The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-34_KOENIG, MIKE & CINDYThomas J. Campbell Roger N. Knutson Thomas M. Scott Elliott B. Knetsch Joel J. Jamnik Andrea McDowell Poehler Matthew K. Brokl' John F. Kelly Soren M. Mattick Henry A. Schaeffer, III Alina Schwartz Craig R. McDowell Marguerite M. McCarron Gina M. Brandt ' Also Licensed in W-momin 1380 Corporate Center Curve Suite 317 • Eagan, MN 55121 651-452-5000 Fax 651-452-5550 www.ck-law.com • CAMPBELL KNUTSO11TiECEiVED Professional Association Direct Did. (651)134-6222 E-mailAddress: snelson@ck-law.com April 13, 2006 Ms. Kim Meuwissen City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 APR 14 2006 CRY OF CHANHA88EN RE: CIIANHASSEN —MISC. RECORDED DOCUMENTS ➢ Variance #05-34 — Koenig/Tennessen/Cella (Lot 3, Block 3, Chanhasen Estates) Dear Kim: Enclosed for the City's files please original recorded Variance #05-34 which was filed with Carver County on March 28, 2006 as Abstract Document No. A437689. SRN:ms Enclosure Regards, CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Associatiioon� BY: . �/// ,Y, +. S an R. Nelson, Leg Assistant SCANNED Document No. OFFICE OF THE A 4 3 7 6 8 9 COUNTY RECORDER CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA Fee: $ 46.00 Check#. 15521 Certified Recorded on 03-28-2006 at 01:30 ❑ A 437689 111111111111111111111111 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 05-34 Carl W. 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The City Council approves Variance #05-34 for a 4.06% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four -season porch on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Lot 3, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Building permits, plans and necessary inspections for the additions shall be required in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Property owners shall vacate existing drainage & utility easements and shall dedicate new drainage & utility easements adjacent to new property lines. 3. Variance #05-34 shall not be recorded until after the two administrative subdivisions conveying property to Lot 3, Block 3 Chanhassen Estates have been recorded with Carver County. 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. t, Dated: November 14, 2005. V 1 PM Jr. (SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) n LJ CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY. Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor AND: 4-A odd Gerhardt, City Manager }1 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I9 day of "(P m r _ 2005 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. .,.,, KIM T. MEUWISSE >z Notary Public -Minnesota Z i,w. My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2010 DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 g:\4)lan\2005 planning cores\05-34 koenig variancekecording documentdac In feet 40 60 — 5— � 5 M 1 0/ LOT 1 2 1 PARCEL A NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 2 — — p \�G FENc£ o o x 6 11 N89'48'18"W I °i NORTHWEST coRNER o 7 94.00 — 5 _ EXISITING LOT LINE ---�� BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3 f� N 6OD DECKS /(NO CONCRETF BELOW) L=82.1 aW L074 13.31 5 47.00 5 s — DRAINAGE AND UTILITY EASEMENT a 1 I S I5 I PARCEL 8 1 5 I I LOT I / / 3 U) o / 1 EXISITING LOT LINE --- BETWEEN LOTS 3 AND 4 I co i . BIT/ i BIT DRIVEWAY / C RNER OF LOT 2 \ 5 s d=11'05'49` �— I R`424.30 cyE yEyyE INV BIT DRIVEWAY t,— 1.\ 1+ Boos ciEn,-I II 1 STORY NE AME 71WL 7160� '63, 98 00RAFq�'wFST 15 5 sa, I J:20, r00 o��o R�42� 0•�8 / 229.99 88.92 IJc1 ■ :.. LOT 0' 9327 BIT DRIVEWAY 5 15 I H G L) x CL Co ,I* CU ro 0 0 Cil ro .-r CD 3 H J 0_ N 0 _i I It DO 0 I Cu CD rn 3 OD 0 I CU CD CD CD (U to U N 0 L CL C C$ J L: Scale in feet 0 20 40 60 LEGEND o SET MONUMENT 0 FOUND MONUMENT x 937.5 SPOT ELEVATIONS GFE GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION ❑ CATCH BASIN G STORM MANHOLE m MAILBOX El TELEPHONE BOX o FENCELINE —>—SANITARY SEWER >% STORM SEWER NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOT 2 — — a o a X 6 A2 N89'48e18"W I p1. NORTHWEST CORNER 07 OF LOT 4 — — r; 5 94.00 5 9th M 5 ' EXISITING LOT UNE ---�� I BETWEEN LOTS 2 AND 3 a1 LOT CV I1 2 , PARCEL A II II 13.31 5 47.00 5 5 — DRAINAGE AND — — UTILITY EASEMENT 0 PARCEL B 15I �I r\ / LOT 3 I a 1-z.o w 0 EXISITING LOT LINE --- BETWEEN LOTS 3 AND 4 I I LA 13` i '16.0 rn FOOD DECKS a Llo / / o 100 /(NO CONCRETE BELOW) 15,g / N • : e� ;'• ON! 14.3 to �'a' M 12.0 / 0 11.0 L=82.1 #8003 BIT DRIVEWAY CORN R OF (Ory d=-11 60549. R,424.30 158/ 5 CyE yENNE � RIM 929.37 INV 920.47 NOTES: 1 BIT DRIVEWAY \ 8008CHEYEN1 II T ST°RY�AME�aL U) III I I - 26.3,' _ 9 — � l II II M I i II °° v 1 I soy I I 9B, OORAfR�ST 15 5 <v OF (0T 00a • h ai PARCEL A AREA = 11,208 SQ. FT. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA - 2,856 SQ. FT. OR 25.8% OF PARCEL A PARCEL B AREA - 12,803 SQ. FT. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA - 4,017 SQ. FT. OR 31.4% OF PARCEL B IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MINUS ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY an 3,656 SQ. FT. OR 28.6 96 OF PARCEL B PARCEL C AREA = 11,435 SQ. FT. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA - 2,299 SQ. FT. OR 20.196 OF PARCEL C CITY OF RECEIVED SSEN OCT 1 3 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT LOT DIVISNON DESCRIPTION: PARCEL A That part of Lot 2, Block 3, CHANHASSEN ESTATES, according to the recorded plat thereof, lying westerly of the following described line: Beginning at the southeast comer of said Lot 2; thence Northeasterly 145.27 feet to a point on the north line of said Lot 2, 13.31 feet west of the northeast corner of said Lot 2 and there said line terminating. PARCEL B 229.99 86.92 5 Lot 3, Block 3, CHANHASSEN ESTATES, according to the recorded plat there of. Together with that part of Lot 2, Block 3, CHANHASSEN ESTATES, according to the recorded plat thereof, lying easterly of the following described line: 1 5 Beginning at the southeast comer of said Lot 2; thence Northeasterly 145.27 feet to a point on the north line of said Lot 2, 13.31 feet west of the northeast corner of said Lot 2 and there said PARCEL C I line terminating. LOT I And also together with that part of Lot 4, Block 3, CHANHASSEN ESTATES, according to the recorded plat thereof, lying westerly of the following described line: 4 I Beginning at a point on the north line of said Lot 4, 6.42 feet easterly from the northwest comer of said Lot 4, thence 178.37 feet to a point on the south line of said Lot 4, 0.78 feet southeasterly of the southwest comer of sold Lot 4 and there terminating. ',-/17777/—= I PARCEL C #8007 I That part of Lot 4, Block 3, CHANHASSEN ESTATES, according to the recorded plat thereof, lying easterly of the following described line: i 9GFE I Beginning at a point on the north line of said Lot 4, 6.42 feet easterly from the northwest comer of said Lot 4, thence 178.37 feet to a point on the south line of said Lot 4, 0.78 feet 11114 southeasterly of the southwest comer of said Lot 4 and there terminating. BIT DRIVEWAY 15 I I hereby certify that this survey woo prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly registered land surveyor under Minnesota StatutesS 326.02 t17�"````��6.� _ Reg. No(0 2111 Date: l(2 /3 ) LOT DIVISION SURVEY LOT 2, 31 41 BLOCK 3 CHANHASSEN ESTATES —' Engineers • Surveyors rLandscape Architects ANN '7510 Market Plod Drive Eden Prairie, MN 55344-3444 (952) 4320-0700 FAX (952) 829-7806 Hansen Thorp Peilinen Olson Inc. Proleat No. 02-084 Dram by JOB Chooked by DDT Boak/Paoe Dab Orient i CITY OF CHANHA•EN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110 TO: Campbell Knutson, PA 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter 0 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL 12/19/05 Sue Nelson Document ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Pay Request ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 11/14/05 05-18 CASE Variance 05-18 (Kakacek) 1 11/14/05 05-33 CASE Site Plan Amendment (Spalon Montage Signage) 1 11/14/05 05-34 CASE Variance 05-34 (Koenig) 1 12/10/05 05-13 SUB Corrective Quit Claim Deed (Gildner to Koenig) THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FOR BIDS DUE REMARKS COPY TO: Josh Metzer, Planner I ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return ® For Recording ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints '�k -NJ - - SIGNED: )k im Meuwisse (952) 227-1107 If enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. SCANNED 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 05-34 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The City Council approves Variance #05-34 for a 4.06% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four -season porch on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). 2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: Lot 3, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. Building permits, plans and necessary inspections for the additions shall be required in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Property owners shall vacate existing drainage & utility easements and shall dedicate new drainage & utility easements adjacent to new property lines. 3. Variance #05-34 shall not be recorded until after the two administrative subdivisions conveying property to Lot 3, Block 3 Chanhassen Estates have been recorded with Carver County. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: November 14, 2005. w I • 0 (SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA ) ( ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Late^ Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor AND: 4✓/—I odd Gerhardt, City Manager }h The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this I f day of L)e r,om%¢r 2005 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. KIM T. MFUWISSEN Notary Publio-M(nn�ota My CanmLsslm E'Oe Jan 31, 2010 10MV.10001 �•a City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 g:NpImX2005 planing cases\05-34 kuenig v =ceV=r ing docu Ldm 2 U - NOTARY PUALIC- CITY OF CHANHAS41EN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110 TO: Campbell Knutson, PA 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter 0 LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL DATE JOB NO. 12/19/05 ATTENTION Sue Nelson RE: Document Recording ® Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Pay Request ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 11/14/05 05-18 CASE Variance 05-18 (Kakacek) 1 11/14/05 05-33 CASE Site Plan Amendment (Spalon Montage Signage) 1 11/14/05 05-34 CASE Variance 05-34 (Koenig) 1 12/10/05 05-13 SUB Corrective Quit Claim Deed (Gildner to Koenig) ❑ FORBIDS DUE ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Resubmit ❑ For your use ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Submit ❑ As requested ❑ Returned for corrections ❑ Return ❑ For review and comment ® For Recording ❑ FORBIDS DUE ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US REMARKS COPY TO: Josh Metzer, Planner I copies for approval copies for distribution corrected prints SIGNED: Cim Meuwisse (952) 227-1107 N enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. SCANNED (Reserved for Recording Data) CORRECTIVE QUIT CLAIM DEED State Deed Tax Due Hereon: $1.65 Dated:.1 -r Abe f 10 2005. THE PURPOSE OF THIS INSTRUMENT IS TO CORRECT THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION IN THAT CERTAIN QUIT CLAIM DEED DATED NOVEMBER 10, 2005, AND FILED NOVEMBER 18, 20059 AS DOCUMENT NO. A429292 IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA. FOR VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, JAMES R. GILDNER and JANICE M. GILDNER, husband and wife, Grantors, hereby convey and quitclaim to MICHAEL A. KOENIG and CYNTHIA K. KOENIG, husband and wife, Grantees, real property in Carver County, Minnesota, described as follows: That part of Lot 2, Block 3, CHANHASSEN ESTATES, according to the recorded plat thereof, lying easterly of the following described line: Beginning at the southeast corner of said Lot 2; thence Northeasterly 145.27 feet to a point on the north line of said Lot 2, 13.31 feet west of the northeast comer of said Lot 2 and there said line terminating. together with all hereditaments and appurtenances belonging thereto. The Seller certifies that the Seller does not know of any wells on the above described real property. 122334v01 1 (Abstract Property) SRN: 12/09/05 • The total consideration for this transfer is less than $500.00. GM4,U4 JAN(3ILDNER STATE OFOTA ) (ss. COUNTY OF ) ;7 The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 462— day ofyL- _� 2005 by James R. Gildner and Janice M. Gildner, husband and wife, the above-named Grantors. No a- Public THIS INSTRUMENT WAS DRAFTED BY: CAMPBELL KNUTSON, P.A. Attorneys at Law 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Telephone: (651) 452-5000 SRN:ms 122334v01 SRN:12/09/05 .� SARA W.HALVERSON 1' Notary Public Minnesota Aly I.OnHimw EPires,I "31, 2010 Tax Statements for the real, property described in this instrument should be sent to: Michael and Cynthia Koenig 8005 Cheyenne Ave. Chanhassen, MN 55317 2 (Abstract Property) City Clerk's Certification Pursuant to M.S. 272.162 The undersigned hereby certifies: (Check one of the following) That Qty subdivision regulations do not apply to this instrument. That the subdivision of land affected by this instrument has been approved by the governing body of the Qty of Chanhassen. That municipal restrictions on the filing and recording of this instrument have been waived by a resolution of the governing body of the City of Chanhassen. That this instrument does not comply with municipal subdivision restrictions and the affected land and its assessed valuation should not be divided by the County Auditor. 0 0 December 16, 2005 CITY OF Mike & Cindy Koenig CIIANgASSEN P.O. Box 906 Mena, Arkansas 71953 7700 Market Boulevard PC Boz 147 Re: Variance, 8005 Cheyenne Avenue — Planning Case #05-34 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Dear Mr. & Mrs. Koenig: Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 This letter is to formally notify you that on November 14, 2005, the Chanhassen Building Inspections City Council approved the following motion: Phone: 952.227.11 80 Fax: 952.227.1190 'The City Council approves Variance #05-34 for a 4.06% hard surface coverage Engineering variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage Phone: 952.227.1160 addition and a four -season porch on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) Fax: 952.2271170 with the following conditions: Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 1. Building permits, plans and necessary inspections for the additions shall be Fax: 952.227.1110 required in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code. Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 2. Property owners shall vacate existing drainage & utility easements and shall Fax: 952.227.1110 dedicate new drainage & utility easements adjacent to new property lines. Recreation Center 2310 Coulter 52.22711400 Phone: 952.221.1400 3. Variance #05-34 shall not be recorded until after the two administrative Fax: 952.2271404 subdivisions conveying property to Lot 3, Block 3 Chanhassen Estates have been recorded with Carver County." Planning 8 Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-227-1132 or by email at Fax: 952.227.1110 imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. Public Works 1591 Park Road Sincerely, Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 / Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 7 Metzer Fax: 952.227.1110 T Web Site wnci.chanlasser.mn.us c: Current homeowner, 8005 Cheyenne Avenue g:xplanx2005 planning casesx05-34 koenig varimn \letter of approval.doc flQANNEp The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. CITY OF CBMSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952 227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227 1125 Fax: 952 227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.mn.us • MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Josh Metzer, Planner I DATE: November 14, 2005 SUBJ: MIKE & CINDY KOENIG: Request for a Hard Surface Coverage Variance for a Garage and a Four -Season Porch, 8005 Cheyenne Avenue — Planning Case #05-34 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item is being appealed to City Council by the applicant. This is a request for a 4.06% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction on property located in the Single Family Residential District at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 1, 2005, to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 1 to deny the request. That decision is being appealed by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommends adoption of the motion as specified on pages 7 & 8 of the staff report dated November 1, 2005. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 1, 2005. 2. Planning Commission Minutes dated November 1, 2005. g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-34 koenig varianc6ezecutive summary.cim The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DAO: November 1, 2005 CC DATE: November 14, 2005 REVIEW DEADLINE: November 29, 2005 CASE #: 05-34 BY: JM PROPOSAL: Request for 6-.0 4.06% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four -season porch on property located in the Single Family Residential District (RSF) at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue. These structures have already been built. LOCATION: Lot 3, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 APPLICANT: Mike & Cindy Koenig 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.29 acre (12,803 square feet) DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 6A8 4.06% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four -season porch. The garage addition and four -season porch have already been built. 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. w Koenig Variance Planning Case #05-34 November 1, 2005 Page 2 n U SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The subject property is located south of Highway 5 and east of Dakota Avenue at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue and is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The applicant is requesting a 6M 4.06% (which represents 875 520.25 square feet of site coverage) hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition (20'x16') and a four -season porch (13.2'x14.3'). This brings the hard surface coverage to 4-,08-2 3,721 square feet which is 31-88 29.06%. These structures have already been built. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 7-19. Plans and specifications. Impervious surface means any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm water. It shall include, but not be limited to, gravel driveways, parking area, buildings and structures. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 ep rcent. 0 • Koenig Variance Planning Case #05-34 November 1, 2005 Page 3 BACKGROUND The subject property was platted as part of Chanhassen Estates which was recorded on August 3, 1966. The house was built in 1969. The subject property is located in the Single Family Residential (RSF) district and has an area of 12,803 square feet. In the RSF district 25% is the maximum permitted impervious surface coverage for a lot. The applicant has a hard cover of 31 88 29.04%. The issue at hand came to the attention of the City when inquiry was made regarding permitting of the subject additions. It was discovered that a four -season porch was constructed in 1997 and a garage addition was constructed in 2002. Both of these structures were built without building permits from the City. Subsequently, the applicant applied for after -the -fact building permits for the garage addition and porch. An as -built survey was submitted with the permits. This survey revealed the garage addition and four -season porch both had nonconforming side yard setbacks. It also appeared the lot could be over on the maximum hard cover percentage. A revised survey showed that the existing hard surface coverage is 36.12%. At this point the applicant was informed that the property would have to be brought into compliance with City Code or a variance would need to be applied for. Garage Addition Four -season Porch Addition On the survey dated September 29, 2005, it is clear that the applicants' fence lies outside of their property lines. It is not clear why the fence was located so far out of place with the property lines. The fence was installed by Montgomery Ward in 1980. After meeting with staff to discuss the issues surrounding the nonconformities, the applicant decided to purchase land from their neighbors to the east at 8007 Cheyenne Avenue and to the west at 8003 Cheyenne Avenue and have also removed a portion of their driveway in order to eliminate the two nonconforming side yard setbacks, reduce the property's hard surface coverage percentage and bring the side yard fences onto their property. Both neighbors have submitted their written agreement to sell a portion of their property to the applicant. Koenig Variance Planning Case #05-34 November 1, 2005 Page 4 ANALYSIS Through two administrative subdivisions currently being processed, the applicant is acquiring a total of 1,568 square feet of land from neighboring properties to increase their lot area from 11,235 square feet to 12,803 square feet. 361 square feet of driveway has been removed as well. As a result, their hard surface coverage percentage has been reduced from 36.12% to 31.88 29.06%. The applicant would have to remove an additional 881-;5 520.25 square feet of hard surface coverage in order to bring the hard cover to 25%. No 1. A 6` All 0 Koenig Variance Planning Case #05-34 November 414, 2005 Page 6 a Lot 2 (8007 Cheyenne Avenue), located to the west of the subject property, is at 11,208 square feet in area and currently has a nonconforming hard cover percentage of 25.8% as a result of conveying land to the applicant as part of the administrative subdivision. However, the property owners of Lot 2 have proposed in writing to remove the portion of the driveway that wraps around the side of the garage. In fact, removal of this portion of the driveway has already begun. The area is quite flat with a storm sewer at the front of the lot that extends east within Cheyenne Avenue, then to the northeast within Cheyenne Spur, and connects to the storm sewer within the ravine to the west of the development, which outlets to Rice Marsh Lake. This area of the City was developed before water quality and quantity ponding requirements were established, therefore a pond was not constructed to pretreat this water before entering Rice Marsh Lake. During the September 4, 2005 storm, a property within Cheyenne Spur sustained water damage after the storm sewer system surcharged and water entered the garage. Although the rainfall intensity during the September 4th storm was significantly higher than the storm sewer systems are designed to handle, staff recommends denial of the hard surface cover variance in order to minimize/eliminate storm -related flooding to the maximum extent possible. The subject property is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The minimum lot size in the RSF is 15,000 square feet. Therefore, the subject property has a nonconforming lot area of 12,803 square feet. With a total hard surface coverage of 4,N2 3,721 square feet, the property exceeds is just below the maximum hard cover that would be allowed on a lot with an area of 15,000 square feet (3,750 = 25%). While the applicant has expended money for the improvements, such expenditure does not justify the granting of a variance. 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. Reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. Reasonable use of this property, a single-family home with a two - car garage, already exists but is exceeding City hard cover restrictions. The applicant would have to remove an additional °P� 520.25 square feet of hard surface coverage in order to bring the hard cover to 25%. Any use of the property beyond that discussed above is strictly ancillary to the principal use. Based on these facts, 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: 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 0 Koenig Variance Planning Case #05-34 November 414, 2005 Page 7 1-1 that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. By having a single-family home and a two -car garage the property owner has reasonable use of the property. 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 improvements increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Construction of the garage addition and porch were completed without building permits; therefore, this is a self-created hardship. Had building permits been sought, the hard surface issue would have been addressed. 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 may 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 increase in runoff from this property. 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 variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. RECOMMENDATION &a€€ Planning Commission recommends that the Plaming CowAniss City Council adopt the following motion: "The PlaapAng Ceaunis City Council denies Variance #05-34 for a 6M 4.06% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four -season porch on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) based upon the findings in the staff report and the following: Koenig Variance Planning Case #05-34 November 414, 2005 Page 8 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. The 1lapAtingEernrHissien City Council orders the property owner to: 1. Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements." Should the Plmailw Geffullis City Council choose to approve this request, staff recommends the adoption of the following motion: "The Planamig Commi City Council approves Variance #05-34 for a 6:58 4.06% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four -season porch on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions: 1. Building permits, plans and necessary inspections for the additions shall be required in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Property owners shall vacate existing drainage & utility easements and shall dedicate new drainage & utility easements adjacent to new property lines. 3. Variance #05-34 shall not be recorded until after the two administrative subdivisions conveying property to Lot 3, Block 3 Chanhassen Estates have been recorded with Carver County." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter from Mike & Cindy Koenig stamped "Received September 29, 2005". 4. Letter from Jim & Jan Gildner stamped "Received October 17, 2005". 5. Letter from Pat Dolan stamped "Received October 24, 2005'. 6. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List. 7. As -built Survey of Lot 3, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates stamped "Received September 29, 2005'. 8. As -Built Survey of Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates stamped "Received October 13, 2005'. gAplan\2005 planning cases\05-34 koenig varianc6staff repon.doc 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Mike & Cindy Koenig for 6.88% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four - season porch — Planning Case No. 05-34. On November 1, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Mike & Cindy Koenig for 6.88% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four -season porch on property located in the Single Family Residential District at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue. 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 3, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates. 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 would not cause 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. 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 0 a of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood 5. The planning report #05-34 Variance dated November 1, 2005, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Planning Commission denies the Variances from the impervious surface restrictions for garage addition and four -season porch. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this ls` day of November, 2005. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION WA 9:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-34 koenig varianceV"indings of faadoc 2 Its Chairman PLEASE PRINT CITY AHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Planning Case No. 07 -3 Ap licant Nfr me an Address: Owner Name and Address: t a L 'i r! e t6 iu/Q Contact: zob Contact: Phone: - 11 Fax: Phone: Fax: Email• c ,_,Lr•Co Email: .c In IgA Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review' Subdivision' Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements X, Variance Wetland Alteration Permit ' Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign" - $75 + $100 Damage Deposit X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"' - $50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE 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. Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 6'/z" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format. " Applicant to obtain notification sign fror� City of Chanhassen Public Works at 1591 Park Road and install upon submittal of completed application. $100 damage deposit to be refunded to applicant when sign is returned following City Council approval. 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. se"NED PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: LEGAL DES' ry✓iQ.�tGo TOTALACREAGE: D 09 WETLANDS PRESENT: YES y NO PRESENT ZONING: -9 ` c l REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: \u REASON FOR REQUEST: it 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. MOW k- Ny�y�/e Si ature of Applicant Date Signature of Fee Owner Date 16:N0arAf0 ms\Development Review Applioation.DDC Rev. 4105 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN September 29, 2005 RECEIVED SFP 2 9 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Dear Members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission: First, I want to thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. My name is Cindy Koenig. I live at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue and have been a resident at that address for 141/2 years. I sit before you this evening to ask for relief from Chanhassen City Code hard surface coverage restrictions. Our home was built in 1969. When we moved into our home in May of 1991 we did not have a survey done on the property. At that time there was a fence enclosing our back yard which the previous owner, Wm. R. Johnson, had installed by Montgomery Ward on May 3, 1980. I have the original plan for the fence installation if you would like to see it. When we bought the house from the Swatfager's they assured us things were in order and we trusted that. Back in 1991 no one we knew had a survey for their property and rarely a home inspection. In 1997 we discovered that the original deck was rotting so my husband removed it believing that if we placed a structure of the same size in the same place that would be fine. My husband decided to replace the deck with a porch at that time. No permit was obtained. No other remodeling was done until the spring of 2002when we replaced the old roof. In the fall of 2002 my husband decided to add on to our garage, taking several plans to the City of Chanhassen Planning and Engineering Departments. Addition to the garage was OK'd by an unknown young man with blonde hair. He also assured my husband that the side yard setback was 5 feet and as long as we stayed behind that it was OK. At that time we had a survey completed and found out the fence lines were somehow incorrect. The survey crew said that because a new road had been constructed it was difficult to determine where the monuments were located. We took the survey in to the same unknown young man at the City and he told us the addition was fine as long as it was setback 5 feet from the property line. MPS Foundation poured the footings and built the foundation without obtaining permits. They told my husband that because it was late fall they would have to hurry and get the foundation in, otherwise they would have to wait until spring. They assured him that if he took pictures of the footings it would OK to get permits later. He agreed but then became busy and forgot to get the permits. I am most certainly not trying to make excuses; this is just how things happened. The years went by and the need for permits was forgotten. We love our home and planned to stay here forever but as a result of a job changed we have to move out of state to Arkansas. When we put our house up for sale it sold in four days. We planned to close on the sale of our home in Chanhassen on October 2151 and close on the purchase of our new home in Arkansas on October 24`s. My husband is already working in Arkansas and has been there since September 12'h. 0 0 The buyers of our home in Chanhassen wanted to see permits for the additions. We told them we did not pull permits for the additions but we would do that now to make things right and pay whatever fines we needed to. We also apologized to them for going about this all wrong. Everything else went fine until I brought in the information to get the permits at which time I was told the additions did not meet the 10 foot side yard setbacks and that our hard cover was over the maximum allowed. I was completely shocked and so was my husband when I called him. Had we known about the ten foot setback we would have never gone ahead with the garage addition and we would have tried to resolve the porch issue. We were told that a 5 foot setback was OK. We want to make this right with the City of Chanhassen. We apologize to the Planning Commission and the City of Chanhassen. We have learned a great lesson and we are sharing this information with all of our neighbors and friends. We respectively ask that a variance be granted giving us relief from the hard surface coverage restrictions. We appreciate your time and consideration on this matter. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Mike & Cindy Koenig 0 0 Jim & Jan Gildner 8003 Cheyenne Avenue jrgildner@msn.com Chanhassen, MN 55317 952.937.1286 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OCT 1 7 2005 October 16, 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT City of Chanhassen 770 Market Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 To whom it may concern: We have a verbal agreement to sell a portion of our property to our neighbors, Mike and Cindy Koenig at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue. Previous owners incorrectly placed fences encroaching on our property. We were unaware of this until a recent survey was completed. We also understand that after we sell a portion of our lot to the Koenigs we may be slightly exceeding our limit of hard surface area in relation to our total lot size. Our plans are to eliminate a cement pad on the west side of our garage. We had intended to remove it before we learned of the incorrectly placed fence line. At this time we will accelerate our plans and remove the cement slab by November 30, 2005. We understand that this will bring our hard surface area in compliance with the city ordinance. ere Jim Jim & Jan Gildner r October 21, 2005 Mike and Cindy Koenig 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mike and Cindy: CITU OFRECEIVEDCHANHASSEN OCT 2 4 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT This letter indicates our verbal agreement to sell a portion of my property located at 8007 Cheyenne Avenue, Chanhassen, MN 55317. The previous owners incorrectly placed fences encroaching on my property. We were unaware of this until recent surveys were completed. Sincewl , �/Pat Dolan 8007 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 0 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE STATE OF MINNESOTA) ) ss. COUNTY OF CARVER ) I, Karen J. Engelhardt, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on October 20, 2005, the duly qualified and aco:iig 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 Variance on property located at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue — Planning Case No. 05-34 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 swom to before me thisaQ± day of CcA<jbpr , 2005. AM Notary P JWNotL"iKM T. MEUWMEN 'ary Public -Minnesota ComM.k Expires Jen 31, 2010 SCANNED Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, November 1, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for hard surface coverage Variance for garage and Proposal: porch additions. Planning File: 05-34 KOENIG VARIANCE Applicant: Mike & Cindy Koenig Property 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Location: I 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 What Happens public hearing through the following steps: What Happens + at the Meeting: 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 project. 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 Questlons & this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e - Questions & mail imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: 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 City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alteratio• Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. 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 commerciailindustrlal. • 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 spokespereonlrepresentatIve 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(a). • 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 something to be included In the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, November 1, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for hard surface coverage Variance for garage and Proposal: porch additions. Plannin File: 05-34 KOENIG VARIANCE Applicant Mike & Cindv Koenig Property 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Location: 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 What Happens public hearing through the following steps: • at the Meeting: 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 project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by Citjr 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- Questlons & mail imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: 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:1/206.10.76.6/weblink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. City Review Procedure: • Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Welland Alteratio• 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 spokespersorvrepresentative 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 something to be Included In thereortlease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. Disclaimer This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to Oe used as one. This rrep is a mni dation of r rds, inlonnation and data located in vanous city, county, state and federal offices and other soumes regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes ody. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Intonation System(GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, ant the City does not represent that the GIS Data cad be used for navigational, tracking or any other Wrpose requiring exacting measurement of dnt€ istaor direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. M mors or discrepancies are found pease mntad g62-227-1107. The preceding dsclalmer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000). and the user of this map acknowledges that Ore City shall W be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indennity, and hold hanniess the Gly from any and all dairrs brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the users access or use of data provided. Disclaimer This nW is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used w one. Tris nap is a cmpilation of rsmrds, infornmon and dela bcalad in variola city. County, stale and ledeml offices and other soumes regarding Me area shown, and is to be used fa reference poroses only. The City does not warrant that Me Geographic Infomation System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map era error Iree, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational. tracking or any other purpose requ ing ex rig measurement of distance or direNon or precision in me depiCCon Of geographic features. n mars or discrepancies are farad pease coned 952-227-1107. The precedhg disdaimer rs pnwided pursuant to Minnesota Stables §966.03, S.W. 21 (2000), and Me user a this map arkno r1wlgss that the City shall not be Gable far any darni and expressly waives all dalrrs, and agrees to defend, indemnity, and hold ham,ess the City from any and all darns brought by User, its enpbyees or agents, or third parties which arise out d the users access or use of data provided. 41 "NAME1» «NAME2» ADD1 "ADD2)) "CITY)) «STATE» « ZIP» «Next Record»"NAME7» «NAME2» "ADD1 "ADD2)) "CITY,) "STATE» «ZIP)) 0 ., L -.A Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Koenig Variance Request Planning Case No. 05-34 8005 Cheyenne Avenue City of Chanhassen 8rh street <S�ate Hwy No. 5 0 D �5` Subject Site LF Lake Drive East �ct`e Che en �e m 0 e`J m ota SP < Cir m u��n Oakota �e KAHNKE BROS INC MCDONALD'S CORP (22-157) COOK PROPERTIES-CHANHASSEN LLC 1400 ARBORETUM DR COO LY ROPE AVE S PO BOX 66207 PO BOX 7 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55420 - CHI VICTORIA, MN 55366 -0007 CHICAGO, AMF IL 60666 - I C JOHN LLC DYS PROPERTIES JACK D CHRISTENSON 7920 SOUTH BAY CRV 4711 SHADY OAK RD 15411 VILLAGE WOODS DR EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 -1119 HOPKINS . MN 55343 -8840 EDEN PRAIRIE. MN 55347 -1438 TERRANCE SR & SANDRA THOMPSON RICK & CATHY CHEESEMAN DANIEL A & KRIS L CITARELLA 3820 LINDEN CIR 18500 WYNNFIELb RD 8008 ERIE AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7727 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 -1039 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9752 THOMAS R & NATALIE J TWINING LOREN R JOHNSON & PATRICIA M DOLAN 8009 CHEYENNE AVE MARY KAY KINNEY - 8007 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9720 8011 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9720 MICHAEL A & CYNTHIA K KOENIG JAMES R & JANICE GILDNER THOMAS M & KRISTIE A KOTSONAS 8005 CHEYENNE AVE 8003 CHEYENNE AVE 8001 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9720 ANNE T THOMPSON CLAYTON & MARGARET SODETANI THOMAS J & SANDRA M KOEPPEN 8000 DAKOTA AVE 8005 ERIE AVE 8009 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9636 CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9301 CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9301 MICHAEL DS & TERRY J & MARGARET A LEWIS ANDREA LYNNE FANNEMEL JULIE A ONDERVDERUP 8013 CHEYENNE AVE 8003 DAKOTA AVE 8002 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9636 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9637 WILLIAM J & EARLA KRAUS RALPH WAYNE LYTLE MICHAEL D & SARAH J PETERSEN 8008 CHEYENNE AVE 8021 ERIE AVE 8010 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9767 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9301 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9767 GERALD H & MARILYN M WASSINK GLENN A & BONNIE LEE HAGEMAN RUSSELL L & VIRGINIA HAMILTON 8004 DAKOTA AVE 8021 CHEYENNE SPUR 8019 CHEYENNE SPUR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9636 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9607 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9607 MARILYN MARGARET STEWART STEVEN & ESTA KATKIN DANIEL P & LINDA M ROBINSON 8015 CHEYENNE AVE 8012 CHEYENNE AVE 8014 CHEYENNE -AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9767 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9767 ROBERT A & DAWN T LUND JOHN O & DONNA M SOLBERG PATRICIA A HEGSTROM 8023 ERIE AVE 8006 DAKOTA AVE 8005 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9301 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9636 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9637 GAYLON R & LINDA O RUST LEE & PATRICIA JENSEN VALBORG A SWEDBERG 8017 CHEYENNE SPUR8009 DAKOTA CIR TRUSTEE OF TRUST CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9607 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9757 CHA CHEYENNE AVE HANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9767 ALLAN J & KATHIE J NELSON WALTER & KATHLEEN SCHOLLMAN RAYMOND & KATHERINE KNIGHT 8025 ERIE AVE 8011 DAKOTA CIR 8077 DAKOTA CIR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9301 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9757 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9757 ANTHONY E & LISA M BACHMAN ROBERT W & KATHY A TOENJES PATRICIA E HIRSCHBERG 8008 DAKOTA AVE 8018 CHEYENNE AVE 8023 CHEYENNE SPUR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9636 CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9767 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9607 SUZANNE M SHEPPARD ALOIS J & MARY C STUMPFL CRAIG T & KATHRYN M HUMASON 8010 DAKOTA AVE 8027 CHEYENNE AVE 8025 CHEYENNE SPUR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9636 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9607 RAYMOND S & MARY ANN JEZIERSKI DOUGLAS W & KATHLEEN M BAGLEY PAUL D & LOUISE J O'DELL 8013 DAKOTA CIR 8020 CHEYENNE AVE 8012 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9757 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9767 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9636 CHARLES H ANGELO III & RONALD D & LINDA L OLSON STEPHEN K & VICKI C TABOREK RANDY LFRRZ 8017 DAKOTA CIR CHA DAKOTA CIR CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9757 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9757 CHACHA NHASSEN , MN 55317 -9767 MICHAEL WILLIAM FARRELL 8024 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9767 0 PLAT OF SURVEIL LOT 3, BLOCK 3, CHANHASSEN ESTATES FIRST ADDITION 935.6 934.06 x °tea x L3.2 I S89'48'1WE 5 47.00 5 i.a D _ DRAINAGE SEM JT[UTY EASEMENT ° (0 935.0 933.8 9 .5 0 X % U S/ 15 J = cy ri 4o O Lv a 1 5? 93X. / 9X3.8 9X18 X33 INT I / / 14.as:�mE 934.0 933] / N; 934.0: _ ry 14.3 / 3t .. 'a i - • .� �"> i tie 4W CyEYENNE LEGEAD o SET MONUMENT . 937.5 SPOT ELEVATIONS • FOUND MONUMENT GFE GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION O CATCH BASIN © STORM MANHOLE a MAILBOX 17 TELEPHONE BOX —D—FENCELINE —>—SANITARY SEWER —>�-STORM SEWER —�� DRAINAGE ARROW I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly registered land surveyor under Minnesota Statutes Sec or 26.02 td-'A26.1 Reg. No. 1632 k Dote: 9/29/0S IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ARIA HOUSE AREA= 2,178 SQ. FT. DRIVEWAY AREA= 1,230 SQ.FT. PATIO/PAVER AREA= 619 SQ. FT. STOOP AREA= 31 SO -FT. TOTAL= 4,058 SQ. FT. INT 4 Scale in feet 0 20 40 CITY CF MItASSEN RECEIVED SEP 2 9 2005 CNANNASSEN PAWNING DEPT LOT AREA= 11,235, SQ. FT. BM SCRIBE IN CONCRETE ELEVATION 934.1 FT. N.G.V.O. 1929 Z - Surveyors nreFctN> 02-984 iEngineers Landscape Architects N. by MD Hensen Thorp n gsan Inc r 7510 Mwxet Place Dri ce riw m.xA+aw 120/60 Eden Proky. MN 55344-364A � R [ MIKE KOENIv ' (952) 829-0)00 FAX (952) 829-7806 xa. a IW o® LEGEND wal YCoCO4 x. ..'111-tf,,f off 1ono. aa. �E.Anwl ❑ cn*a1 BABIH O SIOPY YAmt0.[ u Foff m IElxoxglE BOi —i -ITA NM'M'IE'W In' 7=—' YaM o.M a' "'A PARCB IAT bo1Y.° 7 LOT I I the Z 3 II 14r mB to pIy b ` IpBal AAl aM.,yyCgY VIII PIT4 N R.e9A,1D `+\ AIIOQ �SAW. ; II fII CNEYE'NNE �+ aO1, �ro ''f�. Poo 1 �A NOTES P. A.0 .11 epe.R PERM 1 9 ACE'uB.a - Le so. rt. fR fB.eR W 'M L A I.L a mEA . lf,f. so. I IWERNM AAfoU .¢ ..ml xi R. [X alAx b I.. e YIEIMOIS ... MN . A 11...' . &. E0. rt. q IM.e E R rAIIELL 1 P�E4 C oPSA . 1".. so. EL EM1Ns APEoEE MCo - L. xi R. ce .1. L( rM61 c CRYOFCHANNASSEN RECEIVED OCT 1 3 zoos CN4 ASSEN PLANNING DEPT 911.99 PARCEL 0 ° a LOT 4 I Al I LOT DIVISION DESCRPTION P.. A )xol v°n w bl z CI°G J. fHMWASEFN EM7% --do, to to. ..°mBM qm ..ml, llM mlwly el In. IWanFp B...d Nn.: Y* aR Ix. 1.,.,saIx• 113°wti--melt:iof 1 11 root oot1Lln°wu:eeLiwd IMm°old P.. 9 Let x Moos s. CH4WASY ESTARS. °..vewp to N°,°e.Np pot Nw of aggnb1 2 B oOo S. CFtOoll $N ESLARS wlwdhg 10 P. nmq 1a a1 't—, ILwf .etl.lr elfin..M . oo v4 F. B.dnnFR e„ q; .tlolxp.l Amm. o' .' a Lel Z If.. oofft ... 1., 1.1.21 loo. to . WO, m el ]. 1xm .. ... a u. n 0—....1 e. er ..LOI x ono .oa IIn.'—OctOp ° Me ... Iq°tnv .lu mot v— or Lal ., 01. x GNNASE01 IfTARS, eKvtlnp w q. r..me.e qol q.m1. IAw .•n.+r or u° ralame agvM m. BegFNnp el O PoFI m N. —to M N ..a bl .. CA3 MIw.laly nvq..°I .—or a .aY�Wml um.. ne.n tool o rylnt m m.—t. I.. of pa Lal a, ale I..1 w • Y P.`Ix..yNml [vavaM wa LN . W q.° I.Mno1N1 YAREL C mu1�v1 or Lolm., µwL ]. pA1MA530, CSiARs, pf—do, to mo r... .I qmL 11 .n Y el .. e p aav9.a Yv B1.1. .1 a 10. m N.1. IM Of of. Lot ., e�ax loo ..tl. tO. nvgm O evn. • )S.]1 tool lee of t w In. moo. .. el ma Lel ., 4l0 1.°I w °tnm°1.nwwe y Of la° lnt — M Wa bl va Illw. 1°ImN°IFO. rip �eimnl��ti��1i MP/�x LOT DIVISION SURVEY LOT 2, 3, 4, BLOCK 3 I CHANHASSEN ESTATES CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 1, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Deborah Zorn, Jerry McDonald, Mark Undestad, Debbie Larson, Dan Keefe and Kurt Papke STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Josh Metzer, Planner I PUBLIC PRESENT: Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd Cindy Koenig 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive 8005 Cheyenne Avenue PUBLIC HEARING: REOUEST FOR HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8005 CHEYENNE AVENUE, MIKE & CINDY KOENIG, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-34. Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Josh. Any questions from staff? Larson: Yes. Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Debbie. Larson: How come this just got noticed now? Was there never a survey ever, ever done? Metzer: Not that we received until the home was ready to be sold. And there was an inquiry as to permits for an issue. Undestad: Now that they purchased land on both sides, is the permit sign all squared away do you know? Generous: They still need the variance. Metzer: For the hard surface. It was originally a hard cover and two side yard setback variances. They've eliminated the side yard setback variances and it's now just a hard cover variance. Larson: Are they, mention to you how they could possibly get rid of the, is it 500 square feet? Metzer: About 120. It would probably be removal of. Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Larson: Sidewalk? Metzer: Little bit of patio and sidewalk. Sacchet: So it could be done. Reasonably. With like putting pervious sidewalk instead of concrete sidewalk around, something like that. Any other questions? Jerry. McDonald: I have one question about the, do we have a recommended list of what you can substitute for hard cover area that would be acceptable that they could put down? Metzer: Yeah, there's you know landscaping mulch or rock. As long as they have a fabric liner that water can percolate through. Of course sod is ideal. But, paver. Pervious pavers are not considered by our code to be pervious by any percentage due to the compacting of ground underneath in order for the pavers to be placed. McDonald: But all these are items that can be gotten from you as staff as to suggestions for. Metzer: Right. McDonald: And then you said one other thing that I didn't remember reading about. You said that this came about, it was triggered by a sale of the home? Metzer: Right. Expectant buyers of this property came to the city and were interested in knowing a little bit of the history, whether or not permits were pulled for everything. McDonald: Oh okay. So the current owners are the ones that made the improvements without the building permit? Metzer: Correct. McDonald: Okay. No more questions. Sacchet: Kurt you have a question? Papke: Yeah. Could you explain a little bit about the September 4' storm event and what actually happened there and maybe a little bit of color as to how the hard surface coverage might impinge on that. Metzer: That was actually a recommendation of engineering. I know Cindy has a little bit of the background on that. She discussed that with me. I am not aware of it and unfortunately no one from engineering is here tonight. Papke: Okay. So what's in the report is what we know here tonight? Metzer: Right, and maybe Cindy can add a little bit more. She's been in the neighborhood for quite a while. 2 • 0 Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Keefe: I've got one more question. Just to zero in on the numbers just a little bit. The amount of square footage that it would take to get to 25% is what exactly? Metzer: 520.25. Keefe: 520.25 and then it looks like the patio, sidewalk and stoop per the calculations in the report is total 674, is that still an accurate number? Metzer: Pretty close. It's somewhere in there. Keefe: Okay so, in order to get to the 25 but we're talking some combination of something out of the driveway potentially and/or. Metzer: The driveway's pretty much been reduced I would say to the max that we would expect them to remove. ...and sidewalk are probably the best options. Keefe: Okay. And from your perspective in looking at it, do you think it's achievable? Metzer: Yeah, it could be done. Keefe: And the stoop portion is just what? Where it comes out of the house or. Metzer: Right, it's like a step. Keefe: And that portion is pretty small I presume. Metzer: Right you know and I would think removal of the sidewalk wrapping around the garage would probably be the number one alternative. I'm not exactly sure of the exact amount of square feet that would be but probably a little bit additional removal from the patio in the back. There are some pavers in the front off the front of the house there also. Sacchet: So really for them to be fully compliant they would have to get rid of pretty much all their. Metzer: Patio and sidewalks. Sacchet: Patio. That means the whole hard cover surface there in that little courtyard type of shape. Metzer: Majority of it. Sacchet: Majority of that. Zorn: Josh, can I ask you a question? Has that been recommended to the property owners as of yet? 3 Planning Commission—N•mber 1, 2005 • Metzer: Yes, but they've, they have removed quite a bit to this point. They're just not quite there yet. Sacchet: Any other questions? One more question. In the letter from the applicant, you make a point that in fall of 2002, which is not that long ago, they did the addition of the garage and they referred to a young man with blond hair that, according to the letter more than once, more than one occasion stated the setback was 5 feet. Now we're not to try to point finger at anybody. Do we have any idea who the young man with the blond hair is? Metzer: I wouldn't. I wasn't here in 2002. I don't know if Bob would have any idea. Sacchet: But I have a hard time understanding how somebody at City Hall would not be clear about side yard setbacks. That's basically what I'm getting at. Metzer: And we don't know who it would have been Sacchet: Yeah. McDonald: Can I ask a follow up to that? In the older neighborhoods in Chanhassen atone time, have the setbacks always been what it currently is or was it at one time. Metzer: Well the home was built in 1969. I believe the first, real enforced zoning ordinance was 72. Sacchet: It was kind of a PUD at the time or it didn't even exist then? Generous: It was under village zoning. Sacchet: Under village zoning, okay. McDonald: Could it have been 5 feet at that time? Generous: I haven't found anything. The only ordinance that I know that has that is up in Lundgren development in Near Mountain where they alternated it on some houses. Sacchet: Yeah, but he was a young man with blond hair. McDonald: It wasn't me. Sacchet: It's not necessarily that he would be familiar with those historic type of setbacks even if they were at one point and he was a young man. Metzer: And the point is, any new addition because it's now zoned RSF. Sacchet: Right, would be by the current zoning. 4 0 Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Metzer: Needs to meet current zoning standards. Sacchet: Alright, well we leave that a mystery then. Any other questions from staff? If not I'd like to ask, do we have an applicant? If you want to come forward and you may want to add to what staff presented. Yes, if you want to come to the podium and get this microphone pointing towards you. State your name and address for the record please and do you have anything to add or tell us about, please do. Cindy Koenig: Okay, Cindy Koenig, 8005 Cheyenne Avenue. No, the letter pretty much says what happened. My husband at one point, the people who laid the block were going to get one of the permits. They didn't do it. He was in a hurry. He just didn't do it so now we're trying to make amends for it. Sacchet: Yeah, and you solved that problem with acquiring a little bit of land on both sides, so that's not really an issue anymore at this point. The only issue we have is the hard cover. Cindy Koenig: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. Do you have questions of the applicant? I wondered I mean how do you feel about this? I mean in order to be compliant you would have to get rid, pretty much of the walkway around your garage and most of the patio in the back. I mean you don't have anything to say about that? Cindy Koenig: Well, we have already gotten rid of a side driveway. Sacchet: Right, we got the pictures of that. Cindy Koenig: Yeah. The patio has been there since 19I think 84 or something like that. don't know what to say. I understand the compliance issue. I understand all of that, but. Sacchet: It's been there a long time. I understand. McDonald: Excuse me, is the patio a slab or is it? Cindy Koenig: Yeah. McDonald: Okay, it is a slab. Cindy Koenig: Yeah. McDonald: Do you know about how thick it is? Cindy Koenig: I don't. We didn't lay it. Somebody else did. McDonald: How about the sidewalk? Is it, was it all laid at the same time then? 5 0 0 Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Cindy Koenig: The sidewalk was laid after the garage was built. And I'm not sure how thick that is either. McDonald: Okay, that's all the questions I have. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Cindy Koenig: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Now this is a public hearing so I'd like to invite anybody else who wants to comment about this from our audience to come forward. If you have something to add, please do so. State your name and address for the record please. Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Just reading through this today I have a question about the administrative movement of the other lots. Will the lot 2 really be able to come down by 8% so their hard surface coverage is 25% and administratively does that make them a non -conforming lot by giving up square footage? Sacchet: Can you address that Josh? Metzer: The driveway was beginning to be removed about 2 weeks before the administrative subdivision was even received by the city, which has been sent to the city today. To the Carver County I should say, the administrative subdivision so that, the removal of that driveway on Lot 2 I believe it was, brings them down to 23. some odd percent. Sacchet: So they're alright basically. Metzer: Yes. Debbie Lloyd: So what kind of surface will they replace their driveway with? Metzer: They're sodding it. Debbie Lloyd: They're sodding a driveway? Sacchet: Not the whole thing. Metzer: It's the side that pulls around to the side of the garage. Debbie Lloyd: Oh, and that was 8%? Metzer: .8%. Debbie Lloyd: .8%. 0 Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Metzer: It's more than .8%. Debbie Lloyd: Okay, and then there's one other lot that isn't mentioned at all in the report that also conveyed land and is that in compliance with code? Metzer: Which one? Sacchet: You're talking about Lot 4, the one on the other side? Debbie Lloyd: Yeah, the one on the other side. There's no mention of it in the report as far as compliance. Sacchet: The building is smaller and the lot is good size, yeah. Metzer: We've got the number here, just bear with me. Debbie Lloyd: It's a hard one. Those were my questions, but it seems that there is a way to bring it in compliance and as hard as it can be. Metzer: The lot to the east is 20.1%. So it'd be selling the land. Sacchet: After giving up that sliver of land, okay. So we're fine with those. Thanks for checking. Debbie Lloyd: Thank you. Sacchet: Anybody else wants to address this item? Seeing nobody getting up, I close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for comments, discussion. Whenever you're ready. Keefe: I have a question. Sacchet: Go ahead. Keefe: And really to my fellow commissioners. You know this was a non -conforming lot and so it's underneath the 15,000 square foot requirement in the RSF district, right. So I don't know how many are out there that are like this, and maybe they are out there and I know we kind of deal with them as they come in and we run across them, but what, what impact do we have in terms of, or what responsibility do we have to correct a situation which is non -conforming sort of to begin with and now the lot size has been put in at 15,000 square feet or we're saying now has got to be this amount of square footage for hard surface coverage when prior to the 15,000 square foot, which I presume this was built ahead of that, maybe that requirement wasn't there. Metzer: Right, yeah. This was before. Keefe: So we've got a change in the requirements... 7 0 0 Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Sacchet: What you're asking is how can you apply rules that don't apply? Keefe: Well yeah. Sacchet: What you're asking is how can you apply rules that don't apply? Keefe: Yeah well you probably, the rule has been put in place after the property was built and now we're asking. Papke: But those rules were in force at the time the two additions were added. Sacchet: Right. Papke: And if a permit had been pulled for the two additions, the drawing would have shown the non-conformance at that point. So I agree that if there was a grandfathering issue, that would have been exposed at the time the permits would have been pulled. Keefe: So to kind of be, kind of follow through to sort of enforce this then, what we would say is that had they pulled the permits it would have. Papke: They would have been fine. Keefe: Right, they would have been fine in this because they would, well they would have had to correct it at that point... Papke: ...right, right. But there wouldn't have been an unknown non-conformance. Keefe: Right. Sacchet: Deborah, did you want to add something? Zorn: I was just going to add to that, the patio was constructed in '84. The four season in '97. The garage in '02 along with the additional sidewalk. It seems as though that garage permit would have prevented additional coverage and would have caught that variance at that time. Keefe: And potentially that garage would not have been built. Zorn: And/or the sidewalks, or there would have been choices, decisions at that time. McDonald: I guess the only comment I've got, you know we've been through a lot of these and the problem before has always been brought before us was that there was a contractor involved who was supposed to pull the permits. Never pulled the permits and it wasn't until later on that we find out that we've got a non-compliance. In this particular case permits should have been pulled. If you do any kind of addition onto a house, that's a permit. Pure and simple, so I look at this as kind of a self-imposed problem. And based upon that, even if it's a non -conforming lot at that point the 25% would have come into play. You could have asked for a variance at that 0 0 Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 point, if we wanted to do something with the lot but now, I'm flat out just don't have a lot of sympathy. I don't see where a grandfather issue exists. You know we've ruled fairly consistently on these with everyone else that's come in. This fits into the same category with the extra caveat that again a building permit should have been pulled by the owner who did all the work, so it doesn't even rise to the level to me of what the other non-conforming's have been. Sacchet: Any more comments on this end? Not really. I'm struggling personally a little bit with this one. I mean on one hand, according to the letter from the applicant they did to some extent work with city hall. It says when they added the garage they took the plans to city hall, planning and engineering department, and it was okayed by a young, by this famous young man with blond hair. Papke: Of course that's their recollection of the situation. Sacchet: Right. McDonald: And that only deals with the 5 foot setback. That doesn't deal with. Sacchet: Impervious. McDonald: That's right, and the 5 foot isn't even an issue here because that's been taken care of. Now it's the 25% and yes, even if you went to the city Planning Commission and you talked about you know, we don't know the context of well if I put it here, you know what's the setback off my property line. You know and it may have answered the question so. Keefe: Just one other question. I mean this is sort of selective enforcement of a rule. You know I mean are we comfortable that within that area where there are a lot of non -conforming lots that everybody is in compliance or are we just selectively enforcing this, they sort of ad hoc come in? Or are we concerned about that? Maybe we're not concerned about that. McDonald: Well we haven't been, as they come before us, we've been pretty consistent on what we've done. We've asked staff in the last meeting to do something about these non-compliance issues that suddenly pop up. That there's got to be something else in the process besides just depending upon permits or something. You know a contractor pulling a permit and then they don't. So that we can head off some of these injuries to property owners that are caused by contractors who don't follow the rules, so we've requested that. We are trying to deal with this, and I know City Council is also, how you deal with an issue such as this to try to head it off before you're now going in and asking a homeowner to bear the cost of tearing something out. So we're trying not to do selective enforcement. We are trying to put something in place so that everybody in the city is aware of these hard surface areas and what's required there. Keefe: And I think I understand the purpose, you know I mean in terms of the 25%. The concern I have is in regards to let's take an area like this is this neighborhood, where this home resides and is there a way to kind of go on a neighborhood basis and say, alright we're going to do a survey of hard surface coverage in this area and we're going to serve notice to the 0 0 Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 neighborhood so that it ... and I don't know how that, if that's possible to do or whether that's the right thing to do but just to be even handed from a sort of selective. McDonald: We're only talking about a percentage. I mean 25% of whatever you lot size is, I mean that's the coverage. If what you're now talking about is 