Loading...
PC Staff Report 5-21-19PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, May 21, 2019 Subject Consider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback for Property Located at 3617 Red Cedar Point Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1. Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, Associate Planner File No: Planning Case 19­03 PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.” Or “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.” Note: A motion for denial and associated Findings of Fact are included at the end of the report. Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is demolishing a nonconforming single­family home and is requesting a variance to construct a new single­ family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback, has a shed that encroaches approximately 6 feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. The proposed house would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverage to 34.5 percent, and require an 11.5­foot front yard setback variance. APPLICANT Pamela Reimer, 14455 Westridge Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55347 SITE INFORMATION PRESENT ZONING:  Single Family Residential District PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, May 21, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback forProperty Located at 3617 Red Cedar PointSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 19­03PROPOSED MOTION:“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­footlakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts theattached Findings of Fact and Decision.”Or“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­footlakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts theattached Findings of Fact and Decision.”Note: A motion for denial and associated Findings of Fact are included at the end of the report.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is demolishing a nonconforming single­family home and is requesting a variance to construct a new single­family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback, has a shedthat encroaches approximately 6 feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. The proposedhouse would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverage to 34.5percent, and require an 11.5­foot front yard setback variance.APPLICANTPamela Reimer, 14455 Westridge Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55347SITE INFORMATION PRESENT ZONING:  Single Family Residential District LAND USE:Residential Low Density ACREAGE:  .23 acres  DENSITY:  NA  BACKGROUND General Background County records indicate that the existing structure was built in 1927. The city does not have a building file for this property, nor does it have any records of any permits associated with this address. Planning Case 2018­01 On January 2, 2018 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 Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and voted 5­0 to approve the variance. On January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the variance request. On January 22, 2018, at the City Council meeting during which the appeal was scheduled to be heard, was canceled. Staff notified the applicant and appellant that the appeal would be rescheduled for the February 12, 2018 City Council meeting. Staff also extend the 60­day review deadline for this item. On February 12, 2018, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of an 11.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions of approval. On February 12, 2019, one year passed without the allowed construction being substantially completed. Per the terms of the variance, this resulted in the issued variance lapsing. Current Request On January 9, 2019, the applicant contacted staff asking about the possibility of utilizing the variance from Planning Case 2018­01. The applicant was advised that the variance would expire on February 12, 2019. Staff indicated that the variance represented the largest footprint that the city was likely to support, and recommend that the applicant familiarize themselves with the conditions that were placed on the variance. On March 29, 2019, staff informed the applicant that Planning Case 2018­01’s variance could not be extended, and that they would need to apply for a new variance. Staff indicated that it was likely the city would support a similar variance request to the one that was previously issued. Staff recommended that the applicant investigate the required conditions and indicated that staff would likely impose identical conditions, unless the requested amount of impervious surface was significantly reduced. (Note: A more detailed background including summaries of questions, comments and concerns raised during the meetings can be found in the attached staff report.) DISCUSSION Front Yard Setback: The applicant’s proposed front yard setback of 18.5 feet is consistent with a line drawn across the front of the property connecting the corners of the adjacent homes; however, Red Cedar Point Road encroaches between 8.29 and 8.63 feet onto the applicant’s property resulting in a driveway that is approximately 11 feet long at its shortest point and about 15 feet long at its longest. The setback that the applicant is requesting is that same as was allowed in Variance PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, May 21, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback forProperty Located at 3617 Red Cedar PointSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 19­03PROPOSED MOTION:“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­footlakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts theattached Findings of Fact and Decision.”Or“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­footlakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts theattached Findings of Fact and Decision.”Note: A motion for denial and associated Findings of Fact are included at the end of the report.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is demolishing a nonconforming single­family home and is requesting a variance to construct a new single­family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback, has a shedthat encroaches approximately 6 feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. The proposedhouse would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverage to 34.5percent, and require an 11.5­foot front yard setback variance.APPLICANTPamela Reimer, 14455 Westridge Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55347SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  Single Family Residential DistrictLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE:  .23 acres DENSITY:  NA BACKGROUNDGeneral BackgroundCounty records indicate that the existing structure was built in 1927. The city does not have a building file for thisproperty, nor does it have any records of any permits associated with this address.Planning Case 2018­01On January 2, 2018 the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at itsregularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on theproposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from allinterested persons wishing to speak and voted 5­0 to approve the variance.On January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the variance request.On January 22, 2018, at the City Council meeting during which the appeal was scheduled to be heard, was canceled.Staff notified the applicant and appellant that the appeal would be rescheduled for the February 12, 2018 City Councilmeeting. Staff also extend the 60­day review deadline for this item.On February 12, 2018, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of an 11.5­foot front yardsetback, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions of approval.On February 12, 2019, one year passed without the allowed construction being substantially completed. Per the termsof the variance, this resulted in the issued variance lapsing.Current RequestOn January 9, 2019, the applicant contacted staff asking about the possibility of utilizing the variance from PlanningCase 2018­01. The applicant was advised that the variance would expire on February 12, 2019. Staff indicated thatthe variance represented the largest footprint that the city was likely to support, and recommend that the applicantfamiliarize themselves with the conditions that were placed on the variance.On March 29, 2019, staff informed the applicant that Planning Case 2018­01’s variance could not be extended, andthat they would need to apply for a new variance. Staff indicated that it was likely the city would support a similarvariance request to the one that was previously issued. Staff recommended that the applicant investigate the requiredconditions and indicated that staff would likely impose identical conditions, unless the requested amount of impervioussurface was significantly reduced.(Note: A more detailed background including summaries of questions, comments and concerns raised during themeetings can be found in the attached staff report.)DISCUSSIONFront Yard Setback:The applicant’s proposed front yard setback of 18.5 feet is consistent with a line drawn across the front of the propertyconnecting the corners of the adjacent homes; however, Red Cedar Point Road encroaches between 8.29 and 8.63 feet onto the applicant’s property resulting in a driveway that is approximately 11 feet long at its shortest point and about 15 feet long at its longest. The setback that the applicant is requesting is that same as was allowed in Variance 18­01. Staff and neighbors are concerned that a driveway of that length does not provide significant off­street parking, but the driveway and three­car garage combine to provide an amount of off­street parking similar to the average provided by other properties in the neighborhood. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission either approve the variance as requested, or require an additional three feet of front yard setback to provide additional parking. Lot Coverage: The applicant’s lot is substandard with a lot area of 9,203 square feet. The property currently has a lot coverage of 36.4 percent, or 3,353 square feet. The applicant is proposing 3,170 square feet of lot cover. In evaluating these requests, staff looks at the extent to which the proposed amount of lot coverage and any associated stormwater best management practices will represent an improvement to property’s existing conditions. Staff believes that the applicant can improve the property’s stormwater management while retaining the proposed lot coverage by utilizing permeable pavers for the proposed driveway and patio, by installing a 20­foot buffer along the lake, and develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan to improve ecosystem health and function. Staff recommends that if a variance for the proposed lot coverage is granted, the three aforementioned items be made conditions of approval. Shoreland Setback: The city’s shoreland overlay district requires a 75­foot setback for properties located along Lake Minnewashta; however, the existing primary structure has a 52.9­foot setback from the lake. Since the applicant is proposing demolishing the existing structure and building a wider structure within the lake setback, a variance is required. These situations are common in the city’s older lakeside neighborhoods, and the city’s practice has generally been to use the property’s existing lake setback to determine what shoreland setback is reasonable. The proposed lake setback of 52.9 feet is in line with city's precedent and similar to the setback maintained by the adjacent properties. (Note: A detailed discussion of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report.) RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.” 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100­year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28­inch oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, May 21, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback forProperty Located at 3617 Red Cedar PointSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 19­03PROPOSED MOTION:“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­footlakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts theattached Findings of Fact and Decision.”Or“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­footlakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts theattached Findings of Fact and Decision.”Note: A motion for denial and associated Findings of Fact are included at the end of the report.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is demolishing a nonconforming single­family home and is requesting a variance to construct a new single­family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback, has a shedthat encroaches approximately 6 feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. The proposedhouse would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverage to 34.5percent, and require an 11.5­foot front yard setback variance.APPLICANTPamela Reimer, 14455 Westridge Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55347SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  Single Family Residential DistrictLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE:  .23 acres DENSITY:  NA BACKGROUNDGeneral BackgroundCounty records indicate that the existing structure was built in 1927. The city does not have a building file for thisproperty, nor does it have any records of any permits associated with this address.Planning Case 2018­01On January 2, 2018 the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at itsregularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on theproposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from allinterested persons wishing to speak and voted 5­0 to approve the variance.On January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the variance request.On January 22, 2018, at the City Council meeting during which the appeal was scheduled to be heard, was canceled.Staff notified the applicant and appellant that the appeal would be rescheduled for the February 12, 2018 City Councilmeeting. Staff also extend the 60­day review deadline for this item.On February 12, 2018, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of an 11.5­foot front yardsetback, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions of approval.On February 12, 2019, one year passed without the allowed construction being substantially completed. Per the termsof the variance, this resulted in the issued variance lapsing.Current RequestOn January 9, 2019, the applicant contacted staff asking about the possibility of utilizing the variance from PlanningCase 2018­01. The applicant was advised that the variance would expire on February 12, 2019. Staff indicated thatthe variance represented the largest footprint that the city was likely to support, and recommend that the applicantfamiliarize themselves with the conditions that were placed on the variance.On March 29, 2019, staff informed the applicant that Planning Case 2018­01’s variance could not be extended, andthat they would need to apply for a new variance. Staff indicated that it was likely the city would support a similarvariance request to the one that was previously issued. Staff recommended that the applicant investigate the requiredconditions and indicated that staff would likely impose identical conditions, unless the requested amount of impervioussurface was significantly reduced.