PC Staff Report 11-16-21Planning Commission Item
November 16, 2021
Item
Consider a Request for Lot Cover, Setback (Front, Side, and Shoreland), and
other Variances for the Construction of a Single-Family Home on Property
located at 3703 South Cedar Drive
File No.Planning Case No. 2021-25 Item No: B.1
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Applicant Greg Dattilo
Present Zoning Single Family Residential District (RSF)
Land Use Residential Low Density
Acerage 0.13
Density NA
Applicable
Regulations
Chapter 1, 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 Districts
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Section 20-905. Single-Family Dwellings
PROPOSED MOTION
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the request for 34.2-foot shoreland
setback, 3-foot east and west side yard setback, 1.3-foot front yard setback, and 20 percent lot cover
variances for the construction of a single-family home on property located at 3703 South Cedar
Drive, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and
Decision.
SUMMARY
2
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing cabin and construct a single-family home. Due to the
lot’s substandard size they are requesting variances from the City’s front yard, side yard and shoreland
setbacks as well a lot cover variance to allow for the proposed home placement and design.
BACKGROUND
County records indicate that the house was built in 1900.
On September 29, 2021, the applicant met with staff to discuss a proposed demolition/rebuild on the
site.
DISCUSSION
The applicant is proposing to demolish their existing cabin and replacing it with a new single-family
home. They are requesting 1.3-foot front yard setback, 3-foot east and west yard setback, 34.2-foot
shoreland setback, and 20 percent lot cover variances to accommodate the proposed home’s foot print.
The have stated that the intent of these variances is to allow them to construct a single-family home
similar to what is present on their neighbors’ property, and note that their neighbor received variances
similar to what they are requesting.
The applicant has indicated that the requested variances are needed due to the substandard size of their
lot, which does not even allow for the construction of a home meeting the City’s minimum size and
garage requirements without a variance. The applicant feels that their existing cabin is not consistent
with the neighborhood’s character and that their proposed home would meet the aesthetics created by
the neighboring homes. The applicant has stated that their proposed home maintains the property’s
existing nonconforming shoreland setback and reduces the property’s nonconforming lot cover by 142
square feet, 2.4 percent, primarily by removing nonconforming patio areas from within the shoreland
setback. The proposal would also remove a shed with nonconforming 6-foot front yard and 3.5-foot
side yard setbacks from the property. Finally, the applicant has stated that they are willing to install a
vegetated buffer along the shoreline to help mitigate the impacts of the property’s lot cover.
Staff agrees that the substandard size of the applicant’s lot creates a practical difficulty in constructing a
modern single-family home. While the applicant is requesting multiple variances, including substantial
deviations from the City Code’s lot cover and shoreland setback requirements, the property also has
multiple significant nonconformities, including nonconforming lot cover and shoreland setback. The
extent of these nonconformities as well as the number of nonconformities that are being reduced or
eliminated as part of the applicant’s proposal provides a rationale for the extent of the requested
variances. Additionally, the requested variances are broadly speaking in line with what has been
requested and granted for similar properties within the neighborhood. For these reasons, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission approve the requested variances, with the conditions that
pervious pavers, replacement of two trees, and a vegetative buffer be required to help mitigate the
impact of the proposed lot cover on the lake.
A full discussion can be found in the attached staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, approve
34.2-foot shoreland setback, 3- foot east and west side yard setback, 1.3-foot front yard setback, and 20
3
percent lot cover variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopt the attached Findings of
Facts and Decision.
1. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed building meets all
requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements may be
required after plan review.
3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
4. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional engineer
and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
5. The applicant shall supply updated construction plans that utilize to the maximum extent possible
pervious paver systems in accordance with Sec. 20-921 of City Ordinances. Areas such as the
driveway, sidewalk, and patios must be considered in the design of these systems, and the use of
impervious surfaces in these areas must be approved by the City.
6. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using species
native to the ecotype 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 plans must be approved by the Water Resources
Administrator/Engineer.
7. The installation of any improvements on the site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional
requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources and
the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and all applicable permits shall be obtained prior to any
site improvements.
8. Total lot cover shall not exceed 2,656 square feet.
9. The principle structure’s eaves may encroach up to 2.5 feet into the required front, side, and
shoreland setbacks.
10. The applicant shall plant two overstory shade trees, minimum size 2.5” diameter. One of the
trees is required in the front yard.
11. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be preserved prior to demolition
and maintained throughout construction.
ATTACHMENTS
Staff Report
Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval)
Variance Document 21-25
Development Review Application
Narrative
Justification
Certificate of Survey (Existing)
Certificate of Survey (Proposed)
Revised Survey
House Plans
Landscape and Tree Preservation Memo
ENG/WRC Memo
Affidavit of Mailing
4
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: November 16,2021
CC DATE: December 13, 2021
REVIEW DEADLINE: December 14, 2021
CASE #: PC 2021-25
BY: MYW
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing cabin and construct a single-family home.
Due to the lot’s substandard size they are requesting variances from the City’s front yard, side
yard and shoreland setbacks as well a lot cover variance to allow for the proposed home
placement and design.
LOCATION:3703 South Cedar Drive
APPLICANT:Greg Dattilo
12248 Sussex Street
Fort Myers, FL 33913
PRESENT ZONING: “RSF” –Single-Family
Residential District
2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
ACREAGE:.13 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 is proposing demolishing their existing cabin and replacing it with a new single-
family home. They are requesting 1.3-foot front yard setback, 3-foot east and west yard setback,
34.2-foot shoreland setback, and 20 percent lot cover variances to accommodate the proposed
home’s footprint. They have stated that the intent of these variances is to allow them to construct
a single-family home similar to what is present on their neighbor’s property, and noted that their
neighbor received variances similar to what they are requesting.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves 34.2-foot shoreland setback, 3-
foot east and west side yard setback, 1.3-foot front yard setback, and 20 percent lot cover
variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and
Decision.”
5
3703 South Cedar Drive
November 16, 2021
Page 2
The applicant has indicated that the requested variances are needed due to the substandard size of
their lot, which does not even allow for the construction of a home meeting the City’s minimum
size and garage requirements without a variance. The applicant feels that their existing cabin is
not consistent with the neighborhood’s character and that their proposed home would match the
aesthetics created by the neighboring homes. The applicant has stated that their proposed home
maintains the property’s existing nonconforming shoreland setback and reduces the property’s
nonconforming lot cover by 142 square feet, 2.4 percent, primarily by removing nonconforming
patio areas from within the shoreland setback. The proposal would also remove a shed with
nonconforming 6-foot front yard and 3.5-foot side yard setbacks from the property. Finally, the
applicant has stated that they are willing to install a vegetated buffer along the shoreline to help
mitigate the impacts of the property’s lot cover.
Staff agrees that the substandard size of the applicant’s lot creates a practical difficulty in
constructing a modern single-family home. While the applicant is requesting multiple variances,
including substantial deviations from the City Code’s lot cover and shoreland setback
requirements, the property also has multiple significant nonconformities, including
nonconforming lot cover and shoreland setback. The extent of these nonconformities as well as
the number of nonconformities that are being reduced or eliminated as part of the applicant’s
proposal provides a rationale for the extent of the requested variances. Additionally, the
requested variances are broadly speaking in line with what has been requested and granted for
similar properties within the neighborhood. For these reasons, staff recommends that the
Planning Commission approve the requested variances, with the conditions that pervious pavers
and a vegetative buffer be required to help mitigate the impact of the proposed lot cover on the
lake.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, 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 Districts.
