Findings of Fact and DecisionCITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
11 `f:��A
Application of Greg and Tammy Falconer for a 4,940 square -foot area variance from the 1,000
square -feet accessory structure limitation on properly zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2) —
Planning Case 2012 -12.
On September 18, 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 Agricultural Estate District (A2).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
3. The legal description of the property is as follows:
P/O SW 1/4 NW 155' OF W 310', TOWNSHIP 116, RANGE 23
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 subject site is zoned Agricultural Estate District (A2). The purpose of the
request is to exceed the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure limitation to be used for
hobby storage. During the 2007 amendment discussion, it was indicated that requests for
accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet would be reasonable if based on a
legitimate agricultural use. This structure is being used for hobby storage and not for
agricultural uses. Therefore it is not keeping in harmony with the general purpose and
intent of the A2 district.
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 the subject property
within the Agricultural Estate District, A2, as a house, attached garage and two accessory
structures exist on the property. Agricultural accessory structures are listed as a
permitted accessory use however; the proposed accessory structure does not meet the
criteria for an agricultural building. City Code would permit the replacement of the 1,280
square foot nonconforming accessory structure in compliance with the zoning
regulations. Literal interpretation of the code does not constitute a hardship.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The stated intent of the request is for hobby storage.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The 1,280 square -foot accessory structure suffered a snow load collapse in the
winter of 2011. The homeowner is intending to replace the existing structure with rebuild
with an expansion of 520 square feet. The City Code states "any nonconformity,
including the lawful use or occupation of land or premises existing at the time of the
adoption of an additional control under this chapter, may be continued, including through
repair, replacement, restoration, maintenance or improvement, but not expansion." This
does not constitute a unique hardship not created by the landowner since the 1,280
square -foot structure could be replaced.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: There are several properties in proximity to the subject property that have
accessory structures in excess of 1,000 square feet. These accessory structures were
constructed prior to the 2007 ordinance amendment limiting accessory structure size and
are considered to be legal nonconformities. However, this area is guided for residential
low density uses in the future. Such uses do not require accessory structures in excess of
1,000 square feet.
The request is also inconsistent with the City Land Use Section of the City's 2030
Comprehensive Plan:
2.9 — AGRICULTURE LAND USE
Consistent with the 2030 Regional Development Framework, the City does not provide
for a purely agricultural land use, but rather supports the preservation of this use in
2
greater Carver County. With the urbanization of the City, there is only one active farm.
There are some properties that continue to lease their land for crop production. The City
reduces the development pressures on agricultural land through its MUSA phasing plan
and a policy of protecting agricultural land from premature development until such time
as are services are available and requested.
2.15 — GOALS & POLICIES
Areas outside the MUSA shall be preserved as an agricultural zone or used to support
very low density development. It is the City's policy to ensure that this area is not
prematurely developed. The City will discourage the expansion or construction of
commercial and industrial facilities in this area.
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 -12, September 18, 2012, prepared by Ashley Mellgren, et al, is
incorporated herein.
DECISION
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board or Adjustments and
Appeals, denies Planning Case #2012 -12 for a 4,940 square -foot variance to the 1,000 square -
foot accessory structure limitation on property zoned Agricultural Estate District, A2."
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 18 day of September, 2012.
CITY OF CHAN
BY:
Chairman