09-03-24 PC itemPlanning Commission Item
September 3, 2024
Item 510 Pleasant View Rd Setback Variance (Planning Case #24-14)
File No.24-14 Item No: B.1
Agenda Section PUBLIC HEARINGS
Prepared By Rachel Jeske, Planner
Applicant Mark Guy, Homeowner
Present Zoning Single Family Residential District (RSF)
Land Use Residential Low Density
Acerage 0.27
Density
Applicable
Regulations
Chapter 20, Division 3, Variances.
Chapter 20, Article 20-VII, Shoreland Management District
Chapter 20, Article 20-XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District
SUGGESTED ACTION
Proposed Motion: "The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the requested side
yard setback variance for the construction of a deck at 510 Pleasant View Rd subject to the
conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision."
SUMMARY
The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 20-615 Lot Requirements and Setbacks for the
Residential Single Family zoning district, which requires that all structures are setback a minimum of
10 feet from side property lines. The applicant is proposing a deck expansion that encroaches
approximately 2.34 feet into the side yard setback.
BACKGROUND
3
The property is located on the north side of Lotus Lake. The zoning district is Residential Single-Family
with a minimum lot size of 15,000 square feet. This subject property is 12,405 square feet in size (0.27
acres). Standard lots are required to have a minimum lot width of 90 feet. This property has a maximum
width of 50 feet. The property is a lawful nonconforming lot which was created prior to the
establishment of the current RSF zoning standards. The maximum permitted hard coverage by code is
30% with an offsetting BMP for anything over 25%. The applicant is proposing no changes to the
existing hardcover.
DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the approval of the side yard setback variance for the construction of a deck at 510
Pleasant View Road.
ATTACHMENTS
Development Review Application
Plan Set
Staff Report
Findings of Facts and Decision
Affidavit of Mailing
4
APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
Submi(al Date:PC Date CC Date:60-Day Review Date:
(Refer to the apprcNiate Application Checklist fot rcquked submitlal infomation that must accompany this application)
! Comprehensivs Plan Amendment......................... $700 ! Subdivision (SUB)
n Plat 3 lots or |ess,.......................................... $500E Conditional Use Permit (CUP) n ptat over 3 tots............................................. $1250n Single-Family Residence ....................... $400 E Metes & Bounds (2 lots)
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
Planning Oivision - 7700 Market Boulevard
Mailing Address - P.O. Box 147, Chanhassen, MN 55317
Phone: (952) 227-1100 / Fax: (552)227-1110
n Att others....... .................... $600
lnterim Use Permit (lUP)
E ln conjunction with Single-Family Residence.. $400
n Al Others....... ..............,..... $600
Rezoning (REZ)
E Planned Unit Development (PUD) .................. $750
n Minor Amendment to existing PUD................. $100
CNYMCHNIIASSII{
n Consolidate Lots.......................
E Administrative Subd. (Line Ad.iustment)....,..
! Final Plat.......
E Vacation of Easements/Right-of-way (VAC).......
(Additional recording foes may apply)
lt{-Variance ruAR}..............,....
E Welland Alteration Permit (WAP)
n Single-Family Residence............
E Att others.......
n Appeat of Administrative Decision ......
n zoning Ordinance Amendment (ZOA)
! Site Plan Review (SPR)
E Administrative
! Residential/Commercial/lndustrial Districts
'''""" "'$600
" "" "" " '$150
.. $100
$750*
. $300
. $150
. $150
$700.
. $300
. $200
$150
$275
$200
$500
LqIE: Whon multlpte appltcattons are prccessed concufiontly, tha approryiate fee shall bo charged for eech epPllcafron.
fl Escrow for Recording oocuments (checkall that apply)....................... .. .... .......... ... $ per document
D Conditional Use Permit - $50 ! tnterim Use Permit - $50 n Site Plan Agreement - $85
E.Wetland Alteration Permit - $50 E Easements (- easements) - $85 fl Vacation - $85\KVariance - $50 E Metes & Bounds Sub (2 deeds) - $250 E Deeds - $1oO7 TorAL FEE:
.lncludes $450 escrow for attorney costs.
