PC Staff Report 1-5-21PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF
REPORT
Tuesday,January 5,2021
Subject Consider a Request for Setback Variances for the Construction of a Deck on Property Located
at 3616 Red Cedar Point
Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No:B.2.
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters,Associate
Planner
File No:Planning Case No.2021-01
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 13-foot shoreland setback and 18-foot east front
yard setback variance to permit expanding the existing deck,subject to the Conditions of Approval,and adopts the
attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
SUMMARY OF REQUEST
The applicant initially requested an 18-foot shoreland and 18-foot east front yard setback variances to expand an
existing deck with a nonconforming 13-foot encroachment into the property’s 75-foot shoreland setback however,
after consulting with staff they agreed to a proposed redesign which will only require a 13-foot shoreland setback
variance.They have stated that the existing 100 square-foot deck is too small to provide a useable outdoor area,and
that due to the location of the existing home and deck,it cannot be expanded without a variance.
The applicant has noted that many surrounding properties have been granted variances to allow for various updates and
improvements,and that other properties in the area have nonconforming decks.They also state that they feel the
proposed 306 square-foot deck is modestly sized and that due to the fact it is only four feet above grade,it will not
have a significant visual impact on other residences.Finally,they explain that their goal in requesting the variance is to
create a reasonably sized deck to facilitate their enjoyment of the property.
It has been the City’s general practice to require properties with existing nonconforming shoreland setbacks to maintain
those setbacks and not encroach further into the required shoreland setback.In this case the applicant’s existing deck
has a nonconforming 62-foot shoreland setback,and all portions of the proposed expansion,save the stairs,would
maintain that setback.Staff felt that a fairly minor revision to the proposed plans would allow for the stairs to be
positioned off of the west of the deck where they will not increase the existing encroachment into the 75-foot shoreland
setback.Since no feature of the site necessitated the applicant’s proposed placement of the stairs,staff requested that
they relocate the stairs to allow for a 62-foot shoreland setback rather than the requested 57-foot shoreland setback.
The applicant has indicated that they are willing to reposition the stairs.Given the unique nature of the parcel,staff does
not have any concerns with the request to extend the deck into the east front yard.
Note:From conversations with the applicant,staff anticipates that at some point in the future a variance will be
PLANNING COMMISSIONSTAFFREPORTTuesday,January 5,2021SubjectConsidera Request for Setback Variances for the Construction of a Deck on PropertyLocatedat3616RedCedarPointSectionPUBLICHEARINGSItemNo:B.2.Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters,AssociatePlanner File No:Planning Case No.2021-01PROPOSEDMOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 13-foot shoreland setback and 18-foot eastfrontyardsetbackvariancetopermitexpandingtheexistingdeck,subject to the Conditions of Approval,and adoptstheattachedFindingsofFactsandDecision.SUMMARY OFREQUESTTheapplicantinitiallyrequested an 18-foot shoreland and 18-foot east front yard setback variances to expandanexistingdeckwithanonconforming13-foot encroachment into the property’s 75-foot shoreland setback however,after consulting with staff they agreed to a proposed redesign which will only require a 13-foot shorelandsetbackvariance.They have stated that the existing 100 square-foot deck is too small to provide a useable outdoor area,andthatduetothelocationoftheexistinghomeanddeck,it cannot be expanded without a variance.The applicant has noted that many surrounding properties have been granted variances to allow for various updatesandimprovements,and that other properties in the area have nonconforming decks.They also state that they feeltheproposed306square-foot deck is modestly sized and that due to the fact it is only four feet above grade,it willnothaveasignificantvisualimpactonotherresidences.Finally,they explain that their goal in requesting the variance istocreateareasonablysizeddecktofacilitatetheirenjoymentoftheproperty.It has been the City’s general practice to require properties with existing nonconforming shoreland setbacks tomaintainthosesetbacksandnotencroachfurtherintotherequiredshorelandsetback.In this case the applicant’s existingdeckhasanonconforming62-foot shoreland setback,and all portions of the proposed expansion,save the stairs,wouldmaintainthatsetback.Staff felt that a fairly minor revision to the proposed plans would allow for the stairs tobepositionedoffofthewestofthedeckwheretheywillnotincreasetheexistingencroachmentintothe75-footshorelandsetback.Since no feature of the site necessitated the applicant’s proposed placement of the stairs,staff requestedthattheyrelocatethestairstoallowfora62-foot shoreland setback rather than the requested 57-foot shoreland setback.The applicant has indicated that they are willing to reposition the stairs.Given the unique nature of the parcel,staffdoesnothaveanyconcernswiththerequesttoextendthedeckintotheeastfrontyard.
Note:From conversations with the applicant,staff anticipates that at some point in the future a variance will be
requested impacting the footprint of the existing structure or for the replacement of the existing home.Staff has informed
the applicant that if such a variance request is received,staff will use conditions shown on the survey dated February
27,2020 to determine the extent of the property’s nonconformities,rather than any conditions that could be created if
the present variance request is approved.
APPLICANT
Red Cedar Point LLC,3627 Red Cedar Point Road,Excelsior,MN 55331
SITE INFORMATION
PRESENT ZONING:RSF"Single-Family Residential District
LAND USE:Residential Low Density
ACREAGE:16 acres
DENSITY:NA
APPLICATION REGULATIONS
Chapter 1,General Provisions
Section 1-2,Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20,Article II,Division 3.Variances
Chapter 20,Article II,Division 4.Nonconforming Uses
Chapter 20,Article VII.Shoreland Management District
Chapter 20,Article XII,RSF”Single-Family Residential District
Section 20-615,Lot Requirements and Setbacks
BACKGROUND
County records indicate that the house was built in 1920.
In July of 2020,the city issued a building permit for a substantial interior remodel.
In August of 2020,the owner applied for a permit to expand the deck and was informed that a variance would be
required.
Several permits for maintenance are also on file with the city.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission,acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments,approves a 13-foot
shoreland setback and 18-foot east front yard setback variance to permit expanding the existing deck,subject to the
Conditions of Approval,and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
1.A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
2.Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed building/structure meets all
requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code additional comments or requirements may be required after
plan review.
3.Stairs must be relocated so as to maintain a 62-foot shoreland setback.
PLANNING COMMISSIONSTAFFREPORTTuesday,January 5,2021SubjectConsideraRequest for Setback Variances for the Construction of a Deck on PropertyLocatedat3616RedCedarPointSectionPUBLICHEARINGSItemNo:B.2.Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters,AssociatePlanner File No:Planning Case No.2021-01PROPOSEDMOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 13-foot shoreland setback and 18-foot eastfrontyardsetbackvariancetopermitexpandingtheexistingdeck,subject to the Conditions of Approval,and adoptstheattachedFindingsofFactsandDecision.SUMMARY OFREQUESTTheapplicantinitiallyrequested an 18-foot shoreland and 18-foot east front yard setback variances to expandanexistingdeckwithanonconforming13-foot encroachment into the property’s 75-foot shoreland setback however,after consulting with staff they agreed to a proposed redesign which will only require a 13-foot shorelandsetbackvariance.They have stated that the existing 100 square-foot deck is too small to provide a useable outdoor area,andthatduetothelocationoftheexistinghomeanddeck,it cannot be expanded without a variance.The applicant has noted that many surrounding properties have been granted variances to allow for various updatesandimprovements,and that other properties in the area have nonconforming decks.They also state that they feeltheproposed306square-foot deck is modestly sized and that due to the fact it is only four feet above grade,it willnothaveasignificantvisualimpactonotherresidences.Finally,they explain that their goal in requesting the variance istocreateareasonablysizeddecktofacilitatetheirenjoymentoftheproperty.It has been the City’s general practice to require properties with existing nonconforming shoreland setbacks tomaintainthosesetbacksandnotencroachfurtherintotherequiredshorelandsetback.In this case the applicant’s existingdeckhasanonconforming62-foot shoreland setback,and all portions of the proposed expansion,save the stairs,wouldmaintainthatsetback.Staff felt that a fairly minor revision to the proposed plans would allow for the stairs tobepositionedoffofthewestofthedeckwheretheywillnotincreasetheexistingencroachmentintothe75-footshorelandsetback.Since no feature of the site necessitated the applicant’s proposed placement of the stairs,staff requestedthattheyrelocatethestairstoallowfora62-foot shoreland setback rather than the requested 57-foot shoreland setback.The applicant has indicated that they are willing to reposition the stairs.Given the unique nature of the parcel,staffdoesnothaveanyconcernswiththerequesttoextendthedeckintotheeastfrontyard.Note:From conversations with the applicant,staff anticipates that at some point in the future a variance willberequestedimpactingthefootprintoftheexistingstructureorforthereplacementoftheexistinghome.Staff hasinformedtheapplicantthatifsuchavariancerequestisreceived,staff will use conditions shown on the survey datedFebruary27,2020 to determine the extent of the property’s nonconformities,rather than any conditions that could be createdifthepresentvariancerequestisapproved.APPLICANTRedCedarPoint LLC,3627 Red Cedar Point Road,Excelsior,MN55331SITEINFORMATIONPRESENTZONING:RSF"Single-Family ResidentialDistrictLANDUSE:Residential LowDensityACREAGE:16 acresDENSITY:NAAPPLICATIONREGULATIONSChapter1,GeneralProvisionsSection1-2,Rules of Construction andDefinitionsChapter20,Article II,Division 3.VariancesChapter20,Article II,Division 4.NonconformingUsesChapter20,Article VII.Shoreland ManagementDistrictChapter20,Article XII,RSF”Single-Family ResidentialDistrictSection20-615,Lot Requirements andSetbacksBACKGROUNDCountyrecordsindicatethatthehousewasbuiltin1920.In July of 2020,the city issued a building permit for a substantial interior remodel.In August of 2020,the owner applied for a permit to expand the deck and was informed that a variance wouldberequired.Several permits for maintenance are also on file with the city.RECOMMENDATIONStaffrecommendsthePlanning Commission,acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments,approves a 13-footshorelandsetbackand18-foot east front yard setback variance to permit expanding the existing deck,subject totheConditionsofApproval,and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.1.A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.2.Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed building/structure meetsallrequirementsoftheMinnesotaStateBuildingCodeadditionalcommentsorrequirementsmayberequiredafterplanreview.3.Stairs must be relocated so as to maintain a 62-foot shoreland setback.
ATTACHMENTS:
Staff Report
Findings of Fact Approval)
Variance Document Approval)
Development Review Application
Variance Request Letter
Survey
Affidavit of Mailing
WRC Memo
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: January 5, 2021
CC DATE: January 25, 2021
REVIEW DEADLINE: February 2, 2021
CASE #: PC 2021-01
BY: MYW
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant initially requested an 18-foot shoreland setback and 18-foot east front yard setback
variance to expand the existing deck; however, after consulting with staff they agreed to a 13-
shoreland setback variacne. The property’s current deck has a nonconforming 62-foot shoreland
setback and the proposed increase in size requires a variance from the 75-foot lake setback. The
existing home has a nonconforming 15.3-foot east front yard setback and extended the deck out
from the edge of the house would require a variance from the 30-foot east front yard setback.
LOCATION: 3616 Red Cedar Point Road
APPLICANT: Dave Melin
Red Cedar Point LLC
3627 Red Cedar Point Road
Excelsior, MN 55331
PRESENT ZONING: “RSF” – Single-Family Residential
District
2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
ACREAGE: .16 acres DENSITY: NA
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The city’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed
project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The city has a relatively
high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from
established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant initially requested an 18-foot shoreland and 18-foot east front yard setback
variances to expand an existing deck with a nonconforming 13-foot encroachment into the
property’s 75-foot shoreland setback; however, after consulting with staff they agreed to a
proposed redesign which will only require a 13-foot shoreland setback variance. They have
PROPOSED MOTION:
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 13-foot shoreland setback and
18-foot east front yard setback variance to permit expanding the existing deck, subject to the
Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.”
3616 Red Cedar Point Road
January 5, 2021
Page 2
stated that the existing 100-square foot deck is too small to provide a useable outdoor area, and
that due to the location of the existing home and deck it cannot be expanded without a variance.
The applicant has noted that many surrounding properties have been granted variances to allow
for various updates and improvements, and that other properties in the area have nonconforming
decks. They also state that they feel the proposed 306-square foot deck is modestly sized and that
due the fact it is only four feet above grade, it will not have a significant visual impact on other
residences. Finally, they explain that their goal in requesting the variance is to create a
reasonably sized deck to facilitate their enjoyment of the property.
