PC Staff Report 2-7-06 PC DATE:
February 7, 2006
3
CC DATE:
February 27, 2006
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
REVIEW DEADLINE:
March 5, 2006
CASE #:
06-04
BY:
Metzer, et al
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL:
Request for a 19.61-foot front yard setback variance, a 19.8-foot front yard setback
variance (double frontage lot) and a 6.05% hard surface coverage variance to
demolish an existing one-stall garage and construct a three-stall garage on a
APPLICANT
nonconforming corner lot of record located in the Single Family Residential
District (RSF) at the intersection of Red Cedar Point Road and South Cedar Drive.
(All proposed setbacks are measured from the eaves of the structure)
LOCATION:
Lot 1, Block 5, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta
3633 South Cedar
APPLICANT:
Dave Bangasser & Mary Jo Anding Bangasser
8321 View Lane
Eden Prairie, MN 55347
PRESENT ZONING:
Single Family Residential (RSF)
2020 LAND USE PLAN:
Residential – Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 – 4u/Acre)
ACREAGE:DENSITY:
0.35 acre N/A
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing one-stall
existing garage and build a three-stall garage on a nonconforming corner lot of record. The
SITE DATA
proposed garage will require front yard setback variances of 19.61 and 19.8 feet from the minimum
30-foot front yard setback requirement and a 6.05% hard surface coverage variance from the 25%
maximum impervious surface restriction. Staff is recommending denial of this request.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
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.
Location Map
Bangasser Variance Request
Planning Case No. 06-04
3633 South Cedar
City of Chanhassen
Lake Minnewashta
SUBJECT SITE
Lake Minnewashta
Bangasser Variance
Planning Case No. 06-04
February 7, 2006
Page 2 of 10
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The subject property is a nonconforming lot of record and is located on Lake Minnewashta’s Red
Cedar Point at the southwest corner of the intersection of Red Cedar Point Road and South Cedar
Drive, and is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The applicant is requesting front yard
setback variances of 19.61 feet (north property line) and 19.8 feet (south property line) from the
required 30-foot minimum front yard setback requirement and a 6.05% hard surface coverage
variance from the 25% impervious surface restriction for the construction of a three-stall garage.
The zoning ordinance states that eaves may not encroach into the required setback if a variance is
granted. Therefore, all setback distances for variance consideration will be measured from the
eaves of the structure while the foundation is recessed 1.5 feet from the eaves.
Staff is recommending denial of this variance request because the applicant is proposing the
construction of a three-stall garage which is one stall more than that which is required by City Code.
APPLICABLE REGUATIONS
Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks.
(5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 percent.
(6) The setbacks are as follows:
a. For front yards, 30 feet.
b. For rear yards, 30 feet.
c. For side yards, 10 feet.
Sec. 20-908. Yard regulations.
(variances granted from a
(5) The following shall not be considered to be obstructions
required setback are not entitled to the following additional encroachments):
a. Into any required front yard, or required side yard adjoining a side street lot line,
eaves
cornices, canopies, , or other architectural features may project a distance not
exceeding two feet, six inches;
Sec. 20-904. Accessory structures.
(a) A detached accessory structure, except a dock, shall be located in the buildable lot area or
required rear yard. No accessory use or structure in any residential district shall be located
in any required front, side or rear setback with the following exceptions:
(c) For parcels with less than three acres in any residential or agricultural district, no accessory
structure or use shall be erected, constructed, or commenced prior to the erection,
construction, or commencement of the principal permitted structure or use, but may be
erected or commenced simultaneously. If the principal structure or use is subsequently
Bangasser Variance
Planning Case No. 06-04
February 7, 2006
Page 3 of 10
removed, destroyed, or discontinued, the accessory structure or use must be removed or
discontinued within 12 months.
Sec. 20-905. Single-family dwellings.
All single-family detached homes shall:
(2) Conform to the following standards for living areas:
d. A two-car garage must be provided with the single-family structure.
BACKGROUND
The existing garage that the applicant is proposing to demolish has nonconforming setbacks of
11.89 feet to the north property line and 11.7 feet to the south property line. The subject property
was platted as part of the Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta Subdivision which was recorded on
August 30, 1913.
Lot 1, Block 5
Accessory
Structure
Red Cedar Point Road
Lot 16, Block 4
Principal
Drive
Structure
Cedar
South
Lake
Minnewashta
Bangasser Variance
Planning Case No. 06-04
February 7, 2006
Page 4 of 10
Lot 16, Block 4 and Lot 1, Block 5 (subject property) are both owned by the applicant but are
separated by South Cedar Drive and have separate Parcel Identification Numbers (PID). Both
properties are nonconforming lots of record in that they do not meet minimum lot size requirements,
Lot 16 does not meet lot frontage requirements, and Lot 1 does not meet lot depth requirements and
contains an accessory structure without a principal structure.
