The URL can be used to link to this page

CAS-11_KOEHNEN, THOMAS & ERICAThomas J. Campbell Boger N. Knutson Chomas M. Scott Elliott B. Knetsch Joel J. Jamnik Andrea McDowell Poehler Matthew K. Brokl' John F. Kelly Soren M. Mattick Henry & Schaeffer, III Marguerite M. McCarron 3ina M. Brandt • Also Licroscd in Wisconsin 1380 Corporate Center Curve iuite 317 • Eagan, MN 55121 irw -452-5000 651-452-5550 w.ck-law.comm 0 0 CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association Direct Dial. (651) 234-6222 E-mai[Address. snelson(iack-law.com June 3, 2005 Ms. Kim Meuwissen Chanhassen City Hall cITM RECEIVEoF D 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 JUN 0 6 2005 Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317 CHANryASSEN PLANNING DEPT RE: Miscellaneous Recorded Variances Dear Kim: Enclosed for your files please find the following recorded variances: • Sign Variance 2002-5 for the REMAX ACTION WEST building which was recorded on 09/11/03 as Document No. A365865. • Variance 2003-15 for Lot 5, Block 1, Chanhassen Lakes Business Park 7d, Addition (8170 Upland Circle) which was recorded on 07/23/04 as Document No. T147602. • Variance 2003-16 and CUP 2003-8 for Lot 20, Block 2, The Meadows at Longacres Second Addition (7474 Moccasin Trail) which was recorded on 03/24/04 as Document No. A382455. • Variance 2003-17 for Lot 2, Block 1, Colonial Grove at Lotus Lake (114 Sandy Hook Rd) which was recorded on 04/07/04 as Document No. T145315. • Variance 2003-18 for Lot 16, Block 1, Greenwood Shores (6900 Utica Lane) which was recorded on 06/18/04 as Document No. T146888. • Variance 04-07 for Lots 17 and 18, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta (3637 South Cedar Drive) which was recorded on 07/26/04 as Document No. A392683. • Variance 04-11 for Carver Beach Lots 2322-2326 (795 Ponderosa Drive) which was recorded on 07/15/04 as Document No. T147407. SCANNED 0 0 • Variance 04-16 for Lot 4, Block 1, Bluff Creek Estates 5'" Addition (8634 Valley View Court) which was recorded on 06/18/04 as Document No. A389723. Variance 04-19 for Lots 24 & 25, Shore Acres (9217 Lake Riley Boulevard) which was recorded on 08/06/04 as Document No. T147845. SRN:ms Enclosures 03- t' -,,a Regards, CAMPBELL KNUTSON Professional Association BY- S4an R. Nelson, LegaWsistant • Document No OFFICE OF THE T 147407 REGISTRAR OF TITLES IIIIIIIIIIIII III IIIIIIIIIIIIII IIIIIII CARVER 1288Fee: MIN$ 20.00 A 642 Certified and filed on 07-15-2004 at 10:30 RAM ❑ PM 2004-07-1 5 �// VIII VIII II I VIII III) IIIIII VIII IIII IIIIII VIII IIII IIII Cad Re9W� CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 04-11 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variances: 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. 2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: 795 Ponderosa Drive, Carver Beach Lots 2322-2326 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to 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 construction is completed. 6. The applicant shall plant two overstory, deciduous, 2-1/2" diameter trees. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: April 12, 2004 F (SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA (as COUNTY OF CARVER CITY OF CHkANHASSEN BY: i` Thomaass A. Furlong, AND: ,Z' " " " �7Todd Gerhardt, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this.5a'day of 2004 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of hanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 l t� � — NO AR PUB C _AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAi ` KAREi , 1 ENGELHARDT �$ Notal w:- .,. ;mesota My Comm Ui, .: ;1AIP005 VVVVVVVvv'sVVVVVV g:lplan\2004 planning cases\04-11 - koehnen variance -795 Ponderosa Dnvetrecording documentdoc • 0 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, Carver Beach) Variance No. 04-11 6L4-1 l 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 1. The property is currently zoned RSF, Residential Single -Family. 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential, Low Density. 3. 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, 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 Planning Commission this 100 day of March, 2004. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION BY: Uli Sacchet, Chairman g1plant2004 planning cases\04-11 - koehnen variance -lots 2322-2326 carver each\findings of fact (planning commissiw).doc L� 0 Planning Case #: 04-11 Description: Variance to minimum lot size and hard surface requirement Location: Lots 2322-2326, Carver Beach Applicant: Thomas Koehnen Description Date Date of Pre -Application Meeting (if necessary) Date Application Submitted 2/12/04 Date of Staff Meeting Review 2/17/04 Date Referral Notices Sent/Distributed 1,10,o Date Referral Agency Comments to be Received BIoLj Date PH Notice to be emailed to Villager 2f26104 Date PH Notice to be published in Villager 3/4/04 Date PH Notice to be mailed to Property Owners 3/4/04 Date PC Reports due 3/8/04 Date PC Packet goes out 3/10/04 Date of Planning Commission Review (PH date) 3/16 Date of City Council Review N/A Date of 60 -Day Deadline 4/12/04 CITY OF CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 FAX (952) 227-1110 TO: Campbell Knutson, PA 317 Eagandale Office Center 1380 Corporate Center Curve Eagan, MN 55121 WE ARE SENDING YOU ❑ Shop drawings ❑ Copy of letter LETTER OPRANSMITTAL DATE JOB NO. 5/5/04 04-11 Variance ATTENTION Sue Nelson RE: Document Recording E Attached ❑ Under separate cover via the following items: ❑ Prints ❑ Plans ❑ Samples ❑ Specifications ❑ Change Order ❑ Pay Request ❑ COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION 1 4/12/04 04-11 Variance 04-11 (795 Ponderosa Drive, Carver Beach Lots 2322- 2326 ❑ FORBIDS DUE THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below: ❑ For approval E For your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review and comment ❑ FORBIDS DUE REMARKS COPY TO: ❑ Approved as submitted ❑ Approved as noted ❑ Returned for corrections E For Recording ❑ Resubmit copies for approval ❑ Submit copies for distribution ❑ Return corrected prints ❑ PRINTS RETURNED AFTER LOAN TO US SIGNED: *J2 c t_t cliti� Kim Meuwissen, (952) 227-1107 N enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once. CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 04-11 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variances: 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. 2. Property. The variance is for property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as follows: 795 Ponderosa Drive, Carver Beach Lots 2322-2326 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to 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 construction is completed. 6. The applicant shall plant two overstory, deciduous, 2-1/2" diameter trees. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: April 12, 2004 0 (SEAL) STATE OF MINNESOTA (ss COUNTY OF CARVER n CITY OF CHANHASSEN BYK 7-ZL:� Thomas lA. Furlong, Mayor AND:_r�"� Todd Gerhardt, City Manager The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this.5a'day of , 2004 by Thomas A. Furlong, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of hanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 NOI(V PUBLqC AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA�, Lm KARR, 1 ENGELHARDT Notate 0:-' �!:anesota y Co0m0n moil s 1%3ti LA�> VWWW4VVVVVVV 9AplaM2004 planing cases\04-11 - koehnen variance -795 Ponderosa Drivelrecording do Uu Ldoc il --A5 eoc�ecoSa , ! Public Wells • 0 1591 Park Road April 22, 2004 CITY OF CHMSEN Regards, 7700 Market Boulevard PO Bax 147 Tom Koehnen Chanhassen, MN 55317 6280 Audubon Circle #6 Administration Excelsior, MN 55331 Phone: 952.227.1100 Planning Intem Fax: 952.227.1110 Re: Variance Request #04-11 (795 Ponderosa Drive) Building hapectlous Phone: 952.227.1180 Dear Mr. Koehnen: Fax: 952.227.1190 This letter is to notify you that on April 12, 2004, the Chanhassen City Council Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 approved your request for lot area variance from the 15,000 square foot Fax: 952.227.1170 requirement for the construction of a single-family residence at 795 Ponderosa Drive, with the following conditions: Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax: 952.227.1110 1. The applicant must submit a building permit before construction. 2. The single-family residence must meet required setbacks. Park & Recreation Phone: 9522271120 3. Applicant meets the conditions of Ordinance No. 317 (Building Fax: 952.2271110 Regulations). Recreation Center 4. A tree removal plan that clearly shows all trees, 6" and larger, and 2310 Coulter Boulevard their designation as removed or saved. The lot may not be clear-cut. Phone: .227.14400 Fax: 952.227.1404 5. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to any work commencing around all saved trees. Fencing shall remain in place until Planning a construction is completed. Natural Resources 6. The applicant shall plant two overstory, deciduous, 2-1/2" diameter Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 trees. Public Wells If you have any questions, please contact me at 952-227-1132. 1591 Park Road Phone. 952 227,1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Regards, Senior Center Phone. 952.227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Nathan Bouvet Web She Planning Intem wa^w.ci chanhassen.mn.us NB:ktm gAplan\2004 planning cases\04-I1 - koehnen variance -lots 2322-2326 carver each\approval letter 4-21-04.doc The City of Chanhassen • 4 growing community with clean lakes. quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. 6 0 April 17, 20o�: The City of Chanhass�- This is a letter to inform the City that I disagree with the City's interpretation, analysis, and decisions in regards to what the City has termed "The fence situation at 795 Ponderosa". However, at the City's request I have removed the fence and the post. I have also made good faith efforts to fulfill to the best of my understanding and ability the other requests the City has made in regards to 795 Ponderosa. I do reserve all my rights with this property. In particular I reserve my right to place fences on this property, especially fences to protect trees or other parts of the property. - Thomas Koehnen RECEIVED APR 222004 CITY OF CHANHASSEN City Council SummaryOkpril 12, 2004 • o4-0 2004, prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc., and the development contract dated April 12, 2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into the development contract and supply the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $305,197 and pay an administration fee of $20,527. 2. The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in revising the construction plans to meet city standards. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. PONDEROSA, THOMAS KOEHNEN. Public Present: Name Address Vicky Hevey Nancy Mason Michael Kohane Felix & Brian Thompson Mark & Julie Quiner Shelly MacGillivray Mark VanGuilder Ally & Randy Vogel Chuck Worsfold Nancy Kennedy Curt Bjorlin Bruce Burrington Lee Pillatzki Sue & Bruce Koehnen Tom & Erica Koehnen 780 Woodhill Drive 829 Woodhill Drive 6870 Yuma Drive 6899 Yuma Drive 6889 Yuma Drive 805 Ponderosa Drive 805 Ponderosa Drive 6890 Yuma Drive 6900 Yuma Drive 761 Ponderosa Drive 824 Lone Eagle Drive 6869 Yuma Drive 830 Ponderosa Drive 1830 Koehnen Circle 6280 Audubon Circle Kate Aanenson provided an update on Planning Commission action on this item. Councilman Ayotte asked staff to explain how conditions of the variance will be enforced. Mayor Furlong asked for clarification on the drainage, access into the site, and the lot being a lot of record. Stating this was not a public hearing, he invited representatives of the neighbors appealing the decision to speak. Michael Kohane, 6870 Yuma Drive stated the neighbors don't think this is a buildable lot because of the size, location and shape of the lot. Where it sits there's significant impacts on safety, the drainage and the environment in that area. He also expressed concern with the performance of the Planning Commission, indicating they seemed confused on how to make a decision, questioned the Findings of Fact, and stated the packet he was sent by the 7 City Council Summary41 kpril 12, 2004 • city was incomplete. Shelly MacGillivray, 805 Ponderosa Drive asked that the driveway be put on Yuma as the access onto Ponderosa is very dangerous. Ally Vogel, 6890 Yuma Drive expressed concern with the survey that was done by the applicant which showed the lot line in the middle of their driveway. Tom Koehnen, 6280 Audubon Circle, the applicant addressed the issues raised in the appeal documents. Mayor Furlong asked the city attorney to clarify the legalities of this appeal. Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council approve the Findings of Fact in the staff report and approve Variance #04-11 for lot area variance from the 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. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE; INCLUDING SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION PURPOSES: A. CHAPTER 10, LICENSING. B. CHAPTER 11, MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS AND OFFENSES C. CHAPTER 13, NUISANCES. Kate Aanenson presented the staff update on this item. Council members asked for clarification regarding wine in city parks, the hunting map and hunting regulations. Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded to approve the amendments to Chapter 10 of the City Code, Licensing, including summary ordinance for publication purposes. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Councilman Ayotte moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve amendments to Chapter 11 of the City Code, Miscellaneous Provisions and Offenses. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Councilman Labatt moved, Councilman Lundquist seconded to approve the amendments to Chapter 13 of the City Code, Nuisances. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS: None. ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: Todd Gerhardt provided an update on the closing for the bowling alley property and thanked Justin Miller and John Kelly for representing the city and pushing this item forward to a close. CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION. None. N o4-1� City Council Meeting —April 12, 2004 All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Mayor Furlong: Is that the end of the motions? Is there any additional? I think that's it. Roger Knutson: Did you? Mayor Furlong: Oh, we have a contract and construction plans. Roger Knutson: Yes. Councilman Peterson: I'd move that we approve construction plans and specs and development contract as submitted by staff this evening. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Labatt: Second. Mayor Furlong: Any discussion? Councilman Peterson moved, Councilman Labatt seconded that the City Council approve the construction plans and specifications for Kenyon Bluff dated March 24, 2004, prepared by Schoell & Madson, Inc., and the development contract dated April 12, 2004, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant shall enter into the development contract and supply the City with a cash escrow or letter of credit in the amount of $305,197 and pay an administration fee of $20,527. 2. The applicant's engineer shall work with city staff in revising the construction plans to meet city standards. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPEAL VARIANCE FOR A 7,068 SO. FT. LOT AREA VARIANCE TO SECTION 20-615(1) FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A HOME, 795 PONDEROSA, THOMAS KOEHNEN. Public Present: Name Address Vicky Hevey 780 Woodhill Drive Nancy Mason 829 Woodhill Drive Michael Kohane 6870 Yuma Drive Felix & Brian Thompson 6899 Yuma Drive 23 City Council Meeting %ril 12, 2004 • Mark & Julie Quiner 6889 Yuma Drive Shelly MacGillivray 805 Ponderosa Drive Mark VanGuilder 805 Ponderosa Drive Ally & Randy Vogel 6890 Yuma Drive Chuck Worsfold 6900 Yuma Drive Nancy Kennedy 761 Ponderosa Drive Curt Bjorlin 824 Lone Eagle Drive Bruce Burrington 6869 Yuma Drive Lee Pillatzki 830 Ponderosa Drive Sue & Bruce Koehnen 1830 Koehnen Circle Tom & Erica Koehnen 6280 Audubon Circle Kate Aanenson: Thank you Mayor, members of City Council. This is the subject site. It's located on Ponderosa near Yuma. It is a vacant lot of record, as opposed to the application you just saw before us, a subdivision. This is not a subdivision. It's a variance request. The applicant appeared before the Planning Commission on March le to request a variance from our ordinance which has a minimum lot square footage. It also allows you go within the 75 percent rule, the minimum lot of 15,000. This is a lot of record. The applicant did also apply for a variance of approximately 4 percent. The Planning Commission did deny the variance. The applicant has met all the setback requirements. It was over on the impervious and the Planning Commission felt that the applicant could make some changes to the plan and meet those requests, so the applicant did not appeal. I passed out a letter to you that he wanted that back on. He did not appeal that request within the required number of days so that request is not before you tonight. Mayor Furlong: And just for clarification, that's the request for the. Kate Aanenson: Impervious. Mayor Furlong: Impervious coverage. