1 Variance 9450 Foxford RoadCITY OF
PC DATE: 1/21/03
CCDATE:
REVIEW DEADLINE: 60 Days from
Submittal (2/13/03)
STAFF
REPORT
By: Saam
PROPOSAL:
Request for a variance to allow a second driveway.
LOCATION:
9450 Foxford Road
APPLICANT:
Ron Saatzer
9450 Foxford Road
Chanhassen, MN 55317
PRESENT ZONING:
RR, Rural Residential
ACREAGE:
2.74 acres
DENSITY:
N/A
ADJACENT ZONING
AND LAND USES:
N:
S:
E:
W:
RR, Rural Residential; Single-Family Home
RR; Single-Family Home
RR; Single-Family Home
RR; Single-Family Home
WATER AND SEWER:
Not available to the site; outside the MUSA
PHYSICAL CHARACTER:
A single-family home with an existing three-stall garage and
two existing driveways are on the site.
2002 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Large Lot
Saatzer Variance #2003-1
January 14, 2003
Page 2
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Section 20-1122(c) of the zoning ordinance requires areas outside of the Metropolitan Urban
Services Area (MUSA) to have driveways that are surfaced with bituminous, concrete, or other
hard surface material from the edge of the existing paved roadway to the property line.
Section 20-1122(h) states that one driveway is allowed per residential lot.
BACKGROUND
The property is a single family lot located in the Lake Riley Woods development in southeast
Chanhassen on the south side of Lake Riley.
9450 F oxford Roadf:
The home and original driveway off of Foxford Road were constructed in 1989. The second
driveway, for which the variance is requested, was constructed in the fail of 2002. The original
bituminous driveway comes out fi-Oln the front of the house and is clearly visible from Foxford
Road. The second drivexvay has a gravel surface and comes off the north side of the
garage/driveway. The second driveway was constructed tt~rough an area of trees and brush. It is
approximately 10 to 12 feet xvide.
Saatzer Variance #2003-1
January 14, 2003
Page 3
The applicant has stated that the second driveway was constructed as a matter of convenience.
The original driveway, in the applicant's opinion, is long and difficult to back out of at night.
The second driveway, when combined with the original, provides a horseshoe-type configuration
for the applicant.
The applicant has indicated that, if the variance is granted, he will comply with the hard surface
requirement for the portion of the driveway within the right-of-way.
ANALYSIS
Site Characteristics
While not shown on the submitted survey, there is a small 3- to 4-foot high retaining wall along
the north side of the original driveway. This wall is 50-80 feet away from the house. The site
has very minor grade changes without any significant slopes.
As previously mentioned, there is a group of trees and brush in the area where the second
driveway connects with Eastwood Court. Due to the large amount of trees and brush, cars
entering the street in this area can be hard to see. This is especially true in the summer and fall
months when trees are fully foliated.
Options
There are other options to the second driveway variance. The applicant could construct a loop
driveway to tie back in with the original driveway in the front yard area of the lot. This would
require some regrading of the area around the retaining wall, but no more grading than what was
done for the construction of the second driveway. Due to the large lot size, the amount of
impervious or hard surface coverage on the lot is not a problem.
By simply paving a larger turnaround area in front of the garage, the problem with backing down
the long driveway could be averted. In addition, the applicant could add some landscaping or
decorative lighting along the driveway to help illuminate it at night.
Reasonable Use
The reasonable use of the property is not constrained by the literal enforcement of the zoning
ordinance. The property owner's original driveway meets the current design requirements of the
City ordinance. A reasonable use is defined as the use made by a majority of comparable
propmxy within 500 feet. A "use" can be defined as "the purpose or activity for which land or
buildings are designed, arranged or intended or for which land or buildings are occupied or
maintained." In this case, because it is in a RR zoning district, a reasonable use is a single
family home with a two-stall garage. The owner has a reasonable use of the property.
Saatzer Variance #2003-1
January 14, 2003
Page 4
A variance is granted when a hardship is present. That is, the property owner cannot make a
reasonable use of the site xvithout relief from the ordinance, h~ this instance, the owner has other
options available which do not require a variance.
