PC Staff Report 01-04-22Planning Commission Item
January 4, 2022
Item
Consider a Request for Setback and Lot Cover Variances to Add an Addition on
to an Existing Detached Garage on Property Located at 3711 South Cedar
Drive.
File No.Planning Case No. 2022-01 Item No: C.1
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Applicant
Jeff Robinson
Murphy Bros. Building & Remodeling
1330 Park Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Present Zoning Single Family Residential District (RSF)
Land Use Residential Low Density
Acerage 0.18
Density N/A
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 20-904. Accessory Structures
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Section 20-905. Single-Family Dwellings
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Section 20-908. Yard Regulations
6
SUGGESTED ACTION
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested 7.9-foot west side yard
setback, and approves 5-foot east side yard setback, 8-foot front yard setback, and 15.6 percent lot
cover variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts
and Decision.
SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing to add an addition on to the west side of an existing nonconforming detached
garage. Due to the placement of the existing garage and the lot's substandard size, they are requesting
variances from the City’s front yard and side yard setbacks as well as a lot cover variance to allow for
the proposed garage addition.
BACKGROUND
The property’s original house was built at an unknown date, though the 1977 variance mentions that its
owners had lived there for 32 year which means that a house with nonconforming 2-foot side yard
setbacks was present from at least 1945 on, and a note included with a 2016 remodeling permit
indicates that the original house was built in 1923.
In September 1977, the City tabled a variance request for a 20-foot by 60-foot addition to the rear of the
existing home.
In November of 1977, the City approved a variance request to increase the nonconformity by adding a
second story. The proposal involved demolishing the existing home and rebuilding a new home with a
second story living area within the preexisting home’s nonconforming footprint.
In December of 1977, the City issued a building permit for the construction of the current home.
In November of 1978, the property owner applied for a building permit for the construction of a
proposed 30-foot wide by 22-foot long garage with 2-foot east side yard setbacks and 8-foot west side
yard setbacks. This permit was not approved.
In April of 2005, the City issued a building permit for the construction of a deck.
In August of 2007, the City issued a demolition permit for the property’s garage.
In August of 2007, the City issued a building permit for a replacement garage that reduced the
property’s nonconforming lot cover and maintained the nonconforming side yard setbacks. This permit
also permitted the house to be converted to a full two story.
Note: Numerous other permits for maintenance and interior remodels are on file; however, since they do
not impact the property’s setbacks or lot cover, they have not been included.
DISCUSSION
7
The applicant is proposing adding a 5.25-foot wide by 20-foot long addition to the east side of their
detached garage. Since this side of the garage is currently 7.6 feet from the side lot line the proposed
addition would result in the garage’s foundation being 2.083 feet from the side lot line and the eaves
being 1.16 feet from the side lot line. Variances would also be required from the property’s front yard
setback, an 8-foot variance, and lot cover limit, a 15.6 percent variance. The proposed addition will be
over existing asphalt and will result in decreasing the nonconforming lot cover by 32 square feet, .4
percent. The applicant has stated that the intent of the variance is to provide additional garage storage
space.
The applicant has stated that requested variances are needed due to the substandard size of their lot and
the fact that the other available storage options do not work as well. They believe that most other
potential locations for additional storage would either disrupt access to the house or would increase the
property’s lot cover. They have noted that many of the surrounding properties have received variances
for similar projects and that they do not feel it would negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood.
Staff is sympathetic to the applicant’s desire to provide for increased storage space and agrees that the
substandard size of the parcel may justify a variance; however, the applicant has numerous other
options for creating additional storage space which would not require such a significant side yard
setback variance. City policy is to always require a side yard setback of at least five feet, unless the
structure already exceeds that and the applicant can demonstrate a need to maintain the existing
building line. While the City has issued numerous setback variances within 500 feet of this property,
none of them have permitted a foundation to be built with a 2-foot side yard setback. Given the
presence of alternatives for increasing the property’s storage space and the concerns created by reducing
side yard setbacks to less than five feet, staff cannot recommend approval of the requested variance.
Staff instead recommends that the Planning Commission approve a 5-foot east side yard setback
variance which would allow for a similarly sized garage expansion while maintaining a 5-foot side yard
setback. The other requested variances, 8-foot front and 15.6 percent lot cover, are necessitated by the
property’s existing nonconformities.
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, deny the
requested 7.9-foot west side yard setback, and approves 5-foot east side yard setback, 8-foot front yard
setback, and 15.6 percent lot cover variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and adopts the
attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
1. 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.
2. The exterior wall and eaves on the wall facing the property line will need to be built using fire-
resistant rated construction in areas where the separation distance from the property line is less
than five feet.
3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
4. Must provide the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District with calculations of the total area of
disturbance and total volume of any excavation/fill. If these totals trigger the District’s permitting
requirements, any and all required permits from the Watershed District must be obtained before
starting work.
5. The installation of any improvements on the site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional
8
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.
6. Total lot cover shall not exceed 3,119 square feet.
7. The detached garage’s eaves may encroach up to one foot into the required front yard and side
yard setbacks.
8. The detached garage must have gutters and the downspout extensions must not direct water
towards the neighboring property.
ATTACHMENTS
Staff Report
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION 3711 South Cedar Drive (Staff Alternative).docx
Variance Document
Development Review Application
Variance Request Justification
Survey (Pre-existing)
Proposal Plans
ENG/WRC Memo
Affidavit of Mailing
9
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: January 4,2022
CC DATE: January 24, 2022
REVIEW DEADLINE: February 1, 2022
CASE #: PC 2022-01
BY: MYW
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to add an addition to the west side of an existing nonconforming
detached garage. Due to the placement of the existing garage and the lot’s substandard size,they
are requesting variances from the City’s front yard and side yard setbacks as well as a lot cover
variance to allow for the proposed garage addition.
LOCATION:3711 South Cedar Drive
APPLICANT:Jeff Robinson
Murphy Bros. Building & Remodeling
1330 Park Avenue
Chanhassen, MN 55317
OWNER: Michael Corrigan
South Cedar Drive
Chanhassen, MN 55331
PRESENT ZONING: “RSF” –Single-Family
Residential District
2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
ACREAGE:.18 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
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested 7.9-foot west side yard
setback, and approves the 5-foot east side yard setback, 8-foot front yard setback, and 15.6
percent lot cover variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval,and adopts the attached
Findings of Facts and Decision.”
10
3711 South Cedar Drive
January 4, 2022
Page 2
The applicant is proposing adding a 5.25-foot wide by 20-foot long addition to the east side of
their detached garage. Since this side of the garage is currently 7.6 feet from the side lot line, the
proposed addition would result in the garage’s foundation being 2.083-feet from the side lot line
and the eaves being 1.16-feet from the side lot line. Variances would also be required from the
property’s front yard setback, an 8-foot variance, and lot cover limit, a 15.6 percent variance.
