CC Staff Report 18-01CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Monday, February 12, 2018
Subject Variance Request: 3617 Red Cedar Point
Section NEW BUSINESS Item No: H.2.
Prepared By MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner File No: PC 201801
PROPOSED MOTION
The Chanhassen City Council approves an 11.5foot front yard setback, a 22.1foot lakeshore setback, and an 11
percent lot coverage variance subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and
Decision.”
(Note:A motion for denial and asociated Findings of Fact are also included at the end of the report.)
Council approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.
SUMMARY
On January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of this variance request. Section
2029(d) of the City Code allows any aggrieved person to appeal a variance decision to the City Council by filing a
written appeal with the Community Development Director within four business days of the Planning Commission’s
decision. Section 2029(e) grants the City Council the authority to reverse, affirm, or modify, wholly or partly, the
decision appealed from the Planning Commission by a majority vote.
The parcel’s existing house is over 90 years old, does not meet the city’s minimum standards for singlefamily
dwellings, and is in disrepair. This structure is located 52.9 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water setback and the lot
currently has 36.36 percent lot coverage, largely due to the fact that the front portion of the lot is covered by a gravel
parking area.
The applicant requires variances to replace the existing structure with a modern home. They are requesting a variance
to maintain the existing 22.1foot encroachment into the required shoreland setback. As part of their project they are
proposing removing the gravel parking area, a shed located within the western side yard setback, an outdoor fireplace
area, and a concrete walkway in the rear yard in order to bring the property more in line with City Code. Removing
the shed will bring the property’s side yard setback into compliance with City Code. Removing the property’s existing
lot coverage and replacing it with a new home, driveway and patio area will reduce the nonconforming lot coverage by
.36 percent, requiring an 11 percent lot coverage variance. They are also requesting an 11.5foot front yard setback
variance since they believe the parcel’s size and existing lake setback make it impractical to construct a house and
garage while meeting the property’s 30foot front yard setback.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, February 12, 2018SubjectVariance Request: 3617 Red Cedar PointSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: H.2.Prepared By MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner File No: PC 201801PROPOSED MOTIONThe Chanhassen City Council approves an 11.5foot front yard setback, a 22.1foot lakeshore setback, and an 11percent lot coverage variance subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact andDecision.”(Note:A motion for denial and asociated Findings of Fact are also included at the end of the report.)Council approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of this variance request. Section2029(d) of the City Code allows any aggrieved person to appeal a variance decision to the City Council by filing awritten appeal with the Community Development Director within four business days of the Planning Commission’sdecision. Section 2029(e) grants the City Council the authority to reverse, affirm, or modify, wholly or partly, thedecision appealed from the Planning Commission by a majority vote.The parcel’s existing house is over 90 years old, does not meet the city’s minimum standards for singlefamilydwellings, and is in disrepair. This structure is located 52.9 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water setback and the lotcurrently has 36.36 percent lot coverage, largely due to the fact that the front portion of the lot is covered by a gravelparking area.The applicant requires variances to replace the existing structure with a modern home. They are requesting a varianceto maintain the existing 22.1foot encroachment into the required shoreland setback. As part of their project they areproposing removing the gravel parking area, a shed located within the western side yard setback, an outdoor fireplacearea, and a concrete walkway in the rear yard in order to bring the property more in line with City Code. Removingthe shed will bring the property’s side yard setback into compliance with City Code. Removing the property’s existinglot coverage and replacing it with a new home, driveway and patio area will reduce the nonconforming lot coverage by.36 percent, requiring an 11 percent lot coverage variance. They are also requesting an 11.5foot front yard setbackvariance since they believe the parcel’s size and existing lake setback make it impractical to construct a house and
garage while meeting the property’s 30foot front yard setback.
BACKGROUND
On January 2, 2018 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 Planning Commission heard testimony from all
interested persons wishing to speak and voted 50 to approve the variance.
