1 Variance 3705 South Cedar DriCITY OF
BOA DATE: 5/20/96
CC DATE:
CASE #: 96-4
By: Rask:v
STAFF
REPORT
PROPOSAL:
Two five (5) foot side yard ~d a forty-one 1,41) foot lake shore setback variance,
and a variance from the maximum impervious surthce requirement of twenty-five
(25) percent, tbr the construction of a single family residence
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
3705 S. Cedar Drive
Lot 22, Block 4. Red Cedar Point
James Jasin
3870 Maple Shores Drive
Excelsior. MN 5533 l
831-0030
PRESENT ZONING:
RSF, Residential Single Family
ACREAGE:
Approximately 5,600 square feet (. 13 acres')
DENSITY:
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USE:
WATER AND SEWER:
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
PHYSICAL CHARACTER:
The lot contains an existing 22 x 37 foot one story home. Five Iarg¢
oak trees are located between the home and the lake. A variety o:'
other trees are found on the property. The site is for the most pay
fiat and level with the exception of a small hill that is approximatel2
11 feet high located near the lakeshore.
2000 LAND USE PLAN:
Low Density Residential
Jasin Variance
May 20. 1996
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
1. Section 20-615(4) states that the maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is
twenty-five 125) percent.
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 20481 states that the minimum setback from Lake Minnewashta is seventy-five (75)
feet fi'om the ordinary high water level.
BACKGROL.'ND
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 70 feet (2,100
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 ~m'anted 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. Theretbre, the majority of homes are located on more than one lot of record on this
side of the lake.
In October of 1985. the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved a five foot front yard and a 35
toot shoreland setback variance for the construction of a single family home at 3701 South Cedar
Drive. The propert3' consisted of two lots, Lots 19 & 20, which measured approximately 12,000
square f~t in area. Also in October of 1985, the Board of Adjustments and Appeals approved a 15
toot front yard setback variance for a 16 x 22 foot one car garage. The variance was located at 3715
South Cedar Drive. Lot 26. Other variances have been granted in Red Cedar Point for the
construction of new residences and home additions.
.-L\' AL Y S I S
The pro?crt3.- 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
Jasin Variance
May 20, 1996
Page 3
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.
However, staff finds that modifications could be made to the variance appeal which would reduce
the impacts on the lake and surrounding properties. For these reasons, staff is recommending that
the application be tabled to give the applicant an opportunity to submit revised plans. Staff is
requesting that the Board provide the applicant with direction on how to proceed. Staff would like
to see the following information and changes made to the plans:
.
.
Maintain the existing setback of four (4) feet along the east property line by shifting the
building to the east one (1) foot. This setback will provide a seventeen (17) foot separation
between the building to the east and a twelve (12) foot separation from the building to the west.
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.
Submit a detailed grading and drainage plan showing existing and proposed elevations at the
following locations:
· Each lot comer.
· Top of curb or centefline 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
4. Show all trees in excess of six (6) inches.
5. Show any proposed retaining walls and/or drainage swales.
6. Show elevations of the first floor of building on adjacent lots.
Jasin Variance
May 20, 1996
Page 4
Staff is concerned with the impacts that a walk-out style home will have on adjacent structures.
The two adjoining properties contain rambler homes. With the limited setback from side lot lines,
staff is concerned that an additional amount of storm water will be diverted onto adjacent
properties. In addition, it appears that retaining walls will be needed in order to accommodate a
walk-out home on this lot, which may negatively impact drainage, adjacent residences, and the
lake.
Staff is requesting that the proposed home be moved ten (1 O) feet to the north to provide additional
green space between the structure and lake, and to save the three oak trees adjacent to the lake.
Moving the home to the north will also reduce impervious surface coverage by reducing the length
of the driveway. The majority of the trees will need to be removed to accommodate the future
home. If a walk-out home is to be permitted on this parcel, the applicant shall demonstrate that the
three oak trees will be saved and grading minimized so as not to negatively impact adjoining
parcels. Staff may recommend that the home be a rambler style unit to reduce the impact on the
lake and adjoining properties, if the grading plan fails to show that a walk-out can be easily
accommodated. A detailed grading and drainage plan is necessary to ascertain the full impact of
this proposal.
FINDINGS
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a
variance unless they find the following facts:
a.
That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this
neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet this criteria.
Finding: The variance appeal as submitted is in excess of what is required to have a
reasonable use of the property. Revisions can be made that will make the home more
compatible with surrounding properties while minimizing the impacts on the lake. The
variance appeal does not blend with the pre-existing standards for the neighborhood.
bo
The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Jasin Variance
May 2O, 1996
Page 5
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.
Ce
The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Finding: Whereas, the new home will increase the income potential of the property, the
variance appears to be based upon a desire to have a reasonable use of the property.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The alleged difficulty is not self-created. However, the difficulties could be
lessen by making the necessary revisions to the plans.
e.
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the par. el is located.
Finding: The granting of the variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or
neighboring properties if the necessary revisions are not made. A revised grading plan is
necessary to ascertain the full impact of this proposal.
The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increases the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed variation should not substantially impair an adequate supply of
light and air, increase the danger of fire, or endanger public safety to adjacent property, if
the necessary changes are made.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of Adjustments and Appeals table action on the variance appeal to
give the applicant an opporttmity to submit additional information and make the following changes:
o
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
from the building to the east and a twelve (12) foot separation from the building to the west.
Jasin Variance
May 20, 1996
Page 6
9
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.
3. 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 bloc, garage slab.
· Indication of direction of surface water drainage by arrows.
