PC Staff Report 04-07-2015CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PROPOSED MOTION:
PC DATE: April 7, 2015
CC DATE: April 27, 2015 (if necessary)
REVIEW DEADLINE: May 5, 2015
CASE #: 2015-07
BY: AF, RG, D1, TJ, ML, JM, is
"The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the variance request to expand the
indoor living space to enclose a portion of the deck that encroaches into the shoreline setback, and
adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision."
(Note: a motion for approval and appropriate findings of fact are also included at the end of the
report.)
SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The property owner is requesting a variance to allow them to 0
expand their home by converting a portion of their deck into indoor living space. The existing
deck and living space are an existing legal non -conformity because they encroach on the required
shoreline setback.
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
3701 South Cedar Drive (PID 25-6600390)
Daniel P. and Susan Fagan
3701 South Cedar Drive
Excelsior, MN 55331-9688
PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF).
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
(Net density 1.2 — 4.0 units per acre)
ACREAGE: 0.27 acres (11,761.2 square feet)
DENSITY: NA
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.
Planning Commission
3701 South Cedar Drive Variance — Planning Case 2015-07
April 7, 2015
Page 2 of 7
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The property owner is requesting a variance to convert a portion of a rear yard deck into indoor
living space. The proposed project is not allowed per City Code and requires a variance from the
City; however, the applicant's request to expand their indoor living space is a reasonable use of
the property and structure. Expanding the porch living space will not cause the structure to
encroach further into the required 75 -foot shoreline setback. Several structures in the area have
shoreline setbacks that are less than the subject property, which were constructed prior to the
implementation of the shoreland management regulations. Furthermore, multiple properties in
this area have been granted variances to encroach farther into the shoreline setback than the
existing structure on the applicant's property. In addition, the applicant is proposing a reduction
in hard surface coverage on the site by removing the patio pavers located beneath the remaining
deck and removing a portion of the bituminous driveway, which will bring the site into
compliance with the code.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, General Provisions
Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances
Chapter 20, Article IV, Division 4, Nonconforming Use
Section 20-72, Nonconforming uses and structures
Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland management district
Section 20-480, Zoning and water supply/sanitary provisions
Section 20-481, Placement, design, and height of structure.
Chapter 20, Article XII. "RSF" Single-family residential district
Section 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
BACKGROUND
On May 15, 1986, the City of Chanhassen approved a permit for construction of a single family
home with an attached garage, a three -season porch and a deck. The nearest point on the structure,
the deck, was constructed 60 feet from the shoreline.
During that same year the proposed home was constructed, 1986, Chanhassen's shoreland chapter
was first adopted, as authorized by Minnesota Statute Chapter 103F and Minnesota Rules, Parts
6120.2500 through 612.3900. The shoreland chapter of City Code regulates properties located near
the shoreline.
The Single -Family Residential District of City Code states, "the maximum lot coverage for all
structures and paved surfaces is 25 percent." The Shoreland Management District of City Code
requires sewered structures on recreational development public waters to be set back 75 feet from
the ordinary high water level. The subject site currently exceeds the 25% hard surface coverage
maximum and encroaches on the required 75 -foot setback from the ordinary high water level.
Planning Commission
3701 South Cedar Drive Variance — Planning Case 2015-07
April 7, 2015
Page 3 of 7
The applicant intends to reduce the hard surface coverage below the required 25% maximum and
does not plan to encroach further into the 75 -foot shoreland setback; however, the nonconforming
uses and structures section of City Code, Section 20-72 (d), states, "if a setback of dwelling is
nonconforming, no addition may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the
addition meets setback requirements."
On May 12, 2014, the City of Chanhassen amended City Code by adding a definition for expansion,
Section 1-2, which states:
"expansion means an increase in the floor area or volume of an existing building (including
deck additions), increase in the building occupancy, capacity or parking demand or increase
in the degree or intensity of the nonconforming condition of the building, land area, site or
use. (20)"
Enclosing the deck area is, by definition, an expansion of the building.
ANALYSIS
The applicant is proposing to convert a 13 -foot by 12 -foot portion of their deck into an indoor
living space. The plan proposes to create a great room out of this indoor space expansion. At its
nearest point, the deck is 60 feet from the shoreline, encroaching 15 feet into the required 75 -foot
shoreline setback. However, this expansion will maintain the existing footprint of the deck (with
a roof overhang of approximately one foot) and will not encroach further into required 75 -foot
shorel and setback.
Currently, there are patio pavers located beneath the porch and deck (see Image 1 below). Also,
the existing porch and deck extend the same distance out from the primary structure (with an
approximate roof overhang of one foot over the porch), but the deck is located 60 feet from the
shoreline and the porch is located 62 feet from the shoreline.
Image 1: Existing Rear Porch and Deck
4
ti
w
±.R
As a part of the proposal, the
applicant will reduce the
hard surface coverage of the
property to meet City Code
standards. This will be
completed by removing a
portion of the patio pavers
located beneath the deck and
removing a portion of the
bituminous driveway (see
Images 2 and 3). These hard
surface coverage reductions
will decrease the property's
existing hard surface
coverage (27.4 percent) to a
Planning Commission
3701 South Cedar Drive Variance — Planning Case 2015-07
April 7, 2015
Page 4 of 7
conforming level (24.8 percent) The Single Family Residential District allows 25% hard surface
coverage.
Image 2: Existing Driveway (right side of driveway to be removed as part
of the approved variance)
Image 3: Proposed Property Alterations
SOTjT14 CEIPARPRWE-
P S6 !4 23' 34"V
rcp4 0.0 PLAT),
9
— .
y 88.50 MEAS.
952,7 0
+
\
95w
10.0 Sg -front
[y
• ham* ... - ... - _ .... ._ ^ .. � ^ �
957.
�:.�.� ..�, ._ .�
c, RR
4 fro
.9.7 FE;$
=
Hard surfaces being removed
CD
c xistir �
7_8 3TiJ1 SOU Ceder
.
,r. E►.7
J)e.ck c�
- - �-
-Li} l�.� 957.
Front and Rear Porch Expansions
� t
�!
C 20
Existin Front and Rear Porch
g
4' r �� ��-Netcrir�,rn
� 4
A,045.7
4 j� �946.3 Op,�, yA150'✓+4'298� �y76. 76_ �y
-` ..'�... ne
-""T't SBS-`- `r { .�% • 'Rjr, rep
LA--- \ Edges Of icy lacYteti a
Planning Commission
3701 South Cedar Drive Variance — Planning Case 2015-07
April 7, 2015
Page 5 of 7
Pursuant to Chanhassen City Code, Section 20-72 (d), "if a setback of dwelling is
nonconforming, no addition may be added to the nonconforming side of the building unless the
addition meets setback requirements." Even though the proposed expansion will not encroach
further into the 75 -foot shoreline setback, the addition proposed by the applicant is considered an
expansion on the legal nonconforming setback. An increase in building capacity, or increasing
the living area of a building is considered an expansion, which is not allowed unless it meets the
setback requirements.