The proposed addition will be over the existing asphalt and will result in decreasing the
nonconforming lot cover by of 32 square feet, .4 percent. The applicant has stated that the intent
of the variance is to provide for additional garage storage space.
The applicant has stated that the requested variances are needed due to the substandard size of
their lot and the fact that the other available storage options do not work as well. They believe
that most other potential locations for additional storage would either disrupt access to the house
or would increase the property’s lot cover. They have noted that many of the surrounding
properties have received variances for similar projects, and that they do not feel it would
negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood.
Staff is sympathetic to the applicant’s desire to provide for increased storage space and agrees
that the substandard size of the parcel may justify a variance; however, the applicant has
numerous other options for creating additional storage space which would not require such a
significant side yard setback variance. City policy is to always require a side yard setback of at
least 5 feet, unless the structure already exceeds that and the applicant can demonstrate a need to
maintain the existing building line. While the City has issued numerous setback variances within
500 feet of this property, none of them have permitted a foundation to be built with a 2-foot side
yard setback. Given the presence of alternatives for increasing the property’s storage space and
the concerns created by reducing side yard setbacks to less than five feet, staff cannot
recommend approval of the requested variance. Staff instead recommends that the Planning
Commission approve a 5-foot east side yard setback variance, which would allow for a similarly
sized garage expansion while maintaining a 5-foot side yard setback. The other requested
variances, 8-foot front and 15.6 percent lot cover, are necessitated by the property’s existing
nonconformities.
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 20-904. Accessory Structures
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Section 20-905. Single-Family Dwellings
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Section 20-908. Yard Regulations
BACKGROUND
11
3711 South Cedar Drive
January 4, 2022
Page 3
The property’s original house was built at an unknown date, though the 1977 variance mentions that
its owners had lived there for 32 year which means that a house with nonconforming 2-foot side
yard setbacks was present from at least 1945 on and a note included with a 2016 remodeling permit
indicates that the original house was built in 1923.
In September 1977, the City tabled a variance request for a 20-foot by 60-foot addition to the rear of
the existing home.
In November of 1977, the City approved a variance request to increase the nonconformity by adding
a second story. The proposal involved demolishing the existing home and rebuilding a new home
with a second story living area within the preexisting home’s nonconforming footprint.
In December of 1977, the City issued a building permit for the construction ofthe current home.
In November of 1978, the property owner applied for a building permit for the construction of a
proposed 30-foot wide by 22-foot long garage with 2-foot east side yard setbacks and 8-foot west
side yard setbacks. This permit was not approved.
In April of 2005, the City issued a building permit for the construction of a deck.
In August of 2007, the City issued a demolition permit for the property’s garage.
In August of 2007, the City issued a building permit for a replacement garage that reduced the
property’s nonconforming lot cover and maintained the nonconforming side yard setbacks. This
permit also permitted the house to be converted to a full two story.
Note: Numerous other permits for maintenance and interior remodels are on file; however, since
they do not impact the property’s setbacks or lot cover, they have not been included.
SITE CONSTRAINTS
Zoning Overview
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 25 percent lot cover. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height and are allowed one
water-oriented accessory 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 7,687 square feet with 3,151 square feet of lot cover resulting in 41
percent lot cover. The existing principle structure meets the required 30-foot front yard setback
12
3711 South Cedar Drive
January 4, 2022
Page 4
and 75-foot shoreland setback, and has a nonconforming 2.2-foot east and 2-foot west side yard
setbacks. The property has a detached garage with a nonconforming 21.8-foot front yard setback,
7.6-foot west side yard setback, and 9.8-foot east side yard setback. The existing driveway has an
approximate nonconforming 31-foot width at the lot line. Approximately 68 square feet of the
rear patio encroaches about 4 feet into the required 75-foot shoreland setback.
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
There are no wetlands located on the property.
NEIGHBORHOOD
Red Cedar Point at Lake Minnewashta
13
3711 South Cedar Drive
January 4, 2022
Page 5
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:
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)
*This variance included the eaves, foundation
is 5’ from side lot line.
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)
14
3711 South Cedar Drive
January 4, 2022
Page 6
3633 South Cedar Drive:2006-04: Approved – 22.5’ and 15.8’ front setbacks, and 2.39% lot
cover (garage)
2008-04: Approved – 20.2’ front and 8’ side* setbacks (house)
*This variance included the eaves, foundation is 4.2’ from side lot
line.
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)
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:1977-14: Tabled – Intensify nonconformity (addition)
1977-18: Approved – Intensify nonconformity by raising house
height (house)
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)
3727 South Cedar Drive:1991-04: Approved – 11’ lot frontage variance (house)
7201 Juniper Ave:1979-07: Approved – sub 15,000 sq. ft. lot area (house)
1984-02: Approved – 8.66’ front setback (addition)
1998-07: Approved – 11.5’ front setback (addition)
7210 Juniper Ave:1977-11: Approved – 10’ lot frontage variance (house)
Nineteen (19) of the 33 properties within 500’ of the applicant’s parcel have received at least one
variance. A total of 27 variances have been issued to these properties.
15
3711 South Cedar Drive
January 4, 2022
Page 7
ANALYSIS
Setbacks
The applicant’s lot is approximately 40 feet
wide by 191.5 feet long. The existing
detached garage is setback 21.8 feet from the
front lot line, 9.8 feet from the east lot line,
and 7.6 feet from the west lot line. The
applicant is proposing a 5.25-foot by 20-foot
garage addition which would result in the
garage foundation being 2.1 feet from the
side lot line and the eaves being 1.16 feet
from the side lot line. This addition would
not decrease the existing front yard setback.
The applicant has indicated that they believe
that due to the substandard size of the lot
there are no other options for creating
additional storage on the property. They have
stated that adding a WOAS on the lake side of the lot would increase the property’s lot cover and
that an expansion along the east side of the garage would interfere with the main access to the
house and also increase lot cover. They have noted that many of the surrounding properties are
nonconforming, have received setback variances, and that the property’s house currently has a 2-
foot side yard setback.
The applicant’s statement that alternative storage configurations like the use of a WOAS or
adding on to the east side of the garage would increase lot cover, does not consider the
possibility of removing existing lot cover to offset new lot cover. The applicant could keep their
proposed lot cover neutral by removing the area of blacktop along the west of the garage,
reducing the driveway’s nonconforming 31-foot width, or reducing the size of the property’s
paver patios and walkways. Given that the area of lot cover the applicant is proposing to replace
with their proposed addition can easily be removed to allow for a similarly sized storage area in
another location, concern over lot cover cannot be used to justify the requested setback variance.
