Loading...
Koehnen Variance 04-11CITYOF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen MN 55317 Administration Fax: 952227 1110 Building Inspections PI~one: 9522271180 Fax: 952 227 1190 Engineering Fax: 9522271170 Finance Phone: 952227 1140 Fax: 952 227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 9522271120 Fax 952.2271110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 9522271400 Fax~ 9522271404 Planning a Natural Resources Phone: 9522271130 Fax~ 9522271110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone 952 2271300 Fax: 952227 1310 Senior Center Phone: 9522271125 Fax~ 952227 1110 Web Site wwwci chanhassen mn us MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: DATE: Nathan Bouvet, Planning Intern April 12, 2004 SUB J: KoehnenVariance 04-11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Planning Commission recommended approval of the lot area variance and consequently denial of the impervious coverage variance due to the applicant being able to meet the hard surface requirements of the City Code. The primary issues the Planning Commission had were the materials to be used under the proposed deck, tree removal, access, and drainage. With respect to the coverage under the deck, if the applicant chooses to utilize materials under the deck it was recommend that type R or equal fabric barrier be used in lieu of any poly to allow additional drainage. Staff has contacted the applicant questioning the materials to be used underneath the deck and staff has determined that there will be no special materials used under the proposed deck. If poly and rock material is used underneath it becomes hard cover and creates more impervious coverage. The applicant is having a survey done on the property, including a tree removal plan that clearly shows all trees, 6" and larger, and their designation as removed or saved. The lot cannot be clear-cut. A majority of the trees located on the property are less than six (6) inches in width and will not be included in the tree removal plan. Tree protection fencing will be installed during construction prior to any work commencing around all saved trees. Fencing shall remain in place until all construction is completed. Staff also required the applicant to plant two overstory, deciduous, 2-1/2" diameter trees as stated in the staff report dated March 16, 2004. At the March 16, 2004, Planning Commission meeting, concerns were raised regarding the location of the proposed access to the site from Ponderosa Drive. The Commission asked staff to look at the possibility of moving the driveway so that the home would have access from Yuma Drive versus Ponderosa Drive. Staff has since met with the applicant and reviewed the location of the proposed driveway. Staff concluded that the high point of the property west of the garage would require a tuckunder style garage and that the increased length of the driveway would increase the impervious coverage and would make it harder for the applicant to meet the maximum 25 percent hard surface requirement. City engineers concluded that there was not an added benefit to relocate the driveway to access Yuma Drive. The City of Chanhassen · A grov',,ing comrT~unity with clean lakes quality schools a charndr~( dow~ tc',~,r~ t!r ~ing b~JSl',/esses wmdng trails and beautiful parks; grea! 3/2 !/04 Dear Chanhassen City Council, We are writing regarding the approval of the proposal to build a home at 795 Ponderosa Drive, Case # Variance 04-11. We provide our names, addresses and signatures on accompanying pages. We wish to appeal this decision and request that the City Council deny the Lot Area Variance. We offer the following in support of our position. We refer to the City of Chanhassen Staff Report. 1. Page 6. Findings (a) and (b): City staff provided a table of the neighboring properties with nonconforming lot sizes. We note that of the 5 file numbers presented, one was denied, one was withdrawn and 3 were approved giving a 60% approval rating. We examined file number 89-8, 825 Ponderosa Dr. which was withdrawn. We note that no square footage was given for this case. We also attempted to examine file number 91-20, 750 Cree Dr. However, we could not find this address. We note that the average square footage of these lots was 8,848 square feet. The applicant has asked for 7,932 square feet. This represents a reduction of 916 square feet from the properties given in the table and is about 10%. Finally, we would be grateful if the City staff could indicate how many cases were researched. We note that both one Planning Commission (PC) member and the public were very confused about the building ordinances in this area of the City of Chanhassen. We consider that the City staff did not clearly explain this to the PC member and that he and the PC made their decision based on this confusion. We request that this issue is clearly explained and the information made available to the City Council and public. Furthermore, as a consequence of the above, the applicant's title may be confused because of the parcels of land put together. Hence we would like the city to verify their title and include this information in its deliberations. We have interpreted the situation as follows: Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of the lot. Within the 500 feet circle, the average sized lot is 13,586 square feet. The applicant's property is 7,932 square feet. This is approximately half of the size of the average lot within the required 500 feet. Thus, this lot is clearly not comparable to the majority. Since the hard cover variance was denied and the applicant has to remain within the 25%, the house size would not be similar to existing residences. Thus, the lot size (and hence, house size) does not blend with and is inconsistent with pre-existing standards. This is because it departs downwards from these standards. Thus, we conclude that the applicant should be denied the reasonable use of the property. Furthermore, just because an applicant can meet the required setbacks does not mean that the lot size and house size are comparable to pre-existing standards in the neighborhood. Importantly, we note that the City staff listed variance requests that may have been comparable to the majority of pre-existing standards of the neighborhood in the mid and late 1980's, but are clearly not comparable in 2004. Finally, we note that the lot size variance was argued by the applicant to be "pretty close" to the minimum lot size previously approved. As noted above, the lot size was not similar to the majority of properties previously approved. Whilst noting that both one member of the PC and the public were confused as to the determination of lot size in the area, we raise the idea of "pretty close" as an important issue. Where does one draw the line? We argue that small differences are important and that a precedent should not be set by allowing deviations. 2. Page 6 Findings (c): We note that until now, the applicant has paid taxes for 795 Ponderosa Dr. based on the fact that the site is a non-homestead lot. We estimate this amount to be about $100 per year. Now the lot becomes buildable. Hence, we are concerned that the building of the house on the lot is in fact an attempt to derive profit from the site. We note that the site is not worth very much money without a house. With a house on the lot, we estimate that if sold in a year or two, the applicant will profit by about $100,000. We determined the market value of the lot to be about $5,500. We also note that if the applicant requires a larger yard, he may decide to leave in a year or two and place the home on the rental-market. We wish to make the City Council aware of these possibilities. 