Variances Granted within 500 Feet of the Property
Many of the lots in the neighborhood have shoreline setbacks that do not meet the minimum
requirements because the original homes/cabins were constructed in the early to mid -1900s,
several decades before the district standards were adopted (1986). The closest structure is within
45 feet of the shoreline.
There are also properties in this area that have constructed homes within the shoreline setback
after the district standards were adopted. Staff reviewed city records to determine if variances
had been granted within 500 feet of the subject property. Staff found 15 variances that were
granted within 500 feet of the subject property, 5 of which were for shoreline setbacks (see
Attachment 7). Approved shoreline setback variances ranged from 4 feet to 31 feet, or shoreline
setbacks of 71 feet to 44 feet.
The map below displays shoreline properties (subject site in yellow, other sites in red) that do not
meet the 75 -foot shoreline setback.
Image 4: Properties within 500 feet of the Subject Property that Encroach on the 75 -
foot Shoreline Setback
Planning Commission
3701 South Cedar Drive Variance — Planning Case 2015-07
April 7, 2015
Page 6 of 7
SHORELAND MANAGEMENT
Given the changes being proposed for the lot, there should likely be no increase in surface water
runoff rates or volumes. It must be noted, however, that the prevention of pollution of surface
waters is only one of the reasons for the enactment of shoreland management rules. Minnesota
Rules Chapter 6120.3300, Subpart 1. defines the purpose as:
"to manage the effects of shoreland and water surface crowding, to prevent pollution of
surface and ground waters of the state, to provide ample space on lots for sewage
treatment systems, to minimize flood damages, to maintain property values, to maintain
historic values of significant historic sites, and to maintain natural characteristics of
shorelands and adjacent water areas, shoreland controls must regulate lot sizes, placement
of structures, and alterations of shoreland areas."
While the applicant has clearly demonstrated a sensitivity in their design to the unique nature of
shoreland areas and has made an effort to reduce the net impact on surface water runoff, it is still
an intensification of the use within the shoreland setback area. This is not entirely consistent with
the purpose of the shoreland management rules.
A I A I N : i1
The property owner is requesting to expand an existing indoor living area (porch) that
encroaches into the 75 -foot shoreline setback. The expansion will not encroach further into the
shoreline setback than the existing deck edge, but the roof overhang will extend approximately
one foot farther than the existing deck edge. However, no portion of the new structure will
extend beyond the current 60 -foot shoreline setback of the deck.
The current impervious surface coverage on the property exceeds the 25 percent maximum for
shoreland properties. The proposed project will reduce hard surface coverage from 27.4 percent
to 24.8 percent, putting the property into compliance with the hard cover maximum for shoreland
properties.
There are several properties within 500 feet of the subject site that encroach the 75 -foot shoreline
setback. Several of these properties, including the subject property, were built prior to the City
adopting the shoreland management section of City Code.
It is unlikely that there will be any additional drainage runoff or pollution due to the approval of
the indoor living space expansion; however, there are multiple other reasons for the enactment of
the shoreland management rules. Since the proposed variance is not entirely consistent with the
purposes of the shoreland management rules, the Engineering Department recommends denial of
the expansion variance.
The existing deck and porch have established a setback on the property. It is reasonable to allow
for the enclosure of this area.
Planning Commission
3701 South Cedar Drive Variance — Planning Case 2015-07
April 7, 2015
Page 7 of 7
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the variance request to expand an indoor
living space that encroaches into the shoreline setback and adopt the attached Findings of Fact
and Decision.
Should the Planning Commission approve the variance request to expand indoor living space that
encroaches into the shoreline setback, but maintains the existing setbacks, it is recommended that
the Planning Commission adopt the following motion and attached Findings of Fact and
Decision:
"The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 15 -foot setback variance from
the 75 -foot shoreline setback to expand a 13 -foot by 12 -foot section of the existing deck subject
to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall reduce the hard surface coverage of the property to not exceed 25 percent.
2. The building expansion does not encroach farther than 15 feet into the 75 -foot shoreline
setback.
3. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City."
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Decision Denial.
2. Findings of Fact and Decision Approval.
3. Development Review Application.
4. Registered Land Survey.
5. Architectural Plans.
6. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice.
7. Variances within 500 feet.
8. Email from Tom Johnson to Bob Generous dated March 28, 2015
g:\plan\2015 planning cases\2015-07 3701 south cedar drive variance\staff report 3701 south cedar drive.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(DENIAL)
IN RE:
Application of Daniel P. and Susan Fagan for a variance to expand the indoor living space to the
deck that encroaches into the shoreline setback on property zoned Single -Family Residential
District (RSF) —Planning Case 2015-07.
On April 7, 2015, 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 19, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lk 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 subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential District. The purpose of the
request is to expand the indoor living space to the deck that encroaches into the shoreline
setback. While multiple properties in this area encroach into the shoreland setback,
including this property, permitting additional encroachment through building expansion
into the shoreland setback is unnecessary for the functional use of the property. The
property currently has a functioning rear porch and does not require additional indoor
space at the expense of increasing the nonconformity.
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: Requesting an expansion to an existing porch is not a practical difficulty in
meeting the City Code. The property already encroaches on the shoreline setback and any
structure expansion on the lake side would violate ordinance. There is additional space
for expansion to the north, east and west that would comply with the setback
requirements.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
The stated intent is to increase the indoor living area of the existing home.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The existing structure was approved by the City the same year that the City of
Chanhassen shoreland chapter was first adopted, as authorized by Minnesota Statute
Chapter 103F and Minnesota Rules, Parts 6120.2500 through 612.3900. The property
currently has legal non -conforming status. The existing use of the property is reasonable.
Any expansion within the 75 -foot shoreline setback would increase the non -conformity
and would be created by the property owner, not due to the circumstances unique to the
property.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Multiple structures in the area encroach on the 75 -foot shoreland setback requirement.
Many of the lots in the neighborhood have shoreline setbacks that do not meet the
minimum requirements because the original homes/cabins were constructed in the early
to mid -1900s, several decades before the district standards were adopted (1986).
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 #2015-07, dated April 7, 2015, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is
incorporated herein.
2
DECISION
"The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the variance request to
expand the indoor living space to the deck that encroaches into the shoreline setback."
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 7�' day of April, 2015.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
am
Chairman
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(APPROVAL)
IN RE:
Application of Daniel P. and Susan Fagan for a variance to expand the indoor living space to the
deck that encroaches into the shoreline setback on property zoned Single -Family Residential
District (RSF) —Planning Case 2015-07.
On April 7, 2015, 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 19, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lk 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 subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential District. The purpose of the
request is to expand the indoor living space to the deck that encroaches into the shoreline
setback. The construction and use of the expanded living space area is a normal use of the
property in a residential district. The applicant's proposal does not further encroach into
the shoreline setback and the applicant has proposed a reduction in hard surface coverage
on the site that will bring the property into compliance with City Code, bringing the
property more in accordance with the general purposes and intent of the RSF district than
it currently stands.
