Loading...
PC Staff Report 9-3-19PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Tuesday, September 3, 2019 Subject Consider a Request for a Variance to Replace and Expand an Existing Garage on Property located at 6641 Minnewashta Parkway Section PUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.4. Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, Associate Planner File No: Planning Case No. 2019­10 PROPOSED MOTION: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 6­foot side yard setback variance and a 3 percent lot cover variance for the expansion of an attached garage, subject to the Conditions of Approval; and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” SUMMARY OF REQUEST The applicant is proposing replacing the existing attached 19­foot wide two­car garage with a 25­foot wide two­car garage and upper­level bonus room. The existing garage is located approximately 9.8 feet from the side lot line and the property has non­conforming lot cover of 29.95 percent. The proposed project would reduce the side yard setback to 4 feet and reduce the lot cover to 28 percent. The applicant’s proposed project expands the home’s abnormally narrow garage while reducing the property’s non­ conforming lot cover and removing its non­conforming second driveway access. The proposed side yard setback is consistent with the minimum the city requires in order to minimize the chance of runoff adversely impacting the neighboring parcel, and the large distance between the two garages further mitigates the impact of granting the variance. Staff believes the proposed use is reasonable and works to minimize the property’s existing non­conformities and avoids unduly impacting neighboring parcels. A full breakdown and analysis of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report. APPLICANT James and Jean Way SITE INFORMATION PRESENT ZONING:  RSF LAND USE:Residential Low Density PLANNING COMMISSION STAFFREPORTTuesday, September 3, 2019SubjectConsider a Request for a Variance to Replace and Expand an Existing Garage on Propertylocated at 6641 Minnewashta ParkwaySectionPUBLIC HEARINGS Item No: C.4.Prepared By MacKenzie Young­Walters, AssociatePlanner File No: Planning Case No. 2019­10PROPOSED MOTION:The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 6­foot side yard setback variance and a 3 percentlot cover variance for the expansion of an attached garage, subject to the Conditions of Approval; and adopts theattached Findings of Facts and Decision.”SUMMARY OF REQUESTThe applicant is proposing replacing the existing attached 19­foot wide two­car garage with a 25­foot wide two­cargarage and upper­level bonus room. The existing garage is located approximately 9.8 feet from the side lot line and theproperty has non­conforming lot cover of 29.95 percent. The proposed project would reduce the side yard setback to4 feet and reduce the lot cover to 28 percent.The applicant’s proposed project expands the home’s abnormally narrow garage while reducing the property’s non­conforming lot cover and removing its non­conforming second driveway access. The proposed side yard setback isconsistent with the minimum the city requires in order to minimize the chance of runoff adversely impacting theneighboring parcel, and the large distance between the two garages further mitigates the impact of granting the variance.Staff believes the proposed use is reasonable and works to minimize the property’s existing non­conformities andavoids unduly impacting neighboring parcels.A full breakdown and analysis of the variance request can be found in the attached staff report.APPLICANTJames and Jean WaySITE INFORMATIONPRESENT ZONING:  RSF LAND USE:Residential Low Density ACREAGE:  .35 Acres  DENSITY:  NA  BACKGROUND County records indicate that the house was built in 1962. On March 29, 1977, a permit was issued for the addition of a family room. In 1992, the city granted a 6­foot lake setback variance for the construction of an addition and deck. On September 22, 1992, a permit was issued for the construction of an addition and deck. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a 6­foot side yard setback variance and 3 percent lot cover variance, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopt the attached Findings of Facts and Decision: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Eaves that are between 2 feet from the property line and less than 5 feet from the property line require a one­ hour fire­resistance rating on the underside of the projection. 3. The applicant must apply for and receive all necessary permits from the Watershed District. 4. Submit a grading plan that illustrates existing and proposed grades (if any), include drainage arrows that show the direction of stormwater runoff, and include an erosion control plan. 5. Abandon one of the two driveway accesses off of Minnewashta Parkway serving the property and submit removal plans that are in accordance with City Standards. 6. Edge of the garage foundation must be 5 feet from the south lot line, eaves may project an additional 1 foot. 7. Garage gutter downspouts may not be oriented to the south. ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report Findings of Fact (Approval) Findings of Fact (Denial) Variance Document Development Review Application Narrative Survey House Plans Engineering Memo CITY OF CHANHASSEN PC DATE: September 3, 2019 CC DATE: September 23, 2019 REVIEW DEADLINE: October 1, 2019 CASE #: 2019-10 BY: MW SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is proposing replacing the existing attached 19-foot wide two-car garage with a 25-foot wide two-car garage and upper level bonus room. The existing garage is located approximately 9.8 feet from the side lot line and the property has non- conforming lot cover of 29.95 percent. The proposed project would reduce the side yard setback to 4 feet and reduce the lot cover to 28 percent. LOCATION: 6641 Minnewashta Parkway (PID 256150680) OWNER: James and Jean Way 6641 Minnewashta Parkway Excelsior, MN 55331 PRESENT ZONING: RSF 2030 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: .35 acres DENSITY: NA LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether or not the proposed project meets the standards in the Zoning Ordinance for a variance. The city has a relatively high PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 6-foot side yard setback variance and a 3 percent lot cover variance for the expansion of an attached garage, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” (Note: A motion for denial and appropriate Findings of Fact are also included at the end of the report.) Planning Commission 6641 Minnewashta Parkway – Planning Case 2019-10 September 3, 2019 Page 2 of 7 level of discretion with a variance because the applicant is seeking a deviation from established standards. This is a quasi-judicial decision. Notice of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The existing home was built in 1962. In 1992, the city granted a 6-foot lakeshore setback variance to allow for the construction of an addition and deck. The applicant has remodeled and modernized the interior of the house; however, the garage is original to the house and needs to be replaced. The existing garage is only 19 feet wide by 22 feet deep and the applicant is proposing expanding its width and depth by 5 feet and adding an upper level bonus room. The proposed expansion would reduce the side yard setback to 4 feet and increase the size of the garage to approximately 25 feet wide by 27 feet deep. The applicant has expressed a willingness to remove the existing non-conforming second driveway access to offset the increased lot cover associated with the proposed garage footprint. Overall, the proposal would reduce the property’s lot cover from 29.95 percent to 28 percent. The applicant has stated that the increased garage size is necessary to comfortably accommodate the parking of two average sized vehicles and provide additional storage space. The applicant has expressed the opinion that their garage is the smallest in the neighborhood and have observed that many surrounding properties have 3-car garages. Finally, they note that there would be approximately 34 feet of separation between their proposed garage and the neighboring home. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 1, General Provisions Section 1-2. Rules of Construction and Definitions Chapter 20, Article II, Division 3, Variances Chapter 20, Article II, Division 4, Nonconforming Uses Chapter 20, Article VII, Shoreland Management District Chapter 20, Article XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District Section 20-615. Lot Requirements and Setbacks Planning Commission 6641 Minnewashta Parkway – Planning Case 2019-10 September 3, 2019 Page 3 of 7 Chapter 20, Article XXIII, Division 1, Generally Section 20-908. Yard Regulations Chapter 20, Article XXIV, Division 2, Parking and Loading Section 20-1122. Access and Driveways BACKGROUND County records indicate that the house was built in 1962. On March 29, 1977, a permit was issued for the addition of a family room. In 1992, the city granted a 6’ lake setback variance for the construction of an addition and deck. On September 22, 1992, a permit was issued for the construction of an addition and deck. SITE CONDITIONS The property is zoned Single-Family Residential District and is located within the city’s Shoreland Management District. This zoning classification requires lots to be a minimum of 20,000 square feet, have front and rear yard setbacks of 30 feet, setbacks of 75 feet from the lake’s ordinary high water level, side yard setbacks of 10 feet, and limits parcels to a maximum of 25 percent lot cover. Residential structures are limited to 35 feet in height. The lot is 15,950 square feet and has 4,777.1 square feet of lot cover. The existing house and deck have a non-conforming 52.3 feet lake setback, and the southwest corner of the existing attached garage has a non-conforming 9.8-foot side yard setback. The other elements of the property copy with the district’s standards. NEIGHBORHOOD Pleasant Acres The plat for this area was recorded in January of 1957. This plat predates the formation of the city and since the plat was recorded, the zoning code was adopted and amended multiple times, homes have been built, demolished, and rebuilt to meet the standards and needs of the ordinances that were inforce at that time. Many of the homes in the area are of older construction, built between 1960 and 1990, and some, especially the older homes, do not conform to one or more aspects of the current zoning code, though a relatively small number of these properties have received variances. Planning Commission 6641 Minnewashta Parkway – Planning Case 2019-10 September 3, 2019 Page 4 of 7 Variances within 500 feet: 1992-10 6641 Minnewashta Parkway: Approved - 6’ lake setback (deck and addition) 1997-10 6601 Minnewashta Parkway: Approved - 13’ lake setback (rebuild deck) 1998-09 6621 Minnewashta Parkway: Approved - 28’ lake setback (rebuild deck) 2016-14 3801 Leslee Curve: Denied: Accessory structure over 1,000 square feet ANALYSIS Side Yard Setback The current garage’s 19-foot width is below the 20-foot minimum recommended width for a two-car garage and research shows that 24 feet by 24 feet is the most popular two-car garage size. The applicant’s proposal to increase the garage’s width by approximately 5 feet would not result in an atypically wide garage. Staff did ask the applicant to explore alternative configurations for the garage, such as expanding it into the house rather than into the required side yard. The applicant looked into this option, but stated that it would require the elimination of the home’s entryway and that they were not able to make that configuration work. The applicant’s existing garage is 9.8-feet from the side lot line and the proposed garage expansion would result in a 4-foot side yard setback. The applicant had initially expressed interest in a slightly wider garage with 2-foot long eaves; however, that would have reduced the distance from the edge of the eaves to the side lot line to 2.76 feet and staff expressed concern that this could lead to runoff being directed directly onto the neighbor’s property. After consultation with staff, the applicant revised their proposal to reduce the garage width by .25 feet and redesigned the roofline to utilize 1-foot long eaves. This results in a proposal where the garage foundation would be 5 feet from the side lot line and eaves would encroach an additional foot. The City Code typically allows eaves to project 2.5 feet into a required setback; however, that exemption is not extended to variances and a 4-foot side yard setback variance would be required to accommodate the structure and its proposed eaves. In an attempt to determine a reasonable minimum side yard setback, staff examined other detached single-family zoning districts within the city. The proposed 5-foot lot line setback with an additional foot of encroachment for the eaves would be consistent with the minimum side yard setback required by the Residential Low and Medium Density (RLM) district, which requires alternating 5-foot garage and 10-foot house side yard setbacks, and many of the city’s Planned Unit Development-Residential (PUDR) districts featuring smaller lots, which typically allow for 5-foot garage side setbacks. In both RLM and PUDR districts, the eaves of homes are allowed to encroach up to 2.5 feet into the required setback. It should be noted that these districts permit reduced side yard setbacks in order to offset narrow lot sizes and that some of them, particularly the RLM, have a very different character than the Single-Family Residential (RSF) district where the subject property is located. Planning Commission 6641 Minnewashta Parkway – Planning Case 2019-10 September 3, 2019 Page 5 of 7 Many of the districts that allow for 5-foot garage side setbacks have provisions requiring a minimum 15-foot separation between structures on adjacent lots. This clause helps prevent the sense of crowding that would be created by allowing homes to place their foundations 10 feet apart. In the case of 6641 Minnewashta Parkway, the neighboring home’s side loading garage is setback 27.8 feet from the side lot line, with the edge of their driveway being setback approximately 8 feet from the side lot line. The orientation and distance between the two structures will significantly minimize the impact of the reduced side yard setback on the neighboring property. Staff is typically very hesitant to support requests for side yard setback variances in situations where the property meets the minimum required lot width and where most of the surrounding properties conform to their zoning district’s minimum side yard setback. In this case, staff believes that the proposal is reasonable, will have a minimal impact on the neighboring property, and that there are no practical alternative configurations that would prevent an encroachment into the required side yard. For these reasons, staff supports the requested side yard setback. Lot Cover The city requires a minimum lot area of 20,000 square feet for riparian properties and limits these properties to 25 percent lot coverage. The applicant’s lot is substandard with a lot area of 15,950 square feet. The property currently has a lot coverage of 29.95 percent, or 4,777.1 square feet. When owners propose improvements to properties that have non-conforming lot coverage, the policy is that the existing non-conformity must be reduced; however, there is no formal rule stating how much of a reduction must occur. When the applicant initially brought the proposed project to staff’s attention, staff expressed concern that the garage expansion would increase the property’s lot cover to approximately 31 percent. Staff also noted that the property has a non-conforming second driveway access and requested that the applicant consider removing a driveway access and its associated lot cover to bring the driveway into compliance with City Code and reduce the non-conforming lot cover. The applicant submitted a revised proposal indicating that they would remove the north driveway access and approximately 550 square feet of lot cover. Further reductions to the size of the driveway are not recommended, as the City Code requires a turnaround on driveways accessing collector roadways to ensure safe vehicular access. This change would reduce the property to 28 percent lot cover, a 1.95 percent