Similarly, the home’s nonconforming 2-foot side yard setbacks do not justify allowing the garage
to reduce its side yard setback to two feet. Since the garage is a detached structure, there is no
structural or architectural reason which would require it maintain a line with the principal
structure. The express purpose of the City’s nonconforming use ordinance is stated in section 20-
71(b) and (c) as “to prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification or extension of any
conforming use, building or structure” and “encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses,
lots and structures or reduce their impact on adjacent properties”. To this end, section 20-72(d)
states that “if a setback of dwelling is nonconforming, no additions may be added to the
nonconforming side of the building unless the addition meets setback requirements”. Taken
16
3711 South Cedar Drive
January 4, 2022
Page 8
together, the above means that the home’s nonconforming side yard setback cannot be used to
justify intensifying the garage’s nonconforming side yard setbacks. Any decrease to the garage’s
side yard setbacks must meet the criteria for granting a variance irrespective of the home’s side
yard setbacks.
While staff understands that the proposed
expansion is the applicant’s preferred solution,
staff cannot agree that it is the only viable option
or that a similar amount of storage could not be
provided through a less impactful variance. Staff
has created three graphics showing alteratives for
creating additional storage space on the property.
Additional options such as increasing the height of
the garage to create a second storage level or
adding a free standing shed between the garage
and house also exist.
One option, Alternative A, would be to increase
the length of the garage. If the expansion met the
required 10-foot side yard and lot cover along the
east side of the garage was removed to offset the
size of the addition this option would not require a
variance. If the applicant was willing to remove
additional lot cover they could use this option to
create a larger garage addition than is being
proposed. If the applicant chose to extend the rear
addition across the length of the garage, only a
2.5-foot side yard setback variance would be
required.
Alternative B, adding a WOAS, could also be
done without a variance. The applicant would need
to remove approximately 68 square feet of patio
that is located within the shoreland setback and an
amount of lot cover equal to the size of the WOAS
from the west side of the garage or driveway. The
WOAS could be located anywhere within the
permitted area shown on the graphic to the left.
17
3711 South Cedar Drive
January 4, 2022
Page 9
The final Alternative is the closest to what the
applicant is proposing and involves adding
approximately five feet onto the east side of the
garage, which currently has a 10-foot side yard
setback, rather than 5.25 feet onto the west side of
the garage, which currently has a 7.6-foot side
yard setback. This would result in a 5-foot side
yard setback rather than a 2-foot side yard
setback. The area of blacktop on the east side of
the garage would need to be removed to offset the
addition to the west.
When staff discussed Alternative C with the
applicant, they expressed concern that it would
require shifting the walkway to run against the
retaining wall which could result in safety
concerns. Staff would note that a railing could be
installed along the walkway to mitigate those
concerns, or the walkway could be shifted to the
west side of the garage taking the place of some
of the removed blacktop. Since the home’s
primary entrance is located near to the center of
the structure and a central patio area is already present between the garage and home, having the
walkway run along the west rather than east side of the garage would not interfere with access to
the home. A final point to note is that the garage has a rear facing service door, so nothing in the
garage’s current configuration necessitates the eastern walkway.
In evaluating setback requests, the City evaluates the extent to which the requested setback is due
to the property’s unique circumstances or the design choice of the owner. In this case, staff
believes the requested setback variance is largely the result of the property’s owners desire to
place the addition on the west side of the garage. Alternative C would provide essentially the
same use of the property while maintaining a 5-foot side yard setback, and other alternatives,
could provide for storage space without the need for any variances.
The City also considers the extent to which the requested setback variance has the potential to
impact neighboring properties and the requested setback’s consistency with the neighborhood
and past practice. The City requires all single-family homes in all zoning districts to maintain a
side yard setback of at least five feet and with the exception of uncovered stairs and landings
which are allowed to encroach up to six feet into a required 10-foot side yard setback, all other
features such as decks, balconies, eaves, etc. are required to be five feet or more from the side lot
line. There are several reasons for this requirement, but one of the main ones is the stormwater
management issues created by allowing structures to be built too close to the lot line. When a
structure is built two feet from the lot line with eaves one foot from the lot line, as the applicant
is proposing, it is very difficult to prevent the runoff created by the structure from being diverted
to the neighboring parcel. Drainage issues like this are frequent sources of tension between
18
3711 South Cedar Drive
January 4, 2022
Page 10
neighbors. Similarly, a 2-foot separation makes it difficult for construction, grading, and
maintenance activities to be conducted without trespassing or impacting the neighboring parcel.
While the current neighbors may not be concerned by this, future residents of the neighboring
house may be.
While the area has received
many variances, the requested
variance is not typical for the
City or the neighborhood. Staff
examined the side yard setback
variances that have been granted
to properties within 500 feet of
the applicant’s and found no
instances where a 2-foot
foundation setback had been
permitted. Staff did find one case
where a home’s eaves were
allowed to be two feet from the
side yard, due to the structure
having a nonconforming 4-foot side yard setback. As the table shows, the average side yard
setback variance granted within this neighborhood is typically around five feet. Several of these
lots have the same 40-foot width as the applicant’s and the applicant has not demonstrated any
unique feature of their lot that would justify departing from the City’s policy of requiring at least
a 5-foot side yard setback.
In order to grant a variance, the City must find that the variance is in harmony with intent of the
Zoning Code, that the owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted
by the City Code, and that the variance is necessitated by the unique nature of the property and
not the actions of the owner. Staff believes that 2-foot side yard setbacks are not in harmony with
the intent of the Zoning Code, that the owner’s proposed use is reasonable but that similar use is
permitted by the City Code or with a less impactful variance, and that the specific variance being
requested is the result of the owner’s design choice. In order to allow for the owner to have
increased storage space, staff would recommend approving the 5-foot east side yard setback
required to accommodate Alternative C, which staff believes can meet the above requirements
for issuing a variance. Granting the requested 8-foot front yard setback variance to match the
garage’s current distance from the street would be consistent with past policy of allowing
structures in the area to maintain their nonconforming setbacks when adding on, the City’s
minimum driveway requirements, and the front yard setbacks of the surrounding structures.
Lot Cover
The applicant is proposing 15.6 percent lot cover, for a total lot cover of 40.6 percent. Currently,
the property has a nonconforming lot cover of 41 percent. The City’s nonconforming use
ordinance allows for property owners to make improvements on a nonconforming property so
long as it results in a reduction to the nonconformity. The City Code does not specify how large
19
3711 South Cedar Drive
January 4, 2022
Page 11
of a reduction is required, and, were it not for the requested setback variances, staff could
approve the lot cover portion of the project through a building permit. That being said, it is the
City’s practice to formalize proposed lot cover reductions by including them in the requested
variance when properties with nonconforming lot cover request other variances. This approach
ensures transparency and makes it easier to verify that the lot cover is actually reduced and to
take action if the lot cover is subsequently increased.
