5. Mike & Cindy Koenig Variance RequestMEMORANDUM
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 variance\executive summary.doc
PC DATE:
November 1, 2005
1
CC DATE:
November 14, 2005
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
REVIEW DEADLINE:
November 29, 2005
CASE #:
05-34
BY:
JM
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL:4.06
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
APPLICANT
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
SITE DATA
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:4.06
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.
S Lake Drive East LIAR CIFICAP ,8 LUAP.TS ,EEKUAWLIM ,OGACIHC.tS ht87 WevA enneyehCLake Drive EasttruoC neddiHL neddiH State Hwy 5 Arboretum Boulevard WevirD
erohS htuo
Koenig Variance
Planning Case #05-34
November 1, 2005
Page 2
STATE HWY. NO. 101 78t
h
t
e
e
r
t
S
5
.
o
N
y
w
H
e
D
t
A
a
O
t
S
R
SUMMARY OF PROPOSAL
The subject property is located south
Dakota Ave
of Highway 5 and east of Dakota
Avenue at 8005 Cheyenne Avenue and
is zoned Single Family Residential
t
s
a
Subject Site
E
(RSF). The applicant is requesting a
Lake Drive East
e
4.06
6.88 % (which represents 871.5
v
Erie Ave
i
r
520.25
square feet of site coverage) hard
D
surface coverage variance from the
e
C
h
e
y
e
n
k
n
maximum 25% hard surface coverage
e
a
A
L
D
restriction for a garage addition
v
e
a
k
(20’x16’) and a four-season porch
o
t
a
(13.2’x14.3’). This brings the hard
Chey
A
Erie Ave
H
Spur
i 3,721
surface coverage to 4,082 square
v
d
Dakota
d
e
e
29.06
Cir
feet which is 31.88%. These
n
C
structures have already been built.
o
u
r
t
e
n
a
Dakota Ave
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
25
all structures and paved surfaces is
percent
.
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
29.04
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 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
and have also removed a portion of their driveway
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
361 square feet of driveway has been removed as well.
to 12,803 square feet. As a result, their hard
29.06
surface coverage percentage has been reduced from 36.12% to 31.88 %. The applicant would have
520.25
to remove an additional 881.25 square feet of hard surface coverage in order to bring the hard
cover to 25%.
New Lot Line
Old Lot Line
Old Lot Line
New Lot Line
Koenig Variance
Planning Case #05-34
November 1 14, 2005
Page 5
Back Yard Patio &
Wrap-around Sidewalk
Existing Hard Cover Calculations:
Lot Area = 12,803 sq. ft.
House = 2,178 sq. ft.
869
Driveway = 1,230 sq. ft.
Patio, Sidewalk, Stoop = 674 sq. ft.
TOTAL = 4,082 3,721 sq. ft.
= 31.88 29.06%
Koenig Variance
Planning Case #05-34
November 1 14, 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
th
September 4 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.
3,721 is just below
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
520.25
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
Koenig Variance
Planning Case #05-34
November 1 14, 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
Planning Commission City Council
Staffrecommends that the Planning Commissionadopt the
following motion:
City Council 4.06
“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:
Koenig Variance
Planning Case #05-34
November 1 14, 2005
Page 8
1. The applicant has not demonstrated a hardship.
2. The property owner has reasonable use of the property.
City Council
The Planning Commission orders the property owner to:
1. Remove sufficient impervious surface to comply with ordinance requirements.”
City Council
Should the Planning Commission choose to approve this request, staff recommends the
adoption of the following motion:
City Council 4.06
“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”.
g:\plan\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
1
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.
st
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 1 day of November, 2005.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY: ___________________________________
Its Chairman
g:\plan\2005 planning cases\05-34 koenig variance\findings of fact.doc
2
Planning Case No.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227-1100
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
Owner Name and Address:
Contact:
Phone:
Email:
Fax:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit
Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements
X Variance
Interim Use Permit
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/Attorney Cost***
- $50 CUP/SPRN ACN AR/W AP/Metes & Bounds
- $450 Minor SUB
Site Plan Review*
Subdivision*
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%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet
along with a diqital COpy in TIFF-Group 4 (*.tit) 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.
PROJECT NAME: KotJV\J'I 1/ crr/avtc.e-
LOCATION: !()oti tJ~ A-r/avW~
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: U 3, ~Lk 3/ 1.ltwk~Zi!d. :ti/t.lt-s J #- AJii-bm
TOTAL ACREAGE:
O.2Q
WETLANDS PRESENT:
PRESENT ZONING: Y S F
REQUESTED ZONING: _7- SF
YES
~NO
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: F..eS,
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: \l
A-#t-ck/
L~ J)I)HSlry
It
REASON FOR REQUEST:
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
G:\plan\forms\Development Review Application.DOC
Rev. 4/05
September 29, 2005
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 14½ 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
st
close on the sale of our home in Chanhassen on October 21 and close on the purchase of
th
our new home in Arkansas on October 24. My husband is already working in Arkansas
th
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
jrgildner@msn.com
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. I'.
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.
y:reL&,~G~
Jim & Jan Gildner
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
October 21, 2005
OCT 2 4 2005
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT
Mike and Cindy Koenig
8005 Cheyenne A venue
Chanhassen, MN 55317
Dear Mike and Cindy:
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.
