09-01-20-pcCHANHASSEN PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 1, 2020
Chairman Weick called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT: Steven Weick, Mark Randall, Michael McGonagill, Doug Reeder,
Laura Skistad, Eric Noyes, and Mark Von Oven
STAFF PRESENT: Kate Aanenson, Community Development Director; and MacKenzie
Walters, Associate Planner
Weick: Reviewing the guidelines for this evening’s meeting, as we have done over the past
several months this is a Zoom meeting and anyone new to that I please ask for your patience. It
does take a little longer in the process to hear everyone and to discuss the matters. It’s not quite
as easy as being in person but we are making due. The one thing I do ask is that commission
members don’t hold chats, text, or side bar discussions through the Zoom application. All of our
discussions do need to be public and on the record. We have, as I mentioned, 3 public hearings
on tonight’s agenda. The items are presented as follows. Staff will present the item. When
they’re finished it’s open for the Planning Commission members to ask comments or clarifying
questions. We will then ask the applicant to make any presentation or comments that they wish
and they will then also be able to field the questions from the Planning Commission. At the
conclusion of the applicant’s presentation I will open the public hearing and we’ll try and take
our time there. We’ll summarize any emails that we received for the record. Anyone in person
in the chambers will be able to come forward to the podium and be heard on the item and we also
will put a telephone number up on the screen and you may phone in and leave your comment that
way as well. Once we’ve had a chance to hear from everybody on the item we’ll close the public
hearing. Again the Planning Commission will have a chance to discuss among themselves and
then we will entertain a motion, a second and we will take a vote.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CONSIDER REQUEST FOR LOT COVER AND SETBACK VARIANCES TO
CONSTRUCT A DETACHED GARAGE AND DRIVEWAY WITH TURNAROUND ON
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7727 FRONTIER TRAIL.
Weick: I will turn it over MacKenzie.
Walters: Yep. So as mentioned this is Planning Case 2020-17. Applicant is Paul Pope and they
are requesting a variance to construct a detached garage with a driveway turnaround. So the
location is 7727 Frontier Trail, shown here. The property is zoned residential single family.
That zoning district requires a minimum 15,000 square foot lot. Because it is a corner lot the
project has 30 foot front setbacks along both street frontages with the remaining two lot lines
subject to 10 foot side yard setbacks. It is limited to 25 percent impervious surface coverage.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020
2
The lot is substandard and non-conforming with a total lot area of 8,819 square feet. The
existing house gives it a lot coverage of 19.9 percent. The house is non-conforming with 7 foot
west and south front side setbacks and it has an existing shed which has a non-conforming 4.7
foot northern side yard setback. All of the other requirements of the zoning code appear to be
met. I should mention this is one of the older houses in the city built in 1906. The applicant
would like to add a 22 foot by 24 foot detached garage to the property and then install a
driveway with a turn around to serve that garage. The justification is that the property does not
have a 2 car garage. This is a requirement for single family dwellings under the city code. The
lot is substandard in it’s lot area, it’s width and it’s lot depth and many other homes in the area
have garages and very few homes in this neighborhood meet the required setbacks. The
applicant would like to note that they have altered the design of the project and driveway at
staff’s request and we’ll go over those changes in a little bit but one of the big impacts of those
changes was staff required that a turnaround be added because the city code requires driveway
turnarounds whenever a driveway accesses a collector street and 78th is designated as a collector
street by the city code so the driveway changes staff required added a little over 2 percent to their
required lot cover variance. So staff’s assessment in summary, very few properties located in
this area meet the required front yard setbacks. Historically the City has given 11 setback
variances to properties within 500 feet of this. Five of those setback variances were to allow
garages to be installed. The proposed garage is set back further than the existing house. Any
increase to the garage setback would also increase the needed lot cover variances and pushing
the garage further back would eliminate any available real yard space. At 22 by 24 the size of
the garage is about average for a 2 car garage and the total lot cover in absolute terms is not
excessive at about 2,800 square feet. As was noted earlier some of the lot coverage is actually a
result of staff request to ensure safe access to the site and water resources has stated that the area
does not have any history of drainage issues. Given all these staff believes the proposed garage
is reasonable and recommends the variance be approved subject to the conditions of approval
one of which would actually be that the driveway turnaround be pushed back a half foot. That’s
because the city code doesn’t allow driveways to exceed 24 feet at the right-of-way line and so
pushing that turnaround back a half foot would let it meet that design criteria. That is why staff
is recommending a slightly higher lot cover variances than the applicant requested. It’s to
accommodate about an extra 57 square feet of lot cover to allow for that design change in the
driveway configuration. At that time I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Weick: Thank you MacKenzie. I will open it up for commission comments or questions for
MacKenzie at this time. You can go ahead and just speak up and ask your questions if you have
them. Give folks a few minutes to maybe collect their thoughts and read over notes. I see
Commissioner Reeder you are in the house. That is good to see so we do have a full quorum.