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Yep, and states some reasons in there. Mayor Furlong: So the only issue before us is. Kate Aanenson: Correct, because what was appealed by the neighbors. Again, anybody aggrieved of the decision made by the Board of Adjustments has a right to appeal that so there were 3 letters written from the neighbors appealing the request of the variance. Again, there were some issues that were raised at the Planning Commission and staff, Nate our planner and Matt Saam did work on looking at some of those issues. Specifically was the driveway location. With the proposed driveway comes out onto Ponderosa and looking at that, the neighboring driveway also comes out onto Ponderosa. It was felt at that time based on some elevations that appeared to be the best location of the driveway. Again there's some significant trees that were requested to be staked in that area. Another issue was drainage. Looking again, without the specific plan in front 24 City Council Meeting 10pril 12, 2004 • in place, it appears that some of the drainage, approximately halfway through the lot would go out onto Ponderosa via swale. The rest of it would be swaled around. Again there is an ordinance requirement for, this is part of your most recent updated code requirements that they need to submit, the applicant would need to submit to get a building permit, which requires that they demonstrate all this on the building survey. And again, that's done at the time of building permit. Lots of times on existing lots of record on an older subdivision, sometimes those get kicked around between planning and engineering for a number of reasons, whether it's tree conservation as opposed to a newer subdivision where you've got one builder that's kind of notched those out. Sometimes we have those, on this previous lot where they will be custom graded. There's a little bit more give and take trying to figure out exactly where the best way, so they may come in with one. We may tweak it, send it back. Try to work those issues out. So again on this one we've made some preliminary recommendations to the Koehnen's and again we may go back out after they submit and verify that. But it appears based on the issues that came up at the Planning Commission that we think those issues can be resolved. Again they'll have to show us on the building permit the elevations and there will have to be a survey and all that will be shown on there. Again that's spelled out in city code. The other thing that happens after it's built, they'll have to do an as -built survey to show that they built it as according to what they submitted as far as the survey. So again it is a lot of record. The staff's position was that we recommend approval because unless someone was to acquire the property, they have reasonable use to use it which we think a home is a reasonable use. Again it does meet all the setback requirements and it will need to be tweaked a little bit for the impervious surface and we expect to see that with the revised... survey. With that I'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have. Mayor Furlong: Great, questions for staff. Councilman Ayotte: What is the, let's say the as -built comes back and the swale is missing? Kate Aanenson: That's what I was saying, that's typically what we would check and they may go back. We'd hold it up and not approve it. Just call up the applicant and say there's some things missing. Or we think the swale's not going to function properly. Some of those sort of issues. We are going to require gutters and some of that too. Councilman Ayotte: Are there time lines associated? Where are we at risk if we wait too long to do the comparison, the as -built to what's built. Are there any parameters that we have to hold to that would put us at risk? Kate Aanenson: Certificate of Occupancy. Again they'll have to provide erosion control during construction and that's inspected regularly, so once they want to get Certificate of Occupancy, that's a requirement. If they don't have that, then they have to put security in place. Sometimes we do have closings in the winter, which is difficult to do, then they have to put security in place until we're able to verify that. That's pretty much a common practice over the last few years. `1 City Council Meeting April 12, 2004 • Councilman Ayotte: So what you're saying to me is that there's no risk, and once we have the as -built, and we have the ability to inspect the as -built, we don't have... Kate Aanenson: Low risk, correct. Mayor Furlong: Are there other questions for staff? A sense on the drainage again. Just as an issue there. You mentioned that it's subject to that. Is this, with the slopes of this property and the swales that you described, is it going to be possible to control the drainage so that it doesn't, as this property is built upon, if that's the route that we go, that it's not sending additional water to the neighboring properties. Kate Aanenson: That's our opinion looking with engineering. Mayor Furlong: There's quite a bit of slope on this property. Kate Aanenson: And with gutters too. Matt Saam: Yes, we thought through a system, guttering the house. Routing the roof drainage toward each of the streets, along with swales. Keep in mind we haven't seen an actual survey with a proposed house plan. When we get that, then we'll know for sure, do they need a retaining wall to get the Swale or can they just grade it in? So those are issues, as Kate said, we'll look at when the building permit comes in but we've instructed the applicant they, he will have to put in a system of swales along with some gutters on the house. Mayor Furlong: Okay, with the purpose of directing the runoff, the drainage from the property. Matt Saam: Correct. Around his house and then so it's not going toward adjacent houses. We want it going toward the street line everybody else. Mayor Furlong: Given that there's no drainage control on this lot right now, is there any expectation that with the swales we would improve the drainage relative to neighboring properties? Matt Saam: Relative to the two adjacent to them, yes. Downstream, that's a tougher one because we are adding impervious so you could argue that the water's getting off the site faster in the proposed or developed state then it is now so, but in regards to the neighboring properties. Mayor Furlong: I'm sorry, with regard to the two neighboring properties? Matt Saam: To the two adjacent neighboring properties we will be decreasing the runoff toward them. Mayor Furlong: Okay. 26 City Council Meeting April 12, 2004 • Kate Aanenson: I would say yeah, in that neighborhood itself, I'm not sure, most of it's sheet flowing. There's not a lot of controlled runoff in that whole neighborhood so I'm not sure that this person has to carry the burden for the whole neighbor, but we don't want to increase this property onto somebody else's, and that was the goal in meeting out there with the swales, right. Mayor Furlong: And with the drainage plan that you're anticipating, you'll certainly not add any drainage to the neighbor. Kate Aanenson: That's correct. Mayor Furlong: And would likely improve it. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Or decrease the drainage. Thank you. With regard to the access point, I know that was an issue, whether it came off Ponderosa or Yuma, basically from a safety standpoint, and again we're dealing with there's an intersection right there. Matt Saam: Yeah, Mr. Mayor we did go out and look at the site. Met with the neighbors. If you've been out there, this property's kind of at the low point, or sag of a curve. So, and the curve is on Ponderosa, so with this driveway coming out onto Ponderosa we feel there will be good sight lines both to the east and west. You'll be able to see basically to the top of the two hills, to both the east and the west. The other point that we looked at was the driveway, if it would come out onto Yuma would add, it's a bit longer so it would add a little bit more impervious and I know with him being right on the border of the impervious, he went for a variance before. We didn't feel it was necessary to make him come that way. Mayor Furlong: Okay. And then with regard to, you mentioned a lot of record. This is a relatively small lot. Relative to our current standards. Kate Aanenson: Correct Mayor Furlong: But this was a lot of record when those standards went into place, is that my understanding? Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: So it's a. Kate Aanenson: We have some other up in Carver Beach area. Mayor Furlong: And I guess, explain to me, there are some that are much smaller that have no homes on them. 27 City Council Meeting 4pril 12, 2004 0 Kate Aanenson: Correct. Mayor Furlong: Reading the Planning Commission it looks like 8,000. This one is a few feet below that. Kate Aanenson: Just 7,000, yes. Correct. And we've had some other ones that have come in for variance. Similar situation. Under sized lot. Under the 75 percent rule. That have pursued the variance request. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, thank you. Any other questions for staff? I guess at this time we did receive, in terms of some letters from some residents appealing the decision. Typically we will allow people to come forward if there's, I guess my preference would be a representative from those appealing the decision, if they'd like to come forward and speak at this time. Michael Kohane: Sorry, I can go first -but we'd all like to say something... we can keep it very brief if that's okay. Mayor Furlong: Well I guess it's not a public hearing but if there's, you know we did receive the letter and we read the letters, but if there's something additional that people would like to add to the record. Certainly, why don't you state your name and address. Michael Kohane: Michael Kohane, 6870 Yuma Drive, Chanhassen. We're appealing the lot variance because we really don't think it's a buildable lot because of the size and it's location and the shape of the lot. Where it sits and there's significant impacts on safety and the drainage and the environment in that area. Again like others, it's difficult to, we've mentioned most of the issues in our letters. We won't reiterate. Ponderosa Drive is a major thoroughfare through there now. Adding another home there will create significant safety issues with vehicles, children, all sorts of other things as well. So the second point I want to make, particularly was that I was very concerned with the performance at the Planning Commission. They seemed to me to be quite confused about how they were to make a decision, and certainly as I gather here, you don't have to have any hard data to make a decision but the drawings were hand drawn by the applicant and it wasn't particularly clear and there was a great deal of confusion and I would like to question the Findings of Fact based on the Planning Commission. I'm not a lawyer but I would like to question that. And I don't think they should be generally accepted. On a couple of technical issues, I received a package from the city last Friday, which dealt with all the appeal issues. That's incomplete. My initial letter wasn't in there, and also it's not in chronological order, and there's a list of names in there with no explanation and I would like that to be corrected before we went any further with this project. I have some direct questions to the owner of the property, whether that be the applicant or not, I'm not sure. We're all very unclear about this down there. Is this lot big enough for a family home? Is it safe to build on the comer? Is it good enough to cut down the trees to build? And is it good to disrupt the drainage there whereas we understand it drains 38 acres down into a silt filtration pond which then drains into Lotus Lake. And then just a m City Council Meeting 4piil 12, 2004 • general issue on, I know that your hands are tied with building, but seems to me, and our community feels this too down in this area of Carver Beach that the City of Chanhassen emphasizes home construction. You've got Highway 5, Big Woods development in our area, luxury homes on this side of the lake, new ones on the other side of the lake, and for the local community they see this as just replacement of the natural environment with hard cover. With unknown consequences for the future. And the local Lotus Lake community, when you go around and talk to people they're overwhelming against this now and very, very concerned. They don't know what to do, and I gather your hands are tied too. But in this case I've asked the city, because it's an exceptional case, to commit to the natural environment in some way. Make some sort of policy change or shift, and maybe stop home construction on this small lot to send an indication to other people that it might be possible to preserve trees and habitat locally, and in this way, as someone else suggested to me, the city could become a genuine leader in trying to get around these issues of conservation, preservation and development. So in short we appeal the first variance. We don't think it's a buildable lot because of the site, location and shape and size and the impact on the drainage and the environment and the safety issues there on Ponderosa Drive. All of that's detailed in our letters, and I myself personally question the findings of fact to the Planning Commission and the packets that I received was, needs to be corrected. It was incomplete and not in chronological order to be interpreted correctly. Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Alright, thank you. Is there any comments from staff? Kate Aanenson: I'm assuming the names are the names that went out to everyone within 300 feet. Are they in chronological order? Maybe not. But all the letters are shown as attachments. I think Nate and I discussed the first letter did go to the Planning Commission. You receive the Planning Commission packet so we assumed you had read the first packet so we just included the updated ones because the council does get all of the Planning Commission packets, so you had received it, so we just didn't put it in the most recent. That was appropriate to the appeal. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Alright, and again, if there's representatives that would like to speak on this, if you're comfortable with the presentation just made, I think that's fine. I don't want to have a full public hearing but I do want to make sure that if there are additional points besides those raised in the letters that were provided, we'd be happy to listen to them at this time. Shelly MacGillivray: My name's Shelly MacGillivray. I live at 805 Ponderosa Drive. Our driveway is on Ponderosa Drive at that location and it's very dangerous. I am concerned for the safety for everyone. I just would highly recommend, if there's any way possible to put it on Yuma. Ally Vogel: Hello gentlemen, my name is Ally Vogel and I live at 6890 Yuma, directly to the south of this lot and one thing that I want to bring up, I did send an e-mail out to all of you addressing some of the drainage issues but one thing that may be a situation that reflects on our property specifically was that a survey was done by the applicant probably 29 City Council Meeting Aril 12, 2004 • a couple weeks ago and we discovered that the lot line is in the middle of our driveway. This driveway has been there for over 20 years and obviously when my husband and I purchased the home we were not aware of any encroachment issues, etc, and now obviously this is going to be a pretty good hardship on us or concern to figure out whether or not we can seek an easement or have an adjustment made to that property line, but it's, you know some of the neighbors have tried to purchase this lot from the applicant in the past. Obviously now with this issue we'd be very interested in purchasing a portion of that but that's something I just want to make you aware of in addition to everything else. Mayor Furlong: Okay, thank you. Is the original applicant here this evening, if they'd like to say anything to the council. Tom Koehnen: Good evening everybody. My name is Tom Koehnen and I live at 6280 Audubon Circle in Chanhassen and I am the applicant in this matter, and I'd like to address the issues that have been raised by those who have made this appeal. And in the interest of time I'm going to keep my remarks short. I'm going to only address issues that have been specifically raised in the appeal documents. On or about the 12m of March I submitted by variance request to the City of Chanhassen Planning Commission. The request included two variances. One for a variance to the minimum buildable lot size, and one for a variance to the 25 percent maximum hard cover requirement. I developed this proposal as a feasible and reasonable use for this property. Before I submitted this proposal I met with the city planning department to get their input on how to design this project with a minimum variances needed from the city. To put this legally non -conforming lot to a reasonable use. After careful review the city and planning staff agreed that my proposal, including the variance to the 25 percent maximum hard cover was a feasible proposal for a reasonable use of this property. My proposal conformed with the existing standards to which comparable properties in the area have been put. The planning staff in it's report found that this proposal in it's entirety did not downwardly depart from the existing neighborhood standards, and met all other conditions for the city to properly grant these variances. On the 100 of March the city Planning Commission voted 5 to 0 to grant the variance to the minimum buildable lot size as we heard, but voted to deny my variance to the maximum of 25 percent maximum hard cover requirement. I was glad the commission granted me my lot variance. My lot size variance, but I felt the Planning Commission's denial of the variance to the 25 percent maximum hard cover requirement was unjustified. That's how it stood until a group of my future neighbors decided to appeal the entire decision in general, and both the minimum lot size variance and the denial of the maximum hard cover variance specifically and that is point 3 of the appeals documents. That's why I'm going to address it right now. Now that both these issues have been re -opened I'd like to take this opportunity to address both of them. First I'd like to address the minimum lot size variance. The record clearly shows that this request meets the 3 tests for granting of a variance. The request is reasonable by the opinion of the city staff has been consistent. Placement of a single family house on this site meets the same use of the property that the neighboring properties meet. Secondly the proposed foot print meets the unique issues inherent in this property. Care was taken by both myself and on the part of the city staff City Council Meeting Opril 12, 2004 • to treat this project as a unique situation and deal with all aspects individually. Finally this project conforms to the existing standards in the immediate area. The record is clear from the city staff report. The footage of the proposed houses within the range of house sizes in the area. This lot is also within the range of lot sizes that have houses on them in this area. Therefore I believe the decision to grant the variance to the minimum buildable lot size should be withheld. Secondly, now that my future neighbors have specifically re- opened the denial of the hard cover variance, I would like to address the issue. I feel that this request is also reasonable and meets those three tests. Therefore I feel the City Council should over turn the decision of the Planning Commission and grant me the variance to the maximum hard cover ordinance of 25 percent. I ask that the City Council grant the variance of 3.6 percent for a total of 28.6 percent. This would be in addition of some 258 square feet. First way to grant this variance a question of reasonableness must be asked. It's my opinion and the opinion of the city staff as stated in their recommendations dated March the 16'h, an addition of 258 feet of hard cover to design a safe driveway and adequate sidewalk is a reasonable request. Second question is one of uniqueness. It is my understanding that the maximum hard cover requirement ordinance was enacted as a blanket guide line to deal with drainage and runoff issues that arise from placing a structure on a previously undeveloped lot. In this situation I have had meetings with the planning department and the engineering department of the city to discuss methods and plans to mitigate the issue of drainage and runoff on this lot. All of my proposed to the engineering department deal with drainage on this unique site were deemed acceptable, feasible and reasonable as stated in the record in the staff report. Thus in this situation it has been shown that I can meet the intent of this part of the ordinance with more than the 25 percent hard cover and granting of the ordinance was wholly, this variance is wholly acceptable. Finally does the proposal meet the existing standards in the immediate area? The answer to that question is also yes. As the record shows, this area is filled with non -conforming lots. On average the lots do not meet the minimum lot size. And further, many of the properties have non -conforming gravel driveways that negatively impact drainage and runoff. That's my proposal, this proposal, my original proposal meets and exceeds the drainage and runoff standards in place in the neighborhood and do not depart downwardly from them. Because of these reasons I believe, and I think that the record shows that this variance is reasonable and should be granted. I'd like to thank everybody involved for their time and consideration in this matter and I look forward to a speedy conclusion to this business, and further wonderful cooperation on the part of the city as this project continues. I've brought copies of my remarks for members of the council if they'd like to review them and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Any questions for the applicant? Councilman Ayotte: I don't know whether the question goes but I'm back to the lady said that she had a survey done and it ended up in the middle of her driveway. Kate Aanenson: Correct. Let me just clarify that. There was a survey done. It appears that their driveway, it's a civil matter at this point. Their driveway goes across what Mr. Koehnen believes is his property so they'll have to reconcile that between the two of 31 City Council Meeting April 12, 2004 • them. And just to be clear, the applicant did not appeal the impervious within the required days. I understand his frustration with the neighbors appealing, that he wanted to throw that back into the mix. That is not before you tonight, just to be clear. That deadline passed for appealing. Mayor Furlong: It was his position to appeal? Kate Aanenson: The neighbors appealed. Because the Planning Commission denied the impervious, the neighbors were happy with that but they still wanted the house being denied, so they appealed that portion which the Planning Commission approved. We did not. Tom Koehnen: If you look at Section 3 of the appeal document that my future neighbors signed to you along with about 20 signatures. Kate Aanenson: The Planning Commission denied it though so they couldn't appeal something that was recommended for denial. Tom Koehnen: All I know is that they specifically appealed that part. Mayor Furlong: Mr. Knutson. Roger Knutson: I'm looking at the petition. First the cover letter says, we wish to appeal the decision and request the City Council deny the lot area variance. Then when you look on the petition pages itself, it says approve the lot size. They're appealing the decision to approve the lot size variance. Tom Koehnen: Last page of the comments in the letter. It's point 3, denial of lot coverage variance. Roger Knutson: It doesn't say they appeal it though. Kate Aanenson: That was how we understood it. They referenced it but I don't think it was appealed. Mayor Furlong: I mean I'm reading this, I don't want to be the interpreter, that's what he gets paid the big bucks but is the point of that, that they don't believe that without the lot size variance it's not, or without the impervious coverage variance it's not a buildable lot. Is that how I'm reading that? It was more to their point about why it was not a buildable lot. I don't want to interpret what they said. Roger Knutson: With the lot size variance they could build a house that meets all of the requirements on. Kate Aanenson: Correct... changes to modifications of the driveway width and some of that, correct. And that was the Planning Commission's interpretation. 