PC 2017 11 21
CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 21, 2017
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, John Tietz, and Mark
Randall
MEMBERS ABSENT: Mark Undestad
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and MacKenzie
Walters, Assistant Planner
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Rick & Liz Nustad 7721 Erie Avenue
th
Jack Atkins 220 West 78 Street
Curt Robinson 202 W. 72th Street
PUBLIC HEARING:
7721 ERIE AVENUE: VARIANCE HARCOVER, FRONT YARD SETBACK AND REAR
YARD SETBACK.
Walters: This is Planning Case 2017-20. It’s a request for a variance at 7721 Erie Avenue. The
variance would be for a detached garage and it would be for a second driveway access, a 10 foot
west front yard setback, 4.3 foot south front yard setback, a 5 foot rear yard setback and then a
12.4 percent lot coverage variance. So the location as mentioned is 7721 Erie Avenue. This
property is zoned residential single family. It’s located on a corner lot with a public street, Chan
View, Erie Avenue and then a platted alley. What we call a paper street. So there is a public
right-of-way which means that does function as a front yard setback as well so it has 3 front yard
setbacks and the zoning requirements are a 15,000 square foot lot. 30 foot for any front yard
setback. Limited to a single driveway access and a maximum of 25 percent lot coverage. The
site is located in one of the oldest neighborhoods in Chanhassen. If memory serves it was platted
in 1887 so the lot is what we call substandard. It’s 8,529 square feet. It’s currently a non-
conforming use at 28.3 percent lot coverage. The northern front yard setback is currently met.
The west front yard setback, the house currently has, is set back 20.7 feet and the garage then is
tucked back an extra 5 feet or so from there and there’s currently a non-conforming shed on the
property that is 17 feet from the setback from that platted alleyway and approximately 6 feet
from the rear yard setback. The applicant is proposing constructing a 20 foot by 35 foot
detached garage which would be accessed by a second driveway. And this is to allow for the on
site storage of a 1969 Mack fire truck. The applicant has noted that the lot is substandard. It is
very difficult to improve the property within the confines of the zoning code. The existing
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
garage cannot accommodate the size of the fire truck. They’ve stated the proposed garage would
only be used to store the vehicle. They would like to bring the truck indoors to facilitate the
eventual restoration of the vehicle. They’ve noted that due to the age of the subdivision a lot of
other properties have detached garages and encroach on the various setbacks. It is very typical to
see some higher lot coverage within the subdivision as well and they have proposed
architecturally designing the garage to fit into the character of the neighborhood. They would
also be removing the non-conforming shed and some patio space. When staff looked it over one
of our largest concerns is that this neighborhood has an existing history of street flooding. It’s
storm water services are currently inadequate for modern storm water treatment standards. There
is concern that the increased impervious surface coverage could exacerbate this. If the variance
were granted it would allow the property to exceed it’s lot coverage by a little over 1,000 square
feet. It would represent an increase of about 779 square feet over the current non-conformity.
The property currently has a house, two car garage, patio, shed which is generally considered to
be a reasonable use within a single family district. When we looked around at the Plano metrics
of the neighborhood, that’s this here. This shows the impervious surface. As you can see
detached garages are fairly common but we see only, I was able to find 2 properties that looked
to have multiple driveway accesses. I do not believe, I was not able to find any that had both
detached garage and attached garage and multiple driveway accesses so this level of use would
not be consistent with the neighborhood and RSF districts are not fundamentally designed to
accommodate the indoor storage of large vehicles. For these reasons staff is recommending
denial of this variance request. I’d be happy to expand and answer any questions you may have
at this time.
Aller: Does anybody have a question to start with? I was wondering when we looked for what
the neighborhood was doing, what other variances and you indicated that there were other
detached garages. What are we looking at as far as variances that have been granted in the past
and the history of those detached garages?
Walters: So I believe I was able to find 8 variances for the 47 properties within 5 feet. Within
500 feet, sorry. Yes within 500 feet. All of those were situations where they were either
expanding an existing a single stall garage to become a 2 stall or where there was no garage
present on the property and they were adding a 2 car garage. We’ve had a couple other cases
before where you know if a property is older and does not have an existing garage because
ordinance now requires a 2 car garage we do whatever we can to make those fit. I couldn’t find
any that had an existing garage and then were adding another detached garage.
Aller: When we looked at those, the expansions or the additions, what did it do with regard to
the surface area coverage for storm water drainage?
Walters: Yeah, unfortunately the most of these variances that I found for the garages were in the
80’s. There wasn’t any record that I found mentioning the impervious coverage or whether or
not it was increasing so unfortunately I don’t know whether or not. My guess from the average
2
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
size of the lots would be that most are over the 25 percent but I wouldn’t be able to speculate on
by how much.
Tietz: MacKenzie I have a question.
Aller: Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: Since this is a proposed to be primarily a storage building for the fire engine that’s used
periodically and possibly then going to be restored in it, to reduce the surface coverage is it
possible that instead of having a full driveway it could just have like the two wheel lines that you
see in some locations where properties have surface coverage issue. I know that’s been done in
Excelsior right off the lake. There’s a couple of new very large homes but the driveways are
essentially the old fashion two lines. At least that would provide some hard surface to get the
vehicle out if they you know on occasion but it seems like it’s primarily a storage facility as
opposed to a daily use facility.
Aanenson: You could attach whatever conditions you felt appropriate on that. There’s also the
grass pavers where it’s, you know so that would be, if that was something you’re interested.
Tietz: Yeah. It looks like there’s over 300 square feet of new driveway that would be added and
if you take that off of the in excess of the currently zoning that does help. And you know you
mentioned architecturally. What’s the, do we know what the peak of that garage is going to be?
I assume that that overhead door on a fire truck is not an 8 foot door right?
Walters: I would imagine not. I do not actually, I’ve not received plans for the proposed garage.
I expect the applicant could address that when they address the commission. It would be
required to meet the 20 foot accessory structure height, mid point of highest gable.
Tietz: Okay, thank you.
Aller: Additional questions? Commissioner Randall.
Randall: So I’m looking at your proposal here with the approximate buildable area. Is it
possible to decrease the variance by attaching this and then also linking the driveways together?
Would that be a little bit more workable solution or?
Walters: When this proposal was first brought before staff, staff did request that an alternative
be provided where it was a single driveway access. This is the application and proposal and that
was submitted.
Randall: Okay.
3
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
Walters: The Planning Commission could vote to grant variances but not the second driveway
access which would require then a redesign. As to why the applicant opted for a detached versus
attached garage, I believe that would be a question for them as well during their presentation.
Aller: Did you have a question? Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: Yeah I had a question. For any of these variances that were within 500 feet, were any
of them for basically a storage garage or were they more for a daily use garage?
Walters: My notes were, to the nearest I could tell they were all for the first and only garage on
the property but unfortunately my notes are not specific enough for me to be 100 percent from
that but most of them mentioned two car garage and the properties again typically did not have
an existing garage.
Madsen: Okay, thank you.
Aller: Any other questions?
Weick: I have a question if that’s okay.
Aller: Commissioner Weick.
Weick: The existing shed that’s on the property, is that included in the current hard cover and
then subtracted from the new hard cover? I just want to make sure we’re accounting for it
appropriately.
Walters: (Yes).
Weick: Okay.
Walters: Yep it’s a 96 square foot structure. It’s part of that 28.3 percent existing lot coverage
and that’s one of the things the applicant is doing to try to minimize the impact of the project.
Weick: Okay.
Aller: Any additional? Okay, we could hear from the applicant now. Yes please. Step up to the
podium. State your name and address for the record and then let us know about your request for
the variance.
Rick Nustad: I’m Rick and this is my wife Liz Nustad and we’ve been residents of Chanhassen
coming up on 20 years and we own an antique fire truck. It’s classified an antique. I don’t know
if you’ve passed stuff around to look at but.
4
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
Aller: Do you want to put it.
Walters: If you want to put it right there and we’ll turn the document cam on and it will pop up
there.
Rick Nustad: Okay. I grew up in Excelsior. This truck was my favorite truck of all time and
anyways we’ve been the owners of it for 5 years and we purchased it and we keep it right now in
a storage facility that we have to pay and it’s outdoors so we’re looking at getting it indoors. We
th
use it on parades and as you can see it was sponsored by the Historical Society for the 4 of July
parade and we’ve worked long and hard on this process and had our lot surveyed and we have a
design of what this garage would look like. And essentially we have down sized the original
drawings to minimum for what we could have to store this truck and the garage itself would be
20 feet wide and 35 feet long. The peak of the roof of that would be 19.6 feet high and the
garage opening would be about 12 feet high. In our neighborhood right now we currently have
similar buildings. There’s one that’s almost across the street from us and is a storage facility.