We’re hearing, MacKenzie hearing no questions. Great presentation. Seems pretty straight
forward and at this time I would invite the applicant to make a presentation. Perhaps via phone.
Walters: I will run out and check and see if they’re on the Zoom call.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020
3
Weick: Okay, we’re just going to take a quick break. Not a break. The applicant is not in the
chambers right now so we’re just going to make sure that they’re not trying to call in to the
Zoom or anything else.
Walters: He has joined and will be with us in just a micro second.
Weick: I love it. If you didn’t hear that the applicant will be joining here. Hello and welcome.
Dean Urevig: Thank you.
Weick: Can you tell us a little bit about your project that’s before us tonight?
Dean Urevig: Alright. Well I’m Dean Urevig and I’ve been hired by Paul Pope to do the
drafting and design work on this project. I’ve done quite a few different projects for Paul. Yeah
it’s pretty basic garage. There is actually a plan to remove that shed that’s in the back once the
garage is constructed because you know storing stuff in there, so the plan is for that to disappear.
I don’t know what, there isn’t too much else to talk about the project. It’s a simple garage.
Weick: Yeah great. And thank you for joining us tonight. Did the homeowner share with you
their need for the garage? Did they express any justification or needs?
Dean Urevig: Just the desire to park vehicles inside, especially in the winter time and yeah so
that was the primary concern. And the work vehicle you know person is out and about working
and they’ll be keeping their work supplies in the vehicle and want to be able to park it in the
garage.
Weick: Perfect. That’s good to know. Planning Commission any questions at this time for the
architect?
McGonagill: I guess Chairman this is Commissioner McGonagill.
Weick: Yep.
McGonagill: You know it’s a beautiful house. It’s been there since 1906. How are you going to
build a garage, the garage is designed in such a fashion to fit in with the character of the house
and the neighborhood? What’s he doing to do that? That’s a beautiful part of town. Want to be
sure it kind of fits, you know what I’m saying sir?
Dean Urevig: Yes. The code requires that there’s a substantial conformance with the design of
the existing building and in my discussions with MacKenzie about that he said we want to make
sure that the garage does meet that but we want to make sure that somebody isn’t putting up a
steel building. You know we’re not doing an approval and then all of a sudden you end up with
you know some steel post building there. So the existing building does have corner boards on it
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020
4
and it has 4 inch lap siding so those are the types of things that are matching. You know and I’ve
done these projects too where we need to put board and batten vertical siding on whatever it
might be but we are meeting the requirement as far as that goes.
McGonagill: Thank you sir. Mr. Chairman that answers my question.
Weick: Great thank you Commissioner McGonagill. Any other questions from the commission?
Hearing none, thank you again for joining the Zoom call and I appreciate you having the
opportunity to answer a few questions from us as well. We really do appreciate that. At this
time I will open the public hearing portion of this item and invite anyone wishing to come
forward and speak on this item. To do so there is no one in chambers and I’ll just give it a few
minutes to see if anyone wants to call in. The number is on the screen. 952-227-1103. Did we
have, I don’t believe, did we have any correspondence from.
Walters: No member of the public contacted staff regarding this variance.
Weick: Okay so there’s no emails or anything to add? Okay. I don’t see the, the lines are not
lighting up over there are they? Okay. With that I will go ahead and close the public hearing
portion of this item and open it up for commissioner discussion. I think one, before
commissioners jump in I did want to make a couple comments on this item. One is, and I know
this is, for those of us that have been on the commission for a few years you know you do see
certain patterns and there are certain areas in the city that are older and don’t currently conform
with current city code just based on when they were built. The one thing I would say there
though is that applying city code should go both ways and by that I mean, if we’re going to say
that you know that the home shouldn’t have to abide by the setback variances and things like that
because the city code wasn’t in place, it doesn’t feel right to then go ahead and say the city code
says you know we require 2 car garages. To me there’s a disconnect there and there is, you
know there is significant, although it was noted that the lot cover is a modest increase. It’s fairly
significant of a lot coverage increase in my mind as well. I’m still in favor of this and I’m in
favor of it because I do believe that homeowners need, a garage is a need and I definitely see
that. Like over a deck or a pool or something else that isn’t in my mind a needed item to
increase lot coverage but I do wanted to, I did want to point out that there is a little bit of a
disconnect between the usage of city code sometimes and I think we should be aware of that
moving forward. Those are my only comments on the item but again as I mentioned I’m
definitely in favor of adding the garage even with the lot coverage variances because again I,
based on our winters and also just the safety of being able to put cars in the garage and conceal
them from both the weather and maybe criminals or whoever might be out there is very
important. And then the other item that I thought was really important was removing the shed.