..Additional escrow may be required for other applications through the development contract.
Section l: Application Type (check all that apply)
Section 2: Required lnformation
Description of Proposal:
Address or Location \ to Pleo'sq,.,*cVrP U
Z5.G'uu l*O Legal Description:
Wetlands Presentaz1 pYes No
\ko,ol^J ti-o, la-, 0,il,icl-Requested Zoning 5k,rlo^l 0 ur, ln g]5tri ct
Present Land Use Designation lt +Requested nd Use Oesignation R"S'ir'."1+a
Existing Use of Property
c I c^r\o
Total Acreage:
Present zoning
,)
fr r'
! Check box if separate narrative is attached.
Property
Parcel #:
tr
I
5
Section 3: Property Owner and Applicant lnformation
APPLICANT OTHER THAN PROPERTY OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as applicant, represent to have obtained
authorization from the property owner to lile this application. I agree to be bound by conditions of approval, subject only to
the right to object at the hearings on the application or during the appeal period. lf this application has not been signed by
the property owner, I have attached separate documentation of full legal capacity to file the application. This application
should be processed in my name and I am the party whom the City should contact regarding any matter pertaining to this
application. I will keep myself informed of the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of lhis application. I
further understand that additional fees may be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior to
any authorization to proceed with the study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.
Name Contact:
Phone:Address
City/State/Zip:
Email:
Cell
Fax
Cell:
Fax:
Cell:
Fax:
Contact:
P hone:
Signalure:
PROPERry OWNER: ln signing this application, l, as property owner, have full legal capacity to, and hereby do,
authorize the filing of this applicalion. I understand that conditions of approval are binding and agree to be bound by those
conditions, subject only to the right to object at the hearings or during the appeal periods. I will keep myself informed of
the deadlines for submission of material and the progress of this application. I further understand that additional fees may
be charged for consulting fees, feasibility studies, etc. with an estimate prior lo any authorization to proceed with the
study. I certify that the information and exhibits submitted are true and correct.
r.r"r", M ^r k Gq -, contact: (.) lZ'Stl -A1 Z'1
n00,".., 5,, P/ <os a^l v ip w R/Phone:htZ -7ko -qq'l'1
City/State/Zip CLa G tz- qqq 'aqzn
Email: M I
Signature:
PROJECT ENGINEER (if applicable)
Name:
Date: ?
Address
City/State/zip
Email:
This application must be completed in full and be typewritten or clea y printed and must be accompanied by all
information and plans required by applicable City Ordinance provisions. Before filing this application, refer to the
appropriate Application Checklist and confer with the Planning Department to determine the specific ordinance and
applicable procedural requirements.
A determination of completeness of the application shall be made within 15 business days of application submittal. A
written notice of application deficiencies shall be mailed to the applicant within 15 business days of application.
Section4: Notification lnformation
Who should receive copies of staff reports?
B Property Owner EmailApplicant Email
t0 Name I
Address
E EngineerE otner
Email
Email
city/state/zip:
Email:
INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT: Complete all necessary form fields, then select SAVE FORM to save a copy to your
device. PRINT FORM and deliver to city along with required documents and payment. SUBMIT FORM to send a digital
copy to the city for processing.
noto
-
'Other Contact lnformation:
6
Mark Guy
510 Pleasa nt View RD
Variance Application Attachment
(5) We are requesting a variance from the 10 foot side yard set-back requirement from our lot
line. The set-back we would need to complete a deck would be approximately 8 feet.