3. Page 6 Findings (e) and (f): (i) We were concerned that the applicant did not provide the PC and the public with professional engineering and architectural plans. We also note that a Survey of the site was not presented. The PC and public were given no specific information regarding the following: tree layout, tree removal, fire hydrant and mail box status and location, construction of retaining walls because of steep grade; construction for drainage and the physical alteration of the site occurring as a consequence of home construction. We note that a fire hydrant and mailboxes are located at the intersection of Ponderosa Dr. and Yuma Dr. We would be grateful if all of this information be made available to the City Council and the public. (ii) At the PC meeting, we were upset at the lack of discussion about the potential environmental hazards, drainage/runoff and safety hazards (see accompanying letters that were sent to the PC). For example, the residents of 805 Ponderosa Dr. have great difficulty in safely backing out of their driveway and onto Ponderosa Dr. The residents have described many "close calls". Further, the home will occupy most of the site, with little or no yard for children's play. As noted in the letter, Ponderosa Dr. is a major thoroughfare for residents of lower Carver Beach, traffic speeds in the area vary from 15-50 mph. and the Yuma Dr./Ponderosa Dr. intersection is not at right angles. The Yuma Dr./Ponderosa Dr. intersection is in a dip, at the bottom of two hills. Our experience indicates that, for both directions, cars accelerate down one hill to the intersection and then further speed up the next hill. We also note that there is no stop sign on Ponderosa Dr. at the intersection. Considering adjacent streets, we note that lower Yuma Dr., Wood Hill Dr. and Cree Dr. are all one-way streets and that Lone Eagle Dr. and Imperial Dr. are dead end streets. This arrangement means that all local traffic also ends up on Ponderosa Dr. This fact coupled with the fact that Ponderosa Dr. is the thoroughfare for lower Carver Beach and that increased traffic will arise as a consequence of the new homes along Big Woods Blvd. and the lower Carver Beach area indicates that Ponderosa Dr. is already too busy. We therefore question the City staffs statement that an additional 10 more car trips per day, (as usually generated by a single family home) will not add to the significant traffic problem. We ask the City staff if they could do a traffic count at the intersection in order to professionally evaluate the situation. In conclusion, we urge the City Council and the applicant to consider the above carefully as local residents do not wish to see any children endangered as a consequence of wandering onto or playing on Ponderosa Dr. Thus, we would be grateful if the City could evaluate these issues in a thorough and professional way and provide the information to the City Council and us. Finally, we urge members of the City Council to come and look at the site during the day and at night, without snow cover, in order to get a good and clear idea of these issues. We would like to meet with City Council members at the location to both discuss and show members the issues and our concerns. We note that only one of the PC members viewed the site and this visit occurred at night, just before the PC meeting. (iii) One of our local residents has discussed the importance to the City of the 2020 Land Use Plan. In this context, we ask the City Council to address the meaning of low and high density. We ask, how many houses in an area can be squeezed in? We note the major development occurring in the lower Carver Beach area, including Lotus Trail and Big Woods Boulevard. These developments will directly impact the Yuma Dr./Ponderosa Dr. intersection. Hence, we urge the City Council to address our appeal in the context of this development, new small homes on small lots, as in the case of the applicant and the 2020 Land Use Plan as low density. (iv) We are also very concerned at the likelihood of significant tree removal from the site if building goes ahead. We note that the Yuma Dr./ Ponderosa Dr. intersection drains 38 acres into a filtration pond at the bottom of Yuma Dr. This water then flows into Lotus Lake We also note that the City provides for tree removal fines for damaged trees in construction. As an example of significant tree removal, we draw your attention to recent home development along Galpin Blvd. and Lake Lucy Rd. where significant numbers of trees were removed. In our opinion, this action creates significant problems - increased drainage and run-off; decreased shelter from significant winter wind-chill effects and hence, increased heating/energy demand; decimation of wild-life habitat and aesthetic issues in that the houses stand starkly on bare hillsides. We note that the Carver Beach area presently has a large population of a variety of tree types and has a significant canopy, providing good shelter and habitat. We do not wish to see this desirable natural asset destroyed. In this regard, we also note an older home development in the Kerber Blvd. area where trees were removed. According to one of our group, this action resulted in a large migration of many surviving animals to the Carver Beach area. (v) We note that the home at 780 Wood Hill Dr. was built on a wetlands site. This site is adjacent to and below the proposed house at 795 Ponderosa Dr. We would like the City to evaluate the specific impact of the new house on this area and provide this information to the City Council and the public. 3. Denial of the lot coverage variance: As far as we understand, the PC set the following conditions for this variance denial: The applicant is to work with the City in regard to the trees, driveway and safety. Additionally, the PC set an amendment regarding the engineering and drainage issues. We argue that these requirements are too vague. Hence, we would be grateful if the City staff and PC could provide the City Council and public with specific statements and requirements. We note that the requirements should include the use of pavers and not concrete or asphalt for hard-cover, no out-buildings or sheds, possible drive-way relocation to Yuma Dr. and most importantly, reduction of hard cover by 258 square feet. Finally, if the home is to be built, we are concerned that the City will not be able to effectively police these requirements. We would like the City Council to provide evidence that these requirements will be (i) met by the applicant and (ii) rigorously monitored. We would like to participate in this process. 