And even though it’s a relatively small amount of the lot coverage, every little bit in my mind
helps and so that’s a huge, in my opinion I think that’s a really huge effort by the homeowner to
do the best they can to work with the current situation so long winded way of saying I think this
is a great project but I will open it up for other commissioner comments and/or motions.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020
5
Von Oven: I also think it’s a great project and I’ll make a motion.
Weick: Wonderful.
Von Oven: The Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments approves an 11 foot 9 inch front
yard setback variance and a 7 percent lot cover variance for the construction of a detached garage
subject to the conditions of approval and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
Weick: Thank you. We have a valid motion from Commissioner Von Oven. Do we have a
second?
Noyes: I will second.
Weick: We have a second from Commissioner Noyes. Any comment? Any final comment on
the item before we vote? Hearing none we will conduct a roll call vote.
Von Oven moved, Noyes seconded that the Chanhassen Board of Appeals and Adjustments
approves an 11 foot 9 inch front yard setback variance and a 7 percent lot cover variance
for the construction of a detached garage subject to the following conditions of approval
and adopts the attached Findings of Fact and Decision.
1. A building permit must be obtained prior to construction and the building must comply
with the Minnesota State Building Code.
2. Eaves may encroach an additional one foot beyond the granted variance, as shown in the
plans dated July 31, 2020.
3. The detached garage must be architecturally compatible with the existing home.
4. The driveway turnaround shall be relocated at least one-half foot north so as not to be on
the property line; the maximum driveway width at the right-of-way line shall not exceed
24 feet.
All voted in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Weick: The item passes 7 to 0 unanimously. Thank you again MacKenzie and everyone for
their presentations this evening.
Walters: Thank you.
Dean Urevig: Thank you.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020
6
Aanenson: Yep and do you just want to do the script that we normally give at the end of a
variance that anybody could appeal this.
Walters: Yep, yeah so this item is subject to appeal. There’s a 4 day window. With the holiday
if we don’t receive an appeal by close of business on Tuesday the decision of the Planning
Commission will be final. If we do receive an appeal it would then go to the City Council on the
September 28th agenda for final determination.
Weick: Thanks MacKenzie.
PUBLIC HEARING:
DISCUSS CODE AMENDMENT TO REMOVE 1”=200’ SCALE MYLAR
REQUIREMENT.
Weick: Do you want to move onto item number 2, the code amendment?
Walters: Yep absolutely. So we have two small code amendments to discuss today. Both of
these are probably rightly considered technical corrections. The first one is the city’s 1 inch to
200 foot Mylar requirement. So the city code requires that one of the documents developers
submit when, for the recording of a final plat for a subdivision is that they submit a 1 inch to 200
foot Mylar reduction. This was previously a County requirement in 2004 and so we had adopted
it into our code to align with county standards. As digital technology has become more
ubiquitous the County decided they no longer needed this. The City has absolutely no use for a 1
inch to 200 foot scale Mylar reductions. Mylar’s are relatively expensive to produce so the City
thinks it would make sense to remove this requirement from our code and just basically
removing an unnecessary burden that’s currently being imposed. So that’s the gist of this
amendment. I’d be happy to take any questions you may have on it.
Weick: Great, thanks MacKenzie and open it up for commissioner comments or questions for
MacKenzie. It does seem fairly straight forward MacKenzie but I will pause in case there are
questions. I guess hearing none and seeing none I will open the public hearing portion of this
item at this time. Anyone wishing to comment on this amendment may call in. 952-227-1103 is
our call in number. Again there is no one in chambers to come forward and I don’t believe we
received any email comments.
Walters: We did not receive any comment from the public on this item.
Weick: While we’re, I’m not going to say that. We’ll give it a few minutes for the phone in case
someone’s dialing.
Von Oven: I’m assuming we have no Chanhassen businesses that are solely based on producing
Mylar reductions.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020
7
Walters: Not that I’ve ever heard.
Von Oven: Great.
Weick: I tell you what, you think of everything Commissioner Von Oven. That’s a great
question though. And I have noticed that you have a different background on us this evening.
You are not on a three season porch or something.
Von Oven: There is a Von Oven house renovation going on so I’m enjoying one of our fine
Chanhassen hotels.
