Findings of Fact and Decision - SignedCITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES. MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
APPROVAL)
IN RE:
Application of Alma, LLC, on behalf of Steve Galleger, for a variance to expand a
nonconforming home by adding a second story on a property zoned Single-Family Residential
District (RSF)-Planning Case 2021-05.
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:
Lots 38 and 39, Shore Acres.
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: It is the intent of the city's nonconforming use ordinance to allow for the
maintenance and replacement of nonconforming structures. but not their expansion. The
nonconforming use ordinance specifically requires that additions to nonconforming
structures meet city setbacks. At its core, the nonconforming use ordinance exists to
prevent the expansion of existing nonconformities and encourage their eventual removal.
In this case, the existing use is the same as the desired use (i.e. a single-family home), so
granting the requested variance would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.
Additionally, it is extremely unlikely that any single-family home of a modern design
could be placed on the lot without requesting variances at least as extensive as the
existing structure's non-conformities, which means that there is no realistic scenario
wherein this property is brought into compliance with the district's setbacks. Since the
proposed expansion would maintain the home's existing footprint and not expand the
1
house's horizontal encroachment into the required setbacks, granting a variance to allow
the addition of a second story does not violated the intent of the non-conforming use
ordinance.
It is also the intent of the Code to limit the extent of variances granted to the minimum
required to address a practical difficulty. Any expansion of the home's footprint would
require the applicant to request larger and more impactful variances than what is
currently being proposed, including a variance to the property's lot cover limit. Granting
a less impactful variance to permit the vertical expansion of the structure is in harmony
with the intent of the zoning code.
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 proposal to increase living space by adding a second story is
reasonable given the size and configuration of the existing home. The height of the
applicant's proposed second story is well below the zoning district's maximum height;
however,the home's nonconforming footprint means that a second level cannot be added
without a variance, since the existing placement means that any second story built outside
of the required setbacks would be too narrow to provide a viable option for increasing the
home's living space. Finally, the house's placement on the lot means that no expansion of
the footprint is possible without requesting more impactful variances.
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: Shore Acres is an older subdivision with an eclectic mix of homes from
various decades where most homes have either received a variance or are nonconforming
structures. A visual survey of Lake Riley Boulevard shows a roughly even split between
single-story and two-story homes. Generally speaking, the older homes appear to be of
single-story design with newer homes featuring a second story. As the older housing
stock is updated, staff expects the neighborhood's proportion of two-story homes to
increase.
The applicant's proposed second story addition does not feature heavily peaked roofs and
is well under the district's 35-foot height limit with a proposed height of 22.8 feet. While
2
any increase in height does increase the visual mass of the home,this proposal does not
alter the footprint of the home 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 and represents a meaningful
improvement to the building's existing façade.
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#2021-05,dated January 5, 2021, prepared by MacKenzie Young-
Walters, is incorporated herein.
DECISION
The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the variance request to
intensify a nonconforming structure by adding a second story meeting the existing
nonconforming front, side, and shoreland setbacks, subject to the Conditions of Approval and
adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision."
1. A building permit must be obtained prior to 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. The home's footprint must not be increased beyond what is shown in the submitted
survey dated December 2,2020.
4. Eaves and other architectural elements may project as shown on the plans dated
December 3,2020.
5. The addition must substantially conform to the submitted plans dated December 3, 2020.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 5th day of January, 2021.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Steven Weick, Chai*nan
g plan\202l planning cases\21-05 9243 lake nley boulevard\findings of fact and decision 9243 lake riley blvd (approval).doc
3