And my printer’s not working very good and here’s another picture of another address that
actually has two garages. You actually through the first to get into the second. And about the
only thing we can offer is we went around the neighborhood and we have 24 signatures of
neighbors that looked at the drawings and are for it. I’m not real sure what else to say here.
We’re willing to change anything. We did speak with the Planning Commission about using
blocks for the driveway that are, allow grass to grow but that according to the City makes no
difference in terms of hard cover surface. And for drainage we would run drain pipe along the
roof and it would come out on the southeast corner of the garage which is an actual alleyway
right there which to me looks like good drainage and that is about it. I thank you for your time
and all of that.
Liz Nustad: Exterior of the building would be the same as the house. It would blend in. It
won’t, it will be nice. It won’t look.
Rick Nustad: Right and we did stress the point that there will be no junk sitting outside around
this. It’s going to be just a garage.
Aller: If I could just ask when you indicated that you had reduced the size, is that a reduction
from what you provided to the planning department already or is that?
Rick Nustad: No. We purchased drawings online and we reduced it.
Aller: Okay.
Rick Nustad: Literally there’s going to be about 5 feet of room around inside the garage so it’s
just strictly for storage.
Liz Nustad: Storing the fire truck.
5
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
Rick Nustad: Out of the elements. And like I say we’re willing to do whatever. You know we
talked when we, you mentioned about a single driveway versus a double. I’m sure it’s possible.
It would have to be angled just to get the truck lined up to pull into the garage so.
Aller: How often is the truck actually out of storage and being used?
Rick Nustad: You know we might take it out every weekend. Every other weekend sometimes
in the summer and we do parades. We’ve done about a dozen parades and won trophies for it
th
and was very proud being in the 4 of July parade in Chanhassen too.
Aller: Great. Any additional questions at this point in time? Commissioner Randall.
Randall: A question I wanted to ask MacKenzie about maybe doing something attached. Was
that ever a consideration for you guys?
Rick Nustad: You know I didn’t really look at that. It would be where there would be a wall
between each one though right. Yeah we could do that.
Randall: The only reason I say that is because I ended up doing that on my garage and then I just
put another garage door in to divide them instead of doing out but you know just that might work
a little bit better. Cut down on the percentage. I mean we’ve got to do the numbers on it but you
know also too it might make it easier to tie utilities into that area too.
Rick Nustad: Sure.
Randall: You know I have a garage workshop too and I like having a room next to my vehicle.
You know if you want to run air tools and that type of thing too.
Rick Nustad: Right.
Randall: So I think some of those solutions might be, or some of those ideas might work a little
bit better but that was just my concern and then maybe linking the driveway up because it would
be that much closer.
Rick Nustad: Right. That makes good sense. Right now as the drawings were submitted there’s
about 5 feet of our patio would remain between the two buildings but we can definitely look at
combining maybe.
Randall: That or another idea might be to re-conform your existing garage to accommodate it
and then add maybe a smaller area for your normal vehicles. That could be another thing too so
there’s different ideas. I mean I think we can try to figure out something that will work for
everyone but yeah I wouldn’t want to have to back that thing in on a curve or whatever.
6
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
Rick Nustad: You know it’s not like today’s modern fire trucks that Mr. Atkins drives.
Randall: Thank you sir.
Rick Nustad: Thank you for your time.
Aller: The other question I have is, when were you looking at actually constructing it because
we’re talking about potentially time investment and trying to come up with a different plan and
so I’m looking at alternatives here. Thinking of alternatives as to how we would want to
approach this for you.
Rick Nustad: You know if it was to pass this month we would look at probably starting in the
spring. I would take the time this winter to find a builder and I’ve dealt with vendors. I work for
the Foss Swim Schools so we deal with lots of vendors when it comes to construction and we
would find a reputable one of course and follow all of the rules and regulations but we’ve had it
sitting outside for 5 years so a few month months or 6 months would not hurt.
Aller: Okay great. Alright, thank you. Any additional questions? Thank you for your
presentation.
Rick Nustad: Thank you.
Liz Nustad: Thank you.
Aller: Okay at this point in time we’re going to open up the matter for public hearing. If anyone
is actually here for this particular item and would like to speak either for or against the item
please come forward and state your name and address for the record and let us know what you
think. Yes sir.
th
Jack Atkins: Yeah, my name is Jack Atkins. I live at 220 West 78 Street so across Erie and on
the corner of Main Street and I want you to know we have no objections to them doing this and
we urge you to work with them to come to a solution. I think they’re amenable to that. I do
want to point out, I don’t know if you can see that. That’s the garage that’s kitty corner. That’s
25 by 42 foot on a much smaller lot so it’s not out of keeping with the neighborhood. I think this
pre-dates any zoning.
Aller: Right.
Jack Atkins: So from that standpoint. The other thing is there is an easement for where the
sanitary sewer goes through and there’s an offer by the City to let us claim that or buy it or
something. I can’t remember but they did not do that and that’s another 8 foot by 60 feet on the
property that could be considered part of their.
7
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
Aller: Right, if it was vacated.
Jack Atkins: Pervious land. And also is, on new developments is the setback from the center of
the street to the property line, is that 33 feet still?
Aanenson: To the property line is always to the property line.
Jack Atkins: No I’m talking about how wide is the easement from the center of the street?
Aller: Oh the city easement coming into the property. For access. City access.
Aanenson: Typically the right-of-way from the street is one definition and then there’s typically
an easement in the front where utilities go but you can include utilities as part of your setback.
It’s not in addition to so right-of-way is one definition of your property as your right-of-way.
Then typically inside the right-of-way there may be a utility easement around that or just for.
Jack Atkins: I was just curious because the City owns 33 feet from the center of the streets on
both sides of their property and I thought that might be 30 feet on new developments now.
Aanenson: Could be.
Jack Atkins: So that’s.
Aanenson: But it also might be encumbered. There might be not an additional utility easement
along that too so.
Jack Atkins: Well I guess my point is that, it’s old Chanhassen. 1887 and all of the lots are a
hardship so anything you can do to make this work for them we’d, the neighborhood would
appreciate it. Thank you.
Aller: Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Anyone else wishing to come forward?
Seeing no one come forward at this point in time I’ll close the public hearing on this item and
open it for discussion. Thoughts. I’m tempted to say it’s premature and maybe we could offer or
request them to, what they can work out. Is that in line with everybody’s thinking or are they
thinking something else? You can still grant it with conditions.
Tietz: Or grant approval with provisions and I think that’s probably, even though construction
wouldn’t start now probably til April or May depending upon the winter conditions, I think Mark
had a good suggestion of seeing if it could be attached which would make it, it might reduce a
modest amount of hard surface. That 5 foot kind of alley way between the proposed and existing
and as Mark stated there could be some benefits and I think there’s still a benefit in, I don’t see
how you could back a fire truck into that using the existing driveway so if it’s just a parallel strip
8
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
because it’s infrequent use or pervious pavers or some sort. If those two issues could be dealt
with as a provision of approval I guess I would vote positively.
Aller: I guess my question would be how do we do that adequately so that they don’t have to
come back again anyway.
Tietz: Well there’s conditions on one of the options that it would be up to the City to, or staff to
review it and approve. Or see if it complied. I don’t know maybe that’s inappropriate but just
do it that way.
Aller: That just again leaves it to other people and then what happens if they disagree and they
want to come back before us? I don’t want them to come back a thousand times if we can avoid
that and it doesn’t sound like anybody wants to particularly just deny it out of hand so. Thoughts
Commissioner Weick? I see you’re in your pensive status.
Weick: Well no I think it’s a genuine you know, it’s obviously a genuine attempt to create a
structure that’s in line with the existing house and the neighborhood. I really do appreciate the
signatures from the neighbors. That was a big question I had is what do the people around,
around the house think. I think that’s the most important thing sometimes. I mean the codes are
also very important. The biggest thing for me, the setbacks don’t bother me at all. It’s just the
hard cover. It’s a significant amount of hard cover and especially with the driveway. You know
that’s a lot. I mean I don’t know if you’ve been over there but the driveways will then sort of
become the primary, they’re short. You know the house is relatively close to the street but that’s
a lot of driveway. That’s my biggest concern.
Aller: You’re increasing a lot of runoff.