The requested 15.6 percent lot cover variance is on the higher side of lot cover variances;
however, three other properties on the south side of South Cedar Drive have requested lot cover
variances of 15 percent or higher, and 3,119 square feet of proposed lot cover is similar to what
is present on other similarly sized parcels within the area. The parcel’s substandard 7,687 square
foot lot area means that relatively small changes to the square footage of the property’s lot cover
have a large impact on the property’s lot cover percentage and that there are limited options for
reducing lot cover while maintaining typically sized structures and amenities.
That being said, the applicant’s proposed 32-square foot, .4 percent, reduction to the property’s
lot cover is smaller than staff would prefer; however, staff is sympathetic to the owner’s desire to
maintain the size of their rear patio. The only other nonstructural lot cover is the paver walkway
and driveway. While the portion of the driveway within the front yard setback could potentially
be narrowed to the width of the garage doors to eliminate an additional 280 square feet of lot
cover, doing so would also eliminate an off-street parking spot at its current width the driveway,
providing off-street parking for up to three vehicles. Given the historic parking issues along
South Cedar Drive and within the Red Cedar Point neighborhood, staff has elected not to
recommend that the applicant be required to remove this section of driveway. If the Planning
Commission approves staff’s recommended Alternative, the removal and relocation of the east
paver walkway may provide opportunities to further reduce lot cover and staff will work with the
applicant on designing a walkway that meets their needs while minimizing lot cover.
When determining if it is appropriate to require the use of pervious pavers or the creation of a
vegetative buffer, staff evaluates the size and scope of the project as well the conditions placed
on similar variances. Since all proposed alterations to the property’s lot cover are outside of the
75 foot shoreland setback and the applicant’s proposal is for a minor addition to an accessory
structure rather than the construction of new home, staff is not requiring the creation of a
vegetative buffer nor mandating the use of pervious pavers as conditions of approval for the
variance.
Impact on Neighborhood
Red Cedar Point is one of the City’s oldest neighborhoods and many of the homes are located on
lots that are significantly narrower than the Zoning Code’s 90-foot minimum lot width. This has
resulted in many properties that do not have the required 10-foot side yard setbacks. Granting the
5-foot side yard setback identified in Alternative C would result in a side yard setback that is not
atypical for the area and would maintain 15 feet of separation between detached garage and the
structures on the neighboring parcels. This separation helps to create a visual break between
structures and provides for greenspace along the streetscape, consistent with the intent of the
20
3711 South Cedar Drive
January 4, 2022
Page 12
City’s side yard setback ordinance. Granting a 5-foot side yard setback variance, allowing the
property to maintain the existing garage’s front yard setback variance, and approving the
proposed lot cover would not be out of character with or negatively impact the surrounding
neighborhood.
While staff understands that the existing home has a 2-foot side yard setback, the house is
setback over 60 feet from the street which has less of an impact on the streetscape than
permitting a 2-foot side yard setback for a building located within the required front yard
setback. Staff is also concerned that granting the requested 2-foot side yard setback variance
would establish a precedent leading to additional side yard setbacks of under five feet as older
homes in the area continue to redevelop and the owners of these smaller lots explore options for
increasing their on-site storage.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments,
deny the requested 7.9-foot west side yard setback, and approve the 5-foot east side yard setback,
8-foot front yard setback, and 15.6 percent lot cover variances, subject to the Conditions of
Approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
1.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.
2. The exterior wall and eaves on the wall facing the property line will need to be built
using fire-resistant rated construction in areas where the separation distance from the
property line is less than five feet.
3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
4. Must provide the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District with calculations of the total area
of disturbance and total volume of any excavation/fill. If these totals trigger the District’s
permitting requirements, any and all required permits from the Watershed District must
be obtained before starting work.
5. 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.
6. Total lot cover shall not exceed 3,119 square feet.
7. The detached garage’s eaves may encroach up to one foot into the required front yard and
side yard setbacks.
8. The detached garage must have gutters and the downspout extensions must not direct
water towards the neighboring property.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Decision (Alternative Approval)
2. Variance Document (Alternative Approval)
21
3711 South Cedar Drive
January 4, 2022
Page 13
3. Development Review Application
4. Variance Request Justification
5. Survey (Pre-existing)
6. Proposal Plans
7. ENG/WRC Memo
8. Affidavit of Mailing
g:\plan\2022 planning cases\22-01 3711 south cedar dr var\staff report_3711 south cedar_var.docx
22
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(PARTIAL APPROVAL)
IN RE:
Application of Jeff Robinson on behalf of Michael Corrigan for setback and lot cover variances to
facilitate an addition to a nonconforming detached garage on a property zoned Single Family
residential District (RSF) – Planning Case 2022-01.
On January 4, 2022, 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.
The legal description of the property is:
Lot 25, 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 City’s Zoning Code recognizes the need to allow the owners of nonconforming
residential properties to improve their properties. Given the constrains created by the
substandard lot size, allowing the modest expansion of a nonconforming garage so that it can
accommodate the indoor storage of both vehicles and typical property maintenance and
recreational items is in harmony with the purposes and intent of Chapter 20. Since the
nonconforming garage’s current 21.8-foot front yard setback is typical for the neighborhood
and the applicant is proposing a reduction to the property’s nonconforming lot cover,
granting variances to maintain the existing front yard setback and for the reduced lot cover
amount is appropriate.
The applicant is also proposing a 2-foot side yard setback variance which is not justified by
the structure’s existing nonconformity or neighborhood’s general development pattern. The
intent of the City’s nonconforming use ordinance is to prevent nonconforming structures
from expanding in ways that could negatively impact surrounding properties and it requires
expansions to meet required setbacks, unless a variance is issued. In this case, the applicant
23
2
cannot widen the structure without a variance, but by placing the addition on the east side
rather than the west side the applicant can achieve a similar result while maintaining a 5-foot
rather than 2-foot side setback. Given the high potential for structures with 2-foot setbacks to
negatively impact adjacent properties, granting the requested 2-foot variance would not be in
harmony with the purposes and intent of the City’s nonconforming use ordinance; however,
granting a 5-foot side yard setback would balance the applicant’s need for additional storage
space with the need to minimize the structure’s impact on the neighborhood in a manner
consistent 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.
Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy systems.
Finding:Given the narrowness of the existing garage and the need to store various items on
site, the applicant’s request to expand the garage is reasonable. The substandard size of the
lot and the location and size of existing structures mean that the applicant cannot widen the
garage without front yard, side yard, and lot cover variances; however, the extent of the
requested side yard setback variance is not necessitated by the above factors. A similar
amount of storage space could be created by adding on to the east side of the garage instead
of the west side of the garage. Adding on to the east side would require a 5-foot side yard
setback variance rather than the 7.9-foot side yard setback variance required to add on to the
west side of the garage. When reasonable use can be achieved with a less impactful variance
that the requested variance, it is the City’s policy that the less impactful variance should be
granted.