(Note: A more detailed background including summaries of questions, comments and concerns raised during themeetings can be found in the attached staff report.)DISCUSSIONFront Yard Setback:The applicant’s proposed front yard setback of 18.5 feet is consistent with a line drawn across the front of the propertyconnecting the corners of the adjacent homes; however, Red Cedar Point Road encroaches between 8.29 and 8.63feet onto the applicant’s property resulting in a driveway that is approximately 11 feet long at its shortest point andabout 15 feet long at its longest. The setback that the applicant is requesting is that same as was allowed in Variance18­01. Staff and neighbors are concerned that a driveway of that length does not provide significant off­street parking,but the driveway and three­car garage combine to provide an amount of off­street parking similar to the averageprovided by other properties in the neighborhood. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission either approve thevariance as requested, or require an additional three feet of front yard setback to provide additional parking.Lot Coverage:The applicant’s lot is substandard with a lot area of 9,203 square feet. The property currently has a lot coverage of36.4 percent, or 3,353 square feet. The applicant is proposing 3,170 square feet of lot cover. In evaluating theserequests, staff looks at the extent to which the proposed amount of lot coverage and any associated stormwater bestmanagement practices will represent an improvement to property’s existing conditions. Staff believes that the applicantcan improve the property’s stormwater management while retaining the proposed lot coverage by utilizing permeablepavers for the proposed driveway and patio, by installing a 20­foot buffer along the lake, and develop and implement ashoreline restoration plan to improve ecosystem health and function. Staff recommends that if a variance for theproposed lot coverage is granted, the three aforementioned items be made conditions of approval.Shoreland Setback:The city’s shoreland overlay district requires a 75­foot setback for properties located along Lake Minnewashta;however, the existing primary structure has a 52.9­foot setback from the lake. Since the applicant is proposingdemolishing the existing structure and building a wider structure within the lake setback, a variance is required. Thesesituations are common in the city’s older lakeside neighborhoods, and the city’s practice has generally been to use theproperty’s existing lake setback to determine what shoreland setback is reasonable. The proposed lake setback of52.9 feet is in line with city's precedent and similar to the setback maintained by the adjacent properties.(Note: A detailed discussion of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report.)RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends that:“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­foot lakeshoresetback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Fact and Decision.”1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit.2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent.3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented.4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by streetpavement and curb.5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing theproposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctlynote the 100­year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regionalflood elevation.6. At least one tree must be planted in front yard, if one is not present after construction.7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28­inch oak tree from the grading andconstruction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11 . The 228 square­foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water­oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20­foot native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator.  Or “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.” 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100­year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28­inch oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it.  8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, May 21, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback forProperty Located at 3617 Red Cedar PointSectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 19­03PROPOSED MOTION:“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­footlakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts theattached Findings of Fact and Decision.”Or“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­footlakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts theattached Findings of Fact and Decision.”Note: A motion for denial and associated Findings of Fact are included at the end of the report.Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is demolishing a nonconforming single­family home and is requesting a variance to construct a new single­family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback, has a shedthat encroaches approximately 6 feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. The proposedhouse would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverage to 34.5percent, and require an 11.5­foot front yard setback variance.APPLICANTPamela Reimer, 14455 Westridge Drive, Eden Prairie, MN 55347SITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  Single Family Residential DistrictLAND USE:Residential Low DensityACREAGE:  .23 acres DENSITY:  NA BACKGROUNDGeneral BackgroundCounty records indicate that the existing structure was built in 1927. The city does not have a building file for thisproperty, nor does it have any records of any permits associated with this address.Planning Case 2018­01On January 2, 2018 the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at itsregularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on theproposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from allinterested persons wishing to speak and voted 5­0 to approve the variance.On January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the variance request.On January 22, 2018, at the City Council meeting during which the appeal was scheduled to be heard, was canceled.Staff notified the applicant and appellant that the appeal would be rescheduled for the February 12, 2018 City Councilmeeting. Staff also extend the 60­day review deadline for this item.On February 12, 2018, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of an 11.5­foot front yardsetback, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions of approval.On February 12, 2019, one year passed without the allowed construction being substantially completed. Per the termsof the variance, this resulted in the issued variance lapsing.Current RequestOn January 9, 2019, the applicant contacted staff asking about the possibility of utilizing the variance from PlanningCase 2018­01. The applicant was advised that the variance would expire on February 12, 2019. Staff indicated thatthe variance represented the largest footprint that the city was likely to support, and recommend that the applicantfamiliarize themselves with the conditions that were placed on the variance.On March 29, 2019, staff informed the applicant that Planning Case 2018­01’s variance could not be extended, andthat they would need to apply for a new variance. Staff indicated that it was likely the city would support a similarvariance request to the one that was previously issued. Staff recommended that the applicant investigate the requiredconditions and indicated that staff would likely impose identical conditions, unless the requested amount of impervioussurface was significantly reduced.(Note: A more detailed background including summaries of questions, comments and concerns raised during themeetings can be found in the attached staff report.)DISCUSSIONFront Yard Setback:The applicant’s proposed front yard setback of 18.5 feet is consistent with a line drawn across the front of the propertyconnecting the corners of the adjacent homes; however, Red Cedar Point Road encroaches between 8.29 and 8.63feet onto the applicant’s property resulting in a driveway that is approximately 11 feet long at its shortest point andabout 15 feet long at its longest. The setback that the applicant is requesting is that same as was allowed in Variance18­01. Staff and neighbors are concerned that a driveway of that length does not provide significant off­street parking,but the driveway and three­car garage combine to provide an amount of off­street parking similar to the averageprovided by other properties in the neighborhood. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission either approve thevariance as requested, or require an additional three feet of front yard setback to provide additional parking.Lot Coverage:The applicant’s lot is substandard with a lot area of 9,203 square feet. The property currently has a lot coverage of36.4 percent, or 3,353 square feet. The applicant is proposing 3,170 square feet of lot cover. In evaluating theserequests, staff looks at the extent to which the proposed amount of lot coverage and any associated stormwater bestmanagement practices will represent an improvement to property’s existing conditions. Staff believes that the applicantcan improve the property’s stormwater management while retaining the proposed lot coverage by utilizing permeablepavers for the proposed driveway and patio, by installing a 20­foot buffer along the lake, and develop and implement ashoreline restoration plan to improve ecosystem health and function. Staff recommends that if a variance for theproposed lot coverage is granted, the three aforementioned items be made conditions of approval.Shoreland Setback:The city’s shoreland overlay district requires a 75­foot setback for properties located along Lake Minnewashta;however, the existing primary structure has a 52.9­foot setback from the lake. Since the applicant is proposingdemolishing the existing structure and building a wider structure within the lake setback, a variance is required. Thesesituations are common in the city’s older lakeside neighborhoods, and the city’s practice has generally been to use theproperty’s existing lake setback to determine what shoreland setback is reasonable. The proposed lake setback of52.9 feet is in line with city's precedent and similar to the setback maintained by the adjacent properties.(Note: A detailed discussion of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report.)RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends that:“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­foot lakeshoresetback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Fact and Decision.”1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit.2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent.3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented.4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by streetpavement and curb.5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing theproposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctlynote the 100­year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regionalflood elevation.6. At least one tree must be planted in front yard, if one is not present after construction.7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28­inch oak tree from the grading andconstruction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it.8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side ofthe lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installeduntil all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced.9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area.10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB.11 . The 228 square­foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water­oriented structure.12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet.13. A permanent 20­foot native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species withpermanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed andinstalled by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by theWater Resources Coordinator.14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professionalin native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existingriprap. The design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water ResourcesCoordinator.15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio throughthe use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. Or“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback, a 22.1­foot lakeshoresetback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Fact and Decision.”1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit.2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent.3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented.4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by streetpavement and curb.5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing theproposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctlynote the 100­year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regionalflood elevation.6. At least one tree must be planted in front yard, if one is not present after construction.7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28­inch oak tree from the grading andconstruction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side ofthe lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installeduntil all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11 . The 228 square­foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water­oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20­foot native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator.  14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Findings of Fact (Approval) Findings of Fact (Alt Approval) Findings of Fact (Denial) Variance Document Variance Document Alt Development Review Application Tree Removal Plan Updated Survey WRC Memo ERS Memo Engineering Memo Affidavit of Mailing Email Responses CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: May 21, 2019 CC DATE: June 10, 2019 REVIEW DEADLINE: June 18, 2019 CASE #: 2019-03 BY: MW SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is demolishing a nonconforming single-family home and is requesting a variance to construct a new single-family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback, has a shed that encroaches approximately 6 feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. The proposed house would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverage to 34.5 percent, and require an 11.5-foot front yard setback variance. LOCATION: 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PID 256600320) APPLICANT: Pamela Reimer 14455 Westridge Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55347 OWNER: Patricia Souba 110980 Von Hertzen Cir. Chaska, MN 55318 PRESENT ZONING: RSF 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: .23 acres DENSITY: NA PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.” Or “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.” Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 2 of 16 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. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The parcel’s existing house is over 90 years old, does not meet the city’s minimum standards for single-family dwellings, and is in disrepair. This structure is located 52.9 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water setback and the lot currently has 36.4 percent lot coverage, largely due to the fact that the front portion of the lot is covered by a gravel parking area. The applicant is proposing replacing the existing structure with a modern home. In order to do this, they are requesting a variance to formalize the existing 22.1- foot encroachment into the required shoreland setback. They are also proposing to remove the gravel parking area, a shed located within the western side yard setback, an outdoor fireplace area, and a concrete walkway in the rear yard to bring the property more in line with City Code. Removing the shed will bring the property’s side yard setback into compliance with City Code. The lot coverage proposed for the new home, driveway, and patio area would require a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, a 1.9 percent reduction from the existing condition. They are also requesting an 11.5-foot front yard setback variance; Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 3 of 16 since they believe the parcel’s size and existing lake setback make it impractical to construct a house and garage while meeting the property’s 30-foot front yard setback. The applicant has stated that they believe the requested variances are in line with those granted by the city in similar circumstances, and they have noted that many properties in the neighborhoods have structures with similar or small front yard setbacks. They believe the proposed house will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood, and feel that replacing much of the existing gravel frontage with vegetation will improve the property’s aesthetics. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 1, General Provisions Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4, Nonconforming Uses Chapter 20, Article Vii. Shoreland Management District Chapter 20, Article XII. “RSF” Single-Family Residential District Section 20-615. Lot Requirements and Setbacks BACKGROUND General Background County records indicate that the existing structure was built in 1927. The city does not have a building file for this property, nor does it have any records of any permits associated with this address. Throughout the second half of 2017, staff received numerous inquiries from interested parties about 3617 Red Cedar Point Road. Staff informed individuals interested in the property that a variance would likely be required to rebuild on the property. Staff indicated that any variance request should maintain the existing shoreland setback and reduce the amount of lot coverage present on the parcel. Staff indicated that it would consider supporting a front yard variance in the interest of maintaining the existing lake setback, but expressed concerns about the ability of a shortened driveway to provide onsite parking. Additionally, staff expressed reservations about the property’s ability to accommodate a three-car garage, recommending that a tuck under or side-loading configuration be used. Planning Case 2018-01 On January 2, 2018, 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 Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 4 of 16 mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and voted 5-0 to approve the variance. During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following concerns: 1. Commissioner Tietz expressed concern over the narrowness of the road and access issues that will be created by construction activities. Staff indicated that the applicant’s contractors would need to work with the Engineering and Building Departments to minimize obstruction, but that the issue was unavoidable. The applicant stated that he owned another property in the area which would be used as a staging area to partially mitigate these issues. 2. Commissioner Tietz expressed concern that the proposed pervious pavers be properly designed and installed. Staff stated that the design would need to conform to the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute’s guidelines and would need to be approved by our Engineering Department. 3. Chairman Aller asked if Public Safety had expressed concern with the proposal. Staff indicated that they had not. 4. Commissioner Weick wanted to know how much additional driveway length would be needed to accommodate two standard cars. Staff estimated an additional four feet would be required. The applicant stated that since his daughter drives a jeep, he believes he can fit two to three cars in the proposed driveway. 5. The Commission asked for clarification on the average parking in the area. Staff clarified that they believed most homes in the area did have driveway space for two cars, with an estimated average of 4.5 parking spaces between garages and driveway parking. 6. The Commission asked if staff felt the site’s management of water resources was being improved. Water Resources Coordinator Strong indicated that she felt it was probably as close as possible to an equal trade. 7. Commissioner Weick expressed disappointment that the lot coverage was not being more significantly reduced. 8. Commissioners Madsen and Tietz expressed concerns about the limited driveway parking. 9. Chairman Aller expressed concern about the potential impact to the lake. During the public hearing, the following concerns were raised: 1. Debbie Lockhart expressed concerns about snow removal and snow storage, stating that the snowplow currently uses the property for a turnaround and snow storage area. City Engineer Oehme indicated that he had spoken with the plow driver and feels that the city can use its extra right of way along the end of Red Cedar Point Road to facilitate snow removal and snow storage. 2. Steve Gunther expressed concerns about how the lot coverage variance will impact the lake via increased runoff. He requested that the Commission look at it as a variance from Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 5 of 16 the 25 percent standard, noting that the home could be reconfigured to reduce the required lot coverage. On January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the variance request. On January 22, 2018, the City Council meeting during which the appeal was scheduled to be heard was canceled. Staff notified the applicant and appellant that the appeal would be rescheduled for the February 12, 2018 City Council meeting. Staff also extend the 60-day review deadline for this item. On February 12, 2018, the City Council upheld the Planning Commission’s approval of an 11.5- foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions of approval. During the meeting, the City Council expressed the following concerns: 1. Councilman McDonald requested clarification on the size of the lot compared to surrounding parcels and on the prevalence of variances in the area. Staff responded that the lot is roughly average and noted that many properties in the area have received variances. 2. Councilman McDonald asked for clarification on how snowplowing operated in the area. Staff noted that there was right of way to the north that could be used to facilitate snowplowing. 3. Councilman McDonald asked why the house could not be moved further back to accommodate a larger driveway. Staff responded that city policy has been not to allow the intensification of existing non-conforming lake setbacks. 4. Councilwoman Ryan asked staff to speak on the paver requirement. Staff stated that in this instance the Water Resources Coordinator felt comfortable with their use and that a maintenance agreement would be required. 5. Councilwoman Ryan asked staff to estimate the height of the house compared to surrounding structures. Staff stated that exact information was not available, but estimated it was comparable and noted that it met ordinance. 6. Councilwoman Ryan asked why staff had recommended a tuck under garage. Staff clarified that the configuration did the most to reduce the house footprint. 7. Councilwoman Ryan asked staff to comment on the shoreland restoration requirements. Staff noted that that requirement would be met through coordination with the watershed district. 8. Mayor Laufenburger asked how long the applicant would have to act on the variance. Staff responded that construction would have to start within one year. 9. Councilman McDonald asked the applicant how they would stage construction. They responded that they would use their existing property in the area as parking, but noted any building would have the same staging issues within the area. Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 6 of 16 During the meeting, the Mayor allowed the audience to address the City Council. The property owner spoke in favor of granting the variance. On February 12, 2019, one year passed without construction being started. Per the terms of the variance, this resulted in the variance issued on February 12, 2018 lapsing. Current Request On January 9, 2019, the applicant contacted staff asking about the possibility of utilizing the variance from Planning Case 2018-01. The applicant was advised that the variance would expire on February 12, 2019. Staff indicated that the variance represented the largest footprint that the city was likely to support, and recommended that the applicant familiarize themselves with the conditions that were placed on the variance. On March 29, 2019, staff informed the applicant that Planning Case 2018-01’s variance could not be extended, and that they would need to apply for a new variance. Staff indicated that it was likely the city would support a similar variance request to the one that was previously issued. Staff recommended that the applicant investigate the required conditions and indicated that staff would likely recommend identical conditions, unless the requested amount of impervious surface was significantly reduced. SITE CONDITIONS The property is zoned Single-Family Residential and is located within the city’s Shoreland Management District. This zoning district requires lots to be a minimum of 20,000 square feet, have front yard setbacks of 30 feet, rear yard setbacks of 75 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water level, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and limits parcels to a maximum of 25 percent lot coverage. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height. The lot is 9,203 square feet, and currently has 3,353 square feet of impervious surface resulting in 36.4 percent lot coverage. The existing structure meets the 30-foot front yard setback and 10- foot east side yard setback, has a shed located approximately four feet from the west side lot line, and is setback 52.9 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water mark. The rear yard also has a 114 square foot fireplace/patio area that is setback 24 feet from the lake. Note: A portion of the parcel, 562 square feet, is covered by Red Cedar Point Road which is a public street. This area is not included in the lot area or lot coverage totals above. Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 7 of 16 NEIGHBORHOOD Red Cedar Point The plat for this area was recorded in August of 1913. Over the subsequent century, the City of Chanhassen was formed, a zoning code was passed, the zoning code was amended numerous times, and buildings were built, demolished, and rebuilt to meet the standards and needs of the existing ordinances. Additionally, the neighborhood’s roads were not always constructed within their designated right of way. In some areas, this has led to portions of buildings being located in the right of way and portions of these roads being located within residents’ property lines. Very few properties in the area meet the requirements of the city’s zoning code, and most properties either are non-conforming uses or are operating under a variance. Variances within 500 feet: 78-07 3637 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 19’ front setback (garage) 80-08 3629 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 12’ front setback, 3’ foot side setback, +1.5’ side setback for (chimney), 20’ lot width, 40’ lot frontage, 13,000 square feet lot area (house) 81-08 3607 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 13.5’ lake setback (deck) 83-09 3613 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 12’ front setback, 2’ side setback, 7’ lake setback (house) 84-18 3707 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 20’ front setback (detached garage) 85-20 3624 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 1.2’ front setback, 4.8’ side setback (detached garage) 85-27 3701 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 5’ front setback, 35’ lake setback (house) 87-13 3629 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 12’ front setback, 3’ side (house) Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 8 of 16 88-11 3605 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 4’ E side setback, 2’ W side setback, 26’ lake setback (garage, addition intensifying non-conforming) 92-01 3607 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 1.5’ side setback, 14.5’ lake setback (addition expanding non-conforming) 93-06 3618 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 8’ side setback, 15’ lake setback (deck and porch) 96-04 3705 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 3’ side setback, 31’ lake setback, 25% LC (house) 02-05 3628 Hickory Rd.: Approved - 13’ front setback (Hickory), 2’ front setback (Red Cedar Point), 5’ side setback (detached garage) 04-07 3637 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 19.25’ front setback, 4’ lake setback, 15% LC (addition) 06-04 3633 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 22.5’ front setback, 15.8’ front setback, 2.39% LC (garage) 08-04 3637 South Cedar Drive: Approved - 20.2’ front setback, 8’ side setback (house) 09-15 3625 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 15.5’ front setback, 6.5’ E side setback, 9’ driveway setback, 18.5’ lake setback, 12.3% LC, allow one car garage (house) 15-07 3701 South Cedar Drive: Approved - increase existing non-conformity (enclose deck 15’ in lake setback) 15-14 3603 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 20.2’ front setback, 17’ lake setback (two-story attached garage) 16-11 3627 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 13.6’ lake setback, 4.8% LC (home) 17-09 3622 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - Intensify non-conforming by raising garage in side yard setback (garage) 18-01 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd.: Approved - 11.5’ front setback, 22.1’ lake setback, 11% LC (home) Note: Variance 18-01 lapsed due to one year passing without construction occurring. Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 9 of 16 ANALYSIS Front Yard Setback The property’s existing structure meets the RSF District’s 30-foot front yard setback; however, the proposed house would be setback 18.5-feet from the front lot line, requiring an 11.5-foot front yard variance. The city requires front yard setbacks in order to ensure the presence of front yard green space, preserve the character of its Single-Family Residential Districts, and to provide for off-street parking. The property’s front yard is currently covered by a 2,105-square foot gravel parking area that runs the entire width of the property and extends past the property’s 30- foot front yard setback. While the proposed house’s expanded footprint and driveway will occupy about half of the space currently covered by gravel, the other half will be replaced with vegetation. Converting the gravel area to green space will represent an improvement to the property’s aesthetic. The applicant is requesting a reduced front yard setback because they feel that it is not possible to fit a modern house and garage on a substandard lot while maintaining the existing shoreland setback without relief from the front yard setback. Given the lot’s average depth of 122 feet, if the applicant maintained the existing shoreland and front yard setback they would be restricted to combined home and garage depth of approximately 39 feet. The proposed house and garage have a maximum depth of 47 feet and minimum depth of approximately 41 feet. The applicant has stated that it is not practical to construct a shallower house, due to the proposed home’s tuck under garage. The applicant chose to propose a tuck under configuration based upon staff recommendation and preference for a front yard variance as opposed to the side yard variances that would be required for other attached garage configurations. The applicant’s proposed front yard setback of 18.5 feet is consistent with a line drawn across the front of the property connecting the corners of the adjacent homes. When examining properties within 500 feet of 3617 Red Cedar Point Road, staff found that 13 of the 25 properties have received a variance from the required front yard setback. As the table below shows, six of those properties were allowed front yard setbacks of less than 11 feet, and a further four variances were granted allowing front yard setbacks of between 14 and 18 feet. Additionally, the neighborhood has numerous nonconforming properties with similarly short front yard setbacks. The request 18.5-foot front yard setback is in line what is present in this neighborhood. Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 10 of 16 The final consideration in considering an appropriate front yard setback is the ability of the driveway to provide for off-street parking. The impact that the reduced front yard setback has on this is amplified by the fact that Red Cedar Point Road encroaches between 8.29 and 8.63 feet onto the applicant’s property resulting in a driveway that is approximately 11 feet long at its shortest point and about 15 feet long at its longest. Staff is concerned that the short driveway length will not facilitate off-street parking, but acknowledges that many properties in the area have comparably short driveways. Staff conducted an estimate of the off- street parking provided by the driveways and garages of nearby homes, and determined that houses in the area provide an average of 4.5 combined off-street parking spaces. Staff believes that the proposed driveway could accommodate one car parked parallel to the street, as the driveway is too short to allow for an average sized, 16-foot long, car to park perpendicular to the street. The proposed driveway configuration combined with the three-car garage would provide off-street parking for up to four vehicles. For reference, the City Code requires a two-car garage and 30-foot front yard setback, which would provide 4-6 off-street parking spaces Front Yard Setback Variances Granted within 500’ of 3617 Red Cedar Point Road Closest Structure Front Yard Variance Distance from lot line Garage 1.2 feet 28.8 feet Garage 2 feet 28 feet House 5 feet 25 feet House 12 feet 18 feet House 12 feet 18 feet House 12 feet 18 feet House 15.5 feet 14.5 feet Garage 19 feet 11 feet Addition (Home) 19.25 feet 10.75 feet Garage 20 feet 10 feet House 20.2 feet 9.8 feet House 20.2 feet 9.8 feet Garage 22.5 feet 7.5 feet Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 11 of 16 depending on the width of the right of way, two in the garage and two to four in the driveway. Engineering staff is recommending that the house be setback an additional three feet to accommodate the perpendicular parking of vehicles within the driveway. The additional three feet of driveway length would allow the driveway to park one average sized vehicle and one smaller vehicle perpendicular instead of one parallel. Ensuring sufficient driveway length is important since the street width in front of 3617 Red Cedar Point Road is only 16.5 feet. This means it is not feasible for two vehicles to pass along the street if vehicles parked on the driveway overhang into the street. Lot Coverage The city requires a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet for riparian properties and limits these properties to 25 percent lot coverage. The applicant’s lot is substandard with a lot area of 9,203 square feet. The property currently has a lot coverage of 36.4 percent, or 3,353 square feet. When owners propose improvements to properties that have nonconforming lot coverage, the policy is that the existing nonconformity must be reduced; however, there is no formal rule stating how much of a reduction must occur. In this case, the applicant is proposing to reduce the property’s existing lot coverage by 183 square feet, a 1.9 percent reduction. When considering what lot coverage is appropriate, both the percentage of lot coverage compared to the District’s standard and the absolute square footage of lot coverage present on the property should be considered. A non-riparian lot meeting the RSF District’s 15,000 square-foot minimum is allowed up to 3,750 square feet of impervious surface. Lots zoned Residential Low and Medium Density (RLM) and meeting the minimum size of 9,000 square feet are entitled to up to 3,150 square feet of lot coverage. These totals provide an indication of what the city considers to be reasonable minimum maximums for single-family residential lot coverage. The 3,170 square feet proposed by the applicant is close to the minimum maximum for RLM lots; however, the city has limited lot coverage to totals below those thresholds, especially in areas with stormwater management issues or which are adjacent to water resources. It should also be noted that areas zoned RLM are required to preserve significant amounts of permanent open space to offset their higher lot cover percentage. In evaluating these requests, staff looks at the extent to which the proposed amount of lot coverage and any associated stormwater best management practices will represent an improvement to the property’s existing conditions. A 183 square-foot reduction in the property’s lot coverage is not in and of itself a Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 12 of 16 meaningful improvement to the property’s existing conditions, and if no other measures are taken to reduce impervious surface or improve stormwater management, staff does not recommend approving the variance with the proposed lot coverage. Staff believes that the applicant can improve the property’s stormwater management while retaining the proposed lot coverage by utilizing permeable pavers for the proposed driveway and patio, by installing a 20-foot buffer along the lake, and develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan to improve ecosystem health and function. Staff recommends that if a variance for the proposed lot coverage is granted, the three aforementioned items be made conditions of approval. Shoreland Setback The city’s Shoreland Overlay District requires a 75-foot setback for properties located along Lake Minnewashta; however, the existing primary structure has a 52.9-foot setback from the lake. Since the applicant is proposing to demolish the existing structure and building a wider structure within the lake setback, a variance is required. Due to the fact that the property has an average depth of 122 feet, requiring the new home to meet the 75-foot shoreland setback would provide the applicant with a very constrained buildable area. These situations are fairly common in the city’s older lakeside neighborhoods, and the city’s practice has generally been to use the property’s existing lake setback to determine what shoreland setback is reasonable. Within 500 feet of the property, shoreland setback variances of up to 35 feet have been granted to facilitate the construction of homes, and a total of three shoreland setback variances of over 20 feet have been issued. The properties to the east and west of the parcel have respective lake setbacks of 54.6 feet and 61.4 feet. The proposed lake setback of 52.9 feet is in line with city precedent and similar to the setback maintained by the adjacent properties. Staff is concerned that significantly increasing the size of the structure and amount of impervious surface within the shoreland setback will increase the amount of stormwater runoff being diverted into Lake Minnewashta. Staff believes that requiring the rear patio discussed below to be constructed using permeable pavers and requiring the installation of a 20-foot buffer between the home and the lake will serve to mitigate this impact. Portions of the rear patio will be setback closer to the lake than the existing houses 52.9-foot setback. At its closest point, the proposed patio would be setback approximately 45 feet from the lake. Since the City Code allows for lakefront properties to have one water oriented accessory structure of up to 250 square feet with a minimum setback of 10-feet from the lake’s ordinary high Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 13 of 16 water level, no variance is required for the patio’s encroachment into the shoreland setback. The applicant has agreed that the patio will be the property’s only water oriented accessory structure, and will be removing the existing fireplace area which is setback approximately 24 feet from the lake. Impact on Neighborhood Red Cedar Point is one of the oldest neighborhoods in the city. Many of its properties are non- conforming uses, and 16 of the 25 properties within 500 feet of 3617 Red Cedar Point Raod have been granted at least one variance. Of these 16 properties, 13 have a variance for reduced front yard setbacks, five have been granted additional lot coverage, and 11 were permitted a reduced shoreland setback. Many of the nine properties that do not have associated variances also have nonconforming lot coverage, front yard setbacks, and shoreland setbacks. The height of the proposed house is higher than some of the surrounding homes, but with a peak height of 27 feet and building height of 22 feet, it is significantly below the 35-foot maximum building height allowed by City Code. The existing housing stock in the surrounding area is a mix between older single-level homes and more recent two-story homes. Due to the unique constraints posed by each lot and the changes in architectural trends over the decades, the housing in this area is a fairly eclectic mix. Proposed House Street Elevation Existing House Street View Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 14 of 16 SUMMARY The applicant’s proposed shoreland setback maintains the existing distance to the lake and granting it would be consistent with how similar requests have been treated in the past. The requested lot coverage variance represents a minimal reduction of an existing nonconformity, but if pervious pavers are utilized and a buffer is installed along the lake, the property’s stormwater management will be significantly improved. The proposed front yard setback will result in a very short driveway and a limited ability to accommodate on-site parking, but it is consistent with the surrounding properties and what has historically been allowed within the neighborhood. Staff recommends approval of the proposed variances with conditions. RECOMMENDATION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.” 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100-year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in the front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 15 of 16 13. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The Design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. Or “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.” 