ANALYSIS
Lot 16, Block 4 is a riparian lot and contains a single-family home. Lot 4, Block 5, the subject
property, contains an accessory structure without a principal structure. City Code does not permit
an accessory use without a principal use; therefore, if the variance is granted staff is recommending
that Lot 16, Block 4 and Lot 1, Block 5 be combined under one PID number and an affidavit be
recorded stating that the two lots may not be sold separately, thus eliminating the accessory use
without a principal use situation. Because the lots will need to be combined, the hard cover
percentage must be combined as well. Due to the proposal for additional hard cover it becomes
necessary for the applicant to request a hard cover variance also.
The existing garage is 254.31 square feet in area and has nonconforming front yard setbacks of
11.89 feet from Red Cedar Point Road and 11.7 feet from South Cedar Drive. The proposed garage
will not be located any closer to front property lines than the existing garage but will increase the
area of garage located within front yard setbacks. The proposed garage has an area of 871.31 square
feet which is under the 1,000 square-foot detached accessory structure maximum for the RSF
district. The requested three-stall garage is proposed to be located outside the corner sight triangle
of the Red Cedar Point Road and South Cedar Drive intersection.
Ordinance Existing Proposed
Detached Accessory 1,000 sq. ft.
254.31 sq. ft. 871.31 sq. ft.
Structure Area (RSF) maximum
Setback from Red Cedar
30’ 10.39’ 10.39’
Point Road
Setback from South Cedar
30’ 10.2’ 10.2’
Drive
Hard Surface Coverage
25% 3.72% 19.7%
Lot 1, Block 5
Hard Surface Coverage
25% 43.4% 43.4%
Lot 16, Block 4
Hard Surface Coverage
25% 22.73% 31.05%
(L1, B5 & L16, B4 combined)
Distance from Oak N/A 11± 3’
The subject property is 7,920 square feet in area and has a hard cover percentage of 3.72%, and Lot
16, Block 4 has an area of 7,276 square feet and a hard cover of 43.4%. The hard cover percentage
for Lot 16 is so high due to its relatively small area. Also the lot was platted in 1913 and all
improvements on the property were constructed before current regulations existed. The existing
Bangasser Variance
Planning Case No. 06-04
February 7, 2006
Page 5 of 10
combined hard cover of the two lots is 22.73%. With the applicant’s current request for a three-stall
garage, and a driveway sufficient in size to accommodate it, the hard cover percentage would rise to
19.7% on the subject property and 31.05% on the two lots combined.
A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500
feet. In this case that means a single-family home and a two-car garage. The subject property
combined with Lot 16, Block 4 contains a single-family home and a one-stall garage. Because
the property currently cannot be put to reasonable use due to the lack of a two-stall garage, staff
would be willing to recommend approval of a variance granting the construction of a two-stall
garage and any increase in hard surface coverage necessary to serve the garage. If the applicant
were to build a two-stall garage rather than the requested three-stall garage, staff estimates the
total hard cover for the two lots would be 27.28%; therefore, a hard surface coverage variance of
2.28% would be necessary.
The subject property has a buildable area of 808.5 square feet; however, due to the shape of the lot,
the buildable area is triangular which would make it difficult to locate a two-stall garage on the
property without a setback variance. The applicant considered rebuilding the garage further into the
buildable area of the lot but chose not to because he wanted to limit the visual obstructions imposed
on neighboring properties that the proposed changes would bring.
Staff reviewed city records to determine if variances had been granted within 500 feet of the
subject property. That review found the following cases.
Address Variance File Number Variance
13-foot front2-foot front
yard setback, yard
3628 Hickory
5-foot side
02-5 setback and yard setback variances for
Road
the construction of a garage.
98-7
11.5-foot front
7201 Juniper yard variance for the construction
Avenue of a home addition
84-2
Two 7-foot side31-foot
yard setback variances, a
3705 South
lakeshore hard surface
96-4 setback variance and a
Cedar Drive
coverage
variance.
15-foot lakeshore 8-foot side
3618 Red Cedar and yard setback
93-6
Point Road variances for the construction of a porch and deck
1.5-foot side 14.5-foot lakeshore
yard andsetback
92-1 variances for the construction of an attached two-
car garage
3607 Red Cedar
7.5-foot lakeshore setback variance
Point Road for the
13.5-foot lakeshore
construction of a deck and a
81-8 setback variance for the construction of a 6’ x 6’
stairway landing pad
12-foot fronttwo 3-foot side
yard setback and yard
3629 Red Cedar
87-13 setback variances for the demolition of an existing
Point Road
cabin and the construction of a new home
Bangasser Variance
Planning Case No. 06-04
February 7, 2006
Page 6 of 10
It is worth noting that due to the age of the Red Cedar Point neighborhood, most structures were
built long before current regulations existed and thus have nonconforming front, side and
lakeshore setbacks.
