Loading...
2 Variance 3705 South Cedar DriCiTY OF BOA DATE: 5/20/96 6/24/96 CC DATE: CASE #: 96-4 By: Rask:v STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Txvo fivo (5) Four and Six foot side yard and a forty ono (41) thirty-four (34) foot lake shore setback variance, an eight (8) foot front yard 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: 2000 LAND USE PLAN: 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 o other trees are found on the property. The site is for the most par flat and level with the exception of a small hill that is approximatel,. 11 feet high located near the lakeshore. Low Density Residential ~ ~ ]~]|[ iItl~J Jasin Variance May 20, 1996 Page 2 UPDATE 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 like the existing 44 foot setback from the lake maintained and have greater side yard setbacks. In addition, the Board was concerned with the amount of grading and the impacts it would have on adjacent residents. A rambler or rambler/look-out style home may be more appropriate on this lot. The applicant was directed to provide additional information and grading plan. Revised plans have been submitted and this staff report has been edited to reflect changes. All new information will appear in bold. Any impertenent information will be struck out. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS 1. Section 20-615(4) states that the maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent. 2. Section 20-615(5)e. 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. 5. Section 20-615(5)a. states that the setback for front yards is thirty (30) feet. BACKGROUND The applicant is requesting variances to replace an 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 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 Jasin Variance May 20, 1996 Page 3 40 x 130 lot. Therefore, the majority of homes are located on more than one lot of record on this side of the lake. In Ootobor of 1985, tho ~oard of Adjtmtmonte and Appoal0 approvod a fivo foot front yard and a 35 foot ohoroland ~otbaok varianoo for tho oomtruotion of a ~inglo family homo at 3701 South Codar Drivo. Tho propcrty oomiotod of two lota, Lot~ 19 & 20, xvhioh moomtrod approximatoly 12,000 ~quaro foot in moa. Aloo in Ootobor of 1985, tho Board of Adjtmtmont~ and Appoal~ approvod a 15 foot front yard ~otbaok varianoo for a 16 x 22 foot OhO oar gamgo. Tho varianoo sva~ looatod at 3715 8outh Codar Drivo, Lot 26. Othor varianooa havo boon grantor in Rod Codar Point for tho cone, truotion of noxv ro~idonoo~ and homo addition~. The following variances have been requested on Red Cedar Point: Var. # Location Twe of Variance 93-6 93-3 92-1 91-4 88-11 87-15 87-13 87-10 85-27 85-26 85-20 84-18 83-5 82-12 81-8 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 3701 South Cedar Drive 3713 South Cedar Drive 3624 Red Cedar Point 3707 South Cedar Drive 3613 Red Cedar Point 3732 Hickory 3607 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 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 wes0, 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 Jasin Variance May 20, 1996 Page 4 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. IIo~vovor, otaff find~ that Modifications have been could bo made to the variance appeal which ~vould have reduced the impacts on the lake and surrounding properties. For thooe roa~ons, staff io rooommonding that tho applioation bo tabled to givo tho applicant an opportunity to oubmit rovi0od plans. Staff is .~oqueoting that tho ~oard provido tho applioant xvith dirootion on how to prooood. Staff xvould liko wanted to see the following information and changes made to the plans in order to prepare a recommendation: Maintain the existing setback of four (4) feet along the east property line by shifting the building to the east one (1) foot. This setback will provide a seventeen (17) foot separation between the building to the east and a twelve (12) foot separation from the building to the west. . . Finding: The applicant revised the plans as recommended by staff. 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. Finding: The applicant revised the plan by moving the house pad eight (8) feet to the north and reduced the depth of the deck by two (2) feet. This will achieve the recommended forty-four (44) foot lake shore setback and allow for a twenty-two (22) 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 centefline of street at each lot line extension. Jasin Variance May 20, 1996 Page 5 · Center of proposed driveway at curb. · Cwade 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 appficant submitted a plan that shows some elevations and retaining walls. Staff recommended that the appflcant design a lookout rather than a walkout. 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. The Environmental Resources Coordinator for the City reviewed the grading plan and strongly recommended a look out design without retaining wall be used. This will increase the chances that the trees will survive. 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. 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 pwperties. In addition, it appoam that Retaining walls have been designed to accommodate drainage and a walk-out type home. xvill bo noodod in ordor to aocommodato a walk out homo on this lot, xvhich may nogativoly impact dminago, adjaoont ro~idonoos, and tho lako. 8taft is roquosting that tho propo0od The applicant moved the proposed home bo movod ton (10) eight (8) 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. Ifa walk-out home is to be permitted on this Jasin Variance May 20, 1996 Page 6 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 lookout or a rambler style unit to reduce the impact on the lake and adjoining properties, as well as the oak trees. , if tho grading plan fail6 to 6how that a ~valk out can bo cagily 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: ae b, d, That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use became 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 bo have been made that will make the home more compatible with surrounding properties while minimizing the impacts on the lake. However, we believe a lookout type design is better suited for this parcel Tho varianoo appoal dooo not blond ~vith tho pro oxiating ~tandardo for tho noighborhood. 