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100-year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in the front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. Planning Commission 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 May 21, 2019 Page 16 of 16 11. The 228 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The Design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. Should the Planning Commission deny the variance request, it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion and attached Finding of Fact and Decision: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies a variance request to allow an 11.5- foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.” ATTACHMENTS 1. Finding of Fact and Decision Approval 2. Finding of Fact and Decision Alternate Approval 3. Finding of Fact and Decision Denial 4. Variance Documents 5. Development Review Application 6. Tree Removal Plan 7. Survey 8. WRC Memo on 3617 Red Cedar Point 9. ERS Memo on 3617 Red Cedar Point 10. ENG Memo on 3617 Red Cedar Point 11. Affidavit of Mailing 12. Email from Resident G:\PLAN\2019 Planning Cases\19-03 3617 Red Cedar Point Road\Staff Report-3617 Red Cedar Point Rd Round2_PC.doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of Pamela Reimer for an 11.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance on a property zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2019-03. On May 21, 2019, 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 9, 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 intent of the city’s shoreland management ordinance is to protect the city’s aquatic resources by requiring structures to be setback 75 feet from lakes and limiting the maximum lot coverage permitted within 1,000 feet of a lake to 25 percent. The setback and lot coverage limitation is designed to minimize the amount of stormwater runoff that is discharged into the lake. The applicant’s proposal calls for maintaining the existing nonconforming lake setback and slightly reducing the existing lot coverage. Staff believes that by using pervious pavers, installing a vegetative buffer, and working with the watershed district to conduct a shoreline restoration project, the proposed home’s impact on Lake Minnewashta will be minimized. Given the existing nonconforming nature of the property and the BMPs being required as conditions of approval for the variance, the city believes that the applicant’s proposal balances protecting the lake and allowing for reasonable use on a nonconforming property. 2 The city’s zoning code requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet in order to provide for greenspace and a consistent neighborhood aesthetic. The applicant’s proposed reduction to the front yard setback is in conjunction with the removal of an existing driveway that occupies most of the front yard and is similar to the front yard setback maintained by other homes in the neighborhood. For these reasons, the requested front yard setback is in harmony with the Chapter’s intent of providing for greenspace and a consistent neighborhood aesthetic. 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 lot’s substandard size combined with the required front and lake setbacks mean a reasonably sized home could not be constructed on the property without a variance. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The property is located in an older subdivision and the existing structure does not conform to the current zoning code. The parcel is significantly smaller than the minimum size required for riparian lots zoned RSF. The substandard nature of the lot makes it impossible to construct a single-family home meeting the current zoning code. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The property is located in one of the city’s oldest subdivisions. The vast majority of the properties within 500 feet of the parcel either have received variances or are nonconforming uses. The existing housing stock is a mix between older single-level homes and more recent two-story homes. Due to the unique constraints posed by each lot and the changes in architectural trends over the decades, the housing in this area is a fairly eclectic mix. 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 #2019-03, dated May 21, 2019, prepared by MacKenzie Young-Walters, is incorporated herein. 3 DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100-year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 4 ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 21st day of May, 2019. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-03 3617 red cedar point road\findings of fact and decision 3617 red cedar_round2 (approval).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of Pamela Reimer for an 11.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance on a property zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2019-03 On May 21, 2019, 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 9, 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 intent of the city’s shoreland management ordinance is to protect the city’s aquatic resources by requiring structures to be setback 75 feet from lakes and limiting the maximum lot coverage permitted within 1,000 feet of a lake to 25 percent. The setback and lot coverage limitation is designed to minimize the amount of stormwater runoff that is discharged into the lake. The applicant’s proposal calls for maintaining the existing nonconforming lake setback and slightly reducing the existing lot coverage. Staff believes that by using pervious pavers, installing a vegetative buffer, and working with the watershed district to conduct a shoreline restoration project the proposed home’s impact on Lake Minnewashta will be minimized. Given the existing nonconforming nature of the property and the BMPs being required as conditions of approval for the variance, the city believes that the applicant’s proposal balances protecting the lake and allowing for reasonable use on a nonconforming property. 2 The city’s zoning code requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet in order to provide for greenspace and a consistent neighborhood aesthetic. The applicant’s proposed reduction to the front yard setback is in conjunction with the removal of an existing driveway that occupies most of the front yard and is similar to the front yard setback maintained by other homes in the neighborhood. The front yard setback also exists to ensure properties provide adequate off-street parking; the proposed driveway length of 15 feet is insufficient to accommodate an average sized vehicle. In order to provide for adequate off-street parking an average driveway length of at least 16 feet is required. The requested front yard variance does not provide for this length, but granting an 8.5-foot front yard setback variance instead of the requested 11.5-foot front yard setback variance would meet the intent of the ordinance. 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 lot’s substandard size combined with the required front and lake setbacks mean a reasonably sized home could not be constructed on the property without a variance. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The property is located in an older subdivision and the existing structure does not conform to the current zoning code. The parcel is significantly smaller than the minimum size required for riparian lots zoned RSF. The substandard nature of the lot makes it impossible to construct a single-family home meeting the current zoning code. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The property is located in one of the city’s oldest subdivisions. The vast majority of the properties within 500 feet of the parcel either have received variances or are nonconforming uses. The existing housing stock is a mix between older single level homes and more recent two-story homes. Due to the unique constraints posed by each lot and the changes in architectural trends over the decades, the housing in this area is a fairly eclectic mix. 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. 3 Finding: This does not apply to this request. 5. The planning report #2019-03, dated May 21, 2019, prepared by MacKenzie Young-Walters, is incorporated herein. DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100-year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The Design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 4 15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 21st day of May, 2019. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-03 3617 red cedar point road\findings of fact and decision 3617 red cedar_round2_alt (approval).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (DENIAL) IN RE: Application of Pamela Reimer for an 11.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance on a property zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2019-03. On May 21, 2019, 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 9, 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 zoning code’s shoreland overlay district was enacted to protect the city’s aquatic resources. Allowing the applicant to exceed the district’s 25 percent lot coverage limit and increase the extent of the nonconformity within the required 75-foot shoreland setback area increases the amount of runoff that will be directed to Lake Minnewashta and is contrary to the intent of the ordinance. The City Code allows for owners to improve their properties in ways that reduce an existing nonconformity. Increasing the size and amount of structure located within the shoreland setback increases, rather than decreases the existing nonconformity. The proposed reduction to the property’s impervious surface does not meaningfully improve the property’s stormwater management. Increasing nonconformities is not in line with the intent of the Chapter. 2 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 lot’s substandard size combined with the required front and lake setbacks mean a reasonably sized home could not be constructed on the property without a variance; however, the requested variances significantly exceed the minimum variances needed for the construction of a reasonably sized home. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations. d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the landowner. Finding: The property is located in an older subdivision and the existing structure does not conform to the current zoning code. The parcel is significantly smaller than the minimum size required for riparian lots zoned RSF. The substandard nature of the lot makes it impossible to construct a single-family home meeting the current zoning code. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The proposed home is larger than those located on the surrounding properties, and deviates for the general lake home aesthetic present in the community. 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 #2019-03, dated May 21, 2019, prepared by MacKenzie Young- Walters, is incorporated herein. 3 DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies a variance request to allow an 11.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance.” ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 21st day of May, 2019. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-03 3617 red cedar point road\findings of fact and decision 3617 red cedar_round 2 (denied).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2019-03 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 9, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100-year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in the front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 2 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: May 21, 2019 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor AND: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager 3 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2019 by Elise Ryan, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-03 3617 red cedar point road\variance document 19-03.doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2019-03 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 9, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Driveway slope shall not exceed 10 percent. 3. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented. 4. The applicant must enter into a roadway easement over the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb. 5. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the proposed setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures. This survey should also correctly note the 100-year FEMA floodplain and should show the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. 6. At least one tree must be planted in the front yard, if one is not present after construction. 7. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 2 8. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 9. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 10. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. 11. The 228 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented structure. 12. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,170 square feet. 13. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 14. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 15. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: May 21, 2019 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor AND: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager 3 STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2019 by Elise Ryan, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-03 3617 red cedar point road\variance document 19-03_alt.doc (Refer to the appropriate Application Checklist for required submittal information that must accompany this application) trtr tr ! n Comprehensive Plan Amendment.................. ... $600! fUinor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers..... $100 Conditional Use Permit (CUP) E Single-family Residence ........... .. $325 fl rut others........ .......... $425 lnterim Use Permit (lUP) n ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence..$325 E nltothers........ ....... $425 Rezoning (REZ) n Planned Unit Development (PUD) . . ... $750 E tvtinor Amendment to existing PUD........... ..... $100 E rut Others........ ..... $500 Sign Plan Review....... .... $150 Site Plan Review (SPR) n ROministrative......... ... $100 E Commercial/lndustrral Districts" .. $500 Plus $10 per 1 ,000 square feet of building area:(_ thousand square feet) *lnclude number of exisflno employees: _*lnclude number of ry employees: E Residential Districts ... $500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit (_ units) Subdivision (SUB) E Create 3 lots or less ............ .. $300 n Create over 3 lots ............. ......