Weick: How nice. Awesome.
Von Oven: Yes.
Weick: With that I don’t think, did the phone light up over there at all?
Walters: No they have not.
Weick: They have not so I will close the public hearing portion of tonight’s item and open for
commissioner discussion and/or a motion. I don’t know was there a motion in the?
Walters: There is. If you could switch to the power point.
Weick: There it is.
Walters: Apologies I don’t think I put a, well the cover sheet has a motion on the staff reports as
well I believe.
Weick: It’s up here in case.
Walters: Yeah it is.
Noyes: I’ll propose a motion. The Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning
final plat requirements.
Weick: Thank you Commissioner Noyes. We have a valid motion. Do we have a second?
Skistad: I will second it.
Weick: We have a second from Commissioner Skistad. Thank you. Any comment before we
vote? And we will have a roll call vote.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020
8
Noyes moved, Skistad seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends
that the City Council approve the proposed amendment to Chapter 18 of the Chanhassen
City Code to remove the one inch equals 200 feet scale mylar requirement. All voted in
favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Weick: The item passes unanimously 7 to 0.
PUBLIC HEARING:
DISCUSS CODE AMENDMENT TO CORRECT IOP DISTRICT PERMITTED
ACCESSORY USES NUMBERING.
Walters: Alright our last code amendment for the day, Section 20-813. This is the section of the
code that lists permitted accessory uses within the city’s industrial office park district. We were
reviewing it and we discovered that there are 7 listed permitted accessory uses. However only 6
of them have numbers. The numbering goes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, un-numbered item, 6 so in order to
clarify that the un-numbered item is not a clarification of accessory use number 5 but is an
accessory use in it’s own right and also to make it easier to refer people to the proper section of
the code and make it easier to amend the code in the future if we need to, we would like to
correct that numbering and number those accessory uses 1 through 7. That does require a public
hearing as it is Chapter 20 so that’s, that’s that.
Weick: And that’s that. I guess that is that. Are there any questions for MacKenzie on this
item? I will say has there been any confusion on this item in the past.
Walters: Not once we’ve explained it to, you know we’ve had some people like I’m not, and
then you just talk them through and be like nope this is a separate item. It is, I don’t want to get
too deep into the weeds. It is an interesting one. It is the accessory use that limits retail sales in
commercial district to a maximum of 20 percent so in terms of accessory uses it is one that
comes up a decent amount and can potentially cause some heartburn for people who are maybe
planning to have their business do a higher threshold of retail. So the clearer we can make it the
less chance we have of running into somebody who you know goes into a use expecting to be
able to do something and then is shocked when it turns out to have this limitation.
Weick: And the only thing you’re adding is a number. You haven’t added any verbiage or.
Walters: Literally just adding number 7 to it. Yep.
Weick: Got it. Okay. Any questions from the Commission for MacKenzie? I thought I might
have heard some rustling out there but maybe not. You will have another chance to get any
clarification if you need it. I will open the public hearing portion of this item. Again the phone
number is on the screen. 952-227-1103. Those lines are open and accepting phone calls as we
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020
9
speak. Again there is no one in chambers so no one will be coming forward in person I don’t
think we had any correspondence. Public correspondence.
Walters: Nobody reached out to staff about this item.
Weick: Okay. Any blinking or lights or?
Walters: No. Nope it is quiet over here as well on the phone.
Weick: With that I will close the public hearing portion of this item and open for commissioner
discussion or a motion. Commissioner Randall you got me interested there for a second. I saw
your, you popped up on the screen. I thought maybe.
Randall: I realized my microphone was not on mute.
Weick: Well we couldn’t hear you.
Randall: I have no questions or concerns with this at all.
Weick: The motion is in the packet and we could probably pop it back up on the screen here if
we have it. Yeah there we go. Looks familiar.
Skistad: Okay I’ll make a motion.
Weick: Alright.
Skistad: I propose that the Chanhassen Planning Commission recommends that the City Council
adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the Chanhassen City Code concerning permitted
accessory uses in the IOP district.
Weick: Thank you Commissioner Skistad. We have a valid motion. Do we have a second?
Von Oven: Commissioner Von Oven seconds.
Weick: Alright. I was about to speak up myself. Thank you Commissioner Von Oven. Any
final comment before we vote from the commission? Hearing none we will roll call vote.
Skistad moved, Von Oven seconded that the Chanhassen Planning Commission
recommends that the City Council adopt the proposed amendment to Chapter 20 of the
Chanhassen City Code concerning permitted accessory uses in the IOP district. All voted
in favor and the motion carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020
10
Weick: The item passes unanimously 7 to 0. Thank you MacKenzie and thank you commission
members.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES: Commissioner Skistad moved to note the verbatim and
summary Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting dated August 18, 2020 as
presented.