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. Jasin Variance May 20, 1996 Page 7 Finding: The alleged difficulty is not self-created. However, the difficulties could be lessen by making tho noooosary rovioion~ to tho piano.building a lookout type home. e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located. Finding: The granting of the variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or neighboring properties if the necessary revisions are not made. A revised grading plan showing a lookout home 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 tablo action on approve the variance for Four and Six foot side yards and a thirty-four (34) foot lake shore setback variance, an eight (8) foot front yard Setback variance, and a variance from the maximum impervious surface requirement of twenty-five (25) percent, for the construction of a single family residence appoal to givo tho applicant an opportunity to submit additional information and mo. ko tho following ohango0: . Maintain the existing setback of four (4) feet along the east property linc by shifting tho building to tho oast oho (1) foot. Thio ootbaok will provido a ooventoon (17) foot separation from tho building to tho oo~t and a twolvo (12) foot sopamtion from tho building to tho woot. Posh tho propo0ed homo back ton (10) foot provide a minimum of forty-four (44) foot setback from the lake and a twenty (20) foot setback from the road. 8taft ~vill ro advertioo tho varianoo appoal to show this additional varianoo. . - Submit a detailed grading and drainage plan showing existing and proposed elevations and the impact on the trees, drainage, and the lake with a lookout design, at tho folloxving locations: Each lot comer. Jasin Variance May 20, 1996 Page 8 Top of curb or oontorlino of stroot at sash lot lino oxtonsion. Contor ofproposod drivoway at ourb. C, mdo at comor ofproposod stmoturo. Lowost floor lovol, top ofbloo, gamgo slab. Indioation of dirootion of ourfaoo xvator drainago by arrows. 4. 8hmv all troos in oxooss of six (6) inohos. 5. 8hoxv any proposod rotaining ~vall0 and/or dminago swalos. 6. 8hoxv olovations of tho first floor of building on adjaoont lot~. ATTACHMENTS 1. Letter from James Jasin stating reasons for the variances. 2. Application dated May 1, 1996 3. Survey showing 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 8. Revised Grading plan 9. Revised elevations 10. l_~er from James Jasin dated 6/1/6/96 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 ddrive. 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 carefull~ chosen a design that will compliment the neighborhood. I am open to architectural suggestions fi'om 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. Jasin/ CITY OF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (612) 937-1900 APPUCANT: ADDRESS: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPUCATION - TELEPHONE (Daytime)/~ / ~-~ ~P,~ TELEPHONE: ~)/~-- ~'~// D ~ ~0 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Non-conforming Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements 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/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. .*3~-six 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 NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME '~/~' ~ / ~.2 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 ali 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 writter~ 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 Owners Duplicate Certificate 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 ~'11 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 Date Application Received on S''~//~ o) 6 Fee Paid ~75' O~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.~ If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address. g'~t~ ~HO %%% / l rt. WOOD STAKE P .LACED 0 · IRON MeN. SET BEARINGS.ON PROPOSED INFORMATION ASSUMED DATUM lo! FLOOR ELEV. BASEMENT ELEV. DRAINAGE 000.0 · EXIST. ELEV. ('O00.Q~, PROPOSED ELEV. · - IRON MeN. INPLACE GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. TOP BLOCK ELGV. E~QO&.oP- EXIET. & PROP. ELEV. I hereby certify thit thio pIin. survey or report wee prepared by mo or under my direct supervision end that IIm · duly Registered Lind Surveyor under thc Ilwo of the St~Io D,fe: 3',4,4~. /?'//V)',g Reglstrltlon No. 14700 JOB I Book - P~,Oo ~elo [3 - WOOD STAKE PLACED O - IRON MON. SET B.M.. - BEARINGS .ON PROPOSED INFORMATION ASSUMED DATUM 1st FLOOR ELEV. BASEMENT ELEV. DRAINAGE 0O0.0 - EXIST. ELEV. ~ SCHOBORG L~ND SURVEYING  INC. e7~-3221 Ddlno. MN SS~8 · '" IRON MON. INPLAGE GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. TOP BLOCK ELEV. E, P. ;,,ST. ~ PROP. ,L,V. (000.Q). PROPOSEO E,EV. o00.0 I hereby cattily that this plan. lurvly or report Wll .J~)O.l~ prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I aM ~/~ I duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the Stale Book - Page '- ~ ~le Lw ' / ~ ~ WOOD 8TAKB P~ED ~ ~ IRON MON. SET · ~ I~ON MOH. INP~GE BEA~INQg.0N PROPOSED INFOR~TION ~' ~ GARAGE FLOOR ELEV. ASSUMED DA~M ltl FLOOR ELEV. ' ~.~ BASEMENT ELEV. ~- ~ TOP BLOCK ELEV. DRAINAGE ~.0 - EXIST. ELEV. ~.~), PROPOSED ELEV. ~.oE & P~ EXIST. & PROP. ELEV. JOB II I hereby cattily that this plan, turvay or report war ~ $CltOBOFIQ p,eparad by m. m' undar my direct supe,vl,lon and that I am ,~1~/~t · duly Reglttered Lend Surveyor under the laws of ~e State Book - Page ~ND SURVEYING o~ MlnnesotL l; ,. r l ~ II II--1~ 17-11 I1--1 ~-~ ---4- ~ l- ll---ll-1]li~ ~ ll-lL~ILYll-il--il--ll-~'il~! .'~ ~ F-II~II_ II i, ~'i il II 'iL_Il--iii Zll i ~ I--Illll~l: ~ i: F~'l~l_llL-~_rz II_~lT..-_.ll?iZ_! ,_.%.1;; 'II Ii l[-ll ~l.---ll iC;-ll--lIZll_-ill_-l..~_-_l, James J. Jasin 3870 Maple Shores Drive Excelsior, MN 55331 612-470-2069 phone 612-470-7415 fax Board of Adjustment and Appeals City of Chanhassen 690 Coulter Drive Chanhassen MN. 55317 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 yom' 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. · "W~st Rigards, ames O. Oasin