Weick: Yeah, yeah. I think it’s nice to you know have this replace the existing shed that’s there.
I think that will help visually with the neighborhood as well so, I like the idea. Just the only
concern I have is it’s a lot of cover.
Aller: Okay.
Weick: And I’m not sure attaching or not attaching necessarily makes a big difference there.
Maybe it does. I’m just not, because to me it’s the driveway. Again I get back, it’s the driveway
that makes it, that seems like more than what’s needed.
Aller: Okay. Any other? Commissioner Madsen?
Tietz: Andrew, yeah oh I’m sorry Nancy. Go ahead.
Madsen: Go ahead.
9
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
Tietz: Just looking at the engineer’s plan it looks like the land does slope to the southeast and if
the indication was to take the drainage off of the new structure to the southeast, excavation could
occur in that corner which could in a sense create a rain garden of sorts and contain that, that
additional hard surface runoff in that area. I think we’re requiring that on a number of projects
now and this would not be out of the ordinary to request that. Yes there’s probably some re-
grading that’s going to have to be done for the footings and slab anyhow and this might be an
opportunity to just create a holding area in that corner. You know this is a very small site in an
old neighborhood and I think our current requirements are very difficult to assign to a site, an
area, a neighborhood like this so I think doing what we can to help make this possible is in the
City’s best interest and I think we should seriously consider it. That southeast corner looks like
it’s a potential. I don’t know MacKenzie if that’s been looked at.
Aller: And when I looked at it originally I didn’t think it comported with the neighborhood
because by the nature and the testimony that we have, the other garages and the other variances
were basically for what we have deemed to be kind of the standard in our community which is to
have a house with a two car garage. Whether it be attached or detached but it’s for vehicle use
and for regular household storage that’s in and out. However they use that but typically we’ve
expanded from one to two or to have two. Now we have two so when we look at what’s the
reasonable use of the property in the neighborhood, we’re not necessarily looking at creating so
that, creating variances even though they’re small plots and lots to turn around and say well
we’re going to give a variance so everyone can have an accessory structure which exceeds our
requirements. So to me it was super important that they came in, because that was one of my
questions is how are the neighbors going to feel about this so I was happy to hear that the
neighbors are involved and are looking at this in a positive fashion and want to promote this
utilitarian use of the property. And then the question is how do we get there to minimize if we’re
going to allow for a variance how do we minimize that because I think that’s what our
obligations are to make sure that it’s the smallest possible variance that would meet the request.
So how do we go about doing that and if we want to do that today or do we want to have
everybody do homework and come back?
Madsen: I share your concern on the size and scale of the building. I think it’s a wonderful idea
to restore the fire truck and what you do in a community with it. Thank you for bringing in the
picture of the one other storage building that is in the neighborhood but I’m just not sure that a
residential neighborhood is the best fit for lots of storage buildings so if we do grant this
variance, and more other neighbors have uses for storage buildings I’m not sure that’s the, what
the residential area was intended to have so I do struggle with that but I do appreciate you
bringing in the list of the neighbors who are for this facility to store the truck but I struggle with
that.
Randall: I guess I would like to kind of table it and have them work on it some more. I don’t
know if they came up with a different plan that used less variance and maybe a rain garden or
whatever. Some of those solutions might be, do they have to re-apply for all of this stuff?
10
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
Aller: That was what was my next question.
Aanenson: No.
Aller: They would have to sign an extension correct to have it decided.
Aanenson: Yeah they can give us an extension so they could, you could table and since they’re
not ready to construct right away we need some time to work on it.
Aller: Right. That’s why I was asking what their time table was to see whether or not it would
be an appropriate alternative.
Randall: It would be easier if you were into motorcycles than fire trucks but I’m just giving you
a hard time.
Rich Gavert: Can I say something?
Aller: You know we closed the public hearing on this but in the spirit of going ahead and hear
you but why don’t you come up so it’s on the record. Come up and state your name and address
for the record.
Rich Gavert: Rich Gavert, 7701 Frontier Trail. The building, the garage so to speak that Jack
and Rick showed you pictures of, that’s nothing but storage. I’ve been here 42 years and it’s,
never see a car coming or going out of that so the precedence has more or less been set.
Aller: Well thank you. Thank you.
Aanenson: That’s an original building. There’s no house with it. It’s been there forever and it’s
not being used as a business or anything. It’s just sitting out there so it’s an anomaly. We’ve got
that in other parts of the city. It’s not a new one that someone’s trying to put a boat in or
something like that. It’s being used as storage so. We recognize that that’s a.
Aller: And I recognize and I think the commissioners recognize the fact that the present building
is non-conforming so. What we’re doing is replacing a non-conforming use with a…
Tietz: I think if we are taking this back for further study, you know there’s a lot of time and
investment and I’m sure there’s some engineering time that’s going to go into this too. I don’t
want someone to go away and think that all these changes or proposed changes and they look at
it, that then they come back and it gets denied so I think it’s very important that we are giving
positive direction and hopefully in working with staff that it come back with a solution that then
we will find acceptable.
11
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
Randall: I think some of the things that are important too for the homeowner are going to be to
determine the minimum space that they need for this fire truck. Whether it be it’s operation and
storage, whatever. By having the minimums down that will give us the minimum that they have.
That they can work with and find a solution to the problem so I just want to put that on the
record.
Aller: And it sounds like they’re doing a good job of that now but there are things that haven’t
been considered. The fact that they could use the existing and expand the existing or attach it
and there are different alternatives that really should be looked at in order to make sure that we
can feel comfortable in granting one because it would be at a minimum level. So with those
comments would anyone like to make a motion on this item?
Randall: Make a motion to table it, is that what it would be?
Aller: Yeah.
Randall: I’d like to make a motion to table this variance request. Do I have to set a time line
with that also?
th
Aanenson: Chair for the record, the 60 day is the 19 of December but we would ask for another
60 days which we can if they’re agreeable to that and then we can certainly have it accomplished
within that timeframe.
th
Aller: So that would be the 19 of February.
Aanenson: Yeah. Any time between then and now that they can get, yep.
Aller: Right and that would.
Aanenson: We’ll just put them back on the agenda.
Aller: What happens is we’re required to, the City’s required to make a decision before a certain
time line runs and that’s 60 days so in order for us to allow for other communication and
discussion to go forward we have to move that back so that we don’t, otherwise we would have
to deny it and then appeal it and do all that other stuff so this way we’re just, if the motion was to
carry then we’ll just be moving that date out with your agreement to say that we’ve got the
additional time to make that decision based on your application and then you can amend your
application based upon your discussions and we can have another hearing and hopefully put this
thing to rest. Okay. So we have a motion. Do I have a second?
Madsen: Second.
Aller: Having a motion and a second.
12
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
Randall moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments
table Planning Case 2017-20 after receiving written agreement for a 60 day extension. All
voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
Aller: That motion carries. Do we have a form currently that we can print out?
Aanenson: I think we can just ask for the 60 days. We’re within our rights to ask for 60 days so.
Aller: Okay. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING:
TH
204 WEST 78 STREET: VARIANCE FOR HARD SURFACE COVERAGE AND
FRONT YARD SETBACK.
Aller: Is that you?
Walters: Yes it is.
Aller: Thank you MacKenzie.
th
Walters: So this is Case 2017-21. 204 78 Street West. This is a variance request. They’re
requesting a 3 foot, an after the fact variance for a 3 foot front yard setback to accommodate a
pergola and an after the fact for 1.5 percent lot coverage for an expanded driveway. This is in
the same neighborhood as the last variance we heard. Let me get my laser pointer up here. The
property is located here. The zoning is the same. The only change, the relevant condition is
because this property accesses a collector road our ordinance does require it to have a turn
around accommodated within the driveway. The current site conditions are it’s an 8,981 square
foot lot. It currently has 28.3 percent lot coverage. The existing front yard setback is 27 feet. It
meets all other setbacks and as a bit of an anomaly the public sidewalk is actually located on the
property instead of in the right-of-way and that’s about 214 square feet of impervious surface.
