Loading...
Variance Staff Report Project: Variance Request (Planning Case 2025-18) Planning Commission Review Date: December 2, 2025 60 Day Action Deadline: December 31, 2025 Drafted By: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner Staff Report Date: November 26, 2025 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a variance for hardcover in the shoreland management district to build a garage and home addition on the subject property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of the requested variance. LOCATION: 1531 Camden Ridge Drive, Chanhassen, 55317 (Subject Property) APPLICANT: Xpand Inc. OWNER: Clint Bitting CURRENT ZONING: Planned Unit Development Residential (PUDR) 2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Medium Density ACREAGE: 0.34 Acres PROPOSED MOTIONS: “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested hardcover variance in the shoreland management district and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.” LEVEL OF CITY DISCRETION IN DECISION-MAKING: The city’s discretion in approving or denying a variance is limited to whether the proposed project meets the standards in the zoning ordinance for a variance. The city has a moderate 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. APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20, Division 3, Variances Planned Unit Development Regulations – Camden Ridge Article 20-VII, Shoreland Management District BACKGROUND This property was platted in 2013 as a part of Camden Ridge Subdivision. The home was built in 2014 and is located within the Shoreland Management District, as well as the Bluff Creek Overlay District. ZONING OVERVIEW The Camden Ridge subdivision is located in a planned unit development with a set of regulations specific to this development. The development contains 32 single-family homes and 13 twin-homes. The property located at 1531 Camden Ridge Drive is located within the Shoreland Management District and the Bluff Creek Overlay District, each of these districts applies another set of regulations aside from the base zoning district in order to protect natural resources. The Shoreland Management District is an overlay with a set of regulations established by the City and the Department of Natural Resources. Properties within the Shoreland are restricted to a maximum lot coverage of 25%, unless they are platted prior to January 1, 1976, in which case they may go up to 30% with a stormwater BMP. The subject property was platted in 2013; therefore the 25% maximum lot coverage applies. The Camden Ridge planned unit development also references these regulations stating lots within the shoreland district shall not exceed 25% site coverage. The applicant is requesting a lot coverage of 27.4% to construct an additional garage space and a home addition including a covered screened porch, bedroom, and office. Along with the proposed additional garage space a driveway expansion is proposed. The Bluff Creek Overlay District encompasses the south-west corner of the property, this overlay does not affect the requested variance or proposed additions. The purpose of this overlay is to set structure s back from the boundary in order to protect natural resources such as topography, water resources, flora, and fauna. MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES REVIEW The variance request appears to be a matter of design preference rather than a unique circumstance resulting in a practical difficulty. Unique circumstances relate to physical characteristics of the land - such as lot dimensions, steep slopes, poor soils, wetlands, and trees. These do not include physical limitations or personal circumstances of the property owner that prevent compliance with the impervious surface provision, such as size of home or design preferences. Due to this the DNR recommends denial of the request. ANALYSIS 1. “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.” The requested variance is not in harmony with the general purposes and the intent of the Shoreland Management District chapter and is not found to be consistent with both the shoreland management district and the comprehensive plan’s intent to protect and enhance natural resources. 2. “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.” The requested variance lacks practical difficulty in complying with the zoning ordinances, as there are no physical characteristics of the property that pose a practical difficulty such as lot configuration or shape, natural areas, or steep slopes that would prevent the property owner from using the property in a reasonable manner permitted by the zoning ordinance. 3. “That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.” Economic considerations alone do not provide a practical difficulty in justification for the requested variance. 4. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property, not created by the landowner.” The landowner desires to increase the size of the home, garage, and driveway on the subject property. The plight of the landowner is not due to unique circumstances to the property that would justify a variance. 5. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.” The variance, if granted, would alter the character of the locality by increasing impervious lot cover and generating additional untreated stormwater discharge to nearby water resources. 6. “Variances shall be granted for earth-sheltered construction as defined in M.S. § 216C.06, subd. 14, when in harmony with this chapter.” The proposed is not an earth-sheltered construction and therefore not applicable. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the following motion and the adoption of the attached findings of fact and action. “The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments denies the requested hardcover variance in the shoreland management district and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision .”