1. Variance 795 Ponderosa DriveCITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: 3/16/04
CC DATE: 4/12/04
REVIEW DEADLINE:
CASE #: Variance 04-11
BY: NB
4/12/04
STAFF REPORT
PROPOSAL:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
Request for a lot area variance from the required 15,000 square feet and a maximum
lot coverage variance from the required 25 percent maximum for the construction of
a single-family residence on a 7,932 square foot lot, zoned RSF.
795 Ponderosa Drive; Part of Carver Beach Section 1, Township 116, Range 23.
Thomas Koehnen
6280 Audubon Circle #6
Excelsior, MN 55331
PRESENT ZONING:
Residential Single-Family (RSF)
2020 LAND USE PLAN: Residential - Low Density
ACREAGE: .1821 DENSITY: NA
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a lot area variance from the required 15,000 square feet and a maximum
lot coverage variance from the required 25 percent maximum for the construction of a single-family
residence. Staff is recommending approval of the request.
LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING:
The City's discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed
project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The City has a relatively high
level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established
standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision.
Location Map
Lots 2322-2326 Carver Beach
City of Chanhassen
Planning Case No. 04-11
Dr
sa Drive
Lone E~
Preakness Lane
SUBJECT PROPERTY
Dr
Preakne~
/
,/
~ury
Circle
N
ac /
Koehnen Variance 04-11
March 16, 2004
Page 2
PROPOSAL SUMMARY
The subject lot is located in the Carver Beach Subdivision. This subdivision was created in 1927, which
predates the zoning ordinance. The applicant is the son of the owner who has been in ownership of the 5
parcels (795 Ponderosa Drive) since 1967. These lots were never part of a larger parcel. The applicant is
requesting a lot area variance to Section 20-615(1) and a maximum lot coverage variance to Section
20-615(4) of the Chanhassen City Code for the construction of a single-family residence. The site is
currently vacant and the applicant proposes to construct a 28' x 36' 1,728 square foot (1,008 sq. ft.
footprint) single-family home and a 24' x 26' (624 sq. ft.) garage. The lot is a legal nonconforming lot
predating the zoning ordinance. The zoning ordinance requires a 15,000 square foot lot and 25 percent
maximum lot coverage.
Section 20-905(2) states all singleffamily detached homes shall: (b) If a split-level design, have an area of one thousand fifty (1,050) square feet.
(c) If a split foyer or two-story design, have an area of six hundred (600) square feet on the first floor.
The property is located at 795 Ponderosa Drive; part of Section 1, Township 116, Range 23. The lot is
zoned Residential Single-Family, RSF, which intends to provide for single-family residential
subdivisions. Access to the site is gained via Ponderosa Drive (a local street).
Koehnen Variance 04-11
March 16, 2004
Page 3
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
DIVISION 4. NONCONFORMING USES*
Sec. 20-71. Purpose
The purpose of this division is:
(1) To recognize the existence of uses, lots, and structures which were lawful when established,
but which no longer meet all ordinance requirements;
(2) To prevent the enlargement, expansion, intensification, or extension of any nonconforming
use, building, or structure;
(3) To encourage the elimination of nonconforming uses, lots, and structures or reduce their
impact on adjacent properties.
Sec. 20-73. Nonconforming Lots of Record
(b) No variance shall be required to construct a detached single-family dwelling on a
nonconforming lot provided that it fronts on a public street or approved private street and
provided that the depth and area measurements are at least seventy-five (75) percent of the
minimum requirements of this chapter.
(c) Except as otherwise specifically provided for detached single-family dwellings, there shall be
no expansion, intensification, replacement, or structural changes of a structure on a
nonconforming lot.
(d) If two or more contiguous lots are in single ownership and if all or part of the lots does not
meet the width and area requirements of this chapter for lots in the district, the contiguous lots
shall be considered to be an undivided parcel for the purpose of this chapter. If part of a
parcel is sold, the sale shall constitute a self-created hardship under the variance provisions of
this chapter.
Section 20-615. Lot Requirements and Setbacks
(1) The minimum lot area is fifteen thousand (15,000) square feet. For neck and flag lots, the lot
area requirements shall be met after the area contained within the "neck" has been excluded
from consideration.
(4) The maximum lot coverage for all structures and paved surfaces is twenty-five (25) percent.
