Loading...
CC Staff Report 6-24-19CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 24, 2019 Subject 3617 Red Cedar Point: Consider Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback, and Front Yard Setback Section CONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7. Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, Associate Planner File No: Planning Case 2019­03 PROPOSED MOTION “The Chanhassen City Council approves an 11.5­foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY On June 10, 2019, the City Council heard the appeals of the Planning Commission's May 21, 2019 approval of multiple variances to allow the construction of a single­family home at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road. The appeals and subsequent discussion focused on whether the approved driveway provided adequate off­street parking; there was general agreement on the appropriateness of the other approved variances. The variance approved by the Planning Commission required the applicant to reduce the proposed depth of their home by three feet to accommodate a longer driveway. The applicant appealed this variance stating that the resulting reduction in garage length led to an impractical, shallow garage. A neighbor also appealed the variance, expressing concern that the approved driveway was too shallow to accommodate adequate guest parking. During the Council meeting, the applicant proposed maintaining their requested 11.5 foot front yard setback but recessing the third garage stall by three feet in order to address the Planning Commission's desire to create a longer driveway section. The City Council tabled the appeal and requested that the applicant provide revised plans showing this proposal. The applicant submitted three documents showing this revised configuration, which are provided below. Staff has color coded the revised survey in order to clarify how it differs from what was originally proposed and what was approved by the Planning Commission. Revised Proposal CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 24, 2019Subject3617 Red Cedar Point: Consider Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback, and FrontYard SetbackSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 2019­03PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an 11.5­foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setbackvariance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attachedFindings of Facts and Decisions.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn June 10, 2019, the City Council heard the appeals of the Planning Commission's May 21, 2019 approval ofmultiple variances to allow the construction of a single­family home at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road. The appeals andsubsequent discussion focused on whether the approved driveway provided adequate off­street parking; there wasgeneral agreement on the appropriateness of the other approved variances.The variance approved by the Planning Commission required the applicant to reduce the proposed depth of theirhome by three feet to accommodate a longer driveway. The applicant appealed this variance stating that the resultingreduction in garage length led to an impractical, shallow garage. A neighbor also appealed the variance, expressingconcern that the approved driveway was too shallow to accommodate adequate guest parking.During the Council meeting, the applicant proposed maintaining their requested 11.5 foot front yard setback butrecessing the third garage stall by three feet in order to address the Planning Commission's desire to create a longerdriveway section. The City Council tabled the appeal and requested that the applicant provide revised plans showingthis proposal.The applicant submitted three documents showing this revised configuration, which are provided below. Staff has colorcoded the revised survey in order to clarify how it differs from what was originally proposed and what was approvedby the Planning Commission. Revised Proposal Revised Footprint Revised Elevations CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 24, 2019Subject3617 Red Cedar Point: Consider Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback, and FrontYard SetbackSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 2019­03PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an 11.5­foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setbackvariance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attachedFindings of Facts and Decisions.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn June 10, 2019, the City Council heard the appeals of the Planning Commission's May 21, 2019 approval ofmultiple variances to allow the construction of a single­family home at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road. The appeals andsubsequent discussion focused on whether the approved driveway provided adequate off­street parking; there wasgeneral agreement on the appropriateness of the other approved variances.The variance approved by the Planning Commission required the applicant to reduce the proposed depth of theirhome by three feet to accommodate a longer driveway. The applicant appealed this variance stating that the resultingreduction in garage length led to an impractical, shallow garage. A neighbor also appealed the variance, expressingconcern that the approved driveway was too shallow to accommodate adequate guest parking.During the Council meeting, the applicant proposed maintaining their requested 11.5 foot front yard setback butrecessing the third garage stall by three feet in order to address the Planning Commission's desire to create a longerdriveway section. The City Council tabled the appeal and requested that the applicant provide revised plans showingthis proposal.The applicant submitted three documents showing this revised configuration, which are provided below. Staff has colorcoded the revised survey in order to clarify how it differs from what was originally proposed and what was approvedby the Planning Commission.Revised ProposalRevised Footprint Revised Elevations The revised proposal would create a 10­foot wide longer section of driveway in front of the recessed third stall that is 17.8 feet deep along its longest leg and 16.5 feet deep along its shortest leg. The remaining 18 feet of driveway would be 13.5 feet deep along its longest point and taper down to 11.5 feet deep at its shortest point. This would allow for an average sized vehicle (16 feet long) to park perpendicular in front of the third stall and for a second vehicle to park at an angle in front of the double garage door. The applicant believes this would honor the intent of the variance granted by the Planning Commission while allowing them to retain sufficient garage depth to accommodate the storage of boats or larger­than­average vehicles within the garage. Note:  A more detailed summary of the other aspects of the requested variance (lot cover and lake setback) can be found in the attached executive summary from the June 10, 2019 City Council Meeting, and a full analysis can be found in the attached staff report. BACKGROUND Councilman McDonald expressed concern that the proposal didn’t improve parking on Red Cedar Point Road. Staff responded that they felt the variance provided adequate parking for the property in questions, but would not help alleviate any of the existing issues. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked for clarification on the provided parking. Staff noted that the proposal provide three in­garage parking spaces and 1­2 guest parking spaces depending on vehicle size. Councilwoman Tjornhom asked if the street could be signed No Parking. Staff indicated that this was something that could be done. Councilwoman Coleman asked about average car length and if the driveway could accommodate two cars. Staff indicated that depending on vehicle size and how they were parked, it likely could. Mayor Ryan asked for clarification on the buffer requirement. Staff noted that it was part of the new local water management, and that such buffers would likely be required for future shoreland variances. Mayor Ryan asked what the lot cover worked out to if the pervious pavers were exclude from the calculations. Staff indicated that it would be around 28 percent. Mayor Ryan asked about the logistics surrounding the removal of the cottonwood tree. Staff clarified that Public Works would be responsible for removing the tree and that no replacement was planned or required. Mayor Ryan asked for clarification on the driveway length and amount of parking typically provided. Staff stated the CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 24, 2019Subject3617 Red Cedar Point: Consider Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback, and FrontYard SetbackSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 2019­03PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an 11.5­foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setbackvariance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attachedFindings of Facts and Decisions.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn June 10, 2019, the City Council heard the appeals of the Planning Commission's May 21, 2019 approval ofmultiple variances to allow the construction of a single­family home at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road. The appeals andsubsequent discussion focused on whether the approved driveway provided adequate off­street parking; there wasgeneral agreement on the appropriateness of the other approved variances.The variance approved by the Planning Commission required the applicant to reduce the proposed depth of theirhome by three feet to accommodate a longer driveway. The applicant appealed this variance stating that the resultingreduction in garage length led to an impractical, shallow garage. A neighbor also appealed the variance, expressingconcern that the approved driveway was too shallow to accommodate adequate guest parking.During the Council meeting, the applicant proposed maintaining their requested 11.5 foot front yard setback butrecessing the third garage stall by three feet in order to address the Planning Commission's desire to create a longerdriveway section. The City Council tabled the appeal and requested that the applicant provide revised plans showingthis proposal.The applicant submitted three documents showing this revised configuration, which are provided below. Staff has colorcoded the revised survey in order to clarify how it differs from what was originally proposed and what was approvedby the Planning Commission.Revised ProposalRevised FootprintRevised ElevationsThe revised proposal would create a 10­foot wide longer section of driveway in front of the recessed third stall that is17.8 feet deep along its longest leg and 16.5 feet deep along its shortest leg. The remaining 18 feet of driveway wouldbe 13.5 feet deep along its longest point and taper down to 11.5 feet deep at its shortest point. This would allow foran average sized vehicle (16 feet long) to park perpendicular in front of the third stall and for a second vehicle to parkat an angle in front of the double garage door. The applicant believes this would honor the intent of the variancegranted by the Planning Commission while allowing them to retain sufficient garage depth to accommodate the storageof boats or larger­than­average vehicles within the garage.Note:  A more detailed summary of the other aspects of the requested variance (lot cover and lake setback) can befound in the attached executive summary from the June 10, 2019 City Council Meeting, and a full analysis can befound in the attached staff report.BACKGROUNDCouncilman McDonald expressed concern that the proposal didn’t improve parking on Red Cedar Point Road. Staffresponded that they felt the variance provided adequate parking for the property in questions, but would not helpalleviate any of the existing issues.Councilwoman Tjornhom asked for clarification on the provided parking. Staff noted that the proposal provide threein­garage parking spaces and 1­2 guest parking spaces depending on vehicle size.Councilwoman Tjornhom asked if the street could be signed No Parking. Staff indicated that this was something thatcould be done.Councilwoman Coleman asked about average car length and if the driveway could accommodate two cars. Staffindicated that depending on vehicle size and how they were parked, it likely could.Mayor Ryan asked for clarification on the buffer requirement. Staff noted that it was part of the new local watermanagement, and that such buffers would likely be required for future shoreland variances.Mayor Ryan asked what the lot cover worked out to if the pervious pavers were exclude from the calculations. Staffindicated that it would be around 28 percent.Mayor Ryan asked about the logistics surrounding the removal of the cottonwood tree. Staff clarified that PublicWorks would be responsible for removing the tree and that no replacement was planned or required. Mayor Ryan asked for clarification on the driveway length and amount of parking typically provided. Staff stated the driveway as approved would range from 17.5 to 14.5 feet deep and that a city parking stall was 18 feet by 9 feet. Staff noted that