09-03-24 Agenda and Packet
A.6:00 P.M. - CALL TO ORDER
B.PUBLIC HEARINGS
B.1 510 Pleasant View Rd Setback Variance (Planning Case #24-14)
C.GENERAL BUSINESS
D.APPROVAL OF MINUTES
D.1 Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated July 16, 2024
D.2 Approve Planning Commission Work Session Meeting Minutes dated August 20, 2024
E.COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS
F.ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS
G.CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION
H.OPEN DISCUSSION
I.ADJOURNMENT
AGENDA
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 3, 2024
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 7700 MARKET BOULEVARD
NOTE: Planning Commission meetings are scheduled to end by 9:00 p.m. as outlined in the official by-laws. We will
make every attempt to complete the hearing for each item on the agenda. If, however, this does not appear to be possible,
the Chairperson will notify those present and offer rescheduling options. Items thus pulled from consideration will be
listed first on the agenda at the next Commission meeting.
If a constituent or resident sends an email to staff or the Planning Commission, it must be made part of the public record
based on State Statute. If a constituent or resident sends an email to the Mayor and City Council, it is up to each individual
City Council member and Mayor if they want it to be made part of the public record or not. There is no State Statute that
forces the Mayor or City Council to share that information with the public or be made part of the public record. Under
State Statute, staff cannot remove comments or letters provided as part of the public input process.
1
2
Planning 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
Planning Commission Item
September 3, 2024
Item Approve Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated July 16, 2024
File No.Item No: D.1
Agenda Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Prepared By Amy Weidman, Senior Admin Support Specialist
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves its July 16, 2024 meeting minutes"
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
RECOMMENDATION
21
ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated July 16, 2024
22
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
MINUTES
JULY 16, 2024
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice Chair Jobe called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Vice Chair Steve Jobe, Ryan Soller, Edward Goff, Katie Trevena,
Jeremy Rosengren.
MEMBERS ABSENT: Chair Eric Noyes, Perry Schwartz.
STAFF PRESENT: Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner; Rachel Jeske, Planner; Eric Maass,
Community Development Director.
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Ron Talbot 6991 Pima Lane
Laura Schuerman 6991 Pima Lane
Steve Schwieters 6117 Blue Circle Drive
David Maloney 970 Pontiac Lane
Brad Fischer 3990 Country Oaks Drive
Deena Werkmeister 831 Pontiac Lane
Mark Werkmeister 831 Pontiac Lane
Heather Schumacher 762 Buckingwood Court
C. Patrick Zecco 830 and 840 Pontiac Lane
Patrick Banas 6881 Chaparral Lane
John Mueller 6850 Stratford Boulevard
Terry Lynn Hayes 6850 Stratford Boulevard
Meghan Brown 3920 Stratford Ridge
Sue Dann 851 Pontiac Lane
Matt and Emily Headla 6870 Minnewashta Parkway
Sheila McSherry 841 Pontiac Lane
Pam Prinsen 4040 Glendale Drive
Bob Molstad 1400 25th Avenue Suite 120
Katie Headla 6870 Minnewashta Parkway
Jason Watt 3961 Stratford Ridge
Matt Moran 3981 Stratford Ridge
Linda Paulson 7603 Frontier Trail
Loren Jensen 820 Pontiac Lane
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
23
Planning Commission Minutes – July 16, 2024
2
1. CONSIDER PRELIMINARY PLAT APPROVAL FOR WATERVIEW, A
PROPOSED 5-LOT SUBDIVISION AT 6870 MINNEWASHTA PARKWAY
Planner Rachel Jeske reviewed the preliminary plat approval information for 6870 Minnewashta
Parkway. She presented an overview of the community engagement for the project, the site
location, existing conditions, and the proposal for the site.
Commissioner Goff asked if there was a discrepancy in the zoning.
Ms. Jeske answered that the development as proposed aligned with the property’s current zoning
designation and no rezoning would be necessary.
Vice Chair Jobe opened the public hearing.
Bob Molstad, Project Engineer and Surveyor, 1400 25th Avenue, Suite 120, reviewed the
project's progress and stated that a few changes had been submitted to the city today.