$600 + $15 per lot(_ lots) E Metes & Bounds (2 lots) ....$300 E Consolidate lots...... ..$150 [] Lot Line Adjustment.............. ........ $150 n rinat P1a1............. .. $700 (lncludes $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) Variance (VAR) ........ $200 Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) n Single-Family Residence........... . $150 E ntothers........ ..... ...$275 Zoning Appeal . .. $100 Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA) .... $500 p[!: When multiple applications are processed concurrently, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. tr tr n a n tr n f, eroperty Owners' List within 500' (city to generate after pre-application meeting) @_rJJr".r"rl E] Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply) E Conditional Use Permit E lnterim Use Permit I Vacation Z Variance n Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) E Easements (- easements)E Deeds C.r l^r TOTAL FEE: '4L $3 per address $50 per document E Site Plan Agreement E Wetland Alteration Permit Description of Proposal: 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd.Property Address or Location: Parcel#: Existing Use of Property: 256600320 Legal Description:Block 4, Lot 9, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta TotalAcreage:0.23 Wetlands Present? Present Zoning. Single-Family Residential District (RSF) Present Land Use Designation' Residential Low Density Detached Single Family Single-Family Residential District (RSF) E Yes Z tto Requested Zoning: EChect< box if separate narrative is attached. Requested Land Use Designation. Residential Low Density Q<_ lq ^o3 CO-IIIMUNITY DEVELOPM ENT DEPARTMENT Planning Division -7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147 , Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227 -1300 / Fax: (952) 227 -1 110 Submittaro.,"'[ \f Q,\ t9 pcDate:5]LtrJ--.{-13- ccDate:t/ro ( tq 60-DayReviewrr,",L[tY ltt *crTYor APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW vc Section 1:allthat Section 2:lnformation APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, 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. lf 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 correct. Address: City/Statr Email: nName: Trrt.tr, Q*^tr contact: l)n.^eln 2r; tf Phone: ?,< rC- ,l I O, ft/e A ?se- ato. s4se Signature: " a*&i=2 Daro: 4-/7*/? PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, l, 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. 2r.;.,o ,4. -9r,-,ho contact: GF€' Soubq *u City/State/Zip ,ff& f /otz- Atb- qffl 5 Address: ' %/l th, f ' f'=a /?" (?' '* Phone: Fax Signature: PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Name: at Fax: oa" Qrz;z /7, ?d1 7 Address: Contact: Phone: City/State/Zip: Email: Cell: Fax: This application must be completed in full 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 and fees. 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. Who should receive copies of staff reports? 6wtrtr *Other Gontact lnformation : Name:Property Owner Applicant Engineer Other. Via: Via: Via: Via: EIEmail I fuaiteO Paper Copy EfEmail I UaiteO Paper Copy ! Email ! tvtaiteO Paper Copy f] Email I tvtatbO Paper Copy Address: City/State/Zip: Email. INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital copy to the city for processing. Section 3:Owner and lnformation Section 4: Notification lnformation April 10, 2019 City of Chanhassen Community Development Department 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 5531,7 Re: Variances for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road We are requesting the following variances on the property: L. L0.9o/o hard cover variance 2. 2Z.l ft.lake set back variance 3. 18.5 ft front yard setback from property line to the NE garage corner fustifications for the variance: L. The lot is sub standard. 2. We will be removing an old structure and building a new home. 3. Increased tax base for the city. 4. We will reduce the current hard cover by 44 sq.ft. 5. Current homes in the neighborhood have similar variances that we are applying for and therefore this helps justify the variance; furthermore, this property was approved in 2018 for exact above variance. 6. We will not alter the essential character of the neighborhood. 7. We will be bringing the side setback into compliance by removing the outhouse. Note: The patio in the backyard is the water oriented structure. The current structure on the property is a 1930's vintage Sears mail order cabin that is showing its age. The structure does not have a garage or a working bathroom, rather an outhouse that is beyond the side yard setback. The driveway currently is gravel and runs the entire width of the property and is lacking in green space. Our plan is to build a single family home (plans attached) that will improve the neighborhood from aesthetics and tax base standpoint. I am currently a neighbor and look forward to moving down the street, closer to long-time friends. As mentioned above, we will also be reducing the current hardcover and bringing the West side yard setback into compliance. Sincerely, Pamela Reimer 7/e t Re r4oval The Gregory Group,Inc. INVOICE NO. 86405,87086 dh. F.B.NO.__ 1093.44 LOT SURVEYS COMPANY SCALE.1"• 20 Established ii 1962 LAND SURVEYORS Doom remelt=ellemeeret REGISTERED UNDER T1¢LAWS OF STATE OF NNESOTA 0'i11"w`"'"tMI N017M1Ammo 111•4 4701160.101/1 p...lamer SUS fby•ly 460.1122 3ururyurs MertifiruteS.w6 ear EXISTING CONDI TIONS SURVEY FOR: 1>.wlae • Greerrimesi1 seureed MARK D.WILLIAMS CUSTOM HOMES Bolding Seats*1106.11111116111 Freed($0.V)-30 fast Side -10 feet Property located a S6croe 011W•7S Meet dates ef7 NO eager) I,Towage's 116.Reye 23, Caner Corry.Maeraa Property Address: 3617 Red Ceder Net Rd. e•st•.9 hardcover Ch66hma6.MN 5.22 sr k ChonoChoosy meted Beachreeh rang d/rilery odd.03627 ReLdmtee - 7A3 se kaeration•037.30 feet Gamete - 327 sq ft Grad s lace - 2105 aq h ditancws road • 543 sq.h!rot mc6aded mikes - r3,1k rbefteoe - 101 se ft z3.3s iNrrenb9e 3C.36%Parr rd two "We Note:The road surface d 543 al h.5 rot s.c4ded a the Aandhow r or the total lot arca CodaPRed omt Road Ili t •- S 84'SOY r E 79.• 1 c-aa r,owe O•01.501,,, P. 4 I - 1` 95202 n - ''-'=- i.--- r----- --------114-Z- 1 err , sic '1sus. a.r 1 920'7 010 i OS0 ween 3t err T _ s 10 44 A I asz i za i i rLrwr X Oi 1OOs.9 150 r a +- F 952.2 9545 2.5r-ne .,.a tiA a s tG.o r 7 Na 3622 55r 7 Ile4,64 No. a»:: 2-5r-fit I le NI a' j t0.0 e•. l34.e Ab.3613 Z s •7 4,e - et,' I fo 9 1 !3z r 9s 1 r12€.3 4.---.74,77-76wn,s.ri$ 10.0 7" -• OIL --' 4 W4r a1vl309 /! • p " III!34 4 932.9 W 2 Rt f.X l 36 7 S oa Dec* 93r.L I ii 4:444 , 7 ni i oar I w rt, m. 2;1 aslsr 7 22, o •-- _ z, 4 I 95 5 . 3302 tjvr..,4...,t.fore I leo.. q I 9504 950•_ x; L-i©u~ 947.4 ,` nyso.v mm2 merp 949.5 Itreptses 949.'5 u x.r 5410.: 9no 2447--x__ t SW$It 2445 C aIroe 804 4.> l I I 41It\ 9«a _':__caw a - .Pi rr3Y.117eg60' .11.1. 80.0 •94c9 •94...c wt '.La-.-90i4`s l+e.s =_--_ 944 5 -1 7144.$ 941.5 r efhroomite"wens hem Goo*odes acne..1454 Lake Minnewashta 00 ler Neal p.Mae-545.0 711..ray...s... em.are as..pre of mate.r i4enea.n Lots 9 and 10.Block 4,RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MB.INEWASHTA ptosed y dint.Carver Comty,Minnesota 1 aaaty Net W.Max p.oln6...er repot mei propeiad fe to• etder.ry dead aper rb.end NW 1.71.017016rerot tea. oiler Maar a.a..et M pea•mimosa. Surveyed 9W 1711 day d May 2017 5.__ M 511-6-- 1 nand elft On.n Pry ) 7 1‘21-,1 1-Oo-17 added(laest0ne Woes 6• vee.s lir.lleg.!..IrM r -____ - .•4.4.44,4.444414.4164•480444404..r..r.... •am. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant City Planner FROM: Renae Clark, Water Resources Coordinator DATE: May 6, 2019 SUBJ: Variances for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road Project Summary: The applicant is proposing a new single family home in replace of an existing home at the above address on Lake Minnewashta. The project requires a variances from the Shoreland Management requirements within Chapter 20 of the City Zoning Code for hard cover and lake setback. A similar project was reviewed and approved by the City in 2018. The proposed project makes slight improvements to water resources by reducing impervious surface approximately 300 square feet (sq. ft.). Recommendations provided below remain generally consistent with the previous authorization. Water Resources Review Comments and Recommendations: 1. Tree protection fence, located outside the dripline, should be shown on the site plan for all trees proposed to be saved. 2. The Site Plan dated 4/26/19 (REV) incorrectly notes the 100 YR FEMA floodplain for Lake Minnewashta as 945.0 feet. The correct floodplain elevation per FEMA (Dec. 2018) is 945.9 feet. City Code section 20-329 requires the lowest floor not less than three feet above the regional flood elevation. The plan indicates a crawl space that does not meet this threshold. The plan should be updated to show all low floor elevations meeting this standard. 3. The proposed plan reduces hardcover by approximately 300 sq. ft. To mitigate the impacts to Lake Minnewashta of a reduced lakeshore setback and increased impervious service, I recommend the following conditions consistent with the previously approved variance request: a. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using native species with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. b. Develop and implement a shoreline restoration plan that is designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve ecosystem health. The plan may incorporate use of the existing riprap. The Design plan may require additional approvals and must be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. c. The property owner must propose to further reduce hard cover associated with the driveway and patio through the use of pervious paver systems reviewed and approved by the Water Resources Coordinator. MEMORANDUM TO: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist DATE: May 21, 2019 SUBJ: 3617 Red Cedar Pt Rd, Variances to construct a home The lot has a number of existing mature trees in the rear yard. They are all within the shoreland impact zone and are therefore required to be preserved and protected. According to the submitted plan, a 28” oak in the shoreland impact zone is not scheduled for protection. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the tree and remove it from the grading area. To protect the trees during construction, the following practices are required: • Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and grading limits. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. • When excavating near the tree, roots should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or tearing the roots. • No equipment or materials may be stored within the tree protection area/rear yard. Additionally, as required by city ordinance, one tree will be required to be planted in the front yard. Recommendations: 1. The applicant must revise the silt fence placement to exclude the 28” oak tree from the grading and construction limits and locate tree protection fencing around it. 2. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side of the lot encompassing all existing trees. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction activities shall be replaced. 3. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area. 4. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB. MEMORANDUM TO: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner FROM: George Bender, Assistant City Engineer DATE: May 2, 2019 SUBJ: Multiple Variance Requests for 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd Planning Case: 2019-03 The requested variances have been reviewed and the following comments were noted: ● A title search for the property should be required in order to document all existing easements. ● The plan should allow for reasonable off-street parking in the driveway. The edges of the driveway are not dimensioned but by scale the west side is 14.5’ and the east side is 11’. Providing a minimum average length of 16’ is recommended based on Staff research for the average size vehicle length. (Essentially the garage would need to be moved back 3’ from the back of the curb) ● The slope of the driveway shall not exceed 10%. ● A dedication of ROW over the street pavement and curb is requested. If a dedication is not feasible to request then an easement over the existing roadway portion of lot would be acceptable. ● Maintain the requirements from the prior review for this lot as part of Planning Case 18-01. CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on May 9, 2019, 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 to consider a request for variances for hard cover, lake setback and front yard setback for property located at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road,zoned Single Family-Residential (RSF), Planning Case File No. 2019-03 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. k)\j Kim T. Me'ssen, Deput Cl rk Subscribed and sworn to before me this(3'P'day of IY1 C 2019. x,1--4,,rJEAN M STECKLING L`eeC w oaiwrwon ate..101 31,a7tNotaryPublic . 4 14 11 1 r m''..... r.CedaPoktt Rd =, ' ', ' f n \ p ..000- 4.. . \ \ Subject Property Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.This map is a compilation of records,information and data located in various city, county,state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown,and is to TAX_NAME» be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic TAXADDL1» Information System(GIS)Data used to prepare this map are error free,and the City does TAX ADD L2» «TAX ADD L3»not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes§466.03, Subd. 21 (2000),and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims,and agrees to defend,indemnify,and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User,its employees or agents,or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. im4-- z Ni G's, - // t 7:* , , daGedai.POk( 411‘ a Subject 4 ` Property ihb Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one.This map is a compilation of records,information and data located in various city, county,state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown,and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System(GIS)Data used to prepare this map are error free,and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the Next Record»«TAX_NAME» depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to TAX ADD L1» Minnesota Statutes§466.03, Subd.21 (2000),and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims,and TAX_ADD_L2», «TAX_ADD_L3» agrees to defend,indemnify,and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought by User,its employees or agents,or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of data provided. p a m. w r 0 N C O `' N (n O 0 C z cam (O r um° w.so yr 2,...