Finding of Fact and Decision - SignedCITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES,MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
APPROVAL)
IN RE:
Application of Red Cedar Point, LLC, for a variance to expand a nonconforming deck on a
property zoned Single-Family Residential District(RSF)-Planning Case 2021-01.
On January 5,2021,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 1, Block 1, Red Cedar Point Lake NI innewashta.
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 shoreland ordinance establishes a 75-foot structure setback in order to prevent
the installation of lot cover near ecologically sensitive areas, creates separation between
structures and the lakeshore, and provides for a consistent visual aesthetic for riparian
properties. When properties with existing nonconforming shoreland setbacks apply for
variances to expand,the city has with few exceptions required that the expansion
maintain the existing lake setback.
In this case,the applicant's proposal does not create additional lot cover and the low open
profile of the proposed deck will not be visually intrusive. Many of the surrounding
structures or their architectural elements similarly protrude into the required lake setback
and the applicant's proposal would not disrupt the existing visual aesthetic. The request
variance would primarily expand the deck horizontally while maintaining the existing
shoreland setback, with the exception of the stairs which would encroach closer to the
lake. Granting the variance to expand the deck while requiring that the stairs be relocated
1
to maintain the existing deck's nonconforming lake setback would be consistent with past
practice and in harmony with the intent of the City's shoreland ordinance.
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 applicant's proposed deck is modestly sized and consistent with what is found on
other properties in the neighborhood. The small size of the lot and home's placement on
the lot mean that no expansion of the deck would be possible without a variance.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The variance request is not solely based upon economic considerations.
d. The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The plight of the landowner is due to the substandard size of the lot and
nonconforming status of the existing structure.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding:
Red Cedar Point is one of the oldest neighborhoods in the city. Many of its properties are
nonconforming uses, and 16 of the 25 properties within 500 feet of 3616 Red Cedar Point
Road have been granted at least one variance. Of these 16 properties, 10 have a variance for
reduced front yard setbacks and 11 were permitted a reduced shoreland setback. Many of the
nine properties which do not have a variances also have nonconforming front yard and
shoreland setbacks.The proposed deck appears to be similar in size and orientation to other
decks within the area and is not expected to negatively impact any of the surrounding homes
or environmental features. Overall, the proposal appears to be consistent with the exiting
character of the neighborhood.
That being said, the request to increase the deck's nonconforming setback to
accommodate the proposed placement of the stairs is denied. Whenever possible,the city
requires properties requesting variances to maintain their existing nonconforming lake
setbacks, and a relatively minor design change will allow the applicant to adhere to this
standard while still expanding the deck. Granting the variance as requested could
contribute to establishing the precedent that homeowners can increase their
nonconforming shoreland setbacks for aesthetic or design reasons, which has the
potential to lead to other more impactful variance requests, potentially altering the
character of the locality.
2
f. Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in Minnesota
Statutes Section 216C.06, subdivision 14,when in harmony with this Chapter.
Finding: This does not apply to this request.
5. The planning report#2021-01,dated January 5,2021,prepared by MacKenzie Young-
Walters, is incorporated herein.
DECISION
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 13-foot shoreland
setback and 18-foot east front yard setback variance to permit expanding the existing deck,
subject to the Conditions of Approval."
1. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed
building/structure meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code,
additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review.
3. Stairs must be relocated so as to maintain a 62-foot shoreland setback
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 5th day of January,2021.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY: A at)
Steven Weick, hairman
g:lplan12021 planning cases121-01 3616 red cedar point road var\findings of fact and decision 3616 red cedar point road(recommended).doc
3