The applicant is requesting to retain an expanded driveway and retain the pergola in it’s existing
configuration. The applicant has stated that when the house was constructed about 10 years ago
the sidewalk was poured in a different position than intended right up against the house so that
forced the pergola footings to be further forward which pushed it out into the required front yard
th
setback. And then due to the difficulty of accessing 78 Street West they chose to deviate from
the proposed driveway and widen it. The other reason they made that decision the construction
th
was because 78 Street does not allow street parking so they wanted to accommodate some on
site parking. After the property was built they had originally put an extra 385 square feet of
Class V aggregate or gravel to the side of the driveway. After consulting with staff they did
remove that to reduce the property’s non-compliance. As was noted in earlier discussions a lot
of properties in this neighborhood do encroach within the front yard setback and they feel the
pergola adds architectural interest to the front façade. When staff looked it over one of the things
13
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
we noticed was as mentioned the public sidewalk. It’s a bit of a gray area in the ordinance.
Because there is no easement we would count it against the property. Staff’s preference is that
an easement be granted which would then remove that from the private domain. Put it into the
public domain. At that point we’d be looking at a 1.5 percent hard surface variance. Staff agrees
th
with the applicant’s assessment that 78 Street West has parking and access issues and that a
driveway capable of accommodating parking and turn around is a very reasonable request.
Regarding the pergola the city code actually allows by right encroachment for architectural
features. Pergolas aren’t specifically mentioned. Our closest would be canopies and eaves
which are allowed to encroach 2.5 feet. From that lands the pergola is 6 inches over but because
of the way variances work a full 3 foot would need to be granted. By way of reference if it was a
bay window or an open balcony it would be allowed to encroach 3 feet and a variance wouldn’t
be required. An open deck would be allowed 5 feet by rights. This doesn’t really interfere with
sight lines or increase mass. It’s over the driveway. It’s been there for 10 years. No complaints
have been received. Just looking at all those factors staff is recommending approval with
conditions for the requested variances and I’ll take any questions at this time.
Aller: Any questions based on the report? Commissioner Weick.
Weick: Does removing the sidewalk from private and adding it as an easement, does that change
responsibility for clearing the sidewalk in the winter or anything? Do we do that here?
Aanenson: No.
Weick: Okay. I wasn’t sure.
Aller: Interesting question.
Walters: Good question yeah. I learned the answer as you did.
Weick: Where I come from it does change so that’s the reason I ask.
Aller: Is it 48 hours after a snowfall. Any additional questions of staff a this point?
Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: In the report there’s a mention of allowing a non-hard cover bump out to be
incorporated into the driveway to provide a turn around. How does that work and does that add
to the hard surface?
Walters: Yeah so it was not made a condition. Engineering’s concern is that because of the
configuration, the wider driveway that it will function more as parking then to accommodate turn
around movements. Geogrid which is you know the hexes with the grass is not considered
impervious and would be allowed in that situation. So they would have to do that. We briefly
mentioned it. I believe when I spoke with the applicant on that in the interest of expediency they
14
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
just pulled the gravel and re-sodded because they’re trying to move forward with the variance
and some projects. We did not make that a condition. It’s a recommendation on staff’s part.
Madsen: So they could choose to do it at a later time if they wanted?
Walters: Yep, as long as it was geogrid. If they tried to put in pervious pavers or one of those
technologies then that would count as lot coverage and then they would have to go for a variance
for that increase.
Madsen: Okay, thank you.
Walters: Yep.
Aller: Any additional questions? Hearing none we’ll hear from the applicant at this point in
time. If you could come forward. State your name and address for the record and let us know
about your request.
th
Josh Pickard: I’m Josh Pickard. I’m the homeowner at 204 West 78 Street.
Aller: Welcome.
Josh Pickard: So when we.
Tietz: Looks like you have helpers.
Madsen: Who’s that?
Josh Pickard: Go sit down. So part of the, and forgive us for being a little naïve when we, this is
our first house that we’ve ever built. We did our best to try to comply with everything. One of
the things that we believe happened, and it’s hard to see in here but the original site plan, which I
can zoom in maybe a little bit. You can see where the bump out takes place right here. I don’t
believe the original company who no longer exists that did the as-built. Or not the as, or the
preliminary drawings, I think they factored in a 5 foot wide sidewalk which you had mentioned
and it’s actually a 6 foot wide so it’s exactly 25 as it stands. What we did was we took that little
bump out off and ran the driveway straight down so I don’t know how it went from, it should
have been almost a wash as far as the hard surface coverage so we think there was some
miscalculations that took place.
Aanenson: He’s fine.
Josh Pickard: Pick it up and go sit down. And so and what we ran into too and once again we
should have come to the City to discuss but as they mentioned the sidewalk, the original design
was supposed to be bumped out farther allowing the pergola to go set back up against the house.
15
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
th
They didn’t do that. Not thinking about it being an issue because you can walk down West 78
from the sidewalk and actually touch structures as you’re walking down. It doesn’t mean what
we did was right or wrong. And then what we found as we got into the space was our garage is
actually relatively narrow so the way that this set up is it would be next to impossible to actually
back out and use the turn around that’s actually there which is where we ended up putting the
Class V in. Once again not really thinking that that was going to be impervious surface coverage
because most of the water actually does go through it. I mean I can show you pictures of the
weeds that grow plentiful there that I have to kill every summer and so that’s why we ended up
doing what we had done. We haven’t had any issues with that backing out, straight out or using
the driveway as it stands right now as a turn around. I will tell you that the Class V was
th
extremely beneficial because there is no parking on West 78. We have to go around the corner
to Erie, which is, can cause problems in the winter time because you’re not allowed to park
th
overnight on the street and there’s just no parking on West 78 but to you know to good favor to
the City we went ahead and removed that Class V and sodded over it but you know in all
honestly we’d love to get some surface coverage back there and if we can work to have it you
know not impervious to where it doesn’t affect the hard surface coverage we’d love to have that.
And my kids do enjoy stepping out back and seeing the fire truck every summer.
Aller: Any questions of the applicant at this time? Hearing none, that’s it. Thank you sir.
Josh Pickard: Thank you.
Aller: Okay this is a request for a variance so we will have a public hearing on this item so I’m
opening the public hearing for this particular variance and anyone wishing to speak either for or
against this item can do so at this time. Seeing no one come, oops.
Jack Atkins: Since I’m here.
Aller: Okay.
th
Jack Atkins: Jack Atkins. I live about 3 houses west of there at 220 West 78 and we certainly
don’t have any objection. That street is a definite hardship for anybody trying to pull out on that
road so no objections here and I’d like to thank them. I now know what a pergola is.
Aller: Thank you. Any additional comments at this time? Seeing no one come forward I’ll
close the public hearing and open it up for commissioner discussion. I think this is exactly the
type of reason that we have variances is to come in and try to, this is a practical use of a
driveway to make a lot work on the basic standpoint of driveway to garage pre-construction
plans and runoff based on the setbacks and the obvious error in the placement of the sidewalk so
I think that I appreciate the fact that an applicant comes forward and does it right regardless of
how the situation arose. They’re coming forward at this point in time and the Pickard’s are
saying you know we’re going to take away this other quick fix that we put in there. We’re going
to come in and ask for an appropriate variance which is acceptable to the City and I think that
16
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
they’ve come forward with something that actually works and is reasonable under the
circumstances.
Tietz: Andrew?
Aller: Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: I just want to clarify though this is, we’re not providing for a bump out for a turn around.
We’re only approving what is existing which I assume that the property is for sale. I noticed that
when I drove by so it’s, we’re solving a historic issue prior to sale and, but we haven’t solved the
turn around opportunity to drive out unless you can back around and hit the grass and turn
around on a 20 foot apron I guess so you know I don’t have any problem with it. I’m just
making sure I understand that we’re not granting anything more than what is currently on site
and we’re just approving that for kind of, well a 10 year old issue.
Aller: Well I think we’re allowing for the pergola to come out and we’re allowing for the
additional drive to be done, right?
Tietz: But I think the owner had stated that the gravel was put on so that they could turn around
and that’s not going to be possible now.
Aller: But that’s not required by the City?
Walters: The, so there’s a memo from the engineering department on this. They are satisfied
with the current configuration of the driveway that it would hypothetically allow a turn around
movement. That being said there is the staff recommendation that geogrid be used to create a
better turn around and parking area but that’s not a condition. That’s going to be up to the
applicant and yeah the hard cover variance would not allow for an impervious surface turn
around to be included.
Weick: And is the 1 ½ percent hard cover variance, is that net of the sidewalk then?
Walters: That is with the condition that the easement be entered into to remove the sidewalk.
Without the sidewalk easement it’s a 3.3 percent.
Aller: I mean in reality it’s, the hard cover’s there and it’s an issue that needs to be dealt with
and addressed community wise but I don’t think it should be held against the homeowner in this
particular case when the easement can be granted and we wouldn’t be holding it against them
had it been done properly in the first place.