SincerelY,'U7 /2;;
c:::::;::;~(,7:r .~ ;!J&fZc-
c--/,//.Pat Dolan t:"
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 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 A venue - 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.
cJi~
Subscribed and sworn to before me
thi~ day of &J.obRr , 2005.
I~
KIM T. MEUWISSEN I
Notary Public-Minnesota
My Commission Expires Jan 31, 2010
~ .
.-
I. "~
..NO~
C')
c::
;;
CD
eD
~
C')S
c:: .-
.- III
"- III
ca._
eDE
:I:E
.~ 0
:cO
::IC')
o.c::
.... '2
o s:::
CDca
u-
;;0.
o c::
ZeD
III
III
ca
.s::.
c::
ca
.s::.
o
C')
s:::
;;
eD
eD
~
s:::
C')O
c::'-
._ III
;.!!
eD E
:I:E
.~ 0
-0
.c
::IC')
0. .=
....c::
o c::
eDca
u-
._ 0.
...
o s:::
ZeD
III
III
ca
.s::.
c::
ca
.s::.
o
O)-g~
-C J::O-
C -J::-c
ctl _Loctl
::J 0 0)
0) 0.0_
0) .oJ::_
~ ctl O>=s;
ctl ::J'm>
0) 0 c.:
Lo >'O)ctl
-g,E alE:EG
m(l) u,EEO)
_u :;:: o-en
E 0) c 0 .~ Lo ~ 0.
ci~'~ ;B:Sg>*
00 ::2: ~ ~ .!!2 g. +:: 0)
.. 0 Q) '0 C') 0- ~ .5
r-.... 0 0) ClI .~ .~ E :;:
a;~~ ~ctl-SO)g
lC) - ~ ClI O).oJ:: 0
o~o W l!!J::0_-
oO)u 0 ClI.goO)~
C\l .0 0) Z 0) > :c .::; .~ _
-Eu ct ::JClI .....-
""-ctlctl _c"::Jc::JJ::
Lo J:: 't: a: .~. 0) ~ 0. ctl 0 g>
~ () ~ ct C > - .!!2 - 0
w >O)<(I:J::en...;Lo
E .- -C 0 0) 0 - ~ U J::
0) U Lo .,ft:::'::: III - ~ 0) -
> C ctl ~ ~ ~ C._ 0 0""0' C)
0::JJ:: oZ~ cO)D.. 0) ~ Lo C
Z 0 Lo .- w..... C\l en a. .;::
()o:t: c>'Soen ctl
~_::::g80~1: e-1::~0)
ctl ctl en ctl~_" ().2::J ctl_J::
-CIO) o::r'"V -o.u-u
en ::J J:: _ 0) lC) C\l '-::J .-
0) 1": 0" ~ ",' .:.:: 0 g 0) c.. 0 :c
::J:t: 0) $2 in ;.;:: 0 - J:: 0..0 ::J
I-()a: .....0.0::: coc:r; I- ctl ctl a.
G)
E ..
j:: l5
~;:
!5
ca 0
C...J
j2
U:..
'is 21 1: >. c
en .5 5 t:(I) .2
o c.- ....
c. c'Q.c.ca
e .!!q.eg
a. a.cta....J
-C
C
ctl
0)
0)
~
ctl
0)
-00
>-
m (I) 8
~ (J :;:;
E ~ {ij g
ci tip: III
8::2:~ ~
r:-:8 ~ ~
a;~~ 'tl
lC) -~ ':
o ~ 0 W l!!
OO)U 0 ClI
C\l.o 0) Z 0)>
....-E~ =:!:~EClIl!!
Lo ctl 't: a: ,~, 0)
0) J:: ~ '-..c:
.o();;: ctc>-
w >0)<(1:
E .- -C 0 0) 0
~gCd~~~c,!!!
o 6 ~ .2 Z -C a5 g.
Z() o:t:w C >'S
:::;_::::g00 0)1:
ctlctlenctl~c6G.2
~I~..c:~Q)L01a
O)~C"~C?.:.::ou
::J :t: 0) 0 in .- 0.2
I-()a: 50::2: coc:r;
G)
E ..
j::c
.2
~....
sfi
l'll 0
C...J
j2
u: ..
'is ~1: >.C
en ccat:o
o 'c.~ (I);:
c.c"Qc.ca
e .!!Q:eg
a. a.cta....J
0) -g 0)
J::0:E
-J::-c
_Loctl
6.8~
.0 J:: _
ctl 0>=
::J'm :;:
o c.:
>'O)ctl
EJ::J::
Lo-()
j2EQ)Ui
.~ e:E a.
0::: ...;,,8
- ::J e'en
en 0..- 0>
.~.~ ~.~
.~.~ E :;:
ctl-sO)g
0) .0 J:: 0
J::O_-
.g 0 0) ~
:c ~ .~ -
::JC::JJ::
o.ctlO 0>
en_ ::J
.- en . 0
:EO)o.c
_::JO)-
o 0"'00)
O)O)LoC
en Lo 0.';::
o_enenctl
e-c:C~
::Jctl-
o..g '5.g
O)c..o:C
J:: 0..0 ::J
I-ctlctlo.