GRADING & STREETS
The site currently sheet drains to the west. The proposed garage will require some grading to
achieve the 958 floor elevation. The applicant must submit a proposed grading plan with the
building permit to demonstrate how the site will drain. It appears that the site grading will not
require the removal of any significant trees, as identified on the plan.
Staff anticipates that the streets in this area will need to be reconstructed within the next five
years. Reconstruction projects within older areas such as this are challenging because, typically,
the right-of-way widths are substandard. The existing right-of-way for Red Cedar Point Road
and Cedar Drive South is 30 feet. The current minimum right-of-way requirement for a local
street is 60 feet.
The applicant does not propose to construct the garage any closer to the right-of-way than the
existing garage; therefore should the City obtain additional right-of-way/roadway easement with
a reconstruction project, the proposed garage would not further encumber the right-of-
way/roadway easement.
TREE PRESERVATION
There are three mature trees near the existing garage
structure located at 3633 South Cedar Drive. The
applicant is requesting a variance in order to
construct a three-stall garage. Of the three nearby
trees, two of them should remain unaffected by the
construction. The third tree, a 28” red oak, is
located along South Cedar Drive between the street
and the proposed addition. After construction, the
base of the tree would be approximately nine feet
from the base of the garage wall. This situation is
very similar to variance granted for the construction
of a garage at 3628 Hickory Road. There the
garage addition was located within ±10 feet of a
large (29” DBH) oak tree. The following advisory
statements were made about that tree and also apply
to the oak at 3633 South Cedar Drive:
Construction damage to trees depends on three variables: the extent of the construction
activities, the species of tree, and the plant’s health. To build the garage, compaction and minor
excavation (6 – 12 inches deep) within 1½ feet of the tree’s trunk is necessary. Red oaks are
tolerant of root severance, but sensitive to root compaction meaning that this activity can cause
damage to the tree. The proposed garage will be built upon approximately 50% of the tree’s root
Bangasser Variance
Planning Case No. 06-04
February 7, 2006
Page 7 of 10
area. The tree’s health, good to fair, will help to alleviate the impact, but the fact that the
construction will be extremely close to the trunk of the tree increases the risk of damage. The
timing of the construction is also important. During the growing season when moisture and
nutrient requirements for the tree are at their greatest, a major disruption of the root area will
have a negative effect on the tree.
To protect the tree during construction, the following practices will be necessary:
Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and
?
extended completely around the tree at the greatest distance possible. This must be done
prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is
completed.
To retain soil moisture in the remaining root area, wood chip mulch must be applied to a
?
depth of 4 – 6 inches, but no deeper, over all the root area.
Roots closest to the tree should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or
?
tearing the roots.
The elevation of the garage wall closest to the tree must be at grade. This means the
?
opposing wall will either need a retaining wall or a foundation wall due to the cut into the
slope necessary to create a level floor.
No equipment or materials may be stored within the protected root area.
?
The tree will need to be watered during dry periods.
?
Any pruning cuts necessary must be done before April 1 or after July to avoid any
?
possible exposure to the oak wilt fungus, a fatal disease for red oaks.
The tree is an excellent specimen and adds value to the property. If the homeowner is committed
to preserving the tree, the above-mentioned measures will help to ensure the future health and
longevity of the tree.
Approval of a variance is contingent upon proof that the literal enforcement of the Chanhassen
City Code would cause an undue hardship. Not having a reasonable use of the property would
constitute an undue hardship. A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet. In this case that means a single-family home and a two-car
garage. Any use of the property beyond that discussed above is strictly ancillary.
The subject property combined with Lot 16, Block 4 contains a single-family home and a one-
stall garage. Because the property currently cannot be put to reasonable use due to the lack of a
two-stall garage, staff would be willing to recommend approval of a variance granting the
construction of a two-stall garage. However, the applicant is requesting a variance to construct a
three-stall garage. This would leave the property with a three-stall garage; one stall more than
that which is required for reasonable use. Therefore, staff must recommend denial of this
request.
FINDINGS
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not grant a
variance unless they find the following facts:
Bangasser Variance
Planning Case No. 06-04
February 7, 2006
Page 8 of 10
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this
neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet this criteria.
Finding:
The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. By
proposing the construction of a three-stall garage rather than a two-stall garage, the
applicant’s request exceeds that which City Code defines as a reasonable use of the
property. A two-stall garage, which is required by code, is reasonable.
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding:
The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties
that lie within the Single Family Residential District.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Finding:
The proposed development will increase the value of the property. However,
construction of a two-stall garage would bring the property into compliance with City Code.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding:
The alleged hardship is self-created because the applicant is requesting a three-
stall garage rather than a two-stall garage. A two-stall garage is required by City Code.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding:
The granting of a variance for a three-stall garage would be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the
parcel is located due to the proposed increase in hard surface coverage. The granting of a
variance for a two-stall garage would be necessary to bring the site into compliance with
City Code.