Weick: Had what been done properly?
Aller: If the sidewalk hadn’t encroached farther than it should have.
17
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
Weick: I mean the public sidewalk. Aren’t there 2 sidewalks in question here?
Walters: Yes. To clarify the construction error is the sidewalk the homeowner installed
driveway to entryway.
Weick: Next to the house?
Walters: Yeah. The public sidewalk being on their property is 1887 survey line type of issue.
Weick: I mean I, I hate to tax somebody with that.
Aller: Right, which is why we’re.
Weick: Because I wish we all had sidewalks but that’s a whole another city issue. Yeah, I don’t
know. I’m just thinking in my head. I think I’m thinking probably and I don’t know have to say
it out loud what John, Commissioner Tietz is probably thinking as well which is net of that, if we
could do even a smaller area where we could actually do a turn around. I mean it’s, I drove
around there twice in the last week and it’s busy. That’s a busy street. Surprisingly busy
actually. I didn’t realize that and so being able to turn around in there I think is important. I just
wish we were sort of solving that as well but that’s neither here nor there.
Aller: So then the question is, and since it hasn’t been presented what trade off, or I mean we
could make it a condition that it be used for that. I mean that’s really not what has been
requested so.
Weick: It would be adding something that wasn’t asked for so I guess we just go as is and.
Aller: And then what are the numbers and then what would the trade off be? Whether it’s
square footage, if we did a turn off and we created it then how much square footage are we
actually adding and what does the hard coverage calculation end up being then.
Weick: Yeah. But as is I think it works right?
Aller: Right.
Weick: So I could propose a motion if, are we at that point?
Aller: We’re at that point.
Weick: Can I do that?
Aller: We’re at that point.
18
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
Weick: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves a 3 foot front yard setback
variance for a pergola and a 1.5 percent hard cover variance for an expanded driveway subject to
the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Madsen: Second.
Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion?
Weick moved, Madsen seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments
approves a 3 foot front yard setback variance for a pergola and a 1.5 percent hard cover
variance for an expanded driveway subject to the following conditions of approval and
adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decisions:
1. The applicant shall construct stormwater BMP(s), such as rain barrels at downspouts to
treat all runoff created by all impervious surface over 25 percent.
2. The applicant shall grant the City an easement for the public sidewalk.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
CODE AMENDMENTS: CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 1 “GENERAL
PROVISIONS”; CHAPTER 7 “BUILDINGS AND BUILDING REGULATIONS”;
CHAPTER 18 “SUBDIVISIONS”; AND CHAPTER 20 “ZONING” OF THE
CHANHASSEN CITY CODE REGARDING THE FOLLOWING:
A. DRIVE THROUGHS: MODIFY MINIMUM STACKING DISTANCE AND
CLASSIFY AS CONDITIONAL USE.
B. PRIVATE STREET: SIGN GUIDELINES.
C. STREET DESIGN: GUIDELINES.
D. ADULT DAYCARE: DEFINE AND ALLOW IN APPROPRIATE DISTRICTS.
E. PUD SETBACKS: ALLOW INCREASED FLEXIBILITY.
F. LOT COVERAGE: UPDATE ASSOCIATED DEFINITIONS, IMPERVIOUS
AND PERVIOUS SURFACES, AND TERMINOLOGY.
Walters: This one is mine as well. We were talking, I think the best way to do this, if the Chair
does not object is to roll all these into one public hearing at the end.
Aller: Okay.
19
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
Walters: Instead of doing a separate motion for each individual code amendment. Just do it as
one kind of omnibus motion. If there is one that the Planning Commission wants to separate out
let us know. I have independent motions drafted for each of them so we can easily do that and
modify it as needed. I’ll run through them in somewhat quickly but give pause after each one for
any questions or discussions you have and then we can move onto the next.
Aller: So if I can ask the commissioners, are there any ones that you wish to have decided solely
and separately at this point in time? Hearing none then let’s go ahead and have them all
presented. Have the public hearing and if we change our mind and we want to break one out
then we can do so before, as far as motions go.
Walters: Alright, sounds good. The first proposed code amendment revolves around the City’s
treatment of drive throughs. We’ve had a lot of inquiries about them. Recently the Chick-fil-A
when in downtown. Drive throughs have the capacity to generate a large number of trips. A lot
of people coming and going and this can have pretty big impacts on surrounding properties and
intersections. As our code is currently structure, because it is a permitted use we cannot require
stacking studies and traffic studies associated with the site plans. We can ask but we can’t
compel. And the other issue is Spack Consulting recently released a study of drive through
stacking and provided revised stacking requirements for drive throughs. I’ll get into the City’s
standards versus their’s but we were very much below what was recommended by that study. So
staff is recommending that we increase our stacking requirements and make drive throughs a
conditional use which will allow us to apply that extra level of scrutiny and stacking and traffic
studies when we deem necessary. So just, I put together a quick table of different uses that
typically have drive throughs. What the existing city code requires. What the consultants
recommended and what staff feels make sense for Chanhassen. One of the reasons why
Chanhassen and Spack’s differ, we looked at the sites they had and a lot of them were in
significantly more urban areas. Minneapolis, St. Paul, I believe Hopkins. Areas where you see a
lot more traffic and stacking then we’ve observed so for the most part we did not adopt the
recommendations wholesale. The exceptions are coffee shops and fast foods where our
experiences show the recommendations are likely appropriate. For example Chick-fil-A came in
requesting 23 stacking spaces. When we’re requiring 6 that indicates we’re probably on the low
side.
Aanenson: Before you move from that. I just want to indicate we had this study before we did
Avienda so we put those conditions in, because as you recall we allowed up to 3. I think if they
were going to put a grocery in they were looking at a pharmacy with that so some of the, as
MacKenzie pointed out we used the proposed city code and those were put in place with the
Avienda project.
Walters: If you have any questions specifically on drive throughs I could take them now. If not
I’ll move onto the next.
Aller: Any questions regarding drive throughs. Commissioner Tietz.
20
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
Tietz: Just a quick one on banks. Like Nancy, if you’ve got at a bank if you’ve got multiple, I
don’t know whatever you call them.
Walters: Windows.
Tietz: Windows and you’ve got the pneumatic tube one so if you have 3 positions, would you
have to multiply this by the number or you just have to have 8 maximum for 3 positions? It’s a
stupid question but.
Aanenson: No it’s a good question.
Aller: No it’s a good question.
Walters: The way it’s structured and the way we’ve done it and the way the Spack
recommendations looked at it, it was total aisle stacking space.
Tietz: Total aisle.
Walters: And I believe that’s how we would interpret the code. At least that’s how we did for
calculating Chick-fil-A’s stacking requirements which is the one I’m most familiar with and I do
know that Spack explicitly said you know this is in linear feet of space between all aisles. Some
cities do require by aisle. Our ordinance is silent so we would just apply maximum.
Tietz: Okay, thanks.
Randall: MacKenzie does that also include like, do they have a defined space that they have to
have for the drive through? I guess what I’m saying is, some places might have more of a
parking lot that they can stack more cars in versus something that was like really close off the
street. The example would be the difference between maybe Chick-fil-A or McDonald’s versus
like the Burger King that’s over off of, I can’t think of the name of the cross street now.
Aanenson: How I would address that is with, that’s part of the site plan review too so you’re not,
there’s conflicting traffic movements. Can you back out? If you’re familiar with the Taco Bell,
sometimes that wraps around. It’s difficult to, so I think we’ve learned from some of those
earlier ones that we look at that traffic circulation in more detail and ask them to look at what
their radius is on that and whether or not cars can back in or out. That’s a good point.
Aller: Sometimes they had the outside lane where they can kind of escape if they decide they
don’t want to continue waiting.
Weick: So potentially if I had a new business and I could not meet the proposed city code it
would prohibit me from having a drive through correct?
21
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
Walters: You could, because we’re making conditional use permit you could provide us with a
stacking or traffic study that says my restaurant is not projected to negatively impact traffic with
say I don’t know, 8 spots when you’re a fast food restaurant and then that could demonstrate that
you deserve, that we’re entitled to reduce. I believe that’s how we structured it.
Aanenson: Correct but to your point if you couldn’t make it then you, that would be a condition
for denial if you couldn’t make it work.
Aller: And for enforcement purposes then you can come in and you can pull the use permit if
there are problems so that’s.
Weick: Okay.
Tietz: Steve it’d probably force you to look at the property before you bought it.