4. General Issues: (i) We note that one of the adjoining properties would like to purchase the lot. (ii) According to the notice received in the mail, we were informed that the case would go to the City Council. At the end of the meeting, the PC Chairman informed us that approval of the project was possible with a 5-0 vote, but that we could appeal to the City Council within 4 business days. The PC then voted 5-0, even though there was clearly confusion as to specific details which apply to this area of Chanhassen. The notice that we received in the mail did not accurately explain this. We were very confused at to this sequence of events and draw your attention to this. (iii) We also note that one week's notice for the Planning Commission meeting was too little time to prepare for the hearing. We urge the City Council to lengthen this time period. We, the undersigned, hereby appeal Chanhassen Planning Commission's decision to approve the lot size variance to Case Variance No. 04-11 at its 3/16/04 meeting. Print Name ?~ -- Signed: /~ Print Name Print Name Address Phone Print Name- / ?~ Address Phone Signed:~ ~ ~ ',~ Date: 3',}d '? ........ .......................... , ~ :4' ~ '- Phone Print Name . ', ,. ~ l~t,<., .. Address [!~ %'~ b~ I~'~ ~, [[~U~L !?':.i:i: ~_~t ...................... [~[l_ !"i L,"_{ ! ~dd:ess ..:- ~:~ .(.' ~.xt"t:~- .t] Phone " _ ' Date: ':.'.'" ." ~ -i.-:~ .......................... Z ......... Address %'' f "' '~' <- " Phone ' ~ ' Date:"5/2/ I('~ Signed: .~ ~ ..... , '~ ....~--,r-~,-,,.~ ~ Print Name Address Phone Signed: - ~ Date Print Name Addre s s Phone Print Na~e~an{¥ &, ~aS~7 Address Phone ~TV- 7f20 / ' "' .'J /.,' '/ Date: [~/ 'qi /":/ Signed: "t ' ~ We, the undersigned, hereby appeal Chanhassen Planning Commission's decision to approve the lot size variance to Case Variance No. 04-11 at its 3/16/04 meeting. Print Name , Address Print Name Address Phone ...... i___~_~_~ .... ~___¢ ................... i;_~ ............. Print Name ~dt, '. ~ Address . Phone : :' k ( - i ...... i ..... ¢--l~ ............................................ Print Name 2 '~j>/ Z ~:/, Address Phone Signed: .: ~) ~, ~ ,-~.:.: Date: ........ rl .... :.~ 2~ ,~_ _ _, _~ ................................... Print Name Address Phone Signed: I%¢). ~ ¢.. ,,> .....&_ Date: Print Name Address ~{,:.lj(./?toJ-[! 1%/(.,,/ I~/~' ~,:~ 7~ ~/t.(L-/6~ />}'i /L'~"~::~//~/-~'(t/:h°ne £'~ ~'/~) s5_ ~_n_e_~_ ':'?:-X4~:~:/_:_'! ~:':~_:' ............ D_a_t_e_.._ >_':,~::?:' ..... P:;[nt Name Address Phone Szgned: ,' ,<~- > Date: . f ....... '_ L_ ......... ~ _ ~= ...................................... Print Name · ¢,~ t~ ~. Address '~0') tk~,--.7:_~[~ O('" Phone We, the undersigned, hereby appeal Chanhassen Planning Commission's decision to approve the lot size variance to Case Variance No. 04-11 at its 3/16/04 meeting. Print Name-~-_. Address Phone Szgned: ~-~-~, C~ ~) ~'?~-'"~ ..... ~--' Date: Print Name ~ Address .... ~ Phone ':~ign'ed :~ , ~ ~_ ~-,.~ --~ . ~ Date: ....... ~- >~ ~' ~~ f_%'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~,~%~,~ _ ........ [~_~ f~? Print Nam~ _J Addrsss ~ ~ Phons Signed: Date: Print Name Address Phone Signed: Date: Print Name Address Phone Signed: Date: Print Name Address Phone Signed: Date: Print Name Address Phone Signed: Date: Print Name Address Phone Signed: Date: Print Name Address Phone Signed: Date: Maurice and Vicki Hevey 780 Wood Hill Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-474-2317 March 22, 2004 Dear Chanhassen City Council, We are writing in regard to the approval by the Planning Commission of the application for a lot variance at 795 Ponderosa Drive, Case #: Variance 04-11. We wish to appeal this decision and request that the City Council deny the Lot Area Variance. After carefully reading the Staff Report from the Planning Commission, we disagree with these 3 sections in their "Findings." a) Undue hardship: "The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criterion. We argue that this variance does "depart downward." While the finding compares lot sizes, it does not state or compare the sizes of the houses placed on these lots. The fact remains that this lot is at least 10% smaller than the average of other lots that have been granted variances, thus departing downward from the pre-existing standards. c) "The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land." At present, without this variance, this lot is not buildable and has limited value to its owner. With most new single-family residences being built in Chanhassen in the $300,000+ range, a home priced below this market will sell quickly. Two homes within 500' of this lot were sold in 2001 less than 1 week after they were listed. This lot is worth at least 40 times its current value with a home on it. 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." Currently, during heavy rains, storm waters run down Ponderosa Drive in both directions from Yuma Drive. These waters converge with water running down from Yuma in the direction of our home. The water jumps the curb at Lone Eagle Dr. and exits in a stream on the east side of our house as it runs into the wetland in front of our property. We fear this run-off situation will worsen with the additional lot coverage and the necessary removal of many trees on the property, possibly flooding our basement window wells located on the east side of our home. If this happens, it will seriously decrease the value of our property. In addition, since Wood Hill Dr. is a one-way street, as is the section Yuma Dr. that connects to Wood Hill Dr., the only way we can exit is through the inter- section of Yuma Dr. and Ponderosa Dr. Currently, visibility at this corner is extremely poor. Many times I have started to enter the intersection when a car has suddenly become visible after cresting the hill to begin its descent to this intersection. We are concerned that a home placed on this lot will further impair the visibility of traffic coming down from Nez Perce Dr. Many drivers using Ponderosa do not live in the area and are not concerned with their speed. The impaired visibility combined with the excessive speeds driven on Ponderosa Dr. make this corner a potentially hazardous section of this neighborhood. We hope you will consider these points when making your decision on this variance request. Sincerely, Maurice O. Hevey Vicki L. Hevey Mark A. VanGuilder Shelly T. MacGillivray 805 Ponderosa Drive Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 Phone: 952-470-4953 March 15, 2004 Chanhassen Planning Commission 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 RE: Planning Case No. 04-11 Dear Chanhassen Planning Commission Members, We are writing to inform you that we are opposed to the approval of the application for the variances of Planning Case No. 04-11, which is an adjoining property to ours. The following items are some of our thoughts and concerns: We believe if a home is built on the subject property, it will substantially diminish and impair our property value and the Carver Beach subdivision's property value as a whole by having houses so close together and by reducing the wooded areas. The subject property was not buildable when we purchased our home and property. If the variances are approved and a home is built, it will greatly affect the quiet and enjoyment of our property. We have attempted to purchase the subject property. There's a steep grade where the proposed house would be built that could be injurious and detrimental to our property. WeTre very concerned about runoff and drainage issues. We question whether the home should be allowed to extend all the way up to the setback of 10 feet. The 2020 Land Use Plan describes the area as low density. This would not be the case if variances continue to be approved. Smaller lots within 500 feet of the subject property are undeveloped. We believe that the 25 percent maximum hardcover requirement should