most driveways can accommodate at least two cars. There was extensive discussion on a variety of potential garage and driveway configurations. The City Council indicated that they would like to see a proposal showing the third stall recessed back three feet. The applicant’s representative requested that instead of the variance be granted by the Planning Commission, the applicant would like to propose a recessed third stall. The applicant stated that it was not desirable to reduce the depth of the entire garage by three feet due to the fact that it is only 24 feet deep and a 21­foot deep garage would be too shallow. They stated that they felt this configuration met the intent of the Planning Commission’s variance by providing the deeper garage parking space. Note:  A more detailed background including summaries of questions, comments and concerns raised during the public hearing conducted on May 21, 2019 and during meetings associated with Planning Case 2018­01, can be found in the attached staff report. DISCUSSION The applicant’s proposal would provide a similar amount of driveway parking to the variance granted by the Planning Commission. In both configurations, there would be one section of the driveway capable of accommodating average sized vehicles with a second section that would likely require an average­sized vehicle to park at an angle to the garage. The variance granted by the Planning Commission did create a deeper second driveway section than what the applicant is proposing, but it was not deep enough to allow for the perpendicular parking of multiple average sized vehicles. The City Council, Planning Commission, staff, and neighbors have all expressed concern about the lack of parking along Red Cedar Point Road; however, the driveway and three­car garage combine to provide an amount of off­street parking similar to average parking provided by other properties in the neighborhood. In order to ensure that the third stall is built as proposed, staff recommends that the following condition of approval be added: 16. The property owner shall configure the garage to provide a section of driveway at least 9 feet wide that has a minimum depth of 16 feet 6 inches. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Chanhassen City Council approve 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 adopt 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 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 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 24, 2019Subject3617 Red Cedar Point: Consider Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback, and FrontYard SetbackSectionCONSENT AGENDA Item No: D.7.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 2019­03PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an 11.5­foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setbackvariance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attachedFindings of Facts and Decisions.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn June 10, 2019, the City Council heard the appeals of the Planning Commission's May 21, 2019 approval ofmultiple variances to allow the construction of a single­family home at 3617 Red Cedar Point Road. The appeals andsubsequent discussion focused on whether the approved driveway provided adequate off­street parking; there wasgeneral agreement on the appropriateness of the other approved variances.The variance approved by the Planning Commission required the applicant to reduce the proposed depth of theirhome by three feet to accommodate a longer driveway. The applicant appealed this variance stating that the resultingreduction in garage length led to an impractical, shallow garage. A neighbor also appealed the variance, expressingconcern that the approved driveway was too shallow to accommodate adequate guest parking.During the Council meeting, the applicant proposed maintaining their requested 11.5 foot front yard setback butrecessing the third garage stall by three feet in order to address the Planning Commission's desire to create a longerdriveway section. The City Council tabled the appeal and requested that the applicant provide revised plans showingthis proposal.The applicant submitted three documents showing this revised configuration, which are provided below. Staff has colorcoded the revised survey in order to clarify how it differs from what was originally proposed and what was approvedby the Planning Commission.Revised ProposalRevised FootprintRevised ElevationsThe revised proposal would create a 10­foot wide longer section of driveway in front of the recessed third stall that is17.8 feet deep along its longest leg and 16.5 feet deep along its shortest leg. The remaining 18 feet of driveway wouldbe 13.5 feet deep along its longest point and taper down to 11.5 feet deep at its shortest point. This would allow foran average sized vehicle (16 feet long) to park perpendicular in front of the third stall and for a second vehicle to parkat an angle in front of the double garage door. The applicant believes this would honor the intent of the variancegranted by the Planning Commission while allowing them to retain sufficient garage depth to accommodate the storageof boats or larger­than­average vehicles within the garage.Note:  A more detailed summary of the other aspects of the requested variance (lot cover and lake setback) can befound in the attached executive summary from the June 10, 2019 City Council Meeting, and a full analysis can befound in the attached staff report.BACKGROUNDCouncilman McDonald expressed concern that the proposal didn’t improve parking on Red Cedar Point Road. Staffresponded that they felt the variance provided adequate parking for the property in questions, but would not helpalleviate any of the existing issues.Councilwoman Tjornhom asked for clarification on the provided parking. Staff noted that the proposal provide threein­garage parking spaces and 1­2 guest parking spaces depending on vehicle size.Councilwoman Tjornhom asked if the street could be signed No Parking. Staff indicated that this was something thatcould be done.Councilwoman Coleman asked about average car length and if the driveway could accommodate two cars. Staffindicated that depending on vehicle size and how they were parked, it likely could.Mayor Ryan asked for clarification on the buffer requirement. Staff noted that it was part of the new local watermanagement, and that such buffers would likely be required for future shoreland variances.Mayor Ryan asked what the lot cover worked out to if the pervious pavers were exclude from the calculations. Staffindicated that it would be around 28 percent.Mayor Ryan asked about the logistics surrounding the removal of the cottonwood tree. Staff clarified that PublicWorks would be responsible for removing the tree and that no replacement was planned or required.Mayor Ryan asked for clarification on the driveway length and amount of parking typically provided. Staff stated thedriveway as approved would range from 17.5 to 14.5 feet deep and that a city parking stall was 18 feet by 9 feet.Staff noted that most driveways can accommodate at least two cars.There was extensive discussion on a variety of potential garage and driveway configurations. The City Councilindicated that they would like to see a proposal showing the third stall recessed back three feet.The applicant’s representative requested that instead of the variance be granted by the Planning Commission, theapplicant would like to propose a recessed third stall. The applicant stated that it was not desirable to reduce thedepth of the entire garage by three feet due to the fact that it is only 24 feet deep and a 21­foot deep garage would betoo shallow. They stated that they felt this configuration met the intent of the Planning Commission’s variance byproviding the deeper garage parking space.Note:  A more detailed background including summaries of questions, comments and concerns raised during thepublic hearing conducted on May 21, 2019 and during meetings associated with Planning Case 2018­01, can befound in the attached staff report.DISCUSSIONThe applicant’s proposal would provide a similar amount of driveway parking to the variance granted by the PlanningCommission. In both configurations, there would be one section of the driveway capable of accommodating averagesized vehicles with a second section that would likely require an average­sized vehicle to park at an angle to thegarage. The variance granted by the Planning Commission did create a deeper second driveway section than what theapplicant is proposing, but it was not deep enough to allow for the perpendicular parking of multiple average sizedvehicles.The City Council, Planning Commission, staff, and neighbors have all expressed concern about the lack of parkingalong Red Cedar Point Road; however, the driveway and three­car garage combine to provide an amount of off­streetparking similar to average parking provided by other properties in the neighborhood.In order to ensure that the third stall is built as proposed, staff recommends that the following condition of approval beadded:16. The property owner shall configure the garage to provide a section of driveway at least 9 feet wide that hasa minimum depth of 16 feet 6 inches.RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends that the Chanhassen City Council approve 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 adopt 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 theregional 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 228­square foot 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 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. 16. The property owner shall configure the garage to provide a section of driveway at least 9 feet wide that has a minimum depth of 16 feet 6 inches. ATTACHMENTS: Variance Document Findings of Fact (Approval) Revised Survey Revised Footprint Revised Elevation June 10, 2019 City Council Staff Report Emailed Appeals Received Emailed Comments Received Appeal Letter Received 6­10­19 Shoreline Landscape Plan 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 City Council 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-foot 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 and buffer averaging may be used, subject to the approval of the Water Resources Coordinator. 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 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. 16. The property owner shall configure the garage to provide a section of driveway at least 9 feet wide that has a minimum depth of 16 feet 6 inches. 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: June 24, 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_cc_2.docx 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 Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak, and voted to approve a 17-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions. On June 10, 2019, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider an appeal of the variance approved by the Planning Commission and tabled the variance appeal, requesting that the applicant provide additional information. On June 24, 2019, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider an appeal of the variance approved by the Planning Commission and now 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 2 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. 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 is insufficient to accommodate an average sized vehicle. In order to provide for adequate off-street parking a driveway length of over 16 feet is required. The requested front yard variance does not provide for this length, but placing a condition on the variance requiring the creation of a 9-foot wide by 16.5 foot deep section of driveway will provide adequate off-street parking. 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. 3 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. DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 17-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and an 9.5 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 dedicate the existing portion of the lot covered by street pavement and curb as public right of way. 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. 4 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 and buffer averaging may be used, subject to the approval of the Water Resources Coordinator. 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 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. 16. The property owner shall configure the garage to provide a section of driveway at least 9 feet wide that has a minimum depth of 16 feet 6 six inches. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 24th day of June, 2019. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Elise Ryan, Mayor g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-03 3617 red cedar point road\findings of fact and decision 3617 red cedar_round2_cc_2.doc CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Monday, June 10, 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 NEW BUSINESS Item No: G.1. Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, Associate Planner File No: Planning Case 2019­03 PROPOSED MOTION “The Chanhassen City Council approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.” Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present. SUMMARY On May 27, 2019, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a 17­foot* front yard setback variance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions of approval from both the applicant and a neighbor. The applicant feels that the granted front yard setback variance is insufficient and the neighbor feels the granted front yard setback variance is excessive. Section 20­29(d) of the City Code allows any aggrieved person to appeal a variance decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal with the Community Development Director within four business days of the Planning Commission’s decision. Section 20­ 29(e) grants the City Council the authority to reverse, affirm, or modify, wholly or partly, the decision appealed from the Planning Commission by a majority vote. The 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 shed that encroaches approximately six 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. The parcel’s existing house is over 90 years old, does not meet the city’s minimum standards for single­family 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 36.36 percent lot coverage, largely due to the fact that the front portion of the lot is covered by a gravel parking area. Applicant’s Proposal CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 10, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback forProperty Located at 3617 Red Cedar PointSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 2019­03PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setbackvariance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Fact and Decision.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn May 27, 2019, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a 17­foot* front yard setbackvariance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions ofapproval from both the applicant and a neighbor. The applicant feels that the granted front yard setback variance isinsufficient and the neighbor feels the granted front yard setback variance is excessive. Section 20­29(d) of the CityCode allows any aggrieved person to appeal a variance decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal with theCommunity Development Director within four business days of the Planning Commission’s decision. Section 20­29(e) grants the City Council the authority to reverse, affirm, or modify, wholly or partly, the decision appealed fromthe Planning Commission by a majority vote.The applicant is demolishing a non­conforming, single­family home and is requesting a variance to construct a newsingle­family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback,has a shed that encroaches approximately six feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. Theproposed house would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverageto 34.5 percent, and require an 11.5­foot* front yard setback variance.The parcel’s existing house is over 90 years old, does not meet the city’s minimum standards for single­familydwellings, and is in disrepair. This structure is located 52.9 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water setback and thelot currently has 36.36 percent lot coverage, largely due to the fact that the front portion of the lot is covered by agravel parking area. Applicant’s Proposal The Planning Commission determined that the proposed driveway length was insufficient to provide adequate guest parking, and chose to grant the equivalent of a 8.5 foot front yard setback variance (8.5 feet of right­of­way plus 8.5­foot reduction from existing lot line equals 17 feet). *It was the applicant’s intent to donate approximately 8.5 feet of the property to the city as public right­of­way. In order to maintain the relative position of the house after the donation, the requested variance was increased by 8.5 feet. Since the Planning Commission voted to increase the front yard setback by three feet, this resulted in a 17­foot front yard setback variance with the dedication of land, compared to the 20­foot front yard setback variance that would have been required to provide the applicant with their desired front yard setback. Subsequent conversations with Carver County lead to the applicant deciding they will not dedicate the right­of­way and, as a result, to maintain the intent of the variance approved by the Planning Commission, a front yard variance of 8.5 feet would be required. BACKGROUND CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 10, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback forProperty Located at 3617 Red Cedar PointSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 2019­03PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setbackvariance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Fact and Decision.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn May 27, 2019, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a 17­foot* front yard setbackvariance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions ofapproval from both the applicant and a neighbor. The applicant feels that the granted front yard setback variance isinsufficient and the neighbor feels the granted front yard setback variance is excessive. Section 20­29(d) of the CityCode allows any aggrieved person to appeal a variance decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal with theCommunity Development Director within four business days of the Planning Commission’s decision. Section 20­29(e) grants the City Council the authority to reverse, affirm, or modify, wholly or partly, the decision appealed fromthe Planning Commission by a majority vote.The applicant is demolishing a non­conforming, single­family home and is requesting a variance to construct a newsingle­family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback,has a shed that encroaches approximately six feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. Theproposed house would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverageto 34.5 percent, and require an 11.5­foot* front yard setback variance.The parcel’s existing house is over 90 years old, does not meet the city’s minimum standards for single­familydwellings, and is in disrepair. This structure is located 52.9 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water setback and thelot currently has 36.36 percent lot coverage, largely due to the fact that the front portion of the lot is covered by agravel parking area.Applicant’s ProposalThe Planning Commission determined that the proposed driveway length was insufficient to provide adequate guestparking, and chose to grant the equivalent of a 8.5 foot front yard setback variance (8.5 feet of right­of­way plus8.5­foot reduction from existing lot line equals 17 feet).*It was the applicant’s intent to donate approximately 8.5 feet of the property to the city as public right­of­way. Inorder to maintain the relative position of the house after the donation, the requested variance was increased by 8.5feet. Since the Planning Commission voted to increase the front yard setback by three feet, this resulted in a 17­footfront yard setback variance with the dedication of land, compared to the 20­foot front yard setback variance thatwould have been required to provide the applicant with their desired front yard setback. Subsequent conversationswith Carver County lead to the applicant deciding they will not dedicate the right­of­way and, as a result, to maintainthe intent of the variance approved by the Planning Commission, a front yard variance of 8.5 feet would be required. 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, 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 2018­1. 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 the Planning Case 2018­01 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. 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 Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and voted 4­0 to approve the variance subject to conditions of approval. During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following concerns: 1. Chairman Weick asked for clarification as to the driveway length and orientation. Staff clarified that in order to park an average sized, 16­foot long vehicle, the garage would need to be pushed back three feet and that to create a consistent length, the house would need to be reoriented to intersect the road at a 90­degree angle. 2. Commissioner Skistad asked if increasing the driveway length would push the house closer to the length. Staff clarified that as written, the increased driveway length would require the house to be redesigned but that an increased lake setback variance could be granted, though it was not generally city policy to allow houses to move closer to a lake.  3. Chairman Weick asked for confirmation that one of the historical variances was for 50 percent lot cover. Staff confirmed it was an CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 10, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback forProperty Located at 3617 Red Cedar PointSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 2019­03PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setbackvariance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Fact and Decision.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn May 27, 2019, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a 17­foot* front yard setbackvariance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions ofapproval from both the applicant and a neighbor. The applicant feels that the granted front yard setback variance isinsufficient and the neighbor feels the granted front yard setback variance is excessive. Section 20­29(d) of the CityCode allows any aggrieved person to appeal a variance decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal with theCommunity Development Director within four business days of the Planning Commission’s decision. Section 20­29(e) grants the City Council the authority to reverse, affirm, or modify, wholly or partly, the decision appealed fromthe Planning Commission by a majority vote.The applicant is demolishing a non­conforming, single­family home and is requesting a variance to construct a newsingle­family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback,has a shed that encroaches approximately six feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. Theproposed house would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverageto 34.5 percent, and require an 11.5­foot* front yard setback variance.The parcel’s existing house is over 90 years old, does not meet the city’s minimum standards for single­familydwellings, and is in disrepair. This structure is located 52.9 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water setback and thelot currently has 36.36 percent lot coverage, largely due to the fact that the front portion of the lot is covered by agravel parking area.Applicant’s ProposalThe Planning Commission determined that the proposed driveway length was insufficient to provide adequate guestparking, and chose to grant the equivalent of a 8.5 foot front yard setback variance (8.5 feet of right­of­way plus8.5­foot reduction from existing lot line equals 17 feet).*It was the applicant’s intent to donate approximately 8.5 feet of the property to the city as public right­of­way. Inorder to maintain the relative position of the house after the donation, the requested variance was increased by 8.5feet. Since the Planning Commission voted to increase the front yard setback by three feet, this resulted in a 17­footfront yard setback variance with the dedication of land, compared to the 20­foot front yard setback variance thatwould have been required to provide the applicant with their desired front yard setback. Subsequent conversationswith Carver County lead to the applicant deciding they will not dedicate the right­of­way and, as a result, to maintainthe intent of the variance approved by the Planning Commission, a front yard variance of 8.5 feet would be required.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 atits regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing onthe proposed 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, 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 2018­1. 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 the Planning Case 2018­01 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.On May 21, 2019, 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 4­0 to approve the variance subject to conditions of approval.During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following concerns:1. Chairman Weick asked for clarification as to the driveway length and orientation. Staff clarified that in order topark an average sized, 16­foot long vehicle, the garage would need to be pushed back three feet and that tocreate a consistent length, the house would need to be reoriented to intersect the road at a 90­degree angle.2. Commissioner Skistad asked if increasing the driveway length would push the house closer to the length. Staffclarified that as written, the increased driveway length would require the house to be redesigned but that anincreased lake setback variance could be granted, though it was not generally city policy to allow houses tomove closer to a lake.  3. Chairman Weick asked for confirmation that one of the historical variances was for 50 percent lot cover. Staff confirmed it was an 4. Commissioner Reeder asked if the building could go higher. Staff stated that the submitted plans were under the maximum height allowed.  