„8 a 0 n > C O N bTO- ova° m .cm. o Lac Oa« N 0 0 O N N a E c1' 1 EL •> S a) oUd dm. em wrE 86- oc O Y N o .0 — U U N ` N C 3 t .- a t 0) mcami umiEcmE c v CO U 6 Q)— N O C N ., (O O a N O m H N N N a"i m c d 1-0N — ce 0 '0 3 .( 1)— • - 0 a) u) 0- L 0) O yc F d and mymc E .- O C U C Ti N U E = a C oE , cmEd_ 3oE mmO (O (O QN p U (OL = .0 •+7, p mo¢ °aoT- Vic - acm Of6 -0 > M ..•, N -6 .O .0 3 (OL 0 a Q ? j a (2c-) o, mmUmWN (COaO' , cg 01 c 12 > U ., N 0i L. +. U Q N j 0 N O +-' O E > E E O a c m a H E c a o U a t So tC Q) a - as - V OEO Op 'VE O > VL +- 0000 . me Emy c= mSTc' d 0) L y N (O to C C O _C Q Q y E N 0 , . N •-d = L a) a) (n m a 82 m U E o '2 U=- m NO L w ... L ( O O C O 0` CL E — C V O Q > 'y a . 0 N 3Lo foo (T, iE 8 c L O o m H (O O u, ..9, -- c7)- 0.. c0O O O V O O E L £ 3 3 m m d m B E c m° gy m L C O 0 +. coo N C N + O N U 0_./... +,. C U) (A a m.cHCCDiiivwarnmro y 0 p O U (0 d . C p 3 0 CD E a w O cofl ! iUCO m 2' 11 :UU ':flllasyOOtiCQ-LL•O . E O Q 47_ O C 4) N N v m° a O ` p N y N Q O p 3 C a N L m r m Tm m 0.-0 C (j (t i co 0) L O w 4- .1) O -O "O U N 0 ..+O (/ Q.L a+ Q ` m U a 3 E 8 _ p " > QC ay. U O a C U " o N -C a 0 O 0 coo m >a EvBymo- v 0 p 2,m ` O -0 N > . 0 0 C_c O N .> 0 (O Q O co p " 3 U C . c ° m m 5 m«• r y°-2 a T a oOd) c O .2 p a L -p 'C > Q0 V 0- Q C QN X Oa) p) cm2 a3-°o .°11a20tm20bc:c d C N_Q L co N N C Com. to N 3 O • N - 3 a (n O N Q N N ^— a O •.m a m 1° o a ac 2$ a E ca w v° w .0 _- NU OL O •p w . O N O) in N t_ >,N N O a O = O m0 mncomom'vm cto a c N of•U El..)p N d O -.,., ca) O .c ,a)_ C0 N ' C N U (O L N L E L Q. (a za Q N d m c d L E v.. >a m in m o , en -a N y N U +: CO O) L (n (n (n a) I—C O E o'vy m- Emyoam o tr« v a >,,c C p .a C (O• O cr.O 0, •V 0 0 • C O ` O) .0 a s (O N ,+ m =m ^ E o B E =." m e c y ° °a ca+co N DO co E N O) N 0 C — Q N 4) ... O` co .«' " C r a — +. a E w c o om. E E m Oa. m OZc2 > 0),-- >. N w U c N N ( n 3 N 0-L a) (O as .( O ' O C .0 m fn c 22 y¢ o g H s s 2 m a>,r m n m E y N U +' O C Q N E U Q CO (n V O >> a C p () O E O E o E'ES. .- .6 E. ' 5 c ki 00 (O O w0 (O N O O N - C..., C L O 7 O 3 ?.. V 0 0 0 N U ' a + 0 0 0 7 c 8 8 m c°o v.-g Z, m . rn m. sz v d m L 41 N c = 0 C a IX 1V 0-.0 5 .VU1— Ud +.. OU O C)QE (CO g C s- > -° C amc tR myo agm2t3yEONTa. E 7 E > O ommEmm ac° 5 ° O 7 4? =' O C O (O (p- -c Q L 0 N O O >, O -0 O C .` N •D E m 3 0 80_, 0 H (gO F- (Odd MQ H CO CO Q' NM .-. (n L 0 (OU 0 0-- O N N mEmmt a=rmrn0.82m Oa N2rnOvE_ 0 N N E°mo" 8Em'no= n8occ C C 0- O L cmmEOemmvaSmv ncc a a) a 0 C_ Ca cammmovLoinNry iam E_ 0.4-• 0r) In. a, 0c0 ._, M CC Oa Bar.+ a yE8aQ. - Q. (O O L a my 20, 10="- c omv 4-. 0 0 Q. 0 0 L r 3 O W 0 Tr' ovcm >L8°o moo ° camomm O 0 a- Q- 1 O O v U0._inmra >mvsa¢ Em !a CI _i a. < dJ O a0 z Q c) . 0 a m.w c c Ca 13 u 63d— g,.E Fyo3 WLo4- n NO = C '- as N r 154 cr OCL -0 N C = 'a -O N OU L n > Y CZN (O -, C cDa ° uEE H= '5 m y NO O L N j N O N E ` E >a) o c m 8 ` d 15 aY L L — "-'U N •N C 3 a 0) myE ;roa «E 8a v cm E . c $N OCN7NOa p gym r 8a 0 m m mT?c CO O 3 a'N (n0' L 42 CNC F- m.0 ; 0 mmmmCN- v N Q U n EoN 6E13p O C .' U C OL - L . 0 mo¢ vET msoEac ma o) p -0 > Np Q O O c (O .0 0 a) 0- 3 ••-• N0 mU T.- EL) o'- co C > U NQNN0Ca UoaECNrnmflIfluIIa)r L y p aV OE N (n jyOw. OLN QN0E c 8r UE L. UwuaNONN0LEEaNNY + N C C N OO 'e2H " L ` O m8 { 2s 2 m wO N O. + i c 3 a .8,0= m ° cm `rE 08 61 O E N g n Ew • QNCD0LN N '- U a L- n O C 15 = U .O mcm aco¢d > 3.fi 0-p 0 U 0 C •- (O O p p "' y — . CO p I C O LL NEO O , aN (O O m iLo m m 0 2200 ( O O Q OC NONQ 3 >+ N amdO « . CQ• p _ N 3 -• N E - > (4 O a E LmrE >,m a = n 0 - cQ0) L 0 + `- N -, -0 -O p)N7 Udst _ o d.-oa) c U N V O 075Om am8m >uON o ; OCL O = Cvmmc8mm 8>c-0 L Of0 N N .- Q- •(7 — 3 -- -0 a 'Dvoo12LEQL • 0 C .. Xa) • oO - amcmmcHUU0 cn cr) O7c- •o +.. Y 'O CC ` 000 - OUO CQE . - .. V C -O n O a m«pC (OnU N N QO0 C — N o Eao -«omAAiCa7 OC CL (n . = C L (n a n N NQ N D) a •- ` COO y m V' y N aDc2Ecw^U° a m° m .-).o.• C - a) U 0L 0 'pC +n . 2N NC) N C >,N _ a a ^ C 0 m U mm us m« ° p N d 0 0 _cOC (O OURLN - cEL ( 60- O mm c m r E ca o m 4.2 mas ,- p•U O n -0Ly . a) N > (O 'C (n -5N (f 0 t—C 0 E c E a m_ E c m o 2 d8 .t r rNOa) O NO • .0O ° , L mmtrcdE -Ym S.Cl- 'c 7 0 ( E et.O 0), c 00p •OCLO .toL 2on0L (C ++ .-cr.. a O . aE om `Om m'T,2 E u a o -vOCd0 (O 0ONNQ'r- 0- U 2 Q L a .F ,O L _ C8o m ymmm m na= z ( Aa N U O A U E O ) in CO 0' E C ( na) , N O0 +,. En y m EE mv_ Ea> `2- E a — -- +C. 0 -p C 0-' N" - N "' EQ' (O •- C NU) O a cpc V . o E Na tccnOy O NO ma) oL3 a0Q , E0 m e g 8-30,0 -8.R rn0 -aoR -0 - c2pcc CC%.7)„. U UL O O O U EC C L Op E .nii UmN' a •cc-L nc 0 I VQ, 0 1— U d . OE NE . O > C ms - cogcymU c o O a Q 0 0 Q E > Ecy c ' EN0EmmmoO >, O "d O C .` U c aE 8 a rn sma04 .— O 0 O c - L QL 0 Q. m N U (O d d co Q CO CO 0-r a.. n ›.- .0 U (O U O NNwOci m . 8ma,Lt mDrnVc,„ moE - c . L 8pc0ynmEomo« ocmoasE y.E5oC0OLcmf. aoymva3 -5Lc8Y. a aC 0 C C y maE9E5oc5 3(n 2 51,. F, 0r..NCE 0om . mv mT ov-0a C C c oaQc .) ° a Oa .22mmi m ti5o ° 00 2FCOC >> C a .cO a n vi. • ; ommmaa3 `ammay =Lrn8OylatO a la Q. a CL03 OL y C Y Ua,vncm mmuD`O2ym32v8 0 0 •Q- O 0 L r.+ O W V a oD17, >t°o o ° camimmai CO O L 0. L O O nU O nmHa >U7 a¢ Em n o a Qa - 3 (a a0 z Q C5 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C I- F F F I- 1- I- C C C C = 1- 1- F- = Z_ ZZZZZZZZZ Z 0 0 0 0 0 Z_ Z_ Z_ 0 000000000 0 cc C C C = 555 =O O C a a a a a a a a a a a < Q a a < a a a a C C C cc C C C C C C a C C c, 0 0 0 0Ccc 0 C C C 0 Z- a a a a a a Q a a a Q W W W W W Q Q Q w 0 > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 > U U U U > U C C C U CU w CCLU LU LU w LU w w w w CCw CC2 2 2 2 0 = LU w LU = a U O D U U U U U U U 0 0 0 0 F 1_ 1_ 1- 01- U001- F 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > DDD U D 0 0 0 D Ii) Lu w w w w w w w w w w 0 0 0 0 — 01-1-11-1-11-u0 w C 2 C C C C C C C C C 2 C 2 N N N v1 2 V1 C C C v1 a N N t0 M U1 N en 03N U1 N 00 01 O ri N N Ln CO N O 01 V M i en r-1000 .-1 ri N NI N N N M 01 0100001-1004 0 2 l0 CO CO co l0 l0 CO CO (.13 CO CO CO CO LO CO lD N N N N N lD l0 N v1 M M M M M M M M M M M M M M M 0101010-101010101M NIN .1 .-i ,1 .-1 O O .1 .1 l0 .-1 )43 l0 CO CD 00 00 CO 00 lD 1- 1 N 01 N N N N N N N N l0 N l 0000 00 CO CO LO CO N l0 .1 N N ' N N N N N N N N N N N l0 lD LO lD lD N l0 N 01 lD M N N 111 N N N N N N NN 01 1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 V 00 01 11 00 00 .1 -1 ‘Li e-1 .1 .-i ‘Li ri .-,i r-1 .-i c11 ‘.LI .-1 .-i .1 '-i .1 ri Lf1 M .1 O ri LO 00 M M M enM enM M M en M M M M M enM en en cr en 0 M O O M M MLnLnLr) M M M M M M en M M M M M M M M en en M M Q Ln U1 Ln en O U1 U1 U1 V1 111 U1 LnLi-) Lt-) U1 U1 U1 U1 U1 U1 U1 U1 V) U1 LI1 U1 Ln Z z Q1 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z z J I- Z Y Y 0I D J C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Z Z C O wOQ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ° ° 0 Q Y L a J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J Z Z J X I VI LU ca U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U Z Z U a 2 0 Q X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X F U C U w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w L L w C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 C C a C C C a cc C C U F F F HI- F F F F C C C C C CCH Z ZZZZZZZZ Z 0 0 0 0 0 0Z 000000000 0 0 = = = = = C O F CI C C CC C C C CC a 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C Z > M a W « « « « « = 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 > 0 > U U U U U > U 0 w CC CC u_i Z C J Z N C W W W W W W W W C W C 2 2 2 2 2 C 2 W a W w10QQUUUUUUUUOUOFFFFF .....F U 2 F a 0 > cc =100000000600 CI- D 0 0 - O 0 _U C Z Q 000 O > CC z z CC CC z CC LLI CC = CC = 0 0 0 0 O = OU C U -, I 01 UJ .-1 en Ln N en 00 Ni Lf1 N 00 01 O .-i M N .-i Ui lD N O O .-i .-i X O N O O O O .-i r-1 N N N N N M M M M O O O O .--1 M O O ri M l0 l0 lD l0 to l0 l0 l0 l0 kb to l0t0 t0 LC N N N N N M 01 N iF '-i rri M M M M M M M M 01 M en M en en en en en en en In U1 N FNCF Z F m Z U Lu g Z ww0w CC Z Z CC 7 o Z N C = a V)a Y w O F ow cri F- < a 00 D O Q Z U lu N w 00 _Z C F r O Z Y C a LL1 5 Z Q LUN - F 6 CC 0- 0O3-J- Y C F 0 0UCJwkr) ZZ am Z a C = Q 0 a C7 (9 .‹a C7Z Q Q Z C C Q Q O > w Z Z Z m 0C 2 en O Dkn , w O w - w Z m 0 vI c Z W --I w O Y Q LL co 0 a 00 a Z SG Z O2 .< 1- w C7 CI" Q O w OSS Q w Z co 0 N a - ce w -, Q a cc ZI 0 a Z w Q (9 Q w w > O F w Q C > 2 w w O 2 Z O w 0 XI- CC a O w a 0 0 a F- LLUU Q O I- 01- a = Q Z cc 0 = Q cc F- a (7 w x a 0 = 0 N m 0 (7 U In 0.. a F O < C7 U c -I 0 0000000000000000000000000 N N r1 N 00 01 r1 N M M .7 U1 U1 LO l0 r-1 CO 01 .--1 00 N 00 O V O M O O N N N M O O M M O M O M Ln M M C U1 M O 'h 0000000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000000000 l0 l0 l0 lD l0 l0 lD lD lD l0 l0 l0 l0 W l0 l0 l0 W W lD lD lD lD l0 l0 13 CO Z Ui LLI) 1LI1 LLI) LID LI1 UU1 V) U 1 Lf1 ) UULD10D LO 1 V) V1 LU1 UUi V 1 Ui Ui Ull0 CID U1 Ui Ui U 1 LLI1 UO1 U 1 d N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Steckling, Jean from: Scnt: To: SubjGCt Walters, Ma(Kenzie Monday, May 13, 2019 7:51 AM Steckling, Jean FW: 3517 Red Cedar Point Road ' variance From: davemeryjo@aol.com <davemaryjo@aol com> S.nt: Friday, May 10, 2019 4:40 PM To: kaaenenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us; walters, MacKenzie <Mwalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us> Subject: Re: 3617 Red Cedar Point Road - variance Kate & MacKenzie, We are $riting this email in respons€ to the variance request at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road' 5 houses east of our house on Lake Minneweshta. we arB gonerally in support of the proposed development, holvever, have a serious concem regarding the lack ol off: - .tr*t p"'*ing rie City'cooe requiiei'aoequ+ otrlstreet parking.be pro/ided and requires a minimum stall length of 18 ieet. -if"arfinA pnn ioes not iroviae nil fn" turr"y does n6t str6w tre proposed distance trom the edge of tho ;;^t ,*i tffg io garage tdr parr,ing cars in the driveway, howe\€r, it appears to be approximatety 11 bet ln the . ;Ji;rH hd;t*'"rp[s"ja -nE. for adequate off sreei pafiing. I am not aware of an_yrranances granted since the Lunent zoning orOinances was put in place in dre l976's that allowed a driv ey l33s $an 18' in length The two properfies ".iost tre ste€t are very tEht on ofi-steet parking bul both can accommodate hro \rehicles and both were bn'"truaeo *ett uebre the cunent zoning rules were established' This conditioo is even mofe extreme than typical b€caus€ the roads in this neighborhood are extremely nanow From our norr"i"ii io Ut" "nd of the point the road'is too nanow to park a car without blocking vehicular travel' this includes ule iL" of n" proposeo development. Red Cedar Point Road ind South Cedar Drive are slightly wider.lr'€st of the inter.""ion'ilr6*ing for parliing on one one side of the road, horlever. people ofien park 2' ontoour lawn on both streets in oiOii to o""t" ,-orc room blr can to pass resulting in tom sod, mud and damage to o-ur sprinkler system since the city oia not instatt curtring when the roads rire upgraaeoi whil€ this is a realty as a result oJ platting long betore the zoning coo" ,rras "oopoo, ie dont want to see it milnified by making it worse than it akcedy B - espeoally when there are i&"oniof. aftLraes. Reducing g1e deptr ot f,re garaleunouse from the prcposed 17''2" lo 41 bet u,ould allow the minimum required bf cars to perk the length of the driveway We are pleased to see pam stay in $e neighboftood and have verbally expressed this concem to her. We trust $e staff can work with tie applicant to address this concern Thank you for your consideration. Dave & Mary Jo Bangas.ser 3633 South Cedar Drive Chenhassen. MN 55331 I Steckling, Frpm: S.nt To: Su$cct Walters, MacKenzie Monday, May 20, 2019 1:01 PM Steckling, rean FW: Proposed variance for 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd Fmm: Nancy Renneke <nancyrennekewrites@Smail.com> Scnt: Monday, May 20, 2019 12:04 PM To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalte6@ci.chanhass€n.mn.u5> Subject Proposed variance for 3517 Red Cedar Point Rd Dear Ms. Walters: Hello, I am writing to support our neighbor, Pam Reimer, in her request for a property varianoe. We live just a fei,y lots past her new property at 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd. We are nelv to the neighborhood, but I recently visited with her and trust that she'll be a good stewad of her future home and'Lake Minnewashta. We're exciled that a responsible buyer has come along to finally take care of this lot the way it deserves to be maintained. lt's a potentially beautiful lot, but the old Sears cabin is run down and the lot needs the loving care - and grass - Pam will provide. Her ownership will make the neighborhood betterfor all and I hope you'll agree that her plans are appropriate. It's my understanding that Pam's proposal offers adequate parking and it's apparent that her proposed driveway is not unusual for our little community. lf you've driven down our street, you'll appreciate that this is a unique neighborhood where houses are close together, the street is nanow and everyone's parking is limited. That's part of its lakeside neighborhood charm. The p€ninsula is a dead end and it's apparent to us already that this isn't a street with traflic other than people who live here and our guests. lt's our understanding and experience that since \rre all live on a unique street, everyone cooperates with each other. Case in point, one of our neighbors just gave us permission to bonow part of his driveway for two days to park our boat before we are able to get in the water. I hope you and the planning commission will see that our street is unique, and that Pam's variance request suits the neighborhood. We feel lucky that Pam - an experienoed homeo,vner and good neighbor on the lake - will redevelop that site, and we hope her variance request will be approved, allowing construc{ion of a beautiful home that will enhan@ our neighborhood. Thank you. Jean Regards, Nanry Renneke 3607 Red Cedar Point Rd. I Steckling. From: SGnt To: SubiGCt Attrchm.nls: Walters, MacKenzie Tuesday, May 21, 2019 7:56 AM Steckling, rean FW: 3617 Red Cedar Point Road Variances 5.20.19 Rcd Cedar Point Garage Survey l.pdf From: Steve Gunther <stguntherCgmail.com> S.,tt Tuesday, May 21, 2019 7:09 AM To: wahers, MacKenzie <Mwalters@ci.chanhass€n.mn.us>; kaaenenronOci.chanhassen.mn.us SubiGGt 361/ Red Cedar Point Road Variances Mackenzie and Kate. I am writing this email in response to the Variance Requests