Loading...
Application Planning Case No. O~ - J--cJ CITY OF CHANHASSEN 7700 Market Boulevard - P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 - (952) 227-1100 CITY OF CHANHASSEN RECEIVED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW APPLICATION MAY 1 9 2006 CHANHASSEN PLANNING oePT PLEASE PRINT Applicant Name and Address: Lt"<<AA lJe/l~c-~ It (5 1(,., ~(',~ c:::.. t-- C~?,c,v,t MIV Owner Name and Address: S 2V\,-f / Contact: Phone: 44:fJ-'/BG:2, Fax: 5.:3 '^^< ' Email: ~"^' C<(>~~'^ (0, ~()fSb.r... (RN\ Contact: Phone: Email: Fax: 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) X Variance (VAR) Y Non-conforming Use Permit Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP) Planned Unit Development* Zoning Appeal Rezoning Zoning Ordinance Amendment Sign Permits Sign Plan Review Notification Sign - $200 (City to install and remove) Site Plan Review (SPR)* X Escrow for Filing Fees/Attorney Cost** - $50 CUP/SPRNACNARlWAP/Metes & Bounds - $450 Minor SUB ~ , Subdivision* TOTAL FEE $ An additional fee of $3.00 per address within the public hearing notification area will be invoiced to the applicant prior to the public hearing. *Sixteen (16) full-size folded copies of the plans must be submitted, including an 8%" X 11" reduced copy for each plan sheet along with a digital copy in TIFF-Group 4 (*.tif) format. **Escrow will be required for other applications through the development contract. Building material samples must be submitted with site plan reviews. NOTE: When multiple applications are processed, the appropriate fee shall be charged for each application. PROJECT NAME: Ci724 ~D~~ \\) L 0fC Q..C;,W2> -\- L\'Y",,- LOCATION: C2 7 2 4. L-~~ \\1'-\.. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: 6 f' ~ TOTAL ACREAGE: J:3 WETLANDS PRESENT: YES K NO REQUESTED ZONING: S"FR v.) 'f'v1.e _ PRESENT ZONING: PRESENT LAND USE DESIGNATION: :5~Q.... REQUESTED LAND USE DESIGNATION: <S.>~ REASON FOR REQUEST: ?r-C ~ to bOLL! 6 LOVV1p\..Q_,\-c.. ':::>~LtM-J. --(\(}()("' C0v<;. \e..6~ 0-\ pAr\-\~ \ ><:'L.~.-( \~\' ~ A\ So / ~ (9 ~o.. ~+oJ'~r~?-~ "?'Da-u-C- \\.'"'\.~ r-~vv-... --t-D ~ ":H.~--J-€- ~ 6-f'di..e- 2v-J.. c9 \6.- ~ \ v-,~ XJ-Ct> ""2-~c~ 8 ~~e-- ~ :b\a ~ " \\ 0~~J re"O'N\... L e.., to 0uJ\-t~ 6\b. \\-V~ ~?> vJ"~ 6 -Zc /( e . ,\'"' I L> .- l'?. ..c+- '-'2J\A. L..<2- r (;J(. ~ \ s ~ O-.e- v-.4 2 ~ f s u:u.. C ~~\ \ $"-L\- \) Z '-'-c. This application must be completed in fun and be typewritten or clearly Ptlnted and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, you should confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and procedural requirements applicable to your application. A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. This is to certify that I am making application for the described action by the City and that I am responsible for complying with all City requirements with regard to this request. This application should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I have attached a copy of proof of ownership (either copy of Owner's Duplicate Certificate of Title, Abstract of Title or purchase agreement), or I am the authorized person to make this application and the fee owner has also signed this application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. The documents and information I have submitted are true and correct to the best of my knowledge. <;-~? ~~ G Date I;J ); 'f'J-- Signature of Fee Owner Date G:\pLAN\forms\Development Review Application.DOC Rev. 12/05 Variance request for6724 Lotus Trail, Chanhassen. History: Owner Loren Veltkamp has lived in Chanhassen for 15 years and previously doubled the square footage of his home without needing a variance. This request for variance arises from a fire where the roof and half of the second story was consumed. Now we are left with an opportunity to make changes if it seems good to do so. This request does not seek to expand owner's buildable foot print by even one foot, or increase his liveable square footage. It only asks that owner be able to use his present building footprint to hold a full second story, instead ofa partial second story, as many, ifnot most, surrounding homes do. The home in question is a lakeshore home, 80 feet from the water, so it may make more sense to compare it to the other lakeshore type homes on Lotus Lake where it resides and faces these other homes around the north bay. Written justification for variance: a. Literal enforcement of existing codes will cause the following hardships: 1. Owners will not have full and regular use of their upper story. Owners will never have full use of the property as owners with more modem setback property do. Owners in older areas that predate city codes should not suffer for having invested in these older homes. They should be able to build m. others do. 2. Owners will not be able to heat and cool home efficiently costing the owners tens of thousands of dollars over the life of the home. This is due to not stacking the living spaces and the storage spaee properly. Without the variance, living and storage spaces are staggered allowing for heating and cooling to escape from six directions instead of the usual four. 3. Owner will not have a convenient floor plan, particularly concerning storage issues over garage. This causes a lot of small problems with personal projects and access to belongs for the rest of the homes existence. Numerous small hassles add up to hardship. 4. Owner will not have access to the best views of the lake from his own property. This is a hardship if you live on a beautiful lake like Lotus. I personally would rather have good views than an attach,~d garage, but to each his own..... 5. Owners will never be able to do the right thing with their home that builders are now telling me to do. 6. The set back from Tamarack road is imaginary and completely unnecessary, as Tamarack has bef:n rendered unusable, but for easements, and soon to be vacated. b. Carver Beach area was built without any codes originally. Imposing modem codes now creates endless and weird problems which these older and innocent properties were never designed to accommodate. Building a regular 2 story house with stacking bathrooms and bedrooms should not require a variance and normally wouldn't except in Carver Beach the anti-plotting capitol of the universe. The real problem here is that the city has had so many paper roads on the books that no one back then knew how to build to :;tay out of there way. Carver Beach really needs its own set of codes. As for zoning classifications. This is a regular 2nd story on a regular single family home so there is nothing crossing the zoning goals. c. The variance would have never been sought except for the fire that burned the roof off. Now we should do the best thing for the property and get this behind us. d. Problems were created by fire and too many paper roads on city books and the shear age of the proJerty dating back to 1926. e. The granting of this variance will hardly be noticed by anyone. We are going from a single story with roofto a 2 story with roof. All of which are behind trees most of the year. Traditional neighborhood views are left about 99% intact. No trees are threatened. f. There is no encroachment in any direction from proposed second story. No light or air issues. No more congestion, no height problems, just a regular type second story on an older rambler.