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.