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
Finding:
The proposed three-stall garage may impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. The
construction of a two-car garage would minimize such impacts.
Bangasser Variance
Planning Case No. 06-04
February 7, 2006
Page 9 of 10
RECOMMENDATION
Staffrecommends that the Planning Commissionadopt the following motion:
“The Planning Commission denies Variance #06-04 for a 19.61-foot front yard setback variance, a
19.8-foot front yard setback variance and a 6.05% hard surface coverage variance for the
construction of a three-stall garage on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) based upon the
findings of fact in the staff report and the following:
1. The applicant could make reasonable use of the property with a two-stall garage.”
Should the Planning Commission choose to approve the variance for a two-stall garage, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
“The Planning Commission approves Variance #06-04 for a 19.61-foot front yard setback
variance, a 19.8-foot front yard setback variance and a 2.28% hard surface coverage variance for
the construction of a two-stall garage on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the
following conditions:
1. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of construction and extended
completely around the tree at the greatest distance possible. This must be done prior to any
construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed.
2. To retain soil moisture in the remaining root area, wood chip mulch must be applied to a
depth of 4 – 6 inches, but no deeper, over all the root area.
3. Roots closest to the tree should be cut by hand or a vibratory plow to avoid ripping or tearing
the roots.
4. The elevation of the garage wall closest to the tree must be at grade. This means the
opposing wall will either need a retaining wall or a foundation wall due to the cut into the
slope necessary to create a level floor.
5. No equipment or materials may be stored within the protected root area.
6. The tree will need to be watered during dry periods.
7. Any pruning cuts necessary must be done before April 1 or after July to avoid any possible
exposure to the oak wilt fungus, a fatal disease for red oaks.
8. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction of the garage.
9. The applicant must submit a proposed grading plan with the building permit to demonstrate
how the site will drain.
Bangasser Variance
Planning Case No. 06-04
February 7, 2006
Page 10 of 10
10. Lot 1, Block 5 and Lot 16, Block 4, Red Cedar Point must be combined under the same
Parcel Identification Number.
11. An affidavit of lot combination must be recorded.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact.
2. Development Review Application.
3. Letter from Dave Bangasser stamped “Received January, 4, 2006”.
4. Registered Land Survey.
5. Building Plans and Elevations.
6. Photos of Subject Property.
7. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List.
g:\plan\2006 planning cases\06-04 bangasser variance\staff report.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND ACTION
IN RE: Application of Dave Bangasser for a 19.61-foot front yard setback variance, a 19.8-foot
front yard setback variance and a 6.05% hard surface coverage variance to demolish an
existing one-stall garage and construct a three-stall garage – Planning Case No. 06-04.
On February 7, 2006, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly
scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Dave Bangasser for a 19.61-foot front yard
setback variance, a 19.8-foot front yard setback variance and a 6.05% hard surface coverage
variance to demolish an existing one-stall garage and construct a three-stall garage on a
nonconforming corner lot of record located in the Single Family Residential District (RSF) at Lot 1,
Block 5, Red Cedar Point. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the
proposed variance that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission
heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1.The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF).
2.The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential – Low Density (Net Density
Range 1.2 – 4u/Acre).
3.The legal description of the property is: Lot 1, Block 5, Red Cedar Point.
4.The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not
grant a variance unless they find the following facts:
a.Literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship.
b.The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable, generally, to other
properties in the Single Family Residential district.
c.The improvements increase the value of the property.
d.The alleged difficulty or hardship is a self-created hardship.
e.The granting of the variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located.
f.The proposed variation may impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property
or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or
1
endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
5.The planning report #06-04 Variance dated February 7, 2006, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al,
is incorporated herein.
ACTION
The Planning Commission denies the Variances from the front yard setbacks and
impervious surface restrictions for the construction of a three-stall garage.
th
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 7 day of February, 2006.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY: ___________________________________
Its Chairman
g:\plan\2006 planning cases\06-04 bangasser variance\findings of fact.doc
2
i(
\'--..!
i
\
"...,-~
CITY OF CHANHA55EN
7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227-1100
Planning Case No. Db-oi_
CITY OF CHANHASSIiN
RECEIVED
JAN 0 4 2006
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
CHANHASSEN PLANNING OEPT
PLEASE PRINT
AEplicant Name and Address:
J2J\\J E ~"-\ &ASS~ (L
8::''2.. \ V 1f,\N LA}JE ~
~~M ~a-A\(l'E I N\ N CJ'7?:>41
Co~act:. .
