Staff Report 6621 Minnewashta ParkwayPlanning Commission Item
January 17, 2023
Item 6621 Minnewashta Parkway: Consider a Request for Variances for the
Construction of a Single-Family Home
File No.2022-17 Item No: C.1
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By MacKenzie Young-Walters, Associate Planner
Applicant Keri & Cordell Mack
Present Zoning Single Family Residential District (RSF)
Land Use Residential Low Density
Acerage .51
Density NA
Applicable
Regulations
Chapter 1, General Provisions
Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming Uses
Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District.
Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District
Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks.
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1, Generally
Section 20-908, Yard Regulations
Chapter 20, Article XXIV, Division 2, Parking and Loading
Section 20-1122, Access and Driveways
5
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments 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 30-foot shoreland setback variance, approves the requested 13-
foot front yard setback variance, and approves a 1.13 percent lot cover variance for the construction
of a home and patio, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts
and Decision."
SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a variance to place a parking area in the right-of-way, a 30-foot shoreland
setback variance, a 13-foot front yard setback variance, and a 7.13 percent lot cover variance to
accommodate the construction of a new home and patio. The proposed home would be setback 17 feet
from the front lot line and 54 feet from the ordinary high water level (OHWL). The proposed patio
would be setback 45 feet from the OHWL. The proposed lot cover would be 7,132 square feet. The
property’s existing house is setback 22.7 feet from the front line and 52 feet from the OHWL. The
existing deck is setback 40 feet from the OHWL. The exiting property has 5,800 square feet of lot
cover. The requested increased to the property’s nonconformities require variances.
BACKGROUND
In August of 1979 the City issued a building permit for single-family home.*
In October of 1998 the City issued a building permit for a new deck.*
In October of 2006 the City issued a building permit for a new front porch.
Several permits for maintenance and interior work are also on file with the city.
*Variances were associated with these items, see attached staff report for additional information.
DISCUSSION
The applicant is requesting a 30-foot shoreland setback variance, 13-foot front yard setback variance, a
variance to place a parking area in the right-of-way, and a 7.13 percent lot cover variance to build a new
home and patio replacing an existing home and deck/patio. The existing structures encroach 35 feet into
the shoreland setback, 7.3 feet into the front yard setback, and exceed the permitted lot cover by 1.13
percent. The applicant has stated that the requested setback variances are necessary due to the
narrowness of the lot and observe that simply replacing the existing home would require equivalent
variances. They have indicated that they are primarily proposing a new layout or the home. They have
noted that the requested lot cover and parking area variances are due to the need to create a driveway
configuration that includes off-street parking and a turnaround, as there is no on-street parking on
Minnewashta Parkway and it is not safe to back onto the street. Finally, they have stated that they
believe the proposed vegetative buffer offsets the proposed increase to the property’s lot cover.
The city’s policy is to limit the spread and expansion of nonconforming structures by not granting
6
variances to expand nonconformities, unless those variances are justified by a practical difficulty unique
to the property that does not result for the owner’s design choices. In this case, the requested setback
variances comply with this policy. The setback variances requested by the applicant essentially create a
buildable area with approximately the same width as the existing structure and, due to the narrowness of
the lot, it would not be possible to construct a home meeting the required setbacks. The applicant is
shifting the building pad closer to the road, but since this shift increases the distance between the
property’s impervious surfaces and the lake, staff believes this exchange of setbacks aligns with the
city’s goal of providing the maximum protection possible for the city’s aquatic resources. For these
reasons staff recommends approving the requested setback variances.
The requested lot cover variance would expand the property’s lot cover from the current nonconforming
5,800 square feet to 7,132 square feet, a 1,332 square foot increase. As the property exceeds the city’s
minimum required lot size, the parcel’s physical characteristics do not justify the proposed increase. The
applicant’s implication that the requested lot cover variances are needed due to the difficulties
associated with accessing Minnewashta Parkway is not supported because the existing driveway
configuration should allow for vehicles exiting the property to turn around prior to entering the street
and the proposed driveway is 113 square feet smaller than the existing driveway. Examining the
variance request, it is clear that requested lot cover variance is the result of the applicant increasing the
footprint of the house from 1,901 square feet to 3,701 square feet. Given that a two story structure can
built on the lot, a home providing reasonable use can be built on the site without the requested lot cover
variance. The requested variance should be understood to be the result of the size of the applicant’s
proposed building size rather than any factor unique to the property. Additionally, if a larger home
footprint than what is current present is desired, the applicant has the ability to reduce the size of the
patio, walkway, garage portion, or driveway to facilitate a larger living area. For these reasons staff
recommends denying the requested lot cover variance and requiring the applicant to build within their
exiting lot cover total.
While the proposed vegetative buffer does help protect the lake, it has never been the city’s policy that
properties can increase their lot cover by adding buffers and/or rain gardens and there is not provision
allowing for this within the city code. The proposed buffers are required due to the fact that the home
does not meet the required 75-foot shoreland setback and already exceeds the city’s lot cover limit.
Staff conveyed the expectation that the property not increase its existing lot cover and add buffers to
address the existing nonconforming elements in pre-application conversations with the architect and
cannot recommend that the variance process be used to approve increased lot cover in exchange for
buffers that are already required due to the property’s existing nonconformities.
Regarding the requested variance to encroach into the right-of-way, the proposed driveway would
provide off-street parking for at least seven guest vehicles in addition to the property’s four garage stalls
without an encroachment into the right-of-way. The requested variance would accommodate one
additional guest parking space. Given the importance of maintaining an unencumbered right-of-way, the
fact that the proposed driveway provides ample guest parking without the proposed encroachment into
the right-of-way, and the fact that only a single parking spot is added by the proposed encroachment,
staff recommends that the requested variance for a parking area within the right-of-way be denied.
In summation, variances should only be granted in response to practical difficulties caused by the
unique characteristics of a parcel, and only to the extent necessary to provide reasonable use of the
parcel. Variance requests that have their genesis in the design choices of property owners do not meet
this criteria. Reviewing the requested variances, the requested setback variances are the result of the
narrowness of the property and are consistent with extent of the existing nonconformity; however, the
requested lot cover and parking area variances are the result of the size of the proposed building, not any
7
factor unique to the property. Staff believes that a home and driveway providing reasonable use of the
parcel are possible without the requested lot cover and parking area variances.
A full analysis can be found in the attached staff report.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the requested 7.13 percent lot cover variance,
deny the requested variance for a parking area in the right-of-way, approve the requested 30-foot
shoreland setback variance, approve the requested 13-foot front yard setback variance, and approve a
1.13 percent lot cover variance for the construction of a home and patio, subject to the following
conditions:
1. 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 structure 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 sufficient information to verify 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 (if present) more than four feet high, measured from the bottom of the footing to
the top of the wall, must be designed by a professional engineer and a building permit must be
obtained prior to construction. Retaining walls (if present) under four feet in height require a
zoning permit.
8. A permanent 10-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.
ATTACHMENTS
Staff Report
Engineering Report
Findings of Fact and Decision
Variance
Application for Development Review
Narrative
Plans
8
Existing Conditions
Proposed Conditions
Letter from Neighbor
9
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
PC DATE: January 17, 2023
CC DATE: February 13, 2023
REVIEW DEADLINE: February 14, 2023
CASE #: PC 2022-17
BY: MYW
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a variance to place a parking area in the right-of-way, a 30-foot
shoreland setback variance, a 13-foot front yard setback variance, and a 7.13 percent lot cover
variance to accommodate the construction of a new home and patio. The proposed home would
be setback 17 feet from the front lot line and 54 feet from the ordinary high water level (OHWL).
The proposed patio would be setback 45 feet from the OHWL. The proposed lot cover would be
7,132 square feet. The property’s existing house is setback 22.7 feet from the front line and 52
feet from the OHWL. The existing deck is setback 40 feet from the OHWL. The exiting property
has 5,800 square feet of lot cover. The requested increased to the property’s nonconformities
require variances.
LOCATION:6621 Minnewashta Pkwy
APPLICANT:Keri and Cordell Mack
6621 Minnewashta Pkwy
Excelsior, MN 55331
PRESENT ZONING: “PUDR” –Planned Unit
Development: Residential District
2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
ACREAGE:.51 acres DENSITY: NA
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.
Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet.
PROPOSED MOTION:
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments 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 30-foot shoreland setback variance, approves the requested 13-foot front yard setback
variance, and approves a 1.13 percent lot cover variance for the construction of a home and patio,
subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.”
