SUMMARY OF MAY 20, 1996 BOARD MEETING On May 20, 1996, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals reviewed and tabled action on this application. The Board concluded that the home as proposed is too large for the lot and would negatively impact adjacent properties. The Board stated that they would prefer that the lake setback remain at 44 feet and that greater side yard setbacks be provided. In addition, the Board was concerned with the amount of grading and the impacts it would have on adjacent residents, and concluded that a rambler or rambler/look-out style home would be more appropriate on this lot. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 1. Section 20-615(4) states that the maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent. Jasin Variance July 22, 1996 Page 3 2. Section 20-615(5)c. states that the setback for side yards is ten (10) feet. 3. Section 20-615(5)c. states that the setback for rear yards is thirty (30) feet. 4. Section 20-481 states that the minimum setback from Lake Minnewashta is seventy-five (75) feet from the ordinary high water level. 5. Section 20-615(5)a. states that the setback for from yards is thirty (30) feet. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting variances to replace an old cottage with a new and larger single family home. The house pad would be enlarged from 22 x 37 feet (814 square feet), to 30 x 64 feet (1,920 square feet), which includes an attached three stall garage. An existing detached garage would be removed to accommodate the new home and attached garage. Red Cedar Point was platted in 1916 and consists of 157 lots which measure approximately 40 x 130 feet. This area was originally developed with summer homes and cottages. Over the years, older cottages have been replaced with year-around single family homes. Numerous variances have been granted to accommodate these year-around homes. Lots have also been assembled to create larger building lots. Of the 20 properties which currently exist on the south side of Red Cedar Point, 16 properties contain more than one lot of record, with the other 4 lots consisting of a single 40 x 130 lot. Therefore, the majority of homes are located on more than one lot of record on this side of the lake. The following variances have been requested on Red Cedar Point: Var. # Location Tvoe of Variance 93-6 93-3 92-1 91-4 88-11 8%15 87-13 87-10 3618 Red Cedar Point 3841 Red Cedar Point 3607 Red Cedar Point 3727 South Cedar Drive 3605 Red Cedar Point 3725 South Cedar Drive 3629 Red Cedar Point 3601 Red Cedar Point 15' lake 8' side yard variances for a deck and porch 2' side yard variance for a two car garage 1.5' side yard & 14.5 lake variance for a deck and home addition 79' lot frontage variance for the construction of a single family residence 4' & 2' side yard and a 26' lake Variance for a garage and home addition 4.5' side yard variance for a home addition 12' front yard, 3' side yard, 40' lot width, and a 13,000 sq. ft. lot are variance 45' lake setback variance for a home addition Jasin Variance July 22, 1996 Page 4 85-27 3701 South Cedar Drive 85-26 85-20 3713 South Cedar Drive 3624 Red Cedar Point 84-18 83-5 3707 South Cedar Drive 3613 Red Cedar Point 82-12 3732 Hickory 81-8 3607 Red Cedar Point 5' front yard and 35' lake variance for a new single family dwelling 15' front yard variance for a two car garage 4.8' side yard & 1.8 foot front yard variance for the construction of a garage 20' front yard variance for the construction of a garage 12' front yard, 2' side yard, and a 7' lake setback variance for the construction of a single family home 2' side yard (east and west), 50' lot width, and 33 foot lake setback variance for a new single family home 13.5' lake setback variance for the construction of a deck ANALYSIS The property contains an existing single family home. Under the provisions of the City's Zoning Ordinance, the applicant is entitled to a reasonable use of the property. The ordinance allows repairs and improvements to be made to the existing building without variances. Instead of working with and trying to improve an outdated and insufficient building, the applicant is requesting variances which would allow him to completely remove the structure and rebuild a single family home. Variances would still be required if the applicant was to re-build on the same footprint. The applicant wishes to expand the existing footprint to construct a home that would serve as a year-round residence. Expanding the footprint of the building increases the need for variances. Hard surface coverage is approximately 51% as proposed. Staff is of the opinion that variances are needed to permit a reasonable use of the property. Staff requested that the following changes be made to the original plans to reduce the impacts on the lakeshore and surrounding properties: . Maintain the existing setback of four (4) feet along the east property line by shifting the building to the east one (1) foot. This setback will provide a seventeen (17) foot separation between the building to the east and a twelve (12) foot separation fi.om the building to the west. Finding: The applicant revised the plans as recommended by staff. . Push the proposed home back ten (10) feet providing a forty-four (44) foot' setback from the lake and a twenty (20) foot setback from the road. Staff will re-advertise the variance appeal to