During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following Concerns:
1. Commissioner Tietz expressed concern over the narrowness of the road and access issues that will be created
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, February 12, 2018SubjectVariance Request: 3617 Red Cedar PointSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: H.2.Prepared By MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner File No: PC 201801PROPOSED MOTIONThe Chanhassen City Council approves an 11.5foot front yard setback, a 22.1foot lakeshore setback, and an 11percent lot coverage variance subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact andDecision.”(Note:A motion for denial and asociated Findings of Fact are also included at the end of the report.)Council approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of this variance request. Section2029(d) of the City Code allows any aggrieved person to appeal a variance decision to the City Council by filing awritten appeal with the Community Development Director within four business days of the Planning Commission’sdecision. Section 2029(e) grants the City Council the authority to reverse, affirm, or modify, wholly or partly, thedecision appealed from the Planning Commission by a majority vote.The parcel’s existing house is over 90 years old, does not meet the city’s minimum standards for singlefamilydwellings, and is in disrepair. This structure is located 52.9 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water setback and the lotcurrently has 36.36 percent lot coverage, largely due to the fact that the front portion of the lot is covered by a gravelparking area.The applicant requires variances to replace the existing structure with a modern home. They are requesting a varianceto maintain the existing 22.1foot encroachment into the required shoreland setback. As part of their project they areproposing removing the gravel parking area, a shed located within the western side yard setback, an outdoor fireplacearea, and a concrete walkway in the rear yard in order to bring the property more in line with City Code. Removingthe shed will bring the property’s side yard setback into compliance with City Code. Removing the property’s existinglot coverage and replacing it with a new home, driveway and patio area will reduce the nonconforming lot coverage by.36 percent, requiring an 11 percent lot coverage variance. They are also requesting an 11.5foot front yard setbackvariance since they believe the parcel’s size and existing lake setback make it impractical to construct a house andgarage while meeting the property’s 30foot front yard setback.BACKGROUNDOn January 2, 2018 the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at itsregularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on theproposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice.The Planning Commission heard testimony from allinterested persons wishing to speak and voted 50 to approve the variance.During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following Concerns:
1. Commissioner Tietz expressed concern over the narrowness of the road and access issues that will be created
by construction activities. Staff indicated that the applicant’s contractors would need to work with Engineering
and Building to minimize obstruction, but that issue was unavoidable. The applicant stated that he owned
another property in the area which would be used as a staging area to partially mitigate these issues.
2. Commissioner Tietz expressed concern that the proposed pervious pavers be properly designed and installed.
Staff stated that the design would need to conform to the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute’s guidelines
and would need to be approved by our Engineering Department.
3. Chairman Aller asked if Public Safety had expressed concern with the proposal. Staff indicated that they had
not.
4. Commissioner Weick wanted to know how much additional driveway length would be needed to accommodate
two standard cars. Staff estimated an additional 4 feet would be required. The applicant stated that since his
daughter drives a jeep, he believes he can fit two to three cars in the proposed driveway.
5. The Commission asked for clarification on the average parking in the area. Staff clarified that they believed most
homes in the area did have driveway space for two cars, with an estimated average of 4.5 parking spaces
between garages and driveway parking.
6. The Commission asked if staff felt the site’s management of water resources was being improved. Water
Resources Coordinator Strong indicated that she felt it was probably as close as possible to an equal trade.
7. Commissioner Weick expressed disappointment that the lot coverage was not being more significantly reduced.
8. Commissioners Madsen and Tietz expressed concerns about the limited driveway parking.
9. Chairman Aller expressed concern about the potential impact to the lake.
During the Public Hearing, the following concerns were raised:
1. Debbie Lockhart expressed concerns about snow removal and snow storage, stating that the snowplow
currently uses the property for a turnaround and snow storage area. City Engineer Oehme indicated that he had
spoken with the plow driver and feels that the city can use its extra right of way along the end of Red Cedar
Point Road to facilitate snow removal and snow storage.
2. Steve Gunther expressed concerns about how the lot coverage variance will impact the lake via increased
runoff. He requested that the Commission look at it is a variance from the 25 percent standard, noting that the
home could be reconfigured to reduce the required lot coverage.
On January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the variance request.
On January 22, 2018 the City Council meeting during which the appeal was scheduled to be heard was canceled.
Staff notified the applicant and appellant that the appeal would be rescheduled for the February 12, 2018 City Council
meeting. Staff also extend the 60 day review deadline for this item.