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 landowner’s inability to increase the width of the garage without setback and
lot cover variances is the result of substandard size of the lot and the size and location of the
property’s existing structures; however, the extent of the requested side yard setback variance
is the result of the applicant’s design choice rather than any unique feature of the property. If
the addition is constructed off of the east side of the detached garage rather than the west
side, only a 5-foot side yard setback variance would be required. For this reason, the City
grants a 5-foot east side yard setback variance rather than the requested 7.8-foot west side
yard setback variance.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: Red Cedar Point is one of the City’s oldest neighborhoods and many of the homes
are located on lots that are significantly narrower than the Zoning Code’s 90-foot minimum
lot width. This has resulted in many properties that do not have the required 10-foot side yard
24
3
setbacks. Granting the 5-foot side yard setback identified in Alternative C would result in a
side yard setback that is not atypical for the area and would maintain 15 feet of separation
between detached garage and the structures on the neighboring parcels This separation helps
to create a visual break between structures and provides for greenspace along the streetscape,
consistent with the intent of the City’s side yard setback ordinance. Granting a 5-foot side
yard setback variance, allowing the property to maintain the existing garage’s front yard
setback variance, and approving the proposed lot cover would not be out of character with or
negatively impact the surrounding neighborhood.
The applicant’s requested 2-foot side yard setback would be out of keeping with the
neighborhood’s prevailing side yard setbacks. Granting the requested 2-foot side yard
setback variance would establish a precedent that could lead to additional side yard setbacks
of under five feet as older homes in the area continue to redevelop and the owners of these
smaller lots explore options for increasing their onsite storage. Allowing structures to expand
to within two feet of the side lots, especially near the street, would negatively impact the
visual aesthetics of the area by reducing front yard greenspace and the visual separation
between structures.
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 #2022-01, dated January 4, 2022, prepared by MacKenzie Young-Walters is
incorporated herein.
DECISION
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested 7.9-foot west side yard
setback, and approves the 5-foot east side yard setback, 8-foot front yard setback, and 15.6 percent
lot cover variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval.
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, deny
the requested 7.9-foot west side yard setback, and approve the 5-foot east side yard setback, 8-foot
front yard setback, and 15.6 percent lot cover variances, subject to the Conditions of Approval, and
adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
1.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.
2. The exterior wall and eaves on the wall facing the property line will need to be built using
fire-resistant rated construction in areas where the separation distance from the property line
is less than five feet.
3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
4. Must provide the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District with calculations of the total area of
disturbance and total volume of any excavation/fill. If these totals trigger the District’s
permitting requirements, any and all required permits from the Watershed District must be
obtained before starting work.
25
4
5. 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.
6. Total lot cover shall not exceed 3,119 square feet.
7. The detached garage’s eaves may encroach up to one foot into the required front yard and
side yard setbacks.
8. The detached garage must have gutters and the downspout extensions must not direct water
towards the neighboring property.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 4th day of January, 2022.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Its:
g:\plan\2022 planning cases\22-01 3711 south cedar dr var\findings of fact and decision 3711 south cedar drive (staff alternative).docx
26
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 2022-01
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 denies the requested 7.9-foot west
side yard setback, and approves 5-foot east side yard setback, 8-foot front yard setback,
and 15.6 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 25, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta,
Carver County, MN.
3. Conditions.The variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
Staff recommends the Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments,
deny the requested 7.9-foot west side yard setback, and approve 5-foot east side yard setback, 8-
foot front yard setback, and 15.6 percent lot cover variances, subject to the Conditions of
Approval, and adopt the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.
1. 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.
2. The exterior wall and eaves on the wall facing the property line will need to be built
using fire-resistant rated construction in areas where the separation distance from the
property line is less than five feet.
3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
4. Must provide the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District with calculations of the total area
of disturbance and total volume of any excavation/fill. If these totals trigger the District’s
27
2
permitting requirements, any and all required permits from the Watershed District must
be obtained before starting work.
5. 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.
6. Total lot cover shall not exceed 3,119 square feet.
7. The detached garage’s eaves may encroach up to one foot into the required front yard and
side yard setbacks.
8. The detached garage must have gutters and the downspout extensions must not direct
water towards the neighboring property.
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.
28
3
Dated: January 4, 2022 CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Elise Ryan, Mayor
(SEAL)
AND:
Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2022 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\2022 planning cases\22-01 3711 south cedar dr var\variance document 22-01.docx
29
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard
Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Pnone: (952) 227-1'100 / Fax: (952) 227-1110
Submittal Date:i)n,t . ,a,a<)
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
CITY OT CHAI{HASSXI{
Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply)
(Refer to the apprcpiate Application Checklist for requircd
E Comprehensive Plan Amendment......................... $600
E Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers..... $100
E Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
E Single-Family Residence ................................ $325E Att otners...................... $425
E lnterim Use Permit (lUP)
D ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325
E Al others...... ....................-. $425
E Sign Plan Review................ ....... $150
! site ptan Review (sPR)
fl Administrative ..................... $100
thousand square feet)
'lnclude number of gllElDg employees:
*lnclude number of !9!y employees
n Residential Districts....................
Plus $5 per dwelling unit (
submittal infotmation that must accompany this application)
fl Subdivision (SUB)
n Create 3lots or less ......,- a;;;i; ;,;'1 r"t".-................
...............'...'.$300
$600 + $15 per lot
$3oo
$150
$150
$700
.... $300
........ $150
........ $27s
fl Wetland Alteration Permit (W
E Single-FamilyResidence
E Att others......
L5!addresses)
trtrtrtr
( tots)
Metes & Bounds (2 lots).............................
Consolidate Lots...
Lot Line Adiustment.........
Final Plat.............
(lncludes $450 escrow for attorney costs)*
'Additional escrow may be required for other applications
fl Rezoning (REZ) through the development contract'
E ptanneO Unil Development (PUD) .................. $750 n Vacation of Easements/Rightof-way (VAC)
f] Minor Amendment to existing PUD...-........-.... $100 (Additional recording fees may apply)
E Rll ottrers $500
:l
I Commercial/lndustrialDistricts.......................$500 r-1,
Plus $10 per 1,000 square rJ;i;ril;;il;;;;, -- U zonins Appeal""" " ""'.............. $100
E Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)................. $500
!qIE: When multiple applications are processed concurrently,
the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application.
E Notification Sign (city to install and remove) .
I Property Owners' List within 500' lcity to generate after pre-application meeting) ....'...
""""" ""$500
units)
E
'" " "" """" " $2oo
.4
..-...... $3 per addresstqb
.... $50 per document[l Escrow for Recording Documents (check a' n Conditional Use Permit
E Vacation
E Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.)
ll thal apply).........
