Application
Planning Case No. 6 <6 -G-~
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317-(952)227-1100
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
PLEASE PRINT
Applicant Name and Address: Owner Name and Address:
~~ A 1tioa....-=.F > D a:,lt" "'" r=':r'L <'., ~ ~IL.OEtZ..~ mA17JL Arn-tl.~,eN. t ANN S&.JI'J
4,4n - 47,NO ~)I::,r-1 ~H=?-b I'Y1A\OI F=:. <;"I~ f')(uut::.-
lZoAAlrif>rY-\'t.6 I m N. <f".S4-?_L.. ~~2IDI'L m"" SS?l'?1
Contact: Fiz.Gn ~a.vNJN.~ Contact to'\~v. ~&i(b~
Phone: fd 2-'1Q 1- ~'1 S Fax: 7b3-<63"3- 2..(p(CB Phone: 't'i'~ ~"".1~'CS Fax:
Email: +('&!hrl)''''l',~@Scu.uhnr~e I)~ .COrn Email:
NOTE: Consultation with City staff is reQuired prior to submittal, including review of development
plans
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Temporary Sales Permit
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
Vacation of Right-of-Way/Easements (VAC)
Interim Use Permit (IUP)
y..,
Variance (VAR)
Non-conforming Use Permit
Wetland Alteration Permit f'NAP)
Planned Unit Development.
Zoning Appeal
Rezoning
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Sign Permits
CITY OF CHANHASSFi\
RECEIVED
Sign Plan Review
OCT 3 1 20U8
X Notification Sign - $200
(City to install and remove)
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost-
- $50 CUP/SPRlVACNARIWAP/Metes & Bounds
- $450 Minor SUB
TOTAL FEE $ r\\ L\ SO. CD
CHANHASSHl ":j.'"''''''
Site Plan Review (SPR)*
Subdivision.
An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant
prior to the public hearing.
*Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%J! X 11J!
reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital CODY in TIFF-Group 4 (*.tit) format.
**Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract.
Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews.
NOTE: Wh n multipl applications are proces ed, the appropriate fe hall b charg d for
ach application.
/~
PROJECT NAME:
At\Oll1~ . ~l;)p,f nr:; rYl-t=h.....! ~.I n/'J~ (g;,vF'i"L I r<"J!W?.A-t4h ~PA-N xlON
LOCATION: ?,p,~ r(\1'rl'U: 5Hol'l..eb (:)I'ljut
LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND PID: Loj co, ~\...Oa... (')C) t .[,,4 Ac
P l D il. ? f>44-f;QD 10
TOiAL ACREAGE: -_tC';)
~F.f' 1Je, ;-r.uP Ill/') ~l... h~
WETLANDS PRESENT:
)(
YES
NO( m IN t-tG \.A.JASHT'A l-A't:.6)
PRESENT ZONING:
REQUESTED ZONING:
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION:
REASON FOR REQUEST:
FOR SITE PLAN REVIEW: Include number of existing employees:
and new employees:
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the
Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written
notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with
all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom
the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership
(either copy of owner's DUplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authoriZed person
to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application.
I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. J 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.
~~J
~~
~niltureOl~ ~
~~
..--/ ~
....." .~ ...../",.,/ ---_.~_.-
Signature 6f Fee Owner
J6(3l/63
Date
CITY OF CHANHASSE
RECEIVED
OCT 3 1 2008
6/ d2:7-zcng-
Date CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEP-r
G:\plan\forms\Development Review Application.DOC
Rev. 1/08
CITY ~~g~tv~~SSEI\!
October 30,2008
OCT :1 1 2008
CHANHASSEN PLANNiNG DEPT
The home of Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn is located at 3830 Maple Shores Drive.
Maple Shores Drive is a street with an increasing elevation to Lake Minnewashta, when it
terminates at their property its elevation is at its maximum. The North to South elevation
change of this property is over 46 feet. This dramatic change is further exacerbated by the
slight change in grade for the fIrst 70 feet abutting the lake. Their property is also
unusually shaped; a canted "L" with its narrowest border abutting Maple Shores Drive.
These factors obviously guided the original owner(s) to position the home where it is on
the site - my clients are not the original owners.
After years as Chanhassen residents, Mark and Ann would like to alter their home, like
homeowners frequently do to meet the changing needs of their families in order to stay in
a community and neighborhood they call home. In order to accomplish this, they have
already decided to incur the added burden of canalizing an existing garage stall and
replacing it with a new garage stall so they could push their proposed addition into the
footprint of their existing home in order to meet the side yard setback portion ofthe city
code. UnfortUnately this was not enough to achieve their goal. While the size of their lot
would normally easily allow them to comply with the hardcover portion of the code, tw,?
factors prevent this:
1. Because of the shape of the lot, an extremely long driveway is required to access the
home. Driveways of this length create the need of a turnabout. The combined
hardcover of these two elements is 3,143 sq.ft., 16% more than the hardcover
footprint of the home itself.
2. Because of the dramatic change in grade on the South of their lot, Mark and Ann
were faced with an erosion problem at the rear of their home. Water had eroded the
slope to within six feet of their foundation. The solution was to construct a series of
retaining walls, a paver patio and a system of drains installed along the entire rear
elevation of their home. This 723 sq.ft. of hardcover was designed to alleviate the
problem, unfortunately the small amount of water that was able to permeate the
pavers has caused some erosion to continue. They have had the failure evaluated and
the recommended solution is to replace the pavers with an even less permeable
concrete slab. They are not inclined to remove this protection to their home.
I suggest that it would be an undue hardship to require my clients to remove these hard
surfaces and to the best of my understanding, the current Chanhassen city code
recognizes few if any of the less permeable alternative surfaces now available.
I also offer another hardship for you to consider:
3. The strict, literal enforcement of the hardcover code over its intent is a hardship in
itself. Mark and Ann are two of the most environmentally "green" people I've
known. They understand the need to restrict water runoff into our lakes and streams.
ol
We don't understand why viable alternatives that can accomplish the spirit of the
code cannot be used simply because it doesn't follow the letter of the code. There
are many examples:
a) Permeable and semi-permeable pavers.
b) Downspouts that can direct water to otherwise inaccessible permeable areas.
c) Holding ponds
d) Drain fields
e) Easements to permit neighbors to exchange permeable areas.
f) Cisterns (in addition to mitigating hardcover, these systems can also be used to
reduce the demand on city water for irrigation)
g) Other considerations including but not limited to; soil type, ground cover, grade
pitch. .
They would be willing to provide data that proves the viability of these systems.
Mark Ambrosen and Ann Senn did not create these hardships. The purpose of this request
for variance is not based on a desire to increase the value or income potential of this land.
I cannot envision how the granting of this variance could be detrimental to the public
welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. The proposed
variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property, it would
not increase congestion of the public streets, increase the danger of fire, endanger the
public safety or diminish or impair property values in the neighborhood.
(~~~ h--)
Fred Bruning
Senior Designer
Sawhorse Designers and Builders
CITY OF CHANHASSEI\i
RECEIVED
OCT 3 1 2008
CHANHASSEN PLANNiNG DEP'i
763-533-0352
fredbruning@sawhorseusa.com