10
6621 Minnewashta Parkway
January 17, 2023
Page 2
PROPOSAL/SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a 30-foot shoreland setback variance, 13-foot front yard setback
variance, a variance to place a parking area in the right-of-way, and a 7.13 percent lot cover
variance to build a new home and patio replacing an existing home and deck/patio. The existing
structures encroach 35 feet into the shoreland setback, 7.3 feet into the front yard setback, and
exceed the permitted lot cover by 1.13 percent. The applicant has stated that the requested
setback variances are necessary due to the narrowness of the lot and observe that simply
replacing the existing home would require equivalent variances. They have indicated that they
are primarily proposing a new layout or the home. They have noted that the requested lot cover
and parking area variances are due to the need to create a driveway configuration that includes
off-street parking and a turnaround, as there is no on-street parking on Minnewashta Parkway
and it is not safe to back onto the street. Finally, they have stated that they believe the proposed
vegetative buffer offsets the proposed increase to the property’s lot cover.
The city’s policy is to limit the spread and expansion of nonconforming structures by not
granting variances to expand nonconformities, unless those variances are justified by a practical
difficulty unique to the property that does not result for the owner’s design choices. In this case,
the requested setback variances comply with this policy. The setback variances requested by the
applicant essentially create a buildable area with approximately the same width as the existing
structure and, due to the narrowness of the lot, it would not be possible to construct a home
meeting the required setbacks. The applicant is shifting the building pad closer to the road, but
since this shift increases the distance between the property’s impervious surfaces and the lake,
staff believes this exchange of setbacks aligns with the city’s goal of providing the maximum
protection possible for the city’s aquatic resources. For these reasons staff recommends
approving the requested setback variances.
The requested lot cover variance would expand the property’s lot cover from the current
nonconforming 5,800 square feet to 7,132 square feet, a 1,332 square foot increase. As the
property exceeds the city’s minimum required lot size, the parcel’s physical characteristics do
not justify the proposed increase. The applicant’s implication that the requested lot cover
variances are needed due to the difficulties associated with accessing Minnewashta Parkway is
not supported because the existing driveway configuration should allow for vehicles exiting the
property to turn around prior to entering the street and the proposed driveway is 113 square feet
smaller than the existing driveway. Examining the variance request, it is clear that requested lot
cover variance is the result of the applicant increasing the footprint of the house from 1,901
square feet to 3,701 square feet. Given that a two story structure can built on the lot, a home
providing reasonable use can be built on the site without the requested lot cover variance. The
requested variance should be understood to be the result of the size of the applicant’s proposed
building size rather than any factor unique to the property. Additionally, if a larger home
footprint than what is currently present is desired, the applicant has the ability to reduce the size
of the patio, walkway, garage portion, or driveway to facilitate a larger living area. For these
reasons staff recommends denying the requested lot cover variance and requiring the applicant to
build within their exiting lot cover total.
11
6621 Minnewashta Parkway
January 17, 2023
Page 3
While the proposed vegetative buffer does help protect the lake, it has never been the city’s
policy that properties can increase their lot cover by adding buffers and/or rain gardens and there
is not provision allowing for this within the city code. The proposed buffers are required due to
the fact that the home does not meet the required 75-foot shoreland setback and already exceeds
the city’s lot cover limit. Staff conveyed the expectation that the property not increase its existing
lot cover and add buffers to address the existing nonconforming elements in pre-application
conversations with the architect and cannot recommend that the variance process be used to
approve increased lot cover in exchange for buffers that are already required due to the
property’s existing nonconformities.
Regarding the requested variance to encroach into the right-of-way, the proposed driveway
would provide off-street parking for at least 7 guest vehicles in addition to the property’s four
garage stalls without an encroachment into the right-of-way. The requested variance would
accommodate 1 additional guest parking space. Given the importance of maintaining an
unencumbered right-of-way, the fact that the proposed driveway provides ample guest parking
without the proposed encroachment into the right-of-way, and the fact that only a single parking
spot is added by the proposed encroachment, staff recommends that the requested variance for a
parking area within the right-of-way be denied.
In summation, variances should only be granted in response to practical difficulties caused by the
unique characteristics of a parcel, and only to the extent necessary to provide reasonable use of
the parcel. Variance requests that have their genesis in the design choices of property owners do
not meet this criteria. Reviewing the requested variances, the requested setback variances are the
result of the narrowness of the property and are consistent with extent of the existing
nonconformity; however, the requested lot cover and parking area variances are the result of the
size of the proposed building, not any factor unique to the property. Staff believes that a home
and driveway providing reasonable use of the parcel are possible without the requested lot cover
and parking area variances.
APPLICABLE REGULATIONS
Chapter 1, General Provisions
Section 1-2, Rules of Construction and Definitions
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3. Variances
Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4. Nonconforming Uses
Chapter 20, Article VII. Shoreland Management District.
Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District
Section 20-615, Lot Requirements and Setbacks.
Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1, Generally
Section 20-908, Yard Regulations
Chapter 20, Article XXIV, Division 2, Parking and Loading
Section 20-1122, Access and Driveways
12
6621 Minnewashta Parkway
January 17, 2023
Page 4
BACKGROUND
In August of 1979 the City issued a building permit for single-family home.*
In October of 1998 the City issued a building permit for a new deck.*
In October of 2006 the City issued a building permit for a new front porch.
Several permits for maintenance and interior work are also on file with the city.
*Variances were associated with these items. See discussion on neighborhood variances for
additional information.
SITE CONSTRAINTS
Zoning Overview
The property is zoned Planned Unit Development: Residential District (PUDR) and is located
within the Shoreland Management District with lake frontage. The table below shows what is
required by the zoning code, what is currently present on the property, and what is being
proposed by the applicant.
Ordinance Existing Proposed
Zoning PUDR PUDR PUDR
Lot Area 20,000 22,194 22,194
Front Yard Setback 30*22.7*17
Side Yard Setback 10 10 10
Shoreland Setback 75 52 (house)/ 40
(Deck/Patio)**
54 (house)/45 (Patio)
Hard Surface Coverage 25% (5,000 SF)26.13% (5,800 SF)32.13% (7,132)
Lot Frontage 90 Feet 90 Feet 90 Feet
Lot Depth 125 115 115
Structure Height 35 Feet Unknown 30’
Water Oriented
Structure
250 Square Feet None None
Driveway Setback 5’***3’3’
*Ordinance allows homes built prior to February 19, 1987 to have an open porch with a 20 foot
front yard setback.
**28 foot setback variance granted for deck. Unclear why it was built with 40 foot shoreland
setback rather than 47 foot shoreland setback.
***Driveways must maintain a ten foot setback for first 20 feet of length after which they can
reduce the setback down to 5 feet. The City Engineer can also approve a 5 foot setback for the
entire driveway length.
13
6621 Minnewashta Parkway
January 17, 2023
Page 5
Bluff Creek Corridor
This is not encumbered by the Bluff Creek Overlay District.
Bluff Protection
There are no bluffs on the property.
Floodplain Overlay
Portions of the eastern edges of the property appear to be within
the AE Flood Zone (One percent annual flood chance, shown in
yellow) and the 500 year flood zone (shown in red); however,
no portion of the proposed project will take place within those
areas.
Shoreland Management
The property is located within the Shoreland Management District and is riparian. This district
requires a 75-foot structure setback from the lake’s ordinary high-water level and limits the
property to a maximum impervious surface coverage of 25 percent. It also requires 90 feet of lot
width and a minimum 20,000 square feet of lot area.
Wetland Protection
There is not a wetland located in the project area.
NEIGHBORHOOD
Minnewashta Creek/Pleasant Acres
Most of the parcels between Minnewashta Parkway and Lake
Minnewashta were created as part of the Pleasant Acres subdivison in
1957 or the Minnewashta Creek 1st Addition in 1976, though the
northern most two parcels were created in 1992 as part of the Washta
Bay Court subdivision. Changes in the zoning code and OHWL have
created nonconformties and neccesitated variances for many of the
properties in the older subdivions and most of the homes were
constructed in the 1970s or 1980s.