Phone: q~l.l btJb-4l./c;1 Fax: C(t;1-/3S2- ~Sf
Email: .bt.\.ve.p:.l.Jl\.G:..594.@Ofi.\.scorp..Coi\;\..
v - ,
Owner Name and Address:
Wi. A(/.. y JO fwbl1J(} 'BAN ErASS'F(2..
S,\ME
Contact:
Phone: qCj1..!-131-11 C:>l Fax:
Email:
NOTE: Consultation with City staff is reQuired prior to submittal, including review of development
plans
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Interim Use Permit (lUP)
Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC)
$- Variance (VAR)
Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Non-conforming Use Permit
Planned Unit Development*
Zoning Appeal
Rezoning
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Notification Sign - $200
(City to install and remove)
Site Plan Review (SPR)*
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
- $50 CUP/SPR/VACNARlWAP/Metes & Bounds
- $450 Minor SUB
TOTAL FEE $ ~ '70 ~ pet Ct.-&. 3Qd-f.o
Subdivision*
An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant
prior to the public hearing.
*Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11"
reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF-Group 4 (*.tif) format.
**Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for
each application.
PROJECT NAME: '~A.N&-M.S'E:~ fA1Ai L1 trA-{L(t~
LOCATION: 3 &, ~ 3> .5~LI"\!-\ Cf:DA/L
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOI \ i '"E, 1oCJt.. ~ J ~f\) trEDAf- 1'c:?)m- - LA-lL8 M/ NN(2VJI1-~Tft-
TOTAL ACREAGE: O. i I
WETLANDS PRESENT:
'R~f
YES
X NO
PRESENT ZONING:
REQUESTED ZONING: ~j"p
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: lotti ~l~ r~lJM~. .
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: Low ~~t~ r&cJiitP.f/t-
REASON FOR REQUEST: \lAR\~NL~ t~tJ\. tWo f/21;fJ\ 'fAP-'J> $f\~ACll- lZ~&lJ\r<.eMeNT~
,\0 1>EMbL.\!H I\~ E:Xt S"-/N tr ';JoN- coJAf"rzM (~~ t(~ STALL ~A:(lA~ uJ
Q(lJ)~'Q.1""c> to"-lsT,2.UC-, A 1<<~6 ~,t\LL arAt2.AltE IJJ r\~' rL..Ac~.
~RO?o5f:.1) ~E'T\?>I\-ck:.-~ ,0 EA:t\-\-1WlU A.~e '(0 Mk'\cH 1tf6 8k{sr(~ 6-
Co~l'\\OI\l o~ Af~~O'xJMPr-reL-'i \\ i/'2. ~T..
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
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.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. 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 have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any
authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of
my knowledge.
Signature of Applicant
/1l~~
Signatur 0 F Owner
\1-ltllo)
Date
, ~ II ~ / V~
Date
G:\pLAN\forms\Development Review Application.DOC
Rev. 12/05
Ms. Sharmeen Al-laff
Senior Planner
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Blvd.
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
JAN 0 4 2006
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
Re: 3633 South Cedar Drive- Variance Request
Dear Sharmeen,
Per our meetings on this subject, attached are materials required for our application for a
variance from the front yard setback requirement on both Red Cedar Drive and South
Cedar in order to demolish our existing single stall garage to construct a three stall
garage. The proposed setback are the existing setback of approximately 11-112 feet.
Attached please find the following materials:
1. Development Review Application- Variance
2. Check in the amount of $ 250.00
3. Certificate of survey prepared Engineering Design Services- 12 sets at 11 x 17, one
8.5xl1.
4. Proposed floor plans and elevations- 12 sets 8.5xll.
I ask that the planning staff as well as the Planning Commission and City Council
consider the following relative to this request:
. My wife's family has owned the lakeshore property for over 60 years. While the
property is not our full time residence, we plan make it our full time residence
within 2 to 6 years (when Catherine, our youngest child, is in college or when we
are done paying for her college.)
. The property was platted in 1913 which predates the current zoning ordinances.
The individual lots are smaller than current minimum sizes and as a result, nearly
all of the properties in the area have similar setbacks to what we are proposing
and in a number of cases much smaller setbacks.
. The variance we are requesting is an existing condition that will not be any closer
to either road right of way than the existing garage. The majority of the addition
will be further from the road than the existing.
. The single stall garage is not big enough to meet our storage needs. With a boat,
trailer, personal watercraft, etc. we feel we need 2 stalls for recreational
equipment. Hopefully this is not surprising for lakeshore property. In addition,
we have no car storage. Over the Labor Day weekend we sustained hail damage
to our minivan which was parked outside since we choose to store the boat trailer,
etc. in the garage. With two children driving, we own 4 cars, three of which are
often at the property when we are there. We believe a three stall garage is a
reasonable request.
