Findings of Fact (Denied) - SignedCITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND MNNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
(DENIAL)
IN RE:
Application of Ed Myslivecek for a variance exceeding the accessory structure size limit by adding a
bathroom onto a summer kitchen and constructing a deuched garage on a property zoned
Agricultural Estate District (A2) - Planning Case 2021-08.
On February 2, 2021, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board ofAppeals 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
l. The property is cunently zoned Agriculture Estate District (A2)
2. The property is guided in the chanhassen comprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density
3. The legal description ofthe property is:
That part ofthe Southwest quarter ofSection 25. Township I 16, Range 23, Carver County.
Minnesota, described as follows: Commencing at the Southeast comer of said Southwest quarter;
thence on an assumed bearing of South 89 degrees l2 minutes l0 seconds West along the South line
ofsaid Southwest quarter a distance of 1538.77 feet; thence North I degee 0l minutes ll seconds
East a distance of 17.00 feet to the point ofbeginning; thence North 50 degrees I I minutes 32
seconds East a distance of289.79 fee; thence North l8 degrees 47 minutes 49 seconds East a
distance of417.75 feet; thence North 76 degees 26 minutes 34 seconds West a distance of591.83
feet to the centerline of State Highway No. l0l ; thence Southeasterly along said centerline a
distance of705.73 feet to the point ofbeginning.
4. Variance F indinss - Section 20-58 ofthe Ci ty Code provides the following criteria for the
granting ofa 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 extended its maximum accessory stnrcture size limit to properties zoned
A2 in 2007 due to the tendency for these buildings to be used to house contractors yards and
landscaping business. The city determined that 1,000 square feet of accessory's structures
provided sulficient storage space for single-family residences in all single-family residential
districts. The applicant is proposing adding a garage/workshop sigrrificantly in excess ofthe
1,000 square foot limit on a property that already has over 1,000 square feet of detached
accessory structures. The proposed structure is exactly the qpe of structure in exactly the
I
zoning district that Ordinance 451 was passed to prohibit. Granting the requested variance
would not be in harmony with the purpose and intent ofthe zoning code.
Similarly, the city's nonconforming use ordinance states that its express purpose is to prevent
the expansion ofnonconforming buildings or structures and to encourage the elimination of
nonconforming buildings and structures. Granting a variance to allow for the expansion of
the nonconforming summer cottage and creation ofa new, larger, detached garage runs
contrary to the intent ofthis ordinance.
Finally, the city's Comprehensive Plan guides this area for residential low density
development with densities of between 1.2-4 units per acre. The proposed outbuildings are
not in keeping with and would not be compatible with the smaller lot residential
neighborhoods envisioned for this area.
b. When there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance. "Practical
difficutties" as used in connection with the granting ofa 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 existing outbuildings on the property provide the applicant with a reasonable
storage area for a single-family residence, and the applicant has options under the City Code
for constructing additional garage space without a variance. Similarly, the City Code does
not prohibit the applicant from installing a bathroom within the existing fooprint ofthe
summer kitchen, it merely prevents the expansion of the nonconforming structure to
accommodate the improvement. Since substantially similar results could be accomplished
without a variance, the applicant does not have a practical diffrculty in complying with the
zoning ordinance.
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 ofthe landowner has been created by their design choices and not by
any circumstance unique to the property. Additional storage and vehicle parking space could
be created without a variance via an attached garage and a bathroom could be added to the
outbuilding via an interior remodel rather than an addition. again without a variance.
The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character ofthe locality.
Finding: The southern portion ofthe Great Plains Boulevard corridor has a rural character
with relatively large lots. Many of these lots feature single-family homes and a few parcels
host businesses such as a garden center or golfcourses. Historically, the applicant's property
was a farm with multiple large outbuildings: however, the last bam was removed from the
site between 2005 and 2008. Examining the surrounding area, staff observed that several
e
2
nearby parcels have large outbuildings, though staff only identified one parcel with two large
outbuildings. The applicant's proposal to have three outbuildings over 500 square feet in size
is agpical for a residential propeny, and approving the variance would result in five
buildings being located on the parcel; the home, two garages, the summer kitchen, and a
garden shed. This number ofbuildings is not typical for a single-family residence or for the
surrounding area.
That being said, granting the requested variances in and ofthemselves would not alter the
essential character ofthe locality; however, these variances will create a property that lends
itselfto use for a home occupation and to the creation ofa second dwelling unit. Use ofthe
property in this manner would have a negative impact on the character ofthe 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 #2021-08. dated February 2, 2021, prepared by MacKenzie Young-Walters.
is incorporated herein.
DECISION
"The Chanhassen Board ofAppeals and Adjustments denies the requested 1,842-square foot
accessory structure size variance and adopts the attached Findings ofFacts and Decision'"
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 2nd day of February, 2021 .
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY
S en Weick. Chai
g:\pl$\202 I pbmrg c.s\21{t l0l5l Sran pLE bh d !.rfndin8, of hd .!d deBioD l0l5 I 8r!.l PhG blvd E ( &!i.l) docx
J
/