14
6621 Minnewashta Parkway
January 17, 2023
Page 6
Variances within 500 feet:
3801 Leslee Curve (PC 2016-14): Accessory structures over 1,000 sq. ft. (shed) – Denied
6541 Minnewashta Pkwy (PC 1993-02): 30’ stream setback (house) - Approved
6601 Minnewashta Pkwy (PC 1977-24): Lot under 20,000 sq. ft. (house) – Approved*
(PC 1997-10): 13’ shoreland setback (deck) – Approved**
6621 Minnewashta Pkwy (PC 1977-24): Lot under 20,000 sq. ft. (house) – Approved*
(PC 1998-9): 28’ shoreland setback (deck) – Approved**
6641 Minnewashta Pkwy (PC 1992-10): 6’ lake setback (deck and addition) - Approved
(PC 2019-10): 6’ side yard setback, 3% lot cover (garage) - Approved
*Note: It appears that lot area calculated only included the portions of these lots west of the survey
pins located between 49 and 30 feet from the OHWL in force at that time. The exclusion of these
areas lead to the properties needing a variance for not meeting the required 20,000 sq. ft. minimum
lot size for parcels within the shoreland overlay district. Staff is uncertain as to why this area was
excluded from the total. If the area east of the pins was not part of the lots, they would not be
riparian lots and they would have met the required 15,000 square foot lot area for non-riparian
properties, but needed a lot depth variance due to not meeting the required 125-foot lot minimum lot
depth. There is also a note in the staff report showing a proposed home site meeting the 75-foot
shoreland setback measured from the OHWL at the far east of the properties. In any event, when the
entire property is included in the calculationsboth lots meet the minimum 20,000 sq. ft. lot area
requirement and variance 1977-24 is unnecessary.
**Note: It appears that in 1976 when these lots were created the OHWL was 943.5 and that
subsequent changes in the lake level have resulted in a current OHWL of 944.5. This change in
OHWL had the effect of reducing the home’s setback from the lake and created the non-conforming
shoreland setback. It should be noted that variance 1998-9 was approved because the proposed deck
expansion maintained the existing deck’s shoreland setback and that variance 1997-10 was
approved because the proposed deck maintained the existing deck’s shoreland setback.
ANALYSIS
Lot Cover
Throughout the city lot cover is regulated in order to control the amount of stormwater generated by
properties and ensure minimum amounts of greenspace are present. Lot cover also serves to
indirectly limit the size of structures on parcels as property owners must balance home size,
driveway configuration, patios, sheds, and other accessory structures to ensure the totals fall within
the permitted lot cover limits. The city’s shoreland overlay district limits the maximum amount of
lot cover within 1,000 feet of lakes to 25 percent of a property’s lot area.
15
6621 Minnewashta Parkway
January 17, 2023
Page 7
Due to the importance of limiting stormwater and maintaining greenspace, especially on riparian
parcels where runoff has the highest likelihood of contributing to lowering the quality of the city’s
aquatic resources, the city’s policy has been to only grant lot cover variances in situations where the
proposed lot cover is less than or equal to the amount of existing nonconforming lot cover. The one
exception to this is in cases where the parcel is substandard to the extent that the lot cover permitted
by the city code would not allow for reasonable use, in which case the minimum lot cover variance
necessary to permit reasonable use is supported. This policy was conveyed to the applicant’s
architects during initial consultations on the variance request.
In all cases where a property has nonconforming lot cover, a substandard lot size, or nonconforming
shoreland setbacks and variances are requested, thecity requires that vegetative buffers be
established. The establishment of these buffers is intended to mitigate the continuation of the
existing nonconformities, and should not be understood offset requested increases to a property’s lot
cover. The city code does not provide a mechanism for homeowners to offset increased lot cover by
installing additional buffering or rain gardens, nor should the variance process be used to approve
such exchanges on a piecemeal basis.
In this case, the applicant has a nonconforming lot cover of 5,800 square feet on a 22,194 square
foot lot which results in 26.13 percent lot cover. They are proposing increasing this lot cover to
7,132 square feet which would result in 32.13 percent lot cover, a six percent increase. The
applicant states in their narrative that the primary motivation for this variance request is the need to
accommodate off street parking and turnaround areas as part of their driveway configuration. They
indicate that Minnewashta Parkway’s high traffic speed, volume of traffic and lack of on-street
parking necessitate the requested driveway configuration and associated lot cover, and that the
increased lot cover is offset by the proposed vegetative buffer and rain gardens. At the end of their
narrative they state that rebuilding the existing home would require substantiallysimilar variances.
16
6621 Minnewashta Parkway
January 17, 2023
Page 8
When evaluating the variance
request, it is clear that the
increase in lot cover is the result
not of the proposed driveway and
parking areas but rather of the
proposed increase to the footprint
of the existing home. As the table
to the right shows, the proposed
driveway is actually 113 square
feet smaller than the existing
driveway and that the size of all existing features of the property, save the building footprint have
been reduced. The applicant is proposing nearly doubling the footprint of the existing home and the
additional 1,800 square feet of lot cover associated with this request is responsible for the proposed
1,332 square foot increase in the property’s existing lot cover.
It should also be noted that it is not clear why the
property’s existing “doughnut” shaped driveway
requires the applicant to back out onto Minnewashta
Parkway. These type of driveway configurations are
used because they allow for drivers to circle the open
area or otherwise maneuver a vehicle to facilitate
pulling forward into the street, essentially they provide
a turnaround. Even if a circumstance that staff is
unaware of prevents the use of this particular driveway
in that manner, the applicant’s proposal shows that a
driveway they believe to be viable which also provides
a large amount of off street parking can be created
while reducing the amount of property covered by
driveway area. In short, the practical difficulties
associated with the site’s access off of a collector are not related to the requested lot cover variance.
The other factor that may justify a lot cover
variance are if the lot is too small to allow for
reasonable use. The city’s lot cover limits are
presumed to provide sufficient lot cover for
reasonable use so long as a property meets the
minimum size for its zoning district. As the table to the right shows, properties guided for low
density residential development meeting the various zoning district’s minimum lot sizes are
expected to be able to accommodate a home and accessory uses with lot cover totals ranging from
3,150 square feet to 5,000 square feet. The applicant’s parcel has an area of 22,194 square feet and
has a nonconforming lot cover of 5,800 square feet. This means they already have 800 square feet of
lot cover beyond the minimum threshold created by the zoning code for a riparian single-family lot
and 251 square feet beyond the 5,549 square feet they are allowed under the city code. It is difficult
to take the position that circumstances unique to the propertyprevent reasonable use without a lot
17
6621 Minnewashta Parkway
January 17, 2023
Page 9
cover variance when the property exceeds its district’s minimum lot size and already has
nonconforming lot cover over what would typically be permitted.
The last question to be addressed is if the requested 7,132 square feet of lot cover is needed for
reasonable use. Comparing the size of the applicant’s proposed home to the typical size and
configuration of the neighborhood’s homes can be helpful in determining if what is being proposed
is necessary for the applicant to have reasonable use of the property. In this case the existing homes
between Minnewashta Parkway and Lake Minnewashta have 2 or 3 stall garages, whereas the
applicant is proposing a 1,136 square foot 4 car garage. The city code establishes a two-car garage
as the minimum requirement for properties and there are many properties in the city that simply
cannot accommodate a 4 car garage due to the lot cover required for a 4th stall and associated
driveway access, for this reason most new construction in the city features three car garages.
Surveying real estate listings, the average listed livable area for the area’s homes is a little under
2,500 square feet, compared to the 4,588 square feet of livable area the applicant is proposing. To
provide some context, the average size of a new home in the United States as reported by the
American Home Index in 2021 was 2,480 square feet, and the Zillow listing for the applicant’s
existing home states that it has 3,157 square feet of living area. The city code requires a minimum
home size of 960 square feet and while the city has never taken the position that properties
requesting lot cover variances should be limited to homes of that size, the property’s existing home,
which could be rebuilt without the requested lot cover variance, is significantly larger than the
minimum required and larger than the average size of new home and the average size of the
surrounding homes.
Given the above information, a home consistent with or even larger than what is currentlypresent in
the neighborhood could be constructed without the requested lot cover variance, especially since
some of the property’s existing lot cover could be repurposed to facilitate a larger home without a
lot cover variance. For example, under the current proposal portions of the front porch, driveway,
walkway, rear patio totaling 486 square feet were removed to partially offset the proposed 1,800
square foot increase in building footprint. This would provide the applicant with a 2,387 square foot
footprint (1,901 square-foot existing plus 486 square feet currently proposed for removal) for the
construction of a new home without the need for a lot cover variance beyond the existing
nonconforming lot cover. If the applicant felt that alarger building footprint was necessary, the
proposed patio, walkway, or even driveway could theoretically be further reduced to accommodate
a larger building footprint.
