Findings of Fact
.:.....~
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND RECOMMENDATION
INRE:
Application of Tom and Jackie Johnson for setback and lot coverage variances to permit the
expansion of a single-family home.
On February 17,2004, the Chanhassen Planning Commission met at its regularly
schedule meeting to consider the application of Tom and Jackie Johnson for setback and lot
coverage variances for the property located at 3637 South Cedar Drive. The Planning
Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed site plan 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.
3. The legal description of the property is: Lot 17, except the east 10 feet thereof,
and Lot 18, Block 4, Red Cedar Point
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 would not cause an undue
hardship. The applicant could expand the house and comply with the required
building setbacks on the side and lake side. Additionally, the impervious surfaces
can be reduced. The use of the existing garage, which is currently non-
conforming, appears to be a reasonable request. The majority of the garage
expansion on this side maintains the existing non-forming setback, the
architectural dormers on the second story encroach closer to the property line.
Normally, such architectural features are permitted to encroach in to setbacks.
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 condition upon which the petition for the variance is based is
applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification. There are
numerous properties that are non-conforming and can be expanded without
variances. There are also numerous properties in this neighborhood that have
received variances.
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: While the proposed expansion will increase the value of the property,
the intent of the variance over the garage is to provide two bedrooms for the
property owner's children.
d. The alleged difficulty or hardship is not a self-created hardship.
Finding: The expansion of the house to the side and toward the lakes would be
new construction and therefore would be self-created hardship. However, the use
and expansion of the garage, which is currently non-conforming, is caused
partially because the house was developed prior to the current ordinance and the
proposed expansion of these areas is dictated by the location of the existing
structure.
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 the variance will not be detrimental to the public
welfare. The granting of the side yard variance, may infringe on the
2
improvements to the neighboring 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 front yard setback 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 since
this structure already exists.
5. The planning report #04-07 dated February 17,2004, prepared by Robert
Generous, et aI, is incorporated herein.
RECOMMENDA TION
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve the 19.3
foot front yard setback variance to permit a 10.7 foot front yard setback and deny the side yard,
shoreland and lot coverage variances.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 1 ih day of February, 2004.
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
çcÞJ
BY:
Its Chairman
:3