6621 Minnewashta Parkway FOF signedCITY OF CHANIIASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COI.INTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(PARTIAL APPROVAL)
IN RE
Application of Keri and Cordell Mack for a variance to place a parking area within the right-of-way,
a shoreland setback variance, a front yard setback variance, and a lot cover variance to facilitate the
constnrction ofa home and patio on a property zoned Planed Unit Development: Residential District
(PUDR) - Planning Case2022-17.
On January 17 ,2023, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board ofAppeals and
Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed
notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following:
FINDINGS O F FACT
l. The property is currently zoned Planned Unit Development: Residential District.
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
The tegal description ofthe property is:
Lot 2, Block 2, Minnewashta Creek First Addition
3. Variance Findines - Section 20-58 ofthe City Code provides the following criteria for the
granting of a variance:
a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and
intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding: Accommodating the reasonable use of substandard and nonconforming parcels is in
harmony with the intent of the zoning code and comprehensive plan; however, Section 20-71
the city code states the intention ofthe nonconforming use code is to prevent the enlargement
and expansion of nonconforming structures and to encourage the eventual elimination of the
nonconformiry. The applicant,s prosed increase to the property's lot cover represents a
sigrrificant increase to a nonconformity and is not consistent with intent ofthe city code.
The applicant's request for a driveway parking area within the right-of-way is not consistent
city's right-of-way ordinance's stated intent in section l7-71 ofkeeping the right-of-way free
fr om unnecessary encumbrances-
The applicant's requested front yard and shoreland setback variances are consistent with
city's policy of allowing structures to maintain their existing nonconforming setbacks, and
I
the city code's goal ofproviding a viable building pad for property's zoned for single-family
residential use.
b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical
difficulties" as used in connection with the granting ofa variance, means that the property
owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this chapter.
Practical difficulties include, but are not limited to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy systems.
Finding:
The proposed width ofthe home and patio is broadly consistent with the width of the existing
structue, and the narrowness of the lot does not allow for a reasonable home configuration
meeting required shoreland and front yard setbacks.
c That the purpose ofthe variation is not based upon economic considerations alone
Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations,
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner.
The parcel is larger than the minimum lot size required by its zoning district and the parcel
already benefits from having a nonconforming lot cover above what would be permi$ed by
the city's zoning code. The requested lot cover and parking area variances are not the result
ofany factor unique to the parcel, but rather are due to the size and configuration of the
house and driveway proposed by the applicant. A more modestly sized home would fit on the
parcel while allowing for a driveway configuration providing safe street access without
increasing the property's lot cover beyond the existing nonconforming amount.
The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character ofthe locality.
Finding: The applicant is requesting a lot cover variance to accommdate the construction of a
relatively large home on parcel that exceeds the city's minimum lot area requirements. The
e
2
The applicant has the ability construct a viable driveway and reasonably sized house with
typical amenities without exceeding the property's existing lot cover. Granting a variance
allowing the applicant to maintain the existing nonconforming lot cover provides reasonable
use.
The proposed driveway configuration would provide off-street parking for at least seven
guest vehicles without the requested variance. This is a sufficient amount of off-street
parking to provide reasonable use, and denying the requested variance to place a parking area
in the right-of-way would remove a single dedicated guest space.
Finding: The requested front yard and shoreland setback variances are the result of the
parcel's narrowness not providing a viable buildable area. The constraints posed by the
parcel's width are unique to the property and were not created by the landormer.
city's longstanding policy has been to require property's with nonconforming lot cover to
maintain their existing lot cover, unless the applicant demonsmtes that the existing lot cover
and substandard size of the parcel do not provide reasonable use. This policy help to prevent the
overcrowding of lots by limiting the size ofhomes and their accessory uses and encouraging
homeownen to design homes that work within the constraints created by their property.
With regards to this neighborhood many homes are older and could potentially be replaced or
expanded in the near future. As this is the first proposed rebuild in this area, the variance
granted here will be used by other nearby property owners as a guide for what they can
reasonably expect the city to approve. Granting this variance and switching from a policy of
maintaining the existing nonconforming lot cover to permitting new construction to increase
lot cover would significantly alter the character of the neighborhood by increasing the
amount of lot cover present in the shoreland overlay district and allowing the construction of
larger fooprint homes with more accessory structures. Increased lot cover has the potential to
negatively impact the quality of the lake by causing increased runoff and reducing the
amount of greenspace present to slow down and absorb the runoff.
f. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota Statutes
Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this Chapter.
Finding: This does not apply to this request.
4 The planning rep oft #2022-17 , dated January 17 , 2023 , prepared by MacKenzie Young-
Walters is incorporated herein.
The Chanhassen Board ofAppeals and Adjustrnents denies the requested 7.13 percent lot cover
variance, denies the requested variance for a parking area in the right-of-way, approves the requested
3O-foot shoreland setback variance, approves the requested l3-foot front yard setback variance, and
approves a l.l3 percent lot cover variance for the construction ofa home and patio, subject to the
following conditions:
l. Lot cover may not exceed 5,800 square feet.
2. Eaves and other awnings may project no more than 2.5 feet beyond the granted setback
variance.
3. Driveway configuration must comply with Section 20-1122 of the City Code.
4. Primary stnrcture must be setback at least 54 feet from the ordinary high water level and
patio must be setback at least 45 feet from the ordinary high water level.
5. A building permit must be obtained prior to demolishing any structures on the site and before
beginning any construction on the site.
6. Building plans must provide suffrcient information to veriff that proposed building meets all
requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code, additional comments or requirements
may be required after plan review
7. Retaining walls (ifpresent) more than four feet high, measured from the bottom ofthe
footing to the top of the wall, must be designed by a professional engineer and a building
J
DECISION
permit must be obtained prior to constnrction. Retaining walls (if present) under four feet in
height require a zoning permit.
8. A permanent l0 - foot native vegetated buffer with permanent buffer signs must be installed
along the shoreline using species native to the ecotype. Buffer strip averaging may be used to
achieve the total buffer area required. The buffer may be configured around the path and
stairs. Design plans must be approved by the Water Resources Engineer.
9. A buffer agreement describing the precise location and extent of the buffer strip, as well as
the restrictions for activities within the buffer strip, shall be signed by the property owner and
the city and shall be recorded against the property at the county recorder's office. The
property owner shall be responsible for all costs and fees associated with the buffer strip
dedication.
10. The installation of any improvements on the Site shall meet all applicable jurisdictional
requirements, including but not limited to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
and the Minnehaha Creek Watershed District, and all applicable permits shall be obtained
prior to any site improvements.
CITY OF C ANHASSEN
BY:
Its:
g:Vlan\2022 planning casesU2- l7 6621 minnewashra parkc,,ayuiadirgs of fact aDd decision 6621 minnewashta parkway (panial approval).docx
4
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this lTth day of January,202).