25%'s too little in one neighborhood, then we need to look at readjusting that figure possibly. Keefe: That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, within that neighborhood on a lot by lot basis, which you know are they all in conformance or not. So in other words, this particular one came before us. Papke: I'm not sure, are you suggesting some kind of witch hunt to go out and look for non- conforming lots? I mean I can't imagine we would, you know the city would do something like that. Every time one of these comes up we deal with them on an individual basis. And just because there are non -conforming lots in the neighborhood doesn't mean we should abandon enforcement of all variances. I'm not following where you're going with this at all. Sacchet: He wonders whether we're fair in the neighborhood. Larson: What if we were to average everybody? Is that kind of what you're grabbing at? Keefe: No, I mean is everybody in that neighborhood that has a non -conforming lot, if they all have non -conforming lots, are they all in conformance with the 25% hard coverage. Sacchet: Yeah, and we don't know. We don't have a way to know. Larson: What if somebody who built back then is above the 25% per se? Just throwing an example out there. Sacchet: Well, and that's a little bit why I feel torn. I mean there's actually also the mitigating factor if you want to look at it as mitigating factor, I think the report somewhere says it's, with what they've removed they're actually slightly below what they could have impervious if it was a 15,000 foot lot, but ultimately I mean if you look at our standard rules that we have to look at, and it's important for you to understand, we have a set of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5 or 6 items that as Planning Commission we are, by ordinance, by our code we're required to look at. In order to make a recommendation, or possibly a decision. And the first one is it a hardship? And a hardship is not a fluffy thing. It's defined in the code. Hardship is if you cannot make a use that's on the property and they're surrounding 500 feet, which in this case is to have a single family house with a 2 car garage, which you do have. So by that definition you don't pass that one. You do not have a hardship by that definition. Second point, is it applicable to other properties? Obviously it's very applicable because that's what we've just been struggling with. That, whether it's fair or it doesn't apply, it definitely applies across the board. If we try by what Dan was trying to do, and he bumped a little bit into a concrete wall with it, if we wanted try to be fair within the context of the neighborhood, that really doesn't quite fly either. Then we turn into policing something that we don't want to go police either. So it doesn't fly, so they don't pass that hurdle. Does it increase the value? Well you didn't do it for that purpose so that's kind 10 0 0 Planning Commission —November 1, 2005 of in the bubble. Is it self created hardship? Now we could argue over that because you tried to be compliant and all that. Ultimately the fact that you didn't really pull a formal permit we could say it's self created, if you want to be real objectively and that's kind of harsh but the reality is such, right? Then is it detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land? In generally speaking with the impervious, if you're above the impervious, we can, and that's why we have this impervious rule because if you have too much impervious you contribute to the runoff. You contribute to what ultimately can be injurious to that environment. To other properties around so there you don't pass either. And the last point is, does it impair adequate supply of light and air? Obviously it doesn't so there you come out well. But if we pile this all on a balance, I mean if we just follow the steps that are given to us as a commission, as our task, and that's also where staff was coming from saying, well looking at this from what our rules that are given to us, we, I feel we are compelled to deny it. However, I do want to point out that if we end up denying it or not, if we do end up denying it, that it can be brought in front of City Council and City Council does have more leeway. It's their role. They're not bound as much as we are bound by those criteria. It's not that we are necessarily bound totally by it. We have a little bit of leeway, but this goes a little, in my opinion beyond what a little leeway would be. I mean we're trying to be sensitive and we understand your predicament here certainly. We'd like to help you with it. However with the framework of the code of the city I think that we would have to send you to City Council to take that step, okay. That's my comment. Undestad: Can I add one thing? Sacchet: Please. Undestad: You know seeing what's been done on here, I just have to say that you know the variances and some of the self inflicted hardships we've seen, you guys have done a great job going out and buying more land on each side you know and trying to get everything back down to where everything's within but you're just right over our heads here I guess. Sacchet: Taking off that piece of driveway, I mean you've shown tremendous effort and willingness to correct it and from that angle I wish we could be more amenable to your request. That's partially what I said when I feel like I'm a little tom about this certainly. Any other comments? If not, yes Debbie. Larson: Well Josh had said that on the one side, just going into the lots that they purchased land from, they're under quite a bit on one side for sure. I mean is there any way that I know that it's lot by lot but averaging those 3? Metzer: No, we can't do that. Larson: Or the neighborhood you know like we were saying. What if you were to look at the entire area? How many are over? How many are under? Sacchet: No, that'd be unmanageable Debbie. That'd be a nightmare. Larson: Not that you would mange it but to, just to you know. 11 0 0 Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Sacchet: Right, right. It's a good idea but very difficult to apply. Papke: That's come up on some of these previous cases where there were some larger lots next door. Then you also run the risk if somebody subdivides that large lot, now you've got issues. Or the neighbor next door adds some more hard coverage. There's nothing to prevent them at that point from going over the edge. Sacchet: Ahight, any other comments? If not I'd like a motion. Zorn: I'd like to motion that the Planning Commission denies Variance 05-34 for 6.88% hard coverage, hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four season porch on a lot zoned single family residential based upon the findings in the staff report and the following 1 and 2. As well as the Planning Commission orders the property owner to remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements. Sacchet: Yes, the percentage right? The correct percentage is not 6.8. The new one is how much? Zorn: Oh I'm sorry. 4.06. Sacchet: 4.06. Alright, we have a motion. Do we have a second? McDonald: I'll second. Zorn moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #05-34 for a 4.06% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four season porch on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF), based upon the findings in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. The Planning Commission orders the property owner to: Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements. All voted in favor, except Larson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Sacchet: I'd encourage you to bring this to the attention of the City Council and see what they can do for you. Good luck with it. So that brings us to the minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner McDonald noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 18, 2005 as presented. 12 0 0 Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Chairman Sacchet adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 13 C) 5 -3,{ City Council Meeting — November 14, 2005 give it some more time. There's not going to be much tennis playing in the next couple months here, especially if the forecast is right so I think we've got a little bit of time to work on this one before anything has to happen anyway so let's take advantage of the time we have and let's, you know work with staff. ...and come back when we come up with a plan that's workable, but better than the one we have, and that's what I'm hearing from my council members as well. So. Roger Knutson: Mayor? Mayor Furlong: Sir. Is there a deadline? Roger Knutson: Mayor, there is a deadline. What we'd need from them is to agree on an extension and I've picked the date, January 15s'. Since you only have one meeting in December. I have written... Mayor Furlong: Okay. Would that be acceptable? We need to get that, if you could come up and agree to this? Then we'll proceed with the motion to table, I think that's where we're going and then, at this point. Is there any further discussion on this or is there a motion to also consider? Councilman Lundquist: I would move that we table item 4 ... the agreement. Mayor Furlong: So we're tabling item 4. Bring back at a future meeting. Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjomhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Motion to table's been made and seconded. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded to table the request for an after the fact hard surface coverage and side yard setback variances for a Sport Court at 8491 Mission Hills Circle, Planning Case 05-32. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. MIKE & CINDY KOENIG: REOUEST FOR A HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A GARAGE AND A FOUR SEASON PORCH, 8005 CHEYENNE AVENUE. Kate Aanenson: This is located in the Chan Estates neighborhood. Again this is an after the fact variance. It did go to the Planning Commission on November 1" and the Planning Commission voted 6 to 1 to deny the variance. Again there was some additions put onto the house that were not permitted. Did not go through any building permit approval process so it was discovered when someone was actually looking at purchasing the house. They did some research that, noticed there were some additions put on, so that was one issue. And then the, trying to remove the hard surface coverage which was over. So what we're trying to eliminate is everything, the applicant's, everything that they could besides taking out the existing building portion. So there's a couple of new differences between this one and the one we just saw. This is a lot that 16 SCANNED City Council Meeting — November 14, 2005 was created in, the subdivision was created in 1966. At that time we had different zoning standards. Actually most of the lots in this area, Chan Estates are averaging around 12,000- 13,000 and some are actually smaller than that. Homes on either side are actually a little smaller than that so this was rezoned to RSF, which is a residential single family zone which has a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. Because this lot is only 12,800 square feet, it's already impacted by the 25% impervious so it restricts the ... of the lot, which wasn't discovered obviously when, because it was not, did not come in for the permit. So the applicants in good faith have worked hard to try to resolve these issues based on the fact that it was already over and it would be difficult to remove the existing additions to the house to try to get that. So they worked to actually buy, acquire property from the adjacent property owners, so you can see the existing lot lines on here. And you can see the new lot line. This is the old lot line and new lot lines. So lots were acquired on either side of the property to add additional square footage. Which we actually haven't seen too many people use that approach which we always suggest so we were actually pleasantly surprised that they were able to work through that issue. They have removed, I'll get to the pictures here real quick. Councilman Lundquist: Kate, is that property, has it been purchased or they have it? Kate Aanenson: One of the conditions is they do have the legal description and in here it's an administrative subdivision because they're not creating a new lot. They're just adding a lot to another so we have the titles in here and one of the conditions is that before we'd record it, that those be executed. Certainly we wouldn't want to give a variance and then not have it executed. Councilman Lundquist: So they've written the check or they haven't written the check? Kate Aanenson: The descriptions are all written up. They're in the file. They haven't been recorded yet, until, if you give approval with the condition before, we would record it that they would have to execute. It'd probably have the attorney's office simultaneously do all that but they would actually have the administrative subdivision executed first. Signed by the County. Us and the County, then they would record. Councilman Lundquist: So they wrote the check or they didn't write the check? Kate Aanenson: For us? Councilman Lundquist: No, to the. Kate Aanenson: For the property owners? Councilman Lundquist: The property owners. Kate Aanenson: I don't know. We have the descriptions here. So I don't know what, I didn't ask what the financial transactions were. We have the descriptions here so. Councilman Lundquist: Fair enough. 17 City Council Meeting — November 14, 2005 Kate Aanenson: So there's a driveway pad that was removed that's right here to also eliminate some of the hard surface. In looking at the house and where you could eliminate again, similar with the last one is really, it's a difficult thing when you try to move some hard surface and still make it a viable, a pleasant house too. You don't want to degrade it and make it an inferior lot so looking at some of the patio because some additional sidewalk be removed, what does that do to the impact of the house? So there's a patio between the two additions. You can see back here. You could eliminate that. I'm not sure as far as reducing that size, you can look at the back of that lot, what that does. I do have a picture showing what they added, but you saw that before... And then like I said, there's an additional sidewalk that could be removed. That goes to an arbor on the side. That sidewalk that goes around. You can see they have removed and this was the paver, you saw the other picture that has been removed and already sodded over. So again, and they've really done, what they believe as much as they can short of, getting to this arbor, removing and it's a small percentage. So again because of the Planning Commission taking the hard and fast line that the variance was self created, because they did not seek building permit approvals and the like, again and in working with the staff, they in our opinion have done as much as they can based on the fact that it's an undersized lot. And I want to point out, at this point if it was a 15,000 square foot lot they would meet it. That standard. Another interesting point too, we do PUD's on some of those smaller 11,000 square foot lots. They get the 30% so if it was even given a different zoning, they would maybe be closer to that, so we did put recommendations for approval and for denial as we did for the Planning Commission. Again I just want to clarify too that separate from this they're still working through all their building permit issues, which is a conditional use. Want to make sure that gets carried through here too. They're working on getting all those inspections completed and recorded factually and that they also have to put new easements in place because the old easements have to be vacated. So there is still some work, and then you can see that it would not be recorded, condition number 3, until the other administrative subdivisions are executed. So with that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you have. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Questions for staff. Couple that you mentioned, just for my understanding. You said if it was a PUD, our PUD's go with a 30%. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: Which this would fit in. Why isn't it a PUD? Kate Aanenson: That was rezoned before my time here and I'm not sure what the rationale was to get it to be RSF. I'm not sure if we even had that PUD zone in place. Okay, Todd's saying we probably didn't have that PUD zone in place. Mayor Furlong: So that wasn't. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, it wasn't even a factor so yeah. But if it would have been given something else, yeah. In looking at it in hindsight, you know they were already under sized lots. It's pretty punitive to put that 25%. Mayor Furlong: Okay. T City Council Meeting — November 14, 2005 Kate Aanenson: And just to be, there hasn't been a lot of variances right in this immediate area either so I think that question. Mayor Furlong: There have not been? Kate Aanenson: There have not been in this immediate area. Mayor Furlong: Alright. And you said the building permit would, is it fair to say that had they gone through the building permit process when the porch and the garage was added. Kate Aanenson: No, they did not. Mayor Furlong: That these would have been caught? Kate Aanenson: Oh absolutely. Yes we would have... Mayor Furlong: Is that a standard process of use in terms of... Kate Aanenson: Correct. They're routed through each department to make sure they're not in an easement or engineering, any issues there and then planning would check impervious surface and setbacks. So we've eliminated the setback issues, which was one of them. So again, this was one, there's two issues. The impervious and the setback so we've eliminated one issue which was the setbacks. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Councilwoman Tjomhom: So Kate go over for me, what can they do to bring this? Kate Aanenson: Well you know, you're talking about a minimal amount here by removing the sidewalk, and I guess I always try to temper that, livability of the house. If you get somebody else in there and then they come back and say this really isn't, on taking the patio out. Councilwoman Tjomhom: So what else can they do then? Kate Aanenson: That's about it. I don't know if it's reasonable to say take down the addition. Councilwoman Tjomhom: Well that's what I'm saying. Kate Aanenson: Right. Exactly, right. I guess that was our opinion too at the time. They've done this much as they could and at this point, sort of taking that out if you feel strongly about that. Councilman Labatt: So, quick question. So a lot of the stuff, if I understand your staff report, was the Koenig's bought the house in May of '91. Right? M City Council Meeting — November 14, 2005 Kate Aanenson: Correct. Councilman Labatt: And a lot of this stuff was done by the previous owner to them? Kate Aanenson: No. They did the additions. The part that was no fault of their's was the original zoning and the changing of the zoning to the 25%. It may have been caught but they wouldn't have been able to get those additions when they came through in 2000 to get those additions but. Mayor Furlong: The fence line was pre-existing. Kate Aanenson: Yeah, the fence line was up. Mayor Furlong: It was 1980. Kate Aanenson: Yes. The fence was outside the property line's prior to there so, we did fix some other issues. The fence not on the property line so. Councilwoman Tjomhom: I still go back to what other options then. Kate Aanenson: Right. That's why we recommended approval as one of the options. To recommend approval with those conditions. That's in place and then get those other things executed. Mayor Furlong: Any other questions for staff at this point? If not, are Mr. and Mrs. Koenig here this evening? Mrs. Would you like to address the council on any matters? Please. Cindy Koenig: Thank you. I'm Cindy Koenig, 8005 Cheyenne Avenue. Mayor Furlong: Good evening. Cindy Koenig: We have tried to work with Josh a lot to try to fix the things that we caused. Trying to make amends. We've spent about a little less than $15,000 to try to fix these issues. We have wrote the checks to our neighbors and they have been cashed so you know we've completed that and when we all moved in those fence lines were that way so it was easy for us to all agree because it was property that nobody knew the other person had. We're in the middle of moving to Arkansas and so trying to get to my family down there and I'm here trying to fix whatever I can fix to get this to work. Mayor Furlong: Good, thank you. Any questions? No? Okay, thank you. Bring it back to council for discussion. Councilwoman Tjornhom, you've asked the question a couple times. What more can they do? Councilwoman Tjornhom: I don't know what is there to say. There's definitely no options so I don't know what there is to really even discuss. They're kind of in a tough spot and I'm 020 City Council Meeting — November 14, 2005 certainly not going to vote that we deny this and have her tear her garage down. That doesn't make any sense at all, so I don't think there's much to discuss as far as I'm concerned. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Others may want to discuss something. Councilwoman Tjornhom: Well maybe they would. Mayor Furlong: I've got to give them a chance. Councilman Peterson: Well the dilemma is obviously if you, how do you compare a garage to a sport court? So is a sport court any less important to a homeowner than a garage expansion? So I think certainly we have to ask ourselves that question but I think I would have a tendency to agree with staff's recommendation and move ahead with this. Mayor Furlong: Other comments, discussion. Councilman Lundquist: I think I would echo Councilman Peterson's comments about interesting that these two came up on the same night I guess. Time will tell what happens with the sport court and this issue specifically. You know Kate I think you made some good points in the staff report about you know between 1960 and now and the changes that were made and this would fit that and all of the things and again as with the previous would commend the Koenig's for working, buying extra property. Tearing out the driveway. Put the sod down. They're obviously motivated to comply. Always struggle a little with it when they're after the facts and some of those types of things, but I think in this case that I'm compelled to grant the variance and mostly because there's been some effort there. A considerable amount of effort there and we really don't have a lot of the other, of other options without some significant detriment to the property. Mayor Furlong: Councilman Labatt, questions? Councilman Labatt: No. I agree with you guys and you know, they've done, they've clearly done all they can do and you know, this one's 2% more than the other one... I support it. I mean you know, I supported the other one too. Councilman Peterson: But Steve you supported taking 560 square feet off of the sport court. Councilman Labatt: No. I supported the tabling of that motion. I still, I think we did the right thing by not denying it but I supported the tabling but I still think we should have approved it but I support this one. Mayor Furlong: I think to raise questions. We're dealing with each of these individually. You know in this case they have acquired property which is one of the questions that we always ask and here they did it. And you're right, that usually doesn't happen. What I was also impressed with is part of the property that they acquired put one of those property owners into a, over their hard surface coverage as well and that property owner took steps to remove hard surface coverage to get themselves back into compliance so they weren't in the same situation. What 21 City Council Meeting — November 14, 2005 created this was following through and getting permits you know, building permits on these but I agree. I think they've worked it down as far as they reasonably can. I think there are differences between these two. This lot is 12,000 square feet. The other was a half acre. Garage, you can talk about how big a garage people need but a garage to me is a little bit more from a utilitarian standpoint, a requirement especially in Minnesota than a sport court. Does that mean that we shouldn't let people have sport courts? Absolutely not. I mean that's an amenity. We want to have people improve their property within the ordinances. So I think there might be some, there are some differences in the two. I think here, at this point, they've gotten it as good as they can. Short of you know, before we take a few feet off a sport court. Now we're talking about taking a few feet off the garage. I don't know how you do that. So I think in this case they've worked and finally got it the best they could. There are different circumstances here and I agree with staff, we need to go forward. I think we do need to make sure we have those conditions in there, specifically one with regard to the permits. Make sure that the additions are properly inspected so that those can be done. And we're comfortable that they were constructed properly. With that being said I think we should move forward at this point with this one. Any other discussion? Councilman Labatt: We call it a shed then right when you take a few feet off your garage? You've got a shed. Mayor Furlong: You have a shed. Okay. Is there a, I think the motions are on page 7 of the staff report. Would someone like to make a motion? Councilman Labatt: Mayor, I'd move that we approve the variance 05-34 for a 4.06 hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and four season porch on a lot zoned single family residence, RSF subject to conditions 1 through 3 in the staff report. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilwoman Tjornhom: Second. Mayor Furlong: Made and seconded. Any discussion on that motion? Hearing none, we'll proceed with the vote. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilwoman Tjornhom seconded that the City Council approves Variance #05-34 for a 4.06% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four season porch on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF), with the following conditions: Building permits, plans and necessary inspections for the additions shall be required in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Property owners shall vacate existing drainage and utility easements and shall dedicate new drainage and utility easements adjacent to new property lines. 22 City Council Meeting — November 14, 2005 Variance #05-34 shall not be recorded until after the two administrative subdivisions conveying property to Lot 3, Block 3 Chanhassen Estates have been recorded with Carver County. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: That motion prevails. Good luck with the move. Cindy Koenig: Thank you. 1(k). Councilman Lundquist: Issue with this one Mr. Mayor, wasn't more than a couple of weeks ago we had a sign variance request for the same building. Understand it was different. That they already had some signage on the second, or higher elevations let's call it. Couple of questions I guess I was looking at either when we went through that one and in the staff report on this one as well, staff talked about being careful with where we're putting signs and we do it once and then the next one and the next one and the next one and the next one and pretty soon you know, they'll be flashing bright neon lights like the movie theater sign did in the beginning so I want to be cautious about what those signs are. Where they are. Do they really have to have it there? Is there another spot for it that would serve purposes, you know understand that the building was set up for offices at the beginning on that second story. Now things change and that's fine, but as a, I wasn't comfortable as a consent agenda item to have that out there so just like to have some staff input on that sign and any other like it in the city or in the area. Do we have any other second story sign kind of things and some discussion. Kate Aanenson: You bring up some good points Councilman Lundquist and that every project that comes in, a multi tenant one like this, we try to approve a site plan. In this instance they're asked for us, actually an amendment to the sign package that we approved. They could have asked for a variance. They chose not to. The variance would have been to put it over the front door, which they didn't want to put one over the front door. This is the space that Spalon is going into, so they wanted a sign over the top to get visibility over that use, but it's, internally in staff we were having a lot of issues regarding that because if you put it over this, it almost leads you to believe you go into this door. That's a single tenant. It's not the multi tenant. But our rules say if it's a multi tenant, you shouldn't have a single sign over that, but you still could have got, they could have applied for a variance from that rule as opposed to the sign amendment allowing the sign on the top. Again we've been careful about how we place those. I just wanted to take a minute and kind of go through. Actually this was put together for the Planning Commission and it's a series of photos that are put together so it's not quite, you can see there's some chop lines in there. When it originally came in they knew the bank was going to be a tenant so they fully disclosed it was their intent to put the bank sign up on the top, so that was approved right on the outset. In the instance of the Spalon, like you indicated, that was intended, we intended or they envisioned that they may be offices, so we didn't really contemplate that 23 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Mike & Cindy Koenig for 6.88% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four - season porch — Planning Case No. 05-34. On November 1, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Mike & Cindy Koenig for 6.88% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four -season porch on property located in the Single Family Residential District at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue. 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 3, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates. 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 would not cause 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 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 ti of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood. 5. The planning report #05-34 Variance dated November 1, 2005, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Planning Commission denies the Variances from the impervious surface restrictions for garage addition and four -season porch. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this ISI day of November, 2005. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION IM g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-34 koenig variance\findings of fact.doc K Its Chairman Scale an feel 0 20 40 60 LEGEND o SET MONUMENT 0 FOUND MONUMENT . 937.5 SPOT ELEVATIONS LiT GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION ❑ CATCH BASIN 0 STORM MANHOLE 1 MAILBOX O1 TELEPHONE BOX —e—FENCELINE —,—SANITARY SEWER —»--STORM SEWER N89'48'18'W 94.00 f NOR1HFw5t CORNER Q LOT I 5 IIEXTSITINO LOT UM BETWEEN 1 BETWEEN LOTS z NIO 3 1 H LOT 2 / PARCEL A I, W I 01 / M/ • MOOD 2 OI I 6E 5�lAA 934 f 9T lm"AY CQP R Iran .n or LOT Cl/EYENNE 5 47.00 5 / u11utt EASENExI I / ' I5/ PARCEL B 1 5I / I LOT f 3 a� o (L STMG LOT LINE N BETNEEN LOTS a AND ♦ 1 th 1 � daps ",Z"- MuL 11?414 9 5115 NOTES: PARCEL A AREA = 11.208 SO. FT. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA - 2.856 SO. FT. OR 25.8%. OF PARCEL A PARCEL B AREA = 12,803 SO. FT. IMPERAWS SURFACE AREA = 4,017 SO. FT. OR 31 4S OF PARCEL B IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MINUS ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY = 3,656 SO. FT OR 28.6 x OF PARCEL B PARCEL C AREA = 11.435 SO. FT. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA - 2,299 SO- FT. OR 20.1% OF PARCEL C CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OCT 1 3 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT 229.99 88.92 5 PARCEL C LOT 4 M(m 6E sal IJ MT MAWAY LOT DIVISION DESCRIPTION: PARCEL A That part of Lot 2. Block 3, CHANHASSEN ESTATES, occced+q to The recorded dot thereof, tying westerly of the foaowng dembed line: Beginning at the southeast canner of said Lot 2: thence Northeasterly 145.27 feel to a pont an the north lune of said Lot 2. 13.31 feet nest of the northeast comer of said Lot 2 and there eaW line lermnotng PARCEL B Lot 3, Block 3, CHANHASSEN ESTATES, according to the recorded plot There of Together with that part of Lot Z Black 3, CHANHASSEN ESTATES, according to the recorded plat thereof. lying easterly of the following described line: Beginning at the southeast comer of said Lal 2: thence Northeasterly 145.27 feet to a point on the north line of said Lot 2, 13.31 feet west of the noriheosl comer of said Lot 2 and there said line terminating. And also together with that port of Lot 4, Block 3, CHANHASSEN ESTATES, according to the recorded Dlot thereof, lying westerly of the following described Inc. Begimng at a point an the north line of said Lot 4. 