13-11 Findings of FactCITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
IN RE:
Application of Chuck Worm for a variance from the 1,000 square -feet accessory structure
limitation to allow for a 7,120 square -foot accessory structure on property zoned Agricultural Estate
District (A2) — Planning Case 2013 -11.
On May 21, 2013, 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:
All that part of the South one -half of the Northeast Quarter of Section 26, Township 116,
Range 23 described as follows:
Commencing at a point in the South line of said South one -half of the Northeast Quarter,
distant 330.79 feet West of the Southeast corner thereof, thence Northerly parallel with
the East line of said Southeast one -half of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 512.47 feet
to the point of beginning of the tract of land to be described; thence Westerly parallel
with the South line of said South one -half of the Northeast Quarter a distance of 425.00
feet; thence Northerly parallel to said East line a distance of 800 feet more or less to the
North line of said South one -half of the Northeast Quarter; thence Easterly along said
North line a distance of 425 feet more or less; thence Southerly along said parallel line to
the ponint of beginning. Cont. 7.82 acres.
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 provide
additional storage for hay and farming equipment. There currently exists a 10,240
square -foot shed on the property. This structure is being used for business storage and
not only for agricultural uses; therefore, it is not keeping in harmony with the general
purpose and intent of the A2 district. Additionally, the property next to this site, which is
also owned and used by the applicant, contains approximately 9,960 square feet of
accessory buildings. The agricultural uses could be consolidated in the existing shed.
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 riding academy with a 10,240 square -foot
shed. The addition of a 7,120 square -foot shed is not reasonable since there is currently a
sufficiently large shed that can be used for equipment and hay storage were its use
limited to those that are permitted under the district regulations. The property owner is
using the current storage capacity of the building in a manner not permitted by the zoning
ordinance.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The stated intent of the request is for hay and farm equipment storage.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The owner has a riding academy and a 10,240 square -foot storage shed on the
property. There are no circumstances unique to the property that preclude its agricultural
use. This does not constitute a unique hardship not created by the landowner since a
structure in excess of 1,000 square feet exists on the site. Were all non - agricultural uses
removed from the exiting shed, there exists a sufficiently large shed that can be used for
equipment and hay storage.
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. The City has also granted variances for two
structures in excess of 1,000 square feet in 2012. 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.
2
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 #2013 -10, dated May 21, 2012, prepared by Robert Generous, et al, is
incorporated herein.
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustment,
denies Planning Case #2013 -11 a variance from the 1,000 square -foot accessory structure
limitation to allow a 7,120 square -foot accessory structure on property zoned Agricultural Estate
District, A2."
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 21 'c day of May, 2013
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Chairman