BACKGROUND
The lot, located in the Carver Beach Subdivision, was created in July of 1927, prior to the adoption of the
1972 zoning ordinance. Due to the date of the subdivision and the unique shape of the lot, the existing
7,932 square foot lot does not conform to the required 15,000 square foot lot size requirement as stated in
Section 20-615(1) of the Chanhassen City Code and will require a lot area variance of 7,068 sq. fl.
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 seven(v-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'
101.134'
Koehnen Variance 04-11
March 16, 2004
Page 6
The applicant is proposing to maintain the existing nonconforming lot to construct a single-family
residence. This will not change the current 7,932 sq. ft. lot size; however, it will have an impervious
coverage of 28.6%. As stated above, from Section 20-615(1), the minimum lot area isfifleen thousand
(15,000) square feet. Thus, the applicant is requesting a 7,068 sq. ft. lot size variance to construct the
single-family home on the existing nonconforming lot.
Many of the neighboring properties have nonconforming lot sizes not meeting the 15,000 square foot
minimum. Several neighbors near or adjacent to the nonconforming lot have had variances approved to
construct a new home on a nonconforming lot on file in the city's planning department.
Staff has reviewed properties within 500 feet and compiled the following list of variances:
File Property Lakeshore Variance Request Action
Number Taken
86-4 6830 Yuma Drive No Addition of home on Denied
nonconforming lot (9,501
87-9 6830 Yuma Drive No sq. ft.). Approved
88-6 6901 Yuma Drive No Addition of home on Approved
nonconforming lot (8,000
sq. ft.).
8%8 825 Ponderosa No Addition of home on Withdrawn
Drive nonconforming lot.
91-20 750 Cree Drive No Addition of home on Approved
nonconforming lot (9,043
sq. ft.).
Staff is recommending approval of this request based upon the following:
FINDINGS
The Planning Commission shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts:
That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical surroundings,
shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of comparable property
within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a proliferation of variances, but to
recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this neighborhood. Variances that blend with
these pre-existing standards without departing downward from them meet this criterion.
Finding: Staff conducted a survey within 500 feet of the surrounding area and discovered that the
average lot size is 13,586 square feet (54 total parcels). There are a number of lots within 500 feet
that have a smaller area than the subject lot. The proposed home meets the required setbacks and
would be similar in size to existing residences (1,728 sq. ft.). Homes adjacent or near the
nonconforming lot vary fi'om single and two-story homes ranging from 912 square feet to greater
than 2,000 square feet. Without a variance, the applicant would be denied reasonable use of his
property.
Koehnen Variance 04-11
March 16, 2004
Page 7
The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to other
properties within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The condition upon which this petition for a variance is based is applicable to other
properties within the same zoning classification outside of the immediate area. Staff conducted a
survey within 500 feet of the surrounding area and of the 54 parcels within 500 feet of said
property the average lot size as a whole is 13,586 square feet. Whereas the smallest lot was 3,049
square feet and the largest was 38,768 square feet.
Co
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.
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.
The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to adjacent property or
substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger
the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
Finding: The granting of the variance will allow a reasonable distance from adjacent properties.
The applicant has demonstrated that all setbacks required by the City Code can be met. It will not
impair an adequate supply of light and air to those properties, nor will it increase the congestion of
the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially
diminish or impair property values within the neighborhood.
The hardship was not self-created and staff is recommending approval of this application. The applicant
worked to minimize any variance requests.
Koehnen Variance 04-11
March 16, 2004
Page 8
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion:
"The Planning Commission approve Variance #04-11 for a lot area variance from the required 15,000
square feet and a maximum lot coverage variance from the required 25 percent maximum for the
construction of a single-family residence on a 7,932 square foot lot, zoned RSF as shown on plans
dated 2/12/04, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant must submit a building permit before construction.
2. The single-family residence must meet required setbacks.
3. Applicant meets the conditions of Ordinance No. 317 (Building Regulations).
4. A tree removal plan that clearly shows all trees, 6" and larger, and their designation as removed
or saved. The lot may not be clear-cut.
5. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to any work commencing around all saved trees.
Fencing shall remain in place until all construction is completed.
6. The applicant shall plant two overstory, deciduous, 2-1/2" diameter trees.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Findings of Fact and Recommendation.