Aanenson: So again just to bring up, just to circle back on this point is that right now because a
drive through is a permitted use in some zoning districts it limits the City’s ability to say your
circulation pattern doesn’t work. This gives the City the right to say no, you can’t block the
street.
Madsen: I have a question.
Aller: Yes Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: So for the proposed city code with that number of vehicles, knowing that that can’t
block the street but could it block parked cars in their own parking lot so that people couldn’t
back out or make movements?
Aanenson: Yeah, that’s the same question that Commissioner Weick just asked similar. You
know we still look at the circulation pattern. Those are all standards that are in the city code and
that would be interior design.
Madsen: Okay.
Aanenson: You know how is that going to circulate through. Can cars back in and out so.
Walters: Yep, so one of the conditions and that’s condition 6 which we currently apply to drive
throughs but would now be part of the CUP permit. I’m just moving it over so we have a little
more leverage, is that stacking area shall not interfere with vehicular circulation in the parking
lot nor encroach on required drive aisles so that would be our leverage there if we saw a site plan
that had a concern.
22
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
Madsen: Thank you.
Aller: Alright, moving on to private street signs.
Walters: Yep. This one I think is about as straight forward as they get. We don’t currently have
any standards for private street signs so in theory if someone wanted to have a green stop sign
that blended into the nice trees we don’t actually have any way to say that’s a bad idea so what
we wanted to do was just refer it back to the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Traffic Devices just
to keep clarity for our emergency response personnel, motorists, general safety and a little bit of
common sense. Making sure they’re legible and standardized.
Tietz: All of our street signs, and I’m thinking of the one across on Galpin, Wynsong. Are
those, are they all standard with the city standard for the designation of the street or lane or circle
or whatever?
Walters: Anything that’s a public street would have to meet the manual standards.
Tietz: But if it’s a private street.
Walters: We, that’s yeah.
Tietz: Shouldn’t, is that part of this too?
Walters: This is what we’re doing.
Tietz: It includes street naming as well.
Walters: Oh street naming.
Aanenson: Street names have to be approved by the City whether they’re public or private.
Walters: Oh you’re asking about the sign saying the street name.
Tietz: The standards.
Walters: Apologies. They would now have to meet the standards from the Minnesota Manual.
Tietz: To our city standard.
Walters: Yep because our city standard is derived from the Minnesota Manual on Uniform
Traffic Device Standards so now we’re just applying that to private streets as well.
23
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
Tietz: Okay. The type face and the color and everything would have to, because that’s not a
state standard. That’s still a local option isn’t it for the background on the street naming?
Aanenson: No. It’s in the Minnesota Manual on Uniform Design so that’s what we use right
now so we’re forcing them to follow that same pattern.
Tietz: Sorry, I didn’t know that you did that for street naming, okay.
Aanenson: That’s alright.
Randall: Then one question about that. I know in regards to the color of the sign will tell me if
it’s a private street versus a city street. Is that going to change then?
Aanenson: I think that that’s something that we wanted to leave in. It’s helpful.
Randall: Okay, it is very helpful yeah.
Aanenson: It is helpful and I know for the fire department too so that’s something we can double
check on.
Randall: Because I didn’t know if by going to that if that would cause it to automatically, they’d
all have to be green or something like that.
Aanenson: Yeah, I think right now they’re blue aren’t they?
Randall: They’re blue for private, yeah.
Aanenson: I think that’s the intent so you know you’re on a private street. It’s sometimes it’s a
queue if you know sometimes there’s different parking when you’re on a private street versus a
public street when you have no snow plowing and those sort of things so we’ll follow up on that.
That’s a good question.
Aller: Is the response to that going to change any of our language?
Aanenson: Well I think if you want to make sure that that, your goal would be because this still
goes to City Council. You might just…
Aller: Okay, so with that recommendation.
Aanenson: That there be a differentiation in street name colors. Could be the same sized
lettering but the coloring would be different.
Walters: Yeah it’s possible the Manual actually has that type of standardization in it.
24
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
Aanenson: But it’s your goal to make sure it’s in there.
Walters: But yeah.
Aller: Before we do it and then have to redo it.
Randall: Because I think the 3 colors that I notice are brown, green and blue so.
Aanenson: Yep.
Weick: What do they?
Randall: Green and brown are public. Blue is private. So if you go to like a townhouse
development that’s a private street you’ll see the blue sign and that’s how you know.
Aller: Alright, then we’re looking at setbacks, right?
Walters: Setbacks or street design standards?
Aller: Street design. Guidelines.
Walters: This is a somewhat similar one. Currently the city code requires longer vertical curve
than a MnDOT Roadway Design Manual recommends. Engineering would like to amend our
code just to reference the MnDOT Roadway Design standard. That way we’ll change as
MnDOT’s recommendations change. They’ve noted that I believe West Park, Arbor Glen and
I’m blanking on the third one. It began with an A. Anyways several recent subdivisions that
have went in have initially come in with curves that met the MnDOT standards but because our
city standard is more restrictive they were bounced back. It created confusion with the
engineering and reduced design flexibility so engineering believes it would be appropriate to
have our standards in line with the State recommendations for roadway design.
Weick: Can you define vertical curve? Is there an easier way to say that? I don’t know what a
vertical curve is.
Tietz: It’s the profile of the road.
Weick: So the hill?
Tietz: Yeah.
Weick: It’s a hill, okay.
25
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
Tietz: To the rise…
Walters: Yeah as not an engineer I borrowed their language.
Weick: Vertical curve.
Tietz: We’re all learning tonight.
Walters: The next one is amendment to the code to explicitly permit adult daycares. Currently
the city code just mentions daycare. It’s pretty clear that the intent is child daycare because
there’s conditions for play areas and things like that. We have had some requests for adult
daycare and we’ve applied the general daycare status but it would be better if they had their own
category that actually met that population’s needs and requirements so staff is proposing adding
a definition for adult daycare and then making them permitted uses where appropriate. In
general we looked at where we permitted child daycare and also permitted adult daycare. Child
daycare in some areas is a conditional use permit mostly because of concerns associated with the
play area and you know safety of the children that are not a factor for adults so we felt it was
more appropriate to have that be a permitted use and place general performance standards to
ensure licensing. We also propose different parking requirements so this is kind of a, this is a
summary of what, where we’re proposing to make them permitted use are high density
residential areas and then the same commercial districts where the child daycares are allowed.
We are proposing reduced parking when compared to the child daycare and that’s because unlike
child daycares adult daycares do not have a standardized care giver to client ratio. And a lot of
adults will attend via shuttle from other living so we just don’t see that we need the 1 spot per 6
clients that we do with child daycare.
Tietz: MacKenzie, is the definition of functionally impaired adults, is that required for an adult
daycare center? I mean I’m fast approaching that age and I might need some assistance but
hopefully I’m not functionally impaired but I still might want a place to go during the day and
when I no longer have activities at home that you know.
Walters: I believe the intent with that was to differentiate adult daycares as a use from like a
senior center for instance or a senior activity center or other venue. Adult daycares are facilities
licensed by the State to you know take care of individuals who cannot tend to their own needs.
Tietz: So it’s a specific licensing?
Walters: Yep and that’s.
Tietz: Sorry, I read it as something else.
Walters: Yep, an adult oriented activity center would just fall under whatever commercial usage
best fit.
26
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
Tietz: So there are State guidelines then for adult daycare facilities?
Walters: And State licensing which we would require them to meet as our general performance
standards for this facility.
Tietz: Thank you.
Aanenson: So we approved one over at CSM. The adult daycare so that’s over off of Dell Road,
if you remember that. So that’s, I want to say the name is Bethlehem. I’m not sure that’s right
but we did approve an adult daycare over there so a lot of those are bussed in so that would kind
of fall within this.
Aller: I guess one of my questions would be, and I’m sure council will be looking at the final
drafts but is there a reason that we even have to do anything for the definition other than say,
define an adult daycare as a facility that is duly and properly licensed as an adult daycare?
Aanenson: …licensing requirements, we can check that.
Aller: So just a, instead of having us fight the battle, they come in with the dually licensed
document and say we are licensed under the code or we’re not.
Walters: My only thought there, and I would like to consult with Sharmeen because she’s the
guru of these issues, is I do know our definition, we want to make sure that some facilities can
get that as a subset and then classify themselves as an adult daycare so you know you’ll see that I
believe the definition exempts, states explicitly that for instance a church is not an adult daycare
just because it may provide that service so that would be my only hesitation there but that’s
absolutely something to look into if we can defer to State.