It has been the city’s general practice to require properties with existing nonconforming
shoreland setbacks to maintain those setbacks and not encroach further into the required
shoreland setback. In this case, the applicant’s existing deck has a nonconforming 62-foot
shoreland setback, and all portions of the proposed expansion, save the stairs, would maintain
that setback. Staff felt that a fairly minor revision to the proposed plans would allow for the stairs
to be positioned off of the west of the deck where they will not increase the existing
encroachment into the 75-foot shoreland setback. Since no feature of the site necessitated the
applicant’s proposed placement of the stairs, staff requested that they relocate the stairs to allow
for a 62-foot shoreland setback rather than the requested 57-foot shoreland setback. The
applicant has indicated that they are willing to reposition the stairs. Given the unique nature of
the parcel, staff does not have any concerns with the request to extend the deck into the east front
yard.
Note: From conversations with the applicant, staff anticipates that at some point in the future a
variance will be requested impacting the footprint of the existing structure or for the replacement
of the existing home. Staff has informed the applicant that if such a variance request is received,
staff will use conditions shown on the survey dated February 27, 2020 to determine the extent of
the property’s nonconformities, rather than any conditions that could be created if the present
variance request is approved.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, General Provisions
Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming Uses
Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District.
Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District
Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks.
BACKGROUND
County records indicate that the house was built in 1920.
In July of 2020, the city issued a building permit for a substantial interior remodel.
3616 Red Cedar Point Road
January 5, 2021
Page 3
In August of 2020, the owner applied for a permit to expand the deck and was informed that a
variance would be required.
Several permits for maintenance are also on file with the city.
SITE CONSTRAINTS
Zoning Overview
The property is a corner lot zoned Single-Family Residential District and is located within the
Shoreland Management District. This zoning classification requires riparian lots to be a
minimum of 20,000 square feet, have front yard setbacks of 30 feet, side yard setbacks of 10
feet, a shoreland setback of 75 feet, and limits parcels to a maximum of 25 percent lot cover.
Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height, and properties are allowed one water
oriented accessory structure up to 250 square feet in size within the 75-foot shoreland setback.
The lot is 7,206 square feet with 1,015 square feet (14.1 percent) lot cover. The southern lot line
has only 77.35 of the required 90 feet of lot frontage and the north lot line has only 45 of the
required 90 feet of lake frontage. The existing home has nonconforming 72.8-foot shoreland,
15.3-foot east front yard, and 15-foot south front yard setbacks. The existing deck’s stairs have a
nonconforming 62-foot shoreland setback and feature a 12-square foot landing with a
nonconforming 59-foot shoreland setback. The deck itself has a nonconforming 66-foot
shoreland setback. The property does not meet the minimum size or garage requirements for a
single-family structure. The property’s parking pad is located within city right-of-way. The other
features of the property appear to meet the other requirements of the City Code.
Bluff Creek Corridor
This is not encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
Bluff Protection
There are no bluffs on the property.
Floodplain Overlay
This property is not within a floodplain.
Shoreland Management
The property is located within a Shoreland Protection District. This district requires a 75-foot
structure setback from the lake’s ordinary high water level and limits the property to a maximum
impervious surface coverage of 25 percent. It also requires 90 feet of lot width and a minimum
20,000 square feet of lot area.
3616 Red Cedar Point Road
January 5, 2021
Page 4
Wetland Protection
There is not a wetland located in the development site.
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
nonconforming uses or are operating under a
variance.
Variances within 500 feet:
3603 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PC 2015-14): 20.2’ front setback, 17’ lake setback (two-story attached
garage) - Approved
3605 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PC 1988-11): 4’ E side setback, 2’ W side setback, 26’ lake setback
garage, addition intensifying non-conforming) - Approved
3607 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PC 1981-08): 7.5’/13.5’ lake setback (deck/stairs) – Approved
PC 1992-01): 1.5’ side setback, 14.5’ lake setback (addition
expanding non-conforming) - Approved
3613 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PC 1976-11):10’ lot frontage (house) - Approved
PC 1979-02): 20’ and 13’ front setback, sub 20,000 sq. ft. lot area
house) - Approved
PC 1983-09): 12’ front setback, 2’ side setback, 7’ lake setback
house) – Approved
3616 Red Cedar Point Road
January 5, 2021
Page 5
3617 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PC 2018-01): 11.5’ front setback, 22.1’ lake setback, 11% LC
home) – Approved*
PC 2019-03): 8.5’ front setback, 25.1’ lake setback, 10.4% LC (home) -
Approved
3618 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PC 1993-06): 8’ side setback, 15’ lake setback (deck and porch) -
Approved
3622 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PC 2017-09): Intensify non-conforming by raising garage in side yard
setback (garage) - Approved
3624 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PC 1985-20): 1.2’ front setback, 4.8’ side setback (detached garage)
Approved
3625 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PC 2009-15): 15.5’ front setback, 6.5’ E side setback, 9’ driveway
setback, 18.5’ lake setback, 12.3% LC, allow one car garage (house) -
Approved
3627 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PC 2016-11): 13.6’ lake setback, 4.8% LC (home) - Approved
3628 Hickory Rd. (PC 2002-05: 13’ front setback (Hickory), 2’ front setback (Red Cedar Point),
5’ side setback (detached garage) - Approved
3629 Red Cedar Point Rd. (PC 1980-08): 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) - Approved
PC 1987-13): 12’ front setback, 3’ side (house) - Approved
3633 South Cedar Drive (PC 2006-04): 22.5’ front setback, 15.8’ front setback, 2.39% LC
garage) - Approved
3637 South Cedar Drive (PC 1978-07): 19’ front setback (garage) - Approved
PC 2004-07): 19.25’ front setback, 4’ lake setback, 15% LC (addition) -
Approved
PC 2008-04): 20.2’ front setback, 8’ side setback (house) - Approved
3701 South Cedar Drive (PC 1980-04): 14’ front setback, 25’ lake setback, and sub 20,000 sq. ft.
lot (house) - Approved
PC 1985-27): 5’ front setback, 35’ lake setback (house) – Approved
PC 2015-07): increase existing non-conformity (enclose deck 15’ in
lake setback) - Approved
3705 South Cedar Drive (PC 1996-04): 3’ side setback, 31’ lake setback, 25% LC (house) –
Approved
3616 Red Cedar Point Road
January 5, 2021
Page 6
Note: Variance 18-01 lapsed due to one year passing without construction occurring.
ANALYSIS
Shoreland Setback
The city’s shoreland ordinance establishes a 75-foot structure setback in order to prevent the
installation of lot cover near ecologically sensitive areas, creates separation between structures
and the lakeshore, and provides for a consistent visual aesthetic for riparian properties. Due to
the important role that this setback plays in protecting the quality of the city’s lakes and the
potential for these variances to impact both the neighboring properties and all users of the city’s
lakes, the city has historically been very hesitant to grant shoreland setback variances. When
these properties with existing nonconforming shoreland setbacks apply for variances to expand,
staff has always recommended that the expansion be required to maintain the existing lake
setback.