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 applicant's request to expand their indoor living space is reasonable. The
applicant has no other alternatives for indoor expansion on the lake side of their property.
Due to the location of their living room, indoor living expansion over the deck is the only
option without expanding hard surface coverage. The existing structure encroaches into
the 75 -foot shoreline setback, but expanding the porch living space will not cause the
structure to encroach further into this required shoreline setback.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
The stated intent is to increase the indoor living area of the existing home.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The existing structure was approved by the City the same year that the City of
Chanhassen shoreland chapter was first adopted, as authorized by Minnesota Statute
Chapter 103F and Minnesota Rules, Parts 6120.2500 through 612.3900. The applicant
purchased the property in 2014 and thus did not create the nonconformity on the
property.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Multiple structures in the area encroach on the 75 -foot shoreland setback requirement.
Many of the lots in the neighborhood have shoreline setbacks that do not meet the
minimum requirements because the original homes/cabins were constructed in the early
to mid -1900s, several decades before the district standards were adopted (1986). There
are also properties in this area that have constructed homes within the shoreline setback
after the district standards were adopted. The City has granted five shoreline setback
variances within 500 feet of the subject property that range from 4 feet to 31 feet, or
shoreline setbacks of 71 feet to 44 feet.
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 #2015-07, dated April 7, 2015, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is
incorporateherein.
2
DECISION
"The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 15 -foot setback variance
from the 75 -foot shoreline setback to expand a 13 -foot by 12 -foot section of the existing deck
subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant shall reduce the hard surface coverage of the property to not exceed 25 percent.
2. The building expansion does not further encroach further than 15 feet into the 75 -foot
shoreline setback.
3. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City."
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 71h day of April, 2015.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Chairman
3
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
P|onningO��-7�Ma�B���� FEB '= 201
Mailing Address -P.O.Box 147.Chanhassen .NN�"AmASmmrLAm�nG�,TY OF CHANN3EN
Phone: (Q52)227-13OO/Fax: (Q52)227'111O
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
C7
Case 0I
Date Filed: L-20 15 60 -Day Review Deadline: Planner:
F1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment --------.$GOO
Conditional Use Permit
Single -Family Residence ................................ $325
LJ
All Others ......................................................... $425
F1 interim Use Permit
|nconjunction with Single -Family Readenoe..$325
R Rezoning
ADPMNAL REQUIRED FEES:
4w(City to install and remove)
roperty Owners' List within 500 . ........ $3 per a
(City to generate — fee determined at p ion meeting)
scrow for Recording Documents..=rt document
(CUP/SPR/VACNAR/\NAP/Metes & Bounds Subdivision)
n Subdivision
Create 3lots orless ........................................ $3OO
Create over 3lots ....................... $8OO+$15per lot
Metes & Bounds ......................... $3OO+$5Oper lot
Consolidate Lots .............................................. $15O
Lot Line Adjustment -------------.$15O
Final Plat ------------------..$25O
eumuone $4e0 escrow for attorney coats.
Escrow will uorequired for other applications through the
development contract.
Vacation ofEase ments/Right-of-way................... $3OO
(Additional recording fees may apply)
,..__-............................................................
L�
Wetland Alteration Permit
�]
Single -Family Residence ............................... $15O
[]
All Others ....................................................... $275
[]Zoning Appeal ...................................................... $1OO
Zoning Ordinance Amendmen ---------.$5OD
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently,
the appropriate fee shall uecharged for each application.
(Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal
information that must accompany this application)
TOTAL FEES: e �� �_()
6:�,YA
Received from: �
Date Received: ;L -011 -ZVI S Check Number:
-Section 2: Required Information
Proi' - -
Property Address orL000Uom 3
&�-�����
porma I #: �u�' ��Legal
Planned Unit Development(zU[)..................
$75O
Minor Amendment toexisting PUD .................
$1OO
�l
All Others -------------------$5OO
F-1 Sign
Plan Review ...................................................
$15O
F� Site Plan Review
Administrative ----------------..$1OO
�]
Comme ��Kndua�a|O��o�° .$5OO
Plus $1Oper 1'OOOsquare feet ofbuilding area
Include number ofexisting employees:
and number ofnew employees:
[]
Residential Districts .........................................
$5OO
Plus $5per dwelling unit
ADPMNAL REQUIRED FEES:
4w(City to install and remove)
roperty Owners' List within 500 . ........ $3 per a
(City to generate — fee determined at p ion meeting)
scrow for Recording Documents..=rt document
(CUP/SPR/VACNAR/\NAP/Metes & Bounds Subdivision)
n Subdivision
Create 3lots orless ........................................ $3OO
Create over 3lots ....................... $8OO+$15per lot
Metes & Bounds ......................... $3OO+$5Oper lot
Consolidate Lots .............................................. $15O
Lot Line Adjustment -------------.$15O
Final Plat ------------------..$25O
eumuone $4e0 escrow for attorney coats.
Escrow will uorequired for other applications through the
development contract.
Vacation ofEase ments/Right-of-way................... $3OO
(Additional recording fees may apply)
,..__-............................................................
L�
Wetland Alteration Permit
�]
Single -Family Residence ............................... $15O
[]
All Others ....................................................... $275
[]Zoning Appeal ...................................................... $1OO
Zoning Ordinance Amendmen ---------.$5OD
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently,
the appropriate fee shall uecharged for each application.
(Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal
information that must accompany this application)
TOTAL FEES: e �� �_()
6:�,YA
Received from: �
Date Received: ;L -011 -ZVI S Check Number:
-Section 2: Required Information
Proi' - -
Property Address orL000Uom 3
&�-�����
porma I #: �u�' ��Legal
/C1
Description:. L-64
1
0_4
�41
T���e� ^
� ��aP��
���
�/���
Pperty.Ownerand Applicant Info irmation
S.ection 3.:` TO 0
APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, 1, 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 \Nith the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.
Name:
Contact:
Address:
Phone:
City/State/Zip:
Cell:
Email:
Fax:
Signature:
Date:
PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, 1, 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.
Name: Contact:
Address:„' ► c� t Phone: 0- -7 si::7
City/StatelZip: CiAMwo dA�4 i -,Q Cell:
Email: 49. vu..c44-S, - cov” Fax: tof= C.C.5--o
Signature: Date: 2,/Vt AC
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, refer to the
appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and
applicable procedural requirements.
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:
Email:
Cell:
Fax:
Section '4:. Notification Information
Who should receive copies of staff reports?
n Property Owner Via: Fl Email [I Mailed Paper Copy
F1 Applicant Via: F1 Email El Mailed Paper Copy
El Engineer Via: E] Email El Mailed Paper Copy
[] Other* Via: ❑ Email E] Mailed Paper Copy
*Other Contact Information:
Name:
Address:
City/State/Zip:
Email..