Ultimately, the applicant’s requested lot cover variance is the result of the proposed 3,701 square
foot home footprint and not of any unique constraint imposed by the parcel or Minnewashta
Parkway. Reasonable use is possible within the 5,800 square feet of existing lot cover and staff
recommends denying the requested lot cover variance.
18
6621 Minnewashta Parkway
January 17, 2023
Page 10
Shoreland Setback
The city’s shoreland ordinance establishes a 75-foot
structure setback in order to prevent the installation
of lot cover near ecologically sensitive areas, create
separation between structures and the lakeshore, and
provides for a consistent visual aesthetic for riparian
properties. Due to the important role that this
setback plays in protecting the quality of the city’s
lakes and the potential for these variances to impact
both the neighboring properties and all users of the city’s lakes, the city has historically been
very hesitant to grant shoreland setback variances. When properties with existing nonconforming
shoreland setbacks apply for variances to expand, staff has always recommended that the
expansion be required to maintain the existing lake setback.
In this case, the existing home has a
nonconforming 52-foot setback from
the OHWL and the existing deck with
patio underneath is setback 40 feet from
the OHWL. The applicant had initially
proposed a house with a 45-foot setback
from the OHWL and terrace with 36-
foot setback; however, in response to
staff feedback they shifted the proposed
home forward so that it would have a
54-foot setback from the OHWL and
the patio would have a 45-foot setback
from the OHWL. This revision lead to the proposal increasing the home’s shoreland setback by 2
feet and the deck/patio’s shoreland setback by 5 feet. As this is a reduction to the exiting
nonconforming setback the requested variance is consistent with both the nonconforming use
ordinance and the city’s policy for granting shoreland setback variances.
Staff would also like to note that the requested
setback variance is justified by the practical
difficulties associated with this parcel and is
broadly in line with the 28-foot setback
variance previously granted for the property’s
deck. Due to the fact that the parcel is fairly
shallow with a depth of 115 feet at its
narrowest point the interaction of the 75-foot
shoreland setback and 30-foot front yard
setback provide an unworkably constrained buildable area. While portions of the home could be
narrowed to reduce the required setback variance, the propsed 53 wide buildable area created by
the requsted shoreland and front yard setbacks is identical to the 53 wide area occupied by the
existing home and deck.
19
6621 Minnewashta Parkway
January 17, 2023
Page 11
For these reasons staff support the requested shoreland setback variance.
Front Setback
The intent of the city’s required 30-foot
front yard setback is to ensure that
neighborhoods have a consistent aesthetic
(i.e. greenspace along road corridors and
consistent siting of building pads) and that
there is adequate driveway length to
accommodate off-street parking. The
property currently has a 22.7-foot front yard
setback which is permitted due to a
provision in the city code that allows homes built prior to February 19, 1987 to have an open
deck encroaching up to 10 feet into the required 30-foot front yard setback. The applicant is
proposing a 17-foot front yard setback which would require a 13-foot front yard setback
variance.
Typically, staff would not support reducing a front yard setback below 20 feet as this distance is
generally required to ensure a long enough driveway to accommodate off street parking and the
desired greenspace and neighborhood character along road corridors. This goal of maintaining a
minimum 20-foot setback is evidenced by the fact that the open porch provision for older homes
still requires a 20-foot setback and that residential zoning districts with reduced front yard
setbacks typically establish a 25-foot setback with 5 feet of allowed encroachments for open
porches, patios, and decks.
In this case, the applicant is proposing utilizing a side loading garage. This garage configuration
means that the driveway can accommodate off-street parking on the driveway area to the side of
the house in front of the garage, rather than exclusively on the driveway area between the front
plane of the structure and the right-of-way line. For this reason, homes with side loading garages
are better able to provide adequate off-street parking with reduced front yard setbacks.
Additionally, the curve in this section of Minnewashta Parkway and variations in the width of its
unimproved right-of-way (i.e. the distance from curb to property line ranges from 20 feet at the
southwest corner of the property to 11 feet and the northwest corner) mean that differences in the
front yard setbacks of the structures to the east of this section of the road are less apparent as the
neighborhood does not present a uniform line of houses. This means that many of the aesthetic
concerns that factor into requiring uniform front yard setbacks are not applicable to this parcel.
As was noted in the discussion of the property’s shoreland setback, this property is unique in that
it has a pinch point where the width drops to approximately 115 feet and applying both the 75-
foot shoreland setback and 30-foot front yard setback to that section provides a buildable area of
only 10 feet. In order to provide reasonable use, variances from these setbacks are required and
during initial consultations with the applicant’s architect staff indicated a strong preference for
20
6621 Minnewashta Parkway
January 17, 2023
Page 12
minimizing the requested variance from the shoreland setback even if it meant shifting the
proposed structure closer to the road. The proposed front yard setback is the result of the
applicant shifting the building forward from their initial proposal in order to increase the non-
conforming shoreland setback.
Given the use of a side loading garage, the existing characteristics of the neighborhood, the
narrowness of the lot, and the importance of maintaining the greatest setback practicable from
the lake, staff supports the requested front yard setback variance.
Parking Area in Right-of-Way
Sec 20-1122 Access And Driveways
Subsection (d) 6 states:
For all lots, no portion of the right-of-way may be paved except that portion used for the driveway.
Subsection (d) 4 states:
For A-2, PUD-R for single-family detached houses, RR, RSF, R-4 and RLM for single-family
detached residential uses, the width of the driveway access shall not exceed 24 feet at the right-
of-way line.
The applicant is requesting a variance to place a
portion of their driveway within the right-of-
way to serve as a parking area. The city code
does not permit any area of the right-of-way,
save the portion used for driveway access, to be
paved and limits driveways to a maxim width of
24 feet at the right-of-way line. The reason for
these policies is to limit the amount of
impervious surface located within the right-of-
way and ensure that the right-of-way is clear
and unobstructed so that it can be used for its
intended functions (i.e. staging area for street
work, utility location and staging, small
utilities, etc.). An additional concern is the aesthetic impact of replacing green boulevard areas
with paved surfaces and private parking areas within residential districts.
Bringing the proposal into compliance with city code would have the impact of removing one of
the four shown guest spaces which would still provide the applicant with dedicated space for
three guest vehicles plus four potential spaces in front of the garage and the four garage stalls.
Additional guest vehicles could also be accommodated on other sections of the driveway. As a
point of comparison, a typical residential driveway in the city can accommodate the off-street
parking of four to six cars in addition to the available garage stalls.
21
6621 Minnewashta Parkway
January 17, 2023
Page 13
In any event, the applicant’s proposed 2,539 square-foot driveway could easily accommodate a
minimum of seven off-street guest parking spaces without a variance and the applicant has not
provided any justification for why an additional spot is needed to have reasonable use of the
parcel.
Given the city’s interest in maintaining an open and unobstructed right-of-way and the ability of
the applicant to add all but one of the proposed dedicated guest parking spaces without placing
the proposed parking area within the right-of-way, staff recommends that the requested variance
for a parking area in the right-of-way.
Impact on Neighborhood
The homes between Lake
Minnewashta and Minnewashta
parkway are generally older with
seven of the nine being built prior to
1990. Four of the properties have
received at least one variance and it is
likely that some of the other parcels
have non-conforming elements.
Given that many of the homes in this
area are approaching the age where
owners may be considering remodels,
additions, or rebuilding, staff believes that this variance, the first for a rebuild in the area, will shape
expectations for reasonable use and precedence. For this reason, staff is very appreciative of the
applicant’s willingness to maintain the existing shoreland setback, but is concerned that the
requested lot cover variance accommodates a driveway and house footprint that exceed what is
necessary for reasonable use. Granting the lot cover variance necessary to allow the applicant to
increase their existing home footprint from 1,901 square feet to 3,701 square feet while maintaining
an approximately 2,500 square-foot driveway would establish the expectation that homes and
driveways of the size proposed by the applicant are necessary for reasonable use of these sites,
regardless of the constrains composed by the city’s lot cover limits. This would result in a much
more intensely developed neighborhood (in terms of the total lot cover and the size of structures)
than is currently present or would be permitted by the zoning code.