2. Application.
3. Plot Plan showing location of home.
4. Letter from Thomas and Erica Koehnen dated February 2004.
5. Tentative-Proposed Elevations & Floor Plans.
6. Statement of Sale- Lease of Forfeited Lands.
7. Carver Beach subdivision.
8. Ordinance No. 317 (Building Regulations).
9. Letter from Ally Vogel dated March 8, 2004.
10. Notice of Public Hearing and Notified Property Owners List.
g:Xplan\2004 planning cases\04-11 - koehncn variancc-tots 2322-2326 carver each\koehnen var 04-11 report .doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
IN RE:
The application of Thomas and Erica Koehnen, 795 Ponderosa Drive
(Lots 2322-2326) - Variance No. 04-11
On March 16, 2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application of Thomas and Erica Koehnen for a 7,068 square foot
variance to Section 20-615(1) and a 3.6 percent maximum lot coverage variance to Section 20-
615(4) of the Chanhassen City Code for the purpose of constructing a home at 795 Ponderosa
Drive.
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed development which was
preceded by published and mailed notice. The Planning Commission heard testimony from all
interested persons wishing to speak and now makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
The property is currently zoned RSF, Residential Single-Family.
The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential, Low Density.
The legal description of the property is: Part of Carver Beach Section 1, Township 116,
Range 23, Lots 2322-2326.
4. The Planning Commission shall not grant a variance unless they find the following facts:
Staff conducted a survey within 500 feet of the surrounding area and discovered that the
average lot size is 13,586 square feet. There are a number of lots within 500 feet that
have a smaller area than the subject lot. The proposed home meets the required setbacks
and would be similar in size to existing residences. Without a variance, the applicant
would be denied reasonable use of his property.
· The condition upon which this petition for a variance is based is applicable to other
properties within the same zoning classification outside of the immediate area. Staff
conducted a survey within 500 feet of the surrounding area and of the 54 parcels within
500 feet of said property the average lot size as a whole is 13,586 square feet. Whereas
the smallest lot was 3,049 square feet and the largest was 38,768 square feet.
· This does not appear to be the case. The applicant is simply attempting to utilize the
parcel for single-family residential uses it was created for.
· The hardship is not self-created. The parcel is an existing lot of record.
The granting of the variance will not be detrimental or injurious to other land or
improvements in the neighborhood, meets all RSF District standards except for
impervious surface.
The granting of the variance will allow a reasonable distance from adjacent properties.
The applicant has demonstrated that all setbacks required by the City Code can be met.
It will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to those properties, nor will it
increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger of fire or endanger
the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values within the
neighborhood.
RECOMMENDATION
"The Planning Commission approve Variance #04-11 for a lot area variance from the required
15,000 square feet and a maximum lot coverage variance from the required 25 percent maximum
for the construction of a single-family residence on a 7,932 square foot lot, zoned RSF as shown
on plans dated 2/12/04, with the following conditions:
1. The applicant must submit a building permit before construction.
2. The single family residence must meet required setbacks.
3. Applicant meets the conditions of Ordinance No. 317.
4. A tree removal plan that clearly shows all trees, 6" and larger, and their designation as
removed or saved. The lot may not be clear-cut.
5. Tree protection fencing must be installed prior to any work commencing around all saved
trees. Fencing shall remain in place until all construction is completed.
6. The applicant shall plant two overstory, deciduous, 2-1/2" diameter trees.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 16th day of March, 2004.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
Uli Sacchet, Chairman
g:\plan\2004 planning cases\04-11 - koehnen variancedots 2322-2326 carver each\findings of fact.doc
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
(952) 227-1100
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION
RECEIVED
rFn s
APPLICANT:
TELEPHONE (Day time)
OWNER:
ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE:
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Conditional Use Permit
Interim Use Permit
Non-conforming Use Permit
__ Planned Unit Development*
__ Rezoning
__ Sign Permits
__ Sign Plan Review
Site Plan Review*
Subdivision*
__ Temporary Sales Permit
Vacation of ROW/Easements
Variance
Wetland Alteration Permit
__ Zoning Appeal
Zoning Ordinance Amendment
__ Notification Sign
X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost**
($50 CUPISPR/VACNARNV APIMetes
and Bounds, $400 Minor SUB)
TOTAL FEE $ ~]"~ :.)-~ , 4' '-"
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/~" 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 ~~--~ ~-~00~'~-~
LOCATION
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
TOTAL ACREAGE
WETLANDS PRESENT
PRESENT ZONING
b//REQUESTED ZONING
YES ~' NO
PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION
L//REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION
REASON FOR THIS REQUEST
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clearly printed and must be accompanied by all information
and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning
Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 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 pumhase 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 dev~ent review. Development review shall be completed within 120 days unless additional review
extensions are app~"~y the applicant.