. Due to the unique triangular shape with roads on two sides, there is no area we
could build a reasonable sized garage without a variance. While constructing the
garage further to the west would allow a somewhat greater setback than the
existing condition, this would be further away from the lake home which we
would have to deal with for many years. In addition, a more westerly location
would be directly in front of our neighbors, the Johnson's. Tom and Jackie would
have a better view from their front door if we maintain the view of our lawn area
rather than our garage doors.
. At your suggestion, I have met with you and Jill Sinclair on site to discuss the
proximity of the existing elm and oak trees near the garage. We have already
incorporated similar measures in our plans to that which Jill suggested to our
neighbor to the north, the Gunther's, on their garage variance two years ago
which has resulted in their oak tree surviving quite well.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter. If you have any questions or comments, I
can be reached at my office, 952/656-4457.
a;z~,
Dave BangaS~
CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY
RESIDENCE FOR:
DA VE BAN GASSER
3633 SOUTH CEDAR
CHANHASEN, MN
~
EI. 951.20 TOP OF CASTING OF SANITARY MANHOLE
ON CEDAR DRIVE SOUTH, 200 FEET WEST OF
INTERSECTION OF CEDAR DRIVE SOUTH &
RED CEDAR POINT
.LEGEND
. DENOTES FOUND IRON MONUMENTS
o DENOTES SET IRON MONUMENTS
DENOTES EXISTING ELEVATION
DENOTES PROPOSED ELEVATION
DENOTES SANITARY MANHOLE
'<' 999.99
1999.991
@
e DENOTES DECIDUOUS TREE
_ DENOTES CONIFEROUS TREE
en.., DENOTES ELECTRIC POWER POLE
MINIMUM SETBACKS
FRONT STREET
REAR YARD
INTERIOR SIDE YARD
HARDCOVER
AREA IMPERVIOUS OF LOT 1
AREA TOTAL OF LOT 1
HARDCOVER OF LOT 1
AREA IMPERVIOUS OF LOT 16
AREA TOTAL OF LOT 16
HARDCOVER OF LOT 16
HARDCOVER OF COMBINED LOTS:
30 FT.
30 FT.
10 FT,
1560 SQ. FT.
7920 SQ. FT.
19.7%
3159 SQ. FT.
7276 SQ. FT.
43.4%
31.0%
NOTE
CD IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO HOLD PUBLIC
PLATED RIGHT OF WAY DUE TO LONG
STANDING EVIDENCE OF MONUMENTATION
* ALL LOT LINE BEARINGS ARE ASSUMED
* CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY PROPOSED ELEVATIONS
* NO SPECIFIC SOIL INVESTIGATION HAS BEEN
COMPLETED ON THIS LOT BY THE SURVEYOR
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Lot 1, Block 5, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE
MINEWASHTA. Carver County, Minnesota
Lot 16, Block 4, RED CEDAR POINT LAKE MINEWASHTA
except the east 10.00 feet of said lot 16 and
the east 10.00 feet of lot 17. Block 4, RED CEDAR
POINT LAKE MINEWASHTA, Carver County. Minnesota
~
I hereby certify that this survey, plan or
report was prepared by me or under my direct
supervision and that I am a duly Licensed Land
Surveyor under the Laws of the State of Minnesota
\J,~J ~".v--t Doted: -Lt 16 \ V b
Vladimir Sivriver
MN Reg. No. 25105
q" - --
~. -
>>--;r\I-~---~~-.~~~:~~ ~T -:AD 7 ~G<Of-ffif.
. '" >>~
!~'" <f' " ;='-->> ~
f
J
2
\(1)
l(]l
_co
ru' 0
9"\~
Wru
o\~
,~
15
5
EXISTING
HOUSE
\ ,~
I ~'2-b/
I PJO<:>;:0:
~' ~~/ ro-'C.
""j!;/
".
~'';7
-/'f'
EAST LINE OF LOT 16
(\ i
"<i:..,J!
,.
,
.
...
~~
"....;
EAST LINE OF L\ 17
OHW=944,50
\-
\
V:tj r"; r ~';: ~ l. g .~,-: ~'11
t t ~_IJ \..;? f' fl'~ fI' l'.w ul
JAI,1 :i ~ 2025
CITY OF CH;.J\;HP.SS[f~
~
SCALE 1"=;50'
f(~
J...
~~
M
Ii'" . .. . .