6.42 feet easterly from the northwest come, of said Lot 4, thence 178.37 feet to a point an the south line of said Lot 4, 0.78 feet southeasterly, o[ -the southwest caner of said Lot 4 and there terminating PARCEL C That part of Lot 4, Block 3, OUNHASS7N ESTATES, according to the recorded plat thereof, lying easterly of the following desl line: Beginning at a pant an the north line of said Lot 4, 6.42 feet westerly Rom the northwest comer of said Lot 4, thence 178.37 feet to a point an the south line of said Lot 4, 0.78 feel southeasterly of the mutt l comer of said Lot 4 and there terminaling I hereby certify that this survey su+ Prepared by me ander y r pervision and that I am a duty registered land wurreyr under pnemta Statutes Se ie,!: M6]L2 l 3X16�� Reg. No.j6 f Dote: �3 G LOT DIVISION SURVEY LOT 2, 3, 4, BLOCK 3 CHANHASSEN ESTATES 11 Engineers Surveyors — - — ILandscape Architects Da uonut Riace on.. __ _. _ a.wr a Dor waw w sss•e-x« Cee••tssal en_oxo eew.v.a Henson Tharp Pellinet Olson Inc. own I / BR /w 5 oluscWAr /' 1 11?414 9 5115 NOTES: PARCEL A AREA = 11.208 SO. FT. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA - 2.856 SO. FT. OR 25.8%. OF PARCEL A PARCEL B AREA = 12,803 SO. FT. IMPERAWS SURFACE AREA = 4,017 SO. FT. OR 31 4S OF PARCEL B IMPERVIOUS SURFACE MINUS ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY = 3,656 SO. FT OR 28.6 x OF PARCEL B PARCEL C AREA = 11.435 SO. FT. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA - 2,299 SO- FT. OR 20.1% OF PARCEL C CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OCT 1 3 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT 229.99 88.92 5 PARCEL C LOT 4 M(m 6E sal IJ MT MAWAY LOT DIVISION DESCRIPTION: PARCEL A That part of Lot 2. Block 3, CHANHASSEN ESTATES, occced+q to The recorded dot thereof, tying westerly of the foaowng dembed line: Beginning at the southeast canner of said Lot 2: thence Northeasterly 145.27 feel to a pont an the north lune of said Lot 2. 13.31 feet nest of the northeast comer of said Lot 2 and there eaW line lermnotng PARCEL B Lot 3, Block 3, CHANHASSEN ESTATES, according to the recorded plot There of Together with that part of Lot Z Black 3, CHANHASSEN ESTATES, according to the recorded plat thereof. lying easterly of the following described line: Beginning at the southeast comer of said Lal 2: thence Northeasterly 145.27 feet to a point on the north line of said Lot 2, 13.31 feet west of the noriheosl comer of said Lot 2 and there said line terminating. And also together with that port of Lot 4, Block 3, CHANHASSEN ESTATES, according to the recorded Dlot thereof, lying westerly of the following described Inc. Begimng at a point an the north line of said Lot 4. 6.42 feet easterly from the northwest come, of said Lot 4, thence 178.37 feet to a point an the south line of said Lot 4, 0.78 feet southeasterly, o[ -the southwest caner of said Lot 4 and there terminating PARCEL C That part of Lot 4, Block 3, OUNHASS7N ESTATES, according to the recorded plat thereof, lying easterly of the following desl line: Beginning at a pant an the north line of said Lot 4, 6.42 feet westerly Rom the northwest comer of said Lot 4, thence 178.37 feet to a point an the south line of said Lot 4, 0.78 feel southeasterly of the mutt l comer of said Lot 4 and there terminaling I hereby certify that this survey su+ Prepared by me ander y r pervision and that I am a duty registered land wurreyr under pnemta Statutes Se ie,!: M6]L2 l 3X16�� Reg. No.j6 f Dote: �3 G LOT DIVISION SURVEY LOT 2, 3, 4, BLOCK 3 CHANHASSEN ESTATES 11 Engineers Surveyors — - — ILandscape Architects Da uonut Riace on.. __ _. _ a.wr a Dor waw w sss•e-x« Cee••tssal en_oxo eew.v.a Henson Tharp Pellinet Olson Inc. own PLAT OF SURVEY LOT 3, BLOCK 3, CHANHASSEN ESTATES FIRST ADDITION 933.7 4.1 rW 68 935.6 934.06 X ° � FENCE° x °n 0 S89'48'18"E 5 47.00 5 _ DRAINAGE AND — UTILITY EASEMENT 935.0 933.8 9 3.5 X X LLJ 2 5/ IS Lu LL a O / I CO �1T 934. / 933.8 9Xi8 ° X / LANDSCAPE 934.0 O .• d p 934.0 / 1 rV . N 340, n a ' 2. 0 i / /.28.5' : 1 BI7� 8005 l 1 STORYFRAMETRAIL 8.17 22.8,x,5.8 GFE/BM 934.1 BIT DRIVEWAY I 932.7 i X C 930.5 ,9 •�4 26.3 u) Ln �I 1 I 17 933.5 X I J Do I ^' rn �> 73. 1 15 Scale in feet , 0 20 40 RIM 929.37 � 42430 CITY OFCHANHASSEN INV 920.47 RECEIVED LEGEND > SEP 2 9 2005 o SET MONUMENT �� \�� z 937.5 SPOT ELEVATIONS �� CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT 0 FOUND MONUMENT CFE GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA ❑ CATCH BASIN HOUSE AREA= 2,178 S0. FT. Q5 STORM MANHOLE a MAILBOX DRIVEWAY AREA= 1,230 SOFT. O TELEPHONE BOX PATIO/PAVER AREA= 619 SO. FT. s D FENCELINE —> —SANITARY SEWER >' STORM SEWER DRAINAGE ARROW 1 hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am a duly registered land surveyor under Minnesota Statutes Sec . 326.02 t0--,26.1 \J Reg. No. 1G3Z k Date: % Zy VS STOOP AREA= 31 SOFT. LOT AREA= 11,235, SO. FT. TOTAL= 4,058 SO. FT. Engineers • Surveyors Landscape Architects �\ Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson Inc. A:) 1 L 7510 Market Place Drive ' Eden Prairie. MN 55344-3644 (952) 829-0700 FAX (952) 829-7806 BM SCRIBE IN CONCRETE ELEVATION 934.1 FT. N.G.V.D. 1929 Project No. 02-084 Drown by MD Checked by LP Book/Pogo 120/60120/60 Client: MIKE KOENIG SCANNED rim A/jig itjc z ✓ � ,... � � f - rte. _• I ' r f 1 ! T M. vi I I J� ,,. • � �e 1 x 7t 9aN� W 1e NPf 11 YF4Y`a7 fJ 'A,YI e4:IQ RPiP Sop }yam ♦ � uK. ?s. r +y'xruaniK• r K nvq nA7I V6 tl�i �1�A i A • �'•v. . ` k I «r 1 pJ n.,4..i f#f• �a �l...e � /1 '! Lie � l ,/v"�C y ya r \� �..�-. c. "V✓i �:�.,� -� '�. it � {. .� .�� J � 1' r �, � �+�. f'�l � � 222 • - - •• � it � � �S"i n � R+�' .�I le AVAyAlpn .GP Ik Tpr New ^y / f • FA sts 441 ell i ♦AP! id L,�J` Wl��4 Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) CITY OF CHANHASSEN Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly swom, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized CARVER & HENNEPIN agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- COUNTIES lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 05-34 (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN newspaper, m provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as that the Chanhassen Planning amended. Commission will hold a public // q hearing on Tuesday, October 18, (B) The printed public notice that is attached t this Affidavit and identified as No. —2 / Cha at 7:00 P.M. to the Council was published on the daze or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said 7700 Market Blvd. h henC puss o Pt. S 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of Notice is hereby incorporated as pari of this Affidavit Said notice was cu[ from the columns of thishearingistocomiderarequest the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both for after -the -fact hard surface inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition coverage and side yard setback and publication of the Notice: Variances for garage and porch additions on property located at abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz MCheyenneAvenue. Applicant: dpq4La Mike & Cindy ing th A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular Laurie A. Hartmann business hours. All interested Persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this Subscribed and sworn before me on proposal. Josh Metzer, Planner I Email: jmetzerWi.chanhaecan.mmus Phone: 952-227-1132 this day of 2005 (Published in the Chanhassen REN M. PAD'JENZ Villager on Thursday, October 6, '�`. NOiAFYN I3 C VNNES)iA 2005: No. 4529):°,"'�-z a+ My Commw1on� ap e J?. 31...10 Notary Public RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $22.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $22.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter .............................................. $11.18 per column inch SCANNED CARVER � HENNEPIN CO UNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO 05,M NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that theCwill hold a public earing on Tuesday November 1, 2005, at 7:00 p.m in the HauncB Chambers in Chanhassen City Ha 1, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpmeof this hearing is to consider a request for a hard surface coverage Variance on property located at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue. Applicant: Mike & Cindy Koenig. A plan showing the location of the Proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. AB interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing andexpresstheiropinionswithrespect to this proposal. vF . , JOsh Metzer;,Peint" 1, jmetzer(8cichanhassenhrh.us 7-1132 (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on Thursday, October 20, 2005; No. 4543) Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal newspaper, as provided by Minnesota Statute 331A.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as amended. (B) The printed public notice that is attached to this Affidavit and identified as No.Y. 06 was published on the date or dates and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition and publication of the Notice: abcdefghijklmnopgrstuvwxyz Subscribed and sworn /before d/ me on this Jday of 2005 Laurie A. Hartmann GWEN M, RADUENZ Q.0 NOTARY PUBLIC-MIMESOTA My cmuion Eves Jat 31, 2010 RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $22.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ................................ $22.00 per column inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $ I1.18 per column inch SCANNED RECEIVED NOV p 3 2005 October 19, 2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN Dear City of Chanhassen, 3� o We wish to appeal Planning Commission denial of variance for hard surface coverage at the November 14, 2005 City Council meeting. Planning case 05-34. Respectfully, Mike and Cindy Koenig 8005 Cheyenne Ave. Chanhassen, MN 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: November 1, 2005 Ifl CC DATE: November 14, 2005 REVIEW DEADLINE: November 29, 2005 CASE #: 05-34 BY: JM PROPOSAL: Request for 6.88% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four -season porch on property located in the Single Family Residential District (RSF) at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue. These structures have already been built. LOCATION: Lot 3, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 d APPLICANT: Mike & Cindy Koenig 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential —Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 —4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.29 acre (12,803 square feet) DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 6.88% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four -season porch. The garage addition and four -season porch have already been built. 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. BCANNE. Koenig Variance Planning Case #05-34 November 1, 2005 Page 2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The subject property is located south of Highway 5 and east of Dakota Avenue at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue and is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The applicant is requesting a 6.88% (which represents 871.5 square feet of site coverage) hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition (20'x 16') and a four -season porch (13.2'x14.3'). This brings the hard surface coverage to 4,082 square feet which is 31.88%. These structures have already been built. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 7-19. Plans and specifications. Impervious surface means any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm water. It shall include, but not be limited to, gravel driveways, parking area, buildings and structures. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 ep rcent. Koenig Variance Planning Case #05-34 November 1, 2005 Page 3 BACKGROUND The subject property was platted as part of Chanhassen Estates which was recorded on August 3, 1966. The house was built in 1969. The subject property is located in the Single Family Residential (RSF) district and has an area of 12,803 square feet. In the RSF district 25% is the maximum permitted impervious surface coverage for a lot. The applicant has a hard cover of 31.88%. The issue at hand came to the attention of the City when inquiry was made regarding permitting of the subject additions. It was discovered that a four -season porch was constricted in 1997 and a garage addition was constructed in 2002. Both of these strictures were built without building permits from the City. Subsequently, the applicant applied for after -the -fact building permits for the garage addition and porch. An as -built survey was submitted with the permits. This survey revealed the garage addition and four -season porch both had nonconforming side yard setbacks. It also appeared the lot could be over on the maximum hard cover percentage. A revised survey showed that the existing hard surface coverage is 36.12%. At this point the applicant was informed that the property would have to be brought into compliance with City Code or a variance would need to be applied for. Garage Addition Four -season Porch Addition On the survey dated September 29, 2005, it is clear that the applicants' fence lies outside of their property lines. It is not clear why the fence was located so far out of place with the property lines. The fence was installed by Montgomery Ward in 1980. After meeting with staff to discuss the issues surrounding the nonconformities, the applicant decided to purchase land from their neighbors to the east at 8007 Cheyenne Avenue and to the west at 8003 Cheyenne Avenue in order to eliminate the two nonconforming side yard setbacks, reduce the property's hard surface coverage percentage and bring the side yard fences onto their property. Both neighbors have submitted their written agreement to sell a portion of their property to the applicant. Koenig Variance Planning Case #05-34 November 1, 2005 Page 4 ANALYSIS Through two administrative subdivisions currently being processed, the applicant is acquiring a total of 1,568 square feet of land from neighboring properties to increase their lot area from 11,235 square feet to 12,803 square feet. As a result, their hard surface coverage percentage has been reduced from 36.12% to 31.88%. The applicant would have to remove an additional 881.25 square feet of hard surface coverage in order to bring the hard cover to 25%. t ; 93J110E Koenig Variance Planning Case #05-34 November 1, 2005 Page 6 Lot 2 (8007 Cheyenne Avenue), located to the west of the subject property, is at 11,208 square feet in area and currently has a nonconforming hard cover percentage of 25.8% as a result of conveying land to the applicant as part of the administrative subdivision. However, the property owners of Lot 2 have proposed in writing to remove the portion of the driveway that wraps around the side of the garage. In fact, removal of this portion of the driveway has already begun. The area is quite flat with a storm sewer at the front of the lot that extends east within Cheyenne Avenue, then to the northeast within Cheyenne Spur, and connects to the storm sewer within the ravine to the west of the development, which outlets to Rice Marsh Lake. This area of the City was developed before water quality and quantity ponding requirements were established, therefore a pond was not constructed to pretreat this water before entering Rice Marsh Lake. During the September 4, 2005 storm, a property within Cheyenne Spur sustained water damage after the storm sewer system surcharged and water entered the garage. Although the rainfall intensity during the September 4`s storm was significantly higher than the storm sewer systems are designed to handle, staff recommends denial of the hard surface cover variance in order to minimizeteliminate storm -related flooding to the maximum extent possible. The subject property is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The minimum lot size in the RSF is 15,000 square feet. Therefore, the subject property has a nonconforming lot area of 12,803 square feet. With a total hard surface coverage of 4,082 square feet, the property exceeds the maximum hard cover that would be allowed on a lot with an area of 15,000 square feet (3,750 = 25%). If the subject property's hard cover was reduced to 3,750 square feet, it would still be over the maximum allowed in the RSF district with a percentage of 29.3% While the applicant has expended money for the improvements, such expenditure does not justify the granting of a variance. 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. Reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. Reasonable use of this property, a single-family home with a two - car garage, already exists but is exceeding City hard cover restrictions. The applicant would have to remove an additional 881.25 square feet of hard surface coverage in order to bring the hard cover to 25%. Any use of the property beyond that discussed above is strictly ancillary to the principal use. Based on these facts, staff must recommend denial of this request. 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. 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 these criteria. Koenig Variance Planning Case #05-34 November 1, 2005 Page 7 Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. By having a single-family home and a two -car garage the property owner has reasonable use of the property. 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 improvements increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Construction of the garage addition and porch were completed without building permits; therefore, this is a self-created hardship. Had building permits been sought, the hard surface issue would have been addressed. 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 may 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 increase in runoff from this property. £ 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 variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission denies Variance #05-34 for a 6.88% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four -season porch on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) based upon the findings in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. Koenig Variance Planning Case #05-34 November 1, 2005 Page 8 The Planning Commission orders the property owner to: 1. Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements." Should the Planning Commission choose to approve this request, staff recommends the adoption of the following motion: "Ibe Planning Commission approves Variance #05-34 for a 6.88% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four -season porch on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions: 1. Building permits, plans and necessary inspections for the additions shall be required in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Property owners shall vacate existing drainage & utility easements and shall dedicate new drainage & utility easements adjacent to new property lines. 3. Variance #05-34 shall not be recorded until after the two administrative subdivisions conveying property to Lot 3, Block 3 Chanhassen Estates have been recorded with Carver County." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter from Mike & Cindy Koenig stamped "Received September 29, 2005'. 4. Letter from Jim & Jan Gildner stamped "Received October 17, 2005'. 5. Letter from Pat Dolan stamped "Received October 24, 2005'. 6. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List. 7. As -built Survey of Lot 3, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates stamped "Received September 29, 2005'. 8. As -Built Survey of Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates stamped "Received October 13, 2005'. g1plan\2005 planning mm\05-34 kmnig varimc6staff mport.doc 0S -3q CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES NOVEMBER 1, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Deborah Zorn, Jerry McDonald, Mark Undestad, Debbie Larson, Dan Keefe and Kurt Papke STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Josh Metzer, Planner I PUBLIC PRESENT: Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd Cindy Koenig 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Larson questioned the timing of the request. Commissioner Keefe asked about options for reaching the 25% hard surface coverage. Chairman Sacchet asked for clarification of remarks made in the letter submitted by the applicant. The applicant, Cindy Koenig had no further comments to add. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive asked for clarification of the administrative approval process for shifting lot lines. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. After discussion the following motion was made. Zorn moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #05-34 for a 4.06% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four season porch on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF), based upon the findings in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. The Planning Commission orders the property owner to: 1. Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements. All voted in favor, except Larson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner McDonald noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 18, 2005 as presented. Planning Commission Summary — November 1, 2005 Chairman Sacchet adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 2 CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 1, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Deborah Zorn, Jerry McDonald, Mark Undestad, Debbie Larson, Dan Keefe and Kurt Papke STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Josh Metzer, Planner I PUBLIC PRESENT: Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd Cindy Koenig 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive 8005 Cheyenne Avenue PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST FOR HARD SURFACE COVERAGE VARIANCE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT 8005 CHEYENNE AVENUE, MIKE & CINDY KOENIG, PLANNING CASE NO. 05-34. Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Josh. Any questions from staff? Larson: Yes. Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Debbie. Larson: How come this just got noticed now? Was there never a survey ever, ever done? Metzer: Not that we received until the home was ready to be sold. And there was an inquiry as to permits for an issue. Undestad: Now that they purchased land on both sides, is the permit sign all squared away do you know? Generous: They still need the variance. Metzer: For the hard surface. It was originally a hard cover and two side yard setback variances. They've eliminated the side yard setback variances and it's now just a hard cover variance. Larson: Are they, mention to you how they could possibly get rid of the, is it 500 square feet? Metzer: About 120. It would probably be removal of. Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Larson: Sidewalk? Metzer: Little bit of patio and sidewalk. Sacchet: So it could be done. Reasonably. With like putting pervious sidewalk instead of concrete sidewalk around, something like that. Any other questions? Jerry. McDonald: I have one question about the, do we have a recommended list of what you can substitute for hard cover area that would be acceptable that they could put down? Metzer: Yeah, there's you know landscaping mulch or rock. As long as they have a fabric liner that water can percolate through. Of course sod is ideal. But, paver. Pervious pavers are not considered by our code to be pervious by any percentage due to the compacting of ground underneath in order for the pavers to be placed. McDonald: But all these are items that can be gotten from you as staff as to suggestions for. Metzer: Right. McDonald: And then you said one other thing that I didn't remember reading about. You said that this came about, it was triggered by a sale of the home? Metzer: Right. Expectant buyers of this property came to the city and were interested in knowing a little bit of the history, whether or not permits were pulled for everything. McDonald: Oh okay. So the current owners are the ones that made the improvements without the building permit? Metzer: Correct. McDonald: Okay. No more questions. Sacchet: Kurt you have a question? Papke: Yeah. Could you explain a little bit about the September a storm event and what actually happened there and maybe a little bit of color as to how the hard surface coverage might impinge on that. Metzer: That was actually a recommendation of engineering. I know Cindy has a little bit of the background on that. She discussed that with me. I am not aware of it and unfortunately no one from engineering is here tonight. Papke: Okay. So what's in the report is what we know here tonight? Metzer: Right, and maybe Cindy can add a little bit more. She's been in the neighborhood for quite a while. 2 Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Keefe: I've got one more question. Just to zero in on the numbers just a little bit. The amount of square footage that it would take to get to 25% is what exactly? Metzer: 520.25. Keefe: 520.25 and then it looks like the patio, sidewalk and stoop per the calculations in the report is total 674, is that still an accurate number? Metzer: Pretty close. It's somewhere in there. Keefe: Okay so, in order to get to the 25 but we're talking some combination of something out of the driveway potentially and/or. Metzer: The driveway's pretty much been reduced I would say to the max that we would expect them to remove. ...and sidewalk are probably the best options. Keefe: Okay. And from your perspective in looking at it, do you think it's achievable? Metzer: Yeah, it could be done. Keefe: And the stoop portion is just what? Where it comes out of the house or. Metzer: Right, it's like a step. Keefe: And that portion is pretty small I presume. Metzer: Right you know and I would think removal of the sidewalk wrapping around the garage would probably be the number one alternative. I'm not exactly sure of the exact amount of square feet that would be but probably a little bit additional removal from the patio in the back. There are some pavers in the front off the front of the house there also. Sacchet: So really for them to be fully compliant they would have to get rid of pretty much all their. Metzer: Patio and sidewalks. Sacchet: Patio. That means the whole hard cover surface there in that little courtyard type of shape. Metzer: Majority of it. Sacchet: Majority of that. Zom: Josh, can I ask you a question? Has that been recommended to the property owners as of yet? Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Metzer: Yes, but they've, they have removed quite a bit to this point. They're just not quite there yet. Sacchet: Any other questions? One more question. In the letter from the applicant, you make a point that in fall of 2002, which is not that long ago, they did the addition of the garage and they referred to a young man with blond hair that, according to the letter more than once, more than one occasion stated the setback was 5 feet. Now we're not to try to point finger at anybody. Do we have any idea who the young man with the blond hair is? Metzer: I wouldn't. I wasn't here in 2002. I don't know if Bob would have any idea. Sacchet: But I have a hard time understanding how somebody at City Hall would not be clear about side yard setbacks. That's basically what I'm getting at. Metzer: And we don't know who it would have been. Sacchet: Yeah. McDonald: Can I ask a follow up to that? In the older neighborhoods in Chanhassen at one time, have the setbacks always been what it currently is or was it at one time. Metzer: Well the home was built in 1969. I believe the first, real enforced zoning ordinance was 72. Sacchet: It was kind of a PUD at the time or it didn't even exist then? Generous: It was under village zoning. Sacchet: Under village zoning, okay. McDonald: Could it have been 5 feet at that time? Generous: I haven't found anything. The only ordinance that I know that has that is up in Lundgren development in Near Mountain where they alternated it on some houses. Sacchet: Yeah, but he was a young man with blond hair. McDonald: It wasn't me. Sacchet: It's not necessarily that he would be familiar with those historic type of setbacks even if they were at one point and he was a young man. Metzer: And the point is, any new addition because it's now zoned RSF. Sacchet: Right, would be by the current zoning. 9 Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Metzer: Needs to meet current zoning standards. Sacchet: Alright, well we leave that a mystery then. Any other questions from staff? If not I'd like to ask, do we have an applicant? If you want to come forward and you may want to add to what staff presented. Yes, if you want to come to the podium and get this microphone pointing towards you. State your name and address for the record please and do you have anything to add or tell us about, please do. Cindy Koenig: Okay, Cindy Koenig, 8005 Cheyenne Avenue. No, the letter pretty much says what happened. My husband at one point, the people who laid the block were going to get one of the permits. They didn't do it. He was in a hurry. He just didn't do it so now we're trying to make amends for it. Sacchet: Yeah, and you solved that problem with acquiring a little bit of land on both sides, so that's not really an issue anymore at this point. The only issue we have is the hard cover. Cindy Koenig: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. Do you have questions of the applicant? I wondered I mean how do you feel about this? I mean in order to be compliant you would have to get rid, pretty much of the walkway around your garage and most of the patio in the back. I mean you don't have anything to say about that? Cindy Koenig: Well, we have already gotten rid of a side driveway. Sacchet: Right, we got the pictures of that. Cindy Koenig: Yeah. The patio has been there since 19 I think 84 or something like that. don't know what to say. I understand the compliance issue. I understand all of that, but. Sacchet: It's been there a long time. I understand. McDonald: Excuse me, is the patio a slab or is it? Cindy Koenig: Yeah. McDonald: Okay, it is a slab. Cindy Koenig: Yeah. McDonald: Do you know about how thick it is? Cindy Koenig: I don't. We didn't lay it. Somebody else did. McDonald: How about the sidewalk? Is it, was it all laid at the same time then? Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Cindy Koenig: The sidewalk was laid after the garage was built. And I'm not sure how thick that is either. McDonald: Okay, that's all the questions I have. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Cindy Koenig: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Now this is a public hearing so I'd like to invite anybody else who wants to comment about this from our audience to come forward. If you have something to add, please do so. State your name and address for the record please. Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Just reading through this today I have a question about the administrative movement of the other lots. Will the lot 2 really be able to come down by 8% so their hard surface coverage is 25% and administratively does that make them a non -conforming lot by giving up square footage? Sacchet: Can you address that Josh? Metzer: The driveway was beginning to be removed about 2 weeks before the administrative subdivision was even received by the city, which has been sent to the city today. To the Carver County I should say, the administrative subdivision so that, the removal of that driveway on Lot 2 I believe it was, brings them down to 23. some odd percent. Sacchet: So they're alright basically. Metzer: Yes. Debbie Lloyd: So what kind of surface will they replace their driveway with? Metzer: They're sodding it. Debbie Lloyd: They're sodding a driveway? Sacchet: Not the whole thing. Metzer: It's the side that pulls around to the side of the garage. Debbie Lloyd: Oh, and that was 8%? Metzer: .8%. Debbie Lloyd: .8%. Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Metzer: It's more than .8%. Debbie Lloyd: Okay, and then there's one other lot that isn't mentioned at all in the report that also conveyed land and is that in compliance with code? Metzer: Which one? Sacchet: You're talking about Lot 4, the one on the other side? Debbie Lloyd: Yeah, the one on the other side. There's no mention of it in the report as far as compliance. Sacchet: The building is smaller and the lot is good size, yeah. Metzer: We've got the number here, just bear with me. Debbie Lloyd: It's a hard one. Those were my questions, but it seems that there is a way to bring it in compliance and as hard as it can be. Metzer: The lot to the east is 20.1%. So it'd be selling the land. Sacchet: After giving up that sliver of land, okay. So we're fine with those. Thanks for checking. Debbie Lloyd: Thank you. Sacchet: Anybody else wants to address this item? Seeing nobody getting up, I close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for comments, discussion. Whenever you're ready. Keefe: I have a question. Sacchet: Go ahead. Keefe: And really to my fellow commissioners. You know this was a non -conforming lot and so it's underneath the 15,000 square foot requirement in the RSF district, right. So I don't know how many are out there that are like this, and maybe they are out there and I know we kind of deal with them as they come in and we run across them, but what, what impact do we have in terms of, or what responsibility do we have to correct a situation which is non -conforming sort of to begin with and now the lot size has been put in at 15,000 square feet or we're saying now has got to be this amount of square footage for hard surface coverage when prior to the 15,000 square foot, which I presume this was built ahead of that, maybe that requirement wasn't there. Metzer: Right, yeah. This was before. Keefe: So we've got a change in the requirements... Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Sacchet: What you're asking is how can you apply rules that don't apply? Keefe: Well yeah. Sacchet: What you're asking is how can you apply rules that don't apply? Keefe: Yeah well you probably, the rule has been put in place after the property was built and now we're asking. Papke: But those rules were in force at the time the two additions were added. Sacchet: Right. Papke: And if a permit had been pulled for the two additions, the drawing would have shown the non-conformance at that point. So I agree that if there was a grandfathering issue, that would have been exposed at the time the permits would have been pulled. Keefe: So to kind of be, kind of follow through to sort of enforce this then, what we would say is that had they pulled the permits it would have. Papke: They would have been fine. Keefe: Right, they would have been fine in this because they would, well they would have had to correct it at that point... Papke: ...right, right. But there wouldn't have been an unknown non-conformance. Keefe: Right. Sacchet: Deborah, did you want to add something? Zom: I was just going to add to that, the patio was constructed in '84. The four season in '97. The garage in '02 along with the additional sidewalk. It seems as though that garage permit would have prevented additional coverage and would have caught that variance at that time. Keefe: And potentially that garage would not have been built. Zorn: And/or the sidewalks, or there would have been choices, decisions at that time. McDonald: I guess the only comment I've got, you know we've been through a lot of these and the problem before has always been brought before us was that there was a contractor involved who was supposed to pull the permits. Never pulled the permits and it wasn't until later on that we find out that we've got a non-compliance. In this particular case permits should have been pulled. If you do any kind of addition onto a house, that's a permit. Pure and simple, so I look at this as kind of a self-imposed problem. And based upon that, even if it's a non -conforming lot at that point the 25% would have come into play. You could have asked for a variance at that Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 point, if we wanted to do something with the lot but now, I'm flat out just don't have a lot of sympathy. I don't see where a grandfather issue exists. You know we've ruled fairly consistently on these with everyone else that's come in. This fits into the same category with the extra caveat that again a building permit should have been pulled by the owner who did all the work, so it doesn't even rise to the level to me of what the other non-conforming's have been. Sacchet: Any more comments on this end? Not really. I'm struggling personally a little bit with this one. I mean on one hand, according to the letter from the applicant they did to some extent work with city hall. It says when they added the garage they took the plans to city hall, planning and engineering department, and it was okayed by a young, by this famous young man with blond hair. Papke: Of course that's their recollection of the situation. Sacchet: Right. McDonald: And that only deals with the 5 foot setback. That doesn't deal with. Sacchet: Impervious. McDonald: That's right, and the 5 foot isn't even an issue here because that's been taken care of. Now it's the 25% and yes, even if you went to the city Planning Commission and you talked about you know, we don't know the context of well if I put it here, you know what's the setback off my property line. You know and it may have answered the question so. Keefe: Just one other question. I mean this is sort of selective enforcement of a rule. You know I mean are we comfortable that within that area where there are a lot of non -conforming lots that everybody is in compliance or are we just selectively enforcing this, they sort of ad hoc come in? Or are we concerned about that? Maybe we're not concerned about that. McDonald: Well we haven't been, as they come before us, we've been pretty consistent on what we've done. We've asked staff in the last meeting to do something about these non-compliance issues that suddenly pop up. That there's got to be something else in the process besides just depending upon permits or something. You know a contractor pulling a permit and then they don't. So that we can head off some of these injuries to property owners that are caused by contractors who don't follow the rules, so we've requested that. We are trying to deal with this, and I know City Council is also, how you deal with an issue such as this to try to head it off before you're now going in and asking a homeowner to bear the cost of tearing something out. So we're trying not to do selective enforcement. We are trying to put something in place so that everybody in the city is aware of these hard surface areas and what's required there. Keefe: And I think I understand the purpose, you know I mean in terms of the 25%. The concern I have is in regards to let's take an area like this is this neighborhood, where this home resides and is there a way to kind of go on a neighborhood basis and say, alright we're going to do a survey of hard surface coverage in this area and we're going to serve notice to the 91 Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 neighborhood so that it ... and I don't know how that, if that's possible to do or whether that's the right thing to do but just to be even handed from a sort of selective. McDonald: We're only talking about a percentage. I mean 25% of whatever you lot size is, I mean that's the coverage. If what you're now talking about is 25%'s too little in one neighborhood, then we need to look at readjusting that figure possibly. Keefe: That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, within that neighborhood on a lot by lot basis, which you know are they all in conformance or not. So in other words, this particular one came before us. Papke: I'm not sure, are you suggesting some kind of witch hunt to go out and look for non- conforming lots? I mean I can't imagine we would, you know the city would do something like that. Every time one of these comes up we deal with them on an individual basis. And just because there are non -conforming lots in the neighborhood doesn't mean we should abandon enforcement of all variances. I'm not following where you're going with this at all. Sacchet: He wonders whether we're fair in the neighborhood. Larson: What if we were to average everybody? Is that kind of what you're grabbing at? Keefe: No, I mean is everybody in that neighborhood that has a non -conforming lot, if they all have non -conforming lots, are they all in conformance with the 25% hard coverage. Sacchet: Yeah, and we don't know. We don't have a way to know. Larson: What if somebody who built back then is above the 25% per se? Just throwing an example out there. Sacchet: Well, and that's a little bit why I feel torn. I mean there's actually also the mitigating factor if you want to look at it as mitigating factor, I think the report somewhere says it's, with what they've removed they're actually slightly below what they could have impervious if it was a 15,000 foot lot, but ultimately I mean if you look at our standard rules that we have to look at, and it's important for you to understand, we have a set of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5 or 6 items that as Planning Commission we are, by ordinance, by our code we're required to look at. In order to make a recommendation, or possibly a decision. And the first one is it a hardship? And a hardship is not a fluffy thing. It's defined in the code. Hardship is if you cannot make a use that's on the property and they're surrounding 500 feet, which in this case is to have a single family house with a 2 car garage, which you do have. So by that definition you don't pass that one. You do not have a hardship by that definition. Second point, is it applicable to other properties? Obviously it's very applicable because that's what we've just been struggling with. That, whether it's fair or it doesn't apply, it definitely applies across the board. If we try by what Dan was trying to do, and he bumped a little bit into a concrete wall with it, if we wanted try to be fair within the context of the neighborhood, that really doesn't quite fly either. Then we tum into policing something that we don't want to go police either. So it doesn't fly, so they don't pass that hurdle. Does it increase the value? Well you didn't do it for that purpose so that's kind 10 Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 of in the bubble. Is it self created hardship? Now we could argue over that because you tried to be compliant and all that. Ultimately the fact that you didn't really pull a formal permit we could say it's self created, if you want to be real objectively and that's kind of harsh but the reality is such, right? Then is it detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land? In generally speaking with the impervious, if you're above the impervious, we can, and that's why we have this impervious rule because if you have too much impervious you contribute to the runoff. You contribute to what ultimately can be injurious to that environment. To other properties around so there you don't pass either. And the last point is, does it impair adequate supply of light and air? Obviously it doesn't so there you come out well. But if we pile this all on a balance, I mean if we just follow the steps that are given to us as a commission, as our task, and that's also where staff was coming from saying, well looking at this from what our rules that are given to us, we, I feel we are compelled to deny it. However, I do want to point out that if we end up denying it or not, if we do end up denying it, that it can be brought in front of City Council and City Council does have more leeway. It's their role. They're not bound as much as we are bound by those criteria. It's not that we are necessarily bound totally by it. We have a little bit of leeway, but this goes a little, in my opinion beyond what a little leeway would be. I mean we're trying to be sensitive and we understand your predicament here certainly. We'd like to help you with it. However with the framework of the code of the city I think that we would have to send you to City Council to take that step, okay. That's my comment. Undestad: Can I add one thing? Sacchet: Please. Undestad: You know seeing what's been done on here, I just have to say that you know the variances and some of the self inflicted hardships we've seen, you guys have done a great job going out and buying more land on each side you know and trying to get everything back down to where everything's within but you're just right over our heads here I guess. Sacchet: Taking off that piece of driveway, I mean you've shown tremendous effort and willingness to correct it and from that angle I wish we could be more amenable to your request. That's partially what I said when I feel like I'm a little torn about this certainly. Any other comments? If not, yes Debbie. Larson: Well Josh had said that on the one side, just going into the lots that they purchased land from, they're under quite a bit on one side for sure. I mean is there any way that I know that it's lot by lot but averaging those 3? Metzer: No, we can't do that. Larson: Or the neighborhood you know like we were saying. What if you were to look at the entire area? How many are over? How many are under? Sacchet: No, that'd be unmanageable Debbie. That'd be a nightmare. Larson: Not that you would mange it but to, just to you know. 11 Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Sacchet: Right, right. It's a good idea but very difficult to apply. Papke: That's come up on some of these previous cases where there were some larger lots next door. Then you also run the risk if somebody subdivides that large lot, now you've got issues. Or the neighbor next door adds some more hard coverage. There's nothing to prevent them at that point from going over the edge. Sacchet: Alright, any other comments? If not I'd like a motion. Zorn: I'd like to motion that the Planning Commission denies Variance 05-34 for 6.88% hard coverage, hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four season porch on a lot zoned single family residential based upon the findings in the staff report and the following 1 and 2. As well as the Planning Commission orders the property owner to remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements. Sacchet: Yes, the percentage right? The correct percentage is not 6.8. The new one is how much? Zorn: Oh I'm sorry. 4.06. Sacchet: 4.06. Alright, we have a motion. Do we have a second? McDonald: I'll second. Zorn moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #05-34 for a 4.06% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four season porch on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF), based upon the findings in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. The Planning Commission orders the property owner to: Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements. All voted in favor, except Larson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Sacchet: I'd encourage you to bring this to the attention of the City Council and see what they can do for you. Good luck with it. So that brings us to the minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner McDonald noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 18, 2005 as presented. 12 Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Chairman Sacchet adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 13 Location Map Koenig Variance Request Planning Case No. 05-34 8005 Cheyenne Avenue City of Chanhassen 8th Sheet Sate Hwy No. 5 O D vN Subject Site (° Lake Drive East J Che en ne qG0 A� O ey <D ota Sp < Cir CD Dakota Ve SCANNED Page I of 2 Metzer, Josh From: Metzer, Josh Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 4:25 PM To:'kwpapke@aol.com';'dckeefe@mchsi.com';'Uli Sacchet; 'mundestad @ centercompanies.com'; 'debbieturneroriginals @ msn.com'; 'zom @ umn.edu'; 'jmcdonald @ mcdonald-rud.com' Cc: AI-Jaff, Sharmeen; Generous, Bob Attachments: DSCN5598.JPG; DSCN5599.JPG; DSCN5600.JPG Dear Planning Commissioners, Since the Staff Report for the Koenig Variance was completed and delivered to you the applicants have removed more hard cover from their lot. The portion of the driveway that wrapped around the side of the garage has been removed and replaced with sod (photos taken 10-31-05 are attached). Therefore, the Koenig's request has been revised. Previously the applicant was requesting a 6.88% variance (31.88% hard cover). That request has been revised and is now a 4.06% variance (29.06% hard cover). Hard cover breakdowns for the previous and current request are listed below: Previous Hard Cover Calculations: Lot Area = 12,803 sq. ft. House = 2,178 sq. ft. Driveway = 1,230 sq. ft. Patio. Sidewalk. Stoop = 674 sq ft TOTAL = 4,082 sq. ft. 31.88% Revised Hard Cover Calculations (Current): Lot Area = 12,803 sq. ft. House = 2,178 sq. ft. Driveway = 861 sq. ft. Patio. Sidewalk. Stoop = 674 sq ft TOTAL = 3,721 sq. ft. 29.06% Also, the quit claim deeds for the two administrative subdivisions have been received by the City and will be signed and sent to Carver County this week. If you have questions, please contact me. Josh Metzer - Planner Ph: 951-127-1132 Fax: 951-227-1110 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 1 l/l/2005 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BLVD • CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Payee: MICHAEL KOENIG Date: 10/28/2005 Time: 8:20am Receipt Number: DW / 6726 Clerk: DANIELLE GIS LIST 05-34 ITEM REFERENCE ------------------------------------------- AMOUNT GIS GIS LIST 05-34 GIS LIST 153 00 --------------- Total: 153.00 Check 5902 153.00 --------------- Change: 0.00 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT! • 6CANNE0 1 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 an OF (952) 227-1100 To: Mike & Cindy Koenig 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Ship To: L Invoice SALESPERSON DATE TERMS KTM 10/20/05 upon receipt QUANTITY DESCRIPTION UNIT PRICE AMOUNT 51 Property Owners List within 500' of 8005 Cheyenne Avenue (51 labels) $3.00 $153.00 TOTAL DUE $153.00 NOTE: This invoice is in accordance with the Development Review Application submitted to the City by the Addressee shown above (copy attached). Make all checks payable to: City of Chanhassen Please write the following code on your check: Planning Case #05-34. If you have any questions concerning this invoice, call: (952)-227-1107. THANK YOU FOR YOUR BUSINESS! PLEASE PRINT Email: • 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Address: Planning Case No. 05 -3 Name and Address: 2 WZ&L-Ifwb Contact: Fax: Phone: Fax: 1 c&m.Email: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development` Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review' Subdivision` Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements X, Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign— - $75 + $100 Damage Deposit X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"' - $50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE 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. Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8/z" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital cop v in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format. " Applicant to obtain notification sign from City of Chanhassen Public Works at 1591 Park Road and install upon submittal of completed application. $100 damage deposit to be refunded to applicant when sign is returned following City Council approval. ' 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. SCANNED 0 0 KAHNKE BROS INC COOK PROPERTIES-CHANHASSEN LLC MCDONALD'S CORP (22-157) 1400 ARBORETUM DR 8640 LYNDALE AVE S PO BOX 66207 PO BOX 7 AMF O'HARE VICTORIA, MN 55386.0007 BLOOMINGTON , MN 55420 - CHICAGO, IL 60666 - I C JOHN LLC DYS PROPERTIES JACK D CHRISTENSON 7920 SOUTH BAY CRV 4711 SHADY OAK RD 15411 VILLAGE WOODS DR EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 -1119 HOPKINS , MN 55343 -8840 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 -1438 TERRANCE SR & SANDRA THOMPSON RICK & CATHY CHEESEMAN DANIEL A & KRIS L CITARELLA 3820 LINDEN CIR 18500 WYNNFIELD RD 8008 ERIE AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7727 EDEN PRAIRIE. MN 55347 -1039 CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9752 THOMAS R & NATALIE J TWINING LOREN R JOHNSON & PATRICIA M DOLAN 8009 CHEYENNE AVE MARY KAY KINNEY 8007 CHEYENNE AVE - CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9720 8011 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9720 MICHAEL A & CYNTHIA K KOENIG JAMES R & JANICE GILDNER THOMAS M & KRISTIE A KOTSONAS 8005 CHEYENNE AVE 8003 CHEYENNE AVE 8001 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317.9720 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9720 ANNE T THOMPSON CLAYTON & MARGARET SODETANI THOMAS J & SANDRA M KOEPPEN 8000 DAKOTA AVE 8005 ERIE AVE 8009 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9636 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9301 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9301 MICHAEL D KRAINES & TERRY J & MARGARET A LEWIS ANDREA LYNNE FANNEMEL JULIE A SONDERUP 8013 CHEYENNE AVE 6003 DAKOTA AVE 8002 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9636 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9637 WILLIAM J & EARLA KRAUS RALPH WAYNE LYTLE MICHAEL D & SARAH J PETERSEN 8008 CHEYENNE AVE 8021 ERIE AVE 8010 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9767 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9301 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9767 GERALD H & MARILYN M WASSINK GLENN A & BONNIE LEE HAGEMAN RUSSELL L & VIRGINIA HAMILTON 8004 DAKOTA AVE 8021 CHEYENNE SPUR 8019 CHEYENNE SPUR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9636 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9607 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9607 MARILYN MARGARET STEWART 8015 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9720 ROBERT A & DAWN T WIND 8023 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9301 GAYLON R & LINDA O RUST 8017 CHEYENNE SPUR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9607 ALLAN J & KATHIE J NELSON 8025 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9301 ANTHONY E & LISA M BACHMAN 8008 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317.9636 SUZANNE M SHEPPARD 8010 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317.9636 RAYMOND S & MARY ANN JEZIERSKI 8013 DAKOTA CIR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9757 CHARLES H ANGELO III & RANDY L FRITZ 8017 DAKOTA CIR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9757 MICHAEL WILLIAM FARRELL 8024 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9767 0 STEVEN & ESTA KATKIN DANIEL P & LINDA M ROBINSON 8012 CHEYENNE AVE 8014 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9767 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9767 JOHN 0 & DONNA M SOLBERG PATRICIA A HEGSTROM 8006 DAKOTA AVE 8005 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9636 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9637 LEE & PATRICIA JENSEN VALBORG A SWEDBERG 8009 DAKOTA CIR TRUSTEE OF TRUST CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9757 8016 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9767 WALTER & KATHLEEN SCHOLLMAN RAYMOND & KATHERINE KNIGHT 8011 DAKOTA CIR 8077 DAKOTA CIR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9757 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9757 ROBERT W & KATHY A TOENJES PATRICIA E HIRSCHBERG 8018 CHEYENNE AVE 8023 CHEYENNE SPUR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9767 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9607 ALOIS J & MARY C STUMPFL CRAIG T & KATHRYN M HUMASON 8027 CHEYENNE AVE 8025 CHEYENNE SPUR CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9607 DOUGLAS W & KATHLEEN M BAGLEY PAUL D & LOUISE J O'DELL 8020 CHEYENNE AVE 8012 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9767 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9636 RONALD D & LINDA L OLSON STEPHEN K & VICKI C TABOREK 8015 DAKOTA CIR 8022 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9757 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9767 Sc OILW A1,067 First, I want to thank in advance for your consideration in this matter. My name is Cindy Koenig. I live at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue and have been a resident for 14 1/2 years. I sit before you this evening to ask for a variance request, relief of 10 ft.side yard set back and hard surface coverage. Our home was built in 1969. When we moved into our home in May of 1991, we did not have a survey done. The chain link fence surrounding our back yard was in place and had been there since previous owner Wm R. Johnson had Montgomery Ward install it on May 3, 1980. 1 have the original plan for installation if you would like to see it. When we bought the house from Swatfager's they assured us things were in order and we trusted that. In 1 no one we knew had a survey done and rarely a home insection./ In 1997 we discovere the original deck was ro mg mytiiusband removed i�lieving-iaTifwe placed a structure in the same place that was the same size itwoutd-be fne. My husband decided to add porch on deckat that time. No permit was obtained. No other remodeling was done until Spring/ summer of � replaced old roof . Fall of 2002 my husband decided to add on to our g rage, taking several different plans to the city of Chanhassen planning and engineering departments.Ainally extension from behind the garage was ok'd(by now unknown young man with blonde hair). He Iso assured my husband it was a 5ft. side set back, and if we stayed behind that it was OK to go. At that time we had survey done and found out fence lines were some how incorrect. Survey crew said that because new road had been put in difficult to tell where monuments were. We took survey into same unknown young man fine as long as it was five feet back. MPS Foundation came in to pour footings and build foundation and did not obtain permit and told my husband because it now was late Fall if they did not hurry they would not be back until Spring. They assured him that if they took pictures of footings it would be fine and he could get permit later. He agreed, then b came busy and forgot. I am most certainly not trying to make excuses, it just is what happened�The years went by, the permit forgptten. We love our home and planned to stay forever and then a job change and now a move out of state to Arkansas. We put our house up for sale, it sold in four days and we had planned to close October 21 on this house, and October 24 on``n��w house in Arkansas .My husband is now working in Arkansas and has been there since September 12.'y�Our new buyers wanted to see permits for additions, we told them we did not pull permits but wo Id go ahead and do it now to make it right and pay whatever fines we needed to. We also apologized to them for going about this all wrong. Everything else went fine until I brought in information to get permits and am told we now do not meet 10 ft. side yard set back and have too much hard surface coverage. I was completely shocked and and so was my husband when I called him. Had we known about the 10 ftset back we would never have went ahead with garage, and tried to resolve porch issue. We were told 5ft and it was ok'd .We know we should have got permits, this is totally our fault and we take full responsibility. We want to make this right with the City of Chanhassen. We apologize to the planning commission and City of Chanhassen. We have learned a great lesson and we are sharing this information with neighbors and friends. We respectively ask that a variance be granted that allows relief from 10 ft. side yard set back and hard surface coverage. We appreciate your time and consideration of this matter. Thank you very much. Mike and Cindy Koenig 611q f3jkuu� Jim & Jan Gildner 8003 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 October 16, 2005 City of Chanhassen 770 Market Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 To whom it may concern: Jrgllaner(mmsn.com 952.937.1286 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OCT 7. 7 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT We have a verbal agreement to sell a portion of our property to our neighbors, Mike and Cindy Koenig at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue. Previous owners incorrectly placed fences encroaching on our property. We were unaware of this until a recent survey was completed. We also understand that after we sell a portion of our lot to the Koenigs we may be slightly exceeding our limit of hard surface area in relation to our total lot size. Our plans are to eliminate a cement pad on the west side of our garage. We had intended to remove it before we learned of the incorrectly placed fence line. At this time we will accelerate our plans and remove the cement slab by November 30, 2005. We understand that this will bring our hard surface area in compliance with the city ordinance, cerel y Jim & Jan Gildner October 21, 2005 Mike and Cindy Koenig 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mike and Cindy: CITY OF RECEIVEDSSEN OCT 2 4 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT This letter indicates our verbal agreement to sell a portion of my property located at 8007 Cheyenne Avenue, Chanhassen, MN 55317. The previous owners incorrectly placed fences encroaching on my property. We were unaware of this until recent surveys were completed. Sincerel3F;---77 /Pat Dolan 8007 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 PLEASE PRINT CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Phone: - d Fax: ' Email: kQ t'A<b&ILPLCOMI a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review' Subdivision' Planning Case No. 05 -3 Owner Name and Address: Phone: Fax: Email: Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements I \ Variance Wetland Alteration Permit Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign" - $75 + $100 Damage Deposit X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"' - $50 CUP/SPRNAC/VAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB TOTAL FEE 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. Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8/2" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format. Applicant to obtain notification sign from City of Chanhassen Public Works at 1591 Park Road and install upon submittal of completed application. $100 damage deposit to be refunded to applicant when sign is returned following City Council approval. 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. SCANNED PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: LEGAL DES cwiat,tce, TOTAL ACREAGE: O . 211 WETLANDS PRESENT: c YES � NO PRESENT ZONING: IN `� REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: /1 . REQUESTED LAND USE REASON FOR REQUEST ki / n 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 Date Signature of Fee Owner Date U'Vian\161MDevelopment Review Applicatan.DOC Rev. 4/05 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT 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 October 20, 2005, 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 Variance on property located at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue — Planning Case No. 05-34 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 thisa(L day of ('X c�l]o� , 2005. Not P KIM T.MEUWISSEN f. Notary Public -Minnesota � iiwi ` My Commission Expires Jan 37, 2010 SCANNED Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, November 1, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for hard surface coverage Variance for garage and Request for hard surface coverage Variance for garage and porch additions. Planning File: 05-34 KOENIG VARIANCE Applicant: Mike & Cindv Koenig Property 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. I A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: What Happens What Happens at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. the ro'ect. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop 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., 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 Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Josh Metzer at 952-227-1132 or e - Questions & mail imetzer®ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online at http://206.10.76.6/weblink7 the be available online at http://206.10.76.6tweblink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. 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 something to be included in the report, please contact the Plannina Stall person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, November 1, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Request for hard surface coverage Variance for garage and Proposal: orch additions. Planning File: 05-34 KOENIG VARIANCE Applicant: Mike & CIndV Koenig Property 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Location: I 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: What Happens at the Meeting: 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 Meltzer at 952-227-1132 or e - Questions & mail imetzer@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: 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://206.10.76.6tweblink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. 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 commerciaUndustrial. • 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 Nem through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. • A neighborhood spokespersontrepresentative 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 something to be included in the report, lease contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. p Sveet Stale Hwy No. 5 �m m Subject Site Lake Drive est t J �n0 he �e m o eY m kpto $9 Cir a e / a oa 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 antl data located in various city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding Me arae shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Date used to prepare this map are error free, and Me City does nM represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other purpose repuinng exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depiction of geographic features. If more or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107, The preceding declaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §066.03, Sued. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for my damages, and eetwassly waives all claim, and agrees to defend indemnity, and hdtl hamYess no City from my and all claim brought by User, its employees or agents, or Mint pates which ansa out of the users access or use of data pmnded. This map is namer a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This nap is a compilation of records, information and data located in vanous city, county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding Me area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant Mat the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map aro error from, and the CM does not represent that Me GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or my other purpose rmulmg exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the depictor of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107. The preceding disclaimer is pronced pursuant to Minnesota Statutes §066.03. Subd. 21 (2000). and the user of this map acknoWedges that Me City shall not to liable for any damages, and e)pressly waives all clans, and agrees to clefand, indenthy, and hold hamiless the City from my and all claims brought by User, its miployeas or agents, or Mint pates "ich arse out of Me usees access or use of data provided. «NAME1» «NAME2» «ADD1 » «ADD2» «CITY» «STATE» ((ZIP)) «Next Record))« NAME1» «NAME2)) «ADD1» «ADD2» ((CITY,, ((STATE* «ZIP» Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Koenig Variance Request Planning Case No. 05-34 8005 Cheyenne Avenue City of Chanhassen 8rh street Stade Hwy No. 5 0 D Subject Site Lake Drive East PJ I Che en ne lU O W e`J (D kota SP < Cir (D m�u �akot a � e KAHNKE BROS INC MCDONALD'S CORP (22-157) 1400 ARBORETUM DR COOK PROPERTIES-CHANHASSEN LLC PO BOX 66207 PO BOX 7 8640 LYNDALE AVE S AMF O'HARE VICTORIA, MN 55386 -0007 BLOOMINGTON, MN 55420 - CHICAGO, IL 60666 - I C JOHN LLC DYS PROPERTIES JACK D CHRISTENSON 7920 SOUTH BAY CRV 4711 SHADY OAK RD 15411 VILLAGE WOODS DR EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 -1119 HOPKINS , MN 55343 -8840 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 -1438 TERRANCE SR & SANDRA THOMPSON RICK & CATHY CHEESEMAN DANIEL A & KRIS L CITARELLA 3820 LINDEN CIR 18500 WYNNFIELD RD 8008 ERIE AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7727 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 -1039 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9752 THOMAS R & NATALIE J TWINING LOREN R JOHNSON & PATRICIA M DOLAN 8009 CHEYENNE AVE MARY KAY KINNEY - 8007 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9720 8011 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317-9720 MICHAEL A & CYNTHIA K KOENIG JAMES R & JANICE GILDNER THOMAS M & KRISTIE A KOTSONAS 8005 CHEYENNE AVE 8003 CHEYENNE AVE 8001 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317.9720 ANNE T THOMPSON CLAYTON & MARGARET SODETANI THOMAS J & SANDRA M KOEPPEN 8000 DAKOTA AVE 8005 ERIE AVE 8009 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9636 CHANHASSEN , MN 65317 -9301 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9301 MICHAEL D KRAINES & TERRY J & MARGARET A LEWIS ANDREA LYNNE FANNEMEL JULIE A SONDERUP 8013 CHEYENNE AVE 8003 DAKOTA AVE 8002 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9637 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9636 WILLIAM J & EARLA KRAUS RALPH WAYNE LYTLE MICHAEL D & SARAH J PETERSEN 8008 CHEYENNE AVE 8021 ERIE AVE 8010 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9767 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9301 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9767 GERALD H & MARILYN M WASSINK GLENN A & BONNIE LEE HAGEMAN RUSSELL L & VIRGINIA HAMILTON 8004 DAKOTA AVE 8021 CHEYENNE SPUR 8019 CHEYENNE SPUR CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9636 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9607 CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9607 MARILYN MARGARET STEWART STEVEN & ESTA KATKIN DANIEL P & LINDA M ROBINSON 8015 CHEYENNE AVE 8012 CHEYENNE AVE 8014 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9767 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9767 ROBERT A & DAWN T LUND JOHN 0 & DONNA M SOLBERG PATRICIA A HEGSTROM 8023 ERIE AVE 8006 DAKOTA AVE 8005 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9301 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9636 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9637 GAYLON R & LINDA O RUST LEE & PATRICIA JENSEN VALBORG A SWEDBERG 8017 CHEYENNE SPUR 8009 DAKOTA CIR TRUSTEE OF TRUST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9607 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9757 8016 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9767 ALLAN J & KATHIE J NELSON WALTER & KATHLEEN SCHOLLMAN RAYMOND & KATHERINE KNIGHT 8025 ERIE AVE 8011 DAKOTA CIR 8077 DAKOTA CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9301 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9757 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9757 ANTHONY E & LISA M BACHMAN ROBERT W & KATHY A TOENJES PATRICIA E HIRSCHBERG 8008 DAKOTA AVE 8018 CHEYENNE AVE 8023 CHEYENNE SPUR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9636 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9767 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9607 SUZANNE M SHEPPARD ALOIS J & MARY C STUMPFL CRAIG T & KATHRYN M HUMASON 8010 DAKOTA AVE 8027 CHEYENNE AVE 8025 CHEYENNE SPUR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9636 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9607 RAYMOND S & MARY ANN JEZIERSKI DOUGLAS W & KATHLEEN M BAGLEY PAUL D & LOUISE J O'DELL 8013 DAKOTA CIR 8020 CHEYENNE AVE 8012 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9757 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9767 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9636 CHARLES H ANGELO III 8 RONALD D & LINDA L OLSON STEPHEN K & VICKI C TABOREK RANDY L 8015 DAKOTA CIR 8022 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN, , MN 55317 -9757 DAKOOTATA CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9757 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9767 CHA MICHAEL WILLIAM FARRELL 8024 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9767 Carver County GIS Mapping Application iay 5 'v ,� f r Map ner� Office Legend Road Ted US "Mys 1 CS W-'y'CSM Map Created on: County Ruaft �� 10-17-2005 L't°s Carver ......County Atul Photo 7007 This map was created using Carver County's Geographic Information Systems (GIS), it is a compilation of information and data from various City, County, State, and Federal offices. This map is not a surveyed or legally recorded map and is intended to be used as a reference. Carver County is not responsible for any inaccuracies contained herein. SCANNED Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Koenig Variance Request Planning Case No. 05-34 8005 Cheyenne Avenue City of Chanhassen 8th Street Sate Hwy No. 5 0 D Subject Site 0 Lake Drive East Che en he n� 0 w e`J m kota SP < Cir CD mWn Oakota �e BCANOW MEMORANDUM TO: Josh Metzer, Planner I FROM: Steven Torell, Building Official DATE: October 18, 2005 SUBJ: Review of variance request for garage and porch additions at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue. Mike and Cindy Koenig. Planning Case: 05-34 I have reviewed the above request for a variance and have the following comments: 1. The additions must be constructed in accordance the Minnesota State Building Code. G/safety/sLmemos/plan/vuiance/8005 Cheyenne Ave CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BLVD CHANHASSEN Payee: MICHAEL KOENIG Date: 10/17/2005 Receipt Number: DW / Clerk: DANIELLE KOENIG VARIANCE 05-34 MN 55317 Time: 11:59am 6681 ITEM REFERENCE AMOUNT ------------------------------------------- DEVAP KOENIG VARIANCE 05-34 USE & VARIANCE 200.00 RECORDING FEES 50.00 --------------- Total: 250.00 Check 5896 250.00 --------------- Change: 0.00 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT! SCANNED CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER & HENNEPIN COUNTIES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 05-34 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, November 1, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Blvd. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request for a hard surface coverage Variance on property located at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue. Applicant: Mike & Cindy Koenig. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Josh Metzer, Planner I Email: Lmetzer@ci chanhassen.mn.us Phone: 952-227-1132 (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on October 20, 2005) Os -34 scutum CITY OF CBANAA33EN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax 952.227.1110 Park At Rumba' Plan: 952.227.1120 Fax 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassen.maus MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Josh Metzer, Planner I DATE: November 14, 2005 SUBJ: MIKE & CINDY KOENIG: Request for a Hard Surface Coverage Variance for a Garage and a Four -Season Porch, 8005 Cheyenne Avenue — Planning Case #05-34 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This item is being appealed to City Council by the applicant. This is a request for a _4b6k---hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction on property located in the Single Family Residential District at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue. ACTION REQUIRED City Council approval requires a majority of City Council present. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on November 1, 2005, to review the proposed development. The Planning Commission voted 6 to 1 to deny the request. That decision is being appealed by the applicant. RECOMMENDATION Planning Commission recommends adoption of the motion as specified on pages 7 & 8 of the staff report dated November 1, 2005. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated November 1, 2005. 2. Planning Commission Minutes dated November 1, 2005. g:xplan12005 planning cros X05-34 kmaig varimmNexecutive sum ry.doc is dhtr varia is 'Ik—bus atex 4. °�%11 The City of ChoMpip • Aprowing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. CITY OF CHANHASSEN STAFF REPORT PC DATE: November 1, 2005 CC DATE: November 14, 2005 REVIEW DEADLINE: November 29, 2005 CASE #: 05-34 BY: JM PROPOSAL: Request for 6:88 4.06% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four -season porch on property located in the Single Family Residential District (RSF) at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue. These structures have already been built. LOCATION: Lot 3, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 APPLICANT: Mike & Cindy Koenig 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.29 acre (12,803 square feet) DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 6-8 4.06% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four -season porch. The garage addition and four -season porch have already been built. 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-MAIGNG: 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. Koenig Variance Planning Case #05-34 November 1, 2005 Page 2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The subject property is located south of Highway 5 and east of Dakota Avenue at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue and is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The applicant is requesting a 6-8 4.06% (which represents 87 1.3 520.25 square feet of site coverage) hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition ON (20'x16') and a four -season porch (13.2'x14.3'). This brings the hard surface coverage to 4,082 3,721 square feet which is 31.88 29.06%. These structures have already been built. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 7-19. Plans and specifications. Impervious surface means any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm water. It shall include, but not be limited to, gavel driveways, parking area, buildings and structures. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 ea rcent. Koenig Variance Planning Case #05-34 November 1, 2005 Page 3 The subiect property was rolattr%IzapW of Chanhassen Estates which was recorded on August 3, 1966. The house was built in 196 The subject property is located in the Single Family Residential (R district and has an area of 12,803 square feet. In the RSF distn 25% is the maximum permitted impervious surface coverageage o�JThe applicant has a hard cover of 31-88 29.04%. L issue at hand came to the attention of the City when inquiry was made regarding permitting of the ect additions. It was discovered that a four -season porch was constructed in 1997 and a garage tion was constructed in 2002. Both of these structures were built without building permits from the . Subsequently, the applicant applied for after -the -fact building permits for the garage addition and h. An as -built survey was submitted with the permits. This survey revealed the garage addition and -season porch both had nonconforming side yard setbacks. It also appeared the lot could be over on maximum hard cover percentage. A revised survey showed that the existing hard surface coverage .12%. At this point the applicant was informed that the property would have to be brought into pliance with City Code or a variance would need to be applied for. Garage Addition On the survey dated September 29, 2005, it is clear that the applicants' fence lies outside of their property lines. It is not clear why the fence was located so far out of place with the property lines. The fence was installed - --.^-*mery Ward in 1980. After meeting wit' rounding the nonconfor hies, the applicant decided to b60 8007 Cheyenne Avenue and to the west at 8003 purchase land fru i Cheyenne Avenu erUon Af their driveway in order toaeLiminate the two nonconforming, ?roperty's hard surface coverage lid eentage and bring the side yard fences ;hbors have submitted their written reement to sell a portion of their. Koenig Variance Planning Case #05-34 November 114, 2005 Page 6 Lot 2 (8007 Cheyenne Avenue), located to the west of the subject property, is at 11,208 square feet in area and currently has a nonconforming hard cover percentage of 25.8% as a result of conveying land to the applicant as part of the administrative subdivision. However, the property owners of Lot 2 have proposed in writing to remove the portion of the driveway that wraps around the side of the garage. In fact, removal of this portion of the driveway has already begun. The area is quite flat with a storm sewer at the front of the lot that extends east within Cheyenne Avenue, then to the northeast within Cheyenne Spur, and connects to the storm sewer within the ravine to the west of the development, which outlets to Rice Marsh Lake. This area of the City was developed before water quality and quantity ponding requirements were established, therefore a pond was not constructed to pretreat this water before entering Rice Marsh Lake. During the September 4, 2005 storm, a property within Cheyenne Spur sustained water damage after the storm sewer system surcharged and water entered the garage. Although the rainfall intensity during the September 4's storm was significantly higher than the storm sewer systems are designed to handle, staff recommends denial of the hard surface cover variance in order to minimi eliminate storm -related flooding to the maximum extent possible. The subject property is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The minimum lot size in the RSF is 15,000 square feet. Therefore, the subject property has a nonconforming lot area of 12,803 square feet. With a total hard surface coverage of 4;882 3,721 square feet, the property meeeds is just below the maximum hard cover that would be allowed on a lot with an area of 15,000 square feet (3,750 = 25%). if the subjest pr-epelt!"s hwd eover- was r-edueed to 3,750 square feet, it weuld still be over dhe m-A—mi—mMun While the applicant has expended money for the improvements, such expenditure does not justify the granting of a variance. 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. Reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. Reasonable use of this property, a single-family home with a two - car garage, already exists but is exceeding City hard cover restrictions. The applicant would have to remove an additional 991 25 520.25 square feet of hard surface coverage in order to bring the hard cover to 25%. Any use of the property beyond that discussed above is strictly ancillary to the principal use. Based on these facts, staff must recommend denial of this request. I y 1►1171 `►CfC9 -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. 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 Koenig Variance Planning Case #05-34 November 414, 2005 Page 7 that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre- existing standards without departing downward from them meet these criteria. Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. By having a single-family home and a two -car garage the property owner has reasonable use of the property. 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 improvements increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Construction of the garage addition and porch were completed without building permits; therefore, this is a self-created hardship. Had building permits been sought, the hard surface issue would have been addressed. 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 may 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 increase in runoff from this property. 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 variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. RECOMMENDATION Staff Planning Commission recommends that the Plafining Gemmis City Council adopt the following motion: "The Plaiiining Cenunis City Council denies Variance #05-34 for a 6:88 4.06% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four -season porch on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) based upon the findings in the staff report and the following: Koenig Variance Planning Case #05-34 November -114, 1005 Page 8 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. The Planning Gemtnissien City Council orders the property owner to: 1. Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements." ZShould the PlanrAng Gemmiss City Council choose to approve this request, staff recommends the adoption of the following motion: "The Planning Ceaunis City Council approves Variance #05-34 for a 6$8 4.06% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four -season porch on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions: 1. Building permits, plans and necessary inspections for the additions shall be required in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Property owners shall vacate existing drainage & utility easements and shall dedicate new drainage & utility easements adjacent to new property lines. 3. Variance #05-34 shall not be recorded until after the two administrative subdivisions conveying property to Lot 3, Block 3 Chanhassen Estates have been recorded with Carver County." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter from Mike & Cindy Koenig stamped "Received September 29, 2005". 4. Letter from Jim & Jan Gildner stamped "Received October 17, 2005". 5. Letter from Pat Dolan stamped "Received October 24, 2005". 6. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List. 7. As -built Survey of Lot 3, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates stamped "Received September 29, 2005'. 8. As -Built Survey of Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates stamped "Received October 13, 2005'. &: plan\2005 planing ca \05-34 koenig variance\stan'reportAm CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Mike & Cindy Koenig for 6.88% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four - season porch — Planning Case No. 05-34. On November 1, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Mike & Cindy Koenig for 6.88% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four -season porch on property located in the Single Family Residential District at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue. 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 3, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates. 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 would not cause 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 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 F. Yy Ve - 1� 9�w dsy~e iw: 1 ♦F1 _ _ }� =� F. Yy Ve iw: 1 _ _ �� t� 4s. � �, ��i' I � t 1 t ,. ._..kr r ' �1p 3� r; ifi K� , ,"- 1 � z � as..,f p � r+ {IT F� 3. G� LKq"3''T.e � ��'a 'S`.Y':iR$ " _ -. S t .Y �iF. �� yy 7 � s L .� i iN fJ a�}J �� 1 1 V 6 +� :_� '�V {�1 V .t_ 4 -. ....�_""- __.. .. �, pp V„ .1 ��'Y,�i< �� HiQ t e 't� � nl" R, � "v` .x �. 'f � 3 �. Y t � s N �tql��. �., � �j 5� , � � � i( .., P '_ 'I� .. ... "-I orb f+"' �P". � ztg .. a' �. ` '. w .. _ - ,,, PLEASE PRINT CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION Planning Case No. 05 -3 Ap licant Nmean Address: Owner Name and Address: IO_ «, MAI Contact: a -iz:?- f ilz Z $'- g Contact: Phone: - 11 Fax: Phone: Fax: 7Email• i' ks At . co Email: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements Interim Use Permit (\ Variance Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development' Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign** - $75 + $100 Damage Deposit X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attomey Cost*** Site Plan Review* - $50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB Subdivision* I TOTAL FEE An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification arka will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8�/z" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tit) format. ** Applicant to obtain notification sign troy) City of Chanhassen Public Works at 1591 Park Road and install upon submittal of completed application. $100 damage deposit to be refunded to applicant when sign is returned following City Council approval. "' 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. SeMNED of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood The planning report #05-34 Variance dated November 1, 2005, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Planning Commission denies the Variances from the impervious surface restrictions for garage addition and four -season porch. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this ls` day of November, 2005. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION 101 giplan\2005 planning mm\05-34 koenig vasianm\findings of faadm 2 Its Chairman CITY OF CHANHASSEN September 29, 2005 RECEIVED SEP 2 9 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Dear Members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission: First, I want to thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. My name is Cindy Koenig. I live at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue and have been a resident at that address for 14th years. I sit before you this evening to ask for relief from Chanhassen City Code hard surface coverage restrictions. Our home was built in 1969. When we moved into our home in May of 1991 we did not have a survey done on the property. At that time there was a fence enclosing our back yard which the previous owner, Wm. R. Johnson, had installed by Montgomery Ward on May 3, 1980. I have the original plan for the fence installation if you would like to see it. When we bought the house from the Swatfager's they assured us things were in order and we trusted that. Back in 1991 no one we knew had a survey for their property and rarely a home inspection. In 1997 we discovered that the original deck was rotting so my husband removed it believing that if we placed a structure of the same size in the same place that would be fine. My husband decided to replace the deck with a porch at that time. No permit was obtained. No other remodeling was done until the spring of 2002when we replaced the old roof. In the fall of 2002 my husband decided to add on to our garage, taking several plans to the City of Chanhassen Planning and Engineering Departments. Addition to the garage was OK'd by an unknown young man with blonde hair. He also assured my husband that the side yard setback was 5 feet and as long as we stayed behind that it was OK. At that time we had a survey completed and found out the fence lines were somehow incorrect. The survey crew said that because a new road had been constructed it was difficult to determine where the monuments were located. We took the survey in to the same unknown young man at the City and he told us the addition was fine as long as it was setback 5 feet from the property line. MPS Foundation poured the footings and built the foundation without obtaining permits. They told my husband that because it was late fall they would have to hurry and get the foundation in, otherwise they would have to wait until spring. They assured him that if he took pictures of the footings it would OK to get permits later. He agreed but then became busy and forgot to get the permits. I am most certainly not trying to make excuses; this is just how things happened. The years went by and the need for permits was forgotten. We love our home and planned to stay here forever but as a result of a job changed we have to move out of state to Arkansas. When we put our house up for sale it sold in four days. We planned to close on the sale of our home in Chanhassen on October 21' and close on the purchase of our new home in Arkansas on October 24th. My husband is already working in Arkansas and has been there since September 12th. PROJECT NAME: LOCATION: LEGAL DES /Q. 1p TOTAL ACREAGE: 0.09 WETLANDS PRESENT: YES NO S PRESENT ZONING: T `\ V- REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: . REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: kc REASON FOR REQUEST: J( 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. 6109w- yr. lD lB-�S Sig4ature of Applicant Date Signature of Fee Owner Date IUAOlatl\Porms\Development Review Application.DOC Rev. 4105 The buyers of our home in Chanhassen wanted to see permits for the additions. We told them we did not pull permits for the additions but we would do that now to make things right and pay whatever fines we needed to. We also apologized to them for going about this all wrong. Everything else went fine until I brought in the information to get the permits at which time I was told the additions did not meet the 10 foot side yard setbacks and that our hard cover was over the maximum allowed. I was completely shocked and so was my husband when I called him. Had we known about the ten foot setback we would have never gone ahead with the garage addition and we would have tried to resolve the porch issue. We were told that a 5 foot setback was OK. We want to make this right with the City of Chanhassen. We apologize to the Planning Commission and the City of Chanhassen. We have learned a great lesson and we are sharing this information with all of our neighbors and friends. We respectively ask that a variance be granted giving us relief from the hard surface coverage restrictions. We appreciate your time and consideration on this matter. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Mike & Cindy Koenig Jim & Jan Gildner 8003 Cheyenne Avenue jrgildner@msmoom Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-937.1286 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OCT 1 7 2005 October 16, 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT City of Chanhassen 770 Market Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 To whom it may concern: We have a verbal agreement to sell a portion of our property to our neighbors, Mike and Cindy Koenig at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue. Previous owners incorrectly placed fences encroaching on our property. We were unaware of this until a recent survey was completed. We also understand that after we sell a portion of our lot to the Koenigs we may be slightly exceeding our limit of hard surface area in relation to our total lot size. Our plans are to eliminate a cement pad on the west side of our garage. We had intended to remove it before we learned of the incorrectly placed fence line. At this time we will accelerate our plans and remove the cement slab by November 30, 2005. We understand that this will bring our hard surface area in compliance with the city ordinance - Gere Jim & Jan Gildner October 21, 2005 Mike and Cindy Koenig 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mike and Cindy: CITU OF RECEIVED SSEN OCT 2 4 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT This letter indicates our verbal agreement to sell a portion of my property located at 8007 Cheyenne Avenue, Chanhassen, MN 55317. The previous owners incorrectly placed fences encroaching on my property. We were unaware of this until recent surveys were completed. Sincer L�Pat Dolan 8007 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT 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 October 20, 2005, the duly qualified and act"fig 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 Variance on property located at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue — Planning Case No. 05-34 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 thiscl± day of CC46hp — , 2005. Not @KIMT MEUWISSEN Notary Public -Minnesota My Cmmtselon EXWW Jen 31, 2010 9CAWWD Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, November 1 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for hard surface coverage Variance for garage and Proposal porch additions. Planning File: 05-34 KOENIG VARIANCE Applicant: Mike & Cindy Koenig Property 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Location: 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: What Happens at the Meeting: 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 project. 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 - Questions & mail Imetzer®ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: 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 htta:/1206.10.76.6/weblink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. 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 teat 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 commerciaVmdustdal. • 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 somethina to be included In the report, lease contact the Plannina Staff person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday. November 1 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers 7700 Market Blvd. Request for hard surface coverage Variance for garage and Proposal porch additions. Planning File: 05-34 KOENIG VARIANCE Applicant: Mike & Cindy Koenig Property 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Location: 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: What Happens at the Meeting: 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 project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by CO"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- Questlons & mail Imetzer®ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: 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 htto://206.10.76.6/weblink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. 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 meegng, 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, affinn 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 commerciaU+ndustdal. • 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 spokespersonlrepresentative 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 something to be included In the report, lease contact the Planning Stan person named on the notification. 