.
en a. '5~E '3:
~ ~ ~~.o 0) E ~
3 0) _O)C")~ -C(l) (I) c'
...; u en . c....-o0)'5:!::.t:.-
u en ctlEo'7-J::oen....a;
0) :;::; 0) .00r-....0)_Lo._"""(I)
'0' ...; ..... - a. E C\l en 0 o..t: ;ll:: E
Lo U C 0.0 0 _ - .... c
a. .~ 0 C") 0 C\l >. = ....-
-c 9 .;;; 0) .. en c\J ~ a. :;: o:c c
_ w co::r lC)~ _-(1)0
0),., . en .- 0 u 0 - t: .-
en ...... u .- - 0 - 0> U ctl ~ en
oO)=E O)_.:.::_::J -O-=::en
0.J:: .0 EO)' - ctl 0 0) CJ) c.(O .-
O-::J EE'sLo>'CO (l)u)E
LoCo.O . 0)- ....~E
0. 0 0) () ~ ctl B N - 0) 0>= ,"";
0) en J:: 0) - 0 J:: <D en ~ .~ ca 0 8
:E C - :E ~ ~ .!!2::2: ~ J:: <DO) 1ii ; _
-~ E-c O"":;:J:: C 0 E (l)0~'
~~c,g@ a;cn::J~E= ..c~.5
.o:J g,J C::2~1-~ 2
.~ 0) -c -c en 0 _ _ 0) a. _ . ~ ca
i::CI.l~O) @..c-U~Q)_C:=-
O)>~ a. 'CD ~ - 0) . -s ctl ..c 0 .2 ..c a.
U u a. u >. C J:: 0) en .... (I)
0=0) O);;::ctloc.!!2uenca..c
C 'S: Lo.!!2 J:: 'O:Q u ctl:t: 5 'E- (I) ....
ctl>O)O) - LoO)J:: '" co
0) C Cd C 0) g>u.. en ~ .!i -€; E = ....
> ctl .- 0) .- J:: ctl'(3 C ctl 0 C ...
'81.g ~ Cd t3 en :J g>~ @) 0) C () 0.2
=c..c 0) 0) B-c 0 o.Lo E.- 0) (I) =
.- a. 0) J::.:-o - Lo - 0) E - J:: - w.
:;:_Euec(iiJ::ON c_.Q......
'" ._;:::: -:c - 0) - 0 0) 0 l'll ::=
:::: 0) E :c ..... '" >..~ 0) u E - = ..,
'sJ::o::JO):;:>.ctleEc enca't:J
CJ) I- () c..:E ::J ():t: -c 0.'= 0) 1ij 0) > l!!
o C en = t::: 0.'0.. ca ::l
>. >. 0 .- ctl.;:: 0) 0 (I) ..c
""':C\icvj--t :=.o::2::EE:;:-cu.Q1-
enC)
c c
(1).-
c.....
c.(I)
ca (I)
:z::iE
....(1)
ca..c
.t:....
:=1U
~..
en!
c c
o (I)
;:E
mE
::J 0
00
.
a. '5~E '3:
~ ~ ~~-g 0) E ~
en 0) _O)~en -c!(I)c
~ ~ m ~ g ;:: ~ ~ .~ :~ ~ ~
'0' ...; '5 c.. g- E C\l en B ~ fi ~ E
Lo U C _ C") 0 C\l 0 >.'- ... .-
0. .~ 0 0) .. en c\J ,g a. :;: o:c c
-c e 'en .~ ~ 0 lC) U 0 :::: -t: (I) .2
0)0. en -0-0> Uctl ~".
en 0 .- 0) - .:.:: _::J - 0 -=:: in
oO)=E 0) .-ctloO)CJ)c.(O.-
a. J:: .0 E E E -S Lo >. Co (I) ,": E
O-::Jo . 0)- ....~E
c.. C o.() ~ ctl B N - 0) 0>= ,"";
Q) ~ ~ 0) - 0 J:: <D en ~ .~ CIS 0 8
J:: C - ..c ~ ~ .!!2::2: ~ J:: Q) 1ii :::
-ctlE- oco:;:J::coQ) 501
'0 c.. 0 -g (j) en- ::J en E = E ~ ~ .5
:;:c~ctl .o:Jg,~C::21?1-~2
.~ Q) -c -c en 0 _ _ ~ a. - .... ca
;::enQ)Q) CJ::-U Q)_c:=-
Q) Q).~ en ~ 0) . -S ~ J:: 0 .2 ..c a.
>c..Q).Q o.u>'cJ:: Q)en....(I)
o U u Q);;:: ctl 0 C .!!2 u en ca..c
= 0) J:: '0 :Q u ctl :t: 5 'E- (I) ....
c'~ Lo.!!2 _ Lo O)..c '" co
ctl 0) 0> Q) g> u.. C/) ~ .!i -€; E = ....
0) c Cd C O)';::J:: ctl'(3 C ctl 0 C'"
.~ ctl C/)';:: . en ::J 0> 0) &:.\ Q) () 0 0
~ g c ~ 0 B -c 6 c.. ~ E.~ Q) (I) .;::
= a. Q) J:: .~ _ = Lo ..: Q) E -c J:: " ~
:;:o.E OCctlJ::UN _.....~
ctl gCictlI-Q)_oQ)O.!!ca
~ Q) E:c Q) :;: >. 1U"e ~ ~ ~ -;;; 'ij -g
- J:: ()o ::J J:: ::J:t: -C 0.'= 0) ctl 0) > ...