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Section 20-905. Single-Family Dwellings
BACKGROUND
County records indicate that the house was built in 1900.
On September 29, 2021, the applicant met with staff to discuss a proposed demolition/rebuild on
the site.
SITE CONSTRAINTS
Zoning Overview
6
3703 South Cedar Drive
November 16, 2021
Page 3
The property is zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) and is located within the
Shoreland Management District. This zoning classification requires a minimum lot size of
20,000 square feet, 30-foot front and rear yard setbacks, 10-foot side yard setbacks, 75-foot
shoreland setback from the ordinary high water level (OHWL), and limits parcels to a maximum
of 20 percent lot cover. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height and are allowed one
water-oriented structure (WOAS) within the required 75-foot shoreland setback so long as it is
setback 10 feet from the OHWL, under 250 square feet in size, and under 10 feet in height.
Additionally, the southernmost tip of the parcel below the 945.9 contour is located within the AE
Flood Zone.
The lot is a nonconforming 5,899 square feet with 2,798 square feet of lot cover resulting in 47.4
percent lot cover. The existing principle structure meets the required 30-foot front yard setback
and 10-foot west side yard setback, and has a nonconforming 7.2-foot east side yard setback and
40.8-foot shoreland setback. The property has an existing shed with a nonconforming 3.5-foot
east side yard setback and 6-foot front yard setback. The existing driveway has a nonconforming
38-foot width. The property has 1,111 square feet of paver patios and walkways, the majority of
which is located within the 75-foot shoreland setback. The closest section of paver patio has a
nonconforming 13-foot setback from the OHWL.
Bluff Creek Corridor
The parcel is not encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
Bluff Protection
There is not a bluff present on the property.
Floodplain Overlay
A small section of the property located below the 945.9 contour is located within the AE Flood
Zone (1% annual chance); however, no portion of the project is proposed near or within that
area.
Shoreland Management
The property is located within a Shoreland Protection District. This District requires a 75-foot
structure setback from the lake’s OHWL and limits the property to a maximum impervious
surface coverage of 25 percent. The shoreland ordinance permits one WOAS to be located within
the 75-foot shoreland setback, provided that it is at least 10 feet from the OHWL, no larger than
250 square feet, and has a maximum height of 10 feet. Vegetative clearing is also restricted with
the 37.5-foot shoreland impact zone, save limited clearing to for a view, access, and allowed
facilities. This is limited to a section 30 percent the width of the lot or 30 feet wide, whichever is
less.
Wetland Protection
7
3703 South Cedar Drive
November 16, 2021
Page 4
There are no wetlands located on the property.
NEIGHBORHOOD
Red Cedar Point at Lake Minnewashta
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 have nonconforming structures
or are operating under a variance.
Variances within 500 feet:
3613 Red Cedar Point Rd.: 1976-11: Approved – 10’ lot frontage (house)
1979-02: Approved – Sub 20,000 sq. ft. lot area, 20’ and 12’ front
setbacks (house)
1983-09: Approved – 12’ front, 2’ side, and 7’ lake setbacks
(house)
3616 Red Cedar Point Rd.:2021-01: Approved – 18’ E front and 13’ lake setbacks (deck)
3617 Red Cedar Point Rd.:2018-01: Approved – 11.5’ front and 22.1’ lakeshore setbacks, and
11% lot cover (house)
2019-03: Approved – 8.5’ front and 25.1’ shore setbacks, and
10.4% lot cover (house)
3618 Red Cedar Point Rd.:1993-06: Approved – 8’ side and 15’ lake setbacks (deck and
porch)
8
3703 South Cedar Drive
November 16, 2021
Page 5
3622 Red Cedar Point Rd.:2017-09: Approved – Intensify nonconformity by raising garage in
side yard setback (garage)
3624 Red Cedar Point Rd.:1985-20: Approved – 1.2’ front and 4.8 side setbacks (detached
garage)
3625 Red Cedar Point Rd.:2009-15: Approved – 15.5’ front, 6.5’ E side, 9’ driveway, and
18.5’ lake setbacks, 12.3% lot cover, and 1
car garage (house)
3627 Red Cedar Point Rd.:2016-11: Approved – 13.6’ lake setback and 4.8% lot cover (house
and patio)
3628 Hickory Rd.:2002-05: Approved – 13’ N front, 2’ S front, and 5’ side setbacks
(detached garage)
3629 Red Cedar Point Rd.:1980-08: Approved – 12’ front and 3’ side +1.5’ for fire setbacks
30’ lot width, 40’ lot frontage, and sub
20,000- sq. ft. lot area (house)
1987-13: Approved – 12’ front and 3’ side setbacks (house)
3633 South Cedar Drive:2006-04: Approved – 22.5’ and 15.8’ front setbacks, and 2.39% lot
cover (garage)
3637 South Cedar Drive:1978-07: Approved – 19’ front setback (detached garage)
2004-07: Approved – 19.5 front and 4’ lake setbacks, 15% lot
cover (addition)
2008-04: Approved – 20.2’ front and 8’ side setbacks (house)
3701 South Cedar Drive:1980-04: Approved – 14’ front and 25’ shore setbacks, sub 20,000-
sq. ft. lot area (house)
1985-27: Approved – 5’ front and 35’ lake setbacks (house)
2015-07: Approved – Intensify nonconformity by enclosing deck
within lake setback (addition)
3705 South Cedar Drive:1996-04: Approved – 3’ E and W side and 31’ lake setbacks, and
25% lot cover (house)
3707 South Cedar Drive:1984-18: Approved – 20’ front setback (detached garage)
3711 South Cedar Drive:1977-11: Approved – 10’ lot frontage (house)
1977-18: Approved – Intensify nonconformity by raising house
height (house)
9
3703 South Cedar Drive
November 16, 2021
Page 6
3713 South Cedar Drive:1985-26: Approved – 15’ front setback (detached garage)
2019-11: Approved – 5’ front setback and 1.83% lot cover
(garage)
3715 South Cedar Drive: 1975-01: Approved – 20’ front setback (garage)
3725 South Cedar Drive:1984-17: Approved – 4.53’ side setback (addition)
1987-15: Approved – 4.53’ side setback (addition)
Nineteen (19) of the 33 properties within 500’ of the applicant’s parcel have received at least one
variance. A total of 30 variances have been issued to these properties.
ANALYSIS
Setbacks
The applicant’s lot is approximately 40 feet
wide by 135 feet long. Once the required 30-
foot front, 75-foot shoreland, and 10-foot side
yard setbacks are applied to the parcel there is
a 20.3-foot wide by 29.5-foot long buildable
area which could accommodate a structure with
a 598.9 square foot footprint. The City Code
would also allow the applicant to build a new
structure within the building envelope, i.e.
same length, width, and height, of the existing
nonconforming structure, an area 766 square
feet in size. There is a small amount of overlap
between the buildable area permitted by the
property’s setbacks and the area covered by the
nonconforming structure, approximately 61
square feet, which means that without a setback
variance the applicant could build a house with
a 1,304-square foot footprint.
The applicant is requesting front, side and
shoreland setback variances to accommodate a
structure with a proposed 1,716-square foot
footprint. The applicant has indicated that their
proposed footprint is needed to allow for a
reasonably sized garage and home, and that the
proposed footprint is identical to what their
neighbor was granted a variance to construct on a similarly sized lot. They have also stated that
their proposal maintains a consistent front building line with their western neighbor’s property
10
3703 South Cedar Drive
November 16, 2021
Page 7
and maintains the existing nonconforming lake setback and a consistent lakeside building line
with their western neighbor’s property.
