Emailed AppealsSteckling, Jean
From: Walters, MacKenzie
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 9:35 AM
To: Steckling, Jean
Subject: FW: appeal for Variance for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road
From: Helen Gunther<helen.gunther@results.net>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 8:28 PM
To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Cc: stgunther@gmail.com; davemaryjo@aol.com; kaanenson@ci.chanhassen.us; Ryan, Elise
ERyan@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Subject: appeal for Variance for 3617 Red Cedar Point Road
Dear Mackenzie,
I am writing to appeal the variance the planning commission approved on Tuesday May 2152 for the above stated
property. I am appealing the front setback variance. I do not believe the approved variance would provide adequate off
street (guest) parking for the home in question and would create a dangerous situation since the road the home is on is
a substandard, narrow road. I also think by granting this variance the planning commission is setting a bad precedent for
future requests for front setback variances.
The driveway with the current approved setback would not allow for cars to be safely parked in the driveway. I believe a
driveway on a street where there is no room for on street parking should at least provide space to park 2 cars. Since a
standard car is 16 feet long, I believe most of the driveway, from the garage to the curb should be 18 feet. 16 feet is not
sufficient, since no one parks their car against the garage door. To have a driveway any shorter would mean cars would
be sticking out into the street, on a street that is already very narrow.
I am also appealing the wording of the variance granted, which states, "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". I believe it should state that the homeowner"must further reduce hard
cover through the use of pervious paver systems".
Please advise my next steps.
Thank you.
Helen
3-feCen Gunther
hefen.sunther@resuCts.net
in
Steckling, Jean
From: Walters, MacKenzie
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 9:36 AM
To: Steckling, Jean
Subject: FW: Variance Appeal for May 21 2019 to What was Proposed, the Already Approved
Variance from 18-01, but with Significantly Reduced Hardcover and Acceptance of all 15
Conditions and City Easement granted
Attachments: Variance Appeal for May 21 2019 3617 Red Cedar Point.doc
From: Pam Reimer<preimer90@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 7:49 AM
To: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>
Cc: Builder Paul Wagner<wags1956@hotmail.com>
Subject:Variance Appeal for May 21 2019 to What was Proposed, the Already Approved Variance from 18-01, but with
Significantly Reduced Hardcover and Acceptance of all 15 Conditions and City Easement granted
1
We the owner, architect, and builder hereby APPEAL the decision from May 21, 2019 and REQUEST the
Same variances and accept the Same decision to APPROVE.and we Accept all 15 requirements
that were conditions for Approval 18-01. ending 19-02. AND.we should look really good.seeing
as this new plan SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCES HARDCOVER an ADDITIONAL 1.9% MORE than the
already Approved Variance.which is the focus of the Planning Commission's recommendation to
the Planning Council. Thank You.
Contact was made to MacKenzie Walters 19-01 to build on this lot and utilize the existing variance
that was already approved.
The architect put together a house plan that met the approved footprint-and then some!:
He reduced the hard cover from 36.4. to the Approved Variance of 36.3. and then SIGNIFICANTLY
reduced hard cover an additional 1.9%! That's way more than one of the other multiple variances
approved by Council at 50% hardcover.which Council brought to attention in the May 21
meeting!
The builder utilized the existing approved variance's Surveyor, to put the proposed house on the
already approved footprint, meeting 4 times with MacKenzie Walters to get it exact and by the Variance
deadline. He has done 75 projects on lakeshore property. has a respect for narrow roads, and was a
fireman and concerned about safety. Not 1 customer has any complaints, and neighbors see him daily.
He reduced current side setback from 6' to 10.3 and 10.29,which is in compliance.
He didn't put in a basement or crawl space, because...
He hired the engineer to analyze soil samples requiring this lot to have $70,000 borings. He arranged
with their $5000 engineer how deep the pilings would go on our already-approved plan.
IN GOOD FAITH, the lot was purchased, the same footprint was used that was already Approved, and the
plans were made for a smaller house with the same footprint. Architecturally accurate house plan:
2500-$5.000. Money invested in already approved footprint and plan.
IN GOOD FAITH, MacKenzie said the same 15 conditions would apply, and our Team accepted these and
met multiple times with George Bender, city engineer and Renae Clark, city water resources coordinator.
We also accepted 1 additional condition the City asked of us: to dedicate some of my land to the City, or
give a portion as an easement to the City.
We gave in and accepted this 16th condition.