CITY OFCNANHASSEN
RECEIVED
Dan and Susan Fagan — Remodel of 3701 S. Cedar, Chanhassen, MN FEB 13 2[15
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPS'
(5) We are requesting a variance to this property that is currently non -conforming, to
simply enclose a portion of the EXISTING deck. We are NOT building out any further, just
building a structure WITH NO FOUNDATION, posts only, to a portion of the deck that exists
today.
We are not requesting to improve the home any closer to the Lake than it currently sits, nor
disturb any land with a new foundation closer to the lake. Rather, we would like to improve
our home so that the 3 -season porch and a portion of the existing deck are incorporated into
the home in a manner that currently exists. This is to be accomplished by enclosing a portion of
the deck, not extending the basement foundation.
My wife and I have lived in the City of Chanhassen for 18 years since 1997. We have 3 boys (16,
14 and 11) that were all born while living here. We are active members of the community and
have volunteered our time in many ways. We love this community, and our dream is to build
our final home on Lake Minnewashta in a manner that will improve the community.
We have worked diligently with our builder and the city to comply with all ordinances and are
in fact proposing to reduce our existing hard surface variance so that we will go from
non -conforming to conforming resulting in a total hard surface coverage at less than 25%.
There are several other reasons we believe this variance will comply with the intent of the Code
of Ordinances.
(6)
(a) We believe the variances support and are in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
(1) We believe we are not intruding upon incompatible uses. The existing porch and
deck are already within the 75 foot setback requirement — we are only proposing to improve
the home within what is already existing. Please note, our direct neighbor to the SW is well
within the existing 75 foot setback and will not impair their views or use; our other direct
neighbor to the NE already has the existing 3 season in their view, and the improvement of the
home over the deck is next to the 3 season porch already there — therefore not impairing their
view or use.
(2) Our goal with this improvement is to comply with the prevention of
overcrowding of land. We have spent careful time and consideration to remodel this home
within the existing footprint that is currently in use, and in fact reduce the hard surface
coverage. We have proposed the remodel in a way that now complies with the hard surface
requirement, and hope that the City sees that we are doing everything possible to complete a
remodel that meets all of the city's goals and requirements and have proposed in a manner
that reduces overcrowding of land.
(3) We believe the proposed variance allowing us to proceed with this remodel
request will enhance the city's tax base given the proposed expansion from roughly 2,000
square feet to roughly 3,100 square feet.
(4) By remodeling our home, we will be upgrading to all of the most current
products and materials that protect against fire, smoke, explosion, noxious fumes, offense
noise, vibration, dust, odors, heat, glare and other hazards.
(5) By remodeling and improving our home, we will be preserving and enhancing
the natural beauty (through new, complementary materials of wood and stone on the exterior)
of this city and seek to achieve excellence in the originality of the design.
(6) We will utilize public services through the entire remodel process.
(7) This remodel will secure equity among all constituents (the City, neighborhood
and direct neighbors) in the proposed use of this property.
(b) The existing practical difficulty is that a variance already exists within the 75 -foot
setback requirement. Given the existing variance already has a 3 -season porch, we believe the
request to incorporate this a portion of the porch and deck into the home is being proposed in
a reasonable manner.
(c) This variance request is not based on economic considerations alone.
(d) The variance is due to circumstances unique to the property that were not created by
Dan and Susan Fagan, the current landowners. The current home does not comply with the
75 -foot setback.
(e) The variance requested will not alter the essential character of the locality, at least not
in a negative way.
(f) We believe the variance shall be granted and is in harmony with the city plan, statutes
and ordinances.
00 P 0 nC4as
N
� o
0 &6 00
I I v 2 0 1 mn -se
0
cf)
dr & 1 IC04
a A. -
CL PC
V 00 c!
4) 1 Olz w
0:4 . r Z�: 0, 1 r14 Is
al 9 d -f q
4R.
.0 b 9 CM
4 ru
w
DOA LL
w ID z
W
w
0 w
SIX 6 Q. a :c 50 p
"log
r 9
0 H
, 1 103,-cj d _ ,n
0, 0
C6 col > 0
C-4 C4
1 00
cf;
ICA CA z
4-
rA 00
U o S' ` •q ,;��ja. e���`$v�•o o 00 iV a o�c
4-
0 Oro C4
i
FA 09 1 C*4
0 0
in W W. .9
IS
-c + F5
ei >- a- cL R x
83 0 UL
00 *1 m w
0
co %
0
Cl 0 CE3
Ul
(CID)
C,4
-
5
cy) f3
:rU, Wm
zU.
0 U -i W.C3
I LA- LL 0
0 X z
-T- 0 t
-I-. X w
t CL W
LO <
c; LL
0 0
CIO
w
0
Existing houseIln-
d1 CI p537
%
in 0
0
-A
• 0
3,,gC,2 I OJ17ZS 0
V
w
C4 I cl)
0
Lrl
CL
in SB side
e
6
Ui
0
C4 a
1: N lb
(L
a Sl
f, Z -6Z A 00 0 r
C4 "46, 2,0 11 lZ L)
in -j". 4. ~fiILU
W
t line 0 Lot cmS
of LOt 20
30 -6 Z a
0, z
LO 6 A. J
CO
20-13
IN N
cant.—1
cr
0
W'j
27-6 S
sr
' go:Y `
(Ork-
'- �r•
OlZlo6ZN
z
3&3
04
z
s x d I Existing house #3703
0
L I J
V
4,
L
2
M
IN.