Steve Schwieters, Owner of Wooddale Builders at 6117 Blue Circle Drive, reviewed the plan to
create custom houses on these lots.
Meghan Brown, 3920 Stratford Ridge, stated concerns about having a driveway in the
neighborhood connected to a house not a part of the association and asked why it could not go
with the other driveways. She commented that the association works to maintain properties and
benefit home values.
Jason Watt, 3961 Stratford Ridge, voiced concerns about five additional homes being
constructed at this location because of the topography issues and insufficient water run-off
management. He referenced Ordinance Chapter 20, Subsection 110, Paragraph F, that reviewed
water run-off. He commented that he can view the lake at certain times of the year, but with the
new construction his view might be obstructed.
Matt Moran, 3981 Stratford Ridge, agreed with Mr. Watt about the run-off being a current issue.
He stated that their backyard often floods from rain and snow. He voiced appreciation for the
privacy experienced in their backyard.
Terry Lynn Hayes, 6850 Stratford Boulevard, agreed with the other residents about the water
run-off.
Linda Paulson, 7603 Frontier Trail, commented that she lived next to five homes designed by
Streeter Design and complimented the design of those iconic homes.
Vice Chair Jobe closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Goff asked Mr. Maass about the city’s jurisdiction with public roads and
associations.
24
Planning Commission Minutes – July 16, 2024
3
Mr. Maass commented that Stratford Lane is a public road, and a driveway serving Lot 5 is
permissible. A homeowners’ association would be required for this development for ongoing
ownership and maintenance of the private stormwater features and basins. The current proposal
removes the access point on Minnewashta Parkway, which will be an improvement to that
collector roadway.
Commissioner Goff asked for information about the water runoff mentioned.
Mr. Maass stated that there are two stormwater basins. The Water Resources Department has
reviewed the plans and will be required to sign off on them before construction. The watershed
district would also need to approve the plans.
Commissioner Goff asked about the low points and if the water would drain into backyards.
Mr. Maass stated that the development would be required to manage and mitigate added
impervious surfaces within the development.
Commissioner Goff asked if the brown areas on the map show the ponds.
Mr. Maass confirmed this information.
Ms. Jeske clarified that a stormwater pipe would run between the stormwater basins and be piped
to a stormwater catch basin on the curb.
Commissioner Goff stated that most of the trees were on Minnewashta Parkway. He asked if
there were options to plant trees in the backyard for privacy.
Mr. Maass answered that the heavy landscaping on the Minnewashta Parkway was for a buffer
yard requirement for residential development adjacent to a collector roadway. Staff have
suggested relocating some of the trees to maintain viewpoints of the lake while maintaining the
buffer.
Commissioner Soller commented that there is a heavy tree line in the northern area, and asked if
it would remain for this development.
Mr. Maass responded that a tree inventory was provided and that the trees on the north side of
lots one, two, and three would be saved. He showed an image of the currently existing trees that
would be saved.
Commissioner Soller asked if the existing water issue would not be made worse for the current
residents adjacent to the subdivision.
Mr. Maass answered that the development would add stormwater management. There is no
current stormwater management associated with the site.
25
Planning Commission Minutes – July 16, 2024
4
Commissioner Soller asked if the additional stormwater management system could have a
potential net positive for the site.
Mr. Maass responded that it was a fair assumption. He added that there is a buffer between the
new lots and the existing lots to the north.
Commissioner Soller asked if any development was planned for Outlot A or Outlot B.
Mr. Maass answered that the outlots are not large enough to have a beach lot for the lake. Outlot
A and Outlot B could not be sold independently.
Commissioner Soller questioned if it was a net increase of four homes, and asked about the
traffic impact and if there was a need to assess this traffic impact.
Mr. Maass answered that it would be a negligible addition. There is a handful of utility stubs out
to this property in anticipation it would develop. He commented that adding the access to
Stratford Lane was a net positive because it removed the access to a collector roadway.
Commissioner Goff asked if the house would be removed.
Mr. Maass confirmed this information.