In evaluating setback variance requests, the City takes into account the presence of existing
nonconformities and the extent to which they are being reduced, the buildable area needed to
allow reasonable use of a parcel, and neighborhood characteristics, i.e. previous variances
granted and observed nonconforming setbacks. Regarding the existing nonconforming setbacks,
the applicant is proposing to remove a 96-square foot shed located six feet from the front lot line
and 3.5 feet from the side lot line and an approximately 626-square foot patio system setback
between 13 feet and 40.8 feet from the OHWL. The applicant is proposing to maintain the
existing home’s nonconforming 40.8-foot shoreland setback to decrease the existing east side
yard’s nonconforming setback from 7.2 feet to 7 feet.
Since the shed is being removed from its location within the required front yard setback, it is
reasonable to consider the home’s proposed 28.7-foot front yard setback as an improvement to
the property’s nonconforming front yard. Similarly, the applicant’s removal of the rear patio
would be considered an improvement to the property’s nonconforming shoreland area that
offsets the proposed increase in building width within the 75-foot shoreland setback, especially
since no portion of the applicant’s proposed home is located closer to the lake than the existing
home’s setback.
In evaluating the requested side yard setback variances, one of which expands a nonconformity
and the other of which is a new encroachment, the primary factor for consideration is if the
applicant’s proposed building width is reasonable. The lot’s 40-foot width means that a home
meeting the required 10-foot side yard setbacks would have a maximum width of 20 feet. The
applicant’s requested 7-foot side yard setbacks would allow for a 26-foot wide home. While it is
theoretically possible to meet the City’s two-car garage requirement with a 20-foot wide garage,
the resulting garage would be atypically narrow and may not provide adequate space to open the
doors of wider vehicles. Additionally, a garage this narrow would not accommodate any on-site
storage. The proposed 26-foot garage width is fairly typical for a two-car garage with additional
storage space and is reasonable for a property without the potential to add a shed. The proposed
7-foot side yard setbacks also conform to the City’s general policy of requiring a minimum side
yard setback of five feet.
The 1,716-square foot
structure footprint
created by the
requested variances, is
larger than the
minimum footprint
required to meet City
Code, and is 412
square feet larger than buildable area that would be permitted by the property’s setbacks and
existing nonconformities. The City has never taken the position of property’s requesting
variances should be limited to the minimum footprint permitted by City Code, and the
11
3703 South Cedar Drive
November 16, 2021
Page 8
applicant’s proposed footprint is significantly smaller than the footprint of mostly newly
constructed detached single-family homes in Chanhassen; however, the lot is also significantly
smaller than the lots most other newly constructed homes are being sited on. The majority of the
homes along South Cedar Drive have larger footprints, although many of those homes are also
sited on larger lots. Finally, as the applicant has noted, the neighboring house to the west has the
same footprint and is located on a very similarly sized lot.
In general, the area within 500 feet of the applicant’s home has many substandard lots and many
of the homes have received variances or have nonconforming setbacks. The applicant’s proposed
setbacks would keep it in line with the house to the west and would place it slightly further back
from the road than the house to the east, which received a variance allowing for a 25-foot front
yard setback. Examining the setback variances issued to property’s within 500 feet, only the
applicant’s requested shoreland setback is on the higher end; however, it is not unprecedented
and it is in line with the City’s general practice of allowing riparian property owners to maintain
their nonconforming shoreland setback when rebuilding.
Considering the existing nonconformities present on the property, especially the proposed
improvements to the front and shoreland areas, the constraints posed by the substandard width of
the lot, and the prevailing development patterns of the areas, staff believes the requested setback
variances are reasonable. For these reasons, staff recommends approval of the requested setback
variances.
Lot Cover
The applicant is requesting a 20 percent lot cover variance. While this is less than the 25 percent
lot cover variance the City granted the property to west, it would, if approved, be the second
largest lot cover percentage variance granted in the area within 500 feet of the property.
However, it should be noted that due to the lot’s small size, the 20 percent lot cover variance is
the result of adding 1,180 square feet of lot cover to the 1,475 square feet allowed by the City
Code. The resulting 2,656 square feet of proposed lot cover is less than is present on most other
properties in the area, though the applicant’s parcel is also smaller than most other parcels in the
area.
12
3703 South Cedar Drive
November 16, 2021
Page 9
Significantly substandard parcels, such as the applicant’s 5,899.1-square foot lot, often request
significant lot cover variances due the fact that even a home meeting the City’s minimum
standards requires 1,900 square feet of lot cover (960-square foot living area, 400-square foot
garage, and 540 square feet of driveway). As
was noted in the previous discussion on
setbacks, the City acknowledges that a home
meeting the bare minimum standards allowed
by the Zoning Code with no amenities such as
patios or sidewalks may not provide
reasonable use. In determining what
constitutes a reasonable amount of lot cover,
the City looks at nonconforming lot cover,
what is being done to offset the impact of the
proposed lot cover, and the size and number of
structures and amenities that are being
proposed.
In this case, the property has 2,798 square
feet, 47.43 percent, of lot cover and under the
City’s nonconforming use statute the applicant
would be able to replace it in its current
configuration without a variance. According
to the applicant’s survey, 1,111 square feet of
this is a long paver walkway and a network of
rear yard paver patios. In some situations, the
City considers pavers to constitute pervious
lot cover; however, this system would not
meet the City’s criteria for an engineered
paver system and within the shoreland overlay
district all pavers are considered lot cover.
The applicant is proposing to remove this
paver patio and walkway as well as some of
the existing asphalt driveway to offset the proposed increase
in house footprint. All told, the proposal reduces the
property’s nonconforming lot cover by 142 square feet, 2.41
percent, and shifts the location of the property’s lot cover
from near the lake towards the street.
Though the two-story walkout design results in a large
amount of living space, the design also keeps the house to a
1,609-square foot footprint. The applicant is proposing a
patio with a second level deck and a sidewalk; however, the
deck and patio are located within the 26-foot by 66-foot building pad that the applicant is
proposing. No WOAS is being proposed. While the house’s living area is on the higher end of
the spectrum, the requested footprint and proposed amenities are not excessively large.
13
3703 South Cedar Drive
November 16, 2021
Page 10
Additionally, as has been noted, the proposed building footprint is the same as what was allowed
on the neighboring parcel and the requested lot cover variance is smaller.
The applicant has indicated that they are willing to replace the existing beach area by the lake
with a vegetated buffer consisting of native plants. Replacing sand with vegetation would
improve the property’s stormwater management. Similarly, replacing approximately 626 square
feet of the lakeside paver system with vegetation would also help reduce the amount of
stormwater that reaches the lake. Though both of the above measures help mitigate the lot
cover’s impact on the lake, the applicant is proposing removing two mature trees within the
shoreland setback to accommodate the proposed building site. Staff recommends that the
applicant be required to plant two overstory shade trees, minimum size of 2.5 inches in diameter,
to offset the canopy cover and water quality benefits lost by removing two of the existing trees.
Finally, staff is proposing that the applicant be required to utilize a pervious paver system
meeting the City’s design standards for the driveway, sidewalk, and rear patio areas. As
proposed, this condition would require the applicant to receive permission from the City to
utilize impervious surfaces within these areas.
Ordinarily, staff would not support this large of a lot cover variance; however, the applicant is
reducing an existing nonconformity, shifting the location of the lot cover away from the lake,
installing a vegetative buffer of native plants, and adding other vegetation between the lot cover
and the lake. These factors combined with staff’s requirement that pervious pavers be used
wherever viable will result in the property having improved stormwater management over what
would be present if the applicant simply replaced the existing lot cover as allowed by ordinance.
