Findings of Fact and Decision12- - d_ - )
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
IIM,W
Application of Jay & Laurie Donohue for a hardcover variance to construct a screen porch on
property zoned Single- Family Residential (RSF) — Planning Case #2012 -07.
On January 3, 2012, 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
use.
3. The legal description of the property is as follows:
Lot 4, Block 2, Troendle Addition
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 granting of the variance is in keeping with the purpose and intent of the
zoning ordinance. The construction of a porch is a normal use associated with a single -
family home.
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: The practical difficulty with the construction of a porch is that the initial
approval of the home as well as later improvements exceed the city code requirements.
The owner is proposing to remove the patio and construct a porch which will reduce the
total hardcover. This reduction will result in an improved condition compared to what
existed when the current owner purchased the property.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The purpose of the variance is not based upon economic considerations, but is
to permit the owner to enjoy the property in a reasonable manner.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The owner purchased a property which already exceeded the total allowed
hardcover by 4.9% as a result of the home alone. In addition, the previous owner had
installed a patio which brought the total hardcover to 32.7 %. The owner is proposing to
remove the patio and construct a porch which will reduce the total hardcover. This
reduction will result in an improved condition compared to what existed when the current
owner purchased the property.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The construction of a porch is a normal use associated with a single - family
home and would be in keeping with the character of the neighborhood.
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 #2012 -07, dated June 19, 2012, prepared by Robert Generous, et al., is
incorporated herein.
DECISION
"The Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves Planning Case #2012 -07 for a 6.9
percent variance to permit hard cover of 31.9 percent to construct a screen porch on property
zoned Single - Family Residential (RSF)."
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments this 19 day of June,
2012.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Chairman
2