Aller: Because then we can just say other than a church and then define.
Aanenson: Well there’s some other subsets. I would agree with MacKenzie on that. I think we
don’t have all those in front of us right now but there’s other categories that provide senior
services that may require additional parking. For example this building has senior services here
and there’s a lot more activity involved so the intent for the use is people that need a place for
supervised, that’s really what this intent is.
Aller: Okay.
Aanenson: We don’t want to open up our industrial district to have a lot of kind of those other
subsets within that so these are people that really need, maybe families that need relief.
Somewhere for an adult to go to during the day and have supervised activity. That was really the
27
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
intent of this narrow interpretation and over time if we find that we need to broaden it then I
think I would suggest that we just take it back and see how that works for a while.
Randall: The only word change I would suggest opposed to impaired would be vulnerable adult.
Aanenson: Okay.
Randall: I don’t know if that’s, kind of opens it up a little bit better. I don’t know so.
Aanenson: I think what we would recommend is that we’ll look at the definition. I agree the
word seems a little awkward but we’ll check with the State and see if there’s some other
vernacular that we can use that seems more palatable, if that makes sense.
Aller: I think our goal would be and should be to be as consistent with the other codes as
possible in our language so that there’s less room for third party interpretation.
Aanenson: Sure.
Walters: Duly noted. PUD setbacks. The city code as it’s currently structured stipulates
mandatory project setbacks for about half of the planned unit development districts. The single
family detached. The single family cluster home have minimum setbacks and then the industrial
PUD’s and community commercial so like the recently passed lifestyle center have built in
flexibility for project setbacks. When we looked it over there wasn’t necessarily a clean, a good
reason why we wouldn’t want all PUD’s to have the maximum amount of flexibility possible so
we basically are proposing lifting the language from the community commercial PUD saying
that the City Council can waive or modify the project setback in order to protect environmental
features or ensure higher design and we’re placing that in the cluster home PUD and then we are
proposing removing the mandatory setback from detached single family PUD’s because it’s not
entirely clear that we need a separate setback to separate one detached single family use for
another detached single family use, if that makes sense. As things currently stand you need to
use the variance process to reduce that setback and we’ve had a decent number of those
variances where we’ve had, the West Park had one as did the Southwest Transit I know had that
exterior setback variance given so yeah, here’s the rough outline of how things currently are
what we’re proposing to do. So currently the industrial has a mandatory 50 to 100 foot setback
depending on screening and it must meet to code’s required landscaping. We propose keeping
that as is because it has that discretionary flexibility that allows PUD’s to be the most adaptable
zoning tool we have. I mentioned the single family detached that the extra 30 foot exterior
setback just didn’t necessarily seem appropriate. And then the single family detached cluster
home, we established a 50 foot exterior setback as a baseline but then allow the council to
increase or decrease that based on either environmental factors or developmental, quality of
developmental design which is the same type of provisions that exist for the regional lifestyle
center PUD’s. Hopefully I explained that clearly but if not please let me know.
28
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
Madsen: I have a question on the packets. The way it’s laid out. So the one section that’s
referred to as 20-506 is just single family neighborhood next to another single family
neighborhood so you know you wouldn’t necessarily need.
Aanenson: That’s our condition.
Madsen: Buffering for that one. But and then the next section is 20-508 and here it talks about a
setback to a transition between high and medium density to a low density. And so that one, I just
have some questions on what buffering would be required? Can just trees be put up? What if
the trees die and that buffering disappears and now they don’t have that setback?
Aanenson: Yep, so we looked at a lot of different things as we’ve taken projects through.
Sometimes it’s the width of the roadway. Sometimes it’s, we’ve done undulating landscaping
with sometimes it’s permanent fencing so there’s a lot of different approaches to do that and I
think a lot of it has to be depend on where it’s located. Sometimes it’s even grade changes.
Sometimes we’ve had project that there’s such a big grade change that it’s sitting higher or lower
that the visual impact isn’t as great. So by making the setbacks sometimes we’re not achieving
the goal that we intended and that’s you know to create just a separation and whether it’s
architectural, physical so sometimes a fence is required where you want to provide noise
attenuation. Sometimes it might just be landscaping for visual softness or grade change so we
look at each project separately and I think that’s what we’re trying to say in these with right now
the way it’s set up it doesn’t give us that flexibility and once you do the variance it’s more
onerous to try to get relief from that. And I think what we felt like in some situations where you
have infill development, PUD is the right tool and then we force people to use that but then it
doesn’t give them any flexibility so they’re rather kind of take the less rigid. The thing with the
PUD is you get, also get the enhanced design standards that you tie them to which you wouldn’t
under the straight zoning.
Madsen: Yeah, I just want to be sensitive for those infill developments for the residential
developments around them to make sure that there is the adequate buffering and separation under
that change.
Aanenson: Yep, understand your point and we do have a buffer requirement based on, in the city
code and that’s based on the intensive use so there is a minimum buffer requirement already
between different uses so this kind of goes beyond that so again if it’s single family to single
family we’ve never said you don’t need to, that’s life minded but then the more dense you get.
So you have it sometimes even within PUD’s so if you look at when we have Mission Hills
Senior Housing next to Mission Hills existing so we looked at the landscaping. The visual
impact there so you try to find the right transition and how that works and that ended up being
landscaping through there. Then you have the wall that’s up against 212. We actually gave a
variance on that one as it approached, as it abutted the 212 side because you have such a
substantial sound wall there so setting them back because they were in the shoreland district
really made a difference allowing them some flexibility within that so that’s what we’re saying.
29
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
We want to have all those tools available and certainly as part of that PUD then you would
approve or recommend approval on that based on how you see all those factors coming into play.
Madsen: Okay, thank you.
Aller: Alright. Any additional questions or comments? Alright, we’ll move on then to our next,
it looks like a last item.
Walters: This is a, the result of the directive we got when we discussed the potential change for
pervious pavers and lot coverage. This proposal does not change the amount of lot coverage
permitted for any property within the city but it does revise our definitions, like we spoke about
last time to be more consistent with State standards. Line up better with other entities that have
jurisdictional control and then remove the term hard cover from the ordinance and standardize
our terminology between lot coverage and impervious surfaces. As we discussed before in quite
a bit of depth we use a lot of different terms and as we bounce between terms it can be very
confusing so this would remove that as well as updating our definitions. We would be adding a
definition for pervious pavements but that would be included within lot coverage so they would
still be subject to for instance if you’re at 25 percent residential and you have 10 percent
pervious pavement and 15 percent impervious you’d be at your limit. You wouldn’t be able to
exceed that 25 percent lot coverage. One of the reasons why we want to make sure we define
pervious pavements is to allow for situations like we got into a bit with the variance request
today where it’s okay, we feel relief is appropriate but maybe we want to specify that X percent
of that relief has to take the form of pervious pavements. Now we have a standard for what that
term actually means so that was a lot of the rationale for that. Also because the water, other
water or sorry. Watersheds and other jurisdictions that have authority over water resources use
them at, use pervious pavements as a best management practice and as a tool we felt that should
be at least somewhat recognized in the language within our code. So I put up the proposed
definitions. They are the same as what we discussed before for impervious surface, pervious
pavement and lot coverage. If you have any questions I’d be happy to go in more depth on
those.
Aanenson: There’s a lot more to approve.
Tietz: I do have a question on the.
Aller: Commissioner Tietz.
Tietz: On the definition of pervious pavement. It says into an underlying stone reservoir. How
do we determine the capacity of that stone reservoir or will there be design guidelines and details
to be handed to the developer and say here’s what’s considered and here’s the area we have to
have you know 10 inches of or 12 inches of or whatever? It just, I don’t know if there’s more
coming on this topic.
30
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
Walters: With the currently proposed changes that wouldn’t be specified if they wanted any
credit for that with the watershed or you know if we were putting it as a condition on a variance
it would be incumbent on us then to stipulate that. It would be incumbent on the watershed to
you know establish design criteria they felt was appropriate but no, this definition would not do
that.
Tietz: Okay, so that becomes a site specific design issue for the person proposing to use a
pervious paver.
Walters: As structured it would be yes.
Tietz: And so we just kind of, yeah. Okay.