For these reasons, staff is recommending approval of the requested lot cover variance.
Impact on Neighborhood
The houses along the lakeside of South Cedar Drive are a mix of older homes and newer rebuilds
with the applicant’s house being one of two remaining structures from the early 1900s. The
applicant’s proposed replacement of the existing home would be in keeping with size and scale
of the new construction along South Cedar Drive. The proposed tuck under configuration is
consistent with what is currently present within the neighborhood as the existing homes are
roughly evenly split between side loading garages and tuck under garages. The proposed home is
very similar to the neighbor’s in size, scale, and configuration, and maintains approximately the
same front yard, side yard, and shoreland setbacks as the neighboring structure. There is no
reason to believe that the proposed home would be out of character with or negatively impact the
surrounding neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments,
approve 34.2-foot shoreland setback, 3-foot east and west side yard setback, 1.3-foot front yard
setback, and 20 percent lot cover variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopt the
attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
14
3703 South Cedar Drive
November 16, 2021
Page 11
1.Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets
all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or
requirements may be required after plan review.
3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
4. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional
engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
5. The applicant shall supply updated construction plans that utilize to the maximum extent
possible pervious paver systems in accordance with Sec. 20-921 of City Ordinances.
Areas such as the driveway, sidewalk, and patios must be considered in the design of
these systems, and the use of impervious surfaces in these areas must be approved by the
City.
6. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using
species native to the ecotype 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 plans must be approved by the Water
Resources Administrator/Engineer.
7. The installation of any improvements on the site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional
requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and all applicable permits shall
be obtained prior to any site improvements.
8. Total lot cover shall not exceed 2,656 square feet.
9. The principle structure’s eaves may encroach up to 2.5 feet into the required front, side,
and shoreland setbacks.
10. The applicant shall plant two overstory shade trees, minimum size 2.5” diameter. One of
the trees is required in the front yard.
11. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be preserved prior to
demolition and maintained throughout construction.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Approval)
2. Variance Document (Approval)
3. Development Review Application
4. Variance Request Narrative
5. Variance Request Justification
6. Survey (Pre-existing)
7. Survey (Proposed)
8. Revised Survey
9. Proposed House Plans
10. Landscaping and Tree Preservation Memo
11. ENG/WRC Memo
12. Affidavit of Mailing
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-25 3703 south cedar var\staff report - final.docx
15
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(APPROVAL)
IN RE:
Application of Greg Dattilo for variances from the lot cover limit and front yard, side yard, and
shoreland setbacks to facilitate constructing a single-family home on a property zoned Single-Family
Residential District (RSF) – Planning Case 2021-25.
On November 16, 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.
Lot 21, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta
3. 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 lot cover variance is a reduction to the property’s nonconforming lot cover and
BMPs are being required to further mitigate the impact of the proposed lot cover. The
shoreland setback variance maintains the property’s existing nonconforming shoreland
setback and removes nonconforming patios from the shoreland area. The front yard setback
variance replaces a nonconforming shed located six feet from the front property line and
entirely within the required front yard setback with a 1.3 foot encroachment of the principle
structure. The side yard setback variances are new or expanded encroachments into the
required side yards; however, the proposed setbacks maintain adequate separation between
the home and neighboring structures. The net result of all of these variances is a reduction of
the property’s existing nonconformities. It is consistent with the intent of the Zoning Code to
allow for nonconforming structures to be replaced in a manner that brings the property closer
to compliance with the City Code.
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.
16
2
Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy systems.
Finding:The proposed footprint of the home is reasonable and comparable to what is present
on nearby similarly sized lots. The applicant does not have the ability to construct a
reasonably sized home on the parcel without setback and lot cover variances.
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 property’s substandard 40-foot lot width
and substandard 5,899-square foot lot size. This substandard nature of the parcel is the result
of it having been plated in 1913, before the creation of the City and the adoption of a
municipal Zoning Code.
e. The variance, if granted will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The houses along the lakeside of South Cedar Drive are a mix of older homes and
newer rebuilds with the applicant’s house being one of two remaining structures from the
early 1900s. The applicant’s proposed replacement of the existing home would be in keeping
with size and scale of the new construction along South Cedar Drive. The proposed tuck
under configuration is consistent with what is currently present within the neighborhood as
the existing homes are roughly evenly split between side loading garages and tuck under
garages. The proposed home is very similar to the neighbor’s in size, scale, and
configuration, and maintains approximately the same front yard, side yard, and shoreland
setbacks as the neighboring structure. There is no reason to believe that the proposed home
would be out of character with or negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood.
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 #2021-25, dated November 16, 2021, prepared by MacKenzie Young-
Walters is incorporated herein.
DECISION
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves 34.2-foot shoreland setback, 3-foot
east and west side yard setback, 1.3-foot front yard setback, and 20 percent lot cover variances,
subject to the Conditions of Approval.
1. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
17
3
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets all
requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or requirements
may be required after plan review.
3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
4. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional
engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
5. The applicant shall supply updated construction plans that utilize to the maximum extent
possible pervious paver systems in accordance with Sec. 20-921 of City Ordinances. Areas
such as the driveway, sidewalk, and patios must be considered in the design of these systems,
and the use of impervious surfaces in these areas must be approved by the City.
6. A permanent 20-foot native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using
species native to the ecotype 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 plans must be approved by the Water
Resources Administrator/Engineer.
7. The installation of any improvements on the site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional
requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and all applicable permits shall be obtained
prior to any site improvements.
8. Total lot cover shall not exceed 2,656 square feet.
9. The principle structure’s eaves may encroach up to 2.5 feet into the required front, side, and
shoreland setbacks.
10. The applicant shall plant two overstory shade trees, minimum size 2.5” diameter. One of the
trees is required in the front yard.
11. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be preserved prior to
demolition and maintained throughout construction.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16th day of November, 2021.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Steven Weick, Chairman
g:\plan\2021 planning cases\21-25 3703 south cedar var\findings of fact and decision (approval).docx
18
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 2021-25
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 34.2-foot shoreland
setback, 3-foot east and west side yard setback, 1.3-foot front yard setback, and 20
percent lot cover variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval.
2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County,
Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 21, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta.
3. Conditions.The variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Demolition permits must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets
all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code; additional comments or
requirements may be required after plan review.
3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
4. Retaining walls (if present) more than four feet high must be designed by a professional
engineer and a building permit must be obtained prior to construction.
5. The applicant shall supply updated construction plans that utilize to the maximum extent
possible pervious paver systems in accordance with Sec. 20-921 of City Ordinances.
Areas such as the driveway, sidewalk, and patios must be considered in the design of
these systems, and the use of impervious surfaces in these areas must be approved by the
City.
6. A permanent 20-foot native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using
species native to the ecotype with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work
around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an experienced
19
2
professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plans must be approved by the Water
Resources Administrator/Engineer.
7. The installation of any improvements on the site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional
requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and all applicable permits shall
be obtained prior to any site improvements.
8. Total lot cover shall not exceed 2,656 square feet.
9. The principle structure’s eaves may encroach up to 2.5 feet into the required front, side,
and shoreland setbacks.
10. The applicant shall plant two overstory shade trees, minimum size 2.5” diameter. One of
the trees is required in the front yard.
11. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be preserved prior to
demolition and maintained throughout construction.
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.