CJ) I- c.. - 0 () C C/) = t::: 0.'Q. CIS ::l
>. >. 0._ ctl.;:: 0) 0 (I)..c
""':C\icvj--t :=.o::2::EE:;:-cu.Q1-
enC)
c c
(1)._
c.....
c.(I)
ca (I)
:z::iE
....(1)
l'll.t:
..c-
::1U
~
en!
c c
0(1)
;:e
mE
::l 0
ou
en Q) -0 C>> ~
C ~ ,ct .50> ~ ~
g +-' 5~~ 2= ~ ffi ~~
e! 0 +:;.!!! a. ro - 'E >"- a. Q) <<s .9
Q>Q)-o ctS~ca a:O ctS<(cg .2= c..c:c
::: :5 .!!! -g Q) en 2' g :.a Q) 3: Q).~ 0
<~~ Q)~ctS ~o ~~~ ~Q) ~~~
~~~ E~jro~~ ij& "C.~ ;~~
Jg ~ Q) 8 e 8.~ 1::'~ cti ~ a. ~ 55 ~ ~~:g
Q) ..c 0 Q) 0 m ~._.- ..... E c:: == +-' en - C
:;:~2 ~~&E~~~~8~ O~ ~~~
cn'~~ caQ)~-g~~~~,g1:: z.~ .S'g:5
51 ~ r/) -g .~ +-' ctt =0 c..~ 5 en [ "0 '(6 :2::J:5
~o~ ctS~SE..c:~~cn:5Q) (1)> 8
E == .~ C := 0 $ s: UJ'o >':5 0 :5 ctS c5 >. ~
~~~ j~~'~~ca~~E~ ~i c~E
.m a. en co 16 ::.t:. .c:O Q) E 0 - .- - (ij cn 0 ~
EctSQ) Ewm-O~Ewe!2 om ~Q)c
"O~:5 0 ~a.~E-o.5~'" .s;;; -0:50
c.-_ ~C>>cn::J~mo..c:Q)~ em -om
cu::Jo .-.5oo0co~C/) 8- 'o-~
Oi5f-c:il'Ea;-"!!lE~:::~~~ en C:1::5.
c~~cQ)Q)u"C~EctS"C~- ctS. ::Jo=
8~-~~E~~~-g~~S~ ~~ 8~s
=0 5i8 Q) i a acu ~Q)~ ~~:: 'S: 0 ~Q)cn
C:E~E~~~o~~~uE~ e~ 5~g
O"CCQ)=cn..c:~~ IDe 0 a.~ -.5
~i~:5ctS~~~~~~a.~~ o~ ~~~
~E~~~E2!!8~!~~ ~~ ~i.ll!
.~<( >-m -g,q,,~.~ ~'O.::: oc.."3 ~:5 ~-ga..
>Q)1::=-~ -Eccn-Eo C>> .~-Q)
Q)"'08.<Gge>ij3.g ca'Emo..c ~.5 cag;;
a: 0 0 0 .- C 0. 0.= Q) Q) C 0 C/) ::J U Q) .- .....
cO~-~~oQ)gcnEi.~w 8~ ~IDO
~~~~~C~~~~U~IDW .c& ~~s
~c=s~~~~o~co~~~w~ n=C
~~'5c~-mocm~~0~0~ ~'~o
~ ~ ~.5 i (1) j en >.~ E 0.- ~ a:;.-"O ~ 0
.- c:.- ~ ~ .Q _ .. ~ ~ ~ 0. (1) Q) 0 CD C CD
~CD~~.9=E~5enCD=~CDE~2 ~i~
enEQ)>'a<~=Q)~w~u==m~ ~~ID
E"O~ia. ~~~'2~enUJ~o~B ~~~
ID~~~~~!c~2~~~~~~~ .~~~
KEgii~~'~~~~~~e8~~~~~Q
.Q<~~~cr..~g~"O~gS~a.c~gQ)~
~~~~~~~E~~~~RE~~!~~=~
(1)~~~ID>.~Eo.QUJ~~~O~-~~g=
~ID~.5S~~8~~~~ID'-!~i~~~c
~.~=>cD(1)(1)'-~'2~E~~ID~"OO~'-
.. :J ~ 0 ~ o.ll! E ~ 0 ~o 2 ~ ~ .E lira; 2 0 016
l!! '0 Q) C 1::"iij E I- ~ E :ij:::> .Q o~ ~ ~ o! '0
~~~.~~R~8~~~~E~~~aE~.~~~
~~~.~E~~~~~O~oo~o~wS~cc.5
8~EE~~~~g5~~~C~ID"o"O~~~Q)
~ oe WW"O~~WID~~C~O(1)C~C~
a.. (1)0 0.5 ~'t: c a.{gc-U51i.i:c ~2 ~cu (1) RS
3~~ocmam~cB'~~.~~"O~~iSen'g
~:~~~8~~~'~~.~~~S~~~8~~~~
>~C:-~~Q)~~EEU~0C:00c:8:::>0-
~"Oo~==w~~ E C~~~'ffiIDIDCUOID
~~~RS!(1)(1)8o~~'~~~c~'~~~E
~oo~~roenl-==!oo~~~w<(ro~OOro~
0.. ...