5. Commissioner Reeder asked what the depth of the garage was. The applicant stated that it was 26 feet deep.  6. Chairman Weick noted that the use of pervious pavers would reduce the property to between 28 and 29 percent impervious coverage.  7. Commissioner Randall expressed concern that a three­car garage was too large for the lot and that the driveway length would establish a precedent.  8. Commissioner Reeder noted that the house would likely have many different owners and that he felt the driveway setback should be increased to a minimum of 16 feet.  9. Commissioner Skistad expressed support for the plan as proposed, and asked if the house could be moved three feet closer to the lake and three feet further from the front lot line. Commissioner Reeder noted he would not support reducing the lake setback.  10. Commissioner Reeder asked if the variance could be structured to increase the driveway length but permit a front cantilever. Staff noted that the City Code does not grant a property with a variance architectural exemptions, and stated they would need to consult with the City Attorney to determine if this would be possible. 11 . The Planning Commission asked how deep the existing driveway was. Staff responded that it was approximately 30 feet deep.  12. Commissioner Randall asked what the minimum driveway depth allowed by code was. Staff stated that there was no minimum, but that the shortest depth present in PUDs was 20 feet.  13. Chairman Weick stated that he felt a 16­foot driveway length was viable. The applicant’s builder stated that they would be willing to reduce the garage depth by three feet.  14. The Planning Commission asked for clarification on the resulting driveway depth. Staff stated that it would be between 17.5 and 14.5 feet deep.  15. Chairman Weick noted that they could make a minimum driveway length a condition of the variance.  16. The Planning Commission discussed the merits of allowing an average depth versus requiring a minimum depth. During the public hearing, the following sentiments were expressed: 1. The applicant stated that due to circumstances beyond their control they had been unable to acquire the property in time to act on the previously issued variance. They stated that their requested variance maintained the previously issued setbacks and reduced the lot cover compared to what had initially been granted. They stated that they were willing to meet the conditions of the variance. They stated that they were providing off­ street parking consistent with what was provided by other homes in the area. 2. Steve Gunther expressed appreciation for the measures being taken to reduce the impact of the property’s impervious surface; however, he expressed concern regarding the length of the driveway and requested that driveway have a minimum length of 16 to 18 feet. He noted that most of the homes in the area did not have a three­car garage.  3. Dave Bangasser expressed concern that the proposed driveway was too short and suggested that the depth of the house should be reduced to accommodate a longer driveway. He requested that driveway have a minimum length of 18 feet. He stated that he did not believe any other variances had been granted that would not CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 10, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback forProperty Located at 3617 Red Cedar PointSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 2019­03PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setbackvariance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Fact and Decision.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn May 27, 2019, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a 17­foot* front yard setbackvariance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions ofapproval from both the applicant and a neighbor. The applicant feels that the granted front yard setback variance isinsufficient and the neighbor feels the granted front yard setback variance is excessive. Section 20­29(d) of the CityCode allows any aggrieved person to appeal a variance decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal with theCommunity Development Director within four business days of the Planning Commission’s decision. Section 20­29(e) grants the City Council the authority to reverse, affirm, or modify, wholly or partly, the decision appealed fromthe Planning Commission by a majority vote.The applicant is demolishing a non­conforming, single­family home and is requesting a variance to construct a newsingle­family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback,has a shed that encroaches approximately six feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. Theproposed house would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverageto 34.5 percent, and require an 11.5­foot* front yard setback variance.The parcel’s existing house is over 90 years old, does not meet the city’s minimum standards for single­familydwellings, and is in disrepair. This structure is located 52.9 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water setback and thelot currently has 36.36 percent lot coverage, largely due to the fact that the front portion of the lot is covered by agravel parking area.Applicant’s ProposalThe Planning Commission determined that the proposed driveway length was insufficient to provide adequate guestparking, and chose to grant the equivalent of a 8.5 foot front yard setback variance (8.5 feet of right­of­way plus8.5­foot reduction from existing lot line equals 17 feet).*It was the applicant’s intent to donate approximately 8.5 feet of the property to the city as public right­of­way. Inorder to maintain the relative position of the house after the donation, the requested variance was increased by 8.5feet. Since the Planning Commission voted to increase the front yard setback by three feet, this resulted in a 17­footfront yard setback variance with the dedication of land, compared to the 20­foot front yard setback variance thatwould have been required to provide the applicant with their desired front yard setback. Subsequent conversationswith Carver County lead to the applicant deciding they will not dedicate the right­of­way and, as a result, to maintainthe intent of the variance approved by the Planning Commission, a front yard variance of 8.5 feet would be required.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 atits regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing onthe proposed 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, 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 2018­1. 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 the Planning Case 2018­01 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.On May 21, 2019, 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 4­0 to approve the variance subject to conditions of approval.During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following concerns:1. Chairman Weick asked for clarification as to the driveway length and orientation. Staff clarified that in order topark an average sized, 16­foot long vehicle, the garage would need to be pushed back three feet and that tocreate a consistent length, the house would need to be reoriented to intersect the road at a 90­degree angle.2. Commissioner Skistad asked if increasing the driveway length would push the house closer to the length. Staffclarified that as written, the increased driveway length would require the house to be redesigned but that anincreased lake setback variance could be granted, though it was not generally city policy to allow houses tomove closer to a lake. 3. Chairman Weick asked for confirmation that one of the historical variances was for 50 percent lot cover. Staffconfirmed it was an4. Commissioner Reeder asked if the building could go higher. Staff stated that the submitted plans were under themaximum height allowed. 5. Commissioner Reeder asked what the depth of the garage was. The applicant stated that it was 26 feet deep. 6. Chairman Weick noted that the use of pervious pavers would reduce the property to between 28 and 29percent impervious coverage. 7. Commissioner Randall expressed concern that a three­car garage was too large for the lot and that thedriveway length would establish a precedent. 8. Commissioner Reeder noted that the house would likely have many different owners and that he felt thedriveway setback should be increased to a minimum of 16 feet. 9. Commissioner Skistad expressed support for the plan as proposed, and asked if the house could be movedthree feet closer to the lake and three feet further from the front lot line. Commissioner Reeder noted he wouldnot support reducing the lake setback. 10. Commissioner Reeder asked if the variance could be structured to increase the driveway length but permit afront cantilever. Staff noted that the City Code does not grant a property with a variance architecturalexemptions, and stated they would need to consult with the City Attorney to determine if this would be possible.11 . The Planning Commission asked how deep the existing driveway was. Staff responded that it wasapproximately 30 feet deep. 12. Commissioner Randall asked what the minimum driveway depth allowed by code was. Staff stated that therewas no minimum, but that the shortest depth present in PUDs was 20 feet. 13. Chairman Weick stated that he felt a 16­foot driveway length was viable. The applicant’s builder stated thatthey would be willing to reduce the garage depth by three feet. 14. The Planning Commission asked for clarification on the resulting driveway depth. Staff stated that it would bebetween 17.5 and 14.5 feet deep. 15. Chairman Weick noted that they could make a minimum driveway length a condition of the variance. 16. The Planning Commission discussed the merits of allowing an average depth versus requiring a minimum depth.During the public hearing, the following sentiments were expressed:1. The applicant stated that due to circumstances beyond their control they had been unable to acquire theproperty in time to act on the previously issued variance. They stated that their requested variance maintainedthe previously issued setbacks and reduced the lot cover compared to what had initially been granted. Theystated that they were willing to meet the conditions of the variance. They stated that they were providing off­street parking consistent with what was provided by other homes in the area.2. Steve Gunther expressed appreciation for the measures being taken to reduce the impact of the property’simpervious surface; however, he expressed concern regarding the length of the driveway and requested thatdriveway have a minimum length of 16 to 18 feet. He noted that most of the homes in the area did not have athree­car garage. 3. Dave Bangasser expressed concern that the proposed driveway was too short and suggested that the depth of the house should be reduced to accommodate a longer driveway. He requested that driveway have a minimum length of 18 feet. He stated that he did not believe any other variances had been granted that would not accommodate two vehicles being parked in the driveway.  4. Betsy Anding indicated that she agreed with and supported the statements made by Steve Gunther and Dave Bangasser. 5. Dave Bishop noted that he believes the street is only 15 feet 2 inches wide in front of the subject property, and asked that the Planning Commission consider and address how construction staging would work. Staff responded that construction vehicles are not allowed to park on streets of that width, and that City ordinances will be enforced.  6. Jeff Souba expressed his support for granting the requested variance, and noted that guests can park in the garage or on the property.  7. Paul Wagner, the applicant’s builder, outlined his professional experience and his plan for minimizing the impact and disruption associated with construction.  