Commissioner Rosengren moved, Commissioner Trevena seconded that the Chanhassen
Planning Commission recommend the approval of the requested preliminary plat for the
3.02-acre property located at 6870 Minnewashta Parkway subject to the conditions of
approval, and adopt the attached Findings of Fact and Decision. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
2. CONSIDER ORDINANCE XXX: AMENDMENT TO THE PUDR FOR THE
CHAPARRAL, CHAPARRAL 2ND ADDITION AND CHAPARRAL 3RD ADDITION.
Associate Planner Rachel Arsenault reviewed information about the Proposed Minor PUD
Amendment. She summarized the zoning overview.
Commissioner Soller asked if the quad units would still have the width and depth requirements.
These would be eliminated for the single-family units and the duplexes.
Ms. Arsenault confirmed this information. She stated that the quads have additional regulations
for screened-in patios and porches. She commented that a majority of the installed decks are
within regulation.
Commissioner Goff asked if they could be smaller since they are at the maximum depth and
width.
Ms. Arsenault confirmed this information.
26
Planning Commission Minutes – July 16, 2024
5
Mr. Maass stated that the depth for the porches is the current requirement. He commented that
the quad units were not a part of the initial land use application.
Commissioner Goff asked if the quad units were a part of the homeowners’ association (HOA).
Ms. Arsenault answered that the HOA only manages the duplexes, but it made sense for the staff
to modify the regulations for the single-family housing as well.
Commissioner Soller asked if there were existing bylaws within the HOA that offer additional
restrictions on the topic.
Ms. Arsenault responded that she was not aware of any HOA bylaws due to the fact staff does
not enforce them. They will still be limited by the setbacks for each parcel that currently apply.
Commissioner Soller asked if this was one resident’s request, or a request provided by the HOA.
Mr. Maass said he would have the applicant respond to that question.
Vice Chair Jobe opened the public hearing.
Loren Jensen, 820 Pontiac Lane, commented that the decks within the HOA were very different.
It would be appropriate to have an 8-foot by 10-foot deck based on the size of the home. They
considered the size of the decks to help alleviate financial burdens for the residents and the
association.
Commissioner Soller asked if decks were required.
Mr. Jensen responded that decks are not required, which made it difficult to justify the expense
for homeowners without decks.
Commissioner Soller asked what the HOA is financially responsible for regarding the decks.
Mr. Jensen answered that the HOA was responsible for lawn care, snow removal, siding, roofing,
sidewalks, and trees. They are trying to keep the HOA financially sound.
Commissioner Soller questioned that they requested the city to regulate to a maximum size. The
city is leaving the sizing to the HOA.
Mr. Jensen responded that the HOA has bylaws that would maintain the rules and regulations for
these specific houses. They are encouraging homeowners to take better care of their decks to
help prevent costly maintenance.
Patrick Banas, 6881 Chaparral Lane, reviewed concerns about the original construction of the
deck on his home. He provided an overview of the options provided for updating his deck. He
stated that many of the single-family homes within this area are zoned into the PUDR and do not
27
Planning Commission Minutes – July 16, 2024
6
match the characteristics of the duplexes and quad units. Nearby homes not in the PUDR do not
have size limits on deck size.
Charles Patrick Zecco, 830 and 840 Pontiac Lane, commented that the 10-foot by 20-foot deck
size was not a requirement, but was a cap. He voiced concerns with the value of the home being
impacted by the requirement to downsize the decks. A smaller size deck would be a sacrifice of
the quality of life.
Sheila McSherry, 841 Pontiac Lane, stated that she understood the restraints of the HOA to fund
a smaller deck size. She voiced favor for the city stepping away and the HOA taking care of the
issue.
Ron Talbot, 8991 Pima Lane, reviewed the history of the construction of his deck. He voiced
additional costs that would be included if the deck were downsized. He asked if the homeowner
could pay an extra cost to maintain the large deck. He commented that the HOA should work
with the residents.
Vice Chair Jobe closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Goff asked if the city was saying the setbacks should match the City Code for the
PUD.
Ms. Arsenault stated that the setbacks are already in place and decks should meet these
requirements. There are no city-specific maximum or minimum regulations for the size of a
deck.
Commissioner Goff questioned if a resident met the setbacks, they could rebuild a large deck.
Ms. Arsenault confirmed this information. If a resident applied for a building permit that met
setback regulations, it would be approved.