reduction to the existing non- conformity. Planning Commission 6641 Minnewashta Parkway – Planning Case 2019-10 September 3, 2019 Page 6 of 7 Once the garage expansion is factored in, the applicant’s proposal will remove about 300 square feet of impervious surface from the lot, approximately 2 percent of the property’s lot cover, as well as an additional 285 square feet of impervious surface located within the public right-of-way that is not included in the propery’s lot cover allowance. Staff believes that removing nearly 600 square feet of lot cover associated with the property represents a meaningful attempt to reduce the existing non- conformity. For these reasons, staff supports the 3 percent lot cover variance. Impact on Neighborhood The prevailing character of the houses along the east side of Minnewashta Parkway is that or relatively wide homes situated on shallower lots. Increasing the width of 6641 Minnewashta by approximately 5 feet will not alter the aesthetics of the neighborhood, especially given that there is a large gap between the applicant’s home and their neighbor’s garage. The largest visual impact of the proposed project would be adding the second-level bonus room above the garage; however, at 19 feet high it is still significantly below the District’s maximum height of 35 feet. Additionally, there are also other homes with second story living areas along Minnewashta Parkway. Overall, the proposal is consistent with the general character of the neighborhood and is not expected to negatively impact the area or surrounding properties. Existing Proposed SUMMARY The applicant’s proposed project expands the home’s abnormally narrow garage while reducing the property’s non-conforming lot cover and removing its non-conforming second driveway access. The Planning Commission 6641 Minnewashta Parkway – Planning Case 2019-10 September 3, 2019 Page 7 of 7 proposed side yard setback is consistent with the minimum the city requires in order to minimize the chance of runoff adversely impacting the neighboring parcel, and the large distance between the two garages further mitigates the impact of granting the variance. Staff believes the proposed use is reasonable and works to minimize the property’s existing non-conformities and avoids unduly impacting neighboring parcels. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve a 6-foot side yard setback variance and 3 percent lot cover variance, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopt the attached Findings of Facts and Decision: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Eaves that are between 2 feet from the property line and less than 5 feet from the property line require a 1-hour fire-resistance-rating on the underside of the projection. 3. The applicant must apply for and receive all necessary permits from the Watershed District. 4. Submit a grading plan that illustrates existing and proposed grades (if any), include drainage arrows that show the direction of stormwater runoff, and include an erosion control plan. 5. Abandon one of the two driveway accesses off of Minnewashta Parkway serving the property and submit removal plans that are in accordance with City Standards. 6. Edge of the garage foundation must be 5 from the south lot line, eaves may project an additional 1 foot. 7. Garage gutter downspouts may not be oriented to the south. Should the Planning Commission deny the variance request, it is recommended that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion and attached Finding of Fact and Decision: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the 6-foot front yard setback variance and 3 percent lot cover variance, and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” ATTACHMENTS 1. Finding of Fact and Decision Approval 2. Finding of Fact and Decision Denial 3. Variance Document 4. Development Review Application and Narrative 5. Survey 6. House Plan Sheets 7. Engineering Memo G:\PLAN\2019 Planning Cases\19-10 6641 Minnewashta Parkway VAR\Staff Report-6641 Minnewashta Pkw_PC.doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (APPROVAL) IN RE: Application of James and Jean Way for a 6-foot side yard setback and a 3 percent lot coverage variance on a property zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2019-10. On September 3, 2019, 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 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 Two (2), Block Seven (7), Pleasant Acres, Excepting therefrom: That part of Lot 2, Block 7, Pleasant Acres, Carver County, Minnesota, lying south of a line drawn Easterly and parallel with the North line of said Lot 2, from a point in the West line of said Lot 2, distant 110 feet Southerly of the Northwest corner of said Lot 2, said parallel line being extended Easterly to the shores of 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 establishing a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet and a maximum lot coverage of 25 percent. These two requirements are designed to work together to allow property owners sufficient lot cover to construct a reasonably sized house and accessory structures while preventing excessive development that could generate unnecessary runoff capable of degrading the lake. In this case, the city must balance minimizing the property’s lot cover with allowing for reasonable use of the property. The applicant’s proposal to increase the width of their substandard two-car garage is in line with the City ordinance’s requirement that all single-family homes have a two-car garage. 