20
3
Dated: November 16, 2021 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
(SEAL)Elise Ryan, Mayor
AND:
Laurie Hokkanen, 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 Laurie Hokkanen, 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\21-25 3703 south cedar var\variance document 21-25.docx
21
CITT OT CIIAI{HASSII{
60-Oay Revierv Oate:h-t4'4
*
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
subminarDare: t0 'l( '21 ec oa., lofuit ll'16[[1o","2-B-7-l
Application Type (check all that apply)
(Refet to tle qptwiatc Applicaton checklid fot Equi,cd subfii at inl natbr. tt'E,t fiud &qnpany dtis awic',rron)
E Comprehensive Plan Amendment................-........ $600! Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers..... $'tOO
E Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
n Single-Family Residence.............-.................. $325E All orhers....... .................... $425
E lnterim Use Permit (lUP)
E ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325D A OrheIs....... ..........-......... $425
( lots)Ll Metes & Bounds (2 lots)...........n Consolidate Lots. ... . . ... . ... .. .. . . ..E Lot Line Adjustment..................fl Final Plat........
(lncludes $450 escrow for attomey cosls).
'Addilional escrolv may be reqdred for other apdicatio.ls
through the d€r€lopment contracl.
E Vacation of Easements/Right<f-way (VAC)........ g300
(Addattmal recordiru ,ee3 rlay appty)
E Variance (VAR)..............,............................. ....... $2OO
E Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
I Single-Family Residence............................... $150E A[ Others....... .................. $275
! Zoning Appea|.............................-........................ $iO0
n Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)................. $500
!!OTE: l$ren muldplo lppllcetions.rc procased cqtcu.trltty,
Oro approprlate iee sidl be chlrgcd lor esch .pDllcdlon,
E SuUOivision (SUB)
D!Create 3 lots or less
Create over 3 lots...
E Rezonins (REz)
E Planned Unit Development (PUD) ...,.............. g75O
E Minor Amendment lo existing PUD................. $1OOn Ar Others....... .................... $5OO
! Sign Plan Review................................................... $150
! Site Plan Review (SPR)
n Administrative ........- .......... $1OOE Commercial/lndustrial Dislricts'...................... $5OO
Plus $10 per 1,000 square feet of building area:( thousand square feet)
'lndude rumber of g&iE!!g employees:
'lndude nunber of ltry emplo)€es:n Residential Districts......................................... $5OO
Plus $5 per dwelling unil ( units)
E Notilication Sign (city to insral snd.emove) ..........................
@ Property Owners' LiEt within 500' (city to gerErate aier preepptication meetind .............:............................ -....... $3 per address( 32 addresses)I Escrow for Recording Documents (check all that apply)......................... . ..... .-..............-..-......_.. $SO per document- tr Conoitlon"r u""F"-it - --"ift"rilui"i"-it ! i'idi;hAsreem€nr! Vacation @ Variance I WahnO eteration permit
! Metes & Bounds SuMivision (3 docs.) E Easements ( easements) E OeeOs' rout reE: $546.00
Description of Proposal: Applying for variances ,if granted it will alleviate the practical diffculties that are due to
circumstances unique to the property and not created by me, the land owner.
3703 South Cedar Drive, Chanhassen MN, 55317
$200
Section 2: Required lnformation
Property Address or Location
Parcel #:lot 21 block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta
Total Acreage:
Present Zoning
0.14 Wetlands Present?!ves []to
Single-Family Residential Districl (RSF)Requested Zoning Not Applicable
Present Land Use Desag n"1;on. Residential Low Density Requested Land Use Desig nation. Not Applicabte
Existing Use of Property:Lake Cabin three season
@Check box if separate narrative is attached
COMTUN]TY DEVELOPMENT OEPARTMENT
Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard
Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 553i7
Phone: (952) 227-1100 / Fax: (952) 227-1110
Section 't:
..$600 + $15 per lot
$300
$150
$1s0
$700
Legal Description:
22
Section 3: Properly Owner and Applicant lnformation
APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: In signing this application, l, as appticant, 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 righl to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. lf this application has not been signedby
the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This appliLtion '
should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any maner pertaining to thisapplication. I will keep mysef informed of the deadlines for submission of materiat anO ttre progiess of tnS apptidtion. I
furlher understand that additional fees may be charged lor consulting tees, feasibitity studies, elc. with an estimate prior toany authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and conecl.
Name Contact:
Phone:Address
City/Statdzip
Email:
Contact
Phone:
Cell:
Fax:
Date
Cell:
Fax:
Date
Cell
Fax
Signature
PROPERTY OVIINER: ln signing this application, l. as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do,
aulhorize the filing of this application. I understand thal conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those
conditions, subject only to the right to objecl at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will kiep myself infomed 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 sludies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with thestudy. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.
ciry/state/zip
Email:
Signature
PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable)
Name:
Fort Myers, FL. 33913 (612) 868-1066
1il 202 (
Address
Contact
Phone:
City/Stat€/Zip
Email:
This application must be completed in full-andmust be accompanied by all information and plans required by
applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checj(fist
and confer with the Planning DePartmenl to determine the specific ordinance and applicabE p;ocedural
req uirernents and fees.
A determination of completeness of lhe application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittat
written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 busindss days of application.
A
Section 4: Notifi cation lnformation
Who should receive copies of staff reports?'Other Contact lnlormation:
Name: Dave GestachE Property Owner Via: E Email! Applicant Via: E EmaitD Engineer Via: ! Email! otner Via: ! Emait
I UaiteO Paper Copy
E Mailed Paper Copy
n Maited Paper Copy
U Mailed Paper Copy
Address
City/Statezip
Email:dave@ aulson-com
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT
device. PRINT FORM and deliver
copy to the city for processing.
: Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to
to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMTT FORM to send a d
your
igital
SAVE FORM PRINT FORM SUBMIT FORM
Name:Greg Dattilo
Address: 12248 Sussex St.
23
To the city of Chanhassen, Planning Commission and City Council,
l'm asking for your approval of allowing my property to receive several variances.
I can be reached at 612.868.1065 or email herbie@usfamily,net.
My property is one of the smallest square foot areas (5,899 sq ft) of all properties
on Red Cedar Point.
Comparing to minimum lot size today of 15,000 square feet my property is 39% of
today's requirement.
The area was plotted back in 1907 with the standard 40'xLzO' lot size.
Under current setbacks and codes, I would be able to build a home the size of
20.5' x 3.5'that equals 72'square feet, the size of a walk-in closet. This includes a
two-car garage 20'x25' that equals 520 sq ft. that is also mandated as a
requirement under sec 20-905.
This defines my "practical difficulties".
Currently my property does not fit the essential character of the neighborhood.
My current building (cabin) was the normal size back in 1928 when the cabin was
constructed. The adjacent property to the west (3705) was a twin cabin to the
one I own. This cabin (3705) was torn down in 1996 and replaced with a home
that now fits the charter of the neighborhood which is quite different then it was
in 1928.
What l'm proposing is variances that will fit today's character of Red Cedar Point
much more than it currently does today. My neighbors have been gracious for
more than 20 years. My understanding is my cabin does NOT have the essential
character of the loca lity
To bring my property into the essential character of the neighborhood it must be
replaced as my neighbor did in 1995.
l'm asking for the lakeside of the new home to be the same distance it currently is
today from the lake. This will need to have a variance approved (same distance as
my neighbor 3705) our homes currently line up and I would like this to continue.
Description of variance request
24
The width of the new home would be 25' the same as my neighbor, except I will
not cantilever an
additional 2'on each side and front of my new home as my neighbor has done.
