Findings of Fact and Action
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND ACTION
IN RE:
Application of Southview Design for a 2.6% hard surface coverage variance for the
addition of patios and hardscape - Planning Case No. 07-20.
On November 18, 2008, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly
scheduled meeting to consider the Application of South view Design for a 2.6% hard surface
coverage variance for the addition of patios and hardscape at 2081 Pinehurst Drive, located in the
Single Family Residential District (RSF) at Lot 25, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd 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 (Net Density
Range 1.2 - 4u/Acre).
3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 25, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd 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 these criteria.
Finding: The literal enforcement of the ordinance does not create a hardship, since a
reasonable use of the property, a single-family home, a two-car garage, and the addition of a
ten-foot by ten-foot patio could be constructed without a variance. The proposed use is not
a reasonable use of the property; the additional 2.6% or 538.25 sq ft of impervious surface
coverage will contribute to storm water quantity and quality problems.
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
in the RSF zoning district. These conditions were discussed at length during the Planning
Commission and City Council meetings when the development came in for preliminary and
final plat approval. The development was replatted in 2006 and two lots were eliminated to
increase the size of the lots. The lots are well over the minimum lot area requirement and
have sufficient space to construct the desired home as well as other improvements to the
property. Approval of this variance would create a precedence to grant other hard surface
coverage variances in this development.
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 purpose of the variation is not directly based on the desire to increase the
value or income potential of the parcel of land. However, the income potential may be
increased as an indirect result.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The alleged hardship of exceeding the maximum hard surface coverage is a self-
created hardship. The homes on the lots are very large. However, there was an additional
600 square feet of allowable expansion possible after the initial approval of the building
permi t.
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 variance may be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or
improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel is located, in that additional storm
water runoff is generated from the hard surface on the property.
f. The proposed variation will not impair an adequate supply of light 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 variation will not impair an adequate supply of light and air to
adjacent property or substantially increase the congestion of the public streets.
5. The planning report #07-20 Variance dated November 18, 2008, prepared by Angie Auseth,
et aI, is incorporated herein.
2
ACTION
The Planning Commission denies Planning Case #07-20 for a 2.6% hard surface
coverage variance on Lot 25, Block 1, Pinehurst 2nd Addition, based these Findings of Fact.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission on this 18th day of November,
2008.
N PLANNING COMMISSION
Its Chairman
g:\plan\2007 planning cases\07-20 208] pinehurst hsc variance\findings of fact.doc
3