2 Additionally, the home has a non-conforming lot cover of 29.95 percent and under the city’s Non-Conforming Use Ordinance the applicant would be entitled to continue the existing non-conformity and the ordinance allows non-conforming uses to be modified or improved so long as the non-conformity is not expanded. Since the applicant is proposing to reduce the property’s lot cover to 28 percent, the variance is consistent with the intent of the Chapter. The city’s zoning code requires minimum side yard setbacks of 10 feet to maintain a neighborhood aesthetic, to prevent structures from directing runoff onto neighboring properties, and to accommodate the presence of landings, eaves, and other common features present on the sides of structures. In this case, the structure on the adjacent parcel is located over 27 feet from proposed garage and conditions are being imposed on the variance to minimize the potential for runoff to be directed onto the neighboring property. Additionally, the variance still provides for the minimum structure setback deemed acceptable to prevent negative impacts on adjoining parcels in other zoning districts. Due to the large distance between the existing structure and placement of the foundation 5 feet from the side lot line, the variance is consistent 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: Expanding a 19-foot wide two-car garage to a 24-foot wide two-car garage is a reasonable use for a single-family home, and the existing placement of the 1962 home does not permit the applicant to expand the garage without encroaching into the side yard setback. 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 smaller than the minimum size required for riparian lots zoned RSF. The lot’s substandard size and pre-existing house placement means that the garage width cannot be increased without a variance. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The prevailing character of the houses along the east side of Minnewashta Parkway is that or relatively wide homes situated on shallower lots. Increasing the width of 6641 Minnewashta by approximately 5 feet will not alter the aesthetics of the neighborhood, especially given that there is a large gap between the applicant’s home and their neighbor’s garage. The largest visual impact of the proposed project would be adding the second-level 3 bonus room above the garage; however, at 19 feet high it is still significantly below the district’s maximum height of 35 feet. Additionally, there are also other homes with second story living areas along Minnewashta Parkway. The proposal is consistent with the general character of the neighborhood and it will not alter the essential character of the locality. 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 #2019-10, dated September 3, 2019, prepared by MacKenzie Young- Walters, is incorporated herein. DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a variance request to allow a 6-foot side yard setback variance and a 3 percent lot coverage variance, subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Eaves that are between 2 feet from the property line and less than 5 feet from the property line require a 1-hour fire-resistance-rating on the underside of the projection. 3. The applicant must apply for and receive all necessary permits from the Watershed District. 4. Submit a grading plan that illustrates existing and proposed grades (if any), include drainage arrows that show the direction of stormwater runoff, and include an erosion control plan. 5. Abandon one of the two driveway accesses off of Minnewashta Parkway serving the property and submit removal plans that are in accordance with City Standards. 6. Edge of the garage foundation must be 5 feet from the south lot line, eaves may project an additional 1 foot. 7. Garage gutter downspouts may not be oriented to the south. ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 3rd day of September, 2019. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-10 6641 minnewashta parkway var\findings of fact and decision 6641 minnewashta pkw (approval).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION (DENIAL) IN RE: Application of James and Jean Way for a 6-foot side yard setback and a 3 percent lot coverage variance on a property zoned Single-Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2019-10. On September 3, 2019, 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 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 Two (2), Block Seven (7), Pleasant Acres, Excepting therefrom: That part of Lot 2, Block 7, Pleasant Acres, Carver County, Minnesota, lying south of a line drawn Easterly and parallel with the North line of said Lot 2, from a point in the West line of said Lot 2, distant 110 feet Southerly of the Northwest corner of said Lot 2, said parallel line being extended Easterly to the shores of 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 city’s zoning code requires minimum side yard setbacks of 10 feet to maintain a neighborhood aesthetic, to prevent structures from directing runoff onto neighboring properties, and to accommodate the presence of landings, eaves, and other common features present on the sides of structures. Allowing the applicant to reduce their side yard setback would be incongruous with the surrounding properties, most of which meet the required 10-foot side yard setback. Additionally, the proposed reduction could lead to run off being diverted onto the neighboring parcel. Finally, if in the future, the adjacent house was removed and replaced with a home located at its 10-foot side yard setback, the atypically narrow space between the structures would lead to a more 2 crowded feel then is typical for the Single-Family Residential District. For these reasons, granting the proposed variance would not be consistent with the intent of this 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 homeowner could reconfigure the interior of the home to allow for the expansion of the garage without requiring a side yard setback 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 applicant’s need for a variance is cause by the placement of the home on the lot and configuration of the existing garage. There is no factor unique to the parcel that necessitates a variance. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The prevailing character of the houses along the east side of Minnewashta Parkway is that or relatively wide homes situated on shallower lots. Increasing the width of 6641 Minnewashta by approximately 5 feet will not alter the aesthetics of the neighborhood, especially given that there is a large gap between the applicant’s home and their neighbor’s garage. The largest visual impact of the proposed project would be adding the second-level bonus room above the garage; however, at 19 feet high it is still significantly below the District’s maximum height of 35 feet. Additionally, there are also other homes with second story living areas along Minnewashta Parkway. The proposal is consistent with the general character of the neighborhood and it will not alter the essential character of the locality. 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 #2019-10, dated September 3, 2019, prepared by MacKenzie Young- Walters, is incorporated herein. 3 DECISION “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies a variance request to allow a 6-foot side yard setback variance and a 3 percent lot coverage variance.” ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 3rd day of September, 2019. CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: Steven Weick, Chairman g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-10 6641 minnewashta parkway var\findings of fact and decision 6641 minnewashta pkw (denied).doc 1 CITY OF CHANHASSEN CARVER COUNTY, MINNESOTA VARIANCE 2019-10 1. Permit. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth herein, the City of Chanhassen hereby grants the following variance: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 6-foot side yard setback variance and a 3 percent lot coverage variance. 2. Property. The variance is for a property situated in the City of Chanhassen, Carver County, Minnesota, and legally described as: Lot Two (2), Block Seven (7), Pleasant Acres, Excepting therefrom: That part of Lot 2, Block 7, Pleasant Acres, Carver County, Minnesota, lying south of a line drawn Easterly and parallel with the North line of said Lot 2, from a point in the West line of said Lot 2, distant 110 feet Southerly of the Northwest corner of said Lot 2, said parallel line being extended Easterly to the shores of Lake Minnewashta. 3. Conditions. The variance approval is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit. 2. Eaves that are between 2 feet from the property line and less than 5 feet from the property line require a 1-hour fire-resistance-rating on the underside of the projection. 3. The applicant must apply for and receive all necessary permits from the watershed district. 4. Submit a grading plan that illustrates existing and proposed grades (if any), include drainage arrows that show the direction of stormwater runoff, and include an erosion control plan. 5. Abandon one of the two driveway accesses off of Minnewashta Parkway serving the property and submit removal plans that are in accordance with City Standards. 2 6. Edge of the garage foundation must be 5 feet from the south lot line, eaves may project an additional 1 foot. 7. Garage gutter downspouts may not be oriented to the south. 4. Lapse. If within one (1) year of the issuance of this variance the allowed construction has not been substantially completed, this variance shall lapse. Dated: September 3, 2019 CITY OF CHANHASSEN BY: (SEAL) Elise Ryan, Mayor AND: Todd Gerhardt, City Manager STATE OF MINNESOTA ) (ss COUNTY OF CARVER ) The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of , 2019 by Elise Ryan, Mayor and Todd Gerhardt, City Manager, of the City of Chanhassen, a Minnesota municipal corporation, on behalf of the corporation and pursuant to authority granted by its City Council. NOTARY PUBLIC DRAFTED BY: City of Chanhassen 7700 Market Boulevard P.O. Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 (952) 227-1100 g:\plan\2019 planning cases\19-03 3617 red cedar point road\variance document 19-03.doc €tPt1- to COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTUENT Planning Division - 7700 Market Boulevard Mailing Address - P.O. Box '147, Chanhassen, MN 55317 Phone: (952) 227-'1300 / Fax: (952) 227 -1110 Submitlal Date ! Comprehensive Plan Amendment......................... $600E Minor MUSA line for failing on-site serryers..... $1OO n Conditional Use Permit (CUP) ! Single-Family Residence! att ottrers....... ! lnterim Use Permit (lUP) E ln conjunction with Single.Family Residence.. $325! All orhers $425 n Rezoning (REz) trn Planned Unit Development (PUO) Minor Amendment lo existing PUD ................. $750 ................. $100 ................. $sm CITY OT CHAI{IIASSII'I APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEWI2-6)no".113l tq ccoateQ(g-[g- sooay Revisv Dare: lo I , ltz (Refer lo tlr€ app,Wdate Applbdi,. ClFcklist lot Gquicd submittal inlol|rltr,ti}]. ths, mun ac@mpany this e4iptb5/.ixl) E SuMivision (SUB) E Create 3 lots or lessE Create over 3 |ots.......................