~ ~ -0 0 ~
c = .Ot ~ID ~ ~
i 5~~ ~S _ S ID ~
m 0 .- ID ~ m - c ~.- ~ Q) cu .9
~(1)"'C Cii'~~ ~o ~cg.Q:5 c~c::
==ID "'Cmw ID .9<.- Q)~ ID~O
<CQ)E ~>n:s !o c..."2 6;Q) ~3:~
"O~o EO~ -> ~2~ '0'$ S~~
cSc ~w~~~ ~~~ ID ~O~
~ .8 Q) ~ e 8.~ ai'g cij ! a. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
~o.a ~~e~~'ca:s-gc 8- UJ-c
>~.9 ~cua.E~E~~o~ ~ ~~!
~<u2 ~ Q) Q)-g ~ID'O~St ~ca C g-
m!'~ ~.~~cu~a~~![ 'G~ ~gg
:Ju8 ro :::>E~E0i0-~ ~> U'C
e=.9t C=023:'~'o>60:5~ c5~Q)
'~~g i~~.-~~~{gEO ~~ c~E
2 ~ w ('lj ~ .:::c ! :0 Q) E 0 - .5 - ~ w 0 ~
scam E~('lj-O~Em~2 ow ~(1)
'O~:5 0 ..8.~E-o.5~~ S'- 'O:5g
c.-_ ~ow~~so~6;~ ci -OW
cu~o .-.5oooco~w 0_ ~-~
~ ~a:; g>53m~~ E ~i~~:5 ~~ ~~ c
~m~~.5E~~~~~~S~ ~~ 8i~
'-5i8~t:c::::>ro Q)~0>-~ '-0>- CI.l
~ E ~ E ~.~ ~ 0 3f ~ ~ ~ E ~ e ~ <3 ~ 2
8~.5!~~:5'~~(1)~e~~ ~~ Q)~~
_ (1) :5 - E.... ca > "0 a.~ ~ 0 ~ .c. .- t:
IE'~~~ES!~8~!=~ ;~ ~i~
ID <( >- Q) "0 0"0 (,) >- -= 15..- Q) S ~-o ~
'5Q)~=~O~=~~mSE~ 00 .5~w
m-o~('ljgCJ55.gE<'iJEU)o2 e.5 eags
~8o.9~~~a.~~(1)g~w g~ ~'-o
~"O~i~~~!~~~~'~m .g& .g!S
~~~~~~~;o~~g:5~.~(1)~ ~ag
2~ ~.5.g (1)=S: w<;'!2 E 8:S em .~"O g,a: 0
.- c. '-cu.c. >.Q.. _ ~ ('lj ~ a. W Q) 0 (1) c: m
~W~'~~=E~5&(1)=~~E~2 :5.g~
~~~f~<~j!.~~:~~~~~ ~~~
ID~~~~~!c~2~.~B~~~.c. .~~~
~Eg'C8~l-i~~$~~e8~9~~roR
.Q <( ~ "* ~ ~ ~.!& g ~"O e g:5 >. 5t ~ c 5! at
~~~~i~BE~~~m8:E~~~~~~~
~~~~W~~~Oi&~~B~5~~~g:5
~~~.5S~~U~~.5~~'~:5~~a.E~~
c'-5>t:.aQ)~5t:C:~o~~Q)~'Oom-o
.. ::> ~ .i D.!2 E.c. (1) 2 2 (I) ~ S g-a:;"* 0 ~ Q)
!-oQ)~ t~E~!E~~ ..Q0~Q)~0~~
~!~~~a~8~~~~E~~~RE~~~~
-g ; a..!;Q:e ~ ~ ~ ~ - (,) 5r CIJ ~ 0 ~ w .9.~ c: C.S:
g~EE~mcacug5~~$c~~'O"O~~~Q)
~ DE mUJ"O~~wQ)ca('ljt:.c.O<1)t:~c.a
D.. ufO 0.5 ~ t c a.~ c = en ~:c ~ ~ ~ ~ m R.s
~g~uccu~mgc~g~.~.!&'O~~€:5wg
~:~~gg~~~'~~.~~~:5~~~8a:m~~
> .~ 'c.- ~ ~ (1) a. Q) E E 0 (1) w cwo c"O ~ 0 -
~E22~=~~.c.OE>~.~~a~ID.~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~8B~~&~~*~~~~
C:3.. ...
state
Hwy No. 5
CD
<
CD
Disclaimer
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This
map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal
offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only.
The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this
map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational,
tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in
the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107.
The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ~466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and
the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly
waives all claims, and agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims
brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of
data provided.
<<NAME1 >>
<<NAME2>>
<<ADD1 >>
<<ADD2>>
<<CITY>> <<STATE>> <<ZIP>>
If) SU..!
state
Hwy No. 5
<
CD
e
Disclaimer
This map is neither a iegally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used as one. This
map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city, county, state and federal
offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to be used for reference purposes only.
The City does not warrant that the Geographic Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this
map are error free, and the City does not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational,
tracking or any other purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in
the depiction of geographic features. If errors or discrepancies are found please contact 952-227-1107.
The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to Minnesota Statutes ~466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and
the user of this map acknowledges that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly
waives all claims, and agrees to defend. indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims
brought by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or use of
data provided.