If the variance is approved, staff would recommend that the second driveway comply with the
current City Code (20-1122c) hard surface requirement. Also, a revised as-built survey should be
submitted which shows accurate elevation data. This survey would be reviewed by staff to
determine the need for a storm culvert or other drainage measures.
FINDINGS
The Planning Conm~ission shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts:
mo
That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue
hardship means that the property cmmot be put to reasonable use because of its size,
physical surroundings, shape or topo~'aphy. 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 fi'om them meet this criteria.
Finding: The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship, h~ other
words, being limited to one driveway access per lot is not a hardship. Staff looked at
properties within 500 feet of the applicant's lot and found that there xvas one property out of
18 that had a second driveway. Clearly, there is not a majority of properties within 500 feet
that have the pre-existing condition of a second driveway.
bo
The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to most
properties in the RR zoning district. Many of the other properties in the area have long
driveways such as the applicant's.
The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Finding: The variance would allow the second driveway to remain in place. The variance
would not be expected to increase the value of the property.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Saatzer Variance #2003-1
January 14, 2003
Page 5
Finding: The perceived difficulty (long driveway, difficult to back down at night) was not
created by the applicant. However, staff believes that having a long driveway is not a
hardship. Additionally, there are other options available which would resolve the perceived
hardship without a variance.
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 variance ~vill allow the second driveway to remain in place. If this variance
is approved, a revised survey with drainage information and elevation contours should be
submitted and the applicant required to mitigate any drainage issues caused by the driveway
construction. The only public detriment would be an increased chance of vehicle accidents
on Eastwood Court due to the additional access point and the reduced visibility of the
driveway among the trees.
The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets. As noted
earlier, there are SOlne visibility issues associated with the second drivexvay.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Planning Con~nission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission denies the variance #2003-1 to allow a second driveway on the
property located at 9450 Foxford Road based on the findings of fact in the staff report and orders
the removal of the second driveway and to revegetate the area by April 30, 2003.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Application and Letter
2. Section 20-1122(c & h), Access and Driveways
3. Public hearing notice and propel~ o;vners list
4. 11" x 17" Survey
g:',eng\matt\memos~taff reportsXsaatzer variance.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
690 COULTER DRIVE
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(612) 937-1900
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE(Daytime)
OWNER:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Interim Use Permit
Non-conforming Use Permit
?lanned Unit Development*
Rezoning
Sign Permits
Sign Plan Review
Site PJan Review*
Subdivision*
Temporary Sates Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Variance
Wetland AlteratiOn Permit
Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
Notification Sign
~X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 CU P/S P R/VACfVAPJWAP/Metes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEE $. '-~.~"
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 fold copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 81/2'' X 11" reduced copy of
tr~ 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
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TOTAL ACREAGE
WETLANDS PRESENT
PRESENT ZONING
YES
REQUESTED ZONING
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
-Th~s 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.
-rh~ is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that ! 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. ! 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 w~l] keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further
understand ~hat 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
m.v ~owJedge.
The c'~ 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 developmej3t.~ review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
exterzsions ar~e approve~"tSy the applicant.
Signature of Applicant'S--..._______...) Date
Signature ef Fee Owner Date
Application Received on Fee Paid Receipt No.
The appTicant should contact staff for a copy of the staff report which will be available on Friday prior to the meeting.
:if nat contacted, a copy of the report will be mailed to the applicant's address.
FROM ' Rot, Saatzem FAX NO. ' 6129320877 ~an. 18 2883 87'45AM Pi
· Attachment 2
Sec. 20-1122. Access and driveways.
The purpose of this subsection is to provide minimum design criteria, setback and slope
standards for vehicular use. The intent is to reduce interference with drainage and utility
easements by providing setback standards; reduce erosion by requiting a hard surface for
all driveways; to limit the number of driveway access points to public streets and to direct
drainage toward the street via establishment of minimum driveway slope standards.