32 City Council Meeting Vpril 12, 2004 • Mayor Furlong: My sense is that's what the Planning Commission determined. Okay, any other questions for Mr. Koehnen? If not, thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. Tom Koehnen: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: With that is there any follow up questions for staff or additional questions or we'll bring it back to council. Councilman Ayotte: In respect for the as-built's, there was a voiced concern that the original was a sketch, so on and so forth. But the deliverable that you accept, the as -built that you inspect to and conduct acceptance of the project is to what standard? Kate Aanenson: The registered survey. That's what I've handed out to you is the registered survey. And just to be fair, kind of going back to the neighborhood standard, again what the burden is, I'm not sure all the neighbors have a hard surface driveway or gutters, and again so we are raising the standard on this house for him to accommodate some of those existing. Councilman Ayotte: So any inspection to the as -built would be to a much higher standard. I guess I'm trying to articulate that so everybody understands. Kate Aanenson: Yes, yes. Councilman Ayotte: Thank you. Mayor Furlong: Okay. Other discussion? Any other points? Councilman Labatt or Peterson? Councilman Peterson: Roger, if we don't grant the variance we're essentially saying it's a non -buildable lot then, is that? Roger Knutson: That's correct. Councilman Peterson: And there are obvious ramifications for doing that. Roger Knutson: That's also correct. Councilman Peterson: So once again our hands are somewhat tied. Councilman Ayotte: However the point, I'd like to make a comment. I think that thing that's pivotal in this particular project, especially the issue of drainage and other things, that when you submit an as -built and when you inspect on that as -built, versus how it has been in the past, especially if that neighborhood has history, we haven't always done that. So this is a new thing. And if I could put some minds at ease, when you have the as -built 33 City Council Meeting April 12, 2004 • and you inspect the as -built and if the individual doesn't adhere to the constraints of that as -built, it gets redone. And I think that's a much better mode of operation than we've seen in the past, especially 7 years ago for 6213 Cascade Pass where there was the same issue. So I speak from experience here. So they have come a long way and staff has done an exceptional job of changing the ordinances and the procedures to ensure that we do not have those sorts of issues, so if that puts your mind at ease a bit, I hope it does. Thank you Mayor. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Other comments or discussion? Councilman Labatt? I guess this is another difficult one, and to the extent that we're dealing with a property owner that chooses to improve their property, you know there are certain property rights that I look at that allows people to do that. If we didn't have that right, none of us would have our homes here. And I think that's always the challenge with development that it brings change. I think the key here or some of the keys that I look to are again, same issues that we dealt with on a previous item. Safety from a traffic standpoint. Yuma is a one way going north, south of Ponderosa and relatively narrow road as well as Ponderosa itself. All the roads in that area are, and so there's one could argue that there's safety throughout that neighborhood, especially when you get further north and try to go down the bluff. It can be difficult. I think bringing it out onto Ponderosa, which is actually a two way street provides, you know and with the grading, I'm going to defer to staff there and I think with regard to that, that's helpful. The other advantage I see is that the drainage issue, and that's clearly a concern. If somebody's going to improve their property, they cause additional drainage or water going onto a neighbor's property and I don't think so. And I think by working with the as-builts and with the drainage design, as the staff has worked with them to come up with and will adhere to and make sure that that's there, we can not only prevent additional flow but as I heard tonight, perhaps even improve it or reduce the flow. I'll leave it to the engineers to get that done. But ultimately you know I think, in addition to the items Councilman Peterson mentioned, you know this is, it's a lot. There are a lot of small lots in that neighborhood and while this one has not been built on before, it's always hard to see a stand of trees go. I know that is a fairly heavily wooded area too, further down Yuma and others so from that standpoint I think it's one of those things that we're stuck here between the existing neighborhoods and the property... without adding burden from a drainage and other physical burden to those property owners so, from that standpoint I guess if there are other comments or discussion. If not, is there a motion. And I don't think there is a motion. The fact that the Planning Commission approved the lot area variance, which is the issue before us tonight, as I understand it. The only issue before us tonight so a motion would be to affirm the Planning Commission's recommendation, or to deny and reverse. Roger Knutson: I think they're one in the same so. Mayor Furlong: Alright. Roger Knutson: And that motion would also include adopting the Findings of Fact of the Planning Commission as your findings. 34 City Council Meeting #pri1 12, 2004 • Mayor Furlong: Good. Alright. Would someone like to make a motion? Councilman Lundquist: Mr. Mayor I would move that the City Council approve the Findings of Fact in the staff report and approve the variance #04-11 for lot area from the required 15,000 square feet for the construction of a single family residence on a 7,932 square foot lot. As shown on plans dated 2112104. Mayor Furlong: Thank you. Is there a second? Councilman Ayotte: Second. Mayor Furlong: Is there any further discussion? Councilman Lundquist moved, Councilman Ayotte seconded that the City Council approve the Findings of Fact in the staff report and approve Variance #04-11 for lot area variance from the 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 2112104. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO CITY CODE: INCLUDING SUMMARY ORDINANCE FOR PUBLICATION PURPOSES: A. CHAPTER 10, LICENSING. B. CHAPTER 11, MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS AND OFFENSES. C. CHAPTER 13. NUISANCES. Kate Aanenson: We'll take these a, b, c as written. Chapter 10, Chapter 11 and Chapter 13, and what I'd like to do, I'll stop at each one if you're ready to make the motion but just kind of go through the salient points. You have reviewed these before. We followed through with a comment so Chapter 10 with regard to license permits and miscellaneous business regulations. Again this has to do with the liquor license. Again we exempted 3.2 malt liquor from the public hearing requirement. Adjusted the pull tab establishments that have a liquor license. Eliminate the requirement that non -profits have to be located in Chanhassen. They just be chartered so they're allowed here. And also eliminate the organizations to direct where their gambling proceeds go. The city can pick where they want them to go. They can't assign them to certain things. That's a council discretion, and again we added ... that were deemed just normally in the rental license. As we know we have the three strike rule. We found an offense, you can see the ones that we added. Murder. That wasn't one, manslaughter, assault, criminal sexual assault, and theft, arson, burglary. Those are added to the strike rule because somewhere in that list they had an issue on the strike rule so those will be added to the rental licensing requirement. So with that, that's kind of a summary of the changes made to Chapter 10, so we are recommending approval of that and the motion to that is in kind of the cover memo under the recommendations approving Chapter 10 with clarifications. 35 CITY OF CIIMNSEN 7700 Market Boulevard PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone: 952.227.1100 Fax: 952.221.1110 Building Inspections Phone: 952.227.1180 Fax: 952.227 1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952 227.1170 Finance Phone: 952.227.1140 Fax 952.227.1110 Park & Recreation Phone: 952.227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952.227.1404 Hanning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952.227.1110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952227.1125 Fax: 952.227.1110 Web Site www.ci.chanhassermn.us 0 MEMORANDUM TO: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager FROM: Nathan Bouvet, Planning Intern S DATE: April 12, 2004 SUBJ: 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. 3 The City of Chanhassen • 4 growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a charming downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A great place to live, work, and play. Koehnen Yfknce 04-11 • April 12, 2004 Page 2 Staff also discussed drainage concerns with the applicant. The applicant proposed several different drainage possibilities. First, the applicant proposed the use of gutters to drain runoff water towards the driveway, which would then slope towards Yuma Drive east of the home. Second, swales both south and southwest of the home would move runoff water from the west portion of the lot south of the proposed home sloping onto Yuma Drive. Both methods were determined feasible by city engineers as long as they followed the guidelines of Ordinance 317 (Building Regulations). Staff believes the proposed home construction is complimentary and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood (lot of record) and is recommending approval of the lot area variance. ACTION REQUIRED Approval of this item requires a simple majority vote by those City Council members present. PLANNING COMMISSION SUMMARY The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 16, 2004. The Planning Commission approved Variance #04-11 for a lot area variance from the required 15,000 square feet and denied the 3.6 percent impervious coverage variance for the construction of a single-family residence on a 7,932 square foot lot, zoned RSF as shown on plans dated 2112/04. The summary and verbatim minutes are item la of the City Council packet for April 12, 2004. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the City Council approve the findings of fact found in the staff report and the following motion: "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" ATTACHMENTS 1. Letters from residents to Honorable Mayor, City Council and Planning Commission Members. 2. Planning Commission Staff Report Dated March 16, 2004. 3. Findings of Fact. gAplan\2004 planning cases\04-11 - koehnen variance -lots 2322-2326 carver each\ezecutive summary.doc " C Pbeh' 6280 Audubon Circle Excelsior MN 55331 Apll11 2UV City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Blvd -,hanhassen MIDI 55317 To: The City of Chanhassen vv. Nklatl lal I i3uuVet, Planning iy n ucl l l CC: Roger'Knutson, City Attorney CIE N PI101 Ile 04-11 On or about the 121' of March i submitted a variance request to the City of Chanhassen Ia55Cll rldlll ally 1i V1111111D51U11. IVIy IeCjUCJt II IIaUUCU twU Vdllalll:eJ; l7rle 101 a {.. LIIU ki "L4.. til- I- .1 F... M {1... 7C0/ V ailailVr lV UIG Illil lllml�lm U4IIVQ VIG IVl Daze and Vile IVI a vai nce lV UIG 25% niaximuiii hard cover requiremient. I developed this proposal as a feasible and reasonable use for this property. Before I submitted this proposal 1 met with the planning department to get their input about how to design this project with the minimum variances needed from the City, to put this legally non -conforming lot to a reasonable use. After careful review the City Planning Staff agreed that my proposal including the vanes lce to the 4rn0 I..aximum hard cover was a feasible proposal for a reasonable use of this property. This proposal conformed with the existing standards to which comparable properties in the area have been put. The Planning Staff in Its report found that this proposal in its entirety did not downwardly depart from the existing neighborhood stanudalds and met all other conditions for the City to properly grant these variances. • Page 2 April 8, 2004 On the 16th of March the Planning Commission voted 5-0 to grant the variance to the minimum buildable lot size but voted to deny the variance to the 25% maximum hardcover requirement. I was glad that the Commission grated the lot area variance, but, I felt that the Planning Commission's denial of a variance to the 25% maximum hardcover requirement was unjustified. I was disappointed the Commission denied the coverage variance, and that is how it stood until a group of my future neighbors decided to appeal the entire decision in general and both the minimum lot area variance and the denial of the maximum hard cover variance specifically. Now that both of these issues have been reopened, I would like to take this opportunity to address both of these issues. First I would like to address the minimum lot size variance. The record clearly shows that this request meets the three tests for the granting of a variance. First, it is reasonable. The opinion of the City Staff has been consistent. The placement of a single family house on this site makes the same use of this property that the neighboring properties make. Secondly, this proposed footprint meets the unique issues inherent in this property. Care was taken both on my part and the part of the City Staff to treat this project as a unique situation and deal with all of its aspects individually. Finally, this project conforms to the existing standards in the immediate area. The record is clear from the City Staff report. The footage of the proposed house is within the range of house sizes in the area. This lot area is within the range of lot sizes with houses on them in this area. Therefore I believe this decision to grant the variance to the minimum buildable lot size should be upheld. Secondly, now that my future neighbors have specifically reopened the denial of the hardcover variance, I would like to now address the issue. I feel that this request is also reasonable and meets the three tests. Therefore I feel that the City Council should overturn this decision of the Planning Commission and grant me the variance to the maximum hardcover ordinance of 25%. 1 ask that the Council grant a variance of 3.6% for a total of 28.6%. This would be an addition of some 258 square feet. Firstly, to grant this variance a question of reasonableness must be asked. It is my • Page 3 opinion and the opinion of the City Staff as stated in their recommendations dated March 16h that the addition of 258 feet of hardcover to design a safe driveway and adequate sidewalk is reasonable. The second question is one of uniqueness. It is my understanding the maximum coverage requirement was enacted as a blanket guideline to deal with the drainage and runoff issues that arise from placing a structure on a previously undeveloped lot. In this situation I have had meetings with the Planning Department and the Engineering Department of the City to discuss methods and plans to mitigate the issue of drainage on this lot. All of my proposals to the Engineering Department to deal with drainage on this unique site were deemed acceptable, feasible, and reasonable as stated in the record in the Staff Report. Finally, does the proposal meet the existing standards in the immediate area? The answer to this question is also yes. As the record shows, the area is filled with non -conforming lots. On average the lots do not meet the minimum lot size. Further many of the properties have nonconforming gravel driveways that negatively impact drainage and runoff. Thus this proposal meets the drainage and runoff standards in place in the neighborhood, and do not depart downward from them. Because of these reasons I believe and I think the record shows that this variance is reasonable and should be granted. The last issue I would like to raise is that of motive of those who have made this appeal. On March 31" 1 had a survey performed on this property. In the course of surveying the property the surveyor staked the comers of the lot. After the comers were staked it became clear that the adjoining properties at 805 Ponderosa and 6890 Yuma have both been using large parts of this lot without permission. In fact the south east corner of this lot is in the middle of the driveway serving 6890 Yuma. This means that over ten feet of this driveway frontage to Yuma is on this lot in question. Further, a fence on 805 Ponderosa has been extended over six feet onto this property to increase the apparent size of the front yard of 805 Ponderosa. All of this encroachment was done without permission. I believe that this appeal was made in part with the idea of continuing wrongful use and enjoyment of this lot by the neighborhood. • • Page 4 • I would like to thank everyone involved for their time and consideration in this matter. I look forward to a speedy conclusion to this business and to further wonderful cooperation on the part of the City as this project continues. Sincerely, Thomas D.Koehnen 0 Michael Kohane 6870 Yuma Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317. home — 952401-0520 work — 952474-7845 4/5/04 U Appeal: Planning Case #04-11, 795 Ponderosa Dr. Comments and Questions for the City Engineer and the City Council: 1. The applicant has not given the local residents any information. We have not been able to discuss his intentions and plans with him He has made no attempt to reach out to the local residents and incorporate them in his decision making process. We know nothing about him, his plans nor his ultimate goals. 2. The time available for local residents to respond to the applicant's plans has clearly been intentionally curtailed by the applicant. 3. 1 ask the City Engineer to consider the destruction of the trees on the lot, the location of the driveway, the safety issue of speed along Ponderosa Dr., adherence to the hardcover limits and the fact that the house will dominate the small lot. 4. 1 note that the applicant recently had the lot surveyed. Local residents were concerned that the individuals who did the work did not appear to be professionals. I informed Nathan Bouvet of our concern. 5. At the time of the survey, the applicant informed one of the residents that he intended to build the house with his buddies, in the evenings and on weekends. "Thus, I conclude that a professional building firm will not be involved. I am very worried that this approach will lead to many infractions of building codes and limitations set by the City. Hence, I informed Nathan Bouvet of my concerns. 