Sig~ur__e of Applicant
Signat~C'e of Fee Owner
Date
Date
Application Received on
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.
To The Planning Committee
Variance Request Justification
For Thomas & Erica Koehnen
We are asking for a variance to the minimum buildable lot size and
the twenty-five percent hard cover requirement. We are asking for
this variance because we would like to build a house on lots 2322-
2326 in Carver Beach - the southwest corner of Ponderosa drive and
Yuma drive. These lots do not meet the minimum buildable lots size.
The lot size is 7,932 square feet. The house we would like to build on
these lots including the driveway and sidewalks is 2,267 square feet.
This would be 28.6 percent. This is greater than the maximum
twenty-five percent hard cover requirement. We need to exceed the
maximum hard cover requirement in this case to meet the various
minimum requirements that are mandated by the building code in the
city. Some of theses requirements are that we need to include a two-
car garage and meet a requirement of a minimum house size for a
given layout. The property is located in the Carver Beach
neighborhood, which as a whole is composed of non-conforming lots
with houses built on them. Building a house here is a reasonable use
of this property. A smaller modest house on this property is wholly in
keeping with the existing standards of the neighborhood.
My grandfather Harlan Koehnen bought this property in 1967 as one
parcel and it has sat in the same state ever since. The purpose of
this variance is for us to build our first house for our new son and us
to live in.
The granting of this variance will not cause harm to any land or
homes in the neighborhood. The house we would build if this
variance were granted would not impair the adequate light or air
supply to the adjacent dwellings since the two adjacent dwellings are
oriented such that their garages and not the homes face the property.
Adding one family to the neighborhood will not substantially add traffic
and developing this vacant lot will not significantly lower any property
values or detract from the public welfare.
The Koehnen family has deep roots in the City of Chanhassen.
Thomas' great grandparents settled in the southern part of
Chanhassen near the turn of the last century. Since then his
grandparents, parents, and he have all lived in the city their entire
lives. We would very much like to continue to live and raise a family
in this community. The granting of this variance will allow us to put
this vacant lot to a reasonable use that is consistent with the majority
of other nearby properties.
Thank your for your time and consideration of our request.
Sincerely,
Thomas, Erica and Joshua Koehnen
E
TE NTATI VE -P i~O POS E D
LEVATIONS & FLOOR PLANS
"IVNI~)IaO
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
ORDINANCE NO. 3 l 7
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:
Appendix, Chapters '-Q and 55.
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 fhe 5/innesofa State Building Code and ~/te
administrative sections of the mode/building code adopfed.
(b) The buihlihg inspections division shall be the building code department. The
administrative authority shall be a .!/[innexota cert¢~ed 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 ma.,,' 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 intbrmation
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;
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
10)
(12)
(13)
(14)
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;
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:
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 bv the surveyor shall be the
responsibility of the permit applicant:
Location of first floor elevation of buildings on adjacent lots. Vacant adjacent lots
shall be labeled as such;
Location of all easements of record including but not limited to tree preservation,
wetland conservation, cross-access, etc.;
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.
£ All elevations shall correspond to sea level datum of 1929.
Indication of direction of surface water drainage by arrows;
Tree removal, tree preservation and grading plan if required by the development
contract;
Wetland boundaries with ordinary high water level and 100-year flood elevation if
applicable;
2
(15) Driveway grade (minimum-0.50%, maximum-10%);
(16) All trees in excess of six (6) inches in diameter (diameter measured at tour (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:
oecd:pa,ney.
Section 5. This ordin~ce shall be effective immediately upon its passage and publication.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Ch~assen Ci~' Council this 2? day of Ap~l, 2001.
ATTEST:
Scott A. Botcher. City Manager Linda C. Jansen, Mayor
(Published in the Chanhassen Villager on May 3. 2001 )
g:'admin'ord\chapter 7 amendments.doc
CITYOF
CHANHASSEN
690 City Cenrer Drive, PO aox 147
Chanh,usen, Minnesota 55317
Phone 612937. i900
General Pax 6IZ937.5739
£a~neering Fax 612.937.9152
Puaiic Safe~y Fax 612934.2524
Web www. ci. chanhassen, mn. us
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
inspections. Planning & Engineering staff
Steve A. Kirchman, Building Official ~__-~.
