PC Minutes 12-4-18CHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 4, 2018
Chairman Aller called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Andrew Aller, Mark Undestad, Steve Weick, Nancy Madsen, John
Tietz, Mark Randall, and Michael McGonagill
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and MacKenzie
Walters, Planner
PUBLIC PRESENT:
Rick Morris 3790 Lone Cedar Lane
Karen White, Paisley Park 7801 Audubon Road
Tim Fitch, Paisley Park 7801 Audubon Road
PUBLIC HEARING: CONSIDER VARIANCE TO BUILD AN ACCESSORY
BUILDING (GARAGE) AT 3790 LONE CEDAR LANE.
Walters: Alright the first item is Planning Case 2018-20. A variance for 3790 Lone Cedar Lane.
If appealed this would go before the City Council on January 14th and the variance is for a 13
foot front yard setback and a 4 foot shoreland setback variance for the construction of a 1,000
square foot detached garage. So the location in question is actually the vacant lot next to the
property address as 3790 Lone Cedar Lane. The property is zoned residential single family. It
would typically be required to have a 30 foot front yard setback, 10 foot side yard setback, 75
foot shoreland setback and there is a wetland along the north which is required to have a 40 foot
wetland buffer and then a 20 foot wetland buffer setback for accessory structures. Residential
single family has a maximum for 1,000 square feet for accessory structures and is limited to a
maximum of 25 percent lot cover. So the current site, the applicant owns the parcel at 3790
Lone Cedar. That has an existing single family home and then has also acquired the vacant
parcel to the east. The vacant parcel is about 15,000 square feet. The parcel that has a primary
structure has about 17 ½ percent lot cover. It does have a non-conforming 75.5 foot wetland
buffer setback but it meets all other standards for the district. Regarding the two parcels there is
currently a drainage and utility easement separating them. It’s 10 feet on each side. The
applicant intends to have the City vacate that easement and I believe it is currently out for review
with the Department of Natural Resources and other agencies but the vacation request is in
progress and would be a condition for granting the variance. That that be vacated. And as I
mentioned there is a large wetland to the north which is of the preserve class so that is the second
highest quality wetland present in our city. So the applicant is proposing to combine Lot 1. So
Lot 1 and Lot 2 into one parcel. Vacate the drainage and utility easement and then construct a
1,000 square foot accessory structure on what had previously been the vacant parcel. In order to
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 4, 2018
2
do this they would need a 13 foot front yard setback variance and then the very corner of this
structure would be within the 75 foot shoreland setback so that would necessitate the 4 foot
shoreland setback variance. The main, one of the main arguments in favor of granting this
variance is that as a lot of record Lot 1 could potentially be used for a single family home.
That’s what it’s zoned for and that is generally what would be considered reasonable use for the
parcel. By combining the two parcels the potential for a new home to be built on that lot is
essentially removed forever going forward and the accessory structure represents a much less
intense level of use for the parcel than a single family home would. The applicant has talked
with staff, the Water Resources Coordinator and other agencies and has made every effort to
locate the accessory structure as far from the wetland and lake as possible and that is why they
are requesting the front yard setback variance to move it outside of the buffer setback and try to
protect that aquatic resource. It would also minimize the amount of impervious surface needed
to access the garage. So staff, looking over the proposal as I mentioned, agrees that combining
the lots and constructing the accessory structure represents the lowest intensity of development
that could reasonably be expected for the vacant parcel. And to combine the parcels would mean
that a single family home would not be built on that which would have a much larger impact on
the wetland and the lake. Looking at the vacant parcel staff calculated the buildable area
essentially that’s clear of the setbacks and as you can see due to the triangular configuration it’s a
non-usable space. Some variance would be necessary to grant use of it. Because the applicant
has proposed the forward location to help protect the lake and because the parcel’s location at the
end of a private road with no adjacent residential uses, no residential use across the street that
would have a view of it, staff believes the proposed front yard setback would have minimal
impact on the surrounding neighborhood and that many of the concerns that typically make us
reluctant to recommend approving front yard setback variances do not apply in this case. For all
these reasons staff is recommending approval of this. Both the DNR and water resources have
also expressed their support for this. If you have any questions I would be happy to address
them at this time.
Aller: Any questions of staff? Commissioner Weick.
Weick: In your opinion if you need two variances for a 1,000 square foot garage how would you
reasonably build a single family home on this lot?
Walters: Because it is a lot of record we are required to grant reasonable use and reasonable use
for a lot zoned for single family occupancy would be a single family home meeting the City’s
minimum standards so that would be a two car garage. A minimum of 960 square foot footprint
if it’s a rambler so we would be essentially required to grant the variances necessary for the
construction of that home or we would be in a regulatory taking. If that makes sense. So
because the lot’s platted it somewhat ties our hands.
Aller: Commissioner Madsen.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 4, 2018
3
Madsen: Are there any prohibitions for an accessory out building to prohibit people staying in
there? Are they able to put plumbing in there? That sort of thing.
Walters: So the city code would prevent a dwelling unit so they wouldn’t be able to have a
bedroom, kitchen and bathroom in it. That being said the, they would be allowed to run
plumbing. You know a lot of people have a workshop garage and have a bathroom in there. But
it would not be able to be used for a home occupation under the city code and it would not be
able to be used as a dwelling unit.