<<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
8th
street
Hwy No. 5
KAHNKE BROS INC
1400 ARBORETUM DR
PO BOX 7
VICTORIA, MN 55386 -0007
COOK PROPERTIES-CHANHASSEN LLC
8640 L YNDALE AVE S
BLOOMINGTON, MN 55420 -
I C JOHN LLC
7920 SOUTH BAY CRV
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 -1119
DYS PROPERTIES
4711 SHADY OAK RD
HOPKINS, MN 55343 -8840
TERRANCE SR & SANDRA THOMPSON
3820 LINDEN CIR
EXCELSIOR, MN 55331 -7727
RICK & CATHY CHEESEMAN
18500 WYNNFIELD RD
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 -1039
THOMAS R & NATALIE J TWINING
8009 CHEYENNE AVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9720
LOREN R JOHNSON &
MARY KAY KINNEY
8011 CHEYENNE AVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9720
MICHAEL A & CYNTHIA K KOENIG
8005 CHEYENNE AVE
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9720
JAMES R & JANICE GILDNER
8003 CHEYENNE AVE
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9720
ANNE T THOMPSON
8000 DAKOTA AVE
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9636
CLAYTON & MARGARET SODETANI
8005 ERIE AVE
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9301
MICHAEL D KRAINES &
JULIE A SONDERUP
8002 DAKOT A AVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9636
TERRY J & MARGARET A LEWIS
8013 CHEYENNE AVE
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9720
WILLIAM J & EARLA KRAUS
8008 CHEYENNE AVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9767
RALPH WAYNE LYTLE
8021 ERIE AVE
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9301
GERALD H & MARILYN M WASSINK
8004 DAKOTA AVE
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9636
GLENN A & BONNIE LEE HAGEMAN
8021 CHEYENNE SPUR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9607
MCDONALD'S CORP (22-157)
PO BOX 66207
AMF O'HARE
CHICAGO, IL 60666 -
JACK D CHRISTENSON
15411 VILLAGE WOODS DR
EDEN PRAIRIE, MN 55347 -1438
DANIEL A & KRIS L CITARELLA
8008 ERIE AVE
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 .9752
PATRICIA M DOLAN
8007 CHEYENNE AVE
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9720
THOMAS M & KRISTIE A KOTSONAS
8001 CHEYENNE AVE
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9720
THOMAS J & SANDRA M KOEPPEN
8009 ERIE AVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9301
ANDREA LYNNE FANNEMEL
8003 DAKOTA AVE
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9637
MICHAEL D & SARAH J PETERSEN
8010 CHEYENNE AVE
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9767
RUSSELL L & VIRGINIA HAMILTON
8019 CHEYENNE SPUR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9607
MARILYN MARGARET STEWART
8015 CHEYENNE AVE
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9720
STEVEN & ESTA KATKIN
8012 CHEYENNE AVE
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9767
DANIEL P & LINDA M ROBINSON
8014 CHEYENNE AVE
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9767
ROBERT A & DAWN T LUND
8023 ERIE AVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9301
JOHN Q & DONNA M SOLBERG
8006 DAKOTA AVE
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9636
PATRICIA A HEGSTROM
8005 DAKOTA AVE
CHANHASSEN. MN 55317 -9637
GAYLON R & LINDA 0 RUST
8017 CHEYENNE SPUR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9607
LEE & PATRICIA JENSEN
8009 DAKOTACIR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9757
VALBORG A SWEDBERG
TRUSTEE OF TRUST
8016 CHEYENNE AVE
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9767
ALLAN J & KATHIE J NELSON
8025 ERIE AVE
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9301
WALTER & KATHLEEN SCHOLLMAN
8011 DAKOTA CIR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9757
RAYMOND & KATHERINE KNIGHT
8077 DAKOTA CIR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9757
ANTHONY E & LISA M BACHMAN
8008 DAKOTA AVE
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9636
ROBERTW & KATHY A TOENJES
8018 CHEYENNE AVE
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9767
PATRICIA E HIRSCHBERG
8023 CHEYENNE SPUR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9607
SUZANNE M SHEPPARD
8010 DAKOTA AVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9636
ALOIS J & MARY C STUMPFL
8027 CHEYENNE AVE
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9720
CRAIG T & KATHRYN M HUMASON
8025 CHEYENNE SPUR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9607
RAYMOND S & MARY ANN JEZIERSKI
8013 DAKOTA CIR
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 -9757
DOUGLAS W & KATHLEEN M BAGLEY
8020 CHEYENNE AVE
CHANHASSEN . MN 55317 -9767
PAUL D & LOUISE J O'DELL
8012 DAKOTA AVE
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9636
CHARLES H ANGELO III &
RANDY L FRITZ
8017 DAKOTA CIR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9757
RONALD D & LINDA L OLSON
8015 DAKOTACIR
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9757
STEPHEN K & VICKI C TABOREK
8022 CHEYENNE AVE
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9767
MICHAEL WILLIAM FARRELL
8024 CHEYENNE AVE
CHANHASSEN , MN 55317 -9767
: (\i
'-_ \) I
r~
/-
#8003
-
--
PLAT OF SURVEY
LOT 3, BLOCK 3,
CHANHASSEN ESTATES FIRST ADDITION
935.6
X
-F2c
FENCE
o
'0)
/"
589-48'18"E
5 47.00 5
o
_ _ DRAINAGE AND __
UTILITY EASEMENT
lU
U
~
lJ...o
933.8 (
X
: f\i
'-_ \) I
"
.......
933.8
X /
o
BIT )
DRIVEWA Y
932.7
X
/
/
/
/';f-
/ ilf
/
/
/
/
----
-->
---- >
CHEYENNE --------->
o
x 937.5
.
GFE
o
@
ISI
II]
o
>
>>
--.......