IN GOOD FAITH,The City wants about 677 square feet of my lot, and George suggested this would lower
my property tax; therefore, I was willing to dedicate this land portion,valued at about$50.000, to pay a
percent less property tax However,the Residential Appraiser on May 24 denied the request to dedicate,
stating the current city road does not appear to be negatively impacting the land value, so he cannot
justify a land value decrease. So the variance stands at 11.5/22.1/9.5 and owner will grant easement.
No monetary value.We lose land and gain nothing by giving in but the City's thanks.
IN GOOD FAITH, I have discussed the vegetation buffer with Renae and hired an outstanding experienced
professional in native shoreline restoration that will improve the ecosystem health.
He proposed a plan with accepted vegetation, and design filters, and is ecological to improve the
condition of the lake. Renae liked the custom mix and suggested prairie grass as well.
This is an expense which NONE of the other similar non-conforming lot variance were required to plant.
2-10.000.00 We lose money and gave in.
IN GOOD FAITH, to fulfill requirements of further reduction of hard cover, both my builder and
landscaper use pervious pavers.
7-20.000.00 We lose money and gave in.
IN GOOD FAITH, to fulfill requirement of tree protection, my builder shared with MacKenzie in our last
meeting, and to the neighbors at the Variance meeting, that he is a horticulture expert and will go above
expectations to protect with tree fencing.
1-5.000.00 We lose income and gave in.
IN GOOD FAITH, our team has SIGNIGICANTLY reduced lot coverage from the Already Approved Variance
LUST 3 MONTHS AGO. The new variance was an additional cost:
528.00. We lose money and gave in, even though we "showed intentions of building" BEFORE the
already approved variance lapsed
IN GOOD FAITH, I have the same setback as already approved in Variance 18-01 through February of this
year 2019. I'm on the Point with limited neighbors on the dead-end of Red Cedar Point,who are in a non-
conforming unique very old neighborhood with parking varying from 1 space to 4 spaces. Our already
Approved Variance has a combined garage and driveway parking for 5 spaces!
See photos and numbers listed for all of my direct neighbors on our dead end street. NOT Hickory and
NOT South Cedar Drive, this variance for 3617 Red Cedar Point only focuses on our dead end street, Red
Cedar Point.
Per Mackenzie's report, my combined 3-car garage and driveway just needs to provide an amount of
off-street parking similar to the average provided by other properties in the neighborhood. End of
discussion.And Council said on May 21, it's too bad hea Variance lapsed so Harship for parking, in a
nighborh000d where ALL houses have 1-4 parking apaces.
If the garage were made smaller, it would only be 21', not enough for me to not to hit the drywall. See
photo of current garage,where I hit the front of the garage with my vehicle. Comments were made that I
had a 26' garage,but that is not correct, my house is smaller, and it leaves 21' if variance takes away 3'.
My 1 car needs to be parked inside, especially in the winter. Additionally, the already Approved variance
allows enough space for my storage of a lawn mower, bike, snowblower, Christmas tree, bins, and a dog
wash for my licensed therapy dog by the Service door. PLEASE don't take that away from me, since #1) It
is in compliance with my neighborhood, #2) It was already Approved in the Variance that just ended a
month before I applied!
3) I have NO storage options, since I have no basement, no crawl space, no storage on the main level,
and...
IN GOOD FAITH, I have given the City my patio as my 1 water oriented structure; therefore, my garage is
also my"shed" because I gave in and won't have a shed and cannot store things in the outhouse, since, as
my neighbors rejoice, "Let's get on with this,pass the same variance that Jackson's got
UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED BY COUNCIL, and let them build, so we can get rid of that outhouse and all
the mess in the yard, broken down brick fireplace and dusty gravel for a front yard!" And Council on May
21 agreed that these already approved drawings were a better solution than a shed.
Loss of Shed. We lose any other water oriented structure and gave in.
IN GOOD FAITH, I accepted the Water Resource Coordinator's requirement to put pervious pavers on my
driveway,which was approved and accepted 1 month after we applied. THIS, too, reduces hardcover
significantly because I planned to put in a cement driveway. Now using Pervious Pavers:
10-20.000. We lose money and gave in.
In the last meeting with MacKenzie,we noted that I'm 1 woman and don't have a big family or gatherings.
I'm consistent with the neighbors. In our meeting,they said even if I make my garage smaller, it's not
going to fix the problem because if people with big cars come and can't fit into my garage, it's not going to
solve the parking problem. Mackenzie, my builder and Steve laughed, "You shrink the garage and it
defeats the point of parking the big car in the garage, and it's back to the driveway for my stuff! "
I'm a current neighbor, and my lot down on South Cedar Drive has a short driveway so you either pull
into a single car garage or park at an angle so as not to hang into the street, so I was careful to provide
parking. In the city notes, "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 on p. 7 and 8.
