Loading...
PC Staff Report 07-21-2015PROPOSED MOTION: "The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the variance request to construct a 621 square- foot, two-story garage that encroaches into the shoreline setback and front yard setback, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision." (Note: a motion for approval and appropriate Findings of Fact and Decision are also included at the end of the report.) SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The property owner is requesting a shoreline setback and a front yard setback variance (Option D) to allow them to construct a 621 square -foot, two-story garage on their property. The principal structure is an existing legal non -conformity because it encroaches on the required shoreline setback and front yard setback. LOCATION: APPLICANT: 3603 Red Cedar Point Road (PID 25-6600270) Kellie J. Geiger 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF). 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density (Net density 1.2 — 4.0 units per acre) ACREAGE: 0.735 acres (32,025 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 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 2 of 13 PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The property owner is requesting a variance to construct a two-story, 621 square -foot garage on their property. The applicant has provided four garage location alternatives (three detached and one attached) for review. Options have been labeled A, B, C and D, respectively, and have been listed in order of preference. The project, as proposed, is not allowed by City Code and requires a variance because it will encroach on the 75 -foot shoreline setback. In addition to requiring a variance from the 75 -foot shoreline setback, one option will also require a variance from the 30 - foot front yard setback. 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 XIL "RSF" Single-family residential district Section 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1, Generally Section 20-905. Single-family dwellings BACKGROUND According to Carver County records, the house at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road was constructed in 1918. This structure is 31 feet away from the southern shoreline, or ordinary high water (OHW) level, and 75 feet away from the northern shoreline. hi 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 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 principal structure on the subject site encroaches on the required 75 -foot setback from the ordinary high water level to the south, but the property has legal non -conforming status due to the structure being built nearly 70 years before the shoreland chapter was adopted. City records show that the structure has been remodeled and repairs have been made to the home; however, records do not show that the structure has been expanded since its original construction. The only work permitted by the city that was completed outside of the principal structure footprint is a pergola, which was approved in the spring of 2015 as a water -oriented structure. The high point of the property is near the concrete patio (the location of Options A and Q. Land north of the patio drains north to Lake Minnewashta. Land to the south of the patio drains south to the lake. Any proposed structure will need to maintain the existing drainage patterns. Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 3 of 13 Red Cedar Point Drive runs through the property from east to west. Red Cedar Point Drive is a private drive that provides access to the subject site and to the property to the east. The minimum width of the roadway as it crosses the property is 10 feet, per the survey provided by the applicant. Image 1: Property Setbacks and Proposed Garage Locations As seen in Image 1 above, the northern and southern boundaries of the property are adjacent to Lake Minnewashta and, per City Code, have a 75 -foot shoreline structure setback. The eastern and western property lines are considered the front and rear yard, due to the western property line being nearest to the public street access. City Code section 20-615 (7) states that "the front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel." These property lines have a 30 -foot structure setback. The buildable lot area is an extremely small strip of land located in the center of the property (see gray area in Image 1) due to these required setbacks. Public sanitary sewer main and water main run through the property north of Red Cedar Point Drive (see Image 2 below). Further, a hydrant is located south of the road to the east of the house. The area north of the private drive was the applicant's original preference for the location of a detached garage, but staff could not recommend approval of an option in this area because it would impact PROPOSED GARAGE BUILDABLE {ALL LOCATIONS}621 AREA OF SRE F S.F. FOOTPRINT. HEIGHT: ALL SETBACKS 163•ATMID-SLOPEOF ARE ENFORCED — MAIN GABLE 3B/8.E) 17-3 AT MIPSLOPE OF ` - DORMER _ 21• r AT PEAK e LAKE i " M/NNEWASNTA o I mQ "3D' E eR _ ING - I SETBASK R _ h E j I Y BY I I I � i GRINCHOSEM i 6 I I Dry mounING1 O Wit– ___ SO' (PEA BURM RED 'A SETBACK TOTAL LOT _ 3W3 I\ CEDAR POINT ��. � � IT I DRIVE aISTING /I HOUSE. IW2 enn.Ws IL.jI S.F. FOOTPRINT o f O • P TAN( -PENDING POA N N --- ATK3N ON_ . .. .--__..._. TUB-A88W.®TOBE OM 1E URERPO LAKE FROMSURYEv MINOEWASNTA o e+ $ "M WI6111111111=11 O r. As seen in Image 1 above, the northern and southern boundaries of the property are adjacent to Lake Minnewashta and, per City Code, have a 75 -foot shoreline structure setback. The eastern and western property lines are considered the front and rear yard, due to the western property line being nearest to the public street access. City Code section 20-615 (7) states that "the front yard shall be the lot line nearest the public right-of-way that provides access to the parcel." These property lines have a 30 -foot structure setback. The buildable lot area is an extremely small strip of land located in the center of the property (see gray area in Image 1) due to these required setbacks. Public sanitary sewer main and water main run through the property north of Red Cedar Point Drive (see Image 2 below). Further, a hydrant is located south of the road to the east of the house. The area north of the private drive was the applicant's original preference for the location of a detached garage, but staff could not recommend approval of an option in this area because it would impact Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 4 of 13 city utilities. Also, any proposed option located north of the utility area would require a significant shoreline setback variance, a setback that the structure is currently meeting from the northerly shoreline. Staff has worked with the applicant previously to eliminate those options north of Red Cedar Point Drive and the applicant has proposed four alternatives that are all located south of the private drive (see Image 1). Image 2: Sewer and Water Lines The applicant intends to construct a 621 square -foot (23 -foot by 27 -foot) garage. Chanhassen City Code, Section 20-905 (2) (d), requires that all newly constructed, detached single-family homes have a two -car garage. The subject property currently does not have any garage enclosures. The three proposed detached garage locations (see options A -C in hnage 1) will encroach farther into the southern 75 -foot shoreline setback than the existing structure. The attached garage location (see option D in hnage 1) will not encroach farther into the southern 75 -foot shoreline setback, but will encroach farther into the northern 75 -foot shoreline setback and the 30 -foot front yard setback. Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 5 of 13 Image 3: Bird's Eye View of 3603 Red Cedar Point Road (approximate property lines in red) ANALYSIS The applicant is proposing to construct a two story, 23 -foot by 27 -foot garage. The plan proposes four locations for the garage structure, all of which will require a shoreline setback variance and one that will require two shoreline setback variances and a front yard setback variance. Image 4: Option A Option A Option A is the applicant's preferred option (see Image 4). It is situated in the center of the property and has the garage entrance facing west. This option will not disrupt the existing access for vehicles traveling on the private drive. However, Option A is located 26.5 feet from the southern shoreline, 4.5 feet closer to the shoreline than the existing principal structure. This I S RED % AR POINT E EXISTING �- P \� 1 USE -1992 FOOTPRINT o I t 2 OF PREVIOUS FUEL to TANK -PENDING MPGA N N s MENTATION ON - TUS - ASSUMED TO BE ol-Iw E r7ATED NTERPO Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance - Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 6 of 13 option will require a 48.5 -foot shoreline setback variance. Being this close to the lake will increase runoff to Lake Minnewashta and is potentially harmful to the viewscapes from the public water. Image 5 shows the current view of the lake from the private drive (the chairs and tarp are in the proposed location for Options A and Q. This location will remove three mature trees and will require the applicant to extend the driveway to access the garage from the east. Overall, this proposal will increase the hardcover to 24.77 percent. Image 5: View of Option A and C Location from Private Drive Option B Image 6: Option B Option B (see Image 6), along with Option C, is the applicant's next preferred location. This alternative is located on the eastern side of the property, but will maintain the 30 - foot rear yard setback. Option B will also not disrupt vehicle traffic on the private drive due to the garage access being located on the western elevation and the garage not being located within the private drive. This option will be 24 feet 7 inches from the shoreline, 2 feet 1 inch closer than Option A and nearly 6.5 feet closer than the existing 1 `SE � I 3 RED - AR POINT \-I- E EXISTING SE - 1992 . FOOTPRINT I A 1 0'6, - -CD -4 CA OFPREVKMFUEL _ N ANK - PENDING MPGA a1 MENTATION ON TUB-ASMMEDTOBE , EDIATED — ONw E INTERPO Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 7of13 principal structure. This location will require a 50 -foot 5 -inch setback variance from the shoreline. Similar to Option A, the increase in hardcover in this location will increase runoff to Lake Minnewashta and is potentially harmful to the viewscapes from the public water. This location will also require removing three mature trees (including a 30 -inch diameter tree). This option will increase hardcover on the property to 24.33 percent. Option C Option C (see Image 7) is evenly preferred with Option B for the applicant. Option C is located in a similar location as Option A; however, this alternative has the garage loading from the north. This location will not impede traffic traveling along the private drive and will also reduce the amount of hardcover added to the property for the project due to the shortened driveway extension, in comparison to Options A and B. This option will only increase hardcover to 23.28 percent. Option C has the shortest shoreline setback, 21 feet and 1.5 inches, of all four options provided by the applicant. This option is nearly 10 feet closer to the shoreline than the existing structure. This alternative would require a 53 -foot 10.5 -inch shoreline setback variance. Similar to the previous two options, the increase in hardcover at this location will increase runoff to Lake Minnewashta and is potentially harmful to the viewscapes from the public water (see Image 5 in Option A). This option will require the removal of one mature tree. Option D Option D (see Image 8) is the applicant's least -preferred alternative. This option is located on the western side of the property and is attached to the northwest portion of the house. The applicant has proposed expanding the private drive (425 square feet) for traffic since a portion of the proposed garage is situated within the existing drive. This drive expansion will create a 13 -foot wide driving path for vehicles. This alternative requests the shortest shoreland setback variance of all four options. To the north, the proposed garage will encroach on the shoreline setback by two feet (73 feet from the shoreline) and the proposed garage will encroach on the shoreline setback by 17 feet (58 feet from the shoreline) to the south. To the north, the proposed garage will encroach on the shoreline setback slightly more than the existing structure; however, to the south the proposed structure will not encroach any further than the existing structure. In addition, this proposed location will increase hard cover on the property to 23.78 percent. Overall, Option D will have minimal impacts to the storm water runoff and viewscape from the public water Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 8 of 13 because the garage will be located on existing hardcover, the structure will be significantly setback from the shoreline, and it will be screened by the existing building and vegetation. Since Option D is designed to load from the west, it v difficult for the homeowner to access their garage due to the sharp turn radius needed to get around the neighboring house to the west. Further, this location will require the subject property owner to drive across the neighboring property (off the private drive area) to access their garage. The proposed private drive will be substantially altered to accommodate the newly constructed garage. Unlike the previous three alternatives, Option D also requires a front yard setback variance in addition to the shoreline setback variance. The eastern property line is considered the front yard of the property per City Code Section 20-615 (7). However, the positions of the homes along the Red Cedar Point Road peninsula are situated with the private drive to the north of the homes. If this access were a public street the west and east property lines would be considered their side property lines and would only have a 10 -foot setback. The proposed location is situated 4 feet 2.5 inches from the western property line. The existing structure is currently set back 9 feet 7 inches from the property line (20 feet and 5 inches within the 30 -foot front yard setback). The proposed I Image 9: View of Option D Location from the Private Drive garage will encroach 5 feet 4.5 inches closer than the existing structure, requiring a 25 -foot 9.75 -inch front yard setback variance. This is a significant variance from the ordinance, even when considering that the neighboring property does not have windows on this side of their house (see Image 10) and that the required yard setback would be 10 feet if it were a side yard. Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 9of13 Image 10: View of Neighboring House (3605 Red Cedar Point Rd) from Private Drive Staff Recommended Location Staff has proposed an alternative plan that could be supported if the Planning Commission determines that it is reasonable to approve a two-story garage on the site. Staff believes that an attached garage is the most reasonable structure to provide parking because it will minimize negative impacts and required variances. Alternative Plan Staff's alternative plan (see Image 11) is positioned on the northwest side of the existing structure, similar to Option D. This option allows for a 21 -foot by 21 -foot (441 square foot), two-story attached garage. The garage will be located completely on existing hardcover. This option will not require a shoreline setback from the northern shoreline, but the proposed garage will encroach on the southern shoreline setback by 17 feet (58 feet from the shoreline) and will require a variance. This shoreline setback variance is less than the shoreline setback non- conformity created by the existing structure. Similar to Option D, this alternative will have minimal impacts to the storm water runoff and the viewscape from the public water. Also, this option will not require the removal of any trees on the property. Unlike Option D, the alternative plan will not encroach further into the existing 9.6 -foot front yard setback that has been Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 10 of 13 established by the existing structure; however, this option will still require a 20.4 -foot front yard setback variance since it is within 30 feet of the eastern property line. Image 11: Alternative Plan 947.0 946-1 / 94>1I1 9460-� X948. 4e, _7 X946.3 _. 1, 946.5 L X946 47.OX�02.20 .94;;, —947 94 5--_ 46.3 X946.6 4 f947.3X �1 �r2.,,--- CESS 4b75— / 46. Eq f 19.7 46'P? 8 1'FlNISHEO OOR 4 i Z _ ELEV.=94 .40 946 46.6 ,16.4 % Q 94 FINISHED FLOOR. 1j� \947` ELEV.=946.39- 8.4- k 6.4, _ FINISHED FLOOR - ELEV.®951.29 - 7�� N -- / a( FINISHED FLOOR , ,g 950. - .T .= 51146 - —1 �9 �5 l 9 X9" 2� 92 1 -948 g/ . " °48.6 5 4 X9 gag_ —947 _ -ROCK1��14 The placement of the alternative plan will disrupt vehicle traffic along the private drive. To mitigate this issue, staff recommends that the Planning Commission attach a condition to the alternative plan that requires the applicant to increase the private drive to be at least 10 feet (not to exceed 24 feet) wide at all sections of the drive to ensure traffic safety (see gray area on Image 11 as an example of the expansion needed). This expansion will slightly increase the hardcover on the property, but will still be significantly below the 25 percent maximum and will be less hardcover than the four options provided by the applicant. This alternative provides a smaller garage than the applicant's originally submitted plan, but a review of garage stalls show that it will be large enough to serve as a two -stall garage for the homeowner. Another alternative that staff could have supported would have been to attach the garage to the northeast corner of the home, but the applicant did not wish to consider this option because it would require the removal of a mature tree. Existing Shoreline Setbacks of Properties within 500 feet of the Subject Property Every property within 500 feet of the subject property is within the 75 -foot shoreline setback (see Image 14). 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 24 feet of the shoreline, or encroaching 51 -feet into the shoreline setback. 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 six shoreline variances that were granted within 500 feet of the subject property (see Attachment 8). Approved shoreline Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 11 of 13 setback variances from the 75 -foot shoreline setback ranged from 7 feet to 45 feet, creating setbacks from the shoreline of 68 to 30 feet. There have also been four variances granted for side yard setback variances within 500 feet of the subject property. These side yard setback variances have ranged from 1.5 feet to 8 feet, allowing 2 -foot to 8.5 -foot setbacks. In addition, there has been one front yard setback variance granted. This variance allowed a 12 -foot front yard variance from the 30 -foot front yard setback requirement, allowing an 18 -foot front yard setback (see Attachment 8). The map below displays shoreline properties within 500 feet of the subject property (subject site in yellow, other sites in red) that do not meet the 75 -foot shoreline setback. Properties marked with an X are properties that have been granted a variance from the 75 -foot shoreline setback. The existing structure on the subject property is currently set back 31 feet from the shoreline, encroaching 44 feet into the 75 -foot shoreline setback. Image 14: Properties within 500 feet of the Subject Property that Encroach on the 75 -foot Shoreline Setback SUMMARY The property owner is requesting a variance to construct a garage that encroaches into the 75 - foot shoreline setback (and one option that also encroaches into the front yard setback). Options A, B and C will encroach farther into the shoreline setback than the existing structure. Option A requests a 48.5 -foot shoreline setback variance, Option B requests a 50 -foot 5 -inch shoreline setback variance, and Option C requests a 53 -foot and 10.5 -inch shoreline setback variance. Option D will not encroach farther into the shoreline setback than the existing structure, but will still require a 17 -foot shoreline setback variance from the southern shoreline setback, and a two - foot shoreline setback variance from the northern shoreline setback. Option D will also encroach Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 12 of 13 farther into the front yard setback and will require a 25 -foot 9.75 -inch front yard setback. In addition, Option D has potential garage access and traffic issues since there is such a sharp turning radius required around the neighboring house to enter the garage from the west and because the proposed structures encroaches into the private drive. The homeowner will also need to drive across their neighbor's parking pad to access their garage in this option. Options A, B and C may have negative impacts on the water runoff into Lake Minnewashta, the viewscapes from the public waters, and the environment due to the removal of mature trees. Alternatively, Option D requires limited hardcover be added to the property, is well screened from the public waters, and does not require the removal of any mature trees. All four alternatives provided by the applicant will meet the 25 percent hardcover maximum allowed for the property. 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. Staff believes that it is reasonable to request a variance to allow a two -stall garage due to the unique positioning of the property, the character of the neighborhood, and the existing requirement for new single-family, detached structures to have a two -car garage. However, staff does not support a variance for the four options provided by the applicant due to the negative traffic and environmental impacts these options would create. If the Planning Commission believes that it is reasonable to request a variance for a two-story two -stall garage, staff believes that the alternative location and plan should be used. The alternative garage plan is smaller than the 621 square -foot garage plan provided by the applicant by 180 square feet; however, staff has found that this option will provide enough space to store two vehicles. The alternative plan effectively mitigates potential viewscape from the public waters issues and runoff harms. The alternative plan will require a front yard setback variance, but the newly proposed garage will not encroach farther into the existing structure setback. Furthermore, the orientation of homes in this neighborhood cause this yard to serve more as a side yard for properties than a front yard, which would only require a 10 -foot setback. This plan also allows for efficient loading into the newly proposed garage and will not disrupt traffic, provided the applicant extends the private drive to at least ten feet wide by the proposed garage. The alternative plan will not involve the removal of any mature trees and will require only a minimal hardcover expansion, which will still keep the property well below the 25 percent hardcover maximum. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the variance request to construct a two- story 621 square -foot garage that encroaches into the shoreline setback and front yard setback, and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. Should the Planning Commission approve the variance request to construct a garage that encroaches into the shoreline setback and front yard setback, but maintains the existing setbacks, Planning Commission 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance — Planning Case 2015-14 July 21, 2015 Page 13 of 13 it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion and the attached Findings of Fact and Decision: "The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 17 -foot setback variance from the 75 -foot shoreline setback and a 20.4 -foot front yard setback variance to construct a two-story, 21 -foot by 21 -foot attached garage subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10 -foot wide drive, not to exceed 24 feet wide. 2. The driveway grade must not be less than 0.5% and must not exceed 10%. 3. Any proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainage patterns. 4. 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 & Narrative 4. Site Plan with Options A -D. 5. Registered Land Survey with Alternative Plan. 6. Architectural Plans. 7. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice. 8. Variances within 500 feet. 9. Letter from Frances and Keith Paap dated July 10, 2015. gAp1an\2015 planning cases\2015-14 3603 red cedar point variance4esubmitta106-05-2015\staff report 3603 red cedar point.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (DENIAL) IN RE: Application of Kellie Geiger for a variance to construct a 621 square -foot, two-story garage that encroaches into the shoreline setback and front yard setback (Option D) on property zoned Single - Family Residential District (RSF) — Planning Case 2015-14. On July 21, 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: West 225' Except West 25' of Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential District. The purpose of the request is construct a 621 square -foot two-story garage. While multiple properties in this area encroach into the shoreland setback, including this property, the proposed options for locating the garage excessively encroach farther than is necessary into the 75 - foot shoreline setback and 30 -foot front yard setback. These encroachments will potentially harm the natural environment of Lake Minnewashta through increased storm water runoff and will potentially harm the viewscape from the public waters. Further, Option D will unnecessarily encroach on the front yard setback, potentially harming the neighboring property owner. 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 unique location of the property serves a practical difficulty in meeting the zoning ordinance. The property already encroaches on the shoreline setback and front yard setback; however, the proposed locations are not situated in areas that will minimize the negative impacts of locating a 621 square -foot two-story garage on the property. Instead, the applicant has proposed garage locations that unnecessarily encroach farther into the required shoreline setback and front yard setback than the existing structure, which is a legal non -conformity. 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 construct a 621 square -foot two-story garage. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The existing structure was constructed in 1918, 68 years prior to the City of Chanhassen adopting the shoreland chapter, 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 property has circumstances that are unique and not created by the landowner, but the proposed locations for the garage unnecessarily encroach farther into the shoreline setback and front yard setback than what is needed for a two -stall garage. Any expansion that extends farther into the front yard and shoreline setback than the existing non -conformity would be created by the landowner, 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 a variance that allows a structure to be located closer to the shoreline could negatively affect the viewscape from the public waters. 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). While multiple structures in the area encroach on the 75 -foot shoreland setback requirement, nearly none would be as close to the shoreline as Options A -C, with the exception of water -oriented structures. Further, the small setback between Option D and the westerly neighboring structure would reduce the already small setback between the two structures, negatively affecting the neighboring property owner. 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. 2 5. The planning report #2015-14, dated July 21, 2015, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the variance request to construct a 621 square -foot two-story garage that encroaches into the shoreline and front yard setbacks. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 21" day of July, 2015. CITY OF CHANHASSEN RAM Chairman CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of Kellie Geiger for a variance to construct a 441 square -foot two-story attached garage that encroaches into the shoreline setback and front yard setback on property zoned Single -Family Residential District (RSF) — Planning Case 2015-14. On July 21, 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: West 225' Except West 25' of Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta 4. Variance Findings — Section 20-58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the granting of a variance: a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Finding: The subject site is zoned Single -Family Residential District. The purpose of the request is to construct a two-story two -stall attached garage. The construction and use of an attached garage is a normal use of a property in a residential district. Further, the City of Chanhassen requires all newly constructed homes to be built with at least a two -stall garage. Also, the proposal does not further encroach into the shoreline setback or front yard setback than the existing structure. 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 construct a two-story two -stall attached garage is reasonable. The applicant has no other alternatives for a garage space on their property due to having shoreline on the north and south side of their property, 30 -foot front and rear yard setbacks, and public utility lines located along the north side of the private drive. Due to the location of their driveway, the proposed location is one of only a few locations that will not require an excessive amount of hardcover expansion within the 75 - foot shoreline setback. Also, the proposed location is one of only a few areas on the property that will have minimal impacts to the viewscape from the public waters. The existing structure encroaches into the 75 -foot shoreline and 30- front yard setbacks, but the construction of an attached garage space will not cause the structure to encroach further into the required shoreline or front yard setbacks. 