8. Dave Bangasser reiterated his position that a minimum depth was needed and that 18 feet was an appropriate minimum. On May 27, 2019, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s decision, stating that they believe they should be granted the same front yard setback as was approved in Planning Case 18­01. On May 27, 2019, a resident appealed the Planning Commission’s decision, stating that they believed that the granted variance does not provide for adequate guest parking. (Note:A more detailed background including summaries of questions, comments and concerns raised during the meetings associated with Planning Case 2018­01 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 onto the applicant’s property resulting in a driveway that is approximately 11 feet deep at its shortest point and about 15 feet deep at its longest. The setback that the applicant is requesting is that same as was allowed in Variance 18­1. The Planning Commission, staff and neighbors are concerned that a driveway of that length does not provide sufficient off­ street parking; however, the driveway and three­car garage combine to provide an amount of off­street parking similar to the average provided by other properties in the neighborhood. The Planning Commission voted to increase the front yard setback to 21.5 feet to allow for a longer driveway and additional parking surface. The granted front yard setback would result in a driveway that is approximately 14 feet deep at its shortest point and about 18 feet deep at its longest, resulting in an average depth of around 16 feet, roughly the length of an average sized car. It likely that angled parking would be required to prevent longer vehicles from overhanging onto Red Cedar Point Road. Note: Concern has been expressed to staff that the applicant could simply reduce the length of a single garage stall to meet setback, extending the shallower portion of the driveway but the not the deeper section. If this concern is shared by the City Council, a condition could be added to the variance stipulating a minimum average driveway length. 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 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 10, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback forProperty Located at 3617 Red Cedar PointSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 2019­03PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setbackvariance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Fact and Decision.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn May 27, 2019, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a 17­foot* front yard setbackvariance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions ofapproval from both the applicant and a neighbor. The applicant feels that the granted front yard setback variance isinsufficient and the neighbor feels the granted front yard setback variance is excessive. Section 20­29(d) of the CityCode allows any aggrieved person to appeal a variance decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal with theCommunity Development Director within four business days of the Planning Commission’s decision. Section 20­29(e) grants the City Council the authority to reverse, affirm, or modify, wholly or partly, the decision appealed fromthe Planning Commission by a majority vote.The applicant is demolishing a non­conforming, single­family home and is requesting a variance to construct a newsingle­family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback,has a shed that encroaches approximately six feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. Theproposed house would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverageto 34.5 percent, and require an 11.5­foot* front yard setback variance.The parcel’s existing house is over 90 years old, does not meet the city’s minimum standards for single­familydwellings, and is in disrepair. This structure is located 52.9 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water setback and thelot currently has 36.36 percent lot coverage, largely due to the fact that the front portion of the lot is covered by agravel parking area.Applicant’s ProposalThe Planning Commission determined that the proposed driveway length was insufficient to provide adequate guestparking, and chose to grant the equivalent of a 8.5 foot front yard setback variance (8.5 feet of right­of­way plus8.5­foot reduction from existing lot line equals 17 feet).*It was the applicant’s intent to donate approximately 8.5 feet of the property to the city as public right­of­way. Inorder to maintain the relative position of the house after the donation, the requested variance was increased by 8.5feet. Since the Planning Commission voted to increase the front yard setback by three feet, this resulted in a 17­footfront yard setback variance with the dedication of land, compared to the 20­foot front yard setback variance thatwould have been required to provide the applicant with their desired front yard setback. Subsequent conversationswith Carver County lead to the applicant deciding they will not dedicate the right­of­way and, as a result, to maintainthe intent of the variance approved by the Planning Commission, a front yard variance of 8.5 feet would be required.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 atits regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing onthe proposed 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, 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 2018­1. 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 the Planning Case 2018­01 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.On May 21, 2019, 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 4­0 to approve the variance subject to conditions of approval.During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following concerns:1. Chairman Weick asked for clarification as to the driveway length and orientation. Staff clarified that in order topark an average sized, 16­foot long vehicle, the garage would need to be pushed back three feet and that tocreate a consistent length, the house would need to be reoriented to intersect the road at a 90­degree angle.2. Commissioner Skistad asked if increasing the driveway length would push the house closer to the length. Staffclarified that as written, the increased driveway length would require the house to be redesigned but that anincreased lake setback variance could be granted, though it was not generally city policy to allow houses tomove closer to a lake. 3. Chairman Weick asked for confirmation that one of the historical variances was for 50 percent lot cover. Staffconfirmed it was an4. Commissioner Reeder asked if the building could go higher. Staff stated that the submitted plans were under themaximum height allowed. 5. Commissioner Reeder asked what the depth of the garage was. The applicant stated that it was 26 feet deep. 6. Chairman Weick noted that the use of pervious pavers would reduce the property to between 28 and 29percent impervious coverage. 7. Commissioner Randall expressed concern that a three­car garage was too large for the lot and that thedriveway length would establish a precedent. 8. Commissioner Reeder noted that the house would likely have many different owners and that he felt thedriveway setback should be increased to a minimum of 16 feet. 9. Commissioner Skistad expressed support for the plan as proposed, and asked if the house could be movedthree feet closer to the lake and three feet further from the front lot line. Commissioner Reeder noted he wouldnot support reducing the lake setback. 10. Commissioner Reeder asked if the variance could be structured to increase the driveway length but permit afront cantilever. Staff noted that the City Code does not grant a property with a variance architecturalexemptions, and stated they would need to consult with the City Attorney to determine if this would be possible.11 . The Planning Commission asked how deep the existing driveway was. Staff responded that it wasapproximately 30 feet deep. 12. Commissioner Randall asked what the minimum driveway depth allowed by code was. Staff stated that therewas no minimum, but that the shortest depth present in PUDs was 20 feet. 13. Chairman Weick stated that he felt a 16­foot driveway length was viable. The applicant’s builder stated thatthey would be willing to reduce the garage depth by three feet. 14. The Planning Commission asked for clarification on the resulting driveway depth. Staff stated that it would bebetween 17.5 and 14.5 feet deep. 15. Chairman Weick noted that they could make a minimum driveway length a condition of the variance. 16. The Planning Commission discussed the merits of allowing an average depth versus requiring a minimum depth.During the public hearing, the following sentiments were expressed:1. The applicant stated that due to circumstances beyond their control they had been unable to acquire theproperty in time to act on the previously issued variance. They stated that their requested variance maintainedthe previously issued setbacks and reduced the lot cover compared to what had initially been granted. Theystated that they were willing to meet the conditions of the variance. They stated that they were providing off­street parking consistent with what was provided by other homes in the area.2. Steve Gunther expressed appreciation for the measures being taken to reduce the impact of the property’simpervious surface; however, he expressed concern regarding the length of the driveway and requested thatdriveway have a minimum length of 16 to 18 feet. He noted that most of the homes in the area did not have athree­car garage. 3. Dave Bangasser expressed concern that the proposed driveway was too short and suggested that the depth ofthe house should be reduced to accommodate a longer driveway. He requested that driveway have a minimumlength of 18 feet. He stated that he did not believe any other variances had been granted that would notaccommodate two vehicles being parked in the driveway. 4. Betsy Anding indicated that she agreed with and supported the statements made by Steve Gunther and DaveBangasser.5. Dave Bishop noted that he believes the street is only 15 feet 2 inches wide in front of the subject property, andasked that the Planning Commission consider and address how construction staging would work. Staffresponded that construction vehicles are not allowed to park on streets of that width, and that City ordinanceswill be enforced. 6. Jeff Souba expressed his support for granting the requested variance, and noted that guests can park in thegarage or on the property. 7. Paul Wagner, the applicant’s builder, outlined his professional experience and his plan for minimizing the impactand disruption associated with construction. 8. Dave Bangasser reiterated his position that a minimum depth was needed and that 18 feet was an appropriateminimum.On May 27, 2019, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s decision, stating that they believe they should begranted the same front yard setback as was approved in Planning Case 18­01.On May 27, 2019, a resident appealed the Planning Commission’s decision, stating that they believed that the grantedvariance does not provide for adequate guest parking.(Note:A more detailed background including summaries of questions, comments and concerns raised during themeetings associated with Planning Case 2018­01 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 onto the applicant’s propertyresulting in a driveway that is approximately 11 feet deep at its shortest point and about 15 feet deep at its longest. Thesetback that the applicant is requesting is that same as was allowed in Variance 18­1.The Planning Commission, staff and neighbors are concerned that a driveway of that length does not provide sufficient off­street parking; however, the driveway and three­car garage combine to provide an amount of off­street parking similar tothe average provided by other properties in the neighborhood.The Planning Commission voted to increase the front yard setback to 21.5 feet to allow for a longer driveway andadditional parking surface. The granted front yard setback would result in a driveway that is approximately 14 feet deep atits shortest point and about 18 feet deep at its longest, resulting in an average depth of around 16 feet, roughly the lengthof an average sized car. It likely that angled parking would be required to prevent longer vehicles from overhanging ontoRed Cedar Point Road.Note: Concern has been expressed to staff that the applicant could simply reduce the length of a single garage stall tomeet setback, extending the shallower portion of the driveway but the not the deeper section. If this concern is sharedby the City Council, a condition could be added to the variance stipulating a minimum average driveway length.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 20 feet 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. Note: The neighbor appeal the variance expressed concern over the phrasing of condition 15, feeling that it left the impression that the use of pervious pavers was optional. Staff has revised the language in the condition to clarify that the use of pavers is mandatory. 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 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 line with city 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 City Council approve 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 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.  CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, June 10, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for Variances for Lot Cover, Lake Setback and Front Yard Setback forProperty Located at 3617 Red Cedar PointSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: G.1.