November 3, 1998
SUBJECT: Dwelling Type Designation
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
R
Designates Side Look Out, Front Look Out or Rear Look Out. This includes dwellings
with the basement floor level approximately $' below grade at its deepest with the
surrounding grade sloping down to approximately 4' above the basement floor level
SE
Designates Rambler. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level approximately
$' be!ow grade with the surrounding grade approximately [eve!. This would include p, vo
storT. 's ~nd ma. nv ~. level dwellings.
Designates Split Entry.. This includes dwellings with the basement floor level
approximately 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
approximateiy 8' be!ow grade at its deepest with the surrounding grade sloping down to
the lowest r'loor ievel in the front of the dwelling.
SWO, RWO
Designates Side Walk Out or Rear Walk Out. This includes dwellings with the
basement floor level approximately 8' below oracle at its de:pest with the surrounding
grade sloping down to the lowest floor level in the rem' of the dwelling.
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.
The City of Chanhcusen. A growing corarnuni~y vat'ch dean lakes, quaEc: ,c/,o,,[s. ,~ c/Sarmi, tx dow,zcown, thriving becsinesses, and beaucifid parks. A ~ea: place co live, vaork, and ?~:
KOEHNEN PROJECT
Case #04-I I
Location: 770 Ponderosa Drive
March 8, 2004
Commission members:
The reason for my correspondence today is to voice my concerns in regard to a proposal to build a
RSF dwelling on the corner of Yuma and Ponderosa Drive in Chanhassen, Carver County. The proposed
building lot is small and currently is heavily wooded. (please note all photos)
My husband and I own the .75 acres lot directly to the south of the site, and with the lay of the land as
it is, we do have several concerns to bring to your attention.
Point I- Destruction of Natural Habitat
Our neighborhood is known for its many trees and cabin-like feel. The natural habit is what drew us to
this area, and the destruction of so many trees would truly alter the feel of our neighborhood.
Point 2 - Drainage Issues
The lay of the land is such that there are already concerns with drainage and erosion. To add another
dwelling so close, and uphill from our property line, may cause water issues and problems that we do
not currently have. (please note photo 3) The lower portion of our driveway (close to the street)
already gets washed out in the spring time with all of the melting snow that drains down the street.
The city does not currently have a sewer or drainage system in place to handle all the moisture, and
adding another dwelling, and removing some of the natural drainage filters in this area will impact our
lot and create additional erosion.
Point 3 - Congestion
Ponderosa is a busy street, and that corner is already somewhat of a problem area with vehicles that
speed down that hill. To add another dwelling to the space, and extra vehicles will add to the conges-
tion of the corner. Currently the lot houses a fire hydrant and our mailboxes. (see photo 2) I am con-
cerned as to whether or not these items will remain in their current location.
Point 4 - Resale
The thought of new construction in the area is great, however, with it being such a small dwelling (only
around 1000 sq. ft) I feel that this will hurt our resale value, not help it. What now is a spacious, heavily
wooded area, would become a congested, overcrowded, and non-private space.
Point 5 - Date of Construction - Noise issues
I have a 3 month old child and we are looking forward to the summer months to be outside. Inevitably
construction will take place during those months, and construction noise will detract from our ability to
be outside and enjoy the natural elements.
I truly appreciate your time and attention to this matter, and look forward to your review of the plan.
If you have additional questions, please let me know. Thanks.
AllyVogel, 6890 Yuma Drive, Chanhassen
KOEHNEN PROJECT
Case #04- I I
Location: 770 Ponderosa Drive
The view from Ponderosa Dr. PONDEROSA
Corner of Yuma & Ponderosa
(my home in the lower ground)
MY LOT
6890 Yuma Dr.
MY PROPERTY LIN
The view of the site from my driveway
The view from Yuma Dr.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING CASE NO. 04-11
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
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-l 1.
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)
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.
' ' ' ,t ~ ~ Y~ -
· /"~ /cC -, ..,-'~'" ,, ,¢w¢ ,Z ./ ..~ C...~.~....~¢..'. ,¢L~ ...-.~. r
Karen J. Enge}/hardt, Deputy Clerk
Subscribed and sworn to before me
this ~i44'x. day of i'l/~(,, vc [~ ,2004.