Aanenson: So where this is going to go is, there will be a lot more detail with this before the
City Council because they haven’t spent as much time when Vanessa was here going through
our, to go through surface water management. So the direction we heard from the Planning
Commission, it just seemed premature to go forward with this what percent we’re trying to get to
and we don’t really, until we get our surface water management plan approved that it might be
premature so right now the goal is to try to clean up the nomenclature that everybody’s talking
about the same thing. It gets confusing even earlier tonight when we talk about geogrids as
opposed to pervious pavers because right now so, we’re just trying to get to that track first and
then we’ll see where the council wants to go with it and then what we’re recommending is once
we get the surface water management plan then we go to the next level.
Aller: Right.
Tietz: My question kind of falls in the category I was kidding Steve earlier about looking at the
land and understanding what you’re buying before you find out that you can’t, you don’t have a
drive lane. Is the developer saying well I can use pervious pavers but I don’t know the standard
and so now well I’ll just do this and then I’ll come in and ask for a variance so you know the
more, I think the most this issue can be dealt with in a manner of giving very specific definition,
however it is site specific I’m sure and with infiltration rates and so forth but it just, I’m trying to
react as maybe a developer would. I think we have to give as much guidelines, detailed
guidelines as possible.
Aller: And I’m sure when SWPPP comes through and we say that the rainfall runoff has to be X
and we have that first inch of runoff and, or inch and a half or inch and a quarter. Whatever it
may end up being, that’s not good for an engineer to just work on. He’s got to say well what are
the standards here so we can say with some certainty that if I do this particular fix and create an
iron structure or filtration system or whatever that it’s going to reasonably accommodate the
needs of the city.
31
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
Aanenson: And to your point what we saw is the biggest thing that we need to work on is once
we’re moving in this direction, we had spent a lot of time with developers. Contractors that
work in this field to understand and to train them so you know we just can’t just roll it out and
expect everybody, just to your point. What both of you said is that they understand what our
expectations are and where we’re going so we just think we need to kind of ease into that so
people understand what the rules and expectations. So they don’t put something in there and
thinking they were doing what was in the terminology but it doesn’t meet our intent.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: When we had discussed these pervious pavers before there was talk about the amount
of maintenance that’s required so that they function properly. I did not see that addressed here
and is that something that would be site specific or is that in another document?
Walters: So because under the currently proposed changes we would treat impervious surface
and pervious pavements as exactly the same. We would you know pervious paver driveway
would count towards your lot coverage the exact same way that a standard concrete driveway
would so we didn’t get into that because once it’s in there from the City’s standpoint with the
currently proposed ordinance and existing ordinance, it doesn’t change anything. We’re treating
it as if it’s completely clogged and non-functional.
Madsen: Okay.
Walters: Going you know 10, whenever we, if we ever alter the code to exempt these
proportionately from lot coverage or anything like that, that would be when those issues would
re-emerge.
Madsen: Okay, thanks.
Aller: One of the things that I’ve always thought was stopping that from happening now is we
just don’t have the science to say this is how it reacts and this is what the maintenance is so until
we get those numbers.
Aanenson: Yeah and going back to the surface water management plan we don’t, you know so
we were saying we’re at 25 percent. Is that a good number? And then we looked at the RLM
lots. We’ve already transferred density allowing harder, more increase then do we give them 5
percent? Do we give them anything so I just think we need to look at that in context what our
capacity is to manage all that surface water. Not just the installation part of it but looking at
capacity issues first and then trying to break down a percentage and then that but we wanted to
move forward with something that was unifying our definition and terminology, yeah.
Madsen: So this just provides that common language so that when you’re ready to take that next
step you’ve got the platform to work off of.
32
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
Aanenson: Yep.
Madsen: Okay, thank you.
Aller: Any additional questions? Okay, so what I’ll do now at this point, does any of the
commissioners feel like any of these items in particular should be pulled out and dealt with
separately? Hearing none I’ll open the public hearing on the code amendments as a group and
any individual wishing to step forward and speak either or against or give a comment on any of
these proposed changes, please come forward and do so at this time. State your name and
address for the record. Your representational capacity if any. And your comments or questions.
Seeing no one come forward I’ll close the public hearing and move the item for discussion. I
think most of my concerns were responded to in the questions and answer of staff so at this point
in time if someone would like to make a motion understanding and recalling that we had those
two separate issues.
Aanenson: Yeah, one was a definition of.
Walters: Adult daycare.
Aanenson: Adult daycare and then the other one was, I wrote it down.
Aller: The colors.
Aanenson: The colors of the signs.
Aller: Regarding signs.
Aanenson: Correct.
Aller: And was that it? Oh and that, in particular we should discuss by moving this forward are
we moving forward with Option 1 or Option 2 on the street designs so weren’t we
recommending Option 2? I think that was what the staff had recommended. One was to do
nothing.
Walters: Oh yea, Option 2. The option.
Aller: Option 2 is to change the.
Walters: Is to make it refer to the Minnesota Manual on the, MnDOT Manual on roadway
design.
33
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
Aller: Right so there are actually 3 distinct comments as we move forward. So keeping those
things in mind if someone would like to take a shot at making a motion.
Madsen: I can do it.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen.
Madsen: The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the
attached ordinance amending Chapters 1, 7, 18 and 20 of the Chanhassen City Code including
the 3 items that we discussed.
Aller: Having a motion do I have a second?
Randall: Second.
Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion?
Madsen moved, Randall seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance amending Chapters 1, 7, 18 and 20 of
the Chanhassen City Code with clarification of the definition for adult daycare, colors of
street signage and incorporating the use of MnDOT’s Roadway Design Manual. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 5 to 0.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Weick noted the verbatim and summary
Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated October 17, 2017 as presented.
COMMISSION PRESENTATIONS. None.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Aanenson: Thank you Chairman, members of the Planning Commission. It’s been a while since
we met but since that time the City Council has put out the Comprehensive Plan out for
jurisdictional review so that will be done in, I think around March. March-April, yep. And then
also as I mentioned earlier we’re intending to get the Surface Water Management Plan out which
is under State law is a different jurisdictional timeline but that will be out in January so we’ll be
sharing some more information with you about that. We did not have any items from the,
rd
because of our lack of meetings we did not have any items going to the City Council on the 23.
I did want to share with you that on your next agenda that we do have a couple of changes so on
th
December 5 we have an amendment for the PUD. Paisley Park for a special event in
conjunction with the Super Bowl so that needs a public hearing. It’s an amendment for that one
week only. And then we had a request for a variance on Minnewashta Parkway. That also is
being, there’s a wetlands. There’s a jurisdictional, it’s a high quality wetland which requires a
greater setback. In addition to that the DNR weighed in on that and then has some concerns
34
Chanhassen Planning Commission – November 21, 2017
about whether or not the ordinary high water mark is correct on Lake St. Joe so we did, staff has
met with the applicant on Monday and confirmed today that we’ll table. Wait to get that
information back. It has a big difference on the amount of buildable area within that building
envelope and what percentage of variance they want to request so it’s been a lot of information
that we’ve had to, a lot of data points we’ve had to collect. Or the applicant has had to collect
and we want to make sure that when we get it in we’ve got all, everything. All the correct
information to process the variance. It is a lot of record but we’re just trying to minimize the
impact and make that right so that will also be on, off that meeting. It will be moved to January
so we’ve got the Paisley Park PUD amendment and then going forward on next Monday night is
the downtown vision plan. Thanks to some of the Planning Commissioners that were there on
that. Quite a few other people filled out the survey online so we’ll be sharing that with the City
Council and then I’ll share that with you and get their comments and next steps so I’ll be sharing
th
that with you at your December 5 meeting. I’ll put the entire packet in there. The summary
and the tabulation and kind of what the City, what direction the City Council wants to move
forward with on that so that will be our last meeting of the year. And my last item is, I did put in
there some vacancies so, as we know Maryam has resigned since she moved out town and so we
have one position that will be up. Typically those are filled by our April first meeting so Mark
Randall is also up and invited to reapply so you’ve got til next year. After the first of the year. I
think typically they get published but I just wanted to give you a heads up to start thinking about
that but those will be noticed typically I think they do that in January-February notification.
Aller: Great so if you’re watching this at home there’s also other commissions available.
There’s the, not only the two 3 year positions available on the Planning Commission but the Park
and Rec Commission will have two 3 year positions available. The Environmental Commission
will have four 3 year positions available and the Senior Commission will also have three 3 year
positions available and of course they rotate on those annual 3 year terms and they’re staggered
so if you’re the type of person that’s out there watching us right now you’re probably an
individual that just might be interested in serving on one of these commissions or know someone
that does. Any last business? I’ll entertain a motion to adjourn.
Commissioner Weick moved 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 8:35 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim
35