In this case, the existing deck and stairs
encroach 13 feet into the required 75-
shoreland setback. The applicant does not
believe that the existing 6-foot by 14-foot
deck provides adequate space and is
proposing to replace it with a 10-foot by
29-foot deck. The edge of the proposed
deck would maintain the distance from the
lake of the current stairs, with its own stairs
terminating five feet closer to the lake.
After staff expressed concern with the
proposed placement of the stairs, the
applicant agreed to relocate them to the
west side of the deck in order to maintain
the existing shoreland setback.
Surveying aerial photos of the surrounding
properties show that nearly every riparian
property in the neighborhood has a lake
facing deck or patio, and the deck proposed
by the applicant appears to be of a fairly
similar size to those located on nearby
properties. Staff agrees that the existing
deck’s 6-foot width provides a very limited
amount of space for outdoor gatherings,
and that proposed expansion is of a
reasonable size and in keeping with the general standards of the neighborhood.
3616 Red Cedar Point Road
January 5, 2021
Page 7
While the applicant has agreed to relocate the stairs, staff wishes to articulate the reasons why
the city requested the redesign. The proposed location of the stairs did not appear to be
necessitated by any feature of the property and resulted in the new deck encroaching an
additional five feet into the shoreland setback. A fairly minor redesign, shown above, shifting the
stairs to the west side of the deck provided for similar functionality while maintaining the
existing nonconforming shoreland setback. Staff was concerned that granting a variance to
increase a nonconforming shoreland setback to accommodate a design choice could be used as a
precedent for other more impactful encroachments into shoreland setbacks within this
neighborhood. This concern is especially relevant as multiple properties within the Red Cedar
Point neighborhood have nonconforming shoreland setbacks and will likely be rebuilt or
remodeled within the next few years. Staff feels it is very important that the precedent that
variances to the shoreland setback only be granted to address practical difficulties and that they
are not granted to accommodate design choices be maintained.
For these reasons, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve a 13-foot
shoreland setback variance to permit the deck expansion.
Front Yard Setback
The property is an atypical corner lot, due to the fact
that the public right-of-way along the east lot line
extends to the lake, but is only occupied for
approximately half of its length by Red Cedar Point
Road which turns east, becoming a dead-end drive
serving five houses. The property does not have a
garage and access is facilitated by a driveway/parking
pad primarily located in the unimproved right-of-way
area northeast of the home. While this easternmost
segment of Red Cedar Point Road is very low traffic, it
is an improved roadway and, as such, the property has a
30-foot front yard setback along its east lot line. The
northeast corner of the home is located 15.3 feet from
the east property line.
The applicant is proposing to extend the new deck 10
feet out from the rear of the home which, due to angle of
the house and property line, would place the edge of the
deck 12 feet from the east property line. Numerous other
properties in the areas do not meet the required front
yard setbacks and the city has granted four front yard
variances to properties within 500 feet allowing homes
or garages, more visually impactful structures, to be
located within 12 feet of a front lot line.
3616 Red Cedar Point Road
January 5, 2021
Page 8
Due to the fact that the deck will only be approximately 4-feet above grade, is of open
construction, is primarily oriented towards the lake, and is not facing another residential
structure, staff does not believe that granting the front yard setback variance will negatively
impact any of the surrounding properties. Since the road in question is extremely low traffic and
does not extend the full length of the lot line, staff does not believe that any sightline or safety
concerns that would typically arise from a requested variance from a corner lot’s front yard
setback apply.
For these reasons, staff is recommending that the Planning Commission approve the requested
18-foot east front yard setback variance.
Impact on Neighborhood
Red Cedar Point is one of the oldest neighborhoods in the city. Many of its properties are
nonconforming uses, and 16 of the 25 properties within 500 feet of 3616 Red Cedar Point Rd have
been granted at least one variance. Of these 16 properties, 10 have a variance are for reduced front
yard setbacks and 11 were permitted a reduced shoreland setback. Many of the nine properties
which do not have a variances also have nonconforming front yard and shoreland setbacks.
The applicant’s proposal to expand the existing deck is a relatively minor alteration that is not
expected to negatively impact any of the surrounding properties or environmental features.
Again, staff wishes to articulate why the city requested that the applicant relocate the steps.
Whenever possible, the city requires properties requesting variances to maintain their existing
nonconforming lake setbacks, and staff believed that a relatively minor design change would
allow the applicant to adhere to this standard while still expanding the deck. Staff was concerned
that granting the variance as requested could contribute to establishing the precedent that
homeowners can increase their nonconforming shoreland setbacks for aesthetic or design
reasons, which has the potential to lead to other more impactful variance requests. For those
reasons, staff requested the applicant relocate the stairs to maintain the existing nonconforming
setback.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments,
approve a 13-foot shoreland setback and 18-foot east front yard setback variance to permit
expanding the existing deck, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopt the attached
Findings of Facts and Decision.
1. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed the
building/structure meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code;
additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review.
3. Stairs must be relocated so as to maintain a 62-foot shoreland setback.
3616 Red Cedar Point Road
January 5, 2021
Page 9
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval)
2. Variance Document (Approval)
3. Development Review Application
4. Variance Request Letter
5. Proposed Plan and Survey
6. Affidavit of Mailing of Public Hearing Notice
7. WRC Memo
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-01 3616 red cedar point road var\staff report_3616 red cedar point_var.docx
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
APPROVAL)
IN RE:
Application of Red Cedar Point, LLC, for a variance to expand a nonconforming deck on a
property zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2021-01.
On January 5, 2021, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and
Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and
mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
3. The legal description of the property is:
Lot 1, Block 1, 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 city’s shoreland ordinance establishes a 75-foot structure setback in order to prevent
the installation of lot cover near ecologically sensitive areas, creates separation between
structures and the lakeshore, and provides for a consistent visual aesthetic for riparian
properties. When properties with existing nonconforming shoreland setbacks apply for
variances to expand, the city has with few exceptions required that the expansion
maintain the existing lake setback.