4. Show all trees in excess of six (6) inches.
5. Show any proposed retaining walls and/or drainage swales.
6. Show elevations of the first floor of building on adjacent lots.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Letter from James Jasin stating reasons for the variances.
2. Application dated May 1, 1996
3. Survey shov~Lng existing building
4. Survey showing proposed building
5. Elevations of proposed building
6. Floor plain of proposed building
7. Plat map of Red Cedar Point
James J. Jasin
3870 Maple Shores Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331
6 ! 2-470-2069 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
Dear John,
As we have discussed Susan and I have purchased a small home on Lake Minnewashta at
3705 S. Cedar drive. We would like to remove this 70 year cabin and replace it with our
permanent home. We will be selling our large home on Lake Minnewashta at 3870 Maple
Shores Drive. This new smaller home will become our homestead so we can stay on the
lake thru retirement. We have both lived on Lake Mirmewashta since 1970.
The cabin to be removed is yew 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 stow walkout.
On the street side we have maintained the 30' setback.
On the exterior we have chosen to go with either cedar shake siding or stucco. We have
carefully chosen a design that will compliment the neighborhood. I .-am open to
architectural suggestions from the commission or the neighbors.
I am requesting side yard, lake setback and coverage 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 g-roup will find this proposal acceptable.
~~ e~
,J. Jasir(
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
APPUCANT:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE (Daytime)&
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
intedm Use Permit
Non-conforming Use Permit
TELEPHONE: ~;)/~ ~,~ / ~ .~(~
Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Vadance
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/SPR/VACNAR/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.
~~llpsix full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8W' X 11" reduced copy of
transparency for each plan sheet.
** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract
~OTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
PROJECT NAME '~/' ~
LOCATION ~
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TOTAL ACREAGE
WETLANDS PRESENT
YES NO
PRESENT ZONING
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either
copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of T'rtle or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make
this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
~are appro~
~(/~l~/,~u ~e'(ului ~e of App~5~nt ~._ /~,
S~nature of Fee ~r
/
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
Application Received ~-"/" O),, .~ Fee Paid ,~'~ ~
on Receipt No.
The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Fridey prior to the meeting.
If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
· WOOD STAKE PLACED
B.M:-
SEARINGS ON
ASSUMED DATUM
O · IRON MON. SET
PROPOSED INFORMATION
151 FLOOR ELEV.
BASEMENT ELEV.
DRAINAGE 000.0 - EXIST. ELEV.
SCHOBORG
· L.,~N D SURVEYING
INC.
972-3221 ~. MN _~___~_
· - IRON MON. INPLACE
GARAGE FLOOR ELEV.
TOP BLOCK ELEV.
E & P· ¢yle'r & PROP. ELEV.
~000.(t), PROPOSED ELEV. 000.0 .....
I hereby Clrtily that this plan, survey or report wis .~/,,JOB 1
a duly Reglsterl~ L~nd Surveyor under the laws ol the State Book - Page
o! Minnesota.
Dat.: .7',~,:,/. ,~'//~',~,4
R,0,.tr.,,o..o. :,,oo /
ASSUMED DA~M 1si FLOOR ELEV.
BASEMENT ELEV.
SCHOBORQ
I.J ~ND SURVEYING
INC.
9/2-3221 Dlllae. MN ~
· · IRON MON. INPLACE
I hereby cattily that Ibis plan. survey or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and thai I am
i duly Registered Land Surveyor under the IlWa ol the Slate
gl Minnesota.
Date: ~11,4,~. //! / ~d~' Registration No. 14700
WY,"
GARAGE FLOOR ELEV.
TOP BLOCK ELEV.
E & P· F_.XlST. & PROP. ELEV.
000.0
JOB II
Book - Page
SGIle
/
C] - WOOD STAKE PLACED 0 - IRON MON. SET
BEARINGS ON PROPOSED INFORMATION
ASSUMED DATUM 1st FLOOR ELEV.
BASEMENT ELEV.
DRAINAGE 000.0 · EXIST. ELEV. ('000.G), PROPOSED ELEV.
· · IRON MON. INPLACE
GARAGE FLOOR ELEV.
TOP BLOCK ELEV.
E & P. EXIST. & PROP. ELEV.
000.0
SCHOBORG
L,~ND SURVEYING
INC.
972-3221 DeIMO, MN ~
I hereby certify that Ibis plan. survey or report was
prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I em
· duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State
o! Minnesota.
Date: ~'/q/~/, /'~'//~'~' neglstretlonNo. 14700
JOB It
Book - Page
Scale
/
O · WOOD STAKE PLACED O · IRON MeN. SET
· BE~R,.GS.O. ,ROPOSEO,.FO"MAT'O"
ASSUMEO DATUM 1,1 FLOOR ELEV.
BASEMENT ELEV.
DRAINAGE 0~.0 · EXIST. ELEV. (000.Q), PROPOSED ELEV.
~ SCHOBORG
I~ ~ND SURVEYING
~ INC,
Odl~l. MN ~
?o
· · IRON MeN. INPLACE
I hereby certify that this plan. survey or report Wal
prepared by me or under my direct supervltlon and that I am
· duly Registered Land SurYeyor under the IlWl o! the Slate
of MlnnelOtl.
Dire: ~"~dl/~d(. /~P//~ ReglltrltlonNo. 14700
GARAGE FLOOR ELEV.
TOP BLOCK ELEV.
E & P· EXIST. & PROP. ELEV.
000.0
JOB il
Book - Page
/
4 .'
Il ~ ii[
,".IC,~G~?,;'..._. []