C)
0 LU W
0
0
W
z
z
W9t-ZCt-C9L:XV3 ' OOSt-ZCt-C9L:301-A=10
NVY'A3-1-lVA Namoo -AMH -IVPtJOVY3VY NOS -10 ZM9
0
L)
LLJ
DNI13GOWTV 9 S3WO14
Z
0
LLI
V9ANOD W�O�
� E
U3 w
y"l 1 Zaq
gol
>> 0i Z,) 2's W 'w0 - 6
-d
pE Ho I
.0 i " P � i
nz
Ogg ap 'M 10
w LLI E a
wz � -i
im m �� �L ,
�w z A D z o
LU -0: 0
I--
0
z
W
0) -1* Lo z
low C4
�CC99 NW`2JOIS-13OX3 z oz
V- TI. T- U-
0
1
(RA INIOd �]V(130 (13� SOLE Ir 0LC , z ci 0 2 U) :3 zoo Cl)
o W
L) W
a. z do
z X Lu LLJ
'j " 2
D 0
13GONMJ NbJdJ 8 LZ 0. w M
LL 1L- U) 2 i -L
S3VVOH V3ANOO SMZ
lid
W�—w Ucl
G3 D ofl
IN HIM z
OWN
Z
o
> CD
LLBW
W x10
(o Z
F -
z
0
0
U- w
uj
w
a)
0 z
CL
0 auj x
CL
O
Z
o
C3
§
-j
LU
LLJ
U)
uj
0
all
0 9
U) --
LLI
0
LU
&8
8
iL---- 0- co
(D � C)
609t-ZCt-C9L:XV=l * 009t-ZCt-C9L:301A=f0 M, 0) Iq U')
NV4'A3'1-IVA N30-100 -AMH -lVQJOVY3V4 NOS -10 ZOO �CCGG NN'l:JOlS13OX3 z 0 LO (0 C14
0 V- LL
w 0
w o T-
DNI19clOW3-*d -Q S9WOH I SOLE ) zci
LD V- CRA INIOd �:]V(130 (IMA 10 0 z
z
W-
04
0 4L) I--
0 M LU 0
C14 cf) 't LL W U) --tj �-�
-i it w
a- 12, 51 Oz 00 ul
VJANOO- ��a�Y3�1 NVE)VA
S31NOH VEIANOO 9WZ
JA &-.6
0
0
-j
LL
F -
z
LU
m
w
Cl)
LU
U)
0
a-
0
Go
0 U)
Z)
0
3Z
Z
w
r CL
U) �-
20
—0
U- U -
II LL LL d
til U) U)
ce) rl_
(Y) 0
O rV-
13
w
13 3 NI 1
n
w -Z
Zoo
E)Nllr.-d
Wog 2 Z.
1 7 8u) ZO zowgz>
-W 2..
.a 8� 00 KW
wa� 0,6 0. N By
SOW . k. Z"
W ag ego :"0 WolxZ
z
0
ft. !H, go
Oz
w %.wz
rz w 2 z
0
00
>]
w
�z 0 LU z-1
a :10., O�w
0 w
X
�w
z
LL
fi.6
K z
I
a
MEIN
Ir
z P
z
a
O DO 0313 X3
20 8 m
v.
HON38 dOIJO C'
z
T� Kw 5
0
0 Lu
of
fO3H;'03NX3311
W K�
uj -c - �;
HH1.
F> v)
� � i
z
w no
tu
Q
wo
ILI
.,0
wzx 0
z H Ow
2a,
(AAWA 3.US) v)
.1 LU z
'O.Oz 9) m
a-Wl 9xz DISIX3 2 ilia
JA &-.6
0
0
-j
LL
F -
z
LU
m
w
Cl)
LU
U)
0
a-
0
Go
0 U)
Z)
0
3Z
Z
w
r CL
U) �-
20
—0
U- U -
II LL LL d
til U) U)
ce) rl_
(Y) 0
O rV-
13
w
13 3 NI 1
n
Zoo
E)Nllr.-d
MRN
z
0
0
no
0
00
>]
qw
X
�w
z
LL
fi.6
K z
I
a
MEIN
Ir
z P
z
a
20 8 m
3VNVHO ON'NIVH3d
01 TTVM 13N EUSIX3
sisr uTi om
S3A-13HS
JA &-.6
0
0
-j
LL
F -
z
LU
m
w
Cl)
LU
U)
0
a-
0
Go
0 U)
Z)
0
3Z
Z
w
r CL
U) �-
20
—0
U- U -
II LL LL d
til U) U)
ce) rl_
(Y) 0
O rV-
13
w
0
0
no
qw
z
fi.6
K z
I
a
a
�W
Oc
z
a
20 8 m
'a
JA &-.6
0
0
-j
LL
F -
z
LU
m
w
Cl)
LU
U)
0
a-
0
Go
0 U)
Z)
0
3Z
Z
w
r CL
U) �-
20
—0
U- U -
II LL LL d
til U) U)
ce) rl_
(Y) 0
O rV-
13
w
WGt -Z£b-£9L :Xbd ' 009t -Z£ti-£9L :30Idd0 p a Q V) �
FD)Nli7l3GOWT`*d
'),3-lVA N3a�00 - "H -IVINOIN3W NOS -10 ZOL9 o I CC99 N W `2�O I S-13OX3 z Cl to c ; LL
SO z m (721 1NIOd 2JV(130 C132� SOLE , 0 o N = Z o M
A N 0 0a-3COW3NVOVA z°� o Q
a
c coC5
=
c%
W .i
Z� m
_U _ a:$ -
U. U
$U.w
o� w
U
C�
_
s
w om
LLLL N �a:
oW -C i gni
N� �z >
t
w �^ o0 wfil 2
'Qmw u
-�
mwaz
N O.
;w WPO a w
pZLL jH2 Q
KrgO W� w0
FOW OSFFO 3
ZNZ�QJZ�
S41N KF WOa2
LL�ywO O
OoZ
apw 4Ni ~T4w� xZ� Q�N U'
Lu Ir ? b
a
N D (d
w W6
0 w
W Z S J Z J> Z
20 jN �O �8O�O C7
0 Z 8 w 2
�1'M p0 d'Q 00
CI O! N OD
g'
1� aG 6
SgWOH V3ANOJ S WZ
0
w
Z
Z
U
Z806-8ZZ-199 :XVA ' tL£6-0b£-L89 :301=JA0 p c o Q M CD rn C LO
b0 L99 ' NW inVd 1S ' 0 31S 3AV -nVHSNVV4 5£86 U Q � ti 99 N V Y � O I S-13 JXA H Z o M
113QO SgWOH Z MA 1.NIOd �JV(130 (IMA SOL£ W o d z 0 It
O ZO
ui r
LU
"V jkN 0 0 W.-
w r 0o wo Maa�0��NdJd� zQ LL LL U) m LL to �
�NMlt
S3WOH VDANOO 9 WZ I
I.-
= w c, z
r UJC-2
00 � Z
Oir m
w
r U
c�
o
W O
U� WLLO
W p} LLLL N x"o
W 0.0 W N` W Z U' SO W Z y U
so -
Ir 2 n -OZ fQ JZ OZ >
W"fW/1 jZ- Z- W. ZN
gg r m ZI--
amW 02 3-W zo, aI o� ZF ZR J
ooF gb pF OZO :10 1-
a oyN 5TF-woaz
KNO W®1 j0 �O p20 LLLLW r0 Ea' O
IWI- d'rn 1Y 0UZ' u1 �w(Ne Zb W aO�N Wt/J ppa,t�j
?ON OC QW WZN 'z W QO N ] KW �QWZ
JW a= JZ Jf� �Z Q m' - Z O�W2
�S NN �O �DO OD O rr.a vp K U'p
cd ai v vi W r m ai
O
Z
11
a
W-
0
0 0
LL w
w cn
°- z
0 -
LL
C] 4
,,w^ 11
v/
0
O J
Q
a 8
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
March 26, 2015, 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 for the 3701 South Cedar Drive Variance Request — Planning Case 2015-07 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.
v
�Ka, n J. E gelha, dt, Deputy
Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this�rdayof fylarch , 2015.
