24-14 510 Pleasant View Rd Signed findings of fact and decisionCITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
Application of Mark Guy for side yard setback variance to reduce the side yard setback to
approxirnately seven (7) feet to allow the expansion of a deck on a property zoned Single Family
Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2024-14.
On Septembcr 3, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board ofAppeals and
Adjustments, met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and mailed
notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
L The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density
The legal description of the property is:
Lot 22, Pleasant View, Carver County, Minnesota.
3. Variance Findines - Section 20-58 ofthe City Code provides the following criteria for the
gBnting of a variance:
Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and
intent ofthis Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Finding: The requested variance fulfills the intent ofthe chapter as the proposed use ofa
deck is a reasonable proposed addition to a property with a single-fbmily home and
through the decks screened location is found to be consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical
difficulties" as uscd in connection with thc granting ofa variancc, means that the propefiy
owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by this Chapter.
Practical difficultics include, but are not limitcd to, inadequate access to direct sunlight for
solar energy systems.
Finding: The property owner proposes to add a deck to the residential property which is
a reasonable use of the property. The location ofthe deck is also a reasonable location
however the width of the lot creates a practical difficulty in adhering to the minimum side
a
IN RE:
yard setback because the overall width ofthe lot does not meet the current standard
required of properties which are zoned as RSF.
That the purpose ofthe variation is not based upon economic considerations alonec
Finding: The proposed variance is not based on economic considerations alone and is
solely the result ofthe substandard lot width.
d. The plight ofthe landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner.
Finding: The plight ofthe landowner is created by the substandard dimensions and age
ofthe property, and not created by the landowner. With 40 feet oflot width, there is an
unusually narrow buildable area. This situation was not created by the landowner as the
lot was created prior to the adoption ofthe city's zoning code.
Finding: The applicant has proposed a location that is screened fionr view ofthe right-
of-way by a combination of structures and vegetation on the property. This is one ofthe
ciry's oldest neighborhoods and it has seen a substantial amount of turnover in housing stock
leading to a blend ofarchitectural styles. Nearly halfofthe properties within 500 feet have
received front yard setback variances and numerous other properties in the area have non-
conforming front yard setbacks.
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: The proposed deck is not an eanh-sheltered construction and therefore this
statcment is not applicablc.
4. The planning reporl #2024-14, dated August 28,2024, prepared by Rachel Jeskeetal,is
incorporated herein.
The Planning Commission approves the requested for side yard setback variance, subject to the
following conditions:
l. The proposed building setbacks shall comply with the plan prcpared by the homeowner dated
0713112024.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient infomration to venfy that the proposed building meets all
requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code, additional comments or requirements may
be required after plan review
3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction
2
e. The variance, ifgranted, will not alter the essential character ofthe locality.
DECISION
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 3rd day of September. 2024.
CITY OF C HASSEN
BY
Its: Chair
J