My neighbor Nancy says I'm a good neighbor and I already bought the property and am committed to this
neighborhood and committed to the survey plan that was already approved. She wrote to MacKenzie:
Hello, I am writing to support our neighbor, Pam Reimer, in her request for a property variance.
We live just a few lots past her new property at 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd. We are new to the
neighborhood, but I recently visited with her and trust that she'll be a good steward of her future home
and Lake Minnewashta. We're excited that a responsible buyer has come along to finally take care of
this lot the way it deserves to be maintained. It'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 better for 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. If you've driven down our street, you'll
appreciate that this is a unique neighborhood where houses are close together, the street is narrow
and everyone's parking is limited. That's part of its lakeside neighborhood charm. The peninsula is a
dead end and it's apparent to us already that this isn't a street with traffic other than people who live
here and our guests. It's our understanding and experience that since we all live on a unique street,
everyone cooperates with each other. Case in point, one of our neighbors just gave us permission to
borrow 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 experienced homeowner and good
neighbor on the lake - will redevelop that site, and we hope her variance request will be approved,
allowing construction of a beautiful home that will enhance our neighborhood.
Thank you.
Regards,
Nancy Renneke
3607 Red Cedar Point Rd.
Since the Variance meeting on May 21, all the neighbors on my street that were out for Memorial Day
weekend told me they would like Council to approve the architect, builder and my Variance and start
building a new house. The previous owner, Jeff Souba, was also over, taking windows and siding from
the yellow Sears & Roebuck cabin for emotional souveniers, and I let him for free. It will cost us a tear-
down fee.
10,000.00. We lose income.
The longer the delay,the more I have to pay housing and storage rent, until I get the CO to move into
my new house.
The architect should not start over with a new plan, since he used the already approved footprint,AND
made the house smaller and thus reduced hard cover.
The survey company should not need to make a new survey, since it was already done 4 times to meet
Planning Commission MacKenzie's approval.
The builder has been operating under the assumption that this variance was already approved, and
measured for trusses and all the building parts, and got me a bid which I can afford.
I have been picking out lumber, cabinets, lighting based on the proposed house on an already approved
footprint.
The boring company engineer already calculated for the soil borings.
Heat calcs were done for the Building Permit, which is our Requirement#1.
Energy calcs were already done for the Building Permit,which is our Requirement#1.
To change the whole plan is not economical.
My builder is ready, the boring company is ready, and we are excited to check off#1 of 16, to apply for a
Building Permit. So I ask you now for a simple majority vote that, "The Chanhassen Board of Appeals
and Adjustments APPROVES an 11.5 foot front yard setback from the street to the City of
Chanhassen, a 22.1 foot lakeshore setback,and a 9.5% lot coverage variance, subject to the
conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision."
THANK YOU.
New owner, old owner, architect,builder (fireman, horticulture expert, at site every day of building with
his own team of builders, 43 years and not 1 complaint from his customers -that's a testimony!)
Steckling, Jean
From: Walters, MacKenzie
Sent: Tuesday, May 28, 2019 9:36 AM
To: Steckling, Jean
Subject: FW:Variance Appeal for May 21 2019 to What was Proposed, the Already Approved
Variance from 18-01, but with Significantly Reduced Hardcover and Acceptance of all 15
Conditions and City Easement granted
Addition to appeal 2
Original Message
From: Fred Meier<fredmeier@integra.net>
Sent: Monday, May 27, 2019 9:06 AM
To: Pam Reimer <preimer90@gmail.com>
Cc: Walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; Builder Paul Wagner <wags1956@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Variance Appeal for May 21 2019 to What was Proposed, the Already Approved Variance from 18-
01, but with Significantly Reduced Hardcover and Acceptance of all 15 Conditions and City Easement granted
Also a regular size boat will not fit in a 21 foot garage so are they going to pay for your storage
Thank You
Fred Meier
Fred's Drafting & Design LLC
On May 27, 2019, at 7:48 AM, Pam Reimer <preimer90@gmail.com> wrote:
Variance Appeal for May 21 2019 3617 Red Cedar Point.doc>
1
Steckling, Jean
Please add this to the list.