show this additional variance. Jasin Variance July 22, 1996 Page 5 Finding: The applicant revised the plan by moving the house pad eight (8) feet to the north, reduced the depth of the deck by two (2) feet, and reduced the length of the home by approximately eight (8) feet to eliminate the front yard variance. This will achieve the recommended forty-four (44) foot lake shore setback and allow for a thirty (30) foot front yard setback. . Submit a detailed grading and drainage plan showing existing and proposed elevations at the following locations: · Each lot comer. · Top of curb or centerline of street at each lot line extension. · Center of proposed driveway at curb. · Grade at comer of proposed structure. · Lowest floor level, top of block, and garage slab. · Indication of direction of surface water drainage by arrows. · Provide contours at a two (2) foot intervals or spot elevations indicating the relationship of proposed changes to existing topography and other features Finding: The applicant submitted a plan that shows several spot elevations and retaining walls. Staff recommends a lookout rather than a walkout style home. The revised plans show a walkout/lookout. 4. Show all trees in excess of six (6) inches. Finding: Our main concern was the survival of the mature oak trees. The applicant is proposing the use of retaining walls to preserve them. Oaks are sensitive to construction and their chance of survival is slim to none when the root system is impacted as shown on the proposed plans. With the proposed plan, these mature trees will be compromised. Upon review of the grading plan, staff strongly recommends a look out design without retaining walls to increase the chances that the trees will survive and reduce the negative impacts on adjacent properties.' 5. Show any proposed retaining walls and/or drainage swales. Finding: The applicant is showing retaining walls surrounding the trees. 6. Show elevations of the first floor of building on adjacent lots. Finding: This requirement has been met. Jasin Variance July 22, 1996 Page 6 FINDINGS The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. b. d. .e. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criteria. Finding: The applicant has demonstrated hardships that would warrant the granting of variances if the necessary conditions are attached to the approval. Redesigning the home to a lookout will make the home more compatible with surrounding properties while minimizing the impacts on the lake. Variances as outlined under the recommendation section of the report are needed to enjoy a reasonable use of the property. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other property within the same zoning classification. Finding: A number of lots in this subdivision have justifiable hardships because of lot size and width. The hardships associated with these properties are generally not applicable to other properties in the same zoning classification elsewhere in the city. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: Whereas, the new home will increase the income potential of the property, the variance appears to be based upon a desire to have a reasonable use of the property. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The alleged difficulty is not self-created. However, the difficulties could be reduced by constructing a lookout type home as opposed to a walkout. The.granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Jasin Variance July 22, 1996 Page 7 Finding: The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or neighboring properties if the necessary conditions are attached to the approval. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. Finding: The proposed variation should not substantially impair an adequate supply of light and air, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety to adjacent property, if the necessary conditions are attached. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approve the variance for a four (4) foot side yard variance from the northeast lot line, a six foot side yard variance from the southwest lot line, thirty-one (31) foot lake shore setback variance, and a variance from the maximum impervious surface requirement of twenty-five (25) percent, for the construction of a single family residence subject to the following conditions: 1. The proposed home shall be a lookout as opposed to a walkout style home. 2. Submit a grading and erosion control plan consistent with city ordinances at the time of building permit application. 3. Rain gutters shall be utilized to direct storm water towards the street and away from adjacent residences. ATTACHMENTS . 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. '8. 9. 10. 