This variance would be 3' on each side compared to my neighbor who received 5'
variances on each side.
The home would start at the current distance from lake, extend 56'same as
neighbor. A 5' variance from South Cedar Road to front of garage would be
necessary same as my neighbor.
Currently hard cover is at 50%. My proposal is to improve green space by
eliminating the current paver surfaces of 1,110 square feet. I will be adding 934
square feet of living space. This is a net gain of 176 square feet of green space or
additional 6%.
I believe I have come to you in good faith and have shown that if the variances are
granted it will alleviate the practical difficulties that are due to circumstances
unique to the property and not created by me, the land owner.
Sincerely
Greg Dattilo
3703 S Cedar Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
herbie@ usfamily.net
25
I
I
,
v71
ld r ,;lI
I
r,.-'i ,Il7
r
H h .t.
I
I
-I
F,\fr h
-b
'
a-.!
L
/r
L:-
!
}ZI!
I
26
Greg Dattilo
3703 S Cedar Drive
Chanhassen MN 55317
herbie@usfamily.net
Justification of the Variance Request
A. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony, with the general purposes
and intent of this chapter and are consistent with the comprehensive plan. By replacing
my three season cabin built in 1928 with my new lake home, it will justi! this
requirernent that will bring harmony and consistency with the neighborhood.
B. The second justification is when there are practical difficulties in complying with the
zoning ordinance. I propose that the property is to be used in a reasonable manner not
permitted by this chapter due to practical difficulties as stated above.
l. My property size 5899 sq. ft. which is only 39Vo of today's minimum lot requirement
of 15,000sq.ft.
2. With current setbacks and codes I would only be able to build a home of less than
100sq.ft, with a requirement ofa two car garage at 20x26.
C. The third qualification to meet the justification ofthe variance is that the variance or
variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
D. The fourth justification to qualifo for a variance is due to the circumstances unique to the
property and not created by the landowner. As stated above I have one ofthe smallest lots
ofall lots on Red Cedar point. This lot size restricts any normal size homes being built
today to be built without being granted variances.
E. The fifth justification to qualifu for a variance is that it will not alter the central character
of the locality. The current three season cabin today does not fit the essential character of
the locality and this is why variances should be granted so the new home will fit the
essential character of the locality.
27
28
29
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com 30
4
C)I
-.,1
qo
!oz
6
l
rrt
6
_--toz
t
!
EEm
E
!
!
I
=
I
T
289F1
AUTUNN DES/GN
DATTILO
l,
4
qo
!oz
r-T:::-T---1---:l
31
:
E
a
I
-
9
=a
o
I
AUTUNN DESIGN (-;]
249F1 DATIlLO
IE-IE-II-
-
I
6
J
I
-\
!
l
oo4
-o
z
32
I
q
o-
-o
z
3ESi9i?,
I
o
o
:
:
=
,.
-----,I:i
rg
?
.
E
AUTUNN DESIGN
2895- r DATTILO IE-rr-E-
I
l
o
+r
II
I
I
33
MEMORANDUM
TO:MacKenzie Walters, Planner I, AICP
FROM:Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist
DATE:November 16, 2021
SUBJ:Variance for lot cover, 3703 South Cedar Drive
The applicant has a valuable bur oak as well as a mature ash on the property that will be
impacted by the construction of a new home. The trees are within the shoreland setback and
provide water quality benefits to Lake Minnewashta. The applicant is proposing to remove these
trees for construction. Staff recommends that the applicant be required to replace two trees on
the property for no net loss of canopy cover. The applicant is proposing to preserve the two
other trees on the lot, between the home and the lake. These trees will be required to be
protected with tree preservation fencing prior to demolition and throughout the construction
process. Of the two trees required to be planted, one shall be located in the front yard.
Recommendations:
1. The applicant shall plant two overstory shade trees, minimum size 2.5” diameter. One of
the trees is required in the front yard.
2. Tree protection fencing shall be installed around existing trees to be preserved prior to
demolition and maintained throughout construction.
34
Memorandum
To: MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
From: Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer
CC: Charles Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer
George Bender, Assistant City Engineer
Date: 10/25/2021
Re: Variance Review at 3703 South Cedar Drive – Planning Case
#2021-25
The Engineering Department has reviewed the variance submittal for 3703 South Cedar Drive.
These comments are divided into two categories: general comments and proposed conditions.
General comments are informational points to guide the applicant in the proper planning of
public works infrastructure for this project, to inform the applicant of possible extraordinary
issues and/or to provide the basis for findings. Proposed conditions are requirements that
Engineering recommends be formally imposed on the application in the final order. Note that
references to the “City Standards” herein refer to the City of Chanhassen Standard
Specifications and Detail Plates.
General Comments/Findings
1. Any and all utility and transportation plans submitted with this application have been
reviewed only for the purpose of determining the feasibility of providing utility and
transportation facilities for the project. A recommendation of variance approval does
not constitute final approval of details, including but not limited to alignments,
materials and points of access, utility connections or discharge, that are depicted or
suggested in the application. The applicant is required to submit detailed construction
drawings for the project, as applicable. The City of Chanhassen Engineering and Public
Works Departments will review plans, in detail, when they are submitted and approve,
reject or require modifications to the plans or drawings based upon conformance with
City Standards, the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances and the professional engineering
judgment of the City Engineer.
35
2. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that the proposed variance can be
developed in near accordance with the requirements of the Chanhassen Code of
Ordinances (as it pertains to Engineering and Public Works requirements) and City
Standards, provided it fully addresses the comments and conditions contained herein,
and can be approved.
3. The applicant is requesting a number of variances to facilitate the construction of a
single family home at 3703 South Cedar Drive (Site). These include lot cover, front yard
setback, side yard setback, and shoreland setback variances. Engineering and Public
Works has no comment regarding the front yard and side yard setback variances. There
are no public drainage and utility easements currently on the property and none are
being requested by staff in concert with the variance requests.
4. The applicant is proposing a lot coverage variance. The Site currently has 2,948 SF of
hardcover on the 5,899 SF property, or 50% lot coverage of the Site. The proposed
change to the Site’s total hardcover based on the provided submittals would provide a
reduction of 2.4%, or 137 SF , for a total proposed lot cover of 2,811 SF, or 47.6%. Even
though there is a reduction of total hard cover the Site is still above the allowable lot
coverage (25%) under Ordinance and would require a variance. The proposed reduction
of lot coverage by 137 SF alone would not result in a measurable water quality benefit
to the riparian Site, which is directly adjacent to Lake Minnewashta. Additional
measures must be taken to improve stormwater management, reduce impervious
surfaces on the Site, and to mitigate the amount of stormwater runoff being diverted
into Lake Minnewashta. While it may not be possible to achieve a total of 25% lot
coverage on the Site, the applicant shall submit updated plans that illustrate the use of
pervious paver systems, in accordance with Ordinances (Sec. 20-921), to the maximum
extent possible. The use of pervious paver systems will help reestablish a more natural
hydrologic balance, reduce runoff volume associated with impervious surfaces, all while
providing water quality treatment by reducing the concentration of po llutants. Areas
such as the driveway, sidewalk, and patios should be constructed with pervious paver
systems (an approximate 1046 SF reduction of the proposed impervious surfaces).
Additionally, a permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the
shoreline. The native vegetated buffer will provide additional water quality protections
through filtering pollutants, nutrients and sediments while helping to improve
ecosystem health and function. See proposed conditions 1 and 2.