Parking and loading spaces shall have proper access from a public right-of-way. The
number and width of access drives shall be located to minimize traffic congestion and
abnormal traffic hazard. All driveways shall meet the following criteria:
a. Driveways shall be setback at least five (5) feet from the side property lines,
beginning at twenty (20) feet from the front yard setback unless an encroachment
agreement is received from the city.
b. Driveway grades shall be a minimum of one-half of one (0.5) percent and a
maximum grade of ten (10) percent at any point in the driveway.
c. In areas located within the Metropolitan Urban Services Area (MUSA) as identified
on the Comprehensive Plan, driveways shall be surfaced with bituminous, concrete or
other hard surface material, as approved by the city engineer. In areas outside the MUSA,
driveways shall be surfaced from the intersection of the road through the right-of-way
portion of the driveway with bituminous, concrete or other hard surface material, as
approved by the city engineer.
.
d. On comer lots, the minimum comer clearance from the roadway right-of-way line
shall be at least thirty (30) feet to the edge of the driveway.
e. For A-2, RSF, and R-4 residential uses, the width' of the driveway access shall not-
exceed twenty-four (24) feet at the right-of-way line. No portion of the right-of-way may
be paved except that portion used for the driveway. Inside the property line of the site, the
maximum driveway width shall not exceed thirty-six (36) feet. The minimum driveway
width shall not be less than ten (10) feet.
f. For all other uses, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed thirty-six (36)
feet in width measured at the roadway tight-of-way line. No portion of the right-of-way
may be paved except that portion used for the driveway.
g. Driveway setbacks may be reduced subject to the following criteria:
1. The driveway will not interfere with any existing easement; and
2. Shall require an easement encroachment agreement from the engineering
department' and
Attachment 2
3. The location of the driveway must be approved by the city engineer to ensure
that it will not cause runoff onto adjacent properties.
h. One driveway access is allowed from a single residential lot to the street.
i. A turnaround is required on a driveway entering onto a state highway, county road or
collector roadway as designated in the comprehensive plan, and onto city streets where
this is deemed necessary by the city engineer, based on traffic counts, sight distances,
street grades, or other relevant factors. If the engineer requires a turnaround, this
requirement will be stated on the building permit.
j. Separate driveways serving utility facilities are permitted.
(Ord. No. 117, § 1, 1-8-90; Ord. No. 330, § 1, 11-13-01)
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2003 AT 7:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
7700 MARKET BLVD.
PROPOSAL: Variance for a
Second Driveway
APPLICANT: Ron Saatzer
LOCATION: 9450 Foxford Road
NOTICE: You are invited to attend a public hearing about a proposal in your area. The applicant, Ron
Saatzer, is requesting a variance for a second driveway on property zoned RR, Rural Residential and located
at 9450 Foxford Road.
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 Hal! 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 Matthew at 227-1164. 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 January 9, 2003.
City Review Procedure
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.
· ,..
The 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.
g:\user\vickikreview procedure.doc
Smooth Feed SheetsrM
Use template for 5160®
DONALD B & CYNTHIA N DEAL
9390 FOXFORD RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
STEVEN P & CARMEN R MCMEEN
9391 FOXFORD RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
ROBERT M & TAMMY J O'ROURKE
9410 FOXFORD RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
DOUGLAS M & LORI A RYNDA
9411 FOXFORD RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
JOEL N & KATHY R MEYER
9085 165TH ST
CHIPPEWA FALLSWI 54729
KENNETH N POTTS &
KAREN KING-POTTS
9431 FOXFORD RD
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
ROBERT G & SUSAN I MCCARGER
9450 FOXFORD RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
WAYNE A & BONNIE J KINION
9451 FOXFORD RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
STEVEN R & JILL L SHIPLEY
261 EASTWOOD CT
CHANHAS SEN MN 55317
JAMES S & DARCY D LOFFLER
9471 FOXFORD RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
WILLIAM L & LYNN H STOKKE
241 EASTWOOD CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
STEVEN J ZUMBUSCH &
CHARLOTTE M ZUMBUSCH
9700 MEADOWLARK LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
WILLIA1M L & LINDA C JANSEN
240 EASTWOOD CT
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
MATTHEW J & CHARLENE M THILL
9610 MEADOWLARK LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
WILLIAM S HENAK &
KRISTIN ALLERS
280 EASTWOOD CT
CHANHASSEN MN
55317
STEVEN F & KATHLEEN M BURKE
9591 MEADOWLARK LN
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
BRIAN E & TRACY S BELLOWS
9470 FOXFORD RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
PETE P & JOYCE L PETER
9490 FOXFORD RD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317