11. Letter from James Jasin dated July 11, 1996. Letter from James Jasin stating reasons for the variances. Application dated May 1, 1996 Survey showing existing building Survey showing proposed building Elevations of proposed building Floor plain of proposed building Plat map of Red Cedar Point Letter from James Jasin dated 6/16/96 Elevations of original proposal Survey of original proposal · JUL--12--96 FRI 0?:46 REEL--TECH 6124707415 P.01 · James J. Jasin 3870 Maple Shores Drive Excelsior, Ml~ 55331 612-4 70.2069 phone Board of Adjustment and Appeals Ci~ of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen MN. 55317 Plione 937-1900 Fax 937-5739 CC John Rask Planner I 7/11/96 I have reviewed the situation with my architect. We have decided that we can reduce the size of the home· My variance request is now simplified and shortened: 4' sideyard setback varim~ce on the S.W. side Ma/ntain the present retardation line on the lakeside. Maintain the present sideyard setback on the N.E side. Lot coverage as req~fired by this footprint. Please cons/der that when the water fi'om the roof is sent to the ~treet via gutters on the roof there is only a small str/p along each side to deal w/th. This will be handled w/th proper grading. In ~ddttion the 40'X 44' backyard can also be brandied by proper grading. I sincerely hope you will approve this request for mah~taining the present foundation line on the lakeside and N.E. side and a 4' variance along the S.W. side. We will ma/ntain the 30' fronWard (road) setback as requested. James J. Jasin 3870 Maple Shores Drive Excelsior, MN 5533 ! 612-4 70-2069 phone 612-470-7415 fax Mr. John Rask Planner I City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen MN. 55317 4/30/96 Phone 937-1900 ext 117 Fax 937-5739 Dem' John, As we have discussed Susan and I have purchased a small home on Lake Minnewashta at 3705 S. Cedar drive. We would like to remove this 70 year cabin and replace it with our permanent home. We will be selling our large home on Lake Minnewashta at 3870 Maple Shores Drive. This new smaller home will become our homestead so we can stay on the lake thru retirement. We have both lived on Lake Minnewashta since 1970. The cabin to be removed is very old and it is not worth saving anything. The basement was dug many years after the cabin was built so it actually is 3' smaller all around than the outer walls of the house. I would like to build a home that is 30' wide on this 40' wide lot. The N.E. (left) side of the house is placed approximately 3 1/2' from the side property line. This building line can be maintained or we can go to a 5' side yard setback on each side. This decision is totally up to the planning commission. Per our discussion I have drawn the lake setback to split the difference between the present cabin and the neighbors on the right. We have designed the house and deck to fit carefully with the neighbors to the right. His home is also a 2 story walkout. On the street side we have maintained the 30' setback. On the exterior we have chosen to go with either cedar shake siding or stucco. We have carefullj~ chosen a design that will compliment the neighborhood. I am open to architectural suggestions from the commission or the neighbors. I am requesting side yard, lake setback and coverage varriances. A literal enforcement of Section 20-58 would cause undue hardship and a reasonable home could not be built on this property. I sincerely hope your group will find this proposal acceptable. CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 APPUCANT: '~~ ADDRESS: :~ TELEPHONE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPUCATION Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Non-conforming Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review* X Subdivision* Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost** ($50 CU P/SP R/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be Included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. ~-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, Including an 8Y2" X 11" reduced copy of transparency for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME '<~ ~5 / ~ LOCATION ~~' TOTAL ACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT YES NO PRESENT ZONING REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specif',: ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.. '~it This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owners Duplicate Certif',',ate of T'~le, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. 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. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review /~;'nature of Fee Own6r Application Received on S'''~/" C~ 6 Fee Paid ~75 0~3 Receipt No. The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting,,,~l If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. C) · WOOD STAKE PLACED O - IRON MeN. SET BEARINGS.ON PROPOSED INFORMATION ASSUMED DATUM 111 FLOOR ELEV. BASEMENT ELEV. DRAINAGE oeo.o- EXIST. ELEV. (ooo.o~, PROPOSEO ELEV. · - IRON UON. INPLACE GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. TOP BLOCK ELEV. EAP. 000.0 EXIST. & PROP. ELEV. SCHOBORG L,~ND SURVEYING INC, #9~ Cry. fid. ISSE I hereby cattily that this plan. lUrvey or report Wll prepared by ma or under my direct lupervl$1on end that I am I duly Registered L~nd Surveyor under the lay4 of the Stlte of Minnesota. DIIo: ~7-AA~, ////~P?' Registration No. 14700 JOB 1 Book - Page Sclla O ' WOOD 8TAKE PLACED 0 - IRON MON. 8ET · · IRON MON. INPLACE SEARINGS .ON PROPOSED INFORMATION 1st FLO0.~ El. Er. f~';' ~' GAnAGE FLOOn EL~. ASSUMED D__UA~ ~.~ BAgEME~ ELEV. 9~&-~ TOP BLOCK ELEV. DRAINAGE ~.0 · EXIST. ELEV. , PROPOSED ELEV. E & P, EXIST. & PROP. ELEV. · ~.0 I hereby certify that this plan. eurvey or report Wal JOB II $CHOB ORQ prepered by me or under my direct supervision end that I em · duly Registered Lend Surveyor under the lam of ~e ~. N D S U RV EYI N G Cook - PI~ of MInnetolL , ~'~.~.'"~ o.~,: ~/~//~ , o . · Ik~l,. II!1,1,11II iil !II1~'II1_I... 11~ .... _.