In this case, the applicant’s proposal does not create additional lot cover and the low open
profile of the proposed deck will not be visually intrusive. Many of the surrounding
structures or their architectural elements similarly protrude into the required lake setback
and the applicant’s proposal would not disrupt the existing visual aesthetic. The request
variance would primarily expand the deck horizontally while maintaining the existing
shoreland setback, with the exception of the stairs which would encroach closer to the
lake. Granting the variance to expand the deck while requiring that the stairs be relocated
2
to maintain the existing deck’s nonconforming lake setback would be consistent with past
practice and in harmony with the intent of the City’s shoreland ordinance.
b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical
difficulties" as used in connection with the granting of a variance, means that the property
owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter.
Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight
for solar energy systems.
Finding:
The applicant’s proposed deck is modestly sized and consistent with what is found on
other properties in the neighborhood. The small size of the lot and home’s placement on
the lot mean that no expansion of the deck would be possible 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 plight of the landowner is due to the substandard size of the lot and
nonconforming status of the existing structure.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding:
Red Cedar Point is one of the oldest neighborhoods in the city. Many of its properties are
nonconforming uses, and 16 of the 25 properties within 500 feet of 3616 Red Cedar Point
Road have been granted at least one variance. Of these 16 properties, 10 have a variance for
reduced front yard setbacks and 11 were permitted a reduced shoreland setback. Many of the
nine properties which do not have a variances also have nonconforming front yard and
shoreland setbacks. The proposed deck appears to be similar in size and orientation to other
decks within the area and is not expected to negatively impact any of the surrounding homes
or environmental features. Overall, the proposal appears to be consistent with the exiting
character of the neighborhood.
That being said, the request to increase the deck’s nonconforming setback to
accommodate the proposed placement of the stairs is denied. Whenever possible, the city
requires properties requesting variances to maintain their existing nonconforming lake
setbacks, and a relatively minor design change will allow the applicant to adhere to this
standard while still expanding the deck. Granting the variance as requested could
contribute to establishing the precedent that homeowners can increase their
nonconforming shoreland setbacks for aesthetic or design reasons, which has the
potential to lead to other more impactful variance requests, potentially altering the
character of the locality.
3
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 #2021-01, dated January 5, 2021, prepared by MacKenzie Young-
Walters, is incorporated herein.
DECISION
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 13-foot shoreland
setback and 18-foot east front yard setback variance to permit expanding the existing deck,
subject to the Conditions of Approval.”
1. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed
building/structure meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code,
additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review.
3. Stairs must be relocated so as to maintain a 62-foot shoreland setback
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 5th day of January, 2021.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Steven Weick, Chairman
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-01 3616 red cedar point road var\findings of fact and decision 3616 red cedar point road (recommended).doc
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 2021-01
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby
grants the following variance:
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 13-foot shoreland
setback and 18-foot east front yard setback variance to permit expanding the existing
deck.
2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County,
Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 1, Block 1, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta.
3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed
building/structure meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code,
additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review
3. Stairs must be relocated so as to maintain a 62-foot shoreland setback.
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.
2
Dated: January 5, 2021 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor
AND:
Heather Johnston, Interim City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2021 by Elise Ryan, Mayor, and Heather Johnston, Interim 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\2021 planning cases\21-05 9243 lake riley boulevard\variance document 21-05.doc
t Sets*
Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply)
subnirarDate: fSIq IAa Pc ode:
Refer to ttl€ a,4]rcofiate Applicdirt Checuisr tor
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.........................
E Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers .....
E Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Single-FamilyResidenceEAtlothers................
E lnterim Use Permit (lUP)
ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence.
n Att others
E Att others
2l cc Date: I :<6GDay Revie{, Date:
rre,qui,ed subrifrd lnfo,r,,€l*n that nrus, a@opny this aNi@li,l)
600 E subdMsion (SUB)$
100 E create 3 tots or less ........................................ $300
n Create over 3 |ots.......................$600 + $15 per lot(
tots)
325
425
325
425
app
tr
ETtr
Metes & Bounds (2 lots)
n Consolidate Lots.............
fl Lot Line Ad.iustmentErinalP|at.........
lncludes $450
Additimal escrow
escrow for attomey costs)'
may be rcquirBd ,or ottler applications
300
1s0
150
700
Rezoning (REZ)
thtough th€ devdopmont cootracr
I etanned Unit Development (PUD) .-..... .... .. .. $750 E Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC)........ $300
E Minor Amendment to existing PUD_................ $100 (Additin€l recoding fees may apply)
E Sign Plan Review ........ $1s0
E Site Ptan Review (SPR)
E Administrative .................-... $100
n Commercial/lndustrial Districts'.........-....-....... $500
Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area:(
thousand square feet)
lndude number of g!S!@ employees:
1ndude numb€r of Ig! 6mdoyees:
El Residential Districts......................................... $500
Plus $5 per dwelling unit ( units)
A Notilication Sign lcity to instatt and rBmove) ..........................
200
f] Wetand Alteration Permit (WAP)
n Single-Family Residence...................
E at oters...
zoning Appeal..
Zoning ordinance Amendment (zoA)................. $500
llqlE: Wher multiple appllcations are processed concurtently,
the appropriate fee sh8ll be charg€d for each appllcatlon.
2oov4b
3 per address
addresses)
50 per document
500
E1"ri"n""(vAR)...........
150
27s
100
E property Owners' List within 500' (city to gererdte afier pre.applicatioo rn€et ng) .
Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that' '
E ConOitional Use Permit
E Vacation
I Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.)
lv)...........
lnterim Use Permit
Variance
Easements L_ easements)
E Site Plan Agreement
E Wefland Alteration Permit!
oeeos
TOTAL FEE:
CITT OT CHAI{HASSIII
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Section 2: Required lnformation
Description of Proposal:
3r\ LE* 9-"1 C.l-.P',^t P"^JPropertyAddressorLocation:
Parcef #: Z5 LLo ee I O Legal Description:+t Rrf OL
Total Acreage:-
1,l,DL +
Wetlands Present?EYes E tto
Present Zoning:Selecl One Requested Zoning Select One
Present Land Use Design
1;on.