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 construct a two-story two -stall garage. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The existing structure was built in 1918, 68 years before the City of Chanhassen shoreland chapter was adopted, as authorized by Minnesota Statute Chapter 103F and Minnesota Rules, Parts 6120.2500 through 612.3900. The applicant recently purchased the property 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 shoreline and front yard setback requirements. 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) and the City of Chanhassen was established. 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 six shoreline setback variances within 500 feet of the subject property that range from 7 feet to 45 feet, or setbacks from the shoreline of 68 to 30 feet. The proposed shoreline setback will be only a 17 -foot variance, or 58 feet from the shoreline, and will not encroach closer to the shoreline than the existing structure. The city has also granted multiple side yard setback variances, ranging from 1.5 feet to 8 feet from the required 10 -foot setback, and one front yard setback, a 12 -foot variance from the required 18 -foot setback requirement. The front yard setback will not be encroached any closer than the existing structure and will keep with the essential character of the locality. 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. 2 5. The planning report #2015-14, dated July 21, 2015, prepared by Drew Ingvalson, et al, is incorporated herein. DECISION The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 17 -foot setback variance from the 75 -foot shoreline setback and a 20.4 -foot front yard setback variance to construct a two- story, 21 -foot by 21 -foot attached garage subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall expand the private drive to maintain at least a 10 -foot wide drive, not to exceed 24 feet wide. 2. The driveway grade must not be less than 0.5% and must not exceed 10%. 3. Any proposed structure shall maintain the existing drainage patterns. 4. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit from the City. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 21' day of July, 2015. CITY OF CHANHASSEN M Chairman S - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard CITY OF CIIANNSEN Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-1300 / Fax: (952) 227-1110 APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Submittal Date: `� / l.'=i / 1 PC Data: to J(-11 7 CC Date: 7//3115 60 -Day Review Date: 7//4//5 (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) ❑ Comprehensive Plan Amendment .........................$600 ❑ Subdivision (SUB) ❑ Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers ...... $100 ❑ Create 3 lots or less.........................................$300 ❑ Create over 3 lots ...................... $600 + $15 per lot El Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ( lots) ❑ Single -Family Residence.................................$325 ❑ Metes & Bounds ........................ $300 + $50 per lot ❑ All Others .........................................................$425 ( lots) ❑ Interim Use Permit (IUP) ❑ In conjunction with Single -Family Residence..$325 ❑ All Others .........................................................$425 ❑ Rezoning (REZ) ❑ Planned Unit Development (PUD)...................$750 ❑ Minor Amendment to existing PUD .................$100 ❑ All Others .........................................................$500 ❑ Consolidate Lots ......... ...............................$150 ❑ Lot Line Adjustment.........................................$150 ❑ Final Plat ..........................................................$700 Includes $450 escrow for attorney costs' 'Additional escrow may be required for other applications through the development contract. ❑ Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC) ........ $300 (Additional recording fees may apply) ❑ Sign Plan Review...................................................$150 Variance (VAR) ............................................ ❑ Site Plan Review (SPR) ❑ Administrative ..................................................$100 ❑ Commercial/Industrial Districts' ......................$500 Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area: ( thousand square feet) Include number of existing employees: Include number of new employees: ❑ Residential Districts.........................................$500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit (— units) Notification Sign (City to install and remove) ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) ❑ Single -Family Residence...............................$150 ❑ All Others .............................. :........................ $275 ❑ Zoning Appeal ......................................................$100 ❑ Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) ................. $500 NOTE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. ...............$200 Property Owners' List within 500' (City to generate after pre -application meeting) ...... ................ $3 p r address (� ad es 1W Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply) ................................................... ........:$50 p document ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Interim Use Permit ❑ Site Plan Agreement ❑ Vacation 5? Variance ❑ Wetland Alteration Permit ❑ Metes & Bounds Subdivision (number of deeds to be recorded: _) .44,TOTAL FEE: Description of Proposal: Atyy[l oo or— NGW np j? � W 1 n --A ��- ST to ©1 p 5;*4 C)e Property Address or Location: ',;%O3 9-6,D nxw�-FL:1NT 4>9\V6 Parcel #: 7-5 (o & 00'00 Legal Description: W • 24.5 r ll oTI I St-0tJP 6r tR*0 "1 4= Po trlT I Cs%pw*0-c Total Acreage: Q -ISS Wetlands Present? ❑ Yes WNo MN t EV-Cw1c IU6 Present Zoning: N -51M Requested Zoning: JLsr- Present Land Use Designation: Requested Land Use Designation: Existing Use of Property: rJ INS FnAIL-( OETA Aft +DW Check box is separate narrative is attached. NA Section ••• Owner APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. If this application has not been signed by the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and rnrrenf Name: Addres City/St; Email: ICS—certier �° wcLkGD • Corte Contact: "'1 lQ3- S I C -o -O S (ob Phone: _-7 ko '3 - S N Cell: if Fax: Date: 701 ^� PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct. Name: Addres Contact: Phone: -7(ea,- SI (o - ©Cop City/State/Zip: tiCc e.[. 'bsr yy) #,D Cell: Email: Signati Fax: Date: VYL" ( 5 Z o c 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: Cell: Email: Fax: 3 Section 4: Notifica tion Information 'Who should receive copies of staff reports? *Other Contact Information: ' ❑ Property Owner Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Name:' ❑ Applicant Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Address: ❑ Engineer Via: ❑.Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy City/State/Zip: ❑ Other* Via: ❑ Email ❑ Mailed Paper Copy Email: SCANNED June 22, 2015 CITY OF RECEIVED SEN Bob Generous Community Development Department, City of Chanhassen JUS! i ;a .M6 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Variance Findings Statement We are seeking a variance to reduce the required reverse south (side) required yard from OHW of Lake Minnewashta from 75 feet to 21.2 feet to allow the construction of a new detached 2 -car garage with studio space above. The site is zoned RSF and is on a private road on a peninsula jutting eastward into Lake Minnewashta, and currently has no garage. Applicant : Pat Mackey Mackey Malin Architects 5200 Washburn Avenue S 612-220-6190 Owner: Gregg and Kellie Geiger 3603 Red Cedar Point Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 We submit the following justification for compliance for granting 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. The granting of the variance would be consistent with the purposes and intent of the comprehensive plan and this property's use as a single family home. 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. The property is bordered by shoreline on 2 sides of a narrow peninsula. Enforcement of the required yard setbacks results in just 387 s.f. of allowable buildable area, with the vast majority of that being covered by existing structure or roadway. The lot is essentially unusable if following required district setbacks. The proposed location for the garage is the former site of a now -removed fuel oil tank, which caused some initial concern. Since discovery of the buried sewer lines and the unsuitability of the preferred location, the homeowners have contacted the MPCA and the bank/owner of the property prior to their purchase, and have been reassured of the soil suitability at this location Alternative garage locations have been investigated: 1. The initial preferred location for the garage in the center of the lot (north of the private drive) has been found to be atop easements for underground water main and sanitary sewer lines, which would be difficult to relocate, even if that were allowed. We believe we are clear of those easements with the proposed garage placement (pending Survey verification). Mackey Malin Architects 1 5200 Washburn Avenue South Minneapolis MN 55410 1 612 .220 . 6190 2. Attaching the garage to the northwest side of the house would require a significant modification and disruption of the existing house, provide only about 4' to the neighboring lot line, and allow less than 10 feet of separation from the neighboring house. Furthermore, this option would require a 2 -property re -alignment of the existing road which serves an additional residence further down the peninsula. Pending an awaited survey that shows easements, there is reason to believe that the attached northwest location sits atop the utility and roadway easements. 3. An attached garage at the east side of the existing house would require an extensive reconstruction of one end of the existing house, and also require a re -alignment of the existing road. The same concerns are true of hard cover, house area, and road realignment as in the paragraph above, as well as eliminating the primary view of the lake, a significant reason for the purchase of the house in 2014. 4. Finally, several stands of mature trees on site reduce the options for garage placement which doesn't alter the character of the lot and surrounding area. The proposed garage placement walks the best line between these obstacles while maximizing distance from both shorelines and minimizing disruption of existing site elements (road, house, utilities, tree cover, and view). c) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. The sole purpose of the requested variance is that the homeowners may have a garage for the existing single family home on the site. Currently the homeowners are parking several vehicles outside and do not have full use of the property in the context of the neighboring properties. d) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. The property has a unique situation bordered by shoreline on 2 sides of a narrow peninsula. The existing structure was built in 1918 and pre -dates the zoning ordinance. All current construction on the property and adjacent properties pre -dates the current landowner. e) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. The essential character of the locality will not be altered. The surrounding area is overwhelmingly single-family detached residences with a variety of attached and detached accessory structures/ garages. As seen from the street, the water, and the air, the density and scale of buildings on this lot (including the proposed garage) is considerably less than at the remainder of the peninsula. 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 Not Applicable to this property. Site plan, Survey, and exterior elevations are attached. Mackey Malin Architects 1 5200 Washburn Avenue South Minneapolis MN 55410 1 612 . 220. 6190 0 n 0 0 CD rn Tn CD CL n c CD n CD v E v O 7 CD 0- Xw0 3 C7 c CD 0 n 0 -I 30' j SETBACK {, _ HARDCOVER CALCULATION FOR 4 OPTIONS: LAKE NT OPTION A: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + GARAGE 621 + DRIVE 654 - TURNOUT 533 = 7933 (24.77 % OF LOT) OPTION B: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + GARAGE 621 + DRIVE 513 - TURNOUT 533 = 7792 (24.33 % OF LOT) OPTION C: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + GARAGE 621 + DRIVE 178 -TURNOUT 533 = 7457 (23.28 % OF LOT) OPTION D: BASELINE HARDCOVER 7191 + GARAGE 621 + DRIVE 425 - TURNOUT 336 = 7901 (24.67 % OF LOT) BUILDABLE AREA OF SITE IF ALLSETBACKS ARE ENFORCED - 387 S.F.) ` LAKE NT MINNEWASHTA �F P� TING BTI MINO S Lu BU POU TO BE co R OV D \ D G , V SBY EXIS NG CHOSE BITUM US DRIVE 4'-24 e D 9'-91 t, 1 3603 RED CEDAR POINT Pei° P�6°AF DRIVE EXISTING ` j HOUSE - 1992 S.F. FOOTPRINT ` I ` I A 2„ ITE OF PREVIOUS F it IL TANK - PENDING MPCA C\ CUMENTATION ON STUS - ASSUMED TO BE j R EDIATED PROPOSED GARAGE (ALL LOCATIONS)- 621 S.F. FOOTPRINT, HEIGH 16'-3" AT MID -SLOPE OF MAIN GABLE 19'-3" AT MID -SLOPE OF DORMER 21'-8" AT PEAK J — NT �F P� cl) _ V o U-1 D , N OHW E 11 I I I I I I I j I j I I j I I 30' SETBACK LAKE FROM SURVEY MINNEWASHTA 0 5 10 20 40 r_EXISTIN I BITUMIIOUS DRIVE I EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE (PER SURVEY): 7191 S.F. TOTAL LOT AREA = 32025 S.F. FOUR OPTIONS SHOWN: OPTION A: PREFERRED - REMOVES 3 MATURE TREES, i HARDCOVER 24.77% OF LOT j OPTION B: SLIGHTLY CLOSER TO LAKE, REMOVES 3 MATURE TREES (INCLUDING 30" ),HARDCOVER 24.33 % OF LOT - -_ OPTION C: 5'-4" CLOSER TO LAKE, HARDCOVER 23.28% - - OF LOT, REMOVES 1 MATURE TREE OPTION D: LEAST PREFERRED, ATTACHED TO HOUSE, REQUIRES HOUSE DISRUPTION, ROAD REALIGNMENT, MAY SIT IN UTILITY EASEMENT, SITS IN ROADWAY EASEMENT, HARDCOVER 24.67% OF LOT OSITE PLAN � ,"=3D. -D" north Ln C M N �o .Q m A Q o— fC- G m Vf W u ,I I —A RCHIIEETb 612.220.6190 MACKETMALIN.COM Lu V Z° WZZ �OZ 0. W Lu °C as p�vz W°_ � V W Mo m lh PROIECI PHASE Schematic Design ISSUE DATE ISSUE DATE DRAWN M PM SITE SITE PLAN LEGAL DESCRIPTION: The West 225 feet of Lot 1, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Addition, Lake Minnewashto, except the West �HSJ EENCHNNR �I 25 feet thereof, Carver County, Minnesota. TOP OF NAILIL, LELEV_=946.3 GENERAL NOTES: 1. The bearing system used is assumed. W. LINE LOT 1, BLOCK 4 -1 . 2. The location of the underground utilities shown hereon, if any, ��\ 54- are approximate only. PURSUANT TO MSA 216D CONTACT GOPHER ,yI STATE ONE CALL AT (612) 454-0002 PRIOR TO ANY I ` 9 EXCAVATION. 946.9X I3. Site area total = 32,025 square feet = 0.735 acres. area within survey line = 25,910 square feet = 0.595 acres. I ts LIP4. This survey was made on the ground. 