be adhered to due to our concern for future development of these undeveloped lots. The subject property is approximately half the size of the required 15,000 square feet and approximately half the size of the average-sized lots in the area and we feel a home should not be built on it. It will increase the congestion of the public streets and increase the danger of fire. There is a fire hydrant on the property at the corner of Yuma Drive and Ponderosa Drive. There are many mature trees on the property and we have seen a lot of wildlife on the property such as owls, hawks, deer and wild turkey, to name a few. Building a home on the property would have a negative impact on the habitat. It is a self-created hardship because the property owner chose not to take the opportunity to build on it when it was within the requirements of the City Code. The applicant is not the property owner. We're concerned that the Koehnens are developers because there's a Koehnen Circle East and a Koehnen Circle West in Chanhassen and a Koehnen Drive and a Koehnen Circle in Chaska. Obviously, the purpose of the application for variations is based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Therefore, we recommend that you deny the application for Planning Case No. 04-11. Thank you very much for taking our concerns into consideration. Sincerely, Mark A. VanGuilder Shelly T. MacGillivray cc: Chanhassen City Council Michael Kohane 6870 Yuma Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 phone: 952-401-0520. 3/16/04 Dear Members of the City Council, I am writing regarding the approval of the proposal to build a home at 795 Ponderosa Drive, Case # Variance 04-11. I wish to appeal this approval. My appeal would like to address the following: 1. One Planning Commission (PC) member was confused as to the meaning of the parcels of land that are required to be combined to make a buildable lot in Chanhassen. I was also confused. I consider that the City did not clearly explain this to the particular PC member and request that more detailed information be given to the City Council and the PC. 2. I am concerned that the City and the owner did not show the PC professional engineering and architectural drawings and a survey. In particular, there was nothing specific on tree removal, drainage, fire hydrant and mail-box location and the physical alteration of the site by the home. The owner, in his comments, did imply that the residents had nothing to worry about. However, I would be grateful that specific details be given to the City Council and PC. 3. I was very upset at the cursory treatment of the drainage, environmental and safety issues by the City and PC at the meeting. I would be grateful if the City could evaluate these issues in a more professional way and send the report to the City Council and myself. I intend to independently discuss these with issues with the City of Chanhassen (police and parks department); Carver County (police, planning and parks) and the governing watershed district. CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: 3/16/04 CC DATE: 4/12/04 REVIEW DEADLINE: 4/12/04 CASE #: Variance 04-11 BY: NB STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: LOCATION: APPLICANT: Request for a lot area variance from the required 15,000 square feet and a maximum lot coverage variance from the required 25 percent maximum for the construction of a single-family residence on a 7,932 square foot lot, zoned RSF. 795 Ponderosa Drive; Part of Carver Beach Section i, Township 116, Range 23. Thomas Koehnen 6280 Audubon Circle #6 Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: Residential Single-Family (RSF) 2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density ACREAGE: .1821 DENSITY: NA SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a lot area variance from the required 15,000 square feet and a maximum lot coverage variance from the required 25 percent maximum for the construction of a single-family residence. Staff is recommending approval of the request. LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Location Map Lots 2322-2326 Carver Beach City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-11 Lone Ea( ,r )sa Preakness Lane SUBJECT PROPERTY Dr Preakne ,sa Drive ,ury Circle N / ac Koehnen Variance 04-11 March 16, 2004 Page 2 PROPOSAL SUMMARY The subject lot is located in the Carver Beach Subdivision. This subdivision was created in 1927, which predates the zoning ordinance. The applicant is the son of the owner who has been in ownership of the 5 parcels (795 Ponderosa Drive) since 1967. These lots were never part of a larger parcel. The applicant is requesting a lot area variance to Section 20-615(1) and a maximum lot coverage variance to Section 20-615(4) of the Chanhassen City Code for the construction of a single-family residence. The site is currently vacant and the applicant proposes to construct a 28' x 36' 1,728 square foot (1,008 sq. ft. footprint) single-family home and a 24' x 26' (624 sq. ft.) garage. The lot is a legal nonconforming lot predating the zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance requires a 15,000 square foot lot and 25 percent maximum lot coverage. Section 20-905(2) states all single-family detached homes shall: (b) If a split-level design, have an area of one thousand fifty (1,050) square feet. (c) If a split foyer or two-story design, have an area of six hundred (600) square feet on the first floor. The property is located at 795 Ponderosa Drive; part of Section 1, Township 116, Range 23. The lot is zoned Residential Single-Family, RSF, which intends to provide for single-family residential subdivisions. Access to the site is gained via Ponderosa Drive (a local street). Koehnen Variance 04-11 March 16, 2004 Page 3 APPLICABLE REGULATIONS DIVISION 4. NONCONFORMING USES* Sec. 20-71. Purpose The purpose of this division is: (1) To recognize the existence of uses, lots, and structures which were lawful when established, but which no longer meet all ordinance requirements; (2) To prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification, or extension of any nonconforming use, building, or structure; (3) To encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses, lots, and structures or reduce their impact on adjacent properties. Sec. 20-73. Nonconforming Lots of Record (b) No variance shall be required to construct a detached single-family dwelling on a nonconforming lot provided that it fronts on a public street or approved private street and provided that the depth and area measurements are at least seventy-five (75) percent of the minimum requirements of this chapter. (c) Except as otherwise specifically provided for detached single-family dwellings, there shall be no expansion, intensification, replacement, or structural changes of a structure on a nonconforming lot. (d) If two or more contiguous lots are in single ownership and if all or part of the lots does not meet the width and area requirements of this chapter for lots in the district, the contiguous lots shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purpose of this chapter. If part of a parcel is sold, the sale shall constitute a self-created hardship under the variance provisions of this chapter. Section 20-615. Lot Requirements and Setbacks (1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. For neck and flag lots, the lot area requirements shall be met after