~J~___]]-~1.F1!I.IIIIIIIi!iI illil-lqlll_l}~,~l~t~:i, . ~"l-ql--Ii--I--I ~ I "i~" I~" !i=li ~!, '1~" I~-I I',-*-- --4. '-ii ~.I--iLEI!=~I----II--II--I~-"~I~!. '~ I_~1--11 I1--11 I1--11_--~1'%1_1 ~ ,,- I--II ... il-~ll_ Il_.-_ I1_-i II_~_ I~i,--s: James J. Jasin 3870 Maple Shores Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 612-4 70-2069 phone 612-470-7415 fax Board of Adjustment and Appeals City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen MN. 55317 6/16/96 Phone 937-1900 Fax 937-5739 First I would like to apologize for not being in town for the last meeting. Please be advised that I have been working with the city planner's, since day one. Every time we have met they have been super. My original proposal was drawn to the guidelines John Rask had established for me. It was by his suggestion that we move the house towards the lake, splitting the distance between Hempers lake setback and our foundation line. In addition he advised that we go with a 5' sidelot variance on each side rather than going with the present foundation line at 4 feet and a 4' variance on the Hempel side. We felt you would like this better. In reviewing the records, I noted that the cities first response to my proposal was postmarked on May 17th. Since the meeting was on May 20th I didn't have time to prepare a grading plot or any formal responses. Thank you for tabling the matter. It is my intention to work with the suggestions of the city planning group as I have done in the past. Lets step thru those one by one. 1. Maintain the existing sideyard setback of four feet along the east four (4) feet by shifting the building to the east one foot. This sideyard setback will provide seventeen (17) foot separation between the building to the east and a twelve (12) foot separation to the building to the west (Hempels). 2. We will push the prosed home back eight (8) feet and reduce the size of the deck by two (2) feet. This provides a 44 foot setback from the lake and fits within the setback of the original home. We would like to maintain the slatted deck as originally designed ie 2' bigger but we are willing to go smaller if it is your requirement. St'afl should now request an eight (8) foot variance on the road setback. 3. We are submitting a detailed grading plan as requested (Revised June 14th.). 4. Included is a drawing showing all trees in excess of six (6) inches. 5. Enclosed is my sketch showing the retaining walls. We will have this professionally done upon approval of the variance's. 6. Elevations of first floors are. Hempel 957 feet, Jasin 956.8 feet, Weri 957.3 feet. page # 2 Staff was concerned about the full walkout. We had the architect redraw the plan to a lookout style home with a walkway from the door at floor level. We shortened the windows and will bring a knee wall around the lakeside of the house. This will allow us to bring the grade up under the windows. This new plan reduces the overall high look by 3'. In addition he has taken out five (5) feet of overall height by reducing the roof pitch from 10/12 to 6/12. Enclosed are drawings of the new design. Please be aware that there was an error in the staff report. The Hempel home is three (3) levels with the lower level at 948.8' First floor at 957 feet and upper at 965.2'. As discussed above we have moved the house back eight feet. This will allow a 17' separation between the house and the three (3) trees. These trees will be protected by retaining walls as requested. Please note in the pictures there is a set of existing steps, between the saved trees. These stairs are several feet lower than the tree bases at the tree base. We will rebuild these stairs and develop a retaining wall system throughout the lake yard to control drainage. Our plan is to use Keystone block for all the walls. This is similar to what the city has done on Minnewashta Parkway. We will retain a landscape architect to do this plan. I would prefer not to encure the expense until we have your concurrence on some of the other situations. In addition we will use gutters along the total sides of the house to control roof runoff. We can divert all roof water to the street side of the home. All this should help with yours and the neighbors concerns. I have included with this letter a Plot Plan dated October 11, 1916 of the Red Cedar Point Subdivision. It has a listing of many of the variance's granted on Red Cedar Drive. Also colored in green is the location of each. In addition I have included pictures of a few. I have discussed my plans with other neighbors from Red Cedar Point they have told me, "variance's are a way of life out here. You should not have a problem!" I plan to be at the meeting to answer questions and request your concurrence. James J. Jasin CFI'y OF CH&NHA~$EN MAY O! 1996 · . '4~ p [3 · WOOD STAKE P .LACED O ' IRON MON. SET BEARINGS.ON PROPOSED INFORMATION ASSUMED DATUM 1St FLOOR ELEV. BASEMENT ELEV. 000.0 · EXIST. ELEV. ('000.0.], PROPOSED ELEV. DRAINAGE · "IRON MeN. INPLACE GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. TOP BLOCK ELEV. EOOOA. oP- EXIST. & PROP. ELEV. $CHOBORG L,~ND SURVEYING ' INC. m7 CIy. Rd. 13SE 972.3221 I)11~o, MN SS328 I hereby certify that this plan, survey or report wes prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I aha a duly Registered LAnd Surveyor under tho laws of the State of Minnesota. glstretlon No. 14700 Book - Page Scale / d_,. ~/)