DISCUSSION
Front Yard Setback:
The primary concern was if the length of the applicant's proposed driveway could provide a reasonable amount of off
street parking. The proposed driveway varies between 16 feet long at its longest point and 10 feet long at its shortest
point. The applicant has stated that they can fit two to three cars in the proposed driveway due to the fact that his
daughter drives a jeep. Staff agrees that the driveway could accommodate a jeep and second midsized car, but is
skeptical that it could accommodate a third car. Most properties in the neighborhood have twocar garages and
driveways that can fit an additional two cars. The applicant’s proposal calls for a threecar garage and a driveway that
can fit two cars, assuming one car is compact.
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, February 12, 2018SubjectVariance Request: 3617 Red Cedar PointSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: H.2.Prepared By MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner File No: PC 201801PROPOSED MOTIONThe Chanhassen City Council approves an 11.5foot front yard setback, a 22.1foot lakeshore setback, and an 11percent lot coverage variance subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact andDecision.”(Note:A motion for denial and asociated Findings of Fact are also included at the end of the report.)Council approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of this variance request. Section2029(d) of the City Code allows any aggrieved person to appeal a variance decision to the City Council by filing awritten appeal with the Community Development Director within four business days of the Planning Commission’sdecision. Section 2029(e) grants the City Council the authority to reverse, affirm, or modify, wholly or partly, thedecision appealed from the Planning Commission by a majority vote.The parcel’s existing house is over 90 years old, does not meet the city’s minimum standards for singlefamilydwellings, and is in disrepair. This structure is located 52.9 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water setback and the lotcurrently has 36.36 percent lot coverage, largely due to the fact that the front portion of the lot is covered by a gravelparking area.The applicant requires variances to replace the existing structure with a modern home. They are requesting a varianceto maintain the existing 22.1foot encroachment into the required shoreland setback. As part of their project they areproposing removing the gravel parking area, a shed located within the western side yard setback, an outdoor fireplacearea, and a concrete walkway in the rear yard in order to bring the property more in line with City Code. Removingthe shed will bring the property’s side yard setback into compliance with City Code. Removing the property’s existinglot coverage and replacing it with a new home, driveway and patio area will reduce the nonconforming lot coverage by.36 percent, requiring an 11 percent lot coverage variance. They are also requesting an 11.5foot front yard setbackvariance since they believe the parcel’s size and existing lake setback make it impractical to construct a house andgarage while meeting the property’s 30foot front yard setback.BACKGROUNDOn January 2, 2018 the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at itsregularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on theproposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice.The Planning Commission heard testimony from allinterested persons wishing to speak and voted 50 to approve the variance.During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following Concerns:1. Commissioner Tietz expressed concern over the narrowness of the road and access issues that will be createdby construction activities. Staff indicated that the applicant’s contractors would need to work with Engineeringand Building to minimize obstruction, but that issue was unavoidable. The applicant stated that he ownedanother property in the area which would be used as a staging area to partially mitigate these issues.2. Commissioner Tietz expressed concern that the proposed pervious pavers be properly designed and installed.Staff stated that the design would need to conform to the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute’s guidelinesand would need to be approved by our Engineering Department.3. Chairman Aller asked if Public Safety had expressed concern with the proposal. Staff indicated that they hadnot.4. Commissioner Weick wanted to know how much additional driveway length would be needed to accommodatetwo standard cars. Staff estimated an additional 4 feet would be required. The applicant stated that since hisdaughter drives a jeep, he believes he can fit two to three cars in the proposed driveway.5. The Commission asked for clarification on the average parking in the area. Staff clarified that they believed mosthomes in the area did have driveway space for two cars, with an estimated average of 4.5 parking spacesbetween garages and driveway parking.6. The Commission asked