It
Notary Pu is
WiSSEN
T. MEU
KIM
Notary Public -Minnesota
-Expires Jan 31, 2020
C
O O�
:'= �=
4-0
X
'�a)
'a o
Vic"_'° � acia
(B
�-u
�� L
O
.> O CD V) 4-
O
O
c6 O O 'cu cCL 0 O (� C O L
c cn L o Cl
c
(6
=3
-0-C = V
WL N
(� M� O O U
-L
�-+
U) MCf
__ a
C U N a) EF to w O .c
aNicnLNi Eo`oE EE c'�o-v
�
Oi
,U)
Oi ' •Mll 70
•� O
MU .F.MV � •�
O
L _0 — fit
(6 MLS
.� O L O .� N '� p += c aD N >, c
ui in C cn cv > c " C U
-
U)
�_
O •L U
>1 M� ..�
>� > U)
-C 'Q -0 U (�
•2 a) EoE>
O
ccuE>Y_ 3Ma°i tno(vC
O -o co .-' O 4) C a
O O Q :._, O >, ", m C - d C m
(�
X70>a�iu
•�
.0
�� �°
'''' U Q
•E
Q
U)oLC
:«_•� m O O
>�t6°�a)
CMf U O
C -
a)U� cocoL)`�4 coo 0-_0
Q c) o o � .� � o � � ao ' CoCD
a)co
ca�
m
O�
V
a) o MU •V
U � cU�
�'(D>
c�3 E��o�ocuC: a)
rn
N
N
-�
C O L �� .0
•- +� Q O
O O
E 0 O N
L
T U U)
=_c oa) a).--C(n- caE
o a U U E L .- ._ U� U cn o
i- �-
(�
+r
O
C N
�O
}' O Q CL U
O
N '}- p �'
'�
C a)C/j
a o �' m E�D (n c L - 'o a)
cl
3i
. O
'D
O
U
c 72�_
O
N
•V? Q. O
Q U) CD
Q • — '�"�
+•,
U O~
.� 4--1
My Q My Q
U) MU C/)
E �O V
O
My
a •�' C a_co
rn o o c o °-'E c>o
� vO a cu . c t U U � a) � N � c
O Q C 'C ~ "p o �+ Q C L +: O
E n cis a) co c . .
L
O
Q
ti
MU U)
N
L
as
'�_
X�111 nt
W y- V
�
O O-
L
Q I (/)
V)
`*"'
'+'r W LL,
N U) �
O 0 -_ Fu -0 C D L 0 C L
_ " Q ..a o .°'
o > a
'" °' c �'
Q O
O
f`
'�=
CU 'N
L O
m O L L
O '''-' My � � 4- MCS
N O
•+� _N fa O
a) .1... O
O O Q O
N N C My +r U
U) U)
C 4-
•- O - --� Mtf
- -0
O
c E c a) "�
cu '0 `�� a° a) o s U a) a)
a) ° o a) � �j .c N co o -°a o
c c s c> O c '0n -E-
-v '�
a --r O
�
O _
Q
i
-� Q �-. 4 .O My �
U O L O O
a-:
U) U Q O O
O m` �
ca .� �. co cv ._ a O a) w -
c o oC.> co v cn E -v O ca a-
Lo -a
E
LLV%
G)
i
- L 4-0 > CL
a O '� a >
� L U U �
.� V Qco
a) = c0 O p 2 a) � > co o
Q-
Q N
Ca
� _O
O
.>
L. d'
O a) U
__ N
O Q Q L
O O E Q O L•
U
L
U L
.— Q
o� O �—� N C U C�� O (� U C
- a c a) a) a cn o
U cr co cu O O E Q O ._ O cos }->+
N O
U
V O
C C
MLf
0 -� +�
L U
C
•U)
U) .,.r m -
U) O }, N O
+� to cn Q
My � � >, O —
m
> •U)
Cn� .� a cn Q a a) E� .. 0, •. U
cn 5 -0 6 o 0 aa)i - '- a; a)
ti
_
•
m
• -
LL
m 0 O
My �"' L N
*'' V O
[v ,� U) a--�
MU V) O `= O
U
O MU • U)
-
ai c ° E o a) c o
a) a) cu a) cu cu .. c c
E-
.L •�
O.
U
C
>`
> N
O
U)UO
N
O •-
4- [ll -� O
O O' • O .O .0 -+�-� C6 U
N O O O
�-• L c+-
N N a) `+-
O•O >
O U) N
,� +� U) -6-0
Ma E•U)
E c° > m cv o a)
c -a `� E o aci o a o _
Maa))� E�vYooavno
Q>
O
U
L
Q Q�
Cn
(Q
.� N
O _ QC
Q) �
•� Q Q
M
..-• Q f6 (� r U—
—
O L O�
U O
cc
E �.- c O E c_ co O-0 O
m E-- o '� c° ca O Cu CL �-' E cn °- a `- .0
>+ O=
Ma-
4-0
O
�+- N
>>�
C
o2'S
Q O C
-}�, -c/) N (6 U �.
L C '+- MU
O-
iiS U O
MLi
O O
o f °� c� a a E
p•� QE N co cu E a) �.�.E c
cn c
=
O
Co
;�,,
U)
O }, Q MU
� U -+-� U
- �•-��-U� �..,
;+_+ U O (CSN
_
�U O—N�-:��
O MU �_ (A
++
•- �'U •�
C o° p p cn = a c
a) a cn m U ... 70 .- N x rn a) - � a) o
c �, CcnC-a)c o)o'a(n
E o) U --
=�
Q
O' 0
L
L
♦� V
Q Q O
f�
(1)
-� Q
I
O E O N _O- O
>1 Qi
o E Ln My
+�
U) C• V
Ma
tiT C U W .in C 'a'C a) C
o aa) E E O a- c` -0 c L) a
Q O O N a) EO c� C p C
a) c c E cv
F-
U
Q
0
J
M ... Q
.�
F- M M a. r- N M �t
` cn O 86 .�
�-' 0 o
L • �
0 cn
3 : a .... -
° —"-
a) E >, �' a a) U Q rn .�aoi a `�°
Oma ) � °)c �-' E a) a) of ID c°n ` E -_ �
ca
..
}�
V�
_
m
Q O
E Q a) O. -a C a) .-. cn L U C C
_ " Q a) U cII .. a) L O C
L a) c E O c c Y Y O rn co
N +r a U m e
a -a a
�
..
.�
Q
W ..
(/i
O
N
0 Q a) cu o
m mn- N q) oL-o °cn c= u) 2c -a a)
..- U U s
° 5 a) a) Co Q ..
■-
—
}j
-'�O
Q%
•�
G�
Lm 0 f^
O _a
�_'-0
_
0 cncc �,L>,=cc°U�`-'oris co
-C
`°a
c
.O
O
'm+
O
=�
MO
O �(�
♦•& •— m
3.p_°a coa-a)c�c0c"O)o
4) N� c 0 0 0 E s O: O cD t� a c U
G)
m
CL
.=
—
rL
m m
�
�.. �
U
N
.> Q ca -o 0- c .o >, o a a) u' a, 3 -v a)
M
D
o
J
>`
�
Q
L o
o.