LEGEND
RIM 929.37
INV 920.47
SET MONUMENT
SPOT ELEVATIONS
FOUND MONUMENT
GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION
CA TCH BASIN
STORM MANHOLE
MAILBOX
TELEPHONE BOX
FENCElINE
SANITARY SEWER
STORM SEWER
DRAINAGE ARROW
934.06
oX
o
r'
\ 5
I
'Il
1.8
(f)
o
o VI
-
-
~
VI
...,.....
1"1 =
Z rTJ
()
1"1
Je 0
xl
\
-;.'2-
I 933.5
X
, '0
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 SO. FT.
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
#8007
I (\-r-
~- \) :
.
.w..
I
LOT AREA= 11,235, SQ. FT.
BM SCRIBE IN CONCRETE
ELEVATION 934.1 FT.
N.G. V.D. 1929
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 S~~326.02
t~~26.18"2 1/\ .,/
. t.". A\.~ tJ
Reg. No. t b 32. \ Date: 'l/2CJ /0 S
1.1 ~I Engineers. Surveyors
J Landscape Arch itects
~
J
t) Hansen Thorp Pellinen Olson Inc.
7510 Market Place Drive
Eden Prairie, MI\I 55344-3644
l (952) 829~0706 FAX (952) 829-7806
Project No. 02-084
Drawn by MD
Checked by LP
Book/Page 120/60
Client: MIKE KOENIG
'" '"
0> c: '0 0 c '0 0>
c 0'" 0. 0'" 1 ~
~ -" <Xl
-" 0
C ~ '" c ~ " I lD I-
'i ,- " " ,- " 5 ., (; ., N " 0
O.c O.c >- 0 0
~ 0.- "2 0.- " ~ "
0'" 0 0'" 2 ~- ~~
" 0 .c" " .c"
5 c ~ c ~.2 5 ~2
20 20 '" W
" ~
" N " N ~ "ro " Cro 1;
0. ,,~ 5 ,,~ 0 ,,~ 0. ,," i . I j
~.3 (; 2 ~.3 0 50 50 ii: ;. /!, ~ ~
'" 0 '" 6 "
" "", "", 0 E"" " E"" en
"2 N,- ~ '" N'- 0_ "2 o~
'0 c '0 vi
0 "'''' " "'''' ..t::ccTo 0 .eoch CW)
0 :":- 5 ~ :":- ~ -'c 0 -'c W
~ 0 0 0 <( >. :;:; ~ >. :;:;
'" " 0 '" I- ~:20 2:a .s :::> ~ g
" "Ca> 0 "'C~ Ul ~ ~.~ " '" N
5 2c 0. 0 2c w 5 "''''E >.E2'
en ~ vi en ~ ~.~ 0_ ~ 0_ ~ Q) , 0 !I j
2 00 '" 00 Q)o2 2 v02 >,-"'- en
" 0 " w " 0 c Q) Q)
0> ~oo '" I- =eUi Ul- ~~~ '" ]~~ ~"U 0"0 0
5 <( Ul'"
C I- <(" C t/) C C C
~ 00 0 Ul 00 I:9 N.c:5 ~ N..c::5 tfl :) E ::l.Q
Z" ~ w Z" ~ 6~ ~~ ..J
8 .c .c z~ ~:;"C 8 ~:i"C Z W
,,1:: " 2 ,,1:: <(0
0 00 5 w 00 I~ <DOc 0 ",0" OED~~ m
0 c c Ul :ij c u'" '" 0 0 "'0
" Ul" ~~v :gv z
vi .c" 2 <(~ .c" ,.-)g' vi J: J:::><Ll 0
~5 -5 ....>.....ro.....
w J::.= ~'i o - w o - >..DU1).3 ~
l- N_ 0> Z N_ ...J5.3 t- -,cO W
<( c <('" 00 <( 0-' :S"tl5~2
t- o 'i5 0 0= t-
Ul I" o~ ffi..E ~~:a Ul :g-~ i~C_Ul - en
o~ 5 o~
w -'en -'''' w (1),& ~ 000'00 en ri
" 0 .0 " ~5 .: '0 (f) Z E~:~ ~g~ en
Z :2~ 0 ",en ~~ '00........
Z W 0 " 00.- w
~iLi o~ -,,'" g~ 0_ 00 Ul 00 ~~~1~ <C
0 en " vi 0 -'0 " ~ ~~ " ~ 0> - C\i ~
<( c 'OJ12 w 0'" o~ .~ 0 v .S; 0 v .c 0 :J Q) ,- 0 " > '" en
j:: I= t- en .S; -", --E I= --e _:= Vl '-~ '" I OU
2", a>~ ~ ~ ~- 0" ~-g c
Q. . 0 "", ~" .c~0 .c~0 >,Q) g
<(" N= t~o tgjO V~ '"
I.o c'" Ul E...; ~- 5:g - b z ,~ is
a: 5- w _.2 o en 0__ o_~ 0 >.c 0
O'i: 0- 0." c '" C '" L. 0 i; 0'"
0 0 0 2 0 0 ~ "" 0 "" :J L. 0'" c
rig: N -'" N riID <C . '" "
W 00> "'" ~ "'" ~ Ul<( 0",
en Ul '0:5 :5cci:5 :500:5 u IN :2
-,,'" "'- "'~ .c c -,,'" 0 11'"
w 0", 00 Ul 00 .....~ "" Eg' C~ g ..J I Q) ii: 0;
"-' <( to ,,-' c _ 0 f' 0. ;~ 0.