Additionally, the proposed parking area within the right-of-way would be an uncommon feature
both within the city and the immediate neighborhood. With the exception of one property, the
existing homes appear to have turnarounds and parking areas located behind the right-of-way
line, though some nonconforming driveways with multiple access points also exist. Establishing
that the lack of on-street parking justifies private parking areas within the right-of-way could
significantly alter the character of the neighborhood if other properties followed suite and paved
portions of the right-of-way to accommodate visitor parking.
22
6621 Minnewashta Parkway
January 17, 2023
Page 14
In order to avoid establishing the expectation that lot cover variances will be granted to
accommodate house and driveway footprints beyond what would typically be allowed under the
city code and to maintain the clear and unencumbered nature of the city’s right-of-way, staff
recommends that the lot cover and parking area variances be denied.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the requested 7.13 percent lot cover
variance, deny the requested variance for a parking area in the right-of-way, approve the
requested 30-foot shoreland setback variance, approve the requested 13-foot front yard setback
variance, and approve a 1.13 percent lot cover variance for the construction of a home and patio,
subject to the following conditions:
1. 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 structure 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 sufficient information to verify 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 (if present) more than four feet high, measured from the bottom of the
footing to the top of the wall, must be designed by a professional engineer and a building
permit must be obtained prior to construction. Retaining walls (if present) under four feet
in height require a zoning permit.
8. A permanent 10 - 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.
23
6621 Minnewashta Parkway
January 17, 2023
Page 15
ATTACHMENTS
1. ENG/WRE Memo
2. Findings of Fact and Decision (Partial Approval)
3. Variance Document
4. Development Review Application
5. Narrative
6. Plans (Proposed)
7. Survey (Existing)
8. Survey (Proposed)
g:\plan\2022 planning cases\22-17 6621 minnewashta parkway\staff report_6621 minnewashta_var.docx
24
Memorandum
To:Olivia Adomabea, Community Development Intern
From:Joe Seidl, Water Resources Engineer
Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer
CC: Charles Howley, Public Works Director/City Engineer
George Bender, Assistant City Engineer
Steve Lenz, Engineering Technician III
Date:1/6/2023
Re:Variance Review at 6621 Minnewashta Parkway – Planning Case
#2022-17
The Engineering and Water Resources Departments have reviewed the variance submittal for
6621 Minnewashta Parkway. These comments are divided into two categories: general
comments and proposed conditions. General comments are informational points to guide the
applicant in the proper planning for this project, to inform the applicant of possible
extraordinary issues and/or to provide the basis for findings. Proposed conditions are
requirements that Engineering and Water Resources recommends be formally imposed on the
application in the final order. Note that references to the “City Standards” herein refer to the
City of Chanhassen Standard Specifications and Detail Plates.
General Comments/Findings
1. Any and all plans submitted with this application have been reviewed only for the purpose
of determining the feasibility of the project based on the variance(s) requested and that the
proposal is in accordance with City Standards. A recommendation of variance approval
does not constitute final approval of details, including but not limited to alignments,
materials and points of access, utility connections or discharge, that are depicted or
suggested in the application. The applicant is required to submit detailed construction
drawings for the project, as applicable. The City of Chanhassen Engineering and Water
Resources Departments will review plans, in detail, when they are submitted and approve,
reject or require modifications to the plans or drawings based upon conformance with City
25
Standards, the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances, the final order of the Variance
determination(s), and the professional engineering judgment of the City Engineer.
2. It is the opinion of the Engineering and Water Resources Departments that the proposed
variances can be developed in accordance with the requirements of the Chanhassen Code
of Ordinances (as it pertains to Engineering and Public Works requirements) and City
Standards, provided it fully addresses the comments and conditions contained herein and
can be approved.
3. The applicant is requesting a shoreland setback, front yard setback, and lot cover variance
in order to demolish an existing house and reconstruct a new single-family home on the
property.
4. The proposed house and grading plans provided by the applicant and drafted by Sathre-
Berquist, Inc., dated December 16, 2022, illustrates a proposed driveway that encroaches
into the driveway side yard setback as defined by Sec. 20-1122(a) of City Ordinance.
Ordinance requires that driveways shall meet the zoning district’s required side yard
setback for the first 20 feet of the driveway measured from the front property line. The
property is zoned Residential Single Family and would require a driveway side yard setback
of 10 feet for the first 20 feet; after the first 20 feet the setback can be reduced to 5 feet.
However, as the existing driveway’s side yard setback is approximately 5 feet for the first 20
feet, and because Sec. 20-1122(3)f. allows for the city engineer to administratively approve
on a case-by-case basis a minimum 5-foot side yard setback for the entirety of the driveway
without the need for a variance, the applicant shall maintain a 5-foot driveway side yard
setback for the entirety of the driveway. See proposed condition 1.
5. The applicant’s narrative dated December 16, 2022, states: “The city engineer requested
the removal of the existing turn-around in the driveway…”. This is not correct as the
Engineering Department provided preliminary comments to the applicant on November 29,
2022 that a turnaround would be required, and per Sec. 20-1122(d)(8) a turnaround is
required for all driveways entering onto a collector roadway such as Minnewashta Parkway.
The need for turnarounds on highways, county roads and collector roads, which typically
have higher volumes and speeds than local residential streets, is required in order to
eliminate the need for vehicles to back out. As indicated in the narrative by the applicant,
backing out onto Minnewashta Parkway is a safety concern. Constructing the required
turnaround in such a manor to eliminate the need to back-out will be required. See
proposed condition 2.
6. The proposed house and grading plans illustrate a parking pad attached to the driveway
that encroaches into the right-of-way. No portion of the right-of-way may be paved except
that portion used for the driveway’s ingress/egress in accordance with Sec. 20-1122(d)(6).
Furthermore, the city strives to maintain the rights-of-way within the city free of
unnecessary encumbrances as outlined under Article 17-V of City Ordinance. This ensures
26
the integrity of our streets and the appropriate use of the right-of-way (to benefit the
public). See proposed condition 3.
7. The existing home extends into the shoreland setback area by approximately 23 feet. The
proposed home extends into the shoreland setback area by approximately 30 feet which
increases the non-conformity of the home by 7 feet. The existing home has a footprint of
approximately 1,900 square feet and the property in its existing condition has
approximately 5,800 square feet of impervious area. The proposed home has a footprint of
approximately 3,700 square feet and the proposed site layout shows approximately 7,100
square feet of impervious area. The result is an increase in impervious area of the property
by approximately 1,300 square feet.
8. There are no existing stormwater best management practices (BMPs) onsite or downstream
of the site. As a result, stormwater leaving the property is not treated before it discharges
directly into Lake Minnewashta. The proposed increase in impervious area could result in
additional pollutants (including phosphorous and suspended solids) entering into Lake
Minnewashta which could negatively impact water quality along with adding additional
stormwater runoff volume.
The City of Chanhassen’s Local Surface Water Management Plan Policy 2.14 reads:
“Protect shorelands and water resources. All properties are required to have native
vegetated buffer adjacent to wetlands, storm ponds, and water resources. Non-
conforming properties, and lots of record shall be brought into compliance when
applying for permits or variances to improve the property. Non-conforming buffers
should attempt to meet regulatory requirements whenever possible. The minimum
non-conforming buffer width shall be 10 feet.”
City Ordinance - Shoreland Management District Section 20-490 states:
In evaluating all variances, zoning and building permit applications, or conditional use
requests, the zoning authority shall require the property owner to address, when
appropriate, stormwater runoff management, reducing impervious surfaces,
increasing setback, restoration of wetlands, vegetative buffers, sewage treatment and
water supply capabilities, and other conservation-designed actions.
9. The applicant’s proposed design shows stormwater best management practices (BMPs)
including a native shoreland buffer area 10 feet in width and two small rain gardens. No
design calculations or vegetation plans were submitted as part of the variance. The
proposed BMPs would help treat stormwater and assist to mitigate impacts from the
27
construction and increase in impervious area in the proposed plan if designed, installed, and
properly maintained. As such the applicant shall submit a revised design and vegetation
plan including permanent buffer markers and an agreement with the city for the BMP’s
permanent establishment and maintenance. See conditions 4 and 5.
10. Stormwater volume and water quality are not the only reasons for the lot cover regulations
defined in City Ordinance. As such, the construction of stormwater BMPs should not be
traded for additional lot cover as suggested to in the applicant’s variance narrative. It
should also be noted that the setback variance and building permit will trigger section 20-
490 of City Ordinance which outlines the buffer and stormwater management requirements
of the site. The intent of this section of City Ordinance and the related policy 2.14 in the
Local Surface Water Management Plan are to protect water resources and bring older sites
into compliance as redevelopment occurs.