Select One )Requested Land Use Designation:Select One {2.r
M
Itr
Existing Use of Property:a e)iJz-L-.,,.2
lcheck box if separate nanative is attached
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTTENT
Planning Division - 7700 Ma*et Boulevard
Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (952) 227-1 100 / Fax: (952) 227-1110
pplicantlnformationSection3: Property Owner and A
APPLIGATT OTHER THAN PROPERJY-.OWNER: h signing this application, t, as apptbant, represent to haveobtainedauthorizationfromthepropertvownertofitethisapplicatiin. ia*. t" p u"rnd by conditions of approvat, subjecl onlytotherighttoobjeciatthehearingsontneapplication'or drri"g Gi'
pp""r
p.rioo. tt'trts apptilton-tiJs not teen signeduythepropertyowner, I have attacfied separaie documentaiiriorrrrr'r"o"r capacity to file the application. Thisappticationshouldbeprocessedinmynameandiamtnepartvwtr-om ir,l i-ity .norro -ntact regarding any matter pertaining tothisapplicationlwillkeepmr6elfinformedofthecteaoiinestorsu-oiri6sion of material and the progress of this application. Iturtherunde$tand thal additional fees ,av oe *'iised for -nrriiing r*., t"asioiriv stuoL!, Jrc
with
an estimate priortoanyauthorizationtoproceedwiththestuoi. t certiri tnaGe-inifrarion ano exhitits submitted are true and conect.
Name:
Contacl:
Phone:
Address:
city/stareizip:
Email:
Cell:
Fax:
DateSignature
PRoPERTY owNER: In signrng this apprication, r, as property own-er, have ful regar capacity to, and hereby do,authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conoiti6ni ot approval are binding and agree to be bound bythoseconditions, subiect only to the riqhtloobject at the trearingroi ouri-ng the appeat periods. I wilt keep m)rser informedofthedeadlinesforsubmissionofmateriatLndthep.gr*""; thriipirication. rfurther understanoliat aooitionar reesmaybechargedforconsultingfees, feasibitity studies: eti. with an estiriate prtor to any authorization to proceed withthesludy. I certify that the information and exhibits submitteo ire tru" ano
or,"a.
Name' Pa* Czl,-D-:^\ LLc cortact\arr, M'.\i,,.
Address:z3 al ,^t o.J Pho'le.45z 231 Bzll
Co\S rl'/ts)s3i Cell:
Fax:
Emait: th a\.,..ateLQ a.lne. a*.-
Signature:t>a.n Tfuti*Date: 1Il 1t2020
This application must be completed in full and must be
applicable City Ordinance prcvisions. BeforB filing this
and confer with the planning Department to deteririne
rsquirements and fues.
accompanied by all information and plans required by
application, refer to the appropriate Apptication Checitist
the specific ordinance and applicable procedural
A determination of compreteness of the apprication shal be made within 1s businessdayswrittennoticeofappricationdeficienciessh;I be maired to treilpiicant wrthin 1s business
of application submittat. A
days of application.
PROJECT ENGINEER (if appticabte)
Name
Address
City/Statezip
Email:
Cell:
Fax:
Who should a€celye clpies of staff reports?
ElaProperty Owrer Ma: SEmait E t,taiteo paoer Coov! Appticant Via: D Emait E ttaieO paier Co",
jH*%r* H EEil:;i Euffi;:rgii
Other Contac-t n
Name:c
Address:
t
Email IJ r.vs,
Section 4: Notification lnformation
INSTRUCTIONS TOAPPLICANToevrce. and deliver
Com plete all n ecessary form fields then lect s ^E save a copy to you
rwithrequiredandpaymenttosendacopytothedtvlorprocessinstocrtyalong
SAVE FORU
d ocumenls
PRINT FOAM
v I to
SUBiIIT FORM
digital
f
city/state/zip:
Contact:
Phone:
3616 Red Cedar Point Road
Variance Request - setback from the lake Minnewashta
To whom it may concern:
lam the current owner ofthe above mentioned property. The existing cabin is roughly 100
years old and we have been making some minor modifications to make it bit more liveable. To
date, we have not added onto the existing structure but would like to add/extend the current
deck to make it more useable.
I am asking the city of Chanhassen to consider allowing me a eighteen (18) foot setback
variance from the lake to construct a lake side deck. Our total setback would be at fifty-seven
57) feet versus city ordinance of seventy-five (75) feet.
Written justification of how this request complies with the findings for granting a variance
pursuant to Section 20-58 as follows;
1. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent ofthis chapter and when the variances are consistent with the
comprehensive plan. This variance request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
2. Where there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical
difficulties," as used in connection with granting of a variance, means that the property
owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this
Chapter. Practical difficuhies include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct
sunlight for solar energy systems. lt is impossible for us to have a useable deck on the
lakeside without the variance.
3. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. The
request is not based upon economic considerations at all. We are asking for the
variance so that we may enjoy the property from a quaint sized deck - more of quiet
enjoyment than anything economically based.
4. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created
by the landowner. The existing home sits as-is to the lake. Currently it is non-
conforming and with the constraints between the road and the lake, it is reasonable to
ask for a variance to create a reasonable size deck.
5. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character ofthe locality. The
variance request and proposed deck will be in harmony ofthe existing surroundings.
Many surroundings properties have the same constraints and have been granted
variances for similar situations. lt is lakeside and there are other properties that also
have decks that do not conform. lastly, the request will not impair other properties
from enjoying their properties.
The deck will be consistent in height as the existing stoop of the lakeside. lt is approximately 4'
from the ground as we walk from our first floor to the proposed deck. Because it is more than
30" offthe ground, we will be required to have wood railing around it's perimeter.
Additionally, it will have steps to grade
By granting the variance, this property will remain consistent with the harmony of its
surrounding neighborhood.
We appreciate your consideration.
Dave and Jennie Melin
Red Cedar Point, LLC
3627 Red Cedar Point Road
Chanhassen, Mn 55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
ss.
colrt{TY oF CARVER )
I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on
December 21,2020, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk ofthe City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of a Public
Hearing to consider a request for setback variances for the construction of a deck on
property located at3616 Red Cedar Point Road. Zoned Residential Single-Femily (RSF)'
Planning Case No. 2021-01 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy
ofsaid notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes ad&essed to
all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and
addresses ofsuch owners were those appearing as such by the records ofthe County Treasurer,
Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records.
11
Kim .M euwlssen.
Subscribed and to belore me
thia lsl day o ,2020.
Seal)
4/r\No tary Public
JEAfl M
lihfn
Dl3cl.imgr
This map is neither a legally recoded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used
as one. ihis map is a compilation of records, intormatron and data located in vadous city,
countv. state and ledelaloftces and other sources regarding lh€ area shown and is lo
be used b. reteEnce purposes only. The Cry does not wananl that lhe Geographc
lniormation System (GlS) Data used to prepare this n1ap are eror lree. and the Crty do€s
nol rcpreseni thal the GIS Oata can be used lor navigatonal. tracking o. any other
purpo; requiring exacting measurement of dastance or direction or precjsion in the
ilepidion of geographic fealures. The preceding dasclaimer is provided pulsuant to
Mi;nesota Statutes S466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map aclnowledges
thal the Crty shall not be liable for any darneges. and expressly waives all daims, and
agrees to dafend, indemnify, and hold ha.mless the City from any and alldaims brought
bt User, ats ernployees or agents. or third pates \ fiich arise oul of lhe users ac@ss or
use of data Provrded.