(6)
a. We believe the variance is in harmony with the chapter and consistent with the
comprehensive plan because 1) it is slightly impeding on the set-back requirement
resulting in an 8 foot set-back, 2) the deck would still be further set back from what was
established by the retaining block wall on the property, 3) the neighbor effected by the
set-back does not oppose the project,4) the deck size is not unusually large 10'10" wide,
is the measurement for the width needed.
b. we believe there are practical difficulties in complying with the zoning ordinance due
to the size of the lot. The lot is approximately 50 feet wide, thus leaving only 30 feet for
building space. The deck size needed for adequate room for deck furniture and the
ability to get around such furniture requires us to be at approximately 10'10" wide deck,
extending 2 feet beyond the required set-back.
c. The purpose of the variation is not based on economic considerations alone, rather
the generally constraints that the property has under the existing codes. The original
portion of the home was built in 1930. The historic nature of the lot makes it difficuit to
comply with the current codes while still being able to make property improvements,
such as having an outdoor deck space.
d. The plight of the homeowner is due to the aforementioned age of the property which
makes it unique to the property not created by the current homeowner.
e. we believe the variance will not alter the essential character of the locality because
the neighborhood is a suburban neighborhood. Nearly every house in the
neighborhood has a deck that is used for similar purposes, which would be to grill out
and socialize on the deck. Additiona lly, d ue to the location of the deck a pproximately
80% ol it is relatively hidden from view of the road as it is behind a portion of the house
the extends out to the side Yard.
7
8
9
Project: Side Setback Variance Request (Planning Case 2024-14)
Planning Commission Review Date: September 3, 2024
60 Day Action Deadline: October 1, 2024
Drafted By: Rachel Jeske, Planner
Staff Report Date: August 28, 2024
SUMMARY OF REQUEST:
The applicant is requesting a variance from Section 20-615 Lot Requirements and Setbacks for the
Residential Single Family zoning district, which requires that all structures are setback a minimum of 10
feet from side property lines. The applicant is proposing a deck expansion that encroaches
approximately 2.34 feet into the side yard setback.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the requested variance.
PROPOSED MOTIONS:
“The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves the requested side yard setback
variance for the construction of a deck at 510 Pleasant View Rd subject to the conditions of approval
and adopts the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.”
10
510 Pleasant View Rd
August 28, 2024
Page 2 of 4
LOCATION: 510 Pleasant View Rd, Chanhassen, MN 55337 (Subject Property)
APPLICANT/OWNER: Mark Guy
CURRENT ZONING: Residential Single-Family (RSF)
2040 LAND USE PLAN: Residential Low Density
ACREAGE: 0.27 Acres
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.
Chapter 20, Article 20-VII, Shoreland Management District
Chapter 20, Article 20-XII, “RSF” Single-Family Residential District
BACKGROUND
The property is located on the North side of Lotus Lake. It is a part of the Pleasant View plat, which was
platted in 1910.
ZONING OVERVIEW
Section 20-615 Lot Requirements and Setbacks for the Residential Single Family (RSF) zoning district
requires that all structures are setback a minimum of 30 feet from the front and rear yards and 10 feet
from side yards. Below is a table that displays the existing and proposed conditions of the subject
property against the RSF zoning district lot requirements.
11
510 Pleasant View Rd
August 28, 2024
Page 3 of 4
RSF Existing Proposed
Lot Area 15,000 s.f. 12,405 s.f. 12,405 s.f.
Hardcover 30% 42% 42%
Lot Width 90 ft 50 ft 50 ft
Lot Depth 125 ft 179 ft 179 ft
Front Setback 30 ft 24.6 ft 24.6 ft
Side Setback
(northwest) 10 ft 4.1 ft 4.1 ft
Side Setback
(southwest) 10 ft 10.3 ft ~7.64 ft
Rear Setback 30 ft Home: ~82 ft
Garage: 7.8 ft
Home: ~82 ft
Garage: 7.8 ft
The Subject Property is deficient in lot area, lot width, front and side setbacks as the property was
established with a plat in 1910 which predates the current RSF zoning district and as a result is a lawful
nonconforming lot. This is one of the city’s oldest neighborhoods and it has seen a substantial amount of
turnover in housing stock leading to a blend of architectural styles. Nearly half of the properties within 500
feet have received front yard setback variances and numerous other properties in the area have non-
conforming front yard setbacks.