5. The applicant is proposing a shoreland setback variance. The proposed variance request
is to maintain the existing 40.8 foot structure setback from the ordinary high water level
of Lake Minnewashta. The required setback per Ordinance from the ordinary high
water level in the Shoreland Management District is 75 feet. The applicant justifies that
if there were no variance approved for the shoreland setback that the buildable home
area would equate to about a 75 square foot home, which staff agrees would be a
36
constrained area. As many of the lots in the surrounding neighborhood have similar
constraints, the City has granted shoreland setback variances to allow for a more
reasonable use of the property. As such, staff recommends approval of the proposed
40.8 foot structure setback as long as proposed conditions 1 and 2 are adhered to in
order to mitigate stormwater runoff being diverted into Lake Minnewashta while
improving the overall health of the ecosystem and function. Lastly, while Engineering
and Public Works is recommending approval of the discussed variances in association
with the proposed conditions, any and all improvements on the Site must meet
applicable jurisdictional requirements. See proposed condition 3.
Proposed Conditions
1. The applicant shall supply updated construction plans that utilize to the maximum
extent possible the use of pervious paver systems in accordance with Sec. 20-921 of City
Ordinances. Areas such as the driveway, sidewalk, and patios must be considered in the
design of these systems.
2. A permanent 20’ native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using
species native to the ecotype 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 plans must be approved by the
Water Resources Administrator/Engineer.
3. The installation of any improvements on the Site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional
requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and all applicable permits shall
be obtained prior to any site improvements.
37
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTYOFCARVER )
\L.-'.
Kim T eu ty Cl
Subscribed and s
thisl$ day of
wo to before me
JEAII
t{oaary
Notary Public
,2021.
ttOrrffor att.hrr ,*a
I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on
November 4,2021, the duly qualified and acting City Clerk ofthe 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 lot cover, setback (front, side, and shoreland), and other
variances for construction of a single-family home on property located at 3703 South Cedar
Drive, Planning case No. 2021a5. Applicanu Property owner: Greg Datillo. Zoned single'
Family Residential (RSF") 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 ofsuch owners were those appearing as such by the records ofthe County Treasurer,
Carver County, Minnesota and by other appropriate records.
38
Disclaim€r
This map is nerther a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used
as one. This map is a @mpilaiion of records, information and data located in various c,ty,
county, state and federal offces and other sour@s regarding lhe area shown and is to
be us€d for reference purposes only The Cily does not wanant that the Geo96phic
lnformatjon System (GlS) Data used lo prepare this map are enor free, and the Caty does
not represent tiat the GIS Data can be used for navigatlonal, tracking or any other
purpose requidng exacting measurement of distance or darection or precision an lhe
depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuanl to
Minnesota Statutes 5466.03, 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 defencl, indemnify, and hold hamless the City from any and all claims bought
by User, its employees or agents, or third parties Mich arise out of the us€/s access or
use of data provided.
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, infomation and data loceted io various clty'
county, state and federal offces and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to
be used foa reference purposes only The City does nol wanant that the Geographic
lniormation System (GlS) Data used to prepare this map are enor free, and the City cloes
not aepresent thai the GIS Data can be used lor navigatlonal, tracking or any other
purpose requidng exacting measurcment of distance or directlon or precjsion in the
depiction of geographic features. The precediog disclaimer is provided pu6uant to
Minnesota Statutes 5466.03. Subd. 21 (2OOO). 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 deiend, indemnify, and hold hamless the City kom any and all daims brought
by User its employees or agents, or thid paflies which anse out of lhe useis access or
use of data provided.
(TAX_NAMED
(TAX_ADD_LI D
<TAX ADD L2r
(Next RecordxTAX_NAI ED
(TAX_ADD_L1D
(TAX ADD L2D
Subject
Parcel
Subiect
Parcel
\
\
,'\
\\i.
:.
\,,
il
LLt
--t
{rl
)\J.*A\,'l
!
l-
t ;Y!
a1
$
J
ri
39
o
t,:
=t,oo9zir
3Bfo
='ir@_9o;O=3o=-=,oo!rO-
9,8
=oo*
GI
otD5
t,o8z,o!6'!ro?o5'rGttoEo6'3-
a'E
9. ='oGl
=oo
ET
GI
aai€egE*;igEfFf;gE
t:ceaaEst;s€E?eais
EiiEEiEEllEiEEEi
EiiiEiEiiiiiiiEE
;agB=e iBiis g:g
q
d
f
3
I
zm
=a(o
=co
o
6o
a.
o
o3I
o)fo
o
ox
foe
o)-ol
€Jo
=3oo*.Jto
o)(oo)o,
o)I
E
IDo
oI
=
=c
o
o)fo-
o-oo
0,
oc!
o-
o)o-oo
o
=o
e.
{oo
<,,
!D
o
o
=c
{€IIoJ
o)a
0)
o?
3
=c
3o
o
o
*=
t!r
=ttol:
='ote. 6
t-!
8Aa,t4:ooa
=<
!>a=
95'*0,\<=o<{
o
!
at,oo
*
roo!,
o
6oofqt
I"E
d;'ooo+t, d
8.8
^Col
E9
E_
5aDo=
aeotqo
!-orl(oooo(!) ='"(o
9o[l
o
t2.
I Ps{ e *8
e=AqgEd
1g d 8 a=eegg=e+tse .ddgHP
EtE.afre3
gaia If,E&iEEspf<aF?=l5F
=+i:EEE
E 5Eg ilHa
E rl3qlilrgai*E'
odliil)l(,,
+Jc
o-!)
_o
!,
3!,tooo
N
N
!,l
=oct
f
0)
o
=.o
o
Jo-o
dff
='(o
oo3f
6'
:Ioo
lto
A(rNr@r]r0r--l' F+(t,6f
E:gl-=g5;
E 7 n='--- ts e.E 3j or 3 5 +E= l
FE;; E}[gadE<. =Euorf og o o: o f
ssga:Eqg
=*f + + _ =.totggt dYEr
B F =€ '.-d i:
=
-:8 +f 5 d'
q "tsE +d*Ed sEd=B
q6=-=o
>(,--{
BatAaYO
9or,O
cS
{e
<(D
a
I
o
o
4
a
o-
o
o,
3
Jof
!D
No)oo-
a
=(o
E-n
0)
ao
of*.
!L
na_rt
qolo
Aq.q3
vO,-sa
).0l.Lc
9EJ*qo"
<l
6ofoo<oo
^(,=ooatoo,lo
c=gqo=
='.-
=oo-O
9. o)
() o-
6-
-..t
-.Joo
0)
o
@
o-
-
9L
ooca
f
0,3oo
o
=it
loo
='
;
+co
o
0)5zo
o
3uo
_o,
NoN
ID
:!oopl
-.1
3
t>:t !l
o6'4tr<f
Oe{
o:!
t
o
oo
+
roo!,
o
ot
o
F
-{
o
r!o :'i
!,t4(Do;l=<
E{
=!ro+
;eo-=
='.Dc6
ooOtr:o
=ooof=6o"F
o
1ado
0,
o
-oco
o
oo
o
oo
0)o
of
Jo
adao-Y
0)-o-
o
=o
o,
=.!,foo
o
oof
<,,
co
6',
o
0)
t2.
l(oit
o)l
Jo
3
!D
Nofoo,
q.
a
I(n
-Tl
o
'Tl
0,l.