Madsen: Okay thank you.
Aller: Any additional questions? Hearing one if the applicant would like to come forward.
Please state your name and address for the record and tell us about your project.
Richard Morris: Hello I’m Richard Morris or Rick. I go by Rick Morris. I just bought the
property in late September. Moving over this way from Medina. So yeah I’m looking to build a
garage. My father’s getting on in years and has a nice ’59 Corvette convertible, red and white so
it’d be a nice little showroom for that to be safe. I only have a two car garage right now and I
come from a house over in Cottage Grove where I said well I had 6 cars so I’m really stuck in a
two car garage right now with a motorcycle, two cars. I now have a lawn tractor. Snowblower.
It gets tight as you guys know so it just seems like a really good place for a garage to be. It’ll be
a nice garage. It will be concrete eventually and you know I’ll landscape and put shutters on
those windows and things like that so would appreciate consideration on this. I think it’s a good
solution for the city because as opposed to trying to sell this land off as another lot and try to
make money on it. I plan on being here for a long time and this seems to be a good win/win for
everybody.
Aller: Okay. Any questions of the applicant? Thank you sir.
Richard Morris: Thank you.
Aller: Okay at this time we’ll open up the public hearing portion of this item and it’s an
opportunity for individuals present to come before us. State your name and address for the
record and give us your thoughts on the item. Seeing no one come forward we’ll close the public
hearing and open it up to the commissioners for comment. And/or motion. Anyone? I think the
report was very good and I’ll start off. I think it was a great explanation of the opportunity that I
see being presented here to utilize this property in a highly beneficial fashion for both the
homeowner and the City and the City as a whole because our water table and our shorelines will
be that much better off not having an additional project going based upon the fact that it is a
separate lot so I appreciate it when I see a homeowner come in and work with the City to find a
win/win like this so I will be voting in favor. Anyone else? Commissioner Weick.
Weick: You know I spaced out. I did have a question for the homeowner. Is it?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 4, 2018
4
Aller: It has to be a good one. We can open up the public, or actually just the homeowner. The
applicant so come on up here.
Weick: Yeah I was just sort of thinking about something else but did you consider building the
structure anywhere where you wouldn’t need a variance? So somewhere else on the property or
anything like that.
Richard Morris: Yeah it’s really a tough landscaping situation.
Weick: I’m not familiar with it.
Richard Morris: Yeah it’s Highway 5 which is basically a freeway now as you know every night
and so it’s very noisy and loud and there’s no room in the front of the house. It’s just some
protective trees. Two layers of trees that the previous gentleman planted and then the back is all
setback with the lake of course so there’s really, that lot is the best spot for it to be.
Weick: Okay.
Richard Morris: It’s grassy. It’s got nice trees in the front. A little bit of a buffer with trees and
so we moved it as far forward as we could.
Weick: Good explanation, thank you.
Aller: And while I have you up there, just to keep you going. There will be, and it’s been
indicated if this is approved, a request that you go ahead and designate those trees. The trees, the
plan hadn’t been provided prior to the hearing so if there a problem with doing that? Just
interested.
Richard Morris: No. No, there’s a ditch. There’s a ditch right where the PID is listed. That’s
about the only, those are the trees and then there’s brush along the wetland in the northeast
corner.
Aller: But having read the report you don’t foresee any difficulty in complying with any of the
conditions?
Richard Morris: No there’d be no trees removed at all. It’s basically grass right now.
Aller: Awesome thank you.
Richard Morris: Thank you, yeah.
Aller: Okay having that additional information would anyone like to then make a motion?
Chanhassen Planning Commission – December 4, 2018
5
Undestad: I’ll make a motion.
Aller: Commissioner Undestad.
Undestad: If Kate will bring it back up for me. Make a motion the Chanhassen Board of
Appeals and Adjustments approves a 13 foot front yard setback and a 4 foot shoreland setback
variance subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and
Decision.
Aller: I have a motion. Do I have a second?
Weick: Second.
Aller: Having a motion and a second, any further discussion?
Undestad moved, Weick seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments
approves a 13 foot front yard setback and a 4 foot shoreland setback variance subject to
the following conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and
Decision:
1. The applicant must apply for and receive a building permit.
2. Parcels PID 251700010 and PID 251700020 must be combined.
3. The drainage and utility easement between parcels PID 251700010 and PID 251700020
must be vacated.
4. The applicant shall include all trees 6” dbh and larger within the construction limits for
the accessory building and note trees to be removed. All preserved trees must be
protected during construction.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Aller: Motion carries. Congratulations sir. Welcome to the neighborhood. I think Medina’s a
fine place to live but I welcome you to Chanhassen.
PUBLIC HEARING:
PUD AMENDMENT TO ALLOW LIQUOR SALES IN CONJUNCTION WITH A
TEMPORARY EVENT PERMIT AT PAISLEY PARK MUSEUM.
Aanenson: There’s no visuals up on this one so I will just go through the application here. So
this application is a request from PPark Management. Paisley Park Museum to allow, request an
amendment to allow in the PUD the use of the property, liquor on the site as a temporary event
permit. Through the temporary event permit so as you recall over a year ago they did request for
the Super Bowl to have an event out there with liquor. As we reported back to the City Council