Loading...
26-08 PC Staff Report PH (952) 227-1100 • ChanhassenMN.gov 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD • PO BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN • MINNESOTA • 55317 Application: Variance (Planning Case #2026-08) Staff Report Date: May 27, 2026 Draed By: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner Planning Commission Review Date: June 2, 2026 60-Day Action Deadline: July 5, 2026 SUMMARY OF REQUEST: The Applicant is requesting a variance to the required front setback for the property located at 6691 Deerwood Drive. 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. No.ce of this public hearing has been mailed to all property owners within 500 feet. LOCATION: 6691 Deerwood Drive PID: 251600360 OWNER: Colin Ambrose PRESENT ZONING: Single-Family Residential (RSF) 2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density ACREAGE: 0.28 acres PROPOSED MOTION: “The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves the proposed front setback variance for the property located at 6691 Deerwood Drive.” APPLICABLE REGULATIONS Chapter 20 – ArEcle 20-XII RSF Single-Family ResidenEal Chapter 20 – ArEcle 20-II – Division 20-II-3 Variances Chapter 20 – ArEcle 20-XXVIII Bluff ProtecEon PROPOSAL/SUMMARY The Applicant is requesEng a variance to the required front setbacks to facilitate an addiEon on the exisEng lawful non-conforming home located at 6691 Deerwood Drive. BACKGROUND/ EXISTING CONDITIONS This property is located in the Carver Beach neighborhood, plaHed in 1927. The home was constructed in 1932 according to Carver County data. This property contains a single-family home, shed and gravel parking area that stretches into the right-of-way. Currently, there is no garage or paved driveway onto the property. The exisEng home has a footprint of 918 square feet and is located 1 foot 9 inches from the front property line at its closest point. This home is considered lawful nonconforming for the front setback and the lack of the required two-car garage. PROPOSED ADDITION The property owner is proposing a 784 square-foot addiEon on the south side of the exisEng home to include a two-car garage and addiEonal living space. This proposal would bring the property into conformance with the current code requirement of a two-car garage for single- family dwellings. The proposal includes a new driveway that would remove the current parking in the right-of-way. The first floor of addiEonal living space includes a mudroom, powder room, and stairs. The second floor includes 2 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms. The addiEon would be posiEoned 20 feet from the front lot line at its closest point; this is 10 feet less than the required 30-foot front yard setback. The 20-foot setback allows adequate parking in the driveway for larger vehicles, which is recommended by the engineering department. This property contains a bluff with the delineaEon line running north and south through the property, the table below details the required setback versus the proposed. Single-Family Residential RSF Requirements Proposed Front Yard Setback 30 feet min 20 feet Side Yard Setback 10 feet min 31 feet Bluff Setback 5 feet min (home prior to 1991) 8 feet 11 inches Lot Cover 30% (Shoreland Overlay) 21.3% ANALYSIS VARIANCE CONDITIONS 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 variance is in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the chapter, as well as the comprehensive 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 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 requested variance has practical difficulty in complying with the zoning ordinance due to the unique layout of the home on the property. The property owner is proposing a reasonable use of the property that requires a variance for construction. c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone. Finding: The variation is not based on economic considerations alone. 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 circumstance to the property created by the unique layout of the home on the property built in 1932, not created by the property owner. e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Finding: The variance, if granted, would not alter the essential character of the locality as this is an addition to the existing home in a neighborhood that contains unique properties. 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 is not an earth-sheltered construction and therefore not applicable. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Chanhassen Planning Commission approves the requested front- yard setback variance to construct the addition as demonstrated in the plan set. CONDITIONS 1. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction. 2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that proposed building meets all requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code, additional comments or requirements may be required after plan review. 3. Deerwood Drive curb replacement plan shall be approved by engineering prior to building permit. 4. The location and configuration of the addition shall substantially conform to what is shown on the proposed survey by Civil Site Group dated April 20, 2026, submitted as a part of the Planning Case No. 2026.08.