ADMINISTRATIVE PRESENTATIONS.
Weick: Are there any council updates?
Aanenson: Mr. Chairman, members of the Planning Commission I just have a couple of things.
So you saw the potential code amendments at the last City Council meeting. MacKenzie went
through and put together all the potential code amendments. There are some that are in your
purview which would be Chapter 18 and 20. Otherwise they would go directly to the City
Council so we’ve been trying to put those on agendas where we don’t have quite as many items
for you to review to keep those. We’re kind of taking the I would say the code amendment light
ones first. These are just really like Scribner’s errors so you’ll be seeing a little bit more
complex ones as we move forwards. Or more policy issues that might be a better way to say it
so, so that was on the agenda for their 24th. Also on the 24th the City Council was discussing,
there’s one last building out at Powers Ridge and we have a developer that would like to do
senior housing in that building. Wants to go over the capacity of units to add up to 110. To get
the additional 25 percent we have to do an affordability component so it will be senior
affordability at the 60 percent of median income so right now that’s over with our financial
consultant to review whether that TIF district works for the City so that’s. Our next meeting
with the City Council is the week, the same week as our next meeting so they’ll meet on the
14th and those two items that you discussed at length at your last meeting will be at that meeting
so, because that meeting’s on Monday. We’ll be able to verbally report to you what happened at
your next meeting so that’s the grading issue and then the interpretation of the Bluff Creek
Overlay District.
Weick: Okay.
Aanenson: Did have a couple of other things. First of all we need to congratulate MacKenzie
who passed AICP test.
Weick: Congratulations MacKenzie.
Walters: I think we might have mentioned that but still.
Aanenson: Did we, well we’ll mention it again. There you go.
Walters: Yes thank you.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020
11
Aanenson: So alright then I have got for the next meeting I’ve got a couple Planning
Commissioners gone. Just want to reconfirm that. Mr. Reeder will be gone and so will Mr.
McGonagill. That’s on the 15th.
McGonagill: That’s correct.
Reeder: That’s correct.
Aanenson: Okay thank you and that’s just incumbent upon everybody else to be there to have a
quorum so we have another variance and we’ll have two more code amendments. So I do want
to mention on October 6th we had potentially moved that to Night to Unite but that’s going to be
scaled down. We’re kind of revisiting that as a city how we’re going to do that but the Planning
Commission will be meeting because we only have 3 meetings after that. And actually we have
a couple of bigger projects on that meeting. A couple of them are concept PUD’s. Some of
them are actually going to go forward trying to get approval so businesses and the housing,
smaller housing project so I’m glad we’ll have, hopefully have a quorum. I mean all 7 of us
there because those will be again, it’s an art not a science how they all come together
unfortunately. They all seem to all the complex ones seem to group together so we’ll find out.
The deadline for that is this Friday so we’ll know if they’re all on and we’ll keep you posted on
that too. So that’s it for kind of the housekeeping. I did also wanted to mention, I did throw an
article in there in your packet and it was in Star Tribune and that was regarding an on site visit by
a city council member and one of the things we talk about with the Planning Commission, what
we call ex parte communications. That we all have the same information. Now obviously this
went pretty far when you actually went on someone’s property and brought your own consultant
in, that’s pretty extreme so the City Council censored this person but I just, also just wanted to
remind that it’s, I know people are really good here about if they have information that we all
share it and we always ask too if someone’s got information that they would like to share with
everybody else that it come through staff and then we all get the same information. Just kind of
reminder of that. Again this is kind of to the extreme but just wanted to share that with you too
so that’s all I had Chair unless you have anything else for staff.
Weick: I do not. Any members of the commission have any questions for Kate or MacKenzie?
Aanenson: I do want to mention too, I kind of skipped over that. With the Powers Ridge if the
council did choose to go forward with that for the TIF that would come back for a public hearing
here at this body because it would require an amendment to the PUD agreement. It would also
require site plan approval so you would see that if it was to go forward.
Weick: Okay. Well hearing no commission members, thank you Kate. Thank you MacKenzie
and I would certainly honor a motion to adjourn.
Reeder: So moved.
Chanhassen Planning Commission – September 1, 2020
12
Commissioner Reeder moved to adjourn the meeting. All voted in favor and the motion
carried unanimously with a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission meeting was
adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
Submitted by Kate Aanenson
Community Development Director
Prepared by Nann Opheim