From: davemaryjo@aol.com <davemaryjo@aol.com>
Sent: Friday, June 7, 2019 8:03 AM
To: walters, MacKenzie <MWalters@ci.chanhassen.mn.us>; kaaenenson@ci.chanhassen.mn.us
Cc: helen.gunther@results.net; stgunther@gmail.com
Subject: 3517 Red Cedar Point Rd Variance Appeal
MacKenzie & Kate,
I understand that Pam Reimer is appealing the Planning Commission variance, presumably to take back her offer to
setback the garage by 3 feet. Pam made the offer in the face of neighborhood concerns voiced and a strong indication
from 3 of the 4 Commission members they had significant concem for the driveway.
I betieve that even with the additional 3' of driveway length, the driveway would be the most challenging in the
neighborhood and clearly sets a new precedence. I don't recall this degree of neighbor opposition to any past request. ln
addition to those that have written emails or spoken at the Planning Commission, there are several others that have
concems for setting this new driveway precedence but don't want to speak out publicly
I tried to convey to the PC why their accepting the staffs proposed language did not work. The City Engineer noted an
average vehicla length is 16'and therefore an average driveway length of 16'should work- Please see and foMard to the
City C-ouncil for their consideration the attached exhibit that attempts to show that the angle of the road and the turning
radius for vehicles make the proposed driveway with the additional 3 feet very challenging at best.
The exhibit also briefly outlines the shortage of on street parking throughout the neighborhood and the safety challenges
that can arise as a result. Just 6 weeks ago there was a 91 1 call in the neighborhood and the sheriff and fire department
vehicles could not get through on South Cedar.
I also have pictures of every driveway listed in the staff report as having received a variance to show how the proposed
driveway(s) would set a new precedence but, due to file size, is not included.
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Attachments:
Dave Bangasser
3633 South Cedar Drive
Walters, MacKenzie
Friday, June 7, 2019 8:05 AM
Steckling, Jean
FW:3517 Red Cedar Point Rd Variance Appeal
New DW Variance Precedence.pdf
I am requesting the City Council add a condition of approval that reads:
The driveway shall be designed to provide parking fora minimum of two (2) 8-1/2'by t8'stalls with ingress and
egress requiing not more than a two point maneuver by a vehicle with a turning radius of 20 feet.
Thank you for your consideration,
1
otC
=1-(I,
o-
+)oot-+Jv'l
lrFo
oot(t,Pl-o.Ca
t e t
| -,2Y2.( ),.-.\-.\
'/' -L
.'1
-^
.*/
d./J I ,
\l--1 rl a
t"!i
IIJIal D I''-+-
!\;\
t
I_lI
I L*
i t
I I
,I
a
I
h
l
E d ,F 6 -E& b* ,p38 :;EEoU . a .Q). c v
-. (,t bd -o L, o E
+;;IE H*H €I:i I;Yi
3;ErEl =-lE iE eE =igg:,
*tuil pgE *r E: flE;E:
:"ECEI r;;
=
E E;E ET;EE
(EV'=vto-E ots-J)o'E 't^ a: =e.= >> cL.n(UtDo =(o;{H 0+ ocL .= c, -ct^:'PH ; $EJthtt^gE HXHL o-- CLO t^;i t1 nln*E:qoo-broyOfc:^lg6:g9=c=!iEB#E!(E'./r(Ul\Ie=m!bo^ro-Uz.o&iN1;Hr- C, l.-- L.c: ;, E = IE=H-8Eiv,.E:; = 8.;'=.i5Hg){LrgCJ-'F(,E
E [ & U E pI
E e 91Es
R = 5 = SE
o(J
CoEo(Jol-o-
=o
=1t',,+)oa
;o'=
ot-
oP
o
EE
o
-c+r
o
-Y(U
P
oP
PC
(U
=E
EEo
o
-c
P(u
L(o
E
E)tn
oU
UIo+)oso-
3ol-l-(oc@
OC
+,L-c9f s'f,0 o'Eo
->tr8(o Gr:t-
-
(u(J'= -*;Tt- o^';P6"E'9ote
= o0:
8E:1g +r (Y)
O rr -szrr .rlf Cf
E0 ar (Uc;!
h0 P !,,?5#g
E= Qts 6>Ph_g;b".e;5e:sllE5o s
;5 E5
,-.r' dEE:(o6tr
EEE
or o o.rooc oD!u ol fo6! 6fi= @
x 3eG o.,r +,
E: H
=--o:; $"
a+ fi;E oE Fto">ts 6
:3 a $ETEiug:-9It: g
irt l/t t- (tl'Y.-+rVE= 6--o lE-o SaEUpl 6
TeAE
Eo bi
5;E=rg g;
.ho
C'
(D
CLtt
u0c
=L(o
o-
(o
=o
LE
rl
+ogbo ltfol!
