Findings of Fact and Recommendation
oct- II
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
IN RE: Application of U.S. Home Corporation, on behalf of Todd and Amy Gleason, for a 1.38%
hard-surface coverage variance for an existing driveway and future patio - Planning Case No. 09-
17.
On November 3,2009, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly
scheduled meeting to consider the application of U.S. Home Corporation, on behalf of Todd and
Amy Gleason, for a 1.38% hard-surface coverage variance from the 25% maximum hard surface
coverage limitation for an existing driveway and future patio at 2111 Pinehurst Drive, located in the
Single-Family Residential (RSF) District on Lot 22, 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 (1.2 - 4 units per
acre).
3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 22, 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 this criteria.
Finding: The literal enforcement of this chapter does not cause an undue hardship. The
subject site is 18,000 square feet, which is 3,000 square feet larger than the minimum lot
size in the RSF district. The original building permit survey showed a hard surface coverage
of 24.88%, which included a future 10' x 10' patio. Upon receipt of the as-built survey, the
hard surface coverage exceeded the 25% limitation by 0.8%; this increase was due to the
driveway and sidewalk area increasing in size. The builder states the driveway submitted
with the building permit was inadequate for the size and use of the garage, thus it was
increased. In addition to the increased hard surface coverage, the applicant is also
requesting a lO'x 10' patio in the rear yard. In 2006 the Pinehurst subdivision was re-
I
platted due to staff's concerns with the potential hard surface coverage on the lots. The
builder was aware of the 25% hard surface coverage limitation prior to submitting the
building permit. The literal enforcement of the code does not cause an undue hardship
and is a self-created hardship.
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
within the Pinehurst 2nd Addition (RSF). The RSF district limits the hard surface coverage
to 25% of the total lot area. In 2007, there were two requests for hard surface coverage
variances within this subdivision, one of which was an after-the-fact variance. Both
requests were denied.
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 addition is not based on the desire to increase the value
of the home. The intent of the request is to maintain the larger driveway and sidewalk as
well as construct a 100-square foot patio in the rear yard.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The request to exceed the 25% hard surface coverage limitation is a self-created
hardship. The building permit submitted in August 2007 showed the site with 24.88% hard
surface coverage. The proposed hard surface coverage included the house, sidewalk,
driveway, and a 100 square-foot future patio. The driveway increased 240 square feet and
the sidewalk increased 30 square feet during construction. The builder stated the driveway
was inadequate for the size and use of the garage; however, there are alternatives to realign
the driveway and comply with the 25% hard surface coverage requirement.
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 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 increased hard surface coverage will not impair 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; however, it could diminish
property values within the neighborhood.
2
5. The planning report #09-17, dated November 3,2009, prepared by Angie Kairies, et aI, is
incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDA TION
The Chanhassen Planning Commission, as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments,
recommends that the City Council deny an after-the-fact 1.38% hard surface coverage variance for
an existing driveway and future patio, Planning Case #09-17.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen City Council on this 3rd day of November, 2009.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
BY:
G:\PLAN\2009 Planning Cases\09-17 2111 Pinehurst Drive Variance\PC Findings of Fact.doc
3