11. The applicant is proposing a shoreland setback variance of 30 feet and a lot cover variance
of approximately 1,300 square feet or an increase of 7.1%. The proposed variance request
would create a structure setback of approximately 45 feet from the ordinary high-water
level of Lake Minnewashta. The required setback per Ordinance from the ordinary high-
water level in the Shoreland Management District is 75 feet. The applicant justifies that the
setback and lot cover variances are needed to build the home because of the constrained
site and the need for safe access. Staff disagrees that the lot is constrained to the point that
variances in excess of the existing condition are required. There appears to be sufficient
area to build a new home which could be reconfigured to meet the lot cover requirements
in City Ordinance and solve the issues outlined by the applicant. For example, the garage
and house footprint could be reduced in size to accommodate a turnaround and meet the
existing shoreline setback and 25% lot cover requirement. The size and layout of the new
home and driveway are design choices by the applicant. As such, staff does not support the
variance request. At a minimum, the shoreland setback should be maintained at the existing
52 foot home setback and the proposed plan should be modified to maintain the existing
condition impervious area. If the variance is ultimately approved by the Planning
Commission, Policy 2.14 of the Local Surface Water Management Plan and City Ordinance
should be applied to create permanent native buffers and other practices as needed to
protect downstream water resources and mitigate impacts of the proposed home
construction. See condition 4. Lastly, while Water Resources is not in support of the
proposed variance, any and all improvements on the Site must meet applicable
jurisdictional requirements. See proposed condition 6.
Proposed Conditions
28
1. The applicant shall maintain a 5-foot driveway setback for the entirety of the driveway
in accordance with Sec. 20-1122(a)(3)f. of City Ordinance.
2. The applicant shall provide for construction of a driveway turnaround with the building
permit for review and approval by the city engineer in accordance with Sec. 20-
1122(d)(8).
3. No portion of the public right-of-way shall be paved except that portion used for the
driveway’s ingress/egress in accordance with Sec. 20-1122(d)(6).
4. A permanent 10 - 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
29
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, 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
construction of a home and patio on a property zoned Planed Unit Development: Residential District
(PUDR) – Planning Case 2022-17.
On January 17, 2023, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals 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 OF FACT
1. 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 legal description of the property is:
Lot 2, Block 2, Minnewashta Creek First Addition
3. Variance Findings – Section 20-58 of the 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 of the nonconforming use code is to prevent the enlargement
and expansion of nonconforming structures and to encourage the eventual elimination of the
nonconformity. The applicant’s prosed increase to the property’s lot cover represents a
significant increase to a nonconformity and is not consistent with intent of the 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 17-71 of keeping the right-of-way free
from 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
30
2
the city code’s goal of providing 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 of a 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 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.
The proposed width of the home and patio is broadly consistent with the width of the existing
structure, 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 of the 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.
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 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 permitted by
the city’s zoning code. The requested lot cover and parking area variances are not the result
of any 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.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The applicant is requesting a lot cover variance to accommodate the construction of a
relatively large home on parcel that exceeds the city’s minimum lot area requirements. The
31
3
city’s longstanding policy has been to require property’s with nonconforming lot cover to
maintain their existing lot cover, unless the applicant demonstrates 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 of homes and their accessory uses and encouraging
homeowners 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 footprint 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 report #2022-17, dated January 17, 2023, prepared by MacKenzie Young-
Walters is incorporated herein.
DECISION
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments 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
30-foot shoreland setback variance, approves the requested 13-foot front yard setback variance, and
approves a 1.13 percent lot cover variance for the construction of a home and patio, subject to the
following conditions:
1. 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 structure 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 sufficient information to verify 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 (if present) more than four feet high, measured from the bottom of the
footing to the top of the wall, must be designed by a professional engineer and a building
32
4
permit must be obtained prior to construction. Retaining walls (if present) under four feet in
height require a zoning permit.
8. A permanent 10 - 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.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 17th day of January, 2023.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Its:
g:\plan\2022 planning cases\22-17 6621 minnewashta parkway\findings of fact and decision 6621 minnewashta parkway (partial approval).docx
33
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA
VARIANCE 2022-17
1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby
grants the following variance:
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments 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 30-foot shoreland setback variance, approves the requested 13-
foot front yard setback variance, and approves a 1.13 percent lot cover variance for the
construction of a home and patio, subject to the conditions of approval.
2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County,
Minnesota, and legally described as Lot 2, Block 2, Minnewashta Creek First Addition.
3. Conditions.The variance approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. 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 structure 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 sufficient information to verify 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 (if present) more than four feet high, measured from the bottom of the
footing to the top of the wall, must be designed by a professional engineer and a building
34
2
permit must be obtained prior to construction. Retaining walls (if present) under four feet
in height require a zoning permit.
8. A permanent 10 - 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.
4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not
been substantiallycompleted, this variance shall lapse.
Approved by Planning Commission: January 17, 2023
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Elise Ryan, Mayor
(SEAL)
AND:
Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager
STATE OF MINNESOTA )
(ss.
COUNTY OF CARVER )
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of ,
2023 by Elise Ryan, Mayor, and Laurie Hokkanen, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a
Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by
its City Council.
NOTARY PUBLIC
DRAFTED BY:
City of Chanhassen
7700 Market Boulevard
P.O. Box 147
Chanhassen, MN 55317
35
3
(952) 227-1100
36
7L-11 Mv
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
submittat Date: lL'l 6'ZL PC Date l-17 -23 ccoatet L-*-)L
CITY OI CIIII.IIIASSII{
60-Day Review Date 2 lzz
Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply)
tr
n
(Refet to the appropdate Application Checklist for
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
E Minor MUSA line for failing on-site sewers .....
Conditional Use Permit (CUP)
! Single-FamilyResidence
required submindl inlomation thdl must accompany this applicdtion)
$600 E subdivision (suB)
$1OO E Create 3lots or less
! Create over 3 lots....( lots)
E Metes & Bounds (2 lots).................
! Consolidate 1ots......................
E Lot Line Adjustment...................
E Final Plat......................
(lncludes $450 escrow for attorney costs)*
'Additional escrow may be required for other applications
through the development conltact-
n Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC)........ $300
(Additional recording fees may apply)
E Variance (VAR).......... .. . ................................... $200
E Wetland Alteration Permit (WAP)
! Single-Family Residence............................... $150
E Att others...... .................... $275
E zoning Appea|.......................-..-........................... $200
! Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)................. $500
XqIE: Wher multiple applications ar3 p.ocessed concuronuy,
the appropri.te f6o shall bo chargsd for e.ch application.
... $200
$3 per address
$325
$425E Alt others
E lnterim Use Permit (lUP)
E ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $325
! Al otners...... ...................... $425
tr
n
tr
Rezoning (REZ)
E Phnned Unit Development (PUD).................. $750
n Minor Amendment to existing PUD................. $100
E All others...... ...................... $500
Sign Plan Review................................................... $150
Site Plan Review (SPR)
E Administrative ..................... $100
E Commercial/lndustrial Districts*...................... $500
Plus $ 10 per 1,000 square feet of building area:( thousand square feet)
'lnclude number ot glglEg employeesi
'l clude number of4g!! employees:
E Residential Districts......................................... $500
Plus $5 per dwelling unit ( units)
E Notification Sign lcty to instattand remove).............
! Property Owners' List within 500' lCity to generate after pre-application meeting) ....
I Escrow for Recording Docu
E Conditional Use Permit
E Vacation
ments (check all that app
tr
lv)........... . ...
lnterim Use Permit
Variance
...................... $50 per document
n Site Plan Agreement
E Wetland Alteration Permit
! Metes & Bounds Subdivision (3 docs.) n Easements L- easements)<a< a a)
$4gEd0E Deeds
TOTAL FEE:
Section 2: Required lnformation
Description of Proposal
5621 Minnewashta Parkway Excelsior, MN. 55331Property Address or Location
Parcet #: 254800030
51
. Single-Family Residential District (RSt Requested Zoning Single-Family Besidential District (RSF)
Present Land Use Designation:Residenlial Low Densit Requested Land Use Designation Residential Low Density
Existing Use of Property:Primary residence
Total Acreage:
Present Zoning
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard
Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (952) 227-1 100 / Fax: (9521 227 -1110
$
@.ja_ addresses)
Legal Description: 002
Wetlands Present? E Yes E tto
Echeck box if separate narrative is attached.
