Findings of Fact and Decisionl) - G 1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
Il O
Application of Josh Koller of Southview Design on behalf of Philip and Stacey Burroughs for a
4.3% variance (681 square feet) from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation for the
construction of a sport court on property zoned Single - Family Residential (RSF) — Planning Case
#2011 -07.
On July 19, 2011, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals 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
1. The property is currently zoned Single - Family Residential (RSF).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
3. The legal description of the property is Lot 15, Block 4, Settlers West.
4. Variance Findings — Section 20 -58 of the City Code provides the following criteria for the
granting of a variance:
a. Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes
and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistent with the comprehensive
plan.
Finding: The request to exceed the hard surface coverage in the RSF district on a lot that
exceeds the minimum lot requirements for the construction of a sport court is not in
harmony with the general purposes and intent of this Chapter. Significant efforts were
made during the development of Settlers West to protect the bluff areas by controlling the
rate and volume of runoff and maintaining existing drainage conditions. Sensitive areas
were put into protective outlots and discharge points from the storm sewer conveyance
system were designed and constructed with extraordinary stabilization and energy
dissipation methods. As this area ultimately drains to the bluffs along the Hennepin
County Regional Rails to Trails System, any potential increase in runoff rate or volume
could potentially result in erosion along the bluff.
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.
Finding: Currently, the property owners have reasonable use of a property within the
RSF district as a single - family home with a three -car garage, as well as an outdoor
patio /seating area already constructed on the property. While the purpose of the proposed
sport court is for residential use, it is not a practical difficulty to exceed the 25%
maximum hard surface coverage limitation.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The purpose of the variance is not based on economic considerations. The
applicant is requesting a variance to exceed the 25% hard surface coverage limitation in
the RSF district for the construction of an outdoor sport court for personal use.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The request is not based on a unique circumstance; the subject site exceeds the
minimum lot requirements within the RSF district. The building permit for the proposed
home, garage, driveway, front sidewalk, and a 180 square -foot patio on the property was
approved on June 6, 2006. The building permit reflected a hard surface coverage of
24.7% or 3,922 square feet. The maximum impervious surface in the RSF district is 25%
or 3,964 square feet. The applicant has reasonable use of the property.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: While the addition of a sport court will not alter the essential character of the
locality; exceeding the hard surface coverage and any increase in runoff rate or volume
could potentially result in erosion along the bluff.
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: This does not apply to this request.
5. The planning report 42011 -07, dated July 19, 2011, prepared by Angie Kairies, et al, is
incorporated herein.
2
DECISION
The Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies Planning Case 2011 -07 for a 4.3% variance
from the 25% maximum hard surface coverage limitation for the construction of a sport court on
I roperty zoned Single - Family Residential (RSF).
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments this 19 day of July,
2011.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
Chairman
gAplan\forms \findings of fact and decision - variance.doc