6. Local residents were also worried that this project could end up taking an extensive amount of time, with much local disruption as a consequence of the applicant building whenever he wanted to. I again informed Nathan Bouvet of our concerns. 0 7. I am concerned that the applicant is using this case as a "test case" in order to set up both a precedent and process to build on other small lots m the area. We see the clear consequences of this as including: tree and habitat destruction, run-off increase, deterioration m local safety and lowered quality of life and property values. M. Ukr.. Michael Kohane. Affidavit of Publication Southwest Suburban Publishing State of Minnesota) )SS. County of Carver ) Laurie A. Hartmann, being duly sworn, on oath says that she is the publisher or the authorized NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING agent of the publisher of the newspapers known as the Chaska Herald and the Chanhassen Vil- PLANNING CASE NO. 04-11 lager and has full knowledge of the facts herein stated as follows: CITY OF CHANHASSEN NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen (A) These newspapers have complied with the requirements constituting qualification as a legal Planning Commission will hold a public newspaper, as provided vided b Minnesota Statute 33IA.02, 331A.07, and other applicable laws, as y hearing on Tuesday, March 16, 2004, amended. at 7:00 P.M. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, The that is to this Affidavit and identified as No. 7700 Market Boulevard. The purpose of this (B) printed public notice attached was published on the date or dazes and in the newspaper stated in the attached Notice and said hearing is to consider the request for Notice is hereby incorporated as part of this Affidavit. Said notice was cut from the columns of a 7,066 square foot lot area variance to Section and the newspaper specified. Printed below is a copy of the lower case alphabet from A to Z, both n lot co e a percent maximum lot coverage variance to inclusive, and is hereby acknowledged as being the kind and size of type used in the composition Section2U615(4)oftheCnarnassa„Cjty and publication of the Notice: Code for the purpose of constructing a home at 770 Ponderosa Drive, zoned abcdefghijklmnopgrsmvwxyz RSF,Thomas Kcehnen-PlanningCase No. 0411. A plan showing the location of B y' the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular Laurie A. Hartmann business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect Subscribed and sworn before me on to this proposal. Nathan Bouvet, Planning Intern Phone: 952-227-1132 // ! 2004 this day of Email: M. RADUENZ obouvet�ci chmhac n.rnnjisGWEN (Published in the Chanhassen NOiARV PuBIJC MMNESOTA Villager on Thursday, March 4,2004; ,; My Comr„uso”, ExGiras Jan. 31.2005 No. 4111) Notary Public RATE INFORMATION Lowest classified rate paid by commercial users for comparable space.... $22.00 per column inch Maximum rate allowed by law for the above matter ............................... $22.00 per colunm inch Rate actually charged for the above matter ............................................... $10.85 per column inch 0 44 -ii CHANHASSEN PLANNING REGULAR MEETING SUMMARY MINUTES MARCH 16, 2004 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: IJIi Sacchet, Rich Slagle, Craig Claybaugh, Bruce Feik, and Steve Lillehaug MEMBERS ABSENT: Bethany Tjomhom and Kurt Papke STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Nate Bouvet, Planning Intem; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd Janet & Jerry Paulsen 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST 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, ZONED RSF, PLANNING CASE #04-11. Public Present: Name Address Tom Koehnen Bruce & Sue Koehnen Mark Van Guilder Shelly T. MacGillivray Ginny Koehnen Brenda Bjorlin Randy & Ally Vogel Michael Kohane Chuck Worsfold Bruce Burrington Julie & Mark Quiner 6280 Audubon Circle 1830 Koehnen Circle West 805 Ponderosa Drive 805 Ponderosa Drive 7263 Pontiac Circle 824 Lone Eagle Drive 6890 Yuma Drive 6870 Yuma Drive 6900 Yuma Drive 6869 Yuma Drive 6889 Yuma Drive Nate Bouvet presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Claybaugh had questions relating to impervious surface coverage, drainage, and driveway location. Commissioner Feik asked staff to explain the design of the lot which includes 5 narcels_ Planning Commission Summary — March 16, 2004 the discrepancy regarding placement of the deck, and impervious surface coverage. Commissioner Lillehaug asked about similar sized lots within 500 feet. Commissioner Slagle had questions regarding the number of lot area variances granted in the Carver Beach area and the location of Cree Drive in relation to this site. Chairman Sacchet stated he wanted to discuss further the issues of impervious surface coverage and the size of home allowed to meet that requirement, and the location of the driveway as it relates to tree loss. He also wanted to get a better understanding of how the lots are made up of smaller parcels. The applicant, Tom Koehnen, 6280 Audubon Circle explained his project and why he wanted to build on this site. He addressed the issues of tree loss, driveway placement, size of building and size of lot. Commissioner Feik asked the applicant to address the concerns from neighbors regarding drainage and if he could shave off 268 square feet to meet the impervious surface requirement. Commissioner Slagle asked the applicant if the drawings he submitted were looked at by a professional engineer or architect. The applicant stated they were taken from the 1927 plat. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. Michael Kohane, 6870 Yuma Drive stated he had written a letter addressing four issues, safety of the road with increased traffic, the 10 foot side yard setbacks being small, environmental issues with runoff into Lotus Lake, and the variance for the hard surface coverage. Ally Vogel, 6890 Yuma Drive, which is the lot directly south of this proposal, stated she also submitted a letter addressing her concerns. A couple items she wanted to highlight was drainage and their mailbox and fire hydrant being located on this lot. Staff confirmed that the mailboxes and fire hydrant would stay where they are. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. Commissioner Lillehaug asked staff to explain the legal non -conforming lot status. After comments the following motion was made. Slagle moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission 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 (Building Regulations) 4. A tree removal plan that clearly shows all trees 6 inches 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 inch diameter trees. PA 0 Planning Commission Summary — March 16, 2004 7. The material placed underneath the deck shall allow drainage to occur. 8. The applicant will work with the city to inventory the trees and consider the best location for the driveway in terms of trees and safety. 9. The applicant will work with the engineering staff to address drainage concerns on the site. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. RECONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION OF WALNUT GROVE 2' ADDITION, JOHN KLINGELHUTZ, PLANNING CASE #04-10. Public Present: Name Address Susan Remaley 2198 Baneberry Way West John Klingelhutz 1560 Bluff Creek Erik Johnson 350 E. Hwy 212, Chaska Elissa Ellefson 2194 Baneberry Way West. Bob Generous presented the staff report on this item. Commissioner Claybaugh asked staff to explain why a PUD and density transfer can't be used in this case. Commissioner Slagle asked for a quick overview of what had improved since the last time the Planning Commission saw this application. Commissioner Feik asked staff if they had discussed the conditions with the applicant. Bob Generous stated he had not personally talked with the applicant but they had the staff report and hadn't called staff. Commissioner Lillehaug asked for clarification regarding sewer and water service and abandonment of the existing septic sewer system, and the width of the storm sewer easement running between Lots 2 and 3. Chairman Sacchet asked for clarification on the ownership of the outlot, the style of houses proposed for the lots, the proposed grading and slopes, and the width of the private drive. Commissioner Claybaugh asked about the condition requiring inspection of the private driveway, and clarification that in the future an adjacent property owner couldn't acquire the outlot and ask for a variance for density transfer. The applicant, John Klingelhutz, 1560 Bluff Creek addressed issues brought up by the commission regarding ownership of the outlot, stating he will give the outlot to the city. Chairman Sacchet opened the public hearing. Susan Remaley, 2198 Baneberry Way West thanked the commission, staff and the developer for the new plan. She asked staff to clarify where the tum around is located and grading in regards to runoff and drainage. Elissa Ellefson, 2194 Baneberry Way West expressed concern with the construction traffic. The applicant stated if it is possible to have construction access off of Galpin, they will do that. Chairman Sacchet closed the public hearing. After discussion the following motions were made. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MARCH 16, 2004 Chairman Sacchet called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Uli Sacchet, Rich Slagle, Craig Claybaugh, Bruce Feik, and Steve Lillehaug MEMBERS ABSENT: Bethany Tjornhom and Kurt Papke STAFF PRESENT: Bob Generous, Senior Planner; Sharmeen Al-Jaff, Senior Planner; Nate Bouvet, Planning Intern; and Matt Saam, Assistant City Engineer PUBLIC PRESENT FOR ALL ITEMS: Debbie Lloyd Janet & Jerry Paulsen 7302 Laredo Drive 7305 Laredo Drive PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST 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, ZONED RSF, PLANNING CASE #04-11. Public Present: Name Address Tom Koehnen Bruce & Sue Koehnen Mark Van Guilder Shelly T. MacGillivray Ginny Koehnen Brenda Bjorlin Randy & Ally Vogel Michael L. Chuck Worsfold Bruce Burrington Julie & Mark Quiner 6280 Audubon Circle 1830 Koehnen Circle West 805 Ponderosa Drive 805 Ponderosa Drive 7263 Pontiac Circle 824 Lone Eagle Drive 6890 Yuma Drive 6870 Yuma Drive 6900 Yuma Drive 6869 Yuma Drive 6889 Yuma Drive Nate Bouvet presented the staff report on this item. Sacchet: Thank you. Questions from staff. Planning Commissionteeting —March 16, 2004 • Claybaugh: I have a few questions. Sacchet: You want to start Craig? Claybaugh: Let's see here. I just wanted to verify that the overhangs were included in the square footage calculations for the hard surface. Bouvet: No they weren't. Claybaugh: They were not? Bouvet: No. Claybaugh: Okay. Isn't if per our city statute or ordinance that they are included? Can you clarify that for me. Generous: Not by ordinance. Usually we just count the building or surface area. Pavement. Patios. Accessory structures. Claybaugh: So we just use the overhangs with respect to setbacks. Generous: To setbacks. Claybaugh: Okay. Let's see here. With respect to the drainage, there was some neighbors that had forwarded some e-mails, letters to the city and highlighted one of the major issues in their opinion was the drainage. At which point is that through the building process, that this applicant would be addressing those drainage issues and specify how those drainage lines are going to be cut so on and so forth. Bouvet: It was passed onto the City Engineer and from my records and what he told me, that there wasn't any. Claybaugh: City Engineer didn't feel there was any drainage issues to be addressed? Generous: As part of the building permit process we would review the grading, drainage and erosion control plan. Claybaugh: Okay, but at this point the City Engineer has looked at it? Bouvet: That's correct. Claybaugh: And with respect to the driveway location, some discussion as well in regards to that. Could you comment on that? Bouvet: City staff including the City Engineer talked about that earlier this evening and relocating it to meet the Yuma Street would actually impede onto the trees that are more 2 Planning Commissionllecting — March 16, 2004 • abundant east and north of the property. So having it where it's at right now was staff's recommendation would be the best possibility. Claybaugh: So the end result is, is that the city's position is that it should remain where shown? Bouvet: Because it'd be relocating or taking trees down. Claybaugh: Okay. With respect to the hard surface coverage, was there any discussion? I understand that 18 foot driveway width isn't necessarily wide but was it discussed that that was also possibility another opportunity to cut down on that hard surface coverage? Bouvet: Staff also talked about that and to meet the 25 percent impervious coverage or lessen the impervious coverage, we'd have to cut back by about 258 square feet so whether it be the driveway, the garage or the home, roughly about 260 square feet. Claybaugh: In any event they're going to require a variance. Bouvet: Right. Claybaugh: Okay. That's all the questions I have. Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Any other questions? Feik: I've got a series. Nathan, we spoke today earlier. Would you please reiterate for my benefit particularly, on page 1 we talked about the 5 parcels. You had said that that really isn't 5 separate, it's not 5 lots. Bouvet: Correct. Feik: It is this parcel, is that correct? Bouvet: A lot of the lots in the area are designed similar to this. Essentially the 5 lots that I was speaking of are within this lot that we're seeking a variance for. So in short the 5 lots are this lot but that's how it was addressed is Lots 2230, or sorry. Lots 2322 through 2326 and we changed the physical address to 795 Ponderosa. So that's how it was addressed before. Feik: Secondly, there's a discrepancy on your staff report regarding the deck. The graphical representation on page 5 and the graphical representation is called the plot plan in the back. On page 5 the deck appears to project into the setback on the west side and it does not on the plot plan. Bouvet: The plot plan that I have here on the table would be the accurate one. It would meet the 10 foot setback. The discrepancy you're speaking of which on page 5 does Planning Commission • eting — March 16, 2004 • appear to be going over the 10 foot setback but it does, it is being proposed to meet the 10 foot setback. Feik: Continuing on that deck issue, the deck is or is not included in the hard cover? Bouvet: It is not because it's raised. Feik: And the height of that deck is approximately? Bouvet: At the base of the house is going to be 30 inches and a maximum of 4 feet going along with the property slope. Feik: Typically, if I understand if a deck is built like that and they put poly and rock underneath now it becomes hard cover. Is that not correct when we see? Generous: If they create an impervious surface below that, yes. Bouvet: And from my understanding, speaking with the applicants, that wasn't the case. Feik: Okay. Thirdly, you made a statement regarding a lot which is non -conforming itself that is technically buildable should proceed without, if I understood, I'm paraphrasing here. If this came in at a 25 percent hard coverage, surface hard coverage, it would not be here tonight? Is that my understanding? Bouvet: If it met the 25 percent impervious coverage? Feik: Yes. Bouvet: I'll refer that to Bob but. Generous: If the lot itself met the 75 percent of the ordinance requires or 11,000 square feet, and they met all the other setbacks, no it wouldn't have to come in for a variance. Feik: You had to meet the 15,000 square feet as well? Generous: No, you have to meet 75 percent of that, which is approximately 11,000 square feet. Feik: And the lot is? Generous: 7 '/2. Feik: 7 ''/i, alright. And then I guess the last question is, at this point is, we talk about reasonable use with the foot print being 1,000 and change square feet. Do you reasonably believe that the applicant would have reasonable use of this site if he/she constructed a dwelling that met the hard coverage requirement of 25 percent? 9 Planning Commissionteeting —March 16, 2004 • Bouvet: If it did meet the hard coverage of 25 percent, I believe so. On average. The smallest footprint that I found for a two story home was about 4'h. 450 square feet. So it could be given reasonable use. The size of the lot come back into question but it has been done before. Feik: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Steve, any questions? Lillehaug: Can you continue on that same lines of areas. What are the similar areas of the smallest lots within 500 feet? Bouvet: Going back to it, do you want me to just refer to the smallest to largest? Lillehaug: Anything underneath the 7900 feet. I think you previously said it but I wasn't keeping up with you there. Bouvet: What we have on record, without a home, the smallest lot we found was 3,049 square feet. Without a home. Lillehaug: How about anything just with a home. Bouvet: The smallest that I found that's not on city records is 6,098 square feet. I couldn't find any variances approved or denied for this. The smallest one on record that was approved with the variances is 8,000 square feet. With a home on the lot. Lillehaug: Is that within 500 feet? Bouvet: That's correct. Lillehaug: That's all I have, thanks. One other quick one. Sacchet: Yeah, go ahead. Lillehaug: Who provided the drawing you have there? Typically we would, I would think we would see a survey. That just looks like a stick figure drawn by possibly staff here. Bouvet: That was from the applicant. Lillehaug: It was from the applicant, okay. Thanks. Sacchet: Rich. 5 Planning Commission Meeting — March 16, 2004 Slagle: Just a couple questions. Nathan, I don't know if you can address this or maybe Bob or Sharmeen but dove tailing with Steve's comments, the Carver Beach subdivision obviously is a little bit larger than 500 feet from this property and I guess I'm wondering if you can recall from history, I mean have we had a fair amount of these within Carver Beach, and would you venture to offer an opinion as to whether most of them have been approved with variance requests? Al -Jaffa Lot area variances have all been approved, yes. Slagle: Okay. Okay. The other question I had is, within 500 feet there was a reference to Cree Drive, and I apologize for not having got out to the site. Where is Cree Drive from the subject property? Bouvet: It's directly northeast. Slagle: Directly northeast. Okay, so sort of what, to the northeast of Ringo Drive? Would that be correct? Bouvet: That's correct. Directly north of Ringo Drive. Slagle: Okay. Okay, that's it. Sacchet: I want to dig a little further into a couple of these aspects already questioned. First of all, the aspect of this being a legally non -conforming lot. That gives the owner some rights which includes reasonable use. Bouvet: Correct. Sacchet: And it's staffs determination that reasonable use is the type of house they're planning to put there. Bouvet: That's correct. Sacchet: Now, one thing that I'm trying to understand is with, in relation to the impervious surface element. If they would actually meet the impervious surface requirement. Would they still need the minimum size of house and garage and all those requirements or would those get impacted? Bouvet: That's correct. It would meet all the requirements, setbacks, buildable size for two story home in this district. The code only requires a footprint of 600 square feet. Sacchet: So they would meet all the requirements. It's not like the city requirements are actually contributing to them to go over in the impervious. Bouvet: That's correct. T Planning Commission•eting —March 16, 2004 Sacchet: Okay. And you mentioned in terms of the trees on the lot that it would have less impact the driveway going out to Ponderosa. I don't know whether I remember correctly but I was just out there before the meeting and it seemed to me that there were actually more trees along Ponderosa, and