TAX-NAMET
rTAX_ADD_L1>
TAX_ADD-L2r
Next Reeord I(TAX_NAME)
rTAX_ADD-L'tr
ITAX ADD L2r
Subject
Parcel
Dbcl.im.r
Thas map is neither a legally recorcled map nor a suNey and is not intended to be used
as one. ihis map is a comprlation oI recods, informatron ancl data located in vanous oty
county. state and federaloffices and other sources regarding the area shown and is to
be ufu ior refurence purposes only. The Crty do€s not wanant that the Geogrdphic
lnformatron syslem (Gls) Data used to prepare this map are enor free. and the city does
not repr6ent that the Gls Data can tE used for navigational, tracking or any olher
purpo,se requlnng exactng measurement of distance ol direc0on or preosion in the
depi$on of geographic Eatures. The p{eceding disdaamel is p(ovided pu6uant to
Minesota Stiatulas 5465 03. Subd. 21 (2000). and the user of this map acknowledges
lhat the Caty shall not be laable for any damages. and expressly waives all clerms. and
agrees to ddfend, andenniry, and hold ha.mless the City from any and all claams broughl
bt User. its employe€s or agents, or third pa.ties which aris€ out of the use/s access or
use of data p.ovided.
Subiect
Parcel'l
t
ll
7\
T,
IaJ:
l, :
1l .
l"
tl
ffiry
6
f'
a
jl
r
1
i^_i
rE
I.a
El=EE:s
Hl;e.E E;
EI:3EEE
EHEEgig
EE,:HEEE
il€gt€E*EEH3$
P=€8PE{
E 9;EeE g
3; b;bi5
6:
NoN
o
E
ooo(
g
E
G
o
ooo
dc
o,o
E
q)
o
oEtooct,)
6(U
E3!i
0) .,
oB96';
E-
O.,;->
6o>o$-
C
o
E
o
q.
i
o
1
i
0,o
9o
9
E
Eoo
d
o
g
o
E3
9
E.
EoOEo-:
8.Ioq'
9E
o3
o-(., <
PEa-v3
tE sgEEiipga. P
EEBE 3q=E
aE E A3P?
o,.E u ! --a1EEExpbXEp
tfHE gfi!;
aE=E E='E;
EzEi [i Het*Ii 33eE
g*E:
E EEEo.9 -c.9 (,(rFO(Lnr; O)(E O
F (5 cU (/'rN(9S
q)
c,
qr
g
P
E
9
F
E
ctoo
F
o
NoN
o
u)
co
j
o!
olF
E2dl
q)
g
oN
o.)
o
Eo
o
oCf
I
EoL
o-qE9
E(
l)EocC:0)
QD
EBar.o'ooo-
ocg,q
ET
otl, E$
o6=
oeLcoo
o9pi
9-a
5E
oJ)
E
L
opo
oot
g
E
o
oo
LL
u-)t
c
o)
o)
ooroc'
EO(l) .n0)v
Eq,
oE€
o),>
9@6.>
Eooq)i= -cqo
4a(D
oo_Q
gcroo)-
oo
oEoo.zto-
E6
i, o)
fi
o)cai
9tlJ :zd-
aoo
c
c
Ecq)
o.
cco
I-o
l
C
o
o
E
I
q
E
E
g!-!6,
a
E
6
q
a6
q
j
I
E
E
E
9
E
E
o!
E
EE
p
3EI
ElIEEE .s
En
9
6aa 9
E tE
o
E
E-
9
E
E
6
0E
E
6
I
E
q q
E
6
i
q
E
E
I
E
E
Entg
E c
E
E
p
ItE
E
E q
E
E
E
e
e
3a !
q!
a E
E
3I
E
6 sE!
E
E ;
E
E
b E
E
E
E
E
a
6
EII6-q
6!
8eII
IE
E
E
6
06 ..
o9
Oo,
o=OE
ooo
iioc;
o
Eooo
o
trr.9
o.Geto-J
6
EF
ca
o
oo
o
oooJ
jooo
CLo
o-
TDE
ooE
c
P.9.=
6
E.eoFJ-E
9oEo,
IDc.E
oE
i, l!.
9dog2il
o(!
l!
o
l,,
E
o
EtEEOL(al!r,
a, .=
EoE=
o9(Jdg
oc
cEEOzE
l
ull!
Eo.
g(
J
o:
EBE-t.rat(!
o'FctlE (! E= l,)
EEE;t
E;iEEo6a9 *
3EE;i
EIE:-;3=.eE
R E =5.r
ile.E€ErPpt3,
PEEE<
o Q oE-r,-cutrar>
iE AE.EoE!9o
o < oF=
c
Eco
5EcoEq
@
0)=(
I,
E
gNc
o):
aoo
o(
o
coo
o
o-
o
It)'6'
o-
12E
o-
oo
o)
co(
l)
Io
o,
cn
F
o,
0)
E
oE
o
o
0)-
o
r[
o,
o)
c.
o
o)
o
co
ao
I
6toN
o
g
E
oool!s
o
J
o
o
o
E
lo
q
ii;
o
Eo
o
ll)
Io,c
o
9.
q)
o
o)
Eoa,
E
9o
2
E
Eoo
tlt
o-
o
5
It,q)(!
o-
oq);
o,
0o-
o
o)a
9-3c9,
Q 'i or - P
EE
sc ;
eEee B3'eE
E e'- 85 € E
3EEE
EEeE
EeaH :gEE::
x.,s 9 Hrx
AEEa BSEa:
5t5 g E o.=
Es icEt
E-BEeE#58
l-(6cC)ir-No<.
o
o)
oE.
a
Eol,!
o_q€
P)
l,E(
DEocc0)o?,
EBitQE(50)
ocg,S
Et-
oao$
o
6oLco9
o9EI96
5E
o
I)
0)
o
ooF-
f.-
o)
o
EoE(-)
Clo
oI
JJ
c'
6o
5ooo
0)
t
E
c)
0)
ooLLat
o
rl)
E
E
o
E
o
Eq;
E:
YoooPo-
FE
6 P'1
8E
od
qoE
oq
J,E-
qb36
F5
ooco
o)oc!'.=
O
Eg
5E5o),i!