$600 + $15 per lot(_ tots)! Metes & Bounds (2 lots).................................. $300tr!Consolidate Lots. Lot Line Adiustment E Final Plat ............ $300 .. ..........$1s0 $32s $42 $150 $100 ss00 ..........................'..... s700 $1s0 E nn oners....... E Sign Plan Review....................... E Site Plan Review (SPR) tr!Administrative (lncludes $450 escro , br attorney costs)' 'Add,tjo.El escrow may be equiEd fu. ofrrer applicatioos thmqh the de\leloflnent contsct. E Vacation of Easements/Rirht-of-u,ay (VAC)........ $300 (Additionel tEcodnE E€8 m8y +ply) fr v"n nu (vAR)........................... fl Wahnd Alteraion Permit (wAP)!tr E Residential Dislricts $500 Plus $5 per dwelling unit ( units) F Notificetion SilJn (city ro irEts 8nd remoie) El property Owne6' List within 5@' (city to gs{Eratr ster Fs€ppricrtoo m€cfrlg) .... Commercial/lndustrial Districls' Plus $10 per 1,000 square fuet of building ersa:( thousand squar€ fed) 'lnclude nl'mber of llllslhg emdoysG: 'lrrclude number of @ employeB: apptratr SingleFamily Residence .......... t150 .......... $27sAll Others...... I Zoning Appea|..........$100 ! Zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)................. $500 Ill)IE: Wion multlple appllcltions .ro proce6sed concurendy, fhs tPproprlrta to€ Ehrll bo chargod ior each lppllcrtlon. s200 $3 per address( <3' addresses) S fgcrow for Recording Documents (check all thet(-l$t Conditional Use Fermit- Ll Vacation E Maes & Bounds SuMMsion (3 docs.) lv)......................... lntorim Use Permit Variance Easements (_ easements) ....................... $50 per document E Site Plan AgreementE Wetland Alteration Permitl-l oeeos lr, o i6t11- resr )',1 , o0 Section 1: Application Type (check all that apply) Section 2: Required lnformation Description of Poposal Ro wr0ue c--,., J '-'rgt-"a ap'i4 tnJ 7a.e45e a* o-J.1, {.^ .'- boy,(-5 vn..)\4- .,so*\J toe b,-,'lt o ue.,'9 o-. ..- I e. Property Address or Location Parcel #: Select One Legal Description:L o-\ 'z a q.k Wetlands Present? E Yes E No G o53 PI ed*h Total Acreage: Present Zoning Present Land Use Desig nr1;on. Select One Requested Zoning Select One Requested Land Use Desig 6s1ion. Select One Existing Use of Property:Vq9. d ew,-L t $200 lcheck box if separate nanative is attacfied. Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant lnformation AppLlcANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant, represent to have obtained authorization from the property owner to file thb application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. It this applicatioi has not been signed by the pioperty owner, I have attaahed separate documenlation of full legal capacity to file the aPplication. This application should be frocessed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this application. I will keep mysetf informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of lhis application. I furiher understand th;t additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feaslbality studies, etc. with an estimate prior to any aulhorization to proceed with the study, I certify that lhe information and exhibits submitted are true and corecl. Address: Name:Contacl Phone: Cell: Fax: Date Contact: Phone 6lz _ztL-gL-?9 9 6- vwr L city/state/zip PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this applbation, l, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do, authorize the filing of this application. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those conditions, subjecl only to the right to objec{ at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines f;r submission of materbl and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studie8, etc. with an estimate prior to any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify thal the information and exhibits submitted are true and conect. Signature city/state/zip Email Name: C \. a-w Name: f o- -" e 1 Address: G 4 l-rvt Ltc. Par k".-'- br,t Cell: Fax: Cell: Fax: o Signature PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable) Date: )' Address: Contact Phone: City/State/Zip Email: A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application. u iredandionmbealnformalandust byfullbemustreqplanstsThaccompaniedbypliap hecklistctheicationBeforethisleOrdncenaappropriateApplapplicationprouslons.filingityapplicab dn icable roced raUrdioanancethendeterminetoaPplpDepartmentspecificn rn9and confer with the Pla requirements and fees. Who should receive copi6 of staff rePorB? ntr!tr Property Owner Ma: E EmailApplicant Ma: ! EmailEngineer Ma: E EmailOthef Ma: E Email E Mailed Paper Copy ! Mailed Paper copy E Mailed Paper Copy ! Mailed Paper Copy City/Statezip: INSTR UCTIONS TO APPLIGANT:Complete all necessary form fields, then selec{ SAVE FORM to save a coPy to your device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with requiled documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital copy to the city for processing SAVE FORiI PRINT FORITI SUA IT FOR Email: refer to Section4: Notificationlnformation 'Other Contact lnfomatlon: Name: - Address: Email: Thank you for considering our variance We, Jim and Jean Way purchased