especially more healthy trees than towards Yuma. It seemed like the part, the way I read the drawing where the driveway will come out, if it would come out to Yuma with more or less the configuration of the house and garage the way it is, actually the main tree we'll cut down is already dead if it would go to Yuma. And we didn't get a tree survey or a tree inventory for the lot? Bouvet: No we did not. Sacchet: We did not at this point. Okay. In terms of the size of the lot, so you're finding is that we do have lots like in the 8,000 square foot size that we approved building upon. But not smaller than that so we basically would be setting a new precedent with the 7,500. Bouvet: From what we have on record, that would be correct. We'd be setting a new precedent. Sacchet: Now in terms of those lots being in that area being composed of a collection of smaller parcels, I want to be clear. I'd like to understand what the status is of these parcels versus the lots. Let's say somebody has 10 or 20 of these parcels and that's where they have their house and how subdividable would that be to come in and say well I only need 10 of my parcels. I want to sell 10 of the other ones that I also own and have somebody else live there. What governs the rules on that? Can you help me out? I don't know whether that's you or Bob want to address that. Generous: Yes, that's the conglomerate of all those lots currently meet the ordinance, and then they sell some off. Well they can sell it off, they're creating a self created hardship and so if they come in to request a variance for that, you would be able to deny the variance on that they created the hardship by reducing the lot size. Sacchet: So basically it would have to be subdividable into conforming lots in order to work. If it would be subdivided into non -conforming lots, they would not be buildable. Generous: Right, because they would be creating the non -conformity. Sacchet: Okay. Okay, yeah I think that's important to understand too. That's all my questions for right now. Thank you very much. With that I'd like to ask the applicant to come forward and if you want to add any additional points in terms of what you're planning to do. And state your name and address for the record please. Good evening. Tom Koehnen: Hi commission. My name is Tom Koehnen. I live at 6280 Audubon Circle in Chanhassen. I've lived in Chanhassen my whole life and what I'd like to do is put a house on this property obviously for myself and my family so we can raise our children there, because Chanhassen's a great place to raise kids and we'd like to stay in 7 Planning Commission Meeting — March 16, 2004 • the area. And Carver Beach is one area where a young couple can afford to get started. We want to put a house on there, and we want to put a decent house that's going to add to the neighborhood and add to the city of Chanhassen. That's why I have it as big as I can and close to the maximum hard cover requirement. Basically it's a lot with difficulties and that's why we're here because it's not your flat, 15,000 square foot lot and I put a lot of time into trying to situate the house on there so that it works with the existing grade without having to build retaining walls or take out trees to meet grade, or to take out trees period because trees are a big part of the area of Carver Beach. I know that the issue of the trees is very important and if you, you know we don't want to clear cut it at all, and that's not what we're about to do, or try to do. We just want to get the house on there so that it fits, so that it works well on the existing lot of record and so that we can make the driveway that isn't steep and everything, and that is also part of the reason I chose to have the driveway come out onto Ponderosa. After looking at it all and trying a bunch of different drawings, designs for houses, this is how I felt it would work best to keep the natural flow of the land and to keep as many trees as possible. And I guess the last thing I would like to point out is it is a precedent because this non -conforming lot is smaller than 8,000 square feet and previously the city was only approved 8,000 square feet but this lot is 7,932 square feet so we're talking. Sacchet: Pretty close. Tom Koehnen: Really dang close. Again I'd like to thank the commission and the staff for their time in considering this and. Sacchet: You're very welcome. Let's see, we may have some questions for you. Any questions from the applicant? Feik: I have two. We received a couple letters from some neighbors and also in the staff report some concerns regarding potential nmoff. Are you proposing anything specific to address runoff from the lot? Tom Koehnen: Well I haven't heard any specific problems that people have so I don't know that I can address them. Feik: They're general concerns. Tom Koehnen: However during the building process obviously there are. Feik: I'll paraphrase the concerns so you can address it maybe more better. You're asking for 28 percent, roughly hard cover versus 25. And the question stem around the additional hard cover is going to increase the amount of runoff and concern that this runoff does not impact neighboring properties. Tom Koehnen: Right. Well I guess, I believe myself, if you look at the lay of the land, it slopes down towards Yuma and so I believe that any additional runoff is going to run towards Yuma, or out the driveway onto Ponderosa. I believe that if it does create any ri Planning Commission • ng — March 16, 2004 • additional runoff it will go to the street and into the storm sewer management. I don't believe it will adversely add to any runoff onto any neighboring properties at all by placing a structure on this property. Feik: And then lastly, if you had to shave off 268 feet, could you do it? Tom Koehnen: Well obviously I could do it. Feik: Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Any other questions? I have a quick question. Just to be clear, I think you actually already answered it but you're planning to live there yourself, correct? Tom Koehnen: Absolutely. Sacchet: Okay. Okay, just want to be real clear about that. Thank you. Slagle: I have one. Sacchet: Go ahead Rich. Slagle: Have you, there was a mention earlier of who did the renditions of the drawings. I think it was yourself. Tom Koehnen: It was. Slagle: Have you had a professional engineer or architect or anybody look at the site with you? Tom Koehnen: No, my drawings that you have in front of you came from the original 1927 plat. Slagle: Okay. Okay, thank you. Sacchet: Thank you very much. Now this is a public hearing so anybody who'd like to address this particular item is welcome to come forward and if you have anything to add. As was mentioned we have received a couple of letters and comments already of concerns of neighbors. This is your chance to voice any concerns or issues that you think we should consider that may not have been mentioned yet so far, or should that be looked at from a different angle so is there anybody who wants to come, please come forward. State your name and address for the record. Michael Kohane: Michael Kohane, 6870 Yuma Drive, Chanhassen. I'm originally from Australia. I haven't lived in Chanhassen all my life. We've been here about 6 years now, and I agree with the gentleman that Carver Beach is a very good place. I did send one letter in and addressed four issues. Safety has not been mentioned here. That road is • • Planning Commission Meeting — March 16, 2004 quite a dip. I don't know if any of you have looked at it, and individuals drive there quite quickly up to get up the hill to exit the area from the lower Carver Beach area. There's a school bus stop on the actual comer, diagonally opposite from the house. Speeds that we imagine, we estimate 0 to 15 to 50 mile an hour there. I think the legal limit is around, should be 30. It is a thoroughfare for a lot of individuals from lower Carver Beach so we address the safety issues from families already there and also families that may move in, that it is an issue of increased traffic. I need to just table one thing here, if I can just show the committee, the big woods rule about Chanhassen development is in the lower Carver Beach area. There's a number of very large houses there, and as I understand it there's 3 or 4 new ones being built presently, and probably many, many more so we can anticipate I think probably a 50 percent increase in traffic from that lower Carver Beach area up through Ponderosa to get out into Kerber Boulevard. Putting a house on that comer that's not a right angle or a site line issues. There's one stop sign coming from Yuma down to cross over, but there's no four way stop sign. We've discussed those issues with the city before and they argue that people need to get some speed up to get up the hill in the snow, and we accept that at this point in time. But with a driveway coming out of the house onto Ponderosa, we have great concern about the safety issues. We mentioned about the setback of 10 feet was quite small. We thought short and difficult to adhere to when you're building a home like that. And the environmental issues, it's more general that the legislature, if you read antidotal evidence, they're now measuring the various pollutants in the water but there is a concern with Lotus Lake. One letter to the Chanhassen Villager recently, about 6 months ago stated that the man who used to look out at his dock could see the bottom, now can see half an inch or 2 inches into the water. Any new property, any new development's going to contribute to the runoff and drainage issues in this entire area and that's why we thought that if you were considering the first variance, that the second variance should be of prime concern to you. And then regarding the land owner denied reasonable use of the property, we understand that that's fair, but we thought that if you're going to give a 50 percent reduction in terms of the actual code, which is 15,000 square feet down to 7,900 square feet, that the second variance again with the hard cover issue relating to the environmental issue of drainage and Lotus Lake and also the Yuma Drive drainage area which runs off eventually into Lotus Lake, we'd like to raise those. And then I just had a couple of points from the initial Nathan's comments. He spoke about the smallest lot size but he didn't mention the smallest house size on those lots and that's something that I would like to know. I mean you can have 6 square feet and build something like a sky scraper, so that to me was confusing. The engineer's drainage report was mentioned antidotally and the local business would like some more information because there's significant development happening in that whole area. And as an Australian, this is a big stupid but under a deck in Australia you don't have to worry about anything except for spiders and snakes, but here with the runoff issues and things like that, you have to consider pavers or other issues because if you're just going to have mud dripping through onto the ground and then running down the street, that's an issue that I would think would be important. And I think that's about it. So we're just concerned mainly with safety. ...lot busier. Putting another driveway out onto it and a house on a comer where there's a school bus stop, drainage issues. Lotus Lake is I think close to being an endangered species. And the issues of variances maybe considering the hard cover issues. Thank you. 10 Planning Commission Meeting — March 16, 2004 Sacchet: Thank you very much. Anybody else want to speak up? This is your chance. Seeing nobody, yes. Please come forward. Ally Vogel: Hello. My name's Ally Vogel and I live in the lot directly to the south of the proposed site. 6890 Yuma. I did submit some written comments for you all to look at, so I won't go through all that again but a couple of the points to highlight again being the drainage issue. My husband and I currently do have some washout simply from the lay of the land at Yuma. Our driveway is currently gravel and there is towards the end of the driveway a lot of washout into our yard space already, and then also around our garage area there is already some erosion to the ground in the land there. The other thing that hasn't been brought up is that lot does have our mailboxes and a fire hydrant on it so I didn't know if there was a proposal to move those. Where those would be located or how those would be affected. Thanks. Sacchet: Thank you. Do we know what would happen with the hydrant and mailboxes? Any wisdom on that from staff? Bouvet: From the photographs and from other sources, I don't see how that would be an issue. Blocking access to the property or construction of the property because it is literally the mailboxes and the hydrants are on the comer of Yuma and Ponderosa. Sacchet: So what you're saying is they could stay there or? Bouvet: Correct. Sacchet: Okay. Alright, then that answers that one. Is there anybody else before we get into more discussion? Anybody else who wants to address this item? Otherwise I'll close the public hearing. Nobody else want to speak up? Okay. I'll close the public hearing. Bring it back to the commission. In terms of the comments that were brought up, if staff could address the safety issue a little bit that came up in both the comments of the neighbors. If there are, where are we at with safety in this place? I noticed Yuma is actually a one way street. The house is kind of elevated so does it really impact sight? Generous: Not sight and it's back far enough I would think. As a single family home, on average they general 10 trips a day. I don't know if that's significant on a local street. Sacchet: In terms of the one comment was the setback and the standard in the city. I mean it's 30 feet from the road since it's a comer lot it has to have 30 feet from both Yuma and Ponderosa and then the 10 feet is the side yard setback towards the other two sides right? Okay. And those are given, everybody gets the same with that. Alright, bring it back to commission. Discussion. Comments. Who wants to start? Want to start Steve? 11 • • Planning Commission Meeting — March 16, 2004 Lillehaug: Sure. I have a few questions here to clarify a few things. hi your report on page 4 you say that it's a legal non -conforming lot because it was recorded back in 1972. But it was recorded as 5 parcels back in 1972, correct? Generous: Yes, as 5 lots. Lillehaug: So 5 lots, so each of them 5 lots, they weren't legal non -conforming lots. Generous: No, each lot was but through assembly he created, they created that 5 lot parcel. Lillehaug: So when were they assembled into one lot? Because I'm having problems with this. This is very, very, very small and the only reason that I would approve it is because staff is saying it's a legal non -conforming lot and we have to provide the applicant reasonable use and that's the only reason I would support this. So I want to be clear why this is a legal non -conforming lot. Is it currently are those 5 parcels recorded? Do they have one property identification number with the county? Generous: That's correct. Lillehaug: And then when would that have been recorded under a single PIN number? Generous: I assume in '67 when the parcel was purchased. Lillehaug: Back in '67. Okay so. Generous: Maybe before then but they didn't search any sooner than that. Bouvet: We don't have anything on record before 1967 pertaining to who bought it, who had it. Lillehaug: So basically it really that's what staffs position is, if it's recorded like that, that's what makes it a legal non -conforming lot. Well, going the other direction, what other tools could the city use to prevent the house from being put on there or to allow the applicant a reasonable use other than putting a single family house there, because it's just too small for a house. Generous: You could purchase the property. Lillehaug: The City would purchase it? I'm not going to. Generous: The City would, yes. Or if you could show that there's a public health, safety or welfare issue resulting from the development of the lot, then you could stop development on it. But it doesn't, just because it's smaller than the rest of the lots doesn't mean that you create that situation. 12 • • Planning Commission Meeting —March 16, 2004 Lillehaug: Because right now the city draws a line at 11,000 square feet. Well that's what the ordinance says. 75 percent of 15,000. Specifically really for this purpose to limit the minimum size of a legal lot. Right? Or not. Generous: Well that's part of our discussion later. ...the city attorney's office advised us on that, that that really is, it's not a magical number. If you look at just meeting the minimum ordinance requirements for lot size and 2 car garage and a driveway that corresponds with that, you're about 60 percent of the 15,000 and you can do it and meet setbacks. Could you do under, at 50 percent? Sure. This one could if he knocks off 260 square feet he can meet the lot coverage, so. And still comply with our minimum house sizes that our ordinance specifies later. Lillehaug: So if this went down to 6,500 feet, which it's not. Just as an example. You know we're getting down into that area right where it's at right now it's just right on the bubble. It's almost just too small for a house. If it was 5,000 feet, what would the city do? I'm just trying to figure out what else we can do here? Generous: Well it depends what that 5,000 feet, do you have a 10 foot by 10 foot house? Well then it doesn't meet our minimum house size and then a reasonable use of it may not be for a single family home. So if we change, it depends on how big or small you specify your minimum house sizes and what pertinences you need. Do we need a 2 car garage for every home? If you don't, then you can reduce lot sizes further. Lillehaug: Okay I'll try to, I'm almost done here. By the applicant recording that at the county with one property identification number, does that mean, does that guarantee him that he can have a house there though? Generous: No, only the city can guarantee that he has a house. Lillehaug: So if it was a 300 square foot lot you could still get a PIN number for that lot? Generous: Yes. But you can get that for a wetland and you can't develop a wetland. In that instance you'd say you bought a wetland. That's then what you want it for. Lillehaug: So that's why I'm trying to get to a point is, just because, what makes it a legal non -conforming lot? What exactly makes that a legal non -conforming lot, and it's not clear in my mind. Al-Jaff: It was created prior to adoption of the subdivision ordinance and the ordinance that regulates the size of the lot. Those parcels, those five 20 by 100, typically Carver Beach, 20 by 100 parcels were in single ownership. None of these parcels have been, it wasn't 7 parcels once upon a time where he sold off 2. It's always been 5... Lillehaug: It's always been 5. AI-Jaff: The same ownership. 