if staff felt the site’s management of water resources was being improved. WaterResources Coordinator Strong indicated that she felt it was probably as close as possible to an equal trade.7. Commissioner Weick expressed disappointment that the lot coverage was not being more significantly reduced.8. Commissioners Madsen and Tietz expressed concerns about the limited driveway parking.9. Chairman Aller expressed concern about the potential impact to the lake.During the Public Hearing, the following concerns were raised:1. Debbie Lockhart expressed concerns about snow removal and snow storage, stating that the snowplowcurrently uses the property for a turnaround and snow storage area. City Engineer Oehme indicated that he hadspoken with the plow driver and feels that the city can use its extra right of way along the end of Red CedarPoint Road to facilitate snow removal and snow storage.2. Steve Gunther expressed concerns about how the lot coverage variance will impact the lake via increasedrunoff. He requested that the Commission look at it is a variance from the 25 percent standard, noting that thehome could be reconfigured to reduce the required lot coverage.On January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the variance request.On January 22, 2018 the City Council meeting during which the appeal was scheduled to be heard was canceled.Staff notified the applicant and appellant that the appeal would be rescheduled for the February 12, 2018 City Councilmeeting. Staff also extend the 60 day review deadline for this item.DISCUSSIONFront Yard Setback:The primary concern was if the length of the applicant's proposed driveway could provide a reasonable amount of offstreet parking. The proposed driveway varies between 16 feet long at its longest point and 10 feet long at its shortestpoint. The applicant has stated that they can fit two to three cars in the proposed driveway due to the fact that hisdaughter drives a jeep. Staff agrees that the driveway could accommodate a jeep and second midsized car, but isskeptical that it could accommodate a third car. Most properties in the neighborhood have twocar garages and
driveways that can fit an additional two cars. The applicant’s proposal calls for a threecar garage and a driveway that
can fit two cars, assuming one car is compact.
Lot Coverage:
The proposed 34square foot reduction in lot coverage would still leave the property 11 percent over the parcel's 25
percent limit. The property’s stormwater management will be improved by the installation of a 20foot buffer, the use
of permeable pavers for the driveway and patio areas, and a shoreline restoration project. While permeable pavers do
not provide the same benefits as vegetative cover, they can reduce stormwater runoff. Utilizing permeable pavers
means that while the property will still have 36 percent lot coverage, only 29.67 percent of that will be impervious
surface. Given the nonconforming nature of the property, staff believes this is an acceptable proposal.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve an 11.5foot front yard setback, a 22.1foot lakeshore setback, and
an 11 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact
and Decision:
1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit.
2. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented.
3. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing the
propose setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures.
4. At least one tree must be planted in front yard, if one is not present after construction.
5. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side.
This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed.
Any trees lost to construction activities beyond those indicated in the tree removal plan shall be replaced.
6. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area.
7. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB.
8. The 162square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s wateroriented structure.
9. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,319 square feet.
10. The proposed rear patio and driveway areas must be constructed using pervious paver systems.
11 . A permanent 20foot wide native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using species native to
the ecotype with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffer
must be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must
be approved by the Water Resources Coordinator.
12. The property owner must work with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to identify and implement any
shoreline restoration projects that would improve ecosystem health and function. Replacing rip rap with
bioengineering solutions is one example.
Should the City Council deny the variance request, it is recommended that the City Council adopt the
following motion and attached Findings of Fact and Decision:
“The Chanhassen City Council denies a variance request to allow an 11.5foot front yard setback, a 22.1
foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact
and Decision.”