947.1X 5. No current title work was furnished for the preparation of this I survey, legal description, recorded or unrecorded easements and ' encumbrances are subject to revision upon receipt of current I title work. 6. Elevation datum is based on NAVD 88 data. eDT11947.0>k Bench mark is located Top of Nail L7 L' _ (AS SHOWN ON SURVEY)�� Elevation = 946.33 7L- 7. Extreme snow and ice cover of subject survey area may/ .�.C�^� 47.O L7 XV94>� cause some improvements to be non visible at time of survey. ,A ,I� 8. Impervious Area details. AL7 �47.3X Total Site Area: 32,025 square feet `� Total Structure Impervious Area: 7,191 square feet 'House Areo(s): 1,992 square feet Other Structure Areo(s): 0 square feet Driveway/Paved Areas: 3,922 square feet Patio/Deck Area(s): 316 square feet Other Impervious Surface Area: 961 square feet Percent of Total Site Area that is Impervious: 22.45% 15 FOOT PERPETUAL EASEMENT W ___25 & RIGHT OF WAY TO 15' DRIVE -J I - PER DOC. NO. 601231 I -< CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that this survey, plan or report was prepared by me or under my direct supervision and that I am a duly Registered Land Surveyor under the laws of the State of Minnesota, Date: March 3. 2015 G / Tty6mas E. Hodorff Minn. Reg. No. 236 Revicinn Hielm. R /n H c 18kf� / X LEGEND -FOUND Found Property Monument SET IRON IRON Set Prpperty Monument (Minn. Reg. No. 23677) Concrete Concrete Curb © Electric Meter 0 Gate Valve 30 15 0 30 ® Air Conditioning Unit ww Window Well 16" Deciduous Tree (Dia. in In.) SCALE IN FEET a^ ��46\ C, X946.2 {946.5 946.1` 6C.7 4p2X946.3 0 20Jn` 9 s...w ..m 94 . 4 A�CE 46. J / • Coniferous Tree (Dia. in In.) -WATER LINE AS LOCATED FEB. 23, 2015 ® Gas Meter 1x / ¢ Hydrant i n� -SURVEY LINE _ - -906 - - _ Existing Contour X 934.3 Existing Spot Elevation �k. ® Sanitary Manhole 8�9 \ kk`.D -u,a- Sanitary Sewer 10 FOOT WATERMAIN EASEMENT i 94j\ �� �� �� PER BOOK 113 OF DEEDS, PAGE 534 FINISHED FLOOR ELEV=946.39 _ FINISHED FLOOR l ELEV.=951.29 aj FINISHED FLOOR 39.3EV. E51 46 F,Q 849.2 1+' kc' Co � 4 �C948.f ROCK 'G WALL-�'%j / b \ 0k�Cp,n X946.3 \9 X946'0 4>-_ R6\�11///i946X!9 4$Z0 4. PART/lOr' X946.3 1 96 94/'2. X916.83 X946.5 940- 1 X948.1 � J S.5 L' 947 X946.3 X946.6 "-- 46.3 E. LINE OF W. FINISHED FLOOR ELEV=946.39 _ FINISHED FLOOR l ELEV.=951.29 aj FINISHED FLOOR 39.3EV. E51 46 F,Q 849.2 1+' kc' Co � 4 �C948.f ROCK 'G WALL-�'%j / b \ 0k�Cp,n X946.3 \9 X946'0 4>-_ R6\�11///i946X!9 4$Z0 4. PART/lOr' X946.3 1 96 7+/-- \ ri4 346y94j N LO NJ - _V p E. LINE OF W. X946.5 it /� 225 FT. OF LOT 1 mk ?? naYV, � X946.7 i yy d, SHED 0 4 .0 X X94 I� _ FLE V.=94 .40 946. 'TQ �) 46.6 / \ X946.8 946.4X a 947, 4 7.1 1 94>, O La BITUMI 3 \ ��. 7.4 IVOOS �-_� ACCESS E� EMENT ?? 19.e 950.E � 950 94g- - �\ no 9 -_-_- 16.2. - ��Y 0950- � ONGg- 949.8 X9 9, X -II 49.0 X948_8-948- X949.5 ,949.3k849 -949- - - -- - -X§4§:01 X9 .5 -g4 i 418 9- - vli a• -948- - ^' _ X948.7_94`�4�5.9} X946.6 j 84; z4zzv,4s.9 (�) 3q8 �.` OB X46.6203.88 'r )l�;_nnc` 4Z= r--946- ,946.3 X946.1 X946.1 X946. 5 X946.0 BUILDING DETAILS �a�' \X946.8 Y�Jjr \ X946.1 �/ 3603 RED CEDAR PT. DRIVE k�. \\X946.6 1 -STORY BUILDING 0 4 lgp/ x FOOTPRINT AREA = 1,992 SQ. FT. ��. x2 � 'F_ E SURVEY LINE WATER LINE AS LOCATED FEB. 23, 2015 CAD File' 2015125.DWG N LO r p T' LO LL rn 0 Cb T C r ♦V . i T z e e 3 CAD File' 2015125.DWG OREAR ELEVATION u Scale: 3/16"=1'A" Z 23' Q SCANNED Q 612.220.6190 MACKEYMALIN. COM W V 0 WIZ Z y�w W=h as oC o = �vz W a_ ('=V W p 0 10 M Schematic Design PROJECT NUMBER: ISSUE DAM ISSUE DATE FM GARAGE CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on July 9, 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 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Variance Request — Planning Case 2015-14 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. Subscribed and sworn to before me this 14+h day of - 2015. c , Notary Publ . Karr4f J. Engdt, Dep Clerk =MEUWISSEN C d d O) O C N d E 2 E U O �U a c O C d lL Ua O d ZN R s c �a t U 0) C d d 2 c 0 d L N d w as at 9 7 Y 0- Y 'y O C N co d N YO N G aYy o oEvaE pc 4RN U- 0-0 C C d EU' 8q.oacv:_ ��Ey.aC >. R 0 L) 16 01- d N R O mO E C 0 0" R moo' i0o.E -y O1vm 8o m G N J 'N >+ 'p :p U d C d E R .N d 0 CL L O) O ,w, c 8 w >'- ` a .T `wc E O C R a) N C Y C �, R O.d p 'o 0> 0 C •C N d.0 U -O O. '3 R E c ° d� ...E>- 3301 mE o.E mEa` oa E%y maa c 0 0 aa)i U.- a`) R L -0 N m c c a)� =ate wwowa'=�a� =mm Nm Oda) NuOEd VE d C°d'O Ei a�'c E�9-0a`m�'Ta:=t w N a C S U C O Od C O`Q d.L.. L E OOtor d w_ R 7 AUL >i C'y qw E oc mt.-8'jmm ._ a t« E F£ $— °� 2y ..L. O 7 o aU E d o Ew mL 0).0 Ld a S g t) E U .e 3Vo E6 mDm a»fro g� 02 R E- a) T� ac 5 v o d v r -- E L... U E 3 3 °- a'� muu 9 mag Ev RR°E— 0 R LL Y Y+L+ R N Cl'„C-„ d N d d �w C L.. �- C R O >I- N d a y R d rn C N g'u.2 mm�t O.2 0 p Y O U a) Y J p 01 C C d `A R E `7 N O � R rwn N -0O N dr 0..� Eam od d�co%Tc 5"_om .�w;a`',Pm_._ O 0 U) O ° 4'S C n '@ "R E o° a 0 � � .. N d R O CD CD R° ....... - .� p@ 5o§ 3 CD c � o m -o N d� a) 3 c� R ° N -0 a R aL = O= >« d 7 - N N U •3 ° N O. p d J .r- w v'S a ovog�atvg-sa° o P e ui -C WW LL L OL.. a) W C �`w ,E i6 O 9 O 'O N N R `d V O 0) d> tdn R R C d U 0 00 R E C 0 a n d ... Ns E c`6 c C 'a'a 'D > ad O a° E o' .c 82> aa))z c U v n awa m=moo<< ys a= 1O v p 0 C:) R to T O d N U 0 a) C U d J C J L O U U O. R O) -_ N y .O U O 2 d O d d C a 7 U O. r .- x d 0 d m o n- -• 8" S H o 0.--tU U U= m m W E 9 N O U C c0 L O "O _.. d p lc6 >+ d' °) L"' 3 y N C O d -_ W% N L R d ,ow y+ w o c c 8 E v .n = v 8 m'= v-61 rUd w d L do Yin d dC c 0> dw ROTC d d 0>r a+yE R N `- OsEc� -O aacoa v a'.= m=Eyiwc5° N' TcC Z Opc-p Q R 1p �._06�01'p)U •r 7 d R y' (6U a- N U dLJ>N dtp ONEC 7.. rc E y E vt Eai a�"`n voa mESg`m80'" 7 0 'V > O c d Y m d 0` C_ a a1 0 0-0 M R Ria o R 0 c�a SEC co�2E >.c c7>o�cdv•a 00 0 0 mU OE a) n n n'c 3 a o E U oL R c LSC dU'p R C aao mm wg_n%n'aa T m U`oo w M O R ° C a C to d R N N 0 d 'O i p a 3 0) E d M 'nay @ E a" 2` _� E a a' n c c 'RO£ R a) d d LL'm E RL -''C RL O j d >..T. 0 p @N <a C d d cUS om xoE f o c N UM�-� Cl) 0.0 j U�FULLi Jca xS2 d.@(V d'N d C C >'� E mvya v mco E2 -`wa``acacc°6m R£ N o a) d YM�To 0 J d a O.U?U0L O7L OU d y d-pC .ti O=.LScc mtis�.°m �'2'',5a e2 d U Q' N (M U M --j N R O. . N M a w.=. S N d 0) E 4) 60. � C N R M p �Ez .vsc mea 8sv 'Ow �� mLtc -��E-§ =da===,28z 'm "'o5n ' O c) o a E N E Lo -E.EN oc_ �cv°1�2m BS abysm R a O) F R R 0- �NMV Enw¢dNcw .oS-�vfU `or d m°13 oayms v=6 ma mtS Cv E- C d C O. "d"L J C,`Oo ea =E as w c v mmov m'o w m arn�am E O d J `mr al d C a) iCL C L S '�wom y°ao=c ~ O N AO TC =^2 ON (/i �3w`ot aw mn 3'm o.mmnt o5 cac ati ;+ OAll R. d' =� E vj �pysa@-°"mEms-�A"rsROQ w"o am w'at o5�mc o!j O y dmwN=o '++ = ia`mm�=o E 3 8 mo p o O o d J o w (6 �oas-' ==E"yo {NUO�N mF n3 ��N `aEmJ 0 Q J a a� �ia aL) z O. u. D d a d �= L.. d w - w=oa E= 7 U V LL = o- v) 'y O C N a _ S aha wzgO.E M L C O R N > Y N R .N. O H y Y 16 C C cDn g2 @o n£ 'NGm p`mu`- U O d ) 7 d 6 C d d $° >. y@ N R O) = ° N R 0 0) L E C O O ` R y N v t E .`o - E E O -O C C 3 E U [1 y N C O C 0 ant =mom= oEr E'wx 3wa ml R d .0 p C T O.d 3 T O> U-0 - O. .3 p L'dvv =E< oaET`°-!gEn"c,m o a) d° Cl) N R R dL o -° O .N L m d co E'c C C a)� dt4� 3m%= am="° `v - m c q) O � 3 E.L.. � U CD 0 O C E o T J 0 a) R d - cemEc�.E o=�� ate = o m y m, N N m d d ai R o 0 E N W V 0 d O V N d'O E.d. �8 E2�`c"nO�ti.95_ y mC0- N2'� C C`. O. _ OL, In o d' E d TR 7 CUA of c'm Ea«8m10c=m�EE ma` Br wUEG U y FAY O= 0)0' 0.0-0 .0E do J0 E ridd CC_E�A7 a)L Lal Emy 3m`o N.