,,,.,
o
m W o �
O O L> ,- > .0 L
' (n C) o .E (n cv F- Ca. 3° w "C. Q E m"0 a
D
J
a
Q
.j
cv
C1 V
0- Z c M6
6.
+r
C/)o >, a c ° c °a
C
+� tca
�
O
�> O � Co 0
O `O .c
c' >, a o 'cu o) ° .c° c o cu c Q t
cn
O O C
O L
E�j � o= a) �-C o ch a c
o L
E L E cn
c
M6 i= L)
Q '
ai
O cu L O U
Q� -C E � , 0
U) MLf _L
M�
aNi c (1)) cn c E �- o a)
o a
.0 O ) 0.2 � O 6")-o O O
-+
, —
.
O •� •� U
1) cu cn
CL O V O > •U)
L
n—•t nit
. O •`V �v
O '� '� ~ E > N (a c� a � cC0 C
oa O E
M6 Q M� 0
cn
-C-0 .0 V
_
' c: EO'�
O
0 EOQ O >% c6 C QC Co
m c0 U cis .2 : co O U o- C O
cCa)Emc`—)o�>c0a,
N
m
nE
O
V
L Mll �/i
O E O U) U
E
-+� �j -
.+.r
O U) -0—
U U
� ,� •�>
Qoc
C a) 0 � - E -C Q -r p O cu c
-a - c rn U a �_ »-
c c E a) c a e ca ��
CU
N
}'
N
(�
(6
_
� O U) o O
-- Lf ' Q O
Q) L L
A ?� O O
O
U
N
c c o a) N o m .a° c ac) 3 L a)
a) 'c a o U E L .� .� U v n o
cv a) 3 O N
s },
F- �-
p
L
Co
:*_'
L
+�
• �_ t�
O O
4 -• O -c•-' L Q O
L Q' Q U
}, E
O `*' O �"'
.� ()
� C L O
Q
a) p .C) O. a a) .a?
�; co ° Q U a) E a) c -c �, a >
a) a) U a- E c cn �- �' Q .E ca
'
C
C
Q
_O
V [U
O ♦.r
y..
O O [li
Q -� in
C
�"'' (�
Q iZ
MU
O +.� U
(D
j 0 Q cu a) c L °0 0o a o c' a)
p Q C '� H 'a p fl- L O
Q t°
0-0
N U)
.�... O
L O
O d
O 4-' �-,
.L •�_ `+- M[S
L I U) (A
O L6 Co U) .O
++ O
O E
c O > a) - cu - ca > '� L 'S
c) ° r '� a o Q c p; N
cu
Q
O +�
L
O •y
(�
O O Q
O �--' N �.., L
[V � p �j `�- M6
Im O
O Q ,� O
CV L Q) +r U
�F-
•- MCS .c.., MCS
C cLD p E
p O a) a) -c U a) O O
a) o .� U-0 a .0 a) a cu p -a O
c s c > o c 'u, -
!�
O
L
O
W
Q
.w
'� L
O as
Q }J y- /� 1 'T�
U /�\ U) ��/
O O W
` �.�/Co cn
U) V Q O O
�_
r
O O Y`•• MU
. V �1- �+ i6 L 2, - L V � 'U •
c o o> Q. U �, E O co M c a=
o'er
MLS
D :5cv
Q MCf
'*'' LL
N d
.- +•� >
'Q • L }, O N
O_
_O U O
Q • O OL • >
_N to
C•) Q
oQc c•-�a)�oa)o� o-
a) r_ ._ U) a _ co U c
'a `� N = a O O .2 a) cn �- -a �_, O
� C
O N
Ma
Ui
O
—
M6
L
i
t
_O
�� M,
O U
Co O _ N
C) 0-U
O E Q O L
O = U MZ.-
Cu C
Q
o`--- 3� NCU� LODUC
- �cma) o�� ncn °
UQ� cuOo�E 5- _ omt civ
N
U
V
=
Co
0 ♦,
L U
i
•� }, C'� .-
O C6 O
L O
�.., O C'vcn ) O O _
M6 •� >%
My
> � V)
3�''`n a�°-6 �a)E�.�cn L)
a) '0 a, 0-0 o o� F a c
a Q
w�
• U
L
.� C)
L
-0
LL
MLS _O O
m N
O
MU �-•' +� L
U O
y- O > i6 ' L
O '� '�
to },
My U) ,�, — o
U) -0 Maj [U `
O
Ma N , V)
U) -
MU N
•> c .� c a) E o ` L rn c o
(D a) c cE� >co inc`v°c
w E � �, a) --' E c a) c a) a) a) � a)
••L ,�
Q.
O
> O
L' L:
O
w
•-
U O !�.
N
L" O •U MI3 ♦''
O L C U
L _
.L
N �- C6
O O C > m—
- .,..► +•+
(B m U)
-C 0-0
c c a) c� E t4 o a) c 0' : o - r
m O E ca a) c c 0 U° c
a) s • - c a) -a 0 _ fl
a E� c E c= y E °�
Q>
N
U
Cn
�--�
cn C- = [U •�
Q O ?� O
a "' U L
•+-�
L U •� Coc6 -�
— O
C L U N
c .° voi c
cn ns a
a) Q° o cn a co o Q a) E
0
>+ O=
Ma-
4-0
O
-.-r
U) -t
C
OO O
U)
Q. •- O �{- O
L L��`*'-
m M6 (� My E�
O O U N I O
'-'._ L �'ti �-'
� O MLS N
a-=�
O O
U C Cl)
O
-o o E ,c
E
w°" a E—cn c�`°�,L.cc
U o a O o cn := C-C�-0 c
0)
_
[ll
O
Q
co
r=
� � V
Q V -•-� V +.. � O � CV
- � . _ Cn �- U � �
.�-,
U O C
L _ �
� Q My — N y-• ;�_,
Ca O
Mll
+�
• - � ' (> C �,,,
c o p)
c -a � co U .. � .- a) x o a) o
C: (1) roc o
E o c � rn ° ca cn ._ ._ - ._ cn rn o -a co
c° Q c a) c a
=�
O
M�
O O
ti J-
Q��
Q N _Q.
>+O o E Lo My a)
L
� L m U
c. .c
nN� a�._� o a c`-0c0o
CL
aa)) - ccQ Ew Q) Co -0- aa))m.2E
�-
U
0
M .� Q
I- Mu Ma CL N M ct
to O O
+� 0 O
Cn
U) -E-a
`~
a) E> a c Nva rn .� 0 0 0-0
0-6v
c a)0 c -C '- x � o ° E 3 c
. .