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTMonday, February 12, 2018SubjectVariance Request: 3617 Red Cedar PointSectionNEW BUSINESS Item No: H.2.Prepared By MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner File No: PC 201801PROPOSED MOTIONThe Chanhassen City Council approves an 11.5foot front yard setback, a 22.1foot lakeshore setback, and an 11percent lot coverage variance subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact andDecision.”(Note:A motion for denial and asociated Findings of Fact are also included at the end of the report.)Council approval requires a Simple Majority Vote of members present.SUMMARYOn January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of this variance request. Section2029(d) of the City Code allows any aggrieved person to appeal a variance decision to the City Council by filing awritten appeal with the Community Development Director within four business days of the Planning Commission’sdecision. Section 2029(e) grants the City Council the authority to reverse, affirm, or modify, wholly or partly, thedecision appealed from the Planning Commission by a majority vote.The parcel’s existing house is over 90 years old, does not meet the city’s minimum standards for singlefamilydwellings, and is in disrepair. This structure is located 52.9 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water setback and the lotcurrently has 36.36 percent lot coverage, largely due to the fact that the front portion of the lot is covered by a gravelparking area.The applicant requires variances to replace the existing structure with a modern home. They are requesting a varianceto maintain the existing 22.1foot encroachment into the required shoreland setback. As part of their project they areproposing removing the gravel parking area, a shed located within the western side yard setback, an outdoor fireplacearea, and a concrete walkway in the rear yard in order to bring the property more in line with City Code. Removingthe shed will bring the property’s side yard setback into compliance with City Code. Removing the property’s existinglot coverage and replacing it with a new home, driveway and patio area will reduce the nonconforming lot coverage by.36 percent, requiring an 11 percent lot coverage variance. They are also requesting an 11.5foot front yard setbackvariance since they believe the parcel’s size and existing lake setback make it impractical to construct a house andgarage while meeting the property’s 30foot front yard setback.BACKGROUNDOn January 2, 2018 the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board of Appeals and Adjustments, met at itsregularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on theproposed variance preceded by published and mailed notice.The Planning Commission heard testimony from allinterested persons wishing to speak and voted 50 to approve the variance.During the meeting, the Planning Commission expressed the following Concerns:1. Commissioner Tietz expressed concern over the narrowness of the road and access issues that will be createdby construction activities. Staff indicated that the applicant’s contractors would need to work with Engineeringand Building to minimize obstruction, but that issue was unavoidable. The applicant stated that he ownedanother property in the area which would be used as a staging area to partially mitigate these issues.2. Commissioner Tietz expressed concern that the proposed pervious pavers be properly designed and installed.Staff stated that the design would need to conform to the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute’s guidelinesand would need to be approved by our Engineering Department.3. Chairman Aller asked if Public Safety had expressed concern with the proposal. Staff indicated that they hadnot.4. Commissioner Weick wanted to know how much additional driveway length would be needed to accommodatetwo standard cars. Staff estimated an additional 4 feet would be required. The applicant stated that since hisdaughter drives a jeep, he believes he can fit two to three cars in the proposed driveway.5. The Commission asked for clarification on the average parking in the area. Staff clarified that they believed mosthomes in the area did have driveway space for two cars, with an estimated average of 4.5 parking spacesbetween garages and driveway parking.6. The Commission asked if staff felt the site’s management of water resources was being improved. WaterResources Coordinator Strong indicated that she felt it was probably as close as possible to an equal trade.7. Commissioner Weick expressed disappointment that the lot coverage was not being more significantly reduced.8. Commissioners Madsen and Tietz expressed concerns about the limited driveway parking.9. Chairman Aller expressed concern about the potential impact to the lake.During the Public Hearing, the following concerns were raised:1. Debbie Lockhart expressed concerns about snow removal and snow storage, stating that the snowplowcurrently uses the property for a turnaround and snow storage area. City Engineer Oehme indicated that he hadspoken with the plow driver and feels that the city can use its extra right of way along the end of Red CedarPoint Road to facilitate snow removal and snow storage.2. Steve Gunther expressed concerns about how the lot coverage variance will impact the lake via increasedrunoff. He requested that the Commission look at it is a variance from the 25 percent standard, noting that thehome could be reconfigured to reduce the required lot coverage.On January 8, 2018, staff received an appeal of the Planning Commission’s approval of the variance request.On January 22, 2018 the City Council meeting during which the appeal was scheduled to be heard was canceled.Staff notified the applicant and appellant that the appeal would be rescheduled for the February 12, 2018 City Councilmeeting. Staff also extend the 60 day review deadline for this item.DISCUSSIONFront Yard Setback:The primary concern was if the length of the applicant's proposed driveway could provide a reasonable amount of offstreet parking. The proposed driveway varies between 16 feet long at its longest point and 10 feet long at its shortestpoint. The applicant has stated that they can fit two to three cars in the proposed driveway due to the fact that hisdaughter drives a jeep. Staff agrees that the driveway could accommodate a jeep and second midsized car, but isskeptical that it could accommodate a third car. Most properties in the neighborhood have twocar garages anddriveways that can fit an additional two cars. The applicant’s proposal calls for a threecar garage and a driveway thatcan fit two cars, assuming one car is compact.Lot Coverage:The proposed 34square foot reduction in lot coverage would still leave the property 11 percent over the parcel's 25percent limit. The property’s stormwater management will be improved by the installation of a 20foot buffer, the useof permeable pavers for the driveway and patio areas, and a shoreline restoration project. While permeable pavers donot provide the same benefits as vegetative cover, they can reduce stormwater runoff. Utilizing permeable paversmeans that while the property will still have 36 percent lot coverage, only 29.67 percent of that will be impervioussurface. Given the nonconforming nature of the property, staff believes this is an acceptable proposal.RECOMMENDATIONStaff recommends that the City Council approve an 11.5foot front yard setback, a 22.1foot lakeshore setback, andan 11 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the conditions of approval, and adopts the attached Findings of Factand Decision:1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit.2. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing easements are documented.3. A new 1” = 20’ scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit application clearly showing thepropose setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed house and structures.4. At least one tree must be planted in front yard, if one is not present after construction.5. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits across the entire south side. This must be done prior to any construction activities and remain installed until all construction is completed.Any trees lost to construction activities beyond those indicated in the tree removal plan shall be replaced.6. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area.7. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from EAB.8. The 162square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s wateroriented structure.9. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,319 square feet.10. The proposed rear patio and driveway areas must be constructed using pervious paver systems.11 . A permanent 20foot wide native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline using species native tothe ecotype with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer may work around the path and stairs. The buffermust be designed and installed by an experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan mustbe approved by the Water Resources Coordinator.12. The property owner must work with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to identify and implement anyshoreline restoration projects that would improve ecosystem health and function. Replacing rip rap withbioengineering solutions is one example.Should the City Council deny the variance request, it is recommended that the City Council adopt thefollowing motion and attached Findings of Fact and Decision:“The Chanhassen City Council denies a variance request to allow an 11.5foot front yard setback, a 22.1
foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance, and adopts the attached Findings of Fact
and Decision.”
ATTACHMENTS:
1. PC Staff Report 201801
2. Findings of Fact PC signed
3. Findings of Fact and Decision Denial (CC)
4. Findings of Fact and Decision Approval (CC)
5. Appeal
6. Resident Concerns Email Bangasser
7. Resident Concerns Email Keusman
8. Email extending deadline for reivew
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(DENIAL)
IN RE:
Application of Todd and Kristin Jackson for an 11.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot
lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance on a property zoned Single Family
Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2018-01.
On January 2, 2018 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 Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to
speak and approved the variance.
On February 12, 2018, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to
consider an appeal of the Planning commission’s decision to recommend approval of the
requested variances and now make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
3. The legal description of the property is:
Lot 9, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta
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 zoning code’s shoreland overlay district was enacted to protect the city’s
aquatic resources. Allowing the applicant to exceed the districts 25 percent lot coverage
limit and increase the extent of the nonconformity within the required 75-foot shoreland
setback area increases the amount of runoff that will be directed to Lake Minnewashta
and is contrary to the intent of the ordinance.
2
The City Code allows for owners to improve their properties in ways that reduce an
existing nonconformity. Increasing the size and amount of structure located within the
shoreland setback increases, rather than decreases the existing nonconformity. The
proposed reduction to the property’s impervious surface does not meaningfully improve
the property’s stormwater management. Increasing and maintaining nonconformities is
not in line with the intent of the Chapter.
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 lots substandard size combined with the required front and lake setbacks
mean a reasonably sized home could not be constructed on the property without a
variance; however, the requested variances significantly exceed the minimum variances
needed for the construction of a reasonably sized home.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The property is located in an older subdivision and the existing structure does
not conform to the current zoning code. The parcel is significantly smaller than the
minimum size required for riparian lots zoned RSF. The substandard nature of the lot
makes it impossible to construct a single-family home meeting the current zoning code.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The proposed home is larger than those located on the surrounding properties,
and deviates for the general lake home aesthetic present in the community.
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 #2018-01, dated January 2, 2018, prepared by MacKenzie Walters, is
incorporated herein.
3
DECISION
“The Chanhassen City Council denies a variance request to allow an 11.5-foot front yard
setback, a 22.1-foot lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance.”
ADOPTED by the City Council this 12th day of February, 2018.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Denny Laufenburger, Mayor
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(APPROVAL)
IN RE:
Application of Todd and Kristin Jackson for an 11.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot
lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance on a property zoned Single Family
Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2018-01
On January 2, 2018, 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 Planning Commission heard testimony from all interested persons wishing to
speak and approved the variance.