the home at 6641- Minnewashta Parkway about 25 years ago. What we purchased was a lake front lot that included a house. A fixer upper. The house was built in about 1962. We gutted the interior and totally remodeled the house with the exception of the small attached garage. We also put an addition in the back of the house. We are applying for a variance to build a larger garage which would put our home with the garage about 5 feet from the lot line. We would like to replace the existing garage with a normal/average 2 car garage. From we have determined is our 19 foot wide garage is the smallest garage in this residential area. Many have a 3 car garage. The new garage would be 34 feet from the closest neighbor home just to our South. We believe that with the new garage we would be bringing our home closer to the quality of the surrounding homes. We have discussed our building project with the neighbors. They do support our plan for a larger garage. lt is our opinion along with others that our garage project would have no negative effects on the neighborhood. Only positive effects. These are the problem with existing garage. 1. Poor original workmanship. 2. The roof sags in the middle. 3. The Span Crete floor has deep cracks across the full length ofthe floor. The garage floor is endangered of collapsing and falling in the storage space below. 4. The width of the garage is only 19 feet on the inside. You can get 2 compact cars in the garage which is a tight fit. lf you have a passenger, the passenger needs to exit the car before it can be driven into the garage. We would like to replace the garage with a garage with adequate space for 2 cars and some storage. The footprint of the new garage would be about 5 feet wider and about 5 feet deeper. Thank you very much for your consideration of this variance request. Memorandum To: MacKenzie Walters, Assistant Planner From: Erik Henricksen, Project Engineer CC: Jason Wedel, Public Works Director/City Engineer Ryan Pinkalla, Water Resources Technician Date: 8/16/2019 Re: Side Yard Setback and Lot Cover Variance at 6641 Minnewashta Parkway – Planning Case 2019-10 The Engineering Department has reviewed the Variance submittal for 6641 Minnewashta Parkway. These comments are divided into two categories: general comments and proposed conditions. General comments are informational points to guide the applicant in the proper planning of public works infrastructure for this project, to inform the applicant of possible extraordinary issues and/or to provide the basis for findings. Proposed conditions are requirements that Engineering recommends be formally imposed on the developer in the final order. Note that references to the “City Standards” herein refer to the Standard Specifications and Detail Plates. General Comments/Findings 1. Any and all utility and transportation plans submitted with this application have been reviewed for the purpose of determining the feasibility of providing utility and transportation facilities for the project in accordance with City Standards. This variance approval does not constitute final approval of details, including but not limited to alignments, materials and points of access, connection or discharge, that are depicted or suggested in the application. The applicant is required to submit detailed construction drawings and/or plat drawings for the project, as applicable. The City of Chanhassen Engineering and Public Works Department will review plans, in detail, when they are submitted and approve, reject or require modifications to the plans or drawings based upon conformance with City Standards, the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances and the professional engineering judgment of the City Engineer. 2. It is the opinion of the Engineering Department that the proposed variance at 6641 Minnewashta Parkway can be developed in accordance with the requirements of the Chanhassen Code of Ordinances (as it pertains to Engineering and Public Works requirements) and Construction Standards, provided it fully addresses the comments and conditions contained herein, and can be approved. 3. The property currently has no drainage and utility easements within the side lot area (south property line) where the variance is proposed, and would require no encroachment agreements. 4. It appears that the existing topography would direct additional stormwater runoff from the proposed addition away from the abutting property to the south. Nonetheless, upon submittal of building permits, a grading and erosion control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City. See proposed condition 1. 5. The property currently has dual access (two driveway entrances for the one property) off Minnewashta Parkway. Minnewashta Parkway is defined as a collector street under City Ordinances Sec. 20-5. In accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and the policies within, the City “will strive to discourage… and limit access to collector streets.” The applicant shall abandon one of the two access points to the property off of Minnewashta Parkway in accordance with City Standards. See proposed condition 2. Proposed Conditions 1. Submit a grading plan that illustrates existing and proposed grades (if any), include drainage arrows that show the direction of stormwater runoff, and include an erosion control plan. 2. Abandon one of the two driveway accesses off of Minnewashta Parkway serving the property and submit removal plans that are in accordance with City Standards.