Notary
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.
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.
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.
Jam Free Printing
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®
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 Impedal Dr
Chanhassen MN 55317
Douglas & Corazon Kallevig
6830 Yuma Dr
Chanhassen MN 55317
~ wvvw. avery, com
~ 1-800-GO-AVERY
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
Robed MacFarlane
6850 Yuma Dr
Chanhassen MN 55317
Richard Rossing
739 Carver Beach Rd
Chanhassen MN 55317
Richard Rossing
c/o Margaret Rossing
130 Cygnet PI
Long Lake MN 55356
Bruce & Charlene Burrington
6869 Yuma Dr
Chanhassen MN 55317
AVERY® 5~6o®
SusanAIbee
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 &
Kern Abbot- Goemer
825 Ponderosa Dr
ChanhassenMN 55317
Mark Van Guilder &
Shelly MacGillivray
805 Ponderosa Dr
Chanhassen MN 5531
Robed John Moore
6839 Yuma Dr
Chanhassen MN 55317
Kleve & Lorilee Anderson
760 Ponderosa Dr
Chanhassen MN 55317
Mark & Julie Quiner
6889 Yuma Dr
Chanhassen MN 55317
David W Workman
745 Carver Beach Rd
Chanhassen MN 55317
Kimberley Murphy-Warner &
John Warner
6870 Nez Perce Dr
Chanhassen MN 55317
A~I3AV-Og-008- I,
Stephen Kennedy & Nancy Thum
761 Ponderosa Dr
Chanhassen MN 55317
®09LS 3.LV'IdlN3.L ®/ua^¥ ash
Jam Free Printing
Use Avery® TEMPLATE 5160®
Curtis & Judith Quiner
725 Ponderosa Dr
Chanhassen MN 55317
Michael Soderquist
705 Carver Beach Rd
Chanhassesn MN 55317
Michael & Kimberly Shoberg
834 Lone Eagle Rd
Chanhassen MN 55317
~ vvvvw, avery, com
~ 1-800-GO-AVERY
James & Ellen Cranston
695 Carver Beach Rd
Chanhassen MN 55317
Jeffrey Stern
6901 Yuma Dr
Chanhassen MN 55317
AVERY® si60®
~it~vi~eill
739~Voodh, ill
Oh~~l~N 553117
Donald Witacre
751 Century Ave S
St Paul MN 55119
Steven & Brigid Klaysmat
800 Woodhill Dr
Chanhassen MN 55317
Curtis & Brenda Bjorlin
824 Lone Eagle Dr
Chanhassen MN 55317
Joseph & Janice Morton
6911 Yuma Dr
Chanhassen MN 55317
Robby & Jamie Kendall
833 Woodhill Dr.
Chanhassen MN 55317
Randy Vogel
6890 Yuma Dr
Chanhassen MN 55317
Felix & Margaret Thompson
6899 Yuma Dr
Chanhassen MN 55317
Douglas Sumner
PO Box 2001
Chanhassen MN 55317
Laurie Wright Kvam
855 Lone Eagle Dr
Chanhassen MN 55317
Michael Hoff & Noreen Rachor
832 Woodhill Dr
Chanhassen MN 55317
City Of'~hanCassen
c/o Bruc~eJong
PO Bo/~7
Chanhass~(n MN~5317
Michael & Nancy Mason
829 Woodhill Dr
Chanhassen MN 55317
William & Virginia Standke
825 Woodhill Dr
Chanhassen MN 55317
Charles Worsfold
6900 Yuma Drive
Chanhassen MN 5531
David Weill
739 Woodhill
Chanhassen MN 55317
RICH SLAGLE
7411 FAWN HILL ROAD
CHANHASSEN MN 55317
Kevin & Shelby Manion
825 Lone Eagle Dr
Chanhassen MN 55317
Leslie Medley &
Martha Duenow Medley
767 Woodhill Dr
Chanhassen MN 55317
Maurice & Vickie Hevey
780 Woodhill Dr
Chanhassen MN 55317
Charles & Kristine Winum
753 Woodhill Dr
Chanhassen MN 55317
A~::IAY-Og-008- [
e09[S :UV'Id?FII ®/ueAV
Xlichacl Kohane
6870 Yuma
Chanhasscn, kin 55317
phone: 952-401-0520.