31sclaimer We vap is radar a legally recorded nap nor a survey ad is not intended to be used as one. 7Hs W is a tonglafon Of ramrds, inlonretion and data located W vadas city. courft stale anti iaderal Aces and other saaces regarding dire area shown, and k to be used for reference palosas only Te City does not warrarn gat fa Geographic Info nation System (GIS) Date used to prepare this W tee error free, and ft City does not represent that ft GIS Dae cad be used fa ravigational, reckng or any other purpose rmdMg exacting neawrerttent of dstarc6 a drecdon or precision in he depction of geogrWk features If errors or discreparou s an, tend please eoaact 062-227-1107. Te preceding dis"rner is provided pnsuat to binrtesda Statutes §/66.03. S bd. 21 (2000), aid he user of fts map ackmvAedges fel ft City shall not be liable la wry darrags , and eopressly valves an darre. end agrees to defend, indamiy. and had harries the City from any and all dairte nought by User, its enWoyess or agents, a dint parous w Jch wise out O fa usees aoc�.s or use of lata provided. fits rrep s noise a lepaly moorded crap nor a survey and is nor Intended W fe used as ate. RM �� Wdonssion and data Ixaed In vadau ayaafta . cy, sle and federal regar*V lite aeon shown, and Is W Its used for odermos purposes olty. The Qty does not vverrerd tat Ilia GeoPaPNC I torrratim System (GIS) Data used W prepare Bds vep are sora free. and fte Qty does not represent fret rte GIS Data can be used for ravipefaal. escidng a any Otter peposa request, examrg meamaan at of distance or drecroon or pntciacm in Inon d WWW fsteat et. f more or discrepancies are Wd please contact 952-227-1107 The pxa. provded pursurtt W Mmastia SlaeAes §W.M Subd. 21 (2004 and gra use d fts seep +lives a1 daimon, and Wapaea a t sd City and baa a qty acrd of tleiea hr by Ike. Is WVOYees or spats, or tw1d pafaa Wch arise as of fa usKs axxaa or useol data WM ded NAMEl m NAME2» rtADDl o ADD2+ «CFY)> «STATE» (,ZIP)) aNext Recorde)«NAME1 m «NAME2» «ADD1» «ADD2» «CITY» «STATE» «ZIP» Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Koenig Variance Request Planning Case No. 05-34 8005 Cheyenne Avenue City of Chanhassen D Subject Site t(<D r,7 State Street Hwy No. 5 -7-TJ Lake Drive East i e en �e Cir KAHNKE BROS INC 1400 ARBORETUM DR COOK PROPERTIES-CHANHASSEN LLC MCDONALD'S CORP (22-157) PO BOX 66207 PO BOX 7 8640 LYNDALE AVE S AMF O'HARE VICTORIA, MN 55386 -0007 BLOOMINGTON , MN 55420 - CHICAGO, IL 60666 - I C JOHN LLC DYS PROPERTIES JACK D CHRISTENSON 7920 SOUTH BAY CRV 4711 SHADY OAK RD 15411 VILLAGE WOODS DR EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 -1119 HOPKINS , MN 55343 -8840 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 -1438 TERRANCE SR & SANDRA THOMPSON RICK & CATHY CNCESEMAN DANIEL A & KRIS L CITARELLA 3820 LINDEN CIR IS500 WYNNFIELb RD 8008 ERIE AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 65331 -7727 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 -1039 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9752 THOMAS R & NATALIE J TWINING LOREN R JOHNSON & PATRICIA M DOLAN 8009 CHEYENNE AVE MARY KAY KINNEY - 8007 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9720 8011 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9720 MICHAEL A & CYNTHIA K KOENIG JAMES R & JANICE GILDNER THOMAS M & KRISTIE A KOTSONAS 8005 CHEYENNE AVE 8003 CHEYENNE AVE 8001 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9720 ANNE T THOMPSON CLAYTON & MARGARET SODETANI THOMAS J & SANDRA M KOEPPEN 8000 DAKOTA AVE 8005 ERIE AVE 8009 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9636 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9301 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9301 MICHAEL DS 8 TERRY J & MARGARET A LEWIS ANDREA LYNNE FANNEMEL JULIE A ONDERUDERUP 8013 CHEYENNE AVE 8003 DAKOTA AVE 8002 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9636 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9637 WILLIAM J & EARLA KRAUS RALPH WAYNE LYTLE MICHAEL D & SARAH J PETERSEN 8008 CHEYENNE AVE 8021 ERIE AVE 8010 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9767 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9301 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9767 GERALD H & MARILYN M WASSINK GLENN A & BONNIE LEE HAGEMAN RUSSELL L & VIRGINIA HAMILTON 8004 DAKOTA AVE 0021 CHEYENNE SPUR 8019 CHEYENNE SPUR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9636 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9607 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9607 MARILYN MARGARET STEWART 8015 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9720 ROBERT A & DAWN T LUND 8023 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9301 GAYLON R & LINDA 0 RUST 8017 CHEYENNE SPUR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9607 ALLAN J & KATHIE J NELSON 8025 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9301 ANTHONY E & LISA M BACHMAN 8008 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9636 SUZANNE M SHEPPARD 8010 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9636 RAYMOND S & MARY ANN JEZIERSKI 8013 DAKOTA CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9757 CHARLES H ANGELO III & RANDY L FRITZ 8017 DAKOTA CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9757 MICHAEL WILLIAM FARRELL 8024 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9767 STEVEN & ESTA KATKIN DANIEL P & LINDA M ROBINSON 8012 CHEYENNE AVE 8014 CHEYENNEAVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9767 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9767 - JOHN Q & DONNA M SOLBERG PATRICIA A HEGSTROM 8006 DAKOTA AVE 8005 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9636 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9637 LEE & PATRICIA JENSEN VALBORG A SWEDBERG 8009 DAKOTA CIR TRUSTEE OF TRUST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9757 8016 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9767 r: h`. WALTER & KATHLEEN SCHOLLMAN RAYMOND & KATHERINE KNIGHT 8011 DAKOTA CIR 8077 DAKOTA CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9757 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9757 ROBERT W & KATHY A TOENJES PATRICIA E HIRSCHBERG 8018 CHEYENNE AVE 8023 CHEYENNE SPUR CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9767 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9607 ALOIS J & MARY C STUMPFL CRAIG T & KATHRYN M HUMASON 8027 CHEYENNE AVE 8025 CHEYENNE SPUR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9607 DOUGLAS W & KATHLEEN M BAGLEY PAUL D & LOUISE J O'DELL 8020 CHEYENNE AVE 8012 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9767 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9636 RONALD D & LINDA L OLSON STEPHEN K & VICKI C TABOREK 8015 DAKOTA CIR 8022 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9757 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9767 PLAT OF SURVEY LOT 3, BLOCK 3, CHANHASSEN ESTATES FIRST AMMON 936.6 931.06 x a FENCE a X 1 .2 ^ S89'48'18eE _ - s 0 ORAHAGE AND to UTLITT EASEMENT a W - 935.0 gne 9 X3a U ./ X z i ri iz O \T h O. I3 9I }�' 34. / / 918 933.8' x x I ><I X a , '16.0 18007 I"'arArE 934.0 - o 4. 'e 0 34.0" 14.J 9347 N/ . • N GFE / /,2 i2- �'/ / Baas / 1 Sial)'' TRAt n 'I L_t71 4 - +�/5.8 1 GFE/BY 934J - I n / 2- BIT DRIVEWAT� / J / 93217. 7 / 5 >t / �$ 930.5 I 9DD 9 74 I W > /J 1 5 .scal9 In - feel _ /VE o zo ao RIM 929.37 i )� Ra424 30 � EC6N�NE 9S6N LEGEAD INV 920.47 ) ) N o SET MONUMENT SEP 2.9 2005 A�� )� A .937.5 SPOTELEVATIONS- �aw+usSn PlueuNo oEPT 0 FOUND MONUMENT - ) GEE GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ARA 0 CATCH BASIN HOUSE AREA. 2,178 'SO. FT: a MAILBOX MANHOLE a - �\ X DRIVEWAY AREA= 1,230 SOFT. - � In TELEPHONE BOX PATIO/PAVER AREA- 619 SO. FT. —a—FENCELINE STOOP AREA= 31 MFT. -LOT AREA= 11;235, SO. FL —>—SANITARY SEWER - -»--STORM SEWER TOTAL= 4,058 SO. FT. BM SCRIBE IN CONCRETE DRAINAGE ARROW - - ELEVATION 934.1. FT. N.G.V.D. 1929 I hereby certify that this survey was prepared by me or under my L� i .Engineers Surveyors �.i.�e- o2-Ga4 - wpstered and that I'r u o r Landscape Architects aerear - MD - eper,vi io land surveyor a P Minnesota Statutes,726.02 at�4b to�26.1 - - Flanaen Tharp Pain. Olson Me. H LWP �' �s�o uv..t vlaca calve ��^• 120/80 ' Ea v IrW. uN 33344-36H (1-32 7 Zi O - (932) M-9106 FA. (952) 8ZI Teoe ICE KOF ak MG Reg. Np Dat.: CITY OF CNANNASSBN RECEIVED LOT DIVISION DESCRIPTION: OCT 1 31.., " — 2005 v.+.1 bl x U. F—...'"Y;Sb°' EsrArzz aL>eAp m u.....e.e w.l uw 1. Inv .nlMr el IaYmFp w CNVNNASSEN PLWNIND DEPT °i; .1 .1 11, w@Leilxi.]i °4Y.o�iwu.�wr.Y«an ew.M eil. I.t li`e in.A.l W N �.--.moi ur C i1 IF. I.mYwll"s I w m �eW 1 �, L°I ]. BIaY J.C1 .a1FN CSiAIC1. °eeaeA9 to TO nepJ.E pbl N.r. eC .de 4 uq n. .IU bl x @a pe w 4 X CSU 6 a.aeFp to U. rvw<M M f�a el, IYtq .a°IMy r[(VQ of ugMpnl It U n 1 Of .W YI y U NpUw.IMr Itl.1] M1.1 b ° p0wFO1 m py I 1 6 I U of 01 .. Lot x 11]1 N.1 wl pl IN nuN.ml evnw .1 .1 LOT 1 we H I CY.Yw /'A FAROELB IEIp FARCELO Y,. L.mlmmY n;Yde F I I I ud. .1 LOT -1 N/ LOT I Fsf.4 LOT I M wa u..e u .1 r— m of s. eI..Y a cnulnnzv@ /suss .°.aaa to u» �E IN,1 ..'.1 n. 1ne.V.v e.waM IF.: uOFF FARCE. A / I. un v w li I e�°bel ° u:�°in:ir"...... qO tl°L ell i w u b. Lmm:•u�Lol t i ore'«It •'"� .. �'^ I :l, C -FT. — .1 ae La ° F. c / • .yy„ l.y PT 100; pal .0 µA ,L1IOE ICS tei 0, . AF EEreoaa wd"p 1. In. rvea1, ./ pot Uwp&,p IM [@wmin cu0 >0 . / T ♦ 1 m Mr . . w@ 9 .von oo .. 1 :'.A.e""f." . ftowOoo" 11 >r ral I :°v1.Ya. ".;°tI,.'.z.n: in.. -104 'LO Ia a FOOL wI foo, I�� ...1 .alMr .1 Ln..wln.aL .a"w .1 aY w . me In.. LMOA �4 I e PArr pmµ r I I III IFI., Iw ..•.r a.11 "•etAtP / I II,I '.too i1 1 Lwl•t@e a., V+t �•1F,Fil, �iiHV �J��R`v L ellx/43 t,y ala LEGEND ..,Y.Ml LOT DIVISION SURVEY auto Yww@er .11 voreLCV.TMs c.n.a CLooc FLCv.1m1 CO O rcx e.@Y @ srCbl YMMO,L YylpC m RL[PXMC BOX ' .TA" _ LOT 2, 3, 4, BLOCK 3 — —s1aY un NOTES:P.r YE�1 w xi rt. @1 1 i Y<...CD. . CHANHASSEN ESTATES . 0 MU.. ILMJ 60..r. 1 wuxas mn.ea u¢,L - Y.M. xi rt. a a.@p v vex.¢ s ;. 1 I "I paw's @era Yx]s YLM1MIµ px.E@Yr - xw xi rt. a mal .. ue x> r.em a ..wo eum c .xe . 1 • •`• • ,••� ° R Us sa n.IT Ynww]s ew.a vAu zvv, xi rt. OF vo.lx a r.wC¢ c � ^ CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 1, 2005 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Uli Sacchet, Deborah Zorn, Jerry McDonald, Mark Undestad, Debbie Larson, Dan Keefe and Kurt Papke STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; and Josh Metzer, Planner I PUBLIC PRESENT: Janet Paulsen Debbie Lloyd Cindy Koenig PLANNING CASE NO. 05-34. 7305 Laredo Drive 7302 Laredo Drive 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Josh Metzer presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thanks Josh. Any questions from staff? Larson: Yes. Sacchet: Yes, go ahead Debbie. Larson: How come this just got noticed now? Was there never a survey ever, ever done? Metzer: Not that we received until the home was ready to be sold. And there was an inquiry as to permits for an issue. Undestad: Now that they purchased land on both sides, is the permit sign all squared away do you know? Generous: They still need the variance. Metzer. For the hard surface. It was originally a hard cover and two side yard setback variances. They've eliminated the side yard setback variances and it's now just a hard cover variance. Larson: Are they, mention to you how they could possibly get rid of the, is it 500 square feet? Metzer: About 120. It would probably be removal of. 1 Planning Commission —November 1, 2005 Larson: Sidewalk? Metzer: Little bit of patio and sidewalk Sacchet: So it could be done. Reasonably. With like putting pervious sidewalk instead of concrete sidewalk around, something like that. Any other questions? Jerry. McDonald: I have one question about the, do we have a recommended list of what you can substitute for hard cover area that would be acceptable that they could put down? Metzer: Yeah, there's you know landscaping mulch or rock. As long as they have a fabric liner that water can percolate through. Of course sod is ideal. But, paver. Pervious pavers are not considered by our code to be pervious by any percentage due to the compacting of ground underneath in order for the pavers to be placed. McDonald: But all these are items that can be gotten from you as staff as to suggestions for Metzer: Right. McDonald: And then you said one other thing that I didn't remember reading about. You said that this came about, it was triggered by a sale of the home? Metzer: Right. Expectant buyers of this property came to the city and were interested in knowing a little bit of the history, whether or not permits were pulled for everything. McDonald: Oh okay. So the current owners are the ones that made the improvements without the building permit? Metzer: Correct. McDonald: Okay. No more questions. Sacchet: Kurt you have a question? Papke: Yeah. Could you explain a little bit about the September 4`s storm event and what actually happened there and maybe a little bit of color as to how the hard surface coverage might impinge on that. Metzer: That was actually a recommendation of engineering. I know Cindy has a little bit of the background on that. She discussed that with me. I am not aware of it and unfortunately no one from engineering is here tonight. Papke: Okay. So what's in the report is what we know here tonight? Metzer: Right, and maybe Cindy can add a little bit more. She's been in the neighborhood for quite a while. Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Keefe: I've got one more question. Just to zero in on the numbers just a little bit. The amount of square footage that it would take to get to 25% is what exactly? Metzer: 520.25. Keefe: 520.25 and then it looks like the patio, sidewalk and stoop per the calculations in the report is total 674, is that still an accurate number? Metzer: Pretty close. It's somewhere in there. Keefe: Okay so, in order to get to the 25 but we're talking some combination of something out of the driveway potentially and/or. Metzer: The driveway's pretty much been reduced I would say to the max that we would expect them to remove. ...and sidewalk are probably the best options. Keefe: Okay. And from your perspective in looking at it, do you think it's achievable? Metzer. Yeah, it could be done. Keefe: And the stoop portion is just what? Where it comes out of the house or. Metzer: Right, it's like a step. Keefe: And that portion is pretty small I presume. Metzer: Right you know and I would think removal of the sidewalk wrapping around the garage would probably be the number one alternative. I'm not exactly sure of the exact amount of square feet that would be but probably a little bit additional removal from the patio in the back. There are some pavers in the front off the front of the house there also. Sacchet: So really for them to be fully compliant they would have to get rid of pretty much all their. Metzer: Patio and sidewalks. Sacchet: Patio. That means the whole hard cover surface there in that little courtyard type of shape. Metzer: Majority of it. Sacchet: Majority of that. Zorn: Josh, can I ask you a question? Has that been recommended to the property owners as of yet? Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Metzer: Yes, but they've, they have removed quite a bit to this point. They're just not quite there yet. Sacchet: Any other questions? One more question. In the letter from the applicant, you make a point that in fall of 2002, which is not that long ago, they did the addition of the garage and they referred to a young man with blond hair that, according to the letter more than once, more than one occasion stated the setback was 5 feet. Now we're not to try to point finger at anybody. Do we have any idea who the young man with the blond hair is? Metzer: I wouldn't. I wasn't here in 2002. I don't know if Bob would have any idea. Sacchet: But I have a hard time understanding how somebody at City Hall would not be clear about side yard setbacks. That's basically what I'm getting at. Metzer: And we don't know who it would have been. Sacchet: Yeah. McDonald: Can I ask a follow up to that? In the older neighborhoods in Chanhassen atone time, have the setbacks always been what it currently is or was it at one time. Metzer: Well the home was built in 1969. I believe the fust, real enforced zoning ordinance was 72. Sacchet: It was kind of a PUD at the time or it didn't even exist then? Generous: It was under village zoning. Sacchet: Under village zoning, okay. McDonald: Could it have been 5 feet at that time? Generous: I haven't found anything. The only ordinance that I know that has that is up in Lundgren development in Near Mountain where they alternated it on some houses. Sacchet: Yeah, but he was a young man with blond hair. McDonald: It wasn't me. Sacchet: It's not necessarily that he would be familiar with those historic type of setbacks even if they were at one point and he was a young man. Metzer: And the point is, any new addition because it's now zoned RSF. Sacchet: Right, would be by the current zoning. 4 Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Metzer: Needs to meet current zoning standards. Sacchet: Alright, well we leave that a mystery then. Any other questions from staff? If not I'd like to ask, do we have an applicant? If you want to come forward and you may want to add to what staff presented. Yes, if you want to come to the podium and get this microphone pointing towards you. State your name and address for the record please and do you have anything to add or tell us about, please do. Cindy Koenig: Okay, Cindy Koenig, 8005 Cheyenne Avenue. No, the letter pretty much says what happened. My husband at one point, the people who laid the block were going to get one of the permits. They didn't do it. He was in a hurry. He just didn't do it so now we're trying to make amends for it. Sacchet: Yeah, and you solved that problem with acquiring a little bit of land on both sides, so that's not really an issue anymore at this point. The only issue we have is the hard cover. Cindy Koenig: Yes. Sacchet: Okay. Do you have questions of the applicant? I wondered I mean how do you feel about this? I mean in order to be compliant you would have to get rid, pretty much of the walkway around your garage and most of the patio in the back. I mean you don't have anything to say about that? Cindy Koenig: Well, we have already gotten rid of a side driveway. Sacchet: Right, we got the pictures of that. Cindy Koenig: Yeah. The patio has been there since 19 I think 84 or something like that. don't know what to say. I understand the compliance issue. I understand all of that, but. Sacchet: It's been there a long time. I understand. McDonald: Excuse me, is the patio a slab or is it? Cindy Koenig: Yeah. McDonald: Okay, it is a slab. Cindy Koenig: Yeah. McDonald: Do you know about how thick it is? Cindy Koenig: I don't. We didn't lay it. Somebody else did. McDonald: How about the sidewalk? Is it, was it all laid at the same time then? Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Cindy Koenig: The sidewalk was laid after the garage was built. And I'm not sure how thick that is either. McDonald: Okay, that's all the questions I have. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Cindy Koenig: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Now this is a public hearing so I'd like to invite anybody else who wants to comment about this from our audience to come forward. If you have something to add, please do so. State your name and address for the record please. Debbie Lloyd: Debbie Lloyd, 7302 Laredo Drive. Just reading through this today I have a question about the administrative movement of the other lots. Will the lot 2 really be able to come down by 8% so their hard surface coverage is 25% and administratively does that make them a non -conforming lot by giving up square footage? Sacchet: Can you address that Josh? Metzer: The driveway was beginning to be removed about 2 weeks before the administrative subdivision was even received by the city, which has been sent to the city today. To the Carver County I should say, the administrative subdivision so that, the removal of that driveway on Lot 2 I believe it was, brings them down to 23. some odd percent. Sacchet: So they're alright basically. Metzer: Yes. Debbie Lloyd: So what kind of surface will they replace their driveway with? Metzer: They're sodding it. Debbie Lloyd: They're sodding a driveway? Sacchet: Not the whole thing. Metzer: It's the side that pulls around to the side of the garage. Debbie Lloyd: Oh, and that was 8%? Metzer: .8%. Debbie Lloyd: .8%. D Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Metzer: It's more than .8%. Debbie Lloyd: Okay, and then there's one other lot that isn't mentioned at all in the report that also conveyed land and is that in compliance with code? Metzer: Which one? Sacchet: You're talking about Lot 4, the one on the other side? Debbie Lloyd: Yeah, the one on the other side. There's no mention of it in the report as far as compliance. Sacchet: The building is smaller and the lot is good size, yeah. Metzer: We've got the number here, just bear with me. Debbie Lloyd: It's a hard one. Those were my questions, but it seems that there is a way to bring it in compliance and as hard as it can be. Metzer: The lot to the east is 20.1%. So it'd be selling the land. Sacchet After giving up that sliver of land, okay. So we're fine with those. Thanks for checking. Debbie Lloyd: Thank you. Sacchet: Anybody else wants to address this item? Seeing nobody getting up, I close the public hearing and bring it back to the commission for comments, discussion. Whenever you're ready. Keefe: I have a question. Sacchet: Go ahead. Keefe: And really to my fellow commissioners. You know this was a non -conforming lot and so it's underneath the 15,000 square foot requirement in the RSF district, right. So I don't know how many are out there that are like this, and maybe they are out there and I know we kind of deal with them as they come in and we run across them, but what, what impact do we have in terms of, or what responsibility do we have to correct a situation which is non -conforming sort of to begin with and now the lot size has been put in at 15,000 square feet or we're saying now has got to be this amount of square footage for hard surface coverage when prior to the 15,000 square foot, which I presume this was built ahead of that, maybe that requirement wasn't there. Metzer: Right, yeah. This was before. Keefe: So we've got a change in the requirements... Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Sacchet: What you're asking is how can you apply rules that don't apply? Keefe: Well yeah. Sacchet: What you're asking is how can you apply rules that don't apply? Keefe: Yeah well you probably, the rule has been put in place after the property was built and now we're asking. Papke: But those rules were in force at the time the two additions were added. Sacchet: Right. Papke: And if a permit had been pulled for the two additions, the drawing would have shown the non-conformance at that point. So I agree that if there was a grandfathering issue, that would have been exposed at the time the permits would have been pulled. Keefe: So to kind of be, kind of follow through to sort of enforce this then, what we would say is that had they pulled the permits it would have. Papke: They would have been fine. Keefe: Right, they would have been fine in this because they would, well they would have had to correct it at that point... Papke: ...right, right. But there wouldn't have been an unknown non-conformance. Keefe: Right. Sacchet: Deborah, did you want to add something? Zorn: I was just going to add to that, the patio was constructed in '84. The four season in '97. The garage in '02 along with the additional sidewalk. It seems as though that garage permit would have prevented additional coverage and would have caught that variance at that time. Keefe: And potentially that garage would not have been built. Zorn: And/or the sidewalks, or there would have been choices, decisions at that time. McDonald: I guess the only comment I've got, you know we've been through a lot of these and the problem before has always been brought before us was that there was a contractor involved who was supposed to pull the permits. Never pulled the permits and it wasn't until later on that we find out that we've got a non-compliance. In this particular case permits should have been pulled. If you do any kind of addition onto a house, that's a permit. Pure and simple, so I look at this as kind of a self-imposed problem. And based upon that, even if it's a non-confomZing lot at that point the 25% would have come into play. You could have asked for a variance at that Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 point, if we wanted to do something with the lot but now, I'm flat out just don't have a lot of sympathy. I don't see where a grandfather issue exists. You know we've ruled fairly consistently on these with everyone else that's come in. This fits into the same category with the extra caveat that again a building permit should have been pulled by the owner who did all the work, so it doesn't even rise to the level to me of what the other non-conforming's have been. Sacchet: Any more comments on this end? Not really. I'm struggling personally a little bit with this one. I mean on one hand, according to the letter from the applicant they did to some extent work with city hall. It says when they added the garage they took the plans to city hall, planning and engineering department, and it was okayed by a young, by this famous young man with blond hair. Papke: Of course that's their recollection of the situation. Sacchet: Right. McDonald: And that only deals with the 5 foot setback. That doesn't deal with. Sacchet: Impervious. McDonald: That's right, and the 5 foot isn't even an issue here because that's been taken care of. Now it's the 25% and yes, even if you went to the city Planning Commission and you talked about you know, we don't know the context of well if I put it here, you know what's the setback off my property line. You know and it may have answered the question so. Keefe: Just one other question. I mean this is sort of selective enforcement of a rule. You know I mean are we comfortable that within that area where there are a lot of non -conforming lots that everybody is in compliance or are we just selectively enforcing this, they sort of ad hoc come in? Or are we concerned about that? Maybe we're not concerned about that. McDonald: Well we haven't been, as they come before us, we've been pretty consistent on what we've done. We've asked staff in the last meeting to do something about these non-compliance issues that suddenly pop up. That there's got to be something else in the process besides just depending upon permits or something. You know a contractor pulling a permit and then they don't. So that we can head off some of these injuries to property owners that are caused by contractors who don't follow the rules, so we've requested that. We are trying to deal with this, and I know City Council is also, how you deal with an issue such as this to try to head it off before you're now going in and asking a homeowner to bear the cost of tearing something out. So we're trying not to do selective enforcement. We are trying to put something in place so that everybody in the city is aware of these hard surface areas and what's required there. Keefe: And I think I understand the purpose, you know I mean in terms of the 25%. The concern I have is in regards to let's take an area like this is this neighborhood, where this home resides and is there a way to kind of go on a neighborhood basis and say, alright we're going to do a survey of hard surface coverage in this area and we're going to serve notice to the Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 neighborhood so that it ... and I don't know how that, if that's possible to do or whether that's the right thing to do but just to be even handed from a sort of selective. McDonald: We're only talking about a percentage. I mean 25% of whatever you lot size is, I mean that's the coverage. If what you're now talking about is 25%'s too little in one neighborhood, then we need to look at readjusting that figure possibly. Keefe: That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is, within that neighborhood on a lot by lot basis, which you know are they all in conformance or not. So in other words, this particular one came before us. Papke: I'm not sure, are you suggesting some kind of witch hunt to go out and look for non- conforming lots? I mean I can't imagine we would, you know the city would do something like that. Every time one of these comes up we deal with them on an individual basis. And just because there are non -conforming lots in the neighborhood doesn't mean we should abandon enforcement of all variances. I'm not following where you're going with this at all. Sacchet: He wonders whether we're fair in the neighborhood. Larson: What if we were to average everybody? Is that kind of what you're grabbing at? Keefe: No, I mean is everybody in that neighborhood that has a non -conforming lot, if they all have non -conforming lots, are they all in conformance with the 25% hard coverage. Sacchet: Yeah, and we don't know. We don't have a way to know. Larson: What if somebody who built back then is above the 25% per se? Just throwing an example out there. Sacchet: Well, and that's a little bit why I feel torn. I mean there's actually also the mitigating factor if you want to look at it as mitigating factor, I think the report somewhere says it's, with what they've removed they're actually slightly below what they could have impervious if it was a 15,000 foot lot, but ultimately I mean if you look at our standard rules that we have to look at, and it's important for you to understand, we have a set of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 5 or 6 items that as Planning Commission we are, by ordinance, by our code we're required to look at. In order to make a recommendation, or possibly a decision. And the first one is it a hardship? And a hardship is not a fluffy thing. It's defined in the code. Hardship is if you cannot make a use that's on the property and they're surrounding 500 feet, which in this case is to have a single family house with a 2 car garage, which you do have. So by that definition you don't pass that one. You do not have a hardship by that definition. Second point, is it applicable to other properties? Obviously it's very applicable because that's what we've just been struggling with. That, whether it's fair or it doesn't apply, it definitely applies across the board. If we try by what Dan was trying to do, and he bumped a little bit into a concrete wall with it, if we wanted try to be fair within the context of the neighborhood, that really doesn't quite fly either. Then we tum into policing something that we don't want to go police either. So it doesn't fly, so they don't pass that hurdle. Does it increase the value? Well you didn't do it for that purpose so that's kind 10 Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 of in the bubble. Is it self created hardship? Now we could argue over that because you tried to be compliant and all that. Ultimately the fact that you didn't really pull a formal permit we could say it's self created, if you want to be real objectively and that's kind of harsh but the reality is such, right? Then is it detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land? In generally speaking with the impervious, if you're above the impervious, we can, and that's why we have this impervious rule because if you have too much impervious you contribute to the runoff. You contribute to what ultimately can be injurious to that environment. To other properties around so there you don't pass either. And the last point is, does it impair adequate supply of light and air? Obviously it doesn't so there you come out well. But if we pile this all on a balance, I mean if we just follow the steps that are given to us as a commission, as our task, and that's also where staff was coming from saying, well looking at this from what our rules that are given to us, we, I feel we are compelled to deny it. However, I do want to point out that if we end up denying it or not, if we do end up denying it, that it can be brought in front of City Council and City Council does have more leeway. It's their role. They're not bound as much as we are bound by those criteria. It's not that we are necessarily bound totally by it. We have a little bit of leeway, but this goes a little, in my opinion beyond what a little leeway would be. I mean we're trying to be sensitive and we understand your predicament here certainly. We'd like to help you with it. However with the framework of the code of the city I think that we would have to send you to City Council to take that step, okay. That's my comment. Undestad: Can I add one thing? Sacchet: Please. Undestad: You know seeing what's been done on here, I just have to say that you know the variances and some of the self inflicted hardships we've seen, you guys have done a great job going out and buying more land on each side you know and trying to get everything back down to where everything's within but you're just right over our heads here I guess. Sacchet: Taking off that piece of driveway, I mean you've shown tremendous effort and willingness to correct it and from that angle I wish we could be more amenable to your request. That's partially what I said when I feel like I'm a little torn about this certainly. Any other comments? If not, yes Debbie. Larson: Well Josh had said that on the one side, just going into the lots that they purchased land from, they're under quite a bit on one side for sure. I mean is there any way that I know that it's lot by lot but averaging those 3? Metzer: No, we can't do that. Larson: Or the neighborhood you know like we were saying. What if you were to look at the entire area? How many are over? How many are under? Sacchet: No, that'd be unmanageable Debbie. That'd be a nightmare. Larson: Not that you would mange it but to, just to you know. 11 Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Sacchet: Right, right. It's a good idea but very difficult to apply. Papke: That's come up on some of these previous cases where there were some larger lots next door. Then you also run the risk if somebody subdivides that large lot, now you've got issues. Or the neighbor next door adds some more hard coverage. There's nothing to prevent them at that point from going over the edge. Sacchet: Alright, any other comments? If not I'd like a motion. Zorn: I'd like to motion that the Planning Commission denies Variance 05-34 for 6.88% hard coverage, hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four season porch on a lot zoned single family residential based upon the findings in the staff report and the following 1 and 2. As well as the Planning Commission orders the property owner to remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements. Sacchet: Yes, the percentage right? The correct percentage is not 6.8. The new one is how much? Zorn: Oh I'm sorry. 4.06. Sacchet: 4.06. Alright, we have a motion. Do we have a second? McDonald: I'll second. Zorn moved, McDonald seconded that the Planning Commission denies Variance #05-34 for a 4.06% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four season porch on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF), based upon the findings in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. The Planning Commission orders the property owner to: Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements. All voted in favor, except Larson who opposed, and the motion carried with a vote of 6 to 1. Sacchet: I'd encourage you to bring this to the attention of the City Council and see what they can do for you. Good luck with it. So that brings us to the minutes. APPROVAL OF MEWTES: Commissioner McDonald noted the verbatim and summary minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 18, 2005 as presented. 