13 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting — March 16, 2004 Lillehaug: Okay. Well everything is pointing me not to support this. You know ranging from lot size to traffic. I guess that's all I have for comments, thanks. Sacchet: Okay. Feik: Yes. I've got some comments here as well. As far as I'm concerned, we cannot deny reasonable use to a landowner in this case. The question then becomes what is reasonable use in my mind. Clearly some other neighbors in the proximity of this house have said that a smaller home is reasonable. They're currently living in them. The applicant himself acknowledges that he could meet the 25 percent hard coverage if required to. He'd prefer not to. I understand that but it could be, he could do it, so therefore you know I'm looking at okay how do we mitigate this and move forward. Some day someone's going to build something there, in my mind. Whether it's this applicant or someone else. I guess I'd rather deal with it now. My concerns would be, I could support it under some conditions that one, it does meet the 25 percent coverage. That there would be acknowledgement in here that there would be no further intensification of the lot going forward, including patio, sheds, out buildings, any other structures. That no impervious materials would be used below the deck area. You know some things like that so that we have some reasonable understandings that indeed the hard coverage would be no greater than 25 percent. It's a small lot. It's a small house. I could certainly see the applicant putting in a single car parking space, you know or something like that. I mean I lived in a 600 square foot house when I first got married. That was the whole thing. So you know what, it's definition of reasonable use. I think with a 25 percent hard coverage, if we can get there, I don't necessarily like it totally but I don't see a reason to deny it at that point. Sacchet: Thanks Bruce. Craig. Claybaugh: Yes. As Commissioner Lillehaug stated, it's a lot that is on the bubble. You start to get down to the square footage requirements where it doesn't seem possible to quite meet what we consider the typical 2 car garage, single family dwelling, sidewalks, so on and so forth. Another 1,000 square feet added to the lot and it becomes dramatically more achievable. That being said, I guess my position or my feelings about this particular application is that the house that's going to be put on this lot, and I do believe that there will be, if not now, in the future a single family dwelling placed on this lot, is dictated by the lot size. Not by the size of the family considering building on a particular lot. And as such I would look to hold the applicant to meet that 25 percent coverage requirement and I would leave it at their disposal whether that was a compromise on the garage, square footage of the home, width of the driveway or a combination of all the above. And if that isn't the case, this may not be the lot for you. I believe that again, that it's very important to focus that it is a developable lot. That is reasonable use but that being said, it isn't an automatic that you build a house to the square footage that you need. This just may not be the lot for you is all. That's the end of my comments. 14 • • Planning Commission Meeting — March 16, 2004 Sacchet: Thanks Craig. Rich, no comment? Question from staff. One car garage would not meet city requirement? Generous: That's correct. Sacchet: So they would need a variance if they would want to make a one car garage? How's that work? Generous: I don't even know if you can get a variance. Our variances are setback. Sacchet: So what would we do if they say well we really only need one car and that solves the issue with the hard cover and probably more than solves it considering the driveway's going to be more narrow. What would they do? Generous: I think there's other ways for them to meet the 25 percent. They can go with a smaller garage. Sacchet: They can just make it smaller. Generous: Less driveway width. Claybaugh: Right, the statute 20-905 states a two story building must have an area of 600 square feet to meet their requirement. This is 1,008 square feet. If they shrink the size of the garage, shrink the size of the house, compromise on the driveway, there's a way to achieve it. Meet the city ordinances with respect to the house, the garage, and the other ancillary needs and still get their, like I said. My point is that it just may not be enough to meet this particular applicant's needs. Generous: Right. Sacchet: Okay. I think that's all. Oh, I have one more comment about aspect of, in the findings. Finding with letter C. It's about, it states that it doesn't appear the case that the applicant is trying to increase the value or income potential and I think the applicant addressed that by stating that they really want to live there themselves but for staff I would like you to note that if in the documentation, the findings of fact, if it should say this does not appear. You have to spell out what this means, otherwise it doesn't mean anything. Especially on what is that called, the next page after that. The thing that's supposed to be signed as a legal document. That will need to be fixed. But I don't have any further comments so. Feik: I have one more question though. Sacchet: Go ahead Bruce. Feik: My question is, as a body here, if this does move forward and I'm assuming for just a moment that it would move forward at 25 percent. How do we ensure, not for this 15 0 0 Planning Commission Meeting —March 16, 2004 applicant necessarily, because I will give the benefit of the doubt that this applicant is ethical on everything. How do we ensure that the second or third owner of this parcel understands at purchase that they can't do anything with this thing? Can we put something on the title? Is there any way that you can do something that a further owner might be notified that if they're considering purchasing this house in 5 years, that you know, they're precluded from adding additional hard cover. Is there anything we can do or is it just on faith? Generous: The variances themselves are recorded at the Carver County against the property, so whatever you approve with the conditions are recorded against the property in the records. Slagle: But point of clarification though, that would allow, just like any other property, a future homeowner to apply for a variance? Generous: Yes, you can't limit someone's ability in the future. Feik: But our comments or the requirements, the conditions I should say of that variance would be listed on that variance statement so that theoretically if they hired a qualified attorney when they purchased the lot or something, they would be notified. Generous: That there are encumbrances. Feik: So it's a little buyer beware there. Generous: Yes. Feik: Alright, I'm fine with that then. Generous: And also, depending on how you structure the variance, the next person may be, if he goes to a 600 square foot house and he's at 22 percent, the next person might be able to do a small addition, as long as he's under the 25 percent. Feik: I understand that. Sacchet: I have a few more things too actually. If this does get forward, well it's going to get forwarded from here to City Council one way or another, but assuming that we find some agreement that building a small house is reasonable use, which it seems like we're sort of leaning that direction. Would it be possible to request that a little more detail gets added about the trees? And access possibly from Yuma Drive, and also how that relates to safety. That's some aspect that would be good to look at it further as it goes to council. As well as drainage. Drainage aspects that get further looked at by our engineering. That I think would be reasonable. Claybaugh: Could that be communicated to the affected neighbors? I know that some of the people that are up and spoke said that in general terms that the city engineer had V Planning Commission Meeting — March 16, 2004 looked at it and the rest of it but there wasn't any feedback or any relative information available to them to address their specific concerns. Sacchet: Yeah, that could be shared with the neighbors since there is obviously concern at least amongst some of the neighbors about that. Yeah, okay. Let's move on. Anything else? Claybaugh: I have nothing to add. Lillehaug: One other thing? Slagle: I was going to say I'll make a motion. Lillehaug: Can I ask one more thing? Sacchet: Yes, you can ask one more. Lillehaug: As far as a survey for the property goes, will there be a survey that would be recorded with the building permit? Generous: With the building permit. Lillehaug: Okay, that's it. Thanks. Slagle: I can make a motion. I recommend that the Planning Commission approve Variance #04-11, and that's assuming that it did not include maximum lot coverage variance, but for lot area variance from the required 15,000 square feet for the construction of a single family residence on 7,932 square foot lot zoned RSF period, with the following conditions, and I would just add if staff thinks it's appropriate, that the applicant will not exceed the 25 percent lot coverage variance. Sacchet: We've got a motion. Is there a second? Lillehaug: Second. Feik: Friendly amendments maybe? Your, point of clarification. Whether your last point, that is a condition or it is a something for staff to consider, the 25 percent hard cover? Slagle: Well since my motion doesn't include a variance for the 25 percent, I sort of think we don't even need to include it. Generous: Right. Sacchet: Right, it does not include the variance for the exceeding the 25 percent so they would be held to that. 17 0 0 Planning Commission Meering — March 16, 2004 Feik: Alright. Then I guess my comments become moot. Sacchet: Any further discussion? Claybaugh: Friendly amendment? With respect to the coverage under the deck, if the city could specify a type R or equal fabric barrier in lieu of any poly to allow additional drainage. Slagle: I'll accept that. Sacchet: I have a question still for staff, if you allow me. If we approve this, it doesn't go to City Council, correct? Generous: If you approve it by 75 percent or more, that's a final decision. It is appeal able within 4 business days. If not, then it goes. Sacchet: It's appeal able by anybody? Generous: Anybody. Sacchet: Okay. So we need at least 4 of us voting for this. Then it would not go to City Council. Because if that's the case, how would we further look into that tree inventory and the location of the driveway and this safety aspect and drainage. Feik: Make a condition. Sacchet: Okay, so okay. That helps. So I'd like to make a friendly amendment. Thanks for clarifying. I'd like to add a few more additional conditions. I'd like to add the condition that the applicant will provide, work with the city to inventory the trees and consider what the best location is of the driveway in terms of trees and in terms of safety. And what the, how the safety impact can be minimized. And then another friendly, is that acceptable? Slagle: (Yes). Sacchet: Another friendly amendment that the applicant work with, I guess that would be engineering of the city to look into any possible drainage issues and how they could be mitigated, if that would be deemed appropriate. Does that make sense to our engineer there? Yeah, okay. Is that acceptable? Slagle: (Yes). Sacchet: And I think that's it. Yep. We have a motion. We have some friendly amendments. 18 Planning Commission Meeting — March 16, 2004 • Slagle moved, Lillehaug seconded that the Planning Commission 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 (Building Regulations). 4. A tree removal plan that clearly shows all trees 6 inches 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 inch diameter trees. 7. The material placed underneath the deck shall allow drainage to occur. 8. The applicant will work with the city to inventory the trees and consider the best location for the driveway in terms of trees and safety. 9. The applicant will work with the engineering staff to address drainage concerns on the site. All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. Feik: Excuse me, if you might, staff if you could make a note going forward into your files that in the future if an owner of this parcel comes in for a shed, you know permits for sheds or other things that might not meet the hurdle of variance, normal variance considerations and other stuff, that this be reviewed. Thank you. Generous: We can also put the variance in the parcel, in the building permit file for this. Feik: That would be good too. Thank you. 19 A W H L/1 STAFF REPORT PROPOSAL: 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. LOCATION: 795 Ponderosa Drive; Part of Carver Beach Section 1, Township 116, Range 23. APPLICANT: 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: 0 it(,.Op 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. 0 Location Map Lots 2322-2326 Carver Beach City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-11 0 L N OCL p r m U N � a N N Drive sa Drive Lone a e r SUBJECT PROPERTY Net A e�oe Ct X30 'II Dr O G 6 Preakness Lane Preakness die Lane dwin D �Q N o c Canterbury Circle C Lane a Koehnen Variance 04-110 • 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 fust 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. 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) requiring 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' A � 30 LO T d �A kv O 10' y ON C:) Y J 3i i A � ®1 A a+ x A � AAA 1 A - AI A 1 1i 101.131' Koehnen Variance 04-110 • 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 is fifteen 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: He Property Lakeshore Variance Request Action Number Taken 86-4 6830 Yuma Drive No Addition of home on Denied n°nc°nf°qL lot (9 501 87-9 6830 Yuma Drive No sq. ft.). s Approved 88-6 6901 Yuma Drive No Addition of home on Approved nonconforming lot (8,000 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: The Planning Commission shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts: a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet 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 b. 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. 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: 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. 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 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. 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 fine 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. 9:\plan\2004 planing cases\04-11 -Io hnen variance -lots 2322-2326 carver each\kehnen var 04-11 reportAm 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 1. The property is currently zoned RSF, Residential Single -Family. 2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential, Low Density. 3. 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. 0 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. RECONEWENDATION "The Planning Commission approve Variance 1104-11 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 16`s day of March, 2004. CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMAUSSION BY: Uli Sacchet, Chairman gAplan\2004 planning cases\04-11 - koehnen variance -lots 2322-2326 carver each\findings of fWLdoc • ! oy-1I CITY OF CHANHASSEN CITY OF RECEIVED SSEN 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317 FEB 1 2 2004 (952)227-1100 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEPT APPLICANT: __'&10fY 0_cj yV0ey, nen ADDRESS: 1o28O�l�dV�rn� CIr -QLD EZC6Sior N\N 55331 2 TELEPHONE (Daytime) ` n � 0 - 32)0 - � M OWNER: f ti, r w A l�6 e Ii h ADDRESS: 72 b _c k'L tv k4-- TELEPHONE: 15-2 - `17Y Comprehensive Plan Amendment Temporary Sales Permit Conditional Use Permit Vacation of ROW/Easements Interim Use Permit L Variance Non -conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit Planned Unit Development' Zoning Appeal Rezoning _ Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign Site Plan Review' X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost" ($50 CUP/SPRNACNAR/WAP/Metes and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB) Subdivision'TOTAL FEE $ a7 O 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 81/2" 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 -L --0+S ay-vcr Bc.acl, LEGAL DESCRIPTION L �� X3024 , �3a55r p TOTALACREAGE •� WETLANDS PRESENT YES X NO PRESENT ZONING k r % REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST See 0L I Ta L 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 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 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. 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 development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are approved by the applicant. Sign re of Applicant Date �z Signat a of Fee Owner Date Application Received on Z 17 .C; Yee Paid $ZSO •06 Receipt Nol -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. is 0 PROJECTNAME YNMhtle-f) LOCATION L-C+s a3aa- a3�� rver &,&c LEGAL DESCRIPTION Ltr} 25, TOTALACREAGE WETLANDS PRESENT YES X NO PRESENT ZONING RSF REQUESTED ZONING PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION REASON FOR THIS REQUEST U 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 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 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. 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 development review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review extensions are appro�by the applicant. Sign re of Applicant SignatVa of Fee Owner Application Received on Z — 1Z _0 'iee Paid 2-�-v Date Z -3-oY Date 2Sd Receipt No.] 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. 6 02 'P 2 U 7 A - • • 61 -ItQoi 0 0 i 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 0 0 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 0 0 TENTATIVE -PROPOSED ELEVATIONS & FLOOR PLANS 0 0 4j J W a a Second FLocr FORM 445 Wax -74W Statement of--Sale—Lease--of Forfeited Lands No. — ...... —.......... Auditor's Office, Carver County, Chaska, Minn.,..! TO THE COUNTY TREASUl�1j: You will receive from--.-....- ' 1.� •" : e ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- .... - .... ----•----......... ----Dollars which I hereby certify is the amount now due on the-initial-partiaLfull-payment for the -purchase -lease -of the following described parcel of land: DESCRIPTION Bea Towo or m Saoa Priodpal Iowest Total Lot Bloat J Credit payment to Forfeited Tax Sale Fund. /y, Received y neryt this. day of—....-..L..�...._..19 _. . ' _ •: -._...County Treasurer By -- - — Deify By _.County Auditor Deputy Ll 0 Olt 1. +, . E � RISC \�do ate. r�1 o Ir » a 1 � w tom... ►a�. „ �,� w S�1=0 VJA w pp - 11 li%r All M T 100./'Oil ;t� •a'\`1`: 7 Y 3� •ab1 � cn. •s. i t .wii, Vit. r , t: L 0 0 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA ORDINANCE NO. 317 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 7 OF THE CHANHASSEN CITY CODE, THE BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS The City Council of the City of Chanhassen ordains: Section 1. Article II. Building Code. Section 7-16, Standards adopted by reference, (c) (1), is hereby amended by deleting it in its entirety as follows: Section 2. Article II. Building Code. Sec. 7-17. Organization and enforcement is hereby amended by deleting (a) and (b) in their entirety and replacing as follows: (a) The organization of the building department and enforcement of this article shall be conducted within the guidelines established by the 11innesota State Building Code and the administrative sections of the model building code adopted. (b) The building inspections division shall be the building code department The administrative authority shall be a Minnesota certified Building Official. Section 3. Article II. Building Code, Sec. 7-19 Plans and specifications is hereby amended in its entirety and replacing as follows: The building official may require that plans and specifications, required by the Minnesota State Building Code, include a survey of the lot upon which the proposed building or construction is to be done, prepared and attested by a registered surveyor. An original signature is required on the certificate of survey. The survey shall provide the following information unless otherwise approved by the administrative authority: (1) Scale of drawing and north arrow; (2) Legal description of property; (3) Dimensions and bearing of front, rear, and side property lines; (4) Front, rear, and side yard setback dimensions of all proposed structures; (5) Location of all existing structures on the property, boulevards, streets and right-of- way, including but not limited to sanitary and storm manholes, hydrants, catch basins, power poles, phone boxes, fences, and any encroachments; 9 0 (6) Outside dimensions of proposed structure(s) including decks, porches, retaining walls (include elevations at bottom of footing and top of wall), stoops, stairs, cantilevers, fireplaces, bay and bow windows, egress window wells; (7) Location of a benchmark stake established by the surveyor at the front setback line within twenty (20) feet of the proposed structure. Maintenance of the benchmark stake once established by the surveyor shall be the responsibility of the permit applicant; (8) Location of stakes established by the surveyor on side property lines at: a. Front setback line. b. Front building line. C. Rear building line. The maintenance of these stakes once established by the surveyor shall be the responsibility of the permit applicant; (9) Location of first floor elevation of buildings on adjacent lots. Vacant adjacent lots shall be labeled as such; (10) Location of all easements of record including but not limited to tree preservation, wetland conservation, cross -access, etc.: (11) Existing and proposed elevations at the following locations: a. Each lot comer. b. Top of curb or centerline of street at each lot line extension. C. Center of proposed driveway at curb. d. Grade at comers of proposed structure. e. Lowest floor level, top of foundation, garage slab. f All elevations shall correspond to sea level datum of 1929. (12) Indication of direction of surface water drainage by arrows; (13) Tree removal, tree preservation and grading plan if required by the development contract; (14) Wetland boundaries with ordinary high water level and 100 -year flood elevation if applicable; 0 0 (15) Driveway grade (minimum -0.50%, maximum -10%); (16) All trees in excess of six (6) inches in diameter (diameter measured at four (4) feet above grade); (17) All custom -graded lots and lots deviating from the approved grading plan shall require an as -built survey submitted to the City prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy; (18) Wetland buffer areas and wetland or lake setback dimensions; (19) Other information as required by the City. Section 4. Article II. Building Code, Sec. 7-21. Certificate of Occupancy, is hereby amended by deleting it in its entirety as follows: Section 5. This ordinance shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council this 23rd day of April, 2001. ATTEST: Scott A. Botcher, City Manager Linda C. Jansen, Mayor (Published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 3, 2001 ) padmin\ord\chapter 7 amendments.doc COMPANY NAME ADDRESS PHONE SUnVEY Fon 000- T1 -IRUSVI 00- I I-IRUSI-I n 'tis t t \m►+'�-��_-_ ir of„yr W1,Y I-- '� \ ,11'a. �[Q� IR N v` In 11r•\r 90�,{SX t1u`5 ii d (\-Iljn�_ g [ J ;pow Vii IL \ 1H� a 1 1' 15.5r - _ ."a: �o i I dY Z \ \ N o _ _A-11I_.if 9 i G ', \\ \ LS r \ \ if 1 97("S. g11v11, 110 �1♦ 1 1100.0 Denoles fA!"1111g flavnllun •( 000i Denoles Proposed flevullu) =— Denale!c Dru1.1uy/1 S: 1111111y Euc.111mll --,Denolus 0/0111000 flow D6ecllorl —o— Denoles Llonunlclil —t1— Venules Dllsul I/ub •---Sk"1'IlACK9-----ItE(11111tG1U —_S l du _Cor ill Is _ Iluouu – As list llI lnlnrnalllan abal lly _Iluunu lypu Ilsml. 