Commissioner Goff commented that there is a difference between what the city does and what
the HOA does. A resident should work with the HOA if they would like a larger deck.
Commissioner Trevena stated that the HOA is determining the size of the setback.
Vice Chair Jobe asked if this amendment was a cleanup of existing rules.
Mr. Maass commented that a PUD is to get flexibility in the planning process. This development
is unique since it has a variety of house styles. The city would like to only focus on the setbacks.
Commissioner Goff asked if all could be removed, and the language could just state that it must
follow setbacks.
Mr. Maass answered that the upper section is related to the homes, but the setbacks are integral
to the overall PUD.
28
Planning Commission Minutes – July 16, 2024
7
Commissioner Soller asked if an HOA could override a rule in the PUD.
Mr. Maass answered that the city would review any permit requests based on the PUD zoning
ordinance. If there is a private dispute between a private property owner and a private HOA, that
is between those two groups.
Commissioner Soller voiced appreciation for this stance on the issue.
Commissioner Goff asked about the 30-foot setback.
Mr. Mass clarified that the 30-foot setback was for the homes.
Commissioner Trevena moved, Commissioner Soller seconded that the Chanhassen
Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Ordinance XXX:
Amending the Chaparral Planned Unit Development Residential, subject to the following
conditions and adoption of Findings of Fact and Decision Recommendations. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
GENERAL BUSINESS:
1. RECOMMEND ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CITY CODE
CHAPTER 20, ESTABLISHING DOWNTOWN DESIGN STANDARDS AND
APPROVING THE DOWNTOWN DESIGN GUIDELINES AND WAYFINDING
PLANNING STUDY
Community Development Director Maass summarized the changes to the downtown design
guidelines and design standards. He provided an overview of the site design and the building
design. He noted that the primary revision from the last time the Planning Commission reviewed
the documents was the removal of the conceptual street sections.
Commissioner Rosengren asked how the removed street section files would be saved for future
reference.
Mr. Maass stated it was saved in the city files for future reference.
Vice Chair Jobe asked when W 78th Street was estimated to be rebuilt.
Mr. Maass responded that it was not currently within the five-year Capital Improvement Plan.
Commissioner Johnson asked how well the new Civic Campus building met these design
standards.
Mr. Maass responded that he had not run the numbers officially, but the Civic Campus project
incorporates high quality materials including brick, stone, and large amounts of glass windows.
29
Planning Commission Minutes – July 16, 2024
8
Commissioner Goff asked for the reasoning behind the flat roof requirements.
Mr. Maass answered that the flat roof provides more of a commercial feel rather than a
residential one. He stated the internal gutters can help manage the water. The flat roofs allow for
valuable building height.
Vice Chair Jobe questioned why tinted glass was prohibited.
Mr. Maass indicated that the prohibition of tinted glass is for aesthetics as it would not allow for
visibility into building spaces which is important in a downtown area. Mr. Maass indicated that
there had been a discussion about having bird-safe glass requirements however after talking with
architects about that possibility it was indicated that the zoning restricted the building height
enough that bird safe glass would not be appropriate or necessary.
Commissioner Soller asked if building height maximums were addressed.
Mr. Maass answered that they are in the base zoning district. This document does not change
height or setback requirements.
Commissioner Soller asked if this ordinance was brand new and if it did not replace anything.
Mr. Maass responded that the city has design standards for commercial, industrial, and multi-
family buildings. This project focuses solely on buildings constructed downtown that go beyond
the base requirements.
Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Rosengren seconded that the Chanhassen
Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the ordinance amending
chapter 20 of the City Code, establishing Downtown Design Standards and approve the
Downtown Design Guidelines and Wayfinding Planning Study. All voted in favor and the
motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
1. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES DATED JUNE 18, 2024
Commissioner Goff moved, Commissioner Trevena seconded to approve the Chanhassen
Planning Commission summary minutes dated June 18, 2024 as presented. All voted in
favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
2. APPROVAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION MINUTES DATED
JULY 2, 2024
Commissioner Trevena moved, Commissioner Rosengren seconded to approve the
Chanhassen Planning Commission summary minutes dated July 2, 2024 as presented. All
voted in favor, and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
30
Planning Commission Minutes – July 16, 2024
9
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS: None.