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 fulfills the intent of the chapter as the proposed use of a deck is a
reasonable proposed addition to a property with a single-family home and through the decks
screened location is found to be consistent with the comprehensive plan.
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.”
12
510 Pleasant View Rd
August 28, 2024
Page 4 of 4
The property owner proposes to add a deck to the residential property which is a reasonable use
of the property. The location of the deck is also a reasonable location however the width of the
lot creates a practical difficulty in adhering to the minimum side yard setback because the overall
width of the lot does not meet the current standard required of properties which are zoned as
RSF.
3. “That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.”
The proposed variance is not based on economic considerations alone and is solely the result of
the substandard lot width.
4. “The plight of the landowner is due to circumstances unique to the property not created by the
landowner.”
The plight of the landowner is created by the substandard dimensions and age of the property,
and not created by the landowner.
5. “The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.”
The applicant has proposed a location that is screened from view of the right-of-way by a
combination of structures and vegetation on the property.
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 deck is not an earth-sheltered construction and therefore this statement is 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 approves the requested side setback variance for
the construction of a deck at 510 Pleasant View Road subject to the conditions of approval and adopts
the attached Findings of Facts and Decision.”
STAFF CONDITIONS
Building Dept
• A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
13
1
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
CARVER AND HENNEPIN COUNTIES, MINNESOTA
FINDINGS OF FACT
AND DECISION
IN RE:
Application of Mark Guy for side yard setback variance to reduce the side yard setback to
approximately seven (7) feet to allow the expansion of a deck on a property zoned Single Family
Residential District (RSF) – Planning Case 2024-14.
On September 3, 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.
The legal description of the property is:
Lot 22, Pleasant View, Carver County, Minnesota.
3. 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: The requested variance fulfills the intent of the chapter as the proposed use of a
deck is a reasonable proposed addition to a property with a single-family home and
through the decks screened location is found to be consistent with 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 property owner proposes to add a deck to the residential property which is
a reasonable use of the property. The location of the deck is also a reasonable location
however the width of the lot creates a practical difficulty in adhering to the minimum side
14
2
yard setback because the overall width of the lot does not meet the current standard
required of properties which are zoned as RSF.
c. That the purpose of the variation is not based upon economic considerations alone.
Finding: The proposed variance is not based on economic considerations alone and is
solely the result of the substandard lot width.
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 created by the substandard dimensions and age
of the property, and not created by the landowner. With 40 feet of lot width, there is an
unusually narrow buildable area. This situation was not created by the landowner as the
lot was created prior to the adoption of the city’s zoning code.
e. The variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality.
Finding: The applicant has proposed a location that is screened from view of the right-
of-way by a combination of structures and vegetation on the property. This is one of the
city’s oldest neighborhoods and it has seen a substantial amount of turnover in housing stock
leading to a blend of architectural styles. Nearly half of the properties within 500 feet have
received front yard setback variances and numerous other properties in the area have non-
conforming front yard setbacks.
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 deck is not an earth-sheltered construction and therefore this
statement is not applicable.
4. The planning report #2024-14, dated August 28, 2024, prepared by Rachel Jeske et al, is
incorporated herein.
DECISION
The Planning Commission approves the requested for side yard setback variance, subject to the
following conditions:
1. The proposed building setbacks shall comply with the plan prepared by the homeowner dated
07/31/2024.
2. Building plans must provide sufficient information to verify that the proposed building meets all
requirements of the Minnesota State Building Code, additional comments or requirements may
be required after plan review
3. A building permit must be obtained before beginning any construction.
15
3
ADOPTED by the Chanhassen Planning Commission this 3rd day of September, 2024.