C Ec .c I .c .c 0,,'" 0,,'" 0 ~
C:C'i -'" 2 0", -'" :::..: [D ,- b 0 " e-
, ,- 0." ,,- ~ 0 -0" ~ ~O" Q) u b "'~ .i!
.0 00 <( 00 .0
Z N= '" en I ~" "'''' " .~ C..c ...= '5 ~:S c en ~ e~
0 0., ~~ o"~ 0 ,_ 1J I-
0 U " " 0.;5 ...... 0.;5 ...... o>c 0
-- ~o cr. .co ~o d1 .c.c ,,- c 0 ~ c
en 0" '" -" -- 0 0 -,,, 0 0 w-' ~
~:5 - V.S ..... Q).S " ""
.c", "'- "" .c ~
:> _c- -" _c- - ~ 0- - ~
0_ 0:": 0 0 ='=c 0= 0 oE ~32 ~32 I
is <( to c Ol 0 :=~ c -0. U to -.J r- (:;
.~:t .~ iii .~~.~ 0", c '" .~ :9 g
-' 0>' -' ~'B !'!" 'c:E ~ -' 0 '"
I- w 0.-':: CO" W '" cO", 0"2 w 0."
U " C c~ U " '" C"- CO.c U _2 "o.c
a: oj;:) 'o,Q) Q) a: '04J Q) ",0 .- (11- a: ocr. (II "5
0 " ~~ 0> , 0'"
<( .cO> "'.c " <( ~:5~ CO 0>_ 0 <( .cO "'_ 0 r--- (i'-
..J 0. I- ~ m......= 0. -' <(~ 0l0'" 0. t- '" [DO(fl
z
w
en
en
<(0
IW
Z>
<(-
IW
00
LLW
Oll:
>-
t-
O
Ln
c::>
c::>
'"
~
1-1
l-
e....:>
a
~
a.
w
Cl
C!:l
z:
Z
z:
<(
-'
a.
z
w
en
en
<(
:c
z:
<(
:c
o
m ~I
Ol <Xi
gj <Xl I
N
I
o
irl
~
f-
o ""
-.J
...
o
i
::-:
::-:
,0 I
I
c;;
"'"
X
OO'L
'" I
~,
81
1-'
~:
;"0
a"'~
l!ii!~
I ,~
:0 501.25'58"E
~_~____O-I
~a -->4-
c ---:;;- - r-= 0 I
n-~--- -1--
"' ;~ :;
w~ m w<(
~~ -! ~~
81 tJ~ W 33
,..; I "''' 0 f-
"17~~__ 9f 0 to
a::> Q.. ~
"' I
/
~
a lo
ixJ
V
a,
CXl
Z
~i
cO
~~
SS
?i~
~~
0:
<( 0 U
Ol
-' -,'" -'
w w'" w
U u' u
a: a:0 a:
<( <(Ul <(
0. 0.<D 0.
u. ...", ...
0 O<D. 0
~ ~'" ~
<Xl ",II
ui 0
N ;;;,. N
a: <( a:
a:~
0 01;;' 0
,.: ""':(2 ,.:
... "'0 ...
0 0-' 0
Ul Ul<( Ul
<D Z m
"0
"' .-.:5t: m
",ro ,.:N
U.N ll.. ~~g U.N
011 011<( 011
Ul Ul Ul Ul <(
<( "'<(::>
row oW2 ",w
00: OC!.~~ "'a:
"!.<( .... <(
::w ~wwco ~w
U II~~~ U
11 <( 11 <(
... ...
<(a: <(n::n::U <(a:
w::> w::>::>n:: w::>
a:Ul O:::(/)lf)<( o:Ul
cii <(Ul <(If)lf)Q. <(Ul
<(::> co55~ u::>
w 0 0
-'5 cd~~ll{ -'5
I- wa: ~ffi
0 Uw UWWlD
Z ~~ ~~~~ ~~
'Y
/
I
I
N
I-
g
I-u.
~~ D
;"!i!
"''''
00
zu
",I
f- <(
ON..J
-.J W
~
~
1!2~
Q1
Z
0
F
:;
W
~~Q w X a:
I- wOa: -' w
0 Z ~F8 0 0 ~a:
<D W Z I [D l!J~
::;; 5~~ Vi Z W
::> <( <( 2 W ,.W
2 ::;;W [D ::;; X 0 2 a:Ul
C 0 oQ~ I ::;; 0 I :J ~::;;
::;; Ol 0. w
" Z ZI-<( ~ a: -' w U -a:
W I- ::>Oa: 0 :;;: -' Z ZO
2 0 w 00.<( <( I- w w <(t-
CJ Ul u.Ul'-'l U Ul ::;; I- u. Ul Ul
... III
w
..J '"
Z .LJ "
,S o . ~ ~D@~E1 c ^ ^
0 I I I
" N
"5
u
Ul
0
IGJ Wd 8v'2E'1 ~002/E1/Ol 6MfO'IIldSIDl-v80-20\6MfO\v80-20\v002 sparOvld fOU"Ol\'.:I
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 7305 Laredo Drive
Debbie Lloyd 7302 Laredo Drive
Cindy Koenig 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?
th
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
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 – 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.
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. I
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
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%.
6
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
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
8
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
9
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
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:
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.
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