the area contained within the "neck" has been excluded from consideration. (4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent. BACKGROUND The lot, located in the Carver Beach Subdivision, was created in July of 1927, prior to the adoption of the 1972 zoning ordinance. Due to the date of the subdivision and the unique shape of the lot, the existing 7,932 square foot lot does not conform to the required 15,000 square foot lot size requirement as stated in Section 20-615(1) of the Chanhassen City Code and will require a lot area variance of 7,068 sq. ft. Additionally, this parcel can only accommodate a maximum hard surface coverage of 1,983 square feet (25%) as specified in Section 20-615(4). This area includes all non-permeable surfaces (house, garage, Koehnen Variance 04-11 March 16, 2004 Page 4 sidewalk and driveway). The applicant is requesting a total hard surface coverage of 2,267 square feet (28.6%) which would require a 3.6 percent variance to Section 20-615(4). The applicant is proposing to construct a single-family residence on an existing nonconforming 7,932 square foot lot with a hard surface coverage of 2,267 square foot or 28.6 percent of the lot. The use of this nonconforming lot requires a variance of 7,068 sq. ft. feet and a 3.6 percent variance to be approved before construction will be allowed. The parcel is a comer lot with two front and two side yards. The proposed single-family residence would meet all required setbacks for RSF districts (front yards, thirty (30) feet, and side yards, ten (10) feet). ANALYSIS The applicant has a 7,932 square foot lot and is requesting a 3.6 percent hard surface coverage variance to the 25% permitted by ordinance. The purpose of this request is to allow the construction of a single- family residence. While the city code states in Sec. 20~73(b), "no variance shall be required to construct a detached single-family dwelling on a nonconforming lot provided that it,fronts on a public street or approved private street and provided that the width and area measurements are at least seventy-five (75) percent of the minimum requirements of this chapter" a variance for lot area is required for a lot that does not meet the 75 percent requirement. This language is unique to the City Code. The fact is that the subject site is a lot of record therefore must be given a reasonable use. The proposed home meets all district standards (2 car garage, square footage, setbacks) except for impervious surface. Therefore, staff believes a reasonable use of the property can be made. Since the earliest record we located, it appears that the existing lot is a legal nonconforming lot because it was subdivided before the adoption of the 1972 zoning ordinance. Since the lot does not meet the lot area specified in Sec. 20-615(1) requiting 15,000 square feet and Sec. 20-615(4) requiring a 25% maximum hard surface coverage, the City must grant a variance before any construction can take place. The parcel is an existing lot of record containing five Carver Beach lots (2322-2326). The subject site has 109.1 feet of street frontage on Yuma Drive and 57.52 feet of frontage on Ponderosa Drive. From the plot plan, it appears that a single-family residence could be located within the required setbacks of the RSF District. The property, if the single-family residence is approved, will have an impervious coverage of 28.6% (including the proposed garage, driveway, and walkway); 3.6% over the required 25% maximum. Koehnen Variance 04-11 March 16, 2004 Page 5 Ponderosa Drive 57.52' 101.134' Koehnen Variance 04-11 March 16, 2004 Page 6 The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing nonconforming lot to construct a single-family residence. This will not change the current 7,932 sq. ft. lot size; however, it will have an impervious coverage of 28.6%. As stated above, from Section 20-615(1), the minimum lot area isfifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. Thus, the applicant is requesting a 7,068 sq. ft. lot size variance to construct the single-family home on the existing nonconforming lot. Many of the neighboring properties have nonconforming lot sizes not meeting the 15,000 square foot minimum. Several neighbors near or adjacent to the nonconforming lot have had variances approved to construct a new home on a nonconforming lot on file in the city's planning department. Staff has reviewed properties within 500 feet and compiled the following list of variances: File Property Lakeshore Variance Request Action Number Taken 86-4 6830 Yuma Drive No Addition of home on Denied 87-9 6830 Yuma Drive No nonconforming lot (9,501 sq. ft.). Approved 88-6 6901 Yuma Drive No Addition of home on Approved nonconforming lot (8,000 sq. ft.). 89-8 825 Ponderosa No Addition of home on Withdrawn Drive nonconforming lot. 91-20 750 Cree Drive No Addition of home on Approved nonconforming lot (9,043 sq. ft.). Staff is recommending approval of this request based upon the following: FINDINGS The Planning Commission shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criterion. Finding: Staff conducted a survey within 500 feet of the surrounding area and discovered that the average lot size is 13,586 square feet (54 total parcels). There are a number of lots within 500 feet that have a smaller area than the subject lot. The proposed home meets the required setbacks and would be similar in size to existing residences (1,728 sq. ft.). Homes adjacent or near the nonconforming lot vary from single and two-story homes ranging from 912 square feet to greater than 2,000 square feet. Without a variance, the applicant would be denied reasonable use of his property. Koehnen Variance 04-11 March 16, 2004 Page 7 The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other properties within the same zoning classification. Finding: The condition upon which this petition for a variance is based is applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification outside of the immediate area. Staff conducted a survey within 500 feet of the surrounding area and of the 54 parcels within 500 feet of said property the average lot size as a whole is 13,586 square feet. Whereas the smallest lot was 3,049 square feet and the largest was 38,768 square feet. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income potential of the parcel of land. Finding: This does not appear to be the case. The applicant is simply attempting to utilize the parcel for single-family residential uses it was created for. d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship. Finding: The hardship is not self-created. The parcel is an existing lot of record. eo 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 the variance will not be detrimental or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood, meets all RSF District standards except for impervious surface. fo 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 granting of the variance will allow a reasonable distance from adjacent properties. The applicant has demonstrated that all setbacks required by the City Code can be met. It will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to those properties, nor will it 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. The hardship was not self-created and staff is recommending approval of this application. The applicant worked to minimize any variance requests. Koehnen Variance 04-11 March 16, 2004 Page 8 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion: "The Planning Commission approve Variance #04-11 for a lot area variance from the required 15,000 square feet and a maximum lot coverage variance from the required 25 percent maximum for the construction of a single-family residence on a 7,932 square foot lot, zoned RSF as shown on plans dated 2/12/04, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must submit a building permit before construction. 