~:",',~,T.~._- J,-::;': ~..~t.. l"'.f'~
. ":.4 ~""i. GIN L:L 1.... 1 N o[y
6480 Wuyzatu Boulevard. Minneapulis. ~1N 55426-17JO
. PllllHC: (763) 545-2800 Fl:L\: (952) 37'":-7700
(.~ E-mail: infoll'edsnmcom Wel) Sire: Jlttn'/fet'islntLcOrn
1) E S I i~-N----&-----S U R V i~ y rN-i.;
'\
/y
22'-4"
~r
12'-0"
/r
N
~
Oi
~ffi;l;='J
//"0/ ;'/ // ../'/./' "
~ :,,/ 'I;/;~~
~ ,/ / " /. ./ I / i.
i ./...1'''/
:~. /./././///.,J.;'//<~.'.J/;~ ,'~j.f
I ~/ / /' //,.,//' /0;' /i
~/>~',/'/ / ')1
~~0~1'l~011
(~'~~"~ ~~~/
, /// f/ /;// /'t
/1" " /:
. / / ../ / /,.11
~ /~ ~ /. / / J I
/ / / G) /,/ /'l.. ,/11
/ / Q) / / p'//' .!i'
//// Q3 //// /,/~
/ /0co / ,/' // / /1:
% / ./, CD// / ///11
;/ ./ //,1 .,~
/L ___L,_~/__~~,. L-.:..~.
1 / I... J' / ~ / /'1
, / ,,/ /~ /1' ./ /./ i
~/ ,/.- / ;i' / /' ~1" /il
1/ ,,/. ,". {' .t' Jf ./ ! I
/~ // // /1 /. / i/' ./ "/!l'
/ I ./ / //// r/./' //.,./ ! I
I " / . " I' / /" /(:, I
I / .I,;I,,~.. II
/1" //' . ./'. / f/ r'/' ..~jf'
I ./1/-".1. ../ /.,/ / J/ .' ,/ ; I
/ I / //' ;/" J/ .'~' /. If. ,,<'I I
~;/ lii"/"'"
, . 1 .i' p" . ,/ ./ r-' J ,!/ [I
, L' ~. ~. ./t{'" /1"" .t') // i!' ~f/' 1"1'1,
X ---I~ ,.1 ,I / .It ,r / ,;;1
...... .................... ......... .............. ............,......~
aHa .fr,9 JC .0',6
4',fr ,
'r
.t\.
q
Work Bench
f\)
~
~
~
1
I------------------------------~
1
1
1
I
I
I
I
1
I
1
I QHO.8"-.9 x .o-.9~
~/
12'-0"
~ u~a
FLOoR ~L~\o..\
/r
vIew f={toJ..A RED tE:"OA1t 1)(1'lE
VIEW
f~DM
SOUl\-\
tEDAR
-..-- ......~... ".. .
~ :"
.T-' ...~~ttL-.
,- - - - , ", (. ,:.: - 'l
.. ..,_ _-.-.... .... 1~<_ _ --
_ L .- - - .-...... .
- J - - -"',- - -....- "'..... .. -, - -
, - - - - -..! .., -: : ~l _
'- ....... ........ .... -- ---.. - ....
,...-1t' -
---~_...
j..,.;.... --.
.. - ..., --- -
j
_, _ ......"~.,..,,,. -.-.f
~_...~~-
- ..... -. .~ ..........-
_ __ .i......" _
r-
~:
''.
~~
J'.i'lJ. ....; I -""'
i
~ ;
I
---f'
~, ,~.--".
~~~
V \EW
f1<-DM wes,
Subject
Property
South Cedar
Drive
Subject
Property
Red Cedar
Point Road
Stakes Marking
Proposed Structure
Corners
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDA VIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
) ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes that she is and was on
January 26, 2006, the duly qualified and acting Deputy Clerk of the City of Chanhassen,
Minnesota; that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy of the attached notice of Public
Hearing for the Bangasser Variance Request - Planning Case No. 06-04 to the persons
named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to
such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail
with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those
appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by
other appropriate records.
Subscribed and sworn to before me
thi~dayO~' 20~6.
1~ ~~~
'--'"Notary P blic
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Location:
Proposal:
Plannin File:
A Iicant:
Property
Location:
What Happens
at the Meeting:
Questions &
Comments:
Tuesda ,Februar 7,2006 at 7:00 .m.
Cit Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for hard surface coverage and two front-yard setback
Variances for the construction of a three-stall ara e
06-04
Dave Ban asser
3633 South Cedar
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the ro.ect.
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop
by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about
this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e-
mail imetzer@cLchanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit
written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the
department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide
copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will
be available online at http://206.10.76.6/weblink7 the
Thursda rior to the Plannin Commission meetin .
City Review Procedure:
. Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
. Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial.
. Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
· Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
somethin to be included in the re ort, lease contact the Plannin Staff erson named on the notification.
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Location:
Proposal:
Plannin File:
A Iicant:
Property
Location:
What Happens
at the Meeting:
Questions &
Comments:
Tuesda ,Februar 7,2006 at 7:00 .m.
Cit Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Request for hard surface coverage and two front-yard setback
Variances for the construction of a three-stall ara e
06-04
Dave Ban asser
3633 South Cedar
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans on the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses
the ro'ect.
If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop
by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about
this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e-
mail imetzer@cLchanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit
written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the
department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide
copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will
be available online at http://206.10.76.6/weblink7 the
Thursda rior to the Plannin Commission meetin .