37
APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant, represent to have obtained
authorization from the property owner to file this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subiect only lo
the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. lf this applicalion has not been signed by
the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. 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 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. I certify that the informalion and exhibits submitted are true and conect.
Name:Conlact:
Phone:Address
City/Statezip
Email:
Signature
PROPER,IrY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as prope(y owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do,
authorize the liling of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those
conditions, subjeCt only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. 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. I certify thal the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.
Name:Keri & Cordell Mack
6621 Minnewashta Parkway Phone:
City/State/Zip:
Email:
Excelsior, MN- 55331 Cell 612-597-8657
cordell.mack@vmghealth.com Fax:
Signature CordellMack Date 12t15t22
PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable)
Address
Contact:
Phone:
Cell:
Fax:
Name:
City/State/Zip
Email:
Cell:
Fax:
E Property Owner Via: E Email
$ nppticant Via: EIEmail
fl Engineer Via: E_Email
EF, other' via: Ef Email
Who should receive copies of staff reports?*Other Contact lnformation:
Address:
City/Sta
Email:
PRINT FORM
! Maited Paper copy Name h
SUBTIIT FORM
trn Mailed Paper Copy
Mailed Paper Copy p
E lr,,taiea Paper Copy
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Com plete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your
device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents an
SAVE FOBMcopy to the city for processing.
d payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital
Address:
noto'
-
Contact: _
This application must be completed in full and must be accompanied by all information and plans required by
applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before tiling this application, refer to the appropriate Application Checklist
and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specitic ordinance and applicable procedural
requirements and fees.
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.
Section 3:and
Section 4: Notification lnformation
38
Re: 6621 Minnewashta Parkway
Keri and Cordell Mack
December 16,2022
Varionce Applicotion
City of Chanhossen
Honorable Plan Commission, City Council Members and City Planner:
We appreciate your diligence and consideration of the variance requests associated
with our property at 6621 Minnewashta Parkway. We particularly appreciate the time
and effort by city leaders in working with us and our valued architects to address a
variety of questions related to the practical difficulties of rebuilding on this parcel of
land.
As background, our family purchased the home in June of this past year after an
extensive search and preference to move into the City of Chanhassen. lt has been our
intent to establish residence in Chanhassen with a mapping to Minnetonka School
District for well over a year.
The targeted improvements to the property and requested variances are all tied to a
comprehensive vision. The vision is influenced heavily by several practical difficulties
of the lot and existing structure. We have been living in the property for the past six
(6) months, and several practical difficulties have been experienced related to safety in
entering and exiting the property, lack of street parking, setbacks, and hardscape.
The property has a single curb cut, and it is positioned along a curve on Minnewashta
Parkway (Parkway). The sight lines entering and exiting the property are challenging,
and we have found the issue to be exacerbated in the winter with snow accumulation.
Thus far, we have had two near accidents when attempting to back out of the
driveway, with drivers along the parkway either traveling at excessive speeds and/or
distracted coming around the curve. Our daughter is a new driver obtaining her
license in November of this year, and the situation has escalated to a point where our
neighbors have invited her to park in their driveway to assure maneuverability in being
able to drive forward upon entering the Parkway. We have realized the parking and
exiting the property is a major consideration ofthe proposed solutions to the
property.
When purchasing the property, we didn't have a sound appreciation for what the lack
of street parking on the Parkway would entail. With the reality of three (3) drivers in
our family and inclusion of guests, parking and safety exitinB and entering the property
has been exacerbated. lt has been surprising to us in how cumbersome it is to ensure
safety with limited hardscape in managing a small number of multiple vehicles. The
39
As part of our site plan, we envision improving the sight lines when entering and
existing the property while maintaining existing side yard setbacks. Associated with
safety is the practical difficulty of hardscape and limitations with the relative size of
the driveway to accommodate the space necessary to turn around on the property. As
referenced above, the lack of street parking further exacerbates this issue. A very
necessary variance is the overage of hardcover. We understand the percentage is
fixed but the engineers have noted mitigating the watershed and reducing impervious
can be achieved by incorporating best management practice rain gardens and a
naturalvegetation bufferalongthe lakeshore. Adding additional hardcover for
parking purposes significantly reduce life safety regarding parking/existing the
property.
Another practical difficulty for this property, requiring a variance, is the compliant
buildable area. The existing lot shape is irregular and dictates the buildable area does
not allow a home to adequately fit in the area. The current home, as it sits, is already
non-compliant. We have worked with the city staff in proposing a modest sized home
that largely conforms and meets our family's functional needs. As shown in our
supporting submittals, we are NOT proposing habitable space to be any closer to the
lake shore than what is exhibited in the current structure. Similarly, we are not
proposing any outdoor deck or patio space to be any closer than what exists with the
current home. The existing lakeside setback violation was not caused by us, and we
respected the existing setback. Absent approval of this variance, there is not a
reasonable habitable structure that could be reasonably rebuilt.
At the city's suggestion, the proposed home will maintain the existing non-conforming
lakeside setback from the OHWIL (albeit requiring a variance) and pushes the
violations of the setback to street side, which is less desirable but understand the
lakeside setback is already an issue. The proposed lakeside patio maintains or is not
worse than the existing deck setback. The side yard setbacks for the proposed home
meets the city's zoning requirements. The variance necessary would only be to
maintain the existing driveway as the setback to achieve proper back-out and
maneuverability form the garage. The city engineer requested the removal of the
existing turn-around in the driveway which we were able to accommodate in the
design and felt was a sound request to improve the property.
The property as it sits is not compliant with current zoning regulations, even to rebuild
exactly the structure, deck, patios, and driveway sits it would need a variance in
everything we are asking we are just proposing a new layout more suitable to our
family.
reality is that with two or three cars in the driveway it is very difficult to exit the
property safely for an adult yet alone younger inexperienced drivers.
40
We are excited to call 6621 Minnewashta Parkway home, and we look fonrvarci to
ongoing engagement with the broader community. We appreciate your time and
consideration in reviewing this application for the proposed replacement structure.