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case 2019­03PROPOSED MOTION“The Chanhassen City Council approves an 8.5­foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setbackvariance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attachedFindings of Fact and Decision.”Approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn May 27, 2019, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of a 17­foot* front yard setbackvariance, a 22.1­foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions ofapproval from both the applicant and a neighbor. The applicant feels that the granted front yard setback variance isinsufficient and the neighbor feels the granted front yard setback variance is excessive. Section 20­29(d) of the CityCode allows any aggrieved person to appeal a variance decision to the City Council by filing a written appeal with theCommunity Development Director within four business days of the Planning Commission’s decision. Section 20­29(e) grants the City Council the authority to reverse, affirm, or modify, wholly or partly, the decision appealed fromthe Planning Commission by a majority vote.The applicant is demolishing a non­conforming, single­family home and is requesting a variance to construct a newsingle­family residence on the property. The existing use encroaches 22.1 feet into the required shoreland setback,has a shed that encroaches approximately six feet into the side yard setback, and has 36.4 percent lot coverage. Theproposed house would maintain the existing lake setback, meet the required side yard setbacks, reduce lot coverageto 34.5 percent, and require an 11.5­foot* front yard setback variance.The parcel’s existing house is over 90 years old, does not meet the city’s minimum standards for single­familydwellings, and is in disrepair. This structure is located 52.9 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water setback and thelot currently has 36.36 percent lot coverage, largely due to the fact that the front portion of the lot is covered by agravel parking area.Applicant’s ProposalThe Planning Commission determined that the proposed driveway length was insufficient to provide adequate guestparking, and chose to grant the equivalent of a 8.5 foot front yard setback variance (8.5 feet of right­of­way plus8.5­foot reduction from existing lot line equals 17 feet).*It was the applicant’s intent to donate approximately 8.5 feet of the property to the city as public right­of­way. Inorder to maintain the relative position of the house after the donation, the requested variance was increased by 8.5feet. Since the Planning Commission voted to increase the front yard setback by three feet, this resulted in a 17­footfront yard setback variance with the dedication of land, compared to the 20­foot front yard setback variance thatwould have been required to provide the applicant with their desired front yard setback. Subsequent conversationswith Carver County lead to the applicant deciding they will not dedicate the right­of­way and, as a result, to maintainthe intent of the variance approved by the Planning Commission, a front yard variance of 8.5 feet would be required.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 atits regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing onthe proposed 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, 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 2018­1. 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 the Planning Case 2018­01 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.On May 21, 2019, 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 4­0 to approve the variance subject to conditions of approval.During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following concerns:1. Chairman Weick asked for clarification as to the driveway length and orientation. Staff clarified that in order topark an average sized, 16­foot long vehicle, the garage would need to be pushed back three feet and that tocreate a consistent length, the house would need to be reoriented to intersect the road at a 90­degree angle.2. Commissioner Skistad asked if increasing the driveway length would push the house closer to the length. Staffclarified that as written, the increased driveway length would require the house to be redesigned but that anincreased lake setback variance could be granted, though it was not generally city policy to allow houses tomove closer to a lake. 3. Chairman Weick asked for confirmation that one of the historical variances was for 50 percent lot cover. Staffconfirmed it was an4. Commissioner Reeder asked if the building could go higher. Staff stated that the submitted plans were under themaximum height allowed. 5. Commissioner Reeder asked what the depth of the garage was. The applicant stated that it was 26 feet deep. 6. Chairman Weick noted that the use of pervious pavers would reduce the property to between 28 and 29percent impervious coverage. 7. Commissioner Randall expressed concern that a three­car garage was too large for the lot and that thedriveway length would establish a precedent. 8. Commissioner Reeder noted that the house would likely have many different owners and that he felt thedriveway setback should be increased to a minimum of 16 feet. 9. Commissioner Skistad expressed support for the plan as proposed, and asked if the house could be movedthree feet closer to the lake and three feet further from the front lot line. Commissioner Reeder noted he wouldnot support reducing the lake setback. 10. Commissioner Reeder asked if the variance could be structured to increase the driveway length but permit afront cantilever. Staff noted that the City Code does not grant a property with a variance architecturalexemptions, and stated they would need to consult with the City Attorney to determine if this would be possible.11 . The Planning Commission asked how deep the existing driveway was. Staff responded that it wasapproximately 30 feet deep. 12. Commissioner Randall asked what the minimum driveway depth allowed by code was. Staff stated that therewas no minimum, but that the shortest depth present in PUDs was 20 feet. 13. Chairman Weick stated that he felt a 16­foot driveway length was viable. The applicant’s builder stated thatthey would be willing to reduce the garage depth by three feet. 14. The Planning Commission asked for clarification on the resulting driveway depth. Staff stated that it would bebetween 17.5 and 14.5 feet deep. 15. Chairman Weick noted that they could make a minimum driveway length a condition of the variance. 16. The Planning Commission discussed the merits of allowing an average depth versus requiring a minimum depth.During the public hearing, the following sentiments were expressed:1. The applicant stated that due to circumstances beyond their control they had been unable to acquire theproperty in time to act on the previously issued variance. They stated that their requested variance maintainedthe previously issued setbacks and reduced the lot cover compared to what had initially been granted. Theystated that they were willing to meet the conditions of the variance. They stated that they were providing off­street parking consistent with what was provided by other homes in the area.2. Steve Gunther expressed appreciation for the measures being taken to reduce the impact of the property’simpervious surface; however, he expressed concern regarding the length of the driveway and requested thatdriveway have a minimum length of 16 to 18 feet. He noted that most of the homes in the area did not have athree­car garage. 3. Dave Bangasser expressed concern that the proposed driveway was too short and suggested that the depth ofthe house should be reduced to accommodate a longer driveway. He requested that driveway have a minimumlength of 18 feet. He stated that he did not believe any other variances had been granted that would notaccommodate two vehicles being parked in the driveway. 4. Betsy Anding indicated that she agreed with and supported the statements made by Steve Gunther and DaveBangasser.5. Dave Bishop noted that he believes the street is only 15 feet 2 inches wide in front of the subject property, andasked that the Planning Commission consider and address how construction staging would work. Staffresponded that construction vehicles are not allowed to park on streets of that width, and that City ordinanceswill be enforced. 6. Jeff Souba expressed his support for granting the requested variance, and noted that guests can park in thegarage or on the property. 7. Paul Wagner, the applicant’s builder, outlined his professional experience and his plan for minimizing the impactand disruption associated with construction. 8. Dave Bangasser reiterated his position that a minimum depth was needed and that 18 feet was an appropriateminimum.On May 27, 2019, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s decision, stating that they believe they should begranted the same front yard setback as was approved in Planning Case 18­01.On May 27, 2019, a resident appealed the Planning Commission’s decision, stating that they believed that the grantedvariance does not provide for adequate guest parking.(Note:A more detailed background including summaries of questions, comments and concerns raised during themeetings associated with Planning Case 2018­01 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 onto the applicant’s propertyresulting in a driveway that is approximately 11 feet deep at its shortest point and about 15 feet deep at its longest. Thesetback that the applicant is requesting is that same as was allowed in Variance 18­1.The Planning Commission, staff and neighbors are concerned that a driveway of that length does not provide sufficient off­street parking; however, the driveway and three­car garage combine to provide an amount of off­street parking similar tothe average provided by other properties in the neighborhood.The Planning Commission voted to increase the front yard setback to 21.5 feet to allow for a longer driveway andadditional parking surface. The granted front yard setback would result in a driveway that is approximately 14 feet deep atits shortest point and about 18 feet deep at its longest, resulting in an average depth of around 16 feet, roughly the lengthof an average sized car. It likely that angled parking would be required to prevent longer vehicles from overhanging ontoRed Cedar Point Road.Note: Concern has been expressed to staff that the applicant could simply reduce the length of a single garage stall tomeet setback, extending the shallower portion of the driveway but the not the deeper section. If this concern is sharedby the City Council, a condition could be added to the variance stipulating a minimum average driveway length.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 20 feet 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.Note: The neighbor appeal the variance expressed concern over the phrasing of condition 15, feeling that it left theimpression that the use of pervious pavers was optional. Staff has revised the language in the condition to clarify thatthe use of pavers is mandatory.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 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 line with city 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 City Council approve 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 attached Findingsof 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 theregional 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 constructionlimits 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 228­square 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 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 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 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd Development Review Application Findings of Fact PC Adopted Tree Removal Plan Updated Survey WRC Memo ERS Memo Engineering Memo Affidavit of Mailing Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval) Findings of Fact and Decision (Denial) Variance Document Email Comments Received Email Appeals Received Appeal letter received from Maria Knight 06­10­2019 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 non-conforming 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 six 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 City Council Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5-foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.” City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 2 of 19 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; City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 3 of 19 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 smaller 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, Non-conforming 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 City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 4 of 19 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 City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 5 of 19 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. City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 6 of 19 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. 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 Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and voted 4-0 to approve a 17-foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance subject to conditions of approval. During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following concerns: 1. Chairman Weick asked for clarification as to the driveway length and orientation. Staff clarified that in order to park an average sized, 16-foot long, vehicle the garage would need to be pushed back 3 feet and that to create a consistent length the house would need to be reoriented to intersect the road at a 90-degree angle. 