City Review Procedure:
. Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations,
Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the
application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
. Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation.
These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of
the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of
the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning
Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the
City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial.
. Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant
waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any
person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its
status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers
are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the
project with any interested person(s).
· Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and
any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have
somethin to be included in the re ort, lease contact the Plannin Staff erson named on the notification.
Lake Minnewashta
SUBJECT SITE
Lake M innewashta
Disclaimer
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This
map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal
offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only.
The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this
map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational,
tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in
the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107.
The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes {)466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and
the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly
waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims
brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of
data provided.
Lake Minnewashta
SUBJECT SITE
Lake M innewashta
Disclaimer
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This
map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal
offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only.
The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this
map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational,
tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in
the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107.
The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes {)466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and
the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly
waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims
brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of
data provided.
CHRIS & KRISTINE WEDES
3716 HICKORY RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9768
ALFRED & CARLOTTA F SMITH
3714 HICKORY RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9768
GREGORY BOHRER
3706 HICKORY RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9768
TRUE VANG
3715 HICKORY RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9769
ROGER L & DOROTHY P DOWNING
7200 JUNIPER
PO BOX 651
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -0651
ELIZABETH J NOVAK
7210 JUNIPER
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9613
STEPHEN M GUNTHER &
HELEN KATZ-GUNTHER
3628 HICKORY RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9766
GARY ALAN PETERSON &
KAREN AUDREY PETERSON
1769 20TH AVE NW
NEW BRIGHTON, MN 55112 -5433
GARY PETERSON
1769 20TH AVE NW
NEW BRIGHTON. MN 55112 -5433
STEVEN P & LAURIE A HANSON
225 CAMPBELL DR
HOPKINS, MN 55343 -9235
ARLENE KAY HERNDON
3750 RED CEDAR POINT RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9675
PAMELA ANN SMITH
3720 RED CEDAR POINT DR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9675
STEVEN E & MARSHA E KEUSEMAN
3622 RED CEDAR POINT RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7720
DEBORAH S LOCKHART &
DIANE LEESON ANDING
3618 RED CEDAR POINT RD
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -7720
EDWIN L & LIVIA SEIM
TRUSTEES OF SEIM FAMILY TRUST
292 CHARLES DR
SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA 93401 -9204
PAMELA A SMITH
3720 RED CEDAR POINT RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9675
JAMES & PATRICIA A MOORE
3630 HICKORY RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9766
LUMIR C PROSHEK
3613 RED CEDAR POINT RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7721
JEAN D LARSON
3609 RED CEDAR POINT RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7721
DOUGLAS B & JAMIE ANDERSON
3607 RED CEDAR POINT RD
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -7721
JOHN R MARX &
HEIDI A RIGELMAN
3755 RED CEDAR POINT RD
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -9676
GREGORY G & JOAN S DATTILO
7201 JUNIPER
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9614
SUSAN A & JOHN R BELL
PETER WOOD & LYNN M HAWLEY
4224 LINDEN HILLS BLVD
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55410 -1606
CHARLES F & VICKI LANDING
6601 MINNEWASHTA PKY
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9657
MARY JO ANDING BANGASSER
8321 VIEW LN
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 -1430
KEVIN A & LISA A MONTY
3629 RED CEDAR POINT RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7721
BIRUTA M DUNDURS
3627 RED CEDAR POINT RD
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7721
PETER J & KARRI J PLUCINAK
3631 SOUTH CEDAR
EXCELSIOR. MN 55331 -9686
EMIL & PATRICIA SOUBA
14025 VALE CT
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55344 -3017
THOMAS C & JACQUELINE JOHNSON
3637 SOUTH CEDAR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9686
RICHARD B & MARIANNE F ANDING
3715 SOUTH CEDAR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9688
GREGORY P ROBERTSON &
LESLIE M ROBERTSON
3701 SOUTH CEDAR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9688
GREGORY & JOAN DATTILO
7201 JUNIPER AVE
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9614
JEFFREY L & MICHELLE A JOHNSON
3705 SOUTH CEDAR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9688
TAB B & KAY M ERICKSON
3720 SOUTH CEDAR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9687
JILL D HEMPEL
3707 SOUTH CEDAR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9688
AARON J & ADRIENNE F THOMPSON
3711 SOUTH CEDAR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9688
MARIANNE I & RICHARD BANDING
TRUSTEES OF TRUST
3715 SOUTH CEDAR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9688
DOUGLAS J & CAROLYN A BARINSKY
3719 SOUTH CEDAR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -9688
Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet)
Bangasser Variance Request
Planning Case No. 06-04
3633 South Cedar
City of Chanhassen
Lake Minnewashta
SUBJECT SITE
Lake Minnewashta