Respectfully submitted,
/ttt,u
Keri and Cordell Mack
Cc: Peter Eskuche
Erin Tadych
41
42
PROPOSED HOME
PROPOSED PATIO
21'-6PROPOSED STRUCTURE29'-8"EXISTING STRUCTURE18'-0"PROPOSED STRUCTURE60'-3"EXISTING STRUCTURE62'-0"PROPOSED54'-6"PROPOSED PATIO47'-6"EXISTING DECKMAINTAIN EXISTING
PAVED SETBACK
PROPOSED HOME
PROPOSED PATIO
BUILDABLE AREA
7060504030802010NWES0 20'40'60'80'SUMMER SOLSTICESUNRISEWINTER SOLSTICESUNRISESUMMER SOLSTICESUNRISEWINTER SOLSTICESUNRISEEXISTING TO BE REMOVED
HARDCOVER KEY
EXISTING SITE PLAN
HARDCOVER KEY
PROPOSED SITE PLAN (Existing overlay shown for reference)
EXISTING STRUCTURE (DEMO)
EXISTING DECK (DEMO)
EXISTING FOR REFERENCE
PROPOSED STRUCTURE
PROPOSED PATIO
PROPOSED DRIVEWAY-
EXISTING SETBACKS
BUILDABLE SITE
SHEET
L1
REVIEW
08 DECEMBER 2022
952-544-3844
18318 Minnetonka Blvd
Deephaven, MN 55391
Copyright 2022
MINNE
SHORES
6621 MINNEWASHTA
PARKWAY,
EXCELSIOR, MN
43
12'14'16'
GRAPHIC SCALE
4'0'2'6'8'10'
#LayID
TYP CEILING HEIGHT = 10'-1-1/8""
APPROX. SF =2,565 FINISHED + 1,136 GARAGE
MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
8'-0"
4'-0"8'-0"2'-8"8'-0"3'-0"FLUSHFLUSHDOWN 6"
DOWN 6"
GARAGE
GREAT ROOM
DW
COOKTOP
DINING
LAUNDRY
COVERED ENTRY
TERRACE
WOOD
STONE
WOODWOOD
WOOD
WOOD
WOOD
DW
TILE
WOOD
WOOD
TILE
TILE
DOWN 6"
DOWN 6"
8'-0"
16'-0"
8'-0"
16'-0"
8'-0"
3'-0"
8'-0"
4'-0"
8'-0"
3'-0"8'-0"6'-0"8'-0"
2'-8"
8'-0"
3'-0"8'-0"2'-4"8'-0"
2'-8"
8'-0"
2'-8"
8'-0"
2'-6"
8'-0"
2'-8"
8'-0"
6'-0"
ELEC ROLL-UP
HOSE REEL
30" FRZR
30" REFDBLOVENS O. BEDROOM
O. CLOSET
O. BATHSCULLERY
GAS
FPLC
KITCHEN
4 SEASON PORCH
WORK AREA
CLOSET
FOYER
POWDER
W/D
TV
TV
MIRROR
MUDROOM
14'-6"x 15'-9"
13'-9"x 14'-2"
12'-0"x 22'-0"16'-6"x 22'-0"
7'-8"x 7'-0"
20'-0"x 13'-0"
10'-2"x 9'-8"
13'-8"x 10'-0"
13'-9"x 5'-9"
5'-0"x 6'-8"
5'-6"x 8'-6"
MOP
SINK
HOT/COLD
24'-0"x 35'-10"
41'-3"x 13'-10"
DOWN 6"CLIENTSHEET
A2
REVIEW
08 DECEMBER 2022
952-544-3844
18318 Minnetonka Blvd
Deephaven, MN 55391
Copyright 2022
MINNE
SHORES
6621 MINNEWASHTA
PARKWAY,
EXCELSIOR, MN
44
12'14'16'
GRAPHIC SCALE
4'0'2'6'8'10'
TYP CEILING HEIGHT = 9'-1-1/8""
APPROX. SF =1,179 FINISHED + 844 BONUS SPACE + 277 MECH/STORAGE
UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
202202
104D
104D
105D
104D
104D7'-0"2'-6"7'-0"2'-8"7'-0"2'-8"7'-0"
2'-6"
7'-0"
2'-6"7'-0"2'-8"7'-0"4'-0"7'-0"4'-0"7'-0"
2'-6"7'-0"5'-0"7'-0"
4'-0"7'-0"4'-0"7'-0"3'-0"7'-0"
2'-8"
104D
104D 7'-0"2'-8"7'-0"2'-8"7'-0"
2'-6"
CARPET
CARPET CARPET
CARPET
CARPET
CARPET
CARPETCARPET
TILE
TILE
TILE
LVT
LVT
LVT
LVT
STAIR
104D
BENCH WDLAUNDRY
BEDROOM 4 BEDROOM 3
BEDROOM 2
KIDS REC ROOM
BUNK ROOM
FLEX SPACE
TV
TV TV
SNACK
BAR
ENSUITE BATH 2
SHARED
BATH
BONUS
BATH
MECHANICAL
STORAGE
WIC 3WIC 2
UPPER HALL
LINEN STORAGE
5'-0"x5'-0"5'-0"x5'-0"
12'-3"x15'-8"
15'-9"x8'-7"
10'-0"x10'-6"CLIENTSHEET
A3
REVIEW
08 DECEMBER 2022
952-544-3844
18318 Minnetonka Blvd
Deephaven, MN 55391
Copyright 2022
MINNE
SHORES
6621 MINNEWASHTA
PARKWAY,
EXCELSIOR, MN
45
FOUNDATION
-4'-0"
M.L. SUBFLOOR 9XX.X'
±0"
U.L. SUBFLOOR
+11'-11 7/8"
U.L. CEILING
+21'-1"
12'14'16'
GRAPHIC SCALE
4'0'2'6'8'10'
1 EAST ELEVATION
2 WEST ELEVATION
SHEET
A1
REVIEW
08 DECEMBER 2022
952-544-3844
18318 Minnetonka Blvd
Deephaven, MN 55391
Copyright 2022
MINNE
SHORES
6621 MINNEWASHTA
PARKWAY,
EXCELSIOR, MN
46
FOUNDATION
-4'-0"
M.L. SUBFLOOR 9XX.X'
±0"
U.L. SUBFLOOR
+11'-11 7/8"
U.L. CEILING
+21'-1"
M.L. SUBFLOOR 9XX.X'
±0"
U.L. SUBFLOOR
+11'-11 7/8"
U.L. CEILING
+21'-1"
12'14'16'
GRAPHIC SCALE
4'0'2'6'8'10'
1 SOUTH ELEVATION
2 NORTH ELEVATION
SHEET
A2
REVIEW
08 DECEMBER 2022
952-544-3844
18318 Minnetonka Blvd
Deephaven, MN 55391
Copyright 2022
MINNE
SHORES
6621 MINNEWASHTA
PARKWAY,
EXCELSIOR, MN
47
0'2'
GRAPHIC SCALE
1'369 3 6 9 3 6 9 3 6 9 3'
SHEET
A3
REVIEW
08 DECEMBER 2022
952-544-3844
18318 Minnetonka Blvd
Deephaven, MN 55391
Copyright 2022
MINNE
SHORES
6621 MINNEWASHTA
PARKWAY,
EXCELSIOR, MN
48
49
50
From: bryonbequette@gmail.com <bryonbequette@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 17, 2023 1:30 PM
To: Young-Walters, MacKenzie <mwalters@chanhassenmn.gov>; Potter, Jenny
<jpotter@chanhassenmn.gov>
Cc: dbequette@comcast.net
Subject: Hearing on 6621 Minnewashta Pkwy, Jan 17, 2023
Ms. Potter and Mr. Young-Walters:
We are sending this note in response to the proposed variance being reviewed by the Planning
Commission this evening for 6621 Minnewashta Parkway.
We live adjacent (North) to this property and have done so for several years. As such, we have intimate
knowledge of the day-to-day management of the site as well as some of the challenges experienced
living on the Parkway. We reviewed the proposed site plan with Keri and Cordell Mack, and we are
supportive of the requested variances.
A few things of substance that should be noted during the Planning Commission’s deliberation include:
1. All of the homes to the east of the Parkway have inherent setback challenges as you are well
aware. The proposed setbacks and site lines are comforting to us and will enhance the
neighborhood.
2. Our property shares a side lot set back with 6621, and snow removal management is of
particular importance. We both end up using part of our hardscape in accommodating snow
build up as the Parkway hinders effective snow removal to other parts of our yard. Effectively,
part of our driveway is used for snow storage (as it is for 6621).
3. Our homes are on the east, non-sidewalk side of the Parkway so our yards take a significant hit
with snow accumulation from routine Parkway plowing. The snow accumulations in the right of
way create site line challenges and safety concerns upon exiting the property. I know this is a
concern for Keri and Cordell with a newer driver in the family.
1. There should be some accommodation on hardscape coverage to effectively manage
snow as the Parkway creates challenges not present with other Chanhassen
homeowners on a typical residential street.
4. All of the homeowners on the Parkway have to make certain accommodations to ensure safety
of family and guests. Without access to street parking, you are simply left with your driveway
and lot to manage not only the parking but also the logistics to assure no one backs onto the
Parkway upon exiting. This requires adequate driveway square footage unique to the properties
east of the Parkway. I believe all of the existing homes have some accommodation in driveway
design to allow vehicles to maneuver and exit forward.
1. Keri and Cordell’s daughter, Lauren, uses our driveway to park a vehicle thus affording
greater flexibility with the 6621 driveway. We often see Keri and Cordell out moving cars
or assisting family and friends with safe exits from the property. Some practical
accommodation is required as the site simply tries to afford what others have access to
in terms of street parking.
2. In essence, driveways on the Parkway need to be large enough to accommodate some
movement of vehicles on the property to ensure safety and compare reasonably to
street parking accommodations afforded to other homeowners.
51
5. Finally, all of these site limitations are further exacerbated with the Parkway itself, including the
overall amount of traffic, the type of heavy industrial usage on the road, and frankly the
excessive speeds that persist despite ongoing policing.
In summary, we have reviewed the plans in detail, and feel that they are well thought out and truly
make sense based on the situation and we wholly support the variances requested. We would be happy
to discuss any of these points with you further. Please represent our perspective and comments with
the Planning Commission and in turn the City Council.
Sincerely,
Bryon & Debbie Bequette
Bryon Bequette
Attorney at Law
Bequette & Associates
6601 Minnewashta Pkwy
Chanhassen, MN 55331
(612) 850-2322
bryonbequette@gmail.com
Website: Bequetteandassociates.com
52