3 '15 O4
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
RECEIVED
MAR 1 5 2004
CHANHASSEN PLArqNING DEPT
l)ear Members of tile Planning Committee,
I am writh~g on behal for concerned res/dents regarding tile proposal to build a home
at 795 Ponderosa Drive, Case ~; ~ariancc 04-II.
XVt o[~jec[ to this proposal and would like you to disallow the prc~ject.
kk~ otlbr the following m suppo~l of our position.
I. Salbly: ~ have exalnmed the drawings and conclude that the distance ti-om the
driveway of the new house to the YumWPonderosa intersection is about 20 feet.
Wc ask if this is acceptable xxith the city code and if it is salb and reasonable given
the nature of traffic flow through this intersect/on. We note that Ponderosa Dr.
currently a busy thoroughthrc tbr people living m the Carver Beach area.
the intersection is al the bottom of two hills and Ponderosa and Yuma do not meet
at 90 degrees, yietdmg speed and sight line issues. Further; there is considerable
new development m the Carver Beach area and wc anticipate sigmificantl)
increased traffic fi-om the current levels when these new homes are fin/shed. We
also note that the speed of cars traveling through the Yuma'Ponderosa intersection
can be fi'om 15-50 mph., well above the speed l/mit, which we note is not directly
posted near thc intersection. The thmilies that live near the intersection ha~c had
no success m limiting the speed of many of the regular cars. We also note that thc
intersection is cu~xently a school bus stol). If the city considers approval, we
suggest that the driveway bc moved to Yuma Dr. In conclusion, we argue that the
building of the house at this k)cation would significm~tly increase the risk to the
local lhmilics.
\*'e ask whether the city should allow tile home to extend all tile way up to the
setback of 10 feet for this extremely small lot,
Environlnental issues: Our neighborhood is concerned with tile runoff and
drainage that will occur if' the house is built. \\:e are very worried about
consequences for the drainage area of 55trna Drive and tfitimately. Lotus lake. In
order to control excess run off' crc. wc note that lhe code allows 25'~b hardcover
m~d that the variance asked tbr is 28.6°,'0. ltl order to minmuze the local negative
effects of run-o/t' and drainage~ we argue that 25°0 hardcovcr should be thc
maxmmm adhered to, especially for next. houses close to waler bodies. \Ye
suggest that if approval is considered, that tile city reduce thc l~botprint of tile
house and note that tile city does not have to grant this size tbotprmt just because
it is what the applicants request to tmild. }:t,ther, we suggest that the city may
require the use of pavers and not concrete m the construction of the hardcover.
XVt note ~hat State law indicates that lhe land owner should not be denied
reasonable use of his/her property. If the c/tv is considering approval of the
project, we point out that the city is giving a good, first variance to enable the
house to be built (7,932 square fi3et rather than Ibc 15,000 square tibet required by
code). This is around 50% reduction m reqttired lot size. Thus we focus on the
second varimlce, the hardcover issue. With the setback that the city allows, there
is a buildablc envelope and theretbre, disallowing thc second variance would not
impact the ov~qler's reasonable use of his propcrts.
In summary, tile local residents are significantly concerned that the construction of the
new house will exacerbate tile current traffic problems and put t:a~nily members, m
particular, children at much greater risk. Additionally. it will negatively impact an
already fragile local environment, which has yet lo deal with both the recent and l'utm'¢
home developmenl m the lower Carver Beach area. This mchtdes the new homes ah'eady
built along Big Woods Boulevard and presently being built opposite Carver Beach on
I,otus Trail. We also anticipale the attempt to build more homes in both these areas.
Hence, we urge that tile city does not allow the constrnction of the house.
¥OHI'S Sillcerely,
Michael Kobane.
Mark A. VanGuilder
Shelly T. MacGillivray
805 Ponderosa Drive
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
Phone: 952-470-4953
March 15, 2004
CITYOFCHANHASSEN
~ECEIVED
Chanhassen Planning Commission
7700 Market Boulevard
Chanhassen, Minnesota 55317
MAR 1 5 2004
CHANHASSEN PLANNING DEP7
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
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.
Mark A VanGu~' 1 der ~/ [ ~
Shelly T. MacGillivray
cc: Chanhassen City Council