2-
aEA6oooiEE
Pg
o03-
ooQE:+
cJool
o6oo>t
o=
96
eE
JCcEo)L
@g
IrlHzd-
oc
lcq
co
o-
cc$-
c
q
lc
o
o)
E
c
9
q
E
Ee
E
q
c
E
I
c I
5
E
a
E
E
s ,
E
E
q
E
I
E p
E
qI;3
3
e
9
E
3
8aI
I
E
e
p
E
E
B6
I
E
E
E
IE
E
E
a
a
i
o
g
E
q
E
deE
E
6
E
t95!
9
6E
e !
j
3t nq
9
e
E
3E
I
g
I
E
E
e
E
EE
5GI
E
E
36E
E
E
I
q
E
8.
E
EI
E
E
6
alq
I
q ,9
EI
I
E
E
q
I
E
I
Ea6
a En
b
6 a
3E t
3
q
EI
aE6a
6
EE e
9 ijt
olfi
e{,
G.C
r
o
t!
IoJ
too(
LIo
o
o
Eoc!
Io-
Etoo'Eo-GetGJ
a,
E
F€
o
t!o
t,
9
o.
c
o
o
It
9u,to.=
o-Hf;
eOr! .E
r
r!
ot
Eo(I
oE
o)o
ot
o
o(.)
c6 .,
o9!:
coa,
o=
OEfooo
o ooo o oo ooooo ooo c eo q9oo o o q)
X = 56 t 6or i(i c.r 66 < t^ (,l (o\oF.6or.r@o<roiiij .6 F i.v ii ii m.n o o 6 .n o.n cl.n m (n.n s o l,) a <tEEii5iiii6iicia6dcioo600aaIooooEEEEggEEEE3B333833333E33E
gHgggFggEtsg33BH333HE33EEE- ai fj ij ii ^
i
c.i 6i c.i c.i ..r c.r 6i N .! N N ^
J .\
l r\ .! r\r .! .! (\ N
aao600006606 060AAAG, d e, e t d. G G d. 4Ge2222222222r-Z 2 ztztx22x5666o65ooo666e,ee.e.q. 99q
9 c. e. c. G. e d E 4 c. c. d e ? e 2 o o o 6 6 = d d o;
E8E666666666afiiY:YYY;66Y53UUUUUUUU.r., (J v !J rz F F F F F Y v v F
SYEEEEEEEEEEgEgE=ABAAA=EEA
ru to or Fl (n u) F-.n F\ oo a\r rn F- @ (h O r-t rn F .{ q} !g O < !o
rJ iyi =
6ar
ijcib J-r F{N r.,l .\l (\ N (r) rn (n rnOC)o H (\ q,;
3Hggsgg333H333H33H35hlhHh
3
F{ -t -{ oq) Fr !.t (O !-.@rO(o(eaOQaq B+ah Ai.\r .! a! a! a! N ra, N (o co 6 @ ao @ (o -L.l- r-.1 iiN F\ F\ r.\ r.\ a\ F. N F (D (O \O rll ra, F. a(I,
E9 \t \ riT|\q")?q99+C9 3?
6', d H -r -r r-l !-{ Fl r'{ !'l Fl Fl -{ !'{ t'a F{ Fl r"l r"l !'l .l u1ri6@ .y! m lYl m .Y, m .') d) (Yl (n m ln (n ,n (n (n .n tn m .n uldll^ O 6 ;i iyi iri.yi rYt rYi (n (n ln .n .n (n rn .n {n m d) (rt rn rn - (n
o = Lri iri ui rti lr1 ur !n Ln sl !n !n tn u1 ri r.l) ra ut lrl ul rn - rn
Q ryi r.ri rti rri '
ri
ui ti t^ !') u1 r/1 ul lrl L,t rr1 l,) rn 6 ln l/1 ur > lnz':. 9 z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z,-z- F'3: = > => > = > > = = > > : = > > > => > 9 >-
r 3 -:E oe oa d oe oe d d oa oi d d c't'q'er'd d !4 4!r = de6d;O6oAoo oq o99 o999 99999 Eq? =
F } 4 2' 292 2! 922999929292y 2-r rr = (/) ii; E tr uJ r! L! ur ur uJ 'rr uJ r! t! ur lrr L! r! r! = urx',zr 2 { U - - U 6 - (J O O O O O O u e !J (J (J (J e z ()
ao<TXXXXX=**i==xiixxxxxx=xl: i U U Li iri Li ir; tJ t! t! iri ui ur t! r! ui r! lrl rr,r ur r! ur r! a uJ
6640O60660 6 0
G, G. 4. - c. G. e. d E E GG2>222222r-2 2 xzxrr 2- 5o66o66ooo 6 &c.c,e,e O
3 ? x x E E x E E x E xlz:.g s E t 8:z=3A,frZ93UUUU UUU UUO UOE E E E EOU H E
AE 3 E -B E "
3
E E E E E g E P A A A A B P E E
t id -r (', r{ tn rt F\ rrt F. @ a,l !^ F @ Ot O Fr (n F El !4 (o O 'r ':'lx'i aj 6 aj i5 ct ir ri; - .{ N N N N.n o (!l o o I o Fr ooain66666r0 \o (D (o (o,o tt) (I) (o r.o ro I I \ N F- F olNa;;Fi 6 rn rn .n rn.n rnom (n (n rn (n m(nrn.n rnm rn vt r'
ad.
Fzt-
azo>
4AEe 's A .-E= Ip _ E .( #, e ??_ .! z tDi a6 9;= 1Ziaa3E-6: E=iE;:-Hi
E:EeEE
EEgri=EEiiEEisE=EE
MacKenzie – below are my comments regarding the setback variance request for the construction of a
deck on property located at 3616 Red Cedar Point Road:
The applicant is proposing placing a deck and stairs on the lake side of their property. The current plans
propose placing the deck 57 feet from the shoreline. The amount allowed per City ordinance is 75 feet.
Staff believes that because the deck is not an impervious surface, and due to the numerous other
existing nonconformities of the site, and other site restraints on the lot, that granting the deck variance
would be permissible. However, staff believes that the plans should be revised to show the stairs coming
off another part of the deck, specifically not on the lake side. This would increase the distance from the
lake shore from proposed 57 feet to 62 feet. The proposed footprint of the deck can remain unchanged.
Please let me know if you need anything else.
Thanks,
Matt Unmacht
Water Resources Coordinator
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PH. 952.227.1168
FX. 952.227.1110
www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us