7o
9..o-of-,t!,
o-
-o
o,Jo-
o
-!L
o
ca
9.
o=0)
3oo
-{
-.1oo
!,
o
(!
o-
nrcao
=o)d:<6-
+o93!.v 6;o
lF o)
I r..roOoN)ar3o)
lo
oP
ef
=o'
9f
o
a
9-.Lo
o
J
o
6'
ao
!
o
0,
=
o--lJo
!c
roo
o
o
J
Itocq
6'
Jo
0)
)(o
6'
o
='o
3
=c
0)ooc
a(rN)f qt a't f 0,djoo'rr I}) (o :a1,O-l(,U)=r6'39 dd = 8E
*as= sef
,3$?r Ere6; =r E -0,
$1eE qE ftSgee ,EP=
=15 + *rrf'gqE: P 5EdE:6 @_d +f .' J _atr =o o ==a59u9 d(o=
s t=' *Ae= ;+o z+.I = <lI X =r
(o6 + (o-to=6oa =o
q
oc
o
=o
o
zm
=a(o
f
E
o
ooo
='o
o3I
0)
=o-
o
o
fo
=o
o)-.ol
!
o
oI
l.f,c
o
oao
s.o_o
o)
dc9o
0)
oo
o
=o
a.
€oq
9..
!D
o
o
{{€
aoJ
o,
=f
0)
o
P
3
?c
)o
3o
o
=c
€5oa
3oo-.-(o
o)(oo-o,
s)
lh
^{
=.o{
!
ooo
o-ooc
3of
goo
o
=o
3oo-.=I
E
5o
E
d!o
oo-oo
q-o!
3ol
€og
!
ID(oo
o)
lrtof
tbo
o
0)qoc
Jd'p
p.oo
!it!)
ooo:,
0)o
IDoxof
N,o
I Ps{ S
==
f e€
q,al^f
=itati9d9 El de .dB9
ri6f-iliS
.> I qp.
'1,E9=E\d: =9 L
lEEq3
=qB3=i=8eP
E=qE8+
E:i;E
# F1"";f.o) Y r ooSjq,3
66 .<
o6 o
oc
J
o
0r_
o
co
NoN
N
sn
=
cf(o
=0)
o
o
o
3
9_
0)
3{q)
o
{{{
?,-'o
0,
oooo
oJ
0)fJ
o)
o
3
o
o)
o
s.
9..
=.o
o
=o
1l
!,)
=3
o
3l
9..of
3oo-.f
-tJc
BEig[gEgEEEEiFeirE
iAeggaE:EaeiliEiE*
eiEggiEgaigEE:ig
i3:EE;*e**E;E AFa
;EEeaElBAiigieia
EgEEFiEiEiiEEgEa
?iiiEiEiiigil€Ee
i[;iiiE*Eigii leg
iEsE'E[ EiAei Fs
!
a
9
o!,
o
FIj
!q
ooOE
=o=oJ4oo3fiio"F
o
dio
E
0,
=6'
o
6.oE
o
foo
o
oo
-{o(,
Choc
5
ooo-
0)
o
=,o
40
ReRRsS3e3333R38e3R33e3BEEBEEEqEq3i-; Hij ij iyi b.n d ('i 6 m iD m m $ o < !^ .f + Ln < N.! <r N N o o sr r{ !T6 i5 i5 6 5 6 5 6 o q E I 8 B B g E B I I 8 8 8 8 8 8 88 8 88 8 8R B 3 B B B I 3 33. -(o .o (o(o .o.o rq (sq 6 66 6 66 6 6@@ @ 6
- ii 6 6 6 6 6 6 !o @ to 6 6 6 !o @ to ro to to ro t9 !o io (o \o l.o @ lo (o (o ro (o .c'
z fi 6'; 6 ri rn ra rn Ln lrr 6 6 6 6 L^ tn ta !^ r^ tn La tn L^ Ln La !^ rn lrt !n r^ t'l Lrt !^
=
Fj ii ii ii ii lj Aj ^i ^i F.j 6i ^ir.'j ^i c'i t.'i N N (\ ^r '\J r-\r '{ '\ N N '! N '{ N N ^r
oooooaoo o o o oo QEA.AA&.AI.t t e d et Eiiiir>22 2 txxxt EzEEEE2EE22 2roooooooo o iiiic. e.9e.e ddodd99 9d
- ^,,r ., u u ., > ., d ., - J U E E E E E; X I -:EEEEEEEEESS=EEEE0EqEEEEUEEqqgqiEE
SEEEEEEEgYCYAdAdAYdEAAAAEAAEE9EA==<t .-r m c- cO .! Ln (O F cO O'r C, .{ rn F- r{ (n lO F. O !r rY) Ln CD O O rn O !/l r'{ <l (nO'{
HH IiiiH H HHH HH H g H H BB ff 8 * HS il il HH ilH il H HH N F
33
. !-r cr .r r{ \o ro \o Loc.co@@ 09 90 o9 t99 pIE*"r*il s E rB Xg EH$EB $ E$ $$ B*s$B9 i * i j .r .r J .r .r.< j .r .t; .t; i i; r{.r.{ r{ '{ H '{ '{ L^ i e{ 'r '{ut iyi ;ri (n ia m ro rri iti in ro o rn d, m rrl d, m rn (o m (n 'n 'i rn !^ rn (n m m
=BBBssssBBBsBssBEEEqSssSSqEE==fi EB2 fi lri .ri lri lri rn Ln ri'i rri !.i tri Lri ri Lri Ln ur r^ r^ r/r L., Ln ra rn L^ > > !^ r^ r^
n: z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z 2 z z z z .-' -'zzz
i6- ^ -| 4 t d d. E d t e e a. c' oa oa oa oa oa oa oe oa oi c-- ci oi d d c e d P
^
c' E do'D 5 6 6 6 o o o 6 o o o o o 6 o 6 o o o o o o o o o o o t H o I I
? 4 - E 4 4 4 44a 444-! a 4 4 4 4 4 a 19 4, 4 t. 2 v v ?? ?
;'E H 9 H U H H H H H H H H H H x H H H * H H H H H 8 H H
= =
H 8 HE (, in in in ilj Li uJ i! iri 'JJ t! ur r! ur ur
o660o0o o o o oqA.EAA.aGI e c d nG
t-FFFFI-F I d d.d.d e. \ e. a. e. e. I e e | |zzzzzzz z A 666 o=66aaaa6==PFFEFPP F^E ttt^TPTT{EPEE3PE
x E x i x x x * I x E 35 E 33 E e x E 3 I E E 3 BE E 7=3 -',t..< O ts ii E E E g iN E.r E.r - r = r.I,J - - E E U E T U U E E E E EJ 6t tt t, (r (r (r (r (r u u v 5 a 5 5 5 Y 5 x 5 5 5 5;5 5;;=E== =o' o o o o o o o o i oee p.p ppt-*e i e ; e ; e s e =
e u e e d a E d a g E 3 3 i i
=*r$
- ". - "r o n F. @ or o !'r.n l.-.r !n !o F o ''r 'n 6 6 o o !^o tn o 'r '{ o H
x r^ r.r ..r rr 6t N N N N r\ 6 iYi inb ci o o.{.r.{ J; - .\l '! !^ rn '\ o o 'r '{
3 H H H HH tsBs s HFis HB 5 55 5h h h Bh s H h s hs s r R R
3t
zd.<F>5FE'd"G o>E r oz c HE 1^ ECZ 6 q
= X e .f6 - Z. I E^E = .8lfri g E =2 6E=leez uEE;:==5_ e=iz gE ?AE=_tr9 -oz = Ey
:EE;EEeE=EE;;egIEel=EEEeEiqEaEcEEE
41