Written Description
Variance Application
Address: 3732 Hickory Road, Chanhassen, MN 55331
Date: 06-16-23
Written Description of the Variance Request
The applicant is requesting several variances for the property in conjunction with the
construction of a new single-family house.
Variance 1 is to allow the footprint of the proposed house to encroach into the east and west
side setbacks, which would be a continuation of an existing non-conformity. The existing
house encroaches into the east side setback by 3.0 ft, and the west side setback by 2.2 ft.
The proposed house footprint would slightly reduce (12 sq ft) the extents of the non-
conforming existing house footprint on its south end, and meet current setback standards
on its north end where it extends beyond the existing footprint. This variance applies only to
the first two stories of the proposed house, as the existing house is a two-story structure.
The third story of the proposed house is set back on the east and west sides in order to
meet current code standards, except for at the staircase on the west side (see Variance 3).
Variance 2 is to exceed the maximum allowable impervious coverage for the lot, which
would be a continuation of an existing non-conformity. The existing impervious surfaces
total 2,505 sq ft (28.4%). The proposed impervious surfaces would total 2,408 sq ft (27.3%),
which would be a 103 sq ft reduction from the existing, but would still be over the maximum
allowable of 2,203 sq ft (25%).
Variance 3 is to allow for part of the third level of the proposed house (79 sq ft) to encroach
2.1 ft into the west side setback in order to provide space for a staircase. The staircase
stacks on all three levels of the house, but the first two levels of it would fall within the
existing house footprint, and thus would be a continuation of the existing non-conformity
referenced in Variance 1.
Variance 4 is to allow for a roof canopy over the main (west side) entry of the proposed
house to encroach 5.1 ft into the west side setback (2.5 ft is allowable per code), which
would be a continuation of an existing non-conformity. The existing house has a roof canopy
over its main (east side) entry that is similar in projection depth to the proposed one, albeit
on the opposite side of the house.
Variance 5 is to allow for the location of the non-conforming portion of the proposed house
to shift 9 ft to the south and rotate 1.3 degrees relative to the existing house’s location. This
would move the proposed house away from the lake and place its street-facing facade more
in-line with the neighboring houses on either side. The north façade of the proposed house
would actually be further from the lake than the existing deck. It would also align the
footprint of the proposed house with the east property line, helping distribute the non-
conforming side setback encroachments more evenly and reducing the largest
encroachment from 3 ft down to 2.1 ft.
Written Justification of How Request Complies with the Findings for Granting a
Variance (Pursuant to Section 20-58) as Follows
(a) Variances should only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general
purposes and intent of this Chapter and when variances are consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
The variances requested would allow for the construction of a modestly-sized new
single-family house on the property. The zoning district (RSF) and land use
designations (Residential Low Density) for the property would not be affected by
them. They would thus be in harmony with the purposes and intent of this Chapter
and consistent with the comprehensive plan.
(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.
There are several unique conditions inherent to the property that create practical
difficulties. The property’s width, size, proximity to a large body of water, and lack of
on-street parking are all significant hindrances.
The width of the property is well below current code standards for new construction
in the zoning district. At its front setback the lot frontage is only 40 ft wide. According
to current standards for the RSF district, the minimum lot frontage for new home
construction is 90 ft at the front setback. This creates a substantial difficulty, given
that side setback requirements are 10 ft, leaving only 20 ft of width remaining for
buildable area. That is extremely tight for single-family home construction given the
demands of today’s households. The additional width that would be afforded by
Variance 1 and Variance 3 respectively would make the house’s layout much more
functional and comfortable. They would create much needed space for a staircase,
make the garage usable for two standard-size vehicles, and benefit pretty much every
room in the house. Significant compromises would need to be made without them,
that may make the site unfeasible for a single-family home. Variance 4 would address
the need for protection from the elements at the main entry to the house. This is also
a result of the narrow width of the property, since the main entry has to be located on
the side of the house rather than the front due to the garage configuration. There is
no other viable location for a garage on the site.
In addition to being very narrow, the property is also relatively small. According to
current standards for the RSF district, the minimum lot area for new homes is 15,000
sq ft. Given the narrow width of this lot, the area ends up being only 8,812 sq ft. That
does not allow for much hardcover, which significantly reduces the potential footprint
for a house. A large portion of that hardcover has to be allocated to the driveway and
entry walkway, further limiting the footprint of the house. Variance 2 would alleviate
these issues by providing requisite space for the house as well as parking and
circulation. Variance 5 would help reduce and reallocate hardcover to make the
driveway more functional.
The property’s proximity to a large body of water, Lake Minnewashta, presents some
practical challenges for construction. Being a lakeshore lot, the water table tends to
be much higher than normal, so it is not advisable to build below grade due to an
increased probability of water infiltration. That rules out the possibility of a basement.
Combine that with the narrow width and limited available hardcover on the lot, and
building up becomes the only viable way to increase square footage. Even with three
stories, the proposed house only has about 3,000 finished sq ft. It should also be
noted that the maximum allowable height for a structure in the RSF district is 35 ft,
but the proposed house is only 32 ft tall. Variance 1 and Variance 3 help make a
three-story layout possible, since they provide the necessary width for a staircase
without compromising the interior layout of the house.
There is no designated on-street parking near the property. The width of the adjacent
public street is only 17 ft, which barely allows for two-way traffic, let alone space for
parking. Due to the narrow width of the property, only a two-stall wide garage is
possible. If the landowners ever have more than two vehicles, then the additional
ones would have to be parked in the driveway or stored off-site. Guests/visitors
would also have to park in the driveway. This means the driveway has to be at least
the width of the garage door throughout, so that cars can get by each other, and to
be able to maximize potential parking spaces. However, given the dearth of
allowable hardcover on the lot, the driveway ends up taking a disproportionately
large amount of hardcover relative to the house. The main entry being located on the
side of the house also contributes to this disparity, given the length of walkway
required to get there. Without the additional hardcover afforded by Variance 2 and
driveway configuration afforded by Variance 5, off-street parking would be very
limited on-site.
(c) That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations
alone.
None of the variance requests are based upon economic considerations whatsoever.
To the contrary, all of the variances would most likely increase the building costs if
granted.
(d) The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not
created by the landowner.
The landowner purchased the property in 2019, and had no involvement with its
creation or subsequent development. The existing non-conforming single-family
home on the property was constructed in 1985 by previous landowners.
(e) The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
If the variances are granted, the property will continue to function as a single-family
residence, like it has since 1985. The new house on the property will be an aesthetic
improvement over the existing one, and a visual asset to both the surrounding
neighborhood as well as the recreational lake that it abuts. Also, the demand for on-
street parking will not be increased, with the proposed configuration for the new
driveway.
(f) Variances shall be granted for earth sheltered construction as defined in
Minnesota Statues Section 216C.06, subdivision 14, when in harmony with this
Chapter.
N/A.