CORRESPONDENCE DISCUSSION:
Commissioner Goff asked if there was any update on the requested name change for the Central
Business District.
Mr. Maass noted that this concern was still being addressed.
Commissioner Goff asked if what was addressed during the work session would move to an
amendment.
Mr. Maass answered that Mayor Ryan is out of the country and it will be discussed when she
returns.
OPEN DISCUSSION: None.
ADJOURNMENT:
Commissioner Soller moved, Commissioner Rosengren seconded to adjourn the meeting.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0. The Planning
Commission meeting was adjourned at 7:45 p.m.
Submitted by Eric Maass
Planning Director
31
Planning Commission Item
September 3, 2024
Item Approve Planning Commission Work Session Meeting Minutes dated August
20, 2024
File No.Item No: D.2
Agenda Section APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Prepared By Amy Weidman, Senior Admin Support Specialist
Applicant
Present Zoning
Land Use
Acerage
Density
Applicable
Regulations
SUGGESTED ACTION
"The Chanhassen Planning Commission approves its August 20, 2024 work session meeting
minutes"
SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
32
RECOMMENDATION
ATTACHMENTS
Planning Commission Work Session Meeting Minutes dated August 20, 2024
33
CHANHASEN PLANNING COMISSION
WORK SESSION
MINUTES
August 20, 2024
The work session was called to order at 6:00 p.m.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Commissioner Steve Jobe, Commissioner Ed Goff, Chair Eric
Noyes, Commissioner Jeremy Rosengren, Commissioner Perry Schwartz
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Commissioner Ryan Soller, Commissioner Katie Trevena
STAFF PRESENT: Eric Maass, Community Development Director; Rachel Arsenault, Associate
Planner; Rachel Jeske, Planner
Signage Code Discussion
Eric Maass, Community Development Director, started by reviewing the work plan for 2024 and
the reason for working on the sign code. He began the presentation by reviewing the legal
implications of the Supreme Court case Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Arizona. He continued by
reviewing the existing relevant code definitions and proposed staff changes.
The Commissioners provided comments on the definition content and grammar, and posed
clarifying questions.
Mr. Maass took notes regarding the comments, responded, and moved into reviewing the purpose
section of the sign code.
The Commissioners pointed out redundancies within the code and potential legal issues with the
judgment of certain signage.
Mr. Maass noted the concerns on the working document and continued through sign fees and
variances.
Mr. Maass highlighted the potential request the Planning Commission could make to City
Council for all sign requests beyond what is allowed within code.
Chair Noyes mentioned past variances for signage were reviewed by the Planning Commission,
but the ordinance states that sign variances require City Council approval. He recommended staff
review if sign variance approval is currently deferred to the Planning Commission based on these
past cases.
Mr. Maass continued presenting the sign code working document.
PUBLIC PRESENT: None
34
The Commissioners asked clarifying questions regarding process, legal, and state statutes.
Commissioner Rosengren inquired about First Amendment carve-outs, such as yelling fire in a
crowded room, and if such carve-outs are explicitly or implicitly implied in city sign code.
Mr. Maass responded that will have to be verified with the attorney. He continued forward
through review of the sign code.
The Commissioners proposed changes to sign code such as listing examples with the phrase
“included but not limited to” and adding the word “contiguous” to code regulating the number of
days signs can be posted.
Mr. Maass noted these changes in the document and continued reviewing proposed changes such
as staff’s proposal to move the Temporary Development Project Signs section from Signs
Allowed Without a Permit to Permitted Temporary Signs.
The Commissioners continued noting proposed changes to the code.
Commissioner Noyes recommended that staff explore the recent court case on a city attempting
to limit flag size prior to finalizing the changes to the sign code.
Mr. Maass finished presenting the working document of the sign code and stated the next steps
would be for staff to make the noted changes, send the code for attorney review, bring it forward
for review at Planning Commission, then bring it back for Planning Commission’s official
recommendation, and finally City Council vote. He hopes to have this project wrapped up prior
to the end of 2024.
The meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m.
Prepared by Rachel Arsenault, Associate Planner, and Rachel Jeske, Planner
35