�x:wE »�a�av `O RR°E— " �mn`acnVLd °a) DoE' r am pRd LL Y dL Mr.00 NO -w d 0 �UCERO>f d d d CL R d C N ym� 88 ��y'a aEc 10�c�aoi.ncc= .o riE O ° 4'S J'S o C C d. C LO r N. w d L • o O.T. Eaw °mv=`= 3m c„ 'd o° o0„^cn�c L m G�N'(a C 3 w N E oo CL0 R to 6 dL-0 do�_d«ROC- ca N _. c oto a�`-'oo �ait6v o'o o'^ dad w R N C a => d U 0 O d J w = v ">53�a_gsw9>. o `LR• Nfn -0 a- `L R O.L. -p U W d N 7 - R fdp ; d c O D'0 _ 0 _ wn° n i wE i6 d -0-0 O O N y 0 0)d Z d i > 16 C NL IL6 E R U O 0 C E> d8N'°°a $na c_2 o m -tic 1pcL E RC.N-'Q'-0`.O U d 'OL d�.NO > O. aO-E O L0.>d•OC -0 0 0 x 'ON a10O a�aocw = L N T O N i CUL 7 C J L 0 0 O. N d 0 0 d O U O. d 0 0 •O E o N d U C C O 'C L R Q 7 C __ N N O R 3 U1 .L... d R J VJ Vi N d C O d- N T L •- R a�Qaovn Eo a'" -G3 -mU a N �dQ U L a) LL d C N O) Y d Gln„ NL, 0 C N�-`03 0 0 E N 'V cu D!O�jU�dC@C > dUR �w Ev O.w m`an �.�,S EaE w>1p my voc >.c c7>o�cdv•a C 0 0 '`RO O Q� R fn RV N dL j (6 d O u7 E o'oC p>(">Rr- c 7:: RN Mca J d 0 �.� R Y m U dp`mp)U d C d d O.'c - O. R L Cl) Co d° Un O C E m o n SEC c o EEw 9�v c8=mo > mU °O c M U E -° ° N d .0 0 1n R O. p N 3 E U C_ U C 0-L R �- d U 'O 3 tp 10 N N o o'n ya w8_aTW"p aam :� d m n T m- p N c d CO d'-' d R N.L. L SG E R rn d p 4. 2i c h 0) C E 3 o @'E a" a_ E E a> aEwEcw R£ N o a) d YM�To O J d a O.U?U0L O7L iU R y r d y d-pC .ti O=.LScc mtis�.°m �'2'',5a e2 d JL. C7 U O d a fn H U LL.-. 7U-_N�Ci.�C p 2sZ d O.d �' C> j E EW e°, oEE ac c.v . O c) o a E N E Lo -E.EN oc_ �cv°1�2m BS abysm R a F R R 0- �NMV '-�L.. S N d O r ESN as ° C d d R tl) m°13 oayms v=6 ma mtS Cv E- U) C 0 °'=S al d C 0-J C 7 C R a W aaEi—^'as6 mvo��a cS ms vmgcc 8N8 nm H C R C TC �N CC u �'n^d `m E2'wnvtn mD O^'mtm O N R. O =� O d NVasaEm w"o am w'at o5�mc o!j O y dmwN=o '++ ., d •� E o 0 Q J d O_ -i 1"6 oi BETSY S ANDING DIANE LEESON ANDING DOUGLAS B & JAMIE ANDERSON 3625 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3618 RED CEDAR POINT RD 3607 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7720 EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 EDWIN L & LIVIA SEIM 292 CHARLES DR SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-9204 KEITH H & FRANCES M PAAP 3601 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 PATRICIA SCUBA 431 PRAIRIE CENTER DR #114 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344-5376 SUSAN S PROSHEK 3613 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 ILMARS ERIK DUNDURS 3627 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 KELLIE J GEIGER 3603 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 STEVEN E & MARSHA E KEUSEMAN 3622 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7720 JEAN D LARSON 3609 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 MARIA P KNIGHT 3605 RED CEDAR POINT RD EXCELSIOR, MN 55331-7721 STEVEN P & LAURIE A HANSON 5901 CARTER LN MINNETONKA, MN 55343-8966 Variances within 500 Feet of 3701 South Cedar Drive Variance Address Description Number 18.5 -foot shoreline setback variance for the 09-15 3625 Red Cedar Point Road construction of a single-family home 3618 Red Cedar Point Road 15 -foot shoreline and 8 -foot side yard setback 93-06 variances for the construction of a porch and deck 1.5 -foot side yard and 14.5 -foot shoreline setback 3607 Red Cedar Point Road variance for the construction of an attached two stall 92-1 arage with a second floor 4 -foot side yard (east), 2- foot side yard (west), and 3605 Red Cedar Point Road a 26 -foot shoreline setback variances for the construction of a detached two stall garage and 88-11 second floor bedroom expansion 3601 Red Cedar Point Road 45 -foot shoreline setback variance to construct an 87-10 addition to the existing home 12 -foot front yard, a 2 -foot side yard setback variances and a 7 -foot shoreline setback for the 83 Q9_ 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. 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\2015-14 3603 red cedar point variance\resubmittal 06-05-2015\variances within 500 feet.doc July 10, 2015 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd Chanhassen, MN 55317 Re: Shoreland Setback Variance -Planning Case #2015-14 Dear Planning Commission Members, Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my thoughts and feedback on the proposed development plan for the property at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road Chanhassen. I apologize for not being able to attend the public meeting in person on July 21, 2015. My name is Frances Paap and I have lived at 3601 Red Cedar Point Road in Chanhassen since July 2008 with my husband Keith, and our two children. We selected this property as a permanent place to live and raise our family. The things that attracted us to this location are the following: • Wide open views of the lake from every window of the house. • Wide open views from every area of the property. • The private lot along with the private drive. • The knowledge that the City of Chanhassen has an ordinance which states no structure could be built closer than 75 feet from the lake. This ordinance will preserve the views. • That all structures along this private road would be single family dwellings and would not be eligible or have the potential to be subdivided. These characters of the location are what make this peninsula the beautiful place it is today and keeps the property values high even in times of economic downturn. I am attaching pictures taken from our house facing the property at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road. These pictures show the view of the lake without any obstructions. Figure 2 - View Facing South helps illustrate the number of mature trees that would have to be removed in order to build at this location. Figure 1- View Facing North Figure 2 - View Facing South The property owners at 3603 Red Cedar Point Road have requested to build a garage at this location which will be inside the 75' variance. Granting shoreline variances for this size of structure will disrupt the harmony of the property and surrounding properties as the elevation of the detached 2 -car garage with studio space is 23'. The structure at this elevation will block the open views that exist today. On the proposed site plan there are options A, B, C, and D submitted June 23, 2015. The options of A, C, and D will be less obtrusive to our views, however option B will be next to our property line creating a complete obstruction to the view of the lake or our yard. Option D is in alignment with the other resident houses with their garages attached to their houses. The 2 -car detached garage with studio space will allow for additional residents to dwell at this location. In the letter dated June 5, 2015 under section: Variance Findings Statement, the use for the dwelling has not been outlined. A studio space above the detached garage is intended to be occupied, if this is the intention, the car traffic and congestion of cars will increase on the private road. This also raises the potential for rental of the studio space in the future. As residences of the adjacent property to 3603 Red Cedar Point Road we are not in agreement with the proposed request for development. We would request that the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission deny the request for variances. If on July 21n, 2015 the Planning Commission does grant approval to move forward with the construction of a 2 -car detached garage with studio space I would like to give some feedback to the location and appeal the decision. Sincerely, r Frances & Keith Paap Owners at property 3601 Red Cedar Point Road, Chanhassen MN 55331 Cc: Drew Ingvalson, Assistant Planner