25-13 variance Signed Findings of Fact and DecisionCITY OI.- CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND I{ENNEPIN COUNTIES. MINNESOTA
FINDIN(;S OT'FACT
AND DECISION
IN RE:
Application ofproperty owner Scot Lacek for side setback variance on a propert) zoned Single
Family Residential District (RSF) - Planning Case 2025-13.
On Septernber 2nd, the Chanhassen Planning Commission, acting as the Board ofAppeals and
Adjustments. met at its regularly scheduled meeting to consider the application. The Planning
Conrmission conducted a public hearing on the proposed variance preceded by published and
mailed notice. The Board of Appeals and Adjustments makes the following:
FINDIN(;S OI FACT
l. The property is currently zoned Single Family Residential District (RSF).
2. The property is guided in the Chanhassen Conrprehensive Plan for Residential Low Density.
3. The property legal description as described in Exhibit A.
4. Variance Firldings - Section 20-58 of the Cit y Code plovides the lollowing criteria for the
granting of a variance
a Variances shall only be permitted when they are in harnrony with the general purposes
and intent of this Chapter and when the variances are consistcllt u'ith the Comprehensive
PIan.
Finding: The requested variance is in hannony'with the general purposes and the intent
of the chapter and is found to be consistent with the conrprehensive plan.
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 prope(y
owner proposes to use the property in a reasonable manner nol permitted by this Chapter.
Practical difficutties include. but are not limited to. inadequate access to direct sunlight
lor solar energy s) sten)s.
Finding:'l'he undersized propefty *'idth, undersized square foolage, and the bisecting of
the lot by a public roadway create practical difficulties fbr the property owner to use the
property in a reasonable nlanner without the request of a variance.
c. That the purpose ofthe variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The purposes ofthe variations are not based on economic considerations.
d. The plight ofthe landowner is due to circumslances unique to the propeny not created by
the landowner.
Finding: The property was platted in 1913. with an undersized lot width and lot square
footage compared to today's requirements for minimum lot standards.
e. The variance, ifgranted. will not alter the essential character ofthe locality
Finding: The requested variance is within the keeping of neighboring properties that
have comparable structures to that proposed by the applicant.
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: The proposed garage is not an eafth-sheltered construction and therefore not
applicable.
The planning report #2025-13 dated August 26,2025, prepared by Rachel Arsenault
is incorporated herein.
DECISI0N
The Planning Commission approves the requested variance for side yard setbacks and second
story. subject to the conditions ofthe staffreport.
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commissiorr this 2"d day of September 2025
CHANHASS PL NNING COMMISSION
BY
Its Chairman
)
Exhihit A
Lots 8 & 40, Red Cedar Point Lake Minnewashta. Carver County. Minnesota