for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road(the former Souba properly). This is the same input that I offered when this propert) $as considercd for variances several months ago. I objected to thosc variance requests. feeling that the lot size. road uidth and the trallic panem wele not consisteat with rhe large house being considered for construction on rhat lot. My objections remain. I hope this time you uill tisten to the input from the neighbors who are to tx forever affected by your decisions. Firsr. as the presidenr ofthe Lake Minnewashta Prcsen'ation Association and an owner on the lake since 1998. I objecr to providing a hard cover variance for this propertl because of the effect it lr'ill have on water qualiq in the lake. The morc hardcover a property has. the less chance that rainwater has ro drain through the soil and be filrercd before k enters Lake Minnewashta. The LMPA has been spending considerable effon educating homeowners to lgbeg hardcover on their propenies for the good ofthe lake and all its users. We need more vegetation not less. On the road side. runoff from the driveway sen'icing the proposed 3 car driveway uill increase the transport of petroleum products and leaves and grass clippings into the storm drains. This sen'es to introduce contaminants into rhe lake. The impact ofthe petroleum products is obvious. The leaves and clippings serve as a nutrient source for the algae in the lake, which degrades the water qualitl' for everyone. A previous owner violated the hardcover limit and added a larger than allo$'ed Class 5 drivewaS'. That deviation should have been remediated. not made permanenl. Reducing the hard cover (by 44 square feet) t-et slil[ exceeding the hardcover requirement is not good enough. While I object to the lake setback variance requesl. I understand compromises must be made on a non- conforming lot. I expect that Chanhassen and the Watershed District uill requirc proper shoreline planting I Jean buffering or a rain garden to prevent direct runoff into the lake. LMPA board member Kevin Zahler is a trained Master arer Ste.iard and oitcrs his rn'ices without charge to rcsidents to help explain and plan this kind of action. Hc can bc reached ar 612{18-9817 or via email at kjzahlerg-hotmail com I also objecr to the street setback variance for safety reasons. t believe that. given the lot sizc, tlle number of street-f;ing garage spaces should be rcduced to 2. Because 3 garage sralls are planned, that rcduces the front setback on i Jrreeyiniersection that is inordinarely small and tighr. lfa car or walercraft/trailer is hanging into the str€et on lhat driveway space. it creates an undue hazard for others. irrcluding large garbage trucks. snon ploq,s and emergency vehicles thar have lo navigate lhos€ ver)'tight roads. The average-car length is 14-16 iect. For refercnie. a Honda Civic is over l5 feet long. lt looks like this drive*ay space is less than that. more like I l -12 feet. Having only a 2 car garage should not be considered a hardship for owners in this neighborhood where lots are narror,rl andsmall. Every lakeside house on Red Cedar Point. South Shorc Drive and Hickory Road has no mone than 2 garages excepl rhose that have much larger frontage or have side loaded garages. I've attached a marked up ROF forlour use. All homes constructed or remodeled in the last l5 years. with the exception of one house. have been constructed with only tr^.,o garages facing the street' If Ms. Reimer insists on having three stalls. wh! not have one of them be double deep? That eliminates the need for a street setback variance. It also reduces the amount of driveway- (hardcover) you need to scrvice the 3 spaces. We did thar *ith our house built in 2003 as a way to contain the footprint ofour house within the 25% hard cover limit. I may not be able to attend the Ptanning Commission meeting on Tuesday May 2lst but *ill do my besr to be there. In lieu ofthat. please accept this email as m1'objections to lhe hardcover and str€et sdback variance r€quests. I,ve copied m1. neighbon *'ho mighr be affecred by these variance requests u'ith my commerls in case they would like to send on rheir own. Steve Gunther 3628 Hickor.'- Road. Chanhassen. MN 55331 president, [:ke Minnewashta Prcsen'ation Association stgun ther a qmail.c ()m Citizen I Investor I lr{ultispons Enthusiast 2 gt ,t ,* tt *I!tE-<..\ItrS3\)f,r:!03lII:il(IIr! !i Eil:l!Eit: t:l!alEi8r t: e: Ir olgi Ei!! ;: =t!itl E.i .ai t.: 3;t!I. tr al$iEIal (F r.( i--i ------ - J N \ u T1.t) \) \ \, \ I \l\ ( l:: \i w\ $\:.\'L Ad r( t(' r *I *..' I,-''#.iF Y\'''lrll r( 7_*-...-' {', $ II:" tr I I il 5&L lltq' .t. s q. \ '{' \ L + \ t q \ Steckling. Jean Ftom: S.rt To: ssbi.ct F]Dm: Helen Gunther <helen.Sunth€r@results.net> SGnt Monday, May 2O,2Ol9 7:27 PM To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhass€n.mn.us> Subjrt variance for 3617 Red cldar Point Rd. I am writing to express my concern for the proposed home to be built on 3517 Red Cedat Point Rd. As a homeowner on the lake I am enremely concerned about the plans for the new home. I was very concerned and disappointed when you approved the plans fo. the last home that was proposed for this lot. I felt it was way too bi8 for the size lot and th€ impact to the late and the surrounding neighbors was extremely detrimental. I also think whoever builds on a lot that is hss than X acre should build a home appropriate to the size of the lot...especially for a lakeshore lot. Red Cedar Point is a very narrow street, with little room for cars, trucks or emer8ency vehicles to go through as it is. Allowing a driveway as narrow as the one proposed is 8oin8 to cause accidents, frustrations, and po$ibly even danterous situations if emergencl/ vehicles are unable to Bet throuSh. Furthermore, hardly any homes on the point have a 3 car gara3e. The few that do are on much larger lots, and none of them erceed the hardcover code. The bt iust does not lend its€lf to a 3 car taraSe. The tarate needs to be furthet away from the street, which will increase hardcover, but it's why the home should only be approved for a 2 car garate. Last time plans for this lot were brought before the plannint commission, the board was happy the potentaal owner was not asking for a side yerd setback. This seemed incredulou3 to me since the lot is 80 feet wide and shouldn't need a side yard setback. Most of the people comint before the commission looking for side yard s€tbacls heve lots that are only y) or 60 feet wide. Someone ought to b€ able to build a lovely home on an 80 foot wide lot. I Walters, MacKenzie Tueday, May 21, 2019 7:59 AM Steckling,.,ean Fw: varian(e for 3517 Red cedar Point Rd. I realize there is more hardcover on the property now than building code allows, and I realize the propo3€d house plans reduce that hardcover a tiny bit. But I have a hard time believing that asphalt and a house absorb water or run off at the same rate as class 5 travel. You might consider class 5 gravel hardcover, but I don't think it has the same lack of runotf as asphalt. The absorption rate cannot possibly be the same. So I would uBe you to approve a plan where there was a more significant reduction in hardcover. Are the plans that are attached conect? ls this the home that will b€ built? Th€ plans call for a beckya.d patio, but the plans show windows across the back of the home. ls the owner toin8 to crawl out the window to 8et to the Patio? Are you really sure this is the home that will be buih? I understand the lot is non{onforming and variances are needed to build on it. But I would urte the commission to s€nd the owner bact to their architecvbuilder to come up with a plan for a home more suited to the size of the lot end take into account the restrictions of the neithborhood and the road. One more thint. I don't think the owner should be p€nalized for this, but how are all the construction vehicles goinS to be able to park and not block the neighboB who need the road to access their homes? I rtrontly u'te the commission to have the homeowner reduce the size of the home they are requ.sting to make it mote appropriate for the lot. Ihank you foryour consideration in this matter. Helen DREAM W]TH YOUR EYES OPEN. Lrt mo br your guE.. 3{ekn Quntfrer Tfie Ritter (eam BE/iffiC"cntg ET 2 Steckling. Jean From: Scnt To: Subjcct Walters, MacKenzie Tuesday, May 21, 2019 12:54 PM St6kling, Jean Fw: 3617 Red Cedar Point Road Variances Thank you, Keith Paap keith.@oaao.net (email ) I will be unable to attend the planning meeting this evening and I would like to echo Mr. Grmthet's concems/objections on these variances. My name is Keith Paap and I live at 3601 Red Cedar Point Rd. The lake setback variance is not ideal, however problems may be mitigated by shoreline buffering as was suggestd. However tlle street setback variance is of particular concem and m1' primary' objection. As a resident that must &ive through this str,etch daily, I am concemed about the access and safety along this stretch of road. This is a stretch of road that is single lane wirh no available street parking. Tuo cars cannot pass side by side on this sretch of road so any parking along the sueet in this atea *ill simply block the mad. I f the depth ofthe driveway does not pmvide adequare space for visitor parking at this location there would be no where for them to park without blocking access on the stre€l. The setback varia1c€ request may be consistent with the corners of the adjacenl home, but the neighboring home as a side entance garage allou'ing for a deepcr &iveu'ay for off street parking, Making surc this s€tback provides enough depth for off streel parking while avoiding adding sigrificant hardcover by making it thret $alls wide may be handled with a double deep garage as suggestd. Access on the streer will also be of panicular concem during consmrcdon as *'orkers tend to leave vehicles along the srreet as was the case during construction at 3627 Red Cedar Poinl Rd. The access and safety concems during construction will be temporary. Not providing adequate setback for vehicles to remain off the street while at &e residence would bc a permanent hardship for those ofus that must travel this stretch of road daily. I On Tue. May 21. 2019 at 7:09 AM Steve Cunther <stqunther, smail.com> $role: Mackenzie and Kare. I am *riting rhis email in response to the Variance Requests for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road(the former Souba prop€rty). i.,it it th. o.. input that I offered when this propeny was considered for variances several months ago. I objected to those variance requests. feeling that the lot size, road width and the traffrc pattem were not cinsist.nr with the large house being considered for consrnrction on that tot. My objections remain. I hope this time you will lisren to the input from the neighbors who are to be forcver affected b1' your decisions. First. as rhe president ofthe Lake Minnewashu Preservation Association and an owner on the lake since 1998- t object to providing a hard cover variance for this property because of the effect it will have on watcr quality in the lake. The more hardcor.r a propmy has. the less chance that rainwater has to drain through the soil and be filrercd before it enters Lake Minnenashta. The LMPA has been spending considerable effort educating homeowners to reduce hardcover on their properties for the good ofthe lake and all its usen. We need more vegetation not less. On the road side. runoff from fie driveuay sen'icing the proposed 3 car driveway uitl increase the transpon of petroleum products and leaves and grass clippings into the storm drains. This senes to introduce conuminants into the lake. The impact of the petroleum products is obvious. The leaves and clippings serve as a nutrient source for the algae in the lake. which degrades the water qualiq for everyone. A previous owner violated the hardcover limit and added a larger than allon'ed Class 5 drive*ay. That deviation should have bcen remediated. not made permanent. Reducing rhe hard cover (by ,14 square feet) yet still excceding the hardcover requirement is not good enough. While I object to the lake setback variance r€quest. I undersund compromises must be made on a non- conforming lor. I expecr thaiChanhassen and the Watershed Distrio uill require propet shorcline planting buffering o-r a rain garden ro prevenl dircct runoff into the lake. LMPA board mcmber Kevin Zahler is a trained Masrer ftarer Steu'ard and oifers his services u'ithoul charye to residents lo help explain and plan this kind of action. He can be reached at 612-618-9817 or via email at kjzahler@hotmail'com I also object to the streer setback variance for safety reasons. I believe that, given the lot size, the number of sueet-facing garage spaces should be reduced to 2. Because 3 garage stalls are planned..that reduces the front serback on i itteJfint-ersecrion that is inordinately small and tight. lfa car or watercraft/trailer is hanging into rhe strget on that driveway space. it crcates ur undue hazard for others. including large g8rbage trucks, snow plows and emergency vehicies that have to navigate those very light roads. The average. car lcngrh is l4'16 ieet. For referenc". " Hondu Citi. is over l5 feet long. ft looks like this driveway space is less than that. more like I l -12 feet. Having only a 2 car garage should not be considered a hardship for ownen in rhis neighborhood where lors are nano*I andsmalt. every tateside house on Red Cedar Point. South Shore fhive and Hickory Road has no more than 2 garages exccpr those that have much larger frontage or have side loaded garag.es. I've attached a marked up Rbf f6r your use. All homes constnrcted br remodeled in the last I 5 years. rith the exception of one house. have been constructed $ith onll t'*o garages facing the street. lf Ms. Reimer insists on having three stalls, uhl not have one of them be double deep? That eliminates the need for a streel sctback varianie. Ir also reduces the amount of driveway (hardcover) you need to sen'ice the 3 spaces. We did that u,ith our house built in 2003 as a way to contain the footprint of our house within lbe 25o/o hard cover limit. 2 I may nor be able to atrend the Planning Commission,meeting on Tuesday May 2tst but willdo my best to be therc. In lieu ofthat. please accepr fiis;mail as my objections to the hardcover and $reet setback variance requests. I,ve copied my neighbon who might be affected by these variance requests with my comments in case they would tike to send on their own. Steve Grmther 3628 Hickory- Road, Chanhassen' MN 55331 president. [:ke Minnewashta Preservation Association $suntherargmail.com Citizen I Investor I Multispons Enthusiast 3