=tru.9o1 EIostar- ('
g -bo.a=
l\l
=, Eog.sortcL=OEo- .=
o(J
CoEo(Jot-o-
=oz
lnPo(n
2JO 6Z',OPt 9tr YI/i
I\I!€;=(oI+00'0 ]z 8?6
2q7 ,t-'eF6
2q1 tt 9?
at
L
lt
i-E
It.0.9 r .0, rc
o +a I g',6/.01 '09o?8S
uto
?tod
r2 toJ
-.,1;
22utr1u1 uot
096e13,,I
(n
I
)?t1.tL-f-
rnr{
I
o(u(I,t- \J r-!.,;7--c(IJ1; o9#EI E "i= pE<?,i 'Z.+,,- r C
=E*: =0J,=q.J.=Y>lndo-cO
a
ou0l!Lo
(!
o
oll(!
tros
=^.l/t'ar
@.=o.=
CL(oe8
E=ss
=ga
tA
'Jl (U
.,9 0
=-aO!--o
ah -!q{)
HCis
EA-or+G. r.O
Orl
aa
Eo
tno
=ooE.
v',
3
qot
a
tr)oo(\r
-O-.5r
a;o
(J
=o
-O;>
OE
-C(o(, t+
E g.l
tuEtro
r- )ioJ=+rc
oooF(J6H
o=Efg'6(I,=
,o.9 P
u,l !.-(u>o >=f
= H(, c(Fth,o(Ee)
IE!(UC()
.u9,n
er C ,rtrgE
a
oEU;
oi>i
rF J-,oi+, bO
9crFO
kuo
..(oN-C
_L€9<o
a
vloot-
booEo
@r{
LotF
EE
a99ro-cb=
SP
a
HH
€eEt E;PE
Bi:sutI\E6=o_F
bN
tn
.=E(oE5:
o0(u
.=(,c>l-E
Eo
-(I,(oE
oo.>-
a
q 2JO 6Z'OP1 9tr*00IJ6(oIF.r
Ilt c?6 €t'6f
rt!IE-4
,Ft-tITffii2x5
=1tIffiE
3,,0!
o96
,0go 18s
.0,9 t
t
88 '6/
ir!
I
e)uerluJ tlot72tltl Icn
-\zL)(o
-oPot)
obl(t,
(I,
(9
I
Eo
ol-o.
o.
L)d
tn
(\
-CE.Eg=
l_E
.gg
hEE-t"E
I
-roc{ O
+e $P--d
EcJ t-
.X ,S-c a \
P--c Eo= qp
L)_)-
t- I-- I Igtinn
5 3? I g
=8.9&&8 guEE
.ru 0)(lJ
oo .. -..' G. d.
i
2q1
88'6 1,3,,0
o96
l,0go S
oEIt
(q
I
eruerluJ uoq2n4q
EI
CI(oI
ta
(u
Eo(J
oll
-Coe
cJ (o
{(nT,(u
LJ
=oo
tn.\Z
o
=->Co
o
=oC(o
1|-,o-
(o
Is-l
-(f
Rh
t/) (J
:Ob
II
.n vttn tnO(uUCJQ C.)
EEro ruOCJG.t
Orl
Eo
ot-
o.
o.
U
o-
tn
6Z'OPJl 9Ir*__-6 i,
t'6F6(oIF-00
I
3q1
,a
34i
e t6
a
lFI'II fli!I
4 2rU-0.91 F.rHffi,?'9?6
41
o
lla-c aJoN
bo:
tl
E:(u.=Eo-
ro
ol-
o_o.
tlo
Co
+)a-ECoU
Eo{-Jtno
=ooE,
>EPIH q.="*EEoo E bX
s9 fr;:
iE trE+
l'l .r E r- (oE9,=E;
= El ;'o .=
E iI E ?=
E=I E.;;O '=l '= ''-' 1ocJ Cl -C C gtoro.tsg|-x: =t =## t^ (I) Oeee= bpLL{-r(-F
==_,, ct
oFr C
YE;8.58E; gIT H
B
=i
E E=i*ooo = (U t
E'EEs HEe
;HEfiT:E
=iEE#EEEEOZEE+
IEEiiEAEF€:go-i s= nl
ro
o1-o.o.
qt-oCo
a-Pa-ECoU
Pa-U
EoPao
=oE