Findings of Fact
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND ACTION
IN RE: Application of Richard and Eunice Peters for a 15- foot shoreland setback variance to
convert a 15 x 20 foot deck into a porch and construct a new deck - Planning Case No. 08-19.
On October 7, 2008, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly scheduled
meeting to consider the application of Richard and Eunice Peters for a 15-foot shoreland setback
variance from the 75-foot shoreland setback to convert a 15 x 20 foot deck into a porch and
construct a new deck at 7301 Laredo Drive, located in the Single Family Residential District (RSF)
on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills Addition. The Planning Commission conducted a public
hearing on the proposed variance that was preceded by published and mailed notice. The
Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to speak and now
makes the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential (RSF).
2. The property is guided by the Land Use Plan for Residential-Low Density (1.5 - 4 units per
acre).
3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills Addition.
4. The Board of Adjustments and Appeals shall not recommend and the City Council shall not
grant a variance unless they find the following facts:
a. That the literal enforcement of this chapter would cause an undue hardship. Undue hardship
means that the property cannot be put to reasonable use because of its size, physical
surroundings, shape or topography. Reasonable use includes a use made by a majority of
comparable property within 500 feet of it. The intent of this provision is not to allow a
proliferation of variances, but to recognize that there are pre-existing standards in this
neighborhood. Variances that blend with these pre-existing standards without departing
downward from them meet this criteria.
Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The
parcel predates the shoreland zoning ordinance, as it was platted in 1956. Ofthe properties
within 500 feet of the parcel, four do not meet the 75-foot structure setback, three of which
were granted variance approval for the encroachment, including the subject property. The
applicant has reasonable use of the property as there is a single-family home and a two-car
garage and an existing deck located on the property. The conversion of the deck into a
porch and the addition of the new deck is a self-created hardship as defined in the city code.
1
b. The conditions upon which a petition for a variance is based are not applicable, generally, to
other property within the same zoning classification.
Finding: The conditions upon which this variance is based are applicable to all properties
that lie within the Single Family Residential District. The applicant was granted a 15- foot
lakeshore variance in 1996 to construct the existing deck on the lake side of the home.
While conversion to the porch and the new deck will not change the setback to the lake or
increase the impervious coverage, the applicant has not demonstrated a hardship with which
to grant a variance. The applicant currently has reasonable use ofthe property.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based upon a desire to increase the value or income
potential of the parcel of land.
Finding: The intent of the proposed porch and deck is not based on the desire to increase
the value of the home. The property owner's intent is to increase the livable area of the
home and enjoy the lake view more months out of the year. The property has space
available within the required setbacks in which to create more livable space in the side or
front yard, and would be limited only by the site coverage on the property. According to
the calculations on the certificate of survey (house, driveway, sidewalks, patio, and
cement stairs), the site has the potential for additional site coverage on the lot.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The alleged hardship is self-created as the applicant has reasonable use of the
property and was granted a variance in 1996 to construct the existing deck.
e. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
Finding: The granting of a variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or
injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
The applicant's proposal will not increase the amount of hard surface coverage on the site,
nor will it decrease the current shoreland setback. However, it would be an additional
structure within the shoreland setback
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply oflight and air to adjacent
property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets or increase the danger
of fire or endanger the public safety or substantially diminish or impair property values
within the neighborhood.
Finding: The proposed home will not impair an adequate supply of light or air to the
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion ofthe public streets or increase the
danger of fire or endanger the public safety or diminish property values within the
neighborhood.
5. The planning report #08-19, dated October 7,2008, prepared by Angie Auseth, et aI, is
incorporated herein.
2
ACTION
"The Board of Adjustments and Appeals denies Planning Case #08-19 for a 15- foot
variance from the 75- foot shoreland setback for the conversion of a deck to a porch and
construction if a new deck on Lot 12, Block 1, Sunset Hills Addition, based on these findings of
fact. "
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 7th day of October, 2008.
BY:
g:\plan\2008 planning cases\08-19 peters variance\findings offact.doc
3