1°lour f' Guru90 1-10ar Tnp_ul Founth _Walk-oul_L_l uv Lnnk-aul flov IJIrQI)QSI;D HOUSE ELf-VA11O11 • Luwu::I Iloor Clrlvollun:91'1.77 lull of Ulork flovallon:9b?.33 Gurmp Stub flavGllon: ()P.2,o 11 PROVIDED VARIANCE �— oo: 1JLVW1.ulaA1F:N'1' PLAN PROPOSED AS I1D11.T VARIANCE i_o-r--1 BLOCK 1:A11VIAl CI111111Y, 1.1111111.Sn1A 1 Ir Ir 1114 [Ir 111Y It(Jr•r1111 s au u11. 111111 1111 Ya Y. 1111111 ul IfPu•1 wal Ilr alr al arl IrV ruf uI Ilurlu ruV r11rfU IrllrN 11111011 •111 1 Ilyl I Ier Iluly Ilvpllla•l11 ....... yeJu it's laws of if"LIL1nale b, Uuul ILII CCI P: '�rN-A �=—'�slr _v12 — ------'--- ILL. G., Ilual6or nn/l SlunnllJro • CITY OF CHMASSEN MEMORANDUM 690Ci1YGnrerDriwe•P0Bor147 TO: Inspections, Planning &Engineering staff Cbanhaarn, Minnaora 55317` Phone 611.937. 1900 FROM: Steve A. Kirchman, BuildingI< Official Geneml&x612.937.5i-39 EaginceringAax612.937.9151 DATE: November;, 1993 Mu cS407Fax 611.934.1514 SUBJECT: Web wwwdchanbauen. Dwelling Type Designation no, ur Below are explanations and diagrams of standard dwelling types. Development plans submitted to the city for review should use these standard designations. SLO, FLO, RLO Designates Side Look Out. Front Look Out or Rear Look Out. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' v e at its deepest with the surroundine grade sloping down to approximately l4'above the basement floor level. R Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximatelv 8' below grade with the surrounding grade approximately level. This would include two story's and many 4 level dwellings. SE Designates Split Entrv. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level appro4imately 4' below grade wit the surrounding grade approximately level. SEWO Designates Split Entry Walk Out. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 4' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level. TU Designates Tuck Under. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the front of the dwelling. SWO, RWO Designates Side Walk Out or Rear Walk Out. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximateiv 8' below grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rear of the dwelling. TU -- SE R EWO aWO RLO ---- r-- r _ _ SLO u FLO Inspections Division staff reviews these designations when reviewing building permit application submittals, which are then passed to the engineering department staff for further review. Approved grading plans are compared to proposed building plans and surveys to insure compliance to approved conditions. The same designation must be used on all documents in order to avoid confusion and incorrect plan reviews. y.,ve.u�.iow: the City ofCiranbaven, Agrowing rommu ury with r&an faker. Toa/i.-• ;J,nnG. J dimmrne Aamnmmn thrn,i rf bwou ne. and beaurifulpa+ B great*e to Ga, wri andPla" 0 0 KOEHNEN PROJECT Case #04-11 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) 1 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. Ally Vogel, 6890 Yuma Drive, Chanhassen r. aim j' 111J1 L' kilt j r ae t r �� r- �_ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING CASE NO. 04-11 CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Chanhassen Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, March 16, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers in Chanhassen City Hall, 7700 Market Boulevard. The purpose of this hearing is to consider the request for a 7,068 square foot lot area 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 770 Ponderosa Drive, zoned RSF, Thomas Koehnen — Planning Case No. 04-11. A plan showing the location of the proposal is available for public review at City Hall during regular business hours. All interested persons are invited to attend this public hearing and express their opinions with respect to this proposal. Nathan Bouvet, Planning Intern Phone: 952-227-1132 Email: nbouvet@ci.chanhassen.mn.us (Publish in the Chanhassen Villager on March 4, 2004) 0 0 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 March 4, 2004, 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 to Lot Size & Coverage, 795 Ponderosa Drive, Thomas Koehnen - Planning Case No. 04-11 to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and addresses of such owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer, Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records. Subscribed and sworn to before me this -q-41\ day of "rch 2004. 1 Notary blic Karen J. ItSeAardt, D4uty Clerk KIM T. MEUWISSEN �� ' Notary Put Minnesota w CARVER COUNTY My COrrlfnMon Expires 1!3112005 *NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING • CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 2004 AT 7:00 P.M. CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 7700 MARKET BLVD. PROPOSAL: Variance to Lot Size & Coverage APPLICANT: Thomas Koehnen PLANNING CASE #04-11 LOCATION: 770 Ponderosa Drive Lots 2322-2326, Carver Beach NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Thomas Koehnen, is requesting a 7,068 square foot lot area 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 770 Ponderosa Drive, zoned RSF. What Happens at the Meeting: The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the public hearing through the following steps: 1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project. 2. The applicant will present plans on the project. 3. Comments are received from the public. 4. Public hearing is closed and the Commission discusses the project. Questions and Comments: If you want to see the plans before the meeting, please stop by City Hall during office hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. If you wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact Nathan Bouvet at 952-227-1132 or e-mail nbouvet@ci.chanhassen.mn.us. If you choose to submit written comments, it is helpful to have one copy to the department in advance of the meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Commission. Notice of this public hearing has been published in the Chanhassen Villager on March 4, 2004. 0 City Review Procedure 0 Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings, Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any interested party is invited to attend the meeting. Staff prepares a report on the subject application. This report includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These reports are available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation. The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will close the public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affirm or modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission's recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial. Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this standard. Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting. A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested person(s). Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification. lam Free• minting• www.avery.com • AVERYO 5160® Use AveryTEMPLATE 51600 1 -800 -GO -AVERY Darryl & Cara Jones 833 Cree Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Steven & Joan Cronson 801 Cree Dr Chanhassesn MN 55317 Troy Stottler & Jessica Tschida 6800 Ringo Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Kristen Anne Pauly 751 Carver Beach Road Chanhassen MN 55317 Geralyn J Hayden 749 Carver Beach Road Chanhassen MN 55317 Hazel P Anderson 2851 Washta Bay Rd Excelsior MN 55331 Jonathon P Rademacher 820 Imperial Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Douglas & Corazon Kallevig 6830 Yuma Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Robert John Moore 6839 Yuma Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 David W Workman 745 Carver Beach Rd Chanhassen MN 55317 nQ1C. nAMMAM cw Jean Lopez 6859 Yuma Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 Bruce Beckman 6865 Nez Perce Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Lee & Deborah Pillatzki 830 Ponderosa Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Dwight & Alice Imker 810 Ponderosa Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Robert MacFarlane 6850 Yuma Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Richard Rossing 739 Carver Beach Rd Chanhassen MN 55317 Richard Rossing Go Margaret Rossing 130 Cygnet PI Long Lake MN 55356 Bruce & Charlene Burrington 6869 Yuma Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Kleve & Lorilee Anderson 760 Ponderosa Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Kimberley Murphy -Warner & John Warner i 6870 Nez Perce Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 AM3AV-OD-008-L Susan Albee 6871 Nez Perce Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Michael & Elizabeth Kohane 6870 Yuma Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Margaret Rossing 130 Cygnet PL Long Lake MN 55365 Wesley Westerman 710 Ponderosa Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 James & Elizabeth Knop 6880 Nez Perce Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Joyce Holloway 845 Ponderosa Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Mark Goemer & Kerry Abbott — Goemer 825 Ponderosa Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Mark Van Guilder & Shelly MacGillivray 805 Ponderosa Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Mark & Julie Quiner 6889 Yuma Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Stephen Kennedy & Nancy Thurs 761 Ponderosa Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 009 LS 31V1dW31® aAV asn Jam Free Printing www.avery.com • a AVERY® 5160® Use Averyo TEMPLATE 5160® . 1 -800 -GO -AVERY Curtis & Judith Quiner ( Chari W rsfold sill 725 Ponderosa Dr 6900 Dr 739 hill Chanhassen MN 55317 e 5 117 L1 4X117 Michael Soderquist James & Ellen Cranston Donald Witacre 705 Carver Beach Rd 695 Carver Beach Rd 751 Century Ave S Chanhassesn MN 55317 Chanhassen MN 55317 St Paul MN 55119 Michael & Kimberly Shoberg Jeffrey Stern Steven & Brigid Klaysmat 834 Lone Eagle Rd 6901 Yuma Dr 800 Woodhill Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Chanhassen MN 55317 Chanhassen MN 55317 Curtis & Brenda Bjorlin Joseph & Janice Morton Robby & Jamie Kendall 824 Lone Eagle Dr 6911 Yuma Dr 833 Woodhill Dr. Chanhassen MN 55317 Chanhassen MN 55317 Chanhassen MN 55317 Randy Vogel Michael Hoff & Noreen Rachor Charles Worsfold 6890 Yuma Dr 832 Woodhill Dr 6900 Yuma Drive Chanhassen MN 55317 Chanhassen MN 55317 Chanhassen MN 55317`' Felix & Margaret Thompson City O Chan assen 6899 Yuma Dr cto BruNVeJong David Weill Chanhassen MN 55317 POB 47 739 Woodhill Chanhass M 5317 Chanhassen MN 55317 Douglas Sumner Michael & Nancy Mason RICH BEAGLE 7411 FAWN HILL ROAD PO Box 2001 829 Woodhill Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Chanhassen MN 55317 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 Laurie Wright Kvam William & Virginia Standke 855 Lone Eagle Dr 825 Woodhill Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Chanhassen MN 55317 Kevin & Shelby Manion Leslie Medley & 825 Lone Eagle Dr Martha Duenow Medley Chanhassen MN 55317 767 Woodhill Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Maurice & Vickie Hevey Charles & Kristine Winum 780 Woodhill Dr 753 Woodhill Dr Chanhassen MN 55317 Chanhassen MN 55317 nol c n Am=AM -1 A83AV-OD-008-L ®09LS 31y1dW31® any asn Name Namei Addi Add2 CRY State ZIP ZIP4 DARRYL K & CARA H JONES 833 CREE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9599 STEVEN J & JOAN M CRONSON 801 CREE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9599 HARLAN KOEHNEN 7263 PONTIAC CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9454 TROY D STOTTLER & JESSICA R TSCHIDA 6800 RINGO DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9558 KIRSTEN ANNE PAULY 751 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9422 GERALYN J HAYDEN 749 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9422 HAZEL P ANDERSON 2851 WASHTA BAY RD EXCELSIOR MN 55331 7821 JONATHON P RADEMACHER 820 IMPERIAL DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9418 DOUGLAS H & CORAZON KALLEVIG 6830 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9541 ROBERT JOHN MOORE 6839 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9554 DAVID W WORKMAN 745 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9422 JEAN E LOPEZ 6859 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9554 BRUCE W BECKMAN 6865 NEZ PIERCE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9209 LEE J & DEBORAH R PILLATZKI 830 PONDEROSA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9562 DWIGHT E & ALICE M IMKER 810 PONDEROSA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9562 ROBERT MACFARLANE • 6850 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9554 RICHARD E ROSSING 739 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9422 RICHARD E ROSSING C/O MARGARET D ROSSING 130 CYGNET PL LONG LAKE MN 55356 9734 BRUCE & CHARLENE BURRINGTON 6869 YUMA OR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9554 KLEVE L & LORILEE ANDERSON 760 PONDEROSA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9419 KIMBERLEY ROSE MURPHY -WARNER & JOHN G WARNER 6870 NEZ PIERCE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9208 SUSAN D ALBEE 6871 NEZ PIERCE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9209 MICHAEL J & ELIZABETH M KOHANE 6870 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9554 MARGARET D ROSSING 130 CYGNET PL LONG LAKE MN 55356 9734 WESLEY WALTER WESTERMANN 710 PONDEROSA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9419 JAMES JOHN & ELIZABETH L KNOP 6880 NEZ PIERCE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9208 JOYCE ANN HOLLOWAY 845 PONDEROSA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9562 MARK A GOEMER& KERRY A ABBOTT-GOEMER 625 PONDEROSA DR CHANHASSEN MN 65317 9562 MARK A VANGUILDER & SHELLY T MACGILLIVRAY 805 PONDEROSA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9562 MARK A & JULIE C QUINER 6889 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9205 STEPHEN KENNEDY& NANCY THURS 761 PONDEROSA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9419 CURTIS C & JUDITH N QUINER 725 PONDEROSA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9419 MICHAEL L SODERQUIST 705 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9422 MICHAEL J SHOBERG 834 LONE EAGLE RD CHANHASSEN MN 5W17 9417 MICHAEL J SHOBERG & KIMBERLY DAWN SHOSERG 834 LONE EAGLE OR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9417 CURTIS P & BRENDA K BJORLIN 824 LONE EAGLE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9417 RANDY T VOGEL 6890 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9205 FELIX S & MARGARET A THOMPSON 6899 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9205 DOUGLAS D SUMNER 699 CARVER BEACH RD PO BOX 2001 CHANHASSEN MN 55317 2001 LAURIE WRIGHT KVAM • 855 LONE EAGLE DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9417 KEVIN C & SHELBY A MANION 825 LONE EAGLE OR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9417 MAURICE O & VICKIE L HEVEY 780 WOODHILL DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9561 CHARLES R L WORSFOLD 6900 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN MN 553-7 9560 JAMES R JR & ELLEN J CRANSTON 695 CARVER BEACH RD CHANHASSEN MN 55317 2101 JEFFREY T STERN 6901 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9560 JOSEPH T & JANICE S MORTON 6911 YUMA DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9560 MICHAEL L HOFT & NOREEN C RACHOR 832 WOODHILL DR CHANHASSEN MN 55311, 9561 CITY OF CHANHASSEN C/O BRUCE DEJONG 7700 MARKET BLVD PO BOX 147 CHANHASSEN MN 5531" 147 MICHAEL C & NANCY S MASON 829 WOODHILL DR CHANHASSEN MI•! 55317 9561 WILLIAM JR & VIRGINIA STANDKE 825 WOODHILL DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9561 LESLIE M MEDLEY & MARTHA J DUENOW MEDLEY 767 WOODHILL DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9561 CHARLES J & KRISTINE E W1NUM 753 WOODHILL DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9561 DAVID PAUL WEILL 739 WOODHILL DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9561 DONALD E WHITACRE 751 CENTURY AVE S ST PAUL MN 55119 5814 STEVEN A & BRIGID M KLAYSMAT 800 WOODHILL DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9561 ROBBY S & JAMIE L KENDALL 833 WOODHILL DR CHANHASSEN MN 55317 9561 0 CITY OF CIIAUSEN 7700 Markel Boulevard PC Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 Administration Phone. 952.227.1100 Fax'. 952.227.1110 Building Inspections Phone. 952 227.1180 Fax: 952.221.1190 Engineering Phone: 952.227.1160 Fax: 952.227 1170 Finance Phone. 952 227 Fax: 952.227.1110 Park d Recreation Phone: 952227.1120 Fax: 952.227.1110 Recreation Center 2310 Coulter Boulevard Phone: 952.227.1400 Fax: 952 227.1404 Planning & Natural Resources Phone: 952.227.1130 Fax: 952 2271110 Public Works 1591 Park Road Phone: 952.227.1300 Fax: 952.227.1310 Senior Center Phone: 952227.1125 Fax: 952.221.1110 Web She wwwachanhassennn.us • TO: Nathan Bouvet, Planning Intern FROM: Jill Sinclair, Environmental Resources Specialist DATE: March 9, 2004 SUBJ: Variance request for 7700 Ponderosa Drive Since this property is a lot of record, tree preservation requirements as specified in the subdivision ordinance do not apply to the lot. The property is heavily wooded with a variety of sizes and species of trees. Due to the size of the lot, tree removal for the construction of a home will be significant. The applicant has not included information pertaining to the removal or preservation of trees. If the variance is approved, a tree removal plan must be submitted with the building permit survey. The applicant will not be allowed to clearcut the property. The applicant will also be required to plant two overstory, deciduous, 21/z" diameter trees as part of the landscaping requirements for the lot. Staff recommendations for the variance requests at 7700 Ponderosa Drive: 1. A tree removal plan that clearly shows all trees, 6" and larger, and their designation as removed or saved. The lot may not be clearcut. 