2. The single-family residence must meet required setbacks. 3. Applicant meets the conditions of Ordinance No. 317 (Building Regulations). 4. A tree removal plan that clearly shows all trees, 6" and larger, and their designation as removed or saved. The lot may not be clear-cut. 5. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to any work commencing around all saved trees. Fencing shall remain in place until all construction is completed. 6. The applicant shall plant two overstory, deciduous, 2-1/2" diameter trees. ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation. 2. Application. 3. Plot Plan showing location of home. 4. Letter from Thomas and Erica Koehnen dated February 2004. 5. Tentative-Proposed Elevations & Floor Plans. 6. Statement of Sale- Lease of Forfeited Lands. 7. Carver Beach subdivision. 8. Ordinance No. 317 (Building Regulations). 9. Letter from Ally Vogel dated March 8, 2004. 10. Notice of Public Hearing and Notified Property Owners List. g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-11 - koehncn variance-lots 2322-2326 carver each~koehnen w~r 04-11 report .doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: The application of Thomas and Erica Koehnen, 795 Ponderosa Drive (Lots 2322-2326) - Variance No. 04-11 On March 16, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Thomas and Erica Koehnen for a 7,068 square foot variance to Section 20-615(1) and a 3.6 percent maximum lot coverage variance to Section 20- 615(4) of the Chanhassen City Code for the purpose of constructing a home at 795 Ponderosa Drive. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development which 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 The property is currently zoned RSF, Residential Single-Family. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential, Low Density. The legal description of the property is: Part of Carver Beach Section 1, Township 116, Range 23, Lots 2322-2326. 4. The Planning Commission shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: Staff conducted a survey within 500 feet of the surrounding area and discovered that the average lot size is 13,586 square feet. There are a number of lots within 500 feet that have a smaller area than the subject lot. The proposed home meets the required setbacks and would be similar in size to existing residences. Without a variance, the applicant would be denied reasonable use of his property. · The condition upon which this petition for a variance is based is applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification outside of the immediate area. Staff conducted a survey within 500 feet of the surrounding area and of the 54 parcels within 500 feet of said property the average lot size as a whole is 13,586 square feet. Whereas the smallest lot was 3,049 square feet and the largest was 38,768 square feet. · This does not appear to be the case. The applicant is simply attempting to utilize the parcel for single-family residential uses it was created for. · The hardship is not self-created. The parcel is an existing lot of record. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood, meets all RSF District standards except for impervious surface. The granting of the variance will allow a reasonable distance from adjacent properties. The applicant has demonstrated that all setbacks required by the City Code can be met. It will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to those properties, nor will it 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. RECOMMENDATION "The Planning Commission approve Variance #04-11 for a lot area variance from the required 15,000 square feet and a maximum lot coverage variance from the required 25 percent maximum for the construction of a single-family residence on a 7,932 square foot lot, zoned RSF as shown on plans dated 2/12/04, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must submit a building permit before construction. 2. The single family residence must meet required setbacks. 3. Applicant meets the conditions of Ordinance No. 317. 4. A tree removal plan that clearly shows all trees, 6" and larger, and their designation as removed or saved. The lot may not be clear-cut. 5. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to any work commencing around all saved trees. Fencing shall remain in place until all construction is completed. 6. The applicant shall plant two overstory, deciduous, 2-1/2" diameter trees. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16th day of March, 2004. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Uli Sacchet, Chairman g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-11 - koehnen variance-lots 2322-2326 carver each\findings of fact.doc CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION C~TY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED FEB ] 2, CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT OWNER: ADDRESS: (' TELEPHONE: 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 ROW/Easements ?./ Variance Wetland Alteration Permit __ Zoning Appeal Zoning Ordinance Amendment __ Notification Sign X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/W AP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) TOTAL FEE $ ;~'~-~;, c"" A list of all property owners within 500 feet of the boundaries of the property must be included with the application. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. *Twenty-six full size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an DY=" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet. ** Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract NOTE - When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME LOCATION k-oJt-.~ LEGAL DESCRIPTION TOTAL ACREAGE - I~-\ WETLANDS PRESENT PRESENT ZONING V/REQUESTED ZONING YES ~ NO PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION ~,~Si(~P__.~L'~ct_! ~//'REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST ~::' F_..~-~ 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 Depadment to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the appliCation shall be made within ten business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within ten 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 Cedificate 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. The city hereby notifies the applicant that development review cannot be completed within 60 days due to public hearing requirements and agency review. Therefore, the city is notifying the applicant that the city requires an automatic 60 day extension for deviant review. Development review shall be completed Within 120 da~ Unless' additional review extensions are apprb~'~Y the applicant. Signat~e of Fee Owner Application Received on Z ~- l~ ~o ~'i~ee Paid Date Date Receipt No:~ "~ ~.