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
BY:
Its: Chair
16
CITY OF CHANHASSEN
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICE
STATE OF MINNESOTA)
)ss
COLTNTYOFCARVER )
I, Jenny Potter, being first duly swom, on oath deposes that she is and was on
August 22,2024,lhe duly qualified and acting City Cterk of the City of Chanhassen, Minnesota;
that on said date she caused to be mailed a copy ofthe attached notice Consider a request for a
side yard setback variance for the expansion of a deck at 510 Pleasant View Road. Owner/
Applicant: Mark Guy to the persons named on attached Exhibit "A", by enclosing a copy of
said notice in an envelope addressed to such owner, and depositing the envelopes addressed to all
such owners in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid thereon; that the names and
addresses ofsuch owners were those appearing as such by the records of the County Treasurer,
Carver County, Minnesota, and by other appropriate records.
Jenny Po ity Clerk
Subscribed and swom to before me
this ZZ day of Av si 2024.
AMY K.WEIDMAN
Notary Public-Mlnnesota
Notary Public ErpkoB J8n 3l ,2027
17
Tax name Tax add l1 Tax add l2
ALAN & LINDA K KRAMER 531 INDIAN HILL RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9533
BRANDON ROTH 6697 HORSESHOE CURV CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9526
CHARLES A SCHAEFER 501 INDIAN HILL RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9533
CHUNYI LIN 449 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9576
CURTIS G & CHERI L ANDERSON 500 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9437
DAVID ELLIOTT OLSON 551 INDIAN HILL RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
DAVID MOFFAT WHITMAN 429 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9576
DAVID WAGNER 1625 FIELD DR VICTORIA, MN 55386
ERIC J FLUGUM 550 INDIAN HILL RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
ERIC SCHNEIDER 6367 OXBOW BND CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128
FRANCES M O'BRIEN REV TRST 17235 33RD AVE N PLYMOUTH, MN 55447-1258
HEIDI GROVEN 420 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9576
IAN RILEY 540 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
JENNIFER J HOMMERDING 370 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9524
JOSEPH A ZASADZINSKI 536 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9437
MARK GUY 510 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MARY E ROJINA 480 INDIAN HILL RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
MATTSON LIVING TRUST 469 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9576
MICHAEL E CARR 6369 OXBOW BND CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9128
PETER M KNUTSON 541 INDIAN HILL RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317-9533
QIANG CAI 500 INDIAN HILL RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
RICHARD MICHAEL OPAT 561 INDIAN HILL RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
RUTH E SCHEVENIUS 570 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
SUSAN MARIE ODT 491 INDIAN HILL RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
TRUST AGREEMENT OF MARCUS A SYVERSON III 489 PLEASANT VIEW RD CHANHASSEN, MN 55317
18
Disclaimer
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used
as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city,
county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to
be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic
Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does
not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other
purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the
depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges
that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and
agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought
by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or
use of data provided.
«Tax_name»
«Tax_add_l1»
«Tax_add_l2»
Disclaimer
This map is neither a legally recorded map nor a survey and is not intended to be used
as one. This map is a compilation of records, information and data located in various city,
county, state and federal offices and other sources regarding the area shown, and is to
be used for reference purposes only. The City does not warrant that the Geographic
Information System (GIS) Data used to prepare this map are error free, and the City does
not represent that the GIS Data can be used for navigational, tracking or any other
purpose requiring exacting measurement of distance or direction or precision in the
depiction of geographic features. The preceding disclaimer is provided pursuant to
Minnesota Statutes §466.03, Subd. 21 (2000), and the user of this map acknowledges
that the City shall not be liable for any damages, and expressly waives all claims, and
agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City from any and all claims brought
by User, its employees or agents, or third parties which arise out of the user's access or
use of data provided.
«Next Record»«Tax_name»
«Tax_add_l1»
«Tax_add_l2»
Subject
Parcel
Subject
Parcel
19
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, September 3, 2024 at 6:00 p.m. This hearing may
not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of
the agenda.
Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Proposal: Consider a request for a side yard setback variance for the
expansion of a deck at 510 Pleasant View Road.
Applicant: Mark Guy
Owner: Mark Guy
Property
Location:
510 Pleasant View Road
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
What Happens at
the Meeting:
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans for the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Planning Commission
discusses the project.
Questions &
Comments:
To view project documents before the meeting, please visit
the city’s proposed development webpage at:
www.chanhassenmn.gov/proposeddevelopments. If you
wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact
Rachel Jeske by email at rjeske@chanhassenmn.gov or by
phone at 952-227-1137. If you choose to submit written
comments, please send one copy to staff in advance of the
meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Planning
Commission. The staff report for this item will be available
online on the city’s Agendas & Minutes webpage the
Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
Sign up to receive email updates about this or other projects. Go to
https://www.chanhassenmn.gov/i-want-to/subscribe
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings,
Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Variances, Appeals, and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning
Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any
interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These repor ts are
available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation.
The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will clo se the
public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affi rm or
modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple
majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this stan dard.
Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the
process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to
meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested perso n(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any
correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be
included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
Notice of Public Hearing
Chanhassen Planning Commission Meeting
Date & Time:
Tuesday, September 3, 2024 at 6:00 p.m. This hearing may
not start until later in the evening, depending on the order of
the agenda.
Location: City Hall Council Chambers, 7700 Market Blvd.
Proposal: Consider a request for a side yard setback variance for the
expansion of a deck at 510 Pleasant View Road.
Applicant: Mark Guy
Owner: Mark Guy
Property
Location:
510 Pleasant View Road
A location map is on the reverse side of this notice.
What Happens at
the Meeting:
The purpose of this public hearing is to inform you about the
applicant's request and to obtain input from the neighborhood
about this project. During the meeting, the Chair will lead the
public hearing through the following steps:
1. Staff will give an overview of the proposed project.
2. The applicant will present plans for the project.
3. Comments are received from the public.
4. Public hearing is closed and the Planning
Commission discusses the project.
Questions &
Comments:
To view project documents before the meeting, please visit
the city’s proposed development webpage at:
www.chanhassenmn.gov/proposeddevelopments. If you
wish to talk to someone about this project, please contact
Rachel Jeske by email at rjeske@chanhassenmn.gov or by
phone at 952-227-1137. If you choose to submit written
comments, please send one copy to staff in advance of the
meeting. Staff will provide copies to the Planning
Commission. The staff report for this item will be available
online on the city’s Agendas & Minutes webpage the
Thursday prior to the Planning Commission meeting.
Sign up to receive email updates about this or other projects. Go to
https://www.chanhassenmn.gov/i-want-to/subscribe
City Review Procedure:
• Subdivisions, Planned Unit Developments, Site Plan Reviews, Conditional and Interim Uses, Wetland Alterations, Rezonings,
Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Variances, Appeals, and Code Amendments require a public hearing before the Planning
Commission. City ordinances require all property within 500 feet of the subject site to be notified of the application in writing. Any
interested party is invited to attend the meeting.
• Staff prepares a report on the subject application that includes all pertinent information and a recommendation. These repor ts are
available by request. At the Planning Commission meeting, staff will give a verbal overview of the report and a recommendation.
The item will be opened for the public to speak about the proposal as a part of the hearing process. The Commission will clo se the
public hearing and discuss the item and make a recommendation to the City Council. The City Council may reverse, affi rm or
modify wholly or partly the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Rezonings, land use and code amendments take a simple
majority vote of the City Council except rezonings and land use amendments from residential to commercial/industrial.
• Minnesota State Statute 519.99 requires all applications to be processed within 60 days unless the applicant waives this stan dard.
Some applications due to their complexity may take several months to complete. Any person wishing to follow an item through the
process should check with the Planning Department regarding its status and scheduling for the City Council meeting.
• A neighborhood spokesperson/representative is encouraged to provide a contact for the city. Often developers are encouraged to
meet with the neighborhood regarding their proposal. Staff is also available to review the project with any interested perso n(s).
• Because the Planning Commission holds the public hearing, the City Council does not. Minutes are taken and any
correspondence regarding the application will be included in the report to the City Council. If you wish to have something to be
included in the report, please contact the Planning Staff person named on the notification.
20