E lnterim Use Permit E Site Plan Agreement
n Wetland Alteration PermitVariance
Easements L_ easements)D Deeds
TOTAL FEE:54b
Section 2: Required lnformation
Description of proposat: ADDITION ot SOUTHEAST SIDE OF DETACHED GARAGE (approx. 5'4" x 20') Will not add to
hardcover
Property Address or Location:3711 South Cedar Dr
256600430 Lot 25 Blk 4 Red Cedar Point Lake MinnewaushkaParcel #
Total Acreage:
Present Zoning
Existing Use of Property:Low Density Single Family Home
Single-Family Residential District (RSF
Requested Land use o""isnation, R€l{Qr{ifl 0{SHOF($SE
BECEIVED
0.18 Wetlands Present?
Single-Family Residential District (Rfl
Residential Low De
Ives ENo
Requested Zoning:
Present Land Use Designalion:
ncheck box if separate nanative is attached.
on, ol I c -llzw cct.r ;\lz*l1z- 6o-Day ReviewDate:=LLLI-=\L-
Legal Description:
DEC 0 3 202t
CHAIIHASSEN pt-AI'tNtNG DEPI
30
Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant lnformation
APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant, represent to have obtained
authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, sub.iect only 1o
the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. lf this application has not been signed by
the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application
should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this
application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I
fu(her undersland that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to
any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.
Name:Murphy Bros. Building & remodeling
Address 1330 Park Ave.
City/Statezip:
Email:
Chanhassen MN 55317
Signalure:Date:
PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, I, as property owner, have full legal capaclty to, and hereby do,
authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those
conditions, sub.iect only to the right to obiect at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of
the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may
be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the
study. I certify that the information and exhibits submjtted are true and correcl.
Name:Michael Corrigan
Address 3711 South Cedar Dr
Chanhassen MN 55331
jrobin m
6on1ra1. Jeff Robinson
Phone: 963) 780-3262
Cell:
Fax:
6on1""1. Michael Corrigan
Phone: (651) 491-7070
city/stare/zip
Email:gan.ml@gmail.com
Cell:
Fax:
Contact
Phone:
Signature
PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable)
Name:
Address
City/Statezip
Email:
This application must ilJ comptYed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by
applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the appropriate Applicalion Checklist
and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and applicable procedural
requirements and fees.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A
written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
G,Za
Section 4: Notification lnformation
'Other Contact lnformation:
E Property Owner Via: E Email
E Applicant Via: E Email
! Engineer Via: E Email
E otner via: E Email
Name:
Address
City/State/Zip
Email:
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Com plete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your
device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital
copy to the city for processing.
SAVE FORM PRINT FORM SUBMIT FORM
E Mailed Paper Copy
E Mailed Paper Copy
n laaiteo Paper copy
E laaiteo Paper copy
(612) 388-5599
foll
-
tro'-
oae, lh't4.?pLt
Who should receive copies of staff reports?
31
ru
MURPHY BROS
. li
1330 Park Rd.
Chanhassen MN 55317
(763)780-3262
REQUEST FOR VARIANGE
For Property at3711 South Cedar Dr.
Ghanhassen MN 55331
O\M.,|ER: Michael Corrigan 11-29-21
DESCRIPTION OF VARIANCE REQUEST:
Request for a variance to add an addition to the southeast side of existing detached garage.
Proposed Size of the addition is 5'4" x 20'. Foundation will be setback 2'-1" from Property Line
The new Eave will be setback 1'2" The Addition will decrease hardcover. lt will
repurpose existing hardcover while removing blacktop which decreases.
Request for variance complies with the findings pursuant to Section 20-58 as follows:
A. The neighborhood surrounding the property has many non-conforming lots. The variance
will provide a garage expansion that is common to the neighborhood while not increasing
hardcover. This lot is non-conforming consisting of less than 7700 square feet.
B. The proposed location on lot is necessitated by lack of other options for added storage.
The other locations considered do not work as well:
The northside of the garage is the main access to the house. Any other locations would
increase hardcover.
C. Only other option would be at rear of home which would make visible from the Lake and
add to hardcover. This request is based on most viable option for increasing needed
storage without increasing hardcover.
D. This lot is located in an area of many non conforming lots due to the proximity to Lake and
age of homes
Submitted by: Jeff Robinson
Project Coordinator
Murphy Bros. Bldg. & Remodeling
(612) - 3e&s599
11t29t2021
On behalf of property owner: Michael Corrigan
NOTE: The new Addition will corne in line with the Existinq House setback and not
encroach closer to propertv line
E. This proposal is epmmon to area of Non-conforming lots.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
DEC 0 3 2021
CHAIIHASSEN PI.ANNING DEPT
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
Memorandum
To: MacKenzie Young-Walters, Assistant Planner
From: Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer
CC: Charles Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer
George Bender, Assistant City Engineer
Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer
Date: 12/21/2021
Re: Variance Review at 3711 South Cedar Drive – Planning Case
#2022-01
The Engineering Department has reviewed the variance submittal for 3711 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 utili ty 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.
41
2. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that the proposed variances can be
developed in 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 lot cover and a setback variance to facilitate the
construction of a 105 square foot addition to an existing detached garage located at
3711 South Cedar Drive. Based on the provided plans and narrative, there are no
impacts or improvements associated with public utilities (sanitary sewer, water, storm
sewer, streets, etc.) or any public easements. Furthermore, there is no net increase to
the sites calculated lot cover as the approximately 105 square foot addition will be
replacing an existing impervious surface (bituminous). As such, Engineering and Public
Works have no proposed conditions based on the provided submittals. However, the
proposed addition to the garage will have a foundation approximately two feet from the
property line that is shared with 3713 South Cedar Drive, and the eaves will extend to
within approximately one foot of the property line. If the variance application is
approved, and due to the proximity of the proposed addition to the neighboring
property, a private temporary construction easement or an agreement for right of entry
is strongly recommended to ensure that if access to 3713 South Cedar Drive is necessary
to facilitate the construction of the addition on 3711 South Cedar Drive that it has been
agreed to prior to commencement of any construction activities.
Proposed Conditions
N/A
42
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
Kim eu\4ts ty lerk
Subscribed and s
this;t)-.! day of
to before me
(__Notary Public
,2021
JEAI1J M
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTYOFCARVER )
I, Kim T. Meuwissen, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on
December 22,2021, the duly qualified and acting City Clerk ofthe City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe attached notice of Public
Hearing to consider a request for setback and lot cover variances to add an addition on to
an existing detached garage on property located at 3711 South Ceder Drive. Zoned Single'
Family Residentiat (RS$ Applicant: Murphy Bros. Building & Remodeling. Property
Owner: Michael Corrigan. 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 of the County Treasurer,
Carver County, MinnesotA and by other appropriate records. t
ful..,fr ,1,&4
43
Subiect
Parcel
Dilctraimor
This map is neither a legally re@raled map nor a survey and is not intended to be used
as one. Thls map is a comrilaton of recotds. iniormaton and data located in vaious crty,
county, stiate and lederal ofices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to
be used ior rebrcnce puQoses only. TIle Crty does not waflant that the Geographic
lnformaton System (GlS) Oalia used to pEpare thrs rnap are enor tree, and the C,ty does
not lepresenl that the GIS Oala can be used fo. navEaijonal, hacking or any oth€r
purpGe requiring exacting measurement ol distance or directon or rxecision in the
deFiiction of geographic featues The preceding disdaimer is provided pu6uanl to
Minnesob Statutes y66 03. Subd. 21 (2000). and the user of this map actnowl€dges
ihat the City shall not be laable for any damages, and epressly waives all daims, and
agrces to defend, indemnify. and hold hamless the CiV from any and all claims brouohl
by User, its employeB or agents, or third parti€s which adse out of lhe us€/s access or
use of data provialed.