12 Planning Commission — November 1, 2005 Chairman Sacchet adjourned the meeting at 7:30 p.m.. Submitted by Kate Aanenson Community Development Director Prepared by Nann Opheim 13 STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: Request for 6.88% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four -season porch on property located in the Single Family Residential District (RSF) at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue. These structures have already been built. LOCATION: Lot 3, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 A APPLICANT: Mike & Cindy Koenig 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 PRESENT ZONING: Single Family Residential (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential — Low Density (Net Density Range 1.2 — 4u/Acre) ACREAGE: 0.29 acre (12,803 square feet) DENSITY: N/A SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a 6.88% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four -season porch. The garage addition and four -season porch have already been built. 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. Koenig Variance Planning Case #05-34 November 1, 2005 Page 2 SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL The subject property is located south of Highway 5 and east of Dakota Avenue at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue and is zoned Single Family Residential (RSF). The applicant is requesting a 6.88% (which represents 871.5 square feet of site coverage) hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition (20'x16') and a four -season porch (13.2'x14.3'). This brings the hard surface coverage to 4,082 square feet which is 31.88%. These structures have already been built. APPLICABLE REGUATIONS Sec. 7-19. Plans and specifications. Impervious surface means any material that substantially reduces or prevents the infiltration of storm water. It shall include, but not be limited to, gravel driveways, parking area, buildings and structures. Sec. 20-615. Lot requirements and setbacks. (5) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is 25 ep rcent. Koenig Variance Planning Case #05-34 November 1, 2005 Page 3 BACKGROUND The subject property was platted as part of Chanhassen Estates which was recorded on August 3, 1966. The house was built in 1969. The subject property is located in the Single Family Residential (RSF) district and has an area of 12,803 square feet. In the RSF district 25% is the maximum permitted impervious surface coverage for a lot. The applicant has a hard cover of 31.88%. The issue at handcame to the_ affentieft� f the Git when inq ry-w��itting of the subject additions. It was discovered rhar afour-season porch was constructed in 1997 an a garage addition was constructed in 2002. Both of these structures were built without building permits from the Ci y7 Subsequently, the applicant applied for �after-the-fact buil 'ng pem-iits for the garage addition an porch. An as -built survey was submitted with the permits. Thisurvey revealed the garage addition and four -season porch both had nonconfa yard setbacks. It also appeared the lot could be over on the maxrmum cover percentage. A revised survey showed that the existing hard surface coverage is 36.12%. At this point the applicant was informed that the property would have to be brought into compliance with City Code or a variance would need to be applied for. Garage Addition Four -season Porch Addition On the survey dated September 29, 2005, it is clear that the applicants' fence lies outside of their property lines. It is not clear why the fence was located so far out of place with the property lines. The fence was installed by Montgomery Ward in 1980. After meeting with staff to discuss the issues surrounding the nonconformities, the applicant decided to purc�ias'eTand from their nei ors tot a east at 8007 Cheyenne Avenue and to the west at 8003 Cheyenne Avenue in order to a mmmnaie t e two nonconforming side yard setbacks, reduce t e property's hard surface coverage percentage and bring the side yard fences onto their property. Both neighbors have submitted their written agreement to sell a portion of their property to the applicant. Koenig Variance Planning Case #05-34 November 1, 2005 Page 4 ANALYSIS Through two administrative subdivisions currently being processed, the applicant is acquiring a total of 1,568 square feet of land from neighboring properties to increase their lot area from 11,235 square feet toto�are feet. As a result, their hard surface coverage percentage has been reduced from 2% to 31.88 a applicant would have to remove an additional 881.25 square feet of hard surface coverage in order to bring the hard cover to 25%. Koenig Variance Planning Case #05-34 November 1, 2005 Page 6 Lot 2 (8007 Cheyenne Avenue), located to the west of the subject property, is at 11,208 square feet in area and currently has a nonconforming hard cover percentage of 25.8% as a result of conveying land to the applicant as part of the administrative subdivision. However, the property owners of Lot 2 have proposed in writing to remove the portion of the driveway that wraps around the side of the garage. In fact, removal of this portion of the driveway has already begun. The area is quite flat with a storm sewer at the front of the lot that extends east within Cheyenne Avenue, then to the northeast within Cheyenne Spur, and connects to the storm sewer within the ravine to the west of the development, which outlets to Rice Marsh Lake. This area of the City was developed before water quality and quantity ponding requirements were established, therefore a pond was not constructed to pretreat this water before entering Rice Marsh Lake. During the September 4, 2005 storm, a property within Cheyenne Spur sustained water damage after the storm sewer system surcharged and water entered the garage. Although the rainfall intensity during the September 40' storm was significantly higher than the storm sewer systems are designed to handle, staff recommends denial of the hard surface cover variance in order to minimize/eliminate storm -related flooding to the maximum extent possible. 15,000 square feet. Therefore, the subject property has a nonconforming lot area of 12,803 squAre feet. 'With a total hard surface cov_e_ra_g_eo7TO8Tsquare feet, the property exceeds the maximum hard cover that would be allowed on a lot with an area of 15,000 square feet (3,750 = 25%). If the subject property's hard cover was reduced to 3,750 square feet, it would still be over the maximum allowed in the RSF district with a percentage of 29.3% VPub ras licant has expended mone for the im rovements, such ex nditure does not justif e grantiariance. Approval of a variance is contingent upon proof that the to en orcement of tTie�Iity Codewould causean unduehardship. Nothavig a reasonable use ofthe propertywuldte an undue hardship. Reasonable se is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet. Reasonable use of this property, a single-family home with a two - car garage, already exists but is exceeding City hard cover restrictions. The applicant would have to remove an additional 881.25 square feet of hard surface coverage in order to bring the hard cover to 25%. Any use of the property beyond that discussed above is strictly ancillary to the principal use. Based on these facts, 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: 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 these criteria. Koenig Variance Planning Case #05-34 November 1, 2005 Page 7 Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. By having a single-family home and a two -car garage the property owner has reasonable use of the property. 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 improvements increase the value of the property. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: Construction of the garage addition and porch were completed without building permits; therefore, this is a self-created hardship. Had building permits been sought, the hard surface issue would have been addressed. 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 may 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 increase in runoff from this property. £ 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 variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "Ibe Planning Commission denies Variance #05-34 for a 6.88% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four -season porch on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) based upon the findings in the staff report and the following: 1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship. 2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property. Koenig Variance Planning Case #05-34 November 1, 2005 Page 8 The Planning Commission orders the property owner to: 1. Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements." Should the Planning Commission choose to approve this request, staff recommends the adoption of the following motion: "The Planning Commission approves Variance #05-34 for a 6.88% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four -season porch on a lot zoned Single Family Residential (RSF) with the following conditions: 1. Building permits, plans and necessary inspections for the additions shall be required in accordance with the Minnesota State Building Code. 2. Property owners shall vacate existing drainage & utility easements and shall dedicate new drainage & utility easements adjacent to new property lines. 3. Variance #05-34 shall not be recorded until after the two administrative subdivisions conveying property to Lot 3, Block 3 Chanhassen Estates have been recorded with Carver County." ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact. 2. Development Review Application. 3. Letter from Mike & Cindy Koenig stamped "Received September 29, 2005". 4. Letter from Jim & Jan Gildner stamped "Received October 17, 2005'. 5. Letter from Pat Dolan stamped "Received October 24, 2005'. 6. Public Hearing Notice and Affidavit of Mailing List. 7. As -built Survey of Lot 3, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates stamped "Received September 29, 2005'. 8. As -Built Survey of Lots 2, 3 and 4, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates stamped "Received October 13, 2005'. giplan\2005 planning cases\05-34 koenig variance\staff report.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND ACTION IN RE: Application of Mike & Cindy Koenig for 6.88% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four - season porch — Planning Case No. 05-34. On November 1, 2005, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the Application of Mike & Cindy Koenig for 6.88% hard surface coverage variance from the maximum 25% hard surface coverage restriction for a garage addition and a four -season porch on property located in the Single Family Residential District at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue. 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 3, Block 3, Chanhassen Estates. 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 would not cause 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 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. 5. The planning report #05-34 Variance dated November 1, 2005, prepared by Josh Metzer, et al, is incorporated herein. ACTION The Planning Commission denies the Variances from the impervious surface restrictions for garage addition and four -season porch. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this ls` day of November, 2005. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION fM Its Chairman gAplan\2005 planning cases\05-34 koenig varianceVindings of fact.doc PLEASE PRINT CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard — P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 — (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION A • Pli'cant Npm�e aVn Address: p� �n Gtr MAI Contact: / -7 _ 2 w $°- 2 Phone: IV74 - 11Fax: Email: ; k4 cr < < u . copm Comprehensive Plan Amendment Conditional Use Permit Interim Use Permit Non -conforming Use Permit Planned Unit Development' Rezoning Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Site Plan Review` Planning Case No. 05 -3 Owner Name and Address: Phone: Fax: Email: Temporary Sales Permit Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (\ Variance Wetland Alteration Permit ` Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment Notification Sign" - $75 + $100 Damage Deposit X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost"' - $50 CUP/SPR/VAC/VAR/WAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB Subdivision' I TOTAL FEE $ 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. Twenty-six (26) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 6'/z" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF -Group 4 ('.tif) format. Applicant to obtain notification sign fro City of Chanhassen Public Works at 1591 Park Road and install upon submittal of completed application. $100 damage deposit to be refunded to applicant when sign is returned following City Council approval. 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. 8CANNED PROJECT N LOCATION: LEGAL DES TOTALACREAGE: O 09 WETLANDS PRESENT: YES y NO PRESENT ZONING: REQUESTED ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: REQUESTED LAND USE REASON FOR REQUEST, U / it 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 wlihin 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. Lo Yr 02 �jt S19tiature of Applicant Signature of Fee Owner !D W � Date Date 0�V16r Voens\Development Review Application -DOC Rev. 4105 CITY OF CHANHASSEN September 29, 2005 RECEIVED SEP 292005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT Dear Members of the Chanhassen Planning Commission: First, I want to thank you in advance for your consideration in this matter. My name is Cindy Koenig. I live at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue and have been a resident at that address for 141/2 years. I sit before you this evening to ask for relief from Chanhassen City Code hard surface coverage restrictions. Our home was built in 1969. When we moved into our home in May of 1991 we did not have a survey done on the property. At that time there was a fence enclosing our back yard which the previous owner, Wm. R. Johnson, had installed by Montgomery Ward on May 3, 1980. I have the original plan for the fence installation if you would like to see it. When we bought the house from the Swatfager's they assured us things were in order and we trusted that. Back in 1991 no one we knew had a survey for their property and rarely a home inspection. In 1997 we discovered that the original deck was rotting so my husband removed it believing that if we placed a structure of the same size in the same place that would be fine. My husband decided to replace the deck with a porch at that time. No permit was obtained. No other remodeling was done until the spring of 2002when we replaced the old roof In the fall of 2002 my husband decided to add on to our garage, taking several plans to the City of Chanhassen Planning and Engineering Departments. Addition to the garage was OK'd by an unknown young man with blonde hair. He also assured my husband that the side yard setback was 5 feet and as long as we stayed behind that it was OK. At that time we had a survey completed and found out the fence lines were somehow incorrect. The survey crew said that because a new road had been constructed it was difficult to determine where the monuments were located. We took the survey in to the same unknown young man at the City and he told us the addition was fine as long as it was setback 5 feet from the property line. MPS Foundation poured the footings and built the foundation without obtaining permits. They told my husband that because it was late fall they would have to hurry and get the foundation in, otherwise they would have to wait until spring. They assured him that if he took pictures of the footings it would OK to get permits later. He agreed but then became busy and forgot to get the permits. I am most certainly not trying to make excuses; this is just how things happened. The years went by and the need for permits was forgotten. We love our home and planned to stay here forever but as a result of a job changed we have to move out of state to Arkansas. When we put our house up for sale it sold in four days. We planned to close on the sale of our home in Chanhassen on October 20 and close on the purchase of our new home in Arkansas on October 20. My husband is already working in Arkansas and has been there since September 12`". The buyers of our home in Chanhassen wanted to see permits for the additions. We told them we did not pull permits for the additions but we would do that now to make things right and pay whatever fines we needed to. We also apologized to them for going about this all wrong. Everything else went fine until I brought in the information to get the permits at which time I was told the additions did not meet the 10 foot side yard setbacks and that our hard cover was over the maximum allowed. I was completely shocked and so was my husband when I called him. Had we known about the ten foot setback we would have never gone ahead with the garage addition and we would have tried to resolve the porch issue. We were told that a 5 foot setback was OK. We want to make this right with the City of Chanhassen. We apologize to the Planning Commission and the City of Chanhassen. We have learned a great lesson and we are sharing this information with all of our neighbors and friends. We respectively ask that a variance be granted giving us relief from the hard surface coverage restrictions. We appreciate your time and consideration on this matter. Thank you very much. Respectfully, Mike & Cindy Koenig Jim & Jan Gildner 8003 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 October 16, 2005 City of Chanhassen 770 Market Blvd. Chanhassen, MN 55317 To whom it may concern: er@msn.com 952.937.1286 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED OCT 1 7 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT We have a verbal agreement to sell a portion of our property to our neighbors, Mike and Cindy Koenig at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue. Previous owners incorrectly placed fences encroaching on our property. We were unaware of this until a recent survey was completed. We also understand that after we sell a portion of our lot to the Koenigs we may be slightly exceeding our limit of hard surface area in relation to our total lot size. Our plans are to eliminate a cement pad on the west side of our garage. We had intended to remove it before we learned of the incorrectly placed fence line. At this time we will accelerate our plans and remove the cement slab by November 30, 2005. We understand that this will bring our hard surface area in compliance with the city ordinance. cerel Jim & Jan Gildner October 21, 2005 Mike and Cindy Koenig 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Dear Mike and Cindy: CRY RECEIVED OCT 2 4 2005 CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT This letter indicates our verbal agreement to sell a portion of my property located at 8007 Cheyenne Avenue, Chanhassen, MN 55317. The previous owners incorrectly placed fences encroaching on my property. We were unaware of this until recent surveys were completed. Since CZA Z Pat Dolan 8007 Cheyenne Avenue Chanhassen, MN 55317 Iri 4 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN AFFIDAVIT 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 October 20, 2005, the duly qualified and acUbg 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 Variance on property located at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue — Planning Case No. 05-34 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 swom to before me this day ofc)1]er 12005. Not P KIM I MEUESSEN Notary Public -Minnesota My Gmmisslon Expires Jan 31.2010 SCANNED Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, November 1 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for hard surface coverage Variance for garage and Proposal: porch additions. Planning File: 05-34 KOENIG VARIANCE Applicant: Mike & Cindy Koenig Property 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Location: A location map Is on the reverse side of this notice. Location: 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: What Happens public hearing through the following steps: at the Meeting: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. at the Meeling: 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 project. 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- Questlons & mail imetzer®ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the Comments: department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. The staff report for this item will be available online at htta://206.10.76.6/weblink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. 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 recommendatlon. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commerciaUmdustrial. • 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 most 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 something to be Included In the report, lease contact the Planning Stall person named on the notification. Notice of Public Hearing Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting Date & Time: Tuesday, November 1, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd. Proposal: Request for hard surface coverage Variance for garage and porch additions. Planning File: 05-34 KOENIG VARIANCE Applicant: Mike & Cindv Koenig Property 8005 Cheyenne Avenue Location: 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: What Happens at the Meeling: 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 project. If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by Citq''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 - Questions & mail ImetzerOci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit Comments: 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 htto://206.10.76.6/weblink7 the Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. 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 commerclat4ndustrial. • 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 applicaflon will be Included In the report to the City Council. If you wish to have somethino to be Included In the report, lease contact the Plannino Staff person named on the notification. nscfalmer Us crap is n")er a legally recorded map nor a survey and is rot intended to ba used as oche This rep is a conplation d records, inlanabon and data located in vadeus city, crony, stata and federal Uices and odor sources regartkrg do area shown, and is w be urea for reference purposes qtly. to City does nd vnarraM Mat the Geographic IMormatlon System (GIS) Dew used ro pnpare Mw rep are error hoe. arM tlfe City does nd represed Mal the GIS Data ran Ee used la novigational, wcldng or any o0sr purpose nxpidng elating meawrerrent d distano�or direction ar precision in he 'ono geographic faaNres. d errors or dscreWnoies are lountl please contad 952-227.110]. n e preceding discwlma is prpdtled pursuant to kgnriesota SwMas §d66.03, $ubd. 21 (2000 and Ila user of this map aduwvAeages Mat Me Ciry shall cwt he kale Ia any tlarroges. arM e�ressly naives.0 ciairrka, aM agrees to tlefentl, indertniry, and hdtl hansess the Ciry Irom any ane ell chins xolghl by User, its employees a agents, or Mind paNas which arise ouI d to users access or use d lata provided. 1 R� r)ks rrep is naffim a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not stanched to W used as one. This reap is a crplalon d records, mforro ion and data located in various city, county, slaw and! tederel )Ifices arttl o0or sourws ngarding the area shown, atd is w he used for refererce purposes qtly. rhe Ciy Boas rot vnanad that the G.waphk Mamauon System (GIS) Data used to prepare tis tap are and free, and the Ciry does not represent tat the GIS Data can be used lar rovigakond. racking or arty o0or purpose eq..V emcbrg nreasuremera of distarce or direction or pression in he depiction of geograptic feahaes. k encs or dsaeparwies are fOald pease contact 052-M7-1107. rhe preceding declaimer la provided pursuant to Hnnesota SLAW% §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and he Isar d this nap adsoMedgea Mat the Ciry shale not be Fade for any Barrages, and e> xessly +naives all dame, and agrees to defend, indamily, "hdd harmless the City from any and all dame xoughl by User, iw errpwyees or agents, or Mird parties vdddi arise out of Me users access or use of fate lxoinded. MAME1 w «NAME2)> «ADD1 D «ADD2)> «CITY» «STATE» «ZIP>> «Next Record»«NAMED «NAME2» «ADDU ADD2» «CITY» «STATE» (,ZIP)) Public Hearing Notification Area (500 feet) Koenig Variance Request Planning Case No. 05-34 8005 Cheyenne Avenue City of Chanhassen 8�h Street S�a�e Hwy No. 5 O D Subject Site Lake Drive East Che 0� qGm 0 ey `D kota Sp < Cir (D nun Oak0ta KAHNKE BROS INC MCDONALD'S CORP (22-157) 1400 ARBORETUM DR COOK PROPERTIES-CHANHASSEN LLC PO BOX 66207 BLOOMINGTON PO BOX 7 E AVE S AMF O'HARE VICTORIA, MN 55366 -0007 BLOOMMINGTINGT ON , MN 55420 - CHICAGO. IL 60666 - I C JOHN LLC DYS PROPERTIES JACK D CHRISTENSON 7920 SOUTH BAY CRV 4711 SHADY OAK RD 15411 VILLAGE WOODS DR EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 -1119 HOPKINS , MN 55343 -8840 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 -1438 TERRANCE SR & SANDRA THOMPSON RICK & CATHY CHCESEMAN DANIEL A & KRIS L CITARELLA 3820 LINDEN CIR 18500 WYNNFIELb RD BO08 ERIE AVE EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7727 EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 -1039 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9752 THOMAS R & NATALIE J TWINING LOREN R JOHNSON & PATRICIA M DOLAN 8009 CHEYENNE AVE MARY KAY KINNEY - 8007 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9720 8011 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9720 MICHAEL A & CYNTHIA K KOENIG JAMES R & JANICE GILDNER THOMAS M & KRISTIE A KOTSONAS 8005 CHEYENNE AVE 8003 CHEYENNE AVE 8001 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9720 ANNE T THOMPSON CLAYTON & MARGARET SODETANI THOMAS J & SANDRA M KOEPPEN 8000 DAKOTA AVE 8005 ERIE AVE 8009 ERIE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9636 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9301 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9301 MICHAEL D KRAINES & TERRY J & MARGARET A LEWIS ANDREA LYNNE FANNEMEL JULIE AO8013 CHEYENNE AVE 8003 DAKOTA AVE AVE 8002 DAKKOTATA AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9636 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9637 WILLIAM J & EARLA KRAUS RALPH WAYNE LYTLE MICHAEL D & SARAH J PETERSEN 8008 CHEYENNE AVE 8021 ERIE AVE 8010 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9767 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9301 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9767 GERALD H & MARILYN M WASSINK GLENN A & BONNIE LEE HAGEMAN RUSSELL L & VIRGINIA HAMILTON 8004 DAKOTA AVE 8021 CHEYENNE SPUR 8019 CHEYENNE SPUR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9636 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9607 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9607 MARILYN MARGARET STEWART STEVEN & ESTA KATKIN DANIEL P & LINDA M ROBINSON 8015 CHEYENNE AVE 8012 CHEYENNE AVE 8014 CHEYENNEAVE CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9720 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9767 CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9767 ROBERT A & DAWN T LUND JOHN 0 & DONNA M SOLBERG PATRICIA A HEGSTROM 8023 ERIE AVE 8006 DAKOTA AVE 8005 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9301 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9636 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9637 GAYLON R & LINDA 0 RUST LEE & PATRICIA JENSEN VALBORG A SWEDBERG 8017 CHEYENNE SPUR 8009 DAKOTA CIA TRUSTEE OF TRUST CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9607 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9757 8016 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9767 rt ALLAN J & KATHIE J NELSON WALTER & KATHLEEN SCHOLLMAN RAYMOND & KATHERINE KNIGHT 8025 ERIE AVE 8011 DAKOTA CIA 8077 DAKOTA CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9301 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9757 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9757 ANTHONY E & LISA M BACHMAN ROBERT W & KATHY A TOENJES PATRICIA E HIRSCHBERG 8008 DAKOTA AVE 8018 CHEYENNE AVE 8023 CHEYENNE SPUR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9636 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9767 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9607 SUZANNE M SHEPPARD ALOIS J & MARY C STUMPFL CRAIG T & KATHRYN M HUMASON 8010 DAKOTA AVE 8027 CHEYENNE AVE 8025 CHEYENNE SPUR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9636 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9720 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9607 RAYMOND S & MARY ANN JEZIERSKI DOUGLAS W & KATHLEEN M BAGLEY PAUL D & LOUISE J O'DELL 8013 DAKOTA CIA 8020 CHEYENNE AVE 8012 DAKOTA AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9757 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9767 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9636 CHARLES H ANGELO III & RONALD D & LINDA L OLSON STEPHEN K & VICKI C TABOREK RANDY L FRI8015 DAKOTA CIR 8022 CHEYENNE AVE 8017 DAKOTAOTA CIR CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9757 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9757 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9767 MICHAEL WILLIAM FARRELL 6024 CHEYENNE AVE CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9767 PLAT OF SURVEY LOT 3, BLOCK 3, CHANHASSEN ESTATES FIRST ADDITION 935.6 X FENCEo 9(x.06 L32 I 589'48'18"E 5 47.00 s ° _ DRAINAGE AN UTILITY EASEMENT ° W 935.0 933.8 9 3.5 X X 0 51 s a O I z to / `\T Lt7 : 933.893 .8 933.5 X X XI X INT ° I / p, sa.0 41 C�/EYE-SNE LEGEND INV 920.47 0 SET MONUMENT . 937.5 SPOT ELEVATIONS • FOUND MONUMENT GFE GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION El CATCH BASIN O STORM MANHOLE Is MAILBOX © TELEPHONE BOX —a—FENCELINE —>— SANITARY SEWER >?—STORM SEWER � DRAINAGE ARROW I hereby certify that this survey as prepared by me or under my supervision and that I am o duly registered land surveyor under Minnesota Statutes Sec ' 26.02 tG!'f,26.1 Reg. Na. 8.321 Date: _ 29 OS �L22.�� -T7 I GFE/811 934.1 IBIT I DRIVEWAY' 932.7 / X // /o /h. /9305 "ST.y VENN ETRAIL FIZAM R,42 IW41� IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ARtA— HOUSE AREAS: 2,178 -SQ. FT. DRIVEWAY AREA= 1,230 SQ.FT. PATIO/PAVER AREA= 619 SO. FT. STOOP AREA= 31 SO.FT. TOTAL= 4,058 SO. FT Scale in feel o- —s_�o CFTY0FCHAN-1ASS8N RECEIVED SEP 2.9 2005 awaLlS" PIANNM DEFT LOT AREA= 11,235. SQ. FT. BM SCRIBE IN CONCRETE ELEVATION 934.1 FT. N.G.V.D. 1929 zI Engineers Surveyors 1.0=t M. 02-084 Landscape Architects i u9.n b1 MID aea.e by I IP �\ Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson Inc. �' 1 1510 wo.9e1 Fl— a.— aas^, 120/60 ' Etl— P.aHe. MN 55A4—M..NIKE - a9m1: I(CENIG (952) 829-0100 FAX (952) 629-7806 LEGEND N • sm. x rwl as150 WRACE a0Q CAIRFOR ❑ LEGEND CTEV OF CNANNASSEN RECEIVED OCT 13 2005 C"INASSEN PLJNMNG DEPT NOTES: PARCEL A 1. upCFNAWSSRrrACE xwA>D &M M IT. M "M PARCR A nCSI 0 MCA - ISMS M. R. up@xgls wRIACC ARG '".0.. R. M JI.K M PAnCCL n xnMas wxIACC 41NV3 A0.YTIWAL WtlKMAr - 1ST so. IT qr x.1 R OF PARCEL E APES IA.WS SURFACE AREA 1,111 10. 11 OR MIx Or PARCEL C LOT DIVISION DESCRIPTION! PARCEL A A•1 pen If Let z . A ChA,RIRSmI EJiAIEJ, wawexs A A. rwM.a PACE INww UMnwl" iF: 1 WO bl ri rza+'%xi -1 .1'he nMAR.o ll ennv".l h4! Le li m! 'Fre, n i .ole . rwnx.IFp PAAC4 a Lm x Nm J. cxA STASSEx nurzJ. wewexC I. the ,,,N.a plot m.,. of, ,." . "of vwl .1"Lot z .1.11 U. CllAxxASSp MiA2s u "' to 0• ,..wew .... r. Im .„I-, • rfol ew bw Or.: a1Rx N the aY"Lei 11. ill ol:a utl .11.. "nslMgi e_I. ai'M1 LetL1 mY um ou nuON Igmv.oru Inel r.,l m Lot 4. BIAR. ]P. p, A9SE ESTATES, owwexp to the MI!ulvy o1 yoe IFhe CyxMy n m n tel. nvu mo er rule tot .. L.2 Iwl hh'w' Lw^ u• nwtMwl —OF or Wa Loll.° uwu 1>e.Jl r.rt t. o roxt n m..wm II» 0 ub Let o. SIR 1. rw w 1-1 NI -IN. FR Incl wnw .1"Mo ' . we 1"wr IwMlelbp PARCEL C A; wpwl Off. . EI.4 z CNA.AJSCN ESTATES, eeegaYp Ip lb nede•e plot IAwwl. IIY., w al 1"r bpm,Llp euvbre IUr: CI mmp N . POFI w IF. n.n" ;F..I OIL:. n(x feel w•tvlr, Sem If. eaNw•t wmu .0 m IMS the —.-.iu.anwoei � LY I efe U.. or nYiolip It'. A., w :Ir ,I., b. -or R.e.. x.(63ZLom.bILOA LOT DIVISION SURVEY LOT 2, 3, 4, BLOCK 3 CHANHASSEN ESTATES 117 L. a.e. . SETIYMU.CNT • 0.or+0.MT o moT gtvnnmS WRACE a0Q CAIRFOR ❑ cA'. RRLN m STM. MRNNCl YApHO% 01 SELI1,MC MY —CENCELNC Y CA 11VAR �C uwR CTEV OF CNANNASSEN RECEIVED OCT 13 2005 C"INASSEN PLJNMNG DEPT NOTES: PARCEL A 1. upCFNAWSSRrrACE xwA>D &M M IT. M "M PARCR A nCSI 0 MCA - ISMS M. R. up@xgls wRIACC ARG '".0.. R. M JI.K M PAnCCL n xnMas wxIACC 41NV3 A0.YTIWAL WtlKMAr - 1ST so. IT qr x.1 R OF PARCEL E APES IA.WS SURFACE AREA 1,111 10. 11 OR MIx Or PARCEL C LOT DIVISION DESCRIPTION! PARCEL A A•1 pen If Let z . A ChA,RIRSmI EJiAIEJ, wawexs A A. rwM.a PACE INww UMnwl" iF: 1 WO bl ri rza+'%xi -1 .1'he nMAR.o ll ennv".l h4! Le li m! 'Fre, n i .ole . rwnx.IFp PAAC4 a Lm x Nm J. cxA STASSEx nurzJ. wewexC I. the ,,,N.a plot m.,. of, ,." . "of vwl .1"Lot z .1.11 U. CllAxxASSp MiA2s u "' to 0• ,..wew .... r. Im .„I-, • rfol ew bw Or.: a1Rx N the aY"Lei 11. ill ol:a utl .11.. "nslMgi e_I. ai'M1 LetL1 mY um ou nuON Igmv.oru Inel r.,l m Lot 4. BIAR. ]P. p, A9SE ESTATES, owwexp to the MI!ulvy o1 yoe IFhe CyxMy n m n tel. nvu mo er rule tot .. L.2 Iwl hh'w' Lw^ u• nwtMwl —OF or Wa Loll.° uwu 1>e.Jl r.rt t. o roxt n m..wm II» 0 ub Let o. SIR 1. rw w 1-1 NI -IN. FR Incl wnw .1"Mo ' . we 1"wr IwMlelbp PARCEL C A; wpwl Off. . EI.4 z CNA.AJSCN ESTATES, eeegaYp Ip lb nede•e plot IAwwl. IIY., w al 1"r bpm,Llp euvbre IUr: CI mmp N . POFI w IF. n.n" ;F..I OIL:. n(x feel w•tvlr, Sem If. eaNw•t wmu .0 m IMS the —.-.iu.anwoei � LY I efe U.. or nYiolip It'. A., w :Ir ,I., b. -or R.e.. x.(63ZLom.bILOA LOT DIVISION SURVEY LOT 2, 3, 4, BLOCK 3 CHANHASSEN ESTATES 117 L. a.e. .