2. Commissioner Skistad asked if increasing the driveway length would push the house closer to the length. Staff clarified that as written, the increased driveway length would require the house to be redesigned but that an increased lake setback variance could be granted, though it was not generally city policy to allow houses to move closer to the lake. City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 7 of 19 3. Chairman Weick asked for confirmation that one of the historical variances was for 50 percent lot cover. Staff confirmed it was, and noted that existing base was taken into account when dealing with non-conforming uses. 4. Commissioner Reeder asked if the building could go higher. Staff stated that the submitted plans were under the maximum height allowed. 5. Commissioner Reeder asked what the depth of the garage was. The applicant stated that it was 26 feet deep. 6. Chairman Weick noted that use of pervious pavers would reduce the property to between 28 and 29 percent impervious coverage. 7. Commissioner Randall expressed concern that a three-car garage was too large for the lot and that the driveway length would establish a precedent. 8. Commissioner Reeder noted that the house would likely have many different owners and that he felt the driveway setback should be increased to a minimum of 16 feet. 9. Commissioner Skistad expressed support for the plan as proposed, and asked if the house could be moved 3 feet closer to the lake and 3 feet further from the front lot line. Commissioner Reeder noted he would not support reducing the lake setback. 10. Commissioner Reeder asked if the variance could be structured to increase the driveway length but permit a front cantilever. Staff noted that the City Code does not grant a property with a variance, architectural exemptions, and stated they would need to consult with the City Attorney to determine if this would be possible. 11. The Planning Commission asked how deep the existing driveway was. Staff responded that it was approximately 30 feet deep. 12. Commissioner Randall asked what the minimum driveway depth allowed by Code was. Staff stated that there was no minimum, but that the shortest depth present in PUDs was 20 feet. 13. Chairman Weick stated that he felt a 16-foot driveway length was viable. The applicant’s builder stated that they would be willing to reduce the garage depth by 3 feet. 14. The Planning Commission asked for clarification on the resulting driveway depth. Staff stated that it would be between 17.5 and 14.5 feet deep. 15. Chairman Weick noted that they could make a minimum driveway length a condition of the variance. 16. The Planning Commission discussed the merits of allowing an average depth versus requiring a minimum depth. During the public hearing, the following sentiments were expressed: 1. The applicant stated that due to circumstances beyond their control, they had been unable to acquire the property in time to act on the previously issued variance. They stated that their requested variance maintained the previously issued setbacks and City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 8 of 19 reduced the lot cover compared to what had initially been granted. They stated that they were willing to meet the conditions of the variance. They stated that they were providing off-street parking consistent with what was provided by other homes in the area. 2. Steve Gunther expressed appreciation for the measures being taken to reduce the impact of the property’s impervious surface; however, he expressed concern regarding the length of the driveway and requested that the driveway have a minimum length of 16 to 18 feet. He noted that most of the homes in the area did not have a three-car garage. 3. Dave Bangasser expressed concern that the proposed driveway was too short and suggested that the depth of the house should be reduced to accommodate a longer driveway. He requested that the driveway have a minimum length of 18 feet. He stated that he did not believe any other variances had been granted that would not accommodate two vehicles being parked in the driveway. 4. Betsy Anding indicated that she agreed with and supported the statements made by Steve Gunther and Dave Bangasser. 5. Dave Bishop noted that he believes the street is only 15 feet 2 inches wide in front of the subject property, and asked that the Planning Commission consider and address how construction staging would work. Staff responded that construction vehicles are not allowed to park on streets of that width, and that city ordinances will be enforced. 6. Jeff Souba expressed his support for granting the requested variance and noted that guests can park in the garage or on the property. 7. Paul Wagner, the applicant’s builder, outlined his professional experience and his plan for minimizing the impact and disruption associated with construction. 8. Dave Bangasser reiterated his position that a minimum depth was needed and that 18 feet was an appropriate minimum. On May 27, 2019, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission’s decision, stating that they believe they should be granted the same front yard setback as was approved in Planning Case 18-01. On May 27, 2019, a resident appealed the Planning Commission’s decision, stating that they believed that the granted variance does not provide for adequate guest parking. 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 City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 9 of 19 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. 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 Road: 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 Road: Approved - 13.5’ lake setback (deck) City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 10 of 19 83-09 3613 Red Cedar Point Road: 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 Road: 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 Road: Approved - 12’ front setback, 3’ side (house) 88-11 3605 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - 4’ E side setback, 2’ W side setback, 26’ lake setback (garage, addition intensifying non-conforming) 92-01 3607 Red Cedar Point Road: 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 Road: 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 Road: 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 Road: Approved - 20.2’ front setback, 17’ lake setback (two-story attached garage) 16-11 3627 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - 13.6’ lake setback, 4.8% LC (home) City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 11 of 19 17-09 3622 Red Cedar Point Road: Approved - Intensify non-conforming by raising garage in side yard setback (garage) 18-01 3617 Red Cedar Point Road: 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. 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 aesthetics. 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 a 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. City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 12 of 19 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 non-conforming properties with similarly short front yard setbacks. The requested 18.5- foot front yard setback is in line what is present in this neighborhood; however, the presence of a portion of Red Cedar Point Road within the property’s front lot line results in a shorter driveway and front yard than is present on many properties with similar variances. 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 City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 13 of 19 The final consideration in determining 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 6 8.29 and 8.63 8.5 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 provide a similar amount of off-street parking 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, with 8 of the 17 surrounding parcels survey providing 4 or less combined off-street parking spaces. Staff believes that the proposed driveway could accommodate one car parked at an angle 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 depending on the width of the right of way, two in the garage and two to four in the driveway. Engineering sStaff 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. Even with the additional three feet of driveway length, the driveway will not be able to accommodate the perpendicular parking of larger vehicles. A minimum driveway length of approximately 20 feet would be required to accommodate the perpendicular parking of above average sized vehicles. 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 City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 14 of 19 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 non-conforming 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 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. Using permeable pavers would reduce the property’s impervious surface from by approximately 680 square feet, assuming a front yard variance of 8.5 feet, resulting in 27.1 percent impervious surface and 7.4 percent pervious surface for a total lot cover of 34.5 percent. City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 15 of 19 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 build 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 house’s 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 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 Road have been granted at least one variance. Of these 16 properties, 13 have a variance for reduced front yard City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 16 of 19 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 non- conforming 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 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. City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 17 of 19 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. 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 City Council Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 8.5-foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback variance, and a 9.5 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decisions.” City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 18 of 19 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. 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 City Council deny the variance request, it is recommended that the Planning Commission City Council adopt the following motion and attached Finding of Fact and Decision: City Council 3617 Red Cedar Point Road – Planning Case 2019-03 June 10, 2019 Page 19 of 19 “The Chanhassen City Council Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies a variance request to allow an 11.5-foot front yard setback variance, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback variance, 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 CC 2. Finding of Fact and Decision Alternate Approval PC 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_CC.docx (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 6E 13p 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 MLn Ln Lr) 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 w10QQUUUU U U U U O U O F F F F F .....