On February 12, 2018, the Chanhassen City Council met at its regularly scheduled meeting to
consider an appeal of the Planning commission’s decision to recommend approval of the
requested variances and now make the following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. The property is currently zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
3. The legal description of the property is:
Lot 9, Block 4, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta
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 intent of the city’s shoreland management ordinance is to protect the city’s
aquatic resources by requiring structures to be setback 75 feet from lakes and limiting the
maximum lot coverage permitted within 1,000 feet of a lake to 25 percent. The setback
and lot coverage limitation is designed to minimize the amount of stormwater runoff that
is discharged into the lake. The applicant’s proposal calls for maintaining the existing
nonconforming lake setback and slightly reducing the existing lot coverage. Staff
believes that by using pervious pavers, installing a vegetative buffer, and working with
2
the watershed district to conduct a shoreline restoration project the proposed home’s
impact on Lake Minnewashta will be minimized. Given the existing nonconforming
nature of the property and the BMPs being required as conditions of approval for the
variance, staff believes that the applicant’s proposal balances protecting the lake and
allowing for reasonable use on a nonconforming property.
The city’s zoning code requires a minimum front yard setback of 30 feet in order to
provide for greenspace and a consistent neighborhood aesthetic. The applicant’s proposed
reduction the front yard setback is in conjunction with the removal of an existing
driveway that occupies most of the front yard and is similar to the front yard setback
maintained by other homes in the neighborhood. For these reasons, the requested front
yard setback in harmony with the chapter’s intent of providing for greenspace and a
consistent neighborhood aesthetic.
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 lot’s substandard size combined with the required front and lake setbacks
mean a reasonably sized home could not be constructed on the property without a
variance.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The property is located in an older subdivision and the existing structure does
not conform to the current zoning code. The parcel is significantly smaller than the
minimum size required for riparian lots zoned RSF. The substandard nature of the lot
makes it impossible to construct a single-family home meeting the current zoning code.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The property is located in one of the city’s oldest subdivisions. The vast
majority of the properties within 500 feet of the parcel either have received variances or
are nonconforming uses. The existing housing stock is a mix between older single level
homes and more recent two-story homes. Due to the unique constraints posed by each lot
and the changes in architectural trends over the decades, the housing in this area is a fairly
eclectic mix.
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.
3
Finding: This does not apply to this request.
5. The planning report #2018-01, dated January 2, 2018, prepared by MacKenzie Walters, is
incorporated herein.
DECISION
“The Chanhassen City Council approves an 11.5-foot front yard setback, a 22.1-foot
lakeshore setback, and an 11 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the following conditions:
1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit.
2. A title search for the property should be conducted to ensure any/all existing
easements are documented
3. A new 1inch = 20 feet scale survey should be provided as part of the building permit
application clearly showing the propose setbacks and lot coverage for the proposed
house and structures.
4. At least one tree must be planted in front yard, if one is not present after construction.
5. Tree protection fencing must be properly installed at the edge of the grading limits
across the entire south side. This must be done prior to any construction activities
and remain installed until all construction is completed. Any trees lost to construction
activities beyond those indicated in the tree removal plan shall be replaced.
6. No equipment may be stored within the tree protection area.
7. Appropriate tree protection measures must be taken to protect the rear yard ash from
EAB.
8. The 162 square foot rear patio area is understood to be the property’s water oriented
structure.
9. Lot coverage may not exceed 3,319 square feet.
10. The proposed rear patio and driveway areas must be constructed using pervious paver
systems.
11. A permanent 20-foot native vegetated buffer must be installed along the shoreline
using species native to the ecotype with permanent buffer monuments. The buffer
may work around the path and stairs. The buffer must be designed and installed by an
experienced professional in native shoreline restoration. Design plan must be
approved by the Water Resources Coordinator.
12. The property owner must work with Minnehaha Creek Watershed District to identify
and implement any shoreline restoration projects that would improve ecosystem
health and function. Replace riprap with bioengineering solutions is one example.
ADOPTED by the City Council this 12th day of February, 2018.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Denny Laufenburger, Mayor