~'7~ The applicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting. If not contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant'S address. KOEHNEN PROJECT Case #04-I I Location: 770 Ponderosa Drive · The view from Ponderosa Dr. PONDEROSA Corner of Yuma & Ponderosa (my home in the lower ground) MY LOT 6890 Yuma Dr. The view of the site from my driveway The view from Yuma Dr. KOEHNEN PROJECT Case #04-I I Location: 770 Ponderosa Drive March 8, 2004 Commission members: The reason for my correspondence today is to voice my concerns in regard to a proposal to build a RSF dwelling on the corner of Yuma and Ponderosa Drive in Chanhassen, Carver County. The proposed building lot is small and currently is heavily wooded. (please note all photos) My husband and I own the .75 acres lot directly to the south of the site, and with the lay of the land as it is, we do have several concerns to bring to your attention. Point I- Destruction of Natural Habitat Our neighborhood is known for its many trees and cabin-like feel. The natural habit is what drew us to this area, and the destruction of so many trees would truly alter the feel of our neighborhood. Point 2 - Drainage Issues The lay of the land is such that there are already concerns with drainage and erosion. To add another dwelling so close, and uphill from our property line, may cause water issues and problems that we do not currently have. (please note photo 3) The lower portion of our driveway (close to the street) already gets washed out in the spring time with all of the melting snow that drains down the street. The city does not currently have a sewer or drainage system in place to handle all the moisture, and adding another dwelling, and removing some of the natural drainage filters in this area will impact our lot and create additional erosion. Point 3 - Congestion Ponderosa is a busy street, and that corner is already somewhat of a problem area with vehicles that speed down that hill. To add another dwelling to the space, and extra vehicles will add to the conges- tion of the corner. Currently the lot houses a fire hydrant and our mailboxes. (see photo 2) I am con- cerned as to whether or not these items will remain in their current location. Point 4 - Resale The thought of new construction in the area is great, however, with it being such a small dwelling (only around 1000 sq. ft) I feel that this will hurt our resale value, not help it. What now is a spacious, heavily wooded area, would become a congested, overcrowded, and non-private space. Point 5 - Date of Construction - Noise issues I have a 3 month old child and we are looking forward to the summer months to be outside. Inevitably construction will take place during those months, and construction noise will detract from our ability to be outside and enjoy the natural elements. I truly appreciate your time and attention to this matter, and look forward to your review of the plan. If you have additional questions, please let me know. Thanks. AllyVogel, 6890 Yuma Drive, Chanhassen ~+_~-k Hat& C_o~er ~2~J~q S~c To The Planning Committee Variance Request Justification For Thomas & Erica Koehnen We are asking for a variance to the minimum buildable lot size and the twenty-five percent hard cover requirement. We are asking for this variance because we would like to build a house on lots 2322- 2326 in Carver Beach - the southwest corner of Ponderosa drive and Yuma drive. These lots do not meet the minimum buildable lots size. The lot size is 7,932 square feet. The house we would like to build on these lots including the driveway and sidewalks is 2,267 square feet. This would be 28.6 percent. This is greater than the maximum twenty-five percent hard cover requirement. We need to exceed the maximum hard cover requirement in this case to meet the various minimum requirements that are mandated by the building code in the city. Some of theses requirements are that we need to include a two- car garage and meet a requirement of a minimum house size for a given layout. The property is located in the Carver Beach neighborhood, which as a whole is composed of non-conforming lots with houses built on them. Building a house here is a reasonable use of this property. A smaller modest house on this property is wholly in keeping with the existing standards of the neighborhood. My grandfather Harlan Koehnen bought this property in 1967 as one parcel and it has sat in the same state ever since. The purpose of this variance is for us to build our first house for our new son and us to live in. The granting of this variance will not cause harm to any land or homes in the neighborhood. The house we would build if this variance were granted would not impair the adequate light or air supply to the adjacent dwellings since the two adjacent dwellings are oriented such that their garages and not the homes face the property. Adding one family to the neighborhood will not substantially add traffic and developing this vacant lot will not significantly lower any property values or detract from the public welfare. The Koehnen family has deep roots in the City of Chanhassen. Thomas' great grandparents settled in the southern part of Chanhassen near the turn of the last century. Since then his grandparents, parents, and he have all lived in the city their entire lives. We would very much like to continue to live and raise a family in this community. The granting of this variance will allow us to put this vacant lot to a reasonable use that is consistent with the majority of other nearby properties. Thank your for your time and consideration of our request. Sincerely, Thomas, Erica and Joshua Koehnen TENTATIVE -P ILO PO.~ E D ELEVATIONf~ & FLOOR PLAN~, .-.%e. cc,','~c{ VWc-.d FORM 4,{5 Statement of--Sale-Lease--of Forfeited Lands No ....................... Auditor's Office, Carver County, Chaska, Minn.,._.:_ ~__'_~___: ...... .~..___~_/. ........ 2'0 THE COUNTY TREASUJ~E~: You will r~eive from ' ~ ~ ~ ~. · ~ .... ~ ~ , ~ ~ , . ..................................................... ~ ............................................................. $ ....... ~ ...... 5_2 ...... :__.k. ............. ............................................................................... Dollars wh~c I here~y cert' ' · '. ---~ ........................................................................................................... ~ · * ify ~s the amount now due on the-m~tzal-part~akfull-payment for the-purch~e-lease-g the foHow.in9 deacr~e~'~'~el g land: D~C~TION ~ To~ or or ~ Prin~pat In~t To~ Lot Blo~ Credit payment to Forfeited Tax Sale Fund. Received y/ment th. is4~.