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 QLUN - 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 QO > 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 Steckling, 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 Maria P. Knight 3605 Red Cedar Point Rd. Excelsior, MN 55115 Re: Appeal of zoning variance at 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd. June 9, 2019 Dear Mayor and Council members: I am Maria Knight and I live at 3605 Red Cedar Point Road, four houses east of the lot seeking this variance. I am not available to attend your June 10 meeting to hear this appeal, so I wish to have these written comments entered into the record at the public comments section of the hearing. I have three concerns: 1. The proposed house would be too close to Red Cedar Point Road. The actual roadway in front of the subject lot is paved 15 feet 4 inches across, regardless of what is says on the City site plan. This is narrow for even a one-way road, yet it must serve as simultaneous entrance and egress to my home and seven others’. Going east-bound just before the subject lot, Red Cedar Point Rd. slopes down sharply, and this critical stretch can be a skating rink in the dead of winter. One can’t always drive a perfectly straight line when all four tires are skidding downhill. To avoid crashes, residents need to have protection from parked cars on the applicant’s lot hugging the outside edge of that narrow road. Zero shoulder space along this hill is one thing, but a stationary parked truck or two butting out at the bottom near the paving’s edge will be an accident waiting to occur, in my opinion. All of my neighbors have had to accommodate tradesmen’s trucks on their driveways for innumerable reasons over the years, and I expect this site must cater to the same. A typical Ford serviceman’s panel truck is 19’ 6” long. Allowing a minimum 18 inches from the truck to the garage door plus two feet from the truck bumper to the edge of the street pavement, for safety’s sake the City should require 23 feet of clear space between the road pavement and the north side of the proposed building. Compromising our safety with a setback that green-lights only 11 feet or even 17 feet for the applicant’s actual driveway will cause some guest vehicle bumpers to be encroaching the road pavement or be dangerously close to that edge. To my mind, this would constitute a design flaw for which the City would be liable. It is immaterial whether the applicant owns a tiny car herself or thinks that she can control guests to always park perpendicular to the natural garage door openings. Evaluating this variance application should not be personal: the proposed variance would apply to the lot even when the applicant sold the property to somebody else. Moreover, I believe third-party driveway users are going to park on the applicant lot’s driveway in the most natural manner, which is not parallel to the road, but rather in line with the three proposed garage doors like every other house. So I oppose both the front yard setback variance as it was applied for (11.5 ft.) and the variance as granted by the Planning Commission (8.5 ft), because both create an unreasonably dangerous condition to the road we all have to travel, by placing the building too close to Red Cedar Point Road. 2. There is insufficient provision for road access during construction or snow storage during winter. The only construction access on this lot is the line where it abuts Red Cedar Point Road. The tiny setback from the road applicant has proposed allows insufficient staging space on her own land during construction. The neighborhood has gone through a similar construction experience within the last year or so, when the second house west of the applicant’s lot was torn down and rebuilt. In that case and fortuitously, the opposite neighbor had paved almost his entire front yard in asphalt, so street traffic diverted across the opposing side’s driveway while construction blocked the street. That alternative is impossible in applicant’s case because her opposing lot typically has a car parked there all day. At the Planning Commission hearing I heard the applicant’s contractor represent that it would never burden the street and that construction would never be any problem for the neighbors. I enclose, however, a photo I took of a contractor trailer parked overnight straddling both the applicant’s lot and the street right of way after they demo-ed the existing cabin ten days or so ago. Our little dead-end neighborhood depends on Red Cedar Point Road being continuously available because we all work varied hours, and there is only this single route for any fire or ambulance rescue. Unenforceable promises are not sufficient. In a similar vein, for many decades the applicant lot’s ample front yard has been a winter snow storage site for this narrow dead-end street. Lake winds deposit snow drifts at that corner nearly every year. I query whether the tiny remaining “front yard” described in the variance application is sufficient even to store the snow from the applicant’s own driveway, let alone a portion of the street snow overburden. I believe that any variance should specifically solve the snow storage inadequacy and reduce road-blocking drifts at this corner. The proposed variance does not specifically protect neighborhood access during construction or provide sufficient snow storage, which leads me ask you to deny this variance application. 3. The City will regret setting a bad precedent. There are several lakeshore parcels in the Red Cedar Point area that will soon be candidates for teardown and replacement. Small lake lots seem to attract oversize houses. I am concerned that sanctioning a variance for a too short driveway and inadequate off street parking in this case is going to set an unfortunate precedent that will confront the City again and again. Common sense requires that million dollar houses with three car garages on narrow roads include safe and adequate driveway parking space. Final Comments I don’t know which arguments will be presented during this appeal, but I wish to include my response to several trains of thought at the Planning Commission hearing that rang sour to my ear: --- Seven out of nine of the applicant’s neighbors also own dogs, and to my knowledge none of us require an unnaturally long garage to accommodate a dog washing station, which seems to be at the heart of this variance request. --- None of the neighbors near the lot have off-street driveway parking adjacent to their garage as short as the applicant is requesting. --- There are many ways that the proposed building can be modified (i.e., cantilevering the second story over a shorter garage area) to provide a standard parking driveway on this very small lot. --- Applicant is requesting a variance, and it should not be unexpected that initial building plans, including even piling locations, will need to be changed at applicant’s expense to meet community priorities. Making required changes is not an undue burden on applicant or a favor to the City. --- If the City grants a variance in this case, the City’s conditions with applicant should be global, specific and final, and enforceable in writing. Thank you for your attention. Maria P. Knight (enclosure) Steckling, 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 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 Maria P. Knight 3605 Red Cedar Point Rd. Excelsior, MN 55115 Re: Appeal of zoning variance at 3617 Red Cedar Point Rd. June 9, 2019 Dear Mayor and Council members: I am Maria Knight and I live at 3605 Red Cedar Point Road, four houses east of the lot seeking this variance. I am not available to attend your June 10 meeting to hear this appeal, so I wish to have these written comments entered into the record at the public comments section of the hearing. I have three concerns: 1. The proposed house would be too close to Red Cedar Point Road. The actual roadway in front of the subject lot is paved 15 feet 4 inches across, regardless of what is says on the City site plan. This is narrow for even a one-way road, yet it must serve as simultaneous entrance and egress to my home and seven others’. Going east-bound just before the subject lot, Red Cedar Point Rd. slopes down sharply, and this critical stretch can be a skating rink in the dead of winter. One can’t always drive a perfectly straight line when all four tires are skidding downhill. To avoid crashes, residents need to have protection from parked cars on the applicant’s lot hugging the outside edge of that narrow road. Zero shoulder space along this hill is one thing, but a stationary parked truck or two butting out at the bottom near the paving’s edge will be an accident waiting to occur, in my opinion. All of my neighbors have had to accommodate tradesmen’s trucks on their driveways for innumerable reasons over the years, and I expect this site must cater to the same. A typical Ford serviceman’s panel truck is 19’ 6” long. Allowing a minimum 18 inches from the truck to the garage door plus two feet from the truck bumper to the edge of the street pavement, for safety’s sake the City should require 23 feet of clear space between the road pavement and the north side of the proposed building. Compromising our safety with a setback that green-lights only 11 feet or even 17 feet for the applicant’s actual driveway will cause some guest vehicle bumpers to be encroaching the road pavement or be dangerously close to that edge. To my mind, this would constitute a design flaw for which the City would be liable. It is immaterial whether the applicant owns a tiny car herself or thinks that she can control guests to always park perpendicular to the natural garage door openings. Evaluating this variance application should not be personal: the proposed variance would apply to the lot even when the applicant sold the property to somebody else. Moreover, I believe third-party driveway users are going to park on the applicant lot’s driveway in the most natural manner, which is not parallel to the road, but rather in line with the three proposed garage doors like every other house. So I oppose both the front yard setback variance as it was applied for (11.5 ft.) and the variance as granted by the Planning Commission (8.5 ft), because both create an unreasonably dangerous condition to the road we all have to travel, by placing the building too close to Red Cedar Point Road. 2. There is insufficient provision for road access during construction or snow storage during winter. The only construction access on this lot is the line where it abuts Red Cedar Point Road. The tiny setback from the road applicant has proposed allows insufficient staging space on her own land during construction. The neighborhood has gone through a similar construction experience within the last year or so, when the second house west of the applicant’s lot was torn down and rebuilt. In that case and fortuitously, the opposite neighbor had paved almost his entire front yard in asphalt, so street traffic diverted across the opposing side’s driveway while construction blocked the street. That alternative is impossible in applicant’s case because her opposing lot typically has a car parked there all day. At the Planning Commission hearing I heard the applicant’s contractor represent that it would never burden the street and that construction would never be any problem for the neighbors. I enclose, however, a photo I took of a contractor trailer parked overnight straddling both the applicant’s lot and the street right of way after they demo-ed the existing cabin ten days or so ago. Our little dead-end neighborhood depends on Red Cedar Point Road being continuously available because we all work varied hours, and there is only this single route for any fire or ambulance rescue. Unenforceable promises are not sufficient. In a similar vein, for many decades the applicant lot’s ample front yard has been a winter snow storage site for this narrow dead-end street. Lake winds deposit snow drifts at that corner nearly every year. I query whether the tiny remaining “front yard” described in the variance application is sufficient even to store the snow from the applicant’s own driveway, let alone a portion of the street snow overburden. I believe that any variance should specifically solve the snow storage inadequacy and reduce road-blocking drifts at this corner. The proposed variance does not specifically protect neighborhood access during construction or provide sufficient snow storage, which leads me ask you to deny this variance application. 3. The City will regret setting a bad precedent. There are several lakeshore parcels in the Red Cedar Point area that will soon be candidates for teardown and replacement. Small lake lots seem to attract oversize houses. I am concerned that sanctioning a variance for a too short driveway and inadequate off street parking in this case is going to set an unfortunate precedent that will confront the City again and again. Common sense requires that million dollar houses with three car garages on narrow roads include safe and adequate driveway parking space. Final Comments I don’t know which arguments will be presented during this appeal, but I wish to include my response to several trains of thought at the Planning Commission hearing that rang sour to my ear: --- Seven out of nine of the applicant’s neighbors also own dogs, and to my knowledge none of us require an unnaturally long garage to accommodate a dog washing station, which seems to be at the heart of this variance request. --- None of the neighbors near the lot have off-street driveway parking adjacent to their garage as short as the applicant is requesting. --- There are many ways that the proposed building can be modified (i.e., cantilevering the second story over a shorter garage area) to provide a standard parking driveway on this very small lot. --- Applicant is requesting a variance, and it should not be unexpected that initial building plans, including even piling locations, will need to be changed at applicant’s expense to meet community priorities. Making required changes is not an undue burden on applicant or a favor to the City. --- If the City grants a variance in this case, the City’s conditions with applicant should be global, specific and final, and enforceable in writing. Thank you for your attention. Maria P. Knight (enclosure) 1/16" = 1' Scale:6/19/2019Date:Revision #:1CoryReimer ShorelineLandscape Plan:The Mustard Seed Inc.Landscape Design by:WildflowersABCDARaingardenRaingardenWildflowersWildflowersA) Carex pensylvanicaB) Veronicastrum virginicumC) Iris vesicolorD) Liatris spicata (Marsh)Wildflower mix contains:Asclepias tuberosa, Asclepias incaranata, Echinacea pillada & purpurea,coreopsis lanceolata, Ratibda pinnata & columnfera, monarda fistula, Asters, Liatris spicata & aspere and Others annuals for first year color and erosin control* Raingarden size my change do to actual sq' footage of drainageOhw 944.528' 9.49"20' 5.34"13' 5.49"28' 1.22"93' 2.10"Sq' of buffer proposed= 1871 sq'Sq' of Buffer not including Raingardens=1739 Sq'