2. Tree protection fencing must be installing prior to any work commencing around all saved trees. Fencing shall remain in place until all construction is completed. 3. The applicant shall plant two overstory, deciduous, 2'h" diameter trees. The City of Chanhassen • A growing community with clean lakes, quality schools, a chanting downtown, thriving businesses, winding trails, and beautiful parks. A gnat place to live, work, and play. Date: February 20, 2004 City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952)227-1100 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Nathan Bouvet ORO' "'� s Subject: Request for a 7,068 square foot lot area 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 7700 Ponderosa Drive, zoned RSF, Thomas Koehnen. Planning Case: 04-11 The above-described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on February 12, 2004. The 60 -day review period ends April 12, 2004. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations conceming the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on March 16, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than March 5. 2004. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Departments a. City Engineer b. City Attomey c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Watershed District Engineer 3. Soil Conservation Service 4. MN Dept of Transportation 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 8. Telephone Company (Qwest or United) 9. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 10. Medicom 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 12. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 13. Other - 14. City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 OF (952)227-1100 Date: February 20, 2004 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Nathan Bouvet CeMnrrw� Subject: Request for a 7,068 square foot lot area 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 7700 Ponderosa Drive, zoned RSF, Thomas Koehnen. Planning Case: 04-11 The above-described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on February 12, 2004. The 60day review period ends April 12, 2004. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on March 16, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than March 5, 2004. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. 1. City Departments a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Watershed District Engineer 3. Soil Conservation Service 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 8. Telephone Company (Qwest or United) 9. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 10. Medicom 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 12. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 13. Other - 14. City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 �F (952)227-1100 Date: February 20, 2004 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies C From: Planning Department By: Nathan Bouvet Subject: Request for a 7,068 square foot lot area 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;-?@TPonderosa Drive, zoned RSF, Thomas Koehnen. '170 Planning Case: 04-11 The above-described application for approval of a land development proposal was filed with the Chanhassen Planning Department on February 12, 2004. The 60 -day review period ends April 12, 2004. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. N on may also appear at the Plam assts ce is grea y appreciated. City Departments a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Watershed District Engineer 3. Soil Conservation Service 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and 8. Telephone Company (Qwest or United) 9. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 10. Medicom 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 12. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 13. Other - 14. in • � � wtulrw�eDl.. a �� K City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard Chanhassen, MN 55317 CITY OF (952)227-1100 C�NH1}SSIl� Date: February 20, 2004 To: Development Plan Referral Agencies From: Planning Department By: Nathan Bouvet Subject: Request for a 7,068 square foot lot area 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 7700 Ponderosa Drive, zoned RSF, Thomas Koehnen. Planning Case: 04-11 The above-described application for approval of a land development proposal was fled with the Chanhassen Planning Department on February 12, 2004. The 60 -day review period ends April 12, 2004. In order for us to provide a complete analysis of issues for Planning Commission and City Council review, we would appreciate your comments and recommendations concerning the impact of this proposal on traffic circulation, existing and proposed future utility services, storm water drainage, and the need for acquiring public lands or easements for park sites, street extensions or improvements, and utilities. Where specific needs or problems exist, we would like to have a written report to this effect from the agency concerned so that we can make a recommendation to the Planning Commission and City Council. This application is scheduled for consideration by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on March 16, 2004 at 7:00 p.m in the Council Chambers at Chanhassen City Hall. We would appreciate receiving your comments by no later than March 5. 2004. You may also appear at the Planning Commission meeting if you so desire. Your cooperation and assistance is greatly appreciated. City Departments a. City Engineer b. City Attorney c. City Park Director d. Fire Marshal e. Building Official f. Water Resources Coordinator g. Forester 2. Watershed District Engineer 3. Soil Conservation Service 4. MN Dept. of Transportation 5. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6. CenterPoint Energy Minnegasco 7. MN Dept. of Natural Resources 8. Telephone Company (Qwest or United) 9. Electric Company (Xcel Energy or MN Valley) 10. Medicom 11. U. S. Fish and Wildlife 12. Carver County a. Engineer b. Environmental Services 13. Other - 14. I 0 0 Location Map Lots 2322-2326 Carver Beach City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-11 al Dr a. Drive Drive Lone a e r SUBJECT PROPERTY 'I Dr Preakness Lane Preakness e dvil, 0 Canterbu Circle Irc e �ac 0 9 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 I 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 0 March 22, 2004 Maurice and Vicki Hevey 780 Wood Hill Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 952-474-2317 Dear Chanhassen City Council, 0 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 3/21/04 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 applicants 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, dramage/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. 0 0 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 DO 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 0 0 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 Address Phone ,Jvdie, Ouine�- gsV gra-?3qs Signed: ` Date: G b ---------(/�- 1---=--------------------`-'---a-�----- Print Na Address Phone 00 Cl lir q5j) Y)o-q3 s j� yVVI Signed:- Date: ?Poy vy ------- ►�IJI�N+-�------------------------------L F -/------- Print Name N kk��^(�op(C Address �'$�� C/Upqr, Phone yc�3-g71_x1c-7 ' L J Signed: --/w t � Date: -7 /-------------------- ----;---- v Print Name ---------------Address G�'pU 7uV1<<` Phone ��7'-�1-71 Signed:Date: _�;kV/U-r/ --- ------- - -- -- ----------------------------------- Print Name - Addressb�� YeM� d� Phone Si ned:�s� Date: I2 Cly -----------------�------3-- -- Print Name v Address Phone Signed: Date: 3 I-O� --------- -------------------------J _ ----- Address pf, gonePrint Name Por4 rNdeyy 8w3 WOodk 1 Signed:o Feil- �;/ Date: 3 ,Z(o�� Y- --zo --------s� 1p -------�zq- ---------------- - - Print Name ttik (444 1) Address Phone Signed: $2R Woo Date: Z �d -____-- /yl/ �_ ------ ------Print Name/1/qn S. IVl4S tess Phone yet/ - 732,0 Signed: 1 Date -'--N�------------�� _ 0 0 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 X)A,t4 r. mae 61/I1'vra4 goy Oandt/ydsg, Dr. CHanhusscn `00- g9S3 Signed:Date : 3_ a j_ O q -------el f ` ------------ ------------------------------- P/r�int Name,, // Addr ss Phone Mark k Vaw J +� iS�S�� `e . y70- �3 Signed: Date: 3 oZ�-4`1 --------------- Print Name /llI v ed Address Phone Y °`J l�gaoywna�QS✓�trC 4ol- 3,x-74 Signe : fcam- Date: 3102lIM --- ------ --- -------------------------------------------- Print Nathe �ygy�/�� Address Phone 6 89p ym,�v f 4 /&/ - 3R7Y s Signed:Date - — _----------_-3-�/- --------- ry-�'lll-- - - - --- Print Nam Address Phone M- 1COw 6f}o `t��wfl D/z 4t&O 141 4°i-vn Signed: IV) , �� Date: 31-4(/OLf ------------------------------------------------------------- Print Name Addre s D3-P-� hopn e yn-rirzabef-h Kodoe870 `VA-6ct� 15a Signed�jMDate----- ---------------------------------- - nt Name Address Phone nrveMoore oB(i Iv.,or 0-k YOB Signed: A)NiX,_Mme-----------------Date--- 3�2V/Oy -------------- - {- -------- Print Name / es M�i J,Address -?b) l ,%Al or Phone y7LI.3339 Signed. --------------Date_--- `t -----------"-/�------------ - -- Print Name rr 1 ,� (�Q� dress_jip7 (,_" %lj Ole Phone V �_323250j Signed:L�G,nA,- ------Date_ Signed: --LAY-� -- ----- 0 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 Nam Address Phone Signed ------: �� ---- ----Dated Print Name Addres Phone 1gned: 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: ------------------------------------------------------------- Print Name Address Phone Signed: Date: ------------------------------------------------------------- Michael Kohane 6870 Yuma Dr. Chanhassen, MN 55317 phone: 952401-0520. 3/15/04 Dear Members of the Planning Committee, I am writing on behalf of concerned residents regarding the proposal to build a home at 795 Ponderosa Drive, Case # Variance 04-11. We object to this proposal and would like you to disallow the project. We offer the following in support of our position. I . Safety: We have examined the drawings and conclude that the distance from the driveway of the new house to the Yuma/Ponderosa intersection is about 20 feet. We ask if this is acceptable with the city code and if it is safe and reasonable given the nature of traffic flow through this intersection. We note that Ponderosa Dr. is currently a busy thoroughfare for people living in the Carver Beach area. Further, the intersection is at the bottom of two hills and Ponderosa and Yuma do not meet at Ab degrees, yielding speed and sight line issues. Further, there is considerabir. new development in the Carver Beach area and we anticipate significantly increased traffic from the current levels when these new homes are finished. We also note that the speed of cars traveling through the Yuma/Ponderosa intersection can be from 15-50 mph., well above the speed limit, which we note is not directly posted near the intersection. The families that live near the intersection have had no success in limiting the speed of many of the regular cars. We also note that the intersection is currently a school bus stop. If the city considers approval, we suggest that the driveway be moved to Yuma Dr. In conclusion, we argue that the building of the house at this location would significantly increase the risk to the local families. 2. We ask whether the city should allow the home to extend all the way up to the setback of 10 feet for this extremely small lot. 3. Environmental issues: Our neighborhood is concerned with the runoff and drainage that will occur if the (rouse is built. We are very worried about consequences for the drainage area of Yuma Drive and ultimately, Lotus lake. In 0 0 order to control excess run off etc. we note that the code allows 25% hardcover and that the variance asked for is 28.6%. In order to minimize the local negative effects of run-off and drainage, we argue that 25% hardcover should be the maximum adhered to, especially for new houses close to water bodies. We suggest that if approval is considered, that the city reduce the footprint of the house and note that the city does not have to grant this size footprint just because it is what the applicants request to build. Further, we suggest that the city may tequirc the use of pavers and not concrete in the construction of the hardcover. 4. We note that State law indicates that the land owner should not be denied reasonable use of his/her property. If the city is considering approval of the project, we point out that the city is giving a good, first variance to Mable the house to be built (7,932 square feet rather than the 15,000 square feet required by code). This is around 50% reduction in required lot size. Thus we focus on the second variance, the hardcover issue. With the setback that the city allows, there is a buildable envelope and therefore, disallowing the second variance would not impact the owner's reasonable use of his property. In summary, the local residents are significantly concerned that the construction of the new house will exacerbate the currant traffic problems and put family members, in particular, children at much greater risk. Additionally, it will negatively impact an already fragile local environment, which has yet to deal with both the recent and future home development in the lower Carver Beach area. This includes the new homes already built along Big Woods Boulevard and presently being built opposite Carver Beach on Lotus Trail. We also anticipate the attempt to build more homes in both these areas. Hence, we urge that the city does not allow the construction of the house. Yours sincerely, ,•11 L�-� UA hb�...Ri Michael Kohane. 0 0 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. We're 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 0 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. 1 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. 1 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. 4. If the home is to be built, I am concerned that the City will not ensure that the vague requirements laid down by the PC in regard to the rejection of the hardcover variance are met. I would like the City to clarify these requirements and to effectively enforce them. In conclusion I consider that there was insufficient hard data upon which to base a decision. I would not like to see the City Council provide a seal of approval in this situation. Yours sincerely, fJlw� LoLO-� Michael Kohane. Invoice Invo*No GISO339 DATE 01726704 County of Carver IS/GIS Dept Government Center, Admin Building Chaska, Mn 55318 Make checks payable to: * Thomas Koehnen Carver County Treasurer x Bill Monk x DATE Description Amount 1/26/04 List of landowners with in 500' of Pid # 251601840 Results: 56 records @ .08/record $4.48 Total $29.48 n Labor: .25 hours @ $100/hr $25.00 Vnj TOTAL $29.48 Fund Dept Program Service Object Amount 01 049 062 5128 $29.48 Total $29.48 Submitted by: GI5/I5 Dept. Gordon Chinander (952) 361-1556 Phone C)OUNTY OF CARVER ` Chaska. MN Receipt To The County Treasurer: You will receive from and credit the amnlint Tn Thn I...i I.nnz SND ..o4..Y s..vmF Gufn mfF.Rs cfva DESCRIPTION TOTAL MFYT f(CfWlf N RFCfiIi gNEN COVNiFRLGNlO Iv iP(.SVMfP rne.sY.FR A.'... i 3F 514x.1..1 Carver County Page 1 of 1 COUNTY WEBSITE I PROPERTY SEARCH I FAO's I GLOSSAF Parcel Number 25.1601840 Property Address 795 PONDEROSA DR CHANHASSEN Identification Information Primary Taxpayer/Owner HARLAN KOEHNEN 7263 PONTIAC CIR CHANHASSEN MN 55317-9454 Legal Description LOTS 2322 - 2326 Payable Year: 2004 Section: 01 Township: 116 Range: 023 Plat Name: 25160 CARVER BEACH Tax Roll Type: REAL ESTATE Jurisdiction: CHANHASSEN CITN School District: SCHOOL DISTRICT Real Estate and Personal Property Taxes are determined using the previous year ass( Mobile Home Taxes are determined using the current year assessment value. Property Classification: NON -HOMESTEAD RES 1-3 UNITS Assessment Year 2003 Payable Year 2004 Est. Market Value - Land $6,100.00 Total Tax Est. Market Value - Total $6,100.00 Special Assessments: Taxable Market Total $5,000.00 Total Tax/Asmts. Paid To Date Installments Due Date Taxes/Assessments 1st Half 5/15/2004 Taxes/Assessments 2nd Half 10/15/2004 "Additional reductions in taxable value may apply due to special tax deferrals, This Old House, Plat Laws, etc. http://www.co.carver.mn.uslcarvercountyrecapIRecapBi ll. aspx 7TaxYear--2004&RollType... 4/12/2004 Ypt ��h �QP1�e �1 _ = Mbslat) Cone!/ Fek, CERTIFICATE OF SURVEY RECEIVE FOR- /t!R A241 M&Y110V U ,1 _ 6., ___ _ APR 15 2004 _ B's s -- _\ �r 965 Ye -- PaNDRROSAV /972 e � DR. s 968.3 LEGAL OmwI l mw \ Lots 2322-2326, =-1S&rj V T M8/R .tigy\ \ \ CARVER BEACH } q� .� IF `L'ti, ' 4/R a 4/RC I hR�M15/S TRMB/S TRM10 TRM14/R 4✓✓'hh, MIO/R ,� \\ . �! TRMB/S 9 L06 V Ra24/R 8 q.lb. 431'1- 69TR 10/R i'ib 9 (� —1/9— 11.Op 26.0 j ,r 10.0 jq RM6/S 6r?F ,� X8 � NIO/S TRM6 (9$ ~ 00 r 9�e19- r(j01s/s e __ —•".E— TRA2-1 ,� j : /� �� 4 f�yl.Q. TRS MIS o YTRM14/R / / n rao26/R 5 i 'a V f4y b } i TRMO/S e PROPOSED//% a HOUSE '/ r 9 \ / �/� i /tr TRMIO/R ` TRM14/R TRNB/R Y 17.0 — .: � /28.0,/, j�7 20.0 g9FuO� 9.f" (969 Xvca.3--OX9c�-? ifo96OG TRMB/R p TRa15/S 'w$ TRM12/S R024/R sa"JT04f07- 100.5(7 96as*��Btlna SPLIT WALe-0tJ7" Proposed garage floor elev.= 969.3 Proposed top of foundation elev.=,970./ Proposed lowest floor elev.= 966..3 q1 �0 Hardcover. House & Garage - 1639 sq. ft. Drivewo . - 337.5 sq, ft. otal - sq. ft. Parcel_ Area =7905.9 sq. ft. Hardcover 25X BENCHMARK., Top of Iron Marked B.M" Elevation= 975.98 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of File No. DEMARS—GABRIEL the boundaries of the above described land and of the location of all buildings, 12424 LAND SURVEYORS, INC, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. Book -Page 3030 Harbor Lane No. As surveyed by me thh3 /p� day of 20-!Y-. 418/37 PlYmOuth, MN 55447 Phone:hone:(763) 559-0908 �l/��' • y � r Scale David E Crook Minn. Reg. No. 22414 1"=20' Ar I qp ^wy X97/.3 �_� � IYlY7/ON'rr.Shcy"J r,� rhn>e/�9'SJ o -z6v/es Ar6 ,I/ -zb/roles dbp/e /Al' -zbw/es *w #b0d A --zina/es AVh o Denotes iron monument • Denotes found monument x 000.0 Denotes existing elev. (000.0) Denotes proposed elev. I Denotes surface drainage 'w$ TRM12/S R024/R sa"JT04f07- 100.5(7 96as*��Btlna SPLIT WALe-0tJ7" Proposed garage floor elev.= 969.3 Proposed top of foundation elev.=,970./ Proposed lowest floor elev.= 966..3 q1 �0 Hardcover. House & Garage - 1639 sq. ft. Drivewo . - 337.5 sq, ft. otal - sq. ft. Parcel_ Area =7905.9 sq. ft. Hardcover 25X BENCHMARK., Top of Iron Marked B.M" Elevation= 975.98 I hereby certify that this is a true and correct representation of a survey of File No. DEMARS—GABRIEL the boundaries of the above described land and of the location of all buildings, 12424 LAND SURVEYORS, INC, if any, thereon, and all visible encroachments, if any, from or on said land. Book -Page 3030 Harbor Lane No. As surveyed by me thh3 /p� day of 20-!Y-. 418/37 PlYmOuth, MN 55447 Phone:hone:(763) 559-0908 �l/��' • y � r Scale David E Crook Minn. Reg. No. 22414 1"=20' Ar I Koehnen Variance 04-11• • March 16, 2004 Page 6 Ponderosa Drive 57.52' �1 30' � Ln a a Y �y 10' C 30' II V� � Ax o+ to 101.131' Location Map Lots 2322-2326 Carver Beach City of Chanhassen Planning Case No. 04-11 0 9� 9 > m o10 % p` Imperial Dr a� U i (L N N Z Ponderosa Drive Ponderosa Drive �)I w Lone Eagle Dr SUBJECT PROPERTY erQe Ct Wood Hill Dr O G 6 Preakness Lane \_ane Lane Preakness e N O` Canterbury Circle 1 ¢ceirin Fes_ _ d{U 42 Ga�LcCsn / U �«r tcrl. ciC<� & OtIltr of mIlptrsofri,220 gvvv// (91,1111ty of Tamerc }K -s. This is to e �/7//rtify -'` it eilA_'�ii7 , than COunty— is now th —'-- - -� ---- -- e owner o °f the. __-/� f fan estate, to ----and State o o of and in the - - -------------_ _ f°ll°wind described land, situ¢ted in the ---_ �. �.�, County and ��9 h State �� Od/ Of Minnesota, to w a-- e -- gr O Subject to the incumbrances, liens and interest and subject to the followin r: s, $ 6 or incumbrances subsestinY the memorial underwritten Tct concerning the re,3istrttti°n o 'he year 19p5 f land and the title thereto" g as prorided in the twenty-f.or indorsed hereon; and the amendments thereo , of the General 1 urth section 7. Liens, claims- °f "fin or nt f Hamel qws of the State of Minnesota tit require tO apyear O msrng tinder the laws Or for rights a Y 2 An f>'ecgrd. he constitution of the 17r;..,a