U) ••
=
CCS O L
Q O
.r ,o cn
EQa°i oQ oca) °)o- 0.0Uc'�
3 N o c
� aeric -Eo ccnc°'c�-,,°corn m
"a 'a
W
Q�
�t
W ..
Q O � a)
OL a) cu O O
'o ca T� � a 0"a� O(n CL N a)c'Qa)
(d U U
■-
—
}j
..
Q%
_
MU -C
L U L
.. Q) L
0 a a) O -a m a a) c0 N O -a ca n ..
a > � C cn O c° °O
o
O
=
0
_
M C:
ac) ami
pr L (j C
a0 a C U)aL n�'
ai'o 0
Qi
^
m m
E-
co
L
v o c� rno
>0) arc °-co o �o a) a) a.rn3 a -v a
�•.+
�±
C
s`
C.
C V
L Q
,�..r
,,,,,
O
O •`}-,
� m W O �
.a E :o > co '� a) o a) c E U a) a) o co cis
' Cn 00 in c> aL : > in CL E co ("D )
D
J
a
Q
CL j
Rt
CI V
� a. Z c IM
.E
G
AARON J & ADRIENNE F THOMPSON ANVER L & ANNE K LARSON BETSY S ANDING
3711 SOUTH CEDAR DR 3705 SOUTH CEDAR DR 3625 RED CEDAR POINT RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9688 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9688 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721
CAROLYN A BARINSKY CATHERINE J BLACK REV TRUST CHARLES F & VICKI L ANDING
3719 SOUTH CEDAR DR 3629 RED CEDAR POINT RD 6601 MINNEWASHTA PKWY
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9688 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9657
DAVID WEINHOLD DIANE LEESON ANDING EDWIN L & LIVIA SEIM
3750 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3618 RED CEDAR POINT RD 292 CHARLES DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9675 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7720 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-9204
ELIZABETH J NOVAK ERIC MCKAY GARY ALAN PETERSON
7210 JUNIPER 3715 HICKORY LN 1769 20TH AVE NW
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9613 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9769 NEW BRIGHTON, MN 55112-5433
GARY PETERSON GREGORY BOHRER GREGORY G & JOAN S DATTILO
1769 20TH AVE NW 3706 HICKORY RD 7201 JUNIPER
NEW BRIGHTON, MN 55112-5433 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9768 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9614
GREGORY P ROBERTSON HEIDI ANN MARX ILMARS ERIK DUNDURS
3701 SOUTH CEDAR DR 3755 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3627 RED CEDAR POINT RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9688 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9676 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721
JAMES P & SUSAN S ROSS JANE WHITE JEAN D LARSON
3725 SOUTH CEDAR DR PO BOX 194 3609 RED CEDAR POINT RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9688 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-0194 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721
JILL D HEMPEL MARY JO ANDING BANGASSER PATRICIA SOUBA
3707 SOUTH CEDAR DR 3633 SOUTH CEDAR DR 14025 VALE CT
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9688 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9686 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55346-3017
PAUL REIMER PETER J & KARRI J PLUCINAK RICHARD B & MARIANNE F ANDING
3713 SOUTH CEDAR DR 3631 SOUTH CEDAR DR 3715 SOUTH CEDAR DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9688 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9686 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9688
SCOT A LACEK STEPHEN M GUNTHER STEVEN E & MARSHA E KEUSEMAN
3630 HICKORY RD 3628 HICKORY RD 3622 RED CEDAR POINT RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9766 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9766 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7720
STEVEN P & LAURIE A HANSON SUSAN A & JOHN R BELL SUSAN S PROSHEK
5901 CARTER LN 4224 LINDEN HILLS BLVD 3613 RED CEDAR POINT RD
MINNETONKA, MN 55343-8966 MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55410-1606 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721
TAB B & KAY M ERICKSON THOMAS C & JACQUELINE
3720 SOUTH CEDAR DR JOHNSON
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9687 3637 SOUTH CEDAR DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-9686
Variances within 500 Feet of
3701 South Cedar Drive
Variance
Address
Description
Number
18.5 -foot shoreland setback variance for the
09-15
3625 Red Cedar Point Road
construction of a single-family home
20.2 foot front yard setback variance and an 8 -foot
side yard setback variance for the construction of a
08-04
3633 South Cedar Drive
single-family home
22,5 -foot front yard setback variance, 15.8 -foot
front yard setback variance and a 2.39% hard
surface coverage variance for the construction of a
06-04
three -stall garage
3637 South Cedar Dave
19.3 foot front yard setback, a 4 foot lakeshore
04-07
setback for the expansion of a single family
p g y home.
13 -foot front yard setback, 2 -foot front yard setback
and 5 -foot side yard setback variances for the
02-05
3628 Hickory
construction of a garage.
11.5 -foot front yard variance for the construction of
84-029 98-07
7201 Juniper
a home addition
Two 7 -foot side yard setback variances, a 31 -foot
3705 South Cedar Drive
lakeshore setback variance and a hard surface
96-04
coverage variance.
3618 Red Cedar Point Road
15 -foot lakeshore and 8 -foot side yard setback.
93-06
variances for the construction of a porch and deck
87-15
3725 South Cedar Drive
4.53 -foot side yard setback variance
12 -foot front yard setback and two 3 -foot side yard
setback variances for the demolition of an existing
87-13
3629 Red Cedar Point
cabin and the construction of a new home.
4.8 -foot side yard and 1.8 -foot front yard variances
85-20
3624 Red Cedar Point
for an addition to a garage.
12 -foot front yard, a 2 -foot side yard setback
variances and a 7 -foot shoreland setback for the
83-09
3613 Red Cedar Point
construction of a single family home.
11.23 foot front yard setback variance and 7,500
square foot lot area variance of the Shoreland
82-11
3618 Red Cedar Point
Management Ordinance.
12 -foot front yard, 4.5 side yard, 30 foot lot width,
40 foot lot frontage, and 13.000 square foot lot
80-08
3629 Red Cedar Point
area variances
79-02
3613 Red Cedar Point
23 -foot front yard setback variance
* Items highlighted in gray are shoreline setback variances.
g:\plan\2015 planning cases\2015-07 3701 south cedar drive variance\variances within 500 feet.doc
Generous, Bob
From: Tom Johnson [tjohnson a@vikingservice.com]
Sent: Saturday, March 28, 2015 3:57 PM
To: Generous, Bob
Subject: 3701 S Cedar Dr project
Bob,
I am the next door neighbor to this project (to the east -3637) and I just wanted to voice my
support for this project. Dan Fagan has discussed what they hope to do with my wife and I
and we both feel this will be a great improvement to the property and to the neighborhood.
If you have any questions please feel free to call me at 952-220-0344.
Sincerely,
Tom Johnson
Sent from my iPad
The information contained in this e-mail is confidential and/or proprietary to Viking Client
Services, Inc. and is only for use by the individual or entity to which it is intended.
Unauthorized review, dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this information is
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error please contact the
sender and delete the material from your computer.
1