OlscLimo.
This map is nerther a legally recorded map nor a $rrvey and is not intended to be used
as one This map is a @mpilation of recods, iniomation and data located in vadous cjty,
county, state and federal offces and other sources regBrding the are, shown, and is to
be used lor relerence pu.poses only. The Ci9 does hot wanant lhat the Geo06phic
lnformation Syste.n (GlS) Oata used to pEpare this map are eror free, and the Cily does
not Gpresenl thal the GIS Oata can be used fo{ navigational, traddng o. any other
purpGe equiring exactino meaSuemeit of distance or dileclioo or precasion an the
d€piclion ol g€ographic Eatues. The preceding disdaimer is provrded pursuant to
Minnesota StaMes 5466.03, Subd 21 (2000), and the user of this map aclnofll€does
that the City shall not be liable for any damaoes. and epressly waives all daims, and
aorees to deiend. indemnity, and hold haml6s the City from any and all daims b.ouoht
by User, its employees or agenls, or tiird parties which arise od of the useis access or
use of data provrcled.
ITAX_NAMET
ITAX_ADD_LI l
<TAX_ADD_L2r
(Next RecordD(TAX_NAMEn
ITAX_ADD_L1r
(TAX ADD L2D
Subject
Parcel
t
\\r
.\
a
.I
1
\
44
!
E,6
E2Fir
c6aoo9o=d.56g
N!8[6lo
sc;
>,Eod
COoc
j.Eob
;69=
Ff
E
a
tl)
G
=oot-F.
tti
0)
-o
Eo
o
ocfoo
(!-
o
^o]ja)
ss
{n q)'- O)6!o>6
bq,>!oo()E
og
E€o o) -i- CLL
EEE,
I H€9oo)
6carDoo)1ctU9:-E tr
;ES
EEs-
5E;
c')
.=
0)Eo
Eq)t
06
q,
.g
==tD
uio
dl
.c,o
f
c(!
o,'-
O
El!-c
=
oE
.9E
o
oI
e
9A
6E
3EID!!oe
68-3
F--(9<
:e E
i-EE es aSEet BteE.?o-- ()..c.o cet 3-3 3; +f3i3i #H:!
n E:a 5 :;'E H
;E*E gss€c
€;Ei EiH=;
ggE=,;EEHE
P-&BEso. .FOc(JU,FNd)$
=;?NNo6t
o
E
o66
G
.E
o
o
3;;
t,t 0)rl qo
cl =oq el-i PS
H filE: E He er
€EIHE}: BE
; Ec a,-g,gE,e
fi#EEiEE.E
-e6s f iE: g
A!; s:'U€ E
}HNE.*EsE
=e336EgEe*EEHAEB
gEiEtE€E
o
E
o
;)o
=.9
o
o
-a)o,
P.,.!(5oooo)E(!
ll, -o-E tl,6:E5ocoa
!2e59F0)
=E9p€3-oodoop'a
O-o
=b95oqF!
o
oo
]9'6o
o,i
bo
q)
!<I
o:t
gB
(!0o,aqfEgEo6tac
8E'd-i,
oEcc:oo)
EHf.cgE,:o
EE-o
6q-Y>gE
tioEc
n)
CD(o
o)c
o)o
EcloE;og
.9(!orE'-o
o)
o
Eco
o
E(,
o,
0)o
0)
o
o,aco)6
=ulz
5
3
a
E
E
E
Et
.g
3
_9
o
i=.t
o
Go
o
lltooJ
EooCII
o-
(!
.J
CIIL
iio
=o
E(,oo
o-
>Eto
a, 'Ecroeto-J
9ct,
6' .=
=of:
rgE
Br
sc
oo
=
PELd|a! aao.:-EoE
=o€o
^- gr
OE
gE6iza
66oEcoEo
g
{!
.,2 E
FO
e€oooPo=FE6g
N!8eNO
rt c;>rq
od
c.)oq
j.eob
3-o
9E
Ff
p2
d)
rl)
o
=ooF.t-
o
o)-o
Eo-co
oCfoo
o-
.y-O
gE
aF
8Nc(no)'- <,(!!!>6
bo,>!o r1)o_c
ogu9
(! or.-
- CLL
R=qP6 ><== o-
ErEQoo
oo()
=- ctU€=oE E
a H,f
E EE5s E'o 6(/)
(,)
.EE!o
Eot
06
q)
._c
=5dl
ui
e
d)
o,
co
.s)
oo
6(5E
.9
=
d
.9
oc
!
.E,
ooI
Po>.>P63
€5ol!Oo
-cq=EAc6e-3
(9<
g, Ee;gE 2
s;;E EE"E
AE:E EEgfr
f,e:qg EIEE:: x.P 3 Hrr
EE€E SEg€E
EgE!gEEEI
*ie= elE,SFgEA6-EgF O c(J (,FN(9V
9eI o,fi
EoE9ool
gEfi:EE
cras ; e
::i5E5
;EEBEe
!8.*E$EH€6Eg;
6 P P-. q bPE6bEA
ieEEEeb;b(5 5f
G
([
E
n)
-o
o
o
+q)
Elo
?c
E;
o)
o
c(I,
Eq
@
ID
o
=E
-:,,9'; .!zo, E.q3 irE(l) -o)-o- 6X
Bt lS
E sSEE (g=:
o-oFl q
-c o)ol e
EEHIg
EfiElg!6 EI O
EEalf
- o ::l:q FHEY oEl ooo 9l or
= ->'61 =
EE iIf
(!
-lc
o,
cr,o
cDoceEO
EoEdi-=E8;9
9_o65E'6ooEsaqo:,
5E F
-(s0
S i.EcJco o.E
o\uo
b8E
9E;o* Ea)=-:EEb
!EH
'o,Ee6 u; ."
-xotr
=zE3
tegiffEiiE'iiEi
iEIE€gEEEiEEiiiE
Ei; EEiiiffgEEiii
iEiEiiiEiiiiiiiiE
0)
.EF.!