~, f~,. day of ]/~*~ ~-~ 1 ...................... County Treasurer~ ' By ....................... ::._._'_~ ............................................. Deputy : .................... £'-- ......................................... County Audflor By .................................................................. Deputy Jam Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® Curtis & Judith Quiner 725 Ponderosa Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 ~ vVW~N, avery, com ~ 1-800-GO-AVERY AVERY® 5160® 739:~Voodhill Michael Soderquist 705 Carver Beach Rd Chanhassesn MN 55317 James & Ellen Cranston 695 Carver Beach Rd Chanhassen MN 55317 Donald Witacre 751 Century Ave S St Paul MN 55119 Michael & Kimberly Shoberg 834 Lone Eagle Rd Chanhassen MN 55317 Jeffrey Stern 6901 Yuma Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Steven & Brigid Klaysmat 800 Woodhill Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Curtis & Brenda Bjorlin 824 Lone Eagle Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Joseph & Janice Morton 6911 Yuma Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Robby & Jamie Kendall 833 Woodhill Dr. Chanhassen MN 55317 Randy Vogel 6890 Yuma Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Michael Hoff & Noreen Rachor 832 Woodhill Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Charles Worsfold 6900 Yuma Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 Felix & Margaret Thompson 6899 Yuma Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 City Of,~han~(assen c/o Bruc~l~eJong PO B~7 Chanhass~rn MN~5317 David Weill 739 Woodhill Chanhassen MN 55317 Douglas Sumner PO Box 2001 Chanhassen MN 55317 Michael & Nancy Mason 829 Woodhill Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 RICH SLAGLE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Laurie Wright Kvam 855 Lone Eagle Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 William & Virginia Standke 825 Woodhill Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Kevin & Shelby Manion 825 Lone Eagle Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Leslie Medley & Martha Duenow Medley 767 Woodhill Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Maurice & Vickie Hevey 780 Woodhill Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Charles & Kristine Winum 753 Woodhill Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 At13AV-O9-008- I. UJO:)'~J~AE'N~AN~ 3J.V'IdlN3/e/de^V esn ®091,(; 5u~uu,~ ~J; ruer Jam Free Printing Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160® Darryl & Cara Jones 833 Cr. ee Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Steven & Joan Cronson 801 Cree Dr Chanhassesn MN 55317 ~ vvvvw, avery, com ~ 1-800oGO-AVERY Jean Lopez 6859 Yuma Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 Bruce Beckman 6865 Nez Perce Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 AVERY® s160® Susan Albee 6871 Nez Perce Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Michael & Elizabeth Kohane 6870 Yuma Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 T~y Stottler & Jessica Tschida 6800 Ringo Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Lee & Deborah Pillatzki 830 Ponderosa Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Margaret Rossing 130 Cygnet PL Long Lake MN 55365 Kristen Anne Pauly 751 Carver Beach Road Chanhassen MN 55317 Dwight & Alice Imker 810 Ponderosa Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Wesley Westerman 710 Ponderosa Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Geralyn J Hayden 749 Carver Beach Road Chanhassen MN 55317 Robert MacFarlane 6850 Yuma Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 James & Elizabeth Knop 6880 Nez Perce Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Hazel P Anderson 2851 Washta Bay Rd Excelsior MN 55331 Richard Rossing 739 Carver Beach Rd Chanhassen MN 55317 Joyce Holloway 845 Ponderosa Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Jonathon P Rademacher 820 Imperial Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Douglas & Corazon Kallevig 6830 Yuma Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Richard Rossing c/o Margaret Rossing 130 Cygnet PI Long Lake MN 55356 Bruce & Charlene Burrington 6869 Yuma Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Mark Goemer & Ker~ AbboE- Goemer 825 Ponderosa Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Ma~ Van Guilder & Shelly MacGillivmy 805 Ponderosa Dr Chanhassen MN 5531 Robert John Moore 6839 Yuma Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Kleve & Lorilee Andemon 760 Ponderosa Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Mark & Julie Quiner 6889 Yuma Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 David W Workman 745 Carver Beach Rd Chanhassen MN 55317 Kimberley Murphy-Warner & John Warner 6870 Nez Perce Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Stephen Kennedy & Nancy Thurs 761 Ponderosa Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 A~IBAV-O~)'008- L UJO:)'~JOAe'AAaAAA ®091, S 3/VldlN3.1. ®~JaAv ash 6u!:lu!Jd aaJ4 tue[ zo ~mm~ O7 0 O0 ©© m CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION IN RE: The application of Thomas and Erica Koehnen, 795 Ponderosa Drive (Lots 2322- 2326) Variance No. 04-11 On March 16, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application of Thomas and Erica Koehnen for a 7,068 square foot variance to Section 20- 615(1) and a 3.6 percent maximum lot coverage variance to Section 20-615(4) of the Chanhassen City Code for the purpose of constructing a home at 795 Ponderosa Drive. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development which 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 The property is currently zoned RSF, Residential Single-Family. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential, Low Density. The legal description of the property is: Part of Carver Beach Section 1, Township 116, Range 23, Lots 2322-2326. 4. The City Council shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: Staff conducted a survey within 500 feet of the surrounding area and discovered that the average lot size is 13,586 square feet. There are a number of lots within 500 feet that have a smaller area than the subject lot. The proposed home meets the required setbacks and would be similar in size to existing residences. Without a variance, the applicant would be denied reasonable use of his property. The condition upon which this petition for a variance is based is applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification outside of the immediate area. Staff conducted a survey within 500 feet of the surrounding area and of the 54 parcels within 500 feet of said property the average lot size as a whole is 13,586 square feet. Whereas the smallest lot was 3,049 square feet and the largest was 38,768 square feet. · This does not appear to be the case. The applicant is simply attempting to utilize the parcel for single-family residential uses it was created for. · The hardship is not self-created. The parcel is an existing lot of record. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood, meets all RSF District standards except for impervious surface. The granting of the variance will allow a reasonable distance from adjacent properties. The applicant has demonstrated that all setbacks required by the City Code can be met. It will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to those properties, nor will it 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. RECOMMENDATION "The City Council approve Variance #04-11 for a lot area variance from the required 15,000 square feet, for the construction of a single-family residence on a 7,932 square foot lot, zoned RSF as shown on plans dated 2/12/04, with the following conditions: 1. The applicant must submit a building permit before construction. 2. The single family residence must meet required setbacks. 3. Applicant meets the conditions of Ordinance NO. 317. 4. A tree removal plan that clearly shows all trees, 6" and larger, and their designation as removed or saved. The lot may not be clear-cut. 5. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to any work commencing around all saved trees. Fencing shall remain in place until all construction is completed. 6. The applicant shall plant two overstory, deciduous, 21/2" diameter trees. ADOPTED by the City Council this 12th day of April, 2004. CHANHASSEN CITY COUNCIL BY: Tom Furlong, Mayor