Q'
(!o
.9
G(,oJ
Eooo.or
Go
=(L
.L
ii
0,c]o
Eo
CIIo-
>tE.9
o.GPto-J
9i;
0, .=o- t:o-X
+E
i!E
c6 ..oEECoo
o=OE=ooo
Btr
(,o
=EEDO.=o
h.EoFr-E
-9oE()3aDo- .EbE
6' t!.9d
OEz3
6t!Ec
a!
o
ct ..oEE.Oru
l'=!,Efooo 45
o o o o O O O oO O O o o O O O oo O O O A o O O'{ 99 o OO Q O;n X;6 a6 + 6 'n @,o F oo or - @ c.r ca (n t O @ Q <t F. co -{ rno o F sr .{ N F\5 ij ij i; d ci.ri o 6 m rri.n <t 6 < !/1 sl <t !r| <r .\ N <t st .{ N c) r'\ o o Ln N rn5 6 6 ij 5 6d6 6 c'6 o 6 o o O O O a o €' ooo o om r{ elgl I eto5 X 6 6 5 666 o o66 6 o o 6 6 6 6O Q ooo oooo q, oq Q q o+ i\ 6 6 i6 6 6 6 to (o (o \o @ @ Lo (o (o \b (o @ (o (o (o \o (o @ o Q (o (9 (9 (g (o
- n L. 6 6 6,5 6 6 lo @ (o (o @ (o ro (o (o @ (o ro (o (o (o ro (o (o o o (p Q Q !q (oz 6 ii fi 6 6 6 'i .n !n Lrt ra !^ t^ tn tr lrt .n Ln !^ Lrl Lrl Ln r^ rn lrt u, Lrt !^ r^ r^ L,) lrt- i.i F,,i ai li c.i 6i r\i.ic'ininic'ic'iNNt.'i^iNN.!N'.tNN'!N'l'!'{NNNN
oo060 0 0 0 6000 0AA&.ed. t c. t ndd.e n
22222 2 EEEEE "^2sEEE2xtIZZZZ ZooooO O td.nte. e o e c. d & 9 c. t c. 9 9 9 9 I
d d d d d : d. Ll u L) u u >- L, .i u lJ (J u.i u ('') e o o o o = a d. e. tEEEEE qtrq T rra rE- ii- rrr E--- -- !,{ !4 l+ X !+,-., !, !"u O O O O O (J o tr tr tr tr tr !-.1 tr (J tr tr tr F (') F F F (, (r (J (J V e q g g
/.i i.1 ^ /\ n X n i I :) f I I i l o I f f I o f f I o o a o i a z z zSEEEEE=E;99999=9P999gu99guupu=H?=?( o,< r.r [n r\ 6 o'r o t-{ (n F .{ 1/1 (o t'! o Fi m rr} (h o o tn a\ o !n Ft o N <t r:r o .{
PJ 6 b i\i .'.i i\ .i
^
6 .n rn d) O c, 6 cl : -i d .r ..r N N N .\ rn !n .n 4 .o .! O d rrE ; d6 6 irt irj <i @ (o \D (cl (o F F. F. F. F. !'. F r- F- F. F\ F F\ r\ F\ co 0o (g (9 ry C'l ryAA 6 66 - rn d, rn m (n(nin rn .n (o (n(n tn (n (n m (') dl .Y) rr, m ro m ai m r\ l.\ r\
33
r{ ..r (!, !o (-E) @6ooooco @ ooco r: og roeqSEq,tf+ N a.t \o (!)oo Q@6Loco @ aa co6 r\ (o (r, 1.,-rid+ i\iii n(o 6@roF.(o (o !o!9 Lo@ \oF-FSq)@\ori i\i\b! bor 6oro6or or oo o! ol 01 F.F-ry9oro
- {- j if - Il- .! * j .r .i* i-i J r j i -..r j j j3fl -!. -;n s) ; ; m m m .n in .n rn (n m (n rn m rn m m d, m rf, rn m m d, (n m ul Lrr m rY) (nH z iyi iyi iyi in in iyi fii ni rn m rri ('i (n rn rn m m (n m d) (n rn m (n.i m - - m .n (n
iri = ui !n rn.n Ln Ln r,1 !n /i iJi r^ Ln In L^ ra tn rn !n !n !a Ln Ln rn !n Ln !o z' ztjlu1 tt\rri z .ri lri rri .ri !/i !n r. !n Ln !a !n rn r^ u) Lrt !a ul Ln ul !o Ln !a tn rn rn rn > > t^ tn r^
z ui z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z z -^ --zzz
i -cL -I d. < G d. d. E e e. t t i oe oa oa oa oi c' a' c' a' q:' oi oi oa oi oe oa d 9 < d- e ee'6 E 6 o o o o 6 o o o 6 o o o o 6 o 6 o " I I I I g g I3 H g g g? e e E 4 44a 4 4a a -2 4 4 4 4 a 4 4 2 2 i, --t 4i EEEEEEnJ L! er !! uJ u==u.tuJt!r9E9seeeseeeeeeeepeF*XXXXXggg==xBgr:ilj(,irLJt!lrJU
ooo o a o ooqot e.e. 6. E d. n.zot222 2 xxxtt E?EEEEZEE ZZZZ6OO 6 e. c. e. e. c. e.9 c. e.e.e.9 d. c Q999oE o- o- - .i ^ a a a a a ^ < o- < < < < o- < < -- o- 6- o- o- l1l PP*** PsE eee eeE fgEgfi3 533 EE *.".1.e4 ei: N d d 6 > d > u (J () (.) u > e d (J u u (J o () (J 01 o o 6 o 4; c. d. G.!SEUEESESTTIEE6TB===EUEE6UUUUEEEEE
^'P.rrrrr^in-IIIfIiI6ffIfr)fIy] o c] o a-4dzzz4<9EEEYE=99S9S=9p9S99H99;HuuE+3=??-r5 U ^ r^.\.o or o..{.o t\ !-r !n (o F o r-{ (n L/i or o o !n F- o !a r- or a El !l o.rx ro rli i\i 6i i\ ni 6 (Y'.vi m OO o o f{ !{.'r.i -{ (^{ ry.{ N Ln lrl.n rn N Io r{ da : :i itj 6 i-d U ilt <j id id 6 F F. r. r. F- F I"\ r'\ F F F Fr'F F @ oo.{ 01 .!N'!E ^i in 6 - rn m m ao tn m an inm rncn ao rnrn.n rrtrn m m dl rn an d) rn !a ln r- F F'
Eqze.<F>uiFa4=;EQ=*1 E EG z Hfi .r r! dz o po,,zP A d.i 2;gE -glnia i =3 ^5i6== Ag :=4 i a=2* ,-Z- ?Zi-
e E a : =
=
E = E ; : ; lE*E E : E H
=
g
E #a?-?=i?l
;cEEfr
=EEHEEEI:Ei;EEEEEEEEE+iEEgEHE 46